Another Big-Screen Movie Just Released Investigates Vaccines For Autism Implications June 24 2016 | From: ActivistPost Hot on the heels of the CDC-whistleblower and vaccine-fraud-documentary VAXXED, a new feature length film – Man Made Epidemic – made its debut in London (UK) at the Curzon Cinema in Soho on Thursday, June 16, 2016!
Kudos go to the producer, filmmaker Natalie Beers, and other production crew members for taking on such an overwhelming project, which took two years to complete.
Congratulationsand thanks for having the fortitude to work on a much-needed investigation of vaccines, vaccinations and environmental issues relative to ever-increasing autism, also must be given to Lothar Moll, Executive Producer; Lucy Martens, Director of Photography; Simon Modery, Editor; and David Hason, Music Composer.
According to the movie’s webpage:
“Filmmaker Natalie Beer sets off on a journey around the world speaking to leading doctors, scientists and families to find out the truth about the autism epidemic and whether or not vaccines have a role to play.
The film explores the common misconception that autism is solely genetic and looks into scientists concerns over recent years about environmental factors such as medication and pesticides which continue to leave our children with physical and neurological damage."
Ask your local movie theater to show Man Made Epidemic on their movie screens as soon as possible, since it will be an excellent cinematic companion to VAXXED thereby putting much needed pressure on the U.S. HHS, CDC, FDA, the World Health Organization, and others who indiscriminately push vaccines based upon fraudulent, consensus vaccine pseudoscience!
Fraudulent is not to be used lightly, as there are various incidences that have exposed fraud:
The Simpsonwood Meeting in June 2000 to rework the CDC epidemiologist Verstraeten’s finding that vaccines cause autism. Here’s the transcript of that infamous clandestine meeting.
Two Merck & Company employee whistleblowers lawsuit in federal court in Philadelphia, PA, regarding Merck’s fudging for ten years the efficacy ratings of the mumps active in its MMR vaccine. Here’s The Wall Street Journal’s report on that.
CDC epidemiologist-whistleblower William Thompson, PhD, proved that the CDC trashed documented study evidence that the MMR vaccine caused autism in young black boys less than three years of age, and handed over copies of those ‘trashed’ documents to a member of the U.S. Congress asking for a congressional investigation, which has not happened YET. The movie VAXXED documents that embarrassing, conniving and fraudulent vaccine science story.
Probably NOTHING explains more why there should be an investigation into vaccines and vaccinology ‘science’ than the candid remarks made by the “father of American vaccines,” Dr Maurice Hilleman, MD, the Merck & Company head vaccine maker for years, discussing on video the very real problems with vaccines, their growth mediums - animals and their tissues, cancer viruses, etc.
However, now we have to factor in, since Hilleman’s time, newly-added neurotoxic chemicals and nanoparticles . See Dr Hilleman’s nonchalant disclosure, plus how cavalierly colleagues treated the information, to realize why you really have to question vaccine ingredients.
There is literally so much information coming out about the truth relating to vaccines nowadays
that we literally cannot keep up with it all. There is simply no room for denial unless one is retarded. And quite possibly from vaccination.
Animal Communication + The Latest Study On Human-Pet Bonding Says You May Be Under A Spell June 20 2016 | From: ZenGardner / GreenMedInfo
Moments before I was told to sit down and watch ‘How Diablo Became Spirit’ I was outside looking over a stable door at a polo pony called Punk. He and I had never met before but I knew he was ‘in’ because he was injured.
In my thoughts I said “Hi Punk, how you feeling?”. He looked up from his hay and I heard him say back to me in my thoughts “Much better thank you”, I was gob-smacked.
I moved to the next stable door where my old friend a chestnut mare called Penny was stabled and again in my head said “Hi Penny, how are you?”. “Hungry as always” she replied.
I walked back to my thatched cottage opposite the stables thinking to myself, I’m not going to tell anyone that just happened. When I walked into the cottage, my partner at that time said to me “Baby, sit down, I want you to watch something. I think I’ve found your calling.” – it was Anna Breytenbach (www.animalspirit.org) communicating telepathically with the magnificent Black Leopard called Diablo.
I wept all the way through the video and told Matt what had just happened with the two horses. I then went online to find the next Animal Communication workshop I could get on. Six weeks later I attending my first workshop.
I have always preferred the company of animals to humans, it’s just the way I am. Of course I now understand that humans are animals too, though my animal friends are way less complicated and much more easily pleased.
“To realize that which cannot be lost, it is necessary to understand what really has been lost.”.
Riane Eisler ‘Sacred Pleasure’.
On an Animal Communication workshop it is explained that everyone can communicate with animals, we have all just forgotten how. They teach you that interspecies communication is done via energy so language is never a barrier. Sometimes they will communicate through words, or sensation, or through images displayed in your mind.
Try not to want it too much because that can block you and do not discount any answer you get, practice trust in the first answer you receive, and you must ‘think out of the box’ because there isn’t one – except the one you or society puts you in.
You are taught the teacher’s ‘method’ which in this case was firstly close your eyes and ground yourself, move your consciousness into your heart area and think about how much you love animals, feeling the space in your heart centre expanding with love.
Then, imagine that from your heart you are beaming over love to the animal’s heart and introduce yourself. Tell them how much you love them and ask them if would they like to communicate with you. And remember to say please and thank you, animals apprectiate good manners.
So, the only way to learn this skill is from a ‘guest teacher’. My animal guest teacher was a Staffordshire Bullterrier called Oscar. He came into a calm room of thirty seated students, all eager to be able to communicate with this beautiful creature.
Being a ‘Staffy’ Oscar entered the room with typical Staffy exuberance, we had all been instructed not to speak to or touch him. His guardian (not owner, we are merely guardians to our pets) sat on a seat next to the teacher, whilst Oscar went around the room sniffing everybody, tail wagging.
He then went and settled on the rug in the middle of the room. The teacher had already written down the questions on a flip chart we were to ask Oscar telepathically, so she went through each question saying “Ask Oscar who his best friend is” and then we were to write on our notepads the first answer we received.
“Ask Oscar to show you where he went for a walk this morning, and who did he meet?”. Then, “Ask Oscar where he slept last night and why?”. Finally, “Is there anything you need Oscar that will make your life better?”.
I got two out of the four questions asked correct according to the answers the teacher received. She went through all the answers everybody got and then shared the answers that she had received. When we asked what did Oscar need to make his life better I heard him say “Bones, I need bones!”
The teacher and I got the same answer but his guardian protested “I can’t give him bones, he’s a Staffy and he may get splinters”.
I found myself protesting this statement aloud, dogs produce 20% stronger hydrocholic acid in their guts to digest bone, sinew, fur, fat and meat whilst on the move, it is imperative they have raw bones. Oscar got up from his rug and came over to me wagging his tail and put his head in my lap, saying “thank you”.
Later that day I was partnered up for another exercise with a young woman who also lived with Oscar, who had been accompanied by him in bed the night previous. When we asked the question “Where did you sleep last night and why?”
I heard something completely different to everyone else including the teacher, essentially getting the answer incorrect.
I asked her, when you went to bed last night with Oscar, how were you feeling? She responded exactly how Oscar had told me “She was feeling really sad and lonely”. From that moment on I knew that animal communication is subjective.
The afternoon consisted of a cat guest teacher called Marmalade who headed straight for a woman who was terrified of cats and sat on her for the rest of his session, attempting to cure her of her fear. Sadly, his efforts were lost. We did the same routine, asking Marmalade questions that his guardian could verify.
Afterwards, we worked with photographs of our beloved pets. How does that even work? Surely that is not possible but I found myself communicating perfectly accurately with Shoshy the cat via her photograph, using language that was completely alien to my usual syntax. It was a bizarre experience!
After my workshop I’d already got a few animals ‘booked in’ for communication sessions. My first was a Hunter horse named Nick who was having problems with repetitive lameness. I told the guardian not to tell me which leg was affected as asking a question that can be confirmed by them is evidence to you and them that you are indeed in interspecies communication.
I approached the huge beast in silence, telepathically announcing my name and that I’d just learned to communicate with animals and I would like to communicate with him. I heard nothing. Then after a moment, he drew my attention to his back left foot. I asked him did it hurt and suddenly I had a stabbing pain in my left foot on the underneath.
He then said “The injections don’t help, I need glucosomine”! When I spoke to his guardian her mouth dropped open and confirmed it was that foot that was problematic and she had been advised by the vet to have costly and painful steroid injections, of which he’d had four. I am happy to report Nick is now on glucosomine supplements and his problem is now relieved.
The next communication was with a dressage horse called Zodie. Her guardian is a gentle, beautiful young woman who teaches children to ride and does dressage competitions for fun. I like this person a lot and she is very fond of her animals. The evening before I had read from cover to cover, the book my teacher had written on animal communication.
She wrote about an experience she had with horses where one horse had remembered how kind a human once was to him that had given him some confectionary called ‘Maltesers’, and that he’d never forgotten her kindness or the sweets. I went armed with some Maltesers, just in case I could bribe the horse into communicating with me.
Her guardian told me when she and Zodie praticed dressage the horse was infallible but whenever they were in competetive situations the horse had awful meltdowns. Off I went to communicate with Zodie who was in an enclosure with two other horses where she was able to roam free and the others were stabled.
I entered their enclosure and introduced myself telepathically to Zodie, asking if she would like to communicate with me. She took one look at me and promptly walked off and hid in a stable! That was a definite ‘no’ then. Oh well, I may as well dish out the Maltesers whilst I’m here, so I pulled out the packet from my pocket and opened it in readiness to give to the other horses.
Zodie popped her head out the stable inquisitively, and decided to come over and investigate the rustle of the sweet wrapper. It turned out that she didn’t like the Maltesers but that was enough effort on my part for her to give me another chance and decided she would like to communicate with me after all.
I asked Zodie if she hurt anywhere and she showed me in my body a sensation of tightness on her right side flank and down the leg. I then asked her what was going wrong in her competions? I was immediately overwhelmed by the sensation of fear and nervousness, I was trembling all over and not able to catch my breath.
She told me “I just don’t want to let her down, she’s an angel and I don’t feel I am good enough”! I explained that Vicks just wanted to do the competitions for fun, it did not matter whether they won or not, they are just there to enjoy themselves. When I told Vicks she wept, as did I. Ever since then, Zodie has been winning every competition she has entered and Vick’s younger sister is now successfully showjumping her too.
Animals are our greatest teachers in every way, when I have found it impossible to communicate they patiently show me how. I have predominantly had dogs and horses in my life. Dogs are my greatest love and proved the most difficult for me to access telepathically. But they always patiently teach me what I need to learn.
For me at least, it works better most times if I communicate with dogs through images. For example, Terry the Terrier was my best animal friend when I learned this amazing skill, but I could not communicate in the ways I found so easy with cats, horses, even insects! Eventually, this recalcitrant lump of clay finally grasped the concept of visualisation communication thanks to Terry’s guidance.
I was feeling very sorry for myself with my female cycle one day, and I knew that animals are able to heal us. So I was lying on my bed in agony with Terry looking at me curiously. I said telepathically “Terry come and lie on my belly it really hurts”. Nothing. Then I closed my eyes and imagined (or I- magiced) Terry lying on my belly facing me, and imagined what that would look like from his perspective.
He jumped up on the bed and lay down on my body facing me. Within minutes my pain had subsided and I had learned my biggest lesson so far. On another similar painful occasion I was cat-sitting and up in the middle of the night. I explained to one of the cats I was in pain and she promptly jumped on my lap and starting pawing at my belly arduously. The pain was cured in a matter of minutes.
One day I was told about a position at an Aristocrat’s country estate which was a ‘live in’ job and my role would be to take care of their five dogs, my dream job! I went to the 4,000 acre estate for an interview and met the Countess and her daughter and the five dogs.
The dogs were really hectic with very few manners but all completely adorable. I was asked to sit down at the kitchen table and have coffee with my prospective new boss. I suddenly was drawn to looking behind me and saw the tiny Jack Russell Terrier who was sat staring at me next to the warm aga oven.
Telepathically I said to her “Hello, I might be coming to live here to look after you, and I can talk to you”.
Her eyes grew wide and her jaw slackened with shock. I invited her to come and sit on my lap which she did – her guardians could not believe what was happening because ‘Lunch’ the Terrier never sat on just any old person’s lap, so I got the job. The pack consisted of one Golden Retriever called Wussie who was a healer, two highly strung Hungarian Vizlas, a mother and daughter Mabel & Maudie.
Lunch, and a rescued Dog de Bordeaux named Winnifred – a motley crew, all ruled magnanimously by Lunch of course, her being the smallest of the pack, it’s always the smallest one in charge.
On many occasions I would walk another three dogs with the pack, just me and eight dogs spending whole days outside connecting with each other, and all in connection with the Planetary Animal Mother, Gaia Sophia.
I have even communicated with plants. I got badly stung by some stinging nettles and know the best antidote is to eat the very top of the nettle. I stood before a large group of nettles and asked them which nettle top I could take to cure my rash.
After a brief wait, and with no breeze whatsoever, one of the plants bowed down where the others stayed perfectly still.
I make hedgerow medicines and if I cannot find the plant that I need I will ask to be taken to it. When I collect the plants and harvest them I talk to them in gratitude and explain to them who the medicine is for and what ailments they will be addressing. It is a wonderful feeling to heal somebody, and even more sublime to be in such deep connection with nature.
Often one finds that some animals are more open to telepathy with human animals than others. No wonder when animals are so used to us thinking they are just dumb beasts, often treating them badly either through ignorance or patent cruelty. One such animal was a beautiful bay horse named Campbell.
He was unfortunate enough to have a groom who was very ignorant and cruel, be his guardian. She was the live-in groom where I lived and supposedly ‘looked after’ twelve horses. Dear, sweet Campbell, was always fielded alone which is a dire way for herd animals to exist. He had no grass, no shade, no friends and I often found he had no water.
I’ve always been able to feel how animals feel which intensified ten fold when I learned to communicate with them.
I would go and see Campbell every day and his loneliness was palpable. I would try my best to be nice and gently convince the groom he needed more in his life but was always met with a brick wall of obtuse indifference.
The weather became unusually hot for English summertime that year and Campbell consistently had no water. One afternoon I found him in a different paddock next to two mares who were both in season, again with no shade and no water.
He was covered in horseflies and horsefly bites and reacting manically to them and the mares’ hormones. I entered the paddock, and with nostrils flaring and making a strange and unfamiliar equine noise, he rushed towards me and literally buried his face in my torso for solace, remaining there for the next 10 minutes. I was covered in his blood from his bites. Utterly heartbreaking.
I text the groom telling her what had happened and she replied in her usual disparraging manner, she knew what she was doing and she was sick of me interfering but the worst part was she said “I can’t give him anymore water because he will get colic”.
Not having access to fresh water is what gives horses colic. I printed some information about colic prevention from the Blue Cross website and handed it to her. For one week Campbell had water every day and was wearing a fly protection rug and mask.
The following week however, back in his lonely field on a day when the temperatures were soaring, I found Campbell once again without any water.
He had two empty buckets that I had filled the day before, changing one of the buckets to a different colour so that the groom would know I had done it, and I’d be able to verify whether she had refilled or not. It was 9 30pm, almost 24 hours since and he’d had any water.
I was very tired having worked all day and his field was half a mile away from my cottage. “Campbell, do you need me to fetch you some water?” I asked telepathically. I will never forget his response – he put his head in one empty bucket and looked at me, then he did the same with the other bucket and looked at me.
Actions do indeed speak louder than words. I ferried 15 litres of water over to his field in a wheelbarrow of which he drank 5 litres straight away.
As I left him now hydrated I heard him say “Thank you, I love you.” Sadly I wasn’t able to continue living amongst all those wonderful creatures because I could not endure the abject neglect and cruelty any longer. I hope Campbell and all the others have gone on to a better home or at least ended up with more competant caretakers.
This is the only downside to communicating with animals.
I have helped a dog who was so terrified of fireworks he’d try to claw his way through walls. A horse who was scared of going to an Elite English School where spolied children can keep their horses at school. A cat that was peeing in the house…
I attended another two day workshop with the same teacher, day two was focussing on Gestalt Therapy and Remote Viewing which is basically learning to communicate and heal from long distance. Day two was Remote Viewing, so to learn we were partnered up with someone new to us that weekend and told to swap our pet photographs.
The object of the exercise was, with permission of the other person, to access their house by communicating with their pet through the photograph. I was handed a photograph of a really pissed off looking Persian Blue cat called Basil, his expression was hilarious so I burst out laughing and looked at Basil’s guardian who simply said “I know”.
Not quite believing I or anyone could do such a thing, I nevertheless introduced myself to Basil and asked him to show me around his house. We were encouraged to draw any images we saw or write down any words we received.
Suddenly I can see a kitchen, with a catflap in a pvc back door.
Then I find myself travelling through the catflap into the garden where I can see a beige coloured paving slab path separating two lawns, and a wooden shed to the left with a tall wooden fence surrounding the modest garden.
Basil told me “I don’t like to go further than the fence”.
Then we go back through the catflap and into the kitchen where he shows me not only the food he eats but the two different brands of food he gets fed, and his silver bowl. His favourite place to sleep in the kitchen is a beige chair, and then he takes me upstairs to the windowsill where he likes to sit and watch the world go by. Before I left the house he told me something about his guardians with a request attached.
I find myself showing a complete stranger the sketch I had drawn of her own house and garden. To our mutual amazement I was 100% accurate! She told me Basil had been rescued with another cat and they were both house cats until the other cat had died. Since that day, Basil had been wandering out into the garden but never further than the fence.
She confirmed his food, the brands, his favourite place to sleep and his spot on the windowsill. We were both utterly flabbergasted. Then, feeling rather awkward I asked her what Basil had told me to say “Do you listen to BBC Radio 4?”. “Oh yes, we listen to it all the time” she replied.
“Well Basil says he hates it and has asked me to ask you to please turn it off”!
I will add here, the animal communicators all explain that the reason we are able to use photographs to communicate is a Quantam Physics factor. I believe Quantam Physics is yet another scientific fraud we have been force fed, so I have no idea how communication through that medium works, just that it does.
On the same workshop I was partnered with a woman who gave me a photograph of her dead dog. I was able to ask and answer her four confirmation questions accurately, and then put her mind at rest that she had done the right thing in putting her beloved pet to sleep at the time that she did.
They also say delightful things like our departed loved ones come with us on walks and watch over us. Now I am aware of that idea I can feel their presence.
I was asked to communicate with a new horse at a livery stable, she had got into the habit of throwing the boss off every time he rode her. They had renamed her Gigi so my first question to her was “Do you like your new name?”. “No, I want to be called Butercup! And I want a purple rug.”
Then I asked if she was in pain and she showed me in my own body points that hurt her, which I sketched on a piece of paper. She also told me her saddle was very uncomfortable. When I left her stable one of the grooms who I had not met before, came over and asked me if I had been able to communicate.
She then started to tell me where she thought the horse was in pain and my sketch matched exactly with her assertions. I told Tom my findings and he was really unhappy with her name choice, but admitted the saddle they used was not one that had been specifically made for her. And he would change her rug to a purple one.
Buttercup has now had the physical therapy she needed to help her ailments and has a new saddle especially fitted for her back, and has managed to keep Tom off the floor.
Anyone can learn to communicate with animals. Just think why does your dog know you are thinking about taking them for a walk almost before you have even formulated the thought?
But animal communication is right-hemisphere brain activity, understanding that the education system is a deliberate attempt to make you entirely left-hemisphered, will assist you enormously.
Attending one of the many workshops on offer will be the start of your intraspecies communication and a new way of looking at all life and nature, even the planet we live on.
According to the ancient Pagan Mysteries, and the biography of the earth recovered from the Nag Hammadhi Codices by modern day Gnostic John Lamb Lash, Gaia Sophia is a living conscious being, our Planetary Animal Mother, who can communicate with you too.
“The human animal is wired to Gaia, literally and spiritually.”
The Latest Study On Human - Pet Bonding Says You May Be Under A Spell
Do you melt when you look into your dog’s eyes? Does your cat have you wrapped around her little fuzzy paws? You’re not alone! New science unlocks the mysteries of human-animal bonding and how our animal companions manipulate us into loving them - for our good and theirs.
People have a long history of living and bonding with domesticated animals. A recent genome study concluded that dogs may have been domesticated as far back as 34,000 years ago.
Today, our animal companions are as beloved as ever with the American pet population expanding from about 40 million cats and dogs in 1967 to more than 114 million in 2012. Roughly two-thirds of US households now include at least one pet.
Not only are pets on the rise, but the significance of our human-animal relationships seems to be deepening. A growing number of young adults are trading in their human partners for the four-legged kind. Many report experiencing greater distress from the loss of a pet than from a breakup. In a recent poll, a surprising 38 percent of dog owners reported loving their pets more than their partners!
Our animal companions obviously bring lightness and joy to our lives, but science now reveals they may be bringing much more.
The Magical Healing Powers of Animals
In addition to offering companionship, animals benefit people in a number of different ways. For example, animals have developed special defenses over the millennia to ensure survival in the wild, and some of these have benefits for humankind.
Dog’ saliva has been found to heal wounds due to a protein called Nerve Growth Factor. Human wounds treated with NGF heal twice as quickly as untreated wounds.
The purring of a cat can help mend broken bones and soft tissue injuries because they purr at 20 to 50 Hertz, a frequency range found to promote tissue healing. And a protein from the venom of the Malayan pit viper is being used in Europe to treat strokes and blood clots.
Even if you don’t own anything as exotic as a Malayan pit viper, your dog or cat may be bringing you an abundance of gifts.
Science shows that pet owners are reaping an amazing number of health benefits, including the following:
Reduced risk for heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, and better odds of surviving and recovering from a heart attack, regardless of the severity
Better physical fitness and higher levels of activity, overall
Improved stress management and coping, reduced risk for depression and anxiety; lower levels of cortisol, and higher levels of “feel good” neurotransmitters, including dopamine and serotonin
Fewer allergies, better immune function, and improved health and longevity
Higher attractiveness and trustworthiness to others, more social support and reduced isolation
Early warnings for seizures, cancer, low blood sugar and even death, as animals have sensory abilities reaching far beyond those of humans, making them excellent service companions
Pets Reduce Allergies and Help Build Children’s EQ
For children, family pets offer unique benefits, both physically and emotionally. Dogs can forestall the development of allergies in children raised with them. A study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found exposure to dogs in infancy, especially around the time of birth, can lower a child’s risk for allergies.
This effect is so strong that even an expectant mother can reduce the likelihood of her child’s developing allergies by living with a dog.
The emotional benefits are even more profound. Kids who grow up with dogs and cats tend to show greater compassion and empathy, which is referred to as “emotional intelligence” or EQ.
According to kindergarten teachers, EQ is the strongest predictor of a child’s success in school, even more so than reading or writing skills. Caring for a pet teaches children compassion, self-esteem, and responsibility for the care of another, as well as improving cognitive skills, mitigating stress, and numerous other benefits.
Children with autism are sometimes better able to interact with animals, and this may actually improve their ability to interact with people. Science shows cats are especially helpful to autistic children, increasing their social interactivity and improving communication skills, tactile and eye contact, smiling and laughter.
Oxytocin Creates Friends with Benefits
Why do cats and dogs hold this almost-magical power over humans? Recent discoveries are beginning to provide an answer: hormones.
A recent groundbreaking study was the first to identify a hormonal bonding effect between humans and other species, which may help to explain how dogs became domesticated thousands of years ago.
According to the study, when your dog looks into your eyes, he activates the same hormonal response as an infant. The mutual gazing between dogs and their owners triggers the release of oxytocin, the “love hormone,” in the same positive feedback loop as in a mother and newborn.
Of the duos who spent the greatest amount of time gazing into each other’s eyes, male as well as female dogs experienced a 130 percent rise in oxytocin levels, and both male and female owners showed a 300 percent increase.
Produced by the hypothalamus, oxytocin is the hormone responsible for mother-infant bonding, flooding each with feelings of happiness, trust and well being. In addition to its role in bonding and relationships, oxytocin confers physical health benefits as well, including reduced pain and inflammation, which could explain some of the health benefits of pet ownership outlined above.
But oxytocin may explain only part of our connection with dogs. A prior study found dogs to be sensitive to human social cues, such as the intention to interact with them when making eye contact. According to Medical Daily:
"Dogs tend to speak through body language and facial expression, which makes them better equipped to figure out our moods and what makes us happy, among other things.
Dogs are not the only species casting oxytocin spells on humans - cats are taking full advantage as well."
Crazy Cat Ladies May Not Be So Crazy After All
A recent study found that cats attach to humans as social partners, not just for the sake of obtaining food. This research is the first to show in detail that cat-human relationships are essentially identical to human-human ones, at least biochemically, with cats frequently stepping into roles of surrogate children in nurturing homes. This of course will not be new information to cat lovers.
Petting a cat is found to produce an immediate oxytocin release in both cat and human - but if that human is a woman, the effects may be far more pronounced. This study and others confirm that, while cats have plenty of male admirers, women initiate contact with their kitties much more often than men, and vice versa.
Female owners also have more intense relationships with their cats, and cats especially adore - and manipulate - their ladies. Cats are cashing in on human maternal instinct!
Rather than an amusing eccentricity, “crazy cat ladies” may actually be unwitting victims of chemically modulated feline manipulation. I’ll leave proof of that hypothesis to the scientists - but ladies, consider yourself warned.
Regardless of whether or not we humans are being manipulated by our animal friends, the benefits of sharing our homes with them cannot be denied. Science has proven that if you want to live a longer, healthier, happier life - and raise your children in an environment that cultivates compassion and responsibility - then adopting a pet may be just the prescription.
Tribal Parenting – How To Heal Our Children + What Are The Consequences Of A Childhood Removed From Nature? June 18 2016 | From: KellyBroganMD / PlayAgain
Do you wear your baby? Nurse your toddler? Sleep in a family bed? If you do, chances are you’ve been influenced by an obscure little book penned almost four decades ago.
Its author, the late Jean Liedloff, spent two and a half years living with a Stone Age South American tribe, observing them and recording their way of life.
The Yekuana Indians were unlike any people Liedloff had ever encountered. They seemed universally happy and fulfilled. Their children, especially, were remarkably calm and independent. In the entire time she stayed with them, she witnessed no sibling rivalry, no whining, and almost no crying, fussing or tantrums among their infants and small children.
She was amazed to see older children and teens confidently performing difficult tasks and making mature decisions, without the defiance or recalcitrance so common in Western adolescents. In her own words:
“Amazingly, the children never fought. They played together all day unsupervised, all ages, from crawling, to walking to adolescence. Not only did they not fight, they never even argued. This is not at all what we have been taught human nature is….”
Liedloff observed that in this culture, as in many other indigenous societies around the globe, children were treated very differently than in Western cultures. She began to develop a theory of human social development based on her observations.
According to her, every human being is born with an inborn expectation to undergo certain natural social experiences. These begin with being held immediately after birth, and an extended in-arms phase in early infancy.
Liedloff called her theory the Continuum Concept, because she maintained that these experiences should come sequentially (in a continuum), and are necessary for the sustainable continuation of our species.
Missing one or more of them, according to Liedloff, can cause an individual to have trouble integrating properly into society.
And by extension, one would assume that a society that does not routinely provide these experiences to its members is likely to, eventually, break down.
You may be familiar with many of these Continuum practices as the basic principles of the Attachment Parenting (AP) movement, which Liedloff’s ideas influenced greatly.
Several, like babywearing, extended nursing, and co-sleeping are, if not wholly embraced by Western society, at least becoming better known and more accepted.
However, most Western parents who follow these practices agree that their families are still far from experiencing the ideal of human contentedness that Liedloff describes in her book.
Assuming that Liedloff’s observations are accurate, how can we continue to improve upon our parenting practices? In other words, once the honeymoon of infancy is over, what then?
In examining The Continuum Concept (and related materials included on the book’s website) for hints on parenting children ages toddler and beyond, three main principles spring forth as very different from the way most of us were raised, and continue to raise our children:
The first principle is a profound trust in the child.
Caregivers in continuum societies understand that the child is an inherently “good citizen,” with an innate desire to please and an inborn sense of self-preservation.
“Nobody’s born rotten,” writes Liedloff. “You just don’t have bad kids. There is no such thing. But we can make them bad. Ironically, the reason it’s possible… is because we are so social.
Our social nature is such that we tend to meet the expectations of our elders. Whenever this reversal took place and our elders stopped expecting us to be social and expected us to be anti-social, or greedy or selfish or dirty or destructive or self-destructive… that’s when the real fall took place. And we’re paying for it dearly.”
Instead of warning the child to behave and laying out consequences for bad behavior, Liedloff advocates simply modeling the “good” behavior, and expecting the child to follow suit. If the child errs, he should be gently instructed to change his behavior, but he should never be judged negatively as a person because of his mistakes.
The second Continuum concept to keep in mind is that the child should not be the center of attention.
Neither, however, should he be excluded from adult society. In Yekuana society, Liedloff observed that adults were available to the child as needed, but focused primarily on their own activities, not on their role as parents. This approach lets the child learn by direct observation and to begin participating in adult activities as he is ready, without the pressure of being in the spotlight.
Of course, this does not mean that one should never pay attention to or play with one’s child. It simply, in Liedloff’s words, “reflects an understanding of the child’s role as a learner in society.”
The child needs a mother who is confident and calm… a mother who knows what to do, and doesn’t ask permission from her child. If you’re pleading with her (or asking her to lead), then she’s got the power, and it makes her nervous because it means you’re not sure of yourself, and you’re begging her for acceptance (or direction).
Any grown-up lady that pleads with a 4-year-old is not to be relied on.
Rather than following the child’s lead, Liedloff suggests telling her nicely but matter-of-factly what you expect her to do, without asking her permission or regaling her with choices or reasons. In other words, instead of saying, “Let’s go have some lunch now, OK? What would you like to eat?” tell your child “OK, now it’s time for lunch. Can you find the spoons? We’re going to have soup.”
Keep in mind, though, that taking the lead is not the same thing as taking control over your child. The parents Liedloff observed never forced a child to do chores. They simply modeled the behavior, and made sure the tools - like a child-size grater - were available to the child.
When a child showed an interest, she was allowed to participate as long as she wanted to. It was simply expected that she would naturally want to learn how to do the tasks she observed the adults doing.
By the time they are old enough to be truly helpful, Liedloff noted that continuum-raised children will simply and quietly obey requests for help from adults, reciprocating the respect they had been shown when they were little.
The question for modern parents becomes, “Past infancy, how do we continue to give our children the continuum experiences they need in the context of our own society?”
This leads us to the third principle: that a healthy human experience must include interaction between people of many different ages.
It is easy for Stone Age parents to be available to their children without making them the center of attention. After all, they live where they work, and their children spend most of their time freely playing with other children, both younger and older than they are.
In fact, every person in their culture is able to model older individuals, and mentor younger individuals in turn. This allows for smooth passage from one stage of life to the next, and reduces or eliminates friction between generations.
In a society which divides its tribes into isolated nuclear families, where adults must often work outside the home, where children are not typically welcomed into the workplace, and where, from preschool to nursing home, our age segregation practices border on the extreme, is it even possible to offer our children - and ourselves - the experiences we apparently need to become truly fulfilled human beings?
Perhaps not to the extent that the Yekuana could. But just as many Western parents have resurrected the practices of babywearing and co-sleeping, why not reclaim the tribal experience as well?
Whether through conscious decisions or instinct, many parents are attempting to do just that - resurrect something of the primal, tribal human experience. In their own ways, they are seeking opportunities to connect with other families in ways that are more natural, organically developing and holistic.
For some families, tribe-building is as simple as staying in place or moving back to live close to extended family. A recent PEW study revealed that 43 percent of young people ages 18–31 are now living with their parents or other kin. This includes a growing number of families with young children, according to Carmen Wong-Ulrich of Baby Center Financial.
Granted, this is happening primarily as a result of economic pressure, rather than the desire for a more natural social structure. However, many of these families are discovering benefits to this arrangement beyond financial relief.
“It was nice to rediscover a relationship with my parents as a parent.
I don’t think our vision was ever, oh let’s go live with our parents again when we are older, but you know, it worked out,” commented one young mother who spent a year living with her parents while she and her husband saved up for a home of their own.
Other parents report increased feelings of security, carpooling and other shared duties made easier, built-in babysitters, and family bonding as benefits of living with or near family members.
But for the majority of us, living near family is just not an option. What then?
Creating Your Own Tribe
Teresa Pitman’s classic article “Finding Your Tribe” offers one solution. First published in 2000, it has been republished many times since, inspiring parents all over the world to create modern “tribal” relationships with friends and neighbors. It the article, Pitman describes her relationship with her friend Vicki.
Starting when their first babies were infants, the two would get together and help each other with household chores or prepare meals for both families to enjoy, while their kids had the benefit of unstructured play time with adults who remained in close proximity, but engaged in their own adult activities.
It wasn’t until she read Liedloff’s book that Pitman realized she and Vicki had unconsciously created their own little tribal community.
Pitman points out that tribe-building involves much more than just scheduling regular playdates. You have to spend a lot of time together, and it’s important that it not just be all “visiting time.” Work together. Clean house, work on your car, do projects together, garden, prepare meals, or start a business together.
Take care of the children’s needs as they need you; otherwise, let them alone to observe how you’re going about your tasks - or not, as they please.
She also cautions not to be too picky about whom you form your tribe with. Just like family, the people you find available may have some qualities that differ from your ideals. That’s OK; as long as you can respect each other’s choices and beliefs there’s no reason you can’t form a deep and lasting relationship.
It’s very common for parents of young children to get together frequently, and often these relationships result in lasting bonds between families. However, once the children reach school age, time spent together in this way often diminishes. Homeschooling families have a unique advantage in this regard.
They are also better able to respond to children’s natural developmental patterns, and more likely to have the opportunity to interact with children of a larger age range than their schooled counterparts - an important aspect of Continuum ideals.
In situations where homeschooling occurs between and around running a home-based business, children also get to observe and learn firsthand how the adult world operates in a way that was once a normal part of growing up, but is now no longer available to the vast majority of modern children.
That said, many homeschoolers still find their lives increasingly dominated by schedules and goals, especially as children grow older. If a tribal experience is truly your ideal, you might find yourself drawn to at least partial unschooling.
The School Conundrum
If homeschooling is not an option for your family’s situation, what then? If you are brave and resourceful, you might consider organizing your own school or other institution.
This is what Natalie Cronin did. She started her home daycare, Under the Tinker Tree, out of a desire to provide her own children with an experience more closely resembling her ideals than would otherwise be possible. Luckily, her vision resonated with others in her community.
“I share my home with a dozen families a day, and we have a saying that ‘We’re all in it together.’ It was an interesting process…
I was very upfront about [all my beliefs about childrearing], and people would come, and they were looking for people like me and I was looking for people like them…. [I’d tell them] we aren’t caring for just the child, we’re here for the whole family, and that’s really what it’s become.
Our community has become so close. The parents contact each other after daycare, and we all live within a few blocks of each other - I have six families who live in the same apartment building as I do. So we really do have our own little community and we’re very supportive of each other.”
Pioneering a “tribal” style school for older children is more of a challenge than starting a daycare, but is certainly within the realm of possibility if enough parents in a given community are willing to devote time and resources to making it happen.
If starting a school is not an option, you still may be able to integrate some semblances of a tribal existence into the fabric of your family’s life by carefully choosing amongst the schools, churches and other organizations in your area, and/or by advocating for more Continuum-friendly practices within the organizations you already belong to.
Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to change already existing conventions.
“If you can’t homeschool, the first thing is to seek out alternative schools that have age mixing and aren’t so set on separating and segregating people,” advises parenting coach Scott Noelle, who corresponded extensively with Liedloff while she was alive, and now operates the Liedloff Continuum Network website.
“You can also look for a school that doesn’t grade children; that’s another way to separate people, by ‘good kids’ and ‘bad kids’ and A students and B students and so forth.”
Noelle adds that there are things you can do to protect your child from the less Continuum-friendly aspects of school life.
“I encourage parents to let (their children) know that the school culture is like a game that they play, and there are parts of the game that are good to play, like learning and meeting new friends, but that we’ll have to tolerate other parts of the game that are not as aligned with our true nature, like grading for example.
You can assure your children that the grading is just a game and we don’t have to take it too seriously. They do take it seriously - they forget that it’s just a game. So tell them, ‘I’m not too worried about [the game]. If what you’re ready for doesn’t align perfectly with their game then you may get low marks in their game, but I know you’ll blossom in your own time.’”
You may find yourself in the position of wanting to introduce elements of modern tribalism into an existing organization. This is challenging, but not impossible. If you want to do this, it’s usually a good idea to become an active, participating member of the group first, before attempting change.
Then, frame your suggestions in a way that helps them meet existing wants and needs. For instance, you might volunteer to set up a program to help your organization’s single-parent families network with and support each other.
To some, the ultimate in modern tribe building may well be to start an intentional community based on Continuum and other natural living concepts. However, a quick search reveals very few existing intentional communities that openly base their values on Continuum ideals. (Heart-Culture Farm near Eugene, Oregon, is one.)
Why is this? Surely, there are enough families interested in following an attachment parenting lifestyle to warrant a larger number of communities specifically designed to support it?
Could it be that the very concept of an “intentional” community (at least, as most of us are likely to think of it) is alien to a Continuum worldview? After all, Liedloff herself noted that the Yekuana people were highly reluctant to sway anyone else’s opinion or influence their behavior. Yet most intentional communities are very specific as to what is and is not acceptable behavior.
Noelle recounts a personal intentional community experience which may shed some light on this question:
“The Internet was making people more aware, and some people began discussing the idea of having a community of people… where the values were aligned with the Continuum Concept, which all of us were very passionate about.
So I wrote up a long and passionate post to this online community - right around the year 2000 - “let’s go for it!” Somehow a lot of people got impassioned about it and we did start organizing. It led to a fairly sizable group of people from all over the world getting together for an organizational meeting.
We accidentally experienced tribe for about two days. We had this gathering in my hometown, Portland, Oregon. People had different travel schedules, and a number of people got there a few days before the big meeting.
They camped out in our yard and we kind of had this village we created in our yard, and we were all just waiting and very optimistic.
So we actually had this tribal experience, and I can only say it was glorious.
It was just wonderful, the feeling of this expanded social circle where everyone is just sort of flowing together. The children had all these choices [of playmates].
They could play with one and when they were done they could play with another and if a child’s mom needed a break there was someone there to attend to the child. And we were living that way for a couple of days while we were waiting for this meeting.”
Then the meeting happened and everyone brought their agendas with them, and their particular attachments that things had to be a certain way, and we started to lose some of that being in the moment with each other. Now it had to be right vs wrong…
We might have weathered that, but I think ultimately a lot of us were recovering our humanity. The thing about community movements, is that people are attracted to communities because they’re failing in some way. I don’t mean that as a criticism.
If people are succeeding at the whole separation game in society, they’re succeeding within the rules of that game, and they’re not motivated to change. It’s the ones who are failing who are like, “This doesn’t work for me, so I’m open to trying something new.” And they come across this idea of communitarianism, and they’re willing to try.
But then you have a whole bunch of wounded people who are trying to lift each other up. And I could see that in this particular project, including myself and my wife—we definitely lacked the skill set to do that."
Noelle suspects that being well funded could help such a project overcome this issue by allowing participants the security to work out their differences. “When you’re just in survival mode you get defensive, feeling like someone else’s needs may encroach on your own.”
Given this experience and others, it seems that this elusive tribal experience is not something to be sought as a goal, but something experienced naturally when people come together without goals or expectations, simply in the enjoyment of being together.
What about the Internet?
Many people these days are spending increasing amounts of time and energy on the Internet in hopes of connecting to like-minded souls. Without denigrating the very real value many find in their online relationships (this author included), it’s important to note that virtual reality is in many ways antithetical to a Continuum experience.
The Continuum concept is about more than the sequence of human development. It’s about the continuum of humanity across many lifespans, and the play of matter and consciousness amongst and between humans, other species, Mother Earth and the universe itself.
Children, especially, need to experience the world holistically through their senses - the real world with all their senses, not just a pared-down, wired-up virtual semblance with no taste or touch or smell. And believe it or not, we adults need this too.
There is no virtual substitute for the connection one feels when one’s eyes meet another’s, or the sensation of a warm slice of homemade bread passing from one hand to another, or the volumes spoken in minute variations in a loved one’s smile.
Seeking Your Own Tribe
Cronin, Noelle and Pitman all offer excellent suggestions for developing the kind of comfort with ourselves and others that appears to be a prerequisite for a Continuum lifestyle.
Be honest about your feelings and needs, both to yourself and to others - if your children just aren’t up to participating in a play date on a particular day, it’s better to stay home than to force the issue.
Remember to breathe - you won’t connect well with others until you are comfortable and relaxed in your own space.
Reconnect with the natural world - even if you live in a city, just going for a walk and passing a tree is connecting and centering.
Spend a lot of time together.
Choose options that lead to partnership rather than separation and control.
Be open to relationships with people who are in different stages of parenthood or life, or whose habits or beliefs differ from yours.
Focus more strongly on how you’re connected with people than on how you’re different.
Above all, be open about the outcome. Allow your tribe to grow organically, from the inside out. Forget about your goals and focus instead on just the experience of being, right here and right now, with those you happen to be with at the moment. The destination is the journey itself.
Play Again: What Are The Consequences Of A Childhood Removed From Nature?
One generation from now most Westerners will have spent more time in the virtual world than in nature. New media technologies have improved our lives in countless ways. Information now appears with a click. Overseas friends are part of our daily lives. And even grandma loves Wii.
But what are we missing when we are behind screens? And how will this impact our children, our society, and eventually, our planet? At a time when children play more behind screens than outside, PLAY AGAIN explores the changing balance between the virtual and natural worlds. Is our connection to nature disappearing down the digital rabbit hole?
This moving and humorous documentary follows six teenagers who, like the “average American child,” spend five to fifteen hours a day behind screens. PLAY AGAIN unplugs these teens and takes them on their first wilderness adventure – no electricity, no cell phone coverage, no virtual reality.
Through the voices of children and leading experts including journalist Richard Louv, sociologist Juliet Schor, environmental writer Bill McKibben, educators Diane Levin and Nancy Carlsson-Paige, neuroscientist Gary Small, parks advocate Charles Jordan, and geneticist David Suzuki, PLAY AGAIN investigates the consequences of a childhood removed from nature and encourages action for a sustainable future.
Where We are Coming From
Seventy years ago, the first televisions became commercially available. The first desktop computers went on sale 30 years ago, and the first cell phones a mere 15 years ago. During their relatively short tenure these three technologies have changed the way we live. Some of these changes are good.
Television can now rapidly disseminate vital information. Computers turned that flow of information into a two-way street. Cell phones enable unprecedented connectivity with our fellow human beings. And the merging of cell phones and the internet has even allowed protest movements around the world to organize and thrive.
But there’s also a down side. For many people, especially children, screens have become the de facto medium by which the greater world is experienced. A virtual world of digitally transmitted pictures, voices, and scenarios has become more real to this generation than the world of sun, water, air, and living organisms, including fellow humans.
The average American child now spends over eight hours in front of a screen each day. She emails, texts, and updates her status incessantly. He can name hundreds of corporate logos, but less than ten native plants. She aspires to have hundreds of online friends, most she may never meet in person.
He masters complicated situations presented in game after game, but often avoids simple person-to-person conversation. They are almost entirely out of contact with the world that, over millions of years of evolution, shaped human beings - the natural world.
The long-term consequences of this experiment on human development remain to be seen, but the stakes couldn’t be higher. By most accounts, this generation will face multiple crises - environmental, economic and social. Will this screen world - and its bevy of virtual experiences - have adequately prepared these “digital natives” to address the problems they’ll face, problems on whose resolution their own survival may depend?
As we stand at a turning point in our relationship with earth, we find ourselves immersed in the gray area between the natural and virtual worlds. From a global perspective of wonder and hope, PLAY AGAIN examines this unique point in history.
If You're Juicing Non-Organic Produce, You're Just Poisoning Yourself With A Pesticide Cocktail June 17 2016 | From: NaturalNews
I have an important warning today for all those people who are poisoning themselves to death by juicing non-organic produce: STOP what you are doing and think for a minute about how juicing really works.
Juicing is an extraction technology that pulls liquids and nutrients out of fresh produce items like apples, carrots, celery and greens.
The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.
One of the things I've learned as the lab science director of CWC Labs is that most pesticides are water soluble, meaning they are extracted with the juice and stay in the juice until you drink it.
A glass of fresh juice made from non-organic fruits and vegetables is a glass of pesticide juice.
Juicing Removes the Very PlantFibers that Can Protect You Against Pesticides and Heavy Metals
Even worse, consider the fact that juicing, by definition, removes all the plant fibers, leaving behind just the absorbable liquids. Plant fibers actually block toxic pesticides and heavy metals in your digestive tract, capturing them so that your body eliminates them. But when you drink juice without those fibers, you body absorbs the juice - and everything in it - far more efficiently and quickly.
Comment: A way around this is to simply use a blender rather than a juicer. Sure, its chewy but you get the fibre too.
Thus, if your fresh juice is filled with pesticide chemicals, you will be rapidly absorbing pesticide chemicals the moment you start drinking the juice.
And yes, pesticide chemicals persist for a very long time. They survive sunlight, harvesting, cleaning and juicing. (And no, you can't "wash off" all the pesticides because they are INSIDE the produce!) They even survive human digestion, which is why pesticides can be easily detected in urine and breast milk.
The Answer? Only Juice ORGANIC Produce or Things You've Grown Yourself
You should never juice fresh produce that has been produced with chemical pesticides. There are only two categories of things which are safe to juice:
This is why I grow so much of my own produce using the Food Rising Mini-Farm Grow Boxes I invented a couple of years ago. They use no electricity and no pumps, yet they grow huge quantities of beets, parsley, cilantro, strawberries and as much lettuce as you'd ever want to juice.
If You do Juice Non-Organic Produce, Blend with Organic Produce Fibers in a Vita-Mix
If you must juice non-organic produce, here's the solution to protect yourself: Blend whole fruits in a Vita-Mix to get the fruit fibers into the juice, then combine with the juiced greens from your juicing machine.
Importantly, the organic fruit fibers will help block the pesticides during digestion. What are the best fruits for this? Strawberries, grapefruit and apples.
All three have powerful fibers with a strong affinity for pesticide chemicals. They serve as a kind of biological border against pesticide toxins, preventing some of them from being absorbed into your blood. (Yes, borders are a good thing when you need to keep the enemies out!)
Summary: Three Crucial Things to Remember About Juicing
1) If you juice conventional produce, you're just drinking a pesticide cocktail.
2) Fruit and vegetable fibers block your body's absorption of pesticide chemicals. (This is a strong argument for consuming whole foods, not just extracted juices, by the way.)
3) If you must drink juice from conventional produce, mix it with fiber-rich organic whole foods blended in a Vita-Mix or other blender. The best "defender" foods are strawberries, grapefruit and apples. For defense against heavy metals, chlorella and peanut butter are also very effective.
Yes, I Know What I'm Talking About
As the lab science director of CWClabs.com, I use various extraction techniques for extracting water soluble pesticide chemicals from many different types of foods and supplements.
CWC Labs is an internationally accredited (ISO 17025) laboratory with proven analytical excellence. There, I also run an LC/MS-TOF (Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry) instrument to quantitate pesticide chemicals at very low levels (such as 5 ppb). So I know that pesticides persist in all sorts of fresh produce items, and I know that pesticides are soluble in water and juice.
I've also conducted extensive studies on how food fibers protect your body from absorbing heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium. This research will soon be expanded into analyzing how well fibers block popular pesticide chemicals (and eventually, glyphosate!).
My lab is about to launch commercial testing services for pesticide analysis in food, beverages and water. To learn more about my lab's commercial testing services, contact us at this link.
How Baking Soda Became A Cancer Treatment + Oncologists Don’t Like Baking Soda Cancer Treatment Because It’s Too Effective And Too Cheap June 15 2016 | From: iHealthTube / GetHolisticHealth / NaturalNews
Even the most aggressive cancers which have metastasized have been reversed with baking soda cancer treatments. Although chemotherapy is toxic to all cells, it represents the only measure that oncologists employ in their practice to almost all cancer patients. In fact, 9 out of 10 cancer patients agree to chemotherapy first without investigating other less invasive options.
A few years ago, University of Arizona Cancer Center member Dr. Mark Pagel received a $2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to study the effectiveness of personalized baking soda cancer treatment for breast cancer.
Obviously there are people in the know who have understood that sodium bicarbonate, that same stuff that can save a person’s life in the emergency room in a heartbeat, is a primary cancer treatment option of the safest and most effective kind.
Studies have shown that dietary measures to boost bicarbonate levels can increase the pH of acidic tumors without upsetting the pH of the blood and healthy tissues.
Animal models of human breast cancer show that oral sodium bicarbonate does indeed make tumors more alkaline and inhibit metastasis.
Based on these studies, plus the fact that baking soda is safe and well tolerated, world renowned doctors such as Dr. Julian Whitaker have adopted successful cancer treatment protocols as part of an overall nutritional and immune support program for patients who are dealing with the disease.
The Whitaker protocol uses 12 g (2 rounded teaspoons) of baking soda mixed in 2 cups water, along with a low-cal sweetener of your choice. (It’s quite salty tasting.) Sip this mixture over the course of an hour or two and repeat for a total of three times a day.
One man claims he has found a cure for cancer using baking soda and molasses and actually successfully treated his own disease by using baking soda.
When taken orally with water, especially water with high magnesium content, and when used transdermally in medicinal baths, sodium bicarbonate becomes a first-line medicinal for the treatment of cancer, and also kidney disease, diabetes, influenza and even the common cold.
It is also a powerful buffer against radiation exposure, so everyone should be up to speed on its use. Everybody’s physiology is under heavy nuclear attack from strong radioactive winds that are circling the northern hemisphere.
Dr. Robert J. Gillies and his colleagues have already demonstrated that pre-treatment of mice with baking soda results in the alkalinization of the area around tumors. The same researchers reported that bicarbonate increases tumor pH and also inhibits spontaneous metastases in mice with breast cancer.
Baking soda is a white crystalline solid that appears as fine powder. It is also called cooking soda, bread soda and bicarbonate of soda. Its chemical name is sodium bicarbonate or sodium hydrogen carbonate.
Baking soda is different from washing soda (sodium carbonate) although they share the same slightly salty and alkaline taste.
This widely used soda is commonly dissolved in mineral water and used as a leavening agent in baking. It works as a leavening agent by neutralizing the acidic components of batter. The neutralization releases carbon dioxide and leads to the “raising” or expansion of baked foods.
Baking soda has also been used to soften vegetable and to tenderize meat.
As a household chemical, baking soda is used as a cleaning agent. It is included in toothpastes for similar reasons where it serves as an antiseptic, acid-neutralizer, whitening agent and plaque-removing agent as well as a cleaning agent.
Other common personal hygiene products in which baking soda can be found include deodorants and shampoos.
Baking Soda and pH Medicine
The pH of our tissues and body fluids is crucial and central because it affects and mirrors the state of our health or our inner cleanliness. The closer the pH is to 7.35-7.45, the higher our level of health and wellbeing.
Staying within this range dramatically increases our ability to resist acute illnesses like colds and flues as well as the onset of cancer and other diseases. Keeping our pH within a healthy range also involves necessary lifestyle and dietary changes that will protect us over the long term while the use of sodium bicarbonate gives us a jump-start toward increased alkalinity.
The pH scale is like a thermometer showing increases and decreases in the acid and alkaline content of fluids. Deviations above or below a 7.35-7.45 pH range in the tightly controlled blood can signal potentially serious and dangerous symptoms or states of disease.
When the body can no longer effectively neutralize and eliminate the acids, it relocates them within the body’s extra-cellular fluids and connective tissue cells directly compromising cellular integrity. Conversely when the body becomes too alkaline from too much bicarbonate in the blood, metabolic alkalosis occurs, which can lead to severe consequences if not corrected quickly.
Jon Barron presents a way of looking at pH that opens up one of the major benefits of alkaline water:
“Hydrogen ions tie up oxygen. That means that the more acid a liquid is, the less available the oxygen in it. Every cell in our body requires oxygen for life and to maintain optimum health. Combine that with what we know about hydrogen ions and we see that the more acid the blood (the lower its pH), the less oxygen is available for use by the cells.
Without going into a discussion of the chemistry involved, just understand that it’s the same mechanism involved when acid rain “kills” a lake.
The fish literally suffocate to death because the acid in the lake “binds up” all of the available oxygen. It’s not that the oxygen has gone anywhere; it’s just no longer available. Conversely, if you raise the pH of the lake (make it more alkaline), oxygen is now available and the lake comes back to life.
Incidentally, it’s worth noting that cancer is related to an acid environment (lack of oxygen)–the higher the pH (the more oxygen present in the cells of the body), the harder it is for cancer to thrive."
Understanding this is important for two reasons: (1) it reveals one of the primary benefits of alkaline water–more “available” oxygen in the system and (2) it explains why alkaline water helps fight cancer.
How Baking Soda Can Help “Cure” Cancer
Basically, malignant tumors represent masses of rapidly growing cells. The rapid rate of growth experienced by these cells means that cellular metabolism also proceeds at very high rates.
Therefore, cancer cells are using a lot more carbohydrates and sugars to generate energy in the form of ATP (adenosine triphosphate).
However, some of the compounds formed from the energy production include lactic acid and pyruvic acid. Under normal circumstances, these compounds are cleared and utilized as soon as they are produced. But cancer cells are experiencing metabolism at a much faster rate. Therefore, these organic acid accumulate in the immediate environment of the tumor.
The high level of extracellular acidity around the tumor is one of the chief driving force behind the metastasis of cancer tumors.
Basically, cancer cells need an acidic environment to grow and spread rapidly.
Some cancer experts, therefore, believe that by buffering the tumor microenvironment with an alkalizing compound, the pH of tumors can be raised enough to starve them and stop their growth and spread.
Curiously, this rather simple solution to cancer has been proven right.
What is even more remarkable is that there is no need to cook up some fancy synthetic drug to lower the acidity in the immediate environment of the tumor. A simple, commonly obtained compound like sodium bicarbonate will do.
Obviously, it is desirable to deliver the sodium bicarbonate as close to the tumor as possible since its pH-raising effect is needed in the microenvironment of the tumor. Therefore, directly injecting sodium bicarbonate in the tumor site is considered a better solution than oral administration. However, oral sodium bicarbonate is just safer and can be readily used at home.
A 2009 study published in the journal, Cancer Research, is among the first to confirm that the alkalinizing effect of sodium bicarbonate can indeed stop cancer.
By injecting sodium bicarbonate into a group of mice, the authors of the study were able to determine how the growth and spread of cancer tumors were effected by raising the pH of the organ affected by the cancer.
The study results showed that baking soda indeed raised the pH and reduced spontaneous metastases in mice induced with breast cancer.
The researchers also determined that sodium bicarbonate works by raising the pH outside cells and not within cells. This is an important finding because it suggests that sodium bicarbonate does not interfere with cellular metabolism even as it makes the microenvironment unconducive for tumor growth.
Other findings from this study show that baking soda:
Reduced the involvement of the lymph node on the transport of cancer cells
Does not lower the levels of circulating tumor cells
Reduced the involvement of the liver and, therefore, the spread of tumor cells to other organs
Inhibit the colonization of other organs by circulating tumor cells
The Baking Soda Formula for Cancer
To make the baking soda natural cancer remedy at home, you need maple syrup, molasses or honey to go along with the baking soda. In Dr. Sircus’ book, he documented how one patient used baking soda and blackstrap molasses to fight the prostate cancer that had metastasized to his bones.
On the first day, the patient mixed 1 teaspoon of baking soda with 1 teaspoon of molasses in a cup of water.
He took this for another 3 days after which his saliva pH read 7.0 and his urine pH read 7.5.
Encouraged by these results, the patient took the solution 2 times on day 5 instead of once daily. And from day 6 – 10, he took 2 teaspoons each of baking soda and molasses twice daily.
By the 10th day, the patient’s pH had risen to 8.5 and the only side effects experienced were headaches and night sweat (similar to cesium therapy). The next day, the patient had a bone scan and too other medical tests.
His results showed that his PSA (prostate-specific antigen, the protein used to determine the severity of prostate enlargement and prostate cancer) level was down from 22.3 at the point of diagnosis to 0.1.
Another baking soda formula recommends mixing 90 teaspoons of maple syrup with 30 teaspoons of baking soda.
To do this, the maple syrup must be heated to become less viscous. Then the baking syrup is added and stirred for 5 minutes until it is fully dissolved.
This preparation should provide about 10-day worth of the baking soda remedy. 5 – 7 teaspoons per day is the recommended dose for cancer patients.
Care should be taken when using the baking soda remedy to treat cancer. This is because sustaining a high pH level can itself cause metabolic alkalosis and electrolyte imbalance. These can result in edema and also affect the heart and blood pressure.
One does not have to be a doctor to practice pH medicine. Every practitioner of the healing arts and every mother and father needs to understand how to use sodium bicarbonate. Bicarbonate deficiency is a real problem that deepens with age so it really does pay to understand and appreciate what baking soda is all about.
How Baking Soda Became A Cancer Treatment
Dr. Tullio Simoncini discusses how he discovered sodium bicarbonate, or baking soda, could be a successful treatment for cancers. He discusses how a treatment for psoriasis led to him trying something different for cancer patients. He also gives an example of how well and quickly it worked in one of his patients!
Discover the Baking Soda and Lemon Juice Combination that Eradicates Cancer Cells Better than Prescription Doxil and Adriamycin
In addition, alkaline diet theory classifies both lemon and baking soda as pH-raising foods. The idea is that certain foods either make your body more acidic (lower pH) or more alkaline (higher pH), with an alkaline environment ideal for preventing cancer and other chronic diseases (and a more acidic environment promoting disease).
Lemon Extract Outperforms Chemo Drugs
Even without any pH benefits, lemon is a potent healing food. More than 20 studies dating as far back as 1970 have showed that lemon and lemon extracts are able to destroy at least 12 different varieties of cancer cells, and also prevent cancer from metastasizing. At least one study showed that lemon extract was 10,000 times stronger than mainstream chemotherapy drugs such as Adriamycin.
The full reasons for lemon's cancer-fighting effects are not known, but they have been partially attributed to the fruit's high levels of the antioxidant and cancer-fighter, vitamin C, and also the the presence of the phytochemicals known, appropriately enough, as limonoides.
Like many plant-based cancer treatments, lemon seems more likely to leave healthy cells unharmed than chemotherapy drugs.
In addition to these benefits, lemon is an antibacterial and anti-fungal, and can also be used to treat intestinal worms and other parasites.
It has been shown to relieve heartburn, bloating, constipation and nausea, to prevent kidney stones, to help regulate blood pressure, and to relieve stress and depression.
Practitioners of alkaline diet-based medicine also say that in spite of its acidic nature, lemon helps make the body more alkaline.
The alkaline diet has been prominently promoted by researcher Robert O. Young, author of the 2002 book The pH miracle.
"The focus for preventing and reversing cancer must be on maintaining the alkaline pH of the body fluids, and a recognition that cancer is a systemic acidic condition," Young has written.
To prepare a pH-boosting drink, mix a teaspoon of baking soda with about 7 ounces (just under a cup) of lemon juice. The beverage can be diluted with distilled water, as long as you drink the whole thing. For best benefit, it should be taken on an empty stomach, first thing in the morning.
Why and How to Raise Your Body's pH
Promoters of the alkaline diet say that raising your body's pH can provide a wide range of health benefits, including reducing your risk of obesity, cysts, allergies, and chronic inflammatory conditions such as gout, arthritis and fibromyalgia. Seasonal and food allergies are also attributed to an overly acidic body environment, as are general fatigue, weakness and lack of energy.
If you are concerned that your body is overly acidic, the best way to improve the condition is to shift your eating patterns. According to Young, an optimal diet consists of 80 percent alkaline foods and only 20 percent acidic foods.
Acidic foods are meat, dairy, sugar, refined grains, alcohol and caffeine. Alkaline foods include nearly all fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds.
Some of the top alkaline superfoods are alfalfa sprouts, avocado, broccoli, brussels sprouts, buckwheat, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, chives, cucumber, flax seeds and oil, garlic, grapefruit, green beans, green peas, leeks, lemons and limes, lettuce, melon, millet, olive oil, onions, parsley, pears, pumpkin, radishes, sesame seeds and paste (tahini), soy (beans, sprouts and products), spinach, tomatoes, watermelon, wild rice and zucchini.
Young also recommends consuming slightly alkaline (ionized) water, in order to flush out wastes that have built up from years of eating unhealthy foods. A lemon-baking soda drink may be a more natural, less expensive way to achieve the same effect, however.
26 Natural Alternatives For Allergies June 8 2016 | From: GreenMedInfo
It does need to be made clear from a legal perspective that this is not medical advice - as we are well aware by now that the pharmaceutical giants have the judiciary well in their pockets should anyone dare to make claims of effective medical solutions that do not fall under their petrochemical-deriived, woefully ineffective; but staggeringly profitable pushing of junk science medicine onto the general populace.
And don't even get me started on the Eugenics perspective. This is merely a sharing of infromation:
1. Butterbur exhibits protection against chemically-induced nasal responsiveness in seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Our ancestors had solutions for healing, utilizing antibiotics from nature which are still as valid now as they were then.
Oregano and oil of oregano: If you've ever had Italian food, chances are good that you've had oregano before, and you probably didn't even realize its health benefits.
In addition to its antibacterial properties, oregano also aids in digestion and with weight loss. An oil found in oregano, called Carvacrol, has also been found to fight bacteria that can lead to infection.
Raw apple cider vinegar: This has far-reaching benefits. Daily intake of apple cider vinegar includes antibiotic and antiseptic benefits, while naturally alkalizing your system. It can also help you manage your weight, lower your cholesterol and reduce your risk of developing cancer.
Honey: The ancient Romans knew of honey's antibacterial properties, using it to treat wounds and prevent subsequent infections. And today, in countries all around the world, honey is still considered to be one of the best natural antimicrobials, anti-inflammatories and antiseptics, in addition to its antibacterial properties. In fact, Manuka honey, found in New Zealand, has been found to have the highest levels of antioxidants and curative abilities.
Turmeric: This brilliantly-colored spice is flavorful, but also has great body protection qualities. In addition, turmeric can be both consumed and applied externally, which makes it a great all-round bacteria fighter.
For extra protection, you can mix turmeric with honey and create a paste to apply to skin.
Garlic: Again, more than just a wonderful seasoning, the garlic plant has very powerful qualities. It can fight the common cold, keeping germs at bay before they have a chance to infect you. A compound in garlic - allicin - protects against yeast, parasites, bacteria and more.
Grapefruit seed extract: According to the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, a study found that grapefruit seed extract is effective against more than 800 known viruses and bacteria, as well as more than 100 strains of fungi and parasites. Besides boosting antibacterial protection, this extract also alkalizes the body and improves gut flora.
Echinacea: Many people are not familiar with this product, but it certainly has wonderful antibacterial qualities.
Found in kitchens, this herb has been proven to reduce the amount of colds that the average person may experience in a lifetime. Echinacea has also been found to shorten the duration of colds, but is best taken as a preventative measure.
Cabbage: A cruciferous vegetable, sulfur compounds found in cabbage are effective battlers of cancer, as are kale and broccoli, two other members of the same family. But cabbage also contains a massive amount of vitamin C, with one cup providing up to 75 percent of your daily recommended allowance.
Extra virgin coconut oil: You should be using more coconut oil anyway, because it's much better for you (because it's natural) than chemical-laced vegetable cooking oils, but in addition to that, extra virgin coconut oil has anti-microbial and anti-fungal properties, and is packed with antioxidants.
Use it to boost your immune system.
Fermented foods: Think unpasteurized cabbage, homemade pickles, kefir and probiotic yogurts – all of which renew our intestinal flora, which in turn protects against cancer and gives us greater ability to fight off infections.
Colloidal silver: This natural antibiotic is a mixture of silver particles that have been suspended in fluid, and has been used for centuries. However, this treatment should only be used on a short-term basis, because too much silver, a heavy metal, can be toxic as well. It works by disabling the enzyme that single-cell bacteria need in order to multiply.
Pharmacist Speaks Out: Get Off Prescription Drugs, Avoid Vaccines June 4 2016 | From: ThePeoplesChemist
You gotta meet Margaret*. I changed her name to protect her privacy. She recently emailed me to vent against Western Medicine’s push to get everyone hooked on drugs and stab kids with risky, ineffective vaccines! Interestingly enough, she has seen medicine from an angle that most people aren’t privy too.
Margaret is a pharmacist. With a Pharmacy (PharmD) degree, and over two decades working in the field of pharmacy, she’s seen firsthand how “guideline-driven” medicine has artificially forced every patient into the same clinical box, thereby hooking them on drugs. The result is that “Doctors don’t THINK anymore - they just do what they’re told, which is to put people on meds. So many people in medicine (doctors, nurses, pharmacists) don’t really question anything,” says Margaret. “They’re so busy that they just do what the ‘guidelines’ say to do, rather than look at individuals and what makes sense.”
A former employee of a major pharmaceutical company, Margaret left her job so she could spend more time with her family. At the time, she questioned her former employer’s “huge marketing budget” and now believes the marketing of drugs to the general public - along with guidelines-driven medicine - needs to stop.
"We never get the flu shot,” she adds, referring to herself and her family. “I’ve read the entire package insert and can take on anyone who tries to tell me that it is useful with just that information alone. My years in pharma taught me just how clinical trials are designed to show the planned outcome - they aren’t real studies at all.”
In a world where most parents don’t even bother READING the flu vaccine insert, Margaret is a refreshing example of a mother who takes charge.
She initially contacted me to ask: “Shane, what has been the response been to what you write about vaccines? For those of us with licenses to protect, we don’t feel very safe voicing concerns about vaccines.”
I understood completely.
Big Pharma fires anyone who speaks out. They work hard to cover up the truth.
I told Margaret what I tell everyone: The science can’t be disputed. And since my job doesnt depend on parroting the status quo, I’ve had no problems whatsoever. My four kids are all unvaccinated and are strong, healthy, and vibrant. Attending school has never been an issue, and who cares anyway, health comes first.
Curious to learn more about Margaret’s experience as a pharmacist, I asked for an interview.
She generously agreed to share more of her perspective as a pharmacist. What follows is a candid interview in which Margaret encourages parents to stop, THINK, and get a reality check when it comes to vaccinating their kids. Commenting on how vaccines are pushed - and sometimes even forced - on everyone, she says, “They’ve done a very good job of psychological indoctrination.”
She also shares her thoughts on what needs to change in mainstream medicine, and why she chose to stop vaccinating.
*Not her real name. Name changed to protect her privacy.
1. Please summarise your overall pharmacy experience and how you’ve generally worked with patients / clients.
Pharmacist: I’m a pharmacist, but not one who is into mainstream medicine. I have broad pharmacy experience, and many years working in Pharma (just like you, Shane)!
I heard the mantra, “Today’s drugs fund tomorrow’s discoveries…” but after a while, that didn’t justify the huge marketing budget in my opinion. I quit working at one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies without a job lined up. I had my first child, and I wanted to hang out with him and figure out next steps.
I think I like retail pharmacy best, because it’s so important to talk to patients about their medications, especially people who want to make lifestyle changes to get OFF their medications. But many people prefer to take a pill rather than change.
2. Why did you choose to become a pharmacist?
Margaret: I really stumbled into it! I never thought of myself as a science person, but I took some science classes and found I liked them. Pharmacy is just more science.
3. What are you most proud of when it comes to your career?
Margaret: I’ve enjoyed helping people. Especially if people are interested in lifestyle changes to get off medications - that’s a pleasure to help them.
4. What has shocked you the most, while working as a pharmacist?
Margaret: Even in pharmacy school, my professors stressed that things would change in our careers and we had to be adaptable. Yet so many people in medicine (doctors, nurses, pharmacists) don’t really question anything. They’re so busy (the workloads are so heavy!) that they just do what the “guidelines” say to do, rather than look at individuals and what makes sense.
When I was a student, clinical pathways or guidelines were a new thing, and now they’ve become essentially law - if you don’t follow treatment guidelines with what you recommend for a patient, you can be sued. The “art” of medicine has, for all practical purposes, disappeared. Now it’s the Law of Medicine.
5. What is your biggest critique of mainstream medicine?
Margaret: Guideline-driven medicine. Most people have no idea about this and the effect on their health. It makes everyone fit into the same box, and it drives your doctor’s treatment within that box instead of individualizing it. [Everyone gets same drug, same dose.]
Doctors don’t THINK anymore - they just do what they’re told. The only guideline I think is unquestionable is the one for cardiac arrest - follow that emergency clinical pathway, for sure. Otherwise, it’s all about hooking patients on drugs.
6. Have you chosen to vaccinate anyone in your family?
Up to 6 months, yes. But not all of them. At that point, I pulled the plug on vaccines (see here why), as well as our pediatrician. Now I use religious waivers. Unfortunately, after the vaccines, one of my children became very lethargic. I had been researching them a lot up until then, and I decided to stop vaccinating. From that point on I focused on nursing and boosting immunity naturally.
Later in life, my child was allergic to virtually all nuts and sesame. It didn’t run in our family. I researched the sesame and found that the allergy is increasing in places like Asia and Israel, where most vaccines are in sesame oil.
Oils in vaccines don’t have to be labeled because they’re considered not active ingredients, and they may vary on the lot. Manufacturers break up lots of vaccines and ship them all over, so that there’s no pattern to any reactions. Unfortunately, this can lead to the onslaught of allergic reactions.
7. Do you get the flu shot?
Margaret: We never get the flu shot. I’ve read the entire package insert and can take on anyone who tries to tell me that it is useful with just that information alone.
It doesn’t work.
If you read the package insert, you’ll see that in the non-treated group, 4% got the flu. In the treatment arm, about 2% got the flu. So your risk of getting the flu is only 4% anyway. They got the 50% reduction in flu from simple math — 2% is half of 4%. But your odds of NOT getting the flu are 96%.
If you put it that way, then the shot is not very compelling, is it? But they made it sound like it was, by telling you your risk was reduced by 50% without telling you what the real odds of getting the flu were in the first place.
My years in pharma taught me just how clinical trials are designed to show the planned outcome — they aren’t real studies at all.
8. You mentioned, “My years in pharma taught me how clinical trials are designed to show the planned outcome - they aren’t real studies at all.” Can you explain what this means for the average American with respect to vaccines?
Margaret: Study design is not complicated. You have your null hypothesis, which supposes that there is no difference. And you have your hypothesis, which supposes that there IS a difference.
To prove your hypothesis, you usually need such a big number of people that the study is too expensive to conduct. So they go cheap and do smaller studies that show numerical differences, but not statistically significant differences…and they run with that. All they ever need to do is show that their drug is not worse than the other drug, and they win. Then they can do a marketing spin with the data, like they have with the flu vaccine.
9. In your experience, how is the truth about vaccines being covered up?
Margaret: Studies and the lack of studies. The studies that are currently out there - even those for vaccine approvals - quite clearly show there are serious side effects. We don’t know who is most at risk, yet the uniform mandate that all these vaccines be given is forced on all of us.
People deny that there are serious side effects, and that makes me crazy because the package insert for the vaccines themselves say there are side effects! There is not one other drug where the dose is the same no matter how big the child is…and that is troubling. We should be studying why some children react badly. There are genetic differences among us that influence the efficacy or safety of other drugs…yet if you question vaccines, you’re called “Jenny McCarthy” or you’re told you don’t know the science.
But I DO know the science, and the science is not being examined at all. That’s irresponsible.
10. In your professional opinion, should ALL people be required by law to take vaccines?
Margaret: No. Unlike most other drugs that you could stop taking if you had a reaction, you can’t take back a vaccine. A person’s body is so precious, and even if he’s a total looney tunes, he has a right to say no to a drug. It’s not like saying no to breathing! And it’s not like smoking around children- that is so clearly dangerous, we all know that.
At one time, smoking was said to be helpful to athletes and was even promoted for athletic performance! The tide turned on smoking, once someone blew that whistle.
There have been whistle-blowers for vaccines, yet the train for mandates keeps on going. When you look at the incidence of chronic conditions among children today, you have to ask, “Why?” Is it our food quality? Is it vaccines? Is it air and water pollution? Is it chemicals in our homes? Because we don’t know for sure, it should not be mandated.
11. What do you think about how vaccines are being pushed - and sometimes even forced - on everyone?
Margaret: They’ve done a very good job of psychological indoctrination. Most people believe vaccines have saved millions of lives from “HORRIBLE” diseases like measles, mumps, and even chickenpox. But when I ask people why they think those diseases were chosen for vaccines, as opposed to something like HIV, they have no answer. The answer is simple…making a vaccine for measles was easy. Making one for HIV is very hard. So drug development went the path of least resistance.
Then once a vaccine existed, suddenly the disease was proclaimed to be killing millions when it never did. Chickenpox is a great example. Everyone in my childhood had chickenpox and not one person I knew died or even had serious complications. By the way, the rationale for the development of the chickenpox vaccine was entirely economic — to avoid parents missing work. It was never about the disease itself being fatal.
But once they had the vaccine, they then proclaimed that chickenpox was such a serious disease.
12. What is your biggest concern about vaccines and our kids today?
Margaret: We don’t know the long-term impact of what they’ve been given. We know now that there were simian viruses in the measles vaccines given in the 60s, and those simian viruses were oncogenic, meaning cancer-causing.
There are also some very good animal studies that show an increase in autoimmune diseases in vaccinated primates. I worry most about the link with autoimmune diseases like MS, Rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus.
13. What would you like parents to know about vaccines?
Margaret: I think people have to stop and take a reality check. Depending on the age of your parents, ask them if they had measles, mumps, chickenpox, or pertussis. Ask them if it was really bad or if they knew anyone who died. Don’t ask about polio. (Polio, by the way, still exists today under different names, so it was not eradicated by the vaccine, and most cases of polio are not paralytic.) I asked my own parents, and they said they had all those diseases, and they really weren’t a big deal.
The best treatment for measles is vitamin A. It’s a disease that is quite mild if you have adequate vitamin A. Everyone used to know that, which is why so many kids back in the day took Cod Liver oil. Being sick sometimes is a part of life.
We have to decide if we’re so terrified of ordinary diseases like measles that we would rather vaccinate against it and risk worse consequences like autoimmune diseases or cancer. I’d take measles over cancer any day.
We also need to educate parents that some of these diseases are actually MEANT to happen to children. Having some of these diseases triggers developmental processes in children. Just like a longitudinal study I saw where it was noted that children had growth spurts after they recovered from being ill. Being sick occasionally may actually be necessary for normal development.
14. What do you think needs to change in mainstream medicine?
That’s why you should offer to pay cash (if you can) when you see your doctors so that they have less incentive to promote these things on you.
And stop allowing the marketing of drugs to the public. When that was approved, all of this craziness was unleashed. It’s been very detrimental ever since, because the media will never question something they make money from. Once they no longer make advertising money from drug companies, then the real questions will be asked.
If people think the only reason any drug or vaccine was developed was to do “good,” they need to think again. Drug companies have marketing departments just like any other industry. It’s all about sales and how to convince (or force) you to take this drug, or get that vaccine.
Duke Study Finds A "Legacy Of Radioactivity," Contamination From Thousands Of Fracking Wastewater Spills June 3 2016 | From: Desmog
Years of lax policy making and too many wells being inspected by too few officials means that a massive amount of pollution is being pumped into the wilderness of North Dakota.
Thousands of oil and gas industry wastewater spills in North Dakota have caused “widespread” contamination from radioactive materials, heavy metals and corrosive salts, putting the health of people and wildlife at risk, researchers from Duke University concluded in a newly released peer-reviewed study.
Many cities and towns draw their drinking water from rivers and streams, though federal law generally requires drinking water to be treated before it reaches peoples' homes, and the scientists did not test tap water as part of their research.
High levels of lead - the same heavy metal that infamously contaminated water in Flint, Michigan - as well as the radioactive element radium, were discovered near spill sites. One substance, selenium, was found in the state's waters at levels as high as 35 times the federal thresholds set to protect fish, mussels, and other wildlife, including those that people eat.
The pollution was found on land as well as in water. The soils in locations where wastewater spilled were laced with significant levels of radium, and even higher levels of radium were discovered in the ground downstream from the spills' origin points, showing that radioactive materials were soaking into the ground and building up as spills flowed over the ground, the researchers said.
The sheer number of spills in the past several years is striking. All told, the Duke University researchers mapped out a total of over 3,900 accidental spills of oil and gas wastewater in North Dakota alone.
Contamination remained at the oldest spill site tested, where roughly 300 barrels of wastewater were released in a spill four years before the team of researchers arrived to take samples, demonstrating that any cleanup efforts at the site had been insufficient.
"Unlike spilled oil, which starts to break down in soil, these spilled brines consist of inorganic chemicals, metals and salts that are resistant to biodegradation,” said Nancy Lauer, a Duke University Ph.D. student who was lead author of the study, which was published in Environmental Science & Technology.
“They don't go away; they stay. This has created a legacy of radioactivity at spill sites,” she said.
The highest level of radium the scientists found in soil measured over 4,600 Bequerels per kilogram [bq/kg] — which translates to roughly two and half times the levels of fracking-related radioactive contamination discovered in Pennsylvania in a 2013 report that drew national attention.
To put those numbers in context, under North Dakota law, waste over 185 bq/kg is considered too radioactive to dispose in regular landfills without a special permit or to haul on roads without a specific license from the state.
And that radioactive contamination - in some places over 100 times the levels of radioactivity as found upstream from the spill - will be here to stay for millennia, the researchers concluded, unless unprecedented spill clean-up efforts are made.
"The results of this study indicate that the water contamination from brine spills is remarkably persistent in the environment, resulting in elevated levels of salts and trace elements that can be preserved in spill sites for at least months to years,” the study concluded.
“The relatively long half-life of [Radium 226] (∼1600 years) suggests that [Radium] contamination in spill sites will remain for thousands of years.”
Cleanup efforts remain underway at three of the four sites that the Duke University research team sampled, a North Dakota State Health Department official asked to comment on the research told the Bismarck Tribune, while the fourth site had not yet been addressed. He criticized the researchers for failing to include any in-depth testing of sites where the most extensive types of cleanup efforts had been completed.
The four sites the researchers sampled instead included the locations of two of the biggest spills in the state's history, including a spill of 2.9 million gallons in January 2015, and two areas where smaller spills occurred in 2011. The samples from the sites were collected in June 2015, with funding from the National Science Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
Over the past decade, roughly 9,700 wells have been drilled in North Dakota's Bakken shale and Bottineu oilfield region - meaning that there has been over one spill reported to regulators for every three wells drilled.
"Until now, research in many regions of the nation has shown that contamination from fracking has been fairly sporadic and inconsistent,” Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, said when the study was released.
“In North Dakota, however, we find it is widespread and persistent, with clear evidence of direct water contamination from fracking.”
Dealing with wastewater generated by drilling and fracking has proved to be one of the shale industry's most intractable problems. The industry often pumps its toxic waste underground in a process known as wastewater injection.
Every day, roughly 2 billion gallons of oil and gas wastewater are injected into the ground nationwide, the EPA estimates. Wastewater injection has been linked to swarms of earthquakes that have prompted a series of legal challenges.
The sheer volume of waste generated by the industry - particularly from the type of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing used to tap shale oil and gas - has often overwhelmed state regulators, especially because federal laws leave the waste exempt from hazardous waste handling laws, no matter how toxic or dangerous it might be, under an exception for the industry carved out in the 1980's.
This leaves policing fracking waste up to state inspectors, and not only do the rules vary widely from state to state, but enforcing those rules brings its own difficulties.
State inspectors have faced escalating workloads as budgets have often failed to keep pace with the industry's rapid expansion. In North Dakota, the number of wells per inspector climbed from roughly 359 each in 2012 to 500 per inspector last year. In other states, the ratios are even more challenging, with Wyoming oil and gas well inspectors being responsible for more than 2,900 wells in 2015.
And now, with the collapse of oil and gas prices, funds earmarked for oil and gas inspection have also nosedived in many states.
Lax enforcement may help explain why wastewater spills are so common across the U.S. More than 180 million gallons of wastewater was spilled between 2009 and 2014, according to an investigation by the Associated Press, which tallied the amount of wastewater spilled in the 21,651 accidents that were reported to state or federal regulators nationwide during that time.
The naturally occurring radioactive materials in that wastewater have drawn particular concern, partly because of their longevity in the environment and partly because the drilling industry enjoys looser federal standards for their radioactive waste than many other industries.
In January, North Dakota regulators further relaxed their standards for the dumping of radioactive materials, allowing many landfills in the state to accept drilling waste at levels higher than previously permitted, citing tough economic times for drillers.
But environmentalists argue that relaxing the rules for radioactive waste disposal could mean that radioactive materials receive less careful handling.
"If people think this study points to a building tragedy, just wait,” Darrell Dorgan, who chairs the North Dakota Energy Industry Waste Coalition, told the Bismarck Tribune, when the Duke University research was released. "'The new rules allow radioactive waste that is 10 times more dangerous.”
The spills the Duke University researchers identified often resulted from a failure to maintain infrastructure including pipelines and storage tanks. Roughly half of the wastewater spilled came from failed pipelines, followed by leaks from valves and other pipe connectors, and then tank leaks or overflows.
But recent floods in Texas's Eagle Ford shale region also highlight the risks that natural disasters in drilling regions might pose. Texas regulators photographed plumes of contamination around submerged drilling sites, a repeat of similar incidentsin Colorado.
Risks associated with fracking in flood zones have drawn the attention of some federal agencies in the past, but perhaps not in a way that locals in affected areas might find helpful.
In 2012, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program - a program designed to help people move away from areas subject to recurring floods - ran into a series of conflicts over oil and gas leases on properties that would otherwise be offered buy-outs. Some homeowners in Pennsylvania were denied the chance to participate in the program because of oil and gas leases or pipelines on their properties, as DeSmog previously reported.
In other words, it may be harder for those who have signed oil and gas or pipeline leases to abandon flood-prone areas, meaning that homeowners whose properties frequently flood could potentially face battles over cleanup costs without aid from FEMA.
And the newly published research from North Dakota suggests that the less visible brines may ultimately be more of a long-lasting environmental hazard than the spilled oil.
Even though their study included only leaks that were reported to state regulators, the researchers warned that little is currently being done to clean up sites where spills have occurred - or even to track smaller spills, especially on reservation lands, where roughly a quarter of the state's oil is produced.
This means that the real amount of wastewater spilled is likely even higher than currently reported.
"Many smaller spills have also occurred on tribal lands,” Prof. Vengosh said, “and as far as we know, no one is monitoring them.”
Chemtrail Flu: Have You Got It Yet? June 1 2016 | From: HealthFreedoms
You’re sick. Your nose is stuffy. Your body aches, You’re sweaty, coughing, sneezing and you don’t have enough energy to get out of bed.
It’s not the flu according to Dr. Len Horowitz. His opinion is not based on conspiracy theory but on conspiracy fact. Over the past 10 years, Horowitz has become America’s most controversial medical authority. A university-trained medical researcher, Horowitz, 48, charges that elements of the United States government are conspiring with major pharmaceutical companies to make large segments of the population sick.
The mainstream media is reporting that hospital emergency rooms are jammed with patients suffering from a bizarre upper respiratory infection that doesn’t quite seem like a virus. They are reporting that it’s a “mystery” flu and that the flu vaccines are ineffective against it. “That’s all hogwash, bogus nonsense”, says Dr. Leonard Horowitz. "The fact of the matter is, we have seen this type of an epidemic since the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999. People have been hacking and coughing with this bizarre illness that does not seem to follow any logical viral or bacterial onset and transition period.
If it was a really bacterial or a viral infection, it would have caused a fever but it didn’t It lasts for weeks, if not months. Sinus congestion, sinus drainage, cough, fatigue, general malaise. People have been feeling “off”.
The Armed Forces Research Institute of Pathology has registered a patent for the pathogenic micoplasma that is causing the epidemic. You can see the patent report in the book, Healing Codes for the Biblical Apocalypse.
Micoplasma is not really a fungus, it’s not really a bacteria, it’s not really a virus. It has no cell wall. It goes deep into the cell nuclei thereby making it very difficult to mount an immune response against it. It’s a man-made biological weapon.The patent report explains how it causes chronic upper respiratory infections that are virtually identical to what’s going on right now."
Chemtrails Destroy Your Immune Function
“I believe the chemtrails are responsible for a chemical intoxication of the public, which would then cause a general immune suppression, low grade to high grade, depending on exposure. The immune dysfunction allows people to become susceptible to opportunistic infections, such as this micoplasma and other opportunistic infections”, says Dr. Horowitz.
“I first began to investigate chemtrails when some were sprayed over my home in Northern Idaho. I took pictures of them, and then contacted the Environmental Protection Agency of the state who were clueless and referred me to the Air Force.
They got me in touch with Centers for Disease Control Toxicology, and after about a week I received a letter from one of their chief toxicologists saying, indeed there was some amount of ethylene dibromide in the jet fuel.
Ethylene dibromide is a known human chemical carcinogen that was removed from unleaded gasoline because of its cancer-causing effects. Now suddenly it has appeared in the jet fuel that high-altitude military aircraft are emitting!”
Ethylene dibromide is coming out of the jet fuels that is causing immune suppression and weakening people’s immune system. Then you’ve got a micoplasma microbe or a fungus that causes an upper respiratory illness. Suddenly you develop a secondary bacterial infection.
Now you get hit with ANTIBIOTICS, and the antibiotics cause your body chemistry to go acidic, so now you get rashes and other things, your liver gets full of toxins and comes out through your skin in rashes and they get hyperallergenic reactions associated with the other chemicals.
I’ve got colleagues in the Bahamas, Bermuda, Toronto, British Columbia all reporting the same bizarre seeding of the atmosphere. What is going on is just despicable. All of a sudden now you’ve got human beings completely out of balance and infected by two, three or four microbial co-factors as well as intoxicated by a variety of different chemicals… and you’ve got somebody who’s going to be chronically ill.
The Black Budget
"The Frank Church Congressional Hearings of 1975 exposed the Central Intelligence Agency biological weapons contracting firms – Litton Bionetics and the Army Corp of Engineers who were developing and utilizing various biological weapons on populations. And this is all done under black operations, covert operations, where they get funding and congressional people are never informed really where this money is going. It’s the black budget”, says Horowitz.
“And in the contemporary warfare arena, where experts in biological chemical warfare convene and discuss the ways that are ideal to conduct warfare today, to really take an enemy out, you don’t want to kill the people. You want to produce people who are chronically illand become dependant on the state and totally sap the resources of the country.
And then you can move in with your military-medical-industrial complex and your international medical-pharmaceutical cartel. Then you sell these defeated countries all of the pharmaceuticals and chemicals that they need to maintain any semblance of healthy function.
They’re completely depleted. They can’t put together a military. You create a dependence and thereby you weaken the population, and weakened populations are easy to control.
So you’ve got population control, and you make vast fortunes doing it, versus just blowing up a nuclear weapon and devastating the infrastructure that you own. You and your colleagues own that infrastructure.
You want to get rid of the people. You don’t want to get rid of infrastructure”
"What I’m relating to you now is not speculation. If you were to read the top experts analysis of military warfare, including The Report From Iron Mountain – the Rockefeller family is one of the major players in this conspiracy. They are one of the major players in world genocide, world population reduction. That’s no mystery anymore."
"When you examine who owns the chemtrail fuel, who are the fuel company directors, suddenly you enter into the realm of the Rockefeller family and the royal families – Standard Oil and British Petroleum. And what are their other agendas?
Suddenly now you see their documents, showing that they have funded, historically, eugenics, racial hygiene, genocide, depopulation, family planning, maternal and child health – where they make and deliver vaccines, and contaminated blood supplies.
These are the banksters, the same people who run the blood banking as well as the money banking industries”, says Dr. Horowitz.
“I reference a great book by Dr. John Coleman, who worked as a British Secret Service agent at the highest levels. And he articulated very clearly who was running those companies. It all goes back, ultimately, to the highest level of the royal family. The Bush family, Rothschild family, the Rockefeller money, and the entire Rockefeller establishment is based on Rothschild money and royal families.
If you can’t explain it rationally or any other way, I think you’ve got to begin to consider conspiracy theories and eliminate the negative label that you’ve placed on conspiracy theories which have been demonized along with wholistic medicine.”
America's Fourth Reich
The ruling crime families are making vast fortunes off of humanity’s suffering. The Rockefellers monopolized American medicine in the 1920s. They, along with I.G. Farben, Germany’s leading industrial organization, held the monopoly on the world’s chemical and pharmaceutical industries.
The Rockefellers and I.G. Farben worked together before World War II and during World War II. For all practical purposes, the Rockefellers and I.G. Farben were the Third Reich.
Who else is involved? The Merck Pharmaceutical Company. Their president, George W. Merck, was America’s biological weapons industry director during World War II. He was personally appointed by President Roosevelt and Secretary of War Stimson.
The Nazis planned for the New World Order. They even had a term for it – “neue Ordnung,” which means New Order, New World Order. This today, this New World Order, is the rise of the Fourth Reich. This is precisely what they envisioned and then carried out on a global scale. The goal of the Fourth Reich is population control and genocide.
99.99 percent of Masons have no clue what they’re really up to at the highest levels. they give you increased knowledge at every higher degree of Freemasonry. When you get beyond the 33rd degree, you get the highest indoctrination into what’s called the Ancient Arcana, the ancient sacred knowledge described in the book Healing Codes of the Biblical Apocalypse. That’s where the devil-doers who are running this planet are nesting.
How does a person become that high in the Masonic organization? Through bloodlines. You’ve got to be major royalty, major royalty, ideally a descendent or you’ve got to be somebody who is very close to the royalty, the major bloodlines.
Who Are They Targeting?
Who are they targeting for genocide? If there’s an attempt underway to reduce the population of the planet, why isn’t it happening?
Look at countries like those in Africa, Third World nations that have been heavily targeted with HIV/AIDS. And consider that 73 percent of HIV/AIDS patients in America today are Black or Hispanic. Statistically, 55 percent of gay men in America are already dead. Are you seeing depopulation specifically targeting minority groups now? Of course. It’s happening right now.
They don’t want to totally eliminate populations completely, just certain populations. And isn’t it, from their perspective, wonderful? They’ve got a covert depopulation agenda that nobody’s picked up on yet. It’s ideally what they want to produce.
It’s not just about the money. I think there’s a Satanic or evil ideology, because Nixon himself said, referring to the Rockefellers, – it’s not about money for these people, it’s about power.
The Monopoly Game
At the end of the Monopoly game, what do you do? One person wins, they own all of the real estate, they own all of the assets, they’ve wiped all the other players out and the game is over. You can out the game away in your closet. But you don’t do that on planet earth.
The person who wins at the end of this World Monopoly Game gets to rearrange the board. And that’s precisely what we’ve seen in the last year. You’ve seen not the biggest fish eating the biggest fish in international commerce, you have seen the mega-whales eating the mega-whales in these mega-mergers.
All these little companies that are producing your vitamins are a subsidiary of a major conglomerate. Today a Warner Lambert or Glaxo Wellcom, all of these huge, huge corporations own all the little fish. They buy them out. So, again, now the game board gets to be changed if they desire, and apparently that’s what they desire. That’s their agenda, you can see it.
At the Denver Airport, there’s a capstone, in the main terminal building dedicated to the New World Airport Commission by the Freemasons. And there’s a big colorful mural – that is dedicated to the extinct human species. And in the foreground, against the horrific backdrop of flames and destruction, there are three open coffins.
Build Up Your Immune System
Step 1: Detoxification.
Because we’ve all been fed Babylon’s harvest and eaten the toxic garbage that comes from Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Archer Daniel and all their genetically engineered foods and the chemicals and the fluorides and the chlorine’s we need to detox. An easy detoxification program using fresh squeezed lemonade that you make with maple syrup and fresh squeezed lemons and cayenne pepper.
Step 2: Deacidification
To change your body’s chemistry, make it more alkaline. It’s only in the acid state that the growth of bacteria, viruses, fungus, molds, and cancer, cancer cells thrive. They cannot grow in an alkaline environment. What causes your body chemistry to go acidic and become a breeding ground for the bacterial and infectious agents? Caffeine, nicotine, sugar, refined carbohydrates, alcohol, pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, red meats, stress – are the main causes. Eliminate or reduce them as much as possible.
Squeeze lemon juice into water. Lemon has a lot of calcium in it and it turns to calcium hydroxide in drinking water. That’s alkalising. It raises the PH of that water from about 7 to about 8. Hot cayenne pepper is one of the most alkalising agents you can put in your body. It detoxifies and deacidifies all in one step.
Step 3: Oxygenation
The Rockefeller-directed international banksters, blood banksters and medical monopolists have been busy suppressing your immune system. You want to raise your blood oxygen levels
Massive Government Study Concludes Cell Phone Radiation Causes Brain Cancer + The Effects Of Smartphone Light On Your Brain And Body May 31 2016 | From: NaturalNews / StopSmartMeters / Sott / Various
After decades of denials and attacks by the media which called people concerned about cell phone radiation "tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists," a massive, multi-year study funded by the federal government now concludes that yes, cell phone radiation causes brain cancer.
TThe study is published here and it's entitled, "Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD rats (Whole Body Exposures)."
"The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats," reports Scientific American:
"The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose-response relationship. Some of the rats had glioma -- a tumor of the glial cells in the brain -- or schwannoma of the heart.
Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations. In contrast, none of the control rats -- those not exposed to the radiation -- developed such tumors.
Consumer Reports also authored this story published on Yahoo Finance, which states, "The tumors found were gliomas (in the brain), and schwannomas (of the heart)." That same story goes on to report:
[T]he current study, which found the same types of tumors in rats that the earlier epidemiological research found in humans, was a controlled clinical trial; it was specifically designed to simulate the exposures of cell phone users, and all of the important parameters were tightly controlled and carefully monitored.
Rats and mice were exposed to the same kinds of radiation used in cell phones, for roughly nine hours each day, spread over the course of the day."
Another Government Cover-Up Shattered
In other words, the cell phone industry can no longer claim it's "bad science." This is rigorous science, and it shows a clear, dose-related causative link between exposure to cell phone radiation and the development of brain and heart tumors.
For decades, the government has actively conspired with industry to downplay any evidence linking cell phones to cancer. We see this across the federal government, of course, with the EPA downplaying the risks of pesticides, the FDA downplaying the risks of pharmaceuticals, the CDC downplaying the risks of vaccines and the USDA downplaying the risks of genetically engineered crops.
The entire federal government as it operates today is little more than the science propaganda and marketing arm of private industry. (Corporate-government collusion, by the way, is better known as economic Fascism.)
In all this, the role of the government-controlled media has long been to ridicule anyone who questions the official science propaganda on all these topics.
Think cell phones cause cancer? You're a kook. Worried about fluoride in the tap water? You're a nut case. Concerned about mercury in vaccines? You're an anti-science quack, we're told.
Except that now the truth is being exposed on all these fronts.
Now, even the government's own study shows that cell phone radiation causes cancerous tumors of the brain and heart. At the same time, independent science is increasingly exposing the harm of mercury in vaccines, GM crop chemicals like glyphosate, toxic pharmaceuticals and the mass fluoride poisoning of the water supply.
On all these issues, Natural News has always been right! (... and the establishment has always been in denial of reality.)
The CDC, for its conspiratorial part, yanked warnings about cell phone radiation from its website. (It's the Ministry of Truth, you see, and preventing the public from learning the truth is always the CDC's No. 1 priority...)
As Consumer Reports says in its story:
"The results of this large, long-term study could dramatically shift the national debate over cell phone safety. The NTP's website says that the results may be used by the Food and Drug Administration and the FTC in determining how best to protect consumers from the potential harms of radiation that comes from cell phones.
The CDC might also consider reinstating the cautions it pulled from its web site. (We've reached out to the agency for comment, and will update our story once we hear back from them).
Likewise, the cell phone industry may have to alter its stance. The wireless association trade group CTIA has maintained that cell phones are completely safe, and has fought to block San Francisco from passing laws that would require electronics retailers to notify consumers about the proper handling of cell phones."
Related: Live Blood Analysis - Observable Effects of RF/MW Radiation via Smart Meters
The Effects Of Smartphone Light On Your Brain And Body
You might not know this, but your smartphone emits a bright blue light which allows you to read what's on the screen even during the brightest points of the day.
But the light doesn't turn off or adjust according to the hour of the day; it's continually emitted, not only by our smartphones, but by our laptops, televisions, and other devices as well. The problem is that this light, which mimics the brightness of the sun, confuses your brain into thinking it's daytime, even during the dead of night.
This in turn stops your brain from releasing melatonin, the hormone which induces sleep, and prevents you from falling asleep. This is why experts recommend to turn off all screens at least two hours before bed.
Melatonin is released by a tiny organ in your brain called the pineal gland a couple of hours prior to sleep. The science of why the blue light emitted by mobile devices keeps people awake has led to the discovery of a photoreceptor called Melanopsin.
Though we've long been familiar with the various cones and rods that construct our vision, Melanopsin was discovered recently in retinal ganglion cells, which are sensitive to blue light. Since then, experimental research has found that the average person using mobile devices before bed may have difficulty falling and/or staying asleep.
The impact of blue light is even more significant for teenagers, who are more vulnerable to the effects of light than adults. This is because circadian rhythm naturally shifts during adolescence, causing teenagers to feel more awake late into the night. Starting up a video game or television show just before bedtime could be enough to push sleepiness away for another hour or two, making early mornings particularly difficult.
Blue Light Isn't The Only Concern
Dr. Martin Blank from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Colombia University has joined a group of scientists from around the world who are making an international appeal to the United Nations regarding the dangers associated with various electromagnetic emitting devices, like cellphones and WiFi.
There are multiple concerns with these devices, including their link to cancer. More concerning still is the fact that a child's brain absorbs up to four times as much radiation as that of an adult, and children today are growing up with these devices in hand. You can read more details about this here.
Our love for our screens is in itself a problem. In China, screen addiction is actually considered a clinical disorder, and as a result a number of rehabilitation centres have been established where young people addicted to screens are completely isolated from all media. Although the success of these treatment centres has yet to be established, their necessity paints a dark picture of the technological age in which we live. (source)
What You Can Do
The first thing you can do is limit your screen time before bed, turning all screens off at least two hours before you plan to fall asleep. This is the perfect time to catch up on your reading.
You can also download an app called f.lux, which adjusts the colour of your computer's display to the time of day - warm at night and brighter during the day - and cuts the blue light being emitted. There are similar apps for phones as well. All of us here at CE use these apps and have really noticed an improvement in our sleep quality.
Here is a page from their website that provides more research into what staring at screens can do to your sleep, as well as the science behind the f.lux app.
Regardless of whether you are worried about your sleep, we can all benefit from a daily break from our smartphones and other screens.
Iodine - Suppressed Knowledge That Can Change Your Life May 30 2016 | From: Sott
Given the highly toxic state most people find themselves in, the rapidly changing environment which we live in, and the incredible ability that iodine has to strengthen people's health and improve their lives, I decided to write the following summary about iodine supplementation as an introduction to the subject.
Iodine is an essential micro-nutrient. This means every single cell of every single person needs it. Evolutionary biologists reckon that seafood consumption, and thus iodine absorption, played an important role in human brain development and evolution. Iodine also has excellent antibacterial, anticancer, antiparasitic, antifungal, and antiviral properties.
Unfortunately, iodine deficiency in the general population is of pandemic proportions in our modern world due to iodine's displacement in our bodies by environmental toxins such as bromide, pesticides, and food additives. Modern farming techniques have also led to deficiencies of iodine and other minerals in the soil. Thus, crops grown in iodine-deficient soil are deficient in iodine.
Certain diets and lifestyles can also predispose a person to develop iodine deficiency. Those who eat a lot of bakery products (breads, pasta, etc), which contain high amounts of bromide, are at risk. So are vegetarians and those who don't like sea food, sea vegetables or salt.
According to Dr. Brownstein, author of Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It, about one-third of the global populations live in a region of iodine deficiency. He and other iodine researchers have tested thousands of people, and found consistent results: approximately 96% of patients test low for iodine.
The World Health Organization has recognized that iodine deficiency is the world's greatest single cause of preventable mental retardation. Iodine deficiency has been identified as a significant public health problem in 129 countries and up to 72% of the world's population is affected by an iodine deficiency disorder.
The following illnesses are related to iodine deficiency:
Autoimmune thyroid illnesses
Fibrocystic breast disease
What's more, iodine has been used to treat the following conditions:
Excess mucous production
Headaches and migraine headaches
Parotid duct stones
Heavy metal poisoning (mercury, lead, arsenic)
Bronchitis and pneumonia
Type 2 diabetes
Small intestine bacterial overgrowth
The broad cross-section of conditions improved thanks to iodine supplementation is a big clue to the nutrient's importance and widespread deficiency.
According to Lynne Farrow, author of The Iodine Crisis, iodine's medicinal use dates back 15,000 years. It was the first treatment of choice in the 19th century for tumors and aggressive diseases of obscure origin. Farrow also argues that the notion that refined iodized salt is sufficient to meet our daily needs has been the most dangerous misconception about iodine.
According to Farrow's and Brownstein's research, only 10% of the iodine in salt gets absorbed, at best. Most people today avoid refined salts due to health concerns, and due to the misconception that salt (of any kind) is bad for cardiovascular health.
Iodine's RDA is 150mcg (micrograms, which equals 0.15mg), an established calculation based on how much iodine the thyroid gland needs to avoid goiter. Other organs' requirements aren't factored into this number. In addition to that, the effects of widespread iodine-blocking pollutants introduced during the last century were never considered in this calculation.
Our Toxic World
Even if you manage to consume some four pounds of fresh seafood daily in order to meet your iodine requirement, you can't live in a clean bubble on this planet. The Fukushima nuclear plant disaster alone is likely to have contaminated much of the world's seaweed, an important source of dietary iodine. Then there are the 2,053 nuclear explosions conducted all over the world from the 1940s to the 1990s, and more recently the depleted uranium munitions used in America's wars. Let's not forget about Chernobyl either.
It is known that radioactive iodine, used in many medical procedures, will further exacerbate an iodine deficiency problem. Also, exposure to many chemicals that inhibit iodine binding in the body (e.g., bromide, fluoride, chloride) further worsens the problem. Many countries still fluoridate their water despite evidence of its health hazards. What's worse is that fluoride is even more toxic when there is an iodine deficiency.
The good news is that iodine supplementationin the proper amounts increases urinary excretion of heavy metals such as lead and mercury, and has a detoxifying effect by increasing excretion of fluoride, bromide and chloride derivatives. This is very important since bromine, fluoride, and chloride are toxic halides, which compete with each other for absorption and receptor-binding in the body.
Perchlorate - a chlorine compound - damages the iodine transport system in our bodies. It may cause cancer and weakening of the immune system, even at low levels. Perchlorate is used in countless industrial products - from everyday applications like car air bags and leather tanning to rocket fuel.
Bromine intoxication is associated with delirium, psychomotor retardation, schizophrenia and hallucinations. People who ingest bromine feel dull and apathetic and have difficulty concentrating. Bromide can also cause severe depression, headaches and irritability. These symptoms can be present even with low levels of bromine in the diet.
Dr. Brownstein explains how bromine interferes with iodine utilization in the thyroid, and anywhere else iodine concentrates in the body. Due to their interference with iodine-binding in the body, bromine and fluoride are known as "goitrogens" - they promote the formation of goiter. Bromine and fluoride are toxic substances with no therapeutic use in our bodies.
Bromine, a known carcinogen, can also bind to iodine receptors in the breast. Women with breast cancer have much larger amounts of the toxic halides bromine and fluoride compared to women without breast cancer. On the other hand, iodine has anti-carcinogenic properties.
Women's breasts are major sites for iodine storage. Maintaining adequate iodine levels are necessary to ensure an adequately functioning thyroid gland and normal breast architecture, as well as maintaining normal structure in all glands throughout the body.
"All of the glands of the body depend on adequate iodine levels to function optimally. Animal studies have shown problems with the adrenal glands, the thymus gland, the ovaries, the hypothalamus and pituitary axis, as well as the entire endocrine system, when there is an iodine deficient state.
In fact, the ovaries have the second highest concentration of iodine in the body next to the thyroid gland. An iodine-deficient state will lead to an imbalanced hormonal system. lt is impossible to have a balanced hormonal system without ensuring an adequate iodine intake.
Large amounts of iodine are also stored in many other areas of the body including the salivary glands, cerebrospinal fluid and the brain, gastric mucosa, choroid plexus,breasts, ovaries, and the ciliary body of the eye. In the brain, iodine concentrates in the substantia nigra, an area of the brain that has been associated with Parkinson's disease."
According to Dr. Guy E. Abraham, 'medical iodophobia' - the unwarranted fear of using and recommending inorganic, non-radioactive iodine/iodide - may have caused more human misery and death than both World Wars combined by preventing meaningful clinical research in the daily amount of iodine needed for optimal physical and mental health.
Abraham was one of the world's leading researchers on iodine, suggesting that the required daily intake of iodine necessary for maintaining iodine sufficiency for the whole body was 13mg per day.
At sufficiency, the thyroid gland holds a total of approximately 50mg of iodine. The thyroid gland needs approximately 6mg/day of iodine for sufficiency.
The breasts need at least 5mg of iodine; that leaves 2mg of iodine for the rest of the body. Others suggest, based on Dr. Guy E. Abraham's research, that healthy individuals need 1-3 mg/day as a maintenance dose. This is still well above the RDA of 150ug/day of iodine!
Many healthcare professionals are scared of iodine due to ignorance of its biochemistry and physiology. They've been led to believe that iodine causes hypothyroidism, when in reality it helps to normalize thyroid function. One of the reasons for this misconception is due to high TSH levels in iodine therapy. TSH (Thyroid-stimulating hormone) is a test to monitor thyroid function. It usually rises when there is hypothyroidism. However, as Dr. Brownstein explains:
"TSH has another function besides stimulating thyroid hormone production. It also helps stimulate the body's production of the iodine transport molecules - the sodium-iodide symporter (NIS). Without adequate amounts of NIS, iodine would not be able to enter the cells and be utilized. [...]
[An] iodine-deficient patient's body does not require a large amount of NIS since there is little iodine that needs to be transported into the cells. However, when this individual begins to supplement with iodine, the extra iodine now needs to be transported into the cells. One way the body will accomplish this is to increase the production of TSH to stimulate more NIS. [...]
How long does TSH stay elevated? l have found that TSH may remain elevated for up to 6 months before lowering to normal. How high do TSH levels rise? The normal TSH level ranges from 0.5-4.5mlU/L. l have witnessed TSH levels elevated to 5-30mlU/L for a period of time sometimes up to six months-before falling back to the normal range. [...] The TSH will decline back to the reference range after the thyroid gland is saturated with iodine."
Iodine does not cause hypothyroidism. On the contrary, the main thyroid hormones, T4 and T3, require enough iodine in order to be produced. When an individual is iodine-deficient, hypothyroidism results because there is not enough raw material to produce T4 and T3.
Supplementing with iodine can improve or even heal hypothyroidism without the use of synthetic drugs. Moreover, research suggests that taking thyroid hormone when iodine deficiency is present can worsen the iodine deficiency as the body's metabolic rate increases.
Dr. Brownstein reports how taking thyroid hormone when iodine deficiency is present increases the risk of breast cancer and possibly other cancers as well. Anything that lowers the body's iodine stores or increases the body's need for it could be predicted to make things worse.
Another misconception is that iodine is contraindicated in autoimmune thyroid diseases such as Grave's disease and Hashimoto's. In reality, it is those who are iodine-deficient who are at an increased risk of developing antibodies against the thyroid gland.
Autoimmune disorders - including thyroid ones - are examples of excess oxidative stress in the body. Oxidative stress is inflammation in the body and it is akin to a fire burning. You can put the fire out with the appropriate "water": anti-oxidants, unrefined salt, nutrients, an anti-inflammatory diet (gluten-free, non-GMO, moderated in carbohydrates AND with plenty of animal fat).
People afflicted with autoimmune thyroid disorders need to take specific nutrients along with iodine in order to heal the damage done by so much oxidative stress and lack of iodine.
Is there a condition when iodine is actually dangerous? Yes, and it is extremely rare. My main past concerns on iodine are related to what Dr. Brownstein shared in his book:
"Does iodine therapy cause hyperthyroidism? l was taught in medical school that it did, especially in patients suffering from autoimmune thyroid disorders such as Graves' or Hashimoto's disease. Young doctors-in-training are still taught this today. So, let me answer the question: Very rarely.
Between my partners and myself, we estimate that over 12 years, less than 10 patients out of thousands treated became hyperthyroid when treated with iodine.
When I lecture to doctors, l tell them one particular condition can predispose to iodine-induced hyperthyroidism. This condition occurs in a patient who has an autonomously functioning nodule in their thyroid. Sometimes this is referred to as a hot nodule on a thyroid scan.
An autonomously functioning nodule is not under the feedback control of the pituitary and the hypothalamus. It functions independently of the thyroid gland. When iodine is present, these nodules can take up the iodine and produce copious amounts of thyroid hormone leading to hyperthyroidism. This condition can be diagnosed with a thyroid scan. However, it is most frequently diagnosed after a trial of iodine therapy is given and the patient becomes hyperthyroid after taking the first couple of doses.
How do you treat a patient with an autonomously functioning thyroid nodule? These patients must avoid iodine supplements and food (such as seaweed ) that is high in iodine UNTIL the nodule is surgically removed."
Given the pervasive misconceptions about such an extremely beneficial substance as iodine, one may wish to consider how greater knowledge and use of it may be purposefully suppressed. As has previously been observed and analyzed on Sott.net, there are numerous ways in which the Western allopathic approach to medicine has led so many individuals astray on the road to living a truly healthy life.
Among those we've seen are the benefits of a low-carb, high animal fat diet, supplementation with vitamins and other vital nutrients, the modes and reasons for detoxification, etc.
But given the huge amounts of money and power that Big Pharma and other health-related industries stand to make by actually keeping people in poor health, it is no wonder that so many of us still are!
Still, at the end of the day, whether the ignorance of the larger modern medical community to employ iodine and other holistic healing approaches is due to simple ignorance, or more nefarious reasons, the fact is that now, in light of this invaluable information about iodine, we can choose to take responsibility for our own health with this powerhouse approach. But the choice is ours to make of course.
Take enough iodine. As mentioned above, the RDA for iodine does not provide nearly enough for the body. Most people need from 12-50mg/day of a combination of iodine and iodide in the form of lugol's solution or tableted lugol's solution. Others need much less.
There are several percentages available of lugol's solution, but don't angst over them. You can use the following table as a rough guide:
Lugol's content per drop
Start with a single drop of lugol's solution after breakfast and build up by one drop every three days until a balance of general well being is achieved. Starting with the lowest dose and building up while detox reactions are managed would be the reasonable thing to do.
Avoid taking lugol after 4pm as it can energize and give insomnia if taken too late. Antimicrobial doses for lugol's solution and potassium iodide are also discussed in the forum thread on iodine.
Take vitamins B2 (riboflavin) and B3 (niacinamide) in order to stimulate the proper functioning of the NADPH system - this will help metabolize iodine properly, decrease the formation of damaging auto-antibodies and ensure enough energy production in the form of ATP. How much? 100mg of B2 and 500mg of B3 twice per day.
Take antioxidants in order to decrease the fire of oxidative damage. Vitamin C 3-10 grams throughout the day. Take 3 grams of vitamin C at least one hour after your lugol dose, preferably two hours later. You can repeat the dose according to bowel tolerance if there are strong detox reactions triggered by the iodine. Avoid taking vitamin C after 4pm as it can give insomnia due to its energizing effects.
Take magnesium, 300-600mg per day. Magnesium helps with detox reactions as it participates in +300 detox pathways in the body. Magnesium also acts against excess intracellular calcium levels which fuel oxidative stress. Magnesium glycinate is a favored one.
Take selenium or L-selenomethionine 200mcg per day. Safe range: 100mcg-400mcg. Adequate selenium levels are necessary for regulating thyroid function and iodine metabolism. If selenium is deficient, autoimmune thyroid disorders can develop. Selenium is important for activating thyroid hormones and it decreases side effects of iodine therapy.
Protect the liver. Take N-acetylcysteine (600-1200mg per day), alpha lipoic acid (200-600mg) or milk thistle.
Drink enough water and take unrefined salted water in order to detoxify bromide. Chloride is an effective competitive inhibitor of toxic bromide and unrefined salt is sodium chloride. It is impossible to lower bromide compounds in the body if you don't ingest unrefined salt, some 1-1.5 teaspoons per day. An adequate intake of unrefined salt in the body is also essential to minimize inflammatory oxidative stress. Take at least 1/4 teaspoon of unrefined salt in 8 oz. of water upon rising and at least twice a day. Make sure to take your lugol away from the salted water, at least 40 min-1 hour.
1/2 to 1 tsp of sea salt in a tall glass of water upon arising.
Lugol's (start with lowest dose) after breakfast or meals, don't take it after 4pm (it energizes you).
200 mg of B2 (riboflavin) per day. Can be taken in two doses with your lugols.
1000 mg of B3 (niacinamide) taken in two doses with lugols.
200 mcg selenium (not more!) ONCE a day with morning dose.
3 to 10 grams of vitamin C - divide into two doses taken an hour after lugols.
500 mg of magnesium - glycinate is excellent - taken at night.
Protect the liver with NAC, ALA and/or milk thistle.
Chest Infections: Bronchial & Pneumonia
Comment: It has been noted that a super supplement combination of Iodine + MSM (see below) + Magnesium is extermely powerful in defeating the serious and long lasting chest infections that have become prevalent in recent years.
Symptoms of bromide toxicity can be present even with low levels of bromide in the diet. If there is an iodine deficiency, bromide toxicity is accelerated. Unfortunately, bromide toxicity is very common. It is used as an antibacterial agent for pools and hot tubs. It is also used in pesticides and in some medications.
Bromide toxicity leads to thyroid problems including autoimmune ones. The body can eliminate bromide only when there is sufficient iodine available.
One single drop of lugol's solution will start to detoxify the bromide accumulated in your body.
Bromide detox reactions triggered by iodine may include:
Eye lid twitching
Tingling in hands or feet
Mouth and tongue sores and cuts
Acne-like lesions (zinc can sometimes help with these)
Odd swallowing sensation
Unusual urine color or odor
Frequent urination which is commonly mistaken for urinary infection
And so forth...
In order to palliate these detox symptoms, make sure you drink enough salted water and take at least the recommended supplements listed above. You can do pulse-dosing iodine where you stop taking iodine for at least 48 hours to let your body and kidneys clear out the bromide. Notice that if the detox symptoms developed when you were increasing your iodine dose, you can always back off your dose to a lower one.
If you have a FIR sauna blanket, you can use it in order to help detoxify any toxic mobilized by the iodine.
Always Do Your Own Research
This article does not constitute medical advice or serve as a substitute for doing your own research to acquire the appropriate knowledge on iodine therapy.
It is our conclusion that widespread knowledge of the many benefits of iodine is being suppressed. Even if iodine is generally well known, it has now become clear how grossly undervalued it is and how little is known about its potential to transform human health.
Comment: We encourage readers to do their own research about this substance and, as always, first consult with their physician before experimenting with iodine supplementation.
Low-Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet Advice Questioned May 28 2016 | From: Scoop
Experts are questioning the findings of a new report from UK health charities that has called for an overhaul of dietary guidelines.
The report, titled Eat Fat, Cut The Carbs and Avoid Snacking To Reverse Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes, was published by the Public Health Collaboration and the National Obesity Foundation, two UK-based charities.
Citing a number of studies, the authors conclude that a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet of real foods is an "acceptable, effective and safe approach" to weight loss and health.
The Science Media Centre gathered the following expert commentary on the report.
Prof Jim Mann, Professor of Nutrition, University of Otago, comments:
"Eat fat and cut the carbs to reverse obesity and type 2 diabetes' - Such a statement which questions conventional wisdom and relates to a critically important health issue is bound to attract attention. This is the title on a Report which comes up with 10 key points, the first two being particularly controversial:
Eating fat doesn’t make you fat
Saturated fat doesn’t cause heart disease
These suggestions are not new. Does this report, which comes from a group called The National Obesity Forum, provide confirmation? One should always be open to new information but I would suggest that this report contributes little.
The Forum comprises a group of self-selected individuals most of whom have repeatedly expressed similar views in the lay and health-related media for many years. They do not represent any recognized professional group and most have not themselves undertaken relevant research. The report itself is not peer reviewed.
The report is largely based on selective quotations from the relevant literature. There are many mistakes but the reference (or failure to refer) to the relevant papers commissioned by the Nutrition Guidance Advisory Group of the WHO serves as a good example.
The report quotes one of the papers by De Souza et al ‘saturated fat intake was not associated with all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, total CHD, ischaemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes’.
However it does not mention the limitations which the authors discuss, nor does it quote the two other studies which may help to inform WHO opinion and which demonstrated:
(a) that those who choose to restrict their total fat intake tend to have a lower body weight and;
(b) that replacement of saturated fat with unsaturated fat in randomised controlled clinical trials is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease events.
All these studies were based on meta-analyses which aggregate the results of all available appropriate studies and were published in world leading peer reviewed journals. The report also does not discuss the limitations of the studies used to support the arguments.
Also missing is a full consideration of the long term trials comparing different nutritional approaches to weight loss. These clearly show that although high fat diets may produce a greater weight loss in the short term, in the longer term the extent of weight loss is dependent on the degree of compliance with the dietary advice regardless of the diet composition, i.e. there is nothing special about high fat diets.
People lose weight if they reduce their calorie intake assuming their energy expenditure remains unchanged.
There are some points in the report which are perfectly reasonable e.g. ‘you can’t outrun a bad diet’ and ‘ industrial vegetable oils should be avoided’ and some which are rather more complex than the Report suggests:
For example, it is absolutely true that people at risk of type 2 diabetes need to limit starchy and refined carbohydrates but this may not apply across the board and needs further explanation, e.g. in China people are consuming less of their traditional food, i.e. rice and more fat AND they are getting fatter and diabetes rates are increasing dramatically.
If only life was as simple as the self-styled experts suggest!"
Our colleagues at the UK SMC collected the following commentary:
Dr Gunter Kuhnle, nutritional scientist at the University of Reading, comments:
"As with any public health measure, it is important that any recommendations are based on solid evidence, and take the wider implications of implementation into account. That doesn’t seem to be the case in this instance.
There is only very limited evidence on the long-term impact of using dietary fat as the main source of calories. There are only very few long-term studies, and they do not suggest that cutting back on carbohydrate is as beneficial to health as it is claimed.
Virtually no research has been carried out to show the impact of recommending a very low carbohydrate diet to the general public. It could even be very damaging to public health.
The document presents as fact what has not even achieved consensus in the scientific community, such as the role of fat and carbohydrates, and for which there is only very little evidence.
By doing so, it could confuse consumers, and also make discussions within the scientific community and the general public more difficult. In the long term, this is likely to have an adverse effect on public health, as it leads to ‘advice fatigue’.
Obesity and type 2 diabetes are among the most important health challenges we face. Both conditions put a huge burden on society and the NHS and result in a lot of personal hardship. It is therefore vital that we find ways to prevent and treat these conditions. The call for more evidence-based nutritional advice is very welcome.”
Prof Susan Jebb, Professor of Diet and Population Health at the University of Oxford, comments:
"As the importance of diet as a contributor to ill-health is increasingly recognised, so the evidence has come under greater scrutiny.
Nutrition is a complex science, and it’s hard to do classic randomised controlled trials over long enough periods to observe the effects on heart disease or cancer so we need to combine these studies with observational analyses, using new statistical techniques such as Mendelian randomisation to help understand if the associations observed are causal.
Given this diverse evidence base, dietary guidelines need to be based on comprehensive reviews of the totality of the evidence, assembled and reviewed according to agreed protocols to reduce the chances they may be affected by personal opinion or other biases.
The new report from the National Obesity Forum fails this standard. It is not a systematic review of all the relevant evidence, and it does not include any assessment of the methodological quality of the studies. The authors are not named and it does not seem to have been peer-reviewed.
It should not be confused with other comprehensive reviews of the evidence produced with clear and transparent processes by organisations such as the World Health Organisation or national bodies such as the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition or NICE.
Instead it ‘cherry-picks’ studies, for example, highlighting one trial suggesting high dairy intake reduced the risk of obesity, while ignoring a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 trials which concluded that increasing dairy did not reduce the risk of weight gain.”
Prof Tom Sanders, Emeritus Professor of Nutrition and Dietetics at King’s College London,comments:
"This report confuses dietary guidelines for the population with the clinical management of obesity and type 2 diabetes. There is certainly much room for improvement in the clinical management of obesity in the NHS and there clearly is a need for a debate on how best to manage the diet of patients with type 2 diabetes.
The medical professional certainly needs to get its act together but it is not helpful to slag off the sensible dietary advice given by Public Health England and the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Dietary guidelines are designed to ensure an adequate intake of nutrients as well as to prevent dietary related disease. The report wrongly attributes the current obesity/diabetes epidemic to current dietary guidelines. The report fails to recognize that the main driver is our obesogenic environment and insinuates a sinister plot involving collusion between government and the food industry.
The truth is, most people now live in metropolitan areas, spend much time travelling to and from work and eat much more food outside the home. Food is also more widely available, 24 hours a day, portions sizes are bigger and people are less active because of sedentary occupations (especially sitting in front of a computer) and the increased use of the car.
The harsh criticism of current dietary guidelines meted out in this report is not justified as few people (~5%) adhere to these guidelines anyway. There is also good evidence that those that do follow the guidelines have less weight gain and better health outcomes."
Dr Mike Knapton, Associate Medical Director at the BHF, comments:
"This report is full of ideas and opinion, however it does not offer the robust and comprehensive review of evidence that would be required for the BHF, as the UK’s largest heart research charity, to take it seriously.
This country’s obesity epidemic is not caused by poor dietary guidelines; it is that we are not meeting them. Diets that are high in saturated fat have been shown to increase cholesterol. High cholesterol is linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease hence why current recommendations emphasise the importance of reducing this.
Heart disease is a multifactorial condition with a range of risk factors and any dietary and lifestyle advice worth noting should consider the overall impact that our diet and lifestyle has on our health. Focusing on single foods, nutrients or risk factors is short sighted and will perpetuate confusion and fear amongst the public about what they should and shouldn’t eat to protect their heart health."
Prof Iain Broom, Director of the Centre for Obesity Research and Epidemiology at Robert Gordon University, comments:
"At long last there is some sense coming into dietary advice that may eventually lead to improved health, in particular tacking the double whammy of obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
I totally agree with the document produced jointly by the NOF and the Public Health Collaboration, except for the statement re “zero sugar” as all fruits and berries contain sugar – “no added sugar” would be more appropriate.
At the time of the change in food policy in the USA in the late seventies and in the UK in 1983, there was no evidence to back a reduction in saturated fat in the fight against coronary heart disease, but there was evidence to link CHD to sugar intake.
A British nutritionist, John Yudkin, at the time tried to prevent such a policy and to shift the blame to sugar and refined carbohydrate, but was pilloried by Ancel Keyes and the establishment. Decades of nutrition students have had to undergo training where this unsubstantiated, and now proven false, link between fat intake and CHD, obesity and diabetes is hammered home.
"We will thus have to undo all of this in the future and to reintroduce the notion that fat in the diet causes neither obesity, T2DM nor CHD."
Prof Naveed Sattar, Professor of Metabolic Medicine at the University of Glasgow, comments:
"The report has good, bad and ugly elements in it. Yes, it’s clear that snacking is generally to be avoided; few would argue against this. It’s also clear that some sources of fat will be better than other sources. But to make the headline message that we should all eat more fat as the cure to reverse obesity trends and thus type 2 diabetes is NOT warranted based on the totality of evidence.
In dietary areas, we have few large scale long term trials and so rely a lot on observational data, the results of which can be interpreted or extrapolated in different ways. Even when we have trials, they are often short term on weight loss alone or some risk factors and cannot give the longer term reality on long term risks or sustainability of diets.
The authors of this report have been selective in their choice of evidence to support their arguments and there is an abundant literature which goes against their conclusions. Indeed, plentiful evidence supports excessive calories from a variety of sources leading to a rise in obesity with excess fatty foods being a major component of in many individuals.
Hence, whilst it is good to debate, the report’s main headline – simply to eat more fat - is highly contentious and could have adverse public health consequences.”
Prof Suzanne Dickson, Professor of Neuroendocrinology at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, comments:
"There are a lot of misleading messages in these guidelines which ultimately do not promote health.
While it may be good to reduce intake of carbohydrates and sugars, there remains a great body of evidence that it is equally important to limit intake of fats. These guidelines make no suggestion on what the upper limit of fat intake should be and without this effectively promote their over-consumption.
I am not aware of any evidence that common obesity is due to under- or over-production of any hormone.
I am not aware of any hard evidence that snacking causes obesity. There does exist evidence that snacking causes a compensatory adjustment in caloric intake during the rest of the day. This is not very surprising because energy balance is under tight physiological control.
It is misleading to suggest that the amount of calories on a plate is ‘irrelevant’.
“Diets fail because food restriction of any kind leads to reduced metabolism coupled with food cravings that eventually overpower restraint.”
Comment: Clearly the medical establishment are not happy to be challenged. Bearing in mind that for the most part they would not know which way is up, and that they have all been indoctinated into fallacies since medical school to prescribe pharmaceuticals and push allopathic medicine which is nothing but profit-driven.
For a segment of society who believe they are so smart they sure do a good job of makling themselves look stupid.
The Surprisingly Dramatic Role Of Nutrition In Mental Health May 26 2016 | From: Tedx
In New Zealand, one in seven young people will experience a significant depressive episode before the age of 24. Mental illness doesn’t discriminate against age, gender, ethnicity or social or economic markers such as income or region.
Mental illnesses can range from depression and anxiety through to eating disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and postpartum illness. For those affected by mental illness and their loved ones, there isn’t a lot you wouldn’t do to provide symptomatic relief from this dark and dangerous place.
This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. In this critically important talk, clinical psychologist Julia Rucklidge explores a range of scientific research, including her own, showing the significant role played by nutrition in mental health or illness.
Rates of all kinds of mental health problems are on the increase. Could something as simple as micronutrients be a useful tool in the prevention and treatment of mental illness in a society fuelled by nutrient-poor processed food, and stressful lifestyles? Could micronutrients help bring balance back into our lives?
The New Zealand Wellness Association asks you to watch this 18 minute TEDx Talk above by Professor Julia Rucklidge from the University of Canterbury. The information contained in this clip has the power to impact the mental health of you and your family.
The research shows significant and lasting results can be achieved using natural health products to treat nutrient deficiencies in those people suffering from mental illness. The research has also documented a superb safety record of the micronutrients. The products being researched are currently under threat.
There is currently a Bill, called the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill, in its final reading in Parliament which could halt access to the nutrients used in these trials and seriously compromise the ability to continue with this line of research. Why would MPs who are genuinely interested in the well being of their constituents vote for a Bill like this?
Why would MPs who are genuinely interested in the well being of their constituents vote for a Bill likethis?
ANSWER - They do not understand the Bill or its implications. They do not have the time to understand all the legislation they are asked to vote on. We do not believe they would say yes if they understood.
This Bill is not proportional with the risks therapeutic supplements present, and it prevents integrative and natural medical practitioners from providing adequate care for their patients.
The Bill will place a regulatory ban on many natural products or the maximum dosage of any ingredient currently being used to treat mental illness.
This is because these ingredients aren’t listed on the Permitted Ingredients List. To design a product and apply to have it added to the permitted ingredients list, or be registered as a medicine, would cost significant time and money, neither of which independent researchers and product developers have.
Coupled with the fact there is no patent protection for a new product, this Bill acts to stifle innovation in the field of natural medicine when helping this critical group of people.
The New Zealand Wellness Association is pro responsible, and sensible regulation. We ask you to consider the impact that this Bill will have on the rights of New Zealanders and those around you with mental illness, to have access to nutrients to prevent and treat illness.
Protect your access to safe and therapeutic natural health products in New Zealand: Please sign our Petition
Julia J Rucklidge, PhD is a Professor of Clinical Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Originally from Toronto, she did her training in neurobiology (McGill) and Clinical Psychology (University of Calgary).
Her interests in nutrition and mental illness grew out of her own research showing poor outcomes for children with significant psychiatric illness despite receiving conventional treatments for their conditions. For the last 6 years, she has been investigating the role of micronutrients in the expression of mental illness, specifically ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, anxiety and more recently, stress and PTSD associated with the Canterbury earthquakes.
The 20 Biggest Cancer Lies You've Been Brainwashed To Believe By The For-Profit Cancer Industry + Cancer Cures Exposed: Natural Medicine Revealed As The Answer May 24 2016 | From: NaturalNews / GreenMedInfo
You've been taught all sorts of lies about cancer by the "cancer profiteers" - the institutions, cancer doctors, oncology centers and chemotherapy drug makers who profit from cancer.
In order to keep their profits flowing, they have to keep you in the dark about cancer truths: How it originates, how it can be prevented and how it can even be reversed!
If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with cancer (or even suspect you might have cancer), it's crucial to learn how the for-profit cancer industry has been lying to you. Remember, cancer doctors like the criminal oncologist Dr. Farid Fatafalsely diagnosed people with cancer to make money off "treating" them with deadly chemicals known as "chemotherapy." Dr. Fata, who worked out of a state-of-the-art cancer center in Detroit, is now a convicted felon.
But there are more criminals working inside the cancer industry: Oncologists, cancer surgeons, breast cancer specialists and mammography con artists. Their goal is to scare you with a false positive diagnosis, then convince you to undergo surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy that you don't even need!
To avoid all that and maybe even save your own life, learn and remember these top 20 biggest cancer lies you've been brainwashed to believe.
And when you're ready for an even greater dose of the truth about cancer, register for this amazing upcoming summit called The Truth About Cancer, which begins in just a few days. After hearing these astonishing interviews with pioneering holistic cancer doctors and researchers, you'll never be victimized by the cancer industry again!
The Top 20 Cancer Lies Told by the Cancer Establishment
LIE #1. Cancer is caused by spontaneous bad luck, not cause and effect
TRUTH: Cancer always has a cause. There is no such thing as "spontaneous" cancer without cause, and the cancer doctors who claim such phenomena exist are practicing nothing but "cancer voodoo" or pushing anti-science "disease magic" rooted in mysticism rather than reality.
LIE #2. There is no cure for cancer
TRUTH: There are thousands of cures for cancer that already exist in the natural world and are being used every day all across the planet, outside the controlled monopolies of pharmaceutical medicine and toxic chemotherapy.
Your body already knows how to cure cancer! It just needs the resources (and avoidance of toxic chemicals) to accomplish it.
TRUTH: Chemotherapy is a kind of "chemical carpet-bombing" approach to barbaric medicine that poisons the entire body. The measurable shrinkage of cancer tumors isn't a "treatment" for cancer at all. Unless the cancer tumor stem cells are removed or destroyed, the tumor just grows back.
And once the body is poisoned by chemotherapy, its immune response to cancer is permanently compromised, which is why cancer tends to return in multiple organs within 12-24 months after a person undergoes chemotherapy.
Learn the real story on cancer cures, cancer prevention and cancer industry fraud in The Truth About Cancer docu-series, beginning in just a few days.
LIE #4. There's no such thing as an anti-cancer food or herb
TRUTH: Anti-cancer medicines have been created by Mother Nature since the beginning of life on our planet. There are literally thousands of anti-cancer plant nutrients found in the foods at every grocery store (in just the fresh produce section!).
The anti-cancer properties of these powerful foods (like turmeric, garlic, onions, ginger and broccoli) rarely receive any media attention because they can't be patented and turned into high-profit drugs.
LIE #5) None of the chemicals used in personal care products cause cancer
TRUTH: Popular personal care products are absolutely loaded with cancer-causing chemicals, including hormone disruptors, known carcinogens and fragrance chemicals that promote mutagenesis.
Nearly all popular laundry detergents and fabric softeners are little more than cancer-causing cocktails of dangerous chemicals marketed in happy-looking boxes.
LIE #6. Pesticides and herbicides don't cause cancer, either
TRUTH: Pesticides only work because they interfere with metabolic processes and kill organisms. By definition, they are deadly, or they wouldn't be used as pesticides.
The world's most popular herbicide, glyphosate, is molecularly very similar to VX Nerve Gas, the most toxic substance ever created by humankind... and developed as a weapon of mass destruction.
LIE #7. You're destined to get cancer and there's nothing you can do to stop it
TRUTH: There's nothing in your genes that programs you to have cancer. Your genetic code is actually a blueprint for perfect health.
But when your body's cells are bathed in toxic, cancer-causing chemicals found in food and personal care products, it causes good genes to turn bad (through mutations), leading to cancer. You have remarkable control over your exposure to (or avoidance of) cancer-causing chemicals.
LIE #8) Cancer doctors want to help you eliminate cancer
TRUTH: Cancer doctors earn huge profits on chemotherapy, surgery and radiation treatments. It is in their financial interests that you have recurring cancer, creating repeat business for them.
If they helped you eliminate cancer, they would lose your business and lose out on all the money they can make off your disease!
LIE #9. Mammograms catch cancer early and thereby "save lives"
TRUTH: Mammograms emit ionizing radiation that causes cancer. The more mammograms you get, the more like you are to eventually be diagnosed with cancer... caused by the mammography!
Additionally, there are so many false positives in mammography that statistics show mammograms ultimately harm 10 women for every 1 woman they might help.
LIE #10. A cancer diagnosis is always true and accurate
TRUTH: Cancer diagnoses are frequently exaggerated or fabricated out of thin air by cancer doctors looking to make money off medically unjustified cancer treatments. Dr. Farid Fata, for example, was found guilty of criminal fraud for falsely diagnosing healthy people with cancer at his popular oncology clinic in Detroit.
He deliberately lied to every patient who walked into his clinic, telling them they had cancer and that they would die without his chemotherapy. He poisoned thousands of people and is now serving time in federal prison for his crimes. (He's just one of many criminal cancer doctors in the industry...)
LIE #11. The drug companies want to find a cure for cance
TRUTH: The drug companies want to keep milking cancer for profits, and they have no interest whatsoever in eliminating their revenue stream by curing cancer.
LIE #12. Komen for the Cure raises money to try to eliminate cancer
TRUTH: The corrupt, dishonest Komen group is a front for the cancer industry. It rakes in money from donations and uses most of it to run mammography clinics in poor, inner city neighborhoods where people can be diagnosed with cancer and turned over to chemotherapy treatments for sick profits.
Komen for the Cure is running a medical racket and has zero interest in curing cancer. It's the same racket we've been promised since the 1960s: If we just had a few more billion dollars in funding, we'd find a cure!
LIE #13. Cancer is an "enemy" that has "invaded" your body, and it should be eliminated by attacking the body with chemical weapons
TRUTH: Cancer is actually just your body's own cells multiplying out of control. It's not something you "catch" or something that "infects" your body.
Modern medicine's makes a huge mistake in treating cancer like an infectious disease, bombarding the body with chemicals to try to eradicate the cancer. But the cancer is your body's own cells gone haywire, so to kill the cancer, they have to very nearly kill YOU at the same time!
LIE #14. Once the drug companies find a cure for cancer, they'll give it to the world for free
TRUTH: The drug companies are interested in profits, not saving humanity. The very idea that drug companies would spend billions of dollars developing a drug and then give it away for free is laughable.
All these people giving money to "search for the cure" don't realize that the cure will never be released to the world for free, even if it is ever found in the realm of pharmaceuticals. Drug companies seek profits, and profits come from controlling the treatments while keeping people diseased. They don't come from finding a cure and releasing it for free.
LIE #15. Having a double mastectomy prevents breast cancer
TRUTH: Chopping off body parts that might someday get cancer is perhaps the most foolish way imaginable to attempt to avoid the disease.
There's a sexist component to this, too: Ever notice that cancer doctors never tell men to cut off their testicles to prevent testicular cancer? Maybe they will soon recommend people chop off their own heads to prevent brain cancer, too...
LIE #16. Sunlight causes cancer (and sunscreen prevents it)
TRUTH: Sensible sunlight exposure actually PREVENTS cancer by generating vitamin D in your skin. Most people are horribly vitamin D deficient, and it's low vitamin D levels that encourage tumors to grow throughout the body.
(This is why most tumor growth happens in the winter, by the way.) Vitamin D is such a powerful nutrient that it alone has been shown to prevent more than 80% of all cancers. But it has to be consumed in much higher doses than typically used.
LIE #17. The only reason we haven't already cured cancer is because we haven't invested enough money in it yet
TRUTH: This is the same lie repeated since the 1960s... a claim that the cure for cancer is just around the corner, and we only need more research money to finally solve it for good.
But what this lie utterly neglects to admit is that the cancer industry isn't interested in a cancer cure. There's far too much money to be made from cancer patients, cancer donations, cancer research and cancer drugs. Cancer is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and nobody in the industry is actively trying to make themselves irrelevant.
LIE #18. Modern cancer treatments are highly effective and backed by scientific evidence of their efficacy and safety
TRUTH: The real scientific evidence shows that chemotherapy only works on about 2% of cancers. For the other 98% of patients receiving chemo, it's just a deadly poison that damages their heart, liver, brain and kidneys.
(See Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss.) As with nearly everything in the pharmaceutical industry, the scientific "evidence" on cancer treatments is distorted or fabricated to favor the financial interests of the drug industry.
LIE #19. There is no link between diet and cancer
TRUTH: Unless you are a smoker, what you eat is the #1 determining factor of whether you get cancer or avoid it.
The foods you consume daily have a direct, measurable and irrefutable influence on cancer: either preventing it or causing it.
LIE #20. The cancer industry wants to put itself out of business
TRUTH: Ultimately, the "great lie" of the cancer industry is that it wants to make itself obsolete by solving cancer. This lie is predicated on the laughable premise that every cancer expert, cancer doctor, cancer non-profit, cancer research facility and cancer drug company wants to bankrupt itself by eliminating cancer forever.
Do you think that pharmaceutical companies making billions a year from oncology products would give away a cancer cure for free?
Any intelligent person knows that people who are steeped in the profit of cancer will never give up those profits, even if it means making sure people stay sick and diseased. (Your suffering is no concern to them. They need profits!)
Cancer Cures Exposed: Natural Medicine Revealed As The Answer
Natural cures for cancer not only exist, but have a huge body of scientific literature supporting them. Why don't more know about it? Both GreenMedInfo.com and Ty Bollinger's documentary, The Truth About Cancer, provide a powerful combination of awareness raising tools to help move the paradigm of cancer prevention and treatment out of the Dark Ages into a compassionate, natural, effective and affordable, root cause resolution approach.
GreenMedInfo.com's #1 health advocacy is cancer, measured both by the sheer density of research we have collected and reported on the subject over the past seven years, and the primary interest of our user base measured by traffic to cancer related topics, which includes an average of over one million unique visitors monthly.
Our cancer database - a byproduct of a decade of work - now contains thousands of abstracts from published studies documenting the therapeutic or preventive value of natural interventions for cancer, as well as the unintended adverse effects of conventional appraoches.
For this reason we are excited to spread the word about one of the most popular and authentic awareness raising events in the history of cancer advocacy work: A 9-part docu-series titled, 'The Truth About Cancer..A Global Quest', which interviews on site over 100 doctors, survivors and scientists, who together, break the medical and research community's 'code of silence' and expose the truth about cancer: namely, how to prevent, treat and beat cancer 100% naturally.
Best of all, its free for anyone to watch.
In this groundbreaking series, Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo.com, reveals the incredible depth of scientific validation supporting the complementary and alternative (CAM) medical movement, making an appearance in all but one episode.
The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest Docu-Series - Official Trailer
So, how did the docu-series come about?
Ty Bollinger lost 7 family members to cancer. He decided to uncover why cancer exists. What causes cancer? How does a person get cancer? How do you stop cancer?
Current statistics show 1 in 2 men, and 1 in 3 women will be diagnosed with cancer. At present, modern solutions for healing cancer have a documented 2.1% success rate. Which means 1 in 50 people diagnosed with cancer are likely to survive using popular mainstream methods of healing.
Few people realize how quickly cancer is spreading. In the early 1900's roughly 3 in 100 people were diagnosed with cancer. Today cancer has spread so quickly 41 in 100 people are expected to die from cancer. Making cancer one of the worlds leading causes of death.
Lowering Cholesterol Increases The Risk Of Death May 23 2016 | From: DrMalcolmKendrick
A group of researchers went back through the data from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment run between 1966 and 1973 in the US – on many thousands of participants.
They were, in part stimulated to do this because they had previously looked at the Sydney Diet Heart Study 1966 – 73. In their own words:
“Our recovery and 2013 publication of previously unpublished data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study (SDHS, 1966-73) belatedly showed that replacement of saturated fat with vegetable oil rich in linoleic acid (a polyunsaturated fat) significantly increased the risks of death from coronary heart disease and all causes, despite lowering serum cholesterol.
Our recovery of unpublished documents and raw data from another diet-heart trial, the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, provided us with an opportunity to further evaluate this issue."
To make this clear. The Sydney Diet Heart Study (SDHS) was set up to show that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat would reduce the risk of heart disease The original researchers who set up and ran the SDHS did not fully publish their data at the time (one can only speculate as to why this may be so).
When this current group of researchers finally managed to get hold of the full data from the SHDS, it was found that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat did lower cholesterol, however:
Replqacement Of Saturated Significantly Increased The Risk Of Death From Coronary Heart Disease And All Causes.
I am not normally a great fan of capitalisation, and using bold, but I think this statement needed that treatment.
Now, a few years later, the researchers who re-analysed the Sydney Diet Heart Study decided to try and find all the unpublished data from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE). (One can again only speculate as to why the original researchers did not reveal all of their data).
The main points from this re-analysis were the following
Though the MCE intervention lowered serum cholesterol, this did not translate to improved survival
Paradoxically, MCE participants who had greater reductions in serum cholesterol had a higher, rather than lower, risk of death
Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials do not provide support for the traditional diet heart hypothesis
The More The Cholesterol Was Lowered The Greater The Risk Of Death.
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE), a randomized controlled trial conducted in 1968-73, was the largest (n=9570) and perhaps the most rigorously executed dietary trial of cholesterol lowering by replacement of saturated fat with vegetable oil rich in linoleic acid.
The MCE is the only such randomized controlled trial to complete post-mortem assessment of coronary, aortic, and cerebrovascular atherosclerosis grade and infarct status and the only one to test the clinical effects of increasing linoleic acid in large prespecified subgroups of women and older adults.
Those who have read my ramblings over the years will not be in least surprised by this finding. Because, as you may know by now.
I believe that raised cholesterol has nothing whatsoever to do with the heart disease. So, this finding is not a paradox to me. It is simply further confirmation of many, many, other studies which utterly contradict the cholesterol hypothesis.
I would not, however, hold my breath waiting for this study to make any difference to anything. My current favourite comment on this study comes from an opinion leader from the British Heart Foundation. It is, as follows:
‘Professor Jeremy Pearson of the British Heart Foundation commented:
“This is an interesting study which shows that decreasing your intake of saturated fat can have a positive impact in helping lower cholesterol. More research and longer studies are needed to assess whether or not eating less saturated fat can reduce your risk of cardiovascular death.’
Read and weep gentle readers. Here is a man so completely and utterly convinced of the dangers of saturated fat consumption and raising blood cholesterol that he is incapable of grasping what this paper is saying. Max plank said that ‘Science advances one funeral at a time.’ There is at least one funeral, currently, that I can think would help to move science along.
Perhaps time from a quote from Professor John Ioannidis, who wrote a rather sad article recently, entitled Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett.
“This is a confession building on a conversation with David Sackett in 2004 when I shared with him some personal adventures in evidence-based medicine (EBM), the movement that he had spearheaded.
The narrative is expanded with what ensued in the subsequent 12 years. EBM has become far more recognized and adopted in many places, but not everywhere, for example, it never acquired much influence in the USA.
As EBM became more influential, it was also hijacked to serve agendas different from what it originally aimed for.
Influential randomized trials are largely done by and for the benefit of the industry. Meta-analyses and guidelines have become a factory, mostly also serving vested interests. National and federal research funds are funnelled almost exclusively to research with little relevance to health outcomes.
We have supported the growth of principal investigators who excel primarily as managers absorbing more money. Diagnosis and prognosis research and efforts to individualize treatment have fuelled recurrent spurious promises.
Risk factor epidemiology has excelled in salami-sliced data-dredged articles with gift authorship and has become adept to dictating policy from spurious evidence. Under market pressure, clinical medicine has been transformed to finance-based medicine.
In many places, medicine and health care are wasting societal resources and becoming a threat to human well-being. Science denialism and quacks are also flourishing and leading more people astray in their life choices, including health. EBM still remains an unmet goal, worthy to be attained…."
“David, I was a failure when we started this conversation and I am an even bigger failure now, almost 12 years later. Despite my zealot efforts, my friends and colleagues have not lost their jobs.
The GDP devoted to health care is increasing, spurious trials, and even more spurious meta-analyses are published at a geometrically increasing pace, conflicted guidelines are more influential than ever, spurious risk factors are alive and well, quacks have become even more obnoxious, and approximately 85% of biomedical research is wasted.
I still enjoy science tremendously, focusing on ideas, rigorous methods, strong mathematics and statistics, working on my weird (and probably biased) writings alternating with even more desperate poetry, and learning from young, talented people.
But I am also still fantasizing of some place where the practice of medicine can still be undeniably helpful to human beings and society at large.
Does it have to be a very remote place in northern Canada close to the Arctic? Or in some isolated beautiful Greek island where corpses of unfortunate refugees are found on the beach or floating in the water almost every day, as I am writing this commentary, although no naval battle has been fought?
Is there still a place for rational thinking and for evidence to help humans? Sadly, you cannot answer me any longer, but I hope that we should not have to escape to the most distant recesses of geography or imagination.
Twenty-five years after its launch, EBM should still be possible to practice anywhere, somewhere - this remains a worthwhile goal.”
David Sackett, the founder of Evidence Based Medicine, is now dead. I presume he is spinning in his grave at what has happened to medicine and medical research. Which is, currently, not based on any evidence at all. If the evidence does not fit with the currently dogma it is simply not published.
Does anyone in the higher reaches of the medical establishment actually give a stuff about this? It seems that they do not. Meanwhile the shelves of our supermarkets groan under the weight of the super-healthy polyunsaturated fat products that we are encouraged to eat, by the likes of the British Heart Foundation.
Yet, here is what the uncovered evidence from the largest study done in this area is screaming at us:
Greater cholesterol lowering, using polyunsaturated fats, increases the risk of death.
And don't even go there with the Soy - which was a waste material reclassified as a 'food' a couple of decades ago to make money out of selling you more toxic crap. And beyond that is the GMO Soy... It goes on and on...
So, British Heart Foundation, the question must be asked… are you killing people with your advice on saturated fat consumption? Perhaps you ought to think about changing it, before more people die.
Here is what the BHF currently say about saturated fats:
‘Swap these for unsaturated fats. Eating too much saturated fat increases the amount of cholesterol in your blood.’
Do you have any actual evidence to base this advice on… any at all? If so, let’s see it. If not, change it.
Regular readers of this website will know that the Natural Health and Supplementary Products bill (which was recently re-named the Natural Health Products bill) has been causing significant concern in organisations devoted to protecting health freedom in NZ, including the NZ Health Trust and the Health Freedom NZ Trust.
As we reported recently, a legal opinion about various aspects of the bill has been obtained. You can read more about this here.
The Supplementary Order Paper (or SOP) which is the latest version of the bill may be read by accessing the April 4th update from the Health Freedom NZ Trust here.
If you would like to sign the new petition click here.
The Natural Health Products bill and has been through two readings and its third (and final)reading could be coming up very soon.
If you would like to write to MPs, as the Health Freedom NZ Trust has recommended, a key message to include in your letter or email is that you would like the current Natural Health Products bill scrapped and replaced with the original model bill developed by David Sloan and the NZ Health Trust. This model bill had wide industry* and consumer support.
Information (including email addresses) to help you write to MPs. may be found here.
Updates on the health freedom issue are also shared through our new Facebook page.
*There is an industry group that supports the Natural Health Products bill as it currently stands (its press release may be read here), however many small businesses are very worried about the potential impact of the regulation on their businesses. Unlike the industry group which has publicly stated its support for the bill, the businesses that oppose the bill are not vocal about their concerns.
It would be fair to say that larger, well-established natural health products companies are more likely to favour the current Natural Health Products bill as it stands because the bill would confer a competitive advantage to to companies that are already in the industry and would make it harder for new companies to enter the NZ market place. Larger companies could also gain more market share if smaller companies in the natural health industry were forced out due to inability to meet new compliance costs.
Dental, Medical And Climate Lies May 19 2016 | From: DrSircus
Anyone alive today that believes we are living in a world of truth, justice and love needs to have their heads examined. We live in a world of lies and half-truths, which are really the same or worse than outright lies, because they confuse the human mind so much.
Selected not elected
As such rare to non-existent are the politicians who do not lie because they have to swim in a sea of lies to get anywhere in politics.
Lies cause unmeasurable amounts of human suffering and lead people to early graves. Too often the lies are hidden from view from the vast majority because there are plenty of people in power who know exactly how to deceive the public through manipulation of their collective imaginations.
The public media of course is the carrier wave of this manipulation but it is possible to see through the smoke and mirrors if one invests the energy to do so.
It is impossible to break through to a person who has swallowed the manipulations when they are widely shared, because these kinds of people feel comfortable and surrounded by others who feel the same. Even in cases where individuals have been abducted by extreme groups and have to be kidnapped back by parents, when possible, the reprogramming can be more than difficult. We humans cling to our beliefs no matter what they are.
Big Lies in Dentistry
Wrong beliefs kill yet even professionals cling, even when children die for them. For a first example, let us turn to the world of dentistry. I have written before about one of the biggest lies that they entertain that effect the broad public in the countries that put fluoride into the public water systems.
It is a broad lie shared by doctors that poisons are good for us. That poison is safe when actually very dangerous, especially to the children who are more sensitive than adults are.
Personally I have always liked and trusted all the dentists I have had, even my uncle who started putting in tons of mercury into my mouth starting at age five.
Daisy Lynn Torres was taken to Austin Children’s Dentistry in North Austin for the "routine" dental procedure, but halfway through the treatment she died. The mother said';
"You don’t take your child into the dentist thinking it will be the last time you see them alive. You should feel comfortable and safe at the doctor or dentist office – never scared for your child’s life."
One has to read the news article and read into it to see the deception. There are two glaring ones. First is that anesthesia is safe when it is extremely dangerous. Moreover, the second is the lack of mention that sugar consumption is the cause of most cavities in children. White sugar is a poison that causes a host of health problems but the first of them shows up in the teeth.
We should pay attention to what the mother said at the end of the news report. She said, “You should feel comfortable and safe at the doctor or dentist office – never scared for your child’s life.”
This exposes a broad manipulation in our civilization for the opposite is true. We should always be uncomfortable and always scared for our children’s lives when we take them to a doctor or dentist’s office.
Big Lies in Medicine
Doctors kill and maim many more people than dentists do. The biggest lie that I have written about is that vaccines are safe. When a parent takes their child to a pediatrician’s office (to a professional terrorist), they are playing Russian roulette with their child’s life.
My first published book was originally titled Cry of the Heart but I eventually changed that to the Terror of Pediatric Medicine, which I still give away freely. We just recently saw that the CDC has been caught red handed lying about the link between vaccines and autism.
They know to put gas into the gas tank and oil and water where they belong where doctors are working over quicksand meaning they have no idea of the basic causes of disease (like nutritional deficiencies in basic minerals) and as such they do nothing to address these fundamental issues.
Just one example to mention in this regard is that surgery is safer when doctors administer magnesium before, during and after surgical events. Do doctors administer magnesium? Hell no, they are too caught up in their own lies because their imaginations have been manipulated too.
“It will feel more like February in places such as New York City, Syracuse and Buffalo, New York; Boston; Burlington, Vermont; and Portland, Maine,” says accuweather.com at the beginning of April.
The cold is expected to linger at least through mid-month, giving us temperatures more like single digit highs anywhere between 2, 3 °C (35.6, 37.4 °F) when we’d normally be seeing daytime highs of around 10 °C (50 °F).” Sounds like NOOA and NASA reports of record heat are going out the window.
Global warming mongrels have a serious mental disease that is characterized by deliberately forgetting the most important aspect of all life on earth as well as its weather and that is the existence of the sun, whose output is in a cyclic decline for the next few decades. They are sick just like the vaccinationists who just happen to forget that there are dangerous poisons the pharmaceutical companies put into the vaccines.
Time Magazine and the Guardian both have recently published hysterical articles about the deadly serious threat of sea level rising because of ice melting in Antarctica.
Unfortunately, for these dishonest media organizations that fact is that Antarctica is gaining not losing ice. According to NASA the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
In addition, another reminder of how warm it isn’t. A 142-year monthly April record shattered in Concord, New Hampshire. Not just for the day, but for the entire month of April. The temperature on Tuesday morning dipped to a bone-chilling 4 degrees Fahrenheit (-15.6 C).
It has been a brutal spring in both the United States and Russia with hard freezes, record low temperatures, and heavy snowfalls. Farmers are losing crops but our favorite politicians and governmental organizations will not stop getting on the horn about how warm it is.
Governments are suiciding the trust people have in them, democracy is becoming a cruel joke in Japan, the United States and Europe. Moreover, the media is showing how dishonest it is and how ready it is to prostitute itself to commercial and government interests.
Furthermore, with the financial and economic lies compounding everyone’s problems we are in for a rough ride. Bill Bonner writes;
"We live in a world of sin and sorrow, infected by a fraudulent democracy, Facebook, and a corrupt money system. Wheezing, weak, and weary from the exertion of trying to appear “normal,” the economy staggers on.”
Undeniable Evidence From Numerous Studies Proves That Fluoride Causes Cancer May 19 2016 | From: NaturalNews
The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently released a document called Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts that highlights the many health hazards caused by the consumption of fluoride.
And the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) recently submitted a compilation of its own to OEHHA, which is so
FAN has been working for many years to raise awareness about the toxicity of fluoride, with the eventual goal of getting it removed from public water supplies. And its most recent efforts involving OEHHA could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, so to speak, as it has the potential to unleash the truth about fluoride on a massive scale, and spark a revolt against its use.
According to a recent FAN press release, OEHHA's report was birthed out of an inquiry into the science of fluoride's toxicity. It is also a prelude to the group's scientific advisory board Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) meeting to be held on October 12 - 13, 2011, which will make a decision on the status of fluoride as a carcinogen.
The OEHHA report already states that:
"Multiple lines of evidence (show) that fluoride is incorporated into bones where it can stimulate cell division of osteoblasts [bone-forming cells]," an admission that already recognizes fluoride as a cause of bone cancer.
The report goes on to state that fluoride induces:
"Genetic changes other cellular changes leading to malignant transformation, and cellular immune response thereby increasing the risk of development of osteosarcomas."
To add to this, FAN presented OEHHA with additional studies from the National Research Council (NRC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and several esteemed universities that all illustrate a link between fluoride consumption and various cancers, including liver and oral cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors.
With this mountain of evidence, the only logical conclusion OEHHA can come to in October is that fluoride is a toxic poison -- and just like lead and other known toxic chemicals already are in California, worthy of being publicly identified as dangerous.
"While we understand that there will be tremendous pressure put on the CIC and OEHHA by the proponents of fluoride and fluoridation, we ask that the Committee continue to rely on its high level of scientific knowledge and integrity when deliberating and reaching a final conclusion on the carcinogenicity status of fluoride and its salts," wrote FAN as part of its official submission.
To read the entire FAN press release, which contains further details about the cancer studies included, visit:
More than 30 million of us take antidepressants, including one in seven women (one in four women of reproductive age). Millions more are tempted to try them to end chronic, unyielding distress, irritability, and emotional “offness”—trapped by an exhausting inner agitation they can’t shake.
It is time, even according to leaders in the field, to let go of this false narrative and take a fresh look at where science is leading us. The human body interacts in its environment with deep intelligence. Your body creates symptoms for a reason.
Depression is often a manifestation of irregularities in the body that often starts far away from the brain and is not associated with so-called “chemical imbalances.”
The medical literature has emphasized the role of inflammation in mental illness for more than twenty years (unfortunately, it takes an average of 17 years for the data that exposes inefficacy and/or a signal of harm, to trickle down into your doctor’s daily routine; a time lag problem that makes medicine’s standard of care “evidence-based” only in theory and not practice).
In other words, the serotonin theory of depression is a total myth that has been unjustly supported by the manipulation of data.
Much to the contrary, high serotonin levels have been linked to a range of problems, including schizophrenia and autism. So if you think a chemical pill can save, cure, or “correct” you, you’re dead wrong. That is about as misguided as putting a bandage over a nail stuck in your foot and taking aspirin. It’s absolutely missing an opportunity to “remove the splinter” and resolve the problem from the source.
2. Antidepressants Have the Potential to Irreversibly Disable the Body’s Natural Healing Mechanisms
Despite what you’ve been led to believe, antidepressants have repeatedly been shown in long-term scientific studies to worsen the course of mental illness - to say nothing of the risks of liver damage, bleeding, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and reduced cognitive function they entail.
The dirtiest little secret of all is the fact that antidepressants are among the most difficult drugs to taper from, more so than alcohol and opiates. While you might call it “going through withdrawal,” we medical professionals have been instructed to call it “discontinuation syndrome,” which can be characterized by fiercely debilitating physical and psychological reactions.
Moreover, antidepressants have a well-established history of causing violent side effects, including suicide and homicide. In fact, five of the top 10 most violence-inducing drugs have been found to be antidepressants.
And what about a genetic vulnerability? Is there such thing as a depression gene? In 2003, a study published in Science suggested that those with genetic variation in their serotonin transporter were three times more likely to be depressed.
But six years later this idea was wiped out by a meta-analysis of 14,000 patients published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that denied such an association.
4. Most Prescriptions for Antidepressants are Doled Out by Family Doctors - Not Psychiatrists
What’s more, when the Department of Mental Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health did its own examination into the prevalence of mental disorders, it found that most people who take antidepressants never meet the medical criteria for a bona fide diagnosis of major depression, and many who are given antidepressants for things like OCD, panic disorder, social phobia, and anxiety also don’t qualify as actually having these conditions.
5. Many Physical Conditions Mimic Psychiatric Symptoms
We think (because our doctors think) that we need to “cure” the brain, but in reality we need to look at the whole body’s ecosystem: intestinal health, hormonal interactions, the immune system and autoimmune disorders, blood sugar balance, and toxicant exposure.
6. Basic Lifestyle Interventions Can Facilitate the Body’s Powerful Self-Healing Mechanisms to End Depression
Dietary modifications (more healthy fats and less sugar, dairy, and gluten); natural supplements like B vitamins and probiotics that don’t require a prescription and can even be delivered through certain foods; minimizing exposures to biology-disrupting toxicants like fluoride in tap water, chemicals in common drugs like Tylenol and statins, and fragrances in cosmetics; harnessing the power of sufficient sleep and physical movement; and behavioral techniques aimed at promoting the relaxation response.
7. Depression is a Message and an Opportunity
It’s a sign for us to stop and figure out what’s causing our imbalance rather than just masking, suppressing, or rerouting the symptoms. It’s a chance to choose a new story, to engage in radical transformation, to say yes to a different life experience.
Kelly Brogan, MD, is a Manhattan-based holistic women’s health psychiatrist, author of the book, A Mind of Your Own, and co-editor of the landmark textbook, Integrative Therapies for Depression.
She completed her psychiatric training and fellowship at NYU Medical Center after graduating from Cornell University Medical College, and has a B.S. from MIT in Systems Neuroscience. She is board certified in psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and integrative holistic medicine, and is specialized in a root-cause resolution approach to psychiatric syndromes and symptoms. She is a mother of two.
Shocking U.S. Death Chart Reveals Root Cause Of Most Mortality Comes From Prescriptions And Food Chemicals May 17 2016 | From: NaturalNews
With 100,000 deaths and 2 million injuries each year being caused by legal prescription drugs in the United States, and with 1.5 million Americans contracting cancer each year, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries have become far more of a threat of "terrorism" to Americans than any people or other country could be, or have been, to this day.
Actual poisoning from prescription drugs has RISEN to become the second-largest cause of unintentional deaths in the US, according to the CDC themselves. When did the increase really gain so much momentum?
In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers found that deaths from prescription drugs nearly doubled in the US from 1999 to 2004. This mortality data was collected from the National Vital Statistics System.
On the lighter side, statistics from the U.S. National Poison Data System have revealed, in a 174-page detailed report, that the number of Americans actually killed in 2009 by vitamins, minerals, amino acids or herbal supplements was exactly zero. Yes, you read that correctly... zero.
Well, we were using these "alternative" 'natural' remedies for, oh, I don't know, maybe thousands of years before the pharmaceutical industry came along - were we not?
On top of that, data shows that not even one single death was caused by a dietary supplement in the prior year of 2008. The annual report published in the journal Clinical Toxicology shows zero deaths from taking any of the vitamins A, B, C, D or E.
That full report also states zero deaths from any other vitamins.
Deaths in the US from auto wrecks: Nearly 30,000 per year.
Deaths from cancer: At least 1.5 million Americans get cancer each year, and more than half die from it. That's 750,000 people dying of a preventable and curable disorder of the cells, including children and babies.
Deaths from heart disease: 375,000 people a year in US.
Deaths from strokes: 140,000 per year.
Deaths from Alzheimer's and Dementia: The sixth leading cause of death that has a grip on five million Americans right now kills one in every three seniors.
Deaths from chemotherapy: More patients are dying from associated symptoms of chemotherapy and radiation than the cancer itself. On July 10, 2015, Detroit-area oncologist Farid Fata, M.D., was sentenced to 45 years in prison for administering chemotherapy on healthy patients, some of whom died, and for defrauding Medicare and private insurance companies to the tune of $34 million in filed claims. Fata plead guilty (less than a year ago) to 13 counts of health care fraud, two counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy involving kickbacks.
More Alarming Statistics
Number of people unnecessarily exposed to hospitals? Pushing 9 million a year. Antibiotics improperly prescribed for viral infections? 20 million.
Total number of deaths from vaccines and flu shots: Unknown. The CDC will NEVER publish this statistic.
Deaths from consuming GMOs? Unknown, but cancer and Alzheimer's are on the rise.
Now the good news: No deaths from marijuana, hemp seed oil, cannabis (CBD). In late December 2015, the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC released its yearly statistics revealing overdose death rates from various (legal and illegal) drugs, and the death count from marijuana remained the same as for the year before: exactly zero. Not one single person died from smoking or ingesting marijuana, and no one on record ever has. And there's more good news...
Total Deaths From Vitamins, Minerals, Amino Acids and Herbs?
Zero Deaths from natural plant-based medicines and supplements is zero, and so now the big question – how many lives have natural remedies SAVED?
Who's counting? Can we?
What we do know is that deaths from chemical consumption, whether by food, water, personal care products, inhalants, prescriptions or chemotherapy, are on the rise, and with the spread of GMOs, and superbugs in hospitals, and forced vaccination by a pharma-led government, and the majority of food mutated by the biotech cabal of corporations, you simply cannot afford to live in the dark. Get smart, eat clean, take only clean food as medicine, and enjoy longevity.
How Processed Foods Wreak Havoc On Your Health May 16 2016 | From: OrganicConsumers
Many people probably can’t recall the last time they ate a meal prepared entirely from wholesome, farm-to-table ingredients, without any canned or prepackaged products.
That’s because most Westerners today consume mostly processed foods - foods produced with pesticides, GMOs and synthetic chemicals, routinely laced with too much sugar, salt and unhealthy fats.
In fact, processed foods make up as much as 70 percent of people’s diets - meaning only 30 percent of what they consume consists of wholesome, natural, or organic foods!
But here’s the truth about processed foods: Long-term consumption of these “food products” spell bad news for your health.
Processed vs. ultra-processed: What’s the difference?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines “processed food” as any raw agricultural commodity that has been subjected to processing methods, including canning, cooking, dehydration, freezing or milling.
This means that the only time a food can be classified as “fresh” is when you’ve taken it straight from the source (washing it is okay, and would not be classified as a form of processing) and eaten it. By this definition, most foods would be considered processed.
However, in layman’s terms, processed foods can refer to sodas, potato chips, candy, baked pastries with extended shelf life - basically, “convenient,” easy-to-eat products that have been altered through the addition of artificial or ingredients, synthetic flavorings, fillers and chemical or genetically engineered additives.
But this type of description actually refers to “ultra-processed food.” Researchers from the University of São Paulo and Tufts University define “ultra-processed” as:
Formulations of several ingredients which, besides salt, sugar, oils, and fats, include food substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular, flavors, colors, sweeteners, emulsifiers and other additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
But most people use the term “processed food” and “ultra-processed food” interchangeably when talking about these consumer products. Conventional processed foods today come in a variety of forms.
Canned and frozen fruits and vegetables
Canned meats (luncheon meat and sausage, corned beef, and meatloaf)
Breakfast foods, including cereals, oatmeal, energy bars
Canned, bottled, or tetra-packed fruit juices, energy drinks, and soda
Jarred baby foods and infant cereals
Foods “fortified” with nutrients
Ready to eat meals, microwave dinners
Pastries, including cookies, breads, frozen pizza, and pies
Condiments, seasonings and marinades, salad dressing, and jams
Yogurt and other commercially made fermented foods
The simplest way to determine if a food is processed is by looking at the ingredient list at the back of its packaging. The longer the ingredient list, the more processed a food is likely to be.
After more than 20 years of struggle by consumer activists and public interest groups such as the Organic Consumers Association, major food manufacturers are finally being forced to label GMO ingredients in processed foods sold in grocery stores.
Because of this, many of them are starting to remove GMOs from their products, along with other artificial chemicals and additives.
The History of ‘Processing’
Humans have been “processing” food through traditional methods for thousands of years. Egyptians have used salt for 4,000 years to extend the shelf life of food. In ancient sites in Italy, Russia and the Czech Republic, there was evidence that early humans pounded cattails and ferns into flour and mixed it with water to bake bread.
Other methods of food preservation, including fermentation, pickling and curing, have also been used for thousands of years, in different cultures. The food was used to help survive long winters and voyages, and also as rations when soldiers went to war. This led to the production of foods like beer, wine, cheeses, yogurt and butter.
The 19th century saw the rise of modern food processing methods. Canning and bottling began mainly to serve military needs, although the initial cans used were hazardous, as they were contaminated with lead.
Pasteurization, a method that prolongs the shelf life of dairy and wine to allow increased production and distribution, was discovered and patented by Louis Pasteur in the mid-1800s.
In the 20th century, the rising consumer society contributed to the growth of food processing. Advances such as freeze drying, spray drying and juice concentrates were developed. At the same time, coloring agents, preservatives and artificial sweeteners were introduced.
Self-cooking meals, “TV dinners,” reconstituted fruits and juices and other “instant” foods like coffee and noodles became popular. These were mostly marketed to working wives and mothers who were tired of preparing foods from scratch.
To convince people that processed foods were as good, or even better, than wholesome foods, they were marketed as a means for people to save time and money - hence the term “convenience foods.”
But do the time and money you save by choosing these processed goods make up for the havoc that they wreak with your health?
Not What the Human Body Needs, or Wants
The human body is not designed to thrive on processed foods. And foods are not meant to be altered. The more altered they are, the worse they are for your health.
Processed foods are actually lacking in nutritional content compared to natural foods. For example, processed bread and other snacks use refined grains that have the bran and germ removed and, along with it, important nutrients like fiber, iron and B-vitamins.
Dehydrated foods not only have reduced amounts of vitamin C and fiber, but they also become more energy dense, which causes them to contribute to weight gain. When dehydrated foods are constituted and cooked with water, even more nutrients leach out.
Processed foods are also loaded with sugar, unhealthy fats and sodium, all of which your body is not designed to handle in high amounts, and all of which can endanger health. Particularly damaging are refined sugars, like high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which convert into fat in your body.
This wreaks havoc on your insulin and leptin levels, and leads to chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes and cancer. Meanwhile, synthetic trans fats, in the form of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, have been linked to heart disease.
And of course processed foods are routinely laced with hazardous genetically engineered and pesticide-drenched ingredients derived from GMO corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets and cotton (cottonseed oil is common in low-grade vegetable oils).
According to the Grocery Manufacturers of America, 80 percent of all (non-organic) supermarket processed foods contain GMOs. Only now are those ingredients being labeled, as food manufacturers are being forced to comply with Vermont’s GMO labeling law.
Loaded with Health-Harming Synthetic Additives
Close to 5,000 additives are now allowed to be used in food products. And this number keeps growing. If you factor in the additives found in the packaging (which can also leach into your food), that number of additives can rise to 10,000!
What’s worse, most of these food additives have not undergone any safety testing, and very few have been tested according to the way that they are ingested - meaning in combination with other additives. Some of these additives are downright dangerous.
Diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione (PD), both of which are added to microwave popcorn to give it a buttery aroma, are linked to brain health, Alzheimer’s disease and respiratory toxicity.
Monosodium glutamate (MSG), which is found in chips, processed meats and a wide array of other foods, is an excitotoxin that can lead to cell damage, triggering brain dysfunction and leading to learning disabilities, Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and more.
Artificial food dyes like Red #40, Yellow 5, and Blue #2 are linked to brain tumors, hyperactivity, hypersensitivity and other behavioral effects in children.
Preservatives like butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxyl toluene (BHT) can mess with your brain’s neurological system, causing behavioral problems and even cancer. Another preservative, tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), is also deadly. In fact, just five grams can kill you, according to the FDA.
Giving Up Processed Foods - Easier Said than Done
If you think you can simply shake off your processed food cravings, you’re wrong. These foods are intentionally addictive.
They stimulate dopamine, a “feel-good” neurotransmitter that affects your brain similarly to how drugs affect you. Manufacturers are fully aware of this, and actually engineer their products to produce this “delicious” yet dangerous effect. (Michael Moss details this in his book, “Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us.”)
Sadly, many people still consume GMO and pesticide-tainted, highly processed foods because of their affordability, convenience and “delicious” flavor. But what you save in terms of money and convenience will ultimately put a double whammy on your health.
Instead, go for a diet composed mostly of wholesome foods, like organic fruits and vegetables, grass-fed and pasture-raised meat and raw (unpasteurized and unhomogenized) dairy, and healthy saturated fats like coconuts, coconut oil, avocados and raw nuts.
For your beverage, choose pure water and fresh green juice instead of processed fruit juices, soda and energy drinks.
In addition, make sure to cook these wholesome foods in your home, so you can be sure that nothing harmful goes into your meals. Cooking at home will also help you avoid dining at fast foods and restaurants (which also use processed ingredients).
Encouraging your whole family to sit down and have a hearty meal together not only cultivates good health, it cultivates good relationships.
Massive Vaccine Protests Erupt In China Over Widespread Deaths Of Children: Government Responds By Arresting Protesters
May 11 2016 | From: NaturalNews
Recently, a massive vaccine scandal in China exposed the weakness of government efforts to build up China's immunization program. It uncovered the system's flaws regarding the way in which vaccines are distributed, and revealed close links between vendors and government clinics.
Although the vaccines were made by licensed manufacturers, they were transported and stored without any refrigeration, and then sold by unlicensed distributors. Improper storing conditions may have ruined the vaccines, leaving children unprotected and at risk of disabilities and death.
According to Li Guoqing, who is in charge of drug supervision, investigators revealed how government clinics have been selling expired or near-expired vaccines to vendors on the cheap, who in turn have been selling them to other government clinics in remote areas where there is no oversight.
Authorities were well aware of these practices, and let an illegal vaccine shop continue its operations, thereby poisoning thousands of its citizens, especially young children.
Chinese parents have lost all confidence in the government and government clinics, and are demanding answers.
People across the country have gathered and joined forces in a nationwide protest over the vaccine scam. Dozens of Chinese parents have filed a lawsuit demanding justice for the children who have been harmed by these tainted, improperly stored vaccines, amid reports of child and infant deaths and illnesses following such immunizations.
"Everybody gathered outside the National Health and Family Planning Commission today, and then we all marched to their complaints department in the Xizhimen district," parent activist Liu Lixin told Radio Free Asia (RFA).
"We are calling for a vaccines law, because there is no legislation covering vaccinations right now, and families who have been victims of this disaster have no judicial redress," he said.
"Our children have suffered varying degrees of harm and disability as a result of immunization injections," the lawsuit reads. "Some have even lost the ability to live independently."
China Jailing Vaccine Protesters
The impact of the scandal couldn't be brushed under the carpet, so the Chinese government announced that 357 officials have been dismissed or demoted for "poor performance," and has promised to take further actions to ensure better storage and distribution methods.
However, the reality seems a bit different. As many as 2,000 people gathered outside the Health and Family Planning Commission in Beijing, among them many parents whose children have been affected.
The authorities took large numbers of people participating in the protests or lawsuits to an out-of-town unofficial detention center, and some were put under 24-hour surveillance at their homes.
"I had planned to take part [in the Beijing protests and lawsuits], but I was forcibly escorted home by officials from my hometown on April 13," parent activist Wang Liangqing said.
"Now they are watching us 24 hours a day, so we weren't able to go." Wang called on the government to take the victims of tainted vaccines seriously.
This incident is a perfect example of how governments collude with Big Pharma, and the U.S. isn't doing any better.
Soon, we will have no say when it comes to our own health. The CDC has set up a "police state" registry system to identify and track areas of so-called "under vaccination," and while this may seem like innocent data gathering, in the future people will be pushed to follow national vaccination guidelines against their own will.
And, just as in China, key people in the U.S. government are involved. Last year, California's vaccine mandate bill SB277 was halted by the public. Unfortunately, the vaccine mafia's henchmen came out to play, and helped replace seats on the committee with pro-vaccine activists to vote in favor of stripping Californians of their vaccine exemption rights.
The Positive Choice Wellness Center Calls Out Sun Avoidance As “Misguided” May 11 2016 | From: Mercola
Over the past 40+ years, dermatologists have promoted the idea that you should never be exposed to direct sunlight because it will damage your skin and cause skin cancer.
You might wonder, well what about vitamin D? No problem, as according to the American Academy of Dermatology, vitamin D deficiency can easily be addressed with vitamin D supplements.
What they fail to acknowledge and appreciate is that when you’re exposed to sunlight, many important biological processes occur in your skin, not just vitamin D production.
This is separate from swallowing oral vitamin D, which is an important but, according to many experts, clearly inferior alternative. While it will improve your vitamin D status, you forgo the many benefits sunlight offers aside from vitamin D production.
Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Sun Exposure
Unfortunately, the entire focus of most dermatologists is preventing skin damage, which means ignoring the other side - the benefits - of the sun exposure equation.
This includes heightened protection against a number of internal cancers and other chronic diseases, including heart disease, which kills far more people than melanoma does.
Ironically, recent research shows that vitamin D also improves survival outcomes for melanoma patients. It’s also important for cognitive health, immune function, healthy pregnancy and infant development, and strong, healthy bones, just to name a few.
As noted in a recent news report:
"Fifteen to 20 minutes in sunlight a day helps your body produce the vitamin D it needs to absorb calcium and promote bone growth and keep the heart healthy. But sunscreen - important to protect against skin cancer - reduces the body's ability to manufacture the vitamin.
Doctors can be torn on recommending time in the sun when too much and too little both have consequences.”
Ths would explain NZ's record high rates. If you are still eating corporate / corpse chemicals, or putting them anywhere near your body, you need your head read. Its a corporate death cult - the goal being population reduction.
Sun Avoidance Decreases Melanoma Risk But Increases All-Cause Mortality
A recent study driving home these benefits was completed in Sweden. More than 25,500 Swedish women between the ages of 25 and 64 were followed for 20 years. Detailed information about sun exposure habits and confounding factors were obtained and analyzed in a “competing risk” scenario.
Overall, women who got regular sun exposure had a lower all-cause mortality risk—likely due to their increased vitamin D levels.
Women with active sun exposure habits ended up having a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and non-cancer death compared to those who avoided the sun. Of particular note:
“Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking.
Compared to the highest sun exposure group, life expectancy of avoiders of sun exposure was reduced by 0.6–2.1 years.”
Other Research That Puts Melanoma Risk Into Perspective
Previous research has shown that when sunlight strikes your skin, nitric oxide is released into your bloodstream and nitric oxide is a powerful blood pressure lowering compound.
This has led researchers to conclude that sun exposure may prolong your life by significantly cutting your heart attack/stroke risk. One 2013 study mentions an absolutely stunning statistic.
For every one skin cancer death in northern Europe, between 60 and 100 people die from stroke or heart disease, related to hypertension. Knowing your risk of dying from heart disease or stroke is 80 times greater on average than from skin cancer really puts it in perspective.
While higher vitamin D levels correlate with lower rates of cardiovascular disease, oral vitamin D supplements do not appear to benefit blood pressure, and the fact that supplements do not increase nitric oxide may be the reason for this.
According to researcher Richard Weller:
“Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking.
Compared to the highest sun exposure group, life expectancy of avoiders of sun exposure was reduced by 0.6–2.1 years.”
Homeopathy Officially Recognized By Swiss Government As Legitimate Medicine To Coexist With "Conventional" Medicine May 6 2016 | From: NaturalNews
Broadening their definition of medicine, the Swiss government is announcing a positive shift toward alternative healing and complementary therapies.
For far too long, health insurance has guaranteed a monopoly for a system dominated by synthetic drugs.
The Swiss government is breaking out of that confining mold and allowing patients' health insurance plans to cover five new complementary therapies.
In May 2017, health insurance plans in Switzerland will be covering a variety of healing modalities, including homeopathy, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine and holistic medicine. In this way, Switzerland will be bringing back the many healing arts that were used successfully in the past.
A shift away from the disease management, synthetic drug system
This shift toward integration will allow the Swiss healthcare system to heal, as it moves away from profiting off disease management. With the inclusion of these five eclectic healing modalities, Swiss healthcare will become more affordable. By legitimizing these true healing modalities, healthcare can compete to heal, empowering people instead of leaving them in an expensive cycle of side effects and negative outcomes.
Synthetic pharmaceutical "science" got its start in 1869, as experiments with coal tar were underway. The first drug was a sedative-hypnotic called chloral hydrate. Pharmaceutical companies got their start after experimenting with nasty coal-tar distillations.
Many of the first drugs were modeled after textiles and dyes. The first analgesic and antipyretic drugs, phenacetin and acetanilide, were made from aniline and p-nitrophenol, which are just byproducts of coal tar.
Pharmaceutical "science," for the most part, is an absolute abandonment of the healing modalities that have sustained humans for centuries. The good news is that many herbalists are still around today, passing on the trade of making real medicine using plants. Plants synthesize their own medicine and contain compounds that, when extracted and used correctly, work in conjunction with the human body systems, restoring its healing state.
Swiss people speak out, pressure government to include complementary therapies on list of paid health services
After Swiss health authorities blocked the alternative medicine fields from legitimacy in 2005, the people of Switzerland spoke out. In 2009, two-thirds of the Swiss voted to include these five important healing modalities on the country's constitutional list of paid health services.
When 2012 rolled around, all five complementary healing modalities were included in basic compulsory insurance coverage as part of a six-year trial period. At the end of the trial period, determinations would be made based on the alternative therapies "efficacy, cost–effectiveness and suitability."
Holistic approaches are gauged through observation, in the progress of healing over time
Holistic therapies are not like synthetic drugs. The whole person is treated, not just a symptom. It's impossible to gauge an "alternative" therapy on paper, in a perfectly controlled environment.
Comment: The whole concept of "Alternative Therapies" and " Alternative Medicine" is madness from the outset.
Natural remedies that have been used successfully for thousands of years were marked as whackery - simply because the establishment could not patent them, profit from them; and nor would actual cures have worked in favour of their depopulation agenda. It's not rocket science once you are aware of the agendas.
The Pharmaceutical nightmare that has been launched upon humanity is the alternative medicine / therapy that is the actual threat for the most part.
And what an utterly horrific, profit-driven monstrosity at that.
The proof is typically in the observation, in the progress of healing over time.
And so, in this understanding, these five healing modalities will continue to be reimbursed by compulsory health insurance plans, as long as they are administered by certified medical professionals. This is an enormous step in the right direction for a healthcare system that is seeking to integrate more than just synthetic manipulations and suppression of the human body.
This shift toward integration of medicine will also allow questionable treatments within these complementary healing systems to face more scrutiny, so that the best holistic approaches can come out and be a success for people.
Iodine: The Miracle Mineral For Brain, Body And Spirit May 5 2016 | From: Sott
When most people think about iodine, they tend to think it's only good for the thyroid.
But it's not just the thyroid that is hungry for this mineral! Iodine is also concentrated in the salivary glands, the lining of the stomach and the small intestine, the breasts and ovaries, the eyes, and the part of the brain where cerebro-spinal fluid is produced.
Deficiency of iodine in any tissue can cause problems with that area of the body and weakens the immune system. Some symptoms of iodine deficiency are brain fog, nodules in the skin like are common with arthritis, fibrosis and fibroids, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue.
Iodine basically feeds your glands; it feeds all your cells. More researchers are rediscovering that this mineral has miraculous effects on the entire body.
The Nobel laureate Dr. Albert Szent Györgi (1893 - 1986), the physician who discovered vitamin C, wrote:
“When I was a medical student, iodine in the form of KI was the universal medicine. Nobody knew what it did, but it did something and did something good. We students used to sum up the situation in this little rhyme: If ye don't know where, what, and why Prescribe ye then K and I (iodine)."
Lynne Farrow author of The Iodine Crisis has written extensively about how iodine helps breast cancer and prevents mental retardation. It is well documented that iodine deficiency is the leading cause of mental retardation in the world.
Comment: Have a listen to this episode of the Health and Wellness Show to hear what Lynne Farrow has to say about iodine.
Lack of iodine negatively impacts your cognitive abilities because your brain needs sufficient iodine.
Beyond helping the brain function, sufficient iodine strengthens your will. People will be amazed at how strong their will becomes! This effect could be due to the fact that iodine removes fluoride out of the pineal gland - an endocrine gland located in the brain that is said to be the "seat of the soul."
The pineal gland is also referred to as the third eye, and acts as a gateway to Spirit and higher levels of consciousness, beyond our brain-created matrix.
Did you know that well over 90% of people are iodine deficient?
I find that really interesting. If iodine can be a miracle cure, why are we not being educated about its powerful effect on the body? Is it because it can't be patented and is not a money maker for the pharmaceutical industry?
How to get the iodine you need?
With the exception of seafood, including sea plants like seaweed, iodine is not found in great abundance in many foods. And, table salt is not going to help you get the iodine you need. Research shows that just ten percent of iodine in salt is completely absorbed by your body.
And, it provides miniscule amounts of iodine, far below the recommended dosage. Since we're on the topic of salt, you'll want to avoid white table salt when you do use salt. Instead, invest a little more money and get good Celtic sea salt or Himalayan salt.
Comment: Nascent iodine may not be the best form. According to Dr. Jeffrey Dach:
“Nascent (aka Magnascent, Detoxified, or Atomidine) - Based on Edgar Cayce's "energized" iodine. The iodine is reduced to a 1% concentration in 100% ethyl alcohol and electro-magnetically transmuted (while being suspended in a wet bath containing a mild acid solution) into the Atomic state.
1 drop = 150 microgram (mcg) or .150 mg of Iodine. This form will not saturate body tissues and has not been proven to detox halides such as bromide, fluoride, chloride, and mercury, as other forms have. This form of iodine is not recommended on this protocol as the goal is tissue saturation and halide detoxification/protection."
What do the experts say about dosage?
The RDA for iodine is around 150 mcg but according to Dr. David Brownstein, we should be getting far more than the government recommended dose. Dr. Brownstein and other researchers recommend doses ranging from 6-50 mg/day for most people.
Some researchers recommend high doses, like 50 to 100mg a day, to replenish the body's iodine and remove any microbes that have built up over the years because of the body's weakened immune system due to all toxins in our environment.
Given that iodine has no side effects like pharmaceuticals, and there is no development of resistance against it, it's hard to argue against taking high dosages.
How long does it take to reap the benefits?
While it can take many months to clear out toxins or to help something like ovarian cysts, the beneficial effects on the brain and energy levels are much faster. People who take iodine in sufficient amounts report that they have a greater sense of well-being, increased energy, and a lifting of brain fog and sharper mental abilities.
Boycott Tourism In NZ: More Fluorides? May 4 2016 | From: JonRappoport
Recently, I’ve written several articles about toxic fluorides (archive: here). The case is clear: cancer, lower IQ, other varieties of severe damage.
I became aware of a group in New Zealand, Fluoride Free NZ. They’ve had remarkable success working with local communities to ban fluorides in water supplies.
Jump in. Go for it. Send a message. A reader emailed me the letter he just wrote:
Dear Tourism New Zealand executive staff,
My name is Michael Blanshan. I am a naturopathic doctor in New Mexico, U.S.A. Years ago a group of friends and I were discussing New Zealand and all it has to offer as a country. Many of our group travelled to New Zealand and two families moved there, one to Nelso and one to Christchurch. These were good families with children and much to offer their local communities, not retirees looking for a country in which to retire.
In my own travels I often run into New Zealanders (aka kiwis). They are generally great travelers, good people, kind, open-minded, intelligent, and generally fun. The very spirit of New Zealand which most kiwis embody seems to me to serve as New Zealand’s best advertising.
Being a naturopath, I am keenly aware of the history of the fluoridation of drinking water, those who promoted this policy, their motivations for doing so, and the forms of pressure they use to continue the policy despite compelling scientific opposition. A local organization in New Zealand calling itself Fluoride Free NZ has worked tirelessly with communities to educate them on this issue.
They worked diligently and the majority of those communities have chosen not to fluoridate their local water supplies. In response to this group’s effectiveness, the NZ federal government is now acting to take the decision making authority away from local councils and communities and put the power into the hands of District Health Boards (DHB), who are under the direct control of Central Government.
This action has profound implications, though it may seem inconsequential to you, especially considering that you are a department for tourism. Though I stated that the people of New Zealand are its best feature, this is a black mark on New Zealand as a country. It points to a corruption of your federal government and its purported goals of serving its people. To the contrary, the government is showing that it has a will of its own and that it acts in the interests of other parties.
The policy of fluoridation originated in the U.S.A. in the 1940s. Many European countries have rejected this policy, knowing it was not about health but rather that it was the result of corrupt influences. For the New Zealand government to force this policy shows that they’re not interested in science or the natural rights of the people and worse, that the New Zealand government is caving to pressure from either American or UK interests.
Please understand that the irony of an American writing about corruption in government does not escape me. Educated Americans know all too well the workings and techniques of a dictatorship which presents itself as a democracy. It is as a result of the extreme corruption of the leadership of Western countries that we look to New Zealand and still see it to be a land of free individuals who can run their local communities as they like.
If the New Zealand federal government goes ahead with this decision, I personally will not visit New Zealand in the future. If any of my friends or clients discuss the possibility of travelling to New Zealand, I will do my best to dissuade them.
Potential visitors to New Zealand should know that all is not well in paradise and that behind the scenes you have the same dictatorship we see in the [rest of the] West. Despite all its physical beauty I still contend that the best part about New Zealand is its people.
If the people of New Zealand are forced to stand in the shadow cast by a dictatorial federal government, something vital and essential will have been lost.
Thank you, Fluoride Free NZ, for showing the way.
I keep hearing this thing called the Internet is a wonderful apparatus with many uses. Well, here’s one.
Comment: What does it take to wake these intentionally distracted master chef cooking-show home renovation watching reality -television watching idiots up already? Time is up!
The Real Science On Vaccines, Dental Fillings, And Brain Damage: Stunning Video Shows How Mercury Content Damages Neurons Under A Microscope May 3 2016 | From: NaturalNews
T\Medical science has long known that mercury is a health hazard no matter how it gets into the body. Whether by foods we eat, water we drink, through vaccines or even our dental fillings, mercury is damaging to our health and toxic to our bodies.
The video, produced by the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine Dept. of Physiology and Biophysics, "clearly shows how mercury in fillings can destroy brain neurons as seen with people who have Alzheimer's Disease," according to a description of it posted online at YouTube.
Researchers demonstrated in 1997 how mercury vapor inhalation by animals produced negative effects in the brain – in particular a lesion that is seen in at least 80 percent of brains in patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. And more recently, researchers at the University of Calgary were able to demonstrate how mercury can alter the cell structure of developing neurons in the brain.
Immune System Compromised
Later research published in PLOS ONE by researchers from the College of William and Mary in Virginia found that songbirds that were exposed to sub-lethal and trace amounts of mercury left over from industrial manufacturing operations incurred reproductive problems and immune suppression, as well as brain abnormalities and other anomalies.
The songbirds' exposure to industrial chemicals in the environment has also been studied in fish and fish-eating birds, but at that time it had not been studied so much in forest birds.
Dan Cristol, a biology professor at the College of William and Mary, and some colleagues embarked on a study to find out how other types of birds – specifically songbirds living around the Shenandoah Valley's South River – were being affected by chemical residues still evident from manufacturing of rayon that occurred at DuPont factories between 1929 and 1950.
Rayon is a type of smooth textile that is often used in place of silk, but the manufacturing process left behind mercury and other chemicals in nearby rivers and land. For many decades, birds living in the area had been exposed to those chemicals as they searched for food. That was a scenario that Cristol saw as an opportunity to learn more about the effects of that exposure.
As reported by The Virginia Gazette:
The Establishment has promoted these dysfunctional communication rules and used them to manipulate and con numerous young Americans to needlessly enlist or allow themselves to be drafted to fight in illegal, unConstitutional, unprovoked, undeclared, unwinnable, perpetual foreign wars on behalf of the World’s largest Organized crime syndicate, the Khazarian Mafia (KM).
"They had 20 percent fewer babies," he said. "Their songs are sung at the wrong pitch. Their hormone levels are altered. Their immune systems are suppressed."
Early Onset Dementia And Mercury – Link?
The research team could not draw a line directly from mercury to the anomalies, but they said it looked very much like mercury was the cause.
In 2015, we reported that mercury, which can be found in vaccines as the preservative "thimerosal," was likely to blame for early-onset dementia occurring in people in their 40s:
Dementia and other neurological brain diseases are striking people younger and younger, according to a new study conducted by researchers from Bournemouth University in England and published in the journal Surgical Neurology International.
These diseases have reached levels that are "almost epidemic," the researchers said, and they reached them so quickly that environmental factors must be largely to blame.
You can watch the short but fascinating video explaining mercury toxicity on the brain from the University of Calgary below or at this link.
New Zealand Government Plans To Drown Its Citizens In Toxic Fluorides
April 30 2016 | From: JonRappoport / Infowars
Why should a government be permitted to dump poison into the water and call it medical treatment?
“Oh, I love New Zealand. It’s one of the most beautiful places on Earth. It’s…what? What did you say?…No, that’s impossible. That couldn’t be happening. They’re doing what??”
But these successes are a threat, because they contradict the lies medical authorities spew about how safe fluorides are, and because grass-roots victories erode blind faith in centralized government.
Here are quotes from Kane Titchener, who represents the group, Fluoride Free NZ, in New Zealand. His remarks lay out what’s happening behind the scenes in that natural paradise:
“…the fluoridation issue has been brought to a head. The NZ Government is proposing that the [bigger] District Health Boards take over the decision making [about] fluoridation [in water supplies] as opposed to the local councils. This is because we have been very good at winning at the local council level.”
“Fluoride Free NZ was formed in 2003. Since that time we have had many substantial victories in local Councils throughout New Zealand. Local Councils that have stopped [fluoridating water supplies] as a result of Fluoride Free NZ’s lobbying efforts: New Plymouth; Taumarunui; Waipukurau; Far North…”
“In summary, the Government is planning to implement mandatory fluoridation to the whole of New Zealand. Currently, only around 50% of households are on fluoridated water, with only 23 out of 67 local councils still fluoridating, while voicing their growing concerns about fluoridation risks and dangers.
In response to more and more councillors and mayors deciding against fluoridation, the Government is now taking the decision away from local councils and communities and putting the power into the hands of District Health Boards (DHB), who are under the direct control of Central Government.”
If you think Fluoride Free NZ’s successes working with town councils is a walk in the park, think again. This group has scored victories against long odds. This group is smart, dedicated, and effective.
They represent what can happen when strong, clear-sighted, creative individuals band together to accomplish a righteous goal.
And the tyrannical response of big government is predictable.
However, there is going to be blowback against that government in New Zealand.
The degree and power of the blowback is going to depend, in part, on the response of people around the world who become aware of the situation and make their voices heard.
Contact Fluoride Free NZ. Help them. Spread their press releases all over the world.
Why should a government be permitted to dump poison into the water and call it medical treatment?
And having called it medical treatment, by what power can a government mandate it for all citizens without informed consent, without the explicit permission of those millions of patients? Yes, patients, because that’s what they are. They’re being treated every day.
By what power can this happen? Dictatorship calling itself democracy.
A note to tourists: how do you feel about traveling to New Zealand and bathing in, and drinking, poison? Do you like that bonus for spending your good money in “paradise?”
If not, you might want to contact the New Zealand tourism authority (newzealand.com) and let them know about your change of plans.
Such organizations are always interested in money, where it’s coming from—and where it won’t be coming from.
Scientist Who Found Gluten Sensitivity Now Says it Doesn’t Exist + Industrial GMO Food Threats & The Global Monsanto Take Down April 28 2016 | From: WakingTimes / Geopolitics / Various
Is Monsanto’s glyphosate the true cause of sensitivity to glutenous foods?
Millions of people are said to have some intolerance to gluten, the sticky protein that can be found in breads, barley, and other wheat products. But how scientifically grounded is this sudden wave of large-scale gluten intolerance? As it turns out, it may not be gluten that is triggering health problems, but a reaction to agrochemicals being used in the harvesting of wheat.
In 2011, an Australian scientist named Peter Gibson at Monash University conducted an experiment to determine whether gluten in the diet can cause gastrointestinal distress in people who did not have celiac disease. When experiments confirmed this hypothesis, they named this condition ‘non-celiac gluten sensitivity‘ or NCGS, thus beginning the gluten-free trend, which has resulted in an estimated $15 billion industry by 2016.
For this new experiment, Gibson sought out 37 self-identified gluten sensitive patients. The study was done double-blind with subjects that had NCGS and irritable bowel syndrome, but not celiac disease. For two weeks, the patients were given high-gluten, low-gluten, and no-gluten meals (as the control group), followed by a two-week “washout” period.
The findings of the study showed that although in opposition to the results found in the first experiment, gluten intolerance actually does not exist in people without celiac disease. A third study, also by Gibson, further supports these findings, suggesting perhaps that much of what we see as gluten sensitivity is psychosomatic.
“In contrast to our first study… we could find absolutely no specific response to gluten,”
– Dr. Peter Gibson
It May Not Be The Gluten – But Don’t Eat That Wheat Too Soon
Although gluten is no longer believed to be the culprit of health problems reportedly associated with consuming glutenous wheat, that does not mean that conventionally grown wheat is completely safe to eat. In fact, until 2005, GMO wheat was being tested in 16 states, and is known to have escaped testings grounds, genetically polluting nearby fields via airborne seeds and cross-pollination.
“Further testing by USDA laboratories indicates the presence of the same GE glyphosate-resistant wheat variety that Monsanto was authorized to field test in 16 states from 1998 to 2005.”
In addition, even non-GMO wheat is drenched with Monsanto’s carcinogenic glyphosate Round-up just days before harvest, because, as it turns out, wheat fields produce slightly more seed when sprayed with this poison 7-10 days before harvest, as researched by Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT.
“It ‘goes to seed’ as it dies. At its last gasp, it releases the seed.”
This study from 2013 shows that fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive issues similar to celiac disease.
“If Glyphosate ends up in bread it’s impossible for people to avoid it, unless they are eating organic. On the other hand, farmers could easily choose not to use Glyphosate as a spray on wheat crops – just before they are harvested. This is why the Soil Association is calling for the immediate ending of the use of Glyphosate sprays on wheat destined for use in bread.”
– Peter Melchett of the Soil Association
It is true that not every food fad ends up being true. However, we should still take caution when choosing the foods we feed our families. Although it has been found that gluten itself is not causing an intolerance in people without celiac disease, there are still other issues with wheat production that we need to be aware of.
Get your wheat from local, organic farms when possible and do what you can to avoid Monsanto and other pesticide company’s chemical toxins finding their way into your body.
Industrial GMO Food Threats & The Global Monsanto Take Down
The debate over GMO safety and risks stems from the fact that the definition is too generalized, or too ambiguous. The mainstream conversation about its pseudo-science always favors the corporations behind it.
But mere scientific definition is not enough to circumvent the actual disastrous experience, i.e. those glaring facts about its negative effects outside the GMO laboratories.
The long term side effects of consuming genetically modified, processed, or preserved, foods are beginning to unravel. The corporations have billions of reasons not to publicize its methods and why they are moving heaven and hell not to label GMO products.
Whatever you do, don’t ever gamble with the food you eat unless you can afford to pay for your expensive medications later on.
Here are the real scientific reasons why GMO foods are extremely dangerous, and how scientists around the world are being coerced to toe the biotech establishment’s line.
Up to now we are still very skeptical if the reported removal of GMO ingredients from Kraft products is real, or mere publicity stunt.
"Orange you glad you didn’t notice.
Kraft altered its beloved formula for the Day-Glo sheen of its popular Macaroni & Cheese earlier this year — but now the company is rolling out a big bucks ad campaign to tell people.
It’s not as if it were a secret. Kraft announced nearly a year ago it was going to make this change. It started shipping the new recipe in December and has already sold over 50 million boxes.
Its new commercial features Craig Kilborn standing in a supermarket.
“Moms didn’t notice. Kids didn’t notice. Dogs didn’t notice,” Kilborn said. “None of them noticed a thing because this Kraft Mac & Cheese still tastes like Kraft Mac & Cheese. It’s changed but it hasn’t.”
The problem with this claim is that no independent consumer group is certifying that such is the case. Another known fact to remind ourselves is the inherent chemical contamination right at the production lines itself.
If ordinary tampons, or gauze, can be contaminated with glyphosate during production [here], why not food products which were subjected to artificial fertilizers and pesticides from growing to packaging?
"Nitrogen fertilizers are used to prevent nitrogen from becoming depleted from the soil. Unfortunately, the overuse of nitrogen fertilizers isn’t without its long-term consequences. According to a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, nitrogen fertilizers are causing nitrates to build up in the Mississippi Basin, polluting ground and surface water.
Nitrates increase the risk of blue baby syndrome, according to the recent study. The illness replaces a child’s hemoglobin with methemoglobin, which minimizes the ability of blood to carry oxygen throughout the body. Infants are most often affected by the malady, which is marked by a blueness around the mouth. Other symptoms include difficulties breathing, vomiting and diarrhea. In extreme cases, blue baby syndrome can be fatal."
There are so many concerned groups that have taken the cudgels of bringing down abusive food corporations for decades now. Yet, the fight to end these abuses has not achieved its intended outcome.
Then came a covert global effort to neutralize the single crime syndicate that’s been doing all the evils in our society today.
The information we received after the events in 2001 said that there is a global movement to take down the “tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations,” that sought to depopulate and control the world for its own caprices.
This Reformist Collective, the most visible manifestation of which is the BRICS, is said to be employing both hard and soft power to achieve its aims of creating a world of mutual progress by allowing the full and responsible use of suppressed technologies to eliminate scarcity and institute abundance for all, and end all types of geopolitical conflicts.
There is now a growing body of evidence that the genocidal group of the Bushes, Rockefellers, Gates, etc. are being systematically neutralized, i.e. their attempts to start a nuclear war with Iran has been suppressed.
The Rothschild banking dynasty, along with the UK Monarchy and Vatican, are said to have no other choice but cooperate with this group after the Global Collateral Accounts, the massive tranche of historical gold lent by Asian royalties to back up the entire financial system for the last 100 years or so, were frozen prompting the massive resignations of CEO bankers around the globe in 2012.
This bankers’ resignations were punctuated by the resignation of the World Bank president and Vatican Pope Benedict XVI in 2013.
Part of the global reform is to bring down Monsanto, the acknowledged rogue player in the realm of genetically modified food production, of which mass vaccinations advocate Bill Gates is a major stockholder.
Those who have chosen the path to peaceful resolution and have since cooperated with the BRICS and will be paid for handsomely.
Early in February of this year, ChemChina frustrated Monsanto’s attempt to buy off Swiss Syngenta through a $43 billion offer. While western media is saying that China is just trying to feed its more than a billion mouths, we believe there is a much profound objective for the acquisition, among many acquisitions.
“ChemChina became a pesticide powerhouse in 2011 when its subsidiary, China National Agrochemical Corporation, acquired Makhteshim Agan Industries (Israel), the world’s 7th largest pesticide manufacturer, and became ADAMA”, said the Canada-based ETC Group. “With revenues over $3 billion in 2013, ADAMA sells generic pesticide products in more than 120 countries… ADAMA’s largest market is Europe (37%), followed by Latin America (25%).” (Parentheses in original)
ChemChina’s interests go way beyond agrochemicals. Last year it acquired Italy’s Pirelli, one of the world’s leading tire manufacturers, for $7.9 billion. Its other major purchases include French firms Adisseo and Rhodia, Australia’s Qenos, Norwegian silicon maker Elkem, German machinery maker Krauss Maffee, and 12% of Swiss energy trader Mercuria.
…The company is also looking to expand its presence in the domestic market. A merger with Syngenta would turn ChemChina into the country’s top pesticide company. This is no small undertaking, given that China is the world’s third largest pesticide market, after the US and Brazil. If foreign agrochemical companies were to be interested in investing in China’s vast market they would find themselves squeezed into a minor corner by a gigantic Syngenta-ChemChina combination.
ChemChina’s ambitions are part of a larger story. Chinese food and agriculture companies are moving abroad and starting to compete toe to toe with their Western counterparts and even buying them out. In 2013, China’s Shuanghui corporation bought Smithfield, the leading US pork company, for $7.1 billion, the largest ever purchase of a US company by Chinese investors.
Another Chinese company to watch is COFCO, the country’s leading food processor, which acquired a controlling stake in the Netherlands’ agricultural commodity trader Nidera. The majority stake in Nidera would give COFCO greater control over pricing and better access to Latin America and Russia, important grain-growing regions, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2014."
Once the deal is fully consummated, China could dictate where Western companies should proceed from hereon.
Will China continue the regressive direction of the food industry? Or, will it force the positive enhancements of food production drawing the lessons learned at l Loess Plateau, Central China?
It is estimated that even if only 10% of the population of the earth will do permaculture, it’s enough to feed the entire population.
Of course, we can always question China’s real motives, but judging from how the decades of Western control of Africa induces famine, hunger and endless ethnic conflicts, one needs to see only how Ethiopia achieved 11% economic growth after they have allowed China to participate in their economy.
While it’s true that China has been investing billions in Africa in exchange for access to its rich natural resources, it’s also true that the West has been plundering Africa’s resources for centuries just to satisfy its military industrial complex.
In deep contrast and in addition to China’s acquisition of Syngenta, it is also planning to create the largest solar power farm grid around the planet.
How then can we participate in the global effort to defeat the regressive group responsible for our collective misery and moral degradation?
We Need to Step Back
Humanity has reached the apex of its own capacity to inflict pain on itself.
Scientific advancements are all being used to manufacture great weapons of war; genetic engineering is being exploited to create plant and animal species only to increase production and profits rather than make people healthy, drugs and medicines are designed to make people sick, and the school system and mass media are making the people dumber.
The frequency and number of colorful protests against corporate abuses in the realm of education, food production and healthcare, banking and finance, are breaking previous records yet the benefits gained from these mass actions are disproportionately useless.
Corporations will just change the name of their products to circumvent the unfavorable regulations.
The belief that we still own the government we have right now is wasting a lot of time and effort in demanding that policies must be changed and enforcement of these policies must be done. It is time to accept the fact that big corporations own the government, and no matter how much we break our vocal chords shouting on the streets of the world, the government will never listen and will always serve the corporations which truly control it.
In order to make changes happen, we must understand how we arrived here.
First, we have been lured to come to the poorly designed cities where we could not grow our own organic food, and where we need to work in order to have access to the most resources basic for human survival.
Then, they supply us with industrialized processed food, neurotoxic vaccines and chemical drugs, where safer organic competitions from the countryside are deliberately stifled through the use of the police.
Consumerism has made us too vulnerable for totalitarian control later on.
The physical and psychological stresses of home mortgage and junk foods defeat the conveniences of city living. In fact, we cannot afford to describe it as living anymore, but merely surviving. We can’t go on with this same regressive trajectory. We cannot redesign our cities while most of us are still inside any of them.
We need to step back. We need to go back to the countryside and start growing our own food organically. We need to remove the power we’ve given them.
While building our organic permacultured farms, we must take all the bad urban experiences into consideration, and take the necessary measures to avoid them.
By doing so, we will be empowering ourselves, and that’s how we regain our long lost freedoms.
The Cult Of 'Scientism' Explained: How Scientific Claims Behind Cancer, Vaccines, Psychiatric Drugs And GMOs Are Nothing More Than Corporate-Funded Science Fraud April 27 2016 | From: NaturalNews
Sadly, what often passes for "science" today in the world of health is little more than "Scientism" - a dangerous cult founded on irrational dogma and faith-based beliefs in faulty, fraudulent ideas being paraded as science.
A common trait that weaves its way through every topic of "Scientism" is corporate profits. Any time something is being pushed with aggressive demands of "SCIENCE!" that also happens to enrich wealthy corporations, it's probably based on fraud, not real science. Perpetrators of fraudulent scientism include Paul Offit, Dr. David Gorski, Monsanto pal Bill Nye, discredited biotech shill and former Forbes.com writer Jon Entine and too many others to even name.
In this HealthRangerReport.com podcast, I explain the truth about the Cult of Scientism, sometimes called the "Church of Scientific Mysticism." This cult currently dominates the "official" dogma concerning vaccines, GMOs, fluoride, cancer, diabetes, pharmaceuticals, biosludge and more.
The Myth Of Mental Illness: Psychiatry Is A Fraud And It Is All About Control + “Opposition Defiant Disorder” - Non-Conformity And Anti-Authoritarianism Now Considered An Illness
April 27 2016 | From: Sott / WakeUpWorld / Various
Perhaps most radically, Thomas Szasz deemed mental illness a mythic and monstrous beast, and proclaimed that 'mental illness' was a fiction. Insanity, he has continued ever since to claim, is not a real disease, whose nature has been progressively scientifically unveiled; mental illness is rather a myth, forged by psychiatrists for their own greater glory.
Over the centuries, medical men and their supporters have been involved, argues Szasz, in a self-serving 'manufacture of madness.' In this, he indicts both the pretensions of organic psychiatry and the psychodynamic followers of Freud, whose notion of the 'unconscious' in effect breathed new life into the obsolete metaphysical Cartesian dualism.
For Szasz, any expectation of finding the etiology of mental illness in body or mind - above all in some mental underworld - must be a lost cause, a dead-end, a linguistic error, and even an exercise in bad faith.
'Mental illness' or the 'unconscious' are not realities but at best metaphors. In promoting such ideas, psychiatrists have either been involved in improper cognitive imperialism or have rather naively pictorialized the psyche - reifying the fictive substance behind the substantive.
Properly speaking, contends Szasz, insanity is not a disease with origins to be excavated, but a behavior with meanings to be decoded. Social existence is a rule-governed game-playing ritual in which the mad person bends the rules and exploits the loopholes.
Since the mad person is engaged in social performances that obey certain expectations so as to defy others, the pertinent questions are not about the origins, but about the conventions, of insanity. In this light, Szasz dismisses traditional approaches to the history of madness, as questions mal post and aims to reformulate them.
[From: Porter, R., Introduction, in Porter, R. and Wright, D., eds.,The Confinement of the Insane: International Perspectives, 1800-1965(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)]
If Albert Einstein was a youth today, there’s a good chance he would be saddled with an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis, possibly even Opposition Defiant Disorder (ODD) as well. He ignored his teachers, failed college entrance examinations several times and was hard-pressed in holding down a job.
In ‘Einstein: The Life and Times‘, biographer Ronald Clark argues that Einstein’s problem wasn’t attention deficits at all, but rather a hatred of authoritarian, Prussian influences in school.
“The teachers in the elementary school appeared to me like sergeants and in the gymnasium the teachers were like lieutenants,” Einstein once remarked.
The fact that he read Kant’s difficult Critique of Pure Reason for pleasure is quite revealing. He also refused to prepare for college admissions out of rebellion to his father’s “unbearable” path of “practical profession.” When he did gain entrance to college, one of his professors chided Einstein, “You have one fault; one can’t tell you anything.” The very characteristics that troubled authorities, were exactly the ones which helped him to excel.
Considering Einstein’s life history, it makes one wonder about the rampant use of ADHD and ODD diagnosis that are plaguing our children and teenagers today. According to the statistical research by Russell Barkley, Ph.D., on average for every 30 children, 1-3 have ADHD.
Of these children, 65% have issues with defiance, non-compliance and problems with authority figures, which can manifest as verbal hostility and temper tantrums. It’s estimated that between 1-16% of all American children have ODD. The real question, however, is not how many diagnosis there have been, but rather should we be looking at ADHD and ODD as a mental illness in the first place?
The Age of Excessive Diagnosis, Conformity and Over-Medication
For these children, sitting still in a classroom - under fluorescent lighting and being bombarded with EMFs from cell phones and wi-fi - completely removed from the natural world and pumped full of preservatives, artificial additives, GMOs, pesticides and sugar, is simply impossible.
Their sensitive bodies and minds cannot take the onslaught. Instead of extending outdoor time and cleaning up the diet, recess has been slashed and poor quality food remains the norm. Worse, they are drugged into submission with the likes of Evekeo, Adderall, Concerta and Ritalin - several of which are amphetamines. (For more on this topic, please see: The Fictions Surrounding ADHD and the “Chemical Imbalance” Theory of Mental Illness.)
A 2009 Psychiatric Times article titled “ADHD & ODD: Confronting the Challenges of Disruptive Behavior” reports that “disruptive disorders,” which include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and opposition defiant disorder (ODD), are the most common mental health problem of children and teenagers.
ADHD is defined by poor attention and distractibility, poor self-control and impulsivity, and hyperactivity.
ODD is defined as a “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior without the more serious violations of the basic rights of others that are seen in conduct disorder”; and ODD symptoms include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “often argues with adults.”
One of the leading mainstream mental health’s authorities on ADHD, psychologist Russell Barkley believes that those afflicted with ADHD are deficient in what he classifies as “rule-governed behavior,” since they are less open to established authorities and not as responsive to positive or negative consequences.
Those with ODD also have these so-called deficits. Because of this, it’s exceptionally common for young people to be diagnosed with both ADHD and ODD.
But as Levine rightly observes, “Do we really want to diagnose and medicate everyone with “deficits in rule-governed behavior”?
Some of our greatest freethinkers throughout history were non-conformists and challenged authority. At what point do we simply become a nation of zombies, drugged out on pharmaceuticals, unable to think for ourselves?
People have become increasingly socialized to associate inattention, anger, anxiety and paralyzing despair with a medical condition, and subsequently rely on medical intervention instead of political remedies.
“What better way to maintain the status quo than to view inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as biochemical problems of those who are mentally ill rather than normal reactions to an increasingly authoritarian society,” said Levine.
He believes we desperately need anti-authoritarians to question, test and oppose illegitimate authorities and regain trust in their own common sense.
And yet, we’re moving into deeper authoritarian waters by the day. A good example is the newest addition of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). ODD is actually a new label in the manual, defined as “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” where symptoms include negativity, questioning authority, argumentativeness and irritability.
ODD joins the ranks of other, newly created mental illnesses —‘disorders’ like arrogance, narcissism, exceptional creativity, cynicism and antisocial tendencies. Keep in mind that over the last 50 years, the manual has been prolific in creating new afflictions, with the total number of ‘mental illness’ classifications rising from 130 to 357.
"Another danger is that childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled “disorders” to be “cured.” If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality."
In the face of such bizarre and chilling authoritarian mental illness classifications, the famous quote by Jiddu Krishnamurti comes to mind:
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
About the Author:
Carolanne Wright enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness and joyful orientation for over 13 years.
Through her website Thrive-Living.net, she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision. You can also follow Carolanne on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest.
Bang: Robert De Niro Wakes Up And Opens Up On Vaccines + Another Vaccine Whistleblower Steps Out Of The Shadows April 18 2016 | From: JonRappoport / AustralianNationalReview / Infowars / Various On NBC’s Today Show, Robert De Niro just broke his trance and started talking sense about vaccines. He refused to back down and knuckle under. Watch the interview here.
It’s the leading edge of a new storm. De Niro wouldn’t accept the canned notion that vaccines are remarkably safe and effective and necessary. He expressed doubts. He linked vaccines to autism. He stood with the mothers who know their children were tragically damaged after being vaccinated.
You could say this is too little too late, because the actor already canceled Vaxxed (trailer) at Tribeca, his film festival, but it isn’t too late. Vaxxed is playing in New York at the Angelika Theater (through April 21). It’s going to travel. The demand for it is great.
Trailer: Vaxxed From Cover Up to Catastrophe
Again, watch De Niro’s interview.
So let me now broach the wider subject of medically caused death and damage, because the background is essential to understanding the medical edifice, and why the media, at the deepest level, must remain silent.
“If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the massive numbers of deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?
“I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.”
Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.
I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust, and whether she had ever been contacted by any government agency to consult on such an effort. She answered a resounding no to both questions.
Here is another citation: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices:
“It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’"
The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”
The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”
Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.
Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; because the FDA had, until recently, a page on its own website that admits 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. A few months ago, the page was removed.
Why won’t major media report these facts?
The obvious reason: their big-spending pharmaceutical advertisers would drop them like hot potatoes.
But there are other reasons.
Every medical bureaucrat or medical shill or medical expert who jumps aboard the media train, to assure the public that drugs and vaccines are remarkably safe, is sitting on the time bomb I have described above.
This is a key, key fact. If this bomb were widely recognized, who would continue to believe these professional liars? Who would accept anything they say? How could they possibly sustain their credibility?
"Well, the system I represent kills 2.25 million people per decade, and maims between 20 and 40 million more people per decade, but I want to assure you this vaccine presents no problems at all. It’s incredibly safe.”
It would be on the order of Joseph Stalin, who sent 20-40 million people to their deaths, stating that hard work in harsh conditions improved general health.
Every single pronouncement, on any subject, issued via the medical cartel’s Ministry of Truth would fall on disbelieving ears, and only increase general outrage. The assuring attitudes of its professional representatives would immediately be taken as rank fraud of the worst kind.
And this would just be the beginning of the trouble.
Mainstream reporters and editors and publishers are well aware that telling the truth and continuing to pound on it would do great damage to the whole medical system. The fact that the damage is deserved is beside the point. Undermining a basic institution of society is not on the media’s calendar.
VAXXED: The ABC News Interview that Big Pharma Didn't Want You to See
This is the full UNCUT interview that ABC World News conducted with Del Bigtree of the "VAXXED" documentary now censored by Robert De Niro and the Tribeca Film Festival.
ABC News used only five seconds from this interview... Find out what else they didn't want you to see...
The media are there to give credibility to society and its structures. That’s why they’re called “major” instead of “minor.”
When hard rains fall, the media are there with an umbrella to hold over organized society’s head. To walk away in the middle of a downpour would leave the status quo unprotected.
“Defending the Crown” is another way to put it. The King may make mistakes, he may commit heinous offenses, but he is the King, and therefore his position must remain secure.
Young journalists learn this point quickly. If in their zeal, they cross the threshold and attempt to expose a central myth, fairy tale, legend, they’re put back in their place.
They absorb the message. Journalism has limits. Certain truths are silent truths.
Over the years, I’ve talked to reporters who are solidly addicted to obfuscations. Like any addict, they have an army of excuses to rationalize their behavior. They’re all attitude. They snarl and grouse if you push them too far. They assert their position, as if they own their territory, as if they’ve earned their titles.
They remind me of drunks with significant bank accounts. They’re not winos drifting in alleys. Oh no. They imbibe the good stuff. They take pride in that.
The medical experts are worse. Their pretense of idealism knows no limits, and is matched only by their claim to bullet-proof knowledge. They resemble elite new anchors, who above all learn superior acting skills. The central mission of both professionals: sound and appear utterly convincing.
What would you do if you were an actor working in a major Broadway production, along with several actors who were, in real life, murderers? Every night you go out on the boards and do your turns, and you know the play is, in a real sense, a cover for the terrible deeds your partners are committing.
I can tell you what news anchors and reporters do in that situation. They polish their performance, hoping to establish such a high degree of credibility that the secrets they conceal will never be suspected, or God forbid, exposed.
When you peel the veneer away, they are enablers, persons of interest, co-conspirators. There is nothing quite like a high-minded, socially-positioned, card-carrying member of the King’s circle of protectors. The arrogance is titanic. Because what is being protected is so explosive.
225,000 deaths a year at the hands of modern medicine. Two to four million maimings. 2.25 million deaths per decade. The Crown is responsible. The Crown commits these crimes.
And yet it is the duty of the Crown to make his subjects feel safe and protected and even loved. No wonder he needs such a large army of trained helpers in and around the press. He has them.
But their monopoly is breaking down. We’re at the beginning of a new breakout level of truth. Stay tuned.
New Documentary: Whistleblower Claims CDC Covered up Vaccine-Autism Links
The debate over whether vaccines cause autism has become one of the most controversial disputes of late. In this episode of Truth In Media, the focus is not on whether vaccines are responsible for autism.
The issue at hand here is a study that was performed at the CDC and the question of whether the agency was complicit in a cover-up over a decade ago. Watch the documentary here. Background information and supporting documents included below:
For nearly two years, Truth In Media has explored the allegations of Dr. William Thompson, a CDC scientist who came forward in 2014, hired a whistleblower attorney, and claimed that important data regarding a study on vaccines and autism was eliminated.
Thompson’s claims have led to a divide among Americans, with some believing that Thompson’s allegations are credible and should be investigated further, and others convinced that the documents Thompson handed over mean absolutely nothing. In December 2015, Ben Swann was the first journalist to obtain the documents from Congressman Bill Posey.
In this episode, Swann further examines not only Thompson’s claims, but also the documents related to the study, with the assistance of doctors, journalists, authors and former CDC specialists who joined Swann in discussing every document that was handed over. Watch the documentary here.
Another Vaccine Whistleblower Steps Out of the Shadows
The new film Vaxxed (trailer) highlights one whistleblower, researcher William Thompson, who publicly admitted he and his CDC colleagues lied, cheated, and committed gross fraud in exonerating the MMR vaccine and pretending it had no connection to autism.
The Daily Mail has the story (3/29/16): “Former [British] science chief: ‘MMR fears coming true’”.
"A former Government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the Government of ‘utterly inexplicable complacency’ over the MMR triple vaccine for children.”
“Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, ‘the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history’.”
“He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see.”
“He said he has seen a ‘steady accumulation of evidence’ from scientists worldwide that the [MMR] measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.”
“But he added: ‘There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves’.”
“In the late Seventies, Dr. Fletcher served as Chief Scientific Officer at the DoH [Dept. of Health] and Medical Assessor to the Committee on Safety of Medicines, meaning he was responsible for deciding if new vaccines were safe.”
“He first expressed concerns about MMR in 2001, saying safety trials before the vaccine’s introduction in Britain were inadequate.”
“Now he says the theoretical fears he raised appear to be becoming reality.”
“He said the rising tide of autism cases and growing scientific understanding of autism-related bowel disease have convinced him the MMR vaccine may be to blame.”
“’Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,’ he said.”
“’There’s no one conclusive piece of scientific evidence, no “smoking gun”, because there very rarely is when adverse drug reactions are first suspected. When vaccine damage in very young children is involved, it is harder to prove the links.’”
“’But it is the steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world, that matters here. There’s far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so’.”
The pressure is building on the medical establishment and their press lackeys. Of course, they will try to keep the lid on. But more and more people around the world - many through bitter personal experience with vaccines - are waking up.
The statements of establishment front men ring hollow.
"Well, of course these vaccines are safe, remarkably so. How could any sane person think otherwise?”
Sane people are thinking otherwise. They know they’re being conned, and their health and the health of their children is under attack.
More whistleblowers are going to come out of the closet. The strange notion of having an actual conscience is making a comeback.
Even media androids, whose job it is to spread disinformation, are going to realize they’re nothing more than dupes for the vaccine cartel. And some of them aren’t going to like the realization, especially when it interrupts their sleep at night.
Especially as they come to understand they’re aiding and abetting the lifelong infliction of brain damage on innocent children.
Not everyone can blithely go on their way, doing their dirty work, in the face of that knowledge.
I’ve been working as an independent reporter for 30 years, and I can tell you that at this point, the whole vaccine propaganda apparatus is like a porcelain vase sitting on a table. And an earthquake is commencing.
Somewhere, right now, as I write this, a vaccine expert none of us yet knows about is sitting in his office thinking: “Thompson and Fletcher have come forward. It might be time for me to tell what I know, what I’ve been hiding all these years.”
He isn’t a hero. He’s a chronic scientific liar who can’t stand the conspiracy of silence any longer. He’s remembering what a conscience is. And he’s calculating the relative consequences of voluntarily coming clean now vs. being exposed later.
He’s sniffing which way the new wind is blowing.
Autism Cover-Up Investigative Documentary 2016 on CDC and Vaccines
Auckland: No Consultation Needed ForStopping Or Starting Fluoridation + Fluoridation Decision Is An Attack On Democracy April 16 2016 | From: FluorideAlert / Scoop Chair of Auckland Council’s Policy and Strategy committee decided unilaterally yesterday that a petition from Fluoride Free New Zealand could be received but not debated on. This left councillors no option other than to vote to accept the petition or not.
In 2014 Watercare changed the source of water to the Franklin communities of Buckland, Patumahoe, Clarks Beach, Waiau Beach and Glenbrook Beach to a fluoridated supply. These communities had never had fluoridation in the past. Council was made aware of this last week through a petition that was lodged with the Council.
Council should have been allowed to have a discussion on this and then decide what should be done. Instead, one councillor has dictated to the entire council.
He decided the issue could not be considered even though it is hugely signifcant and puts Auckland Council in the position of endorsing the fluoridation of these communities without the required consultation and without even advising the residents of this important change to their water supply.
It is also concerning that only one councillor was provided with the legal advice that Watercare obtained and this advice was denied to other councillors. According to the councillor who received it, Watercare said that their only obligation was to provide potable water and adding fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water did not make the water less potable.
If this argument can be used to start fluoridation without consultation then the same argument can be used to stop fluoridation as not adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking water, definitely does not make a water supply less potable. In fact this decision means not only can councils stop fluoridation without consultation, they don’t even have to notify anyone.
According to the 2002 Local Government Body Act, councils are legally required to consult communities on issues of significance.
Since then all other councils have considered fluoridation to be an issue of significance and fluoridation has not been stopped or started without some form of consultation such as a referendum, Tribunal style process, or inclusion in the draft annual plan.
In 2010 when the Kapiti Coast Council nearly stopped fluoridation, the Ministry of Health threatened to instigate a judicial review as they did not believe they had been sufficiently consulted. This was despite the fact that Kapiti Coast Council had undertaken consultation via the draft annual plan process.
It is highly likely that if any council in New Zealand chose to stop fluoridation without public consultation the Ministry of Health would legally challenge that decision.
Auckland Council is now ignoring the law, and astonishingly has allowed Watercare, an Auckland Council owned business contracted to the Council to provide water services, and not elected by the community, to ride roughshod over the Franklin residents.
Where is democracy at Auckland Council if councillors are not even allowed to discuss important petitions that are put before them?
In putting those decisions in the hands of District Health Boards, the Minister has forced those against fluoridation to have to deal with their main opponents in previous council fora.
District Health Boards have spent large sums of money on fighting pro fluoridation campaigns - money that should have been spent on improving people's food and drink choices.
The democratic decisions of hard fought referenda will be cast aside, and New Zealand will be heading in the opposite direction to the rest of the world which has been getting rid of water fluoridation.
Five Amazing Properties Of Sunlight You've Never Heard About April 15 2016 | From: GreenMedInfo Sunlight is well-known to provide us vitamin D, but did you know that it kills pain, keeps us alert at night, burns fat and more...
Our biological connection and dependence to the sun is so profound, that the very variation in human skin color from African, melanin-saturated dark skin, to the relatively melanin de-pigmented, Caucasian lighter-skin, is a byproduct of the offspring of our last common ancestor from Africa (as determined by mitochondrial DNA) migrating towards sunlight-impoverished higher latitudes, which began approximately 60,000 years ago.
In order to compensate for the lower availability of sunlight, the body rapidly adjusted, essentially requiring the removal of the natural "sunscreen" melanin from the skin, which interferes with vitamin D production; vitamin D, of course, is involved in the regulation of over 2,000 genes, and therefore is more like a hormone, without which our entire genetic infrastructure becomes destabilized.
A 2011 study published in The Journal of Investigative Dermatology revealed a remarkable fact of metabolism: The exposure of human skin to UV light results in increased subcutaneous fat metabolism. While subcutaneous fat, unlike visceral fat, is not considered a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, it is known that a deficiency of one of sunlight's best known beneficial byproducts, vitamin D, is associated with greater visceral fat. Also, there is a solid body of research showing that vitamin D deficiency is linked to obesity, with 9 such studies on our obesity research page.
One of them, titled "Association of plasma vitamin D levels with adiposity in Hispanic and African Americans," and which was published in the journal Anticancer Research in 2005, found that vitamin D levels were inversely associated with adiposity in Hispanics and African-Americans, including abdominal obesity. The point? Exposure to UVB radiation, which is most abundant two hours on either side of solar noon and responsible for producing vitamin D, may be an essential strategy in burning fat, the natural way.
3) Sunlight via Solar Cycles May Directly Regulate Human Lifespan:
"In the current study we report that those persons conceived and likely born during the peaks (MAX approximately 3 years) of approximately 11-year solar cycles lived an average 1.7 years less than those conceived and likely born during non-peaks (MIN approximately 8 years).
Increased energy at solar MAX, albeit relatively a small 0.1% increase from MIN, apparently modifies the human genome/epigenome and engenders changes that predispose to various diseases, thereby shortening lifespan. It is likely that same energy increases beneficial variety in the genome which may enhance adaptability in a changing environment."
Sunlight exposure, therefore, may directly affect the length of our life, and may even accelerate genetic changes that may confer a survival advantage.
If a novel hypothesis published in 2008 in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is correct, a longstanding assumption that animals are incapable of utilizing light energy directly is now called into question. In other words, our skin may contain the equivalent of melanin "solar-panels," and it may be possible to "ingest" energy, as plants do, directly from the Sun.
Melanin has a diverse set of roles in various organisms. From the ink of the octopus, to the melanin-based protective colorings of bacteria and fungi, melanin offers protection against a variety of threats: from predators and similar biochemical threats (host defenses against invading organisms), UV light, and other chemical stresses (i.e. heavy metals and oxidizing agents). Commonly overlooked, however, is melanin's ability to convert gamma and ultraviolet radiation into metabolic energy within living systems.
Single-celled fungi, for instance, have been observed thriving within the collapsed nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine, using gamma radiation as a source of energy. Albino fungi, without melanin, were studied to be incapable of using gamma radiation in this way, proving that gamma rays initiate a yet-unknown process of energy production within exposed melanin.
Vertebrate animals may also convert light directly into metabolic energy through the help of melanin. In a review titled, "Melanin directly converts light for vertebrate metabolic use: heuristic thoughts on birds, Icarus and dark human skin," Geoffrey Goodman and Dani Bercovich offer a thought-provoking reflection on the topic, the abstract of which is well worth reading in its entirety:
"Pigments serve many visually obvious animal functions (e.g. hair, skin, eyes, feathers, scales). One is 'melanin', unusual in an absorption across the UV-visual spectrum which is controversial. Any polymer or macro-structure of melanin monomers is 'melanin'. Its roles derive from complex structural and physical-chemical properties e.g. semiconductor, stable radical, conductor, free radical scavenger, charge-transfer.
Clinicians and researchers are well acquainted with melanin in skin and ocular pathologies and now increasingly are with internal, melanized, pathology-associated sites not obviously subject to light radiation (e.g. brain, cochlea).
At both types of sites some findings puzzle: positive and negative neuromelanin effects in Parkinsons; unexpected melanocyte action in the cochlea, in deafness; melanin reduces DNA damage, but can promote melanoma; in melanotic cells, mitochondrial number was 83% less, respiration down 30%, but development similar to normal amelanotic cells.
A little known, avian anatomical conundrum may help resolve melanin paradoxes. One of many unique adaptations to flight, the pecten, strange intra-ocular organ with unresolved function(s), is much enlarged and heavily melanized in birds fighting gravity, hypoxia, thirst and hunger during long-distance, frequently sub-zero, non-stop migration.
The pecten may help cope with energy and nutrient needs under extreme conditions, by a marginal but critical, melanin-initiated conversion of light to metabolic energy, coupled to local metabolite recycling.
Similarly in Central Africa, reduction in body hair and melanin increase may also have lead to 'photomelanometabolism' which, though small scale/ unit body area, in total may have enabled a sharply increased development of the energy-hungry cortex and enhanced human survival generally.
Animal inability to utilize light energy directly has been traditionally assumed. Melanin and the pecten may have unexpected lessons also for human physiology and medicine."
The Science Is Conclusive: Mobile Phones Cause Cancer April 12 2016 | From: TheEpochTimes They say there’s only two things constant in this life: death and taxes. But a third viable contender might be cancer, which an extensive cohort of scientific research has found is caused by prolonged exposure to radiation from cell phones and their associated communication towers.
Contrary to what you may have heard in the mainstream news, mobile phones and the antennas that allow them to communicate emit powerful, microwave radio frequencies capable of penetrating our bodies and cells. And constant exposure to these frequencies, according to the science, appears to be one of the leading causes of cancer in the modern age.
Watch: Do Phones Cause Cancer?
Wireless Phone Radiation Can Lead to Brain Cancer
Extensive research into the connection between cell phone radiation and cancer has linked this ubiquitous modern technology to two main types of brain tumors: gliomas and acoustic neuromas. Information compiled by the ElectricSense.com has confirmed the following findings with regard to cell phones and brain cancer.
1) An independent study commissioned by U.S. wireless carrier T-Mobile found that cell phone radiation directly initiates and promotes the formation of cancer: HESE-Project.org.[PDF]
2) The renowned Interphone study also found that regular cell phone use at just 30 minutes per day over 10 years increases the risk of gliomas by 40 percent. It also found that tumors were more likely to form on the side of the head where a cell phone is most prominently held: BioInitiative.org.[PDF]
3) A review of 23 epidemiological studies conducted by seven scientists concluded that cell phones cause a “harmful association” between cell phones and cancer. The only included studies that didn’t suggest this were “lower quality” ones that researchers say “failed to meet scientific best practices” - these studies were all funded by the mobile phone industry:
4) Researchers from the Hardell Research Group, which is noted for conducting what many consider to be the highest-quality studies on the subject, found a “consistent pattern” of increased risks for both glioma and acoustic neuroma in conjunction with mobile phone use: PathophysiologyJournal.com.
5) A study out of France observed similar outcomes associated with prolonged exposure to electromagnetic frequencies from mobile phones. Scientists noted higher rates of gliomas and temporal tumors from “occupational and urban mobile phone use.”
In response, the EMF watchdog group Powerwatch noted that this study supports the categorization of mobile phone radiation as a “probable human carcinogen.”
6) A study of nearly 800,000 middle-aged UK women found that those who used cell phones for 10 years or more had a 250 percent increased risk of developing an acoustic neuroma. The longer the women used the phones, the higher their risk: SaferEMR.com.
7) Similarly, a study conducted by the group Lonn found that acoustic neuromas are increasingly more likely to develop the longer a person uses a mobile phone: NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov.
8) In Sweden, researchers studying adult brain tumor cases found that individuals with the highest cumulative use of mobile phones also had the highest risk of developing brain cancer: NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov.
9) The Hardell group conducted a study in 2009 which found that RF-EMFs from mobile and cordless phones are directly associated with malignant brain tumors. This study specifically states that wireless radiation initiates and promotes carcinogenesis: NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov.’
Wireless Phone Radiation Also Triggers Pituitary, Thyroid, Stem Cell, Oral, Parotid, Lymph Node, Breast, Blood, Prostate and Eye Cancers
1) The body’s “master” gland, also known as the pituitary gland, is responsible for producing hormones and regulating other key bodily systems. But a study out of France found that cell phone use greatly increases the risk that this important gland will become cancerous: MieuxPrevenir.Blogspot.fr.
2) The thyroid gland, which similarly produces hormones in addition to regulating body temperature, is also affected by mobile phone radiation. An Israeli study found that rates of cell phone use are directly proportional to the risk of developing thyroid gland cancer: SaferEMR.com.
3) Many health experts would contend that solar radiation poses the greatest threat to healthy skin. But a study out of Sweden found that melanoma risk is greatly accelerated by mobile phone use: HIR.nu.
4) A controversial Powerwatch study found that cell phone use nearly triples the risk of neuroepithelial tumors, which are a result of stem cell cancer: Powerwatch.org.uk.
5) Another study out of Israel confirmed a direct association between cell phone use and cancers of the mouth.
Based on 460 cases of parotid gland tumors, researchers observed a direct association between mobile phone radiation and cancers of the parotid, the salivary gland located right next to where users typically hold their phones: AJE.OxfordJournals.org.
6) A separate study, also out of Israel, found that parotid gland cancers have increased in prevalence by 400 percent in the country between 1970 and 2006, which scientists link to increased mobile phone use: Journals.LWW.com.
7) An extensive review of more than 12 separate studies looking at health outcomes from exposure to radiation from mobile phone, television and radio broadcast towers found that cancers in general, and specifically cancers of the brain and blood (leukemia), are greatly increased: Journals.LWW.com.
8) Lymph nodes, a key component of the immune system, don’t like cell phone radiation much, either. An Australian study found that typical exposure to cell phone radiation greatly increases lymphoma risk: MicrowaveNews.com.[PDF]
9) Back in the U.S., a study looking at young women with breast cancer found that regular use of smartphones can trigger the formation of breast cancer. This is especially true when women carry their phones in their blouses or bras, where phones are pressed directly against the breasts. Hindawi.com.
10) Researchers in Germany have also linked mobile phone radiation to uveal melanoma and other cancers of the eye: NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov.
11) Practically every other type of cancer not covered by one of the aforementioned studies was identified in a large-scale Brazilian study, which linked mobile phone radiation to cancers of the prostate, breasts, lungs, kidneys and liver. Shockingly, more than 80 percent of identified deaths in Brazil’s third largest city, Belo Horizonte, occurred less than 500 meters away from one of the city’s 300 cell phone antennas: WhyFry.org.
The Secret To Health By Dr. Edward F. Group April 9 2016 | From: GlobalHealingCentre "The Secret to Health" reveals information that has been suppressed by the medical establishment for over 100 years.
Learn how you can restore your health, increase your energy, and take control of your health.
Everyday our bodies absorb thousands of toxins that are found in genetically modified foods (GMOs), pesticides, meat, dairy, refined sugar, artificial sweeteners (ex: aspartame), and microwaved foods. Most diseases and illnesses are caused by these toxins polluting our bodies. Find out what you can do in this 1.5 hour long video.
Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM
Global Healing Center is the premier source for organic living and natural health. We offer a wide variety of high quality, green living lifestyle products to help you maintain a clean body and live a healthy lifestyle. It's our mission to bring back good health, positive thinking, happiness, and love.
We want to help our clients and customers help themselves and realize their body has self-healing mechanisms. We are here to educate and provide the tools necessary to live a long, healthy, happy life.
The Disturbingly Aggressive Roll Out Of Smart AKA Advanced Meters - While Children Starve And The Elderly Freeze In Rural Aotearoa (NZ) April 8 2016 | From: EnvironmentWatchRangitikei Here is a sign posted by a Taumaranui resident who had their locked meter box broken intoto install a Smart Meter (aka Advanced Meter). As you can see the response they said they got from the lines people when following this up was equally as telling… “we own you people”!
While it appears little known that there are options for having these meters removed and replaced, it also seems that Taumaranui has only one supplier. This makes things more difficult in terms of no bargaining power.
The use of the term ‘jack boot’ is therefore not that extreme given the whole scenario and the way these folks have been treated. It is all symptomatic of the direction our country is headed with an ex-banker for a Prime Minister who clearly places profits and corporate interests above the interests of his constituents.
What is especially disturbing about this event (and it’s not an isolated incident, I’ve heard myself of installations happening while folk were not home) is that in the comments and discussion around this, many others have been similarly treated.
The repeated tale of outrageous hikes in charges, one for instance from $100 to $150 approx. plus the Nelson woman last year who received a bill for $800 for her two bedroom house!
And this is something I’ve both read about & heard, time and time again. We are fed the line that the meters are more accurate and customers have been undercharged prior to Smart Meter installation.
Not to the tune of a $1000 hike? Surely? … yet this is what I’ve heard more than once. A difference of $20 is feasible but not $600 or more. See here a proposed explanation for these hikes by a retired electrical engineer.
Disturbing also is the detail about the elderly turning off their hot water in order to buy food or not turning on any heating because they can’t pay.
Again I know of this happening in my district (the Rangitikei) where an elderly person is being charged $150 and upwards in a tiny flat with few if any appliances operating.
She has switched off the hot water, has no heater and goes to bed early to keep warm.
And finally, this sign and the comments corroborate that folk are being pressured to leave the district because of the costs. ‘The town is dying’ says the sign.
Now,on that topic, we have been led to believe for years that towns are dying because people somehow mysteriously allowed it. They all moved away. We even had a prominent economist telling us recently that they were zombie towns and pretty much had to go.
Well, people left because of decisions made by our respective governments to close down amenities and resources like the hospitals, pharmacies and banking.
I know … I remember it happening! It was about the time those governments had borrowed large sums of money and gotten a once prosperous and fully employed nation into un-repayable debt, followed by Rogernomics and belt tightening for the poorer folks, not the wealthy mind.
And the former being blamed for the debt while corporations enjoy huge tax breaks. And now this from the power companies and we were told privatizing them would lower prices. Competition, the market and all that. We’re still waiting nearly three decades on.
"…over 250 people have commented with some saying they had similar experiences with unexpectedly large power bills and problems after the installation of smart meters.” - Stuff.co.nz
As this sign very perceptively outlines folk, we are being ripped off and our southern clean, green paradise is fast morphing into a fascist regime. Think, TPPA and all that has entailed in terms of keeping us out of the loop then claiming to seek our feedback / opinion / input.
Their tactics provide the illusion of having sought our opinion … it is nothing more folks, in case you hadn’t already noticed. See how they provide you with forms containing multi choice options none of which you wanted to choose anyway? Like the recently proposed flag debacle that has cost the country $28 million. Shame.
Returning now to the Smart Meters themselves, be aware, they are NOT compulsory. If you already have one, there are options about its removal and replacement. (If you don’t have one yet, inform your powerco you do not consent to one… in writing… in advance).
For further information on that Kiwis, visit stopsmartmeters.org.nz and note they have a page there explaining how to get rid of a Smart Meter. The meters are also known here as Advanced Meters. (Folks from other countries, there are similar sites in your countries, just google.)
You should also be aware that health professionals have warned about the health risks these meters carry. Predictably the authorities deny this, however the stopsmartmeters website has already logged before and after testimonies from Kiwis who had their Smart Meters removed. See also the links here for further information on that, with a video trailer featuring a health professional explaining the effects from long term exposure to a Smart Meter.
See also in this video what the meters when in proximity do to your blood. Above all, educate yourself further by watching the award winning doco Take Back Your Power by Josh Del Sol at his website. It is accessible for a very small charge. Or consider holding a viewing in your town (contact stopsmartmeters for details). Further info on Smart Meters is also available on our Smart Meter pages. Spread the word and resist this move.
5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths+ Amish Have Lower Rates Of Cancer, Ohio State Study Shows April 8 2016 | From: PreventDisease / InternalMedicine According to the conventional wisdom of mainstream medicine, the world's leading health practitioners in alternative, complementary and integrative medicine have it all wrong and are misinforming millions in practice and on the internet with a barrage of myths and misconceptions they claim are causing more harm to cancer patients.
Could this initiative to sway opinion by leading cancer authorities possibly, just possibly be related to the revolution that is happening around the world - highlighting the dangers and ineffectiveness of toxic chemotherapy and radiation, bringing cancer cures such as cannabis to the forefront, or the emerging mass markets now creating awareness on the reality of our food and the consequences of the cancer industry itself?
Fact #1: The Rise In All Types of Cancers Are Due To Our Modern Society Diets, Lifestyles and Environment
Why The Cancer Industry ClaimsThis Is a Myth
The claim is that our genes are responsible, combined with the fact that people are living long enough now to develop cancer. It's because of our success in tackling infectious diseases and malnutrition that we now get cancer.
It's perfectly normal for DNA damage in our cells to build up as we age, and such damage can lead to cancer developing. Cancer has existed as long as humans have.
The only reason that people around the world today believe that our ancestors did not live past 100 years is because the official data has been sparse. There are very few records that show (officially) the age of our ancestors before then 18th century, but there is a reasonable amount of evidence suggesting there were many people living hundreds of years in prehistory and beyond.
In all the skeletons collected in the history of paleoanthropology, scientists have only been able to identify a mere 200 possible cancer sightings dating to prehistoric times, and these identifications are far from certain.
Despite the numbers, when you look at the remains, it seems to indicate that malignancies were a "striking rarity" in ancient times, but that evidence is hardly conclusive. We just don't know for sure, so to use any type of argument that cancer existed or did not exist to any extent in prehistory involves making a great deal of assumptions.
So let's just focus on what has transpired in the last century alone: According to the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, from the early 1900s alone up to an including 2011, there was a greater than 3 fold increase in cancer death rates.
According to a 2013 featured report compiled by the American Cancer Society and other government and cancer advocacy groups, progress has been made in the “war on cancer.” But what kind of progress? Declining mortality rates are not due to decreases in incidence. More people are getting cancer, but they're staying alive longer.
What the cancer industry does not point out is that the trends clearly show that we haven't eliminated cancer to any extent, but we have managed to be able to diagnose it and treat it and thus profit from the actual disease itself.
Diagnosis and treatment are the money makers in this industry. Actual prevention is not. So when it comes to prevention, conventional medicine has stuck its head in the sand.
Overall, cancer deaths began dropping in the 1990's, with death rates declining by 1.8 percent for men and 1.4 percent for women between the years 2000-2009, according to the featured report. Children's death rates from cancer are also declining at a pace of 1.8 percent per year, although incidence is still rising by about 0.5 percent annually.
Other cancers are also still on the rise though, including liver and pancreatic cancer and melanoma (among men).
A 2008 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science demonstrated how nutrition alone can have a tremendous impact not only on prevention, but even on the treatment of cancer once you've been diagnosed.
This type of information is never emphasized by the medical community because they do not believe cancer can be treated without either cutting, poisoning or burning cancerous tumors.
Fact #2: Super-foods and Herbs Can Prevent Cancer
Why The Cancer Industry ClaimsThis Is a Myth
The claim is that specific fruits and vegetables you choose don't really matter. There's no such thing as a 'super-food' or medicinally powerful herb and any assertion has no scientific basis.
This one is just embarrassing for them. While there is not one super-food or herb that may cure all cancers, to suggest that super-foods don't exist or that herbs are not medicinally powerful is reaching deep in the pits of ignorance. In fact, there is so much evidence that super-foods exist and have anti-cancer properties, that any claims suggesting the opposite are a good measure of where the credibility lies among many of these industry quacks that make such preposterous statements.
As of the date of this article, The American Cancer Society (ACS) appears to have removed references to "super foods" or "super-foods" off of their website. Yet, several authors have written extensively about previous recommendations of the ACS, specifically regarding the potential of super-foods to prevent cancer.
Cancer Research UK also discredits and discourages the use of super-foods On this page it states: "you shouldn't rely on so-called super-foods to reduce the risk of cancer," and that super-foods "are unlikely to give you added health benefits over and above what you would get from eating a varied and healthy diet."
One irritating problem that confuses the public is that most dietitians have no foundation of practical knowledge in nutrition.
They propagate mainstream opinion on the validity of the food pyramid - that bread, cereal and grains should be the mainstay of our diets and that fruits and vegetables are all equal.
Most dietitians I know don't use the term super-food because they're not taught what super-foods are in school. The only thing they are taught is that "super-foods" are non-medical terms popularized in the media to promote unsupported health-promoting properties in foods.
A super-food can be summed up as any multi-tasking food with higher than average concentrations of disease-fighting nutrients, which are usually in abundance among the antioxidant and phytonutrient rich profiles. Some suggest they are also low in calories but that does not always apply to all super-foods
Even WebMD.com, a very pro mainstream medical website lists 10 Everday Super Foods. Here they list foods such as broccoli, berries, quinoa, beans, nuts, eggs and others which few can den are very nutrient dense foods with anti-cancer properties.
It's not necessary, however, to spend any large sums of money for heavily promoted super-foods such as noni, acai, mangosteen and other juices in an attempt to prevent cancer.
The top six foods with the highest antioxidant values on the ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) scale are cheaper and more readily available than the more expensive alternatives and they all are proven to prevent cancer. They include cloves, sumac, cinnamon, sorghum, oregano and turmeric.
Studies on animals with lung and skin cancers show that eugenol in cloves can stop cancer cells from multiplying. Clove oil extract was found in one study to have maximal cytotoxic activity on cancer cells.
Cancer societies would certainly like cannabis to disappear because there is so much evidence that it prevents cancer.
There are dozens of studies which prove cannabis cures cancer. A quick search on Pubmed for "cannabinoid" will yield almost 18,000 results.
The reason cancer societies are now turning their heads to the power of super-foods and herbs is because they work. So they must try and sway opinion in an attempt to convince millions who are now converting back to nature to prevent and cure disease.
Fact #3: Acidic Diets Cause Cancer
Why The Cancer Industry ClaimsThis Is a Myth
This is biological nonsense according to the cancer industry. The pH of the blood is tightly regulated by the kidneys within a very narrow and perfectly healthy range. It can't be changed for any meaningful amount of time by what you eat. There's no evidence to prove that diet can manipulate whole body pH, or that it has an impact on cancer.
Part of the problem with this notion is that there has been a lot of misinformation spread around by so-called health gurus in trade shows attempting to convince people that you can make dramatic shifts in the pH of your body through foods and alkaline water. The truth is, you can't make huge shifts in blood alkalinity or acidity, but you can small shifts that are significant enough to reverse cancer.
The pH of your blood is tightly regulated by a complex system of buffers that are continuously at work to maintain a range of 7.3 to 7.41, which is slightly more alkaline than pure water.
If the pH of your blood falls below 7.3, the result is a condition called acidosis, a state that leads to central nervous system depression. Severe acidosis - where blood pH falls below 7.00 - can lead to a coma and even death. If the pH of your blood rises above 7.45, the result is alkalosis.
The bottom line is that if you're breathing and going about your daily activities, your body is doing an adequate job of keeping your blood pH somewhere between 7.3 to 7.41, and the foods that you are eating are not causing any wild deviations of your blood pH.
However keeping your body closer to an alkaline state by even a few points up .05 can make a significant difference in how well cancer grows or suppresses. Cancer cells can't live in an alkaline environment.
The reason acidosis is more common in our society is mostly due to the typical American diet, which is far too high in acid-producing animal products like meat, and dairy, and far too low in alkaline-producing foods like fresh vegetables.
Additionally, we eat acid-producing processed foods like white flour and sugar and drink acid-producing beverages like coffee and soft drinks. We use too many drugs, which are acid-forming; and we use artificial chemical sweeteners like NutraSweet, Equal, or aspartame, which are extremely acid-forming. One of the best things we can do to correct an overly-acid body is to clean up the diet and lifestyle.
Dr. A. Keith Brewer explained that in alkaline environments and high pH condition, the acid toxins of the cancer cell are neutralized and rendered nontoxic. Acidic toxins, and not the tumor lump per se, is what brings about the death of the host. In the high pH condition, the life of the cancer cell is short. The dead cancer cells are readily absorbed by the system and eliminated. "I am convinced that it is food that causes cancer, but it is the food we don't eat and not the food we do eat."
This condition forces the body to borrow minerals - including calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium - from vital organs and bones to buffer (neutralize) the acid and safely remove it from the body. Once a person is diagnosed with cancer, the most effective way of reversing the disease is to move towards an alkaline diet and shift blood pH towards the 7.41 range.
This is accomplished most effectively with raw fruits and vegetables and daily greens which maximize phytonutrients and enhance the immune system's potential to reverse cancer. No, the body will not dramatically shift blood pH, but it doesn't need to for cancer cells to die. Even a small shift will reverse cancer and prevent the body from borrowing minerals from organs and bones to compensate for a nutritionally deficient diet. That's where alkalizing agents come in.
I have seen stage IV cancer patients with tumors the size of footballs recover using alkalizing agents. It is beyond the scope of this article to explain how alkalizing agents and pH therapy can eliminate cancer, however if you seek the assistance of any Naturopathic Physician well-versed in cancer treatment, the protocols are fairly common although inconsistent.
The bottom line is that the body can achieve the metabolic accomplishment of keeping blood pH towards the alkaline spectrum where cancer will not proliferate. The immune system can then thrive and signal recovery which is facilitated through nutritional mechanisms and alkalizing agents to maximize recovery and make treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation or surgery completely unnecessary.
Fact #4: Sugar Feeds Cancer
Why The Cancer Industry ClaimsThis Is a Myth
They claim there is no evidence that cancer cells use glucose and produce energy in a different way from healthy cells. The "sugar feeds cancer" myth distorts sensible dietary advice which must be based on nutritional and scientific fact.
Understanding cancer cannot result from the view on a single cancer event, but must consider the combined action of all cellular triggers in a given cellular background. There is little doubt in the scientific community that the high rate of carbohydrate ingestion contributes to various metabolic diseases, including the development of aggressive cancer.
The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and its role in tumorgenesis. Consider the million-dollar positive emission tomography device, or PET scan, regarded as one of the ultimate cancer-detection tools. PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. PET scans are used to plot the progress of cancer patients and to assess whether present protocols are effective.
Domestic animals (e.g. cats and dogs) which usually consume western diets with a comparatively high glycemic index, frequently suffer from aggressive cancer, whereas carnivore animals and herbivore animals do have a low rate of metastasizing cancer and rarely die from this disease.
Both carnivores and herbivores predominantly live from proteins and fat/oil. Although herbivores ingest large amounts of complex carbohydrates (cellulose and other fibres), these are fermented to fatty acids by bacteria within the gastrointestinal tract and therefore exhibit an extremely low glycemic index. Limited release or even absence of glucose during digestion may explain the low rates of cancer-caused mortality in herbivore and carnivore animals.
A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients.
Furthermore, an epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.
In Europe, the "sugar feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that oncologists, or cancer doctors, use the Systemic Cancer Multistep Therapy (SCMT) protocol. Conceived by Manfred von Ardenne in Germany in 1965, SCMT entails injecting patients with glucose to increase blood-glucose concentrations.
This lowers pH values in cancer tissues via lactic acid formation. In turn, this intensifies the thermal sensitivity of the malignant tumors and also induces rapid growth of the cancer. Patients are then given whole-body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature) to further stress the cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or radiation.
SCMT was tested on 103 patients with metastasized cancer or recurrent primary tumors in a clinical phase-I study at the Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany.
Five-year survival rates in SCMT-treated patients increased by 25 to 50 percent, and the complete rate of tumor regression increased by 30 to 50 percent. The protocol induces rapid growth of the cancer, then treats the tumor with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in outcome.
For metastatic cancer cells, a shift towards growth is facilitated by an evolutionary novel microenvironment within the body, which is characterized by a permanent availability of high amounts of glucose due to a nutrition with a high glycemic index, the absence of periods of starvation, as well as reduced physical activity.
Fact #5: Conventional Cancer Treatment Kills More Than It Cures
Why The Cancer Industry ClaimsThis Is a Myth
The medical community insists that surgery is still the most effective treatment we have for cancer. Radiotherapy helps cure more people than cancer drugs. Yet chemotherapy and other cancer drugs have a very important part to play in cancer treatment - in some cases helping to cure the disease, and in others helping to prolong survival. Chemotherapy does not encourage cancer.
Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make money from it. That's the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not because it's effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it does the opposite.
The reason a 5-year relative survival rate is the standard used to assess mortality rates is due to most cancer patients going downhill after this period. It's exceptionally bad for business and the cancer industry knows it. They could never show the public the true 97% statistical failure rate in treating long-term metastatic cancers.
If they did publish the long-term statistics for all cancers administered cytotoxic chemotherapy, that is 10+ years and produced the objective data on rigorous evaluations including the cost-effectiveness, impact on the immune system, quality of life, morbidity and mortality, it would be very clear to the world that chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival at all.
No such study has ever been conducted by independent investigators in the history of chemotherapy. The only studies available come from industry funded institutions and scientists and none of them have ever inclusively quantified the above variables.
Why? Money, greed and profits run the cancer industry - nothing else.
The cancer establishment must retreat from the truth to treat cancer because there will never be any profit for them in in eradicating the disease. There is no governing body in the world that protects consumers from being subjected to these toxic therapies or even known carcinogens in our foods our environment, because that too, will prevent the profits from rolling in. It's a business of mammoth proportions and must be treated as such.
According to official statistics, one person out of two is claimed to recover from cancer through conventional methods. Although dramatic, the information nevertheless contains a certain amount of hope, as implicitly it provides something positive for both scientists and patients.
To the scientists it says: continue the research because it is producing results; do not try preventive, alternative theoretical or therapeutic roads, nor get discouraged by the fact that patients keep on dying every day. To the patients, on the other hand, it provides a warning: you have a 50 percent chance of making it, as long as you follow the conventional therapeutic protocols without trying what they claim are the useless alternatives.
So, in the early stages of tumors (the dubious ones) the recovery rates are extremely high, while in the following stages - that is, where they certainly are tumors - the rates are barely above zero. The reason for the discrepancy is the qualification of the data and how a patient is assessed in terms of recovery.
Immune reconstitution and tolerance, organ and metabolic toxicities, endocrine challenges, functional outcomes, quality of life, and neurocognitive outcomes are NEVER inclusively assessed in any clinical study discussing the long-term survival and recovery rates of cancer patients.
The damage to these systems slowly develops after chemotherapy, however if often does not begin to manifest throughout the body until several months or even years have passed. It takes time, but within a 3-5 year period, most chemotherapy patients begin to have many more symptoms of disease than they every had before their diagnosis, due to and as a direct result of cytotoxic drug intervention.
Adjuvant chemotherapy is often given to patients who might not really need it at all. Oncologists do not consider the whole spectrum of chemotherapy risks versus benefits and thus compromise quality of life for every patient they treat.
A study in the Annals of Oncology is one of few which assessed the different potential long-term adverse events associated with adjuvant chemotherapy in cancer, with a particular focus on long-term cardiac toxicity, secondary leukemia, cognitive function, and neurotoxicity.
The authors stated that the adverse events are frequently overshadowed by the well-demonstrated clinical efficacy and/or reassuring short-term safety profiles of the different chemotherapy regimens commonly used today.
Another study in the American Society of Clinical Oncology determined whether long-term survivors of metastatic testicular cancer have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity more than 10 years after chemotherapy. They observed a significantly increased risk for occurrence of cardiac events accompanied by a persisting unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile likely due to chemotherapeutic agents.
A 12-year meta-analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology observed adults who had developed cancer and treated with chemotherapy. The 12-year study looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult. 97% of the time, chemotherapy did not work in regressing the metastatic cancers.
Amish Have Lower Rates Of Cancer, Ohio State Study Shows
When Ohio State University cancer researchers first began studying a large sect of Amish living in Ohio, they theorized they would find higher incidence rates of cancer.
That’s because Amish religious beliefs and traditions limit contact with mainstream society, and intermarriage within this relatively small population could increase the incidence of cancer-related gene mutations.
Instead, they found just the opposite, said Dr. Judith Westman, division director of Human Genetics at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (OSUCCC-James).
The study of Amish suggests that clean living can lead to healthier life. Overall cancer rates in this population were 60 percent of the age-adjusted rate for Ohio and 56 percent of the national rate. The incidence of tobacco-related cancers in the Amish adults was 37 percent of the rate for Ohio adults, and the incidence of non-tobacco-related cancer was 72 percent.
"The Amish are at an increased risk for a number of genetic disorders but they probably have protection against many types of cancer both through their lifestyle – there is very little tobacco or alcohol use and limited sexual partners – and through genes that may reduce their susceptibility to cancer,” said Westman, who co-authored the study with OSUCCC-James researcher Amy K. Ferketich, who specializes in epidemiology.
The findings were reported in a recent issue of the journal Cancer Causes & Control. The study, which spanned 1996-2003 and is the first of its kind, looked at the incidence of 24 types of cancer in the Amish population. Of the 24 types of cancer studied, the incidence of seven of them – cervical, laryngeal, lung, oral cavity/pharyngeal, melanoma, breast and prostate – was low enough compared with the Ohio rate to be statistically significant.
Westman and Ferketich chose to study the Amish to gain a better understanding of the contributions of environment and genetics to developing cancer. Ohio is home to the largest Amish population in the world, and of the approximately 26,000 Amish living in Holmes County, all descended from the same 100 people who immigrated here 200 years ago.
Researchers interviewed 92 Amish families as part of a cross-sectional household survey and charted their family cancer histories obtaining cancer information on all relatives back three generations and as far forward as possible. For example, researchers interviewing a set of grandparents could gather cancer information on both their ancestors and descendants, said Ferketich.
The study population consisted of 9,992 Amish adults residing in the Holmes County area. Researchers also collected death certificates and cross-checked cancer cases reported to the Ohio Cancer Incidence and Surveillance System. Between 1996 and 2003, there were 191 incident cancer cases identified.
“Because this is a small, relatively closed population, we needed to interview just 92 families to cover 90 percent of the population in Holmes County,” said Ferketich.
The low cancer incidence in the Ohio Amish may be partially explained by lifestyle factors such as limited tobacco consumption and lack of sexual promiscuity. The Amish, as a whole, consume very little tobacco and alcohol, and they lead active, labor-intensive lives as farmers, construction laborers and factory workers.
"One of the things we can learn from the Amish is that they don’t typically smoke or use tobacco products,” Westman said.
“They have limited sexual partners and monogamous relationships, so they don’t have some of the cancers that are related to sexual promiscuity.”
Even skin cancer rates are lower for Amish, despite the fact though many Amish make their living working outdoors where they are exposed to sunlight and UV rays.
"They are typically covered and dress to work in the sun the way that is recommended by wearing wide-brimmed hats and generally wearing long sleeves to protect their arms,” Westman said.
Other Ohio State researchers involved in the study include Steven N. MacEachern, J.R. Wilkins III, Robert T. Pilarski, Rebecca Nagy, Stanley Lemeshow, Albert de la Chapelle and Clara D. Bloomfield. The study was funded by the Ohio Division of the American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health and the Leukemia Clinical Research Foundation.
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center- Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute is one of only 40 Comprehensive Cancer Centers in the United States designated by the National Cancer Institute.
Ranked by U.S. News & World Report among the top 20 cancer hospitals in the nation, The James (www.jamesline.com) is the 180-bed adult patient-care component of the cancer program at The Ohio State University. The OSUCCC-James is one of only five centers in the country approved by the NCI to conduct both Phase I and Phase II clinical trials.
Are All Vitamins Safe? April 3 2016 | From: TheDoctorWithin After you have finished reading this article, you will know more about vitamins than 95% of clinical nutritionists, doctors, supplement sales force, or bodybuilders.
Natural Whole Food Vitamins: Ascorbic Acid Is Not Vitamin C
If that sounds arrogant or overstated, it really isn’t my fault. I’m just a messenger; a purveyor of information. Either I’m right or the 95% are right; can’t be both.
Without further ado, here’s the kernel: ascorbic acid is not vitamin C. Alpha tocopherol is not vitamin E. Retinoic acid is not vitamin A. And so on through the other vitamins. Vast sums of money have been expended to make these myths part of Conventional Wisdom. If you have several college degrees and all this is news to you, don’t feel bad. Unless you think your education ended at Commencement. Which is generally true.
Wheels Within Wheels
Vitamins are not individual molecular compounds. Vitamins are biological complexes. They are multi-step biochemical interactions whose action is dependent upon a number of variables within the biological terrain. Vitamin activity only takes place when all conditions are met within that environment, and when all co-factors and components of the entire vitamin complex are present and working together.
Vitamin activity is even more than the sum of all those parts; it also involves timing.
Vitamins cannot be isolated from their complexes and still perform their specific life functions within the cells. When isolated into artificial commercial forms, like ascorbic acid, these purified synthetics act as drugs in the body. They are no longer vitamins, and to call them such is inaccurate.
A vitamin is:
“A working process consisting of the nutrient, enzymes, coenzymes, antioxidants, and trace minerals activators.”
- Royal Lee “What Is a Vitamin?” Applied Trophology Aug 1956
Dr. Royal Lee was the pioneer researcher in the field of whole food vitamins. For decades he documented the basic facts summarized in this chapter. His work has never been scientifically refuted. Anyone who seriously undertakes the study of vitamins today corroborates Lee’s work. His story is a fascinating study in itself, a study of indomitable perseverance in the pursuit of true principles. Jensen tells us that Royal Lee’s work will not be appreciated until the next century.
Hasn’t happened yet.
Lee felt the full weight of organized drugs/medicine bearing down on him. Reading like something out of Schindler’s List, we learn that the FDA not only persecuted Lee for challenging the economics of synthetic vitamins, produced by giant drug companies, but that he was actually ordered by a court to burn all his research of the past 20 years! Burn his research! When has that ever happened in this country? They didn’t even do that to Larry Flynt.
Going off on a tangent, ever wondered how the FDA attained its present position as attack dog for the drug companies and food manufacturers? It’s another whole story in itself. The precursor of the FDA was the Bureau of Chemistry. Up until 1912 the Bureau of Chemistry was headed up by a man named Dr. Harvey W. Wiley. Here’s a quote from Dr. Wiley that illustrates where his interests lay:
“No food product in our country would have any trace of benzoic acid, sulfurous acid or sulfites or any alum or saccharin, save for medical purposes. No soft drink would contain caffeine or theobromine. No bleached flour would enter interstate commerce.
Our foods and drugs would be wholly without any form of adulteration and misbranding. The health of our people would be vastly improved and the life greatly extended.
The manufacturers of our food supply, and especially the millers, would devote their energies to improving the public health and promoting happiness in every home by the production of whole ground, unbolted cereal flours and meals.”
– The History of a Crime Against the Pure Food Law, 1912
Now obviously we can’t have a dangerous lunatic like this in charge of the public nutrition, can we? Dr. Wiley actually filed suit against the Coca-Cola company in an attempt to keep their artificial product out of interstate commerce, and off the market.
Fortunately Wiley was eventually replaced by a saner individual, more attuned to the real nutritional needs of the American people, as determined by the experts who knew what was best for us: the food manufacturers. This was Dr. Elmer Nelson, and in his words we get an idea of the change in philosophy that marked the transformation of the Bureau of Chemistry into the FDA:
“It is wholly unscientific to state that a well-fed body is more able to resist disease than a poorly-fed body. My overall opinion is that there hasn’t been enough experimentation to prove that dietary deficiencies make one susceptible to disease.”
- Elmer Nelson MD, Washington Post 26 Oct 49
Bernard Jensen illustrates how the tobacco industry and the food giants like Coke were indirectly behind the legal persecution of Royal Lee. Cigarette ads in the 40s and 50s showed medical doctors promoting the digestive benefits of smoking Camels. Or the advertising of Coke and other refined sugar foods stating that “science has shown how sugar can help keep your appetite and weight under control.” (Empty Harvest)
During this same period, Royal Lee was kept in courts for years, fighting to keep the right to advertise his vitamin products, because he was a threat to the food manufacturers. Lee knew they were poisoning the American public. He proved that refined sugars and devitalized, bleached flours were destroying the arteries and the digestive system, causing heart disease and cancer.
Whole versus Fractionated
OK, natural vs. synthetic. Let’s start with Vitamin C. Most sources equate vitamin C with ascorbic acid, as though they were the same thing. They’re not. Ascorbic acid is an isolate, a fraction, a distillate of naturally occurring vitamin C. In addition to ascorbic acid, vitamin C must include rutin, bioflavonoids, Factor K, Factor J, Factor P, Tyrosinase, Ascorbinogen, and other components as shown below:
A s c o r b i c A c i d
V i t a m i n C
In addition, mineral co-factors must be available in proper amounts.
If any of these parts are missing, there is no vitamin C, no vitamin activity. When some of them are present, the body will draw on its own stores to make up the differences, so that the whole vitamin may be present. Only then will vitamin activity take place, provided that all other conditions and co-factors are present.
Ascorbic acid is described merely as the “antioxidant wrapper” portion of vitamin C; ascorbic acid protects the functional parts of the vitamin from rapid oxidation or breakdown. (Somer p 58 “Vitamin C: A Lesson in Keeping An Open Mind” The Nutrition Report)
Over 90% of ascorbic acid in the US is manufactured at a facility in Nutley, New Jersey, owned by Hoffman-LaRoche, one of the world’s biggest drug manufacturers. Here ascorbic acid is made from a process involving cornstarch and volatile acids.
Most U.S. vitamin companies then buy the bulk ascorbic acid from this single facility. After that, marketing takes over. Each company makes its own labels, its own claims, and its own formulations, each one claiming to have the superior form of vitamin C, even though it all came from the same place, and it’s really not vitamin C at all.
FRACTIONATED = SYNTHETIC = CRYSTALLINE = FAKE
The word synthetic means two things:
Occurs nowhere in nature
From the outset, it is crucial to understand the difference between vitamins and vitamin activity. The vitamin is the biochemical complex. Vitamin activity means the actual biological and cellular changes that take place when the stage is set for the vitamin complex to act.
Think of it like gas and a car. Pumping the gas into the tank doesn’t necessarily mean the car is going anywhere. Other conditions and factors must be also present, in order for Activity to occur.
The gas line to the carburetor must be clear, the carburetor jets must be set, there must be an exact mixture of air flow, the ignition must be turned on, the spark plugs must be clean, the exact amount of gas must reach each spark plug right before it fires, no gas must be left over in the cylinder after the plug fires. Getting the idea? If any of this stuff is missing, there’s no Activity: the car doesn’t run, or at least not very well.
Amazing as it may sound if you’re hearing this for the first time, vitamins are more than the synthetic fractions we are commonly taught they are. The ascorbic acid you buy at the grocery store every few weeks, thinking you are buying Vitamin C, is just a chemical copy of naturally occurring ascorbic acid, which itself is still only a fraction of the actual Vitamin C.
Real vitamin C is part of something living, and as such, can impart life. Your synthetic, fractionated chemical ascorbic acid never grew in the ground, never saw the light of day, never was alive or part of anything alive. It’s a chemical, a cornstarch derivative, a sulfuric acid by-product. In your body it’s just another drug. Synthetic vitamins have toxic effects from mega-doses and actually can increase the white blood cell count.
Vitamins are only necessary in minute quantities on a daily basis. Whole food vitamins, by contrast, are not toxic since the vitamin is complexed in its integral working form, and requires nothing from the body, and triggers no immune response.
Scurvy is a disease caused by vitamin C deficiency. Scurvy is characterized by bleeding gums, slow wound healing, softening bones, loose teeth, ulcerations of the mouth and digestive tract, general weight loss and fatigue. From 1650 to 1850 half of all seamen on transoceanic voyages died of scurvy.
It was discovered by ship surgeon Thomas Lind in the early 1800s that British sailors were spared the disease altogether simply by a diet rich in citrus fruits. Since limes travelled well, they were the common choice during the early years, and thus the expression “limeys” was coined to describe British sailors. It was later found both at sea and in prison fare that potatoes were equally successful in preventing scurvy, and much cheaper to obtain. (Lancet. 1842)
We find that there is less than 20 mg of ascorbic acid in a potato. Yet this small amount, since it is complexed in a food source, is all the body needs not only to prevent scurvy, but also to cure it, even in its advanced state. Such a remedy is described in detail in Richard Dana’s amazing journal Two Years Before the Mast, written in 1840.
Whole food vitamin C as found in potatoes, onions, and citrus fruits is able to quickly cure any case of scurvy. By contrast, the fractionated chemical ascorbic acid has been shown to be insufficient in resolving a scurvy condition, simply because it does not act as a nutrient. (Lancet 1842)
Ascorbic acid simply cannot confer vitamin activity, as taught by the discoverer of vitamin C himself, another Nobel Prize laureate, Dr. Albert Szent-Georgi.
Szent-Georgi discovered vitamin C in 1937. In all his research however, Szent-Georgi found that he could never cure scurvy with the isolated ascorbic acid itself. Realizing that he could always cure scurvy with the “impure” vitamin C found in simple foods, Szent-Georgi discovered that other factors had to be at work in order for vitamin activity to take place.
So he returned to the laboratory and eventually made the discovery of another member of the vitamin C complex, as shown above: rutin. All the factors in the complex, as Royal Lee and Dr. Szent-Georgi both came to understand, ascorbic acid, rutin, and the other factors, were synergists: co-factors which together sparked the “functional interdependence of biologically related nutrient factors.” (Empty Harvest p120)
The term “wheels within wheels” was used to describe the interplay of co-factors.
Each of the other synergists in the C complex has a separate function:
P factors for blood vessel strength,
J factors for oxygen-carrying capacity of red cells,
Ttyrosinase as an essential enzyme for enhancing white blood cell effectiveness.
Ascorbic acid is just the antioxidant outer shell – the protector of all these other synergists so that they will be able to perform their individual functions.
Now I can hear you asking, what about Linus Pauling, double Nobel Prize laureate, and his lifetime espousal of megadosing on ascorbic acid – up to 10 grams per day. He lived to be 93. Are we saying that he took a synthetic vitamin all that time?
Yes, that’s exactly right. Bernard Jensen suggests that ascorbic acid has an acidifying effect in part of the digestive tract, making an unfriendly environment for viruses, Candida, and pathogenic bacteria.
Pauling’s good health was not the result of synthetic vitamin activity. Good genetics and maintaining an internal bioterrain not conducive to inflammation are likely what brought longevity to Linus Pauling. He eventually died of cancer at 93, but then who wants to live forever?
Dr. Royal Lee’s phrase “biological wheels within wheels” always comes up in any discussion of whole food vitamins. Essentially it means that individual synergists cannot function as a vitamin in a chemically isolated form, like ascorbic acid.
Vitamins are living complexes which contribute to other higher living complexes – like cell repair, collagen manufacture, and maintenance of blood circulation.
Ascorbic acid is not a living complex. It is a copy of a part of a living complex known as vitamin C. Ascorbic acid is a fractionated, crystalline isolate of vitamin C.
Why are you a high school graduate or a college graduate or a doctor, and you don’t know this? Because drug manufacturers like things clean and simple and cheap to produce. To this simple fact add the politics which always comes into play when anyone mentions the word “billions,” and you are beginning to get the idea about where to begin your investigation. Burned his research?
Most vitamins cannot be made by the body. They must be taken in as food. The best sources then are obviously whole foods, rich in vitamins. Because of soil depletion, mineral depletion, pesticides, air pollution, and erosion, it is common knowledge that foods grown in American soil today have only a fraction of the nutrient value of 50 years ago.
That means a fraction of the vitamins and minerals necessary for normal human cell function. Royal Lee described the American diet as the cultivation and production of “devitalized foods.” Dr. Weston Price describes these empty products as the “foods of commerce.” Think it’s gotten better or worse since their time? Thus the necessity for supplementation.
Vitamins and minerals are not functionally separable. They make each other work. Example: vitamin D is necessary for the body to absorb calcium. Copper is necessary for vitamin C activity. And so on. Mineral deficiencies can cause vitamin deficiencies, and vice versa. Epidemic mineral deficiency in America is a well-documented result of systematic soil depletion. (See Minerals chapter: thedoctorwithin.com)
So that is the other prime difference between whole food vitamins and synthetics: whole food vitamins contain within them many essential trace minerals necessary for their synergistic operation. Synthetic vitamins contain no trace minerals, relying on, and depleting, the body’s own mineral reserves.
Following the German agricultural methods of Von Leibig in the mid-1800s, American farmers found that NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) was all that was necessary for crops to look good. (Frost p7) As long as NPK is added to the soil, crops can be produced and sold year after year from the same soil.
They look OK. But the trace minerals vital for human nutrition are virtually absent from most American soil after all these years.
Many of these minerals, such as zinc, copper, and magnesium, are necessary co-factors of vitamin activity.
Depleted topsoil is one simple, widespread mechanism of both vitamin and mineral deficiency in produce today.
This doesn’t even take into account the tons of poisonous herbicides and pesticides dumped on crops. According to the UN, two million tons of pesticides are used worldwide annually. (Jensen, p69)
Agri-business has one motive: Profit.
Such a focus has resulted in an output of empty produce and a nation of unhealthy people. The earth’s immune system is its soil. To be vital and capable of growing vital foods, soil must be rich in both minerals and soil-based organisms – life forms.
Healthy produce naturally resists insects. Insects are like bad bacteria in the body: They are attracted to diseased tissue, though they do not cause it.
The Foods of Commerce
And we’re still only talking about people who actually eat raw fruits and vegetables, which is a minority. Processed food composes the majority of what most Americans eat. The only nutrients in most processed foods are “enriched” and “fortified” as described below.
When a doctor says that food supplements are all unnecessary because we can get everything we need from our food, that doctor is lacking basic information published and agreed upon by his own peers. Whether or not we need supplementation is no longer an issue, except for one who is totally out of touch. The issue is what kind and how much.
Vitamin and mineral deficiency can be tagged to practically ANY disease syndrome known to man.
DW Cavanaugh, MD of Cornell University actually concluded that:
“There is only one major disease, and that is malnutrition.”
Malnutrition of the affluent is the natural result of the foods of commerce.
The best vitamins are called whole food vitamins.
It will be difficult finding this out on the Internet, however, because the Web is dominated by mainstream nutritional theory, which means pharmaceutical underwriting.
In the area of vitamins, the Internet is 99% marketing; 1% actual information.
But then again, this isn’t Mission Difficult. This is Mission Impossible, Mr Hunt.
There are about 110 companies who sell vitamins in the US. Less than 5 of them use whole food vitamins. The reason is simple: whole food vitamins are expensive to make.
A few of the largest pharmaceutical firms in the world mass produce synthetic vitamins for the vast majority of these 110 “vitamin” companies, who then put their own label on them, and every company claims theirs is the best! It’s ridiculous! Americans spend over $9 billion per year for synthetic vitamins. (Frost p2)
Whole food vitamins are obtained by taking a vitamin-rich plant, removing the water and the fiber in a cold vacuum process, free of chemicals, and then packaging for stability. The entire vitamin complex in this way can be captured intact, retaining its “functional and nutritional integrity.” (DeCava p.23.) Upon ingestion, the body is not required to draw on its own reserves in order to complete any missing elements from the vitamin complex.
Mainstream marketing of vitamins and minerals has successfully created the myth that vitamins and minerals may be isolated from each other, that correct amounts may be measured out, and then we can derive total benefit from taking these fractionated chemical creations. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Vitamins and minerals, and also enzymes, work closely together as co-factors for each other’s efficacy. If one part is missing, or in the wrong form or the wrong amount, entire chains of metabolic processes will not proceed normally. Result: downward spiralling of health, probably imperceptible for long periods of time.
Marketing and Promotion
What is the marketing philosophy behind the prevalence of the type of synthetic vitamins available in the supermarket and mall vitamin stores? Simple: profit above all else. Once the public is shown that vitamin supplementation is necessary, the rest is marketing.
Marketing is the art of persuading by suspending logic and twisting data into junk science. Example: what’s the actual difference in composition between Wheaties and Total, two cereals put out by the same company? Total is advertised as being much more nutrient-rich than “ordinary” Wheaties. Look at the labels. What justifies the extra $1.30 for a box of Total? Answer: 1.5¢ worth of synthetic vitamins sprayed over the Wheaties.
That’s it! That’s what “vitamin enriched” always means. The other trick word is “fortified.” Generally that means that the food itself is devoid of nutrients or enzymes, so they tried to pump it up a little with some “vitamins.”
Cheap synthetic vitamin sprays are all that is required for the manufacturer to use labels like “enriched” and “fortified.” These words are red flags – if a food needs to be fortified or enriched, you can bet it was already dead.
The mega-vitamin theory doesn’t really hold when it comes to synthetics: If A Little Is Good, More Is Better. Macro doses of vitamin E, and also vitamin D have been shown to decrease immune function significantly. (DeCava) It stands to reason. Vitamins by definition are necessary in phenomenally small doses. The discoverer of thiamine, a B vitamin, and the man who came up with the word vitamin, Dr. Casimir Funk, has this to say about synthetics:
“Synthetic vitamins: these are highly inferior to vitamins from natural sources, also the synthetic product is well known to be far more toxic.”
Nutrition authority DeCava describes it:
“Natural food-source vitamins are enzymatically alive. Man-made synthetic vitamins are dead chemicals.”
– The Real Truth About Vitamins p 209
Oxymorons: military intelligence, rap music, synthetic vitamins.
The marketing of fractionated crystalline synthetic vitamins has been so successful that most nutritionists and doctors are unaware that there is something missing from these “vitamins.” Vitamin manufacturers compete for customers with identical products – they all bought their synthetic vitamins from the same couple of drug companies.
To differentiate their product, each makes claims of “high potency.” Our vitamins are higher potency than theirs, etc. The point is, the higher the potency, the more the druglike effects are present. Natural whole food vitamins are very low potency.
Remember the 20mg of vitamin C in a potato that was able to cure a patient of scurvy? That was low potency. Low potency is all we need. Low potency is enough to bring about vitamin activity. High potency overshoots the mark – the chemical is very pure and refined, like the difference between white sugar and the type of sugar that’s in an apple.
The Milligram Game
Generally speaking, if milligrams are being discussed at length, the author has no clue about vitamins. Synthetic vitamins are refined, high potency chemicals, and therefore may be accurately measured in milligrams, just like drugs.
This has nothing to do with vitamin activity or nutrition, except in a negative way.
Half the Story
The same type of incomplete action can be seen with any synthetic vitamin. Let’s take beta carotene for a minute, which the body can turn into vitamin A.
Now you’ll remember that vitamin A is necessary for good eyesight, DNA synthesis, and protects cells from free radicals. A study reported in Apr 94 in the NEJM of some 30,000 Finnish subjects showed conclusively that synthetic vitamin A had no antioxidant effect whatsoever.
A true antioxidant helps to protect heart muscle, lungs, and artery surfaces from breaking down prematurely. In this study, the subjects who received the synthetic beta carotene actually had an 8% higher incidence of fatal heart attacks, strokes, and lung cancer than those who got the placebo (sugar pill).
Stands to reason: the synthetic brought no vitamin activity to the tissues that needed it. As a dead, purified chemical introduced into the body, the synthetic further stressed the immune system, the liver, and the kidneys which all had to try to break down this odd chemical and remove it from the body. It would be bad enough if they were harmless, but synthetic vitamins actually have a net negative effect.
Vitamin A was first discovered in 1919. By 1924, it had been broken down and separated from its natural whole food complex: “purified.”
By 1931, LaRoche – one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, even today – had succeeded in “synthesizing” vitamin A. That means they had created a purely chemical copy of a fraction of naturally occurring vitamin A.
Naturally occurring vitamin A is found associated with an entire group of other components:
- Vitamins and Minerals Somer 1992
Isolated from these other factors, vitamin A is a fraction which cannot perform its biological functions. Taken as a synthetic, it must then draw on this list of resources already in the body in order to complete its make-up. Whole food vitamin A, by contrast, is already complete and ready to go.
Most synthetic vitamin A consists only of retinal, retinol, or retinoic acid. The well-publicized potential for toxicity with mega doses of vitamin A involves one of these three.
Vitamin A toxicity, known as hypervitaminosis, always results from an excess of synthetic, “purified” vitamin A, and never from whole food vitamin A. (DeCava, p 86)
Effects of vitamin A toxicity include:
Extreme dryness of eyes, mouth and skin
Enlargement of liver and spleen
Beta Carotene is a precursor the body can convert to vitamin A. Unfortunately, as a supplement, synthetic beta carotene is usually “stabilized” in refined vegetable oils. In this trans fatty acid form, oxidation occurs and the chemically “pure” beta carotene can no longer act as a nutrient, because it was changed. Almost all synthetic beta carotene is produced by the Swiss drug giant Hoffman-LaRoche. This form can no longer be converted to vitamin A. The best it can be is worthless, and the worst is toxic.
Natural vitamin A and beta carotene are well known as immune boosters and cancer fighters, in their role as antioxidants. Synthetic vitamin A by contrast has actually brought about significant increases in cancer. The same Finnish study we saw above provided smokers with large doses of synthetic beta carotene. Lung cancer incidence increased 18%! (NEJM Apr 94 “The Alpha Tocopherol Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group”)
These findings were corroborated two years later in another study written up in Lancet. Pharmacologic doses of synthetic beta carotenes were found to block the antioxidant activity of the other 50 naturally occurring carotenoids in the diet. Anti-cancer activity was thus blocked by the synthetic. (Lancet 1996)
With the vast outpouring of wrong information about vitamins A and C, the findings of a 1991 article in Health Counselor are no surprise: 50% of Americans are deficient in vitamin A and 41% are deficient in vitamin C.
Synthetic vitamins cannot prevent deficiencies.
Fake Vitamin B
In one experiment, synthetic vitamin B (thiamine) was shown to render 100% of a group of pigs sterile! 100% would be considered a significant finding. (Dr. Barnett Sure, Journ Natr 1939) Perhaps the fact that synthetic vitamin B comes from coal tar, maybe that has something to do with it, you think? Then there’s vitamin B12, which comes from activated sewage sludge. (Frost p 60)
Been shooting blanks since you started on those multi’s?
For the licensed dieticians and clinical nutritionists reading this in disbelief because it is too “unscientific,” consider the way Theron Randolph MD delineated between natural and synthetic:
“A synthetically derived substance may cause a reaction in a chemically susceptible person when the same material of natural origin is tolerated, despite the two substances having identical chemical structures.
The point is illustrated by the frequency of clinical reactions to synthetic vitamins – especially vitamin B1 and C – when the [same] naturally occurring vitamins are tolerated.”
Always keep this idea in mind when confronted with the marketing hook “bio-identical.”
According to Los Angeles naturopath, Dr. Jack Singh, all commercial lecithins in supplements, as well as most vitamin D, comes from irradiated vegetable oils. That’s rancid, oxidizing trans fatty acids! A birthday party of free radicals.
This is the precise mechanism for arterial wall breakdown prior to plaque deposits, then arteriosclerosis, then heart disease. I thought we were supposed to be taking vitamins to stay healthy!
Why is this information so difficult to find? It’s in none of the “alternative” health ‘zines, or any of the mainstream media. Alternative-Lite guru Julian Whittaker, in his summer 1998 newsletter actually had the temerity to state outright “Synthetic vitamins and whole food vitamins are identical.”
I’m sure his synthetic vitamin company and all its retailers were reassured by this incredibly arrogant and flagrantly inaccurate pronouncement. But who is objecting? Only those clients of the 5 companies who know enough to take whole food vitamins, because they have become educated to realize the difference. These are the vast minority, having no control of the media.
Royal Lee and Harvey Wiley lost. Nobody knows who they are today, except we few. This is no accident. What everybody does know is Pepsi and Viagra and Wonder Bread and prednisone and Double Whoppers with Cheese and Zantac and Baskin-Robbins and Long’s Drug Store. And grocery store vitamins: synthetic vitamins.
That’s the world, today as the product of yesterday. Control of information today is one of the most sophisticated systems of influence ever devised. The simple ideas contained in this chapter are simply not available to the mass consciousness. The documentation is out there, but you really gotta dig.
100 years ago if a medical doctor saw a case of cancer he would call all his colleagues to come and have a look, telling them it was unlikely they would see another case, as cancer was so rare. People rarely died of heart attacks; in fact the term heart attack itself didn’t even exist. There was no incidence at all of atherosclerosis. Diabetes was practically unheard of.
What did they eat? Fruits, vegetables, meat, butter, and lard. But none of it was processed with drugs and chemicals.
Today one in three dies of cancer. One in two dies of heart disease. Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S. (Vital Statistics) For anyone born after 2003, there is a one in 3 chance of Type 2 diabetes. Is that progress?
If you are a food manufacturer it is, and especially if you are a drug manufacturer. In 2007 the WHO ranked the US as #39 in the world in infant mortality. Male sperm count is less than 20% of what it was in 1929. (1981 University of Florida report, Natural vs. Synthetic) Infant mortality is up; birth defects are up.
We spend $1.5 trillion per year for health care, most of which goes for administration and executive salaries. Who are the largest advertisers for TV and the printed media?
Right: drug companies and food manufacturers.
Do they want to keep the ball rolling? You bet. Will they kill you to do it?
You bet. Do they want people to take charge of their own health by natural inexpensive foods and supplements?
A cure for cancer has been “right around the corner” since Nixon.
People are starting to ask questions; they’re less inclined to believe the slick ads coming every 10 minutes on TV and in Newsweek.
Perhaps Hippocrates did not envision doctors as detail men or drug reps. He most likely thought like Henry Bieler, MD:
“Nature, if given the opportunity is always the greatest healer. It is the physician’s role to assist in this healing, to play a supporting role.”
– Finding the Right Cure for You
So what do you do? Well, you may now have some insight that your vitamin needs are not being met by the Walgreen’s generics. Wallach used to talk about expensive urine from these unmetabolized grocery store synthetic placebos.
The water soluble vitamins are best obtained through organic produce grown in mineral-rich soil. The best supplements in this category are the top-shelf green foods, like David Sandoval’s Best of Greens, and its equivalents.
The fat soluble vitamins, A, E, and D are best obtained through fish, raw dairy, avocado, raw nuts, raw coconut, and clean meats. High end supplements like Udo’s Choice, MOR, and Nordic Naturals can round out your EFA requirements
Beyond this it’s MLM marketing roulette, and if you can’t spot the mark in the first 5 minutes, baby, it’s you.
Dr. Kelly Brogan's Takedown Of Big Pharma's SSRI Anti-Depressant Drug Lies Hits Bestseller Lists April 2 2016 | From: NaturalNews Pharma-controlled press desperately tried to censor this book, but failed. Just like Del Bigtree made a dangerous film called "VAXXED," Dr. Kelly Brogan wrote a dangerous book.
How dangerous? So dangerous that the prescription drug cartel in America -- you know, Big Pharma -- ordered media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post to blackball the book in the hope that no one would read it.
Natural News has learned that all the major media outlets obediently agreed to censor the book and its author. No reviews - not even negative ones - would be published.
No interviews with the author, no TV appearances, no debates, nothing. A literal conspiracy against a book was hatched in secret and militantly followed by the entire media.
The book is called "A Mind of Your Own," and if you're wondering what's so dangerous about it, the book totally exposes the science FRAUD of Big Pharma's antidepressant drugs. It empowers readers with knowledge they can use to take back their mental health using food, nutrition and natural therapies that don't earn huge profits for the drug company cartels.
The author, Dr. Kelly Brogan, is giving away the first chapter of the book for free on her website. Click this link to go there now and download the first chapter, and you'll find out just how "dangerous" this book really is. (Hint: It threatens a $10+ billion drug industry that preys upon the mental health of citizens while keeping them all sick or addicted...)
Exploding in Popularity Across Independent Media, Bypassing the Corrupt, Pharma - Controlled Mainstream Media
Now, thanks to the efforts of independent media websites like GreenMedInfo.com, the book has become Amazon's #1 best seller in the "Depression" category and has also achieved a #1 best seller ranking in the category of "Holistic Medicine."
As GreenMedInfo now reports, "Since then, A Mind Of Your Own soared to #20 in Amazon's 8.8 million title inventory, selling out within only two days of its March 15th launch date.
Then, yesterday, it broke through all three of the top bestselling book lists: USA Today, Publisher’s Weekly, and #10 on the prestigious NY Times bestsellers list's most hard to crack category: Advice, How-To, Misc."
In other words, the very same book that the NY Times and USA Today desperately tried to silence has now broken through the censorship and achieved statistical rankings on their own bestseller lists. (Question: Will the NY Times deny the book its proper ranking and blackball it from the NY Times Bestseller list? They've done it before...)
He reluctantly complied with the demands of the media science trolls and vaccine totalitarians, memory holing the documentary and making sure no one gets a chance to see it at the festival.
Media Censorship in Full Force Against Truth:
Psych Drugs, Vaccines, GMOs - You Name it!
On all these topics - psychiatric drugs, vaccines and GMOs - the entire mainstream media operates as a pharma mafia censorship goon squad. The media is, of course, funded largely by Big Pharma and biotech agricultural giants like ADM, DuPont and Monsanto. Because so much money flows into the mainstream media from these corporate giants, the corporations literally write the marching order memos for media to follow.
When these corporate giants order the media to censor a book, they censor a book. When they are ordered to attack Robert De Niro, they attack Robert De Niro. And when they order the media to silence Dr. Kelly Brogan and try to make her book a total failure, they follow those orders with absolute obedience (combined with a total disregard for the truth on any of these matters).
The Mainstream Media Actively Plots Against you, Seeking to Deny you Access to Transformative Knowledge
Yet more and more citizens all around the world are waking up and realizing that the mainstream media actively plots against you learning anything that's true about psychiatric drugs, vaccines and GMOs. Vindictive, treacherous, truth-hating rags like Forbes.com specialize in spreading corporate disinfo while pursuing a quasi-journalistic agenda of defaming, slandering and discrediting all who speak out against the holy trinity of poison and death: Big Pharma, Big Biotech and Big Vaccine.
Dr. Kelly Brogan likely had no idea how all this worked until she authored her own book. Operating under the belief that the mainstream media was actually interested in sharing information that would help empower and uplift readers, Dr. Brogan was absolutely shocked to discover that her book -- and her message -- was being systematically silenced and censored by the media.
The Food Industrial Complex March 30 2016 | From: Priceonomics In 2011, during a debate over the nutritional guidelines for school lunches, Congress decided that pizza counts as a vegetable. And not for the first time.
The American government first proposed that an unhealthy food - if it contains trace amounts of a healthy ingredient - could count as a vegetable in 1981. Looking for ways to cut the school lunch budget, the Reagan Administration suggested that cafeterias include ingredients in condiments like pickle relish and ketchup toward nutritional requirements.
This was not good politics. Democrats and the press had a field day saying that Reagan had just classified ketchup as a vegetable.
"This is one of the most ridiculous regulations I ever heard of,” Democratic Senator John Heinz, owner of Heinz, told the press, “and I suppose I need not add that I know something about ketchup and relish."
The Reagan Administration dropped the proposal, but it soon became law anyway. When the Obama Administration directed the Department of Agriculture to revise school lunch policies in 2011, experts took aim at the rulethat allowed the tiny amount of tomato paste in pizza sauce to count toward the vegetable requirements of each meal.
Any changes made by the Department of Agriculture could jeopardize huge contracts for companies that supply food for school children’s lunches, so the food industry responded with a $5.6 million lobbying campaign.
According to Margo Wootan, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, two multibillion dollar companies spent the most: Schwan and ConAgra, which each had large contracts for pizzas and fries used in school lunches.
Before the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) could make any recommendations, Congress ensured that the push for healthier lunches did not hurt the manufacturers of unhealthy foods. Congress passed an agriculture appropriations bill that would deny the USDA funding to enforce any policies that prevented the potatoes in french fries or the tomato paste in pizza from counting as nutritional elements.
The press again enjoyed declaring that Congress had classified pizza as a vegetable.
Cynics shrugged at yet another example of the government prioritizing the bottom line of businesses that manufacture sugary and salty processed foods over public health.
Yet the one-sided nature of the food industry’s lobbying is puzzling. Where were the broccoli, spinach, and carrot lobbies?
Why didn’t a member of Congress take to the floor with a set of talking points provided by the leafy green vegetable lobby? Why can’t American farmers, who enjoy huge government subsidies, stand up to the processed food lobby?
Part of the answer lies in the economics of the food industry: the profit margins and scale of processed food makers gives them a heft that growers of healthy foods can’t match.
But it is also because “Big Ag” is not in the healthy food business. American farms with lobbying power don’t grow brussel sprouts; they grow grains used to make the high fructose corn syrup in Coke, the starches in processed foods, and the oil in deep fryers.
This is somewhat inevitable, but it is also a self-inflicted wound: the result of misguided government policy that subsidizes Big Macs and Big Gulps.
The Poor Margins of Broccoli Farmers
The words “food lobby” have become synonymous with unhealthy food.
In 2015, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, processed food manufacturers spent $32 million on lobbying while the fruit and vegetable industry spent a mere $3.7 million. Moreover, top fruit and vegetable contributors include the National Potato Council, which protects potato farmers’ interests in french fries, and a company that grows tomatoes for fast food chains.
To understand why the food lobby is dominated by companies pushing unhealthy foods, a good place to start is the huge imbalance between the amount of fruits and vegetables we should eat and the relative size of the fruits and vegetables market.
According to nutritional guidelines published by the USDA and the Harvard School of Public Health, fruits and vegetables should make up 50% of a healthy diet. But the financial value of the fruit and vegetable market is nowhere near 50% of the food industry.
In 2015, American farmers earned under $50 billion in revenue from fruits and vegetables. In contrast, processed food manufacturers like ConAgra, General Mills, and Kellogg each make around $15 billion in yearly revenue.
The meat and carb heavy American diet partially explains these disparities. The Department of Agriculture estimates that Americans eat roughly 50% less fruits and vegetables and over 20% more grains and meat than recommended by its nutrition guidelines.
But it is the economics of the food industry that really explain why the food lobby pushes unhealthy fare.
Processed foods have high profit margins that fund advertising campaigns and lobbying budgets. The importance of branding also leads to consolidation that supports special interest lobbying.
We can see this in the case of cereal - one of the earliest processed foods.
When John Harvey Kellogg and Charles Post sold the first modern cereals in the 19th century, they worried about competitors. Their product was simply processed wheat or corn, and its production was cheap and easy to replicate.
Their solution was to use advertising to create brand names. Charles Post claimed his “Grape Nuts” could cure malaria. The Quaker symbol of Quaker Oats became the first nationally recognized cereal brand. As cereal manufacturers fought over the expanding market, they differentiated their fare through shapes and flavors - and added hefty doses of sugar to make it more palatable.
These dynamics apply to many processed foods: cheap foods differentiated - and sold at high margins - thanks to brand names and advertising. And in markets where brand recognition is key, a few businesses come to dominate. In 2015, Kellogg’s, which is currently valued at $26 billion, reported that of every $1 consumers spent on its cereal, it earned 35 cents of gross profit. (The most profitable vegetable farms earn 24 cents per dollar.)
Kellogg’s has a $26 billion market capitalization because it does not just make cereal. It also owns Pringles and manufactures a variety of processed foods from Eggo Waffles to Famous Amos chocolate chip cookies.
The entire processed foods industry is similarly consolidated. If you follow your favorite snack up the food chain, you’ll usually find that it is owned by a multinational company. PepsiCo owns Funyuns, Rold Gold pretzels, and Sun Chips.
Ritz crackers, Oreos, and Wheat Thins sell under the Nabisco label, which is owned by Mondelēz International. So whenever a federal agency supports healthy foods, it picks a fight with a collection of the world’s largest companies.
It is possible to similarly market fruits and vegetables and sell them at a markup. Honeycrisp apples, which were designed for that satisfying crunch, enjoy a price premium two to three times that of other varieties. “Organic” has emerged as a powerful marketing tool, and prices of kale increased 25% over the past 3 years.
Distributors use tactics like selling produce in convenient sizes (such as one snack worth of baby carrots) to differentiate their products.
In general, though, consumers don’t know or care who grew a certain apple or cucumber. The honeycrisp apple is a rarity, and trends like kale-mania benefit the entire market rather than a single company. Companies do market veggies, but brand recognition is low.
Brands need a year-round presence in supermarkets so consumers can purchase it routinely, but produce is seasonal. Efforts to link recognized brands with a certain quality level and a higher price point is hindered by the influence of weather on quality and prices.
Farmers and companies that grow and sell produce do so at the going rate, which is a leaner business. Vegetable farms have had boom years and can make good margins. One USDA census has noted that the largest vegetable farms had annual sales of $500,000 on margins of 24%.
But that’s still tiny compared to PepsiCo or General Mills, and the average farm actually loses value and relies on supplemental, non-farm incomes.
The term processed foods also applies to more than just Oreos and Doritos. When we think of pasta sauce, we normally don’t think of junk food. But as Michael Moss writes in the New York Times Magazine, products like Prego pasta sauce contain huge amounts of salt and sugar, just like potato chips and cereal.
The processed food industry, then, is profitable, politically powerful, and more enormous than we realize. Is it any surprise that the food lobby is synonymous with unhealthy foods?
The McDonaldization of the American Farm
While the economics of processed foods can explain their dominance over fruits, vegetables, and healthier fare, it may still seem surprising.
After all, American farmers receive billions of dollars in annual subsidies, and the American Farm Bureau often spends millions of dollars lobbying Congress to protect those subsidies and farmers’ interests. So why aren’t American farmers as successful in pushing legislation that favors fresh produce and “real food” as they are at winning subsidies?
The answer lies in recognizing that the prototypical American farm does not produce healthy food.
The idyllic farms show in Whole Foods advertisements - farms with a variety of crops and livestock - are not representative of American agriculture. As food journalist Michael Pollan has written, America’s large commercial farms are monocultures, meaning they specialize in a single crop, which is usually a grain. Together, corn and soy account for almost 50% of all American crop revenues.
According to Rosamond Naylor and Walter Falcon of Stanford, America’s corn crop is used to produce half of the sweeteners Americans consume every year in beer and soda. The majority of the crop goes toward feeding cattle (46%) and ethanol production (25%). Corn also provides the starchy base for processed foods and the oil for McDonald’s deep fryers.
The dominance of grains in American agriculture is not unusual. Just four grains - corn, wheat, rice, and soy - account for so much of global agricultural output that economists modelling food prices only look at the market for these grains.
Naylor and Falcon note that countries’ agriculture policy (including that of the United States) has been to increase the yields of these grains. After all, higher yields mean more productive farms, wealthier farmers, more food, and less hunger.
The American government has intervened extensively in agriculture since the Great Depression, and as food writer Michael Pollan notes, its subsidies and programs encouraged large farms that specialized in growing a single grain.
The government promoted the research and production of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and higher yield grains, and the Department of Agriculture encouraged farms to “get big or get out.”
The government did not dole out decades of subsidies indiscriminately; it subsidized the production of corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice at a large scale.
In some ways, these policies have been a great success. American farms are profitable and productive: the average corn belt farmer produces enough crops to feed 140 Americans and makes around $200,000 in income. The average American now enjoys half a pound of meat per day - an amount once considered princely.
But the government's calorie-maximizing policies no longer make sense in a country as troubled by obesity as by hunger. In its push for large monocultures, and in order to buy the peace of specialized vegetable farms, the USDA prohibited farms that receive grain subsidies from growing fruits and vegetables. (An ironic example of vegetable farmers flexing their lobbying muscles.)
This puts the government in the insane position of subsidizing the cost of fast food while actively prohibiting more farms from growing fruits and vegetables.
Even farm animals, which are cheaper to raise when they can be fed with subsidized grain, have a mixed nutrition record. Most nutritionists consider meat part of a healthy diet, but they also believe Americans eat too much meat.
In addition, grain subsidies, as well as the lack of any policy prohibiting the regular use of antibiotics in animal feed, enable farmers to raise animals at scale in confined areas. (The antibiotics keep animals alive in the filthy conditions of small cages.) Cheap meat is a great luxury, but this system makes McDonald’s hamburgers and Kentucky Fried Chicken cheaper than healthier foods.
America’s large, profitable farms spend millions on lobbying each year and enjoy substantial access to lawmakers. The problem is that almost none of these farms provide a counterweight to manufacturers of junk and processed foods. Thanks in part to outdated and politically-expedient agricultural policy, farms’ lobbying power protects french fries, Big Macs, and soda rather than leafy greens.
The Food Pyramid’s Corrupt Foundation
With this understanding of America’s food industry and its lobbying prowess, we can understand a certain mystery behind the food pyramid: why it promoted a diet at odds with the advice of nutritionists for nearly 20 years.
In 1992, the United States Department of Agriculture unveiled the food pyramid, its guide to healthy eating.
Thanks to government efforts to publicize it - pushing it into doctors’ offices and home economics classes - the majority of Americans recognize the food pyramid.
The nutritional guidelines behind the food pyramid also inform policy like school lunches and food stamps, making it the country’s most influential nutrition document.
During its 24-year lifespan, the food pyramid has changed significantly. The base of the original pyramid contained loaves of bread, plates of pasta, and bowls of cereal. But in the ‘food plate’, which replaced the pyramid in 2011, grains only take up 20% of the plate, which is dominated by fruits and vegetables.
The changes do not represent a new understanding of nutrition; the story of the food pyramid is the most highly visible demonstration of the food and agriculture sectors’ lobbying prowess.
Dr. Luise Light is a nutrition expert and led the team at the Department of Agriculture that made the original recommendations for the food pyramid. If you review her original recommendations, they sound similar to dietary advice given by nutritionists today: lots of vegetables, more lean sources of protein like fish and nuts, and less dairy and processed foods.
Those guidelines, according to Dr. Light, did not survive their trip to the office of the Head of the Department of Agriculture.
She has described herself as “shocked” by the changes that were made. Her team placed fruits and vegetables at the base of the pyramid and whole-grain breads and cereals further up.
The new guidelines not only switched carbohydrates to the base of the pyramid, they moved processed foods like crackers and corn flakes, which Dr. Light and her team had placed at the top of the pyramid with chocolate, to the base too. Even with all the edits, the food pyramid was not released for another 12 years.
With an understanding of the food lobby, it’s not hard to understand why. The companies that make processed foods and the large American farms that grow grains wanted to see carb-heavy foods promoted at the base of the pyramid; the tiny leafy greens lobby could not make its voice heard.
As in 1992, every five years, when the Department of Agriculture revisits its nutrition guidelines, the food industry gears up by releasing floods of reports, nominating friendly (and on-salary) researchers to be part of the USDA committee reviewing the policies, and appealing to allies in Congress and the White House.
This means that new policies are always a battle between public-interest organizations pushing for healthier guidelines and a food lobby working to subvert them. The result is that improving our food policy - at best - takes a step backward for every two steps forward.
The American government wields enormous influence over our diet. Federal policy shapes our farm system to a remarkable degree and sets the lunch menu for millions of schoolchildren. As long as food lobbyists overwhelmingly represent the makers of unhealthy food, health advocates will always struggle to push policy in a healthier direction.
To some extent, this is inevitable. The profit margins for making a branded bar of sugar are better than for growing brussel sprouts, which creates more money for lobbying against labelling laws, sugar taxes, and so on. But the current status quo, in which American farms grow crops for unhealthy products like high fructose corn syrup, is the result of outdated agricultural policy.
"Good advice about nutrition conflicts with the interests of many big industries,” Michael Jacobson, co-founder of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has said, “each of which has more lobbying power than all the public-interest groups combined.”
But the real problem is that manufacturers of unhealthy food are so powerful that those interests groups are always the pushing snack foods rather than fruit.
There’s a lot of money to be made selling obesity foods, and you can’t move America [the world] in a healthier direction without confronting the salty, sugary, finger-licking, just-one-more-chip financial firepower of the food industrial complex.
Putin: Human Evolution Under Big Threat From GMOs, Vaccines
+ Media Struggles To Pin Stupid Label On Well-Educated Vaccine Dissenters March 29 2016 | From: NatrualNews / Sott / Various Those who support vaccine choice and oppose genetically modifying our food chain have an unlikely ally: Russian President Vladimir Putin.
As reported by the Health Freedom Alliance, a report that was prepared by the Russian Security Council (SCRF), a report which is currently circulating within the Kremlin, says that Putin has given orders to protect the Russian people from GMO "food" as well as Western pharmaceuticals "at all costs."
"... some parents may feel uncertain about vaccines partly because they're skeptical of pharmaceutical companies, whose profit motives mix with their vaccine-promotion campaigns.
And while state governments can mandate immunization, this may end up pushing parents away from the public-school system if they feel that regulations are forcing them to make certain decisions about their children's health."
"We as a species have the choice to continue to develop our bodies and brains in a healthy upward trajectory, or we can follow the Western example of recent decades and intentionally poison our population with genetically altered food, pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, and fast food that should be classified as a dangerous, addictive drug," says the report.
"We must fight this. A physically and intellectually disabled population is not in our interests," the report added.
As further reported by the Health Freedom Alliance:
"Describing the average government-controlled Westerner as an 'intensively vaccinated borderline autistic fat man slumped in front of a screen battling a high-fructose corn syrup comedown,' the report states that such tactics used by governments to subjugate their citizens are not only 'dark/evil' but 'counter-productive in the medium to long term.'"
'Largest World Supplier of Healthy, Ecologically Clean and High-Quality food'
Under Putin, who is a billionaire himself, the Russian government has been giving away land for free over the past few years to anyone who is willing to plant and farm organically and sustainably, with the goal of becoming the world's "leading exporter" of non-GMO foods that are based on "ecologically clean" production.
The report comes just a few months after the Kremlin announced that it planned to halt production of all GMO foods, seen by the international organic community as a major step in the fight against multinational GMO pushers like Monsanto and Syngenta.
And Russia is continuing to lead the way in organic, natural food production.
In December, RT.com reported on Putin's intent to become the world's biggest organic food producer.
At the same time, Putin condemned U.S. food manufacturing, as well as food production in other countries, for no longer offering high quality, healthy and ecologically clean food.
"We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources – Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing," the Russian leader said in a speech to Parliament.
Food self-sufficient and GMO free
Putin added that Russia had become a net exporter of food rather than an importer.
"Ten years ago, we imported almost half of the food from abroad, and were dependent on imports. Now Russia is among the exporters.
Last year, Russian exports of agricultural products amounted to almost $20 billion - a quarter more than the revenue from the sale of arms, or one-third the revenue coming from gas exports," he said, noting that the country was on track to becoming completely food-self-sufficient by 2020.
In January, the Russian leader criticized both Western Big Pharma and GMO foods, the Australian National Review reported, a familiar theme:
"Three years ago, the Russian government was considering imposing a ban on the participation of foreign drug producers in the tendering for public procurement of drugs if there are already two similar drugs created by local manufacturers," the Australian site noted.
"The measure was meant to encourage international pharmaceutical producers to localize their production in Russia and to reduce the share of imported drugs in the total procurements, which was estimated at around 85 per cent. The initiative was put forward by Russia's Ministry of Industry and Trade."
Media Struggles To Pin Stupid Label On Well-Educated Vaccine Dissenters
There have been numerous articles in mainstream newspapers and magazines with titles that disparage anyone who questions the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, disagrees (in part or in total) with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) recommended schedule of vaccines, or opposes the idea of forcing people to get vaccinated against their will.
You can be a vaccine skeptic, a complete "anti-vaxxer" or someone who simply doesn't like the government dictating what one should or shouldn't do with one's body. It doesn't matter.
If you choose to reject any part of the current vaccine paradigm, as crafted by the government and the pharmaceutical industry, you will be put on to stupid list, even though, ironically, it is widely acknowledged that people who choose to chart their own way on the issue of vaccines tend to be extremely well-educated and often have advanced degrees.
In 2014, The Huffington Post published an article titled "Anti-Vaxxers Are Stupid and Contagious." That piece was written by the senior editor of The Huffington Post Canada, Joshua Ostroff, so it wasn't just some random person submitting an article to the publication. That same year, the Los Angeles Times published "Rich, educated and stupid parents are driving the vaccination crisis" and the Chicago Tribune published "Anti-vaccine debate proves you can't fix stupid."
Take a Look at this Dtap Vaccine Insert
The Dtap vaccine insert says in plain text that it causes autism, sudden infant death, apnea, seizures up to gran mal, neuropathy AND MORE. Interesting it is that the standard vaccine side effects - triggering allergies and other normal stuff is not even listed and in their own words "what they listed was prioritized for frequency and severity". So it causes Autism and other horrible brain damage so much that the normal stuff vaccines used to be known for is not even listed.
Yep, but it is glyphosate causing autism, look away from thew vaccines, yes, we have it, It is Glyphosate, look the other way please!
In 2015, Australia's The Daily Telegraph published an article titled "Until they come up with a vaccine for stupidity, anti-vaxxers live on." The newspaper followed up earlier this year with "Just when you thought anti-vaxxers couldn't get more stupid."
These are only a handful of the articles you can find with the word "stupid" or a variation of it in the title.
There are countless other articles in the mainstream press with words in the title that convey a similar message. It is unclear what the owners, editors and writers of reputable publications believe they stand to gain from this form of journalism.
Common sense might tell you that it's not such a good a idea to insult a segment of your audience.
Interesting enough, there may be emerging a shift in another direction. Last year, NBC News published an article titled "Don't Call Them Dumb: Experts on Fighting the Anti-Vaccine Movement."
The piece, written by Maggie Fox, suggested that belittling people with regard to vaccines may, in fact, be helping them attract sympathizers because many people don't like to see others being abused, and "some of the criticism on cable television, social media and in mainstream newspapers and magazines is starting to look like bullying."
More recently, Emma Green's article in The Atlantic, is titled "Anti-Vaxers Aren't Stupid." In her piece, Green cites Professor Mark Largent of Michigan State University and author of the book Vaccine: The Debate in Modern America.
According to Green, Prof. Largent, who is an associate professor and director of the Science, Technology, Environment, and Public Policy program at MSU, notes that 40% of parents in the United States have either refused or delayed a vaccine for one of their children.
So why is it that so many parents are having doubts about vaccines and vaccination policy? Apparently, it has nothing to do with their level of intellect, but rather the low degree of trust they have in the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry.
"... some parents may feel uncertain about vaccines partly because they're skeptical of pharmaceutical companies, whose profit motives mix with their vaccine-promotion campaigns.
And while state governments can mandate immunization, this may end up pushing parents away from the public-school system if they feel that regulations are forcing them to make certain decisions about their children's health."
According to Green, Prof. Largent also attributes some of the skepticism toward vaccines on the part of parents to the "monolithic power of science" - the sense that doctors and medical researchers have an overwhelming amount of power and control over what happens to their children, and that that may make parents uncomfortable to the point where they seek to offset that power and control by doing their own research.
"Faced with this imbalance of power and information, who can blame parents for being nervous and striking out on the Internet for a second opinion?"
Still, Prof. Largent's attempt to explain why so many well-educated people refuse to follow the party line on vaccines does not mean that he believes they are right or even offer some valid points.
To the contrary, according to Green, Prof. Largent has said, "Vaccinology has nothing to learn from anti-vaxers." But Prof. Largent at least appears to be open to "engaging" rather than merely insulting those who hold different views. That's something.
Increasingly, professionals within a wide range of health care and science fields are giving interviews and writing articles and books voicing their concerns about vaccine risks, the misrepresentation of the historical role of vaccines in reducing mortality from infectious diseases, the expanding schedule and number of vaccines mandated, or even the basic mechanism theories behind vaccine science.
Predictably, every time you give the name of a contrarian doctor or scientist in response to the 99.9% figure, what you tend to get is, "Eh, well, he's a quack, she's not credible."
Also, you get referred to blogs such as Science-Based Medicine, or Respectful Insolence, or the Skeptical Raptor's Blog.
They're often written by or associated with a guy named David Gorski, MD, who also goes by the alias "Orac." Gorski is a surgical oncologist and an assistant professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, MI4.
Should you wish to debunk someone, anyone, who dares to disagree with mainstream thinking on vaccines, all you need do is inform Orac, and the good doctor will gladly oblige by writing up a boorish piece, long on insult and short on science. Orac's methods are painfully predictable.
Sunscreen Causes Cancer? What You May Not Know About Sunscreen March 26 2016 | From: NaturalNews
Who would think that sunscreen causes cancer?
It has been only a fairly recent development, but it still could cause some serious shock and awe when everyone figures out that conventional sunscreen found in drugstores nationally could be a potential risk factor for skin cancer.
Sunscreens are made to protect and help your body, so why are we finding out that sunscreen causes cancer? It could be simply widespread ignorance, or it could be that the FDA has kept this secret under wraps for at least a decade.
Sunscreen Causes Cancer?
Studies conducted indicate the dangers of certain chemical compounds within sunscreen could be causing a variety of skin damaging ailments, especially when reacting with the sun’s intensive heat.
Though the FDA had supervised and funded the studies showing key ingredients related to vitamin A as carcinogenic, they knowingly prevented the information from being released to the public whatsoever – up until recently.
The synthetic vitamin A compound found in many sunscreen brands contain retinol and retinyl palmitate, both found to react negatively in the sunlight, becoming toxic to the system.
This isn’t to be confused with the health-enhancing vitamin A that is found in many foods – it is a purely synthetic and ultimately useless ingredient. When combined with the extensive use over time, this kind of sunscreen can lead to skin damage in its users.
These aren’t the only things to be worried about when applying your doctor-recommended photocarcinogen, though. Oxybenzone and other vague mystery chemicals are found amongst a wide variety of name brand sunscreens, with many of these having yet to be proven as safe to use at all.
About 8 percent of all sunscreens have been quality tested by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to be both safe and effective for the intended use, whereas the other 92 percent contain at least one (if not many more) of the ingredients designated as detrimental for human use, further adding to the worry if sunscreen causes cancer.
This means the public not only has been encouraged to buy something that is known to be detrimental for at least a decade, but is only left with a selection that is 8% safe.
Not only that, but the sunscreens widely credited as preventative cures for skin cancer are also the root cause of a widespread vitamin D deficiency – a vitamin shown to slash flu risk and fight cancer. There has also been a connection made between vitamin D and weight loss. Vitamin D production is extremely limited when sunscreen is used to protect the body from natural sunlight.
So, now that there has been some research showing sunscreen causes cancer, the question remains: what will people do about it? On a larger scale, it must be demanded by enough people for the harmful ingredients to be omitted from sunscreens.
Until then, tell the companies using these ingredients that you don’t want their toxic products. Spend your dollar on a safe sunscreen with safe ingredients.
Kratom is a tree native to Southeast Asia that is widely known as ‘nature’s vicodin’. The leaves of the tree can be chewed, made into a tea, or dried and added to capsules that cure anxiety, depression, migraines and many types of chronic pain.
The plant acts as both a mild sedative when used sparingly; and in large doses, as a stimulant. It can also be used to wean patients off opiate addictions such as heroin and morphine.
The plant is from the same family as the coffee tree, and Thai people have used Kratom leaves as a form of medicine for centuries to treat conditions such as diarrhea, nervousness and opiate withdrawal.
Many long-term users of Kratom claim that it is more effective at managing pain than many powerful painkillers such as morphine and vicodin, and is far less addictive than chemical narcotics.
The DEA has placed Kratom onto their Drugs and Chemicals of Concern list in the past, and it is illegal in Australia, Thailand, Malaysia and Burma. It is available over-the-counter in powder form, dried leaves, capsules and as an extract, and there have been no reported cases of overdose or serious side-effects.
History of Kratom
The first documented cases about Kratom comes from the early 19th century after a Dutch Botanist named Pieter Korthals commented on how the leaves of the tree reminded him of a Bishops mitre and named the tree Mitragyna.
There is not much evidence available on the use of Kratom before Europe’s colonisation of Asia, but it is generally believed that Asian people have used this herb for hundreds of years.
Farmworkers would often chew the leaves as a pick me up in the morning in the same way as many people now rely on coffee. In 1943, the Thai government passed a new law banning the use of kratom citing it as a dangerous drug, although many people believe the move was to protect the government’s investment in the booming opiate business.
Despite the ban, kratom use continues in Thailand even though the government imposes strong penalties on those caught with the herb.
Kratom as a Painkiller
Kratom is perfectly legal in the United States and many advocates of the herb claim it has similar pain relieving properties as marijuana. The web is filled with misinformation about this wonderful herb, and the DEA and many different mainstream news sources try to categorize it with the latest harmful drug trends such as bath salts.
According to its users, taking a small amount of kratom extract everyday will benefit those suffering from all forms of pain including past injuries, nerve damage, headaches and arthritis. Kratom contains two compounds known as mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine which have been found to have mildly sedative effects when used on rats.
Kratom is reported to be mildly psychoactive, and users have noted that they can experience feelings of extreme well being and blissfulness.
As well as pain relief, kratom can be used to combat fatigue, social anxiety, stress and is said to provide sexual enhancement for men. Many people also use it as a substitute for coffee as it provides a more level burst of energy without the inevitable caffeine crash after a few hours.
Possible Side-Effects or Drug Interactions
Due to its sedative effects, kratom should never be mixed with any other type of substance especially alcohol. A study performed at the Department of Human Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences in Malaysia found that giving a mixture of mitragynine and morphine to rats in the laboratory reduced the amount of tolerance the rats built up to the morphine over time.
There needs to be further research performed into the pain-relieving properties of kratom as according to users’ testimonies it could provide a safe and non-addictive alternative to strong pain medication such as morphine, vicodin and oxycontin.
Stunning Infographic Showing How Heavy Metals End Up In The Food Supply Due To Industrial Pollution March 23 2016 | From: NaturalNews
You've probably heard food companies and nutritional supplement manufacturers claim that high levels of lead found in their products is "naturally occurring." But they're LYING.
The truth is that high levels of toxic heavy metals show up in foods, superfoods and supplements due to industrial pollution... including decades of spraying lead arsenate on croplands.
A new infographic has been released that reveals the cycle of heavy metals in food and the environment
As this infographic and video both reveal, toxic heavy metals enter the food supply from contaminated soils, and soils are contaminated from a multitude of sources, including:
Dental offices (mercury)
Coal power (mercury)
Pesticides (lead and arsenic)
Mining operations (copper, nickel, lead, etc.)
Human waste that's recycled by cities into "biosolids" used on crops
Contaminated municipal water pipes (lead)
Chicken feed that's "medicated" with arsenic
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
Get the full story on heavy metals in food in the upcoming book "Food Forensics"
In my new book Food Forensics, I detail the heavy metals composition of over 800 foods. All that data are derived from my laboratory analysis from the Natural News Forensic Food Labs (now named CWC Labs).
The book is available now for pre-sale on Amazon, BN.com and other booksellers. That book is set to take the food industry by storm by revealing the truth about heavy metals in foods, supplements and superfoods.
Consumed is a dramatic thriller that explores the complex world of genetically modified food.
The story is anchored by a working-class, single Mother on a hunt to uncover the cause of her son's mysterious illness.
Interwoven are the stories of an Organic farmer, the CEO of a biotechnology corporation, two Scientists on the verge of a major discovery, and an ex-Cop caught in the middle of it all.
DARK Act Defeated In U.S. Senate As Lawmakers Receive Tidal Wave Of Calls From Angry Food Consumers Who Are Tired Of Being LIED To About GMO In Their Food March 19 2016 | From: NaturalNews
The DARK Act has beendefeated in the U.S. Senate, achieving a massive victory for consumers and also for the Environmental Working Group, which helped organize large-scale opposition to the bill.
The DARK Act would have outlawed state-level GMO labeling laws nationwide, condemning American food consumers to remaining completely in the dark over the genetically engineered content of their food. This outcome is also somewhat of a harbinger for countries in the rest of the world...
Natural News thanks all our readers who took action to help defeat the DARK Act. We are fighting for your right to know what you're eating, and with your help, we really can defeat Monsanto and its minions like Ted Cruz. ("Monsatan's Preacher.")
Tidal Wave of Calls Slammed Senators Nationwide
I spoke to industry insiders this morning who confirmed that the offices of many U.S. Senators were hit hard with a "tidal wave of calls" from concerned Americans. Even many Republican senators are starting to come around on this issue, and GMO labeling continues to gain steam across the country as food consumers increase their demand for honest food labels and overall food transparency.
“In a major win for consumers, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) failed to earn the votes he needed to stop debate on a bill known to opponents as the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act, or DARK Act.
According to EWG, the defeat of the DARK Act offers Congress the opportunity to find a compromise for a national mandatory GMO labeling measure that consumers and industry can support.
Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs, said:
"Consumers have made their voices heard to their elected representatives in the Senate and they said clearly, 'We want the right to know more about our food.' We are pleased that the Senate made the right decision to stop the DARK Act, and we remain hopeful that Congressional leaders can craft a national mandatory compromise that works for consumers and the food industry. We applaud Senators Debbie Stabenow, Jeff Merkley, Jon Tester, Barbara Boxer and Pat Leahy for their efforts to defeat the DARK Act.""
Scott Faber Vindicated After Mini Civil War Inside the Labeling Movement
The defeat of the DARK Act vindicates Scott Faber, who was previously accused by several pro-labeling industry insiders as siphoning money away from state ballot measures (Natural News covered this story and quoted three industry sources). However, it is clear from today's victory that Scott Faber is working hard for labeling at the national level, and he deserves tremendous credit for today's victory, regardless of the previous disagreements among labeling advocates in the "states vs. federal" debate.
It's clear that the Environmental Working Group and the Just Label It campaign are both on the right track so far, and the EWG now tells Natural News that they fully support the Merkley bill created by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore) which creates a national mandatory standard for GMO labeling.
“Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, today praised the introduction of the Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity Act. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), would create a national standard for GMO labeling and require food manufacturers to label products with GMO ingredients via one of several options on the ingredients list section of the Nutrition Facts Panel.
Another option would give FDA the authority to develop a symbol, in consultation with food manufacturers, which would disclose the presence of GM ingredients on packaging.
Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, said, "This is what real disclosure looks like. This bill finds a way to set a national standard and avoid a patchwork of state labeling laws while still giving consumers the information they want and deserve about what's in their food.
This compromise offers food companies different labeling options and ensures that all consumers – no matter where they are in the country or whether they own a smartphone – have the information they overwhelmingly say they want. We urge Senators to support this proposal as they move forward on GMO labeling legislation."
Merkley's bill comes the day after the Senate Agriculture Committee voted to move forward an anti-consumer bill that would preempt state GMO labeling laws and direct USDA to develop duplicative standards for voluntary labeling and promote biotechnology.
The legislation, which is supported by biotech giants and some of the country's largest food companies, is the latest attempt to block a Vermont law requiring labeling on the package of genetically engineered food sold in the state before it goes in to effect July 1.
Consumers Union is urging consumers to call on their lawmakers to oppose preemption of state GMO labeling laws, and to support meaningful, mandatory on-package labeling for GMO foods, including engineered animals like salmon and engineered produce and processed food. To learn more, visit: ConsumersUnion.org/RightToKnow
Why Are These 25 Carcinogens Still Being Sold? March 15 2016 | From: Sott
The FDA is a killer organization. So superior are they, and so very post-modern, that it seems they've transcended meaning, analysis, and the law of cause and effect.
Given their exalted status, should it really surprise that they've not noticed the myriad ways they've advanced the march of carcinogens? After all, it's not like they run studies, check results, or have some sort of mandate to protect, right?
With this in mind, let's examine a few of the carcinogens approved, ignored, and/or excused by the FDA; whose motto really ought to be, "move along, there's nothing to see, here".
1. Baby Powder. The talc in this powder is linked to ovarian cancer. The FDA's response? Too much money at stake to investigate. Very nihilistic, FDA! Nietzsche would approve.
2. Cosmetics. It's a beautiful thing that the cosmetics industry uses industrial factory cleaners to pulchrify womankind, don't you think? No regulation needed here, folks. Even though said chemicals have been found to cause cancer, disrupt hormones, and presage early puberty. I mean, the FDA is really busy. You can't expect them to examine everything, can you?
3. Birth control. The estrogen and progesterone within birth control have been found to "lead to cancer". But since there's no "smoking gun", why "rock the boat"? After all, "the show must go on". "It's just business". And an investigation might just "kill profit margins". Priorities, folks. Priorities.
4. Fluoride. Harvard scientists have found that boys in their 6th, 7th, and 8th years, are highly susceptible to osteosarcomas related to fluoride. Add to this the fact that fluoride is a mutagen, which means it alters DNA, and a neurotoxin, and it becomes quite clear the FDA is right to be unconcerned about allowing fluoride in our drinking water. Good job, old sport. Keep earning our trust.
5. Pesticides. Roughly 60% of pesticides lead directly to cancer. But the EPA seems rather bored with this statistic. Now, there has been "some news lately", about a "new standard", that's "less deadly". Whatever. It's the circle of life. We have to put toxins on our crops that will kill us, so that the food we reap can keep us alive till we die. Can't you people understand this?!
6. Sugar. A large part of the Standard American Diet (S.A.D.), sugar makes America go! Oh, did I mention sugar exponentially increases the growth of cancer cells? Well, too bad. We have to have it, cells or no. Whether it's in soda, candy, or children's cereal (aka sugar), the FDA is right to sleep on this one. Otherwise, how could people stay awake during the endless forty-hour work week?
7. Aspartame. This sweetener/carcinogen was rescued from oblivion by Monsanto, who bought out the agency that was challenging it's production. Listed as "toxic poison" by those in the know, Aspartame causes so many disorders it would take a separate article to cover to them all. Suffice it to say, the FDA and Monsanto are class acts, that obviously care deeply about human life. You stay classy, San Diego.
8. Ersatz Sugar and Diet Cola. Aspartame, Aspartame, Aspartame. People reason taking this toxic carcinogen (which many KNOW is such) makes more sense than consuming real sugar, which might cause them to put on weight. At least I think that's why they do it. After all, who in their right mind would choose Aspartame for its flavor? To summarize, many otherwise bright individuals voluntarily put a foul tasting chemical into their bodies, that might kill them, to (potentially) keep trim. Ironically, Aspartame may just be making Americans a lot fatter.
9. Smoking. Fifteen different types of cancer are caused by cigarettes, which contain six-hundred "ingredients", that when burned, turn into seven-thousand chemicals, sixty-nine of which cause cancer. Too bad you can't smoke Aspartame, eh, Phillip Morris?
10. Cell Phones. The WHO believes cell phones are "possibly carcinogenic", and French researchers have found there is a threefold added risk of brain tumor growth in cell users with 900 plus hours exposure. Swedish researchers have concluded there is a similar risk for those who've used them twenty-five years or more. The main stream governmental and scientific community's response to this? "Yeah, right! Nobody messes with progress." It's business before pleasure, and by pleasure, I mean human life.
11. Soy. Eating soy "may" turn on genes linked to cancer growth. And right now, I "may" be thinking of sarcastic things to say about our regulatory agencies. But I digress.
12. BPA. According to Forbes, BPA is not harmful. (Thanks, guys; clearly there's no conflict of interest.) Now, on to what real scientists are saying. Apparently BPA disrupts genes that defend against cancer. So, okay, maybe it doesn't CAUSE cancer, but it helps the things that cause cancer cause cancer. So please be sure not to touch or eat from plastic containers anymore, or handle glossy receipts. (Oh, wait, that's impossible.) Now, moving on to more things Forbes probably isn't worried about.
14. Statins. Speaking of drugs that effect the blood, several statins have been found to be carcinogenic. Now if that doesn't raise your pressure, nothing will.
15. GMOs.A major study found recently that GMO maize caused cancer in lab rats. Surprisingly, the study was tabled. They say money doesn't grow on trees, but the way Monsanto and the GMO crowd create organic anomalies, I'm starting to wonder. And where was the FDA in all of this? Oh, right! Drinking cocktails with Hillary Clinton at O'Malley's Irish Pub. Clearly there's something wrong with you if you don't favor crossing human genes with corn, or corn with the hepatitis virus. That's just progress. I mean, how could such things go wrong?
16. Pollution. File this one under "part of the cost of doing business". Seems we can't create profits without creating poison, or create poison without turning it into food.
17. Microwave ovens.Swiss researcher Hans Hertel has concluded that when we eat microwaved food, our cells form emergency anaerobic environments in response, the exact condition which leads to cancer cell growth. But don't worry, the internetz is full of edumacational articles saying the opposite.
18. Lead. Did you know that lead in lipstick may cause cancer? Why is lead in lipstick, anyway? Who was the first person who thought that would be a good idea? Perhaps it's inspired by Hamlet's famous quip, "Here's metal more attractive". Yes, that must be it.
19. Processed meats. These include hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, and some deli meats, which have been "treated" to "improve the flavor". Yummy.
20. Gardasil. This vaccine increases the risk of precancerous legions by 44.6%, if the person has already been exposed to HPV 16 or 18, before injection.
21. Research shows LED bulbs have tiny cracks in them that release UV rays, which burn skin cells, causing melanoma. (Too bad you can't find the old bulbs anymore.)
22. High fructose corn syrup. How many hundreds of products is this little monster hiding in? It's ubiquity doesn't erase the fact that it's known to cause pancreatic cancer.
23. McDonald's McRib Sandwich. First of all, the entire fast food industry is a disgrace. It puts things in food that just boggle the mind (such as azodicarbonamide, an ingredient Subway once put in their breads. By the way, it's also found in yoga mats.) But the disgusting McRib takes the cake. Chemicals used in soil fertilizer are found in it, as well as the aforementioned Subway chemical. Plus the pickles are carcinogenic. And the FDA just stands there, hands in its pockets, with a stupid expression, looking like Napoleon Dynamite. Can't you just hear them saying, "Tina you fat lard, come get dinner. Tina! Eat the FOOD!"?
24. Monsanto. Due to this wonderful organization's role in saving Aspartame from destruction, mass-producing GMO's, and filling the world with deadly toxins, I feel Monsanto deserves a special place on this list of carcinogens. Bravo. And props to the FDA for defending us from this monster. You guys are the best.
25. The Standard American Diet (S.A.D.). Let's add things up from the list. Processed meats? Check. Total sugar overload? Check. Aspartame? Check. GMO's, fake cheese, fake juice and brominated bread? Check, check, check, check. Put it in the microwave, and double down on the fun. Or you could just cook a frozen dinner. Everything is encouraged by our friends at the FDA, except cooking organic food, in a natural oven, with real butter and raw milk. In fact, if you produce raw milk, you might just get raided by the FBI.
Why in the world are these twenty-five carcinogens still being sold? And why is proffering poison so fashionable, while pure products are priced out of reach?
Our world is now suffused with corporately created carcinogens, which build up the bodies of abstract entities, but give living beings the shaft. And all Washington seems concerned with is running Trump vs. Hillary, and bombing the tar out of Syria. Meanwhile, the SAD American diet clearly leads to cancer, and the health machine's one response is to use toxic poison to "help solve the problem".
All sarcasm aside, the FDA, EPA, and the myriad agencies responsible for monitoring food, health, and beauty, are doing such a terrible job, I think it not outlandish to question whether the whole system isn't corrupt, and designed for a tragic end?
Cosmetics, sugar, technology, and fast food: these attractive items are like the glistening fibers of a spider's web. "How could this lovely thing be dangerous", thinks the fly. Little does he know, his appetite for attractive objects is well known to the spider.
The food we're eating is eating us. Our medicine bites, and its oversight sucks. Meanwhile, where has the spider gone? He's hiding behind the Board, looking respectably bespectacled. The last people you would expect to be monsters seem to be the first to profit from human misery.
Let's face it, either they really are monsters, or they're so incompetent, they ought to be placed on a short bus. You tell me which alternative makes more sense?
The good news is that, even though the FDA is just awful, we can make lists like this of products to avoid. We don't have to eat ourselves to death by imbibing the likes of Aspartame. And perhaps, with enough awareness, we can put these companies out of business. Viva la revolucion!
Comment: FDA approved additives in our food that are banned in other countries You have to ask why the United States still allows proven carcinogens to be added to our foods. Why they allow arsenic in chicken feed, and why it allows companies to lure in children with bright attractive packaging when they know those kids are going to be guzzling flame retardants...
There are literally dozens of additives that are banned around the world that still find their way legally into the foods eaten in the United States.
It amazes me that a government that considers itself able to police the world, who thinks they have the right to interfere in the lives of millions globally cannot ensure that it's own citizens are able to consume everyday foods in the sure knowledge that they are not being poisoned.
Read What The Drug Companies Have Written About Their Own Drugs!
+ The Mission - Gwen Olsen - The Rx Reformer March 11 2016 | From: MMSnews
Many of us have seen these titles below in medical news around the world about how deadly prescription drugs are in the human body.
Before the advent of “Big Pharma” early in the 20th century, these statistics just did not exist but now we have to deal with so many needless deaths from toxins that are entering the body through prescribed medications. One thing people can do is to make a more informed decision in what they allow to be put in their bodies.
Every pharmaceutical company that has an “approved” drug on the world market has to disclose a list of information good and bad about each drug it produces in publication called, “package insert”. Being “approved” doesn’t mean it is safe or non-toxic in your body as you will see from their own publications!
What is in the Package Insert?
The package insert is a very detailed publication and filled with information provided by the drug manufacturer and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Each country or region has its own agency that regulates drugs and provides the information that consumers receive with their prescriptions.
In India, it is the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), which is commonly referred to as the Drugs Controller General (DCG). In Europe, it is the European Medicines Agency (EMA), where the package insert is known as the patient information leaflet (PIL).
Package inserts (also known as Prescribing Information or drug labels) are available for all prescription medications approved by the FDA. Similar information is available for nonprescription medicines and for some herbal medicines and dietary supplements as well.
The package insert can usually be found online on the drug manufacturer's web site and also available in a reference book called the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR).
The information in a package insert is in technical language. It is usually very long and can be difficult to understand. It is a good idea to look through it, because it lists important information about the drug. The package insert follows a standard format for every drug. After some identifying information such as the drug's brand name, generic name, and initial year of FDA approval, the following sections appear:
1. Highlights of Prescribing Information
2. Indications and Usage
3. Dosage and Administration
4. Dosage Forms and Strengths
Note: Pay special attention to these bolded sections.
6. Warnings and Precautions
7. Adverse Reactions
8. Drug Interactions
9. Use in Specific Populations
10. Over dosage
12. Clinical Pharmacology
13. Nonclinical Toxicology
14. Clinical Studies
16. How Supplied/Storage and Handling
17. Patient Counseling Information
A woman here in Colombia whom we are giving “sacramental guidance” has been telling me about the symptoms she has been having the past few years from certain drugs. She is taking a drug called, “atenolol”. Below, is a list of the “Adverse Reactions” in the package insert from the Drug company.
Allergic: Fever, combined with aching and sore throat, laryngospasm, and respiratory distress.
Central Nervous System: Reversible mental depression progressing to catatonia; an acute reversible syndrome characterized by disorientation of time and place; short-term memory loss; emotional lability with slightly clouded sensorium; and, decreased performance on neuropsychometrics.
The woman we are guiding with our health sacraments decided to stop taking this medication which she had been taking for years. Her doctor had never shown her this information or told her it existed! It is not a good business practice to show how dangerous and toxic the product you are trying to sell to a patient is before they begin to take it, right?
I’m being facetious in case you didn’t notice. They, (the drug company), doesn’t want you to know this information, because you probably would not take the drug.
Many of the symptoms that the drug itself was causing her are disappearing after a week! Also, she has begun with the Starting Procedure and working her way up to Protocol 2000 while she is with us for a month. This will detox any residual amount of this drug that has accumulated in the body over the years as well as pathogens to “restore her to health”.
Below are the top 25 Prescribed drugs in the U.S. See if what you are being prescribed to take is on the list. If so, read the information in the package insert. I included a link. YOU decide if the doctor that prescribe it for you made the right choice for you!
The Most Popular Drugs in the United States - Primary Use
NOTE: You will notice that there are different package inserts from different drug companies producing the same drug so check out the company package insert of the drug you are taking and compare to the other companies to see if they agree.
I have written this newsletter so people that are considering taking a certain drug can make an “informed” decision. You will notice that the drug companies tell you to ask your doctor if a certain drug is “good” for you. That would be like asking a used car salesman if this car is good for me.
99% of the time he will say, yes of course it is because he wants to sell you the car. He makes money off the car! I believe that the person being asked or told to take a certain drug, should do his or her “due diligence” and see what the drug companies say about the drug they are producing.
They are telling the world what drugs they are making and what results they are seeing from the people taking them. You need to listen to what they are putting in print! Now, if you decide that a certain drug being prescribed for you is “not good” for your health then you should have every right to deny taking it!
The Genesis II Church of Health and Healing has sacraments that can protect our “temple” the body, from 99% of the things that can hurt it, i.e. toxins and pathogens. Each one of us personally needs to take responsibility for what enters our temples. I hope everyone will research what has been written to warn us all of the dangers of many pharmaceutical products whether they are in the form of pills, vaccines, intravenously or any other manner of entering the body!
MMS Products Are Not Medicines or Drugs
MMS is used to make chlorine dioxide, a proven pathogen killing mineral used extensively in the hygiene and water treatment industries to destroy bacteria, viruses, pathogens and other harmful organisms in water.
The human body is 60 - 70% water.
MMS products are used in the sacraments of the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing.
The Genesis II Church of Health and Healing is non-religious; and believes that taking control of our own health is a 'God given right' to be viewed as a 'sacrament' or 'sacred right' that each of us must freely enjoy.
Restoring Health is like a journey, and the length of your journey will depend upon the particular ailment being dealt with, and other life style factors that may have an impact on your health.
Gwen Olsen spent fifteen years as a sales rep in the pharmaceutical industry working for health care giants including Johnson & Johnson, Syntex Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbott Laboratories and Forest Laboratories.
"In Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher, Gwen Olsen brings together the knowledge of an “insider” trained to sell doctors on the merits of pills; the personal experience of having taken psychiatric medications and seen how they altered her life; and the deep grief of having lost her niece - following her treatment with psychiatric medications - to suicide.
This book has both an intellectual and emotional punch that readers will long remember."
- Robert Whitaker, Author of “Anatomy of an Epidemic”
Everyone is at risk of a prescription drug tragedy: Gwen offers an insider’s knowledge of dangers from the pharmaceutical industry.
Her poignant autobiographical journey through the darkness of mental illness and the catastrophic consequences that lurk in medicine cabinets around the country offers an honest glimpse into alarming statistics and a health care system ranked last among nineteen industrialized nations worldwide.
As a former sales rep for Pharma, Gwen learned firsthand how an unprecedented number of lethal drugs are unleashed onto an unsuspecting public.
"It is easy to disregard prescription drug deaths, medical errors, and U.S. health care crisis statistics as just numbers. However, they are not. In a well researched, impeccably documented, finely written manner Gwen Olsen has given us account of the gripping details of real people hurt by the failures of modern health care.
A former pharmaceutical representative herself, the information is as credible as it is compelling. It is vital for those currently taking prescription medication to read and understand this book."
- Dr. Ben Lerner, chiropractor and New York Times best selling author of “Body by God”
As a mental health activist, Gwen has testified before the Food and Drug Administration’s Psycho-pharmacology committee, as well as many legislative committees, and has led rallies and marches in protest against psychiatric abuse.
Gwen’s message is a call to action and a plea for each of us to step up and do our part to help create a medical system that serves all and does harm to none!
"When you realize what is being sold to you as a “remedy” you will realize how you are playing Russian Roulette with yours and your children’s lives. This book is a MUST read for every American and every parent in the country."
- Meria Heller, Producer/Host–The Meria Heller Show
The Complete History Of Monsanto, The World’s Most Evil Corporation March 9 2016 | From: WakingTimes
Of all the mega-corps running amok, Monsanto has consistently outperformed its rivals, earning the crown as “most evil corporation on Earth!”
Not content to simply rest upon its throne of death, atop a mountain of rotting corpses, it remains focused on newer, more scientifically innovative ways to harm the planet and its people.
As true champions of evil, they won’t stop until… well, until they’re stopped! But what is Monsanto and how did they get to be so obscenely evil in the first place? I think that’s the best place to start this journey, so grab a few non-GMO snacks or beverages and let’s go for a ride into the deep, murky sewers of their dark past.
1901: The company is founded by John Francis Queeny, a member of the Knights of Malta, ((SMOM), which historically has been the military arm of the Vatican) a thirty year pharmaceutical veteran married to Olga Mendez Monsanto, for which Monsanto Chemical Works is named.
The company’s first product is chemical saccharin, sold to Coca-Cola as an artificial sweetener.
Even then, the government knew saccharin was poisonous and sued to stop its manufacture but lost in court, thus opening the Monsanto Pandora’s Box to begin poisoning the world through the soft drink.
1920's: Monsanto expands into industrial chemicals and drugs, becoming the world’s largest maker of aspirin, acetylsalicyclic acid, (toxic of course). This is also the time when things began to go horribly wrong for the planet in a hurry with the introduction of their polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
“PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical, an oil that wouldn’t burn, impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet.
Widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders. The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state.”
Even though PCBs were eventually banned after fifty years for causing such devastation, it is still present in just about all animal and human blood and tissue cells across the globe.
Documents introduced in court later showed Monsanto was fully aware of the deadly effects, but criminally hid them from the public to keep the PCB gravy-train going full speed!
1930's: Created its first hybrid seed corn and expands into detergents, soaps, industrial cleaning products, synthetic rubbers and plastics. Oh yes, all toxic of course!
1940's: They begin research on uranium to be used for the Manhattan Project’s first atomic bomb, which would later be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Korean and US Military servicemen and poisoning millions more.
The company continues its unabated killing spree by creating pesticides for agriculture containing deadly dioxin, which poisons the food and water supplies.
It was later discovered Monsanto failed to disclose that dioxin was used in a wide range of their products because doing so would force them to acknowledge that it had created an environmental Hell on Earth.
1950's: Closely aligned with The Walt Disney Company, Monsanto creates several attractions at Disney’s Tomorrowland, espousing the glories of chemicals and plastics. Their “House of the Future” is constructed entirely of toxic plastic that is not biodegradable as they had asserted. What, Monsanto lied? I’m shocked!
“After attracting a total of 20 million visitors from 1957 to 1967, Disney finally tore the house down, but discovered it would not go down without a fight.
According to Monsanto Magazine, wrecking balls literally bounced off the glass-fiber, reinforced polyester material. Torches, jackhammers, chain saws and shovels did not work. Finally, choker cables were used to squeeze off parts of the house bit by bit to be trucked away.”
Monsanto’s Disneyfied vision of the future:
1960's: Monsanto, along with chemical partner-in-crime DOW Chemical, produces dioxin-laced Agent Orange for use in the U.S.’s Vietnam invasion.
The results? Over 3 million people contaminated, a half-million Vietnamese civilians dead, a half-million Vietnamese babies born with birth defects and thousands of U.S. military veterans suffering or dying from its effects to this day!
Monsanto is hauled into court again and internal memos show they knew the deadly effects of dioxin in Agent Orange when they sold it to the government.
Outrageously though, Monsanto is allowed to present their own “research” that concluded dioxin was safe and posed no negative health concerns whatsoever.
Satisfied, the bought and paid for courts side with Monsanto and throw the case out. Afterwards, it comes to light that Monsanto lied about the findings and their real research concluded that dioxin kills very effectively.
A later internal memo released in a 2002 trial admitted:
“That the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question…
the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable. The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here?
The alternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products.”
Monsanto partners with I.G. Farben, makers of toxic Bayer aspirin and Hitler’s go-to chemical manufacturer that exterminated millions with it Zyklon-B gas during World War II.
Together, the companies use their collective expertise in genocide to introduce aspartame, another extremely deadly neurotoxin, into the food supply. When questions surface regarding the toxicity of saccharin, Monsanto exploits this opportunity to introduce yet another of its deadly poisons onto an unsuspecting public.
1970's:Monsanto partner, G.D. Searle, produces over a hundred faked internal studies which claim aspartame to be safe, while the FDA’s own scientific research clearly reveals that aspartame causes tumors and massive holes in the brains of rats, before killing them.
The FDA initiates a grand jury investigation into G.D. Searle for “knowingly misrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making false statements” in regard to aspartame safety.
During this time, Searle strategically taps prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defense during the Gerald Ford and George W. Bush presidencies, to become CEO.
The corporation’s primary goal is to have Rumsfeld utilize his political influence and vast experience in the killing business to grease the FDA to play ball with them.
A few months later, Samuel Skinner receives “an offer he can’t refuse,”withdraws from the investigation and resigns his post at the U.S. Attorney’s Office to go work for Searle’s law firm. This mob tactic stalls the case just long enough for the statute of limitation to run out and the grand jury investigation is abruptly and conveniently dropped.
1980's: Amid indisputable research that reveals the toxic effects of aspartame and as then FDA commissioner Dr. Jere Goyan was about to sign a petition into law keeping it off the market, Donald Rumsfeld calls Ronald Reagan for a favour the day after he takes office.
Reagan fires the uncooperative Goyan and appoints Dr. Arthur Hayes Hull to head the FDA, who then quickly tips the scales in Searle’s favor and NutraSweet is approved for human consumption in dried products.
This becomes sadly ironic since Reagan, a known jelly bean and candy enthusiast, later suffers from Alzheimers during his second term, one of the many horrific effects of aspartame consumption.
Searle’s real goal though was to have aspartame approved as a soft drink sweetener since exhaustive studies revealed that at temperatures exceeding 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it “breaks down into known toxins Diketopiperazines (DKP), methyl (wood) alcohol, and formaldehyde.”,becoming many times deadlier than its powdered form!
The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) is initially in an uproar, fearing future lawsuits from consumers permanently injured or killed by drinking the poison.
When Searle is able to show that liquid aspartame, though incredibly deadly, is much more addictive than crack cocaine, the NSDA is convinced that skyrocketing profits from the sale of soft drinks laced with aspartame would easily offset any future liability.
With that, corporate greed wins and the unsuspecting soft drink consumers pay for it with damaged health.
Coke leads the way once again (remember saccharin?) and begins poisoning Diet Coke drinkers with aspartame in 1983.
As expected, sales skyrocket as millions become hopelessly addicted and sickened by the sweet poison served in a can. The rest of the soft drink industry likes what it sees and quickly follows suit, conveniently forgetting all about their initial reservations that aspartame is a deadly chemical. There’s money to be made, lots of it and that’s all that really matters to them anyway!
In 1985, undaunted by the swirl of corruption and multiple accusations of fraudulent research undertaken by Searle, Monsanto purchases the company and forms a new aspartame subsidiary called NutraSweet Company.
When multitudes of independent scientists and researchers continue to warn about aspartame’s toxic effects, Monsanto goes on the offensive, bribing the National Cancer Institute and providing their own fraudulent papers to get the NCI to claim that formaldehyde does not cause cancer so that aspartame can stay on the market.
Further, 80% of complaints made to the FDA regarding food additives are about aspartame, which is now in over 5,000 products including diet and non-diet sodas and sports drinks, mints, chewing gum, frozen desserts, cookies, cakes, vitamins, pharmaceuticals, milk drinks, instant teas, coffees, yogurt, baby food and many, many more!
Read labels closely and do not buy anything that contains this horrific killer!
Amidst all the death and disease, FDA stooge Arthur Hull resigns under a cloud of corruption and is immediately hired by Searle’s public relations firm as a senior scientific consultant. No, that’s not a joke!
Monsanto, the FDA and many government health regulatory agencies have become one and the same! It seems the only prerequisite for becoming an FDA commissioner is that they spend time at either Monsanto or one of the pharmaceutical cartel’s organized crime corps.
Related: New Study Could Spell The End For Diet Soda And Aspartame
1990's: Monsanto spends millions defeating state and federal legislation that disallows the corporation of evil from continuing to dump dioxins, pesticides and other cancer-causing poisons into drinking water systems. Regardless, they are sued countless times for causing disease in their plant workers, the people in surrounding areas and birth defects in babies.
With their coffins full from the massive billions profits, the $100 million dollar settlements are considered the low cost of doing business and thanks to the FDA, Congress and White House, business remains very good. So good that Monsanto is sued for giving radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women for a study to see what would happen to them.
In 1994, the FDA once again criminally approves Monsanto’s latest monstrosity, the Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), produced from a genetically modified E. coli bacteria, despite obvious outrage from the scientific community of its dangers.
Of course, Monsanto claims that diseased pus milk, full of antibiotics and hormones is not only safe, but actually good for you!
Worse yet, dairy companies who refuse to use this toxic cow pus and label their products as“rBGH-free" are sued by Monsanto, claiming it gives them an unfair advantage over competitors that did. In essence, what Monsanto was saying is “yeah, we know rBGH makes people sick, but it’s not alright that you advertise it’s not in your products.”
The following year, the diabolical company begins producing GMO crops that are tolerant to their toxic herbicide Roundup.
Roundup-ready canola oil (rapeseed), soybeans, corn and BT cotton begin hitting the market, advertised as being safer, healthier alternatives to their organic non-GMO rivals. Apparently, the propaganda worked as today over 80% of canola on the market is their GMO variety.
A few things you definitely want to avoid in your diet are GMO soy, corn, wheat and canola oil, despite the fact that many “natural” health experts claim the latter to be a healthy oil. It’s not, but you’ll find it polluting many products on grocery store shelves.
Because these GM crops have been engineered to ‘self-pollinate,’ they do not need nature or bees to do that for them.
It’s like having sex with yourself to make a baby. Yes, Monsanto wants to take the fun out of that too.
But all kidding aside, there is a very dark side agenda to this and that is to wipe out the world’s bee population.
Monsanto knows that birds and especially bees, throw a wrench into their monopoly due to their ability to pollinate plants, thus naturally creating foods outside of the company’s “full domination control agenda.” When bees attempt to pollinate a GM plant or flower, it gets poisoned and dies.
In fact, the bee colony collapse was recognized and has been going on since GM crops were first introduced.
To counter the accusations that they deliberately caused this ongoing genocide of bees, Monsanto devilishly buys out Beeologics, the largest bee research firm that was dedicated to studying the colony collapse phenomenon and whose extensive research named the monster as the primary culprit! After that, it’s “bees, what bees? Everything’s just dandy!” Again, I did not make this up, but wish I had!
During the mid-90s, they decide to reinvent their evil company as one focused on controlling the world’s food supply through artificial, biotechnology means to preserve the Roundup cash-cow from losing market-share in the face of competing, less-toxic herbicides.
You see, Roundup is so toxic that it wipes out non-GMO crops, insects, animals, human health and the environment at the same time. How very efficient!
Because Roundup-ready crops are engineered to be toxic pesticides masquerading as food, they have been banned in the EU, but not in America! Is there any connection between that and the fact that Americans, despite the high cost and availability of healthcare, are collectively the sickest people in the world? Of course not!
As was Monsanto’s plan from the beginning, all non-Monsanto crops would be destroyed, forcing farmers the world over to use only its toxic terminator seeds.
And Monsanto made sure farmers who refused to come into the fold were driven out of business or sued when windblown terminator seeds poisoned organic farms.
This gave the company a virtual monopoly as terminator seed crops and Roundup worked hand in glove with each other as GMO crops could not survive in a non-chemical environment so farmers were forced to buy both.
Their next step was to spend billions globally buying up as many seed companies as possible and transitioning them into terminator seed companies in an effort to wipe out any rivals and eliminate organic foods off the face of the earth.
In Monsanto’s view, all foods must be under their full control and genetically modified or they are not safe to eat!
They pretend to be shocked that their critics in the scientific community question whether crops genetically modified with the genes of diseased pigs, cows, spiders, monkeys, fish, vaccines and viruses are healthy to eat. The answer to that question is obviously a very big “no way!”
You’d think the company would be so proud of their GMO foods that they’d serve them to their employees, but they don’t.
Monsanto lamely responded “we believe in choice.” What they really means is “we don’t want to kill the help.”
It’s quite okay though to force-feed poor nations and Americans these modified monstrosities as a means to end starvation since dead people don’t need to eat! I’ll bet the thought on most peoples’ minds these days is that Monsanto is clearly focused on eugenics and genocide, as opposed to providing foods that will sustain the world.
As in Monsanto partner Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, the wicked witch gives the people the poisoned GMO apple that puts them to sleep forever.
2000's: By this time Monsanto controls the largest share of the global GMO market. In turn, the US government spends hundreds of millions to fund aerial spraying of Roundup, causing massive environmental devastation.
Fish and animals by the thousands die within days of spraying as respiratory ailments and cancer deaths in humans spike tremendously. But this is all considered an unusual coincidence so the spraying continues. If you thought Monsanto and the FDA were one and the same, well you can add the gov’t to that sorry list now.
The monster grows bigger: Monsanto merges with Pharmacia & Upjohn, then separates from its chemical business and rebrands itself as an agricultural company.
Yes, that’s right, a chemical company whose products have devastated the environment, killed millions of people and wildlife over the years now wants us to believe they produce safe and nutritious foods that won’t kill people any longer.
That’s an extremely hard-sell, which is why they continue to grow bigger through mergers and secret partnerships.
Because rival DuPont is too large a corporation to be allowed to merge with, they instead form a stealth partnership where each agrees to drop existing patent lawsuits against one another and begin sharing GMO technologies for mutual benefit.
In layman’s terms, together they would be far too powerful and politically connected for anything to stop them from owning a virtual monopoly on agriculture; “control the food supply & you control the people!”
Not all is rosy as the monster is repeatedly sued for $100s of millions for causing illness, infant deformities and death by illegally dumping all manner of PCBs into ground water, and continually lying about products safety – you know, business as usual.
Not only do these horrendous seeds destroy the organic farmers’ crops, the lawsuits drive them into bankruptcy, while the Supreme Court overturns lower court rulings and sides with Monsanto each time.
At the same time, the monster begins filing patents on breeding techniques for pigs, claiming animals bred any way remotely similar to their patent would grant them ownership. So loose was this patent filing that it became obvious they wanted to claim all pigs bred throughout the world would infringe upon their patent.
The global terrorism spreads to India as over 100,000 farmers who are bankrupted by GMO crop failure, commit suicide by drinking Roundup so their families will be eligible for death insurance payments.
In response, the monster takes advantage of the situation by alerting the media to a new project to assist small Indian farmers by donating the very things that caused crop failures in the country in the first place! Forbes then names Monsanto "company of the year." Sickening, but true.
More troubling is that Whole Foods, the corporation that brands itself as organic, natural and eco-friendly is proven to be anything but. They refuse to support Proposition 37, California’s GMO-labeling measure that Monsanto and its GMO-brethren eventually helped to defeat.
Why? Because Whole Foods has been in bed with Monsanto for a long time, secretly stuffing its shelves with overpriced, fraudulently advertized “natural & organic” crap loaded with GMOs, pesticides, rBGH, hormones and antibiotics.
So, of course they don’t want mandatory labelling as that would expose them as the Whole Frauds and Whore Foods that they really are!
However, when over twenty biotech-friendly companies including WalMart, Pepsico and ConAgra recently met with FDA in favor of mandatory labelling laws, this after fighting tooth and nail to defeat Prop 37, Whole Foods sees an opportunity to save face and becomes the first grocery chain to announce mandatory labelling of their GMO products…in 2018! Uh, thanks for nothing, Whore.
And if you think its peers have suddenly grown a conscience, think again. They are simply reacting to the public’s outcry over the defeat of Prop 37 by crafting deceptive GMO-labelling laws to circumvent any real change, thus keeping the status quo intact.
This criminal “act” gives the corporate factory farms a virtual monopoly to police and control all foods grown anywhere, including one’s own backyard, and provides harsh penalties and jail sentences for those who do not use chemicals and fertilizers.
President Obama decided this sounded reasonable and gave his approval.
With this Act, Monsanto claims that only GM foods are safe and organic or homegrown foods potentially spread disease, therefore must be regulated out of existence for the safety of the world. If eating GM pesticide balls is their idea of safe food, I would like to think the rest of the world is smart enough to pass.
This law states that no matter how harmful Monsanto’s GMO crops are and no matter how much devastation they wreak upon the country, U.S. federal courts cannot stop them from continuing to plant them anywhere they choose.
Yes, Obama signed a provision that makes Monsanto above any laws and makes them more powerful than the government itself. We have to wonder who’s really in charge of the country because it’s certainly not him!
There comes a tipping point though when a corporation becomes too evil and the world pushes back… hard! Many countries continue to convict Monsanto of crimes against humanity and have banned them altogether, telling them to “get the f#<k out and stay out!”
The world has begun to awaken to the fact that the monster does not want control over the global production of food simply for profit’s sake. No, it’s become clear by over a century of death & destruction that the primary goal is to destroy human health and the environment, turning the world into a Mon-Satanic Hell on Earth!
Research into the name itself reveals it to be latin, meaning “my saint,” which may explain why critics often refer to it as “Mon-Satan.”
Know that all is not lost. Evil always loses in the end once it is widely exposed to the light of truth as is occurring now. The fact that the Monsanto-led government finds it necessary to enact desperate legislation to protect its true leader proves this point. Being evicted elsewhere, the United States is Monsanto’s last stand so to speak.
Yet, even here many have begun striking back by protesting against and rejecting GMO monstrosities, choosing to grow their own foods and shop at local farmers markets instead of the Monsanto-supported corporate grocery chains.
The awakening people are also beginning to see they have been misled by corporate tricksters and federal government criminals poisoned by too much power, control and greed, which has resulted in the creation of the monstrous, out-of-control beast.
And as the people vote against that by choosing not to buy GMO poisons, Monsatan’s limbs continue to get hacked away slowly but surely, driving it to its knees for the final organic sword thrust into its blackened heart.
The NWO Depopulation Agenda Is The Only Explanation Why Expensive Mainstream Medicine Is Lethal March 7 2016 | From: Geopolitics/ Various
When anybody doing a research on the multiple attacks against the human body, be it through our drinking water, supposedly breathable air, or even within the pseudo healthcare medical industry itself, the answers would then lead us to our initial conclusion that this is only about economics, or capitalism in general, i.e.:
But, when the researcher begins to consider the following readily observable facts:
Public services are not only unsatisfactory but is outright deadly, e.g. lead poisoning is not only happening in Flint, Michigan, but is far more widespread than the media would like to entertain [here];
Government regulators adapting a policy of “approve first, recall later” in favor of a new drug that has undergone massive clinical test manipulations, making the rich drug companies even richer as the imposed penalties later on are not enough to bring them down but are serving only as added overhead for doing business [here, here];
… that same researcher will then begin to ask far and more broader questions that will hopefully carry him to the real answers, though uncomfortable they may be.
Such broader questions like:
“How can the government regulate if the penalties for violations of its rules don’t serve as deterrence for future wrongdoings?"
"Why the welfare of the people is always the last thing to be considered?"
"Why was the bailout aimed only at rescuing the fate of the bankers and not the homeless people?"
"What would exactly happen if it was the people that was bailed out instead of the bankers, after all, it was their bail out money to begin with?"
"Will the economy shuts down when all the bankers have gone broke?"
"Isn’t it a fact that the direct exchange of goods and services came in first before the banking industry and the illusion of wealth in money were even invented, and therefore, the people can better survive without the latter?"
"In response, why do we need to protest first before the wrongs are corrected, if it is even corrected?"
"Who, if not the government, is there left to protect the people and serve its interest at last?"
"How many can afford to file charges against these erring companies when the victim itself is systematically robbed of his capacity to access event he barest of necessities?"
Again, these are just simple questions that cannot be answered by endlessly describing the nature of the problem itself, as the media always do.
These are the questions that can only be answered logically by considering that perhaps the government is simply not serving the interests of the people who, even if they are actually the ones paying for its existence, are really not in control of the government, but only the Bankers who, as documents and scholarly studies indicate, own every other corporations on the planet.
Here’s Forbes’ acknowledgment and apology about the fact;
“Three systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide and analyzed all 43,060 transnational corporations and share ownerships linking them.
They discovered that global corporate control has a distinct bow-tie shape, with a dominant core of 147 firms radiating out from the middle. Each of these 147 own interlocking stakes of one another and together they control 40% of the wealth in the network. A total of 737 control 80% of it all.
The top 20 are at the bottom of the post. This is, say the paper’s authors, the first map of the structure of global corporate control.
The #occupy movement will eat this up as evidence for massive redistribution of wealth. The New Scientist talked to one systems theorist who is “disconcerted” at the level of interconnectedness, but not surprised. Such structures occur commonly in biology, things like fungus, lichen and weeds.
Economists say the danger comes when you combine hyperconnection with the concentration of power. The Swiss scientists warn that this can lead to an unstable environment. No Scheisse, Sherlock.”
And if one considers the fact that the government itself has gone from being a Republic into a mere corporation controlled by, and serves, only the Select Few, then all the confusion as to why bad things are happening, and governments can only offer bad behavior and decisions in spite of the fact that it is manned supposedly by the best our society could offer.
The dire situation can only be properly explained if we consider all that’s been laid bare by those who refuse to take part of the greatest murder in the entire history of man, i.e.:
Every human being is reduced into a dead corpse, a corporation that seeks profit in order to survive and a virtual slave that feeds the bigger corporation, i.e. government, with a portion of his profit, i.e. taxes;
Corporate government itself is beholden to still another bigger government, i.e. private central bank, and has to protect all its alter egos and corporate friends, i.e. all other corporation that are serving the same generic purpose, e.g. social engineering, population regulation;
To prevent intellectual dissent, the best minds must be assimilated into a core group of fraternities that extols exclusivity, and therefore, superiority over the rest of our society, and will serve as the breeding ground for future leaders that will later on occupy highest positions in all institutions of indoctrination and control, e.g. United Nations, World Health Organization, the entire school system, the media and the entire government, effectively feeding each of them the taste and illusion of power;
Each potential leader must be inducted into the group through an initiation process, a ritual designed to put him in a very compromised position for easier control later on, i.e. through blackmail and other proven methods.
Indeed, it is more profitable for the bankers to expend attractive compensation and resources on just a few smart, sweet talking crowd rousers than to care for the multitude.
But then it still much wiser to not restrict the full potential of man through the institution of paper currency to limit access to such resources that are already provided for free by Nature. One can only wonder what level of advancements we could have achieve if all resources were made available to the thinking man.
But all those resources are hoarded and rendered unusable by the few who consider oppression as an exercise of power over another, and not an incapacity to understand that all things are One and the Same in Nature.
Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac for the Sociopathic Elite, and your kneeling inside their houses of worship gives them the ultimate and godly satisfaction. Still, this is not enough.
They needed to wipe out those who will attempt to defeat their enterprise. They are actively murdering people who understand the cancer science used in vaccines that are mandated by law and required by your own caring government.
The well-documented depopulation agenda, cloaked inside some benevolent sounding anti-climate change agenda, or the upgraded Agenda 2030, as agreed upon by all United Nations member countries, is the only explanation why mainstream medicine can’t cure while being expensive and outright deadly.
Depopulation agenda is the only stupid rationale why instead of decades of advancements in the realm of science and technology, the quality of life has instead deteriorated to its lowest levels and will continue to deteriorate because the majority refuse to entertain a new and untried system.
If they are now selling water, soon, every ounce of air will be sold in bottles, too, when the massive chemtrailing is left unabated by passivity that is sure to worsen only by the nano-particulates that go with these government-sanctioned operations.
The depopulation agenda can also be confirmed not just through the obvious, highly questionable behavior of our government, yet also by looking closely at who actually wrote the doctrines being imposed by the United Nations, particularly, the Codex Alimentarius.
“As we gain more insights into the grave dangers of genetically modified crops, fluoride, and vaccines, the impact of this less known document which the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, through the Codex Alimentarius Commission, wrote in 1963 will become more apparent.
Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “food book”) is a set of guidelines that is promoted to protect the consumers against faulty food products and procedures. But this codex has evolved over the years to include the following policies which will become, or is already, mandatory and binding among all members of the World Trade Organization [WTO]:
GMO food labelling not required;
Banned pesticides, aluminium are among those deadly chemicals classified as food additives;
Codex recommended maximum levels of chemical which are astoundingly high as opposed to the extremely low daily recommended daily allowances for vitamins;
Dietary supplements or natural health foods are to be classified as drugs;
Codex would make vitamins and minerals illegal and not available with a prescription;
Every dairy cow is required to have Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone and all other animals for food production must be treated with antibiotics, and;
All food should be irradiated
These are just among the more than 4,000 guidelines and regulations promulgated over the years regarding everything man can possibly put into his mouth with the exception of pharmaceuticals.
While the UN-FAO may insists that codex compliance is voluntary, the World Trade Organization made it clear that in cases of trade disputes between two countries, codex compliance takes precedence over the merits of the case.
This clever method of the author having plausible deniability because the mandatory clause is not written in the actual document itself while the other arm, in this case the WTO, trying to enforce it by using as the basis for resolving disputes effectively forces each member nation to be compliant for practical purposes, is a clear indication that both the UN and WTO are long tentacles of the same Giant Octopus that also has interests in Big Pharma.
When a scheme is so huge, who among the maleducated, highly brainwashed members of our society could have a chance of figuring it out? The plot thickens when you consider whose brainchild was the codex.
During the Nuremberg trial, 25 board members, executives, and chemists of the giant chemical manufacturer and poison gas supplier to the Nazi concentration camps, IG Farben, were convicted and sent to jail, but not for long.
In 1951, they were all released and one of them proposed that if war can’t solve the problem of too much people, why not control food.
Fritz den Meer, the executive manager of IG Farben in 1943 and convicted to crimes against humanity, who coined the phrase “Arbeit Mach Frei” which literally means “work sets you free” decorated in entrances of several concentration camps including Auschwitz, submitted this idea to his UN pals which resulted to the creation of a trade commission now known as the Codex Alementarius Commission. For crimes against humanity conviction, he served a very long sentence of six years.”
Another name that should be in everyone’s consciousness by now is Henry Kissinger, who wrote the justification to thin the herd by saying that the population of the world has been reaching critical levels in 1974:
It was adopted as official U.S. policy by PresidentGerald Ford in November 1975. It was originally classified, but was later declassified and obtained by researchers in the early 1990s.
The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries (LDCs) is a concern to U.S. national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries that had a high potential for economic development.
The policy gives “paramount importance” to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries.
This is to control rapid population growth which the U.S. deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the “U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad”, and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States.
It recommends that U.S. leadership “influence national leaders” and that “improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID.”
These are established and verifiable facts that the guilty cannot rebut…
…and will worsen even further with the eventual implementation of the notorious Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement [TPP] that no lawmakers are allowed to discuss outside the boundaries of its pages.
There are more hard evidence that we have collected and for which you may have known already, than would fit into this article that should demand concrete action from all of us.
If we choose to not act today, can we therefore blame the corporate government for doing its best to make a profit by keeping the people dumb and as pliable as could be possible?
Or, should we blame ourselves for our collective indifference to the real cause of the problems confronting the very survival of humanity itself even at the presence of many alternative and more viable systemic and technological solutions?
Whoever else are we really waiting for before we take that first step towards our own salvation as a human species if not that same face we always see in the mirror?
Surely, the majority have been massively indoctrinated through the mass media ever since they were born to wait for a hero - an all too fearless, all too wise individual who will save the day and slay them all, sociopaths they are.
But hero worship has not gotten us that far, and it won’t be.
We must rise as an individual awake and aware, and as a collective bonded together by our common aspirations to live in great abundance, harmony through respect upon one another.
This is the only scenario where everyone is motivated, by default, to contribute voluntarily what one is capable of, with the foreknowledge that honor and recognition are the only compensation and reward.
By that time, service rendered in the spirit of mutual cooperation is the only valid currency.
Together, we can drive out all that is Evil, that entity who promised us heaven only when we die, and begin creating heaven here on Earth now that we are still breathing.
The technologies that could make this possible is already here and now, but they have been suppressed.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies, And The Laws Of Appreciation And Attraction March 5 2016 | From: HumansAeFree
Learn how to create self-fulfilling prophecies using the law of appreciation and attraction.
The universe is full of mysteries. Over the centuries, people have tried to unravel them by delving into themselves, or taking a personal spiritual journey to discover the hidden wonders and gain wisdom.
Whereas others have delved outwards, using science and language to reflect on the mysteries and gain knowledge about the working of the universe.
However, as we know, science and engineering both have their limits set by what the human mind is willing to perceive as factual and so does not cater to laws that are observed only intuitively.
The famous inventor Nikola Tesla understood these shortcomings when he said:
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."
So, today, we will introduce you to three mystical and powerful laws. These are:
Law of Appreciation
Law of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Law of Attraction
The Law of Appreciation
All of us have experienced this in our lives: that appreciation builds, expands, and eventually happily spills into every area of our lives. Appreciation creates harmony whereas lack of appreciation simply directs us inwards towards self-consciousness, self-depreciation, and eventually self-abandonment and destruction.
In simple words, the Law of Appreciation is this: appreciation is an attractive force; indifference, and depreciation of what you have is a repulsive force. So, the question is, how grateful are you for what you have in life?
Let’s rephrase that: “Do you know what you should be and can be grateful for in your life?”
Generally, most of us have allowed ourselves to be so consumed by daily events and we forget to realize, acknowledge, and appreciate the things that we should be grateful for.