Sunday, August 24, 2008

Food Irradiation


Although this article is about what is happening in the USA, it is quite possible, and highly probable, that a similar scenario is unfolding, or already occurring, wherever you happen to live in the world. It is already happening with some imported foods in Australia, with very little public awareness.


FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foods

by Mike Adams (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is intentionally plotting to deceive consumers over the labeling of irradiated foods, attempting to eliminate any requirement for informative labeling or replace the word "irradiated" with "pasteurized."

In a feature story published by NaturalNews yesterday, we stated that the FDA does not require foods to be labeled as irradiated. We received a lot of questions from readers about that point, with some stating the FDA does, in fact, require foods to be labeled when irradiated. This is not always correct: Most foods are not required to be labeled as irradiated. This story explains the FDA's food irradiation labeling policy in more detail and reveals the FDA's plot to deceive consumers by misleading them into thinking irradiated foods are NOT irradiated.

Foods that are exempt from irradiation labeling

According to current FDA regulations, any food used as an ingredient in another food does NOT have to be labeled as irradiated. For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.

However, if raw cabbage is irradiated, then current FDA regulations do require it to carry an irradiation label. This label, however, is a symbol, not text, and many consumers have no idea what the symbol really means -- it actually looks like a "fresh" symbol of some sort. In no way does it clearly indicate the food has been irradiated. This is the FDA's way to "hide" the fact that these foods have been irradiated. (The symbol looks a lot more like leaves under the sun than food being irradiated...)

That same head of cabbage, by the way, if served in a restaurant, requires absolutely no irradiation labeling. All restaurant foods are excused from any irradiation labeling requirement. As stated at the FDA's own website (1):

Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores. For example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be labeled. When used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label of the other food does not need to describe these ingredients as irradiated. Irradiation labeling also does not apply to restaurant foods.

How the FDA plans to deceive consumers and further hide the fact that foods are being irradiated

As stated above, the FDA does not want consumers to realize their foods are being irradiated. Consumer awareness is considered undesirable by the FDA; an agency that also works hard to censor truthful statements about nutritional supplements and functional foods. Accordingly, the FDA pursues a policy of enforced ignorance of consumers regarding irradiated foods, nutritional supplements, medicinal herbs and all sorts of natural substances. It is currently illegal in the United States to state that cherries help ease arthritis inflammation if you are selling cherries. (

On the food irradiation issue, the FDA is now proposing two things that are nothing short of astonishing in their degree of deceit:

FDA proposal #1: Irradiated foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless consumers can visibly tell they're irradiated.

This ridiculous proposal by the FDA suggests that foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless there is some obvious material damage to the foods (like their leaves are wilting). Thus, foods that don't appear to be irradiated should not have to be labeled as irradiated.

Imagine if this same ridiculous logic were used to regulate heavy metals content in foods: If consumers can't SEE the heavy metals, then they should be declared free of heavy metals!

FDA proposal #2: Irradiated foods should be labeled as "pasteurized," not "irradiated."

This FDA proposal is so bizarre that it makes you wonder whether the people working at the FDA are smoking crystal meth. They literally want irradiated foods to be labeled as "pasteurized."

And why? Because the word "pasteurized" sounds a lot more palatable to consumers, of course. Never mind the fact that it's a lie. Irradiated foods are not pasteurized, and pasteurized foods are not irradiated. These two words mean two different things, which is precisely why they each have their own entries in the dictionary. When you look up "irradiated," it does not say, "See pasteurized."

But the FDA is now playing the game of thought police by manipulating the public with screwy word replacement games that bear a strange resemblance to the kind of language used in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. And it is, indeed, an Orwellian kind of mind game that the FDA wants to play with the food supply: After unleashing Weapons of Mass Destruction (radiation) onto the foods, the FDA wants to label them all as simply being "pasteurized," keeping consumers ignorant and uninformed.

How do I know the FDA wants to do this? The agency said so itself in an April 4, 2007 document filed in the Federal Register (Volume 72, Number 64). As published in the document (2):

FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to "irradiation'' (other than "pasteurized''). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term "pasteurized'' in lieu of "irradiated,'' provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term "pasteurized'' in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object to the notification.

Did you follow all that mind-warping logic? The FDA is essentially begging a company to petition it to use the term "pasteurized" instead of "irradiated" as long as they both result in the food being killed. Once it receives such a petition, it will approve it, claiming it is meeting "the needs of industry."

The FDA already allows lots of word substitutions in the areas of health and medicine. The phrase "Toxic Poison" has been replaced with "Chemotherapy," for example. "Over-medicated with dangerous psychiatric drugs" has been replaced with the term, "Treatment." And the phrase, "Regulated with life-threatening synthetic chemicals" has been replaced with the word "managed," as in "her diabetes has been managed."

So why not introduce all sorts of other word substitutions that might continue the Orwellian "Ministry of Language" propaganda put forth by the FDA?

I say we substitute the word "medicated" with "treated" and "treated" with "rewarded." That way, when a patient describes what drugs she's on, she can say, "I've been rewarded with ten different prescriptions!"

Better yet, let's replace the word "surgery" with "enhancement." So anybody who undergoes heart bypass surgery, for example, can say they've really just had "Heart bypass enhancement!"

It sounds a lot easier to swallow, doesn't it? And that's what it's all about, folks, when it comes to irradiating the food supply: Making it all sounds a lot less treacherous than it really is. Control the words and you control people's ideas, and if there's one thing the tyrannical FDA is really, really good at, it's controlling words!

What the FDA really wants to accomplish

Let's get down to some blunt truth about the FDA's real genocidal agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:

1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)
2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional illiteracy)

Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and chemicals... These are the things the FDA truly stands for.

That pretty much sums up the FDA's intent on this whole food irradiation issue. Destroy the food and mislead the People. And then wait for the windfall of profits at Big Pharma as the People degenerate into a mass of diseased, disoriented and desperate health patients. It's business as usual at the FDA.

That's why Dr. James Duke, creator of the world's largest phytochemical database (, had this to say about the FDA's food irradiation policy:

"Perhaps the FDA should call up a billion dollar team to consider irradiating another health hazard - the FDA itself, which is almost as dangerous to our health as the pharmaceutical industry."

Why I call this the unleashing of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

In my previous article on this issue, I've called this food irradiation agenda a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" against the food supply. A couple of readers questioned me about that. Why, they asked, do I consider food irradiation to be a WMD?

WMDs include weapons that indiscriminately cause damage to people and infrastructure that serves the People. Dumping a radioactive substance into the water supply that serves a major city, for example, would be considered using a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Interestingly, the use of Depleted Uranium by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan is also an example of Weapons of Mass Destruction, making the U.S. guilty of yet more crimes against humanity. (A previous example is the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan's civilian population in World War II.)

Irradiating the food supply is also an application of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and here's a thought experiment that will clearly demonstrate it:

Suppose you wanted to irradiate your own garden vegetables. The minute you start trying to buy a machine that produces radiation, you would be quickly considered a terrorist and investigated by the FBI. They would visit your home and ask, "Why do you need a radiation machine?" And if you said you needed to irradiate your garden vegetables, they would look at you like you were completely nuts and probably haul you into the local FBI field office for yet more questioning, all while considering you a possible terrorist and likely adding your name to the no-fly list so you could never travel on commercial airlines.

If you don't believe me, try to acquire a high-powered radiation emitting device and see what happens...

So why is it considered bizarre and possibly criminal when an individual buys a radiation machine to irradiate their own foods, but when the FDA pushes the same agenda on a larger scale, they call it "safety?"

Irradiated food isn't altered, claims the FDA

Of course, the FDA says the irradiated food isn't altered by the radiation. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a pulse. Why? Because if the radiation doesn't alter anything, then how can it kill e.coli and salmonella?

The whole point of the radiation is to kill living organisms. And it works by causing fatal damage to the tissues and DNA of those microorganisms. So guess what it does to the plants? Since radiation isn't selective, it also irradiates the plant fibers and tissues, causing DNA damage and the destruction of enzymes and phytochemicals.

Amazingly, the FDA claims this does not count as "altering" the food because these changes aren't visible.

If it weren't such a nutritional atrocity, it would be downright hilarious. DNA changes are not visible to the human eye, but they can result in serious health consequences. Just ask anyone born with two Y chromosomes.

Eat up, guinea pigs!

Of course, the radiation pushers will claim that nobody really knows whether irradiating the food kills just 1% of the phytochemicals or 99% (or something in between). And they don't know what the long-term effect is on human health, either. This is exactly my point: The irradiation of fresh produce is a dangerous experiment, and we've all been involuntarily recruited as guinea pigs.

I will be curious to see a serious scientific inquiry into the nutritional damage caused to fresh produce by irradiation. I also find it simply astonishing that this decision by the FDA has been made in the absence of such scientific studies. Much like it does with the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA prefers to poison the people first, and then figure out later just how much damage might have been caused.

I say when you're dealing with the food supply, you should err on the side of caution. We are talking about the health of the nation here. This is not a small matter. It should be treated with extreme caution, skepticism and scientific scrutiny. Instead, it is being addressed with a gung-ho attitude framed in mind games and enforced ignorance.

In other words, rather than figuring out whether food irradiation is actually safe, the FDA would rather simply pretend it is.

Welcome to Make Believe Land, where all your food is now safe and nutritious, courtesy of the FDA!





Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Exposure to Sunlight Beneficial

Goodbye Cancer, Hello Sun Exposure?

Watch this short 5-minute presentation of Dr. Mercola interviewing expert Dr. William Grant, internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert. You'll discover how easily a million cancer deaths could be prevented each year worldwide -- just by the simple use of sunlight. Plus, why MORE of those living at higher, less sunny latitudes die from cancer...

Dr. Grant, whose background is in atmospheric sciences, has applied the ecologic approach to the study of dietary and environmental links to chronic disease. He has worked at the level of senior research scientist at such notable institutions as SRI International, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the NASA Langley Research Center.

More recently, Dr. Grant has uncovered exciting potential for the use of vitamin D in the prevention and treatment of a number of high-incidence cancers found in Western populations. He is the director of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC), an entity devoted to research, education, and advocacy relating to the prevention of chronic disease through changes in diet and lifestyle.

Dr. Grant has also authored or coauthored over 60 articles in peer-reviewed journals, edited two books of reprints, and contributed half a dozen chapters to other books.

Monday, August 18, 2008

A Letter From the Past

From time to time I receive a letter from those who stayed at the farm some twenty, thirty, or more years ago, informing me of how much they benefitted from their stay, and how they have fared in the meantime. Here is one such letter which I reproduce with full permission of its author:

Dear John, Thank you for sending me the inspiring emails. It was a delight to meet you again after so many years. How did those 30 years fly! My original journey to your lovely farm, with my partner, Peter Avison (a New Zealand artist) will always stay as a precious memory and I have passed on all the wonderful things about diet and life style I learnt there at Clohsey River to my own children, who were brought up on an excellent diet of homegrown fruit and veg, organic raw milk and the occaissional free range roast chook!!They are fabulously healthy adults and have produced some very beautiful grandchildren for me to enjoy and love.

I hope this finds you well and happy and well and truely loved.

May you always be surrounded with love, equanimity and bright sparky friendly people.


Sunday, August 17, 2008

Fruits of Our Labour - Farm Up-date

These are the vegetables that Issy and I planted when she was visiting earlier this year. As can well be seen they are like Topsy, and have just grown and grown.

In the recent years we have taken to growing our vegetabls in these raised gardens in cut down old water and molasses tanks. This achieves two main objectives, the first of which is to protect them from the bandicoots which dig them up in search for worms. The second is to protect them from grazing animals, such as wallabies and kangaroos, as well as the neighbours cattle. And surprising as it may seem, that although these animals could easily reach them if they wished to, as they graze at ground level, they do not seem to notice our succulent vegetables at this higher level, and are thus protected.

Here are some photos of some of our trees which are now flowering and/or setting their first crop of fruit, which in the case of the citrus tree will be available to harvest about this time next year. And in the case of the mangoes it will be from just prior to Xmas till February.

This is a Tangerine.

The Pomelo, a giant tropical grapefruit, comes, as with the other varieties of grapefruit, in both pink and white, and to my palate, much tastier.This tree has already set its fruit, and as can be seen, is loaded with clusters of fruit.

This is the pineapple guava, and it too is flowering profusely. As any gardener will know, this does not necessarily presage a good setting of fruit, or a large crop, as this is dependant upon many factors, prime amongst them are the necessary insects and bees for pollination to occur. Ants also can play their part in this very important phase.

The mandarine tree promises also to provide us with quite a substantial crop for such a small tree.

We see here the first of the mango crop to be setting. For it to be successful in the setting of its fruit, the mango tree not only requires as I mentioned earlier for the other trees, the presence of bees, insects, and perhaps ants, but weather which is not rainy, as the rain can wash out the pollen and stop the setting of the fruit. It also requires weather which is not too windy as the wind also can effect the setting, by blowing the flowers from the tree.

For all the trees and plants, another very important factor that is necessary to ensure a successful crop, is soil moisture, for if there is insufficient moisture, then the trees will either drop their crop, and/or even though it is set, it may well shrivel and dry up on the tree.

Another very important factor to be considered, if we wish to have food which is both tasty and nutritious, bearing in mind also that flavour is very closely connected with nutitional content. For food which is low in nutritional value, usually has poor flavour, even to the point of no flavour. Or as is the case with many vegetables, bitter in flavour.

As a closing comment, I would like to point out that we have very little problem, if any, with insects or slugs etc., attacking our vegetables, a situation which we claim is due to our method of farming, which is purely organic, in which we use only natural fertlisers, and mulches and do not dig, with no artficials, or poisonous sprays. It is only when the weather conditions become too inclement for their growth, such as being too hot, or wet, that problems may occur.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

GM Foods - Up-Date

From: "GM Watch"
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:22 PM
Subject: [Ban-GEF] Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal

> 1.Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal 2.The
> Pusztai scandal laid bare
> NOTE: On the 10th August 1998 the GM debate changed forever with the
> broadcast of a programme on British TV about GM food safety featuring
> a brief but revealing interview with Dr Arpad Pusztai about his
> research into this issue. Item 1 is Dr Pusztai's comment on the
> anniversary, while item
> 2
> is GM Watch's look at the scandal he helped expose and the attacks he
> subsequently suffered.
> ---
> ---
> 1.Dr Pusztai on 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal
> Dear Claire and Jonathan,
> I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150
> seconds of TV "fame" and tell you what I think now. It is very
> appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most
> comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM
> biotechnology industry and its advocates.
> On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has
> changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast
> ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be
> established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and
> to people in general.
> 10 years on we still haven't got one. Instead, in Europe we have an
> unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European
> consumers, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product
> the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.
> All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research
> into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods.
> There is not much sign of this either. There are still "many opinions
> but very few data"; less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific
> papers have been published describing the results of work relating to
> GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic
> standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported
> labs. Instead we have the likes of Tony Trewavas and others writing
> unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and defaming people like
> Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to
> be defended from such nonentities.
> In normal times one would not pay much attention to such people
> desperately trying to be seen as the advocates of true science, but
> these are not normal times. The mostly engineered (GM engineered) food
> crisis gives the GM biotech industry and its warriors an opportunity
> to come to the fore with claims that GM is the only way to save a
> hungry world; a claim not much supported by responsible bodies, such
> as the IAASTD. The advocates of GM also now think that they have found
> a chink in the armoury of people's resolve that they can exploit by
> telling us that we would not be able to feed our animals without GM
> feedstuffs. In this way, they hope to bring in GM by the backdoor.
> Please remember that whatever our animals eat, we shall also get back
> indirectly. Rather ominously, there has been no work whatever to show
> the safety of the meat of GM-fed animals.
> We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM
> biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the
> successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means
> at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the
> industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust
> to people's good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness
> of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods.
> Let's hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write
> another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!
> Best wishes to all
> Arpad Pusztai
> ---

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Infant Formula Linked to Obesity

Organic Similac: Formula for Obesity?

by Joanne Waldron (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) Most mothers know that breast milk is best for baby, but there are some people who, perhaps for health reasons, need to find a safe alternative. In many instances, these moms look for an organic infant formula and are willing to pay top dollar to give their babies the best possible nutrition. Sadly, just because an infant formula is given the "organic" label doesn't necessarily mean that it is healthy.

For example, a recent article in The New York Times revealed that the organic version of Similac infant formula is sweetened with cane sugar (sucrose) and is much sweeter than other infant formulas. While all infant formulas have some added sugars to aid in the digestion of proteins, other organic products use sugars like organic lactose, which is presumably a better match for what's found in breast milk and doesn't have the sweetness of sucrose. Most health-conscious readers are probably shaking their heads and thinking that it is nothing short of insanity to be adding sugar to baby formula when the U.S. is in the middle of an obesity epidemic. Were pediatricians actually consulted about what was put into this formula? Or was the product designed primarily by food chemists like the ones that create fast food strawberry milkshakes?

According to a list of frequently asked questions on the FDA website, the FDA currently does not approve infant formula before it can be marketed. The FDA does require that infant formula contain minimum amounts of certain nutrients, and it does provide upper limits for some nutrients. Certain nutrients that are required to be included in any infant formula are protein, fat, linoleic acid, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamin (vitamin B1), riboflavin (vitamin B2), vitamin B6, vitamin B12, niacin, folic acid, pantothenic acid, vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, zinc, manganese, copper, iodine, sodium, potassium and chloride. If cow's milk is not used for the formula, then biotin, choline and inositol must be included.

Any substance that is generally recognized as safe may be used in infant formula in the United States. For now, that means that sugar can be used in baby formula in the U.S., and there is absolutely no upper limit to the amount of sugar that can be dumped into it. Europe, on the other hand, in light of the childhood obesity epidemic, has banned all sucrose from baby formula products beginning in 2009.

According to the The New York Times article, Dr. Benjamin Caballero, director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, doesn't think sucrose belongs in infant formula, either. Dr. Caballero believes that feeding children sweet things encourages them to eat more. He explains that babies and children generally prefer sweeter foods and will eat more of them than foods that aren't as sweet.

While having babies eat more might be of interest to food corporations, parents need to be concerned with the health of their children. Concerns about obesity aren't the only problem with putting sugar in baby formula. If a baby's teeth are constantly exposed to sugar, this could result in tooth decay.

Clearly, finding a safe infant formula is a daunting task. According to The Breastfeeding Task Force of Greater Los Angeles, there are many risks associated with using infant formula instead of breast milk. For example, formula feeding is responsible for up to 26% of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in children. Middle-ear infections are three to four times more common in children who are fed infant formula, and children who are fed infant formula are also much more likely to be hospitalized due to bacterial infections. In addition to the health risks, some studies have shown that formula-fed babies don't do as well on intelligence tests as breast-fed babies.

Moreover, sugar isn't the only undesirable thing turning up in infant formula. An NPR report indicates that certain formulas enhanced with omega-3 fatty acids may actually pose a health risk. Other reports warn about Bisphenol-A turning up in infant formulations. What is a new mother to do?

Maybe new moms should take a lesson from the animal kingdom. What other mammals feed their babies the milk of other creatures? Do dogs try to feed their puppies cat milk? Of course not. Even small children know that cat milk is for kittens, just like cow's milk is for baby cows. Perhaps the perfect formula for a baby just isn't something that can be found in a can.

About the author

Joanne Waldron is a computer scientist with a passion for writing and sharing health-related news and information with others. She runs the Naked Wellness: The Gentle Health Revolution forum, which is devoted to achieving radiant health, well-being, and longevity.

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Infertility Treatments "Useless"

Conventional Infertility Treatments "Useless" Even As Fertility Rates Plummet for Mainstream Toxic Consumers

by Mike Adams (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) Research on conventional infertility treatments that monitored the results of 580 couples found such treatments to have absolutely no benefit. Conducted in Scotland, the research involved five hospitals providing artificial insemination and the prescription drug clomid -- a drug commonly used for treating infertility in the United States, Canada and other western nations.

The research reveals that couples attempting to conceive naturally experienced a 17% success rate (becoming pregnant and giving birth to a healthy baby) while those on the clomid drug actually had a lower rate of success: 14%. Even worse, from 10 to 20 percent of women on the drug experienced side effects that included abdominal pain, bloating, nausea and headaches.

Modern infertility treatments are "quackery"

What this research reveals is that two of the most common treatments used by conventional medicine to treat infertility are mere quackery, based on medical mythology rather than rigorous scientific scrutiny. They continue to be prescribed to patients only because doctors don't like to "do nothing" when patients are asking for solutions, and prescribing a drug or a biological intervention is often seen as reassuring to patients who have been brainwashed into thinking infertility is a medical problem rather than a nutrition and health problem.

While conventional doctors deride the advice of midwives who recommend "unproven" natural remedies, it turns out their own infertility treatments offer absolutely no fertility benefits whatsoever to their patients. And yet patients are often paying tens of thousands of dollars for these very treatments that don't work!

Much of modern medicine, it turns out, is based on quackery. In just the last year, rigorous scientific assessment of clinical trials has revealed the following:

• Antidepressant drugs work no better than placebo.
• Cholesterol drugs work no better than herbs like red yeast rice.
• Artificially lowering your cholesterol produces no health benefits.
• Chemotherapy is pure quackery and offers no benefits for over 99% of cancer patients.

In fact, finding a conventional medical procedure that actually works to reverse a degenerative health condition seems virtually impossible. No conventional oncologist, for example, has ever produced a cancer patient who has been cured of cancer. Yet people are cured of cancer every day in the world of naturopathic medicine; often by simply boosting their vitamin D intake and drinking nutrient-rich vegetable juices on a daily basis (broccoli, cabbage and other greens).

Why infertility is now so high

Over 33% of couples now experience infertility for no explainable reason. Fertility doctors remain mystified, and amazingly, almost nobody in conventional medicine has yet figured out that fertility is linked to diet and exposure to toxic chemicals.

While couples are chowing down junk foods, taking prescription medications and turning their bodies into toxic chemical waste dumps, fertility doctors scratch their heads and wonder... "Gee... What could be causing this fertility problem?" The only thing they can offer is more chemicals, of course!

Meanwhile, the rampant abuse of toxic chemicals in personal care products, household cleaners, food additives and pharmaceuticals is causing trans-generational DNA damage that I have already publicly predicted will cause a large portion of the western population to collectively win the Darwin Award by removing their genes from the gene pool.

Join the crowd: Win the Darwin Award!

Consumers who contaminate their bodies with hundreds of different toxic chemicals, you see, are causing DNA damage that is not merely genetic, but epigenetic, meaning it passes on the expression of the DNA to the next generation. While this idea remains blasphemous in conventional medicine, it is become apparent to those scientists who are paying attention (like Dr. Bruce Lipton, author of The Biology of Belief) who explain how gene expression is now carried from one generation to the next, and exposure to toxic chemicals causes trans-generational genetic damage.

Extrapolate this out a few generations and you get massive infertility for mainstream consumers. Basically, anybody who isn't really, really green is going to find themselves at a genetic dead end. Unable to reproduce, their own genes will depart the gene pool of the human race, leaving the future of human civilization to those who actually care about green living and natural health.

And that's a very good thing for the future of human civilization. It's a natural pruning process that eliminates all the idiots and leaves the future of human life on Earth only to those who are best adapted to protecting it: The green living folks, hippies and natural health followers. It's natural selection in full force!

Mark my words: Today's 33% infertility rate is just the beginning. A wave of massive infertility is about to sweep the human race over the next 2-3 generations, and we could see infertility rates top 90% in just the next fifty years.

You might call it a self-balancing population control mechanism: When humans get too numerous and start poisoning the planet with all their chemicals, the result is widespread infertility that causes a relatively rapid collapse in global population. Reducing the population to 10% of its current size, in turn, eases the chemical contamination on the planet, resulting in a return of fertility. Nature has an interesting way of achieving homeostasis, and doing it through infertility doesn't require a sudden wipeout of those already living; it only requires a dramatic drop in reproduction.

Or, to put it in blunt terms, the "Feeders and Breeders" are about to stop breeding.

What does all this mean to you? It's really quite simple: If you want to make babies, eat a largely plant-based diet and avoid exposure to toxic chemicals. Go green! Live naturally.

If, on the other hand, you want to join all the other billions of humans who are about to win the collective Darwin Award, keep taking pharmaceuticals, eating junk food and sloshing toxic personal care products on your skin every day. You will quickly find that your family tree has been pruned back to a twig, which is probably exactly where it should be if you're toxic to the planet in the first place.

Mainstream consumerism is the best birth control

Realizing all this has completely changed my view of the world. You see, previously, when I would go shopping and see people buying toxic products, I would get frustrated and try to educate them to not poison themselves. I soon learned this was a complete waste of time (never try to teach an idiot about health; you only waste your time and annoy the idiot!).

But now when I see people doing that, I understand the bigger picture: These are people who are choosing to remove their genes from the gene pool! Not right away, of course, but in a couple of generations (which is pretty fast in terms of the history of life on Earth). In effect, they are unwittingly applying the laws of natural selection to themselves! They deserve an award or something...

Oh yeah, they're winning one already: The Darwin Award.

Because, let's face it: The future of life on Earth belongs solely to those who can protect the integrity of their DNA.

And mainstream consumers are utterly failing to do that. Do you think mammography, chemotherapy and dangerous pharmaceutical chemicals protect your DNA? Nope, they damage your DNA. Every visit to a conventional doctor -- and all his chemical and radiological treatments -- is like a vote for your own genetic obliteration.

But feel free to vote how you'd like. Whether you want your grandchildren to be able to reproduce is entirely up to you. And that's the beauty of this whole system: Each individual is entirely responsible for their own genetic future. From what I can see, though, most people are opting out of a genetic future by leading extremely toxic, polluting lifestyles that damages their own bodies as well as the entire planet.

Their offspring will not be missed. Those of us actually want to protect the future of life on Earth will all be much better off when toxic people stop making babies

Friday, August 8, 2008

Cell Phones

Why Children and Teens Should Stay Away From Cell Phones

cell phone, cordless, cancer, brain cancer, leukemia, fatigue, canada, teenagers, children, skull, radiation, radio frequency, EMF, EMR, RFToronto's department of public health has advised teenagers and young children to limit their use of cell phones, in order to avoid potential health risks. The advisory is the first of its kind in Canada.

Officials have warned that because of possible side effects from radio frequency radiation, children under eight should only use a cell phone in emergencies, and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes.

For many years, most government health agencies were dismissive of any risk. But with more studies, a pattern is emerging that suggests people who have used their cell phones for a long period of time are at greater risk of certain kinds of brain tumors.

Were You Aware… 80% of Your Immune System is Located in Your Digestive System?

So, to effectively promote your immune system health, you need to look no further than your intestinal tract. Probiotics (Greek “for life’) can be a great way to start promoting your digestive health and overall health as well.

Find Out More

Dr. MercolaDr. Mercola's Comments:

I believe the tide is about to change folks, as the truth of any situation can rarely remain hidden forever. Sooner or later, the ramifications of our errors become self evident, just like the true dangers of smoking could not be ignored past a certain point.

Those “in the know” in the medical professions -- after mountains of evidence have rendered it inarguable -- are finally becoming aware that the dangers of cell phones are indeed real, and they’re beginning to speak out in larger numbers.

This is often the first step to such knowledge becoming common in the general population.

The truth is, we are on the verge of a brain cancer epidemic. It could grow to 500,000 cases worldwide as soon as 2010, and there may be over a million cases in the U.S. alone by 2015.

Even if you manage to avoid brain cancer, there are risks ranging from headaches and dizziness to Alzheimer’s disease to impotence.

It will take a while for this to become mainstream news, of course. First, the information has to clear the multiple hurdles put in place by the corporate propaganda machines. Just as happened for decades with cigarettes, they will try to hide the truth, using any means available. The telecommunications industry is massive, with combined revenues of more than $869 billion in 2007, and it will do its best to spread misdirection, spin, and outright lies.

Additionally, government agencies that are, in theory there to protect you, have entered into mutually profitable “partnerships” with the very businesses they are supposed to regulate, meaning there is very little real regulation going on.

In 2007 alone, the telecommunications industry spent almost $250 million on political lobbying. Over the past decade, they have spent a grand total of nearly $2.4 billion. Of course, that’s just a drop in the bucket compared to their profits.

The Pattern is Emerging – Pay Attention!

While years ago scientists were dismissive of any risks associated with cell phone use, the accumulated amounts of studies showing health risks for long-term users now paint an entirely different picture. In addition to the Toronto Department of Health advisory, the U.K., Belgium, Germany, France and Russia have already introduced precautionary policies regarding cell phone usage due to potential health risks.

For example, one Swedish review of 11 studies found that using your cell phone for 10 years or longer will double your risk of getting a tumor on a nerve connecting your ear to your brain (acoustic neuroma). And because children have thinner skulls than adults, and their nervous systems are still developing, children are particularly vulnerable to this type of tumor and should not use cell phones at all.

Professor Mild, lead researcher of that particular study, also cautioned that the danger may be even greater than what they found because cancers need a minimum of 10 years to develop. Since children today are using cell phones at an earlier age than any previous generation, their exposure will be far greater over their lifetimes.

Health Problems Bound to Erupt Due to Radio Wave Saturation

Information-carrying radio waves have increased dramatically and exponentially over the last few years. Just think: it took 20 years for the first 1 billion cell phones to be sold -- a milestone reached in 2004. The next billion took just 18 months. The third billion was sold even faster -- just nine months, and we will reach the fourth billion by the end of this year.

Add to that all the wireless networks that are now becoming standard, exposing you to massive amounts of radio waves whether you actually use wireless or not. Most major office buildings now have WiFi, as do Starbuck’s, Panera Bread, and most libraries.

The biological danger from WiFi routers, cell phones and land-based portable phones comes from two sources:

  1. The modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave, and
  2. The carrier wave itself

The modulated information-carrying radio waves resonate in biological frequencies of a few to a few hundred cycles per second, and can stimulate your vibrational cellular receptors, causing a whole cascade of pathological consequences that can culminate in fatigue, anxiety, and ultimately cancers.

And the carrier wave has been found to create damage NOT related to thermal heat damage, which the industry has long argued is the only possible cause of biological harm (i.e. “radio waves do not create enough thermal heat to pose a risk to biological tissue.”) Therefore, simply lowering the SAR rating on cell phones -- which determines how much radiation your body absorbs -- or making sure your phone is within legal SAR limits, has virtually nothing to do with guaranteeing your safety.

Your cells will interpret even a minute amount of cell phone radiation as a threat, and will shut down many vital processes. This is a response intended to protect them, but when you talk on a cell phone, it lasts for far longer than your body can handle.

A lot of the damage is caused by the disruption of microtubular connections that allow biophotons to communicate between cells, which decreases intracellular communication. Increased deposits of heavy metals also begin to accumulate in your cells, which increases intracelluar production of free radicals, and can radically decrease cellular production of energy, thus making you incredibly fatigued.

Once your body’s microtubular communication system is damaged, it is very easy to develop all sorts of pathologies related to disrupted intracellular antioxidant systems and heavy metal toxicities.

The INTERPHONE Study – the Report Everyone’s Waiting For

As recently reported in Microwave News, the results from the largest cell phone study to date are being eagerly awaited by both industry and governments worldwide. The INTERPHONE Project -- a 13-country epidemiological study of tumors among users of mobile phones – is already lagging three years behind its scheduled completion date.

Part of the delay in putting together the final report now appears to be internal strife, as scientists are joining opposing camps of “safe” vs. “unsafe.”

The GSM Association, a global trade organization of mobile operators, and the forum, which includes Nokia and about a dozen other manufacturers, contributed more than $3.5 million to the $15-plus million project. The European Commission also helped fund it with contributions passed through the International Union Against Cancer in an effort to create a barrier between the mobile phone industry and the scientists.

The outcome of this particular study may be more vital than most people realize, as institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission have cautioned that conclusions about possible cancer risks cannot be drawn until the INTERPHONE study is published. If the wrong conclusions are drawn from these studies, the resulting lack of public warnings could have disastrous consequences for the generations to come.

However, so far, studies confirming health risks associated with cell phone use, released by participating countries, include:

  • Israel – Released December 6, 2007 this study is a perfect example of misguiding double-speak. It states that they found no increased overall risk due to cellular phone use. However, that regular users, as well as heavy users in rural areas showed increased risk of parotid gland tumors, due to higher levels of exposure.

  • Sweden – The Swedish study found a "consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma after ten years." Lead author Lennart Hardell noted that he believes a ten-year tumor latency is the "minimum" —that is, the observed risks are likely to grow larger in the years ahead.
  • Finland -- The Finnish group reported its data as part of a joint analysis with those from four other Interphone countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the U.K.). Together they reported an elevated risk for brain tumors and acoustic neuroma among long-term cell-phone users.

The BioInitiative Report

Others, in the meantime, are tired of waiting and have taken other initiatives to educate the general public. The BioInitiative Report, published August 31, 2007, was created by an international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals.

They document serious scientific concerns about the current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life, concluding that the existing standards for public safety are completely inadequate to protect your health.

Their report also includes studies showing evidence for:

  • Effects on Gene and Protein Expression (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research)
  • Genotoxic Effects – RFR and ELF DNA Damage
  • Stress Response (Stress Proteins)
  • Effects on Immune Function
  • Effects on Neurology and Behavior
  • Brain Tumors and Acoustic Neuromas
  • Childhood Cancers (Leukemia)
  • Magnetic Field Exposure: Melatonin Production; Alzheimer’s Disease; Breast Cancer
  • Breast Cancer Promotion (Melatonin links in laboratory and cell studies)
  • Disruption by the Modulating Signal

Protect Yourself from the Invisible Danger of EMR

Some individuals believe that relatively expensive fixes like nano polymers (like those used by BioPro) might help, but my initial investigation strongly suggests that this technology protection is only minimally effective, and dissipates rapidly.

Of course, the only real solution is to move our culture away from wireless back to more wired. As for myself, I completely renovated my new home prior to moving in earlier this year, and part of the project was to put in wired CAT-5 cables so I have no wireless connections at all. We have also recently moved into a brand new 25,000 square foot office building where we have no wireless anywhere in the building.

I’ve also learned that most portable home phones are a major source of these information carrying radio waves.

The only exception would be the much older, essentially antiquated 900 MHz portable phones. Fortunately they are still readily available online. One of the major differences is that they are only on when in use. The other higher MHz phones are on continuously, bombarding your cells with tissue damaging radiation even when you’re not using them.

If you do choose to use a cell phone, use the speakerphone function whenever possible -- and keep the phone about two feet away from any body part. Do not keep the phone on your belt or in your pocket even when you’re not using it, as the radiation WILL penetrate your body wherever the phone is attached. Instead, stow it away in a purse, backpack, or your car’s glove compartment.

For times when a speakerphone isn’t practical, use an air-tube headset, rather than a wireless Bluetooth.

Also, keep an eye on the signal bars on your cell phone, which tell you how strong your connecting signal is. The closer you are to a cell phone tower, the stronger your signal, and the less power your phone has to use to maintain the connection.

A strong signal is indicated by a full set of "bars" showing on your cell phone display. Fewer bars mean a weaker signal.

As in the Israeli study mentioned above, frequent use of your cell phone when you have a weak signal carries greater risk as the amount of radiation produced by your phone is higher, which increases your exposure. Talking outdoors or in open spaces can often allow for a better connection from your cell phone to your nearest cell phone tower.

The exception to that rule is if you live in a rural area where the nearest tower is some distance away, in which case you’re constantly exposed to greater amounts of radiation from your cell phone than city and urban users and would be best advised to use a landline whenever feasible.

Related Articles:

Why Your Cell Phone Can Hurt Your Children

How Cell Phones May Cause Autism

Children Should NOT Use Cell Phones, But My Today Show Interview Does Not Support That

Sunday, August 3, 2008

ROW Lecture Tour 2008 - Los Angeles

My time in Los Angeles was rather brief with just one lecture prior to my returning home to Cairns. Again my memory was such that I had taken more photos to share with you than I actually did, for which I offer my apologies.

One question which I am often asked is how do I fare for food on my travels, as I eat no cooked foods at all, only raw food. My reply is inevitably to the effect that wherever I have travelled there are always to be found markets. And yes it does require some searching to find them at times. Mostly though, in these days of supermarkets, and with these often having sections selling organically grown produce, it really presents no problem at all. Finding them can be a part of the exploring and getting to know the area in which I am staying, which in itself, gives added enjoyment to my journey.

Across the whole of the US there are to be found Farmers Markets which have been in existence for time immemorial. Originally they were designed to enable the farmers to sell their produce directly to the public in a covered and somewhat congenial atmosphere. Today there are very few produce stalls, and mostly pre-pepared food, such as you see in this photo taken in this Farmers Market in L/A

Much of the surrounding area of this particular Farmer's Market has been beautified with these rather upmarket street stalls, with the track that can be seen, carrying an early trolley to carry people to the surrounding up-market shopping centre. Unfortunately it was not operating the day I was there - so no photo to share with you.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Vaccines - Their Danger

HPV Vaccine Blamed for Teen's Paralysis

HPV, human papilloma virus, cervical cancer, cancer, vaccine, paralysisA month after 13 year old Jenny Tetlock was vaccinated against the HPV virus, she missed the lowest hurdle in gym class. It was the first sign of a degenerative muscle disease that 15 months later left her nearly completely paralyzed.

Her father, Philip Tetlock, a professor at UC-Berkeley, has embarked on an odyssey to find out whether the vaccine, Gardasil, is to blame.

Tetlock is not the only one concerned. The public watchdog group Judicial Watch has been periodically obtaining adverse event reports on Gardasil from the FDA. 10 deaths have been linked to Gardasil since September 2007, and there have been 140 reports so far this year of serious side effects such as miscarriage and Guillain-Barré syndrome.