Matrix Security

Read the buzz flash story here and think again about taking antibiotics from the doctor again

where I got the story

As human beings, we’re the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. As part of modern living, we create a wide variety of chemical toxins that go into the ecosystem through rivers and streams, the air, the soil and so on. Not only that, we actually synthesize toxic chemicals and then inject them directly into the food supply — knowing full well that they are poisonous and are major contributors to the epidemic rates of chronic disease we are experiencing today.
What are these chemicals I’m talking about? Well, you’re about to get a whirlwind tour of humanity’s toxic chemicals. And if you look at toxic chemicals, you have to start in the realm of dentistry, because in no other profession (save medicine) will you find the use of so many toxic chemicals that are deliberately prescribed to patients or injected into their bodies. We’re talking about, of course, mercury fillings and fluoride dripped into the public water supplies.

Dr. Poison Mercury, DDS
When we talk about mercury fillings, you have to keep in mind that mercury is simply one of the most toxic substances you can put into the human body, aside from radioactive substances. Right now, today, dentists all across the country and around the world are taking this highly toxic metal and literally putting it into the teeth of human beings. Those teeth are then used to chew food, and as a person chews; they effectively grind away the surfaces of these mercury fillings. These fillings release gas mercury vapor and mercury particles, which people then breathe into their lungs, or digest in their stomachs.
Now, I can understand that maybe 50 years ago, the dental industry was too ignorant to realize that it was advocating this toxic metal and putting it into patients’ mouths. The industrial revolution is full of examples of companies that used lots of toxic substances and therapies, thinking they were good for you. Recall the X-rays and radiation of the first half of the twentieth century, people thought that radiation was great for you. Manufacturers were equating radiation with energy and thinking that if you consumed radiation pills, you would be more energetic. These were actually sold and sponsored by physicians and doctors, it was a mainstay of the medical industry in those days.

Later, we had the lead issue with industrial companies like DuPont, which has an interesting history in the manufacture and distribution of lead. People were convinced lead was great for everything. They put it into the gasoline, and leaded gasoline was born. We later found out that lead causes nervous system disorders and that it’s very unhealthy to have lead emissions in the air. We ended up getting rid of lead paint, and banning the use of lead in foods and cosmetics.

But for some reason, today dentists still think mercury is perfectly good for you. It’s like they’re living in the Dark Ages. Gee, why don’t they have you swallow radiation pills at the same time they’re putting mercury fillings in your mouth? That way you can be energized and have fillings, too!

Some of the greatest quackery in the world right now takes place in dentists’ offices; and dentists strongly deny the problems associated with mercury toxicity and mercury fillings. Of course, I don’t mean all dentists, some dentists are slowly coming around to this issue. In fact, these selected dentists are leading the change; they are pioneering dentists, just as those in the world of medicine that are trying to change conventional medicine.

These few dentists that are trying to make changes and get mercury fillings banned deserve tremendous credit for taking the lead and standing up and fighting against the dogma of their own industry to protect their patients. There’s no doubt in my mind that within a few years, mercury fillings will be banned and they will join the ranks of lead paint, asbestos insulation, leaded gasoline and radiation pills. They will go into the historical annals of bad medicine, and some day future generations will think we were absolutely crazy to be putting mercury in people’s mouths.

More poison from dentists: fluoride
That’s not the end of the toxicity in the world of dentistry, we also have dentists pushing for, get this, the dripping of a highly toxic chemical waste product into the water supply… a substance that’s scraped off the smokestacks of industrial polluters. They want every person in the community to actually drink this substance.
This material is a toxic waste that’s regulated by the EPA. It would be illegal to drip it into a river or a stream, but for some reason, it is perfectly legal to drip it into the public water supply and let people drink it. It’s a bizarre cycle of rationalization that can only be called medical lunacy. They no longer consider this toxic substance toxic if it passes through the bodies of human beings first. What substance am I talking about? Fluorosilicic acid, otherwise known by its short name, fluoride.

Across the country and around the world, dentists are insisting that we drip fluoride into the public water supply. For what purpose? To protect the teeth? Can you be serious? People are swallowing this liquid. They’re not rinsing it in their mouth and spitting it out, they’re ingesting it. Now as a result we have fluorosis, and bone disorders that are related to the over-consumption of fluoride.

For some reason, dentists have decided that they now have medical degrees, and that they want to medicate the entire population with a drug, a biologically active drug, without first diagnosing any individual in that community. In other words, they want to medicate everyone across the board with the exact same dosage, regardless of that person’s individual health needs, and regardless of how much other fluoride they may be exposed to on a regular basis. This is the insanity of the modern dentistry community. Remember, these are the same people that want to put mercury in your mouth, so it only makes sense that they also want to poison your entire body by putting fluorosilicic acid into the water supply.

They don’t call it fluorosilicic acid of course, because that might scare people. They call it fluoride — and in fact they will even deceive the public and call it “naturally-occurring fluoride.” There’s nothing natural about fluorosilicic acid.

If you go to any community water supply where they are dripping so called “fluoride” into the water system, you will find out where they actually get the fluoride — ask them, “Hey, do you dig this out of the ground in natural fluoride deposits?,” and they will tell you “No, we buy it from an industrial waste processing company because it’s cheaper than fluoride out of the ground.” I’ve asked this question myself of people who are in charge of dripping fluoride into the public water supply, and that’s exactly what they have told me. You can verify this yourself and find out just how your local community is poisoning you and your family with this highly toxic waste chemical.

How to poison the entire population
Again, we are the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. And we do it in highly efficient ways. If you want to poison a population, there’s no easier way than to drip a substance into the water supply. And if you really want to make sure everyone is poisoned, you would pass laws that mandate the dripping of this poison into the water supply (i.e. fluoridation laws). That would ensure that everybody gets some, whether it’s an infant, an adult or a senior citizen. This is increasingly what is happening across the United States and around the world.
There’s absolutely no good science behind any of the fluoride arguments. Even if they were using genuine natural fluoride, there are no studies that show the ingestion of fluoride decreases the incidence of dental caries in modern society. Yet this myth persists in the dental community, and the American Dental Association stands firmly behind this national poisoning agenda. They will call anybody who disagrees with it a “nut,” and they will say that every population must be fluoridated — for their own good, of course. That’s the only way to ensure they have healthy teeth, the logic goes.

Put more chemicals into the foods, please
If you wanted to poison the entire population, but you were worried that not everyone drinks from the water supply, there is another way: just poison the food supply. This, too, is happening today, with food manufacturing practices and the FDA looking the other way on toxic food ingredients.
Our population is being poisoned with artificial chemical sweeteners. Let’s take a look at these. Aspartame is a sweetener that was never proven safe; in fact, the original safety recommendation panel at the FDA recommended that aspartame be denied approval as a safe food ingredient. It was none other than Donald Rumsfeld at the time who helped push aspartame through the FDA to get it legalized as a food additive.

Today, we now see the vast majority of complaints of food side effects sent to the FDA being caused by aspartame. Aspartame is an excitotoxin, that is, a neurotoxic chemical, and it breaks down in your body into both formic acid and formaldehyde. Now, would you like to go out and drink some formaldehyde? Well, you might do that if you were a biological specimen that needed to be preserved for dissection, but if you’re a normal, healthy, sane human being, you’d never drink formaldehyde. Unless, of course, they put it in an artificial sweetener compound and added it to cans of your favorite carbonated soft drink, in which case Americans will gladly drink formaldehyde in can after can, poisoning their nervous systems, going half blind, experiencing epilepsy and increasing the onset of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease.

Again, we’re the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves with these chemicals. And yet we have entire groups, food lobbies and public apologizers who run around saying that these ingredients are perfectly good for you. There’s nothing wrong with drinking formaldehyde and formic acid. You’ll be fine! Drink more! Here, in fact here’s a 50 percent more coupon, so you can buy even more!

Want some chlorine in your food today?
Some say, “Well, aspartame is on the way out — the big sweetener now is Sucralose or Splenda.” This is the artificial sweetener that claims to be made from sugar. Well, I suppose you can claim that it starts out as sugar, but it’s made by removing some of the atoms from sugar and replacing them with atoms of chlorine, which is of course one of the chemical elements used during the atrocities of World War II to create poison gas, the same element used in chlorine to disinfect pools and public water supplies.
When it’s put that way, you might start thinking, “Well, gee, maybe there’s something wrong with this sugar, maybe I shouldn’t be putting chlorine atoms into my body.” Would you go out and drink chlorine? If you know anybody who works on pools, or who has a pool maintenance business, they will tell you that chlorine gas will kill you. In fact, just to handle chlorine, they have to wear protective rubber gloves and protective respiration devices, because if they get chlorine powder wet and touch it or inhale it, they are in for a world of hurt. Chlorine gas can cause serious injury or even death. In fact, if you just take household ingredients like chlorine bleach and mix it with ammonia, you will create a highly toxic gas that will literally kill you, which is why these products often contain warnings that they should not be mixed.

And yet, in our food supply, we take chlorine atoms and we attach them to molecules that used to be sugar, and we call that a safe sweetener. And now we’re putting it into all kinds of foods, whether it’s soft drinks, muffins, pancake mixes and pretty much everything in the low-carb arena. I’m not sure people realize that they are actually ingesting chlorine atoms. Maybe they’re too dazed from the fluoride.

Okay, so far we have dentists putting mercury fillings in your mouth that give off mercury vapor and cause neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. We have the same insane dentists mandating the dripping of EPA-regulated environmental pollutants into the public water supply, making sure that human beings in the United States have to drink toxic waste product… after which it enters into the rivers and streams as part of human waste, even though if such chemicals were dripped directly into the rivers and streams in this country it would be a violation of federal law. We have food and beverage companies using artificial chemical sweeteners to replace sugar and claiming that their products are healthier than sugar products. And yet, these artificial chemical sweeteners break down into dangerous chemical components such as formaldehyde and formic acid, or they are made with chlorine atoms that simply do not belong in the human body. These chemicals do not appear anywhere in nature attached to a sugar molecule.

Yummy poison: hydrogenated oils
So, what else can the money-hungry corporations think of to put into the food or the water to poison America? They are quite creative and they have a lot of poisons at their disposal. The next terrible poison on the list is hydrogenated oils. They’re called brain poisons, and they’re present in perhaps half of all the foods found at every grocery store. It’s listed right on the label — you can see it as “hydrogenated oil” or “partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil”.
This artificial fat directly causes cardiovascular heart disease, it destroys normal cardiovascular health, it destroys the healthy functioning of the nervous system, it causes brain disorders, it causes heart attacks — it is one of the most prominent and yet toxic ingredients put into the food supply. It also causes birth defects and essential fatty acid deficiencies in both the mother and her fetus.

And it’s put in foods on purpose, for the convenience of the food manufacturers. Hydrogenated oils don’t go bad, which means they save money for the food manufacturing companies, because their foods don’t go bad on the shelves. And how do you make hydrogenated oils? Well, you don’t find them anywhere in nature — you have to have a chemical processing facility to make hydrogenated oils. And you do it by bubbling hydrogen gas through liquid soybean oil or other types of oils, using a catalyst (in most cases the catalyst is nickel). So with this nickel and the bubbling of hydrogen gas, you get extra hydrogen atoms attached to the molecules in oil, which makes them solid at room temperature. Since they are solid at room temperature, they can be more easily used to make margarine products, or used in crackers and cookies. And all of this, again, is for the convenience of the food manufacturing companies.

Food manufactures don’t care what happens to your health, their job is just to sell food products. If you have a health problem as a result, that’s your problem, not theirs. You won’t find food companies offering to pay for your medical bills if you have a heart attack from eating hydrogenated oils. They are basically passing the buck and demanding that you pay for the health consequences caused by their foods. In fact, they’re working hard to pass legislation that would outlaw lawsuits against food companies!

Pepperoni-shaped poison
Not to be outdone, the meat processing companies in this country also want to make sure they get lots of poison into your food products. It’s not enough to just sell you red meat, which is by itself an extremely unhealthy food ingredient that promotes colon cancer, heart disease, obesity and many other disorders, they also have to put cancer-causing chemicals in various meat products.
This makes sure that you get colon cancer from the additives, if not from the red meat itself. This additive is called sodium nitrite, and you’ll find it in virtually every packaged meat product found at the grocery store, whether it’s pepperoni, breakfast sausage, or bacon. You can buy sliced ham, sliced chicken, deli slices, lunch meat, packaged ham, pepperoni, the meat that goes into soups, the meat that goes into those little lunch trays … pretty much any form of packaged meat at the grocery store has this toxic ingredient in it. That’s why the daily consumption of processed meats has now been clinically shown to produce a 6,700% increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer!

Guinea pig people
And what is this ingredient again? Sodium nitrite! When you ingest sodium nitrite, it mixes with the digestive juices of your stomach and creates a class of chemical compounds called nitrosamines. These nitrosamines are potent cancer-causing chemicals. In fact, as I’ve mentioned before, they are so potent that lab researchers actually inject mice with nitrosamines when they want to give those mice breast cancer or other form of cancer they can study. And yet, as humans, we put sodium nitrite right into the food supply. It’s almost as if we were treating the entire population as lab rats — and in fact that’s not far from the truth.
Drugs are frequently released in this country on an experimental basis, using the population as guinea pigs to find out how many people might die from that drug in order to get more safety data. Let’s face it, when the FDA approves drugs for public use, they are not at all proven safe. The American public is routinely treated as a collection of guinea pigs in order to promote prescription drugs, foods, artificial sweeteners or other elements.

Toxic personal care products
So now we’ve got toxic chemicals in our mouths, in our public water supplies, and in our foods and beverages. Where else can money hungry corporations put toxic chemicals into our immediate environment and get them into our bodies? Well, think hard and you might come up with some other ideas. Let’s look at the personal care products industry, because practically every brand name shampoo, cologne, perfume, deodorant, antiperspirant or other personal care product on the market is made with toxic fragrance chemicals. These can contain solvents, carcinogens and compounds that are registered in government databases as having strong liver toxicity.
The reason these ingredients are allowed in these products are because the FDA has mistakenly assumed for many, many years that whatever you put on your body doesn’t get absorbed into your body. They think, for example, that you could just coat your body with toxic chemicals and you would be fine, because your skin is a barrier. I’ve even heard pharmacists tell me that the skin is a great barrier, so whatever you put on your skin won’t go into your body.

That’s utterly ridiculous! As pharmacists, haven’t these people ever sold nicotine patches? How do you think those work? They work by releasing nicotine that gets absorbed directly through your skin into your bloodstream. If your skin didn’t absorb nicotine, the nicotine patches wouldn’t deliver a dosage. You have to be half-crazy to think that the skin is some kind of permanent barrier that keeps out everything you put on it.

In fact, the skin is very porous — the skin breathes. Yes, it keeps out bacteria, but it sure doesn’t keep out chemical solvents, and it doesn’t keep out molecules as big as nicotine. Nicotine molecules are not very small, by the way. There are many things that go right through your skin, and those include fragrance chemicals, solvents, and a lot of other toxic ingredients that are found in personal care products. One such ingredient called MIT was recently discovered in most brand-name shampoos, and this MIT ingredient is known to cause brain cancer.

Voluntary chemical suicide
So now we are really stupid as a species, because we’ve poisoned our mouths, our water supply, our food, our beverages and even our shampoos and personal care products. And if you use dryer sheets, then you’ve got your clothes poisoned as well, they’re coated in a layer of toxic chemicals found in dryer sheet products. So what else could we use to poison the population? There are still many other options.
One way would be to sell a toxic chemical that people voluntarily put into their mouths because another person in a position of authority told them to do so. This is describing the prescription drug industry, where people are poisoning themselves each and every day with toxic painkiller drugs like COX-2 inhibitors or toxic anti-cholesterol drugs like statin drugs. People are poisoning their minds with antidepressant drugs that promote violent behavior and suicides. They’re poisoning their cardiovascular system with beta-blockers and other drugs. And of course they’re poisoning their livers.

And yet people volunteer to do this — each and every day they will put these toxic chemicals into their bodies simply because someone with a degree from a school of disease (also known as medical school) told them to do so. And, not only that, they will actually pay for the privilege of poisoning their own bodies.

They’ll pay good money too, not just a few hundred dollars a month, but several thousand dollars a month. Some people will spend six figures a year poisoning their bodies because their doctor told them to do so. And, then when something goes wrong and they have a small tumor show up on a mammogram, or some other blood test comes back positive that indicates they may have some sort of cancer tumor, they will gladly pay another $100,000 or more in order to destroy their entire immune system with a treatment known as chemotherapy.

They will literally sit there and let other doctors inject highly toxic poisons directly into the bloodstream and allow them to circulate through their body. How toxic is this stuff? Well, gee, think about it, your hair falls out, you get sick and you vomit — are these signs that maybe this stuff doesn’t belong in your body? I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a very strange way to heal someone. If I were a medical professional and I were healing someone, and I had them do something which made their hair fall out and they started vomiting and it looked like they were going to melt away right before my very eyes, I would think that, hey, maybe this isn’t good for them. But that’s not what conventional oncologists think. They think, oh, this is great stuff. Look, we’re going to destroy the cancer tumor and, if we’re lucky, there may even be a patient left by the time we’re done. And if not — that’s alright, as long as they pay the bill.

Official, government-approved drug dealers
We as a species actually have a class of professionals, highly-paid professionals, who we give the right to poison us with toxic chemicals. These people are called doctors. I call them drug dealers. Just like illegal drugs, their drugs kill people. The main difference is that these “legal” drugs enrich politically influential corporations, whereas illegal drugs enrich drug lords. Our national “War on Drugs” is quite selective in its targets, don’t you think? Industrial hemp is outlawed, but doping up millions of children on powerful narcotics is perfectly legal: it’s called Ritalin.
So remember, we’re the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. And if we don’t do it in just one or two ways, we do it in half a dozen different ways! Then we regulate that poisoning, we make it federal law! And we have lobbyists and groups out there defending this use of poison in the food supply, and defending the use of it in cosmetic products and personal care products. We have defenders of the drug industry, people who say, “Yeah, well there was a study five years ago that showed a 1200 percent heart attack increase, but we thought that really wasn’t relevant to this drug and we decided to go ahead and market that drug anyway.” That’s what we have today. And the real details of this gruesome story have only begun to be uncovered. Wait until the rest of the story comes out…

We’re #1!
Is it any wonder, with all of the poisoning going on at all the different levels in our bodies, that we are now the most chronically diseased population that has ever been recorded in the history of civilization? It’s true — there is no population that has suffered from diseases like we do in America today. You would have to be clinically insane to not think that there’s a correlation between the poison we are putting into our bodies and the diseases we are getting as a result.
Plus, as recent studies have shown, we’re the #1 nation in the world in terms of mental disorders as well! Let’s see: #1 in obesity, #1 in diabetes, #1 in cancer, #1 mental disorders, and we have the HIGHEST health care costs in the world, too. We have the most expensive drugs in the world. We have more doctors and health care professionals per capita than any country in the world. And, frighteningly, we’re the country with the most nukes. Great idea, huh? Put the nuclear weapons under control of the most mentally disturbed population in the world… now if only our leaders were at least sane…

But no, wait a minute — the doctors are right, all diseases are just genetic. None of these poisons matter, it’s just your genes. They say the gene pool of the human race was perfectly fine 100 years ago when people didn’t have all these diseases, but it has somehow mutated to a gene pool that gives you heart disease and cancer and osteoporosis and diabetes, and, by the way, there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s what they want you to believe, because then they take away your power. Then you have no ability to make changes.

Actually, we’re pretty darned clever, aren’t we?
So not only are we the most stupid species on the planet, because we’re poisoning ourselves, we are simultaneously the cleverest species, because we find ways to justify all that poisoning. We find scientific gobbledygook to claim that, yes, NutraSweet is good for you! Or that these chlorine atoms attached to sugar are great for you, or that mercury in your mouth somehow doesn’t have a toxic effect on your body. Or that hydrogenated oils are perfectly fine for your heart health.
We stupidly say if you take those and you drink this weight loss shake made with sugar, you’ll be healthy. And if you have this barbaric surgical procedure called gastric bypass surgery, you’ll no longer be obese. And if you’re not healthy, don’t worry; we have magic bullet prescription drugs that will make you even healthier. So we’re a clever population at the same time that we’re incredibly stupid. Do you know what that’s called? That’s called being a population of great technicians and lousy healers. And that’s exactly what we are today.

Having used the word “stupid” throughout this editorial, I use it deliberately. I don’t mean it in the way that a teenager might say, “My stupid little brother flipped me off.” I mean it in a more precise way, in the way defined by Dictionary.com:

Stupid:

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.

Can you think of a better word to describe the people around here?

As Einstein once said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

Where I got the story

A new book from veteran physician Dr. Nortin Hadler of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill questions the health scares propagated to the public by the health care system. Entitled “The Last Well Person: How to Stay Well Despite the Health Care System, Hadler states that “wellness” has become an unreachable achievement, thanks to medical institutions doggedly discerning every human imperfection as a symptom of disease.

What you need to know - Conventional View
• According to Hadler, the medical profession has taken every step to make Americans believe they are subject to risks to their health.

• “No infant can simply be fussy and no child can simply be fidgety, obstreperous, or below average in performance. We are told that all these are symptoms of disease, or harbingers,” Hadler wrote in an editorial posted on the web site ABCNews.com

• Hadler says that the health industry has “medicalized” the idea of well-being, pushing the idea that everyone holds a burden of having something wrong with them.

• In his editorial, Hadler says that previous examples of “medicalization” included calling thinness a problem, whereas today the idea of previously-promoted idea of being “fat and happy” is now considered “being obese and unhealthy.”

• “There is no better scientific support that screening you for high cholesterol, diabetes, osteoporosis, or breast and prostate cancer will help you than there is for nutraceuticals, Asian cures, poking and prodding, Echinacea and garlic, glucosamine, vitamin E and the like,” Hadler states in the editorial.

What you need to know - Alternative View
Statements and opinions by Mike Adams, author of Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them

• The medical industry knows that to generate more profits, it must “medicalize” normal life experiences by turning every emotion, behavior, habit and mood into a “disease” requiring chemical treatment.

• Direct-to-consumer drug advertising plays a crucial role in the marketing and propaganda of fictitious diseases. Without television, magazine and newspaper ads, drug companies would not be able to so strongly influence consumers into thinking they have diseases when they really don’t.

Resources you need to know
• See the hilarious Disease Mongering Engine at www.NewsTarget.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp where you can instantly invent your own fictitious diseases.

Bottom line
According to a well-received critic and member of the health care profession, the idea of wellness has been bastardized by the very profession that aims to promote it.

Where I got the story

The First Citizens’ Conference on Fluoride was recently held in Canton, New York, and it revealed some astonishing new research about the dangers of fluoride and why the current political position on fluoridation of public water supplies is based on fraudulent science.
The fluoridation of public water is something that has been highly debated for decades — and yet the practice continues today, despite the growing body of evidence showing that fluoridation causes untold human suffering and disease. Some of the research presented at the conference showed, for example, that fluoridation damages the brain, increases levels of lead in children’s blood and therefore leads to behavioral disorders and brain damage. It also showed that humans are accumulating fluoride in their bones, that fluoride’s toxicity is systemic in the human body, and that the current safe drinking water standards for fluoride were fraudulently authored by officials at the Environmental Protection Agency who were pressured.

These findings were presented by a variety of scientists and researchers, including a senior EPA scientist and a doctor of the Forsyth Dental Center. Not surprisingly, both of these individuals have been fired and have had their careers jeopardized after participating in this conference.

One of the more interesting bits of evidence presented in the study was an internal memo issued by the EPA professional who wrote the current fluoridation safe drinking water standards. In the memo, the official notes how this new standard would produce “teeth gross enough to gag a maggot.” The conference also featured author Christopher Bryson, who wrote the book The Fluoride Deception, who said, “Fluoride science is corporate science, fluoride science is DDT science, it’s asbestos science, it’s tobacco science.”

In other words, fluoride science isn’t scientific at all — it’s distorted science made up by bureaucrats and political officials who have some other agenda in mind rather than public health. If you’re new to this debate on fluoride, you might find some of this information shocking. But I’ve been covering fluoride for several years, and have fought hard at both the local and national level to educate people about the dangers of fluoridation.

There are so many things wrong with the mass fluoridation of the U.S. population that it’s hard to know where to begin talking about it. First off, there’s the idea that fluoride is a so-called “naturally occurring substance in water.” That’s the lie propagated by dentists and the American Dental Association to try to convince people that simply “adjusting the naturally occurring levels” is somehow a good thing to do.

But all of this is based on a distortion. In reality, the fluoride added to the public water supplies in the United States is not organic fluoride at all. It is in fact fluorosilicic acid, which is purchased in bulk from chemical companies, who must be laughing loudly at the idea that they can actually sell this toxic waste product. Why? Because if cities weren’t buying it and putting it into the public water supply, these industrial companies would have to spend millions of dollars disposing of fluorosilicic acid because it is an EPA regulated toxic waste.

Let me put this another way — fluorosilicic acid is a toxic waste byproduct that is produced in the United States by various chemical companies. It represents such a health hazard to human beings that it is regulated by the EPA, and must be disposed of as a toxic waste. And yet, municipalities throughout the United States actually purchase this product and then drip it into the public water supply, and simultaneously call it “fluoride.”

Fluorosilicic acid is not fluoride, it is something very different, and it strikes me as downright bizarre that it is perfectly legal to dump this toxic waste product into the rivers and streams of America as long as it passes through the bodies of human beings first. In other words, it’s illegal to take a bucket of fluorosilicic acid and dump it into a stream, but it is perfectly legal to dump it into the bodies of human beings, whose waste products will subsequently enter those same streams and rivers.

All of this is done under the guise of distorted scientific evidence that claims the mass consumption of fluorosilicic acid somehow improves the dental health of Americans. And yet there is no credible evidence that this is the case. All of the evidence cited by the EPA, the American Dental Association, and dentists has been fraudulently concocted, and quite frankly is decades old.

Across America today, you see the effects of mass fluoridation all around you — you see children with darkened teeth from fluoridosis, you see elderly people breaking their bones because fluoridation of the water supplies contributes to brittle bones. You see children with behavioral disorders that are multiplied by the effects of lead in their bloodstream, and lead uptake is enhanced in the presence of fluoride in public water.

You also see a great number of neurological disorders in the U.S. population. You see problems with migraine headaches, clinical depression, dementia, and Alzheimer’s, and there is a very strong link between these diseases and the long-term consumption of fluoride in the public water supply.

Beyond all of this, there’s the important question of why dentists and public health officials think the public water supply is an acceptable medium through which to mass medicate the U.S. population in the first place. It is a forced medication that has no consideration for the nutritional choices made by individuals who might be drinking that water. Some individuals might be using fluoridated toothpaste, and thus if they’re drinking fluoridated water, they could easily be getting too much fluoride and suffer from fluoridosis.

The public water supply is a bad place to be putting drugs and medications in an effort to alter the chemistry of the U.S. population. I’ve even heard some doctors who are excited about the supposed benefits of statin drugs say that we should drip statin drugs into the public water supply the way we do fluoride. They say the benefit is so widespread that everybody should be taking these drugs. It would be ludicrous to suppose that we should mass-medicate the entire U.S. public with statin drugs by dripping them into the public water supply, and yet this is exactly what takes place every day right now with fluoride, which is also a bioactive chemical compound that could reasonably be classified as a drug. Using the public water supply to mass medicate people is bad policy. It’s also bad science, and it takes away the freedom of choice from the U.S. population. It is Big Brother at its worst.

One of the other things I find so interesting about this debate on fluoride is that dentists and doctors will leap to defend this practice at every opportunity — and why? Is it because there’s good scientific evidence that fluoridination is somehow beneficial to the public? No, it’s because they’ve been told to support it by their associations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.

In community meetings, I’ve seen local dentists jump up and down and scream about how important fluoridation is for public health. These people use their apparent authority to try to convince everyone that they should be mass medicated with this substance. I find this especially bizarre because many of these dentists and doctors promote this as a nutritional prevention strategy — they’re talking about fluoride as being essential nutrition for the human body, and therefore we should put it into the water supply. And yet, if you mention that the most common nutritional deficiencies are in fact magnesium, zinc, vitamin D, and the B vitamins, they will look at you as if you are speaking some kind of alien tongue. Apparently in their minds, there is only one nutritional deficiency that exists in the world, and that is a fluoride deficiency. All other nutritional deficiencies are called quackery, and the idea of dripping zinc into the public water supply would be called absurd by these doctors and dentists. And yet they are more than happy to drip a toxic waste byproduct into the water supply, as long as it is called a nutritional deficiency that needs to be overcome through the forced mass medication of the entire population.

All of this is so bizarre that a reasonable person can only conclude these doctors and dentists are operating on auto-pilot. They are parroting whatever their organizing associations are telling them to say. They’ve been sucked into the myth that fluoride is automatically good for everyone and that every person in the country should be dosed with this bioactive chemical compound.

And to top it off, they are extremely arrogant about the whole thing. They act like because they are dentists, they are qualified to talk about this one single nutritional deficiency and its effects on the entire human body. In fact, dentists have no qualifications to talk about the effects of fluoride on the human nervous system, the blood supply, behavioral disorders or other physiological effects. Dentists are really only qualified to talk about what’s happening with your teeth — not drugs or chemicals that you ingest and that have a systemic effect.

At the same time, most western doctors aren’t qualified to talk about nutrition, either. They’ve had almost no nutritional training in their medical schools, and simply remain illiterate about the relationships between nutritional deficiencies and chronic disease. So, you essentially have a whole group of experts that know nothing about the subject they are talking about, but yet who grandstand and claim to be the authorities on it and pound the public into the mistaken belief that people should be dosed with this toxic waste product regardless of the scientific facts.

This is essentially a mass experiment now being conducted on the American population, and I think we are seeing some the effects of this in the worsening health statistics in this country. Fluoride is also thought to suppress intelligence and independent will, which may explain some of the reasons why the U.S. population is so easy to control through propaganda and media manipulation. In fact, there is some interesting research going way back about fluoride being used on wartime prisoners as a truth serum in an effort to get them to go along with the capturing nation’s propaganda. So, in an almost comic sense, the mass medication of the U.S. population with fluoride could, in a very real sense, be turning our country into a nation of mindless zombies. Of course, that’s an exaggeration of what’s probably really happening, but no doubt it has some influence.

Now what does all of this mean for you, as consumer? What should you do to protect yourself from fluoride? First off, you should never use products that contain fluoride. That is, don’t use toothpaste or mouthwashes that contain fluoride. Also, don’t purchase bottled water that has added fluoride in it. I think that’s a ridiculous product to have on the shelves.

Don’t drink from the public water supply. Of course, if you’re drinking tap water right now, you probably need to step back and question your judgment anyway — tap water contains so many toxic chemicals (such as chlorine) that it represents a risk to human health even without the fluoride. One of the simplest and most important things you can do to protect your health and the health of your family is to get yourself a faucet-mounted water filter such as a Britta filer or a PUR filter that uses carbon-block filtration to remove fluoride, chlorine, and other water contaminants. Better yet, drink water that is filtered through reverse osmosis or is distilled.

Best of all, if you can afford it, drink spring water as your primary source of water. And don’t fall for the propaganda that says we should be mass medicating our entire population with a toxic waste product called “fluoride.” It’s based on bad science, the egos of misinformed medical authorities, and political power grabs that have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the public health.

Where I got the story

chemical, bisphenol A, in 95 percent of the people tested, at levels at or above those that affected development in animals.

These findings were presented at last month’s annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A spokesman for the chemical industry later dismissed the concerns, but Jerry Heindel, a top official of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), who chaired the AAAS session, said the suspected link between obesity and exposure to “endocrine disrupters,” as the chemicals are called because of their hormone-like effects, is “plausible and possible.”

Bruce Blumberg, a developmental and cell biologist at the University of California at Irvine, one of those presenting research at the meeting, called them “obesogens” — chemicals that promote obesity.

Obesity has become a major health concern as people in the United States and around the world have become increasingly overweight, raising their risk of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, stroke and certain cancers. The World Health Organization estimates that more than a billion adults worldwide are overweight and 300 million are obese. Scientists have begun examining a wide range of possible causes beyond eating too much and exercising too little — including possible chemical exposures.

Blumberg began to suspect a link while trying to pinpoint how one endocrine disrupter, tributyltin, affects genetic mechanisms in the reproductive system. Tributyltin is used as a marine and agricultural fungicide, an antimicrobial agent in industrial water systems, and in plastics; it can cause serious sexual abnormalities in marine animals.

“What we discovered,” Blumberg said, is that tributyltin disrupted genetic interactions that regulate fat-cell activity in animals. “Exposure to tributyltin is increasing the number of fat cells, so the individual will get fatter faster as these cells produce more of the hormones that say ‘feed me,’” Blumberg said. The exposed animals, he added, remain predisposed to obesity for life.

Retha R. Newbold, a developmental biologist at the NIEHS, has seen similar lifetime effects in her work with diethylstilbestrol (DES), a potent synthetic estrogen she has studied for 30 years.

Newbold’s research has shown that mice exposed to DES during early development produced more fat cells, larger fat cells, and more abdominal fat than those not exposed. Exposed mice became obese adults and remained obese even on reduced calorie and increased exercise regimes. Like tributyltin, DES appeared to permanently disrupt the hormonal mechanisms regulating body weight.

“Once these genetic changes happen in utero, they are irreversible and with the individual for life,” Newbold said.

DES was widely prescribed for women during pregnancy from the 1940s until 1971, when it was withdrawn after being linked to cancer. Taken by perhaps 8 million women, DES has caused reproductive abnormalities in children and grandchildren of women who took it. Whether its effects include promoting obesity has yet to be determined, but its effects on animal metabolism — it is also used to fatten livestock — are similar to those caused by bisphenol A, a chemical most people now encounter daily.

“Exposure to bisphenol A is continuous,” said Frederick vom Saal, professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Bisphenol A is an ingredient in polycarbonate plastics used in many products, including refillable water containers and baby bottles, and in epoxy resins that line the inside of food cans and are used as dental sealants. In 2003, U.S. industry consumed about 2 billion pounds of bisphenol A.

Researchers have studied bisphenol A’s effects on estrogen function for more than a decade. Vom Saal’s research indicates that developmental exposure to low doses of bisphenol A activates genetic mechanisms that promote fat-cell activity. “These in-utero effects are lifetime effects, and they occur at phenomenally small levels” of exposure, vom Saal said.

Graphic
Triggering Obesity
Mouse babies exposed to synthetic estrogens tend to become fat mice.

Who’s Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
politricks.mnp
blog4brains 1.2
The Ethicurean: Chew the right thing.

Full List of Blogs (66 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share Article What’s This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook

Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council said his organization’s review of the scientific literature found that a preponderance of the bisphenol A studies have shown no adverse effects, including no increased body weight. “Our conclusion is that there is no risk to human health,” said Hentges.

But many scientists disagree, including vom Saal, who called the ACC’s statements a “blatant lie.”

Research into the impact of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on obesity has been done only in laboratory animals, but the genetic receptors that control fat cell activity are functionally identical across species. “They work virtually the same way in fish as they do in rodents and humans,” Blumberg said. “Fat cells are an endocrine organ.”

Ongoing studies are monitoring human levels of bisphenol A, but none have been done of tributyltin, which has been used since the 1960s and is persistent in the marine food web. “Tributyltin is the only endocrine disrupting chemical that has been shown without substantial argument to have an effect at levels at which it’s found in the environment,” Blumberg said.

Concern over tributyltin’s reproductive effects on marine animals has resulted in an international agreement discontinuing its use in anti-fouling paints used on ships. The EPA has said it plans next year to assess its other applications, including as an antimicrobial agent in livestock operations, fish hatcheries and hospitals.

Bisphenol A is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in consumer products, and the agency says the amount of bisphenol A or tributyltin that might leach from products is too low to be of concern. But the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, is reviewing bisphenol A, and concerns about its estrogenic effects prompted California legislators to propose banning it from certain products sold in-state, a move industry has fought vigorously.

Researchers said the next step is to learn if these apparent animal “obesogens” are affecting people.

“Our job is to follow the science, and based on these animal studies, this is worth taking a look at,” said Heindel of the NIEHS.

where got the story

State regulators fined California’s largest health insurance provider $1 million for violating state law, saying an investigation found that the company systematically dropped policyholders after they became sick or pregnant.

ADVERTISEMENT

Officials with the Department of Managed Health Care said they hoped the fine would prompt changes at Blue Cross of California, and they plan similar investigations into other health insurance providers in the state, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

The department’s findings could expose Blue Cross to legal liability in dozens of lawsuits filed by consumers who allege their policies were illegally canceled.

The investigation found that Blue Cross used computer programs and a dedicated department to cancel the policies of pregnant women and the chronically ill regardless of whether they lied on their applications about pre-existing medical conditions — a standard required by state law.

Regulators examined 90 randomly selected policy cancellations, out of about 1,000 a year in California, and found violations in each one. Blue Cross already is appealing a $200,000 fine the department imposed in September for rescinding one person’s policy, the first in an individual rescission case.

The report said the legal standard for cancellations is high because such action may put the policyholders’ health at risk by making it difficult to obtain care. Policy cancellations also hurt hospitals and physicians by denying them payment for treatment rendered in good faith and often with prior approval by the insurer.

“Rescinding health care coverage is a serious action, placing the enrollee at financial risk for the full amount of billed medical charges and potentially rendering the enrollee uninsurable,” the report said.

WellPoint Inc., Blue Cross’ Indianapolis-based parent company, disputed the findings in a detailed response filed with the department.

“Blue Cross has a rigorous and thoughtful process it follows in every case where rescission review occurs because health insurance is so critically important to each and every one of our members,” the company said in a statement Thursday.

Consumer advocates praised the state for its report but questioned whether the fine was substantial enough to affect WellPoint, which earned $3.09 billion in net profit last year on revenues of $56.95 billion.

“A $1 million fine for 100 cases makes business sense for Blue Cross because of the profit levels of the company,” said Jerry Flanagan, a patient advocate with the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights. “Blue Cross is reaping millions in savings by not paying for care.”

At issue are individual policies for people not covered through employers or other group plans. Insurers cannot deny coverage to members of group plans, but state law allows individual policies to be denied for pre-existing medical conditions.

In September, Blue Cross announced a series of revisions, including new language in its applications; new written policies and procedures; the creation of a new rescission review committee that includes at least one physician; and the appointment of a consumer ombudsman for rescission issues.

The company said it would continue working with regulators.

Department of Managed Health Care Director Cindy Ehnes said she hoped the fine would encourage Blue Cross to change its policies and set an example for other insurers.

The state investigation was fueled by a series of stories in the Los Angeles Times. The articles disclosed that Blue Cross, along with other insurers such as Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, routinely canceled coverage of individual policyholders whose medical care resulted in large claims, prompting some to lose their homes or suffer other hardships.

Where I got the story

The use of drugs to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) skyrocketed between 1993 and 2003, according to a study in “Health Affairs.” The prescription of such drugs nearly quadrupled, while global spending on them increased by a factor of nine.

What you need to know - Conventional View
• Between 1993 and 2003, the use of medications to treat ADHD increased by 274 percent.

• Eighty-three percent of the increase in spending on ADHD drugs took place in the United States. The United States, Canada, and Australia all prescribed the drugs at rates higher than the global average.

• In the United Kingdom, where differences in neurological development are more likely to be seen as a part of natural human variation, prescriptions of ADHD medications still grew by 12.3 percent between 1999 and 2003, with spending increasing by 30.8 percent.

• ADHD is claimed to be a persistent and chronic neurological disorder, the primary symptoms of which are hyperactivity, poor attention span, and low impulse control. There is no biological or physiological test to diagnose ADHD.

• There is no “cure” for ADHD, but a variety of medications are used to treat the symptoms. Study leader Richard Scheffler, of the University of California-Berkeley, said that one in 25 children and adolescents in the United States is currently taking ADHD medication.

• Quote: “ADHD could become the leading childhood disorder treated with medications across the globe.” - Richard Scheffler

What you need to know - Alternative View
Statements and opinions by Mike Adams, author of Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them

• ADHD is a fictitious disease invented by drug companies to sell patented chemicals to children.

• The rise in ADHD prescriptions is based entirely on the marketing of the disease and has nothing to do with evidence-based medicine.

• ADHD symptoms can be alleviated in as little as two weeks with simple dietary changes such as avoiding processed foods, additives and sugary beverages.

Resources you need to know
• See Dr. Fred Baughman at http://www.adhdfraud.org

• Download the free interview with Dr. Baughman at http://www.naturalhealthlibrary.com

WhereI got the Article

By the year 2013, nearly every American will be outfitted with a new digital ID card, according to a recent Bush administration announcement. Opponents of this legislation have been advising states to publicly oppose a system that is insufficient in protecting privacy and strips people of their identity.

Jump directly to: conventional view | resources | bottom line

What you need to know - Conventional View
• The Real ID Act is controversial legislation intended to deter terrorism by establishing national standards for state-issued identification cards.

• The Bush administration is expected to sign an $82 billion military spending bill that will, in part, create electronically readable, federally approved ID cards for all Americans.

• The U.S. State Department soon will begin issuing passports with radio frequency identification (RFID) chips embedded in them.

• This announcement by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security offers a five-year extension to the deadline for states to issue these ID cards.

• Homeland Security plans to issue RFID devices to foreign visitors who enter the country through Canada or Mexico.

• Homeland Security is considering standardizing a “unique design or color for Real ID licenses” in order to create a uniform national ID card, according to CNET News.

• A national database of digital ID cards is being proposed to include the details of all 240 million drivers’ licenses in the U.S.

• Real IDs will include the driver’s home address and other personal information printed on the front, and in a two-dimensional bar code on the back.

• States must submit a plan on how they’ll comply with the Real ID Act by October 2007, or their residents will not be able to board planes or enter federal buildings starting in May 2008.
• Some state governments have stated their opposition to the Real ID Act, with at least eight states (including Arizona, Georgia, and Vermont) approving anti-Real ID bills by one or both chambers of the legislature.

DECATUR - David and Eileen Wetzel don’t get going in the morning quite as early as they used to.

So David Wetzel, 79, was surprised to hear a knock on the door at their eastside home while he was still getting dressed.

Two men in suits were standing on his porch.

“They showed me their badges and said they were from the Illinois Department of Revenue,” Wetzel said. “I said, ‘Come in.’ Maybe I shouldn’t have.”

Gary May introduced himself as a special agent. The other man, John Egan, was introduced as his colleague. May gave the Wetzels his card, stating that he is the senior agent in the bureau of criminal investigations.

“I was afraid,” Eileen Wetzel said. “I came out of the bathroom. I thought: Good God, we paid our taxes. The check didn’t bounce.”

The agents informed the Wetzels that they were interested in their car, a 1986 Volkswagen Golf, that David Wetzel converted to run primarily from vegetable oil but also partly on diesel.

Wetzel uses recycled vegetable oil, which he picks up weekly from an organization that uses it for frying food at its dining facility.

“They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay a motor fuel tax,” David Wetzel recalled. “Mr. May also told me the tax would be retroactive.”

Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple, who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and threatened with felony charges.

State legislators have rallied to help the Wetzels.

State Sen. Frank Watson, R-Greenville, introduced Senate Bill 267, which would curtail government interference regarding alternative fuels, such as vegetable oil. A public hearing on the bill will be at 1 p.m. today in Room 400 of the state Capitol.

“I would agree that the bond is not acceptable, $2,500 bond,” Watson said, adding that David Wetzel should be commended for his innovative efforts. “(His car) gets 46 miles per gallon running on vegetable oil. We all should be thinking about doing without gasoline if we’re trying to end foreign dependency.

“I think it’s inappropriate of state dollars to send two people to Mr. Wetzel’s home to do this. They could have done with a more friendly approach. It could have been done on the phone. To use an intimidation factor on this - who is he harming? Two revenue agents. You’d think there’s a better use of their time,” Watson said.

The Wetzels, who plan to speak at a Senate hearing in Springfield today, recalled how their struggle with the revenue department unfolded.

According to the Wetzels, May told them during his Jan. 4 visit that they would have to pay taxes at either the gasoline rate of 19½ cents per gallon or the diesel rate of 21½ cents per gallon.

A retired research chemist and food plant manager, Wetzel produced records showing he has used 1,134.6 gallons of vegetable oil from 2002 to 2006. At the higher rate, the tax bill would come to $244.24.

“That averages out to $4.07 a month,” Wetzel noted, adding he is willing to pay that bill.

But the Wetzels would discover that the state had more complicated and costly requirements for them to continue to use their “veggie mobile.”

David Wetzel was told to contact a revenue official and apply for a license as a “special fuel supplier” and “receiver.” After completing a complicated application form designed for businesses, David Wetzel was sent a letter directing him to send in a $2,500 bond.

Eileen Wetzel, a former teaching assistant, calculated that the bond, designed to ensure that their “business” pays its taxes, would cover the next 51 years at their present usage rate.

A couple of weeks later, David Wetzel received another letter from the revenue department, stating that he “must immediately stop operating as a special fuel supplier and receiver until you receive special fuel supplier and receiver licenses.”

This threatening letter stated that acting as a supplier and receiver without a license is a Class 3 felony. This class of felonies carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

On the department of revenue’s Web site, David Wetzel discovered that the definition of special fuel supplier includes someone who operates a plant with an “active bulk storage capacity of not less than 30,000 gallons.” Wetzel also did not fit the definition of a receiver, described as a person who produces, distributes or transports fuel into the state. So Wetzel withdrew his application to become a supplier and receiver.

Mike Klemens, spokesman for the department of revenue, explained that Wetzel has to register as a supplier because the law states that is the only way he can pay motor fuel tax.

But what if he is not, in fact, a supplier? Then would he instead be exempt from paying the tax?

“We are in the process of creating a way to simplify the registration process and self-assess the tax,” Klemens said, adding that a rule change may be in place by spring.

David Wetzel wonders why hybrid cars, which rely on electricity and gasoline, are not taxed for the portion of travel when they are running on electrical power. He said he wants to be treated equally by the law.

David Wetzel, who has been exhibiting his car at energy fairs and universities, views state policies as contradicting stated government aims.

“You hear the president saying we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Wetzel said. “You hear the governor saying that.”

State Rep. Bob Flider, D-Mount Zion, also plans to support legislation favoring alternative fuels.

“I’m disappointed that the Illinois Department of Revenue would go after Mr. Wetzel,” Flider said. “I don’t think it is a situation that merits him being licensed and paying fees.

“The people at the department of revenue apparently feel they need to regulate him in some way. We want to make sure that he is as free as he can be to use vegetable oil. He’s an example of ingenuity. Instead of being whacked on the head, he should be encouraged.”

Huey Freeman can be reached at hfreeman@herald-review.com or 421-6985.

Subscribe to the Herald & Review by Clicking Here!

Where I got the story

There is a reality about weight loss that people need to be aware of. Losing weight requires you to feel hungry from time to time. There is no way to lose weight without feeling some degree of hunger. Believe me, I have exhaustively explored this issue. I have tried appetite suppressants. I have tried food combinations. I have tried meal-timing strategies. I have tried just about everything natural under the sun to eliminate those hunger pangs and food cravings that you get when you are attempting to lose weight and there is nothing that completely eliminates those cravings. Hoodia gordonii helps, as I’ve stated in previous articles, but it by no means turns off your hunger like a light switch.
There are many strategies that help reduce hunger: avoiding refined carbohydrates, getting plenty of natural sunlight on your skin, drinking large amounts of water on a regular basis, and getting plenty of fiber in your diet. But there is nothing that absolutely eliminates hunger. The bottom line is that if you are going to lose weight, you are going to experience hunger at one time or another. This is especially true if you, like me, engage in strength training. Nothing gets your appetite whipped into a fury like the leg press.

The key in all this is realizing there’s nothing wrong with experiencing hunger from time to time. It’s a normal human response to a decrease in your consumption of calories. The problem that most people encounter when they feel hungry is they feel it’s some sort of emergency. It feels like they are dying or wasting away when, in fact, the body is just signaling that it doesn’t have enough calories to add new fat to the fat stores it’s already carrying around. The first feelings of hunger are really more of a false alarm than anything to be concerned about. At least from a logical point of view. (But when you feel like you’re starving, logic goes out the window, right?)

A person who is aiming for a low percentage of body fat learns to manage their hunger so that it becomes something they can live with. In my own experience with losing weight — and remember, I dropped 50 pounds of body fat using absolutely no drugs or pharmaceuticals of any kind — I found that there are several “lifesaving” foods and beverages you can turn to when you are feeling intense hunger pains but you don’t want to consume foods that add significant calories to your daily intake.

These foods and drinks are what I call emergency appetite control foods. What these foods and beverages have in common is that they make your stomach feel like it’s full of calorie-rich foods. But in reality, you are filling your stomach with foods that contain almost no calories or carbohydrates. This way, even though your stomach is full, you are not adding calories to your intake. But your body is temporarily fooled into thinking you’ve just woofed down a triple-plate buffet.

In other words, if you eat two cups of cashews versus two cups of cabbage, your body can’t really tell the difference for the first few minutes. Your stomach will turn off the hunger signals thinking you have eaten a large quantity of food regardless of whether you are eating cabbage or cashews, but in fact the cabbage may only contain 20 calories while the cashews contain as much as 900 or even 1000 calories. Two cups of cashews provides probably half the calories you need for the entire day, whereas two cups of cabbage provides virtually no calories whatsoever. You burn off the cabbage just digesting it. (Raw cabbage is, in fact, an outright cure for ulcers. But that’s another article…)

Emergency appetite control food #1
Fresh drinking water. That’s right: water is a powerful appetite suppressant and if you drink an 8-ounce glass of water when you first start feeling hungry, you will find that it suppresses your appetite in nearly every case. If you just drink a full glass of water and have the discipline to wait 10 minutes, you will find that your appetite is either completely gone or dramatically reduced.

Your next choice, if water does not do the trick for you, is to purchase a 32-ounce quart of natural, organic vegetable broth. You can get organic vegetable broth from Trader Joe’s, health food stores, or even many of the finer grocery stores that have a natural health section. The key is to get organic vegetable broth that does not contain excitotoxins. These are ingredients that cause neurological disorders because they overexcite and harm nerve cells. Those ingredients are MSG, yeast extract, autolyzed yeast extract, hydrolyzed vegetable proteins, and other similar ingredients. Warning: watch out for broth products made by Kitchen Basics. They claim their products don’t contain MSG or yeast extract, but when I tried their product, I experienced a massive “MSG headache” that tells me it contains free glutamic acid that isn’t listed on the label. (I’m very sensitive to MSG.) The brand of broth I buy is Trade Joe’s house brand, which does not contain free glutamic acid.

You can also choose organic chicken broth if you prefer the flavor of chicken. Once you have that, simply empty the entire quart into a very large bowl, heat it up and eat it like soup. You will probably be unable to get through the entire bowl without feeling full. And how many calories have you consumed? Not 900 like you get in two cups of cashews or 1200 like in a big Mac, not even 300 calories like you get from a typical protein bar, instead you get 20 calories only. That’s right: you can feel full on 20 calories by drinking an entire quart of organic vegetable broth.

Emergency appetite control food #2
The next best strategy is to turn to green vegetables such as lettuce, cabbage, bokchoy, and other leafy vegetables. They have so few calories that in my own diet, I don’t even count them. That’s right: I allow myself to eat an unlimited quantity of any green leafy vegetables without even recording the number of calories I have consumed. In my book, they are “free” foods.

It takes just as many calories for your body to digest them as you get out of the foods themselves. And yet at the same time, they fill your stomach and make you feel full, turning off the hunger signals in your brain. You may have also heard these called “negative calorie foods.”

You can consume these green leafy vegetables in a couple of ways. Most people don’t like to eat them plain. Instead, you can fill up a very large bowl (I am talking about something the size of a family dinner salad bowl) with lettuce and salad greens, then add only 100 calories worth of salad dressing. You will want to find some of the lower calorie salad dressings out there, and of course you want to avoid MSG, high-fructose corn syrup, and other ingredients in salad dressings. There are many very good salad dressings that only have 25 calories per tablespoon. Using those dressings, you can put four tablespoons of salad dressing on your salad and start munching away. In a few minutes, you will feel quite full and yet will have only consumed 100 calories that count. Remember the calories for the green leafy vegetables are free. You only count the calories of the salad dressing itself. This is an excellent way to fill your stomach and turn off your hunger signals while only giving yourself 100 calories.

Another strategy that uses green leafy vegetables is to stir fry them in a pan with no oils whatsoever. Just use water and flavoring such as onions, garlic and soy sauce. Simply stir fry all the green vegetables you want, add the spices and eat it. I do not count the calories in onions or garlic either, nor do I count the calories in soy sauce since none of these spices have very high calorie density. As a result, that entire meal goes in your stomach and counts for zero calories. Once again, it’s a great way to curb you appetite without consuming large quantities of calorie rich food.

Emergency appetite control food #3
This is one of my favorites: I call it my “instant banana pudding” recipe, but of course, it’s nothing at all like store-bought pudding. You’ll need a blender for this one.

Add a quart of soy milk to the blender, then a couple of scoops of unsweetened banana-flavored simply natural spirutein soy protein powder. (Sources are listed in the downloadable book, “Secret Sources.” Add stevia powder as the sweetener. I also toss in some supergreens powders, but you may want to avoid that at first, since it’s an acquired taste (and it turns your banana pudding green).

If you were to blend this up, you’d have a banana-flavored soy protein shake. But we’re not done yet: while the blender is running, put in about 1/2 tablespoon of guar gum powder, plus another 1/2 tablespoon of xanthan gum powder. These are thickeners. Within seconds, your blender will start whining and the whole mixture will attain the consistency of pudding. Now just pour it into a bowl and eat it like banana pudding! The mixture has near-zero carbs, no sugars, and is high in soy protein. Plus, it tastes great and fills you up fast. This is my favorite choice for a late-night appetite emergency.

You can get guar gum and xanthan gum at a health food store, or order online at a vitamin supplier.

Emergency appetite control food #4:
The last food is pickles. That’s right, pickles. But I am not talking about the pickles you find at a regular grocery store. Nearly all pickles you find in grocery stores contain artificial food coloring. They have a yellowish tint to them that has been added through the use of chemical colors. This is not a natural ingredient and so it is something you want to avoid purchasing. Instead, you want to buy completely natural pickles like the ones you get at Trader Joe’s that are made without artificial colors or flavors and that have an extremely low calorie count as well. An entire jar of pickles may give you only 50 calories or so and yet they can be quite satisfying and take up a considerable amount of space in your stomach, thereby turning off your appetite cravings.

Just don’t buy pickles containing any added sugars or artificial colors. Some pickles are, believe it or not, loaded with sugar. They’re more like candied cucumbers than pickles. Read the ingredients labels to be sure what you’re getting.

By the way, while you’re eating pickles, it’s an excellent time to take some calcium and mineral supplements, too. The acidity of the pickles will accelerate the absorption of calcium.

Emergency appetite control food #5:
Here’s an easy one: apples. Yep, apples. Eat the largest apple you can find. Sure, you’ll get some calories and some carbs, but the apple will fill you up for quite a while, and that will stop you from eating far more calorie-dense foods.

Let me explain why this is such an effective strategy. If you’re crazy hungry, it’s very easy to reach for some processed foods (bag of chips, for example) and start munching away until you’ve consumed 1000 calories or more. And that’s about half the total calories you need for the entire day!

But I dare you to try to eat 1000 calories worth of apples. It’s impossible. You’ll fill up even before reaching 400 calories, probably. Apples are great appetite suppressing foods because the bulky fiber fills up your stomach and turns off your appetite control hormones before you overeat. Plus, apples contain various phytonutrients, vitamins and minerals. They’re even a decent source of folic acid.

How to further suppress your appetite:
One more supplementary strategy to all of this is that you can multiply the appetite suppressing effects of all foods by swallowing a couple of fiber tablets before you begin eating. Fiber tablets or capsules would include psyllium husk, glucomannan, oat bran fiber, apple pectin fiber, or other natural fibers. You can find fiber supplements at any health food store. Be careful to watch the dosage of the fiber and drink plenty of water as you take these pills because without adequate water, they can gum up in your digestive tract and in extreme cases, they can block your digestive tract. So, you want to drink plenty of water with them.

By consuming both the fiber and the water before you start eating, you’ve already significantly turned off your appetite. Then by consuming these extremely low caloric density foods and beverages, you will further suppress your appetite. You can get an entire meal into your stomach for 100 calories or less and you can trick your brain into thinking you consumed an all-you-can-eat buffet.

But there’s a catch to all this: in about an hour or so, your body will figure out that there isn’t much energy in the food you’ve consumed. Your hunger will begin to return, but at least you delayed the onset of that hunger by an hour or more. If you combine this with physical exercise, you can delay it even further because the very act of exercising releases stored body fat and converts it back into blood sugar, which raises your blood sugar level and suppresses your appetite cravings.

You can also extend the effect of this by taking appetite suppressant supplements. Hoodia gordonii is one I’ve reviewed quite extensively, and it is currently increasing in popularity. My own experience is that hoodia tincture can help, but even hoodia doesn’t shut off appetite completely.

Also, you don’t want to starve yourself by eating these 100-calorie meals all day long. Remember, starvation is the fastest way to train your body to hold on to body fat. These are just items to get you past a difficult time when your appetite is unbearably intense.

Each day, you still need to get nutrition into your body in the form of whole foods and whole food supplements. The kind of meals I consume are soups made with quinoa, salads with low-calorie dressing, raw fruits and nuts, or avocado shakes made by blending avocado with soy milk and stevia. Of course, I also consume my superfood shakes on a regular basis. They are made from superfoods green powders such as Berry Green or The Ultimate Meal.

Overall, keep in mind that weight loss takes effort. You will experience moments of intense hunger, and these low-calorie, filling foods are one excellent way to get through a difficult time without packing on the pounds

where I got the story

The idea of health freedom is one Americans likely never consider. Certain freedoms in this country are taken for granted — like the freedoms of speech and religion — so freedom to choose a method of health care seems a given. Unfortunately, recent cases have brought to the public’s attention the startling truth that the government can (and does) make medical decisions for Americans, whether or not they agree.
This is especially the case concerning parents’ decisions to treat their children’s diseases with alternative therapies over traditional, and often harmful, treatments. The most recent in a host of such cases involves a 16-year-old Virginia boy named Abraham Cherrix, who was diagnosed in August 2005 with Hodgkin’s disease — a cancer of the lymph nodes. After his initial diagnosis, Abraham submitted to chemotherapy, which made him feel sick and weak. His cancer went into brief remission before returning earlier this year, when he decided he would not undergo more chemotherapy, but rather try alternative herbal treatments. Abraham’s parents supported their son’s decision and began taking him to the Hoxsey Clinic in Mexico for treatments involving cancer-fighting herbs and an organic diet.

The story should end there. Abraham and his parents should be taking their son to the clinic in Tijuana, with no interference. However, the Virginia Department of Social Services decided to get involved, and asked the state court to require Abraham’s parents to return him to a hospital in Virginia for conventional treatment, which would include stronger chemotherapy than he’d previously undergone, as well as radiation therapy. The court agreed and ordered Abraham’s parents to give consent for their son to be treated with harsh chemo treatments at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters in Norfolk.

That’s right: The court ordered his parents to give consent, which flies in the face of the spirit of “consent,” which by definition involves a willing agreement between the consenting parties. Fortunately for their son’s health, Abraham’s parents refused, and an ongoing court battle began — but for how long can Abraham’s family fend off the courts seeking to subject their son to a “therapy” that comes with side effects ranging from pain and hair loss to vomiting and infections?

Does the state own your body?
Americans should be disturbed by Abraham’s ordeal, regardless of whether or not they believe alternative treatments work. As Abraham’s family lawyer put it: “This is not a case about what treatment is best. It’s a case about who gets to decide.” Other recent cases of health authorities revoking parents’ rights to treat their children with natural therapies eclipse even Abraham’s nightmare.
Take, for instance, the case of 13-year-old Katie Wernecke, a Texas girl diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease in January 2005. After her parents took her to the hospital for what they believed was pneumonia, she was treated with chemotherapy, and doctors also wanted to give her radiation therapy. Her parents declined, citing possible complications such as stunted growth, an increase in breast cancer risk and learning difficulties. They opted to try an alternative therapy involving high doses of intravenous vitamin C, but before they got to try the much safer therapy, Texas Child Protective Services intervened.

Unlike Abraham’s case, Katie was taken away from her parents after they were labeled “neglectful” by the state, and her mother was arrested and thrown in jail for taking Katie to hide at a family ranch to avoid the ordered “treatment.”

On a June 9 episode of NBC’s “Today Show,” viewers saw a videotaped statement from Katie, who said, “I don’t need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It’s my body.”

Apparently, the state of Texas disagreed with the ownership of Katie’s body — a district court judge eventually ruled that the Werneckes would be allowed to treat Katie with the vitamin C treatments, but only after she underwent five days of court-ordered chemotherapy. What’s worse, her parents weren’t allowed to be with her during the chemo they’d fought so hard to avoid.

Outrage at medical terrorism is compounded by efforts of medical establishment to silence cancer cures
People might be justifiably outraged to hear of Abraham’s and Katie’s trials, or they might believe that the government acted in the best interest of the young patients in attempting to force on them the only known “treatment” for cancer. Hold the phone, though. What would Americans think if they heard that traditional cancer treatments are not the only therapy, and that safe, effective cancer cures have been around for decades? Moreover, what would they think if they heard that trusted medical establishments charged with protecting the health of Americans — such as the American Medical Association — have waged a decades-long battle against such cancer cures in an attempt to keep them from the public?
Enter Harry Hoxsey, founder of the “Hoxsey Method” with which Abraham Cherrix is attempting to treat his cancer. Hoxsey is the great-grandson of John Hoxsey, an American physician who discovered a remarkably effective cancer cure in 1840 by watching horses with cancer cure themselves by foraging for certain rare herbs.

Harry Hoxsey, a coal miner with no formal medical training, began promoting his great-grandfather’s cancer formula — which contained a number of herbs, including bloodroot, burdock, red clover, licorice root, pokeroot, barberry root, buckthorn, prickly ash, stillingia root and cascara — in the 1930s. He also marketed a salve for external cancers, called an “escharotic,” which essentially burns off external cancers. His treatments proved amazingly effective at curing cancer, and word of his cancer treatments spread. People from all over the country — including “terminal” patients conventional doctors had given up on — sought out his treatments, no matter where he was practicing, and a high number of them were successfully cured.

Hoxsey was not a doctor, and could not legally practice medicine — even if he was offering genuine cancer cures — so to stay in business, he partnered with various MDs throughout his life, letting them do the official “treatments” while he acted as “technician.” Though he never claimed to be a licensed physician, he was arrested hundreds of times over the course of his life, mostly for practicing medicine without a license — including 119 arrests between 1926 and 1931 alone. According to Ralph W. Moss’ “Herbs Against Cancer,” Hoxsey had even taken to carrying $10,000 in cash every day to bail himself out of jail.

At the height of his popularity in the 1950s, Hoxsey was operating a chain of cancer clinics in Texas, and had seven licensed physicians working for him. He’d earned a Doctorate of Naturopathy in Texas, and helped tens of thousands of patients cure their cancer without surgery, chemotherapy or radiation, using herbal treatments and escharotic therapies.

Organized medicine’s campaign to eradicate cancer cures
People may wonder why the American public hasn’t heard of Hoxsey, if his treatments were so effective and cured so many. The answer is because large-scale, vicious attacks by U.S. health agencies eventually sent Hoxsey packing to Mexico, where he could finally practice herbal healing in relative peace. One might also wonder what “health” agency would ever knowingly drive a cure for cancer out of the country. The American Medical Association (AMA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) would, just to name a few.
Why? Cliché as it may sound, they did it for political power. The AMA has historically been considered the “gold standard” of Western medicine — a privilege that comes with vast control over what is and is not considered genuine medicine. Efforts to preserve and gain such political power have garnered the AMA a shady history rife with efforts to suppress natural and alternative treatments. For example, a small group of chiropractors won a landmark antitrust suit against the AMA in 1990 in the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th circuit, which ruled the AMA had violated the Sherman Act by “conducting an illegal boycott in restraint of the trade directed at chiropractors generally, and at the four plaintiffs in particular,” This demonstrates the association’s willingness to target entire alternative fields, as well as individuals within them.

Though a large part of the AMA’s stated mission is to be “an essential force for progress in improving the nation’s health,” it was without a doubt Hoxsey’s biggest enemy, and is largely responsible for driving him and his treatments out of the country. Morris Fishbein, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) — the AMA’s flagship medical journal — from 1924 to 1949, particularly targeted Hoxsey and his therapy, labeling Hoxsey a “quack” while simultaneously refusing to study his therapies or their efficacy. Fishbein went out of his way to sully Hoxsey’s name in JAMA publications, and was eventually found guilty of libeling Hoxsey in two 1947 suits. “Fishbein had written an ‘excoriating editorial’ in JAMA titled ‘Hoxsey — Cancer Charlatan.’ He also co-authored an article in the Hearst newspaper chain’s weekly newsmagazine, titled ‘Blood Money,’” writes Moss in “Herbs Against Cancer.” Without evidence, Fishbein’s JAMA articles attacked Hoxsey’s treatment, claiming it “ate into blood vessels” and killed patients, Moss writes.

The FDA used money and corrupt political influence to chase Hoxsey out of America, state by state
The FDA, for its part in the Hoxsey debacle, used its influence to get courts in the states in which Hoxsey tried to practice to revoke the licenses of the physicians he worked with. “The FDA had limitless financial and publicity resources,” writes Moss. “When Hoxsey employed physicians to give his treatment, Texas courts revoked their licenses and forbade him from operating a clinic. When he turned the clinic over to someone else, FDA secured a court order requiring the Hoxsey clinic to write individually to all patients and inform them that the treatment was no longer available. The final blow came on October 29, 1958 when the FDA simultaneously padlocked his clinics in a single day.” Hoxsey’s longtime nurse and current operator of his clinic in Mexico, Mildred Nelson, said, “In no way did Harry have the money to fight that state by state.”
The NCI helped eradicate the Hoxsey method from U.S. soil in a somewhat different manner — by giving him hope that the government would finally investigate his treatment, only to let him down on more than one occasion.

In 1945, Hoxsey met with three congressmen at the NCI offices in Maryland, where NCI director R.R. Spencer laid out the details of what the institute would need to review Hoxsey’s method. Hoxsey went back to Texas and compiled above and beyond what the NCI had asked for, only to be told that his information was too incomplete and fragmented for investigation. However, in 1947, the NCI asked him to resubmit the information he’d sent before, for reconsideration by new staff members at the institute. He sent it, and soon received a reply that his records were still inadequate for consideration, and no government investigation would occur.

However, Hoxsey’s cancer cures were not entirely without government approval. Dr. John Heinerman writes in “Natural Pet Cures” that: “A Dallas judge ruled in federal court that Hoxsey’s therapy was ‘comparable to surgery, radium and x-ray in its effectiveness, without the destructive side effects of those treatments.’ (Hoxsey) faced unrelenting opposition and harassment from a hostile medical establishment. The AMA, NCI, and FDA organized a ‘conspiracy’ to ’suppress’ a fair, unbiased assessment of Hoxsey’s methods, according to a 1953 report to Congress.”

In spite of that court’s approval, Hoxsey’s clinics in Dallas were shut down in the 1950s, and he moved his practice to Mexico. Hoxsey died in 1974, and his nurse, Mildred Nelson, has carried the torch at the Tijuana-based Bio-Medical Center ever since, caring for patients such as Abraham Cherrix.

Hoxsey’s cancer cures really work
Though the government agencies that drove Hoxsey from the United States never bothered to test his therapy and called him a “quack” out of hand because he did not have a medical license, research has proven the efficacious effects of the herbs in his formulas.
For example, red clover has long been used as an herbal remedy for cancer, infections, tumors and menopause symptoms. It also supports the immune system and the blood. Burdock fights skin disorders and cancer, and supports the liver, skin and immune system. Licorice root is used for a myriad of health conditions ranging from inflammation and arthritis to cancer and heart disease. It supports the immune system, the blood, and the function of the spleen.

Pokeroot has shown anti-cancer properties, especially for breast cancers. Similarly, bloodroot is a powerful fighter against skin cancer. Cascara is a natural treatment for leukemia and liver disorders, and supports liver and gallbladder function. Stillingia root also treats skin conditions and acts as a blood purifier.

Though Hoxsey’s formula often uses broad combinations of powerful herbs such as red clover and bloodroot, as well as many others, his formula is adapted to specially fit each individual patient, adding or removing herbal components case-by-case. The Hoxsey method also incorporates a healthy organic diet, along with vitamins and immune stimulation. While official government studies have never been performed, other forms of honest evidence support the benefits and success of Hoxsey’s method.

“Today substantial laboratory data indicates that the Hoxsey herbal tonic could have genuine value against cancer,” writes Kenny Ausubel in “When Healing Becomes A Crime.” Ausubel continues, “Thousands of patients believe it saved their lives. There is no dispute that the Hoxsey remedies for external cancer are effective. Over the course of this century, numerous prominent figures including senators, congressmen, judges, and even doctors have affirmed Hoxsey’s reputed cures and repeatedly called for an investigation. Why, then, has it taken so long? The answer is buried in medical politics. It revolves around a fierce trade war fought over money as well as fundamental conflict of medical opinion. Its consequence has been the exclusion and outright suppression of Hoxsey as well as numerous other unorthodox cancer therapies.”

Alternative practitioners suffer from medical establishment’s meddling, but patients suffer more
Unfortunately, Hoxsey’s therapy is far from the only alternative treatment to be railroaded by conventional medical authorities. Unorthodox medical therapies have been forced to relocate to Mexico and other countries free of the red tape surrounding American medical politics.
Who suffers most from such medical bias and political lust? Sure, the alternative practitioners suffer, but so do countless Americans who are kept in the dark about natural, effective, safe treatments for diseases traditional practitioners treat with toxic chemotherapy and radiation — which seem to kill the patients more often than save them. What’s worse, the U.S. medical establishment seems to have convinced much of the country that its poisonous cancer “treatments” are the only option, and anyone who does not subject themselves or their children to it are criminals who must be punished.

“Since the early 1970s when President Nixon declared the War on Cancer, two trillion dollars have been spent on conventional cancer treatment and research, with the result that more Americans are dying of cancer than ever before,” writes Walter Last in “The Natural Way to Heal: 65 Ways to Create Superior Health.”

That’s $2 trillion down the drain studying dangerous treatments that likely cause cancer as often as they temporarily delay its symptoms. Meanwhile, how much money does the FDA, AMA and NCI waste forcing holistic therapies like Hoxsey’s out of the country? Today, such agencies have the public convinced that anyone seeking alternative therapies for serious diseases like cancer is misguided, uninformed and naive, and must be forced to submit to conventional treatments ostensibly for their own good, even if it is against their will.

A foundational principle of the United States is the freedom of its citizens to choose what is best for them, including how best to treat disease. With cases like Abraham Cherrix and Katie Wernecke seeing increasing media coverage, perhaps Americans will begin to realize how close they are to losing their health freedom. Medical agencies have already won many of the health freedom battles by successfully driving alternative therapies from U.S. soil, but it is far from too late for such offenses to be reversed. Americans may yet re-win their right to be in charge of their own bodies, regardless of the medical political scheming of the AMA, FDA and NCI.

Perhaps Abraham Cherrix says it best: “I think it’s my body. I can choose what’s best for my body. If I don’t have the right to do that, then I don’t have any rights at all anyway.”

WHERE I GOT THE STORY

The next time you buy soft-gel vitamins, you’d better take a look at what’s inside them. Would you be surprised if I told you that vitamin companies are taking one of the most toxic food ingredients known to mankind and putting it in soft gels as a filler? It’s absolutely true. You can find it in vitamins and supplements in health food stores, grocery stores, price discount warehouse clubs, retailers and pharmacies all over the country and around the world right now. What toxic ingredient am I referring to? Partially hydrogenated soybean oil.
Today, anyone who follows nutrition knows that hydrogenated oils are extremely toxic. We know that, long-term, they will lead to cardiovascular disease and heart attacks. They can even encourage strokes. We know that they cause harm, sometimes irreparable, to the nervous system. We know that they interfere with the absorption of the essential fatty acids you need to maintain healthy cells, a healthy nervous system, healthy blood sugar regulation and many other functions.

Big Pharma manufactures vitamins, too
And yet, vitamin companies – the cheap ones – are taking this ingredient and putting it in soft gels as filler. And that’s not the only ingredient they’re putting in, either. Some vitamin companies are taking artificial colors – that’s right, chemicals extracted from coal tar – and putting them in not only soft gels but in tablets and capsules, too.
Now, why on earth would a vitamin company do this? The answer is because some of these companies aren’t at all interested in health. In fact, the dirty little secret of the nutritional supplements industry is that many of these companies are wholly or partially owned by pharmaceutical companies, so these vitamin manufacturers think they can standardize, process and manufacture vitamins in the same way they manufacture prescription drugs (which is an entirely unnatural process, by the way).

When companies manufacture prescription drugs, they really don’t care what goes into them as long as the active ingredient is there. Prescription drugs, in addition to containing highly toxic chemicals that are supposed to be medicinal, also contain highly toxic fillers, colors and other additives that sometimes even counteract the intended effect of the drug. When those pharmaceutical companies decide to branch out into nutritional supplements because it’s a hot industry, they, of course, carry over these same manufacturing practices to nutritional supplements. This is why you don’t want to get your supplements from these mega corporations that are actually owned by Big Pharma. It’s better to get something from smaller, more passionate companies.

I don’t necessarily mean “mom-and-pop” shops, but I mean companies that are solely focused on health, even if they do happen to be commercially successful. Companies like New Chapter, Nature’s Way, Now Foods, Garden of Life or Jay Robb Enterprises (which has outstanding whey protein, soy protein and egg protein products). These are a few of the many companies that seem to really care about health and they avoid using toxic ingredients, whereas many other supplement companies don’t care at all what they put in there, as long as they can claim something on the label.

What you see is not always what you get
When you’re buying a soft gel capsule, you would normally think that what goes inside that soft gel is what’s stated on the label. It makes sense, right? So if the label on that vitamin bottle says “salmon oil,” and you take out a soft gel and look at it, you would think it’s filled with salmon oil, right? This is what most people think. This is common sense. But in fact, it is incorrect.
You might be amazed to learn this, but that soft gel may not be filled with salmon oil at all; it may have a miniscule amount of salmon oil in it, but the rest of it is just filler. It could be soybean oil, hydrogenated oils or some other form of filler. It could be something that’s actually dangerous to your health, so you’d better read the ingredients labels on those vitamins, minerals and supplements, in addition to reading the ingredients labels on foods, as I’ve always recommended. Watch out! Just because you buy something that looks good on the label – something that claims to have flax oil, salmon oil or vitamin B in it – it doesn’t mean it’s actually good for you.

How to put a negative spin on healthy vitamins: Use cheap vitamins to skew results
Now, of course, researchers have also figured all this out. If I’m a researcher in organized medicine and my mission is to discredit vitamins, these are the vitamins I buy and use in my research. If I wanted to ensure that I had a study saying vitamin E causes an increase in heart attacks, you know how I would do it? I would buy vitamin E soft-gel products that have hydrogenated soybean oil as filler, so that I could be absolutely sure that this study would come out showing an increase of heart attacks. Then, I could write a headline that says, “Vitamin E Kills People!”
Following that study, if I were associated with the right school or university or the right medical group, I could send out a press release to all the newspapers around the country or around the world and they would blindly print that headline. People would be all over TV and radio talking about how vitamin E kills you.

How do I accomplish that? I just choose a soft gel container with hydrogenated oils as the toxic filler ingredients because I, as an evil researcher, know that these journalists are not going to ask questions. No one’s going to look at this study and see what the other filler ingredients were. No one’s going to do anything other than reprint whatever I fax them. Why? Because I’m associated with a medical school or a university, that’s why. That’s how it works out there. That’s the real world of nutritional supplements “research.”

Of course, none of that has anything to do with reality because, in the real world, vitamin E is extremely healthy. It’s very good for you, even in higher doses than most people take, and it’s found naturally in nuts and seeds. Salmon oil is also very good for your health in many ways; not just your heart health, but also for your nervous system health, for stabilizing blood sugar and for providing nutrition and lubrication to some of the cells, organs and tissues in your body.

There are so many healthy products out there. It’s just a shame when these companies take healthy oils, vitamins and minerals and package them in unhealthy containers. They package them in tablets, capsules and soft gels that have other ingredients that will actually harm you if you take them with enough frequency and duration.

Take your healthy vitamins correctly to see results
This is why I have consistently recommended that you get your nutrition from eating whole foods, superfoods or nutritional supplements made from whole food concentrates. Of course, there are some nutrients that you can’t get that way, like cod liver oil and salmon oil, but there are companies out there that really care about the quality of their oils and aren’t going to give you garbage. In terms of cod liver oils, one of my top recommendations is Nordic Naturals. They will give you a quality product without a bunch of harmful fillers.

The truth about calcium supplements
In terms of calcium supplements, I know that calcium is one of the most common supplements out there and researchers have managed to finagle a study that even shows calcium supplements aren’t useful for boosting the bone density of elderly patients. People are being told that calcium is absolutely worthless if you don’t digest it and absorb it. So how do you do that?
Well, you certainly don’t take it with an antacid. That’s a ridiculous way to get calcium. Calcium needs to have an acidic environment in order to be broken down and assimilated by your digestive system. If you don’t have acid in your stomach, then you can’t absorb the calcium. And if you don’t have vitamin D in your small intestine, you can’t absorb the calcium, either. There are a lot of senior citizens out there who are spending small fortunes on calcium supplements and antacid tablets, but they’re not getting any sunshine. And that means they’re not getting enough vitamin D. With a vitamin D deficiency, they can’t even absorb the calcium. It’s either going right through their bodies or actually contributing to the buildup of calcification in their kidneys. So guess what? They’ll probably end up with kidney stones.

When I was at a discount warehouse club recently, I was looking at all these supplements – calcium, vitamin D, flax oil, cod liver oil and so on – and reading the ingredient labels, and I could only find one product that I would personally consume. Only one! I saw people buying these vitamins by the basket-load, thinking they were doing themselves some good. The only one I found that didn’t have any artificial ingredients or other garbage in it was organic flax oil. Every other product offered was garbage, in my view. Nutritionally, it was a disaster. I wouldn’t feed those supplements to any person or animal that I cared about.

So there you go. This is the nutritional supplement industry that a lot of people see. I know that these particular supplements are from the same manufacturers that you find making low-cost vitamins sold at grocery stores and pharmacies. It’s no wonder that some people have such a dim view of the nutritional supplements industry. They take these products and they feel worse.

Well, no wonder; you’ve just consumed toxic ingredients – not what was in the label, but what was listed in the fine print of the ingredients section. No wonder you feel worse; you’re just eating hydrogenated oils. You’re actually taking them as a supplement. What a foolish thing to do, but people do it every single day in this country.

Lawmakers deserve a lot of blame and shame for allowing this to go on, in my view. The fact that food manufacturers and vitamin supplement manufacturers can put highly toxic, death-promoting, disease-causing ingredients into your foods, products and supplements and sell them to you without warning labels is absolutely unconscionable. It’s near criminal that they allow this to happen.

Failing to warn consumers about toxic vitamin fillers should be a crime
Lawmakers have been asleep at the wheel. They’ve allowed food companies to run the system. They’ve allowed drug companies and nutritional supplement manufacturers to steamroll any attempt to protect the public, and that’s why all these dangerous, toxic, disease-promoting ingredients are still perfectly legal.
The FDA seemingly continues to actually support these ingredients. They haven’t done enough to try to outlaw them. It seems that from the FDA’s point of view, getting tough means sending a wimpy warning letter that says, “Oh, by the way, your ads are misleading people.” To them, it means requiring trans fats to be listed on foods. Never mind actually outlawing the ingredient.

In my opinion, the FDA should ban these ingredients. They should be outlawed. It should be a crime to put a toxic substance into a food product and sell it to a consumer. Shouldn’t that be a crime? I mean, if the world made sense, it would be a crime, especially now that we know these ingredients promote disease. It’s not even debatable anymore. Heck, even the FDA finally has admitted it and is requiring labels – warning labels, in a sense – that say, “Here’s how many grams of trans fat you have in this food.” That’s a warning label, folks. There is no nutritionist or doctor in his or her right mind who would argue that these ingredients are safe for long-term human consumption.

Yet every single day, we have consumers going into these discount club warehouse stores, pharmacies, grocery stores and even health food stores, buying these dangerous products, taking them home, consuming them and thinking that they are doing themselves some good. In fact, they are actually harming themselves. When I see this situation, I genuinely fear for the future of this nation; I really do. I’m not sure if we can ever get above water again, if we can ever overpower the financial interests of big business that have allowed this to happen (and have in fact lobbied for and defended it). It’s possible that we’re going to spiral out of control into a health collapse, where everybody is diseased from the moment they’re born, nutrition is nonexistent and everyone is financially beholden to this system of pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals and diagnostic labs because they’ve been labeled with various diseases that could have been solved or prevented by changing the food supply and outlawing dangerous ingredients.

You want to know the funny part in all of this? Everything I’ve been talking to you about, everything that I’m outraged about in this particular commentary, was found in the “healthy” section of this particular retailer. This was the health section, folks. This was the stuff that’s supposed to be good for you. The rest of that store was just outright garbage – products loaded with sugars and artificial colors, hydrogenated oils, high sodium, tons of preservatives (literally, tons of preservatives), sodium nitrate – just all kinds of unhealthy ingredients from top to bottom, stacked as high and as far as the eye can see in this warehouse retailer.

Spread the word: Your neighbors’ vitamins could be toxic
I believe we each have to do our part and stand up and speak the truth. That’s what I’m trying to do here. I’m telling everyone I meet and everyone I know, “You’ve been conned. You’ve been scammed by the system, by a bunch of manufacturers, a whole lot of big business and a good dose of government corruption thrown in to protect the system and make sure you never find out what is going on. You’ve been scammed.”
The only way to beat the scam is to get outside the system – get outside of conventional medicine, give up all these processed foods and move over to a healthy lifestyle where you actually have cognitive function and where you have mental awareness because you’re eating well. You’re eating real food, not that processed, manufactured garbage that passes for food in most peoples’ homes in the United States and everywhere around the world.

So if you have a friend or a family member who doesn’t know about this, and you’d like to either help them or annoy them (your pick), tell them what’s really in their vitamins. Show them: Pick up that vitamin bottle out of their cabinet, refrigerator, purse or wherever they happen to have it and point out that artificial color, that FD&C Red No. 2, yellow dye or whatever it happens to be in that particular vitamin. Point it out to them; show them the hydrogenated oils in these vitamins. Point out the sucrose, the corn syrup, propylene glycol or whatever else happens to be in there. Show them what they’re really consuming and then give them a better choice. Introduce them to a health food store in your local community that sells some quality products. Encourage them to go there if they really want to take care of their health.

It’s funny that people complain about how much money it costs to buy nutritional supplements. Then, they go out and spend a few dollars on vitamins that will actually make them sick. They think they’re getting a bargain. I say that you might as well spend your money on cigarettes, you know? You might as well eat some fried chicken. If you’re going to spend $6 on a bottle of vitamins that are bad for you, then skip the whole thing and just go eat some hamburgers at the local fast food restaurant or some cookies from the grocery store. Of course, I don’t recommend that anyone do any of that. I recommend you spend your money wisely on nutritional supplements, vitamins, minerals, and herbs from passionate, honest companies you can trust.

Of course, they’re going to be slightly more expensive, if not a lot more expensive. But aren’t you worth it? If you’re going through the trouble of taking these supplements, shouldn’t you put the best thing you can find into your body? Don’t you deserve healthy supplements, rather than supplements packaged with hydrogenated oils and other poisons that are legalized by our system of corrupt government and private industry? Shouldn’t you deserve the very best? I think so. Get the best and put that in your body. Be healthy. Thanks for reading. This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, for Truth Publishing.

read the copyrighted artical at

THINK YOUR FOOD IS SAFE COMMING FORM A PUBLIC TRAIDED COMPANY READ THE ARTICALE AND FIND OUT WHAT THE FDA SAYS

Chicken feed may present arsenic danger
Thursday, March 08, 2007

By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

New environmental and health concerns have hatched about an arsenic compound that’s been added to chicken feed since the 1960s to produce healthier, happier, bigger-breasted birds.

A study by Duquesne University researchers has found that the organic arsenic added to chicken feed is chemically transformed into inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, much more quickly than previously thought.

Related coverage
Some question chicken safety

Organic arsenic is added to the feed of some 70 percent of the 7 billion roasters grown annually in the United States. The inorganic arsenic is found in poultry waste, which is used as fertilizer.

That increases the risk that the inorganic arsenic will contaminate surface water and groundwater drinking supplies in farming areas where the chicken litter fertilizer is spread repeatedly, said John Stolz, professor of biology at Duquesne and co-author of the study reported in January in the peer-reviewed Environmental Science & Technology Online News.

“What goes into the ground is very different from the compound in the chicken feed,” Mr. Stolz said. “That the organic arsenic transforms much faster means we could get a bolus of the stuff going through the groundwater aquifer.”

Chicken producers in the United States use approximately 2.2 million pounds a year of a single arsenic feed additive, roxarsone, to control intestinal parasites, improve meat color, reduce stress and stimulate growth during the chickens’ six-week life span. More than 95 percent of the additive is excreted unchanged in the chicken waste, which is regularly applied as fertilizer to surrounding farm fields.

It was previously thought that the inorganic arsenic formed slowly in the waste applied to fields, but the Duquesne study by Mr. Stolz and Duquesne environmental chemist Partha Basu found bacteria accelerated the conversion, which occurs in as little as a week.

Chronic exposure to inorganic arsenic is known to cause cancer and has been linked to heart disease, diabetes and declines in brain functions.

While arsenic occurs naturally in the environment, it is also a byproduct of coal-burning power plants and industries, some mining operations and copper smelting. The addition of arsenic to the environment by those industrial sources is closely scrutinized and controlled, and its use in pesticides and as a preservative in pressure-treated wood has been banned because of health concerns and the difficulty of removing it from the environment. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is re-evaluating its approval of organic arsenic applications on golf courses to control weeds.

But its use in the meat industry has attracted attention only in recent years. One study discovered arsenic-laced fertilizer dust inside the homes of farm communities where the chicken litter-based fertilizer was applied. Because chicken production is geographically concentrated, the arsenic-contaminated waste creates a disposal problem and exposes more people to more arsenic.

Another study found arsenic in home garden fertilizer sold at lawn and garden stores, raising the risk that backyard gardeners will be exposed.

Mr. Stolz said he hoped his research, plus other recent reports about small amounts of the toxic arsenic showing up in the meat of chicken, will cause the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reconsider its approval of the chicken feed additive.

“This paper won’t convince the FDA, but the body of work out there may move it to act,” Mr. Stolz said. “Some big U.S. companies raise chickens without using roxarsone and appear to manage.”

The National Chicken Council, a Washington, D.C.-based trade organization for the industry, dismissed the Duquesne research as it has other studies.

“There’s never been any showings of human health risks from the addition of small amounts of roxarsone to the feed,” said Richard Lobb, a spokesman for the council.

The questions about arsenic’s environmental and health effects have led some to stop using it. The European Union declared the use of roxarsone undesirable in 1999, and its member nations no longer use it.

Tyson Foods, the nation’s second-biggest chicken producer, stopped using compounds containing arsenic in July 2004 after some negative publicity about roxarsone’s use, not because the arsenic additive is an environmental or health risk.

“We believe roxarsone is safe; however, public criticism of the product in recent years led to public misunderstanding and prompted us to suspend using it,” said Gary Mickelson, a Tyson spokesman. “We don’t want there to be any question about the safety of the food we produce.”

The biggest chicken farmer in Pennsylvania, Scott Sechler, doesn’t add arsenic to feed, either, choosing 20 years ago to grow premium-priced chickens in Lebanon County without the use of antibiotics or growth enhancers.

“I’m selling a million birds a week and I feed them what I would want to eat,” said Mr. Sechler, who markets the corn-and-soy-fed chickens under the Farmers Pride label and Bell & Evans, which is carried in Western Pennsylvania by Giant Eagle and Whole Foods.

He said most of the nation’s chicken industry is under intense pressure to produce bigger birds faster, and to hold down prices, which has led other producers to use antibiotics and arsenic feed additives.

Ellen Silbergeld, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, said the Stolz study showed that not only is the conversion of roxarsone into inorganic arsenic fast, it’s efficient and quite likely a serious pathway for the introduction of a known carcinogen into the environment.

“I am concerned about the potential contamination of groundwater with inorganic arsenic [in Maryland] because we have a lot of poultry farms, and most people here get their drinking water from groundwater,” Ms. Silbergeld said. Maryland produces 500 million broiler chickens a year, making it the 10th biggest chicken-producing state in the nation.

She said the FDA approved the use of roxarsone before enough was known about its environmental impacts. The FDA OK’d roxarsone in March 1944 and, by the mid-1960s, its use as a feed additive was widespread.

Mike Herndon, an FDA spokesman, said that, while the administration is aware of recent studies and environmental monitoring data by other government agencies, it “has no data to suggest that there have been any adverse health effects in humans” because of the roxarsone in chicken feed.

He said the Stolz study and others focused on environmental issues caused by roxarsone, not on the “residues in edible tissues,” which is the FDA’s regulatory responsibility. And the benefits of adding organic arsenic to chicken feed far outweigh the small increase in arsenic exposure to humans.

The EPA has set a limit on the amount of arsenic allowed in fertilizer applied to agricultural land, and Mr. Herndon said the arsenic levels in poultry litter from chickens fed roxarsone were under that limit.

In Pennsylvania, which produces about 150 million chickens a year, there are no regulations controlling the amount or type of arsenic in farm manure applications, according to the state Department of Agriculture.

Dale Kemery, an EPA spokesman, said the agency was not conducting its own research into roxarsone’s effects on water supplies. “However, EPA is monitoring work being done at other agencies,” he said, “and will consider the results of those studies for possible future action.”

But Ms. Silbergeld said thinking “nobody’s dead yet” and letting someone else do the testing is an inappropriate response by the chicken industry and government agencies charged with overseeing public health.

——————————————————————————–

(Don Hopey can be reached at dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983. )

In this users opinion DO NOT EAT CHICKEN FROM A PULBIC TRAIDED COMPANY. EAT ORGANIC CHICKEN THAT IS COSHER AND IS GROWN ON A FARM THAT LETS THE BIRDS ROMAN AND THAT IS RANGE FREE AND DOES NOT USE HORMANS OR CHICKEN FEED OR PESIDES. THIS MEANS THAT THEY LET THE CHICKENS EAT BUGS LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOST TO AND THEY DO NOT KEEP THEN INSDE WHERE THEY GET FAT IN WEEKS LIKE THE ARTICLE SAYS AND THEY DO NOT MAKE YOU SICK

Where I got the story

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. consumers will see higher grocery bills this year thanks to a surge in wholesale corn prices, pushed higher by an ethanol fuel boom, that will be passed on by food manufacturers, the industry said on Wednesday.

“It’s inevitable. Everyone of our members is talking about this now,” said Cal Dooley, head of The Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association, a trade group representing the food, beverage and consumer products industry. The group’s members include Coca-Cola CO., Hormel Foods and Kellogg Co..

“You’re beginning to see it, but you’ll certainly see increased evidence of these (price increases) in another six months,” he added.

Reuters Pictures

Editors Choice: Best pictures
from the last 24 hours.
View Slideshow

The price increase will be felt across a large swatch of products — from ketchup and beverages that depend on corn sweeteners to beef, poultry and pork where animals are fed corn.

Soaring U.S. demand for ethanol fuel made from corn has pushed the grain to its highest prices in a decade, which in turn is expected to reduce wheat and soybean plantings in the coming years, likely resulting in higher flour and meal prices.

“When it’s across the board where every company is being faced by it, those prices will be passed on,” said Dooley.

Corn prices have nearly doubled in the last year — rising from about $2.35 a bushel a year ago to around $4.15 a bushel today. This year’s corn crop is forecast to sell for an average $3.60 a bushel at the farm gate, a record, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department

The price increases we’ve seen in corn lately, it definitely is impacting our cost of production,” said Julie DeYoung, a spokeswoman with privately-held Perdue Farms Inc.

U.S. meat producer Smithfield Foods Inc. estimated a corn price of $4 will increase feed costs across beef, chicken and pork by about $300 million annually. While the company hasn’t increased prices yet, Smithfield has notified retailers it plans to do so in the near future.

“Any time your costs increase $300 million it’s a major concern,” said Jerry Hostetter, a Smithfield spokesman.

USDA has estimated that corn used for ethanol will jump 50 percent in 2007 with 3.2 billion bushels of the estimated 12.1 billion crop going toward the renewable fuel. It forecast last week, however, that U.S. food prices are expected to rise a modest 2 to 3 percent this year.