In a truly incredible example of the complete disregard for the health and safety of the American people, President Obama today told Americans that they should NOT prepare for radiation from the possible meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. His exact quote: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health experts do not recommend people in the U.S. take precautionary measures beyond staying informed.”
In other words, Americans should do nothing other than listen to their government. Don’t buy potassium iodide pills (even though the U.S. Surgeon General has already urged people to do so), don’t fuel up your automobiles in case you need to evacuate California, don’t store some extra food and water… basically, don’t worry! There’s no problem! Obama says so!
In all my years of looking at the bizarre and sometimes idiotic rants of the “do not prepare” crowd (the Pollyannas of the world), I never imagined hearing the President of the United States telling people to do nothing while the nation stands on the verge of being hit with radioactive fallout from an increasingly likely nuclear meltdown event. This isn’t just a lack of leadership, in my opinion: It’s a cowardly act and a betrayal of the health and safety of the American people.
While Obama focuses on March Madness basketball, Fukushima burns, threatening to release a massive amount of radiation directly into the atmosphere. The United States has already confirmed that low levels of radiation will reach California by Friday. The coolant fuels have run dry in at least one reactor, meaning that the release of enormous amounts of radiation from spent fuel rods is now imminent. Last-ditch rescue efforts are underway, and while we can hope and pray that they are effective, it seems absolutely bewildering that at this moment, Obama would be telling Americans to effectively “do nothing.”
Smart people will prepare anyway
Earlier today, I published a list of urgent action items for Americans and Canadians living on the western edge of North America. The same advice applies to those living in Hawaii, too: Get prepared now, just in case the Fukushima plant releases a massive amount of radiation into the air!
President Obama believes your action list should contain exactly one item: 1) Listen to your government and nothing else.
To me, that sounds like a recipe for suicide. But I suppose it’s up to each person to decide whom they want to believe. If the meltdown happens and the radiation cloud heads into California, many of those who listened to Obama could die of cancer from radiation exposure. What an incredible legacy for a President to leave in the history books.
Get a kit. Make a plan. No, wait… don’t do any of that!
Whatever happened to the government’s own message to be prepared? Even the www.Ready.gov website run by the federal government says, “Get a kit. Make a plan. Be informed.”
Obama apparently thinks that’s two steps too many. Skip the kit. Screw the plan. Just listen to your government!
Incredible. I have never seen such a dangerous example of the complete and utter failure of leadership in America.
Should a meltdown actually occur, I can only say good luck to all those Americans who follow this man to their own graves.
Oh, and by the way, it’s no surprise to hear the CDC is also fully supportive of this “do nothing” preparedness plan. This is the same agency that still refuses to tell people to take vitamin D supplements to prevent outbreaks of infectious disease. It is truly breathtaking to witness the outright betrayal of the American people taking place in Washington right now.
Share and Enjoy
Experts from the United Nations (UN) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) have put out a forecast projecting the potential path of the Fukushima Daiichi radiation plume, and they say by sometime on Friday it will hit the US West Coast of Southern California. Based on wind patterns and the direction the plume is headed, it will pass through the Aleutian Islands in the Northern Pacific Ocean near Alaska on Thursday, and head down through Southern California and onward east through Friday.
You can view the interactive map forecast of the plume’s progression here:
The CTBTO is tasked with monitoring nuclear activity around the world and conducting radiation projection in order to assess where to track nuclear activity. But according to a recent report in The New York Times (NYT), the UN agency refused to release the Fukushima forecast to the public, even though it insists that the plume will be so dispersed that it will not be harmful. The NYT was able to obtain it from another source.
“It’s simply an indication,” said Lassina Zerbo, head of CTBTO’s International Data Center, to the NYT. “We have global coverage. So when something happens, it’s important for us to known which station can pick up the event.”
Numerous US government groups continue to claim that the radiation from the Fukushima plant will not be harmful to Americans. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for instance, claims that because the nations are thousands of miles apart, the levels of radioactivity will be harmless. However a plume is still a plume, and the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet sure seemed concerned when it recently moved its ships out of the plume’s path.
The CTBTO projection indicator ends at March 18, however reports indicate that if it were to have continued beyond Friday and into the days to follow, the plume is expected to continue east through Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.
Share and Enjoy
“Experiments on mice have shown that throwing off their ancient circadian rhythms by artificially altering the length of their days has a substantial impact on their bodies and brains. This suggests that the modern, round-the-clock lifestyle, made possible by electric lighting, could disrupt metabolism and interfere with learning in ways that are only just beginning to be understood. Researchers put mice through 10 weeks in 20-hour light-dark cycles, instead of their natural 24-hour circadian cycle. After six weeks, the mice got fatter, showed less mental flexibility and were more impulsive.
Science Daily reports: “The researchers believe that [the effects of an altered circadian cycle] may affect how an individual, whether animal or human, responds to additional challenges to the immune or metabolic systems, such as infection … They are also working on models to understand the impact of different kinds of light-dark shifting such as those experienced by flight crews, shift workers, military personnel and medical residents.”
Dr. Mercola’s Comments: Time and again, research shows us the hidden price we pay for our 24/7 lifestyles. Lack of sleep due to over-crowded day planners, e-mail, web surfing, and other distractions take a toll on your health whether you realize it or not.
Amazingly, 95 percent of those surveyed in the National Sleep Foundation’s 2011 Sleep in America poll report using some type of electronic device within an hour of going to bed, and about 20 percent reported being awakened by phone calls, text messages or email, at least a few nights a week…
As you probably know, the physiological functions of virtually all organisms are governed by 24-hour circadian rhythms. When your circadian rhythm – which acts like a built-in time-tracking system – is disrupted by late-night artificial light exposure, or being roused from sleep by beeping phones, it can have a profound influence on your physical and mental health and well-being.
One of the worst things you can do to disrupt your body clock is to engage in regular night shift work. I realize many may not have a choice once they’ve chosen these professions, but it is vital to understand that when you regularly shift your sleep patterns because of a job like police, fire, or ER work, you are in fact sacrificing your health and longevity – in more ways than one.
Round-the-Clock Lifestyle Damages Your Health in a Number of Ways: In this latest study, mice were kept in 20-hour light/dark cycles for 10 weeks to evaluate the effect on their metabolism, mental acuity and behavior. After six weeks, “the disrupted mice got fatter, showed less mental flexibility and were more impulsive than mice kept on their natural schedule,” Science Daily reports.
The authors found changes in metabolic hormones, and “loss of dendritic length and decreased complexity of neurons in the prelimbic prefrontal cortex, a brain region important in executive function and emotional control.” Since the circadian system “drives” the rhythms of biological activity at the cellular level, disruptions tend to cascade outward throughout your entire body, which explains why the health effects of sleep deprivation and sleep disruption are so numerous.
The Many Ways Disrupted Sleep Patterns Can Impact Your Health: For example, your circadian clock influences your:
* Short term memory – Your circadian clock controls your daily cycle of sleep and wakefulness by alternately inhibiting and exciting different parts of your brain through regulating the release of certain neurotransmitters. The part of your brain known as the hippocampus must be excited in order for the things you learn to be organized in such a way that you’ll remember them later. If your internal clock isn’t functioning properly, it causes the release of too much GABA. According to a previous study, an excess of GABA inhibits your brain in a way that leads to short term memory problems and the inability to retain new information.
* Creativity and learning performance – Proper sleep enhances performance, learning and memory by improving your creative ability to uncover novel connections among seemingly unrelated ideas.
* Weight gain/loss – In addition to the study above, previous research has also demonstrated that lack of sleep affects levels of metabolic hormones that regulate satiety and hunger. For example, when you are sleep deprived, your body decreases production of leptin, the hormone that tells your brain there is no need for more food. At the same time it increases levels of ghrelin, a hormone that triggers hunger.
* Diabetes and heart disease risk — Both too little and too much sleep may increase your risk of type 2 diabetes. A 15-year study of more than 1,000 men found that those getting less than six or more than eight hours of sleep a night had a significantly increased diabetes risk. A similar pattern has also been observed in the relationship between sleep and coronary heart disease.
* Immune system – Research has found that when you are well-rested you are likely to have a stronger immune response to viruses than when you have not gotten enough sleep. It’s believed that the release of certain hormones during sleep is responsible for boosting your immune system.
* Cancer risk – Disruption of your circadian clock may influence cancer progression through changes in hormones like melatonin, which your brain makes during sleep, and which is known to suppress tumor development.
Melatonin is an antioxidant that helps to suppress harmful free radicals in your body and slows the production of estrogen, which can activate cancer. When your circadian rhythm is disrupted, your body may produce less melatonin and therefore may have less ability to fight cancer.
Chronic Diseases Made Worse By Lack of Sleep: Furthermore, according to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), lack of sleep can further exacerbate other serious and chronic diseases, such as:
* Parkinson disease (PD)
* Alzheimer disease (AD)
* Multiple sclerosis (MS)
* Gastrointestinal tract disorders
* Kidney disease
* Behavioral problems in children
Disrupted Circadian Cycle Unleashes Stress: Making matters worse, poor sleeping habits also tends to raise your levels of corticosterone, the stress hormone associated with road rage. When your body is under stress, it releases hormones that increase your heart rate and blood pressure. Your muscles get tense, your digestive processes stop, and certain brain centers are triggered, which alter your brain chemistry. Left unchecked, this stress response can eventually lead to a variety of health problems including:
* Increased anxiety
* High blood pressure
As you can see, the ramifications of engaging in a 24/7 lifestyle runs the gamut from minor stresses to life-threatening health problems! Yet judging by the poll responses mentioned at the very beginning, precious few are willing to take a much-needed look at their sleeping habits and make the required readjustments to their schedules and habits. I strongly urge you not to be part of the majority in this regard… Instead, take the following advice to heart.
Reestablish a Natural Rhythm by Optimizing Your Light Exposure: Part of living in accordance with your natural circadian rhythm is to have consistent, regular exposure to bright light during the day, and sleeping in absolute darkness at night. This optimizes your natural melatonin production.
Unfortunately, while over-exposure to light in the evenings is typical, most of us are also under-exposed to light during the day! Most incandescent- and fluorescent lights emit very poor quality light, and what your body needs for optimal functioning is the full-spectrum light you get outdoors. If you’re stuck in a windowless office for the majority of your day, using full spectrum light bulbs can help ameliorate this lack of high quality sunlight.
The reverse is true for the evenings. Ideally, once the sun sets, you’ll want to reduce the overall amount of light you’re exposed to. Here, using “low blue lights” can help. These light bulbs emit an amber light, opposed to the blue that suppresses melatonin production. Therefore, these bulbs are ideal for areas such as your living room, bedroom and bathroom. TVs and computers also emit quite a bit of blue light, which will zap your melatonin if you work past dark, so ideally, you’d want to turn these items off once the sun goes down.
Once it’s time to sleep, make sure your bedroom is pitch black. I strongly recommend installing blackout shades for this reason, or use thick drapes. Make sure all the lights are off in your room and that no light enters your room from other areas, such as night lights in your bathroom or hallway.
It’s important to realize that even a small amount of light, like that from a night light, or turning on the bathroom light to go to the restroom, can be enough to suppress your melatonin production for that night. So, if you have to get up, try to resist the temptation to turn on the light. This may be a bit more than you are willing to invest, especially if you live in temporary circumstances. So what I have found that works really well is a high quality eye mask.
Fine-Tuning Your Sleeping Pattern for Optimal Health: Optimizing your light exposure as described above can go a long way toward reestablishing your natural circadian rhythm and a healthy sleeping pattern. The next question then becomes, how much sleep do you need? The right amount for you is based on your individual sleep requirements and not on a one-size-fits-all prescribed number of hours. That said, research has shown that, in general, chronically sleeping less than eight hours a night can have significant cumulative consequences. In short, your best bet is to listen to your body and adjust accordingly. If you feel tired or sluggish upon waking or during the day, you’re likely not getting enough. However, it would be very unusual for anyone to require less than six hours of sleep. The sweet spot is more likely between 7 and 8 hours. There are other variables though, such as the:
* Number of times you awake at night
* Time it takes to fall asleep
* Percentage of your sleep at REM, and
* Time spent in deep sleep.
Unfortunately, many people are quick to pop a pill once they start having sleep problems. But sleeping pills come with numerous side effects and can cause more harm than good. Better alternatives include using the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), listening to a brainwave synchronization tape, or trying a natural remedy that can help you relax without the side effects.
Summary of Key Points to Remember to Keep Your Body Clock Running Smoothly: It’s important to realize that even if you do everything else right – eat nutritious meals, exercise, manage stress – if you aren’t getting high-quality sleep your health is bound to suffer in any of the numerous ways mentioned above. So please, take your sleep seriously, and do your best to live your life in closer alignment with your circadian rhythm. As a summary, the following guidelines can help to keep your circadian rhythm in its natural cycle:
* Use full-spectrum light bulbs in your home and office during daytime hours.
* Use “low blue lights” in areas where you spend most of your time in late evening, such as your living room, bedroom, and bathroom.
* Turn off computers and electronic gadgets once the sun sets, and avoid watching TV late at night. Again, the blue light emitted from TV’s and computer screens mimic the blue light found in daytime sunlight, which can alter your melatonin production.
* Sleep in total darkness! This is the “hidden” secret that most people tend to ignore, but which can dramatically improve the quality of your sleep. Personally, I sleep in a room that is so dark, it’s even pitch black at noon. Liberally use blackout shades and drapes to achieve this.
* Sleep when it’s dark outside and get up when the sun comes up. At minimum, strive to sleep between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. This means you should be in bed, with the lights out, by 10 p.m. and be up by 6 a.m.
* Avoid working the night shift. It’s been linked to significantly lower levels of serotonin, which may cause sleep problems, anger, depression and anxiety. If you currently work the night shift, I would strongly suggest trying to switch your hours, or at the very least not keeping the night shift for longer than a couple of months at a time (and giving your body a chance to readjust in between).
If you’re even slightly sleep deprived I encourage you to implement some of these tips tonight, as high-quality sleep is one of the most important factors in your health and quality of life.”
Share and Enjoy
What would you do if you learned there was a concerted effort to keep you sick? And what would you do if you learned that the way they could do that was by the food that you ate? Would that upset you? Well, be prepared.
The best way for me to explain this is to put it in the vernacular of the street, relating to it all as pimps, hookers, and tricks.
If you were looking at it this way, who do you think the pimps might be? The number one pimp on my list is the pharmaceutical industry. Why is that? First of all they are all publicly traded companies and the first and foremost goal of a publicly traded company is to increase profits. And the best way to increase profits is by increasing earnings per share. The best way to do that is to sell tons of the product you sell.
The pharmaceutical industry, first and foremost, is in the business of selling drugs. In order to sell drugs, people have to be sick. They have to be sick either through natural causes or by inventing diseases. We’ll get to the natural causes down the road.
Up until about eight years ago there was never such thing as “Restless Leg Syndrome”. Before “Gastric Reflux Disease” took on such a fancy name, it was simply known as heartburn. These are just a couple of examples of how the pharmaceutical industry invents diseases to sell drugs. I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t come up with a disease called “Refrigerator Door Syndrome”. I guess the main symptom of that would be opening up the refrigerator door and looking for something that didn’t exist five minutes ago when you did the same thing. Or, they could come up with “Motivational Deficiency Disorder”, which basically is a fancy word for lazy. Another one could be “Consumption Deficit Anxiety Disorder”. This could be described as being in anxiety because your neighbor has more toys than you do. I’m sure if you guys try, I think you could probably come up with some classic diseases of your own. And who knows, maybe you could market them to the pharmaceutical industry and get paid royalties for the rest your life. (The fictitious disease names were created by Mike Adams).
The one thing they don’t tell you when you take prescription drugs is that because they’re synthetic toxic chemicals there is a really good chance that you will experience severe negative reactions to these drugs. The bad news is that President George Bush made it so that you can’t sue the pharmaceutical industry if you get sick or die. So basically you’re just subjected to taking their drugs and hope for the best.
In the year 2007, or thereabouts, the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, spend $15 million of taxpayer money to stockpile the Tamiflu vaccine, which was supposed to ward off the bird flu pandemic that never came. The irony of this is that in 2009 it was proven that the Tamiflu vaccine was completely worthless and that it didn’t work . The other scam was the H1N1 flu vaccine that was created to contain the swine flu pandemic. That one never materialized either but they sure sold a lot of vaccines. Now, in Hawaii, because they’re holding so many vaccines that never got used, they are recommending that children starting at 6 months old must get a second shot. See what I mean about the pharmaceutical industry being a pimp? Another nightmare is the Gardisil vaccine which treats the papilloma virus. Not only are they giving it to young girls to prevent cervical cancer, now they want to give it to young boys as well. What they are not telling anybody is that this vaccine causes sterility.
Other big pimps on the planet are the big food companies. These guys are merciless. They don’t care what they sell as long as they sell it and make a big profit. The best way to do that is to sell you food full of fat, sugar, and salt – the heavenly trio – to keep you hooked.
Let’s look at reality for a minute. Most people are hooked on a flesh-based diet. People are so addicted to this due to conditioning that they can’t see reality if it came up and bit them in the butt.
By the time an animal is slaughtered, that decomposing flesh doesn’t make it to your supermarket for at least a week. Do you mean to tell me that after a week a dead body can remain as bright and rosy as you see it in the supermarket?
And not only that, but that you can walk into the supermarket and not be bowled over by the stench? Why is that? It’s because of the color enhancers and the stink reducers and the ammonia to kill the bacteria and the carbon monoxide to keep it pink and rosy, that it stays that color and doesn’t smell.
Chicken is even worse. After the chickens are killed they are, if you’ll pardon the expression, cleansed in a bath full of pus, urine, doo doo, and rot. And the USDA says, if you cannot see the doo doo through the clear wrap, it is okay to sell.
When you buy a food that is processed, you are buying something that is devoid of natural flavor and contains MSG, or a euphemism thereof, to give it its flavor. Did you ever wonder why when you go into a supermarket you can see food on the shelf for weeks without it spoiling? Did you ever wonder why that was? It’s because of all the preservatives to increase the shelf life to increase the profit to not have any loss. Nowhere in that product is there any concern whatsoever for your health.
In Hawaii, we have the rare distinction of being the Spam capitol of the world. We even have Spam festivals here. I have a friend who told me he was friends with the Hormel family children, who by the way are all vegetarians. They were forbidden to eat Spam. Hawaii also has another distinction – it is the colon cancer capitol of the world. Some people will never learn.
Then another outrageous pimp is Monsanto. Monsanto says they will save the world with the food they produce – the genetically modified food they produce. What does that mean? It means that they take a food and make it impervious to whatever amount of their cash crop Round Up they spray on it. In other words, they will spray the hell out of the food with their favorite pesticide to make sure that no weeds or bugs hinder the growth of their products. Just as a side note, in India they did an experiment. They went out into the woods and they hung normal food from one tree and genetically modified food from another tree. They came back a week later and found that the regular food was all eaten and the GMOs were untouched. It’s not hard to realize that the animals are innately smarter than the people.
Moving on to the hookers now, I guess the head of that group has to be the medical profession. With the best of intentions these guys go to medical school and wind up being subjected to curriculum that is funded by their pimp, the pharmaceutical industry. When they graduate from medical school they come out with a “take-a-pill” or a “cut-it-out” mentality. To say that when a person graduates from medical school is nutritionally clueless is an understatement. When a doctor treats a patient for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type-2 diabetes, arthritis, constipation, or whatever, it is always with drugs. When an oncologist treats a patient for cancer it is always with chemotherapy, radiation, and endless periods of time when your immune system hits rock bottom. Nowhere, ever, do they ever treat with nutrition.
Then of course you have the mainstream media that will do everything to protect their advertising dollars. Which, by the way, comes from pharmaceutical ads and ads from restaurants selling the foods that make sure you always see your doctor. Not only that, but the articles that appear somehow never favor plant-based diets or natural cures. Did you ever wonder why that was? It’s all about money! No one really gives a damn about you being healthy.
Next we have a government agencies. We have the FDA, affectionately known as the Fraud and Drug Administration; the CDC, affectionately known as the Centers For Deceit Control and Procrastination; the USDA, affectionately known as the US Department of A@#$%&#s; and the FTC, affectionately known as the Federal Treachery Commission. Why do I describe them as such? Because they do anything to protect big business and little to protect the people.
The FDA will do anything to further the profits of the drug industry. They have no qualms in shutting down companies dealing with natural remedies. The fact, the head guys at the FDA are former pharmaceutical executives. Right now in the United States, the head of the Agriculture Department, Michael Taylor, affectionately known as “Monsanto Mike,” used to be an attorney in that company.
It is a known fact that cherry juice is a great remedy for arthritis pain. Yet, the cherry growers can’t say that and if they do the Fraud and Drug Administration will shut them down. Celestial Seasonings, the tea company, made the mistake of saying that one of their teas was sweetened with Stevia, a natural herb. Well, the FDA wouldn’t hear of that. So, they told them that if they didn’t take Stevia, listed as a sweetener, off the label they would shut them down. Pimps, hookers and tricks.
You all know that the CDC is a big pusher of fluoride. What a travesty that is. But what you didn’t know was that in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of August 17, 2001/ Volume 50/ Number RR-14, on Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, on page 4, in the third paragraph, it says,” fluoride’s predominant effect is post-eruptive and topical.” This means it works on the surface of the tooth after the tooth has come into the mouth. Nowhere, anywhere, does it say you have to drink the poison. Pimps, hookers and tricks.
The USDA is in bed with the dairy industry. The USDA protects the dairy industry as if it were a golden goose. Let me give you a good example: back when Bill Clinton was the the President, he hired Dr. Josylyn Elders, a black woman, as his Surgeon General. Dr. Elders, in her first week in office was going to make the announcement that Blacks were 95% lactose intolerant, that Asians were 80-85% lactose intolerant, that Latinos were 75% lactose intolerant and Caucasians were 70% lactose intolerant. Dr. Elders never got to make that statement. She was fired after a week. It’s a classic case of a government agency protecting big business rather than the people.
Next we have, on the hooker list, the Public Health Officials. Boy oh boy, do they love to push vaccines full of mercury, thimerisol and toxic adjuvants. Autism anyone? Recently, an organization named Autism Speaks went public about trying to reverse autism. And they listed so many things that they were going to do. But somehow they failed to mention the vaccine connection. So I asked that question to the Director of Autism Speaks. I was told that vaccines do not contribute to autism. I then asked if the organization accepts donations from the pharmaceutical industry. The answer I received was, “not that much.” Pimps, hookers and tricks.
Anyway, with regard to vaccines, a child by six months old has received nine vaccines. By the time the child is seven years old it has received 47 vaccines. And by the time that person is 70 years old, they have received 160 vaccines. You really mean to tell me that there’s no danger in this? In New Jersey and New York there are no exemptions to vaccines. They are trying to do the same thing in Hawaii.
Recently, in Hawaii, there was a Hearing in which a bill was introduced to offer vegetarian and vegan meals in the public schools. The bill said that these meals “shall” be entered in the public schools. Two entities voted against this. The Board of Education and the Department of Health. When the wording of the bill was changed from “shall” to “should,” meaning that now they had a choice to do it or not, these two entities voted in favor. Nothing like keeping kids sick and protecting the interests of the corporations.
I guess we also have to add the “shrinks” to the “hooker” list. They are a group of jerks that invented “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” as an excuse to put kids on drugs just because they might space out in the classroom.
Let’s talk about the Dentists for a minute. Because the Dentists are hesitant to accept the low pay that Medicaid pays, they advocate fluoride. What a convenient way to ease their guilt. In Alaska, where dentists seldom go, especially in the remote parts, there are people that are trained as DHATS (Dental Hygiene Attending Therapists). These people can basically do what Dentists can do and are willing to go anywhere in Alaska. Guess who opposes them? The Dentists that refuse to go into the “boonies” to treat the people.
I always love the organizations that are out there doing their work to find cures for various diseases. My favorite is the American Heart Association. These hypocrites have spent 30 years trying to find a cure for heart disease. Every year in Hawaii they have a Heart Ball to raise money try to find a cure for heart disease. The cost to attend the Heart Ball is anywhere from $3500-$5000 a plate. And the menu items -filet mignon, prime ribs, and veal. I guess they figured nobody would pay that much money for fried tofu, steamed vegetables, and brown rice.
Let’s get back to Monsanto for a minute. We already talked about their GMO scam, but don’t forget these are the people they gave us Agent Orange. And we all know how wonderful this chemical is and the lasting effects of its exposure to our men that fought in Viet Nam. Recently, there was worldwide news that the bee colonies were collapsing. Why do you think that was? Because the bees have a hard time with the GMOs. In addition to all of Monsanto’s horrors they are also involved with MSG and Aspartame. Nothing like putting something out there that screws up your brain as well.
I guess I spent a lot of time talking about the pimps and hookers and not about the tricks. If you want to know who the tricks are, just look in the mirror.
Hopefully, at this point you have a clear indication as to why you have to take complete responsibility for your health. You have to understand one thing: adhering to a flesh-based diet will cause you to succumb to degenerative disease. And even though the animals have died so you can put them on your plate, they have the last laugh from the grave by giving you arthritis, heart disease, cancer, constipation, and type-2 diabetes for openers.
Basically, the only thing that can help you reverse your health or keep you in good health is proper nutrition. Poor nutrition will destroy people and good nutrition will save people.
Food plays such an important role and has such a powerful impact In everything that matters is society. You all know that old saying,” you are what you eat.” We are a diseased nation eating foods that we really should not eat.
The Western diet consists of dead foods, which have been overcooked or microwaved, and processed foods, which have been bleached. It is a diet lacking large quantities of fresh, living, fruits and vegetables. It is a diet that avoids adequate water hydration and focuses on sugary beverages. It is a diet that includes large amounts of processed, homogenized, and pasteurized dairy products, which eliminates any nutrients whatsoever. It is a diet loaded with hundreds of different chemical food additives and preservatives. It is the diet consisting of conventionally grown pesticide contaminated foods. It is a diet consisting of large quantities of unhealthy oils such as corn oil or soy oil or partially hydrogenated oils. It is a diet of heavily fried foods or foods cooked at such high temperatures that it destroys nutrients while creating carcinogenic compounds. It is a diet comprised of hydrogenated oils, refined sugar, and enormous amounts of fat and salt. And all this is consumed by about 90 percent of the US population.
This diet, affectionately known as “the diet of death,” adversely affects personal health, healthcare costs, and our children’s ability to think clearly. This diet has a negative affect on Corporate America because the workers poisoned by processed foods suffer from repeated sick days, the inability to focus, failure to learn, and failure to create new ideas. With their brains fueled by junk foods and with failed education giving them few options for earning an honest living, more people turn to crime. In time, the prisons become filled with people incarcerated for behavior that could have been at least partially prevented with proper nutrition. With disease rates skyrocketing, violent crime on the rise, education failures rampant, and healthcare costs bankrupting families, happiness hits an all-time low. As junk food consumption continues through multiple generations, the genetic integrity of the population declines. Then, because the population is dulled out because of all the junk foods they are eating, economic productivity hits rock-bottom and employers shift jobs overseas where people seem to have much higher levels of productivity. To say this is a losing situation is a gross understatement.
Earlier in this article we talked about the pharmaceutical industry wanting to drug everyone and anyone to make a buck. But we really didn’t talk about the problems that a medicated population invokes. Medicated drivers are no different than drunk drivers. This dullness also carries over to the workplace where medicated workers tend to make many more mistakes. You have people taking a medication to treat one disease and this somehow creates another disease because of the adverse effects of the synthetic chemicals. Because the pharmaceutical industry has a monopoly, the high pricing of the medications creates very high healthcare costs. And when those medications pass through the bodies of the consumers and eventually get dumped into the rivers and other waterways, they pollute the environment. And now, believe it or not, the FAA has relented and is allowing pilots to fly while on antidepressant drugs. Shades of Columbine!
This is a recipe for disaster: higher costs, lower productivity, increased rates of disease, decreased economic productivity, environmental destruction and a dumbed down population.
It is very clear when you walk around the supermarket or you watch ads on TV that America has chosen to adopt a really bad diet. People in this country are addicted to fast foods and junk foods and live to eat rather than eat to live. And this insane diet coming from that premise will have far more consequences than anyone can imagine.
Let me leave you with one last thought: if there was a concerted effort to keep you sick so you could die early and assuming you could die before you reached age 67, who do you think might benefit? How about the government? And why? Doesn’t Social Security kick in when you reach age 67? If you die before you reach that age there is no danger of Social Security ever running out. That’s because you won’t be around to collect it at the age are supposed to. Food for thought!
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031627_sickness_health_care.html#ixzz1G712XS7p
Share and Enjoy
If the members of the American medical establishment were to have a collective find-yourself-standing-naked-in-Times-Square-type nightmare, this might be it. They spend 30 years ridiculing Robert Atkins, author of the phenomenally-best-selling ”Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution” and ”Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution,” accusing the Manhattan doctor of quackery and fraud, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was right all along. Or maybe it’s this: they find that their very own dietary recommendations — eat less fat and more carbohydrates — are the cause of the rampaging epidemic of obesity in America. Or, just possibly this: they find out both of the above are true.
When Atkins first published his ”Diet Revolution” in 1972, Americans were just coming to terms with the proposition that fat — particularly the saturated fat of meat and dairy products — was the primary nutritional evil in the American diet. Atkins managed to sell millions of copies of a book promising that we would lose weight eating steak, eggs and butter to our heart’s desire, because it was the carbohydrates, the pasta, rice, bagels and sugar, that caused obesity and even heart disease. Fat, he said, was harmless.
Atkins allowed his readers to eat ”truly luxurious foods without limit,” as he put it, ”lobster with butter sauce, steak with béarnaise sauce . . . bacon cheeseburgers,” but allowed no starches or refined carbohydrates, which means no sugars or anything made from flour. Atkins banned even fruit juices, and permitted only a modicum of vegetables, although the latter were negotiable as the diet progressed.
Atkins was by no means the first to get rich pushing a high-fat diet that restricted carbohydrates, but he popularized it to an extent that the American Medical Association considered it a potential threat to our health. The A.M.A. attacked Atkins’s diet as a ”bizarre regimen” that advocated ”an unlimited intake of saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods,” and Atkins even had to defend his diet in Congressional hearings.
Thirty years later, America has become weirdly polarized on the subject of weight. On the one hand, we’ve been told with almost religious certainty by everyone from the surgeon general on down, and we have come to believe with almost religious certainty, that obesity is caused by the excessive consumption of fat, and that if we eat less fat we will lose weight and live longer. On the other, we have the ever-resilient message of Atkins and decades’ worth of best-selling diet books, including ”The Zone,” ”Sugar Busters” and ”Protein Power” to name a few. All push some variation of what scientists would call the alternative hypothesis: it’s not the fat that makes us fat, but the carbohydrates, and if we eat less carbohydrates we will lose weight and live longer.
The perversity of this alternative hypothesis is that it identifies the cause of obesity as precisely those refined carbohydrates at the base of the famous Food Guide Pyramid — the pasta, rice and bread — that we are told should be the staple of our healthy low-fat diet, and then on the sugar or corn syrup in the soft drinks, fruit juices and sports drinks that we have taken to consuming in quantity if for no other reason than that they are fat free and so appear intrinsically healthy. While the low-fat-is-good-health dogma represents reality as we have come to know it, and the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in research trying to prove its worth, the low-carbohydrate message has been relegated to the realm of unscientific fantasy.
Over the past five years, however, there has been a subtle shift in the scientific consensus. It used to be that even considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, let alone researching it, was tantamount to quackery by association. Now a small but growing minority of establishment researchers have come to take seriously what the low-carb-diet doctors have been saying all along. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, may be the most visible proponent of testing this heretic hypothesis. Willett is the de facto spokesman of the longest-running, most comprehensive diet and health studies ever performed, which have already cost upward of $100 million and include data on nearly 300,000 individuals. Those data, says Willett, clearly contradict the low-fat-is-good-health message ”and the idea that all fat is bad for you; the exclusive focus on adverse effects of fat may have contributed to the obesity epidemic.”
These researchers point out that there are plenty of reasons to suggest that the low-fat-is-good-health hypothesis has now effectively failed the test of time. In particular, that we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic that started around the early 1980′s, and that this was coincident with the rise of the low-fat dogma. (Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of the disease, also rose significantly through this period.) They say that low-fat weight-loss diets have proved in clinical trials and real life to be dismal failures, and that on top of it all, the percentage of fat in the American diet has been decreasing for two decades. Our cholesterol levels have been declining, and we have been smoking less, and yet the incidence of heart disease has not declined as would be expected. ”That is very disconcerting,” Willett says. ”It suggests that something else bad is happening.”
The science behind the alternative hypothesis can be called Endocrinology 101, which is how it’s referred to by David Ludwig, a researcher at Harvard Medical School who runs the pediatric obesity clinic at Children’s Hospital Boston, and who prescribes his own version of a carbohydrate-restricted diet to his patients. Endocrinology 101 requires an understanding of how carbohydrates affect insulin and blood sugar and in turn fat metabolism and appetite. This is basic endocrinology, Ludwig says, which is the study of hormones, and it is still considered radical because the low-fat dietary wisdom emerged in the 1960′s from researchers almost exclusively concerned with the effect of fat on cholesterol and heart disease. At the time, Endocrinology 101 was still underdeveloped, and so it was ignored. Now that this science is becoming clear, it has to fight a quarter century of anti-fat prejudice.
The alternative hypothesis also comes with an implication that is worth considering for a moment, because it’s a whopper, and it may indeed be an obstacle to its acceptance. If the alternative hypothesis is right — still a big ”if” — then it strongly suggests that the ongoing epidemic of obesity in America and elsewhere is not, as we are constantly told, due simply to a collective lack of will power and a failure to exercise. Rather it occurred, as Atkins has been saying (along with Barry Sears, author of ”The Zone”), because the public health authorities told us unwittingly, but with the best of intentions, to eat precisely those foods that would make us fat, and we did. We ate more fat-free carbohydrates, which, in turn, made us hungrier and then heavier. Put simply, if the alternative hypothesis is right, then a low-fat diet is not by definition a healthy diet. In practice, such a diet cannot help being high in carbohydrates, and that can lead to obesity, and perhaps even heart disease. ”For a large percentage of the population, perhaps 30 to 40 percent, low-fat diets are counterproductive,” says Eleftheria Maratos-Flier, director of obesity research at Harvard’s prestigious Joslin Diabetes Center. ”They have the paradoxical effect of making people gain weight.”
Scientists are still arguing about fat, despite a century of research, because the regulation of appetite and weight in the human body happens to be almost inconceivably complex, and the experimental tools we have to study it are still remarkably inadequate. This combination leaves researchers in an awkward position. To study the entire physiological system involves feeding real food to real human subjects for months or years on end, which is prohibitively expensive, ethically questionable (if you’re trying to measure the effects of foods that might cause heart disease) and virtually impossible to do in any kind of rigorously controlled scientific manner. But if researchers seek to study something less costly and more controllable, they end up studying experimental situations so oversimplified that their results may have nothing to do with reality. This then leads to a research literature so vast that it’s possible to find at least some published research to support virtually any theory. The result is a balkanized community — ”splintered, very opinionated and in many instances, intransigent,” says Kurt Isselbacher, a former chairman of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Science — in which researchers seem easily convinced that their preconceived notions are correct and thoroughly uninterested in testing any other hypotheses but their own.
What’s more, the number of misconceptions propagated about the most basic research can be staggering. Researchers will be suitably scientific describing the limitations of their own experiments, and then will cite something as gospel truth because they read it in a magazine. The classic example is the statement heard repeatedly that 95 percent of all dieters never lose weight, and 95 percent of those who do will not keep it off. This will be correctly attributed to the University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist Albert Stunkard, but it will go unmentioned that this statement is based on 100 patients who passed through Stunkard’s obesity clinic during the Eisenhower administration.
With these caveats, one of the few reasonably reliable facts about the obesity epidemic is that it started around the early 1980′s. According to Katherine Flegal, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Health Statistics, the percentage of obese Americans stayed relatively constant through the 1960′s and 1970′s at 13 percent to 14 percent and then shot up by 8 percentage points in the 1980′s. By the end of that decade, nearly one in four Americans was obese. That steep rise, which is consistent through all segments of American society and which continued unabated through the 1990′s, is the singular feature of the epidemic. Any theory that tries to explain obesity in America has to account for that. Meanwhile, overweight children nearly tripled in number. And for the first time, physicians began diagnosing Type 2 diabetes in adolescents. Type 2 diabetes often accompanies obesity. It used to be called adult-onset diabetes and now, for the obvious reason, is not.
So how did this happen? The orthodox and ubiquitous explanation is that we live in what Kelly Brownell, a Yale psychologist, has called a ”toxic food environment” of cheap fatty food, large portions, pervasive food advertising and sedentary lives. By this theory, we are at the Pavlovian mercy of the food industry, which spends nearly $10 billion a year advertising unwholesome junk food and fast food. And because these foods, especially fast food, are so filled with fat, they are both irresistible and uniquely fattening. On top of this, so the theory goes, our modern society has successfully eliminated physical activity from our daily lives. We no longer exercise or walk up stairs, nor do our children bike to school or play outside, because they would prefer to play video games and watch television. And because some of us are obviously predisposed to gain weight while others are not, this explanation also has a genetic component — the thrifty gene. It suggests that storing extra calories as fat was an evolutionary advantage to our Paleolithic ancestors, who had to survive frequent famine. We then inherited these ”thrifty” genes, despite their liability in today’s toxic environment.
This theory makes perfect sense and plays to our puritanical prejudice that fat, fast food and television are innately damaging to our humanity. But there are two catches. First, to buy this logic is to accept that the copious negative reinforcement that accompanies obesity — both socially and physically — is easily overcome by the constant bombardment of food advertising and the lure of a supersize bargain meal. And second, as Flegal points out, little data exist to support any of this. Certainly none of it explains what changed so significantly to start the epidemic. Fast-food consumption, for example, continued to grow steadily through the 70′s and 80′s, but it did not take a sudden leap, as obesity did.
As far as exercise and physical activity go, there are no reliable data before the mid-80′s, according to William Dietz, who runs the division of nutrition and physical activity at the Centers for Disease Control; the 1990′s data show obesity rates continuing to climb, while exercise activity remained unchanged. This suggests the two have little in common. Dietz also acknowledged that a culture of physical exercise began in the United States in the 70′s — the ”leisure exercise mania,” as Robert Levy, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, described it in 1981 — and has continued through the present day.
As for the thrifty gene, it provides the kind of evolutionary rationale for human behavior that scientists find comforting but that simply cannot be tested. In other words, if we were living through an anorexia epidemic, the experts would be discussing the equally untestable ”spendthrift gene” theory, touting evolutionary advantages of losing weight effortlessly. An overweight homo erectus, they’d say, would have been easy prey for predators.
It is also undeniable, note students of Endocrinology 101, that mankind never evolved to eat a diet high in starches or sugars. ”Grain products and concentrated sugars were essentially absent from human nutrition until the invention of agriculture,” Ludwig says, ”which was only 10,000 years ago.” This is discussed frequently in the anthropology texts but is mostly absent from the obesity literature, with the prominent exception of the low-carbohydrate-diet books.
What’s forgotten in the current controversy is that the low-fat dogma itself is only about 25 years old. Until the late 70′s, the accepted wisdom was that fat and protein protected against overeating by making you sated, and that carbohydrates made you fat. In The Physiology of Taste, for instance, an 1825 discourse considered among the most famous books ever written about food, the French gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin says that he could easily identify the causes of obesity after 30 years of listening to one ”stout party” after another proclaiming the joys of bread, rice and (from a ”particularly stout party”) potatoes. Brillat-Savarin described the roots of obesity as a natural predisposition conjuncted with the ”floury and feculent substances which man makes the prime ingredients of his daily nourishment.” He added that the effects of this fecula — i.e., ”potatoes, grain or any kind of flour” — were seen sooner when sugar was added to the diet.
This is what my mother taught me 40 years ago, backed up by the vague observation that Italians tended toward corpulence because they ate so much pasta. This observation was actually documented by Ancel Keys, a University of Minnesota physician who noted that fats ”have good staying power,” by which he meant they are slow to be digested and so lead to satiation, and that Italians were among the heaviest populations he had studied. According to Keys, the Neapolitans, for instance, ate only a little lean meat once or twice a week, but ate bread and pasta every day for lunch and dinner. ”There was no evidence of nutritional deficiency,” he wrote, ”but the working-class women were fat.”
By the 70′s, you could still find articles in the journals describing high rates of obesity in Africa and the Caribbean where diets contained almost exclusively carbohydrates. The common thinking, wrote a former director of the Nutrition Division of the United Nations, was that the ideal diet, one that prevented obesity, snacking and excessive sugar consumption, was a diet ”with plenty of eggs, beef, mutton, chicken, butter and well-cooked vegetables.” This was the identical prescription Brillat-Savarin put forth in 1825.
It was Ancel Keys, paradoxically, who introduced the low-fat-is-good-health dogma in the 50′s with his theory that dietary fat raises cholesterol levels and gives you heart disease. Over the next two decades, however, the scientific evidence supporting this theory remained stubbornly ambiguous. The case was eventually settled not by new science but by politics. It began in January 1977, when a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its ”Dietary Goals for the United States,” advising that Americans significantly curb their fat intake to abate an epidemic of ”killer diseases” supposedly sweeping the country. It peaked in late 1984, when the National Institutes of Health officially recommended that all Americans over the age of 2 eat less fat. By that time, fat had become ”this greasy killer” in the memorable words of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the model American breakfast of eggs and bacon was well on its way to becoming a bowl of Special K with low-fat milk, a glass of orange juice and toast, hold the butter — a dubious feast of refined carbohydrates.
In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. ”It’s an imperfect world,” Rifkind told me. ”The data that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best with what is available.”
Some of the best scientists disagreed with this low-fat logic, suggesting that good science was incompatible with such leaps of faith, but they were effectively ignored. Pete Ahrens, whose Rockefeller University laboratory had done the seminal research on cholesterol metabolism, testified to McGovern’s committee that everyone responds differently to low-fat diets. It was not a scientific matter who might benefit and who might be harmed, he said, but ”a betting matter.” Phil Handler, then president of the National Academy of Sciences, testified in Congress to the same effect in 1980. ”What right,” Handler asked, ”has the federal government to propose that the American people conduct a vast nutritional experiment, with themselves as subjects, on the strength of so very little evidence that it will do them any good?”
Nonetheless, once the N.I.H. signed off on the low-fat doctrine, societal forces took over. The food industry quickly began producing thousands of reduced-fat food products to meet the new recommendations. Fat was removed from foods like cookies, chips and yogurt. The problem was, it had to be replaced with something as tasty and pleasurable to the palate, which meant some form of sugar, often high-fructose corn syrup. Meanwhile, an entire industry emerged to create fat substitutes, of which Procter & Gamble’s olestra was first. And because these reduced-fat meats, cheeses, snacks and cookies had to compete with a few hundred thousand other food products marketed in America, the industry dedicated considerable advertising effort to reinforcing the less-fat-is-good-health message. Helping the cause was what Walter Willett calls the ”huge forces” of dietitians, health organizations, consumer groups, health reporters and even cookbook writers, all well-intended missionaries of healthful eating.
Few experts now deny that the low-fat message is radically oversimplified. If nothing else, it effectively ignores the fact that unsaturated fats, like olive oil, are relatively good for you: they tend to elevate your good cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (H.D.L.), and lower your bad cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (L.D.L.), at least in comparison to the effect of carbohydrates. While higher L.D.L. raises your heart-disease risk, higher H.D.L. reduces it.
What this means is that even saturated fats — a.k.a., the bad fats — are not nearly as deleterious as you would think. True, they will elevate your bad cholesterol, but they will also elevate your good cholesterol. In other words, it’s a virtual wash. As Willett explained to me, you will gain little to no health benefit by giving up milk, butter and cheese and eating bagels instead.
Gary Taubes, New York Times