Category: General Interest

This covers off on another big fat lie that I have written about in my book. If you eat as the governemnt guidelines dictate you are setting your self up to have a malnourished and diseased body.
https://anhinternational.org/2018/06/20/proof-that-government-nutrition-guidelines-are-wrong/

When people take drugs, either for legitimate medical reasons or to get high, they eventually eliminate traces of those drug through the body’s waste products. Those traces then enter our water supplies. When wastewater is processed to make it safe to flow into the sea, this processing does not remove all traces of drugs the humans in that area were consuming.
https://www.narconon.org/blog/drugs-in-our-bodies-become-drugs-in-our-water.html
https://www.narconon.org/blog/drugs-in-our-bodies-become-drugs-in-our-water.html

One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry — a Merck scientist — made a recording where he openly admits that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses. In response, his colleagues (who are also recorded here) break out into laughter and seem to think it’s hilarious.
http://vaccinecommonsense.com/2017/10/30/top-merck-scientist-openly-admits-adding-cancer-hiv-leukemia-to-vaccines/

By now you may know about the wonderful probiotic benefits of kombucha, kefir and sauerkraut. But we bet you didn’t realize these everyday foods were good for your gut too!
https://www.foodmatters.com/article/5-foods-youd-never-expect-to-be-good-for-gut-health

The breast cancer industry’s holy grail (that mammography is the primary weapon in the war against breast cancer) has been disproved. In fact, mammography appears to have CREATED 1.3 million cases of breast cancer in the U.S. population that were not there.
A disturbing new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine is bringing mainstream attention to the possibility that mammography has caused far more harm than good in the millions of women who have employed it over the past 30 years as their primary strategy in the fight against breast cancer.[i]
Titled “Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence,” researchers estimated that among women younger than 40 years of age, breast cancer was overdiagnosed, i.e. “tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms,” in 1.3 million U.S. women over the past 30 years. In 2008, alone, “breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed.”
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/30-years-breast-screening-13-million-wrongly-treated

As you know, food comes in a wide variety of tastes, colours, shapes and sizes, It also has an enormous variation in quality. And I’m not just talking fresh versus stale, I’m also talking about the quality of the nutrition and therefore nourishment that food provides our bodies.
At one end of the food quality scale, food can be natural (not genetically engineered), grown without herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer, contain no artificial preservatives, sweeteners, flavours and colours, no added sugar, no excitotoxins (like MSG, to make you crave more) and not be irradiated or washed in chlorine.
At the other end of the scale it can be genetically modified, artificially fertilised, doused in pesticides and herbicidal poisons, manufactured with artificial preservatives, sweeteners, flavours and colours, contain added sugar, excitotoxins (like MSG) and be irradiated or washed in chlorine. In other words, a toxic cocktail that contributes to degenerative diseases and an early death.
No wonder Jack LaLanne said, “If man made it, don’t eat it!”
(Francois Henri Jack LaLanne was an American fitness, exercise, and nutrition expert and motivational speaker who is sometimes referred to as the “Godfather of Fitness” and the “First Fitness Superhero”. He died at age 96.)
So, why is it that our food supply can cover such a wide variety of extremes. Purely and simply because we don’t all purchase only that which is good for us. That’s why companies make the stuff at the bad end of the scale. Because people buy it. If nobody bought it, companies would not make it.
So why do people buy it? Primarily because we are not all on the same page with regards to the definition and purpose of food.
For a moment, let’s have a look at the purpose for food. Why do we eat it? Right from the moment we are born, our bodies crave nourishment, we get hungry and look for something to eat to quell the pain of hunger. Mum offers us a nipple and away we go. So we start out by being suckers on the subject of food and the food giants expect us to remain so!
All jokes aside, this killing the pangs of hunger is the first purpose for eating. Unfortunately, for many around the world, it remains the only purpose.
As we grow a bit older we are introduced to things that taste nice. We are rewarded with food when we are “good”.
So food now assumes a new role. As well as taking away the pain of hunger, food is now something to eat that tastes great, so it is a source of pleasure, it makes us feel good.
Gee, we haven’t even got to school yet and we are seriously off the rails with regards to the purpose of food.
So then we introduce peer pressure on the subject of food, advertising aimed at kids, we get busy and don’t have time so we look for fast, easy and convenient, preprepared and “fast” foods. We are now easy targets for what the definition of food has become, “Something tasty that takes no time to prepare that I can eat quickly to not feel hungry and will get me through to the next meal time.”
Wow! What a degraded scene.
What’s the ideal scene? What would be the optimal purpose for eating? OK, food is fuel for the body. If we wanted the best condition for our body, what WOULD we want our food to do?
How about this? As well as the minimum purpose for food being:
1. To satisfy our hunger cravings
2. To taste at least acceptable
We additionally want to provide sufficient nutrients so:
3. Our body had sufficient energy so we could do what we wanted to do
4. We had no mental fog leaving us fresh and alert till an hour before sleep
5. The body would rarely, if ever get sick
6. If the body got ill, it would recover quickly
7. The body could repair itself and reverse disease
8. The body maintained as close to optimal functionality despite aging
If that is the proper purpose for food then as a society we have strayed a long way off the rails and have a long way to go to get back on the rails. The good news is that you and I have the power to make a change in our own diets and to encourage others to do the same.
The first step is to decide to take responsibility for your future diet and health. One way you can do that is to make a list of what you will cut out of your diet and another list of what you will add in or buy more of. I find one of the easiest ways to do that is to create an eating plan, meals and snacks, for the coming week then buy for that eating plan. And only go shopping on a full stomach! That’s a big help!
If you are looking for some options for snacks or “pick me ups” or mini-meals that are healthier than oats and sugar bars, check out www.healthelicious.com.au. I practice what I preach!

Criticisms of Cochrane reviews have surfaced since not long after the organization’s inception. In 2001, for example, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) questioned the reliability of some Cochrane reviews, describing the implications for Cochrane’s reputation as “serious.” The BMJ authors suggested that “the Cochrane Collaboration needs to clarify [explain] how it discharges its responsibilities for the quality of reviews published under its imprimatur, and how it responds when they are shown to have come to unjustified conclusions.”

A more recent examination of Cochrane reviews in 2016 concluded that while “the methodological quality of Cochrane reviews is good compared to…non-Cochrane reviews, …it would be inappropriate to assume all Cochrane reviews are good quality and are at low risk of bias.” Cochrane’s new and chummy partnership with Wikipedia to include “relevant evidence within all Wikipedia health articles,” announced in early 2017, also may raise some eyebrows given Wikipedia’s reputation for bias. All of these factors suggest that it might be time to take Cochrane’s supposedly neutral relationship with its funders with a grain of salt.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/are-cochrane-reviews-truly-independent-and-transparent