Cayenne Is One Of Our Creator's Greatest Gifts

Cayenne pepper is a herb which should be added to your foods whenever possible.

Cayenne’s benefits to the digestive system, circulatory system, and the heart have earned it the nickname "miracle herb".

Some people have used it to aid with weight loss, due to its ability to boost the metabolism.

 Cayenne pepper was first used as a stimulant by the Cherokee Indians. It is most notable for its effect upon the cardiovascular system. Cayenne has been known to stop heart attacks within 30 seconds when taken orally.

The benefits of cayenne usage were first reported by Dr. David Christopher, a naturopathic doctor who spent most of his life discovering and promoting alternatives to pharmaceutical medications. He spent his career being persecuted for challenging the establishment as well.

He is the most noted pioneer in the modern use of cayenne pepper for medication. Dr. Christopher was so instrumental in promoting cayenne in the naturalistic, nutritional, and herbal communities that he is sometimes referred to as "Dr. Cayenne".

Recent clinical studies have been conducted on many of the old time health applications for this miracle herb. Again and again, the therapeutic value of cayenne pepper has been medically validated.

-- Dr. Patrick Quillin

Cayenne has been used medically for thousands of years, and most nations outside the Americas use such herbs as part of their standard protocols. These countries always have better results. In fact, the U.S. is ranked 38th in life expectancy, which places the U.S. health care system below Cuba's, South Korea's, Costa Rica's, Guadeloupe's, Singapore's, and 32 other nations, according to an investigative report by Mother Jone’s Magazine.

It is worth noting that these countries do not have an organization like the F.D.A. that suppresses traditional medicine on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.

Why Is It Not Used In The U.S.A.?

Cayenne's effects on the heart have been ridiculed by the medical establishment; partly because this common spice is not backed by millions of dollars in research investments and years of clinical studies.

These investments and studies will never materialize, because pharmaceutical corporations know that they cannot patent natural substances. There is also a certain degree of professional arrogance at play in preventing most doctors from considering that a simple spice is potentially more powerful than the expensive and complex pharmaceuticals that they have studied for years.

They also have an understandable level of fear about incurring the wrath of the F.D.A. if they were to ever use an "unapproved drug". That approval will never come since no company will fund research into something that they can never patent.

Making the problem worse is the fact that cayenne’s most impressive property; namely its ability to sometimes stop an ongoing heart attack, cannot be double-blind tested without putting test subjects at great risk.

Why Everyone Should Use Cayenne Pepper

NOTE:  Cayenne is incredible, have used it for years and take several capsules daily.  The strength of Cayenne is critical and all peppers are not created equally.  If you're looking for the most potent form, then you need to consider the 160 heat units found at Starwest Botanicals

Cayenne should be used daily for anyone who has problems with his heart or blood pressure, because it is beneficial to both.

Unlike pharmaceuticals, cayenne pepper helps blood pressure regardless of whether it is initially high or initially low, because it relaxes blood vessels, while causing the heart to beat more efficiently.

 These dual actions practically guarantee circulation improvement, regardless of the pre-existing condition. It is the difference between man-made and God’s medicines. Cayenne does what the 'experts' say is impossible.

Its main medical applications are: weak digestion, chronic pain, shingles, heart disease, sore throats, headaches, high cholesterol levels, poor circulation, blood pressure issues, heart attacks, and toothaches.

The use of cayenne has been attributed to the following benefits in patients: dissolving plaque in the arteries, improving heart efficiency, relaxing blood vessels, increasing metabolism, it helps the body to eliminate scar tissue after heart attacks, eliminates pain when applied topically, produces endorphins to enhance mood, eliminates shock, eliminates cluster headaches and in some cases, treats migraine headaches, fights cancer, provides partial relief of sinus problems and congestion, is anti-inflammatory, causes weight loss, prevents blood clots, reduces serum cholesterol, reduces triglycerides, reduces platelet aggregation, cures stomach ulcers, alleviates muscles spasms, cramps, and bowel pain, and it will rapidly cure sore throat infections when used in a gargle.

 It is a gift from God, in other words.

Cayenne pepper can be purchased in convenient capsule form at health food stores for people who wish to use it as a supplement. We always recommend avoiding regular retailers for supplements.

It is popular to use cayenne infused in warm water. Some people add around half a teaspoon of cayenne to 8 ounces of water or tea, and then they gradually increase the amount of cayenne as their tolerance grows.

For the best treatment of a heart attack, cayenne should be mixed with taurine and held in the mouth, but do not forgo immediate emergency medical attention.

Why Michael J Fox Will Never Find Parkinson's Cure

Over the years, certain celebrities have been associated with specific diseases, largely due to press coverage. For instance, Patrick Swayze will be associated with pancreatic cancer indefinitely. Michael J. Fox represents Parkinson's disease, and the 'Marlborough Man' ironically represents lung cancer.

 For those who do not remember, the Marlborough Men were the smoking cowboys who attempted to make filtered cigarettes seem more masculine. The commercials were a huge success, until all the actors began dying from lung cancer.

The demise of the Marlboro Men was publicized heavily by Big Media, because it has long been open season against tobacco products, but the cause of Michael Fox's Parkinson's disease is always side-stepped.

 Readers may notice there has never been a peep about the cause; and moreover, the talk has been singularly about finding the supposedly elusive cure. The cause of Fox's disease is not as politically correct to attack, nor is curing it. It would get most reporters fired.

Throughout the 1980's, Michael did commercials for Pepsico, and he promoted Diet Pepsi cola exclusively in the latter years of his contract. It is believed that he became an ardent consumer of Diet Pepsi throughout this period (even off-set).

Then, in 1991, Michael was diagnosed with young-onset Parkinson's disease. It would be seven years before he told the public about his diagnosis, so the link has been missed by most people.

In 2000, Michael founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation, which was supposed to help discover the cause and cure for Parkinson's disease. Various groups have sent information to the foundation about the link between aspartame (found in diet colas) and Parkinson's disease, but they have been ignored.

The group instead donated $175,000,000 to researchers of Parkinson's disease, while wholly ignoring the information about aspartame.

The foundation is yet another organization which apparently believes that funneling even more money into the pharma-chemical industry cartel will help to find an elusive cure, for something that would require an admission of guilt to cure, and the loss of a billion dollar diet drinks industry.

Thus, The chemical industry is the problem, not the solution.

 Their even greater profits from treatment regimens soar higher with each new Michael they create. Meanwhile, they continue promoting diet drinks as the healthy alternative, because sugars after all, are bad.

The mainstream medical establishment apparently does not know the cause of Parkinson's disease, but it has been linked with heavy metal exposure and excitotoxins. N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in the brain are responsible for the excitotoxicity associated with Parkinson's disease.

Aspartate is one of the main components that is released when aspartame is metabolized, and it directly effects the NMDA receptors. Regular intake of aspartame damages those receptors, and can eventually lead to Parkinson's disease.

It is known that Parkinson's disease occurs whenever the dopamine-related nerve cells inside the brain are decimated. With dramatically decreased dopamine, the nerve cells in the effected part of the brain cannot properly transmit messages.

 In studies, aspartame has been shown to decrease dopamine levels in the brain to induce the unmistakable neurological decline that is seen in Parkinson's patients. A troubling study in Norway verified aspartame as an excitotoxin and as a neurotoxin that is particularly dangerous to children.

Yet none of this is ever mentioned by either the Michael J. Fox Foundation, nor any mainstream media outlets, for which the topic of aspartame is avoided.

Aspartame will cause the death of brain cells and damage to the brain neurons without any other implicating factors. It is a pure poison that is sometimes used to kill ants, and it is known to be the surest way to cause brain tumors in laboratory rats.

 Some cancer studies have used aspartame to intentionally induce cancers in laboratory rats, for the purpose of later testing anti-cancer drugs. It was used because it is so reliable at producing cancers in high dosages.

 It frequently does this to humans too, by the way. In addition to its ability to cause (or mimic the symptoms of) Parkinson's disease, it may also cause multiple sclerosis, diabetes, fibromyalgia, reduced intelligence, obesity, asthma, muscle spasms, and a total of 92 symptoms that even the F.D.A. was forced to confess.

 Let's not forget the brain tumors, either. There is a great irony that 'obesity' is one of the side effects of aspartame, considering it is used exclusively in diet products. The same chemical industry that produce this stuff is the industry that sells the even more lucrative treatments for the aftermath, so it is a case of one hand washing the other. Therefore the cure will not be found anytime soon.

The Politics of Aspartame and Why It is Still Legal

In January of 1980, the F.D.A. advisory board banned aspartame, because their research showed that it caused brain tumors. This decision could only be overturned by the commissioner.

Then, in November 1980, Donald Rumsfeld was hired as part of the transition team for President Ronald Reagan, prior to which, he had been the President of Searle (the company that created aspartame). On the first day of the new administration, the previous F.D.A. commissioner's authority was suspended, and Rumsfeld assigned Dr. Arthur Hayes as the new head of the F.D.A..

 Hayes was previously just a defense contractor, but they both had a close relationship because they had worked together under the Nixon Administration in close contact with the President of Pepsico. Hayes' first decision was to approve aspartame for dry foods, and by the end of 1983, he had approved aspartame for soft drinks too.

 He was later forced to leave the agency, due to media pressure for his acceptance of corporate "gifts". The defense contractor then went to the Searle public relations firm as its "senior medical adviser". Shortly thereafter, Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million "bonus" for his help in ram-rodding the F.D.A. into unbanning aspartame.

Perhaps Michael J. Fox will someday realize what caused his disease, and if he does, we pray that he will use his celebrity influence to inform others about aspartame.

There are very few people who drink Diet Pepsi as frequently as Michael did, particularly at such a young age. Thus, Parkinson's disease rarely occurs in people so young.

 Finding the cause of these events is not difficult, except for people who are intentionally trying to avoid the obvious. Unfortunately, most of the organizations that pretend to seek a cure do, in fact, ignore the obvious.

They prefer genetic explanations, since these mean that nobody is to blame, and there is no responsibility for anyone, and no reason for the funding to ever stop. Both the lawyers and the accountants like it that way. Genetic explanations mean that they are certain to never find that cure, and that's money in the bank.

If the mainstream media were to spend as much time attacking excitotoxins like aspartame and MSG as they did tobacco, it would not be long before many of the major diseases, including Parkinson's disease, became a thing of the past. Fibromyalgia would disappear completely.

Big Meat Imitates Big Tobacco in Fighting the Public's Right to Know

Eight meatpacking industry groups recently sued to stop implementation of the popular Country of Origin Label (COOL) law (supported by 93 percent of Americans) that was passed back in 2008.

Proceeding from the commonsense notion (and economic principle) that in a free market, buyers should have access to sufficient information to make educated choices, the law required retailers to tell customers the country of origin of a variety of foods, including meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts.

 I might not know where all the pieces of my cell phone were made—and there are serious issues with that—but I don't plan to eat my phone. Why shouldn’t I be able to know where my food comes from? 
The big meat companies have objected the loudest to COOL.
 Canadian and Mexican meat groups took the U.S. to court at the World Trade Organization (WTO) when the USDA first announced its regulations for implementing COOL, charging that the rules would discriminate against them, and they won. To the Obama Administration’s credit, they issued a revised rule that actually strengthened COOL, requiring more detail about where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered. The current suit is intended to block the revised regulations that were issued this spring in response to the WTO ruling.

Big Meat’s argument?

The law violates their right to free speech, by compelling them to provide information that they would not provide voluntarily. This is the same argument a coalition of tobacco companies used when they sued to block enhanced warning label requirements on cigarette packages.

 The Supreme Court has traditionally made a distinction between political speech, which is strictly protected by the Constitution, and commercial speech, (intended to “propose a commercial transaction”) but as the Court has become more and more friendly to their interests, corporations are getting increasingly aggressive in asserting their new-found rights.

And the right to keep us in the dark is among them. Big Meat wants us to believe, as their legal complaint states, that “beef is beef, whether the steer or heifer was born in Montana, Manitoba, or Mazatlán. The same goes for hogs, chickens, and other livestock.”

Whether or not this absurd argument holds up in court, (the first hearing will be August 27) it’s not the only legal tactic Big Meat could borrow from Big Tobacco. Two massive international trade and investment agreements currently under negotiation would grant corporations something that might best be termed the Right to Profit.

The Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDR) mechanism grants corporations the right to sue national governments in a private trade court for any government action that interferes with the investor’s expected profits. ISDR has already been built into a number of bilateral agreements, so we know what it means in practice. Perhaps most relevant to food labeling is the case of Phillip Morris v. Uruguay. In 2010, the tobacco giant used ISDR to bring a $2 billion suit against the government of Uruguay for enacting new regulations that would require prominent health warnings on cigarette packs. This particular case has not been decided yet, but in 2012, the plaintiffs won 70 percent of such ISDR cases.

Time and time again trade rules strengthen the hand of multinational corporations at the expense of the rest of us. The implications for food labeling could not be clearer. More and more people around the world are demanding their right to know about what they’re eating—whether through labeling GMOs and other ingredients, COOL or other labeling schemes. We need to let Congress and the President know that trade rules and laws must reflect the public interest, not the right of secrecy for big corporations.

Eight meatpacking industry groups recently sued to stop implementation of the popular Country of Origin Label (COOL) law (supported by 93 percent of Americans) that was passed back in 2008.
Proceeding from the commonsense notion (and economic principle) that in a free market, buyers should have access to sufficient information to make educated choices, the law required retailers to tell customers the country of origin of a variety of foods, including meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts. I might not know where all the pieces of my cell phone were made—and there are serious issues with that—but I don't plan to eat my phone. Why shouldn’t I be able to know where my food comes from?
The big meat companies have objected the loudest to COOL. Canadian and Mexican meat groups took the U.S. to court at the World Trade Organization (WTO) when the USDA first announced its regulations for implementing COOL, charging that the rules would discriminate against them, and they won. To the Obama Administration’s credit, they issued a revised rule that actually strengthened COOL, requiring more detail about where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered. The current suit is intended to block the revised regulations that were issued this spring in response to the WTO ruling.
Big Meat’s argument? The law violates their right to free speech, by compelling them to provide information that they would not provide voluntarily. This is the same argument a coalition of tobacco companies used when they sued to block enhanced warning label requirements on cigarette packages. The Supreme Court has traditionally made a distinction between political speech, which is strictly protected by the Constitution, and commercial speech, (intended to “propose a commercial transaction”) but as the Court has become more and more friendly to their interests, corporations are getting increasingly aggressive in asserting their new-found rights. And the right to keep us in the dark is among them. Big Meat wants us to believe, as their legal complaint states, that “beef is beef, whether the steer or heifer was born in Montana, Manitoba, or Mazatlán. The same goes for hogs, chickens, and other livestock.”
Whether or not this absurd argument holds up in court, (the first hearing will be August 27) it’s not the only legal tactic Big Meat could borrow from Big Tobacco. Two massive international trade and investment agreements currently under negotiation would grant corporations something that might best be termed the Right to Profit. The Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDR) mechanism grants corporations the right to sue national governments in a private trade court for any government action that interferes with the investor’s expected profits. ISDR has already been built into a number of bilateral agreements, so we know what it means in practice. Perhaps most relevant to food labeling is the case of Phillip Morris v. Uruguay. In 2010, the tobacco giant used ISDR to bring a $2 billion suit against the government of Uruguay for enacting new regulations that would require prominent health warnings on cigarette packs. This particular case has not been decided yet, but in 2012, the plaintiffs won 70 percent of such ISDR cases.
Time and time again trade rules strengthen the hand of multinational corporations at the expense of the rest of us. The implications for food labeling could not be clearer. More and more people around the world are demanding their right to know about what they’re eating—whether through labeling GMOs and other ingredients, COOL or other labeling schemes. We need to let Congress and the President know that trade rules and laws must reflect the public interest, not the right of secrecy for big corporations.
- See more at: http://www.iatp.org/blog/201308/big-meat-imitates-big-tobacco-in-fighting-the-public%E2%80%99s-right-to-know#sthash.XlnMJnzD.dpuf

GMO Seeds: Fueling the Health of Corporations

• By Organic Consumers Association
  August 21, 2013
  
  

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page and our Genetic Engineering page.

Numbers don’t lie.  Over the past 20 years, America’s seeds, animal feed and biofuels have been infiltrated like a virus by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The primary winners in this game of genetic roulette have been the profit margins of the world’s largest biotech, pesticide and agrochemical companies.
More than 40 percent of all U.S. cropland is devoted to GMO crops. Yet even though nearly 80 percent of processed foods sold in the U.S. now contain GMOs, the majority of genetically engineered (GE) crops aren’t grown to feed humans. The bulk of today’s GE soybeans and corn in particular, are used to feed animals and generate biofuels.

Americans consume 193 pounds of GMOs annually. And the animals that provide us with nearly all the meat, poultry and dairy we eat are force fed GE crops their  bodies were never designed to process.

Who’s getting healthy on GMOs? Not the American people, whose health has declined since GMOs were introduced into our food. Not American farmers, whose numbers have dropped precipitously since agribusiness has taken over our farmland. And not the billions of animals being pumped full of antibiotics to stave off illnesses associated with confinement and GMO feed.

No, the only ones getting healthy are the four largest pesticide, agrochemical and biotech companies - Monsanto, Dupont, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta – whose sales have jumped from $60.1 billion in 2004 to $119.3 billion in 2012.

America’s Growing GMO Seed Dependence
404 million: Approximate number of acres of U.S. cropland.

172 million: Number of acres of GMO crops in the U.S., nearly double its nearest competitor (Brazil at 90 million).

94: Percentage of U.S. soy crops that currently contain GMOs.

54: Percentage of U.S. soybeans in 2000 that contained GMOs, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996

90: Percentage of U.S. cotton crops that contain GMOs.

61: Percentage of U.S. cotton crops that contained GMOs in 2000, up from 42% in 1998, and 15% in 1996.

88:  Percentage of U.S. corn crops that contain GMOs.

25: Percentage of U.S. corn containing GMOs in 2000, about the same as 1998 (26%), but up from 1.5% in 1996.

90: Percentage of U.S. canola crops that contain GMOs.

95: Percentage of U.S. sugar beet crops that contain GMOs.

57: Percentage of American sugar production that comes from sugar beets.

GMOs: Fueling our Factory Farms and Automobiles
98: Percentage of U.S. GMO soy used for animal feed and fuel production (~70% to feed and ~25% to biofuels).

71: Percentage of U.S. GMO corn that is used for animal feed (40%) and fuel production (31%).

Approximately 67: Percentage of world’s GMO canola seed oil used in animal feed.

12.2 million: Number of hectares of GMO crops (nearly 10 percent of the global total) used in the U.S. for biofuels in 2008.

The Winners: Biotech, Agrochemical and Pesticide Industries
$13.5 billion: Monsanto’s net sales in 2012 (largest biotech seed company in the world), up from $5.5 billion in 2004.

$34.8 billion: Dupont’s net sales in 2012, up from $8 billion.

$56.8 billion: Dow Chemical’s net sales in 2012, up from $40.1 billion.

$14.2 billion: Syngenta’s net sales in 2012, up from $7.3 billion in 2004.

Compiled by Zack Kaldveer, assistant media director for the Organic Consumers Association.

Do You Really Want GMO Apples In Restaurants and Schools?

Do It for the Apple

There’s nothing more natural than an apple, right?

The symbol of good health and all that’s right with the world.

But did you know that the FDA is reviewing a genetically modified version of the perfect fruit?

 It’s true.

 A Canadian company called Okanagan Specialty Fruits wants to “improve” the apple with a genetic engineering process that would prevent an apple from turning brown after you slice it or bite into it.

 Why? Mostly so kids will eat more (genetically engineered) apples.

Our best bet for keeping the GMO apple from reaching school cafeterias and fast-food restaurants? Pass a GMO labeling law in Washington State, where 60 percent of this country’s apples are grown.

Because chances are, if the state where the most apples are grown mandates that GMO apples must be labeled, the U.S. Apple Association, which opposes the GMO apple, will have more clout when it comes to convincing the FDA that consumers don’t want biotech engineers messing with their favorite fruit.

Just one of the many reasons we all have a stake in I-522, Washington State’s initiative to require mandatory labeling of GMOs.

 Please help us win this critical battle in November. For the movement. For your health.

 For the apple. Thank you!

Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education)

Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our legislative efforts in Washington, Vermont and other states)

Dr Weil, Who's Side Is He Really On?

Andrew Weil (pronounced "while"), M.D., is a professor at the University of Arizona specializing in integrated medicine, which combines allopathic medicine with nutritional therapies.

Dr. Weil is also a supplement spokesperson, and a prolific author. The doctor is an icon for organic product and herbal supplement marketing, a media darling, and a self-appointed leader of the alternative health movement.

 As if all that were not enough, Weil also has his own private medical practice, and is a proud graduate of Harvard University. Nowadays, one cannot stroll the aisles of most health-related retailers without seeing his face in all directions.

These may be tough times for the rest of us, but business is great for Dr. Weil. At the beginning of his career, Weil lived on a South Dakota Indian reservation, where he studied herbal medicine and ritualistic healing with a Lakota medicine man named Leonard Crow Dog.

 In his 1972 book, The Natural Mind, Weil demonstrated his shaman influence by criticizing American drug policy, and revealing his fondness for states of altered consciousness induced by psychedelic drugs, hypnosis, and meditation.

A Media Darling
We have spent a great deal of time studying Dr. Weil's work. What we discovered was so disturbing that we felt it was our duty to publish it. The backdrop of his allopathic medical heritage causes us to wonder if he may be covertly aiding allopathic medicine by very publicly practicing alternative medicine in a manner which ultimately discredits it.

 He has been placed in an excellent position to do this by the long-standing enemies of alternative medicine -- mainstream media and publishing houses -- whose funding from the pharmaceutical industry exceeds that from all other sponsors combined.

We have been flabbergasted at how big media companies are so willing to aggressively promote Dr. Weil, when they have historically had an open policy of mocking, suppressing, and marginalizing all natural health therapies. Our nervousness about the M.D. is founded upon an unmistakable pattern that is exposed herein.

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Sun Tzu knew that the surest way to destroy any enemy was from the inside, by undermining it with trickery and treason.

The safest, and easiest route for our publication would be, of course, to simply look the other way, as all of our cowardly peers have done. We are, however, striving for significantly higher journalistic standards and ethics.

To contrast the difference, Time Magazine featured Dr. Weil not once, but twice on the cover of its magazine; for issues which were dedicated to him. One of the articles confessed that Time Magazine was a partner corporation of Time New Media, which was bargaining with Weil for an affiliation contract.

F.U.D.: It Happened First In The Software Industry

Not so long ago, during the so-called dot-com era, technology and Internet-based services were growing exponentially, at a rate never before seen in any modern industry. In the span of less than 10 years, we went from using the postal system and VHS video tapes to real-time streaming video, e-mail, and the mother of them all: the World Wide Web.

Business in the technology industry was good; really good. Many of the meekly software companies quickly grew into titanic international corporations with billions of dollars flowing into them every year; and with no end in sight. It was an era fueled by incredible technological innovations by thousands of corporations and private projects.

 Foremost of the young mega-corporations was Microsoft. Greed got the better of them, and during the middle 1990's, Microsoft found itself in a federal court pile-on of epic proportions; fighting anti-trust charges concerning it having illegally used its monopoly power to destroy other companies. The charges were all true, and one of the most inflammatory of its predatory practices came to be known as 'FUD'.

The acronym 'F.U.D.' referred to the dishonest practice of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about competitors' products, while pretending to be an objective 3rd party. Microsoft pioneered this despicable practice when it hired the marketing company, Waggener Edstrom, to pretend to be advocates of its top software rivals at various online technology forums.

They half-heartedly pretended to promote the competing software at various Internet sites and in letters to editors, but they also simultaneously spread fear, uncertainty, and disinformation in these writings as a type of anti-marketing against competitors. They would post back-handed comments like, "Linux software is great, but we are still working on eliminating the dozens of security weaknesses"

Microsoft executives realized that fear and uncertainty are the most powerful weapons for destroying upstart competitors. Over time, this phenomena was noticed, because the questionable messages were traced back to the same locations, and it was noticed that all of them were written in a very similar manner.

Unfortunately, Microsoft's campaign of F.U.D. against competition successfully ended the innovation of the dot-com era. Technological progress has been stalled for over twenty years, and that was their intent. Any new innovation is a threat to their monopoly position (the status quo) so Microsoft's executives consider technological progress as the company's greatest enemy.

The psychological warfare of F.U.D. is no longer just an issue of the software industry, and it is the surest way to protect established industry giants from superior competition. It will become apparent that Dr. Andrew Weil is an agent of F.U.D. and disinformation regarding the alternative therapies that he purports to espouse.

Dr. Andrew Weil's Corporate Partner: Drugstore.com

We do not have much information about Dr. Weil's corporate partners, for Dr. Weil has made none of this information public.

 We became aware of Weil's business relationship with drugstore.com only because court-filed legal papers are public records. There is no way of knowing how many other pharmaceutical-industry business partners Dr. Weil has.

Casewatch.com reported the following from the records of the lawsuit of Brownstein Hyattt & Farber, P.C. on behalf of Drugstore.com in the case of Drugstore.com, Inc. v. Dr. Andrew Weil, and Weil Lifestyle LLC.

"Drugstore.com is suing Andrew Weil, M.D. and Weil Wellness LLC for breach of a contract... the contact called for 'honorarium' payments totaling $1.6 million to Weil and minimum royalty payments totaling $12.4 million to the company from September 2003 through June 2008.

Drugstore.com began featuring Weil's advice and products in October 2003, but the suit charges that he failed to 'make commercially reasonable efforts' to promote what was covered by the agreement. The 'Vitamin Advisor' uses an online questionnaire to promote 'personalized products' said to be 'based on your specific health concerns'."

According to papers submitted to the court, the Advisor Program was developed by drugstore.com, Weil, and members of his personal Science Advisory Board. The lawsuit further noted:

"Pursuant to the Agreement, Weil Lifestyle and Weil agreed to promote various aspects of the parties' business relationship and to cooperate with Drugstore.com's operation and marketing of its online stores and services. In exchange, drugstore.com agreed to make monthly payments to Weil, Weil Lifestyle, and a foundation established by Weil Lifestyle ('The Foundation'). Pursuant to the Agreement, Drugstore.com pays Weil Lifestyle Monthly Sales Commissions and makes a monthly donation to the Foundation..."

Drugstore.com has paid in excess of $3.9 million in monthly sales commissions, donations, and quarterly true-ups (royalties). In addition to these amounts, Drugstore.com also pays a monthly honorarium directly to Weil.

"I don't get money from the vitamins that I make. My after tax profits go to a foundation that supports integrative medicine."

-- Andrew Weil

The Weil Foundation

We have been led to believe that Dr. Weil does not profit from his sponsorships and his outrageously priced nutritional supplements, since he allegedly donates all of this income into the Weil Foundation.

The Weil Foundation is registered with the I.R.S. as a 501(c)3 nonprofit charity, making it exempt from federal income taxes. The name of this foundation is no coincidence; for all intents and purposes, Dr. Weil has been donating money to himself.

He has stated that he pays taxes on his income before it is donated, but since he is required to pay income tax, this it is hardly the hallmark of philanthropy. This has been going on for many years, so it is likely that the high profile doctor has some powerful friends in government.

Meanwhile, he mentions that his proceeds go to a charity in his public appearances.
As expected, publicly available financial records for the Weil Foundation are virtually nonexistent, which is something not found in the case of legitimate charities.

 We were able to gather some information from Weil's own Internet site for the year of 2007. The foundation's major benefactors for 2007 were the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson ($300,000), and the University of Arizona Foundation in Tucson ($250,000).

The University of Arizona is Dr. Weil's employer, so it is amazing what can be accomplished with creative accounting. We can be certain that Dr. Weil's job security with the University of Arizona is rock solid, and that he never misses a promotion.

"The Weil Foundation received nothing from Weil or his company in 2003 and 2004, according to the most recent tax returns the foundation filed with the Internal Revenue Service. 

Yet during that period, drugstore.com was contractually obligated to pay Weil and Weil's company some $2.5 million. Maybe the money was swallowed up in expenses before the after tax profits were computed. Or maybe when Weil says 'I don't get any money from the vitamins I make,' he's not including any salary or consulting fees his company may pay him.

 Or perhaps Weil is saving it all up to make a lump sum donation later. We tried to find out, but Weil didn't respond to repeated requests to his publicist, public relations firm, and foundation to talk about his marketing deals. In any case, Weil could have been more forthcoming about the foundation with the Today Show audience. When he said that 'my after tax profits go to a foundation that supports integrative medicine', he could have mentioned that the foundation's primary beneficiary is Weil's own program at the University of Arizona."

-- Nutrition Action Health Newsletter

Dr. Weil's Back-Handed Assault On Alternative Medicine

Andrew Weil hopes to eventually force all naturopathic practitioners to hold at least 4-year degrees, and to be officially licensed.

Those who practice alternative health care would be forced to become the very people that they have been trying to escape from. 

It would wrest control of alternative medicine into the hands of the American Medical Association if naturopathic and holistic healers were indeed required to be licensed by the same licensing boards.

 It would constitute Dr. Weil's greatest gift to Big Pharma and to the A.M.A..

The conflict of interest is massive, since Weil is the creator of integrative medicine, a college medical professor teaching it, and he is now promoting the mandatory integration of his own integrative medicine into the medical schools, while attempting to force all alternative practitioners to be licensed through this system.

Despite the altruistic media image that has been constructed for Dr. Weil, it all looks a little too self-serving, and a little too much like a plan to make alternative medicine illegal.

Licensing means regulation, and alternatives would be soon regulated out of existence.

Check and mate.

Licensing would mean regulating therapies to be only those that are approved by Dr. Weil's future licensing boards, in the same crippling manner that is already seen throughout orthodox medicine.

Not only would alternative health care providers live in fear of promoting "unapproved therapies" (even when these are just herbs), but additionally, you or I could go to prison for "practicing medicine without a license" for merely helping our neighbors with natural remedies.

Dr. Weil was bold enough to boast about his plan during an online video entitled, Naturopathic Medicine.

"I think naturopathic doctors are well trained today and trained to operate within the scope of their practice. I also think there are natural partnerships between naturopathic doctors and medical doctors that are useful for both, and I see many opportunities for naturopathic doctors working in integrative medical clinics, which I think will be one of the forms of medical practice of the future. I think this is a natural partnership that can be useful. Many of the measures that naturopathic doctors are trained in, ahh, I think can lower health care cost, because the treatments are cheaper and safer than those used in conventional medicine."

-- Dr. Weil, Natural Medicine video

Pay heed to the "operate within the scope of practice" part, which suggests that through licensure that alternative medicine will be controlled like the establishment's medicine.

This would suppress unapproved methodologies, which would be a desired aspect of the "natural partnership" with the pharmaceutical industry. He uses some cunning tactics to promote licensing, including the usage of half-truths.

Weil does indeed, "see many opportunities for naturopathic doctors working in integrative medical clinics", because he is the owner of integrative medicine, and he will be the final authority for naturopaths working in integrative medicine.

While alternative medicine is practically always much cheaper than conventional medicine, having a license would not lower costs. The licenses would increase the costs of alternative practitioners, so that they would charge more to cover their exorbitant licensing fees that would be paid to enrich Dr. Weil further. He may not be much of a doctor, but he excels in law and business. Beware when anyone promises to help us by taking away our freedom.

Ivory Towers

The process of forcing licenses would once again ensure that only the wealthy could practice medicine, and history does not reflect kindly on the elite classes, like those from ivory towers who continue to dictate what is, and what isn't, allowed to be called medicine.

Weil's licensing scheme would be a repeat of the establishment, and more importantly, it would enable the establishment to control access to all health related information by labeling alternative information as 'unapproved claims' and treatments as 'unapproved drugs', under the guises of licensing and regulations that are supposedly for our benefit.

The F.D.A. has already threatened to remove cherries from the market as an "unapproved drug", due to accurate reports of how they eliminate arthritis pain -- so what is suggested here is actually standard procedure for how the pharmaceutical industry protects itself from natural alternatives.

In one discussion at his website, Weil suggests both surgery and radioactive iodine for those who have thyroid cancer, after admitting that it is a very slow growing cancer. This would then be followed by a full year of birth control for women, due to the poisonous effects of the radioactive iodine upon the ovaries.

Despite the high risk of this therapy spreading cancer throughout the body, and in particular, causing leukemia; he remarked that he did not know of alternatives that were as effective.

Our staff was able to find better alternatives to radiation with only a few hours of research, while he supposedly cannot with his three decades of training and his Harvard education.

 In fact, Dr. Weil is unique in the alternative community for making such suggestions, and for his appearance of blanket ignorance about standard alternative techniques for serious (the most profitable) health conditions.

The thyroid plays a critical role in the regulation of hormones and the metabolism. It absorbs the iodine which is found in our foods, and uses it to produce hormones which are paramount to the function of every cell in the human body.

Cancer is a disease for which the alternative medical community has found cures, and it never recommends either radiation or poisonous treatments. Almost all of the alternative community mutually agrees that cancer can be cured through drastic changes in diet, avoidance of tainted water (e.g. tap water), internal food-grade hydrogen peroxide, omega-3 with sulfur proteins (The Budwig Protocol), key vitamins (in particular F.D.A. banned B17), mega-doses of vitamin C, detox, and herbal supplements to help speed the process; since the root causes of cancers are internal fermentation combined with acidosis (low pH) and nutritional deficiencies.

Instead of brutally attacking the entire body, the holistic process is one of correcting acidic body chemistry, so that the blood can again absorb oxygen at the rate it was intended to. This allows the immune system and the cells to begin functioning properly again.

Alternative therapies tend to do much more than merely treat the symptom (tumors), and cancer cells are just a symptom of the real problems elsewhere. Dr. Weil seems not to understand these fundamental basics, and we cannot prove if his ignorance stems from his educational indoctrination, or if it is part of a manipulative charade that is intended to further marginalize alternative medicine.

Conversely, the orthodox use of chemotherapy and radiation promoted by Dr. Weil are incredibly damaging to the entire body, and it should be avoided at all costs, due to the way that these therapies attack all of the cells in the human body.

The corruption of the this system is shown through the fact that 20-90% of oncologists surveyed would refuse their own cancer treatments, dependent largely upon the specific type of cancer they had. The standard therapies actually fuel the internal fermentation process that triggered the cancers; and therefore, standard treatments have long been documented to actually stimulate future cancers.

Dr. Weil's allopathic establishment considers having survived for a mere 5 years as a success, and these doctors never publicly speak about their cure-to-kill ratios, whereby the death rate is immensely higher for their patients than for people who receive no treatments at all. 

Their actual long-term "cure rate" is approximately 4%, even though they try to cook the numbers by claiming that any patient who survived for 5 years is a "success". The alternative therapies have almost the opposite numbers, but have the drawbacks of being tremendously cheaper, are not patentable, and they are still unregulated by the pharmaceutical cartel.

F.U.D. Allopathic Style

Dr. Weil strongly disagrees with holistic and naturopathic viewpoints.

Although he founded integrative medicine, he is actually very reliant on conventional treatments for serious conditions, and appears to support alternative approaches only in the area of nutrition, and only for lesser conditions that do not threaten the medical industry's cash cows.

"[Dr. Weil] cited such treatments as gene therapy, immuno-therapy [chemically attacking and suppressing the immune system], and anti-angiogenesis therapy, which involves blocking the development of new blood vessels that [allegedly] feed cancer. 'These hold the promise of being much less toxic treatments that I think may render chemotherapy obsolete, but at the moment chemotherapy is the best that we've got for certain kinds of cancers.'"

-- CNN (Cable News Network)

Most patients would prefer cancer over deliberate mutations in their genes, which could have horrific repercussions lasting throughout their family tree to all of their grandchildren's grandchildren, the total destruction of their immune systems, or the blocking of their critical blood vessels. He actually described the above options as the "less toxic" alternatives.

In actuality, no reasonable alternative practitioner would ever recommend these to even his worst enemy. We wonder what this could be other than an attempt to condemn alternative medicine with damningly faint praise, and these unique alternative treatments?

 In the typical M.D. manner, Weil made no mention of the real alternatives, and he merely recited some experimental biotechnology treatments that only effect tumors, instead of attacking the actual cancers. In the same interview, he parroted that many natural supplements (which compete with his own) are ineffective, yet he made no mention of the effects of his pharmaceutical recommendations, which cause heart attacks, diabetes, strokes, paralysis, seizures, stimulate more cancers; or how they are statistically less effective than nutritional therapies.

Perhaps Dr. Weil did not read the most recent U.S. Death Census, whereby adverse effects from pharmaceuticals are the 4th leading cause of death in the United States counting only the properly prescribed medications, and orthodox cancer treatments are the 2nd leading cause of death; because nobody actually survives long enough to die of the cancers anymore.

The statistics indicate that pharmaceuticals shave 30 years from the average American's life.

When comparatively combined, the industry's own records prove that it is the top killer in the United States.

How many people died of vitamin B-17 therapy last year?

How many legitimate alternative practitioners would agree with Weil, who are not a profiting part of his integrated medicine partnership?

How many would subject themselves or their patients to his biotechnology gene experiments?

How many of Weil's people would subject themselves or their families to Weil's "less toxic" recommendations?

Out Of The Canola-Coated Frying Pan and Into The Benzene

Dr. Weil was one of the pioneering proponents of canola cooking oil usage.

The canola plant is the genetically modified offspring of the poisonous rapeseed plant, whose oil is an E.P.A. registered pesticide.

The canola plant, in fact, did not exist prior to 1978.

 It was genetically engineered since its parent, rapeseed, had been banned in the United States for destroying people's hearts.

Upon its first appearance, Andrew wrote recipe books which emphasized canola oil, and claimed that it was the healthiest cooking oil.

 Dr. Joseph Mercola deserves credit for being one of the first people to uncover that canola oil is more-or-less a healthy cooking oil -- until it is actually heated during cooking. Once heated, canola oil becomes harmful to the body, and the rancid oil emits carcinogenic fumes.

When cooked, canola oil releases 1,3Butadiene, benzene, acrolein, formaldehyde, and other related poisonous compounds which become infused into the foods being cooked. Mercola reported that:

"During processing, the omega-3 fatty acids of canola oil are transformed into dangerous trans fatty acids; similar to those found in margarine, and possibly even more dangerous. A recent study indicates that 'heart healthy' canola oil actually produces a deficiency of vitamin E, a vitamin required for a healthy cardiovascular system. Other studies indicate that even lower ucic acid canola oil causes heart lesions, particularly when the diet is low in saturated fats."

NOTE:  Please read more on  Healthy Oils  actually only a couple of oils are safe when heated, and one of them, sadly, is NOT Olive Oil.

Andrew Weil's F.U.D. -- In His Own Words "I know of no effect of alcohol on tissue repair and no reason why you shouldn't drink alcohol (moderately, of course) after working out." "I have always voiced the opinion that there should be a clear separation between a health care professionals recommendations and the potential to profit from those recommendations." "Virtually every major US health organization has declared amalgam dental fillings, as they're known, safe, but some detractors remain unconvinced. Used to fill cavities, these dental fillings contain a mix of mercury, silver, tin, and other metals. Because elemental mercury and many mercury compounds can be toxic, some people worry that the dental fillings could be harmful." "My advice is to stick with the antibiotic treatment your son is receiving. And what you might do -- what's better than using colloidal silver -- is investigate electromagnetic stimulation [radiation] for bone healing, a treatment that is backed by scientific evidence." "Most doctors are taught to regard the placebo effect as a nuisance, but it's the meat of the medicine. Placebo responses are responses from within, elicited by belief." "I'm not a proponent of the raw foods diet. First of all, when you eat everything raw, you lose much of the best flavor, texture and appearance of food. More importantly, however, is the fact that many of the vitamins and minerals found in vegetables are less bio-available when you eat these foods raw than when they're cooked.  Another disadvantage stems from the fact that many of the natural toxins in edible roots, seeds, stems and leaves are destroyed by cooking. Although our bodies have natural defenses against these toxins, a raw food diet can add to the toxic load we're already dealing with.  The latest word on raw food diets comes from a new study which shows that vegetarians who eat only raw foods have abnormally low bone mass, a sign that they may be vulnerable to osteoporosis." "Sickness is the manifestation of evil in the body." "It's unrealistic to imagine that you can never be sick. Health is cyclical: It breaks down; it reforms. Being sick is part of being alive." "Because autoimmune diseases tend to flare up in response to emotional ups and downs, I recommend some form of mind-body treatment hypnosis may be especially helpful (children are more easily hypnotized than adults)." "The distribution of calories you take in should be: 40% to 50% from carbohydrates [sugars], 30% from fat and 20% to 30% from protein." "It is more important to eat some carbohydrates [sugars] at breakfast, because the brain needs fuel right away, and carbohydrates are the best source." "One claim holds that distillation removes all of water's beneficial minerals. While it's true that distillation removes minerals as well as various contaminants from water, we don't know that the human body can readily absorb minerals from water..." "The underlying idea is that you can prevent disease by balancing your body's pH... None of these claims are true. Furthermore, your body needs absolutely no help in adjusting its pH.  Normally, the pH of blood and most body fluids is near seven, which is close to neutral. This is under very tight biological control because all of the chemical reactions that maintain life depend on it. Unless you have serious respiratory or kidney problems, body pH will remain in balance no matter what you eat or drink." "In general, I'm not a fan of products sold through multi-level marketing." "The use of yage, or ayahuasca, in Amazonian Indian cultures is often credited with giving people visions that have valid content." "You can lower your mercury levels over time by simply not eating fish likely to contain it." "Children with autism can also benefit from probiotics, possibly because they decrease leakage of large molecules from the gut that can trigger immune reactions with effects on brain function." "It's we who determine whether drugs are destructive or whether they're beneficial. It's not any inherent property of drugs." "Early detection is key to winning the cancer battle. Once you reach the age of 50, the following tests should be done routinely... A digital rectal exam at the same time the sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy or [radioactive] barium enema is performed...  Consider taking aspirin therapy. Research suggests that taking a daily low-dose aspirin over a period of years can cut colon cancer risk by as much as half." "Some Essiac promoters irresponsibly advise against chemotherapy and other conventional treatments when using the tea. This is a reckless and dangerous recommendation... In fact, a 2004 study at the National Cancer Institute showed that Flo-Essence promotes the growth of mammary tumors in rats... can have unpleasant side effects... My advise? Avoid it."

Dr. Andrew Weil Promotes CODEX

"I've had a lot of questions about Codex, often based on alarmist and erroneous information being circulated on the Internet. I'm happy to set the record straight. 

Here's the story: in 1963 the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization created the Codex Alimentarius Commission to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the international food trade through development of food standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations..."

-- Dr. Andrew Weil

Doctor and congressional Representative, Ron Paul, relayed the following on the Glenn Beck program (paraphrased).

 Codex Alimentarius, established in 1962 as a U.N. trade commission serves corporate greed with no interest in health or consumer protection. The World Health Organization says Codex Alimentarius,

 "Has not made a contribution in human health in its 42 years of existence".

Codex Alimentarius sponsors are Big Pharma, Big Medica, Big Chema (profitable toxic chemicals used on food and fields, including deadly pesticides banned in the U.S.), Big Agribiz (industrial factory farms that use antibiotics, drugs, and hormones to increase profits), and Big Biotech (creates dangerous untested genetically modified organisms (G.M.O.'s) planned to become legal worldwide unlabeled).

Codex Alimentarius has no actual legal standing, but it exerts enormous influence since it is used by the World Trade Organization to decide trade disputes. Codex-compliant countries win automatically regardless of the merits of the case. Devastating trade sanctions result, so the U.S. is now racing to destroy protective laws that interfere with the implementation of Codex policies.

This is what Codex has in store for us:

• Natural nutrients will be declared toxins that Codex will supposedly 'protect' us from
• Ban virtually all natural health options
• High-potency supplements will be illegal
• Deadly drugs are sold unopposed
• Dangerous growth stimulants (hormones) mandatory in all meat and milk (e.g. Monsanto's rBGH)
• Banned pesticides will be permitted in your food
• Untested, unlabeled, Frankenfood in your kitchen (G.M.O.'s - Genetically Modified Organisms)
• Free-radical enriched radioactive foods (i.e. "cold pasteurized")
• Weak and meaningless "Organic Farming" standards allowing dangerous drugs and chemicals in so-called "organic" foods.

Despite the seemingly insane advice of Dr. Weil, he is becoming increasingly popular amongst newcomers to the holistic movement, and his face has become an advertisement for many health products.

His interest in becoming a walking commercial, and his zealous adherence toward promoting establishment protocols leads us to conclude that Dr. Weil is not as well-intentioned toward alternative medicine as he portrays.

 It is remarkable that he is being accepted as an expert, considering his own health. He boasts about his skin care products, while he has a terrible complexion, extreme hair loss, and is overweight -- all signs of severe acidosis -- something that genuine practitioners of natural medicine rarely experience.

There are many out there who are just like him. They would love to monopolize supplements and competitive treatments, but Dr. Andrew Weil appears to be the most prominent of them. Remember to always do your own research, and buyer beware.

13 Lies GMO Labeling Opponents are Recycling in Washington State

• By Zack Kaldveer
  Organic Consumers Association, August 21, 2013
  
  

It’s déjà vu all over again. Last year a coalition of out-of-state, multinational biotech, pesticide and junk food corporations spent nearly $46 million to narrowly defeat Proposition 37, California's GMO Labeling Initiative.

Now, the same who’s who of the world’s most notorious global corporate bad actors has descended on Washington State. Why? To try to stop Washington State voters from passing I-522, a citizens’ initiative that, if passed, will require mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in all food products sold in Washington State.

Like bad robots, they’re spitting out the same old, tired lies, designed to scare voters into voting against their own best interests.

Here are the lies. And the facts. Please read, print, email, roll up and stuff into a bottle you launch into the sea . . . whatever it takes to spread the word that while $46 million may buy a lot of lies, it doesn’t change the facts.

Lie: Labeling genetically engineered foods (GMOs) will cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year.

Truth: Empirical studies have concluded labeling would lead to no increases in prices. Since the European Union labeled GMOs in the 1990’s, there has been "no resulting increase in grocery costs."

Trader Joe’s, Clif Bar & Co. and Washington’s own PCC Natural Markets all label their non-GMO product lines at no additional cost to consumers.

Lie: I-522 is full of arbitrary special interest exemptions that will just confuse consumers.

Truth: I-522 requires labeling for the GE foods that are most prevalent in the American diet – food on supermarket shelves. I-522’s exemptions are easy to explain and guided by common sense and the law:

•     Restaurants – Restaurants and bake sales are not required to list the ingredients in their products. Requiring labeling for GMOs would have required tracking all the ingredients in restaurant meals, and since no other laws require that, it didn't make sense for this one to.
•     Meat, cheese, dairy and eggs from animals - These will be labeled if they come from genetically engineered animals. However, they are exempt if the animals ate genetically engineered feed but are not themselves genetically engineered. This exemption is common all around the world. It didn't make sense for Washington’s law to be stricter than international standards.
•     Alcohol – Alcohol labeling is regulated under different laws than food at both the federal and state levels. Because of the single-subject law that requires initiatives to apply to only one subject, alcohol couldn’t be included.

Lie: Consumers don’t need labels to avoid GMOs. All they need to do is buy certified organic products.

Truth: Food companies routinely and intentionally mislead consumers by labeling products “natural” in order to attract health-conscious consumers. Because the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) does not prohibit the use of the word “natural” on products containing GMOs, most consumers are fooled by this label. 

 

According to a recent poll by the Hartman group, 61 percent of respondents erroneously believed that the use of the word “natural” implies or suggests the absence of GMOs, versus 63 percent who correctly believed that the label "organic" means that a product is GMO-free. 

 

Food companies should be required, as they are in some 60 other countries, to clearly state that a product contains GMOs. If companies truly believe their GMO ingredients are perfectly safe, why spend millions to keep from having to label them?

Lie: Washington will be the only state in the nation to label GMOs, unfairly hurting farmers and the state’s multi-billion agricultural industry. 

Truth: Washington won’t be the only state labeling GE foods.  Connecticut, Maine and Alaska have passed labeling laws and dozens of other states are considering identical proposals. Besides, 64 countries already require labeling, so many farmers are already used to labeling for exports. In fact, many Washington farmers support labeling because they believe that growing GMO crops destroys healthy soil, and because they sell crops to overseas markets that either require labels on GMO crops, or have banned them completely. These countries are increasingly concerned about U.S. non-GMO crops, such as wheat, that could be potentially contaminated by cross-pollination with GMO crops.

Lie: I-522 encourages shakedown lawsuits by giving trial lawyers an unprecedented new right to sue farmers, food producers and store owners over the wording on food labels.

Truth: I-522 offers no economic incentives for lawyers to sue. Consumers can't file a class action suit against food producers without first giving the food producer a warning and the opportunity to comply with the law. As long as the defendant fixes the labels, then no class action is permitted. Once the class action option is off the table, a consumer could sue only to get a court order to require labeling, and only for the few dollars that consumer paid to buy the product. Where’s the incentive?

If the state brings a court action to enforce the new law, any penalties recovered by the state go only to the state - not the plaintiff or the lawyer. Food companies are required by law to label for ingredients, calories, etc., and there have been few violations. Why wouldn’t companies accurately label genetically engineered foods, too?

For the real story about abusive lawsuits by rapacious trial lawyers, check out what Monsanto is up to: suing farmers across the country for growing their own seeds.

Lie: Labeling GMOs creates a bureaucratic nightmare for grocers and retailers and requires the state government to monitor labels on thousands of food products in thousands of stores, costing taxpayers millions.

Truth: Under I-522, the person responsible for labeling processed foods is the person who puts the label on: the manufacturer. Retailers would only have to label the few raw commodities (sweet corn, papaya, squash) that are genetically engineered. They can either stick a simple label on the bin or, if they wish, they can ask their supplier for a sworn statement that the crop is not genetically engineered.

I-522 requires no costly testing for GE ingredients. No burdensome government oversight is necessary. The system is inherently designed to protect small grocers and retailers while providing consumers with the right to know what’s in their food without increasing grocery costs.

Lie: GE foods pose no health safety risks.

Truth: GMOs have never been proven safe. The FDA requires no pre-market health safety studies, and the only long term peer-reviewed animal study conducted involving GMO corn sprayed with Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide, found massive tumors, organ failure and premature death in rats. In addition, a growing body of peer-reviewed animal studies have linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disorders, birth defects, high infant mortality rates, fertility problems, and sterility. Clearly, more independent, long term studies are warranted. Until GMOs are proven unequivocally safe, they should be labeled so consumers can avoid them if they choose.

Lie: GE foods are as, or more, nutritious than organic foods.

Truth: Organic foods, especially raw or non-processed, contain higher levels of beta carotene, vitamins C, D and E, health-promoting polyphenols, cancer-fighting antioxidants, flavonoids that help ward off heart disease, essential fatty acids, and essential minerals. On average, organic is 25 percent more nutritious in terms of vitamins and minerals than products derived from industrial agriculture. Levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle are between 50 percent and 80 percent higher than normal milk. Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce have between 20 percent and 40 percent more nutrients than non-organic foods.

A report released from the non-GMO corn company De Dell, in Canada found GMO Corn has 14 parts-per-million (ppm) of Calcium while non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm, or 437 times more. According to the report, non-GMO corn also has 56 times more magnesium and seven times more manganese than GMO corn.

Lie: The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that GE foods are safe.

Truth: The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods, a standard the U.S. fails to meet. A National Academy of Sciences report states that products of genetic engineering technology “carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.” Numerous public health and medical groups support the labeling of GE foods, including the American Public Health Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Breast Cancer Action, Allergy Kids Foundation, Autism One, and many others.

Lie: We need GMOs to feed the world.

Truth: Studies have proven that GE crops do not lead to greater crop yields. In fact, just the opposite is true. A 2009 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found GMO crops fail to produce higher yields. And a recently released, peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops.

Lie: The creation of GE seeds is comparable to the cross-breeding that our ancestors did to create hardier versions of heritage crops.

Truth: Cross breeding is the product of guided natural reproduction, while GMOs are created in a laboratory using high-tech and sophisticated techniques. One of these techniques involves gene-splicing which is used to cross a virus or a bacteria with a plant. These untested, unnatural creations are the antithesis to what our ancestors did, and what responsible farmers do: cross-pollinate different varieties of the same plant to help naturally bring forth desirable characteristics.

Lie: GE crops reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides.

Truth: GE crops have dramatically increased the use of herbicides and pesticides. According to a new study by Food and Water Watch, the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012” with the overall pesticide use rising by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

The report follows another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook last year that found that overall pesticide use increased by 404 million pounds, or about 7%, from 1996 and 2011. The use of GE crops are now driving up the volume of toxic herbicides needed each year by about 25 percent.

Lie: GE crops aren’t harmful to the environment.

Truth: Besides polluting the environment with herbicides and pesticides, GE crops are leading to biodiversity loss and the emergence of “super bugs” and  “super weeds" that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, requiring the need for even more dangerous and toxic herbicides.

GE crops, and the toxic pesticides they are designed to withstand, are endangering numerous critical species, including the honey bee, frogs, birds, fish and the Monarch Butterfly.

And don’t forget our air and water. The island of Molokai in Hawaii has had its air and water quality destroyed by Monsanto’s almost-2000-acre test facility. The same is true worldwide, with many areas around GMO farms reporting horrific bloody skin rashes, an uptick in asthma and toxic pesticides that leach into the groundwater.

 

NOTE:  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, consumers have far more power than any legislation.  Just stop buying and swallowing their garbage and even giant corporations fall if they don't provide what consumers will buy.  

Americans simply don't care enough yet to pay attention to their health, if enough voted against GMO false foods, they wouldn't fill our supermarket shelves.

21 Home Remedies For A Toothache

By ‘Above Average’ Joe

This week I had to write my article a little ahead of time as I will be out of the office for a few days.
I went for an annual cleaning at my dentist and a routine X-ray showed that my lower wisdom teeth had turned sideways and were now completely impacted.

I had put it off long enough and it was finally time to schedule in to get them removed.  I was lucky this time that they hadn’t caused me any pain and have not started to damage my other teeth, but I really started to think and I realized one very important thing…

You can’t schedule a toothache and it never fails that a major toothache hits when it’s late at night and your dentist’s office is closed, or you’re somewhere remote and getting to a dentist any time soon is just not an option.

Anyone who has ever had the misfortune of a toothache knows that it is not just your mouth that hurts.

A toothache can be felt in just about every part of your body.  I have had a few so bad that they made me sick to my stomach from the pain alone.

Although in most cases only a doctor can cure the source of the problem, this list of treatments & pain relief remedies should get you through until you can visit the dentist.

It is important to note: If you have a toothache, there is a reason for it and it’s best to have it taken care of by a professional as soon as possible, rather than having it treated at home in hopes that the underlying issue will go away on its own. If it’s infected (if your gum area is swollen), don’t delay in getting professional medical care.

Directions: Apply the below remedies directly to both the problem tooth and surrounding gums unless otherwise directed.

For items that direct you to chew, or for liquids that are to be swished around inside mouth, direct the liquid on and around the sore tooth as much as possible.

Do not swallow liquids. Rinse your mouth and spit them out when done.

1. Salt Water: Mix a heaping tablespoon full of salt in a small glass of warm water; swirl around inside your mouth for as long as you can, spit out. Repeat as needed.
2. Hydrogen Peroxide: Swoosh a bit of hydrogen peroxide. If the taste is too horrid for you, try diluting with a bit of water.
3. Alcohol: Swoosh a bit of whiskey, scotch, brandy or vodka. A strong mouthwash that contains alcohol will do the trick too.
4. Vanilla Extract: Saturate a cotton ball with vanilla and hold in place. Can also use a cotton swab dipped in extract.
   Other extracts that have the same effect are:
   Almond Extract
   Peppermint Extract
   & Lemon Extract
5. Tea Tree Oil: Just a drop or two will do the trick. You can also add some to a cotton swab and hold in place or add a few drops of tea tree oil to a small glass of lukewarm to warm water and rinse your mouth with it.
6. Oil Of Oregano: Mix a few drops with a bit of olive oil, then saturate a cotton ball with mixture. Can replace the olive oil with lukewarm water if preferred.
7. Apple Cider Vinegar: Soak a cotton ball with apple cider vinegar (ACV) and hold it in place. Can also try regular household vinegar.
8. Ginger Root: Take a fresh piece of ginger and chew it a bit.
9. Garlic: Take a clove of garlic, smash it and apply (settle it inside cheek). You can also mash some garlic with salt.
10. Peppermint Leaves: Chew on fresh peppermint leaves. You can also dried leaves, just hold them in place.
11. Potato: Cut a fresh piece of potato (raw, skin off) and hold in place. Can also pound a piece of raw potato, mix in a bit of salt and use the mash.
12. Lime: Cut a slice or wedge of lime and apply, bite into it if you can to release some of the juice.
13. Onion: Slice a piece of fresh onion and hold it inside your mouth. The onion needs to be freshly cut (so it provides a bit of onion juice).
14. Plantain: Chew up a fresh plantain leaf. If you’re too sore to chew, use the other side of your mouth. Once the leaf is macerated a bit apply it to the problem area and hold in place.
15. Cucumber: Slice a fresh piece of cucumber and hold it over the sore area. If refrigerated, you might want to bring the cucumber to room temperature before using (if sensitive to cold) otherwise a cool piece can be soothing.You can also mash a piece with a bit of salt and pack it around the sore tooth.
16. Cayenne Pepper: Make a paste with cayenne pepper and water.
17. Black Pepper: You can use this full strength or make a mix of pepper and salt.
18. Baking Soda: Take a cotton swab and moisten it with a bit of water, dip it in baking soda (coat the swab really well with baking soda) then apply. You can also make a mouth rinse by mixing a heaping spoonful of baking soda in a small glass of lukewarm to warm water, dissolve the soda then swish the mixture in your mouth.
19. Cloves: This is remedy from the old timers (my great grandparents), rest a clove against the sore area until pain goes away. You can also use a drop or two of clove oil (BE CAREFUL: too much can be toxic) or make a thick paste of ground cloves and water or ground cloves and olive oil.
20. Tea: Make a fresh cup of tea then take the used tea bag (still warm) and stick it in your mouth. Careful not to tear the bag. The tannins that are naturally in tea leaves can help numb things.
21. Ice Pack: Cover an ice pack with a face cloth or towel then hold over your cheek where the problem is. This will help numb things. Make sure that you have some type of cloth between your skin and the ice, otherwise you can severely damage your skin.If that doesn’t work, try the opposite–a hot compress (making sure that it is not so hot as to scald your skin).

Tips

• If the pain is unbearable and there’s no dentist available, call your local hospital’s emergency room–chances are they have a dentist on call that can treat you (for a fee of course).
• Try gently brushing your teeth and flossing–this might bring some relief.
• One old-time remedy that you should not follow is to place an aspirin against the sore tooth.  You will have just as much if not more of an effect by swallowing the aspirin.Aspirin is actually an acid (acetylsalicylic acid to be exact) and placing it directly against your gums or teeth will cause corrosion of your teeth and acid burns on your gums.
• If the side of your face is in severe pain and it feels like you’re going to lose your mind (I’ve been there, done that)–it could be a sinus infection or an allergy that affects your sinuses rather than a problem tooth (even though it definitely feels like it).Try taking a decongestant or if that is not available, a shower set on the hottest setting may help clear your sinus cavities.This might help relieve things until you get to a doctor. Chances are a prescription antibiotic is what you’ll need to clear up the sinus infection. If it is a sinus infection please don’t wait to get it taken care of!  I have permanent damage to my left eardrum from a sinus infection that became so congested it literally burst my eardrum as a pressure relief valve.

Have I missed any of your tried-and-true methods to relieve tooth and gum pain?
Please share it below in the comments section.

Please be aware: These are notes I have collected in my personal life over the years, in my own research as well as tips gathered from my grandparents and great grandparents.
They are not by any means professional medical advice and a trained dentist should always be contacted as soon as possible.

P.S. If you have a toothache it may be in your best interest  to go on a soft food diet until you get to the dentist.

Click here to see what I ate for days after my surgery that has earned a permanent spot in my pantry.

About ‘Above Average’ Joe: 
I am the managing editor of Survivallife.com I am just an average guy with an exceptional passion for learning. I am excited to share the things I learn with you but I am most interested in learning from you. Survival Life is more than just one man. It is a growing and living community of individuals; all with the desire to be prepared to survive and thrive no matter what this world throws at us. I look forward to growing with you!