Allergies make you feel like you’re lumbering through life, grateful for just making it through the day. Most of us just accept allergies and try to deal with them as best we can. However, there are some ways that you can reduce your allergies. One way is to switch to organic bamboo bedding.
While switching your bedding may not be your first thought when trying to reduce your allergies, it is a surprisingly effective method. Many of us don’t realize how much traditional cotton bedding actually irritates our allergies and disrupts our sleep, causing us to wake up already tired and drained.
Below are a few ways that organic bamboo sheets and an organic bamboo comforter eliminate many of the allergies caused by traditional cotton bedding.
Hypoallergenic
The primary reason why organic bamboo bedding reduces allergies is because it is hypoallergenic. While many people suffer from allergic reactions to cotton, very few people are allergic to bamboo. In fact, organic bamboo bed sheets have been known to help relieve many skin allergies, such as eczema.
Fewer Dust Mites
The second reason why organic bamboo helps to relieve allergies is because it makes your bed less hospitable to dust mites. Dust mites are often the culprits of aggravating respiratory allergies, such as asthma.
How exactly does organic bamboo bedding make your bed less hospitable to these tiny culprits? Well, dust mites love warm, moist environments and organic bamboo sheets reduce the moisture in your bed. Organic bamboo bedding is able to do this because it wicks water away twice as fast as cotton, reducing the moisture by 50%. Less moisture means fewer dust mites and fewer dust mites means your allergies won’t act up as much.
Antibacterial
Just like dust mites, bacteria love warm, moist environments. Another byproduct of reducing moisture with organic bamboo bedding is that there is less bacterial growth in your bed. In order to grow and thrive, bacteria need water and without this moisture, their growth is inhibited. Bacteria can exacerbate any allergic reactions you’re having, such as worsening your eczema. Inhibiting bacterial growth will prevent any allergies you have from getting worse.
No Harsh Chemical or Dyes
Bacteria aren’t the only things that can aggravate an allergic reaction; harsh chemicals and dyes can as well. Even after washing your traditional cotton bedding, the residue of the harsh chemicals and dyes remains. Breathing in and being in constant contact with these chemicals isn’t healthy and can provoke respiratory and skin allergic reactions.
However, organic bamboo sheets are never treated with harsh chemicals and dyes. Since organic bamboo bedding is never treated with chemicals, you don’t have to worry about these chemicals finding their way into your bed. You can breathe and sleep easier knowing your bed doesn’t have any chemicals or dyes to irritate your skin or aggravate your respiratory allergies.
In conclusion, organic bamboo bedding reduces your allergies because it is hypoallergenic, is less hospitable to dust mites and bacteria, and isn’t treated with harsh chemicals or dyes. However, reducing your allergies isn’t the only benefit of organic bamboo bedding.
The True Benefits of Organics
Agriculture plays a crucial a role in the clockwork of our global economy. Isn’t that reason enough for us to ensure its sustainability? Many would question the feasibility of going organic to feed the seven billion or so mouths in the world, but the fact that this is entirely possible is unfortunately not commonly known. As with every change, this shift in approach from chemical-intensive agricultural practice to organic farming will take time and patience.
For those who still doubt, the great news is that the road to going organic will naturally reap long-term environmental and financial benefits. Aren’t these what we hope to achieve – creating a better world for the future generations?
Health Benefits
With crops being treated heavily with chemicals like growth enhancers or pesticides, it is all but expected that these substances will find their ways into our bodies, albeit in small quantities each time. As consumers, the idea of how a negligible amount of artificial compound causing health problems may seem like a far-fetched thought.
However, the truth of the matter is that while we don’t find ourselves rushing to the hospital after consuming these produce smothered in chemicals, the long-term effects on our health are very real. With studies proving the carcinogenic properties of some pesticides and herbicides used in our food, it is now perhaps understandable why people are beginning to adopt an organic diet.
According to the World Health Organization, studies have shown that exposure to pesticides on a daily basis can increase the risk of health complications like lowered immunity, development of hormone-related disorders and cancer.
Going organic does not only benefit us, the consumers, but the producers, too. The people who toil and make a living from agriculture will find themselves going back to the basics and relying on what nature has to offer. The lack of chemicals employed in organic farming will without a doubt see farmers facing considerably fewer health hazards.
Environmental Benefits
The news of how GMO agriculture and chemical pesticides are killing nature’s little pollination helpers, the bees, isn’t new. Agriculture watchdogs sounded the alarm years ago when bee colonies began vanishing in the United States around the turn of the century, about the time when new insecticides were introduced into the market. The tip in the balance of our ecosystem can trigger a ripple effect, causing environmental consequences on a global scale – some of which we are already experiencing.
In order for sustainable agriculture to be possible, it is beyond vital that we maintain healthy and fertile soil. However, with the constant application of chemicals to the land, how does one expect the earth below to be toxin free? Albeit crops may be susceptible to pests and ever-changing weather, organic farming certainly ensures the “cleanliness” of the ground.
Economic Benefits
Despite being the alternative farming method, the organic farming industry is well worth over £1 billion a year. Imagine how much that figure will jump by when it becomes the only way to go?
With GMO agriculture, everything right down to the seeds requires a costly initial investment. Needless to say, equipment used for releasing the chemical pesticides also cost money. As a result, even before a crop can be harvested and sold for profits, a farmer needs to come up that large sum of money to get things going. Imagine the devastation a small farm located in a developing nation experiences when crops don’t grow.
One of the many unfortunate consequences of GMO farming is it being the cause of countless suicides when crops fail in third world countries.
Consider organic farming. What is actually involved in this method that would require massive investments? Not much, really. While it is always more costly to go the alternative route, it is undeniable that when organic farming becomes a common practice, cost of resources and products will surely decrease.
Why Not Organic Farming Then?
Having said all these, the truth is that organic farming is not in a popularity race of becoming the more well-liked option for those in the industry. Instead, it has to be the only method of farming as we move forward. In order for our natural environment to sustain us, it is imperative that we ensure that it is toxic free and healthy, for the sake of our future and the generations to come.
Doctors Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
The evidence is mounting – GMOs are a danger to health. Long-term studies have revealed organ damage, cancer, and reproductive damage in second and third generation animal studies. There are doctors who are willing to publicly take a stand against genetic engineering. Here are a few of them.
Dr. Mehmet Oz
Dr. Mehmet Oz is a renowned heart surgeon and the host of the popular television show, The Dr. OZ Show.
Whether you support genetically engineered crops or not, the freedom to make an informed choice should belong to consumers. The bill in Congress this month proposing to block states from independently requiring labeling offers a coup to pro-GMO groups.
As a scientist, I am not that concerned about GMOs themselves, but I am worried about why they were created. Highly toxic herbicides would kill crops unless they were genetically modified, but with the genetic upgrade, these plants can be doused with much higher doses, with potential complications to the environment. The WHO believes that glyphosate is “probably a human carcinogen.” Perhaps we are all showing “disdain for science and evidence-based medicine,” but I would argue that unleashing these products creates a real-time experiment on the human species. Sure, we will eventually know if these pesticides are a problem, but at the expense of the pain and suffering and disease in real people. I owe my kids more. And so do you.
Dr. John H. Boyles
Board certified in the American Environmental Medicine and the American board of Otolaryngology, Dr. Boyles currently practices medicine in Centerville Ohio at the Dayton Ear Nose & Throat Surgeons, Inc.
This exchange of DNA between the species is totally against nature. We simply don’t know what it will produce. We don’t know if it is safe, and it has not yet been proven to be safe.
We do not fully understand how gene splicing works within a single species. We certainly can’t predict how it will work when attempting to combine more than one species.
Yes, the means by which to prove safety was developed around the year 2000. No companies performing the gene splicing will use the procedures, because if their product were to be proven unsafe, then they cannot sell that product.
Patients at Dayton Ear, Nose, & Throat Surgeons, Inc. were tested for allergies with organic and genetically modified varieties of foods. Some of the patients tested reacted both to the organic soy and the altered soy. Other patients reacted to the GMO soy, but had no reaction to organic soy. Another group tested positively to the organic, but had no allergic reaction to the GMO soy. And some patients had no allergic reaction to either the GMO soy or the organic soy.
It has come to our attention that by altering genes, scientists are creating a separate allergy to foods that did not exist in patients before. By changing or altering the structure of the plant, GMOs can cause separate reactions from the same food.
You owe it to yourself and your family to make healthier food choices. Any allergic person can benefit from a diet with increased organic foods. Control what you can, and steer clear of GMO foods.
Dr. Emily Lindner
Dr. Emily Lindner is an internist with a dual practice of Internal Medicine and Complementary/Integrative Medicine. She is certified in Functional and Nutritional Medicine.
I tell my patients to avoid genetically modified foods because in my experience, with those foods there is more allergies and asthma. … And what emanates from that is everything. Lots of arthritis problems, autoimmune diseases, anxiety… neurological problems; anything that comes from an inspired immune system response.
When I change people from a GMO diet to a GMO-free diet I see results instantaneously in people who have foggy thinking and people who have gut symptoms like bloating, gas, irritation. In terms of allergies, it might take two to five days. In terms of depression, it starts to lift almost instantaneously. It takes from a day, to certainly within two weeks.
Dr. Robin Bernhoft
Dr. Robin Bernhoft is a surgeon who retrained in environmental medicine after suffering from an environmental illness caused by the toxic skin scrubs used before surgery. He has since regained his health.
“…all physicians should prescribe non-genetically modified food for all patients, and that we should educate all of our patients on the potential health dangers, and known health dangers of GMO food.”
Dr. Mercola
Dr. Mercola is an osteopathic physician and an entrepreneur. He is known for being a strong proponent of alternative medicine.
Monsanto and other biotech companies claim genetically modified (GM) crops have no impact on the environment and are perfectly safe to eat.
Federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety,” but rather have taken the industry-conducted research at face value, allowing millions of acres of GM crops to overtake farmland.
These foods, largely in the form of GM corn and soy (although there are other GM crops, too, like sugar beets, papaya and crookneck squash), can now be found in the majority of processed foods in the US.
In other words, if you eat processed foods, you’re already eating them… and these crops are already being freely planted in the environment. But what if it turns out that Monsanto was wrong, and the GM crops aren’t actually safe?
Monsanto is the world leader in GM crops, and their Web site would have you believe that they are the answer to world hunger. Thanks to their heavy PR campaign, if you’ve been primarily a reader of the mainstream press, you’ve probably been misled into thinking GM crops are, in fact, the greatest thing since sliced bread, that they provide better yields of equal or better quality food, pest and weed resistance, reduced reliance on pesticides, and more… But thankfully, the truth is unfolding and the tide is finally beginning to turn.
Dr. Russell Blaylock
Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon. He practiced medicine for 25 years before pursuing his nutritional studies and research full time. He now owns a nutritional practice, and is a health practitioner, lecturer, and author. He is known for confronting controversial issues in medicine and backing up his arguments with impeccable research. He warns that most of the studies on GMOs are terminated within or at ninety days and test animals are destroyed – with good reason. The following comments are in response to a long-term GMO study published in the journal, “Food and Chemical Toxicology.”
Virtually all of these studies use rats and are terminated at 90 days.This study clearly shows that most of the harmful effects of GMO foods occur after 90 days.
In this study, animals were fed the GMO corn for two years in concentrations commensurate to what people would eat. What they found is beyond shocking.
The animals fed GMO food died two to three times more often than the animals eating a normal diet. Male rats demonstrated liver damage 2.5 to 5.5 times more often than control rats.
Of extreme concern was the finding that the females developed massive breast tumors at a high rate in the GMO-fed animals.
Even more frightening is that almost half of all babies are now being fed soy-based formula. This is not the only study to find problems with GMO foods, but it is the most damning.
In my estimation, all GMO foods should be removed from stores, and GMO crops should be destroyed. The implications of this disaster is almost beyond belief and GMO crops are being heavily promoted all over the world by the IMF, Council on Foreign Relations, and other international organizations.
Dr. Richard Lacey M.D., Ph.D
Dr. Lacey is an expert in food safety issues who served for four years on a U.K. government advisory panel on food as it relates to human and animal health. In 1989-1990, he warned against the practice of feeding cattle rendered meat from sheep and other animals, predicting the “mad cow” epidemic before it occurred. He has written five books on food safety, including one published by Cambridge University Press in 1994 containing a detailed discussion of genetically engineered food. He does not believe GMOs are safe and clearly reminds us that their safety has never been established.
It is my considered judgment that employing the process of recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering) in producing new plant varieties entails a set of risks to the health of the consumer that are not ordinarily presented by traditional breeding techniques. It is also my considered judgment that food products derived from such genetically engineered organisms are not generally recognized as safe on the basis of scientific procedures within the community of experts qualified to assess their safety.
Recombinant DNA technology is an inherently risky method for producing new foods. Its risks are in large part due to the complexity and interdependency of the parts of a living system, including its DNA. Wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random manner into an organism’s genome necessarily causes some degree of disruption, and the disruption could be multi-faceted. Further, whether singular or multi-faceted, the disruptive influence could well result in the presence of unexpected toxins or allergens or in the degradation of nutritional value. Further, because of the complexity and interactivity of living systems — and because of the extent to which our understanding of them is still quite deficient — it is impossible to predict what specific problems could result in the case of any particular genetically engineered organism.
…To the best of my judgment, neither genetically engineered foods as a general class nor any genetically engineered food in particular is generally recognized as safe among those experts qualified by training and experience to evaluate their safety…
…In my opinion, the number of scientists who are not convinced about the safety of genetically engineered foods is substantial enough to prevent the existence of a general recognition of safety. Second, there is insufficient evidence to support a belief that genetically engineered foods are safe. I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific genetically engineered food let alone the safety of these foods as a general class.Few properly designed toxicological feeding studies have even been attempted, and I know of none that was satisfactorily completed. Those who claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as naturally produced ones are clearly not basing their claims on scientific procedures that demonstrate safety to a reasonable degree of certainty. Rather, they are primarily basing their claims on a set of assumptions that, besides being empirically unsubstantiated, are in several respects at odds with the bulk of the evidence.
The main assumptions are: (a) that producing food through recombinant DNA technology in itself entails no greater risks than producing it through sexual reproduction between members of the same species and (b) that the same safeguards commonly employed by breeders using conventional techniques will suffice for genetically engineered foods.
As far as I can ascertain, the current policy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is primarily based on these two assumptions. Therefore, although it claims to be “science-based,” this claim has no solid basis in fact. The only way to base the claims about the safety of genetically engineered food in science is to establish each one to be safe through standard scientific procedures, not through assumptions that reflect more wishful thinking than hard fact.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
This is an official statement from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.
Genetically Modified Foods
According to the World Health Organization, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally.” This technology is also referred to as “genetic engineering”, “biotechnology” or “recombinant DNA technology” and consists of randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly. Both the location of the transferred gene sequence in the corn DNA and the consequences of the insertion differ with each insertion. The plant cells that have taken up the inserted gene are then grown in a lab using tissue culture and/or nutrient medium that allows them to develop into plants that are used to grow GM food crops.
Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, “GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years.”
Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of “substantial equivalence” such that “if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food.” However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.
There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.
…Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.
In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: “The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.” However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.
Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.
…With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:
Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.
Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.
Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.
For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.
(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)
Conclusion
In America, there is a fascination and an appreciation of most new technologies. Before GMOs were widely adopted more medical professionals and scientists marveled at the technological advancements making genetic engineering possible; this awe and wonder was widespread long before the downsides of GMOs became well known. It turns out they are worse than almost anyone thought.
Now that GMOs have been widely adopted in the American diet, more and more doctors are discovering that GMOs are devastating to our health. It is becoming more common for doctors to advise their patients to avoid GMOs. Recently, members of Sermo, an online community of physicians, were surveyed as to whether or not they support GMO labeling. The majority, 68% of them are in favor of requiring food manufacturers to label products containing GMOs.
For years, there has been a tired argument that if you’re against GMOs then you’re against science, but just because we have the technology to do something, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should. The majority of new technologies are abandoned due to flaws that become painfully apparent after they have become widespread. At present we are feeling that pain.
Be sure to check out Doctors Against Vaccines and Understanding and Detoxifying from GMOs.
New Supplement Allows Those With Celiac Disease to Digest Gluten
Scientists at the University of Alberta have designed a new supplement to allow those who suffer from celiac disease to digest gluten. The supplement, derived from the yolks of chicken eggs, works by binding with gluten in the stomach in order to absorb the hard to digest gliadin (the difficult proteins that make up gluten), limiting the damage it can cause to the small intestine. The idea is that one of these pills, which they hope to have available over the counter, will allow the gluten sensitive person to eat any food with gluten for up to two hours without experiencing their usual symptoms. The scientists in charge of the project predict that the only negative in this situation is the inability of those with egg allergies to partake in the supplement.
♫ ♬ Oh, Oh, Oh, It’s Magic… ♪ ♫
This pill will be marketed as the answer to celiac disease.
If you suffer from celiac disease, you can now enjoy a “normal” social life! Take this pill and you can go out to restaurants and eat whatever your friends are eating! Shopping will be easy! No more diet restrictions! No more inconvenience!
What is this pill really going to deliver?
The supplement isn’t designed to heal or prevent celiac disease. Its sole purpose is for people to be able to consume the very foods that led to a chronic disease in the first place.
A condition like celiac disease forces you to examine what you’re eating and to accept a greater responsibility for what you’re feeding your body. Chances are, your entire diet is healthier now that you don’t eat gluten than when you did.
Eating a truly healthy diet requires discipline, so it’s not hard to see the downside to this magic pill – replacing dietary discipline with immediate gratification. In the long run, this is a pill that will enable the gluten-intolerant, allowing them to return to eating food that harms rather than heals.
Gluten is Big Business
While the gluten-free market has not yet reached the sales level of sugar-free foods and drinks, it has already surpassed the revenue generated by no carb items and items aimed at lactose intolerant individuals. Sales of gluten-free items in categories like cereal, snacks, and crackers reached over a billion dollars last year.
Those numbers are extremely exciting if you’re the company who is offering a large share of those shoppers a magic pill that affords them the ability to go back to eating regular processed foods.
The companies that are sponsoring this research, like IGY Immune Technologies and Life Sciences Advanced Technologies, are no strangers to the pharmaceutical industry. They’re responsible for biochemical products, medicines, and antibiotics for both human and agricultural uses. On at least some level, they’re aware of the uber profitable hamster wheel of unhealthy eating.
More people eating unhealthy, processed food products will result in more revenue for big agricultural companies. This inferior quality of food will create an uptick in medical bills and prescriptions, resulting in more revenue for pharmaceutical companies, medical establishments, and insurance companies. While this new pharmaceutical does indeed perform a service for people with celiac disease, a look at the long-term potential asks another question. Who is doing who the favor?
Get Off the Hamster Wheel
Gluten and today’s modern wheat and wheat-based products are one of the principal causes of Candida overgrowth and intestinal damage. The list of symptoms for celiac disease is long and sympathy cringe-inducing, from constipation or diarrhea to weeping rashes, joint and muscle pain, and arthritis. There isn’t a cure, and the scientists developing this pill have already made it clear that that isn’t their goal. The only way to truly heal from the damage caused by gluten is through diet and complete elimination of gluten. It requires hard work, discipline, the ability to recognize the damage that processed foods do to the body, and the will to choose better for yourself. Start by looking at a healthy diet (80% raw) and see what you could achieve if you decide to make yourself and your health a priority instead of looking for quick fixes. Check out Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases and see Foods To Avoid With Gluten Intolerance or Celiac Disease.
Vaccine debate, current vaccine schedule, and immunization alternatives
The vaccine debate continues to heat up. Clear lines have been drawn between the “sane” pro-vaccine camp and the “insane, risk taking” anti-vaxxers.” The media, the government, and Big Pharma maintain the schism between the two sides through propaganda and disinformation. They continue to lie, stating that vaccines are safe and effective. When anti-vaccine activists denounce current vaccines and vaccine schedules, they are accused of being irrational, conspiracy theorist nut cases. But let’s face it…these are the facts – not rhetoric – just facts:
Vaccine Ingredients
Today’s vaccines are filled with toxic ingredients – known neurotoxins, DNA, preservatives, and more. It is the toxic ingredients in vaccines that cause the most concern and are believed to be the primary cause of vaccine damage.
Vaccine Schedule
The current schedule for children recommends 67 doses for16 diseases by age 18. This schedule includes the HPV vaccine given to children as a prevention of an STD scheduled at age 11 – a vaccine linked to a high number of deaths and vaccine damage. (Statistically, the number of deaths is much higher than the number of deaths the vaccine is supposed to prevent.)
The vaccine schedule combines vaccines. More than one shot is often given at one visit. In addition, combination shots are given. The MMR combines the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations into one shot. The DPT combines diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus, into one shot. (This combination is also called the DTP, DTwP, DTaP, or Tdap.)
Our country has the highest number of recommended vaccines in the first year of life and yet we do not have the lowest infant mortality rate. Not by a long shot. The CIA World Fact Book ranks the U.S. infant mortality rate (death before 1 year of age) to be higher than 55 other countries. Finally the question is being asked, “Is there a link between our vaccines, the vaccine schedule and SIDS?”
Vaccines Linked to Autism, Brain Damage, and Death
There is no doubt that there is a vaccine/autism link. Though you can Google study after study claiming there has never been a study to prove a link between autism and vaccines, more than 80 exist. And, of course, most of the studies claiming there is no link are paid for by Big Pharma.
But set side the dueling studies and look once more at the facts. The government protects vaccines makers. A law was passed that prevents us from suing vaccine companies. A tax is placed on each vaccine and this tax is used for payments to victims and families of victims who have been damaged or killed by vaccines. These children include the children who became autistic and the children and adults who suffered other types of neurological damage or developed auto-immune disease as a direct result of vaccinations.
After payments reached more than 3.5 billion dollars, the government not only stopped reporting the amounts of payments made, they stopped publicizing the data altogether. After all, it is pretty hard to convince people that vaccines are safe and admit to paying out 3.5 billion dollars because they obviously were not safe to the victims.
There Is an Alternative to Conventional Vaccinations – Homeopathy
Homeoprophylaxis (HP) is the safe, effective means to educate the immune system and create the desired immune response. There are no injections of foreign substances into the body, overwhelming the immune system with toxins and attempting to elicit the correct immune response from an unnatural method of delivery.
Diluted and potentized disease products, called “nosodes” are used, one at a time, administered orally, to elicit an immune response. There are no detergents, additional viruses, DNA, mercury, aluminum, or other preservatives, antibiotics, or detergents. The nosodes, though made from disease products, are so diluted, it is not possible to catch the disease from them, as it is to catch a disease from a vaccination.
Homeopathy is not well accepted in the United States, though it is in other countries.
Imunizationalternatives.com states the following:
The Indian government controls epidemics for thousands of people of malaria, Japanese encephalitis, dengue fever and epidemic fever with homeopathy.
The Cuban government depends on homeopathy to manage its leptospirosis epidemics and dengue fever outbreaks in millions of people.
The Brazilian government funded two large trials in thousands of children that successfully reduced the incidence of meningococcal disease in those given homeoprophylaxis.
The governments of Thailand, Colombo and Brazil also use homeopathy to manage dengue fever outbreaks and epidemics.
This method has been used for more than 200 years and boasts a 90%+ efficacy as proven in clinical trials.
Health With or Without Vaccines
A healthy immune system, regardless of vaccination status, should be our first goal for ourselves and for our children. Diet is the foundation of health.
A whole food, plant based diet is key with 80% fresh, raw, organic, produce as its foundation. Our bodies require good fats with omega 3’s and clean water. To be healthy we must avoid processed, prepackaged foods with all the chemicals they contain including artificial flavors and colors, preservatives, MSG, sugar, artificial sweeteners, trans fats, and GMOs.
It’s time to admit the truth and solve the problem. Today’s vaccines are a toxic brew. Our vaccines are maiming a generation and the death toll is climbing. Homeopathy does provide an alternative.
H.R. 1599, the “DARK” Act, Sets Out to Put the Final Nail in the Organic Industry’s Coffin
(The Free Though Project.com) Washington, D.C. – Congress is considering a bill that would make it illegal for states to require GMO labeling. It would negate the ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to create a national GMO labeling standard and specifically allow for the labeling of products as “natural,” even when containing GMOs.
But perhaps the most disturbing part of the bill is the fact that it would make it illegal for counties and states to place any restrictions on the planting of GMO crops.
The ominous bill, H.R. 1599, ironically called the Safe Food and Accurate Food Labeling Act (commonly referred to as the DARK Act – the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act), was recently passed by subcommittee and now moves on to a full vote on the House floor.
The ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), has expressed confidence that the bill will pass in the House. Supporters, such as Peterson, emphatically tout the safety of GMO products, claiming that no scientific experts have proven any legitimate safety concerns; a widely disputed position.
“Consumers increasingly want to know more about where their food comes from and how it is produced. I think H.R. 1599 satisfies that demand while also recognizing what we know about the safety of the foods that our farmers produce. The bill is a workable solution that will alleviate the potential mess of 50 states with 50 different labeling schemes,” Peterson said.
A huge portion of America’s food contain GMOs, with estimates that as much as 80 percent of packaged foods in grocery stores contains GMO ingredients, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which opposes GMO labeling.
A number of politicians and groups, such as the Center for Food Safety and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), have strongly come out against the bill.
“Americans have the right to know what’s in food and how it was grown — the same as citizens of 64 other nations that require GMO labeling,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s vice president of government affairs. “It’s time for lawmakers to recognize that right and stand for GMO labeling.”
There is currently no companion legislation in the Senate, but if the bill passes the House similar legislation is expected to be introduced.
Currently, the states of California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington have restrictions in place on the placement of planting of GMO crops. Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut have passed laws requiring GMO labeling.
The planting restrictions are in place to control for the risk of organic farms being contaminated by GMOs, as drift and pollen carried via bee can spread to the organic farms.
Farmers don’t even know that this Monsanto GMO is growing in their fields, as it has blown in from a nearby farm, or from a passing truck. However, Monsanto will then sue them for infringing on their patented seed because it is growing in their fields.
This contamination is so widely spread that it is estimated that most organic corn in the U.S. typically contains anywhere from half a percent to 2 percent GMOs, according to companies that sell such corn to organic dairies or poultry farmers.
For organic farmers, the prospect of losing their organic certification has dark implications. Not only would it inevitably drive them out of business due to not being able to sell their products as organic, but this could systematically drive organic farming as whole to the brink of extinction.
Each local jurisdiction has specific sets of issues which need to be addressed when contemplating GMOs. Crafting blanket laws to protect big business interests is contrary to the idea of allowing people to decide what they feel is in their own best interest.
Whether in favor of labeling or not, politicians have shown a blatant disregard for the people whom they claim to represent by attempting to usurp their ability to make these important choices on a state and local level.
The DARK Act is a dangerous piece of legislation, which serves as a blatant example of how the collusion of power and money, in the form of a major lobby and their political cronies, can serve to take away liberty from the American people.
How can anyone claim that not allowing people the ability to know what is in their food, if they choose to know, is somehow a good thing? Outlawing the people of states and counties from deciding what is right for them reeks of oppressive tyranny.
Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, free thinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has been published on BenSwann’s Truth in Media, Chris Hedges’ truth-out, AlterNet and many other sites. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.
All Natural Homeopathic Immunizations – Homeoprophylaxis Is a Proven Alternative to Vaccines
Let’s “pause” the discussion about mandatory vaccinations and push “play” on how best to keep the next generation healthy. According to Stephanie Seneff, PhD, a research scientist at MIT, by the year 2025 one out of every two children will be autistic given the current rate of increase. 1
Dr. Seneff states, “Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.” We’ve been hearing this term “mitochondrial disorder” more and more lately. In July 2010, Hannah Poling’s family was awarded $1.5 million plus $500,000 annually for continued care after Hannah was severely injured from receiving vaccines for nine diseases at the same time– the typical recommended doses. The court determined Hannah had an “unknown mitochondrial disorder.” 2
In light of unknown mitochondrial disorders that may be lurking in children unbeknownst to doctors or parents, will the attempt to make them healthier by injecting more vaccines into them be successful? The effort to eliminate benign childhood diseases is not working. Bloating the vaccine schedule with more recommendations is not the answer. In the recommended schedule from the early 1970’s there are 23 doses of vaccinations for nine diseases.
If we take a look at the current schedule a whopping 67 doses of 16 diseases are recommended for children by age 18. Are our children healthier as a result?
According to a recent study by Neil Miller, the United States has the highest number of recommended vaccines in the first year of life. Thirty three other nations have a lower vaccine schedule and a lower infant mortality rate. Singapore, Sweden, Japan, Iceland, and France have some of the lowest rates in the world. 3
When penicillin was introduced in the 1940’s it was a wonder drug. Modern medicine had found the answer to disease. Kill the bacteria. What could be more effective and efficient than wiping out the culprits to ear infections, sore throats, wound infections and the like? Yet, today the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention along with the American Academy of Pediatrics state that antibiotic-resistant infections, or super bugs, are one of the world’s most pressing public health threats. 5 Trying to eliminate bacteria hasn’t been a panacea.
Bacteria and viruses are lifeforms which ultimately “find a way,” not to be easily annihilated. Normal bacteria found in the intestine, female genital tract and oral cavity help prevent overgrowth of potential pathogens and aid digestion.5 Bacteria are the only living organisms which can fix nitrogen. They are therefore essential to all life on Earth. Developing another antibiotic or another vaccine is not the answer. What about viruses?
Current news reports tell us we have not eliminated measles mumps or chickenpox. These benign childhood diseases have a natural life of ebb and flow. We see their return despite vaccination rates. They also play a vital role in the education and maturation of the developing immune system.
Some believe that the choice to not vaccinate a child is irresponsible. Claims abound that disease outbreaks are due to the percentage of unvaccinated. These children are viewed with suspicion and distrust as if they are intentionally inflicting others with diseases that they somehow manage to avoid but pass along to others. Yet, according to the New England Journal of Medicine a mumps outbreak during 2009 and 2010 occurred primarily among fully vaccinated children. 6
If Mother Nature intended for these benign illnesses to educate the immune system, how can this be accomplished without the risk of serious complications? The answer is called “homeoprophylaxis” also known as “HP.”
HP is the use of diluted and potentized disease products, called “nosodes” to elicit an immune response. This response will educate the immune system in a way that has been clinically shown to reduce the incidence of both infectious as well as chronic disease.
The goal of HP is the same as conventional vaccination – disease protection and improved health. The differences are many. The most obvious is the purity of nosodes compared to conventional vaccines. HP nosodes contain no additives whatsoever. No antibiotics, no preservatives, no detergents no foreign DNA, or unknown viruses or foreign DNA are present.
HP nosodes are administered on small sugar pellets. They dissolve on the tongue and enter the system by way of the natural route past mucous membrane. Here the natural process of disease recognition can begin in the way that Mother Nature intended. Bypassing this route by injecting a substance directly into the blood stream is like an ambush attack to the immune system. There is no opportunity to mount a preliminary response in a biologically appropriate way.
HP is given one disease at a time, as the human economy can manage effectively. If a child is sick, it is best to allow him to get well before introducing any other diseases to his system. Most medical professionals would say it is inadvisable to be giving a vaccine at that time. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that you should not vaccinate your child if he is “moderately or severely sick, with or without a fever.” 7
To summarize, homeoprophylaxis, or HP, is a disease prevention method that uses diluted and potentized disease particles. It respects the immune system by only introducing one disease at a time through a natural route of administration passing through mucous membrane.
The nosodes contain no adjuvants, preservatives, antibiotics, or detergents, and are not grown on mediums such as animal tissues containing foreign DNA or unknown viruses.
HP has been utilized since the 1800’s and was even made obligatory by the Prussian government in 1838 during scarlet fever outbreaks. It is commonly used for epidemic diseases that pose the risk of death or disability, but can also be used for diseases with a low mortality rate, or when traveling to an area where a specific disease is endemic.
The benefit of homeoprophylaxis is that it “educates the immune system” in such a way as to either protect from the disease, or if it’s contracted, an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic case will occur.
Since the 1800’s, HP has been used for scarlet fever, cholera,8 smallpox, polio,9,10pertussis,11 diphtheria,12 influenza,13 meningitis,14 Leptospirosis15 and more. The application as an alternative to the recommended government immunization schedule is relatively new.
Dr. Isaac Golden, PhD (Australia) conducted a 15 year study with 3000 children receiving HP. He found that those children exposed to the diseases included in the HP program were effectively protected at a rate of 91%.16 He continues to collect data today.
A very interesting finding of his work is the improved long term health outcomes of children using homeoprophylaxis instead of conventional vaccination. There were also improved long term outcomes when compared with unvaccinated children. It seems that allowing exposure to the natural disease in energetic form carries this benefit without any of the risks. 17
To quote Dr. Golden regarding these findings, “The explanation of this result remains open, but I would suggest that HP remedies stimulate the energetic immune response and this must lead to a maturing of the response in an analogous way that infection with simple diseases can help to mature the physical immune response.” 18
In other words, triggering an immune response at the energetic level, using vibrational remedies as opposed to material doses of disease antigen, plays a role in maturing the immune system. This is accomplished similarly to how Mother Nature operates in the developing immune system – gently and carefully, single disease by single disease.
While vaccination does provide a variable level of protection against many infectious diseases, its safety is not confirmed with any degree of certainty. In particular, long term health consequences of vaccines have not been adequately researched. In comparison, homeoprophylaxis has provided 200 years of clinical evidence showing us that it is safe, devoid of any toxic components, and yields positive long term health effects. Include a level of protection comparable to or better than vaccines, and practitioners have genuine choices available when it comes to preventing potentially serious infectious diseases.
Parents and healthcare practitioners wishing to implement HP may want to attend the 1stHP International Conference in Dallas, TX. Dr. Isaac Golden will be the keynote speaker.
[up] Miller NZ, Goldman GS. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Human and Experimental Toxicology. 30(0) 1420-1428.
[up] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014) Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm
[up] Von Boenninghausen, C. Baron.1984. Bönninghausens Kleine medizinische Schriften [Lesser Medical Writings] (ed. Klaus H. Gypser), Heidelberg, 1984.
[up] Eisfelder, HW. Poliomyelitis Immunization: A Final Report. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy. V. 54, Nov-Dec 1961, pp. 166-167.
[up] Francisco Eizayaga MD. Treatise on Homeopathic Medicine published by Ediciones Maracel, Buenos Aires, Brazil, 1991
[up] Shepherd, D., (1967). Homeopathy in epidemic diseases (First ed.). Essex, England: The C. W. Daniel Company Limited. p.18.
[up] Chavanon, P. 1952. La Dipterie, 4th Ed, St Denis, Niort: Imprimerie.
[up] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.flu.gov/pandemic/history/1918/the_pandemic/fightinginfluenza/index.html
[up] Mroninski C, Adriano E, Mattos G. Meningococcin, its Protective Effect against Meningococcal Disease, Homœopathic LINKS Winter, 2001 Vol 14 (4) 230-4
