The Many Benefits Of Turmeric, the Perfect Paleo Herb
You must have heard about several claims of “super foods” for quite some time, most of which are baseless. Turmeric stands out as one of the best super foods you can find. Turmeric is the brilliant yellow or orange powder commonly used as a spice that is derived from a plant called Curcuma longa. Turmeric has been used in Asia to treat various health problems for several centuries. In traditional medicine, turmeric was used for a wide array of conditions like menstrual cramps, aches and pains, colic, and jaundice. Let’s look at what makes turmeric a paleo.
It’s Natural
Turmeric is naturally extracted from the rhizome of the Curcuma longa plant, which has been cultivated for thousands of years in India, China, and other parts of the world. If not used fresh, the rhizomes from Curcuma plant are boiled for about 40 minutes and then dried in hot ovens. They are then ground into deep-yellow-orange powder to be used as spices, curries, or dyes.
Powerful Antioxidant
Studies that have been carried out on turmeric revolve around an active antioxidant called curcumin. Antioxidants help in the elimination of free radicals in the body, which are responsible for cell damage and illnesses.
Contains No Anti-Nutrients
Turmeric doesn’t contain compounds that interfere with the normal breakdown of food. In addition, it doesn’t interfere with the absorption of minerals and nutrients along the digestive system. Its great taste can indeed make meals enjoyable, which gives you an opportunity to explore various food sources with higher nutritional values.
Has Healing Effects
Turmeric has been used in India, China, and other countries in treating illnesses like diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and arthritis. Although more evidence is still required, there are claims that low, regular doses of turmeric are beneficial in cancer prevention. Unlike most anticancer agents that impair the immune system, curcumin has restorative abilities. Curcumin regulates cell function by disrupting its growth, which is a large factor in cancer development. It’s also suggested that people in India who rely on a traditional diet containing turmeric have lower bowel cancer rates.
Improves Brain Function
Previously, it was thought that neurons couldn’t divide and multiply after early childhood, but it’s been shown that it happens. Neurons have the ability to establish new connections as well as multiply and increase in number in certain areas of the brain. Curcumin promotes the production of growth hormone that functions in the brain, which reverses mental illnesses and age-related cognitive decline. It is also thought that it can boost your memory and make you smarter.
Improves Cardiovascular Health
Heart disease is the major global killer. Studies have shown that curcumin in turmeric can improve the function of the endothelium, which is the lining of the blood vessels. In one study, curcumin effect on preventing heart disease was equated to exercise, while another one shows it works as effectively as some medications. In short, curcumin has beneficial effects on factors that play a role in heart disease. It improves the function of endothelium and is a potent anti-inflammatory agent.
Uses of Turmeric
Spice: Turmeric is commonly used as a spice in many dishes all over the world. Its use began in traditional Asian culinary dishes. It is also used in spicing homemade soap to improve its color while instilling benefits on the skin.
Whitening teeth: While turmeric is renowned for its staining prowess, it is commonly used in teeth whitening. This is possible as it doesn’t come into contact with enamel long enough to change its color.
Foundation customization: Adding a touch of turmeric to your tinted moisturizer can help you get a perfect glow that matches your skin tone. Turmeric is a common recipe used by women in face creams and body scrubs for a glowing skin.
Stomach soothing: If you have a stomach that doesn’t behave, turmeric can help. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), you should take 500mg of specific turmeric extract twice daily to alleviate digestive issues.
Conclusion
Turmeric is a paleo that is extracted from a plant called Curcuma. Turmeric is commonly used as a spice in preparation of dishes. Curcumin is the main ingredient in turmeric that comes with many health benefits. Turmeric can be effective in treating and preventing inflammatory illnesses like arthritis. Studies are still underway to find the effects of turmeric on other diseases like heart disease and cancer.
It is rare to watch twenty minutes of television without being bombarded with commercials for products that promise to combat toenail fungus and belly bloat, annoying and stubborn conditions that can springboard from imbalanced intestinal flora. Athlete’s foot, toenail fungus, feminine itch, intestinal gas, and other signs of systemic yeast overgrowth can all be greatly improved by using essential oils. Not only do essential oils attack acute yeast infections on sight, they also help to balance and increase good intestinal bacteria to prevent recurrences.
Excessive consumption of sugar, processed food, white flour, high fructose corn syrup, and smoked and nitrite-laden deli meats is known to contribute to yeast (Candida albicans) overgrowth, but even with a healthy diet, physical, emotional, and environmental stress can also manage to wreak havoc on the body’s core equilibrium.
Overuse of pharmaceutical antibiotics is a major factor in Candida taking hold; in fact, some sources say that it can take one year to rebuild beneficial flora in the intestines after one round of commonly-prescribed antibiotics. Good bacteria in the bowel comprise the activating force of our immune system, and when this bacteria or flora is compromised, our immunity is weakened.
In the conventional world of health, antibiotics are prescribed to fight infection, which depletes the intestinal flora that is the very foundation of strong immune response. Multiple rounds of antibiotics keep the immune system indefinitely weakened. We can only imagine what havoc this imposes upon the human body after decades. While antibiotics save lives, they are too often prescribed; collapsed immunity and drug-resistant bacteria are the result.
Essential oils, on the other hand, destroy pathogens without killing the vital intestinal flora. Interestingly, essential oils have shown to decrease bad intestinal bacteria and increase the beneficial.
Applying undiluted essential oils such as geranium, lavender, clove bud*, organic lemon*, tea tree, white thyme, ginger*, eucalyptus, and rosewood regularly to the soles of the feet increases beneficial flora in the gut, therefore giving your immune system a natural boost. Not only does this help eradicate fungal conditions, but it also helps your body fight herpes-strain viruses including chicken pox and shingles.
Clinical aromatherapy can be a fierce ally after antibiotic use or during times of stress, and can be an antidote to nutritionally bankrupt eating habits. Eliminating offending foods and lowering stress is key, but using essential oils can make it fun and effective.
Essential oils are powerful substances and many have contraindications*, so please check with your doctor or health practitioner before using them. Here are a few sure-fire recommendations to slay the yeast beast without the nasty side effects of drugstore products as well as ways to safeguard your immune system from becoming vulnerable to every virus that goes around:
For Nail Fungus
Apply 1 drop tea tree and 1 drop lavender essential oil undiluted (neat) to nail and nail bed 2x a day until things improve. Continue for another week for good measure. This combination can yield great results in a surprisingly short amount of time.
For Athlete’s Foot
Add 3 drops tea tree, 3 drops eucalyptus, and 3 drops geranium essential oil to a basin of warm water and soak feet once a day. Do not rinse. Dry feet well.
For Systemic Yeast Conditions
To boost good flora in the intestines after taking antibiotics or for systemic Candida/yeast: apply 2 drops lavender, 1 drop tea tree, and 2 drops clove essential oil undiluted to the soles of the feet every evening before bed. Do this for two weeks. For chronic systemic yeast issues, use this method for two weeks and then stop for a week; repeat as needed. Drink plenty of water throughout the day to flush toxins from the system.
For Stronger Immunity
To boost immune response, apply 2 drops organic lemon and 2 drops clove bud essential oil undiluted to the soles of the feet every evening before bed. Do this for one week then use 2 drops lavender essential oil and 2 drops tea tree essential oil for the following week. Alternating combinations helps to prevent your body from building up a tolerance and the oils from losing effectiveness over time.
For more information on the wonderful possibilities of clinical and practical aromatherapy applications, see the works of authors such as Robert Tisserand and Valerie Ann Worwood, among others.
*This essential oil is contraindicated for anyone on blood thinners. Substitutions are recommended.
Disclaimer:
The statements contained herein have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, and the material presented in this article is not intended to treat, prescribe for, cure, mitigate, or prevent any disease or to replace conventional medical treatments.
Edwards, Victoria H. The Aromatherapy Companion. North Adams, MA: Storey Publishing, 1999
Tisserand, Robert. The Art of Aromatherapy. Rochester, VT: Healing Arts Press, 1978
Worwood, Valerie Ann. Aromatherapy for the Soul. Novato, CA: New World Library, 1999
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.
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.
Phosphorus, a Natural Resource That Could Be Sustainable
We consume a lot of resources. Gasoline, coal, water, phosphorus, oil, and rare minerals are the six most used natural resources. We consume them on a daily basis. Our usage of these resources is completely unsustainable, so unsustainable scientists believe we will run out of the building blocks of life within the next 100 years. Many countries will be facing drastic water shortages as well as major gas and oil shortages.
Phosphorus is a resource with a sustainable solution. It is one of the major additives in synthetic/chemical fertilizers such as Miracle-Gro used to fertilize fruit and vegetable. In this sense, our use of phosphorus to keep the world’s food supply alive is beneficial, but the way that we mine phosphorus is completely unsustainable.
Phosphorus is contained within rocks and is currently accessed by blowing them up. Think about how crazy that is! We blow up rocks to get phosphorus, and to top that off, there are only three countries in the world with rocks that contain phosphorus – the United States, China, and Morocco.
We are destroying mountain ranges like the Appalachians. Yes, we are blowing up mountain ranges to get phosphorus. Then the phosphorus is added to a synthetic fertilizer in such high concentrations that often ends up burning the plants it was supposed to nourish, defeating the purpose of using it in the first place.
Another damaging effect of chemical fertilizers (all of which have phosphorus in them) is that they kill the beneficial life in our soil. While phosphorus is a valuable nutrient for plant growth, currently accepted practices will eventually render the soil infertile.
Thankfully there is a better way and this solution is completely sustainable. The solution comes from two crops that are already being grown for animal feed all over the world: organic alfalfa and organic soybeans.
Organic alfalfa and organic soybeans are phosphorus rich cover crops. Cover crops are used as part of a successful organic management system as they are grown solely with the intention of being tilled under (rather than harvested) in the late fall/early spring (depending on winter weather patterns).
Cover crops break down and contribute nutrients naturally found within them back into the soil. Cover cropping is a full circle solution. You plant the crops you are intending to grow for the year, these crops take resources from the soil to support their growth, and then you plant cover crops at the end of the growing season to return those spent resources to the soil.
Cover cropping with your own organic alfalfa or organic soybean (or purchasing an organic alfalfa meal or organic soybean meal powder) is the perfect solution to create a sustainable phosphorus source. There are many other sustainable ways to get beneficial nutrients to your plants. Honestly, who wants to blow up rocks and destroy the natural beauty of our planet to gain access to nutrients like phosphorus when we can plant our own sources and can keep the natural beauty of this planet intact.
What Do Natural, Organic, and Non-GMO Actually Mean?
Food package labels don’t always mean what we think they mean. What is natural or all natural? Is organic 100% organic? What about GMO-free?
The All Natural and Natural Label
The terms “all natural” and “natural” are misleading. A Consumer Reports survey found that the average consumer thinks these terms mean the food does not have artificial ingredients, GMOs, or pesticides, and that artificial materials weren’t used during the processing of the food. Currently, the terms “all natural” and “natural” are not regulated in the United States except for rarely enforced rules within the meat and poultry industries.
To be labeled natural, meat and poultry is supposed to be minimally processed and not have any artificial ingredients; however, the term artificial is not clearly defined and the regulations are not well enforced by the USDA.
Outside of meat and poultry, there are no formal regulations for the use of the terms “all natural” and “natural”. The FDA does have informal guidelines. Products labeled as natural should not contain anything artificial or synthetic, but again, there is no definition of what qualifies as artificial or synthetic. This means that just about anything goes, when it comes to “all natural.” The question to ask is not, “What does all natural mean? ” but rather, “What doesn’t all natural mean?”
Is “Organic” Food Really Organic?
When you think of “organic”, many people think it means 100% organic, pesticide free, all natural, and better than conventional. This is not correct. Organic today means a number of different things, depending on the situation, and many, if not most, items that carry the USDA Organic seal are not 100% organic.
Over the years, big agricultural and food companies have slowly degraded the term organic. By buying up smaller organic companies and lobbying the USDA, they have managed to chip away at the definition of organic foods. As the Cornucopia Institute pointed out, “In 1995 there were 81 independent organic processing companies in the United States. A decade later, Big Food has gobbled up all but 15 of them.”
Buyouts and mergers of food companies usually do not result in a label change. Conscientious consumers who want to avoid supporting big food companies end up giving their money to them anyway, unless they do some serious research to find out who owns the company. Just looking at the labels on the boxes is not enough.
Origins of the Organic Label
In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act. This law regulated the organic food industry and established standards for what could be considered organic. One positive of the act was the establishment of the National Organic Standards Board. This board was to have fifteen members elected from different parts of the organic foods industry including four organic farmers or growers, three environmentalists or conservationists, three consumer or public interest advocates, two handlers or processors, one retailer, one scientist from a related field (toxicology, ecology, or biochemistry), and one USDA accredited certifying agent. The make-up of the board was supposed to help avoid governmental bureaucratic appointees.
Organic Labeling With Packaged Foods
Packaged foods that carry the USDA Organic seal are certified by the USDA to have at least 95% organic ingredients in them. Any ingredient listed specifically as organic is certified organic. Another category of organic is “made with organic ingredients.” Any packaged food that lists “made with organic” for specific ingredients must have at least 70% organic ingredients. No genetically modified ingredients are allowed in these products or ones with the USDA organic seal. Organic ingredients are to be made without synthetic fertilizers, ionizing radiation, or sewage sludge. The goal for organic production is to use the most natural, environmentally friendly methods as possible. This is not always done in practice.
What Does Organic Mean These Days?
Organic does not mean pesticide free or chemical free. To be certified organic, a farmer must allow a previously non-organic field to be used without synthetic chemicals, pesticides, or GMOs for at least three years. Naturally based pesticides are used regularly. (A list of exempted chemicals is available on the USDA website). Though the USDA claims that these chemicals do not affect or alter the foods we eat, the fact remains that they are in many of our organic foods without our knowledge.
The list of approved pesticides and chemicals has grown over the years. With recent changes at the National Organic Standards Board, it is getting easier and easier for growers and producers to use more chemicals and pesticides in the production of organic foods. For example, Driscoll’s organic strawberries are not really organically produced.
Methyl bromide has been banned from agricultural use, with a few exceptions, due to its association with a rise in prostate cancer in farm workers. Yet, it is one of many chemicals approved for use in organic production by the National Organic Standards Board.
Since strawberries are extremely vulnerable to pests, methyl bromide is used as a soil fumigant to sterilize the soil before they are planted. While technically it’s not sprayed directly on the fruit, it can still be detected in the strawberries that are grown in the sterilized soil.
What Chemicals Are Allowed In USDA Organic Certification
Currently, the USDA has the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances that lays out which chemicals, pesticides, and other synthetic materials are or are not allowed in organic farming and production. In order for a company or farmer to use a synthetic ingredient in the production of organic foods, they have to petition the National Organic Standards Board for an exemption under what is called the Sunset Provision. This exemption would automatically run out after five years unless renewed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Board. This has changed. The rules now state that the exemptions are automatically renewed after five years unless there is a vote to remove the exemption.
These exemptions were initially granted to give an organic food producer time to find a natural alternative to conventional synthetic methods. They were never meant to become a permanent solution. Ever since big food companies have been quietly buying up the smaller organic companies, they have been trying to relax the standards for organics as well. This latest turn of events with the exemption process is another step towards making the organic standards meaningless.
The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances is rather extensive and covers synthetic and non-synthetic materials. Some of these materials have restricted uses that are intended to keep them from contaminating crops though this doesn’t always work in practice. For example, a USDA survey of pesticide use found that 20% of organically grown lettuce had pesticide residue on it.
A major type of pesticide found was spinosad, a pesticide sold by Dow Chemicals. This pesticide comes from a bacteria found in soil. Spinosad, along with pyrethin (which comes from chrysanthemums) and azadirachtin (which comes from the Asian neem tree) are classified as slightly toxic by the EPA. These ingredients are allowed because they come from natural sources. Other restricted ingredients are limited to cleaning irrigation systems or equipment. Acceptable synthetic chemicals for use in the production of organic foods are listed below:
Alcohols
Ethanol
Isopropanol
Calcium hypochlorite
Chlorine dioxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Copper sulfate
Hydrogen peroxide
Ozone gas
Peracetic acid
Soap-based algicide/demossers
Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate
Newspapers or other recycled papers, without glossy or colored inks
Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl (PVC))
Biodegradable biobased mulch film
Ammonium carbonate
Aqueous potassium silicate
Boric acid
Copper sulfate
Elemental Sulfur
Lime sulfure- including calcium polysulfide
Oils, horticultural-narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils
Soaps, insecticidal
Sticky traps/barriers
Sucrose octanoate esters
Aqueous potassium silicate
Coppers, fixed – includes copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride
Hydrated lime
Hydrogen peroxide
Lime sulfur
Hydrated lime
Lime sulfur
Peracetic acid
Potassium bicarbonate
Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014
Tetracycline, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014
Aquatic plant extracts
Humic acids
Lignin sulfonate
Magnesium sulfate
Micronutrients, excepting those made from nitrates or chlorides
Soluble boron products
Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt
Liquid fish products- can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid
Vitamins B1, C, and E
Sulfurous acid
Ethylene gas
Lignin sulfonate
Sodium silicate
Inerts of Minimal Concern from EPA List 4
Inerts of unknown toxicity- from EPA List 3
Hydrogen chloride
Do Companies Try To Get Away With Stuff?
As the organic industry slowly shrinks, the main players try to get away with more and more. Companies are petitioning to add more synthetic chemicals to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances every year. Since the format of getting chemicals on the list has changed, it’s harder to get rid of them once they’re approved. Slowly but surely, companies are doing whatever they can to cut corners and get away with whatever they can in pursuit of profits.
A major lawsuit was filed in New York earlier this year against Abbott Laboratories. The recent lawsuit against the manufacturer of Similac Advanced Organic Formula accuses the company of using 26 ingredients in their baby formula, including GM ingredients, that are not allowed in organic foods.
Labels for the Cosmetic Industry
The organic and natural cosmetics industry is not regulated under the USDA Organic Program. As a result, there exists very little regulation and oversight. Some voluntary certification programs have been created, but these are not compulsory. The problem with these voluntary certifications is that the standards vary with each and they’re not regulated by the government like the USDA organic program. Some states, such as California, have implemented laws regulating the organic cosmetic industry.
Under the 2003 California Organic Product Act, any cosmetic sold in California that is promoted as organic must contain at least 70% organically produced ingredients. Consumers have the right to sue cosmetic companies under this Act. As of 2011, 34 cosmetic companies had been sued for false advertising.
Other Organic, Natural, Non GMO Labels
Because of the costs and burdens that are part of the process of pursuing official USDA organic certification, many farmers pursue other options. Alternative certifications are growing in popularity, especially among smaller farmers. Some of the more popular ones include the following:
Certified Naturally Grown
Food Alliance Certified
The Farmer’s Pledge
Certified Humane
Animal Welfare Approved
OWN Association- Organic, Wildcrafted, and Natural
Ecocert
Natrue
Certified Naturally Grown, Food Alliance Certified, and Farmer’s Pledge are grass-roots organizations that are direct alternatives to the USDA organic certification yet show that their products are free of pesticides and synthetic materials.
Nearly 500 farmers from 47 states are members of Certified Naturally Grown, a non-profit, alternative, organic certification program. This group strives to preserve high standards for organic farmers while removing the financial and logistical barriers small farmers can face with USDA certification.
Wildcrafted
Wildcrafted plants are uncultivated plants gathered from their natural habitat. Care is taken to ensure sustainability, to take no more than the plant can give, to scatter a plant’s seeds, etc. Wildcrafted is superior to organic if picked where there is no runoff from polluted water or contamination from exhaust. Unlike organic produce, wildcrafted produce is never sprayed—with anything. Wildcrafted foods are pure—as nature intended.
Kosher
Kosher is a certification that ensures foods follow Jewish dietary guidelines. Though opinions may vary among rabbis about what counts as kosher or a kosher environment, a handful of nationally and internationally recognized kosher certifying agencies exist.
Generally, kosher means that both the food and the preparation methods meet certain standards. Kosher certification has nothing to do with whether or not a food is organically grown or is genetically modified. Simply put, kosher certification means the food and its preparation methods followed Jewish dietary laws and nothing more.
Non- GMO
The Non-GMO Project is a program to label products that do not contain genetically modified ingredients. They are the only independent verification organization in North America and their symbol has become well known to those people who choose to avoid GMOs.
The Non-GMO Project uses the European Union measurement to determine if a product qualifies as non-GMO under program standards. If a product is found to contain 0.9% or less of genetically modified ingredients, then it is certified as non-GMO.
Conclusion
The various labels, while giving consumers some amount of assurance as to the quality of the product they purchase, are confusing. The only way to truly know the quality of the food you consume is to get to know your food growers at local farmers markets, or better yet, to grow your own food.
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
