Thursday, May 30, 2013

The Vaccine Hoax Is Over | Food Freedom News

The Vaccine Hoax Is Over

29Sep2012

By Andrew Baker
Food Freedom News
Freedom of Information Act in the UK filed by a doctor there has revealed 30 years of secret official documents showing that government experts have
1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies
Those are the same vaccines that are mandated to children in the US.
Educated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.
Freedom of Information Act filed in the US with the CDC by a doctor with an autistic son, seeking information on what the CDC knows about the dangers of vaccines, had by law to be responded to in 20 days. Nearly 7 years later, the doctor went to court and the CDC argued it does not have to turn over documents. A judge ordered the CDC to turn over the documents on September 30th, 2011.
On October 26, 2011, a Denver Post editorial expressed shock that the Obama administration, after promising to be especially transparent, was proposing changes to the Freedom of Information Act that would allow it to go beyond declaring some documents secret and to actually allow government agencies (such as the CDC) to declare some document “non-existent.”
Simultaneous to this on-going massive CDC cover up involving its primary “health” not recommendation but MANDATE for American children, the CDC is in deep trouble over its decades of covering up the damaging effects of fluoride and affecting the lives of all Americans, especially children and the immune compromised. Lawsuits are being prepared. Children are ingesting 3-4 times more fluoride by body weight as adults and “[t]he sheer number of potentially harmed citizens — persons with dental fluorosis, kidney patients tipped into needing dialysis, diabetics, thyroid patients, etc — numbers in the millions.”
The CDC is obviously acting against the health of the American people. But the threat to the lives of the American people posed by the CDC’s behavior does not stop there. It participated in designed pandemic laws that are on the books in every state in the US, which arrange for the government to use military to force unknown, untested vaccines, drugs, chemicals, and “medical” treatments on the entire country if it declares a pandemic emergency.
The CDC’s credibility in declaring such a pandemic emergency is non-existent, again based on Freedom of Information Act. For in 2009, after the CDC had declared the H1N1 “pandemic,” the CDC refused to respond to Freedom of Information Act filed by CBS News and the CDC also attempted to block their investigation. What the CDC was hiding was its part in one of the largest medical scandals in history, putting out wildly exaggerated data on what it claimed were H1N1 cases, and by doing so, created the false impression of a “pandemic” in the US.
The CDC was also covering up e financial scandal to rival the bailout since the vaccines for the false pandemic cost the US billions. And worse, the CDC put pregnant women first in line for an untested vaccine with a sterilizing agent, polysorbate 80, in it. Thanks to the CDC, “the number of vaccine-related “fetal demise” reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic [700% increase].
The exposure of the vaccine hoax is running neck and neck with the much older hoax of a deadly 1918-19 flu. It was aspirin that killed people in 1918-19, not a pandemic flu. It was the greatest industrial catastrophe in human history with 20-50 million people dying but it was blamed on a flu. The beginning of the drug industry began with that success (and Monsanto was part of it). The flu myth was used by George Bush to threaten the world with “another pandemic flu that could kill millions” – a terror tactic to get pandemic laws on the books in every state and worldwide. Then the CDC used hoax of the pandemic hoax to create terror over H1N1 and to push deadly vaccines on the public, killing thousands of unborn children and others. (CDC will not release the data and continues to push the same vaccine.)
The hoax of the vaccine schedule is over, exposed by FOIAs in the UK.
The hoax of the CDC’s interest in children’s lives has been exposed by its refusal to respond to a doctor’s FOIAs around its knowledge of vaccine dangers.
The 1918-19 pandemic hoax has been exposed by Dr. Karen Starko’s work on aspirin’s role in killing people.
And despite refusing to respond to FOIAS, the CDC’s scandalous hoax of a 2009 flu pandemic and its part in creating it, was exposed by CBS NEWS.
And the Obama administration, in attempting to salvage the last vestige of secrecy around what is really happening with vaccines, by declaring agency documents non-existent, has made its claim of transparency, non-existent.
But pandemic laws arranging for unknown vaccines to be forced on the entire country are still in place with HHS creating a vaccine mixture that should never be used on anyone and all liability for vaccines having been removed. Meanwhile, a Canadian study has just proven that the flu vaccine containing the H1N1 vaccine which kills babies in utero, actually increases the risk of serious pandemic flu.
Americans who have been duped into submitting their children to the CDC’s deadly vaccines, have a means to respond now. People from every walk of life and every organization, must
1. take the information from the UK FOIAs exposing 30 years of vaccine lies, the refusal of the CDC to provide any information on what it knows about those lies, and the Obama Administration’s efforts to hide the CDC’s awareness of those lies, and go to their state legislatures, demand the immediate nullification of the CDC vaccine schedule and the pandemic laws.
2. inform every vet. active duty military person, law enforcement people, DHS agents and medical personnel they know, of the vaccine hoax, for their families are deeply threatened, too, but they may not be aware of it or that they have been folded into agency structures by the pharmaceutical industry (indistinguishable from the bankers and oil companies) that would make them agents of death for their country with the declaration of a “pandemic” emergency or “bio-terrorist” attack. It is completely clear now that the terrorism/bioterrorism structures are scams so that any actions taken to “protect” this country using those laws would in fact be what threatens the existence of Americans.
It was aspirin that killed millions in 1918-19. Now it is mandated and unknown, untested vaccines with banned adjuvants in them that threaten the country with millions of deaths. At the same time, the CDC is holding 500,000 mega-coffins, built to be incinerated, on its property outside Atlanta. Not to put to fine a point on this, but it’s clear now that the CDC should not be involved in any way with public health.
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know that vaccines are not a miracle of modern medicine. Any medical or government authority which insists vaccines prevent diseases is either ignorant of government documents (and endless studies) revealing the exact opposite or of the CDC’s attempts to hide the truth about vaccines from the public, or means harm to the public.
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know the vaccine schedule is a hoax.
The health danger to American children and adults are vaccines.

Pocket : POPE FRANCIS DEFENDS ATHEISTS -- A MUST READ

POPE FRANCIS DEFENDS ATHEISTS -- A MUST READ

surfingtheapocalypse.net
Theresa
May 25th, 2013
view original

WOW! I have always been told by religious DOGMA that good works alone will not lead to a heavenly aftermath (after death) - You have heard the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions?"

Well, well....look at what the new pope has to say...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Atheists and other nonbelievers largely welcomed Wednesday's (May 22) remarks by Pope Francis that performing "good works" is not the exclusive domain of people of faith, but rather a place where they and atheists could and should meet.

In a private homily, Francis described doing good not as a matter of faith, but of "duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because he has made us in his image and likeness."

Then, referring to non-Catholics and nonbelievers, he said, "if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good."

Reaction among American nonbelievers ranged from mild surprise to warm welcome. Some say they see Francis' remarks as a sign that nonbelief — atheism, humanism and other forms of freethought — is being normalized, while others see recognition of what they say they have known all along: Having no faith does not mean having no morality.

"We are a community that is just trying to do good and live good lives, just like most communities are," said Greg Epstein, Harvard University's Humanist chaplain and author of "Good Without God." ''His statement is an acknowledgment of that. It is welcome and it is gratifying."

Epstein was struck by the contrast of Francis' remarks and Tuesday's broadcast of an interview by CNN's Wolf Blitzer of an Oklahoma tornado victim. When Blitzer asked the woman if she wanted to thank God for her family's survival, she replied she is an atheist.

"You have this small example of this soft-spoken young mother who is recovering from the tornado who by her presence, her quiet dignity, not only exemplified what the pope was saying, but overshadowed him," Epstein said. "The quiet dignity of her just being a person and so clearly a good and loving person, it makes my reaction, and I would think a lot of people's reaction (to Francis' remarks), 'Well, of course.'"

Dale McGowan also affirmed the pope's recognition of nonbelievers. His Foundation Beyond Belief collects funds from nonbelievers and distributes them to charities and relief organizations and organizes teams of secular volunteers. To date, Foundation Beyond Belief has raised more than $35,000 for victims of the Oklahoma tornado.

"Anything that decreases the mistrust and fear between people is a good thing," he said. "Some people might say it contradicts past statements (of other popes), but I don't care about any of that. It is terrific when a position evolves to where we can put division behind us, and this is an example of that and I think it is great."

Pocket : Inventor of ADHD’s Deathbed Confession: “ADHD is a Fictitious Disease”

Inventor of ADHD’s Deathbed Confession: “ADHD is a Fictitious Disease”

vaticproject.blogspot.com
Vatic Master
May 17th, 2013
view original

Vatic Note: If I had children, I would definitely copy this or print it out and keep it for future use. If they try to say your child had ADHD, then we now know its a bogus disease according to the inventor of the disease. Vatic Project has been saying all along that it was not a real disease. Remember, Bush Sr and Dan Quayles dad were both involved in Ely Lilly Drug company and Bush Sr, is also the head of the largest illegal drug mafia cartel in the western hemisphere.

We talked about the way this works. Get those kids on the ritalin, then when they are 18 and taken off, they do not feel normal with their own brain and chemistry kicking in, so they turn to illegal drugs to try and feel normal. That is the reason Bush did what he did in promoting all this. Remember when Bush Jr wanted the school nurses to diagnose and dispense the ritalin? Now you know why.

Inventor of ADHD’s Deathbed Confession: “ADHD is a Fictitious Disease”
http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2013/05/inventor-of-adhds-deathbed-confession-adhd-is-a-fictitious-disease-2488648.html
By WorldTruth.tv - We teach you the truth

Fortunately, the Swiss National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics (NEK, President: Otfried Höffe) critically commented on the use of the ADHD drug Ritalin in its opinion of 22 November 2011 titled Human enhancement by means of pharmacological agents:

"The consumption of pharmacological agents altered the child’s behavior without any contribution on his or her part. That amounted to interference in the child’s freedom and personal rights, because pharmacological agents induced behavioral changes but failed to educate the child on how to achieve these behavioral changes independently. The child was thus deprived of an essential learning experience to act autonomously and emphatically which “considerably curtails children’s freedom and impairs their personality development”, the NEK criticized.

The alarmed critics of the Ritalin disaster are now getting support from an entirely different side. The German weekly Der Spiegel quoted in its cover story on 2 February 2012 the US American psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, born in 1922 as the son of Russian Jewish (VN: Khazar) immigrants, who was the “scientific father of ADHD” and who said at the age of 87, seven months before his death in his last interview: “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease”

Since 1968, however, some 40 years, Leon Eisenberg’s “disease” haunted the diagnostic and statistical manuals, first as “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood”, now called “ADHD”. The use of ADHD medications in Germany rose in only eighteen years from 34 kg (in 1993) to a record of no less than 1760 kg (in 2011) – which is a 51-fold increase in sales! In the United States every tenth boy among ten year-olds already swallows an ADHD medication on a daily basis. With an increasing tendency.

When it comes to the proven repertoire of Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda, to sell the First World War to his people with the help of his uncle’s psychoanalysis and to distort science and the faith in science to increase profits of the industry – what about investigating on whose behalf the “scientific father of ADHD” conducted science?

His career was remarkably steep, and his “fictitious disease” led to the best sales increases. And after all, he served in the “Committee for DSM V and ICD XII, American Psychiatric Association” from 2006 to 2009. After all, Leon Eisenberg received “the Ruane Prize for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Research. He has been a leader in child psychiatry for more than 40 years through his work in pharmacological trials, research, teaching, and social policy and for his theories of autism and social medicine”.

And after all, Eisenberg was a member of the “Organizing Committee for Women and Medicine Conference, Bahamas, November 29 – December 3, 2006, Josiah Macy Foundation (2006)”. The Josiah Macy Foundation organized conferences with intelligence agents of the OSS, later CIA, such as Gregory Bateson and Heinz von Foerster during and long after World War II. Have such groups marketed the diagnosis of ADHD in the service of the pharmaceutical market and tailor-made for him with a lot of propaganda and public relations?

It is this issue that the American psychologist Lisa Cosgrove and others investigated in their study Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry7. They found that “Of the 170 DSM panel members 95 (56%) had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.

One hundred percent of the members of the panels on ‘Mood Disorders’ and ‘Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders’ had financial ties to drug companies. The connections are especially strong in those diagnostic areas where drugs are the first line of treatment for mental disorders.”

In the next edition of the manual, the situation is unchanged. “Of the 137 DSM-V panel members who have posted disclosure statements, 56% have reported industry ties – no improvement over the percent of DSM-IV members.” “The very vocabulary of psychiatry is now defined at all levels by the pharmaceutical industry,” said Dr Irwin Savodnik, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles.

This is well paid. Just one example: "The Assistant Director of the Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital and Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School received “$1 million in earnings from drug companies between 2000 and 2007”.

In any case, no one can easily get around the testimony of the father of ADHD: “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease.”

The task of psychologists, educators and doctors is not to put children on the “chemical lead” because the entire society cannot handle the products of its misguided theories of man and raising children, and instead hands over our children to the free pharmaceutical market.

Let us return to the basic matter of personal psychology and education: The child is to acquire personal responsibility and emphatic behavior under expert guidance – and that takes the family and the school: In these fields, the child should be able to lead off mentally. This constitutes the core of the human person.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

The Third Myth Of College

The Third Myth Of College
By Professor Doom
5-28-13

In times past, it was true that to get into college and pursue formal higher learning, you needed good grades. It was also true that you needed to work hard to stay in college. Those are now merely myths, and certainly not true today. Administrations in higher education have changed policies, so that literally anyone can go to college, and stay there for years…provided they’re willing to take on debt through student loans. Two truths turned into two myths via changes in policy, but there’s more.

While these became myths through changes in policy, the next myth probably never had meaningful truth to it, and is a myth today through a change in the economy.

Myth #3: “College degree earners earn a million more dollars over a lifetime.”

“You pay your fee and get your B.”
--description of less than reputable schools in my area

      This myth was posted on the walls at my college and, I suspect, is posted at many institutions. Money is a powerful motivator, for learning or anything else, so the intentions are good by posting it…but this is a deceptive myth. There’s nothing wrong with viewing a college degree as a financial investment, any more than viewing a college education as a source of personal growth. Unfortunately, institutions are not above using the myth of making so much more money with a degree to justify the ever increasing cost of tuition, and, in turn, the likewise increasing loans taken on by students.

      This myth is far more damaging than the others, and people honestly believe that because they’ll be ultimately making more money, it’s worthwhile to take out loans. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even quotes this myth in a speech on college affordability (implicitly justifying the cost of college), so it must be true, right? There’s a grain of truth to this insidious myth, but only a grain. If you subtract “super-earners” from the college graduates (the upper 1% of the top 1% of college degree holders), the rare souls that earn a great many millions or even billions, the actual average would drop substantially, but the true deception is the “over a lifetime” part of it. Allow me to write something that terrifies my students, and many administrators: let’s do some math!

       The average annual income for a janitor is $25,000, and there aren’t any “super earner” janitors. Consider the six years it takes an “above average” student to get a degree. If, instead of going to college, an 18 year old coming out of high school worked for six years as a janitor ($150,000), took that money and invested it for forty years, at 4%, compounded annually, he’d have over $720,000, more than what an average college graduate would make, not counting the super-earners. (As an aside, most incoming students, even with a calculator and the formula directly in front of them, cannot perform this calculation.) If this janitor could get 5% annually, he’d have over a million dollars and still not be 65 years old, better off than a college graduate, according to the myth, and with another decade or so of life still to live!

       So, in terms of money-making, the average 18 year old will generally do better as a janitor than he will as a college graduate. And yet going to college is presented as economically a good idea for everyone.

      Think about that: many a college graduate would be better off financially if he had just scrubbed toilets instead, and that’s not even factoring in the student loan, or accounting for those that don’t graduate. Granted, in the 2013 economy making a secure 5% a year is not a given—but with over half of college graduates unable to find a relevant job in the current economy, scrubbing toilets is still a better deal than being un- or under-employed with a vast student loan to pay off. If children were told a more honest myth, that “People that go to college generally don’t do as well financially as janitors,” would so many be willing to sacrifice years of their life and enter eternal debt slavery to go to college?

      Particular jobs (engineering, for example) do require a college degree, and those jobs tend to be higher paying. If you’re specifically going to college for the specific degree for exactly one of these jobs, and you can get that degree, and that job, then college and a loan does make financial sense. But to extend the favorable risk/reward calculation for these particular jobs to all degrees, even those in such wildly unprofitable fields as Ethnomusicology (yes, that’s an actual college degree, with courses like “Queer Musicology” that focus on the musical preferences of homosexuals), is fraud.

      Even if this myth was true in the past, the data shows unarguably that it’s not true today, and won’t be true for future college graduates in the vast majority of fields taught at the local university or college.

      To repeat the myth of how much money there is to be made just because of having a degree, any degree, is to repeat a lie. For institutions to rationalize raising all tuition for all coursework on the basis of higher salaries for a few jobs based on a tiny minority of that coursework is unethical at the very least, and just pulls in suckers with bad grades and no work ethic, believing that as long as they grab some degree out of the institution, they’ll be fine.

      Those in control of education know the million dollar myth is a lie, but nonetheless repeat the lie, put up posters claiming the lie, and use this known lie to justify raising prices on “education.” Why should you trust your children or your future to a system controlled by people that lie knowingly and relentlessly?

Think about it.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

MIND-TICKLERS

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

RAW FOOD DIETS - ARE THEY REALLY HEALTHY FOR YOU?

RAW FOOD DIETS - ARE THEY REALLY HEALTHY FOR YOU?

RAW FOOD DIETS - ARE THEY REALLY HEALTHY?

By Nadia Marshall

Raw Food diets are all the rage! After researching the subject for a while, I’ve found a lot of information about the pros of a Raw Food Diet (which involves eating raw food at least 75% of the time) but very little about the cons. So, I felt compelled to explore these reported benefits more deeply, mostly from an Ayurvedic perspective, to help people make a more informed decision about whether raw food diets are actually healthy for you or not….

Before I delve into the nitty gritty, I must say from the get-go that from an Ayurvedic perspective, the discussion is never as narrow as raw food vs cooked food. In Ayurveda, many things are taken into account first including – the state of an individual’s digestive fire, their time of life, the climate they live in, their individual constitution and their current state of imbalance to name but a few. All of these things will inform what sort of diet is recommended, and for how long.

Reported benefit of Raw Food #1: More Enzymes

One of the biggest ‘health’ arguments for eating raw food is that raw food contains more ‘living’ enzymes because the enzymes aren’t destroyed by the cooking process. Lets explore this…

First of all what are enzymes? They are proteins in the body, released by every single cell, that help to catalyse chemical reactions. They are like the keys that, when fit into the right lock, enable (or at least speed up) chemical reactions to take place in all physiological systems of the body – in digestion, respiration, immune responses etc. Without them, there are no reactions and there is no life.

Where do these enzymes come from? Well, the human body produces them itself from the building block chemicals we ingest from our food. Food has to be ingested, broken down, absorbed, broken down further and then reconstructed to produce the enzymes we need in our bodies. Plant enzymes aren’t magically ‘released’ from our food into our tummies to contribute to human digestion, as some might assume.

This leads me to question the logic of this first raw food argument…

My first question is… do nutrition scientists have a complete understanding of food enzymes and the role of the phytonutrients they contain? From what I’ve read, the answer is ‘no, not yet’. Nutrition science is actually a very young science. It has only been around for 170 years so is about as advanced as surgery was in the 1650’s. So… we don’t actually understand every aspect of digestion from a scientific perspective. We don’t know the exact constituents of a carrot, let alone every other food in the world. And we certainly don’t come close to having an understanding of the relationship between complex meals and the human body. So can we really conclude that putting more food enzymes into a human body will lead to the production of more human digestive enzymes? No.

My second question is… are all of the enzymes that exist in a sweet potato or a lettuce actually beneficial to a human body? Enzymes exist in these plants to carry out specific roles in these plants. Isn’t it a little arrogant to assume they have been put there by the universe to be of benefit to our digestive systems? Some of the harmful effects of food enzymes are well known and there are specific cooking processes to remove them. For example, when cooking chickpeas you should always skim the froth off once the water is boiling rapidly to remove the enzymes that make them so gaseous. So perhaps breaking down the enzymes in food is a good thing, not a bad thing?

My third question is… will food enzymes survive the raw food preparation and digestion process any better than if just cooked? From all I’ve read, enzymes are very delicate things. It is said they are denatured at about 116 degrees Farenheight or between 40-49 degrees Celsius. They can also be destroyed by processes such as blending and crushing, depending on the enzyme. So when we make raw smoothies with hard core juicers and blenders, when we chew our food and when our food hits the hydrochloric acid in our stomach, will there be any more living food enzymes coming out the other end than if we just ate cooked food? I’m not so sure.

In his amazing book “Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human”, Harvard Professor Richard Wrangham backs me up on these first three points. He writes, “To scientists, the idea that food enzymes contribute to digestion or cellular function in our bodies is nonsense because these molecules are themselves digested in our stomachs and small intestines. The ‘living enzyme’ idea also ignores that even if food enzymes survived our digestive systems, their own specific metabolic functions are too specialised to allow them to do anything useful in our bodies”.

People may be particularly attracted to the ‘living enzyme’ idea if they believe their own digestive enzyme secretion is compromised. But if our digestive enzymes aren’t functioning very well, will eating raw food help if we can’t digest it very well? Not a lot of science has been done on how difficult it is to digest raw food vs cooked food. But what has been done shows raw food takes much, much more energy to digest and releases much, much less energy to the body following digestion (1). Basically, it is far more difficult for the human body to digest than cooked food (in fact, it has been argued that the human body has evolved specifically to eat cooked food - 1). I would suggest that eating food that is more difficult to digest when our digestion is compromised in order to improve our digestion is a somewhat flawed approach.

Ayurveda would agree. Ayurveda teaches us that cooked food is much easier to digest than raw food and actually helps to support a strong digestive system. By eating predominantly cooked foods (a little raw food is absolutely fine), we help to make our digestive system more balanced which leads to the appropriate digestion, absorption and assimilation of our food; the balanced production and secretion of digestive enzymes; appropriate appetite and the correct nourishment of our tissues. In contrast, it teaches eating predominantly raw food actually deeply compromises our digestion... but more about that later.

Ayurveda has been around about 4800 years longer than nutrition science and has been tested on billions of people throughout history. Based on the laws of nature that are easy to relate to and grasp (and do not change), it has an amazing understanding of the qualities of food, how the preparation of food changes these qualities, the relationships between foods and the relationship between foods and our bodies.

Reported benefit #2: More Nutrients

A related argument to the one above is that raw food contains more nutrients than cooked food. As far as I can glean, this one isn’t true. Certain cooking processes destroy nutrients while others actually enhance nutrients. This topic is so freaking vast, nutrition science will probably never work it out! Besides, who would fund the research?

One of the things I have learned from our friend who has been a Chef for 34 years and worked in food manufacturing for 10 of those years (so knows a lot about nutrition and food chemistry) is that many of the traditional methods of food preparation and cooking have been shown to enhance the nutritional content of our food. Much (if not all) of the knowledge we need to make our food more nutritional through our cooking already exists and can be found by studying traditional cultures… or traditional medical systems, like Ayurveda!

Reported benefit #3: More Energy

Another argument for raw food is it gives you more energy. Again, this is true... but also false.

As we mentioned above, raw food uses more energy to digest but also provides the body with less energy following digestion. On a Horizon documentary I saw recently on the ABC, it said raw food takes about 80% more energy to digest than cooked food. So how is it that raw food makes you feel more energetic? Because it certainly does, in the short term at least.

Raw food has the qualities of DRY, ROUGH, COLD and LIGHT. In Ayurveda, there is a rule of nature called ‘Like Increases Like’ whereby if you expose your body to certain qualities, those same qualities increase in your body. For example, if you stand around naked on a cold day, you will increase the cold quality in your body!

Ayurveda teaches us that raw food increases VATA or the Air/Ether element in the body (because Vata also has the qualities of dry, rough, cold and light). And increased Vata has a catabolic effect on the body, that is, it actually breaks down cells. When a cell breaks down, it is like a star exploding – it releases A LOT of energy!! So, if you’ve ever been on a raw food retreat or tried it for a short period of time you may very well have felt bloody fantastic!! But this feeling won’t last forever and neither should your raw food diet.

You can only remain in a catabolic state for so long before the body eventually becomes very depleted and you no longer have so much energy… or so many cells left to break down!

Increased Vata or air/ether in the body leads to an imbalanced digestive fire, like a candle blowing in the wind. Even if people start out with strong digestion on a raw food diet, it is likely that over time they will begin to suffer from burping, flatulence, bloating, pain and increased sensitivity to foods - all symptoms of Vata indigestion.

Increased Vata also has a strong effect on the mind. Initially you may feel excited, enthusiastic, creative and a little hyperactive. But excessive Vata in the mind quickly turns to feelings of anxiety, stress, worry and insecurity. Lets just say a Vata-aggravated mind is not the calm, stable, peaceful mind you might be looking for.

The Yogis might argue that raw food also contains more PRANA than cooked food, and they’d be right! Prana is the subtle element of Air in the body, which can also be thought of as our lifeforce and is the healing energy within the body. However, it should be pointed out that if Prana is not digested properly, by a balanced digestive fire, it will quickly turn into Vata in the body. And Prana is only part of our lifeforce….

From an Ayurvedic perspective, truly sustained energy comes from another source or substance in the body known as OJAS, the subtle element of Water. Ojas is not nourished by raw food. In fact, it is depleted by raw food. It is, however, nourished by fresh, wholefoods cooked in a way that makes them easy to digest. Low Ojas is associated with all modern day diseases of depletion from glandular fever to adrenal and chronic fatigue. It is also associated with the mental qualities of a lack of patience, faith and humour.

Reported benefit #4: Weightloss

The third argument for raw food is… it helps you to lose weight. Again, this is very true… for all the same reasons mentioned above. The body moves into a catabolic state when eating raw food which means it is breaking down tissues, including fat tissue.

The problem with this kind of weight loss (or ‘depletion’) is that fat tissue is not the only tissue being broken down. In one study I found, people who had been eating a raw food diets were shown to have a signficantly increased risk of dental erosions (2). Your teeth are a subtissue of bone tissue… and bone tissue is the third deepest tissue in the body. If your bones aren’t being nourished properly, neither is your nervous system, your sexual reproductive tissues or your Ojas (which is last in the line of nutrition). In ‘Catching Fire’, Professor Richard Wrangham wrote, “Recent studies indicate that low bone mass in the backs and hips of raw foodists was caused by their raw diet.”

In a ‘Harvard Thinks Big 2010’ talk I watched recently, it cited a study (The Giessen Raw Food Study) of female German raw foodists who had been eating raw food diets of a very high quality for 3-5 years (and they weren’t vegan, so ate meat as well). Over 50% of them had developed amenorrhea (3). That is, they had stopped menstruating and could not longer have children! This is not the sign of a healthy diet.

From an Ayurvedic perspective, there is another, far healthier way to lose weight that won’t deplete all of your tissues. And that is… to eat and live in a way that supports a balanced digestive fire. If your Agni is balanced, your tissues will be of the right quality and you will naturally return to the ideal weight for your constitution. You may not fit into those size 8 pants but at least you’ll have your teeth…and maybe some kids too.

Reported benefit #5: More Alkaline

I’ve also read the argument that raw food is more alkaline than cooked and that all cooking processes make food acidic. This one is not true.

First of all, why is alkaline food considered better for you? It is taught that almost all foods that we eat, after being digested, absorbed, and metabolized, release either an acid or an alkaline base (bicarbonate) into the blood. Our blood is slightly alkaline, with a normal pH level of between 7.35 and 7.45. The theory behind the ‘alkaline approach’ to eating is that our diet should reflect this pH level and be slightly alkaline. Proponents of alkaline diets believe that a diet high in acid-producing foods disrupts this balance and promotes the loss of essential minerals as the body tries to restore equilibrium. This imbalance is thought to make people prone to illness.

What you need to know is that some cooking processes make food more acidic but not all of them. Cooking is an epic study of chemistry that I didn’t have time to go into… but from what I’ve gathered, the main forms of cooking that make food more acidic are deep frying and char-grilling. So, if you only deep-fry and char-grill your food you probably will be better off on a raw food diet. Slow-cooking, sautéing, steaming and more gentle forms of cooking, however, don’t make food more acidic.

And… rather than worrying about home cooking making food more acidic, you’d be better off worrying about processing making food more acidic. Most of the ‘extremely acidic’ foods on the food charts are refined flour products, refined sugar products or refined salt products. Meat and alcohol are also pretty acidic and Ayurveda would agree these should not be eaten in excess.

Ayurveda divides digestion into three stages and understands the effect of most foods on each of these three stages. It recommends avoiding the excessive consumption of very acidic or very heating foods… but there is an entire science behind food combining and preparation to make cooked meals as balanced as possible. It generally involves the addition of wonderful things like herbs, spices and condiments to get the balance of the six tastes just right. The best thing is… it tastes amazing too!

Reported benefit #6: Reduced Risk of Disease

Okay… last one. A BIG argument for the raw food diet is the widely reported reduced risk of disease. Again, this appears to be true to some extent in the short term… but I can’t find many studies looking into the longer term. My question is.... is it necessary to eat raw food to reduce the risk of disease? And is this improvement in health due to the raw food.. or to more obvious related-factors? Let me explain…

People on raw food diets no longer eat processed food or a regular western ‘convenience/fast food’ type diet… which is widely recognized as the main cause of the top four chronic diseases in Western Society. Also, people on raw food diets naturally consume a more alkaline and low GI diet because they no longer eat processed food, eat more fruit and veggies and eat less meat. This also helps to prevent or cure many chronic diseases.

But.. you don’t have to eat raw food to enjoy these benefits. You just have to stop eating processed food, eat less meat and eat more fruit and veggies!

People on raw food diets tend to be the type of people who care about their health. Also, when they walk down the Raw Food road, they tend to meet and spend time with other people who also care about their health. So, they tend to make other health-related changes in their lives. They might drink and smoke less. They might exercise more. They might watch less telly and spend more time in nature. They might grow their own veggies. They might try meditation, yoga, pilates, qi jong or tai chi…

But… you don’t have to eat raw food to enjoy these benefits. You just have to start drinking and smoking less, exercise more, spending more time in nature, try planting a veggie garden and give meditation, yoga, pilates, qi jong or tai chi a go!

Raw food diets have a very cleansing effect on the channels – they are the equivalent of a ‘fast’ so the body becomes very clean initially as undigested food wastes and accumulated toxins are removed from the channels.

However, when a fast goes on for too long, it will eventually have a damaging effect on the body. The digestive fire will become imbalanced by Vata, food won’t be digested properly and this will lead to an increase in undigested food waste and toxins. In Ayurveda, these toxins are understood to be the root cause of ALL disease, as they move from the digestive tract into the channels and tissues and wreak havoc. The raw food fast will also deplete all of the tissues of the body and eventually Ojas, which forms the very foundation of our immune system. So, from an Ayurvedic perspective, a raw food diet will actually increase the risk of disease in the long term.

Conclusion

You’ve probably gathered by now that from an Ayurvedic perspective, long-term Raw Food Diets are not advised. There are some situations where they are recommended but only to certain individuals. For example, it may be appropriate for a fiery person with a strong constitution and strong digestive fire who lives in a hot climate, is overweight and has diabetes to eat just raw food. But even then, the diet would have a timeline and the practitioner would keep a close eye on the state of their Agni throughout.

As a general rule, Ayurveda recommends eating predominantly cooked food that has the qualities of WARM, LIGHT and SLIGHTLY OILY. These are the same qualities of our Agni and promote a balanced digestive fire. When we do have raw food (which we absolutely still can and should), it should generally be eaten in the middle of the day when our metabolism is at its strongest or in the summer months, when our body is naturally craving cooling foods.

Finally, when considering any long-term radical diet, like a Raw Food diet, it is a good idea to get some specific advice from a Practitioner you trust (preferably an Ayurvedic one!). You should choose someone who walks the talk and looks radiantly healthy. But they shouldn’t just be physically healthy, they should also be mentally healthy – peaceful, kind and joyful.

Let me finish with the words of Professor Richard Wrangham again, “Raw foodists, it is clear, do not fare well. They thrive only in rich modern environments where they depend on eating exceptionally high quality foods.... the implication is clear. We are not like other animals. In most circumstances, we need cooked food.”

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE OR ASK A QUESTION

References:

(1)“Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human”, Prof Richard Wrangham ... if you’re even remotely thinking about going down the raw food road, I HIGHLY recommend you read this book first.
(2)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9831783
(3)http://www.uni-giessen.de/fbr09/nutr-ecol/veroe_lomalinda2_e.php

Volcano? California Homes Sinking one by one in now Abandoned Subdivision near Volcanic Field Pic

Volcano? California Homes Sinking one by one in now Abandoned Subdivision near Volcanic Field Pic

Posted By: Susoni [Send E-Mail]
Date: Tuesday, 14-May-2013 08:07:02

CALIFORNIA - Homes are sinking in a California subdivision built on top of volcanic country. Eight homes have been abandoned so far and 10 more are under an imminent evacuation notice after cracks appeared in the ground and entire sections dropped 10 feet into the ground. A Tudor-style house was a long-time dream of Scott and Robin Spivey, who lived in the Lake County neighborhood for 11 years. But the Spiveys were forced to evacuate when cracks began appearing in their walls in March. The small cracks turned into gaping fractures, which culminated in their 600-square-foot garage dropping 10 feet below the street. It didn’t take much longer for the houses on both sides of the Spiveys’ dream house to collapse as well. Scott Spivey, a former building inspector, stated, “We want to know what is going on here.” Randall Fitzgerald, a writer who bought his home in Lakeside Heights a year ago, added, “It’s a slow-motion disaster.” Frustrated homeowners have been forced to watch as a hilltop with sweeping views of Clear Lake and the Mount Konocti volcano slowly swallows the subdivision. The California homes that are sinking were built 30 years ago. The movement is different than the sinkholes in Florida, which have been known to swallow entire homes in an instant. Rather, this collapse can move several feet in one day, then just centimeters the next. County public works director Scott De Leon added that the sinking homes are confusing to more than just the homeowners. He added, “We have a dormant volcano, and I’m certain a lot of things that happen here are a result of that, but we don’t know about this.” Some of the subdivision movement is happening on shallow fill, according to De Leon. However, a geologist has warned that the ground could be compromised down to bedrock, which rests 25 feet below the surface. Cracks have also appeared recently in roads well beyond the shallow fill. In a bid for answers to stop the California homes from sinking further, officials have inspected the development’s original plans. But they have found nothing to account for the problem. Tom Ruppenthal, a consultant from Utility Services Associates in Seattle, suggested that groundwater may have shifted course. The homes that have already sunk have been tagged for mandatory removal. But the hillside is so unstable, it can’t support the equipment needed to complete the job. –Inquistr
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/volcano-california-homes-sinking-one-by-one-in-now-abandon-subdivision-near-volcanic-field/

Sunday, May 12, 2013

“Syria to Respond immediately to any New Israeli Attack”: Syria deputy FM. Tel Aviv Supports Al Nusra Terrorists | Global Research

“Syria to Respond immediately to any New Israeli Attack”: Syria deputy FM. Tel Aviv Supports Al Nusra Terrorists

By Press TV

Global Research, May 10, 2013

Press TV

Region: Middle East & North Africa

Theme: US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad says the country will “respond immediately” to any new Israeli aggression against Syrian territory.

“The instruction has been made to respond immediately to any new Israeli attack without (additional) instruction from any higher leadership, and our retaliation will be strong and will be painful against Israel,” Miqdad told AFP on Thursday.

He also vehemently dismissed Western media reports that Israel targeted weapons bound for Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah.

“They absolutely did not achieve their objective and they lied when they said they are targeting Hezbollah,” he said, adding, “There is no way Syria will allow this to happen again.”

On May 5, Syria said the Israeli regime had carried out an airstrike targeting a research center in a suburb of Damascus, following heavy losses of al-Qaeda-affiliated groups at the hands of the Syrian army. According to Syrian media reports, Israeli rockets struck the Jamraya Research Center.

Syria’s Foreign Ministry has sent letters to the United Nations and its Security Council stating that Israel’s aggression shows the links between Tel Aviv and terrorist groups operating in Syria including the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front.

Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zohbi told reporters in Damascus that Syria had the right and the duty to defend its people by all available means and it would not give in to Israeli acts of aggression.

The Israeli attacks on Syria have made the Middle East more dangerous, the Syrian information minister added.

The Sunday Israeli aggression was Tel Aviv’s second strike on Syria in three days.

The Jamraya facility was also targeted in an Israeli airstrike in January.

The Syrian government says the chaos that erupted in the country over two years ago is being orchestrated from outside.

Anti-Syria countries including Turkey and several Arab states in the region have taken a silent stance toward Tel Aviv’s acts of aggression against Syria.

Articles by:Press TV

annunakimaster

Thursday, May 30, 2013