Month: March 2012

The therapy I was telling him about was oil pulling. Although oil pulling has its origins in Ayurvedic medicine, which dates back thousands of years, this modern version is relatively new, at least in the United States. Oil pulling is very simple. Basically all you do is rinse your mouth out with vegetable oil, much like you would with a mouthwash. As simple as it sounds, if done correctly it has a very powerful cleansing and healing affect not only on the mouth and sinuses, but the entire body.

A few days later, Rick called me on the phone. "Wow! This oil pulling stuff really works," he exclaimed. "My sinuses began to drain immediately. I expelled a lot of dark yellow, gross looking mucus. I'm breathing easier and sleeping better and my headaches are gone!"

I wasn't surprised with Rick's success. I hear many similar responses from others with various health problems. "I was skeptical at first," says Cynthia. "I couldn't see how swishing oil in my mouth could help with my arthritis. After eight days I noticed the pain in my hands diminished considerably. There was also marked improvement in my neck and I could move my head from side to side without any pain. I was amazed at how quickly I got results. I haven't felt this good in a long time!"

Some people think I'm crazy when I tell them that oil pulling can help those with asthma, allergies, chronic fatigue, diabetes, migraine headaches, PMS, and chronic skin problems. Oil pulling works by detoxifying or cleansing the body. In this way, disease promoting toxins are removed, thus allowing the body to heal itself. As a consequence, health problems of all types improve.

"I've suffered for several years with joint and lower back pain," says Anna. "Every morning it was difficult getting out of bed because the pain. After two months of oil pulling the pain is all but gone. I'm amazed. Although I began oil pulling to relieve the joint pain, a few other things happened that I didn't expect. I'm surprised to see that the eczema on my arm and hand [is] disappearing and my skin becoming smoother and softer. Nothing I had tried before had helped. I sleep better at night too, so I have more energy during the day. I no longer need my mid-day naps. I have so much energy I almost feel like a teenager again. My periods have become more regular with less cramping and less mood swings. Also, my teeth, gums, and tongue are cleaner than they've ever been."

The first thing that most people notice when they start oil pulling is an improvement in their oral health. Teeth become whiter, breath becomes fresher, and the tongue and gums take on a healthy pink color. Even problems such as bleeding gums, tooth decay, and gum disease are greatly diminished or completely healed.

"I had a really bad infection in my mouth," says Brittany. "It was so painful that I could not sleep. Pain medication helped temporarily. I was sure that I needed another root canal. After hearing about oil pulling I decided to give it a try before going to the dentist. I began oil pulling three times a day. By the very next day the pain was gone! No soreness, nothing. I was shocked. I continue to oil pull and my teeth are whiter and healthier looking then they have ever been. My gums have stopped bleeding, they used to bleed after every brushing. They are no longer receding and my teeth feel tighter. On my last visit to the dentist he was amazed at how much better my teeth and gums looked. He told me to continue to do whatever I was doing."

Oil pulling traces its roots to oil gargling practiced in Ayurvedic medicine. Oil pulling as we know it today was introduced in 1992 by Dr. F. Karach, MD. Dr. Karach claimed that oil pulling could cure a variety of illnesses ranging from heart disease and digestive troubles to hormonal disorders. He said it cured him of a chronic blood disorder of 15 years duration and within three days cured his arthritis, which at times was so painful he was bedridden. He used the method in his medical practice with great success.

Dr. Karach's method of oil pulling consists of swishing, not gargling, vegetable oil in the mouth. The oil is "worked" in the mouth by pushing, pulling, and drawing it through the teeth for a period of 15 to 20 minutes. It is done one to three times a day on an empty stomach. The best time is in the morning before eating breakfast, but it can be done before any meal. The used oil is discarded and the mouth rinsed out with water. The oil is never swallowed because it is loaded with bacteria, toxins, pus, and mucus.

Sunflower and sesame seed oils are the most commonly used for oil pulling, but any vegetable oil will work. People have had success with olive, coconut, almond, and other oils. I prefer to use coconut oil because of its many health benefits. If you use a mild flavored coconut oil it is very pleasant in the mouth. Some oils, such as extra virgin olive oil, are so strong flavored that many people find them difficult to use.

The oil acts like a cleanser. When you put it in your mouth and work it around your teeth and gums it "pulls" out bacteria and other debris. It acts much like the oil you put in your car engine. The oil picks up dirt and grime. When you drain the oil, it pulls out the dirt and grime with it, leaving the engine relatively clean. Consequently, the engine runs more smoothly and lasts longer. Likewise, when we expel harmful substances from our bodies our health is improved and we run smoother and last longer.

As simple as it is, oil pulling has a very powerful detoxifying effect. Our mouths are the home to billions of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other parasites and their toxins. Candida and streptococcus are common residents in our mouths. It is these types of germs and their toxic waste products that cause gum disease and tooth decay and contribute to many other health problems, including arthritis and heart disease. Our immune system is constantly fighting these troublemakers. If our immune system becomes overloaded or burdened by excessive stress, poor diet, environmental toxins, and such, these organisms can spread throughout the body, causing secondary infections and chronic inflammation, leading to any number of health problems.

Oil pulling is one of the most remarkable methods of detoxification and healing I have ever experienced in my career as a naturopathic physician. It helped me overcome a chronic skin problem that other forms of detoxification, including numerous juice fasts lasting up to 30 days, were unable to cure.

Oil pulling can work its magic almost instantly. Some people report relief from certain conditions after doing it only once. Minor problems often clear up within a few days. More serious, chronic problems may require a few weeks or several months or more depending on lifestyle issues.

Toxins are pulled from the body the very first time you try it. One of the first cleansing symptoms you will experience is an increased flow of mucous from your throat and sinuses. Mucus drainage is one of the body's methods of removing toxins. While you are pulling, mucus may build in the back of your throat. You may even have to expel the oil and clear the mucus from your throat before reaching a full 20 minutes. That's okay, take another spoonful of oil and continue until you've pulled for a total of 15-20 minutes. You may also experience a little nausea and perhaps even need to vomit as your body expels toxic waste. Other symptoms may also arise temporarily. These symptoms will subside as your body becomes cleaner and you become more comfortable with oil pulling. Unlike other methods of detoxification that last for only a short time, oil pulling should become a regular part of your daily schedule, like brushing your teeth.

Oil pulling is incredibly effective in brightening teeth, healing gums, preventing bad breath, quenching inflammation, and healing oral infections. It is also effective in treating many systemic conditions throughout the body.

As good as it is, the simple oil pulling method described in this article isn't always enough. Some people and some conditions require a little extra care. For this reason, I took oil pulling and developed it into a more complete, more effective method that I call Oil Pulling Therapy. This program incorporates

medicated coconut oil (which you can make yourself), diet, select nutrients, oral pH balancing procedures, and, for those who have amalgam (mercury) fillings or metal crowns, a detox procedure designed specifically for removing heavy metals, all of which combine to greatly enhance the effects and healing properties of oil pulling. The details of this program are covered in my new book Oil Pulling Therapy: Detoxifying and Healing the Body Through Oral Cleansing.

Oil pulling is cheap; the only expense is for the oil you use. It is very easy; you simply swish oil in your mouth. Compared to other forms of detoxification it is relatively effortless. It doesn't require dieting, fasting, or consuming unpleasant, and often bowel-loosening, mixes of herbs and pills. And it is completely harmless. All you are doing is rinsing your mouth out with vegetable oil—a food. You're not even swallowing the oil. What can be more benign than that? Nearly anyone can do it, regardless of their level of health. If you have health issues, don't let the simplicity of oil pulling detour you from trying it. Sometimes the simplest procedures produce the greatest results.

New research published in the journal Current Microbiology highlights the extent to which glyphosate is altering, and in some cases destroying, the very microorganisms upon which the health of the soil, and – amazingly – the benefits of raw and fermented foods as a whole, depend. Concerningly, certain beneficial strains of bacteria used as food-starters in cultures for raw yogurt, such as Lactobacillus cremoris, have entirely disappeared from certain geographic regions where traditionally they were found in plenty. The study reports that the death and growth inhibition of selected food microorganisms was observed in concentrations of Roundup that are lower than are recommended in agricultural practice.

This means that farmers who are increasingly using larger and larger concentrations of Roundup and similar glyphosate-based herbicide formulations to countermand the increasingly resistant super weeds GM agriculture has spawned, are not only damaging the immediate health of the soil, but subsequent yields of indispensable food-starter microorganisms, as well as the microbes that ensure the overall fertility of the soil for producing crops well into the future.

Monsanto's Roundup assaults the planetary biosphere
Microorganisms are responsible for much more than just the health content of raw and fermented foods. The most numerous inhabitants in the web of life, microorganisms participate quite literally "at the root" of the nitrogen, phosphate, oxygen and carbon cycles, and are therefore indispensable for the health of the entire biosphere. Astoundingly, there are an estimated 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6 x 10 to the 30th power) bacterial cells on the planet, and these soil microrganisms represent about 50 percent of the the total biodiversity in terms of numbers of species.

As Roundup usage threatens these soil microrganisms, including fungi and the mycellium (technically the largest organism in the world), it could lead to devastating implications. Compromising the health of the mycellium, in particular, may cause serious harm to the planet. According to prominent mycologist Paul Stamets, mycellium may actually act as a 'network' within the biosphere, acting as the Earth's 'natural internet' in which virtually all organisms may rely upon. It has been recognized throughout the ages that all life depends on the soil. Without healthy soil, the health of the entire planet is at risk.

Charles E. Kelogg was one individual who stated such in the USDA yearbook back in 1939. Kelogg said:

"Essentially, all life depends upon the soil … There can be no life without soil and no soil without life; they have evolved together."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt also voiced similar concerns, warning:

"The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself."

Based on an ever-increasing body of scientific evidence showing glyphosate biodegrades slowly, sinks down through the topsoil where it accumulates in the groundwater (source for natural drinking water, e.g. aquifers, springs), and is found in nearly all air and rain samples tested in the US, it is safe to say that Monsanto's best-selling Roundup is one of the greatest threats to human and environmental health ever created.

As the USDA continues to sit back and allow Monsanto to threaten the environmental stability of the planet, it becomes more apparent that the USDA and Monsanto are gladly willing to exchange the future of the planet and its inhabitants for short term gain. In fact, the USDA has even given Monsanto's latest GMO crops speedier approval in order to secure the company's profits, ignoring the numerous known harmful effects of Monsanto's past creations, e.g. Agent Orange, Aspartame, DDT.

The known effects of Roundup
The negative effects of Monsanto's Roundup on human health and the environment have been firmly established by numerous scientific studies and large-scale investigations, with scientists even linking the best-selling herbicide to conditions like infertility and cancer due to its genotoxic (DNA damaging) nature. Amazingly, even when diluted by 99.8 percent (450-fold lower dilutions than used in agricultural applications), Roundup still exhibits serious genotoxic characteristics and is harmful to the integrity of human DNA. Meanwhile, this carcinogenic herbicide product is used nationwide by unsuspecting homeowners and agricultural workers. According to the United States Geological Survey, 176 million lbs of glyphosate were used in the U.S. in 2007.

Outside of the public health realm, Roundup's startling environmental havoc is perhaps an even greater cause for concern. Despite being created to fend off weeds, Roundup is actually spawning resistant superweeds across millions of hectares (one hectare is 10,000 square metres), bankrupting farmers and destroying crop land. These resistant weeds currently cover over 4.5 million hectares in the United States alone, though experts estimate the world-wide land coverage to have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010. The onset of superweeds is being increasingly documented in Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa.

The research is clear: Roundup is not only harming human health and damaging farmland, it is threatening the very biosphere itself by destroying microbial biodiversity, with the future agricultural stability of the planet, i.e. the ability to produce food through monoculturing, at serious risk of collapsing.

Here is the full statement released by the Bromund Law Group:

Sharon Palmer is innocent
The case against Sharon Palmer is false. The allegation that she engaged in a criminal conspiracy is completely untrue. The District Attorney knows that Sharon Palmer is a family farmer and single mother. The District Attorney knows that Sharon Palmer is no flight risk and no danger to the community. He knows this because he can see that Sharon Palmer has attended court every time, in every jurisdiction, without fail, for several years.He knows this because his allegations make no claim that there is any ongoing criminal harm to anyone as a result of Sharon Palmer operating her farm in Santa Paula. Arresting her in open court and asking for $2,000,000 bail is grandstanding for the press and the public and it is an abuse of the authority given to the District Attorney by the people of Ventura County.

The simple facts of the matter are these: Sharon Palmer received the financial backing and support of many people to open Healthy Family Farms in Santa Paula. These investors committed their funds to this business and understand that they will be repaid as soon as practicable. Sharon Palmer used their investment to purchase the farmland on which Healthy Family Farms operates. In operating the farm, Sharon Palmer has been beset by constant harassment and slander from both government officials and disreputable individuals determined to deny Americans the right to choose food that isn't industrially processed. Because of this, the business has struggled to deliver the amount of revenue projected when the investors made their commitment of funds.

Despite this, however, Sharon Palmer has operated the farm and made the payments necessary to service the loan on the farm and keep the business viable. She has kept her investors informed about the business's operations as it has gone forward; no one has been deceived. Certain individuals stand to benefit substantially if Healthy Family Farms fails, but Sharon is not one of them, and she has worked tirelessly to honor her commitment to her customers, her investors, and the idea of healthy food. At no time was there ever any sort of conspiracy by Sharon Palmer to defraud or harm anyone.

The District Attorney knows all of these facts and yet charged Sharon Palmer. The District Attorney's investigators have heard these facts from Sharon Palmer herself and were assured that if a charge were to be issued, Sharon Palmer would present herself voluntarily to the court for arraignment. At no time did the District Attorney inform anyone that a charge was forthcoming. In no way was an arrest warrant needed; she was prepared to voluntarily appear at the time and date of the District Attorney's choosing. Instead, the District Attorney elected the most dramatic method possible for bringing Sharon Palmer into the court to be arraigned: an arrest in open court, out-of-county, and without any prior notice. This kind of approach should make every citizen concerned about the judgment of those in whom we have reposed such tremendous power over our individual liberty.

Sharon Palmer is not guilty.

Do statin drugs cause diabetes?
The link is a 'statistical' one; there is an increased risk of being affected by the risk of diabetes if you take the medicine. However, the link between the medicine and the side effect is severe enough for the FDA to act, which is a factor that the UK government seems to disregard. Other cases of this disregard forthe research of othernations includes the banning of all except eight artificial food colors in the USA and other nations,whereas the UK still allows several of these banned colors to remain on the market.

Yet again, the medical establishment seems to think the way forward istreating acondition with a drug that has the side effect of causing the sameproblem it is treating. Diabetes is a serious disease that can be prevented with education about good nutrition and exercise; however, there is no profit in this and therefore we have to tolerate the pushing of drugs to control this affliction. The same can be said for depressionthat is treated with antipsychotic drugswhich can cause depression and carry a suicide risk. A simple way to avoid depression is good diet, meditation and an outlook on life that embraces celebration of achievements no matter how small, the treatment of problems as opportunities for improvement, and conflict as a means to communicate and build relationships.

Natural living is the answer
Diabetes, cancer, stress, depression, addiction and obesity are diseases of the modern Western world caused by a lifestyle of unnatural living bothin diet and approach. Whilst we harm the environment and each other in the pursuit of profit and material gain, we lose sight of the things that are important to us and our loved ones. Also, whilst wetread upon the earth we should understand the need for balance at all costsand the effect of disturbing this balance. If we eat an unhealthy fatty and sugary diet, we will harm ourselves and cause diabetes, obesity and otherillnessesrequiring expensive drugs that in turn mean more harm is done. On the other hand, a balanced lifestyle means we are much more statistically probable to notendure the issues and afflictionsconnected to the Western diet.

It is the way of the corporate world to suck us in bypromising great taste and a world akin to the cottage in the story of Hansel and Gretel. However, it is also "natural law" that there is cause and effect; to reduce need for thesedrugs, all adults must take responsibility for what they put in their mouths, even if it is only to reduce the profits of the greedy corporate machine.

I. Philosophical exemptions address a human rights issue. Vaccines cause permanent disability and death.[1] Doctors cannot tell in advance if any given child will become disabled or killed by a vaccine. Therefore, philosophical exemptions are a moral and ethical imperative.

The philosophical exemption is further justified by the fact that we don't know whether or not vaccines provide a net benefit:

• The FDA, CDC and other medical authorities report that only 1% to 10% of vaccine adverse events are reported.[2] That is, 90% – 99% of vaccine harm is unreported.

• Congressional testimony revealed that medical students are taught not to report vaccine adverse events,[3] despite the federal reporting requirement.[4]

• A survey found that only 2.5% of New York pediatricians report vaccine adverse events to the government.[5]

The truth is, there is insufficient data to conduct a vaccine risk-benefit assessment. No one knows whether vaccines provide a net benefit or not.

II. There is substantial evidence connecting vaccines with autism:

• The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has been compensating vaccine-injured children with autism for the past two decades.[6]

• Published studies in 2011 found: 1) A 1% increase in vaccination coverage results in 680 more autism cases,[7] 2) "Documented causes of autism include . . . encephalitis following vaccination,"[8] and 3) There is a connection between the aluminum in vaccines and autism.9]

• In April of 2011, Poul Thorsen, the principal coordinator of multiple studies funded by the CDC used to deny a vaccine-autism link, was indicted on 13 counts of fraud and 9 counts of money-laundering.[10]

• A 2011 Freedom of Information Act request uncovered emails showing that the CDC and study authors withheld data showing that the mercury in vaccines causes autism. The resulting published "Denmark" study was used to (fraudulently) "prove" that vaccines do not cause autism.[11]

III. Vaccine supporters, while well-intended, rely on faulty reasoning:

Will failure to vaccinate cause diseases to return?

• About 90% of 20th Century infectious disease decline preceded vaccines. Diseases that had no vaccine declined along with diseases that did. [12]

• Vaccine protection lasts from 2 to 10 years. The majority of our population consists of adults who were last vaccinated as children. Their vaccine protection wore off years, sometimes decades ago. Yet, diseases levels have not increased during recent decades.[13] Lack of vaccine protection has not caused diseases to return.

Was the first polio vaccine a success?

• In 1962, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, Biostatistics Department Head at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, testified before Congress that cases of polio increased substantially after the first polio vaccine was introduced — 50% from 1957-58, and 80% from 1958-59 — and that the Public Health Service deliberately manipulated statistics to give the opposite impression.[14] We were all deliberately misled.

• Polio declined in countries that didn't vaccinate along with those that did.[15]

Do exempt children pose a risk to anyone else?

• The CDC says that 5% – 15% of vaccinated children are not immune.[16] They far outnumber the 1% – 2.5% of exempt children.[17] In fact, exempt children may be immune without even getting sick.[18]

Over half of the U.S. population has the right to refuse vaccines for philosophical reasons. To remove Vermont's philosophical exemption would be an egregious error.

by: Jonathan Benson

(NaturalNews) Mothers who feed their babies formula rather than natural breast milk are doing their children a major disservice in terms of their immune development and overall health. But baby formula can at least be somewhat enhanced through the addition of prebiotic foods and probiotic bacteria, which two recent University of Illinois (UI) studies found mimics, at least in a small way, the nutritional profile of natural breast milk in promoting proper intestinal development of young babies.

For their studies, both of which were published in the Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Hannah D. Holscher and colleagues compared the immune and microbiota development of breastfed babies to those fed prebiotic- and probiotic-enhanced formulas, as well as to those fed control formula. They found that enhancing formula with both prebiotics and probiotics significantly improved formula-fed babies' development of disease-resisting intestinal microbiota, which did not develop properly in the control formula group.

"The beneficial bacteria that live in a baby's intestine are all-important to an infant's health, growth, and ability to fight off infections," said Kelly Tappenden, a professor of nutrition and gastrointestinal physiology at UI, concerning the studies. "Breast-fed babies acquire this protection naturally. Formula-fed infants get sick more easily because the bacteria in their gut are always changing."

Those babies in the prebiotic- and probiotic-enhanced formula group that were delivered via caesarean section (C-section) appeared to benefit the most from these nutrient additions, as they are even worse off than formula-fed babies delivered the natural way. Vaginally-delivered babies are imparted beneficial bacteria from their mothers which aids in their immune development, while formula-fed C-section babies lack both this bacteria and that which is delivered through breast milk.

"Babies delivered naturally are exposed to the mother's bacteria as they travel through the birth canal, and they develop a healthier population of gut bacteria as a result," added Tappenden. "Babies delivered by C-section enter a sterile environment, and their gut microbiota is quite different."

Calorie intake impacts the brain

Professor Mark Mattson, lead author of the study and professor of neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, explained at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver that "reducing your calorie intake could help your brain, but doing so by cutting your intake of food is not likely to be the best method of triggering this protection. It is likely to be better to go on intermittent bouts of fasting, in which you eat hardly anything at all, and then have periods when you eat as much as you want. In other words, timing appears to be a crucial element to this process."

The science team lead by Dr. Mattson discovered that reducing food intake to approximately 500 calories per fasting day yields optimal effects and can significantly improve long-term cognitive function. Foods that may safely be consumed during fasting days include an assortment of fiber-rich vegetables, unsweetened tea and water.

That calorie restriction has beneficial effect on human health and may even prolong life span is no real news. The first research into calorie restrictive diets dates back to 1934, when a Cornell University researcher noticed that guinea pigs that were fed a calorie restrictive diet maintained higher nutrient levels and lived twice as much when compared to regular guinea pigs. Later on, Dr. Roy Walford of UCLA investigated calorie restriction in greater detail, revealing that such a diet has the potential to improve a range of age-related diseases, as well as help the dieter maintain a more youthful appearance.

Fasting is like 'exercising your brain muscles'

The scientific community is now interested in looking at the neuro-protective potential of calorie restriction. Researchers such as Dr. Mattson are convinced that fasting not only extends life-span, but also delays the onset of many conditions affecting the brain. Mattson explained that according to research, chemicals involved in the growth of brain cells are significantly boosted when food intake is dramatically reduced.

"The cells of the brain are put under mild stress that is analogous to the effects of exercise on muscle cells. The overall effect is beneficial," said Dr. Mattson, who believes there's a very sound evolutionary explanation for why our brains behave like this when deprived of food. "When resources became scarce, our ancestors would have had to scrounge for food. Those whose brains responded best, who remembered where promising sources could be found or recalled how to avoid predators would have been the ones who got the food. Thus a mechanism linking periods of starvation to neural growth would have evolved."

Dr. Mattson draws on previous studies which analyzed the impact of fasting on general health. The next step for his team is to look at the effects of fasting on the brain using MRI scans and other computerized investigative techniques. If a definitive link between fasting and brain health can be scientifically established, Mattson believes that most people could significantly boost brain function simply going throughtwo days of "intermittent energy restriction" each week.

But Dr. Hilbeck's new study, which was not funded by the pro-GM lobby, confirmed the findings of the 2009 study. And in the interest of promoting sound science, she and various others who recognize the very real dangers associated with GM crops, and Bt toxin in particular, are now calling out those who continue to deny reality by insisting that Bt toxin is safe.

"It is time to move beyond the rather 'dogmatic denial' and 'shooting the messenger' stages of the debate and onto the more mature stage of scientific discourse where a meaningful examination of scientific 'surprises' dominates the discussion," said David Gee, a senior science adviser on science, policy, and emerging issues to the European Environmental Agency (EAE) recently.

The EAE, of course, has formed many of its GMO policies based on flawed, industry-funded GMO studies. So Gee and others are urging the agency to begin looking at independent research on GMOs, which tells a far different story than the one being peddled by the likes of Monsanto and the pro-GM American government.

"We do not need biosafety research embedded in the visions of the biotechnology industry that supports unsustainable industrialized agriculture," added Professor Brian Wynne from the U.K. Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics at Lancaster University. "Instead, we need independent research like Hilbeck's which assesses the specific environmental effects of genetic engineering, uses sensitive methodologies and helps indicate the potentially damaging effects on biodiversity as well as on agricultural diversity, of the industrial production systems which GM agriculture only intensifies."