Does Freezing Harm Foods?

Does Freezing Harm Foods?

By Marti Fry

We know for certain that heating foods (that is, cooking) destroys foods by changing their chemical and organic structure. Proteins are coagulated (fused and hardened) and their amino acid molecules are broken up (deaminized), thus making them unusable. Carbohydrates (starches and sugars) become partially or wholly caramelized, though this is not readily detectable in the earlier stages of cooking. Caramelized sugars are indigestible, hence toxic to the body. Minerals are changed to their unusable and poisonous inorganic state and vitamins are largely, if not wholly, ruined.

The question arises whether the opposite extreme, freezing, likewise alters the chemical and organic structure of foods. Let’s pursue this method of food preservation.

First, we should note that freezing does not affect foods of little water content—nuts, seeds, dried legumes and dried fruits lose nothing by freezing. In nature, seeds and nuts remain fertile no matter how cold it gets. The more water a food contains, the more it is adversely affected by freezing.

When a food is frozen, its water expands. This causes two immediately destructive occurrences:

The cell walls burst and the cell contents are spilled due to the internal water expansion; hence the cell’s life is lost.

Oxidation occurs where air reaches the frozen foodstuff; hence nutrients are lost.

In addition to bursting the cell walls of foods and thus allowing oxidation to occur, two other things happen:

When the cells burst, certain of their organelles release self-destruct enzymes called lysosomes. While these enzymes are not active during freezing (and some are even destroyed), those which remain intact will speedily decompose the cell contents upon thawing. Lysosomes are in cells for the purpose of self-destructing dead cells so the dead cells will not create problems for the organism.

Whether oxidized or deranged by its own lysosomes, dead cells become soil for bacteria and fungi when the temperature becomes favorable again—bacteria are active at just above freezing up to temperatures around 160 degrees.

Oxidation of burst cells is the foremost cause of food deterioration during frozen storage. Frozen foods never taste as good to an unperverted palate as their fresh counterparts, even if no additives and pre-freezing treatments are employed. This is, of course, due to their deterioration while frozen.

While microorganisms such as bacteria are also inert during freezing, they become active just as soon as they are thawed. Hence, frozen foods, once removed from the freezer, decompose much more rapidly than do fresh foods. As mentioned, this is because of the bursting of the cell walls of the food when its own water expands and because of the subsequent decomposition through oxidation, self-destruct lysosomes and the final cleanup crew, bacteria.

It is well to repeat that food is rapidly destroyed when cell walls are burst, whether by cooking, blending, juicing, mashing or freezing. Oxidation occurs when cell contents are exposed to the air, and if temperatures are favorable, the cells’ own lysosomes self-destruct its components.

Does this mean that banana “ice cream,” fruit “smoothies” made with frozen bananas, and other frozen foods aren’t truly healthful? Well, unfortunately, YES! Frozen foods have a similar effect on our organism as lightly steamed foods. Frozen foods should be used in moderation if at all. They may be helpful in inducing people to change over to their natural diet, especially people who are not willing to give up frozen treats such as ice cream Or some kind of dessert. Banana “ice cream” is a fair substitute and is far less harmful than frozen products containing additives, sugar, milk, honey, etc.

Also, remember that in our stressful environment, foods which digest quickly give us fewer problems than foods slow to digest (cooked foods, frozen foods and foods rich in oils and proteins such as nuts and seeds).

Frozen food must remain our stomach until it is warmed to body temperature. This delay can lead to fermentation of fruit sugars before the food reaches the small intestine for absorption. If we become emotionally upset (angry, irritated, annoyed, frustrated, etc.) while there is food in our stomach, digestion will be suspended and discomfort may follow.

Easily and quickly digested foods such as fresh fruits, on the other hand, will result in much briefer and less intense discomfort if you experience any stressful emotions.

Whenever you wonder which foods are best for humans, just look to nature for answers. Nature’s only food storage and preservation method is drying. Fruits and berries will dry on the tree or vine if birds, insects or humans don’t get to them first. Peas, beans and other legumes will dry when left in their pods. Dried foods which are frozen are not harmed because of their extremely small water content: there’s not enough water to expand and burst the cell walls.

Nature provides us with food during every season. Thanks to modern transportation and refrigeration methods, people in northern climates can eat relatively fresh food the year round. Unsulphured dried fruits are available in many health, food stores. In most cases we are better off using fresh or dried foods than foods which have been frozen.

How To Heal Yourself Online During a Lock Down

How To Heal Yourself Online During a Lock Down

Since the whole world had to go on a lock down, there are many people who are getting ill. There are several reasons why this is so, including:

• afraid of going to hospital because of COVID-19
• getting COVID-19 at home
• getting stress, depression and anxiety
• not eating right
• not getting sunlight
• not getting exercise

Let me address each one of these topics.

COVID-19

If you want to learn more about this, I suggest you go to: alternativehealingadvice.blogspot.com and nomorefakenews.com They both deal with the coronavirus. This should take any fear you may have of catching coronavirus.

Emotional upset

Being locked in your own home, can cause stress and worry about the future. There is a cure for all of this but that would take a book to cover. To make it short, if you have any negative emotions such as: stress, depression, fear, etc., I highly suggest that you look into Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). I am a trained EFT therapist and this can be done by me through the internet. If you are interested, you can contact me at this blog address for more information. (See the payment button on the right side of  this article.) In the meantime, I have plenty of information on EFT; just do a search with those letters on this blog or type out "Emotional Freedom Technique."

Eating right

Eating right is what this blog is all about and you can do this from home, of course. Hopefully, there is enough fresh food on the market for you to buy. With summer approaching there will be more produce. If you have a little plot of land, grow what you can. For the long winter, make sure you have enough root vegetables, such as carrots and potatoes, to take you through the winter. If you are Russian and are reading this, you know that many of your countrymen know about putting

Exercise

Make sure you get exercise each day. Even if you can't go outside, there are stretching exercise, climbing the stairs or walking in your back yard. There is isometric exercises that are very good. Do a search if you are not familiar with isometrics.

Sunlight

Make sure you get at least 15 minutes of sunlight each day, 30 minutes is better. If you live in the far north and don't get much during the winter, make sure you go outside when the Sun is out. It doesn't matter how cold it is, the Sun will still help you and strengthen your bones. Do a search to see the benefits of sunlight.

All the above is about healing yourself online.

Does our body adapt to poison or does your body destroy it?

Does our body adapt to poison or does your body destroy it?

When you read this, think of what the media has been telling you about the coronavirus. We are told that there is a virus out there that you can catch. That the only cure is a vaccine that has the coronavirus in it (along with a lot of other pathogens) and that we must take this so our body can build a resistance to it.

by Herbert M. Shelton

Some confusion arose in early Hygienic circles from the mistake of considering adaptation and toleration as the same thing. Some Hygienists declared that there is a law of adaptation and others rejected the idea altogether.

The Law of Vital Accommodation is usually interpreted to mean that the living organism adapts itself to poisons so as not to be harmed by them. This the Hygienic school considers a misinterpretation of the law. As Trall said of it, this interpretation of the law "is one of the vagaries of the Dark Ages." He said that he "could as soon believe in a moral law of accommodation by which the mind or soul adapts itself to moral evils—to lying, cheating, stealing, profane swearing, Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, adultery, etc., etc.—as to believe in a physiological law of accommodation by which the vital organism so adapts itself to poisons and impurities as not to be injured by them."

Dr. Jennings did accept this interpretation of the Law of Vital Accommodation, but he went even further. He assumed that the use of noxious agents, by occasioning a "reinforcement of vitality" to a part, is actually a source of strength and invigoration. He propounded what Trall designated the "monstrous absurdity" that the very poisons which are antagonistic to life actually increase the force of life locally, at least. That this is a monstrous absurdity is shown by evidence which exists all around us.

It was notoriously true in the days when the practice of "snuffing" tobacco was in flower that, old snuff topers could fill the whole nasal cavity with the strongest and most pungent kind of snuff without being able to raise the smallest specimen of a sneeze. The merest particle of the same snuff placed in the nasal cavity of the non-user would occasion prompt and violent sneezing.

Sneezing and snuffing were in inverse ratio to each other. An examination of the nasal membranes of the habitual snuffer revealed that they were inflamed, thickened, toughened, even ulcerated. Their sensibilities were reduced to the lowest point short of actual paralysis.

It is a fact that may be easily verified that the more sound and vigorous the organism or any part of it, the more prompt and vigorous will be its action in resisting and expelling a poison of any kind—the more acutely will it feel, the more readily will it resent, and the more violently will it resist and expel the tobacco, alcohol, arsenic or other poison. Try it when, where and with whom you please, you will find no exception to this law of organic life.

We do not deny a fact that everybody knows, that the more the living organism is exposed to contact with a given poison, the less disturbance is occasioned by such contact. But this does not mean that the poison has ceased to be noxious. It means, on the contrary, that the enervation induced by such continued and repeated contact with the poison has reduced the body's power to violently resist it. The vital powers are enfeebled by the constant struggle against the poison. In resisting and expelling the poison, the powers of life are exhausted precisely in ratio to the amount and frequency of the doses of poison they have to resist. It is obvious that if the resistance is always thus violent, complete and rapid, exhaustion would soon ensue and death would soon put an end to the struggle. Hence, to conserve the forces of life, the organism brings up some of its reserve means of defense. It does throw up a kind of fortification, but this is not of a kind that adds to the powers and capacities of the fortified part. Less violent means of resistance are brought into play.

When tobacco is first taken its use is followed by vertigo, nausea, vomiting, prostration, drowsiness and stupor. Tobacco applied to a sore or placed under the arm-pits will soon poison and sicken the whole body. But if the young hopeful continues his use of tobacco, the violent symptoms of nicotine poisoning abate and, although he slowly increases the quantity taken each day, he does not realize much if any apparent evil from it. Is it, then, to be supposed that what was poison before the habit was formed, has ceased to be poisonous now that the habit has been formed? Has the relation between tobacco and the living organism changed? Is nicotine now innoxious? Instead of habituation rendering the poison less poisonous, it actually becomes more injurious.

Because the body struggles violently against the poison when it is first used and does not struggle violently against it after the poison habit is formed, are we to conclude that the organism is reconciled to it? It would be more sensible to infer that it has been overcome by the poison. We may logically infer that the signs of rebellion and resistance have ceased because the struggle has so exhausted the body that it is no longer capable of such resistance. And, as the resisting power of the body is lowered more and more by the continued use of the poison, it becomes less and less disturbed by even more grievous in- roads upon the citadel of life.

The alternatives are either a violent and heroic effort to expel the poison or, failing this, a weak compromise by pathogenetic adaptation with ultimate loss of healthy structure and function. So far from toleration being established, a mere expedient devise is exercised which barely and woefully maintains a kind of status quo. Genuine power, rapidly or slowly (depending upon the amount of indulgence), is steadily waning.

As every adaptation to inimical substances is achieved by changes in the tissues that are away from the ideal, commonly by dystrophic changes in the cells and tissue elements, they necessarily cripple the normal or legitimate functions of the altered part. We have in the instance of adaptation to arsenic eating, the building up of impediments and units which are incapable of response either to wholesome foods or to virulent poisons. Toleration is merely a slow method of dying. Instead of seeing in the phenomenon of toleration something to be sought after, it is something to seek to avoid the necessity for.

Because the organism is enervated by the continued use of the poison, the user must frequently increase the size of the dose-whether the poison is tobacco, alcohol, tea, coffee, arsenic, salt, pepper, or other noxious substance—if he is to continue to induce the same apparent effect.

There is but one way to preserve the integrity, functioning ability, fortitude and endurance of the vital machinery and this is to keep poisons of all kinds at as great a distance from the organism as possible. Indeed, if we never saw, touched, tasted or smelled poisons of any kind, we would be all the stronger and live all the longer for it. Every dose of the poison, every cigarette, every drink of alcohol, every particle of arsenic, every cup of coffee, reduces the powers of life by as much as the body is forced to expend its powers in resisting and expelling the poison.

To compel the body to build "toleration" against all known poisons and all known causes of disease would, indeed, insure us against disease, but it would be the security of death. For long the world has been so infatuated with this nonsensical theory of "adaptation," that it is leading the race to its destruction. Are men so incorrigibly muddled with the false philosophy and nonsensical dogmas of the ignorant past that they cannot see that their very theories and practices are at variance with every known fact of existence and opposed to every demonstrable law of nature? Are they so ingrained with life-long prejudices or so deluded and infatuated with their favorite theories that they cannot understand that their theories and practices are leading the race to destruction?

If it is true that the use of a poison "fortifies" any part against the noxious substance, then all we have to do to be fully fortified against all causes of disease is to use all of them long enough to become "fortified" against all of them. To say that tobacco, alcohol, opium, etc., are all very destructive at first, but after we get used to them, that is, after we have accommodated ourselves to them, the mischief they do is either nil or comparatively slight, is to teach, in effect, that the more poison a person takes, over a long period of time, the less damage it does him. This is to say, the more poison, the more adaptation, so that bye and bye the sum total of the accommodation should be so great that the poison would have no bad effects at all.

The law of accommodation does not mean that the living organism adapts itself to poisons so as not to be harmed by them. I doubt very much that this law should ever be applied to what we call "toleration" of poisons; for, while there may be a certain sense in which adaptation does take place, it is really a form of defense. It should not be supposed that by the power of toleration or adaptation the body is capable of rendering that which is constitutionally noxious practically innoxious or wholesome. It is only that it bends itself, like the tough but limber oak to the force of the storm, instead of standing stiffly against it only to be uprooted.

Let us once understand that it is not possible for the vital organism to adapt itself to poisons so that they are no longer harmful to it, and we will readily understand that any and every use of these substances, for any purpose whatsoever, is injurious to the body. What is known as adaptation to poisons is always and necessarily of a retrogressive character and the greater the "adaptation," the greater the retrogression. Graham was eternally right when he said that this "adaptation" occurred by virtue of physiological depravity.

Just as the body cannot adapt itself to noxious substances and render them harmless, so it cannot adapt itself to abuses of useful substances so that these abuses become harmless. Because the digestive tract of the habitual glutton has so adapted itself to the customary load of food that it no longer groans and complains, it should not be thought that the gluttony has been rendered harmless. As digestion is so vitally important to the preparation of foodstuffs for entrance into and use by the body, it should be readily seen how any impairment of the general integrity of the digestive system must in turn impair the functions of the body generally.

9 Reason To Stop Drinking Pasteurized Milk

9 Reason To Stop Drinking Pasteurized Milk

I know that Russians love milk (so do most people of the world), but if you really want to get well, you have to give up what you most likely have. Why? Because that is what got you sick in the first place. With that in mind, let's continue...


1) Pasteurization Used To Mask Low-Quality Milk

Heat destroys a great number of bacteria in milk and thus conceals the evidence of dirt, pus and dirty dairy practices. It’s cheaper to produce dirty milk and kill the bacteria by heat, that to maintain a clean dairy and keep cows healthy. To combat the increase in pathogens milk goes through ‘clarification’, ‘filtering’, ‘bactofugation’ and two ‘deariation’ treatments. Each of these treatments uses heat ranging from 100-175 degrees Fahrenheit. Dairies count on many heat treatments to mask their inferior sanitary conditions: milk filled with pus, manure and debris. Consumer Reports found 44% of 125 pasteurized milk samples contained as many as 2200 organisms per cubic centimeter (fecal bacteria, coliforms)

2) Pasteurization Destroys Nutrients

It destroys vitamin C, and damages water soluble B vitamins diminishing the nutrient value of milk. Calcium and other minerals are made unavailable by pasteurization. The Maillard reaction, a chemical reaction between proteins and sugars, occurs at higher heats and causes browning, discoloring the milk.

3) Pasteurization Destroys Enzymes

Milk enzymes, proteins, antibodies as well as beneficial hormones are destroyed by pasteurization resulting in devitalized ‘lifeless’ milk. Milk enzymes help digest lactose and both enzymes and milk proteins help to absorb vitamins. Protective enzymes in milk are inactivated, making it more susceptible to spoilage.

4) Causes Asthma

Pasteurized milk causes asthma, and as a result doctors prescribe a diet without pasteurized dairy products. Milk triggers asthma by destabilizing MAST cells, which release histamines that cause inflammation, mucus production and bronchial spasm. Pasteurized milk is a partial food product that is missing digestive enzymes and nearly all of its beneficial bacteria. Pasteurized milk (with rare exceptions) comes from cows fed a ration based on corn and soy rather than pasture and forage. Pasteurization warps and distorts fragile proteins, making them allergenic. Unpasteurized milk is the opposite and heals and prevents asthma by stabilizing MAST cells and reducing inflammation as shown by dramatic lowering of C-reactive protein levels. Unpasteurized milk rebuilds immunity by allowing the safe consumption of biodiversity in our diets. These bacteria then re-colonize the gut and become our immune protective and digestive ecosystem armies.

5) Allergenic and Disease Causing Food

Cow’s milk is the number one allergic food in this country. The milk of each of the over 4,700 mammals on earth is formulated specifically for that species. There are special lactoferrins and immunoglobulins (cow specific immunizing stuff) that in humans serve as allergens. It has been well documented as a cause in diarrhea, cramps, bloating, gas, gastrointestinal bleeding, iron-deficiency anemia, skin rashes, atherosclerosis, and acne. It is the primary cause of recurrent ear infections in children. It has also been linked to insulin dependent diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, infertility, and leukemia. The protein lactalbumin, has been identified as a key factor in diabetes (and a major reason for NOT giving cows milk to infants). 89% of America’s dairy herds have the leukemia virus. Cows diagnosed with Johne’s Disease have diarrhea, and heavy fecal shedding of bacteria. This bacteria becomes cultured in milk, and is not destroyed by pasteurization. Occasionally, the milk-borne bacteria will begin to grow in the human host, and the results are irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s Disease.

6) Kills Bone Density

The dairy industy has been hard at work the last 50 years convincing people that pasteurized dairy products such as milk or cheese increases bioavailable calcium levels. This is totally false. The pasteurization process only creates calcium carbonate, which has absolutely no way of entering the cells without a chelating agent. So what the body does is pull the calcium from the bones and other tissues in order to buffer the calcium carbonate in the blood. This process actually causes osteoporosis. Pasteurized dairy contains too little magnesium needed at the proper ratio to absorb the calcium. Most would agree that a minimum amount of Cal. to Mag Ratio is 2 to 1 and preferably 1 to 1. So milk, at a Cal/Mag ratio of 10 to 1, has a problem. You may put 1200 mg of dairy calcium in your mouth, but you will be lucky to actually absorb a third of it into your system. Over 99% of the body’s calcium is in the skeleton, where it provides mechanical rigidity. Pasteurized dairy forces a calcium intake lower than normal and the skeleton is used as a reserve to meet needs. Long-term use of skeletal calcium to meet these needs leads to osteoporosis. Dairy is pushed on Americans from birth yet they have one of the highes risk of osteoporosis in the world. The test for pasteurization is called the negative alpha phosphatase test. When milk has been heated to 165 degrees (higher for UHT milk) and pasteurization is complete, the enzyme phosphatase is 100 percent destroyed. Guess what? This is the enzyme that is critical for the absorption of minerals including calcium! Phosphatase is the third most abundant enzyme in raw milk and those who drink raw milk enjoy increased bone density. Several studies have documented greater bone density and longer bones in animals and humans consuming raw milk compared to pasteurized.

7) Antibiotic Effectiveness

Pasteurization killed antibiotic effectiveness for all of us. By creating a commodity dairy market system that relies heavily on antibiotics fed to heifers and dry cows at CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation) mega dairies to support massive milk production, the antibiotics now used in American hospitals for humans no longer work. Tens of thousands of Americans now die each year because of superbugs created by CAFO antibiotic abuse. MRSA and VRA drug resistance is now a major cause of death and there are fewer and sometimes no antibiotics left to kill the bad bugs and save human lives. FDA has conceded antibiotic use in farm animals must be phased out but refuses an outright ban or limit of the use of antibiotics in CAFO feed and instead testifies in defense of antibiotic use by the CAFO industry.

8) Cancer Fuel

Of the almost 60 hormones, one is a powerful GROWTH hormone called Insulin- like Growth Factor ONE (IGF-1). By a freak of nature it is identical in cows and humans. Consider this hormone to be a “fuel cell” for any cancer… (the medical world says IGF-1 is a key factor in the rapid growth and proliferation of breast, prostate and colon cancers, and we suspect that most likely it will be found to promote ALL cancers). IGF-1 is a normal part of ALL milk… the newborn is SUPPOSED to grow quickly! What makes the 50% of obese American consumers think they need MORE growth? Consumers don’t think anything about it because they do not have a clue to the problem… nor do most of our doctors.

9) Forces Cows Out Of Green Pastures And Into Diseased World

Pasteurization kills cows on green pastures. Seventy-five years ago there were friendly cows on green pastures all over America. Pasteurization has effectively paved the pastures and now forces the cows to be fed soy protein concentrates and forty pounds of grain per day, along with antibiotics and hormones. These CAFO dairy feeds increase milk production to numbers never seen before in the history of earth. It is not uncommon for some CAFO dairy cows to produce twenty gallons of milk per day and be crowded into pens deep in manure with thousands of other cows. The stress of being milked up to four times per day and lying on artificial rubber beds shortens their lives to just forty months. A cow on pasture will produce much less milk (four to five gallons per day) and easily live ten years or more in true happiness and health.

Try Coconut Milk

Compared to cow’s milk coconut milk is easier to digest because the body uses 3 less enzymes for its digestion as opposed to cow’s milk. It also contains a high level of omega 3, 6 and 9 fats along with high amounts of amino acids. This excellent combination of fats and amino acids make it a complete meal in and of itself.

The high level of omega 3, 6 and 9 fats and protein in this milk are more bio-available to humans compared to all other animal fats and most vegetable fats. This bio-availability results in the body’s ability to assimilate all its nutrients.

It’s very healing to the digestive tract and even heals damage done to the system in cases of IBS, Crohn’s disease and severe malnutrition.

Coconut milk also helps maintain balanced blood sugar levels by being a good source of manganese. This mineral is usually deficient in people with blood sugar issues.

Sources:
draxe.com
realmilk.com
preventdisease.com
hindawi.com
mercola.com

Can you really “catch” a disease?

Can you really “catch” a disease?

With this coronavirus going around, it's good to know about what contagion really is. This, you will not in the newspapers.

Dr Herbert M. Shelton

We are frequently asked to explain epidemics and we are told stories about a child in a schoolroom developing some supposedly contagious disease and the disease sweeping the schoolroom like a wild fire. These stories are commonly greatly exaggerated, as it is very rare for more than a few children in the same classroom to develop the so-called contagious disease. We often hear, also, of every member of a family coming down with a disease following its development by one member of the family. This kind of story, too, is usually an exaggeration. It is rare that the whole family has the same disease.

These stories are told so regularly and the notion is so wide-spread that if one comes in contact with another person suffering with a so-called contagious disease, he is sure to develop it ("catch" it), unless he has been immunized, that it is difficult for the average person to reason logically upon this subject. The fact that stories of an opposite character could be provided in greater abundance, if one had the time to gather them.

It is commonly thought that the common cold is an infection and that one person may "catch" it from another. We are warned to beware of the person with a cold. Yet, every year many thousands of people are in intimate contact with those who have colds, often in daily contact for days at a time and do not develop a cold. On the other hand, every year many thousands of people develop colds who have not been in contact with someone with a cold. The total experience of the people of the country points clearly to the conclusion that one does not "catch" a cold from another.

In the Fall of 1914 a little 17-month old boy developed what was diagnosed as membranous croup. In two days he was dead. It was not the custom to quarantine children with membranous croup and during this child's illness a number of children (brothers, sisters and neighbor children) were in intimate contact with him. Not a single child that was in contact with the sick boy developed membranous croup. Membranous croup is now classed as diphtheria and cases are quarantined.

Two brothers, with four years difference in their ages, slept together in a double bed until the older one was 23 years of age. When the younger brother was about 14 years of age he developed chicken pox. The two continued to sleep together while the younger one had chicken pox. The older brother did not develop chicken pox. Two or three years later the older brother developed mumps. They continued to sleep together during the time the older brother had mumps. The younger brother did not develop mumps.

In the winter of 1918 five soldiers, stationed in Camp Travis at San Antonio, Texas, slipped through the guard lines at night and visited sick friends who were isolated and quarantined in a special section of the camp because they had influenza. They spent an hour visiting with and talking with their sick friends, then slipped back through the guard lines and returned to their barracks. Not one of the five soldiers developed influenza.

A number of experiments were made in the Naval Detention camps during the influenza epidemic of 1918-19 to transmit the disease from the sick to the well. Several such experiments were made on 68 volunteers from the U. S. Naval Detention training Camp on Deer Island.

Several groups of volunteers were inoculated with pure cultures of Pfeiffer's bacillus, with the secretions of the upper respiratory passages and with blood taken from typical influenza cases. About 30 of the men had the germs sprayed and swabbed in the nose and throat. The Public Health Report sums up the results in these words: "In no instance was an attack of influenza produced in any one of the subjects. "

Ten other men were carried to the bedside of ten new cases of influenza and spent 45 minutes with them. Each well man had ten sick men to cough in his face. With what results? "None of these volunteers developed any symptoms of influenza following the experiment. "

Some similar experiments conducted in San Francisco are described in another article. Here one group of ten men was given emulsifying cultures of Pfeiffer's bacillus with no results during 7 days of observation. Other groups of men, in all 40, were given emulsions of the secretions from the upper respiratory passages of patients in the active stages of influenza. These emulsions were sent into the nose by a medicine dropper and by an atomizer. The results are described in these words: "In every case the results were negative, so far as the reproduction of influenza is concerned. The men were all observed for seven days after inoculation. "

A little girl in an apartment building, suffering with scarlet fever, escaped from under the vigilant watchfulness of her mother and wandered down the hall and entered the room of a sleeping baby. Missing her sick child, the mother went in search of her and found her standing over the crib of the sleeping baby. The baby did not develop scarlet fever.

Two little boys, aged about five years, lived across the street from each other. Their mothers brought them together daily for play. One day one of the mothers and her boy failed to show up. The next day, also, they failed to put in an appearance. On the third morning the little boy, escaping from his mother's watchfulness, came out into the front yard for play. The other little boy, seeing him, crossed the street to play with him. After several moments of such play, the mother discovered that her son had escaped the house and was playing with the neighbor boy. In consternation she called the mother of the other boy and explained that her boy had whooping cough and she had been keeping him in the house, but that he had gotten out and she found the two boys playing together in the yard. The other boy did not develop whooping cough.

A mother with her three children visited relatives in a distant city. Arriving there, she found one of the children of her relatives down with measles. She did not panic, but remained for a week's visit, during which time her children were in daily contact with the sick boy, even sitting on the bed of the sick child and playing with the child's toys. Neither of the three children developed measles.

A young married man developed mumps. Inflammation of the testicles (orchitis) developed as a complication. He became very weak and unable to get about. His brother-in-law, a younger man, carried him from bed to bathroom and bathroom to bed five times each day for several days. The brother-in-law did not develop mumps.

A young woman, aged 20, suffering with tuberculosis of the lungs, married a young man two years her senior. Three children resulted from the union. The tubercular mother cared for her children and their father until her death from tuberculosis several years later. Neither the father nor either of the children developed tuberculosis.

Cases like the foregoing could be multiplied by the thousands. They have been noted for ages and with relation to every so-called contagious and infectious disease. In the Middle Ages, when the Black Death accounted for many deaths, there were great numbers of people who came in contact with patients suffering with Bubonic plague and did not develop the disease. The same thing was true of smallpox, typhus fever, cholera, English sweat and other so-called infectious diseases. There is actually as much evidence to indicate that these diseases are not contagious or infectious as to indicate that they are.

It is not enough to say that those "exposed" individuals who failed to develop allegedly infectious disease are immune. This merely says that they do not develop the disease because they do not develop it. It explains nothing. What is immunity? Upon what does immunity depend? It is customary to divide immunity into two types — natural and acquired. How does one build natural immunity? We have tried the acquired immunity programs sufficiently long and over a sufficient expanse of the population to know that it is a total failure. The serums and vaccines that are supposed to confer immunity often cause troubles that are worse than the disease they are supposed to immunize one against. It is important for us to know, assuming that there is such a thing as acquiring a disease from another person, how we can build genuine resistance and protect ourselves and our children. The vaccinating and inoculating program is merely a commercial one. While it nets huge profits to the traffickers in vaccines and serums, it provides no health for the people.

What to avoid in order to stay well

What to avoid in order to stay well

It's important that you know what to avoid if you want to stay well. For the past couple of months, the whole world is told to be afraid of COVID-19, that it's a virus that could kill millions. So, in order to avoid catching COVID-19 we must self-isolate. There is too much to say about this, so all I can suggest is to go to my other blog at: alternativehealthadvice.blogspot.com to learn more.

I really appreciate all my Russian viewers. Now that I know I have Russian readers, I'll post more here. Russians are close to my heart as I worked in Russia for about 9 years in Moscow. So, I know the people and the culture well.

The reason why I have Russians going to my site are for two reasons:

1 that blogspot tells me what countries readers are from (that was a no-brainer)

2 that using Yandex search engine, and typing in 'how to heal yourself online' comes up on Page 1, whereas on Google it's not found anywhere near the top search results. I find that Yandex is trustworthy, as it provides what people are searching for and not to satisfy 'political correctness.' So, thanks again my Russian friends!

До свидания

Full Blown Communism Has Come To The UK

Full Blown Communism Has Come To The UK

If you think that Communism hasn't come to the UK, think again. You can be sure that the US and Canada will have similar laws, too. Will there be a Civil War II in the US, as people in the past predicted? We know what happens to people who don't fight back by looking at what happened to the people in the Soviet Union. They were: murdered, sent to gulag camps, or was a prisoner even though living in society. Will we do something about it? Christians should all be praying to Yahweh and return to His Laws, Statues and Judgements.

.

DR. ERICKSON (KERN COUNTY, CA) COVID-19 BRIEFING PART 1 - DEBUNKS FAUCI & THE LOCKDOWNS

DR. ERICKSON (KERN COUNTY, CA) COVID-19  DEBUNKS FAUCI & THE LOCKDOWNS

Here what is happening by doctors that are working hospitals and what is really going on with this COVID-19

Click Here for the video.

Vaccine Research Conflicts of Interest

Vaxxed & Unvaxxed Kids Not Compared

http://gaia-health.com

Conflicts of interest are rampant in vaccine research. How and why they exist are the topic of a journal article reviewed here. This is why research that could prove that vaccines are safe hasn’t been done.

A new report published in the journal, Accountability in Research, reviews and discusses all areas of conflicts of interest in vaccination research. The author paints a very dark picture, but it’s one that cannot be legitimately denied. Conflicts of interest have resulted in research that isn’t worthy of the term.

The Author

Gayle DeLong, the author of Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Safety Research, frankly spells out her own conflicts. She is the mother of two children with pervasive developmental disorders. She has filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for one of her daughters. She is a former member of the board of directors of Sensible Action for Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders (SafeMinds).

She doesn’t point out her career qualifications for the article. She holds a Ph.D. in Finance and International Business from the Stern School of Business, New York University. Regulated industries are an area of her expertise. Her work has been published in the Journal of Financial Economics, the Journal of Finance, the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, and the Journal of International Money and Finance. She is well qualified to discuss the issue of conflict of interest in the vaccination industry.

DeLong investigates conflicts of interest for every imaginable entity involved in vaccine research and safety.

Vaccine Manufacturers

The conflict of interest (COI) among vaccine manufacturers is fairly obvious. Worldwide sales of pediatric vaccines alone were $11.5 billion in 2009, and it’s expected to reach $20 billion by 2014. The usual risk of lawsuits when products go bad and cause injury doesn’t help curb ineffective or unsafe vaccines because The National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act of 1986 indemnifies them in the event of injury. This waiver was given because pharmaceutical corporations were refusing to develop new vaccines, saying that they were not profitable.

The one arena in which pharmaceutical manufacturers express concern about safety is the potential loss of sales. DeLong tells the tale of Maurice Hilleman, a vaccine researcher for Merck. In an internal memo in 1991, he reported that some countries were considering a ban on thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative. He said that he didn’t know if thimerosal is dangerous. However, he warned that public perceptions could affect sales. The one concern Hilleman expressed had nothing to do with investigating whether mercury was safe, but whether the company should reduce the amount of thimerosal in vaccines because of public perceptions.

The influence of vaccine manufacturers is ubiquitous. They sponsor research and researchers. A survey of the top US medical research institutions found that over two-thirds of the researchers received industry support. Unsurprisingly, studies have shown that researchers tend to get results that coincide with their financial interests.

Entire institutions are affected by pharma money. Whether it comes in the form of grants, endowed chairs, or other goodies, the results sway entire institutions to get on board with what pharma wants.

A more subtle form of control is pharma giving the bulk of their university-related money to senior and well-established researchers who played ball with them. A clear message is sent to younger researchers that they must play the same game.

Authors of research papers do not always disclose all their associations with pharma corporations, leaving the reader unaware of potentially worrisome connections. This echoes Big Tobacco’s ability to find researchers willing to compromise themselves by calling smoking safe.

Big Pharma’s influence is ubiquitous in every arena where it has an interest. As a result, most published vaccine-related research is questionable.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

DeLong points out that the FDA’s mission inherently results in conflict of interest. It states that the first mission is to protect:

… the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs. … The FDA also helps the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.”

The FDA has approved the vaccines used in the US. If the agency were to sponsor a study that demonstrates a link between autism and vaccinations, it could, according to DeLong, “greatly damage the Administration’s reputation and reduce public trust in the FDA.”

The manner in which the FDA is funded creates a major COI. The 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act requires pharmaceutical companies to pay fees for evaluation of their drugs. Although vaccines are not specifically included in this act, the fact is that most pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines also make drugs—and those fees for drugs certainly help make the FDA friendly towards them.

Parents of vaccine injured children can file claims in the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC), which is a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The FDA is also a division of HHS. If the FDA provided information that could support DVIC claims, it could also be used against the FDA.

This is an arena where we can be sure that a significant COI exists. DeLong states:

As of December 2011, over 5,600 autism claims have been filed in DVIC. The average payout for vaccine-related injuries is close to $825,000 (DHHS,2011), so the autism claims could cost the Program over $4.6 billion. Additionally, more parents would seek compensation if DVIC recognized autism as a vaccine injury.

If we consider how many children are now found to have autism—with the CDC now estimating 1 in 88—it seems obvious that DeLong’s estimate of DVIC being at risk to the tune of $4.6 billion is extremely low. The number of children in the US is now about 89 million. That’s well over a million children with autism. Over $825 billion dollars could be due these families! That’s nearly a trillion dollars—and it doesn’t include all the children with other conditions that are likely related to vaccines. Once the flood doors open on autism, they’d remain open. This is a nation-busting issue—and that’s one stunning conflict of interest!

In my view, this is the most significant conflict of interest. To admit that vaccines cause autism and other severe disabilities would put the government in an unsustainable position, both morally and financially. Thus, no admission of such a connection will be made.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

Graphic by Jonik Editorial Cartoons (altered by modifications to reference vaccine-associated agencies).

The CDC’s conflict of interest is inherent in the mandates that it’s charged with. The agency is charged with preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. The primary method by which they attempt to control disease is through promoting vaccination. Upon FDA approval, they set the recommended vaccination schedule. But they’re also charged with doing research on vaccine safety.

So, if the CDC promotes vaccinations without first assuring their safety, how can they also control disabilities caused by vaccines? Obviously, there’s a conflict of interest. To admit that its own policy of vaccination is the cause of autism would mean that the CDC doesn’t actually support its goal of preventing disability, that it’s actually causing it. Therefore, it’s no surprise the the CDC is not inclined to support genuine research into vaccine safety.

Officials at the CDC are noted for using their term at the agency as a stepping stone to extremely high-paying positions with the pharmaceutical industry. Julie Geberding was the CDC’s Director from 2002 to 2008. During her tenure, she promoted vaccination heavily. As soon as the one-year time span for taking a position with Big Pharma had elapsed, she became president of Merck Vaccines. The use of the CDC as a career path to bigger and better things within the industry that’s supposedly being regulated is an obvious conflict of interest.

Institute of Medicine (IOM)

The IOM is, presumably, an independent nonprofit agency. However, it does take grants from the CDC. Therefore, when it was tasked by the CDC to do a study on whether there might be a connection between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism, they knew on which side their bread is buttered.

Dr. Marie McCormick, who was Chair of the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, stated of the proposed study:

We are not ever going to come downthat [autism] is a true side effect [of vaccines].

As DeLong points out, she was declaring their conclusion before even performing the study!

In their final report, The IOM evaded the issue. They said that, though a link between autism and vaccines was “theoretically possible”, no causal link had been found in epidemiological studies. Therefore, they suggested that it would be better to channel funds for such a study to “more promising areas of research”.

Notice that they made a statement that is, on its face, absurd. Causation is not found through epidemiological studies! Associations are, but causation—though there may seem to be an obvious cause-and-effect connection—is not formally ascertained through such a study. This merely highlights that the IOM clearly wanted to be clear of doing that study about vaccine safety. If they found a connection to autism, then they’d risk losing grants.

Congress

Members of congress receive significant contributions from pharmaceutical and health products industries. These contributions have been growing at an enormous rate. Members of congress are fully aware that they must capitulate to their financers if they’ve any hope of being reelected. But that’s probably even less important than that many members of congress go on to very lucrative positions as lobbyists with these same pharma corporations. Since most of them don’t spend their lives representing the folk back home, instead moving on to other things that result from their congressional tenure, they aren’t likely to bite the hands that feed their nice lifestyles.

It should come as no surprise that members of congress are shy about doing anything critical of the pharmaceutical industry. Should they attempt to mandate a study that might have a negative impact on the profits of Big Pharma, they aren’t going to get the donations needed to get re-elected, nor are they going to receive lucrative offers after leaving.

Medical Journals

DeLong states:

Medical journal authors’ ties to vaccine manufacturers are pervasive, as revealed in a review of authors of vaccine safety articles published in top journals. …

… Not only authors, but also journals themselves can be conflicted. Washington (2011) details thereliance of medical journals on advertising from pharmaceutical companies, which can account for up to 99% of a journal’s advertising revenue.

She quotes Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ:

Even on the peer-reviewed side of things, it has been said that the journals are the marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry. That is not untrue. To a large extent, that is true.

Basically, medical journals are one big conflict of interest.

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

VAERS is the US’s system for reporting adverse events resulting from vaccines. By its nature, it’s not entirely reliable. However, it most likely reflects a small proportion of the adverse events that afflict people after vaccinations. One would expect that there would be a purpose for collecting all this data.

As must be painfully obvious at this point, vaccines are not adequately studied, especially in terms of safety. As DeLong states:

No research sponsor has supported a large-scale study of the prevalence of autism among vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, nor are vaccination records included in prospective studies.

The subject is studiously avoided. As DeLong points out, the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health sponsors studies on prenatal and postnatal environmental toxic exposures to search for possible adverse effects on health. They investigate all sorts of things, but vaccines are never on the list. Another such study, the National Child Study, investigates environmental factors in children’s health, but they don’t consider vaccines, either.

And no large studies have been launched to utilize VAERS data—with the exception of a few intrepid souls, like Michael Belkin, who take it on themselves. It shouldn’t be surprising, though. Conflicts of interest related to vaccination are pervasive. The easiest way to avoid finding something that you don’t want to find is not to look for it—and that brings us to the elephant in the vaccine room.

The Vaccine Elephant—The Study’s Implication

Those of us who read studies on vaccines are often stunned at the poor quality and their apparently intentionally misleading nature. The reason for it becomes apparent once we’re aware of the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest. What’s amazing is that some good information comes out, anyway.

Still, most of what’s investigated is things like titers, the level of antibodies that result from vaccines, with associated assumptions about whether they’re adequate—but without any demonstration of why those particular figures were chosen or if, indeed, they actually do represent immunity. When it comes to safety, studies are done in exceptionally dishonest ways. Two favorites are to do only short-term investigations or to make comparisons utilizing active placebos. That is, the placebos contain many of the same substances that are believed—even known—to cause adverse reactions.

Still, as bad as these studies are, they’re done and trotted out as evidence for both efficacy and safety of vaccines. However, one kind of study is never done. No large-scale comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated children is ever done.

Considering how blatantly vaccine research is gamed, there can only be one reason for this lack: The distinction between the two groups is so dramatic that all of the techniques used to twist results cannot hide the reality. The vaccine elephant is the comparison between the two groups. Such a study would not be difficult to put together. There are groups of people who are almost all unvaccinated: the Amish, the thousands of children who’ve attended Dr. Eisenstein’s Homefirst Clinic, and a large group of children spread out in several countries who have attended Waldorf schools.

The elephant in the vaccine research room is the comparison of health between vaxxed and unvaxxed people. That research simply isn’t being done, in spite of being the obvious way to determine whether vaccines are safe or lead to better health.

There’s one near-sure way to avoid finding something, and that’s not to look for it.

The lack of research that could end the question of whether vaccines are safe simply isn’t being done. The reason is obvious: Those who could do it won’t because it would conflict with their careers and financial status.

Reforming the Unreformable

Reforming the Unreformable

With this lock down, now is the time to get yourself into health. You have plenty of time to read and time to detox – no worrying about feeling too weak if you can't go to work.

Click Here for our natural health supplements.

by Dr. Herbert M. Shelton

I am indebted to Harry Clements, N.D., D.O., of London for the following quotation from Medical News-Tribune (May 1, 1972), which he carried in his column in Health For All (July, 1972): "Every doctor who prescribes drugs must be aware of the possibility that the remedy might be worse than the disease for which it is prescribed, warns a leading Dutch pharmacologist. These drug-induced diseases are so varied that there are indeed few pathological conditions that may not be brought about by some drug, Professor L. Meyler, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology at Groningen University, told the International Meeting of Medical Advisers to the Pharmaceutical Industry in London."

After calling attention to the fact that Professor Meyler "does not use the euphemism 'side-effect' which may mean much or little: he talks of drug-induced disease, which makes the matter perfectly clear," and that Meyler "makes it plain, also, how complicated the subject is and warns doctors (physicians) to be on the lookout for symptoms of such induced diseases every time they are confronted by a patient, since the symptoms may be the result of drugs prescribed by other doctors (physicians) or by remedies (drugs) used in self-medication (self-drugging)," Dr. Clements further quotes Meyler as saying: "some drugs produce immediate effects after administration, such as anaphylactic shock. Others cause reactions only after weeks or months, such as aplastic anaemia after chloramphenicol. Sometimes, the effect can only be discerned after several years, such as retinitis pigmentosa, caused by chloroquine and some phenothiazines, and interstitial nephritis caused by analgesics."

  So far as I am aware I am the only writer in the world who has consistently and persistently, for more than twenty-five years, stressed the fact that the so-called side effects of drugs, are part of their regular effects. They are simply effects of poisoning and have been called side-effects only because they are not the effects which the prescribing physician seeks to produce. It is surprising therefore to have Clements say that "Just how complicated the whole matter is becoming must be clear to everyone and it is perfectly obvious that the doctors (physicians) are as much in the dark about the subject of drug-induced disease as anyone." As soon as physicians and "everyone," including even Dr. Clements, become willing to recognize that every drug is a poison and that it poisons every tissue in the body as it circulates in the blood stream all this alleged mystery about drug-induced diseases will become clear. So long as it continues to be believed by physicians and their imitators in the other healing professions that drugs may have physiological and therapeutic effects and that drug-induced disease is something separate and apart from these physiological and therapeutic effects, the whole thing will continue to be shrouded in mystery.

Dr. Clements says that Professor Meyler emphasizes the complexity of the subject of drug-induced diseases when he says: "study of adverse reactions is in its infancy, but progress is being made. The main factor is that the prescribing doctor must be aware of the possible effects of what he prescribes. He must not only look for the known adverse reactions, but he must also be prepared for unknown reactions hitherto not described anywhere."

The confusion exists in the minds of men who can speak of the adverse reactions of drugs in such a manner as to imply that drugs may have favorable reactions. All the alleged actions of drugs, whether they are termed physiological, therapeutic, synergistic, antagonistic, side, or by some other term that hides the essential character of the drug effects are the direct outgrowth of the "toxic quality of the drug or drugs. Instead of the actions which follow the ingestion of a drug being drug actions, they are one and all actions of the living organism designed to resist, reject and expel the drug. There is no such thing as pharmaco-dynamics. There is only bio-dynamics. No amount of study of so-called adverse reactions can lead to anything except greater confusion so long as the basic character of alleged drug actions is unrecognized.

In this same column in July Health For All, Dr. Clements writes: "The British Medical Journal paper read by Dr. D. Stafford-Clark, summarized it in part as follows: 'The public was disillusioned with the medical profession because the doctor had little time to listen, understand, and perhaps give affection. Today's medical student was arrogant and ignorant. For years people had turned to doctors as men of education and broad background, but today frequently this was not true. It was essential that all doctors look on themselves as teachers. He reminded them that, like parents, much was taught by example and that it should be the aim of every doctor firstly to set an example for all those he came into contact with, and only secondly to be a technician."

Nothing emphasizes the mind beclouding effects of medical tradition and a medical education as much as does the fact that man can observe and study all the disease-inducing effects of drugs and continue to believe that the same drugs, in the same dosages and in the bodies of the same patients, can also produce beneficial or curative effects. It is a strange delusion long hugged by the men of medicine that poisons can be both our bane and our boon. Instead of seeking to restore the sick to health by the employment of beneficial substances and conditions, medical men seek for all of their curative agents in the most toxic substances which they can discover. There is a mountain of evidence, accumulated during the past thirty years, that aspirin has produced more damage and killed more people during this time than has penicillin, yet a cure-deluded profession continues to prescribe this poison on a large scale and to encourage self-drugging with aspirin. The drug induced diseases resulting from the use of aspirin should be enough to cause any intelligent man to condemn its use for any beneficial purpose. Aspirin is but one of many thousands of rank poisons that the medical profession is sending down the throats or injecting directly into the blood and tissues of their victims in the name of healing and then expressing wonder and mystification over what they term their side-effects.

Commenting upon this item from the British Medical Journal, Dr. Clements says that "the most significant part of this summary is not the criticism of the attitude of the doctors, but the proposition that they should regard themselves as teachers, since this raises a very important question: To what extent, and how effectively are they taught to be teachers and what are they taught to teach? Surely, no one would expect that a doctor practicing drug-therapy would want to teach his patients about it. The millions of patients who go to the consulting rooms go for their prescriptions, and little else.

"However, if the doctor is to become a teacher, presumably of matters appertaining to health and disease, his whole curriculum will have to undergo radical changes with more emphasis being placed on food and nutrition and the other environmental factors which play so important a part in the maintenance and recovery of health. In short, it will have to embrace a good deal of the nature cure philosophy, and if the doctor is to become an example of healthful living for his patients we can foresee the need for some big changes. It looks as if Dr. Stafford-Clark is setting the stage for what could be some sort of medical revolution."

Is Dr. Clements kidding when he suggests that Stafford-Clark is setting the stage for a revolution? Dr. Clements is too well aware of the fact that revolutions arise spontaneously out of revolutionary situations and do not occur because somebody sets the stage for them. He must know that Stafford-Clark has in mind nothing more significant than a few petty reforms. Like Meyler, who suggests more study of adverse-reactions rather than a discontinuance of practices that inevitably and necessarily give rise to so-called adverse-reactions, Stafford-Clark would not think of suggesting anything that would deprive him and his profession of their pills and potions. Revolution is the farthest thing from his mind that is conceivable. A revolution in medicine, long overdue, will destroy it, root and branch, and this no leader in the medical profession would dare to suggest.

Dr. Clements heads this part of his column "Doctor or Teacher," as though there is a difference. He continually used the word doctor, which means teacher, as a synonym for the term physician. A physician is one learned in or skilled in the art of physics. Physic is a drug, particularly a purgative drug. It is what Shakespeare had in mind when he put the words "Throw physic to the dogs," into the mouth of one of his characters. "Where can you find a dog that will take it," asked one of his contemporaries. I am sure that it is known to Dr. Clements that at first the schools of physic conferred the degree Dr. of Physic only upon men who were to be teachers of physic. Men who administered drugs at the bedside were not doctors, but practitioners, and were not called doctors but were known as practitioners.

I am constrained to wonder just what Dr. Clements himself means by revolution in this instance. In this same column in this same issue of Health For All, under the subtitle "Worth Quoting" he quotes the following words from a recent work entitled Cure or Heal by E. Graham Howe, M.D., in which Dr. Clements says Howe has given to the vis medicatrix its proper significance and that Howe reaffirms his confidence in the healing power of nature: "given the right attitude on the part of both patients and therapist and a sufficiency of time, our old friend the vis medicatrix naturae, which mends our broken bones and heals the common ailments of our bodies (with some help maybe, but also sometimes in spite of more than a little hindrance from the doctor), works on every level, and all the time, to heal us of our ills."

If a statement of this kind which gives the healing power of nature a subordinate position gives to the healing power of nature its proper significance, there still remains a lot of healing or curing to be done by the therapist with his "bag of tricks." There is no room in a statement of this kind for a revolution. There remains only the work of trying to reform the unreformable.

Bacteriophobia

Bacteriophobia

The universal acceptance of the germ theory, and the consequently widespread bacteriophobia, resulted in a multiplicity of frenzied efforts to escape from the threat of the dreadful and malicious germs by waging a constant war against them in the belief that the alternative was certain death.

The populace was advised to cook all food and boil all water (with the inevitable deterioration in health accompanying raw food deprivation).

The present-day practice of killing germs (inside and outside the body) with poison drugs was initiated, resulting in more and more degeneration and iatrogenic (drug-induced) disease.

Various programs were initiated to confer “immunity” against specific germs by means of vaccines and serums, resulting in the monstrous inoculation system—with horrendous effects, detailed in my book, Don’t Get Stuck!

Fortunately, the warning against, and horror of, all raw foods as dangerous and bacteria-ridden, has been largely overcome, through the persistent educational efforts of Hygienists and other knowledgeable people, though the ban on unpasteurized dairy products still exists in most areas in the United States.

The acceptance of poison drugs, vaccines, and serums has not waned to any appreciable extent.

Pasteur Changes His Mind

As previously mentioned, around 1860. Pasteur discovered facts which were not in accord with his previous conception that disease germs were unchangeable. He found that microbial species can undergo many transformations; this discovery destroyed the basis for the germ theory. Since a coccus (pneumonia germ) could change to a bacillus (typhoid germ) and back again (and, indeed, since any germ could turn into another)—and since their virulence could be altered, often at the will of the experimenter, the whole theory exploded.

It is frequently overlooked that Pasteur by then had changed his direction, and his more mature conception of the cause of disease, as given by Dr. Duclaux, was that a germ was “ordinarily kept within bounds by natural laws, but, when conditions change, when its virulence is exalted, when its host is enfeebled, the germ was able to “invade” the territory which was barred to it up to that time. This, of course, is the premise that a healthy body is resistant to disease or not susceptible to it.

After the change in his outlook, and numerous experiments along this line, Pasteur was at last convinced that controllable physiological factors were basic in the assessment of vulnerability to disease and concluded, “The presence in the body of a pathogenic agent is not necessarily synonymous with infectious disease.” (The presence of certain germs is not proof that they are the cause of a disease.)

So Pasteur did finally reverse his position and acknowledge that germs are not the specific and primary cause of disease, and he abandoned the germ theory. He is reported to have said on his deathbed, “Bernard was right. The seed is nothing, the soil is everything.”

Although Pasteur abandoned his early immature and erroneous theory in the 1880s, it was accepted, developed, fostered, and perpetuated by others, and the mischief, medical misunderstanding, and error continue to this day (the ultimate irony!).

The Stupid Masses

The Stupid Masses

by Mike Stone 
(henrymakow.com)


Cowering behind closed doors, hiding behind medical masks, afraid to stand within six feet of another human being.

Welcome to L.A. Never in my life have I felt such disdain for the stupidity of my fellow human beings.

 I'm talking about anyone age 15 or so and older who actually believes all the bullshit they're being fed about this #scamdemic.

I'm talking about people that are willfully ignorant. Do you watch the television news? Do you believe what they're telling you? If so, you're a f-ing idiot. Sorry for the harsh language, but you are. And it's about time somebody called you out on it.

You're being conned, bamboozled, hoodwinked. They're playing you like a fiddle and you're so stupid you don't even know it. And of all the stupid people in all the stupid states in this country, clueless California has the stupidest.

The governor seems intent on inflicting as much economic and emotional pain on the citizens of California as possible. He was one of the first to order a statewide lockdown. Citizens were ordered to stay at home and "non-essential" businesses ordered to close.


My neighborhood, once thriving and vibrant, now looks like a post-apocalyptic ghost town.

Everything is shut down. Of the few "essential" businesses that remain open, no one is allowed in without a mask, and no one is allowed within six feet of another person. Did you know that's it's actually against the law in this state now to go outside without a mask? And people are actually being ticketed for it?

Millions of Californians have now lost their jobs and the state is overrun with unemployment claims, but the website for filing claims never works and no one answers the phone. Businesses are going under left and right. Do you think the greedy property owners who rent or lease space to all of those businesses are going to let them slide a month or two because of this "pandemic"? Ha! Think again.

This state was already on the verge of bankruptcy and now this? Are you f-ing kidding me? They better keep those stimulus checks and food stamps coming. If they don't, California is going to see riots that make the Rodney King uprising look like a walk in the park.

There are two restaurants in my neighborhood that I used to frequent. The first is owned by a young Asian couple that invested their life savings into opening it. It's been boarded up for the last three weeks. The owners are the nicest couple you'll ever meet. I don't see how they're going to survive.


The second is a bar with a restaurant in the back. They remained open after the lockdown as a takeout establishment, but the stupid mayor of Los Angeles found out and cut their phone,  power and their water, forcing them to close. Hundreds of other businesses in this state suffered the same fate. Meanwhile, over ten percent of the jail population has been set free on the streets and police are no longer arresting anyone for thefts of under $1,000.

F-ing criminals are turned loose to rob, pillage, and rape, while honest people trying to work and make a living are harassed, shut down, and in some cases arrested. And nobody in this state gives a shit. They're all hunkered down, hiding behind their stupid masks, terrified of a damn cold virus.

The slimiest ones of all are collecting reward money for snitching on their fellow citizens. Think I'm kidding? Hell no! The commie pukes running the show here are actually paying reward money for alerting them to "non-essential" businesses that remain open.

I pass women on the street. Some of them actually look kind of alluring with nothing visible but their eyes. But how can you remain attracted to anyone dumb enough to buy into this hoax? I'm at the point where I have zero tolerance for stupidity.


Once a week now I'm forced to wait in line with 50-100 other people, waiting for the local grocery store, which used to operate 24 hours, to open at 7 A.M. When the doors finally do open, everyone surges forward. I feel the shopping cart of the person behind me ramming into the back of my ankles. The first time, I ignore it. The second time, I ignore it. The third time, I turn around. The person pushing the cart is a middle-aged Asian man. His face is covered with a mask, but his eyes are among the most frightened I've ever seen. Once we get inside the store, he races off like a madman. I spot him later at the checkout lane, his cart overflowing with canned food and toilet paper.

There's a girl that works at that grocery store that I talk to. I see she's not wearing a mask, which makes her and me and a guy bagging groceries the only ones not doing so. I'm instantly attracted. She's the only person I've spoken to in the last three weeks who recognizes how stupid and retarded this whole thing is. Talking to her is like a breath of fresh air. Then she tells me that starting tomorrow all employees and all customers will be required to wear a mask in order to enter the store.

SILVER LINING?

Is there anything positive about this scamdemic? Anything positive at all? If Hollywood crumbles and none of those talentless hacks ever works again, I would almost say it was worth it. But I can't see that happening. The industry has to be in line for literally hundreds of millions of dollars in bailouts. They just have to. They wouldn't be going along with this farce if they weren't.

Same with the fast food restaurants. Same with the newspapers and magazines that nobody reads anymore. Every slime bucket business will be bailed out, while every worthwhile one will either be destroyed or put on life support.

On a personal level, I'm in great shape. Forced to stay home all day, I'm doing pushups, I'm doing pull-ups; my body is strong as an ox. Muscles popping up all over. But for what? To live in a city of morons? To live in a country of brain-dead zombies?

Here's something positive: I'm praying more, and trying to make amends with people for past sins. It's a tremendous feeling to connect with someone from the past and apologize for any harm I might have caused them. Try it yourself.

Based on what I've observed over the last three weeks, if the U.S. were ever to get into a war with another super power, I'm almost certain we'd get our asses kicked. The people of this country have become weak, pathetic little cowards. And our so-called leaders are the worst ones of all. Where's the pushback among all this madness? Where's the slightest sign of intelligence and courage? Some Republican Governors say they're going to reopen their states. God bless 'em.

As for California, forget it. Forget about school in the fall. Forget about 80% of these closed businesses ever reopening. Forget about seeing any happy, smiling people from this state any time in the near future. It's all doom and gloom in the Golden State.