How to Heal Yourself in 15 Days

January 29, 2010 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) Can you really heal yourself in 15 days? Without using prescription drugs, vaccines, chemotherapy or surgery? Absolutely!
Your body strives to heal itself automatically, every single day. The only thing that really needs to happen for your body to begin healing itself is for you to remove the barriers to healing — the barriers that are holding you back right now.
That’s why you’ll greatly enjoy this 15-part article series by the Health Ranger, published here on NaturalNews over the next three weeks or so. This isn’t a rehash of the health tips you already know — eat right, exercise more, hydrate yourself, and so on — it’s a completely new way to look at how to unleash the healing potential you already possess

Published in: on January 29, 2010 at 2:37 pm  Leave a Comment  

Are You a Sceptic? (Part 2)

‘Skeptics’ article stirs up condemnation from skeptics, praise from holistic thinkers

January 25, 2010  by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) The article I posted yesterday that exposed the true beliefs of "skeptics" made some major waves across the ‘net. Entitled, What "skeptics" really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe (…), the article turned the tables on the skeptics and detailed their bizarre beliefs for the whole world to see.
This article succeeded wildly in infuriating the "skeptics" across the ‘net by simply reminding them what they believe. They then resorted to their same old dirty tricks to attack me by doing things like joining our Facebook page then posting a message that says, "That article made me so mad, I’m quitting this forum!" (Gee, oh well.)
Meanwhile, the article received praise from supporters of natural medicine, the healing arts and holistic thinking — all of whom have had enough of being labeled quacks and kooks for believing in plant-based medicine, nutritional therapies and the healing potential of the human mind and body.
They’re tired of being insulted and demeaned by the skeptics who have for years gotten away with blasting holistic thinkers without receiving much criticism themselves. So we turned the tables on the skeptics and showed the world how crazy some of their beliefs are. It is absolutely true that the most ardent skeptics believe they themselves have no consciousness, no soul, no free will and not even a mind. People thought I made this up, but I didn’t. It’s one of the core beliefs among classic "skeptics" (they will even tell you this themselves).

Water is magical… really!

One such skeptic accused me of being a quack because he said that I believe "water is magical." Was that supposed to be an insult? I do think water is magical!
I think pregnancy is magical. Human consciousness is magical. Plant life is magical. And water is at the very top of the list of magical substances with amazing, miraculous properties, many of which have yet to be discovered.
Think about it: Water expands when it freezes (almost everything else shrinks). Water is both a solvent and a lubricant. Water is almost impervious to compression. Water can flow upwards, against gravity, into small cracks and crevices. Water is made up of two gases, each of which is a combustible fuel on its own. Do I think water is magical? You bet I do!
I also think magnetism is magical. And gravity. And quantum physics. There isn’t a single scientist or skeptic alive today who truly understands magnetism or gravity. Sure, they can mathematically model it. They can describe it and observe it, but they don’t understand it. Mass warps the very fabric of reality and causes two objects to magically attract each other? Seriously? That’s about as magical as it gets.
Quantum physics is magical, too. As physicist Richard Feynman famously said, "I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics." To all humans, including skeptics, quantum physics is essentially magic. If they claim to truly understand quantum physics, they are lying.
Feyman was unusually open-minded for a scientist. In fact, he was no closed-minded "skeptic." He was infinitely curious about the way the universe works, and had he lived longer, he may have very well discovered the principles behind homeopathy and water memory. But he also knew that science has its limits — an idea that still has not occurred to most skeptics today. Feynman said, "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Those are his words, not mine. The words of perhaps the greatest physicist to have ever lived.


Science cannot answer the most important questions

And he’s right. Reductionism doesn’t work to study holistic phenomena. And that’s where most skeptics go completely off track. They think you can isolate, identify and categorize every bit and piece of every single thing if you just look closely enough. In that belief, they are wrong. The universe is holographic. The whole is in the parts. The universe is holistic, and it cannot be understood by ripping it apart into tiny pieces and giving them tiny names.
I wrote about this in an article about the Large Hadron Collider that has been widely read across the ‘net. It’s entitled The Higgs Boson Particle Isn’t a Particle – Why the Search for Subatomic Particles is an Illusion (
Reductionist thinking (the preferred worldview of "skeptics") cannot ever hope to understand plant-based medicine. Because plant-based medicine works through the synergistic effects of thousands of phytonutrients working together. Separate them all and the "magic" of plant-based medicine disappears. Western scientists can study every single molecule of a plant in great detail and yet entirely miss the healing effects of the whole plant.
When skeptics demand that we "prove that this plant has medicinal properties," what they mean is that the plant chemicals should be studied in isolation, one by one, to see if any of them work in isolation. And that approach simply won’t work. Traditional Chinese Medicine, for example, uses ingredients that when taken in isolation can be dangerous (such as ephedra), but when combined with other supporting herbs are remarkably safe.
Skeptics don’t get this. The FDA doesn’t get this. And many consumers still don’t get this either. Holistic medicine cannot be studied with reductionist thinking.
In a similar way, the holistic nature of the universe cannot be understood, explained or even comprehended by reductionist thinking. The worldview of "skeptics," in other words, limits them to a very narrow understanding of the world around them. That limitation is what prevents them from understanding the healing arts, or homeopathy, or mind-body medicine or any other advanced modality.


Skeptics recruit thousands of new readers for NaturalNews

Getting back to the skeptics themselves, some of them took my article way too personally, attributing every single statement to themselves. Well of course every single belief in that article isn’t followed by every single "skeptic" person. Even skeptics disagree amongst themselves on how far to take their "skeptic" beliefs. There is a spectrum of skeptics in the same way there is a spectrum of natural health practitioners.
But by blasting my article all over the web and then attacking it, they accomplished something quite amazing: They brought us over 2,500 new email newsletter subscribers in just 48 hours! As it turns out, many people are skeptical of the skeptics and they’re quite open to a differing point of view. They might believe one or two things that typify the skeptics’ position, but they don’t swallow the whole belief system of the most ardent skeptics.
And that brings me to beliefs. I don’t want you to believe anything I say. Not automatically, anyway. I want you to think for yourself. I don’t want you to follow holistic thinking just because it sounds pretty; I want you to explore for yourself what seems to be true in your own experience.
If you, in your own experience, find that herbs and massage therapy and nutrition are all utterly worthless, and you want to join the skeptics camp, then go for it! If you’ve thought about it yourself, and reached your own conclusions, and you’ve pursued truth with an open mind and an open heart, then whatever conclusion you reach is "your" truth. But don’t let your current intellectual position become a prison that prevents you from exploring other possibilities of the way the universe works.
This is the default position of free thinkers, by the way, of which I am a lifelong member. Free thinkers respect the freedoms of others to arrive at their own truths. Skeptics, on the other hand, aggressively attack anyone who disagrees with their conclusions. If you don’t believe the things they believe, then you’re a quack, or a kook or a woo woo practitioner.
They also tend to jump to false conclusions about what people are really saying. In my previous article, for example, I never stated whether I believed in God, or whether I was an athiest, or whether I followed organized religion and yet people read the article and they leaped to conclusions, assuming I was promoting organized religion, for example, or that I was condemning atheism.
Actually I never stated my position on those matters in the article at all, but the skeptics leaped to the conclusion that I did. This speaks to their tendency to warp all incoming information and restructure it to conform to the beliefs they already carry about the subject at hand.
Above all, skeptics have an extremely limited, distorted view of the world. It is that view that prevents them from grasping more advanced concepts like quantum healing, vibrational medicine, mind-body medicine or even medicinal herbs. The skeptics’ view of the universe is that of a child. Embracing the holistic nature of the universe requires a more mature understanding.


Technorati Tags: ,

Published in: on January 25, 2010 at 2:32 pm  Leave a Comment  

Colloidal Silver Banned in Europe, Part III: An Exclusive Interview with Anders Sultan, Sweden’s Largest Colloidal Silver Manufacturer

January 20, 2010

… In the interview below we discuss the surprise European ban on colloidal silver…a nifty loophole that savvy European colloidal silver manufacturers are using to beat the ban…why American colloidal silver-makers may not be able to use this same loophole should colloidal silver be banned here…the looming Codex Alimentarius threat to global health freedom and how it will affect colloidal silver users in the U.S…the ongoing environmentalist campaign to force the regulation and restriction of colloidal silver in the United States…the little-known U.S. war on silver dragees…differences between U.S. and EU food, water and supplement regulations as they relate to colloidal silver….and much more!…

Sultan: January first 2010 marked the day when colloidal silver was effectively banned as a food supplement in the European market.

Barwick: A lot of people here in the U.S. don’t believe the ban is real. They say they can’t find any information about it on the internet, and they note that some European vendors are still selling colloidal silver on their web sites.

Sultan: The fact that silver was not on the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) list of approved minerals in food supplements was known by only a few well initiated manufacturers. Most didn’t even know what was happening, and apparently some still don’t.

Barwick: Tell me more about this EFSA list.

Sultan: The EFSA has a list of approved food supplement ingredients, called the Positive List, and a list of unapproved food supplement ingredients. Colloidal silver was on the unapproved list, which is the list of food supplement ingredients that can no longer be legally sold in the EU as of January 1, 2010.

Any ingredient on that list was required to submit detailed and costly scientific and medical studies in order to be moved to the Positive List. Most colloidal silver manufacturers simply missed it. The lists were not that well publicized.

Barwick: Didn’t some colloidal silver manufacturers know about it, and if so, why didn’t they submit studies in support of their colloidal silver product?

Sultan: Yes, of course. Some knew about it. Many of these manufacturers simply couldn’t afford to do the safety, efficacy and bioavailability studies, which can cost in the range of $120,000 apiece.

Others, including big colloidal silver companies like Natural-Immunogenics, say they couldn’t get any cooperation from the EFSA. They couldn’t get the EFSA to provide the study protocols.

In short, it appears to me, and to other observers, that the EFSA had set out to make it extremely hard to get silver approved. The EFSA had already indicated that, because of undefined "safety issues" they would not automatically approve a nano-particle based colloidal silver product even if it were able to submit good bioavailability data.

Barwick: So the European Food Safety Authority seems to have had it out for colloidal silver products. They didn’t want to see such products make the Positive List. Is that your take on the matter?

Sultan: Correct. As you know, colloidal silver is probably first on Big Pharma’s list of natural alternatives to get rid of. The structure of the EU makes it ridiculously easy for the pharmaceutical giants to "influence" a few key people and produce big results throughout Europe.

Big Pharma has obviously been successful this round and they have been at it for a while now. The European Food Supplement Directive, FSD 2002/46/EC, is nothing but a Big Pharma job which effectively limits the consumer’s access to nutrients in the form of minerals and vitamins.

This directive serves as a model for the WHO Codex Alimentarius that, through the process of “harmonization” of food supplement laws, will soon be forced onto US consumers, whether they want it or not.

Note that besides silver, other important minerals such as vanadium and the macro-mineral sulfur were also on the unapproved list, and have been banned along with a hundred or so other nutritional supplement ingredients.

Barwick: How many nutritional supplements does this affect?

Sultan: There’s probably a thousand or more different nutritional supplements using these ingredients that are now completely illegal to sell.

Barwick: And these aren’t just obscure minerals and vitamins that have been banned, right?

Sultan: Not at all. For example, as I mentioned, the macro mineral sulfur is on the banned list. The fact that the macro mineral sulfur is now illegal to sell is incomprehensible!

A lesser known trace element may be easy for an authority to state that it is not used in the body — just like they play the game with silver by claiming it’s not an essential nutrient. But to ban a macro mineral is just plain criminal and would be like banning calcium or magnesium.

Sulfur is an essential macro mineral used for such various tasks as creating and maintaining skin, nails, hair, bone, muscles etc and is involved in the disulfide bonds that create 3D-structure in the molecules. Without sulfur you would most likely be spending your days as a 2-dimensional creature flat on the floor!

Barwick: Where can people go to learn more about the ban on silver?

Sultan: The EFSA is supposed to have this information published publicly on the internet. But the internet link describing in detail the situation with colloidal silver ends up in an “http 404 – file not found” message. I personally remarked to EFSA on this two times a couple of months ago — without any result. They never fixed the broken link. They obviously don’t want people to find out what’s been going on behind the scenes.

Barwick: Why are they doing this?

Sultan: Big Pharma hates silver. Pure and simple. It’s too competitive. It allows the little guy a way of taking care of infectious illness without using pharmaceutical drugs.

On the broader level, Big Pharma and the ruling elite know extremely well that the less nutrition a consumer gets his hands on, the more prone he is to become malnourished and end up at a doctor’s office with symptoms of some disease that requires prescription drugs.

Doctors are not educated in diagnosing disease as a result of malnourishment, which is the cause of more and more forms of illness and disease today. This in turn generates more and more revenue for Big Pharma.
It was early in the twentieth century that the owners of today’s multinational drug companies started to understand that the less nutrition you give to people the likelier they are to develop some form of disease that would require medication.

They also had control over companies that worked with the newly developed chemical fertilizers and they soon recognized the fact that if sulfur and other crucial elements were removed from the fertilizer products, food would not be as nutritious as before and people would develop symptoms of disease more often.

Again, this would generate more revenue to the pharmaceutical companies. As a result, sulfur as well as most other elements were removed from most of the fertilizer products leaving only three minerals — nitrate, phosphorous and potassium, NPK.

Nature doesn’t work with three elements only. In order for crop growth to take place the way it was designed to, the crops need access to small amounts of natures 90+ elements.

These elements were once available in the soil and are continuously consumed by the crops growing in the soil. But since none of these elements are returned to the soil when fertilized with NPK, the soil itself ends up totally devoid of all of these elements in only about 10 years of farming.

Barwick: What’s the solution?

Sultan: The solution to the problem can be found in the ocean. You see, what isn’t consumed by the crops is transported through the process of erosion out into the ocean, where it can now be found as an ionic mixture that can actually be used to fertilize the soil or even be used as a cost effective and easily absorbable ionic food supplement.

An American company called Ocean Grown in Florida has developed a process which extracts natures 90+ elements out of the ocean so that it may be used to remineralize the soil. You can learn more at

Barwick: Back to the silver ban. What about other companies? Didn’t anybody try to get their products listed on the Positive List?

Sultan: Yes. I mentioned Natural-Immunogenics earlier. They’re an American colloidal silver manufacturer. But they sell their product on the European market as well. They tried to get their product approved, but they had unfortunately made the mistake of trying to convince EFSA that their product is a nano-particulate product when in reality they have a 99 percent ionic product.

In my opinion, it would have been better to remain with the ionic story, as the safety data for ionic silver is much more comprehensive and does not automatically raise red flags with the authorities. At any rate, from what I can gather Natural-Immunogenics got no cooperation from the EFSA, and were never able to complete their bioavailability study.
Barwick: So what are colloidal silver manufacturers going to do?

Sultan: The ban on silver has forced European vendors to find new ways of classifying the product. One obvious and appropriate classification is as a “water disinfectant” product.

Barwick: Why?

Sultan: Because it’s not considered to be a food supplement if it’s being used as a water disinfectant. You’re using it for water purification, rather than for mineral supplementation.

Since a typical 10 ppm colloidal silver solution is 99.999% water and only 0.001% silver, there are numerous other uses for a product like this.

For example, in regards to my own company, Ion Silver, we decided it wasn’t worth the cost and effort to try to keep our colloidal silver product as a food supplement. We knew the deck has been stacked against colloidal silver manufacturers from the start. So we chose to reclassify the product as a water disinfectant instead, and move away from the stupid restraining rules surrounding food supplements.

We had built the colloidal silver market here in Sweden, and we knew that as long as we could keep the product legal somehow, people would continue to use it. What’s more, by re-classifying it as a water disinfectant, we can finally legally claim that the product is capable of killing bacteria, virus, fungus and one celled parasites – without risking spending a year in prison for making claims.

Barwick: So re-labeling your product as a “water disinfectant” is basically a loophole that allows you to continue selling colloidal silver legally, as long as you sell don’t tell people how to use it for food supplement purposes?

Sultan: Yes. That’s right. Most health food stores in Sweden already sell products used for water purification and have no problem with continuing to carry our colloidal silver product, called Ionosil, now that we’ve reclassified it as a water disinfectant.

In reality, the product is identical to what we had registered as a food supplement for the past nine years. It is only the label that has changed ever so slightly.

Of course, silver has been used for water purification purposes ever since king Cyrus boiled all his water and stored it in silver lined vessels while traveling around and fighting various wars.

Our product, Ionosil, is registered with the Swedish chemical authorities. The authorities keep a watchful eye on silver nitrate based products, but had no problem with a product that is composed of 99.999 percent water and only 0.001 percent pure silver with no nitric acid component — as in silver nitrate.

Barwick: All of this begs the obvious question of how long do you think the EU will allow that loophole to remain open? Put another way, what makes you confident that colloidal silver will continue to be legally sold as a “water disinfectant”?

Sultan: There’s a long history of precedent. In other words, silver has been sold and used here as a water disinfectant for a long time.

For example, for many years there have been highly concentrated silver nitrate based products on the European market. These are for disinfecting the water kept in the fresh water tank in marine vessels. You can give your readers this web site link to see one great example of this.

Ever since the 1950s large ships have been equipped with silver-based water purification systems. In fact, there are tens of thousands of large ships around the world that utilize this technology. One of the pioneers and largest manufacturers of this technology is the Swedish company Jowa. You can see an excerpt from their product description at this web site link.

Jowa also have a water purification system that sterilizes the water through the use of silver ions, much like the ones your little colloidal silver generators produce. This product, called Jowa AG-S, has made Sweden world-famous in the shipping industry. This sterilization method provides long-term protection and is a suitable method for long-term storage of drinking water. Since its introduction in 1970, this unit has been installed in thousands of ships.

Incidentally, sterilizing water with the help of silver is an old and well-proven method that goes all the way back to antiquity. It is completely harmless to humans and animals and the silver ions do not change the taste or smell of the water.

The bottom line is that Europe has a long tradition of using silver as a water disinfectant. That’s why I’m not too worried about the loophole being closed. I believe we’ll be able to sell colloidal silver as a “water disinfectant” for a long time into the future.

Barwick: That’s heartening to know. But here in the U.S., I’m not so sure we could get away with simply re-labeling our colloidal silver products as “water disinfectants” should the U.S. start harmonizing its food supplement laws with the EU, in accord with the ongoing Codex Alimentarius process.

My deepest suspicion is that the various environmental groups that have been working so hard to have silver regulated as an environmental toxin would take grave issue with that tactic. They’d see the potential for millions of people to start using colloidal silver for water disinfectant purposes, and they’d likely pressure our Environmental Protection Agency to take regulatory action to close that loophole. I hope not. But I suspect that’s what would happen. In fact, I suspect that’s actually why the environmentalists are working so hard to have silver regulated.

Sultan: As you know, in your country NASA has equipped its space shuttles with a silver-based water purification system. This helps purify all water circulated on the space flights — even urine! It’s all re-used. NASA researched 23 different methods of water purification and finally chose a silver water filter system for recycling and disinfecting water aboard the space shuttles. So maybe that’s some kind of precedent you could capitalize on.

Barwick: Perhaps. But space-based use of silver as a water disinfectant is pretty miniscule, and the argument can’t be made that it poses a threat to earth’s environment. So I’m not sure that precedent is going to stop the EPA from attempting to regulate silver more stringently as an environmental toxin or “pesticide” — particularly if the environmental groups push them harder to do so.

The environmentalists here seem pretty dead-set on hyper-regulating all silver-based products and restricting their usage. And of course, as one well-known natural health journalist has recently pointed out in an article published on our blog, some of the very environmental groups fighting to regulate silver as a threat to the environment have been known to take huge sums of money from Big Pharma.

Once our food supplement laws are harmonized with EU food supplement laws under the Codex Alimentarius process, and colloidal silver is banned here, too, as it is in Europe, it would be strange to see colloidal silver still available as a “water disinfectant.” But if that’s the only way U.S. manufacturers could sell it, I suppose they’ll have to give it a try and see whether or not the bureaucrats let them get away with it.

Sultan: It’s what works here…

Published in: on January 24, 2010 at 9:44 pm  Leave a Comment  

Are You a Sceptic?

What "skeptics" really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor January 24, 2010

(NaturalNews) In the world of medicine, "skeptics" claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth. Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist. Briefly stated, "skeptics" are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.
But there’s much more that you need to know about "skeptics." As you’ll see below, they themselves admit they have no consciousness and that there is no such thing as a soul, a spirit or a higher power. There is no life after death. In fact, there’s not much life in life when you’re a skeptic.

What skeptics really believe

I thought it would be interesting to find out exactly what "skeptics" actually believe, so I did a little research and pulled this information from various "skeptic" websites. What I found will make you crack up laughing so hard that your abs will be sore for a week. Take a look…
• Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they’ve never been tested), that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and "good for your health."
• Skeptics believe that fluoride chemicals derived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health. They’re so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into the water supply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.
• Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs. In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more — simultaneously!
• Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines.
• Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis. (They are opponents of natural childbirth.)
• Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis. This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.
• Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physical brain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever.
• Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).
• Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe, genetically modified foods are safe, and that any chemical food additive approved by the FDA is also safe. There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.
• Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).
• Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking…)
• Skeptics believe that the moon has no influence over life on Earth. Farming in sync with moon cycles is just superstition, they say. (So why are the cycles of life for insects, animals and humans tied to the moon, then?)
• Skeptics believe that the SUN has no role in human health other than to cause skin cancer. They completely deny any healing abilities of light.
• Skeptics believe that Mother Nature is incapable of synthesizing medicines. Only drug companies can synthesize medicines, they claim. (So why do they copy molecules from nature, then?)
• Skeptics do not believe in intuition. They believe that mothers cannot "feel" the emotions of their infants at a distance. They write off all such "psychic" events as mere coincidence.
• Skeptics believe that all healing happens from the outside, from doctors and technical interventions. They do not believe that patients have any ability to heal themselves. Thus, they do not ascribe any responsibility for health to patients. Rather, they believe that doctors and technicians are responsible for your health. Anyone who dismisses doctors and takes charge of their own health is therefore acting "irresponsibly," they claim.
• Skeptics believe that cell phone radiation poses absolutely no danger to human health. A person can be exposed to unlimited cell phone radiation without any damage whatsoever.
• Skeptics believe that aspartame and artificial chemical sweeteners can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects.
• Skeptics believe that human beings were born deficient in synthetic chemicals and that the role of pharmaceutical companies is to "restore" those deficiencies in humans by convincing them to swallow patented pills.
• Skeptics believe that you can take unlimited pharmaceuticals, be injected with an unlimited number of vaccines, expose yourself to unlimited medical imaging radiation, consume an unlimited quantity of chemicals in processed foods and expose yourself to an unlimited quantity of environmental chemical toxins with absolutely no health effects whatsoever!
All the beliefs listed above were compiled from "skeptics" websites. (I’m not going to list those websites here because they don’t deserve the search engine rankings, but you can find them yourself through Google, if you wish.)

Skeptics aren’t consistently skeptical

If you really look closely at the beliefs of "skeptics," you discover their skepticism is selective. They’re really skeptical about some things — like vitamins — but complete pushovers on others such as the scientific credibility of drug company studies.
Here are some of the many things that "skeptics" should be skeptical about, but aren’t:
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the corruption and dishonesty in the pharmaceutical industry. They believe whatever the drug companies say, without asking a single intelligent question.
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about medical journals. They believe whatever they read in those journals, even when much of it turns out to be complete science fraud.
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry. They believe that drug companies are motivated by goodwill, not by profits.
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the motivations and loyalties of the FDA. They will swallow, inject or use any product that’s FDA approved, without a single reasonable thought about the actual safety of those products.
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the safety of synthetic chemicals used in the food supply. They just swallow whatever poisons the food companies dump into the foods.
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the enormous dangers of ionizing radiation from mammograms and CT scans. They have somehow convinced themselves that "early detection saves live" when, in reality, "early radiation causes cancer."
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the mass-drugging agenda of the psychiatric industry which wants to diagnose everyone with some sort of "mental" disorder. The skeptics just go right along with it without asking a single commonsense question about whether the human brain really needs to be "treated" with a barrage of mind-altering chemicals.
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about mercury fillings. What harm could mercury possibly do anyway? If the ADA says they’re safe, they must be!
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the demolition-style collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building on September 11, 2001 — a building that was never hit by airplanes. This beautifully-orchestrated collapse of a hardened structure could only have been accomplished with precision explosives. (…) Astonishingly, "skeptics" have little understanding of the laws of physics. Concrete-and-steel buildings don’t magically collapse in a perfect vertical demolition just because of a fire on one floor…
• Skeptics aren’t skeptical about the safety of non-stick cookware, or the dangers of cleaning chemicals in the home, or the contamination of indoor air with chemical fumes from carpets, paints and particle board furniture. To the skeptics, the more chemicals, the better!

Nature is bad, chemicals are good

Summing up the position of the "skeptics" is quite simple: Nature is bad, chemicals are good!
If we only had more chemicals injected into more babies, the world would be a better place, they say. If we could only ban all plants, herbs, vitamins and supplements, we’d all be so much healthier because then we’d take more pharmaceuticals!
Seriously. This is what they believe. They openly admit this is their position.
And all you people drinking green smoothies, and growing your own food, and getting natural sunlight, and taking care of your own health, and drinking herbal tea… well you’re all just fools, say the skeptics. You’re all just too stupid to understand "real" science. Because if you understood real science, you’d give up all those useless herbs and superfoods and healing vegetables and you’d be taking twenty different prescription medications instead.
Then you’d be really smart, see. Because all those chemicals make you healthy and smart. A few extra vaccine injections will make you even smarter. Then you can join the skeptics because you’re smart enough at that point to understand that chemicals are the answer to all of life’s problems: Depression, anxiety, digestion, sexual performance, sleep, even test-taking abilities… there’s a chemical "solution" to every problem you might experience.

What skeptics really are

I hope it’s fairly obvious to you by now that skeptics are the most misinformed people on the planet.
They are the easiest people to fool. They’re the easiest to hypnotize, too, because they lack independent thinking skills. Rather than thinking for themselves, they have joined a "club of skeptics" where they can be told what to think and then label themselves "intelligent" for following others in the group.
These are the people who line up to be injected with useless H1N1 vaccines. (The joke is on them, of course. Those vaccines were a complete fraud…) These are the people who stand in line at the pharmacy to buy a dozen different prescriptions (costing sometimes thousands of dollars) that their doctors told them to take. These are the people who eat processed, dead junk food laced with chemicals that make them sick — and then they wonder why they’re sick. These are the people who sit at home watching television and think to themselves how smart they are because they follow the medical advice they learned in drug company advertisements.
These are the real "skeptics." They are so incredibly isolated from reality that they don’t even believe in their body’s own ability to heal itself.
Skeptics don’t believe in God or any sort of spiritualism, either. They are almost all athiests. They don’t believe in a higher power of any kind: No God, no spirit, no angels, no guides, no creative force in the universe… nada. They think the universe is a cold, empty, lonely, stupid place full of soulless, mindless, zombie biological bodies who have no free will and no consciousness.
Gee, no wonder these skeptics are so misguided. They have the most pessimistic view possible. No wonder they seek to destroy themselves with chemicals — they don’t even think they’re alive to begin with! Skeptics are bent on self destruction. And they believe that when you die, the lights just go out and you cease to exist. Nothing happens after that. You’re just a mindless biological robot whose life has no meaning, no purpose, no higher self.
This is exactly what the skeptics believe. They’ll even tell you so themselves!

Never argue with drones

Realizing this, it makes it so much easier to debate with skeptics on any topic. Whatever they say, you just answer, "WHO is saying that? Are YOU, a conscious, free-thinking person with a mind and soul saying that, or are those words simply being automatically and robotically uttered from the mouth of a bag of bones and skin that has no mind and no soul?"
If they answer you honestly, they will have to admit that they believe they are nothing more than a robotic bag of bones and skin that is mindlessly uttering whatever nonsense happens to escape their mechanical lips. At that point, you’ve already won the debate because YOU have a soul, and THEY don’t. You’re arguing with a mindless robot.
Seriously. Think about this deeply. If you believe what the skeptics want you to believe (because they are always right, of course), then you must accept the fact that THEY have no consciousness. They are not really "alive." They are just robotic biological machines. They are drones, in other words. And drones are not equal to a being of energy with a consciousness and a soul, inhabiting a human body with purpose and awareness.
Never argue with drones. You only waste your time and annoy the drone.
Skeptics… zombies… drones… different words for the same thing. Soulless, mindless, lacking consciousness and free will, having no awareness of the value of life… these are the skeptics arguing for vaccines, mammograms and chemotherapy today. They are agents of death who can only find solace in an industry of death — the industry of modern medicine.

Published in: on January 24, 2010 at 1:52 pm  Leave a Comment  

New study puts final nail in the “saturated fat causes heart disease” coffin

The Healthy Skeptic  January 15, 2010

For more than five decades we’ve been brainwashed to believe that saturated fat causes heart disease. It’s such a deeply ingrained belief that few people even question it. It’s just part of our culture now.

Almost every day one of my patients in the clinic tells me proudly that they have a “healthy” diet because they don’t eat butter, cheese or red meat or any other foods high in saturated fat (never mind that red meat isn’t particularly high in saturated fat, but that’s a subject for another post). Or I might overhear someone at the grocery store saying how much they prefer whole fat yogurt to the low-fat version, but they eat the low-fat stuff anyways because they want to make the “healthy” choice.

What most people don’t realize is that it took many years to convince people that eating traditional, animal fats like butter and cheese is bad for you, while eating highly-processed, industrial vegetable oils like corn and soybean oil is good for you. This simply defied common sense for most people. But the relentless, widespread campaign to discredit saturated fat and promote industrial oils was eventually successful.

What if I told you that there’s absolutely no evidence to support the idea that saturated fat consumption causes heart disease? What if I told you that the 50+ years of cultural brainwashing we have all been subject to was based on small, poorly designed studies? And what if I told you that a review of large, well-designed studies published in reputable medical journals showed that there is absolutely no association between saturated fat and heart disease?

Well, that’s what I’m telling you. We’ve been duped. Blindsided. Lied to. And we’ve suffered greatly as a result. Not only have we suffered from being encouraged to eat packaged and processed foods made with cheap, tasteless vegetable oils, but these very oils we were told would protect us from heart disease actually promote it! See my article How to Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease for more on that.

The recent review I’m talking about is a meta-analysis published this week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. It pooled together data from 21 unique studies that included almost 350,000 people, about 11,000 of whom developed cardiovascular disease (CVD), tracked for an average of 14 years, and concluded that there is no relationship between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease or stroke.

Let me put that in layman’s terms for you:

Eating saturated fat doesn’t cause heart disease.

There. That’s it. That’s really all you need to know. But if you’d like to read more about it, John Briffa and Chris Masterjohn have written articles about it here and here.

I wonder how long it will take for this information to trickle down into the mainstream culture? Unfortunately it’s not going to happen overnight. Paradigm shifts don’t work that way. But I’ve seen some positive signs, and I do believe the tide is turning. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 50 years.

Published in: on January 19, 2010 at 5:42 pm  Leave a Comment  

Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots

January 17, 2010  by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I’m about to reveal here.
It all started with the CDC’s recent release of new statistics about swine flu fatalities, infection rates and vaccination rates. According to the CDC:
• 61 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu (about 20% of the U.S. population). The CDC calls this a "success" even though it means 4 out of 5 people rejected the vaccines.
• 55 million people "became ill" from swine flu infections.
• 246,000 Americans were hospitalized due to swine flu infections.
• 11,160 Americans died from the swine flu.
Base on these statistics, the CDC is now desperately urging people to get vaccinated because they claim the pandemic might come back and vaccines are the best defense.
But here’s the part you’re NOT being told.
The CDC statistics lie by omission. They do not reveal the single most important piece of information about H1N1 vaccines: How many of the people who died from the swine flu had already been vaccinated?

Many who died had already been vaccinated

The CDC is intentionally not tracking how many of the dead were previously vaccinated. They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated. But this is blatantly false. Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections.
And that means roughly 20% of the 11,160 Americans who died from the swine flu were probably already vaccinated against swine flu. That comes to around 2,200 deaths in people who were vaccinated!
How do I know that swine flu vaccines don’t reduce infection mortality? Because I’ve looked through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that have ever been conducted on H1N1 vaccines. It didn’t take me very long, because the number of such clinical trials is ZERO.
That’s right: There is not a single shred of evidence in existence today that scientifically supports the myth that H1N1 vaccines reduce mortality from H1N1 infections. The best evidence I can find on vaccines that target seasonal flu indicates a maximum mortality reduction effect of somewhere around 1% of those who are vaccinated. The other 99% have the same mortality rate as people who were not vaccinated.
So let’s give the recent H1N1 vaccines the benefit of the doubt and let’s imagine that they work just as well as other flu vaccines. That means they would reduce the mortality rate by 1%. So out of the 2,200 deaths that took place in 2009 in people who were already vaccinated, the vaccine potentially may have saved 22 people.


61 million injections add up to bad public health policy

So let’s see: 61 million people are injected with a potentially dangerous vaccine, and the actual number "saved" from the pandemic is conceivably just 22. Meanwhile, the number of people harmed by the vaccine is almost certainly much, much higher than 22. These vaccines contain nervous system disruptors and inflammatory chemicals that can cause serious health problems. Some of those problems won’t be evident for years to come… future Alzheimer’s victims, for example, will almost certainly those who received regular vaccines, I predict.
Injecting 61 million people with a chemical that threatens the nervous system in order to avoid 22 deaths — and that’s the best case! — is an idiotic public health stance. America would have been better off doing nothing rather than hyping up a pandemic in order to sell more vaccines to people who don’t need them.
Better yet, what the USA could have done that would have been more effective is handing out bottles of Vitamin D to 61 million people. At no more cost than the vaccines, the bottles of vitamin D supplements would have saved thousands of lives and offered tremendously importantly additional benefits such as preventing cancer and depression, too.


The one question the CDC does not want you to ask

Through its release of misleading statistics, the CDC wants everyone to believe that all of the people who died from H1N1 never received the H1N1 vaccine. That’s the implied mythology behind the release of their statistics. And yet they never come right out and say it, do they? They never say, "None of these deaths occurred in patients who had been vaccinated against H1N1."
They can’t say that because it’s simply not true. It would be a lie. And if that lie were exposed, people might begin to ask questions like, "Well gee, if some of the people who were killed by the swine flu were already vaccinated against swine flu, then doesn’t that mean the vaccine doesn’t protect us from dying?"
That’s the number one question that the CDC absolutely, positively does not want people to start asking.
So they just gloss over the point and imply that vaccines offer absolute protection against H1N1 infections. But even the CDC’s own scientists know that’s complete bunk. Outright quackery. No vaccine is 100% effective. In fact, when it comes to influenza, no vaccine is even 10% effective at reducing mortality. There’s not even a vaccine that’s 5% effective. And there’s never been a single shred of credible scientific information that says a flu vaccine is even 1% effective.
So how effective are these vaccines, really? There are a couple thousand vaccinated dead people whose own deaths help answer that question: They’re not nearly as effective as you’ve been led to believe.
They may not be effective at all.


Crunching the numbers: Why vaccines just don’t add up

Think about this: 80% of Americans refused to get vaccinated against swine flu. That’s roughly 240 million people.
Most of those 240 million people were probably exposed to the H1N1 virus at some point over the last six months because the virus was so widespread.
How many of those 240 million people were actually killed by H1N1? Given the CDC’s claimed total of deaths at 11,160, if you take 80% of that (because that’s the percentage who refused to be vaccinated), you arrive at 8,928. So roughly 8,900 people died out of 240 million. That’s a death rate among the un-vaccinated population of .0000372
With a death rate of .0000372, the swine flu killed roughly 1 out of every 26,700 people who were NOT vaccinated. So even if you skipped the vaccine, you had a 26,699 out of 26,700 chance of surviving.
Those are pretty good odds. Ridiculously good. You have a 700% greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime, by the way.
What it all means is that NOT getting vaccinated against the swine flu is actually a very reasonable, intelligent strategy for protecting your health. Mathematically, it is the smarter play.
Because, remember: Some of the dead victims of H1N1 got vaccinated. In fact, I personally challenge the CDC to release statistics detailing what percentage of the dead people had previously received such vaccines.
The headline to this article, "Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots" is a direct challenge to the CDC, actually. If the CDC believes this headline is wrong — and that the number of vaccinated Americans who died from H1N1 is zero — then why don’t they say so on the record?
The answer? Because they’d be laughed right out of the room. Everybody who has been following this with any degree of intelligence knows that the H1N1 vaccine was a medical joke from the start. There is no doubt that many of those who died from H1N1 were previously vaccinated. The CDC just doesn’t want you to know how many (and they hope you’ll assume it’s zero).


Where are all the real journalists?

I find it especially fascinating that the simple question of "How many of the dead were previously vaccinated?" has never been asked in print by a single journalist in any mainstream newspaper or media outline across the country. Not the NY Times, not, not the WSJ, LA Times or USA Today. (At least, not that I’m aware of. If you find one that does, let me know and I’ll link to their article!)
Isn’t there a single journalist in the entire industry that has the journalistic courage to ask this simple question of the CDC? Why do these mainstream journalists just reprint the CDC’s statistics without asking a single intelligent question about them?
Why is all the intelligent, skeptical reporting about H1N1 found only in the alternative press or independent media sites?
You already know the answer, but I’ll say it anyway: Because most mainstream media journalists are just part of the propaganda machine, blindly reprinting distorted statistics from "authorities" without ever stopping to question those authorities.
The MSM today, in other words, is often quite pathetic. Far from the independent media mindset that used to break big stories like Watergate, today’s mainstream media is little more than a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that runs our nation. The MSM serves the financial interests of the corporations, just as the CDC and WHO do. That’s why they’re all spouting the same propaganda with their distorted stories about H1N1 swine flu.
But those who are intelligent enough to ask skeptical questions about H1N1 already realize what an enormous con the pandemic was. In the end, it turned out to be a near-harmless virus that was hyped up by the CDC, WHO and drug companies in order to sell hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines that are now about to be dumped down the drain as useless.
Sources for this story include:
Washington Post…

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Published in: on January 17, 2010 at 5:03 pm  Leave a Comment  

AIDS: The great medical con, explained by David Icke

January 12, 2010 by: David Icke from

(NaturalNews) HIV does NOT cause AIDS. HIV does not cause anything. A staggering statement given the hype and acceptance by the scientific establishment and, through them, the public that the HIV virus is the only cause of AIDS. HIV is a weak virus and does not dismantle the immune system. Nor is AIDS passed on sexually.
There are two main types of virus. Using the airplane analogy, you could call one of these virus strains a "pilot" virus. It can change the nature of a cell and steer it into disease. This usually happens very quickly after the virus takes hold. Then there is the "passenger" virus which lives off the cell, goes along for the ride, but never affects the cell to the extent that it causes disease.
HIV is a passenger virus!
So how on earth did it become the big boogy man virus of the world? The person who announced that HIV caused AIDS was an American, Doctor Robert Gallo. He has since been accused of professional misconduct, his test has been exposed as fraudulent, and two of his laboratory executives have been convicted of criminal offenses. Tens of millions of people are tested for HIV antibodies every year and Dr Gallo, who patented his "test", gets a royalty for every one.
Luc Montagnier, Gallo’s partner in the HIV-causes-AIDS theory, has since admitted in 1989: "HIV is not capable of causing the destruction of the immune system which is seen in people with AIDS". Nearly 500 scientists across the world agree with him. So does Dr Robert E Wilner, author of the book ‘The Deadly Deception. The Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS’.
Dr Wilner even injected himself with the HIV virus on a television chat show in Spain to support his claims. Other doctors and authors come to the same conclusions, among them Peter Duesberg PhD and John Yiamouyiannis PhD, in their book, ‘AIDS: The Good News Is That HIV Doesn’t Cause It. The Bad News Is "Recreational Drugs" And Medical Treatments Like AZT Do’. That’s a long title, but it sums up the situation. People are dying of AIDS because of the treatments used to "treat" AIDS! It works like this.
Now it is accepted by the establishment and the people that HIV causes AIDS, the system has built this myth into its whole diagnosis and "treatment". You go to the doctor and you are told your HIV test was positive(positive only for the HIV antibodies, by the way, they don’t actually test for the virus itself). Because of the propaganda, many people already begin to die emotionally and mentally when they are told they are HIV positive. They have been conditioned to believe that death is inevitable.
The fear of death leads them to accept, often demand, the hyped-up "treatments" which are supposed to stop AIDS occurring. (They don’t.) The most famous is AZT, produced by the Wellcome organisation, owned, wait for it, by the Rockefellers, one of the key manipulating families in the New World Order.
AZT was developed as an anti-cancer drug to be used in chemotherapy, but it was found to be too toxic even for that! AZT’s effect in the "treatment" of cancer was to kill cells – simple as that – not just to kill cancer cells , but to kill cells, cancerous and healthy. The question, and this is accepted even by the medical establishment, was: would AZT kill the cancer cells before it had killed so many healthy cells that it killed the body? This is the drug used to "treat" HIV. What is its effect?
It destroys the immune system, so it is CAUSING AIDS. People are dying from the treatment, not the HIV. AIDS is simply the breakdown of the immune system, for which there are endless causes, none of them passed on through sex. That’s another con which has made a fortune for condom manufacturers and created enormous fear around the expression of our sexuality and the release and expansion of our creative force.

Many deaths incorrectly attributed to AIDS

What has happened since the Great AIDS Con is that now anyone who dies from a diminished immune system is said to have died of the all encompassing term, AIDS. It is even built into the diagnosis. If you are HIV positive and you die of tuberculosis, pneumonia, or 25 other unrelated diseases now connected by the con men to "AIDS", you are diagnosed as dying of AIDS. If you are not HIV positive and you die of one of those diseases you are diagnosed as dying of that disease, not AIDS. This manipulates the figures every day to indicate that only HIV positives die of AIDS.
This is a lie.
Many people who die from AIDS are not HIV positive and the reason that the figures for AIDS deaths have not soared as predicted is that the overwhelming majority of people diagnosed HIV positive have never developed AIDS. Why?
Because HIV has nothing whatsoever to do with AIDS.
Anything that breaks down the immune system causes AIDS and that includes so-called recreational drugs. The vast majority of AIDS deaths in the United States involve homosexuals and this perpetuates the myth that it has something to do with sex. But homosexuals in the US are among the biggest users of drugs which genuine doctors have linked to AIDS. Prostitutes who take drugs often get AIDS, prostitutes who do not take drugs invariably do not get AIDS.
The rise in the AIDS figures in the United States corresponds perfectly with the increase in the use of drugs – most of which are made available to people on the streets by elements within the US Government, including Bill Clinton and George Bush. In Africa, the breakdown of the immune system, now known as AIDS, is caused by ill health – lack of good food, clean water and the general effects of poverty. Haemophiliacs do not die from HIV-infected blood, they die, as they did before the AIDS scam, from a quirk in their own immune system. Their immune system locks into foreign proteins in the infused blood and on rare occasions it can become confused during this process and attack itself. Their immune system, in effect, commits suicide. HIV is irrelevant to that.
Yet how many people today who have been diagnosed HIV positive are having their lives blighted by the fear that the symptoms of AIDS will start any moment?
AZT is the killer. There is not a single case of AZT reversing the symptoms of AIDS. How can it? It’s causing them, for goodness sake. The AIDS industry is now worth billions of pounds a year and makes an unimaginable fortune for the drug industry controlled by the Rockefellers and the rest of the Global Elite.
"We can be exposed to HIV many times without being … infected… Our immune system creates [antibodies] within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system."
– Quote from Dr Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize-winning virologist credited with the co-discovery of HIV, as stated in the documentary film House of Numbers (…)

This article is reprinted courtesy of David Icke from

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,

Published in: on January 12, 2010 at 3:11 pm  Leave a Comment  

Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA

January 11, 2010  by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA.
Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers – backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (…)
In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons — high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue.
The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "…unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."
In layman’s terms, any time you’re talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you’re essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health.

Never approved as safe for humans

"At first glance, it’s easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging," reports (…). "But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe."
And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices."
(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you’ll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?)
The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at:
There, study authors conclude: "Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."
In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA.

Could these scans cause cancer and birth defects?

Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don’t yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use.
How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are perfectly safe, we’re told — but then why do children who live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer?
Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health — a preposterous notion — and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn’t hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they’ve never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.
What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.
Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (which they do, when you’re talking on them anyway). But if there’s one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it’s that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who’s to say they’re going to be safe?
What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won’t damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?
I’m not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn’t it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?
As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (…)
"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation."
Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.
And here’s the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can’t detect powder explosives in the first place. A determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives that won’t be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images are.
Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need then, if you’re a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear.

Radiology experts claim full-body scanners are safe

Radiology experts are claiming that the radiation emitted from these full-body scanners is perfectly safe for you. Then again, they also claim mammograms are safe, and recent science has now proven that mammograms cause cancer.
When it comes to radiation safety, you can’t trust radiologists. They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don’t have any real clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!
As BusinessWeek reports: (…)
"The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted.
‘I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems,’ said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president."

The New York Times adds: (…)
"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe."
NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners to be deployed in airport all across the country.


Physics Letters, January 8, 2010
Technology Review:…
New York Times:…

Published in: on January 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm  Leave a Comment  

Twelve Ways to Use Colloidal Silver On (and In) Your Body for Maximum Infection-Fighting Benefits


1. You can drink a few teaspoons full a day to help boost immunity and prevent infections

2. You can drink a few ounces at a time to rapidly eliminate food poisoning or other “tummy bugs” (see FREE downloadable “safe dosage” report here)

3. You can brush your teeth with it to prevent decay and bacterial plaque buildup

4. You can put it into a spray bottle and “huff” it deeply into your lungs to help quickly heal nasty upper respiratory infections

5. You can soak your feet in it to eliminate athlete’s foot and toenail fungus.

6. You can lightly spray it on your hair after washing and drying, to eliminate dandruff (Dr. Balch says many cases of dandruff are simply topical Candida Yeast infections; and silver is astonishingly effective against this fungus.)

7. You can put a few drops in your eyes to eliminate sties, Pink Eye and other eye infections virtually overnight

8. You can put a few drops in your ears to eliminate earaches in a single day or two

9. You can spray it on cuts and scrapes to prevent infection and stimulate rapid healing

10. You can spray it on burns to soothe the skin and stimulate rapid healing

11. You can spray it on shingles infections to quickly relieve the pain and trigger rapid healing

12. You can spray it on insect bites to soothe and relieve the pain, and help prevent infection from setting in

Published in: on January 5, 2010 at 12:44 pm  Leave a Comment  

2009 in review: A year of FDA censorship, Big Pharma crimes and celebrity drug deaths

January 01, 2010  by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) 2009 has been a crazy year for health and medicine. It was the year that Congress rammed through a mandatory health "reform" bill that violates the U.S. Constitution in forcing all Americans to buy government-mandated products and services from greedy corporations. Although it hasn’t been signed into law yet, the very fact that it has been passed by both the House and the Senate is alarming: America is just one signature away from becoming a medical dictatorship.
But that’s not the only big health news that happened in 2009. In all, 2009 was a year of corruption, scientific fraud and health freedom oppression. Here are some of the highlights:


The FDA was hit hard in 2009 was accusations of corruption and criminal behavior. In January, the FDA’s own scientists accused management of committing crimes (…). And in August, the FDA abandoned even the appearance of standing up for safety by declaring that mercury fillings are safe for everyone (…).
In order to protect its authority and boost Big Pharma’s sales, the FDA also went after numerous natural health companies in 2009. Stephen Heuer was arrested by the FDA in January (…), and by June, the FDA had threatened to seize all natural products that boost immune health and protect against the swine flu (…).
The FTC also joined the tyranny bandwagon, engaged in a war of threatening tactics against a ministry selling anti-cancer herbs (…) and ultimately ordering them to lie to their customers about their products (…). The FTC even went after Dr. Weil, threatening him with arrest and imprisonment for daring to accurately describe the immune boosting effects of the astragalus herb (…).
Topping off the year of tyranny and oppression, in December the FDA staged an illegal kidnapping of herbal formulator Greg Caton who was threatening the cancer industry with his anti-cancer salve products made from Ecuadorian herbs (…).


Big Pharma corruption

2009 was also a bad year for Big Pharma. All kinds of new findings came out that show the dangers of pharmaceuticals. For example, did you know that HRT drugs shrink women’s brains? (…)
The drug industry was also shown to be engaged in blatant scientific fraud. AstraZeneca, for starters, taught its sales reps how to lie to doctors (…), and throughout the pharmaceutical industry, many clinical trials were exposed as being entirely fraudulent (…).
On the researcher side, Big Pharma scientist Dr. Scott Reuben was caught fabricating 21 studies (…) — most of which were widely quoted by other doctors to push dangerous pills onto children. Also in 2009, Pfizer actually admitted to committing felony crimes over its marketing of Bextra (…).
Merck was found to have created a "hit list" of doctors targeted for destruction — doctors who were speaking out against the safety of the company’s drugs (…). The company was also busted over its hiding of data about the dangers of Vioxx (…).
Not to be out-frauded by Merck, Pfizer paid a record $1.3 billion fine in 2009 for intentionally misbranding its drugs (…).
Similarly, the Dept. of Health and Human Services was caught backing a medical device "review board" that was actually led by a dead dog (…)

Read more:

Technorati Tags: ,,

Published in: on January 1, 2010 at 2:18 pm  Leave a Comment