Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Why You Should Consider reducing eating Wheat!
Why You Should Consider Even Ditching Wheat!
Erin SchumacherPeople ask me all the time why I avoid wheat and say “what’s the big deal with gluten”? Why is it that all of a sudden gluten is getting so much press? Recently we’ve learned that gluten intolerance is the most undiagnosed disorder in the United States. For every person that is diagnosed, 80 more are undiagnosed.
If you have an intolerance to gluten you could experience a variety of uncomfortable symptoms such as: sleep disturbance, frequent loose stools, acid reflux, irritable behavior, constipation, skin rashes, and upper airway congestion.
Usually there is a family history of IBS for those who react unfavorably to wheat.
So, what the heck is gluten and how do you know if a product contains it?!
Gluten in the food industry refers to storage proteins found in all grains. Meaning gluten is found in wheat, amaranth, barley, rye and any derivatives of the previously stated. Probably the most heard of gluten-intolerance buzz-word right now is Celiac Disease. It’s an auto-immune disease where the gluten component of wheat causes a reaction that damages the lining of the bowel wall especially in the upper small intestine.
Full Report Here
About the Author
Erin Schumacher is a health and nutrition theorist and healer, and shares her love of yoga and self-healing with her students and personal coaching clientele. Please visit her excellent website at www.ErinSchumacher.net.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
"Food is treated as a commodity - not seen as something that contributes to well-being
By JILL LAWLESS and LORI HINNANT
LONDON (AP) - First, there was "pink slime." Then horsemeat. Most recently? "Desinewed meat."
Recent revelations that such products have reached dinner tables, including horsemeat falsely labeled as beef in Europe, have cast an unappetizing light on the global food industry.
Critics say the widening horsemeat scandal in particular is a result of a food supply chain that has become too complex to be safe. Others say we are stuck with the system: In today's world, foodstuffs are highly mobile commodities, while consumers have come to expect - and increasingly need - plentiful, cheap meat.
Genevieve Cazes-Valette, a French anthropologist who studies food, said that throughout history, people around the world have had a special and intense relationship with meat.
"When we fast, we don't give up bread. We give up meat," she said.
A century ago, meat was a dish primarily for special occasions or the rich. That's still the case in much of the world, but today consumers in wealthy countries expect meat to be their primary source of protein, and they want it inexpensive and convenient. They'd also prefer not to think too hard about where it came from.
"They want cheap and they want good," Cazes-Valette said.
"In France as elsewhere, people have this idea that we don't know quite what we're eating. We don't know where it comes from. We don't know who has touched it
"Food is treated as a commodity," she said. "It is not seen as something that contributes to well-being.
Full Report
LONDON (AP) - First, there was "pink slime." Then horsemeat. Most recently? "Desinewed meat."
Critics say the widening horsemeat scandal in particular is a result of a food supply chain that has become too complex to be safe. Others say we are stuck with the system: In today's world, foodstuffs are highly mobile commodities, while consumers have come to expect - and increasingly need - plentiful, cheap meat.
Genevieve Cazes-Valette, a French anthropologist who studies food, said that throughout history, people around the world have had a special and intense relationship with meat.
 |
| "We reckon there could be as many as 70,000 horses unaccounted for..." |
A century ago, meat was a dish primarily for special occasions or the rich. That's still the case in much of the world, but today consumers in wealthy countries expect meat to be their primary source of protein, and they want it inexpensive and convenient. They'd also prefer not to think too hard about where it came from.
"They want cheap and they want good," Cazes-Valette said.
"In France as elsewhere, people have this idea that we don't know quite what we're eating. We don't know where it comes from. We don't know who has touched it
"Food is treated as a commodity," she said. "It is not seen as something that contributes to well-being.
Full Report
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic
By Jon Rappoport
First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it’s said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense.
However, let’s look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is “presence of antibodies.”
This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it’s a signal of infection and disease.
Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness.
Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place.
So let’s go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to “prepare” the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.
Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.
However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system—antibodies—sufficient to guarantee future protection?
On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?
There is no basis. It’s a naked assumption. It’s not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.
Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.
It’s said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.
And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it’s better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of “remembering.”
It’s another assumption sold as fact.
The terms “prepared for the real thing,” “rehearsal,” and “remember” aren’t defined. They’re vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.
A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.
The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.
From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.
But when they float in the door, why wouldn’t the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?
And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when
vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later?
The logic of this is tattered and without merit.
To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, “Well, it doesn’t matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease.”
Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn’t, to gauge the outcome.
Let’s look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population.
Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time.
Full Report Here
First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it’s said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense.
However, let’s look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is “presence of antibodies.”
This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it’s a signal of infection and disease.
Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness.
Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place.
So let’s go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to “prepare” the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.
Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.
However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system—antibodies—sufficient to guarantee future protection?
On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?
There is no basis. It’s a naked assumption. It’s not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.
Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.
It’s said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.
And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it’s better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of “remembering.”
It’s another assumption sold as fact.
The terms “prepared for the real thing,” “rehearsal,” and “remember” aren’t defined. They’re vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.
A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.
The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.
From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.
But when they float in the door, why wouldn’t the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?
And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when
vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later?
The logic of this is tattered and without merit.
To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, “Well, it doesn’t matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease.”
Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn’t, to gauge the outcome.
Let’s look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population.
Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time.
Full Report Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)