“For by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.”

“For by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.”

The Link Between Alzheimer's And Aspartame

The Link Between Aspartame And Alzheimer's 

By Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum
www.mpwhi.com

In the name of weight loss, fat loss, and sugar-free diets, the world has been trending towards low- or no-calorie artificial sweeteners like Aspartame. If you're health conscious, you've probably been warned not to jump on the Aspartame/Splenda train, as these no-calorie sugar substitutes have been linked to brain damage, headaches, migraines, increased hunger, weight gain, seizures, and cancer. In fact, Aspartame is the number one cause of side effect complaints to the FDA­10,000 complaints and 91 documented symptoms! Even as studies continue to tighten the link between Aspartame and Alzheimer's, the FDA has yet to remove its stamp of approval.

Alzheimer's and Methanol Toxicity

Methanol toxicity seems to be the driving mechanism behind the link between Aspartame and Alzheimer's. Here's how it works:

Aspartame is manufactured as a mixture of aspartic acid and synthetically modified phenylalanine, which contains a methyl group. The phenylalanine sweetens the aspartame up, making it a viable sugar substitute. The problem with this phenylalanine methyl bond (called a methyl ester) is that it is extremely fragile and easily detaches and becomes methanol, which scours our cells and tissues.

But what's wrong with methanol? Nothing, when it comes as part of a whole food like a fruit or vegetable. In this case, methanol binds with pectin and is safely eliminated through your digestive tract. But…when it's not binded to something (as is the case with Aspartame)…it becomes a poison in your body.

Your cells convert methanol from Aspartame into formaldehyde. Every other mammal except humans is able to convert this toxic formaldehyde into harmless formic acid. Humans, however, cannot, and the formaldehyde stays in toxic form and presents as methanol toxicity in the body. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that damages the retina and DNA, and may cause birth defects.

The symptoms of methanol toxicity include:
Ringing in the ears
Headaches
Nausea
Headaches
Digestive upset
Vertigo
Chills
Mental disturbances
Vision problems
Weakness
Neuritis
Shooting pains in the limbs

 The Invalidity of Animal Studies 

The studies that assert the safety of Aspartame have tested the effects of the artificial sweetener on animals, not humans­which renders the validity of these tests null and void, as humans don't have the biological mechanism to break down Aspartame's dangerous components like animals do. Case in point, a recent study on rhesus monkeys demonstrated that methanol toxicity was much more likely to occur than what was previously demonstrated by a similar study on mice. Mice fed methanol presented partial “Alzheimer's disease-like symptoms,” while rhesus monkeys fed methanol exhibited persistent pathological changes linked to Alzheimer's. What's declared “safe” by the FDA according to animal studies does not translate to safety in humans.

Artificial sweeteners aren't a safe alternative to sugar. Use all-natural sweeteners like honey, Yacon syrup, and coconut sugar instead.

What is Contagion?

What is Contagion?

Note: With all this Cornova Virus going on, people are getting worried about contagion. But what really is contagious disease? Can you really “catch” someone else's garbage? Can you really “catch” a disease? Or, is it the same habits that you have like all around you that you get it?

This article is not about the Cornova Virus, but about catching ordinary diseases, like the flu and common cold.

Hygienic Review

Vol. XXIX September, 1967 No. 1

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.

Cancer Genocide

Cancer Genocide

"We are not dealing with a scientific problem. We are dealing with a political issue."--Samuel Epstein, M.D.

CANCER INDUSTRY Psychology. Going back over 100 years numerous medical men such as Coley, Hoffer, Burzynski, Gerson, Ivy, Burton, Manner, Revici, Hamer (95% cure rate), Issels, Beres, Moerman, Pallares, Nichols, Willner, scientists/researchers such as Warburg, Rife, Koch, Reams, Naessens, Beljansky, Kelley, Krebs, Stone, Beard, Budwig, Cantwell, Livingstone, Beres, Lakhovsky, healers such as Keller, Shulze, Breuss, Kushi, Binzel, Hoxsey, Caisse, Wigmore, Vonderplanitz etc, (and age old medicine such as Urine therapy) have found answers to cancer, the combined knowledge of which would cure most, if not all, cancers, certainly combined with the knowledge the Elite keep to themselves which is 100-500+ years ahead of anything we are allowed to use (see: Suppressed/secret technology).

However, the Medical Mafia has suppressed all this non-Pharma (Allopathic) cancer knowledge (Reason 1: $400 Billion yearly turnover. 2: Genocide) as well as the causes (and prevention), the main suspects being Death Towers, Chemtrails, Junk Food, chemicals and drugs such as Pesticides, and vaccines, along with sugar, root-canals and miasms, while they have actively promoted the widespread use of cancer agents, such as fluoridation, Aspartame & MSG (see the full set here). And the deaths resulting from this enforced, mostly deadly cancer medicine, can be added to the 783,936 yearly USA Allopathic deaths. To compound that Mammography is completely ineffective and dangerous, spreads fear, and Nobel laureate, Dr. John Gofman, believed that 50% of cancer was caused by unnecessary radiation primarily related to diagnostic x-ray studies!

Meanwhile everyone thinks just toxic Allopathic medicine such as radiation, and chemotherapy is the only proven treatment for cancer (even though chemo has been well proven to be useless in most cancers and even they only claim 5 year survival of 50%-70% of Leukemia in children, while 4 out of 5 Leukemia patients still die--and surgery is their best cancer therapy!) while Homeopathy, Nutritional medicine, Herbs, Hydrotherapy, Hyperthermia, Cannabis, Diet therapy, Naturopathy, Electronic Medicine, Oxygen therapy, Laetrile, Cleansing, Enzyme therapy, Lymph therapy etc is considered quackery, as their 'Expert' like Waxman claim through the media. How's that for a perfect example of mass mind control, and Communism? With just one disease and one type of drug. Vying with vaccination as the most lucrative and nastiest racket of The Medical Mafia.

Some quotes

"Every discoverer of a cancer remedy has encountered a Chinese wall of resistance," which has been the same in every page of recorded cancer history, and that the myth that the discoverer of a cancer cure would be "honored, acclaimed, and practically deified as a saviour of the human race," should be changed to "dishonored, denounced and crucified, unless he is a fair haired boy of the dominating oligarchy." THE CANCER BLACKOUT An Illuminating, Factual Survey by M. H. Clutter, D.R.L

"We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else." --The New Order of Barbarians

My investigation to date should convince this Committee that a conspiracy does exist to stop the free flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce which allegedly has solid therapeutic value. Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals and scientific research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations. A Report by Special Counsel for a United States Senate Investigating Committee

“The American Medical Association is fashioned to prescribe drugs and perform various treatments that although they may be unsuspecting, tend to weed out the weaker species. The Council views the AMA's 'modern medicine' as barbaric. Their plans are to have mind-enhanced health associates, like some of the USC medical and dental graduates, who provide the new health care for the Elite, after the takeover. Precision surgery with laser technology will make the so-called "modern methods" of surgery obsolete. Miracle medicines and herbs (God's pharmacy) will keep the body healthy. An understanding of the way the electro-molecular energy field around the body operates will allow the healthy body to be kept in perfect alignment creating perpetual perfect health or it can be brought back into alignment easily with the use of high-tech field variation equipment. This will be the modern medicine of the future and upcoming doctors will be trained in these methods in order to further the evolution of the Elite. The Elite plan to enjoy total and complete health due to their technology in electromagnetic fields. They also have antibodies against the diseases they let loose and make sure they are protected. Of course all of these findings came about by research and experiments on unsuspecting groups of people.”—Brice Taylor (Thanks For The Memories p 283)

Just where the Corporate medical mafia and the What To Think Network want your mind:

"These (conventional treatments) have gone through clinical trials and frankly are the best treatments available as they emerge. Trying to seek out other methods of improving a person's health status such as taking green tea or other harmless supplements has merit, but some of the things promoted out there can actually be harmful. (Especially if the person gives up conventional methods) As far as I am concerned, the researchers have a 'way to go' to get a handle on cancer. I do believe there are some more hopeful drugs and methods in the pipeline."--Usenet poster, 2004

There will never be a CURE for Cancer until the Establishment can accomplish their objectives by permitting it. Their primary goals are money and control. What big conglomerate will get the blessings of the Big Establishment? Nothing happens on the world scene that is not planned and designed by The Big Establishment. After 30 years of planning Metabolic Programs for some 33,000 Counselees and developing the scientific Paradigm for the PROPER CURE AND TREATMENT OF MALIGNANCY, I would like to share some of the conclusions.

First, we fall victim, not only to cancer, but also to the very clever brainwashing of our number one ENEMY. The Medical Establishment and the unending barrage of the conspiracy with the MEDIA and support groups such as the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the American Medical Association and an unlimited number of organizations that make their income from the crumbs that fall from the establishment’s table. Dr Kelley DDS

What Drugs Do To The Body

Vital Action vs. Drug Action

By Dr. Herbert M. Shelton

Dr. Trall was in the habit of talking much about what he called the "law of vitality." If he ever tried to define or formulate this law I have been unable to find the definition or formulation. However, he frequently gave examples of its operation, especially in explaining the modus operandi of drugs, or so-called medicines.

It was the medical theory of the time, and the theory is not quite dead, that drugs, by virtue of their "inherent affinity" for some part, organ or structure of the living body, act on or make "impressions" on such part, organ or structure, and this affinity, or action, or impression, was termed its "property". Drugs were supposed to possess inherently in themselves certain special properties or affinities (which constitute their "remedial virtues," or in which these virtues reside), for certain parts, organs, structures, or tissues, of the living organism, and these supposed or assumed properties were termed "elective" and "selective" because they were supposed to be "exerted" on or to "have an effect on" some parts or organs in preference to others. They were supposed to act "preferentially", that is, to select or elect the part upon which they act. Thus:

Emetics were said to act on the stomach, because they have a "special affinity" for that organ.

Cathartics were said to act on the bowels, in virtue of an "elective affinity" for these organs.

Diaphoretics were presumed to "select" the skin as a place of action.

Diuretics "selected" the kidneys as the theatre of their "operative effects."

Nervines and narcotics were said to "exert their influences" especially on the brain and nervous system.

Stimulants, tonics and antiphlogistics were said to make "affinities preferentially on the muscular and circulatory" systems.

One needs only a slight acquaintance with the most recent standard works on materia medica to know that these classifications of drugs and ideas of their "actions" are far from being merely interesting bits of medical history.

Drugs are said to have both local and general effects. They are still said to have "selective action." A standard text-book of materia medica tells us that "no drug effects all the organs or tissues of the body. The ability of a drug to affect chiefly certain organs or tissues is called selective action. Thus strichnine usually acts chiefly upon the cells of the spinal cord, morphine upon the cells of the brain, etc."

Some drugs are supposed to aid other drugs. This is called their synergistic action. Some drugs are supposed to antagonize others. This is called their antagonistic action. Drugs are supposed to have different effects in diseased and in healthy conditions. Their effects in disease are called their therapeutic actions; their effects in health are called their physiological actions. They are supposed to act differently in different quantities, and the effects resulting from an "overdose" are called their poisonous or toxicological actions. Empiric action is the "effect that results from the use of a medicine (drug) in disease but which has not been corroborated by laboratory experiments." When the drug has other effects than those the doctor desires, these are called its side actions. Drugs that are excreted slowly, so that they tend to accumulate in the body if repeatedly given, are said to have cumulative actions.

It will be noticed that all actions are attributed to the drugs. The drugs act on the liver, or stomach, or bowels, or kidneys, or skin, or glands, or nerves, or muscles, etc. As an instance of this, the text-book of materia medica previously quoted from tells us that "verifuges are drugs which expel worms."

Now, vermifuges don't expel anything. Vermifuges are expelled and if the worms are expelled with them, they are expelled in the same way and by the same actions that the vermifuges are expelled. It was this idea that drugs act and the body is acted upon that Trall fought all his life. He insisted, and rightly, that it is the body that acts and the drug that is acted upon. He proclaimed the obvious fact that the truth about the so-called "action of remedies" is the exact contrary to what medical men teach.

He declared "it is the living system which acts" and not the lifeless drug. He declared also that "the 'property' is in the living system; and that property is not 'affinity' but antagonism." Medical authors he said, by their theories and terms "endow these dead (lifeless), inorganic, and actionless substances (actionless except in the mechanical or chemical sense) with instinct, if not with intelligence." "Such teachings reverse the order of Nature. There is no affinity between poisons and the living system." He affirmed that any "relation of affinity" in "any approved or conceivable sense of the word between a vital structure and a poison," since it would result in the ruin or destruction of the vital structure, "would be in derogation of the very first law of Nature, that of self-preservation." Hence "there cannot, in the very nature of things, be any relation but that of absolute and eternal antipathy between vital organs and poisons."

He did not mean, either, that the drug had a special antipathy for the vital organism, but that the vital organism had an antipathy for all poisons. Physicians explained that drugs acted on tissues and organs for which they had special affinities, while the body "responded" to or "reacted" to the drug. He replied that the action was all on the part of the body while the drug does "just nothing at all."

The drug is "just as quiescent, inert, inactive, actionless, affinityless and propertyless, in the mouth, nose, throat, lungs, stomach, bowels, blood, and brain, of a human being, as it is in the box, bottle, paper etc., in which it came. "And it would remain quiescent in the vital domain forever if the vital organs would let it alone. But this they will not do. This they cannot do. So long as they possess life, vitality, so long they will and must war upon all noxious matters."

Living matter is active, and lifeless matter is passive, in their relations to each other. Living matter acts on lifeless matter to expel it or to render it harmless, and not contrariwise, as is popularly taught and believed. We may attempt to state Trall's "law of vitality" thus: "Whenever action occurs in the living organism, as the result of extraneous influence, the action must be ascribed to the living thing which has the power of action and not to the lifeless thing whose leading characteristic is intertia." This formulation was made by Dr. Robt. Walter, one of Trall's most distinguished pupils, and called by him the ''Law of Action."

To illustrate this law, suppose an emetic is given to a patient. The drug is in a bottle and the bottle sits on the "medicine" shelf. Neither the drug nor the bottle can get off the shelf. The doctor, nurse or attendant must take it down, uncork the bottle, pour the drug into a spoon and carry the spoon to the patient's mouth. Up to this point, at least the drug has done nothing. All the action has been by a living organism.

At this point the patient takes the drug into his mouth, he swallows it, it is carried down the esophagus to the stomach by the peristaltic action of the muscles of the esophagus. Up to this point the drug has still done nothing. The act of taking the drug into the mouth is not drug action. The act of swallowing is not drug action. The action is still action by the living organism.

Soon vomiting ensues. The drug is ejected — or does the drug eject itself? Which is it that acts, the stomach or the drug? Which is ejected? The drug is cast out, the stomach remains. It is evident that the expulsive effort by which the drug is vomited is as much action by the living organism as was the action by which the drug was- swallowed.

When vomiting follows a dose of ipecac, this does not mean that the drug has acted (or is acting) beneficially upon the stomach to enable it to eject something else; it indicates that the stomach "recognizing" the presence of a foe of life, acts to eject the ipecac. Epsom salts, C. C. pills, calomel, milk of magnesia, etc., do not act on the bowels to move these or to enable them to move. The bowels do not eject the drugs because of any beneficial action the drugs may be supposed to have, but because they "recognize" in them foes of life. The actions of the body in the presence of poisons are not due to any supposed affinity between its organs and the drug, but to the eternal antagonism that exists in these organs against the drugs. (The "affinity" of drugs is chemical, not organic.) Their action in relation to drugs are first, last and all the time, true to the instinct of self-preservation.

There is no modus operandi of "medicines." They don't operate by any method. They are operated on. The drugs do not act at all. The living body acts — acts on or against them to expel them.

The power of selective action also belongs to the body, not to the drug. Emetics are not drugs that act on the stomach to produce vomiting — they are drugs that are acted on by the stomach to expel them — the expulsive process is vomiting.

Purgatives, cathartics, laxatives, do not act on the bowels to produce diarrhea, the bowels expel the drugs by means of diarrhea. Diuretics do not act on the kidneys, but are expelled by the kidneys. Drugs are expelled through such channels and by such means as produce the least wear and tear on the system.

What, then, are those "physiological actions" of poisons we read about in materia medica? They are figments of the medical imagination. Drugs do not have physiological actions. Poisons are pathogenetic — disease producing. They are never anything else. Medical men "might as well talk of the living principles of death, or of the eternal laws of non-existence" as to talk of the "physiological action" of poisons. There are no such things as physiological poison or pathological health.

The only legitimate study of drugs in their relation to the body is that of toxicology. The local, general, synergistic, antagonistic, therapeutic and physiological "actions" of drugs are myths, equally with their "empiric actions." That they accumulate in the body, that they occasion "side actions" that they poison and injure, we do not deny. We only deny that they ever do anything else.

The integrity of the vital structures can be maintained only by preventing chemical union between the elements of the living structures and elements external to them. It is precisely because this chemical action must be prevented that the body must act to rid itself of drugs, chemicals, dye stuffs, etc., that are foolishly introduced into it to "cure" it of disease —that is, to "cure" it of its actions and processes designed and- instituted to rid it of other deleterious substances.

The vital organs, therefore, resist and expel all foreign substances from the organic domain with an intensity proportioned to the chemical affinities existing between the elements within and the elements without the living structures. All so-called morbid or abnormal vital actions relate to the expulsion of injurious substances from the body and the repair of damages. They are as truly vital actions as the regular, normal or physiological actions.

"What difference does it make," asks some reader, "whether the drugs act on the body or the body acts on the drugs, so long as actions and effects result?"

It makes all the difference in the world. When we understand that the action is vital action and that it is accomplished by a waste of vital power and, as is frequently the case, by a determination of power to one organ when it is urgently needed elsewhere, we can see that the drug must inevitably produce harm. Using drugs to provoke action — the action of violent resistance — not only disturbs the whole vital machinery and takes its attention off the task in hand, but it inevitably expends the funds of life. It draws fearfully upon the capital stock of energy and, even if it does not result fatally, it prolongs the disease or prevents complete recovery, leaving the patient with chronic disease.

It makes a vast difference in results whether the drug acts to vomit itself or purge itself or urinate itself, or the body is forced to waste its energies and divide its efforts in ejecting the drug. If it is drug energy that is expended in the vomiting or purging, the body's energies are conserved; but if it is the body's energies that are expended, a more profound enervation is produced, hence a crippling of the healing processes results. If the body is busily engaged in freeing itself of the toxins that cause disease and is forced to divert part of its energy and attention from this work to that of expelling poisonous drugs, recovery is retarded, even if it is not prevented altogether.

If coughing is checked by the depression of the nerves of respiration that follows the taking of certain drugs; if diarrhea is checked by the depression of the nerves of the bowels which follows the taking of certain drugs, then, the very substances in the respiratory tract or bowels that the coughing and diarrhea were intended to remove are left in these structures to produce the very harm their removal would have prevented. Suppression of the body's efforts at elimination and self-defense is the most frequent cause of death.

Why Most Breakfast Cereals Are Bad For You

Why Most Breakfast Cereals Are Bad For You

Here is a brief list of what most commercial breakfast cereals are bad for you:

• refined flour
• GMO
• additives
• high sugar content
• aspartame
• food colouring

When you have food that contains all of this, you are truly eating dead food. It is also a toxic time-bomb.

Refined flour – has no nutrients and thus your body robs the minerals in your bones in order to process it.

GMO – can cause birth defects, abnormal organ growth. We also don't know the long-term health effect. If you put GMO corn and non-GMO corn next to each other mice, for example, will avoid the GMO corn and eat the natural corn. That should tell us something!

Additives- are very dangerous to handle, as chemists wear cloves when they handle it. But we out this in our moth and eat it.

High sugar content – is what makes up most of the food. You can read this on the side of the boxes. Sugar comes in the form of: high-fructous corn syrup, 'natural flours' (which is usually artificial sweeteners. Then, the fact that the flour is refined means that your body turns this into sugar, too. Many cereals contain 50% sugar or more. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, many people add their own sugar on top of it!

Aspartame – or other artificial sweeteners actually makes you want to eat more. This also causes neurological damage to the brain, according to Dr. Richard Blaylock, one of the top brain surgeons in America.

Food colouring – is dangerous just to handle it, that is why chemists use rubber gloves, yet we put this in our month and eat it. Food colouring also makes many children hyper-active.

Solution

the solution is not to eat the popular sugar-coated cereals but instead have fresh fruit in the morning. Or you can have food like oatmeal (not the instant kind but the organic kind). There is also barely and rye porridge. Cook it with oil of your choice such as, virgin olive oil or hemp seed oil. Add Celtic Sea Salt or Himalayan salt when you cook it.

Just by cutting out this one food you will see and feel a difference in a matter of a week (assuming you quite often have commercial cereal. Of course, don't undo this by having doughnuts, pastry or white bread, as you will be getting much of what was in cereals.

Dangers of E-Cigarettes

Dangers of E-Cigarettes

Part of having achieving ideal health and fitness is knowing what to avoid and WHY. When you know the "why" you will be less tempted to do it. You'll also be able to encourage others to stop bad habits. So, they, too, can get Ideal Health and Fitness.

We don't hear much about e-cigarettes as we are told that there is much to learn. Well, the fact is, that there is much that we do know, as this video shows. There are carcinogenic chemicals and heavy metals in e-cigarettes.