CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 13
Global Misinformation
1. Antibiotics, Bugs and Why We Attract Them
Are Antibiotics Really Necessary?
ntibiotics have dominated the field of health for nearly fifty years. Known as a “magic bullet”
treatment or “miracle drugs,” antibiotics, meaning “against life”, can speedily destroy hordes of
disease-causing bacteria. They are the most popular choice of the medical profession with regard to
stopping infections, relieving pain, or curing numerous types of diseases. For every illness there is a manmade
drug which promises quick relief. At least one of every six prescriptions written each year is for an
antibiotic drug.
Having grown up in a generation where antibiotics are readily prescribed for a stubborn case of
cystitis, a sore throat, or the common cold, we may accept without hesitation that the “magic bullet” we
are given is the best option to deal with an infection that has been caused by bacteria. Although every
medical student knows that viral infections, (including those that cause cold and flu), do not respond to
antibiotics, millions of people who are afflicted with these ills still receive antibiotic prescriptions from
their doctors. In 1983, more than 32 million Americans visited a doctor for treatment of the common cold
and 95 percent of them went home with a prescription drug. More than half of them were unnecessarily
given a prescription for an antibiotic.
Patients are rarely informed that even one dose of broad spectrum antibiotics can severely damage the
natural flora of the intestinal tract and the blood-forming red bone marrow for as many as four to five
A
344
years. What is most disturbing about all this is that many doctors themselves don’t know that penicillin,
for example, won’t cure a cold or flu. In the majority of cases, patients do not even read the list of side
effects written on the drug labels or direction sheets. Because of their very design, antibiotics impair the
immune system and hence may sow the seeds for more serious problems in the future than a simple cold.
Besides, a cold is not an illness, but the body’s first best emergency response to rid itself of toxins; the
virus only serves as a trigger for this response to occur. If a cold does occur, it should be a considered a
blessing rather than a curse.
Since most people prefer a quick-fix “cure” to a time-consuming one, antibiotics have become one of
the most preferable forms of treatment today. However, it may take at least 24 hours before infectioncausing
bacteria can be identified. So the doctor, being pressed for time, tends to use a broad-spectrum
drug that can wipe out every microorganism it meets, including those that help us to fight disease. This
may be justified in the rare event of a life-threatening infection, but certainly not for the vast majority of
relatively mild infections. In a large number of cases, specific antibiotics are administered to patients with
symptoms of infection even before the lab sample has been analyzed. The chances that they have received
the wrong drug, or have taken it for no reason, are at least fifty percent.
If a patient leaves the doctor’s office empty-handed and only receives advice on how to deal with his
illness in a more natural way, he may think that his doctor hasn’t done his job or is irresponsible. The
physician too, facing a viral infection, often prefers the comparatively “safe” option of an antibiotic to
being blamed for not doing enough for the patient, particularly when the patient is a child. Otherwise, he
might even risk a lawsuit against him. Even though the probability that a child really requires antibiotics is
as low as 1 in 100,000, nearly 95 percent of all children taken to the doctor are given such drugs. In most
of these cases, antibiotics are being abused to act as placebos “to please” overly worried mothers.
Antibiotics Damage the Immune System
“Antibiotics can hijack the immune system, leaving the body unable to defend itself,” says New Yorkbased
family physician and natural medicine advocate Fred Pescatore, MD, author of Feed Your Kids Well
(Wiley). These anti-life drugs are routinely prescribed for infections, including benign ones. An infection,
however, is not a disease; it rather is the body’s natural response of neutralizing and removing toxic
substances that have been caused by such simple events as overeating, dehydration, consumption of junk
foods, and previous exposure to antibiotics. The body has to pay a high price for being forced to deal with
antibiotics. The poison of the drug destroys not only infection-causing microbes, but also friendly bacteria
that help us digest our food, remove toxins, and produce important micro-nutrients such as B-vitamins. As
these essential bacteria become increasingly depleted the population of harmful bacteria begin to increase
in number and finally dominate in the intestinal tract (see section on Candida), turning even nutritious
foods into pure poison.
The immune system, of which 80 percent is located in the intestines, tries to neutralize the hostile
bacteria and the poison by mobilizing its defense forces. The result is inflammation, which may occur
anywhere in the body. Swellings of the lymph nodes, fever, skin eruptions, etc., are indications that the
immune system is responding and still active and intact. This fight can take from 2-6 days or longer,
depending on the extent to which a previous course of antibiotics has suppressed the immune system, and
damaged the natural intestinal flora. Antibiotic treatment only succeeds in masking the symptom while
giving the impression that we have conquered the illness, whereas in truth, we have made it worse. We
will actually have prepared the ground for chronic disease. The toxins are still in the body; this time,
345
however, they are no longer circulating, but are deposited in the more hidden structures of the body, i.e.,
the tissues and organs. Much of the antibiotics remain in the liver, which changes bile flora and causes
gallstones to be formed both in the bile ducts of the liver and in the gallbladder.
Each further course of antibiotics continues to impair the immune system and intestinal flora, as well as
the bile flora, making room for disease-causing microbes to spread throughout the body. With regular
intake of antibiotics, the immune system becomes so weak and passive that it is no longer able to defend
the body against real life-threatening diseases like cancer, MS, and AIDS. This applies to people
everywhere, both in the developed and the underdeveloped world.
For decades, large groups of the East African population have been exposed to antibiotics for
“experimental purposes.” Many drugs that have been banned in industrialized nations because of life
endangering side effects can now be found in the drug stores of developing countries. Their powerful
immune-suppressive effects may explain the appearance of many new types of diseases that have never
occurred in such countries before. Consequently, they may have triggered the recurrence of old infectious
diseases.
Biological Warfare
The antibiotic approach of treatment is costing human society more than anyone could have anticipated.
The bugs that were “successfully” subdued for decades with antibiotics are now taking revenge, producing
what is known as “antibiotic resistant organisms,” i.e., germs that defy antibiotic treatment.
Antibiotics stop the symptoms of disease by destroying harmful bacteria. Since the drugs cannot
discriminate between good and bad bacteria, they also damage the intestinal flora as well as the bile flora.
Because antibiotics are products of microbes that have been derived, for example, from carcasses, they are
deadly for living bacteria.
It is a law of nature that every living organism wants to live and survive for as long as it possibly can.
Bacteria that are exposed to regular supplies of the toxic anti-biotic substances will, therefore, try to
become immune to the poisons. To survive such assaults they have their own sophisticated defense
strategies, which are in a way similar to ours when we need to defend ourselves against invasive bacteria
or viruses. one possible way for bacteria to evade an antibiotic attack is to mutate their genes. As a result,
the bacteria become resistant to the active ingredients of a drug, which renders the drug ineffective. You
may have wondered why so many brands of antibiotics stay on the market for relatively short periods of
time. one reason for this is that the bacteria have outsmarted the antibiotics, and more powerful drugs
need to be employed to kill the newly mutated strains of bacteria. Another reason for being withdrawn
from the market is the more frequent occurrence of serious side effects that arise from giving the drugs to
large numbers of people.
What is most disturbing is that the more we use these drugs, the more resistant the bacteria will
become. Top researchers in this field already admit that they are fighting a losing battle. We have
overused antibiotics to such a degree that every disease-causing bacterium has now mutated versions that
resist at least one antibiotic.
When an antibiotic attacks a colony of bacteria, most of them die. Yet some of the microbes know how
to survive because they harbor mutant genes that resist their destruction. These mutant bacteria then pass
on their resistant genes to other bacteria and within 24 hours each of them may have left an estimated
16,777,220 offspring, equally resistant to the antibiotic drug.
346
The nightmare doesn’t stop there. The mutant bacteria begin to share their resistant genes with other
unrelated microbes they come into contact with, making all sorts of micro-organisms resistant to treatment
as well. The well-known microbiologist Stanley Falkow once said that bacteria are “clever little devils”
that can become resistant to drugs they’ve never met and anticipate confrontations with other ones. In this
way, bacteria become super-germs or super-bugs, capable of evading any attack through drugs. They lurk
particularly in places where antibiotics are used more often than elsewhere, i.e. hospitals and nursing
homes. According to recent research findings, five to ten percent of all people checking into hospitals
today are going to get infected as a result of antibiotic resistant bacteria lodging within these buildings.
Except for the sterile environment of surgery theatres, the super-bugs can be found riding on dust
particles of the heating and air-conditioning systems, in bathrooms and toilets, and even in the food. They
account for most of the deaths in hospitals today. The super-bugs “choose” those patients whose immune
systems have already been impaired through sickness, surgery, and/or previous encounters with
antibiotics. Under normal circumstances we can live with the bugs without ever getting infected and if we
do get infected, our body can deal with them effectively and become immune to them at the same time.
This natural resistance to the bugs decreases drastically with the first course of antibiotics taken for a
simple infection.
Because of the excessive use of antibiotics in and out of hospitals, antibiotic resistant organisms have
now become the commonest cause of infection. To make matters worse, in many countries people can now
acquire antibiotics over the counter. Since precise dosage depends on the individual and the potency of the
infection, and since there is no set time limit to the number of courses a person may require, antibiotics
can never be considered “safe.” Interrupted intake or too low a drug dose can encourage the growth of
resistant bacteria, which then can be passed on to other people as well. This may increase the risk of
infection for those who are near a person who takes antibiotics and may explain why infection is higher in
families where they have been used before.
Indiscriminate use of antibiotics seems to be doing more damage than we can even begin to understand.
Antibiotics are among the most powerful immune suppressants that exist. Most people who are ill and die
don’t actually die from their diseases. They die from opportunistic bacterial infections while their immune
systems are low. This applies to cancer, AIDS, and most other killer diseases. Autopsies revealed that
many of the patients who died from an “AIDS” disease had never actually been infected with HIV but
were killed by antibiotic resistant super-bugs. The bugs caused similar symptoms to the ones considered
being AIDS-diseases.
Losing the Battle with Disease?
The world is not only experiencing a vast number of new man-made epidemics, but old ones, too, seem
to be making a comeback. In 1978, the United Nations adopted a “Health for All, 2000” resolution, setting
the goals for eradicating infectious disease by the century’s end. But the germs didn’t co-operate. Apart
from at least 29 previously unknown diseases, 20 well known ones have re-emerged, including malaria,
tuberculosis, pneumonia, cholera, yellow fever and dysentery. The germs causing the diseases are rapidly
mutating to forms beyond the reach of today’s antibiotics.
Drugs that once cured malaria are being foiled by the mosquito-borne-parasite. Its “changing coat” of
mutations baffles scientists. The “super drugs” of yesterday have become today’s weapons of selfdestruction.
A century of using quinine-based drugs as a prophylactic in people who did not even have
347
malaria has fostered the evolution of new strains of quinine-resistant malaria that defy conventional
treatment.
Hemorrhagic dengue, another mosquito fever, has struck in India, Africa, and parts of Latin America
for the first time in at least a half-century. An Asian strain of cholera reached Latin America in 1991 and
at least 1.3 million people have been stricken. But not only is the developing world afflicted. The U.S.
death rate from infectious diseases rose 58 percent between 1980 and 1992. In 1995 hemorrhagic dengue
reached Texas. We seem to be in a battle we cannot win. What is most disconcerting is that those who
have used the “magic bullet” approach to disease in the past have contributed greatly to the new wave of
infectious diseases that are sweeping the globe. In a sense, man is now forced to become aware of his
mistakes and to employ natural methods of healing instead of drugs that are designed to kill biological
organisms. Tuberculosis (TB) is a typical example of this learning process.
Tuberculosis – Nature Fighting Back
Once killer disease number one, TB has now developed multiple drug resistance and claims millions of
lives each year. The World Health Organization has declared TB a global emergency. In 1990 the disease
earned itself the title of being the world’s number one killer pathogen, responsible for the deaths of nearly
three million people worldwide. Fifty years of using antibiotics in the treatment of diseases have made the
TB bug so resistant to treatment that wherever it finds a fertile ground it causes death, especially in
developing countries where hygiene is often very poor.
The Western Hemisphere, however, is no longer safe from TB either. The first modern epidemic broke
out in New York in 1990 followed by others in several parts of America and Britain. The super-bugs can
travel around the world in almost no time. AIDS patients and those regularly treated with antibiotics or
living in poor and unhygienic environments are particularly endangered. Out of the 40 variations of
antibiotics available for the treatment of TB, only one or two still seem to have an effect. What is going to
happen when the TB pathogens become resistant to them as well, or when they are given to persons whose
immune systems are already greatly impaired, is difficult to imagine. Nobody can foresee the
consequences of our collective action that has made antibiotics to be the treatment of preference for
infectious diseases. But you and I can make a difference when it comes to creating a healthy world by
choosing not to use antibiotics unless it is in an emergency.
Several years ago a major report on drug prescription revealed that 80 percent of all prescribed drugs
are of only “marginal” use which means that it would not make a difference whether we took them or not,
except for the side effects they produce. We are now reaping the consequences of this massive abuse of
“medical” drugs. We have created an entire armory consisting of highly sophisticated antibiotic resistant
weapons – super-germs that defy even the smartest of treatments.
TB took 1,000 million lives within the previous two centuries, but then the deadly disease was nearly
eradicated from the surface of the earth through a combination of public hygiene measures and antibiotics.
One may argue that without the use of antibiotics the disease could never have been brought under control.
However, the latest statistical reviews show that TB had decreased dramatically through the introduction
of new hygiene measures before TB-antibiotics were introduced. This clearly demonstrates that antibiotics
did not eradicate TB, but improved hygiene measures did.
Today, the situation is not much different. TB strikes where hygiene is poor. Good hygiene, however,
does not only include having clean fresh, water, nutritious food, and proper sanitary conditions, it is a
measure of how clean we are inside our body. Dirt is a major source of spreading infectious diseases.
348
Modern lifestyle and eating habits have turned our intestines into pools of filth – ideal breeding places for
microbes.
TB and other infectious diseases that defy modern treatment compel man to make major changes for
himself and his world. In fact, to live comfortably and without mass epidemics we will have to change
nearly everything, from improving our diet, balancing our lifestyle, drastically reducing environmental
pollution, to increasing psychological health. These are the factors that make all the difference when it
comes to building natural resistance to disease-causing germs of any kind, including TB.
Antibiotic resistant organisms cannot be eradicated from the surface of the earth, and this may not even
be necessary. Although genetically mutated, they are still microbes that require an unclean environment to
live and to survive; their population is naturally reduced in size when their food supply becomes limited.
Our body’s “ecosystem” is not exempted from this law of nature. The belief that man is powerful enough
to bypass the laws of nature and use antibiotic drugs for minor infectious diseases is crushed by a few
evasive microbes which we cannot even see with our bare eyes. The more people stop “feeding and
fighting” them, the less dangerous they will become for us humans. This is a major lesson for survival on
the planet.
Candida – Microbes versus Microbes
An increasing number of Natural Health Care Providers acknowledge that having a clean intestinal
tract that has the proper balance of “beneficial” and “destructive” bacteria is one of the most important
foundations necessary for optimal health. A healthy intestinal tract is inhabited by over 400 different
species of bacteria, of which there are thousands of strains. The delicate balance between the two basic
types of bacteria constituting the intestinal flora easily becomes easily disturbed through use of antibiotics.
One of the most common side effects of using antibiotics against infection is the overgrowth of
Candida albicans – a natural and even necessary yeast inhabitant of our gut. A popular misconception is
that Candida albicans is a prime enemy of the body and, therefore, should be eradicated by all means. But
nothing could be further from the truth. Candida albicans is one of the essential microorganisms in the
body that are termed "saprophytic," meaning, they decompose dead, potentially toxic tissue. Candida only
proliferates when there is a need to help the body prevent a major toxicity crisis. Candida albicans is not
out to harm the body. Candida overgrowth problems tend to gradually lessen as the body detoxifies.
Candida albicans also helps to break down sugar. When carbohydrate digestion is incomplete or
impaired, you can expect a drastic increase in of these microbes. Under normal circumstances, Candida,
which lives in most mucus membranes, is kept in check by what is generally considered beneficial
bacteria, such as lactobacillus acidophilus and the bifido bacteria. We have more friendly bacteria in our
body than we have cells and one third of our eliminated fecal matter consists of these tiny helpers; without
them we could not live.
Antibiotics, which target the specific microbes linked to infection, also kill off the friendly bacteria and
subsequently Candida production goes into overdrive and spreads like mold throughout the intestinal tract.
This interferes with the activity of enzymes that break down food, resulting in poor digestion and bloating.
If the Candida continues to grow, it develops tentacles that penetrate the bowel walls allowing toxins to
enter other parts of the body, including the brain. This can cause an entire range of physical and emotional
symptoms. They include sinusitis, ear infections, gastro-intestinal dysfunction, weight gain, water
retention, hormonal imbalance, mental confusion, depression, insomnia, anxiety, chronic fatigue, vaginitis,
increased pre-menstrual tension, urinary tract infection (cystitis), oral thrush, skin and nail infection,
349
conjunctivitis, constipation, kidney problems, gallstones, and food cravings, particularly for sugar and
sweets.
Besides antibiotics, other drugs, including the contraceptive pill and Hormone Replacement Therapy
(HRT), have been shown to cause Candida. The latter two increase vaginal glucose by up to 80 percent,
which means more food for the Candida bacteria. The typical junk food diet of modern life high in fat and
sugar contributes to a further spread of Candida. Like most other diseases, Candida, too, is but a toxicity
crisis, and merely one of the body’s natural responses of the body to rid itself of accumulated toxins.
Candida spreads wherever there are toxins that need to be “digested.” Any weakening influence that robs
the body of its energy reserves leads to a build-up of toxins and helps to spread Candida further.
Dealing with Candida Infection
A survey of 3.000 patients who had been treated for Candida-related problems revealed that 90 percent
of them had reported excessive and prolonged use of broad-spectrum antibiotics before being infected.
Antibiotics cannot eradicate Candida bacteria. The more you try to get rid of them with drugs the more
resistant they become and the faster they repopulate.
If you are infected with Candida you can starve them by depriving them of the toxins and foods that
cause them to multiply. As long as there are gallstones in the liver, re-infection is almost guaranteed. A
series of liver cleanses until all stones have been released and three days of fasting with only taking water
is one of the fastest ways to deal with them, although the latter may be difficult for many people,
especially if they are Vata types. once their food source (toxic waste) is reduced, the yeast bacteria will
soon begin to withdraw to their original sites and diminish. Consequently, a diet consisting of foods that
cause the least amount of digestive trouble and toxicity is able to restore the intestinal flora. Eating freshly
cooked fresh vegetables, Basmati rice, millet, beans, lentils, poultry (only if unavoidable), freshly prepared
vegetable soups, rice crackers, oatmeal porridge, and bananas are suitable for Candida sufferers. Avoid
meat, fish, and other dead food or their products. Remember, destructive bacteria target dead cells. Drink
plenty of fresh water and herbal teas that have a bitter taste, chaparral being one of the most effective ones.
Also 2-4 cups of Lapacho tea a day can help quickly clear Candida. The same applies to green tea and
cranberry juice concentrate. The product Primal Defense has also shown to be beneficial for some Candida
sufferers.
Apply the muscle test to all the foods and beverages you normally consume. It is most likely that the
following food items will make your arm muscle weak and further the growth of Candida: Sugar, yeast or
yeast-containing foods such as bread; cakes, biscuits, chocolate, other sweets; tomato ketchup, fruit
(except banana), alcohol, marmite, mushrooms, hard and blue cheeses, fermented products such as vinegar;
coffee, tea, soft drinks, cigarettes or any other stimulants. It will also be necessary that you go off the Pill
and HRT, if applicable. After a month you may be able to reintroduce some of these foods to your diet, but
if you find you get bloated again they are most likely not part of your natural body-type diet. Candida can
be a way to lead you towards a healthier and more fulfilling lifestyle (refer to chapters 6 and 7 for details).
Are Antibiotics Responsible for the Narcotic Drugs Epidemic?
The overuse of antibiotics may have ruined not only individual lives but also entire families.
American research showed that the use of narcotic drugs rose by 400 percent within a period of twenty
350
years (1968-1988); the research linked 95 percent of the total increase to the frequent intake of prescribed
medical drugs by the subjects prior to drug involvement. only five percent of the total increase during this
period was presumably caused by factors such as curiosity, pressure by social groups, drug cartels, etc.
Recent findings in the field of neurophysiology offer some explanations as to how antibiotics may
cause substance addiction. once ingested, antibiotics, as well as painkillers, tranquillizers, and mindaltering
drugs, occupy receptor sites on the surface of our cells which trigger the corresponding expected
responses such as relief of pain, calmness, or lessening of depression. Occupied by these external chemical
agents, the cells’ receptor sites can no longer receive and respond to the body’s own drugs. Naturally, the
body begins to reduce production of its own drugs like endorphins, interleukins, serotonin, dopamine, etc.
These drugs are related to the experience of satisfaction, happiness, and creativity, something a person
naturally wishes to have.
Endorphins, for example, consist of very strong morphine compounds that are needed for a “happy”
and harmonious functioning of the entire mind/body system. We are naturally addicted to them. When
they are no longer secreted in sufficient quantities, we begin to look for alternatives. Constant strong
cravings for chocolate, alcohol, sugar, tobacco, etc., may already indicate a reduced secretion of these
brain drugs. When someone begins to have the feeling that he desperately “needs” a coke, a coffee, or a
drink, he is already addicted and has interfered with the production of the body’s own pleasure drugs.
Further interference may even urge him to look for much stronger morphine-type or morphine-producing
substances which promise to give him the relief or pleasure that his body is no longer able to supply.
The regular use of antibiotics and other medical drugs by young people is certainly not the only cause
of interfering with the production of the body’s own pleasure drugs. Addiction to narcotic drugs is a
complex problem that involves unresolved personal conflicts, family issues, social discrimination, and
certain amount of karmic discrepancies which all interfere with happiness in life. Narcotic drugs are
certainly not the main culprits that make the young people addicted. Their inner lack of happiness and
pleasure hormone production makes them already “addicted” long before they get tempted to go on a
“trip.” only dissatisfied and unhappy people, regardless of age, background, or social status feel the urge
for external substitutes of happiness. They all belong to the risk group of substance addicts.
Regular courses of antibiotics given to babies and children may not only impair many of the vital
functions in their body, including digestion and immunity, but also deprive them of the sense of internal
happiness and satisfaction in life, and what’s even worse, rob them of the basic right of development. A
nine-month survey by the Development Delay Registry of 800 families in the US found that children who
had taken more than 20 courses of antibiotics between the ages of one and 12 years were 50 percent more
likely to suffer from developmental problems, from autism to speech difficulties. Most of the affected
children had been developing normally before they were put on antibiotics.
During a medical conference, doctors reported observing children between the ages one and two
regressing, losing their speech and developing signs of withdrawal and behavioral problems after being
administered antibiotics. Children who have taken antibiotics often show signs of restlessness, anxiety,
boredom, irritability, and outbursts of anger. Antibiotics may therefore indirectly contribute to substance
abuse, whether it is tobacco, coffee, alcohol, or non-prescribed drugs.
Nature Knows Best -- Clearing Infection Naturally
Nature has a cure for every ill. This feature is a built-in necessity to sustain life on the planet. If nature
were not able to cure itself from disease, life on Earth would have vanished millions of years ago. All the
351
forms of vegetation, including the trees, flowers, fruits and vegetables, as well as all the animals and
insects down to the smallest amoeba and bacteria, are equipped with highly sophisticated defense
mechanisms to maintain their own and the planet’s existence.
Man’s immune system is the most sophisticated among all species and can develop immunity to any
invading organism. The power of our healing system, however, depends on our thoughts, feelings,
emotions, the foods we eat, the quality of the air we inhale, the water we drink, the environment we are in,
and the things we choose to do, see, and hear. If all or most of these various influences make us feel good,
our immune system remains efficient. Even one lingering depressing thought or fearful emotion is
sufficient to suppress the immune system, which may make our body susceptible to invading
microorganisms. Recent research found that toxic personalities have a much higher risk of becoming ill
than positive personalities do.
To understand how such simple things as negative thoughts, emotions, or physical experiences can
quickly disrupt the energy distribution to the body’s muscles, organs, and immune system, apply the
muscle test described in chapter 1. It will help you become more selective in what you think, do, see, hear,
and eat. To support your immune system in its fight against disease or infections you can use natural
remedies known in the traditional forms of medicine.
Ayurvedic Medicine, Chinese Medicine, and Homeopathy, for example, offer excellent remedies for
almost every ill. They do not interfere with the mechanism of healing in the body, as is the case with
drugs. Instead, their cleansing procedures and immune-stimulating medicines make it easier for the body
to rid itself of toxins or fight microbial infection. A major side benefit of these natural methods and
substances is that they are much more likely to trigger a good placebo response in the body than drugs do.
If you suffer from an infection or any other illness, there is no reason to panic! Your attitude to the
disease is the most powerful tool you have to overcome the problem. Fear interferes with your body’s
healing response. If you ask a friend to test your arm muscle while experiencing this fear you will find that
your energy flow to your muscles is extremely low. Instead of succumbing to this weakening influence
decide to take positive steps to support the body in its healing efforts. Trust that there cannot be a better
doctor in the world than your own body because it is equipped with the best pharmacy that could ever
exist. It is best to use natural cleansing remedies (that pass the Kinesiology muscle test) before considering
taking antibiotics or other drugs. The latter are useful and necessary only in life threatening situations. And
if they are taken, it is good to counterbalance the harmful side effects through a program of cleansing.
For example, coffee enemas, and preferably the liver cleanse can help the liver to rid itself from
accumulated antibiotic residues and a lot of other toxins as well. Both chaparral tea and lapacho tea can
cleanse the liver and the blood from such remnants, too. A kidney cleanse ensures that the toxins which
your body releases are actually removed and don’t get stuck in the organs of elimination, such as the
kidneys, the bladder, or the skin. The Ayurvedic hot water treatment (drinking ionized water) cleanses the
tissues. Early bedtimes improve digestion and immune functions. In addition, a nourishing diet according
to your body-type makes assimilation of food easier and more effective. Exercise serves as a means to
bring more oxygen into your cells and helps with the removal of toxic waste from the body. Also don’t
underestimate the healing powers of sunlight. If properly used, sunlight alone can eliminate many of our
ills. And drinking large amounts of fresh water ensures that the body remains hydrated and detoxification
can take place smoothly and efficiently.
Lastly, as shocking as this may sound in today's drugs-for-everything medical world, a new study
suggests that doctors of 2,500 years knew the secret to stopping a lot of serious infections: Bloodletting!
Bloodletting is effective against the staphylococcus bacteria, a leading cause of pneumonia and other lifethreatening
ailments, according to some recent University of Chicago research. The reason for this is quite
352
simple: staph and other germs thrive on iron in the blood. Reducing the amount of blood in the body
greatly reduces their food supply (iron) and thereby makes the blood less attractive to them. For the same
reason, menstruating women are protected against infection by naturally lowering blood iron before the
beginning of their natural bleeding cycle.
2. Business with Your Blood
Are Blood Transfusions Truly Necessary?
Most of us grew up with the distinct impression that donating blood is a highly humanitarian act and
helps to save many people’s lives. Blood transfusions, however, which are part of the medical emergency
procedure to rescue a patient who has suffered a life-threatening trauma with loss of blood or awaits major
surgery, may not be as safe or necessary as commonly believed. An increasing number of medical experts
regard blood transfusion to be an outmoded, unproved, and even dangerous procedure. Yet it is still
routinely used as the main method of medical intervention in emergencies – in many cases without any
medical justification for its use and no guidelines as to when it should be applied.
There are different parts of the blood that are used for the medical procedures, including blood albumin,
plasma, and whole blood or red blood cells. In its 1989 publication entitled “Blood Technologies, Services
and Issues,” the Office of Technology Assessment Task Force in the U.S. examined the overuse of the
various blood products and came to the conclusion that as much as 20-25 percent of the red blood cells, 90
percent of the albumin and 95 percent of the fresh-frozen plasma transfused into patients are unnecessary.
A major Canadian study, which was published in 1998 in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, revealed that fewer patients died when they were given a restricted amount of transfused
blood. During the trial, 52 percent fewer transfusions were given to the restrictive group, and transfusion
was avoided altogether in one-third of those patients. The death rate in the control group, which received
normal, liberal amounts of blood transfusions, was 24 percent, compared with 18 percent in the restrictive
transfusion group. “The bottom line is less transfusion is better than more transfusion” said Paul Herbert,
the trial’s principle investigator. Such a policy could effectively save one life for every 17 patients
transfused with the restrictive strategy.
The most common trigger for authorizing a blood transfusion for hospital patients awaiting surgery is a
low hemoglobin level (hemoglobin in red blood cells is used to transport oxygen to all the other cells in the
body). Women naturally have a lower red blood cell count than men but medics use the same trigger levels
for both men and women. “Iron deficiency anemia continues to be among the leading reasons for
transfusions, even though it rarely warrants [them],” said the USA Office of Technology report in its
concluding statement.
The standard hemoglobin trigger level for justifying a transfusion lies at below ten gram (g) per 100
milliliters (ml) of blood. This figure emerged from a misreading by a hematologist during a study of
hemoglobin levels in dogs! The results of the study, which showed no established links with human
physiology, became the main referential guideline for all anesthesiology students thereafter.
353
Dangers Lurking in the Blood
It is commonly known that diseases can be transmitted by way of blood transfusions. But apart from
receiving viruses through foreign blood, patients may develop even more serious complications as a result
of a transfusion. Numerous studies show that blood transfusions given to cancer patients can cause
depression of their immune system leading to a high rate of recurrence and secondary cancers.
In a controlled study of patients with larynx cancer, the recurrence rate was 14 percent among those
who did not receive blood transfusions compared to 65 percent among those who did. More specific
research showed that half of a number of patients who suffered from colonic, rectal, cervical and prostrate
cancers and received whole blood, were reported to have a recurrence compared to a quarter among those
who received only red blood cells.
Blood components are routinely irradiated, supposedly to avert rejection of the foreign blood by the
recipient’s immune system. There are no studies to show that this practice is harmless for the blood cells,
it is simply assumed that it has no negative consequences. But knowing what we know today about the
dangers of radiation, it can equally be assumed that irradiating blood cells could be hazardous to health,
especially if it is given to babies and pregnant mothers.
What makes blood transfusion so risky is that there has never been a randomized, double-blind control
study to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety. There is no scientific proof at all that could justify its use.
Like an antibiotic drug, blood transfusion may have its place as a last resort measure to save a person’s life,
but as a standard practice it does not only fail to achieve the desired results, but it may be doing more harm
than it does good.
A number of studies confirmed that receiving a transfusion during an operation increases the risk of
infection fourfold. Considering the high sterility of objects and environment in operation rooms, having a
blood transfusion takes a patient practically back to surgical conditions that existed over two hundred
years ago, when precautions against infection didn’t exist.
Genetic blood research has proven that blood, like our fingerprints, is uniquely individual, implying
that it cannot be transferred to another person without risking complications. Each person’s blood contains
a multiplicity of antibodies, antigens, and infectious agents. Science has yet to identify most of them. This
makes transfusions even more risky because the majority of infectious agents contained in blood have not
even been identified and can therefore not be targeted with drugs. But even if a blood-borne infection is
diagnosed, it is a little too late. In the United States there are 230,000 new cases of hepatitis a year that are
purely the result of blood transfusions. Just as is the case with the AIDS test, the screening of blood for the
hepatitis C virus, for example, has turned out to be an equally futile undertaking. Most of the newly
developed tests, including Riba-2 and Murex ELISA, proved wrong three-quarters of the time.
Furthermore, a blood transfusion increases a patient’s risk of acquiring human T-cell leukemia tenfold
when compared with contracting HIV through blood. It may also trigger unforeseeable, life-threatening
allergic reactions. In patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, blood transfusion is the most
dominating contributing factor to organ system failure. It is more and more obvious that there is neither a
safe blood transfusion nor “pure” or “safe” foreign blood.
354
The Alternatives
There is clear evidence that a person’s red blood cell count is not as important as his total circulating
volume of fluid. With a high volume your body can speed up the flow of even a low red blood cell count.
It is much more problematic if a patient loses a large amount of fluid from the circulatory system, which
would coerce the heart to make an enormous effort to send those red blood cells around all the vital organs.
All alternative techniques to blood transfusion are based on first stopping the bleeding and second
replacing the lost amount of circulating fluids. This can be achieved in a number of ways.
Auto transfusion is a very safe method to supply patients who have undergone major surgery,
including coronary bypasses, congenital heart surgery, or surgical removal of cancer with their own blood
donated ahead of time.
Hemodilution is a technique that maintains the amount of fluid circulating around the body through
artificial volume expanders that could be either colloids (starches or gelatin) or crystalloids (sugar or
saline solutions). A major study of over 10,000 surgery patients showed that adults can undergo rapid loss
of 1,000 - 2,000 ml blood (about a third of their total volume) and will not go into irreversible shock if
adequate hemodilution is maintained. Many other studies also demonstrate that adult patients can tolerate
seven to ten times lower levels of hemoglobin during surgery than is normal and still survive. A very large
study of 6,000 open heart surgery patients confirmed that by disregarding blood transfusions altogether
and using only volume expanders, patients had improved outcomes, and had to pay less. In addition they
had eliminated the risk contracting diseases from other people’s blood.
There are also other methods in use to help lowering a patient’s temperature and blood pressure to
conserve blood loss and excessive bleeding, as well as drugs that can increase red blood cell production.
All of them have very little or no side effects. Whenever doctors have to conduct surgery on members of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they have no other choice but to use the blood-free procedures (with higher
success rates than those obtained by ordinary transfusion). The success has motivated the doctors and
some of their colleagues to adopt the procedures for all their patients.
Your Blood is Your Life
Blood carries much more importance than just being a vehicle for the distribution of nutrients and
oxygen. Our blood is the most precious thing we have in the body. It carries all our thoughts, emotions,
and memories and makes them available to every part of the body. Blood is the creator of life in our body
and is different in every person. Each of us has a unique design of blood type, which is co-responsible for
the uniqueness of our physical structure and personality. The categorization of blood into a few groups
ignores this fundamental uniqueness of every human being.
There is only one type of blood for one person in the world. Blood carries decoded DNA, which knows
what nutrients need to be sent where. It knows of and responds to all our needs, discrepancies, strengths,
and weaknesses. The blood is filled with patterns and geometric designs that reorganize themselves
according to our state of consciousness. Every new desire, feeling, or intention reprograms the blood
instantly and all the parts of the body it is in contact with. When you take on another person’s blood you
also take on his genetic information and part of his personality. The immune system can easily get
355
depressed when foreign DNA (or several kinds of DNA if the blood comes from various donors) suddenly
and unexpectedly enters a person’s blood through a transfusion. In many cases, the immune system is not
able to fight off the many viral particles and toxins that are present in the donor’s blood.
The quality of our blood changes according to our thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Negative thoughts
create toxic blood whereas happy thoughts make healthy blood. Fearful thoughts, for example fill your
blood with adrenaline, loving thoughts flood it with interleukins. Both literally move your heart but with
contrary effects. The adrenaline-shot causes panic to the heart; the interleukin-shot creates emotions of
happiness in the heart and protects you against cancer.
Having a blood transfusion may create confusion and chaos within the body and mind. on the other
hand, refusing a blood transfusion and not resorting to alternatives may put your life in danger. If you need
a blood transfusion but prefer an alternative method contact the Blood Transfusion Society in your country.
They may be able to put you in touch with a practitioner who is experienced in any of the above
transfusion procedures. If you pretend to be a Jehovah’s Witness the hospital will arrange for an
alternative approach.
3. Risks of Ultrasound Scans
By the mid-eighties more than 100 million people throughout the world had ultrasound scans before
they were born. Today, practically every pregnant woman in Europe and in North America will have at
least one ultrasound scan during her pregnancy. Most expecting women receive their first prescription for
a scan during their first ante-natal appointment; only few of them question whether it is necessary and
even less know of its potential harm. Most women’s magazines, newspapers, and pregnancy books tend to
recommend ultrasound scans to ensure safety and healthy development of the fetus despite the fact that
there is no study that proves that ultrasound scans have any more benefits than not having them. In an
official statement the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) admitted that no well
controlled study has yet proved that routine scanning of prenatal patients will improve the outcome of
pregnancy.
On the other hand, researchers in New York studied 15,000 pregnant women and concluded that
scanning provided no benefits whatsoever in any of the categories such as premature babies, fetal death,
multiple births, late-term-pregnancies, etc. In fact, up to this date, ultrasound scans have not revealed any
information that is of any clinical value. on the contrary, there is more evidence today than ever before
that scans can be harmful for both the mother and the unborn child. There are cases of women recorded by
the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS), England, who aborted their perfectly
fit and healthy babies as a result of misinterpreted scans. It is almost impossible to estimate how many
women went through similar ordeals since most of them are not reported.
In 1990 researchers conducted a large trial study with ultrasound in Finland; 250 women were
diagnosed with placenta previa in early pregnancy, a condition where the placenta lies low which could
prevent the baby being born vaginally. The mothers were informed that they should expect a Caesarean
section. But when it came to giving birth, only four women had placenta previa. In almost all cases the
placenta moved out of the way when the womb began to grow. Ironically, the control group, which
received no ultrasound scanning, also had four women with placenta previa; all of them delivered their
babies safely.
356
Human Guinea-pigs
Despite the fact that respected medical journals like the Lancet, The Canadian Medical Association
Journal, and the New England Journal of Medicine have all written about the hazardous effects of
ultrasound use, mainstream medicine has all but ignored the negative evidence. Even the FDA has
commented on the dangers of ultrasound. According to a story by the Associated Press, their position on
the technique is this: “Ultrasound is a form of energy, and even at low levels, laboratory studies have
shown that it can produce physical effects in tissue, such as jarring vibrations and a rise in
temperature... prenatal ultrasounds can't be considered innocuous.”
Millions of women around the world, without being aware of the potential health hazards of
ultrasounds, are participating in the largest medical experiment of all times. Their babies are the guinea
pigs in this experiment. They become vulnerable to external and internal harmful influences when their
delicate electromagnetic fields are distorted, misaligned or damaged by highly concentrated doses of
ultrasound; exposure to that is neither natural nor suitable for any human being. We cannot solely rely on
machines for diagnostic purposes just because machines are considered less likely to make mistakes than a
doctor is. All findings have to be interpreted properly before they can serve as a guide for treatment. As
demonstrated in the above study, 98.4% of the initial complications during the women’s pregnancy cleared
on their own simply because the body knows how to handle such problems perfectly well without
intervention. Machines don’t know that the readings they produce may actually turn out to be a wrong
diagnosis.
A false diagnosis is not the only disadvantage that may arise from using ultrasound indiscriminately. In
1993 Australian researchers studied 3,000 women and found that frequent ultrasound scanning between 18
and 38 weeks of pregnancy could produce babies up to a third smaller than normal. Similar studies
revealed that babies who had received Doppler ultrasound (to scan the baby’s blood supply) had a lower
birth weight than babies that didn’t receive a scan.
If the birth weight of a baby is reduced through ultrasound what about other functions which are even
more important for a baby’s growth? one professor in Calgary, Canada, discovered that children
developed speech problems twice as often when exposed to ultrasound in the womb. Surgeon James
Campbell from Canada found that even one prenatal scan may be sufficient to cause delayed speech.
Norwegian studies suggested ultrasound scanning might even lead to mild brain damage in the developing
fetus.
One large-scale Swedish study showed a link between ultrasound scanning and left-handedness, which
is often the result of slight prenatal brain damage. The study revealed a 32% greater chance of lefthandedness
among the ultrasound group when compared to an un-scanned control group. Needless to say,
since 1975, when doctors started aggressive ultrasound scanning late in pregnancy (usually to determine
the baby's sex), rates of left-handedness have increased dramatically - especially among male babies.
Ultrasound was approved as a medical tool of diagnosis that falls under a different category than the
ones used to approve drugs. Science has not yet studied the effects of using these different powers of
energy. As long as this is the case ultrasound examinations are under the umbrella of “legal protection.”
The complete lack of scientific research backing up the safety of ultrasound scans should caution both
doctors and pregnant women.
Yet the scanning of pregnant woman has become so much of a routine practice and practicality today
that not many women want to go without it. Scans give parents the opportunity to get to know their baby
long before it is born, although women were able to be in touch with their babies before the invention of
ultrasound. Today you can find out whether your baby is male or female, which leaves no room for
357
surprises. You can also get the exact date of delivery. But provided there are no complications you can
calculate the birth date of your child yourself. An ultrasound scan may reveal if a baby suffers from
Down’s syndrome but it doesn’t tell you how serious the condition is. The added information that
ultrasound can give you makes little or no difference because babies in general cannot be treated before or
shortly after birth. After examining all the results from published trials using ultrasound scans, a team of
doctors from Switzerland failed to come up with evidence suggesting that the use of ultrasound could
improve the condition of the babies.
Furthermore, a large trial study in the United States concluded that there was no difference in prenatal
mortality rates or in sick babies among groups with or without ultrasound. What is most disconcerting,
however, is the latest ultrasound technology to be introduced into use, without trials. It consists of a
vaginal probe that is covered by a condom and inserted directly into the woman’s vagina. With the new
technology, doctors will get an even better picture of the fetus but the baby will also get a much higher
dose of ultrasound.
Even though there is an increasing number of health professionals who are very concerned about the
wholesale use of scans, pregnant women are not informed about the possible harmful consequences that
accompany their use. Scans are prescribed routinely but you have the right to refuse one. An Ultrasound
scan should only be considered if a woman suffers localized pain or complications for which a doctor or
midwife cannot find a plausible reason. Such cases though are rare. As for now, Ultrasound has been
repeatedly shown to make no difference whatsoever to the outcome of a normal pregnancy.
4. Immunization Programs under Scrutiny
Poisonous Vaccines against Harmless Infections
For many decades, leading scientists and doctors have vehemently promoted the idea that immunization
of children is necessary to protect them from contracting such diseases as diphtheria, polio, cholera,
typhoid, or malaria. Yet there is mounting evidence that immunization may not only be unnecessary but
even harmful. Can we expect our rivers and oceans to remain healthy by dumping toxic waste into them?
Pouring deadly chemicals into a lake doesn’t make it immune to pollutants. Likewise, by injecting live
poisons contained in vaccines into the bloodstream of children the future generations hardly stand a
chance to lead truly healthy lives. American children can receive some 30 vaccinations within the first 6
years of their life and children in the UK can expect to be vaccinated about 25 times. Most of the
vaccinations, which include a total of up to nine or more different antigens, are pumped into the immature
immune systems of babies within the first 15 months of life.
Despite the colossal efforts and large sums of money spent on vaccine research, medicine has never
been able to devise a cholera vaccine that works and the drugs for malaria aren’t as effective as a single
herb. Diphtheria is still combated with toxic immunization programs even though it has almost completely
disappeared from the surface of the earth. When diphtheria broke out in Chicago in 1969, 11 of the 16
victims were either already immune or had been immunized against diphtheria. In another report, 14 out of
23 victims were completely immune. This shows that vaccination makes no difference when it comes to
protection against diphtheria, on the contrary, it can even increase the chance of being infected.
358
Immunization against mumps is also highly dubious. Even though it initially reduces the likelihood of
becoming infected, the risk for mumps infection increases after immunity subsides. In 1995 a study
conducted by UK’s Public Health Laboratory Service and published in the Lancet showed that children
given the measles/mumps/rubella jab were three times more likely to suffer from convulsions than those
children who didn’t receive it. The study also found that the MMR vaccine increased the number of
children suffering a rare blood disorder by five times.
It is interesting to note that the mortality rate from measles declined by 95 percent before the measles
vaccine was introduced. In the United Kingdom, despite widespread vaccination among toddlers, cases of
measles recently increased by nearly 25 percent. The United States has been suffering from a steadily
increasing epidemic of measles, although (or because) the measles vaccine has been in effect since 1957.
After a few sudden drops and rises, the cases of measles are now suddenly dropping again. The Center of
Disease Control (CDC) acknowledged that this could be related to an overall decrease in the occurrence of
measles in the Western Hemisphere.
Besides all that, there are many studies that show the measles vaccine isn’t effective. For example, as
reported by the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, in a 1986 outbreak of measles in Corpus
Christi, Texas, 99 percent of the victims had been vaccinated. In 1987, 60 percent of the cases of measles
occurred in children who had been properly vaccinated at the appropriate age. one year later, this figure
rose to 80 percent.
Apart from not protecting against measles and possibly even increasing the risk of contracting the
disease, the MMR vaccine has been proved to produce numerous adverse effects. Among them are
encephalitis, brain complications, convulsions, retardation of mental and physical growth, high fever,
pneumonia, meningitis, aseptic meningitis, mumps, atypical measles, blood disorders such as
thrombocytopenia, fatal shock, arthritis, SSPE, one-sided paralysis, and death. According to a study
published in the Lancet in 1985, if children develop “mild measles” as a result of receiving the vaccine the
accompanying underdeveloped rash may be responsible for causing degenerative diseases such as cancer
later in life.
In reality, measles is not a dangerous childhood illness at all. The belief that measles can lead to
blindness is a myth that finds it roots in an increased sensitivity to light during illness. The problem
subsides when the room is dimmed and vanishes completely with recovery. Measles was for a long time
believed to increase the risk of a brain infection (encephalitis) which is known to occur only among
children who live in poverty and suffer from malnutrition. Among upper class children there is only 1 out
of 100,000 who can become infected. Besides, less than half of children given a measles booster are
protected against the disease.
In a report issued by German health authorities and published in 1989 in the Lancet, the mumps vaccine
was revealed to have caused 27 neurological reactions, including meningitis, febrile convulsions,
encephalitis, and epilepsy. A Yugoslavian study linked 1 per 1,000 cases of mumps encephalitis directly to
the vaccine. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal in the US reported in 1989 that the rate varies from
1 in 405 to 1 in 7,000 shots.
Although mumps is mostly a mild illness and the vaccine’s side effects are so severe, it is still included
in the MMR vaccine. And so is the vaccine for rubella, although it is known to cause arthritis in up to 3
percent of children and in up to 20 percent of adult women who take it. In 1994 the Department of Health
admitted to doctors that 11 percent of first-time recipients of the rubella vaccine will get arthritis.
Symptoms range from mild aches to severe crippling. Other studies show a 30 percent chance of
developing arthritis in direct response to the rubella vaccine.
359
Research confirms that the whooping cough vaccine is only effective in 36 percent of children. A report
by Professor Gordon Stewart, which was published in 1994 in World Medicine, demonstrated that the risks
of the whooping cough vaccine outweighed the benefits. The whooping cough or pertussis vaccine is by
far the most dangerous of all the vaccines. DTP, the whooping cough vaccine that was used in the US until
1992, contained the carcinogen formaldehyde, and the highly toxic metals aluminum and mercury. Both
this vaccine and its “improved” version DTaP have never been tested for safety, only for efficacy.
The new vaccine has proved to be no better than the old one. Both versions cause death, near-death,
seizures, development delay, and hospitalization. DTP is given to babies as young as six weeks old,
although the vaccine has never been tested on this age group. Among 17 different health problems, the
whooping cough vaccine is known to cause sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). According to an
estimate from the University of California at Los Angeles, there are 1,000 infants a year in the US who die
as a direct result of receiving the vaccine.
Immunization programs against polio have no other benefits than economic ones for vaccine producers.
The scientist who eliminated polio now suspects that the handful of polio cases which have occurred in the
USA since the seventies are caused by the live viruses that were used as vaccines. In Finland and Sweden,
where the use of live vaccines for polio is prohibited, there has not been a single case of polio in ten years.
If live viruses used as a vaccine for polio can cause polio today when hygiene is generally high, it may
well be that the polio epidemics 40 to 50 years ago were also caused by immunization against polio while
hygiene, sanitation, housing, and nutritional standards were still very low. In the United States, cases of
polio increased by 50 percent between 1957 and 1958, and by 80 percent from 1958 to 1959 after the
introduction of mass immunization. In five states, cases of polio doubled after the polio vaccine was given
to large numbers of the population. As soon as hygiene and sanitation improved, despite the immunization
programs, the viral disease quickly disappeared. Whatever may have been the reason for polio outbreaks
in the past (see section on natural immunization), it is highly questionable today to immunize an entire
population against a disease that does not even exist anymore. It raises major questions about the motives
behind polio vaccination.
According the American Journal of Medicine, many studies have reported the presence of simian virus
40 (SV40) found in polio vaccine in human brain tumors and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Further, the history of some SV40 infections in humans is linked to the use of
polio vaccines. The polio vaccine seems ever more linked to cancers, especially in children. The cancers
caused by the use of the polio vaccine in the past still kills 20,000 people a year in the United States. This
is quite outrageous given the fact that polio itself hasn’t killed anyone for a long time.
Involuntary Vaccinations
The vast majority of vaccinations - for children or adults - are needless. And they cause hundreds of
deaths per year from adverse reactions – reactions that wouldn’t otherwise occur if mass vaccinations
didn’t exist. Another group of society that are equally as helpless against the vaccination assault as
children are soldiers. Military troops have to submit to all manner of vaccinations in the name of readiness
for warfare. The servicemen and women endure endless injections designed to “protect” them against biotoxins
like smallpox, anthrax, ricin and others.
Several soldiers have died from the often untested chemicals in the vaccines, and others have been
severely sickened by the practice. Not unlike those women involved in involuntary ultrasound studies,
360
soldiers have become guinea pigs in massive drug studies. How else could the pharmaceutical industry
legally test poisons on human subjects?
Vaccination of soldiers is mandatory. Those who refuse the shots face court martial and prison time, or
at the very least, a dishonorable discharge from the armed forces. Common side effects of the over one
million vaccinations so far injected in our soldiers have included joint pain, extreme fatigue, and memory
loss. There is current effort, though, to help soldiers secure their human right to refuse vaccination. Let’s
hope it will be successful.
Prevention of disease through vaccines is rapidly turning into a big business, and the best customer is
the US Defense Department. Were it not for the soldiers, drug companies would rather shy away from
producing vaccines. They have to be offered at reasonably cheap prices, and also need to be constantly
reformulated (which is very costly) to keep up with the constantly mutating killer bugs. During wartime
the vaccine industry comes alive and flourishes. Millions of doses of various kinds of vaccines are finding
the perfect market. No liability suits, no major objections from anyone. And no real control for safety. To
secure billions of dollars in profits for the drug business, the FDA is declaring even virtually untested
vaccines as “safe.” And so the economy is growing, but it is also becoming sicker. But then we need
sickness to keep the economy growing.
Vaccination No longer Makes Any Sense
The much-acclaimed benefits of the latest vaccine against Hib meningitis also seem to be unfounded. In
a pro-vaccine study published in 1993 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the children in
the control group who didn’t receive the vaccine also experienced a drastic reduction in the cases of Hib
infection – from 99.3 to 68.5 per 100,000.
The latest problem arising from the use of vaccines is that they can cause the body to develop viral
‘mutants’ and even spread the newly created disease in the population at large. Since viral mutants are
rarely detected in blood donor screening they can easily be transmitted through donated blood. This way,
the original vaccines may be able to wipe out the strains of virus that are known to cause these various
diseases but in the same stroke they cause other mutant strains of virus to thrive.
Research also showed that a single injection of any kind could increase the risk of paralysis fivefold.
Polio, for example, is more common in developing countries where children receive more injections than
in developed countries. A study published in 1995 by the New England Journal of Medicine showed that
injection of the polio vaccine actually caused outbreaks of the disease.
A 1993 report released by the American National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine concluded
that virtually all nine vaccines given to children have at some time been proved to cause damage,
including such complications as shock, convulsions, or paralysis. The problem is that a child’s body
doesn’t have to cope with just one type of poison contained in one vaccine, but with several different ones
contained in as many as 9 vaccines. Many children have died or become permanently and severely brain
damaged within days after immunization. In many cases, however, the adverse effects from vaccination
are less devastating but still serious enough to take a good look at the reasons why parents have been told,
or in many countries, are forced by law, to immunize their children.
361
Unfounded Vaccination Hysteria
It has long been known that in some illnesses such as measles, chicken pox and scarlet fever, one’s
experience of the illness usually confers lifelong immunity. A second experience with measles or scarlet
fever is extremely rare.
The concepts of medicine formulated in the 19th century were partially based on the understanding by
the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, who observed that an illness manifests signs and symptoms that
travel from the inner vital organs and blood circulation to the outer surface of the body. These symptoms
would often be visible as a rash or as a discharge of blood, mucus or pus. This “throwing off” of an illness
was considered a natural healing response to return to the state of balance or equilibrium. Hippocrates
perceived this labor as a cooking and digesting (pepsis) of our inner poisons during an inflammatory
illness. It was also observed that immunity to or protection from an illness arose when person had that
illness before. Today we consider a disease as being an enemy that we need to battle against.
Contrary to common understanding, an inflammatory-infectious illness does not begin when we
become exposed to and are infected with a virus or bacterium, but when our body starts its response. The
magnitude of our body’s response (severity of illness) is not only influenced by the magnitude of the
infection, but also by the stamina and inherent strength in us. The healing force employed by the body
depends on multiple factors, such as emotions, spiritual foundation, diet, lifestyle, environment, etc. Our
immunity certainly does not depend on whether we have been vaccinated against infectious agents. The
crucial factor of strong immunity is due to our immune system’s ability to keep the germs at bay or fight
them. If the vigor of our immune response is weak, germs are likely to infect us. But normally, the
majority of germ “invasions” occur silently, without ever disturbing us. Symptoms of disease occur only
at the time the immune system decides it is necessary to defend itself against any harmful influences more
aggressively.
Luis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the first researcher to postulate that diseases are caused by germs.
Pasteur's germ theory assumes that disease germs are after us because they need to prey on us for their
own survival, while contributing nothing to us in return. He initially believed that infectious/inflammatory
diseases are a direct result of germs feasting on us. In microscopic studies of host tissues in such diseases,
Pasteur, Koch and their colleagues repeatedly observed that germs were proliferating while many host
cells were dying. These researchers concluded that germs attack and destroy healthy cells, and thereby
start a disease process in the body. Although this assumption turned out to be wrong, it had already made
its debut in the world of science and the erroneous idea that germs cause infections became an undisputed
reality. Today, this idea continues to prevail as a fundamental truth in the modern medical system.
Pasteur could just as well have concluded that bacteria are naturally attracted to the sites of increased
cell death, just like they are attracted to decaying organic matter elsewhere in nature. Flies, ants, crows,
vultures and, of course, bacteria are drawn towards death. Why would this be different in the body? Weak,
damaged or dead cells in the body are just as prone to germ infection as an overripe piece of fruit. Pasteur
and all the researchers that followed in his footsteps made the choice of thinking of germs either as
predators or scavengers. Had they assumed that cells die for non-apparent biochemical reasons (such as
toxicity buildup) our current thinking about illness and health would have been completely different than
it is today. We would all have grown up with the knowledge that the occurrence of
inflammatory/infectious illnesses can ultimately not be contributed to germs, but must be located in the
various human frailties that necessitate the forces of death and decay to afflict us. Germs only become
poisonous to us when confronted with the poisons we create. Our body battles germs not because they are
the enemy. The immune action is meant for cleansing the body of harmful substances that otherwise could
362
lead to the eventual demise of the entire body altogether. The normal inflammatory response would
include high fever and symptoms of depletion of energy.
In situations of extreme toxicity, the immune system may be so overwhelmed with the poisons it tries
to eliminate that it may or may not be able to save the person. In the third scenario, the immune system
doesn’t respond to the poisons and germs at all, and no acute disease symptoms appear (no fever,
inflammations, pain). The result is, chronic, debilitating illness known as allergic or autoimmune
disorders.
In the case scenario where the immune system has successfully restored the body’s functions, it has
acquired immunity to the germs that were involved in the rescue mission. Vaccine science has pursued the
question of how we can bring about lifelong immunity to an infectious-inflammatory illness without
having to experience the illness first. It has assumed that by having antibodies in the blood for certain
illness-causing germs you are automatically protected against them. However, there is no proof
whatsoever to show that protection of the germs comes from the presence of antibodies or a normal
healthy immune response. In fact, it is much more likely that the latter is true, unless vaccine poisons have
damaged or even paralyzed the immune system.
Only when the number or rate of growth of germs exceeds a certain threshold are they then recognized
by the immune system, resulting in the formation of antibodies specific to the particular provocative
bug. The large presence of germs indicates that the body cell tissue has become damaged or weak due to
accumulation of acid waste. At that level of infection things get seriously out of control and a tribe of
germs proliferates wildly and provokes the full defensive reaction of our immune system. This is what
doctors call an “acute inflammatory response.” Symptoms usually include fever, release of stress
hormones by the adrenal glands, increased flow of blood, lymph, mucus, and a streaming of white blood
cells to the inflamed area. The afflicted person feels sick and may experience pain, nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea, weakness and chills. The sweating out and the throwing off of the illness is a response by the
body that still reflects a quite healthy immune system. A really sick person would no longer be able to
come up with such healing responses.
Once we have successfully passed the challenge of a particular illness, it is less likely that we will
experience it again. Somehow the illness and our response to it have made us immune to its recurrence. It
is more than doubtful, though, that vaccination can do the same for us by forcing the body to make
antibodies for some germs that appear to be causing an infection. It has been shown over and over again
that despite the vaccination of a person against a particular illness that person may just develop that very
illness he is supposed to be protected against. The mere presence of specific antibodies cannot protect
anyone against any illness, only the cellular immune system can. Although it is true that science knows
how to bestow antibodies through vaccination, it mistakenly assumes that it is bestowing the immune
strength that can only be developed through the experience of a particular illness. Antibodies alone are not
sufficient to produce immunity. It is well known that there are several diseases which may recur
repeatedly, such as herpes outbreaks, despite high antibody levels. Whether or not antibodies are present,
immunity to these infectious diseases can only be conferred by our cellular immune system. The theory
that by exposing the body to disease germs would trigger an immune response similar to the one
generated during an actual disease experience is seriously flawed.
363
Is the Need for Immunization Based on Statistical Errors?
As previously mentioned, the idea to vaccinate our bodies in order to protect them against possible
infectious diseases came from the famous Louis Pasteur, who was considered to be the pioneer of
immunization. In 1993 historian Gerald L. Geison handed over to the public the 100 private diaries of
Pasteur. His diary entries contained especially negative results of experiments with vaccines whereas the
publicized data had been made to look revolutionary. The published results of his most spectacular
immunization experiments turned out to be a complete fraud. The authenticity of his research was never
questioned until official statistical research revealed that immunization programs directly led to dramatic
increases of those diseases they were supposed to eradicate.
Analysis of the official statistics from several countries and their historical development of smallpox,
diphtheria, cholera, typhoid, poliomyelitis, tuberculosis, bronchitis, tetanus, etc. revealed astounding
findings. For example, diphtheria in France increased to an all-time high with the onset of compulsory
immunization and immediately dropped again after the vaccine was withdrawn. The situation was not
much different in Germany when compulsory immunization for diphtheria was introduced on a mass scale
from 1925 to 1944. During this period the number of diphtheria victims increased from 40,000 to 240,000,
with the incidence of infection being higher in immunized patients. In 1945, at the end of World War II,
vaccines were no longer available in Germany and within a few years the number of diseased dropped to
below 50,000.
Statistical data shows that most of these diseases were in rapid and continuous decline well before the
introduction of immunization programs. The big epidemics began occurring when people from the rural
areas moved into the big cities. The streets were used as garbage dumps, contaminating air and water and
becoming the source of infectious diseases. only major cleanup of the congested cities and improved
sanitation, hygiene, and housing were able to halt the epidemics and lead to drastic improvements in
individual and collective health. Vaccination programs had nothing to do with it.
How to Acquire Immunity Naturally
It seems that we humans tend to go from one extreme to the other. Now, the natural balance between
immunity and presence of germs is becoming disrupted once again, but this time the cause may be the
excessive emphasis on hygiene. Being over-hygienic can inhibit the natural development of immunity to
disease-causing agents. The causative agent of poliomyelitis, for instance, is very common among the
natural populations in the world; yet to them the virus is completely harmless. They immunize themselves
by staying in close contact with the soil, nature, and also dirt. They rarely wash their hands before taking a
meal and whatever else gets into their mouth with the food helps to build their natural resistance to
harmful microorganisms.
In the Western Hemisphere, poliomyelitis became a frightening disease only at the beginning of this
century, with the onset of the high standard of hygienic living conditions. on the other hand, these
measures were necessary in the densely populated areas of big cities where there was little ventilation of
air and inadequate sanitation.
Indigenous populations didn’t have such needs. If need be, they boosted their immune systems by
injuring each other during rituals or by scarring their skin. They allowed their wounds to suppurate, which
from what we know today is a very efficient way to strengthen one’s immunity. For them, blood letting
was a necessary act of survival during times of continuous meat consumption when other types of food
364
were not available; this helped them to keep their blood thin and reduce their body’s protein stores, which
otherwise could have led to life-endangering diseases (see also chapter 8 on heart disease).
Very often children “accidentally” injure themselves or even eat dirt because their immune systems are
run down and need a major boost to cope with more serious issues of defense. So when you intentionally
cut yourself, try to see it from a holistic perspective. You may have excessive protein in your blood or
blood vessels and the bleeding may just be the thing to cause thinning of the blood and to prevent heart
problems. This self-regulating mechanism is very powerful and keeps you healthier than any
immunization program or mega doses of vitamin and mineral supplements. This unspecified form of
immunization may be necessary from time to time in order to maintain a strong and healthy intestinal flora
(two thirds of our immune system are located in the intestinal tract). To remain healthy and immune we
need the daily fight with the bacteria and viruses.
A recent study conducted at the Institute of Child Health at Bristol University, UK, observed every
aspect of 14,000 children's lives over a period of 7 years and found that too much hygiene could be
damaging children's health, weakening their immune systems and making them prone to illnesses such as
asthma. A few decades ago such diseases as asthma, eczema, and hay fever were almost unheard of.
Today, as many as one third of the population suffer from allergies. Scientists now say that our obsession
with the latest anti-germ potions and over-reliance on soap and water may explain why the Western world
has been hit by a spate of viruses, immune-related diseases, and allergies.
The principle "what we don't use becomes useless" also applies to our immune system; it needs the
regular exposure and adaptation to everyday bugs and germs in order to exercise its ability to recognize
what's truly harmful. Rigorous hygiene drastically reduces the number of bacteria and other infectious
agents that a developing immune system needs to meet to become stronger and more efficient. Allergies
occur when the immune system mistakes for harmful invaders those harmless particles (house dust, pollen,
etc.) it has rarely been exposed to before. To fight them off, the body covers them with poison, which in
turn results in inflammation, itching, swelling, and such symptoms as a runny nose. The Bristol study
found, for example, that those children who washed their face and hands three or four times a day and
bathed once a day suffered a significantly higher incidence of asthma than did the children who used soap
and water much less frequently.
Children from larger families are also less likely to suffer from asthma or hay fever. With many
children living under one roof, minor infections are constantly brought into the household, which means
that the immune system is kept busy and alert almost all the time. If an infection occurs as a result of the
body's natural reaction to invading bacteria, the immune system produces 'fighter cells' called antibodies.
But if this normal response, that is, an infection, is undermined or prevented by artificial disinfectants or
antibiotics, antibodies are no longer made and the immune system is weakened and begins to malfunction.
By contrast, letting the infection take its full course strengthens the immune system, making it much more
resilient to disease-causing germs afterwards.
Exaggerated cleanliness and fear of infection usually go hand in hand. Many people who fail to employ
the natural ways of strengthening the immune system are paranoid about becoming infected; for them,
antibiotics and vaccines also remain ineffective.
365
Vaccination – Attack on Your Body, Brain and Spirit
Vaccines are composed of protein, bacterial and viral material, as well as preservatives, neutralizers,
and carrying agents. The vaccine against bacterial meningitis is made from the brains and heart of cows
among other highly toxic components. Alarmed by the outbreak of mad cow’s disease, the Italian
authorities ordered the seizure of the vaccine in January 1997 for fear it could cause the human version of
the disease. By injecting such cocktails of foreign and destructive substances directly into the blood
stream, the human body stands little or no chance of neutralizing the poisons.
Under normal circumstances, all ingested foods, beverages, etc. have to pass through the mucus
membranes, the intestinal walls, or the liver before they are permitted into such important areas as the
blood, the heart, or the brain. The sudden appearance of the poison in the blood stream is often (depending
on whether a young person’s immune system has matured enough) met by a counterattack of the immune
system which uses an entire arsenal of antibodies to prevent death from poisoning (allergic reaction). This
allergic response can lead to a sudden, sometimes fatal, collapse known as anaphylactic shock response.
Among the causes of anaphylactic shock are immunizations for diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, and
whooping cough.
Not less dangerous is the Guillain-Barré syndrome which leads to paralysis and is caused by
immunizations for measles, diphtheria, influenza, tetanus, and the oral polio vaccine. This is hardly
surprising when one considers the high toxicity of the vaccines. It is well known that children, whose
immune systems are already weak, experience more serious complications than those do whose
constitution and immune system are much stronger. Still, inoculations are being given indiscriminately
regardless of the children’s health status. Many children at infancy are never even given a chance to
become healthy later in life because they are regularly pumped full with these poisons. At this stage of
development a child has not yet acquired full natural immunity and has little chance to defend itself
against the assault.
There is also increasing evidence that chronic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, encephalitis,
multiple sclerosis, leukemia, other forms of cancer and even AIDS diseases are linked to vaccinations
administered in the early stages of life. Rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory disease of the joints,
which has been thought to afflict only the elderly. More recently though, the crippling disease has spread
among the young generation and measles and rubella inoculations have been identified as the cause.
Researchers from the American Food and Drug Administration discovered that vaccinations,
particularly the hepatitis B shot, could cause hair loss. They estimate that 50,000 Americans suffer hair
loss (alopecia) after immunization every year. The report was published by the Journal of the American
Medical Association in 1997.
It is nearly impossible to estimate the damage and suffering that has been created and is going to occur
in the future as a result of inadequate information about the dangers of modern immunization programs.
Parents want to do what is best for their children and they carry a heavy burden of responsibility to keep
them healthy and safe. Misinformation can create a strong conflict in parents because they don’t want to
neglect their children’s health or cause them any harm.
Health authorities are normally not exactly helpful when it comes to making it easier for parents to
choose what is best for their children. The use of the mercury-based thimerosal as a preservative in
vaccines has been associated with autism. In the late 1990s, the U.S. Public Health Service and the
American Academy of Pediatrics petitioned drug companies to remove thimerosal from vaccines intended
for children. In one study that examined CDC statistics, researchers found evidence that children who
366
receive just three vaccines containing thimerosal are 27 times more likely to develop autism, compared to
children who get vaccinations containing no thimerosal.
According to ex-vaccine researcher Dr. Davis, who worked for many years in the laboratories of major
pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health (his true name cannot be
mentioned here for obvious reasons), all vaccines are dangerous to health. In an interview he stated that
vaccines involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. “They can
actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they
are supposed to prevent,” says this scientist.
While working with different vaccines, Dr. Davis found plenty of contaminants in them. In the
Rimavex measles vaccine, he found various chicken viruses. In the polio vaccine, he found acanthamoeba,
a so-called brain-eating amoeba, and simian cytomegalovirus was found in polio vaccine. Also discovered
was simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine and bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various
microorganisms were present in the anthrax vaccine and potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in
several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses were present in the rubella vaccine, avian leucosis virus in
the flu vaccine, and pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
An what most people don't know is that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hepatitis
A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. Dr. Davis found what he
believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time which may have
come from that fetal tissue. In addition, he also found “fragments” of human hair and human mucus. Apart
from such contamination, it is worth mentioning that standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and
aluminum are purposely put into vaccines. It is left up to your imagination as to what must happen to the
health prospects of our future generations when such cocktails of ghastly poisons are directly injected into
the blood stream of a child.
Dr. Davis conceded that no long-term studies are done on any vaccines, and that long-term follow-up is
not done in any careful way. The assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should
anyone check? Besides, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all negative reactions are said to occur very
soon after the shot is given. But a vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is
given. A reaction can be very gradual, just as chemical poisoning can occur very gradually. Neurological
problems can develop over time. In actual fact, a vaccine that contains mercury may not show any damage
for several months. And who is testing or investigating when a child “becomes” autistic, for no apparent
reason? Those administering the vaccines claim “This vaccine is safe.” How can they be so sure of this
when there is no scientific research to back up that claim, and when no testing procedures are in place to
ensure their safety? Quite the opposite is true. There is plenty of evidence that vaccines are not safe.
The Vaccine-Autism Link
A recent study published in the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons
examined extensive data on vaccines in children. The researches came to this astonishing conclusion:
“Children who receive just three vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal are 27-
times more likely to develop autism, compared to children who get vaccinations containing no
thimerosal.”
Still, many doctors make it seem to be a crime if parents refuse to give vaccines to their children. They
equate it with irresponsible parenting. These doctors blindly rely on recommendations made by the
Centers of Disease Control (CDC). Just in October 2004, CDC representatives announced their
367
recommendation that children aged 6 months to 23 months should receive flu shots (which contain
thimerosal) as part of the standard schedule of immunizations. Steve Cochi, the acting director of the
National Immunization Program, underlined the CDC's official view of the vaccine-autism connection,
citing a “lack of scientific evidence.” This comes at a time when CDC officials were more than once made
aware of the large body of scientific evidence that supports the vaccine-autism link. In actual fact, the
evidence of the research used in the study mentioned above was collected from data obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act. And, as you may have guessed it, the data came from the CDC’s own
archives. It is still perplexing to me that an institution that was meant to protect the people against illnesses
gives its blessing and active support to a procedure involving injection of mercury into an eight, 12 or 16
pound infant.
Statistical research on medical history in the United States covering the years between 1940 and 1970
showed that autistic children were most common among wealthy families. After 1970, autism was equally
distributed amongst all income groups. At the end of the sixties, certain immunization programs that until
then were affordable only by the well-off parts of society, were extended to the poor as well. The same
trends were observed in other industrialized nations. Mercury-exposure to children through vaccines
dramatically increased over the past 15 years, while the rate of autism jumped from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 150
over the same period. If you are a parent, you need to draw your own conclusions. But you certainly
cannot trust the government’s agencies to protect you and your family.
Clearly caused by vaccinations, however, are small-scale brain damage, growth inhibition,
hyperactivity, learning difficulties, etc. Previously belittled as simple problems of growing up, medical
researchers now recognize them as forms of encephalitis (inflammatory disease of the brain). More than
20% of the American children – one out of five – suffer from these or related problems.
The documented evidence against the value of immunization is so comprehensive that in 1986 the
American Congress passed federal legislation to compensate children for damages arising from
vaccination. According to the law, the government is no longer liable for damages, but instead doctors and
vaccine producers have to pay millions of dollars for compensation. In the interest of everyone involved it
would be useful to re-examine and re-evaluate the basic theory of Louis Pasteur that immunization is
useful or necessary. Could nature have made such a crucial mistake to make us dependant on injecting
foreign, toxic material into our blood when we have an immune system so complex and highly developed
that millions of sophisticated computers could not imitate its performance? This is rather unlikely.
How to Stay Immune
The damage that has been caused so far is considerable and surpasses many times the problems that
could possibly arise from having no immunization program whatsoever. There are many natural ways to
acquire immunity. All the procedures and natural remedies described in this book can assist you and your
family to maintain natural immunity against disease throughout life. “The best vaccine against common
infectious diseases,” according to the World Health Organization, is “an adequate diet.” Unprocessed,
unrefined foods, including plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, help a child to build up natural immunity
and the adult to maintain it.
The most powerful and all-protective immunization program a newborn baby can receive is
breastfeeding. This way, the infant gets all the necessary antibodies to build up a sound system of
immunity to effectively deal with any type of infectious agent in the future. Should an illness arise
368
nevertheless, the body will deal with it rapidly and without suffering harm, and in fact can greatly benefit
from it.
The normal inflammatory response to an infectious disorder such as a rash, a fever, or a cough
demonstrates that the body’s defensive abilities to remove the accumulated toxins and infectious agent
from the system are active and intact. The encounter will naturally and profoundly stimulate the immune
system, so that when the child or adult recovers from the illness he is equipped with enough immunity to
respond to other forms of infection without delay or falling ill again.
For a healthy immune system to mature fully and properly in our less than perfect environment, it is
necessary for a child once in a while to contract an infectious disease such as the measles, chickenpox, and
mumps. We all have to learn to trust nature and our body more than man-made theories and practices. The
human DNA managed to survive millions of years on the planet and it certainly knows how to deal with a
few harmless infectious diseases, particularly when they help to make our immune system stronger than
before.
Natural Methods of Nursing Children Back to Health
If your child is diagnosed as having chickenpox, mumps, or measles, it may indicate that it requires an
immunity boost. Most children who have gone through these common childhood illnesses have greatly
benefited from them; they are stronger afterwards and even have a growth spurt, either physically or
emotionally, or both. Most natural health practitioners see the normal childhood illness as a good
opportunity to develop immunity. By nursing a child with natural methods, you can help him to become
healthier and more resistant to disease in the long run.
When children become ill with any of these illnesses, the main advice is to encourage their own healing
powers. This is first accomplished by letting them get as much rest as possible. Take them out of school,
the nursery, etc., and nurse them at home. Drugs such as liquid paracetamol only suppress the body’s
healing response and lead to many more “unrelated” physical and emotional problems in the future.
For a child, the period of illness is often a way to receive more caring attention from his parents than
normal. He may get many extra cuddles, meals in bed, and stories at bedtime, etc. Of course, there may be
parents who feel that their child’s illness is very inconvenient and they let them feel their frustration by
being harsh and abrupt with them. Sick children need and deserve special treatment and reassurance,
especially when they are frightened or anxious.
A sick child should not be excited or stimulated by being exposed to too much radio, television, or even
visitors. Quiet activities such as reading to them, drawing, and board games help them to avoid dwelling
on their illness too much. Make sure that they get extra sleep with early night bedtimes and encourage
daytime naps if they feel tired.
Sick children need to drink plenty of liquid to help remove toxins from the system. Warm water is the
best drink for them and should be the first option; herb teas and freshly pressed, diluted fruit juices (except
citrus fruit juices if your child has mumps) can be taken additionally. Avoid giving your child anything
cold, such as cold beverages, ice creams, sugar, or sugar containing foods; milk, yoghurt or other dairy
products; meat, chicken, fish or any other form of protein food. As the child’s digestive power is impaired
during the illness, such foods will only putrefy and acidify the digestive system and further irritate the
mucus lining. Sick children, like sick animals, generally do not want or need food. Fasting, with taking
only water, is the best way to encourage the body’s healing response. When your child feels hungry, give
369
him freshly cooked vegetable purees, soups, hot cereals like porridge with a little maple syrup, or with
good quality honey (which should only be added after the food has cooled down to less than 45 degrees).
Children need to know what is happening to them during an illness and that it is going to pass soon.
They also want reassurance that you are going to be there for them all the way. If your child develops a
fever, it is a sign of a healthy immune response. A raised temperature shows that the body has taken active
charge of the situation and is fighting off an infection. A child that has a high temperature may look and
feel ill, but the fever only shows that the immune system is dealing with the illness fast and effectively.
Parents should remember that a high temperature does not necessarily mean that their child is very ill. As
has been discovered recently, even a temperature of 41 degrees Celsius, or 106 degrees Fahrenheit and
slightly above is still not considered life-endangering. In 1983, when I lay ill with malaria in India, I
refused to take fever-reducing tablets for a temperature of 41.5 degrees Celsius (106.7 Fahrenheit) and
after the fever broke at the end of the third attack, I recovered very quickly and had no relapse of Malaria
or ever since. The only important thing to remember is that children and babies aged less than six months,
who are afflicted with fever, need to drink plenty of water, as they tend to dehydrate quickly. Sponging
them down with tepid water helps to keep the body more comfortable during this phase of healing. Expose
and sponge one part of the body at a time until it feels cool, then turn to the next one. Sponging the child’s
face and forehead also brings relief.
Another basic rule is to keep a chilly, feverish child warm and covered. This will make him sweat,
particularly at night, and help to break the fever, which indicates that the body’s “fight” is nearly over. Hot,
feverish children should be kept cool and occasionally be immersed in a bath of tepid water. If your child
has accompanying symptoms such as itchy rashes, painful swollen glands, and a cough or sore, sticky eyes,
he is most likely to recover without any complications. In case he has any unusual symptoms, you may
consult a natural practitioner of Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Chinese Medicine, etc., for home treatment
remedies. It is better not to give aspirin to children during or after an illness as this can interfere with the
body’s own healing response. If your doctor insists on giving antibiotics to your child when he has one of
the above illnesses or symptoms, try to find another doctor to give you a second opinion. In most cases,
there is no need for drugs. In one large study published in 1987 in the British Medical Journal, 18,000
children received a homeopathic remedy against meningitis. None of the children got infected and there
was not a single adverse effect from the treatment.
Elderberry has been used as a folk remedy for flu, colds, and coughs since the time of Hippocrates. And
recently, an Israeli scientist discovered exactly why it works so well. In a controlled study that had flu
sufferers recovering in record time, she found that elderberry literally "disarms" viruses. The viruses
simply were unable to penetrate the walls of the patients’ cells.
As a general precaution, don’t take your child to daycare centers or nurseries too early. This can protect
him from many childhood diseases. Daycare facilities increase the risk of Hib meningitis, for example, by
24 times. Many of the commercially run centers are frequently “visited” by all sorts of bugs. The safest
environment for a child in the first years of his life is his home.
370
5. Protection against the Flu
Protect Yourself Against the Flu Vaccine!
The vaccine industry insists that their vaccines against the flu serve as the key to a healthy winter.
Although there has not been a serious flu epidemic for 38 years, their vaccines are prescribed to millions
of people each year. You may wonder why perfectly healthy people are injected with a normally harmless
bug whose strains mutate from year to year? Although flu vaccines can never be accurate, encouraged by
their employers, millions of employees submit to a flu jab each year, trying to avoid the loss of working
days.
Influenza always starts in the Far East, and then spreads to the West in early winter, reaching its peak
during February and March. It may come in either of three types, A, B, or C. During the last several years,
type A has been the dominant version. What makes vaccination against the flu so unsuccessful is that the
strains of the flu virus are different every year and the so-called protection lasts for only six months. So
each autumn you require a new vaccination for a different virus. The trouble is, drug companies have no
way of knowing in summer which new strain of the flu virus is going to hit the Western Hemisphere
during the winter months.
The vaccine producers grow the vaccines, consisting of live viruses, in hen’s eggs, which when injected
into the body can cause side effects such as redness and soreness at the injection site and a mild form of
flu. Very serious complications arise in people who are taking immune-suppressing drugs or who have a
heart condition. If you are allergic to eggs, having a flu-shot may also endanger your health.
For the average healthy person, coming down with the flu is not serious at all. on the contrary, it can
build up natural immunity even against future encounters with new strains of the flu virus. The very reason
why nature creates these new forms of virus every year and spreads them with accurate timing is to ensure
continued ecological balance and strong immunity in plants, animals, and humans alike. Anyone prone to
repeated infections is likely to have a toxic liver with many hundreds of stones accumulated in the liver
and gallbladder. Gallstones, which harbor many types of infectious bacteria and viruses, are a constant
source of immune suppression. Cleansing the liver of all gallstones is about the best prevention against
any type of infection. People who have cleansed their liver in this way have reported that they never catch
a cold or the flu anymore.
Flu virus vaccines used until 2002 contained “live” viruses and produced so many serious, adverse
reactions that new vaccines had to be concocted. The new formula for flu vaccines is called the
“subvirion,” which basically is a mutilated virus “blended, spliced and macerated” until just bits and
pieces of the original virus are left. This in no way makes the virus less dangerous. In fact, the antigens or
foreign proteins in the vaccine, for which the body is forced to produce antibodies against, are still as
poisonous and harmful as live virus.
Besides the subvirion, there are plenty of other substances added to the flu vaccine, most of which you
would never want to consciously ingest. These include:
? Hemagglutinin antigens that cause clumping of the red blood cells, leading to cardiovascular
disease.
? The enzyme neuraminidase, which cuts out neuraminic acid from the cell membrane,
weakening all of the trillions of cell membranes in the body.
371
? White crystalline substance called allantoin, a toxic animal waste product. Due to its high
nitrogen content, allantoin is used as fertilizer; leads to kidneys and bladder stones.
? Gentamicin, a broad spectrum antibiotic, is added to each embryonated chicken egg to inhibit
the growth of bacteria (vaccine is grown in chicken eggs).
? Formaldehyde (carcinogenic), used as a preservative and to inactivate the virus.
? The toxic chemicals, tri butylphosphate and Polysorbate 80, USP.
? Resin, to eliminate “substantial portions” of tri butylphosphate and Polysorbate 80
? Thimerosal, a mercury derivative, to preserve the vaccine cocktail.
? Polyethylene glycol, a relative of ethylene glycol (antifreeze); often used to poison dogs and
other predators of sheep.
? Isocctylphenyl ether, a compound of ether; has anesthetic properties; a teratogen, causing
abnormal prenatal development. It also induces testicular atrophy in animals.
The vaccine producers are unable to guarantee that the vaccine will protect you against the flu. So they
carefully tell you that the vaccine “reduces the likelihood of infection; or if you do develop the disease it
will be a milder case.” Some express the same uncertainly about their product in this way: “It is known
definitely that influenza virus vaccine, as now constituted, is not effective against all possible strains of
influenza virus.”
Why would you want to entrust your health to a cocktail of poisonous chemicals when even a
somewhat weakened immune system stands a far better chance to protect you against harm from a bout of
influenza. Our body’s sophisticated immune system, which has evolved over millions of years, can
certainly do a better job of protecting you against the flu than anything made-made. All it needs is some
basic care taking on your part. With each new flu shot, on the other hand, your immune system becomes
more depleted and side-effects become more pronounced and severe. And, you may still get the flu
anyway. The following list includes the possible consequences you can expect if you go down the road of
vaccination:
The most frequent side effects of vaccination:
? Soreness at the site of the vaccination
? Pain or tenderness
? Erythema
? Inflammation
? Skin discoloration
? Induration
? A mass or lump
? Hypersensitivity reactions including
puritus and urticaria
? Fever
? Malaise
? Myalgia
? Arthralgia
? Asthenia
? Chills
? Dizziness
? Headache
? Lymphadenopathy
? Rash
? Nausea
? Vomiting
? Diarrhea
? Pharyngitis
? Angiopathy
? Vasculiltis
? Anaphylaxis in asthmatics, with
possible death
? Anaphylactic shock, with possible
death
372
Vaccination certainly does not create immunity. You cannot become immune by ingesting poisons that
destroy the immune system. Studies by a group of Italian scientists showed that the flu vaccine reduced
the occurrence of clinical episodes of influenza by only 6 percent in adults, and effectiveness tended to
decrease with age. They concluded that universal immunization wasn't warranted. Stated simply, hand
washing and other hygienic and nutritional measures are far superior to the flu vaccine in effectiveness.
When cared for hygienically, and by eating nutritious foods and keeping one’s intestines and liver clean,
influenza never becomes a deadly disease. Getting vaccinated against the flu, on the other hand, is a sure
way to sow the seeds for new illnesses in the body. All vaccines are poisonous, and as such act like time
bombs that will explode in due time.
Why People Get the Flu
Flu jabs lower natural immunity by injecting alien and toxic substances directly into the blood stream.
No other animal in the world takes recourse to such unnatural, superficial and crude means to defend itself
against invading viruses. The normal route of contact with a viral particle is via the lungs. The vast
majority of the population has a normal, healthy immune system and is perfectly capable of dealing with
the invaders without getting sick. But if the body’s infection fighters have temporarily gone “on strike” for
reasons other than the lack of a vaccine, the flu virus can gain unrestricted access into the body and cause
an infection.
Regular vaccination (of any kind) is one of the major causes of depleted immunity. The yearlyadministered
flu jabs burden the immune system and cells of the body with foreign toxic material without
giving them a chance to remove them again. The toxic viral particles can remain latent in the cells and
gallstones for as long as 20 years; when they emerge they can cause serious cell damage. With each new
vaccination the immune system becomes more and more restricted in its effort to neutralize the live virus
that suddenly appears in the blood. It may produce antibodies for the virus (although in many cases the
immune system fails to do even that), which is finally subdued, but this encounter leaves the host’s
immune system unnecessarily tired and weak.
Besides immune damage, vaccines of all kinds produce alterations in genetic material and thereby
cause a whole range of malfunctions in the body. Vaccines may even be the cause of the increasing
incidence of malignant diseases in children. Mass immunization programs have created such weak
immune systems that they are even susceptible to such harmless viruses as the one causing the flu. We
may have gone as far as to replace mumps and measles with cancer, leukemia, and Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome.
Flu vaccinations are mainly targeted at the older generation and young children. In the United Kingdom,
about 10,000 people, most of them are of very advanced age, (supposedly) die from flu-related illnesses. It
may, therefore, sound reasonable to vaccinate the older people to protect them against the flu virus. But
there is no total protection even among those vaccinated. Around 20 percent or more of the elderly people
who get the vaccine still get a more virulent strain of flu, and many others get a lighter form of the flu. The
same is true for the people in the same age group who haven’t been immunized. The weak and elderly
people are more likely among those who die from the flu, regardless whether they have been immunized
or not. The bottom line is that there is no real advantage in having a flu jab. And certainly, given the frailty
373
of so many of the oldest members of society, there is absolutely no reliable way of telling whether the flu
or something else may have lead to their death. The death rate in and out of the flu season actually is about
the same. But then, as we have seen with AIDS, statistics can be manipulated in ways that support theories
which have only one objective, to keep the medical business going. When a person who is about to die
anyway also catches the flu, he will be listed as a flu victim.
Instead of giving the elderly population vaccines, in the misguided belief that this would take care of
them, we could help them much more by improving their general resistance to disease through good diet,
social engagements and exercise programs. Many old people don’t have adequate nutrition and suffer from
depression; both these factors work as powerful immune suppressants. Others don’t have a warm home or
they live alone. Research has shown that these are the major risk factors for illness and death in the older
generation. A series of liver cleanses alone can strengthen natural immunity, improve digestion, retard the
aging process, restore health, and foremost of all, enhance mental functions.
In developing countries, where the elderly play an important role in society, general illness is low,
provided there is enough food available. In these countries it is more likely that old people die from
malnutrition than from a strain of virus.
There are an increasing number of reports that indicate a worsening of high blood pressure, diabetes,
gout, and Parkinson’s disease as well as an increase in all kinds of allergic complaints in adults who
regularly receive flu jabs. In 1976 an extensive flu vaccination program in America led to a massive
outbreak of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disease affecting the nervous system. The outbreak, known as the
“Great Swine Flue Fiasco,” paralyzed 656 people and 30 elderly persons were found dead within hours
after they were vaccinated. Compensation claims were enormous, which helped slowing down the
program, but only for a while.
What about the other high-risk group, young children? Japanese researchers have shown that infants
under one year of age fail to even generate a good antibody response following the vaccine. There is no
point pumping children full with vaccine poisons, except enriching the pharmaceutical companies.
Seniors, of course, are one of the core target groups for the flu vaccine program. So every year we're
told how older people are particularly vulnerable to the flu. We're also told that government officials are
holding their breath over their fear of a devastating flu pandemic. We're even told that about 36,000
people die of flu related complications in the United States each year, and most of those deaths are elderly
people. The reality of the matter is quite different, though. How many people do you think died of the flu
last year? Less than 175, according to Sherri J. Tenpenny, D.O., an internationally known leader in
vaccine research! And yet, the official line propagated by media campaigns is to be prepared for another
wave of deadly flu epidemic, killing thousands of people each new season.
In the Name of Prevention
The pharmaceutical companies producing the vaccines seem to have a more powerful effect on the
population than the scientists have who invented them. As early as 1980, Dr Albert Sabin, one of the
world’s leading virologists and pioneer of the polio vaccine, spoke vehemently against the use of the flu
vaccine, claiming that it was unnecessary for over 90 percent of the population. This, however, has not
discouraged the vaccination industry to endorse vaccination for all in the name of health and protection
against disease.
What makes matters worse is that there has never been a properly controlled clinical trial with the flu
vaccine. Because we don’t know anything about it’s its long-term effects, we may be unknowingly
374
producing generations of people with debilitated immune systems and chronic diseases. Flu vaccination is
an unproved and unscientific practice and there is nothing in the scientific literature that can certify or
guarantee its safety. The most effective way to fight infections, including the flu, is to prevent it. There is
no substitute for a health-increasing regimen. Vaccination, on the other hand, offers no real protection.
Injecting the body with foreign and poisonous viral material is counterproductive to improving our well
being. Dr. John Seal from the American National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases warned
that we have to assume that every flu vaccination can cause the Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In this sense,
prevention is not better than cure.
Help From Mother Nature
For those who are concerned about the flu and its possible effects, there is a remarkable herbal extract
(andrographis paniculata) that has been used for centuries in Ayurvedic (traditional Indian) therapies and
traditional Chinese Medicine. It is used to treat everything from isolated cases of the sniffles to full-blown
outbreaks of influenza. Apparently, Andrographis is believed to have halted the spread of the 1919 Indian
flu pandemic.
There is scientific evidence to support that theory. Researchers at the Universities of Exeter and
Plymouth in the UK conducted a survey of medical databases, herbal manufacturer information and World
Health Organization reports to select seven studies that met the criteria for double-blind, controlled trials.
The combined studies tested the use of andrographis as a treatment for respiratory tract infection in nearly
900 subjects.
In all seven of these studies, subjects who took andrographis after the onset of cold symptoms reported
faster recovery, compared to subjects who took placeboes or medication.
Researchers concluded that andrographis may be effective in treating "uncomplicated" infection in the
upper respiratory tract (throat, sinuses and ears). According to previous laboratory trials andrographis
extract doesn't actually kill the organisms that make you sick – at least not directly. Instead, the herbal
compound boosts your immune system and stimulates natural antibodies.
Animal research also showed that andrographis may help prevent myocardial ischemia (inadequate
blood circulation in the heart caused by coronary artery disease), inhibit the formation of blood clots,
lower blood sugar levels in diabetics, lowered systolic blood pressure, and protect the liver against damage.
Kan Jang is a brand of standardized extract of andrographis that has consistently outsold all other cold
medications in Scandinavia for 13 years running. The Swedish Herbal Institute, the formulator of Kan
Jang, recommends that you take one tablet four times daily to fight colds or the flu. Kan Jang can be
purchased at dietary supplement stores and through Internet sites.
6. Alcohol - Man’s Legal Drug
There is much controversy around alcohol. Some people say that alcohol can perk you up, reduce
tension and inhibitions, and bring more fun into your life. Getting drunk is often seen as a means to
“escape” the burden of personal and interpersonal problems, at least for a while. Alcohol may make you
feel euphoric and relaxed but it also has unwanted side effects. You lose control over your mind, your
375
senses, and your body’s co-ordination skills. A hangover demonstrates the powerful toxic effects that
alcohol has on the normal functioning of the mind, body, and spirit.
But why do people drink alcoholic beverages? Getting drunk can hardly be considered fun because loss
of self-control does not really make a person happy. However, despite the accompanying side effects,
many people are drawn repeatedly to having “another drink.” And why does alcohol make us get drunk in
the first place?
The answer to both these questions may lie in the brain hormone serotonin, which is the main chemical
equivalent to pleasure and happiness. With the increasing darkness of the night serotonin gets broken
down into the hormone melatonin. Alcohol, however, slows down this process and thereby maintains a
“good mood.” However, if serotonin is not broken down on time, it reacts with the toxic substance
acetaldehyde, which the body produces from the ingested alcohol.
The chemical reaction generates an entire group of chemicals that have hallucinating effects; they are
known as tetrahydro-ss-carboline. Salsolinol, a substance synthesized in the presence of the brain
chemical dopamine, blocks the breakdown of serotonin. Dopamine then begins to form a new chemical
called norlaudanosolin, a precursor of morphine and 2.000 other types of alkaloids. In other words, if you
think you are addicted to alcohol you are wrong. In reality you are addicted to morphine.
However, alcohol consumption does not necessarily turn into an addiction. Genetic predisposition
makes some people produce more morphine or opiate from acetaldehyde than others. Under normal
conditions, the side effects that arise from drunkenness prevent most people from further drinking. So the
body rarely gets the chance to make sufficient amounts of such hallucinogenic drugs to cause an addiction.
Yet regular consumption of alcohol can eventually increase this chance.
There are people who cannot afford to drink alcohol at all. Asians in general and Chinese and Koreans
in particular lack the enzyme that breaks down the toxic acetaldehyde and even small amounts of alcohol
lead to a fast pulse, abdominal pain, and a red face. For this reason, alcoholism is rarely existent in Asia.
Also, there are some who pass out after the first (and only drink) because they have no natural defenses
against acetaldehyde.
Beer – Hypnotism and a Big Tummy
If you ever had the chance to smell a hop plant then you know it has hypnotic effects. Harvesting any of
the plants of the hemp family can make you quite sleepy. Cannabis, which is used to produce Hashish and
Marijuana, is a close relative of hops. The relaxing effect that beer has on the consumer comes, besides
other substances, from the hops ingredient hopein. Hopein is a form of morphine.
Except in Muslim countries, beer consumption is legal, yet taking morphine, marijuana, or other
hallucinogenic drugs is treated as a criminal act. If a person regularly gets drunk by drinking large
quantities of beer, he is not less “out of himself” or physically and mentally incompetent than he would be
under drug-induced hallucination. It would not make a difference whether a hallucinating drug user runs
over an innocent pedestrian or a drunk who has had a few bottles of morphine-containing beer. If a person
is caught driving while drunk he will receive punishment by law. If he gets drunk and is not driving, the
law cannot touch him. If someone becomes violent under the influence of beer, it is due to similar reasons
that a drug user becomes violent under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.
Apart from their mind-altering effects, hops are known to work as an anti-aphrodisiac, suppressing
sexual drive and performance in men. Hops contain the female sex hormones daidzein and genistein,
which are generally used to fatten calf, sheep, and chickens. Contrary to general belief, the body cannot
376
utilize any of the many calories contained in whisky or other alcoholic beverages for producing energy or
increasing fat reserves. Beer contains another female hormone, an estrogen, which is also formed in a
woman’s ovaries. The typical beer belly and breast growth of a beer drinker is caused by these female
hormones and has nothing to do with beer calories.
Besides the above mind-altering chemicals of beer, the malt in beer also has a substance in it that
influences the psyche; it is called hordenin. Hordenin results from the germination of barley and is related
to the well-known stimulants ephedrine and mescaline. It also has a strong diuretic effect, which causes
frequent urination, especially during the night. To process one glass of beer, the body’s cells have to
supply at least three glasses of water. Hence beer can cause severe dehydration so typically found among
heavy beer drinkers. When the beer drinker’s body signals dehydration he may be tempted to drink even
more beer, which increases dehydration further.
All these factors may result in weight gain, tissue acidification, retention of toxins, and swelling of the
body. The use of extremely “hard” water, rich in inorganic (metallic) calcium, in beer production may be
responsible for the high incidence of kidney stones and kidney problems among beer drinkers. In addition,
regular consumption of all alcoholic beverages causes gallstones in the liver and gallbladder. Alcohol is
extremely acidic which alters the pH of the alkaline bile to the point of thickening, leading to blockage of
bile ducts. In this respect, alcohol consumption can become a cause for any illness in the body.
Solving the Red Wine Mystery
Despite what we know today about the destructive effects that alcoholic beverages can have on liver
and brain cells apart from dehydrating the body, you may have been advised to drink a glass of red wine or
two on a daily basis because this could benefit your arteries. This advice, however, is misleading. It makes
you believe that drinking alcohol is not so bad for you after all, whereas in truth it is not the alcohol in the
wine that is beneficial for the heart. A study led by Dr. John Folts of the University of Wisconsin Medical
School found that 8 or 10 ounces a day of the purple variety of grape juice has a potent effect on the blood
cells called platelets, making them less likely to form clots that can lead to heart attacks.
A group of natural substances found in many kinds of foods, called flavonoids, seem to have powerful
anti-clotting properties. They are amply present in purple grape juice and to a lesser extent also in red
wine. Purple grape juice might even be more potent than aspirin, which is widely recommended as a way
of warding off heart attacks. The study found that both aspirin and red wine slow the activity of blood
platelets by about 45 percent, while purple grape juice dampens them by 75 percent. It is not clear,
however, whether the thinning of blood after drinking red wine is caused by flavonoids or by the diuretic
effects of the alcohol contained in the wine.
If you turn the purple grape juice into wine it loses some of its flavonoids. To have the benefits
advocated for red wine and more, it is better to drink the fresh juice of purple grapes. Plant foods contain
about 4,000 flavonoids. Eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is one of the best ways to maintain a
healthy circulatory system, while alcohol is not. Although the flavonoids contained in red wine may have
some beneficial effects on the blood, the alcohol that goes with it, after initially thinning the blood due the
alcohol’s diuretic effects, makes it thicker than it was before. If you need proof, ask a friend to apply the
muscle test of chapter 1 on you, while you hold a bottle of red wine (or any other alcoholic beverage) in
your hand. If your arm muscle tests weak it shows that any benefit that may be been left in the red wine
from the grape juice has been voided. The alcohol in the wine causes the shut down of energy flow to the
muscles.
377
7. Dirty Business with our Food – Genetically Modified
Genetic engineering of food is rapidly becoming an extremely lucrative business that is likely to place
man’s global food production in the hands of some very few powerful people or governments. Whoever
controls global food production will also control the world. In the name of progress and improvement of
food production, the plan is to make every nation dependent on using the genetically engineered seeds
that the world’s leading food industries have produced and for which they own the patent rights. The
agricultural products manufacturer Monsanto is doing exactly that. In January 2005, Monsanto announced
it will buy the commercial fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis. The deal is said to be worth $1.4
billion. once the majority of the world is using gene-manipulated seeds to grow their crops, the manmade
Frankenstein foods will take their toll on human life. The aim of the wealthiest and most influential
group of people in the world is to drastically reduce the size of the world’s population. Genetically
engineered foods play a decisive role in this plan, and unless the rest of humanity wakes up to its
responsibility as caretakers of Mother Earth, it is most likely going to succeed.
Monsanto which also produced the poisonous sweetener aspartame is inserting genes from plants of
unrelated species into the soybean plant to make it resistant to the potent herbicide Roundup (glyphosate).
The unsuspecting farmers would only welcome such a miracle plant, unless of course, they see the risk
involved. The Roundup resistant soybean seed can now be heavily sprayed with Roundup to kill weeds,
but without causing damage to the soybean. No more problems with weeds suffocating the soybean plants,
but bigger problems for the consumer! The new soy bean is heavily contaminated with the toxic herbicide,
Roundup.
Today, these genetically modified soybean products, which comprise about 80% of the beans available,
have been found in most baby formulas including Carnation, Similac, Enfamil, Isomil, and Neocare as
well as Doritos, Fritos, vegetable oils, soybean oil, margarine, and much more. With soy now being an
ingredient of thousands of common food products, the masses are systematically poisoned with harmful
herbicides.
One of the genes used in the new soy bean is derived from the petunia plant which is a nightshade.
This is bad news for people with nightshade-induced arthritis. Suddenly, by inadvertently eating
something that contains a soy product, they may end up becoming crippled with arthritis. They may have
no problem with soy as such, but soy isn’t just soy anymore; it is now also a nightshade, at least on the
genetic level.
The method of gene manipulation may even lead to more serious consequences than “just” a painful
joint disorder. When Monsanto inserted the Brazil nut gene into soy, people allergic to Brazil nuts
suffered anaphylaxis from ingesting a soy product. Anaphylaxis is a serious, life threatening reaction
where one is not able to breathe. Monsanto was ordered to remove the gene to avoid further complications
of that nature.
The process of genetic engineering of food oftentimes involves the use of live virus, small enough to
enter cell nucleus and, thereby, infect other genetic material. Cancer in chickens often results from
infection with the Rous Sarcoma virus. The chicken cancer virus is used as a carrier to implant the growth
hormone gene into farmed fish so they will grow faster. once the virus has infected the fish, if the virus
persists before it ends up on your dinner plate, which is very likely, it will also infect you. With all the
multitudes of genetically modified foods out there, our body will become a host for numerous viruses that
normally would never be found in our body.
378
Likewise, Leukemia virus in chicken has been used as a vector to insert human genes into developing
poultry. It gets better, or shall I say, worse. A retrovirus was used in pigs to insert human fetal cells to
grow aortas for transplantation into humans. When the pig’s aorta was transplanted into the human body,
it led to infections in humans with the pig's retrovirus.
When these viruses are used as part of genetic engineering they combine with one another to create
new plant and animal diseases. By eating these new foods, foreign genetic material from these viruses can
be absorbed through our intestines and become incorporated into our cells. Thanks to the genetic research
and food production we are now on the verge of creating new diseases against which we have no natural
or unnatural way of defending ourselves.
As more and more foods are grown that have foreign genes put in them to make them resistant to
certain pests, pesticides, herbicides or antibiotics, the more of these gene transporters of vectors will end
up lodging in our intestinal tract, infecting bacteria in our gut. The infected gut microbes will not only
become antibiotic resistant, but resistant to any kind of treatment.
Since the U.S. government doesn’t require any testing or proof of the safety of genetically engineered
foods, the extremely well paid genetic scientists basically have free and unrestricted reign over designing
their sinister programs of gene engineering. As for now, new genes have already been planted in potatoes,
corn, sugar beet, tomatoes, cotton (used to make junk food oil found on roasted nuts given out on
airplanes) to make the plant resistant to pesticides. Canola oil is also a genetically engineered product,
poisonous for the body.
In 1994, the genetically engineered growth hormone rBGH, designed to increase milk production in
cows, was approved for use in the U.S. About a third of U.S. farmers now use it to speed up milk
production. The viruses used to make the growth hormone, of course, are in the milk. The prestigious
medical journal, Lancet, reported in 1998 that breast cancer is seven times higher in women with tiny
increases in growth hormone, Insulin like Growth Factor (IGF-1), which comes from cows injected with
rBGH. Two years before this report, the International Journal of Health Sciences stated that IGF-1
concentrations are ten times higher in rBGH milk and can be absorbed through our intestines, and
increase our risk of cancer among other diseases.
With increasing usage of genetically engineered plants, we will be faced with the following global
scenario:
1. Loss of thousands of species of plants
2. All small farmers will have to give up their farming business
3. Creation of Frankenstein foods our bodies won’t know how to handle
4. There will be super weeds resistant to all herbicides
5. Plants become resistant to pesticides
6. New viruses and diseases for which there won’t be a cure
Already, 60% of processed foods now contain at least one genetically modified food item. Millions of
people now consume chips with firefly gene; potato chips with chicken gene; or salsa with tomato
containing a flounder gene. Cream of broccoli soup can have a bacteria gene in it, and salad dressing is
most likely made with canola oil, vegetable oil or soybean oil (all genetically engineered). The tobacco
gene is now used in lettuce and cucumbers and the petunia gene is used in soybeans and carrots. If you
have celiac disease you may need to avoid walnuts because they can have the barley gene in them. Even
strawberries are not harmless anymore; they can now have “undisclosed genes” in them, so you will never
know what else you are getting when you treat yourself to this delicious fruit. Cheese contains genetically
379
engineered bacterial rennet. Many brands of apple juice contain the silkworm gene, and grapes can
contain a virus gene. Trout, salmon, catfish, bass and even shrimp, are also genetically “enriched.”
Multinational corporations are rapidly changing our food and nobody seems to be able to stop them.
They're not accountable to anyone since they do not have to label their foods, and the government (at least
in the U.S.) does not require them to do any safety testing.
8. A Warning Note about Soy Products
Given the fact that soybeans are grown on farms that use toxic pesticides and herbicides, and many are
from genetically engineered plants, it doesn’t surprise me to find more and more evidence suggesting soy
to be a major health hazard. With a few exceptions, such as miso and other carefully fermented soy
products, soy is not suitable for regular consumption because of increased risks of cancer, indigestion,
thyroid problems, and other disorders, in addition to being a common food allergen. Numerous studies
have found that soy products may:
? Increase the risk of breast cancer in women, brain damage in both men and women, and
abnormalities in infants
? Contribute to thyroid disorders, especially in women
? Promote kidney stones
? Weaken the immune system
? Cause severe, potentially fatal food allergies
? Soy products also contain:
? Phytoestrogens (isoflavones) genistein and daidzein, which mimic and sometimes block the
hormone estrogen
? Phytates, which block the body's uptake of minerals
? Enzyme Inhibitors, which hinder protein digestion
? Haemaggluttin, which causes red blood cells to clump together and inhibits oxygen take-up
and growth
? Trypsin inhibitors that can cause pancreatic enlargement and eventually cancer;
? Hemagglutinin, which is a clot-promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump
together;
? Phytic acids, which reduce the absorption of many vitamins and minerals.