Tuesday, 13 September 2011

Corporation Motivation Is Spelling It Out For Us - It's Time To Think For Ourselves By Caroline Knight (NHF-UK Executive Director July 29, 2011)

Full article here: http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=2964

I wanted to take a look at public attitude to food, health, and nutrition, alongside the motivations and tactics of the food corporations we so heavily rely upon.

      In my experience, so many will comfortably claim the title of “health conscious individual.”  But ask a few basic questions and you’ll often find that most are concerned with either the short-term effects of diet or the aesthetic results.  Speak to a stranger on the street about GMO and you will likely find that few know what the term means, let alone the shocking long-term effects of such products on their body and the permanent detriment to the planet.  Despite the vast range of accessible information on the ‘net, worryingly few appear to have any real understanding of nutrition and disease.  “Health conscious” generally constitutes buying into the anti-oxidant marketing and cutting out a few fats from the diet.  Therefore, picking up some Redbush tea from the supermarket at the same time as some lean chicken (without any consideration of where that chicken came from, what it went through, what additives it contains, and why) puts people at ease.

      Supermarkets and the pharmaceutical industry are giving us some major clues as to what their motives are, yet mostly the public seems to keep the blinkers on.  One example would be the buying of high-street and other natural-supplement companies to gain control of the products.  It is very hard to know whom to trust.  We look to one so-called authority after another, placing blind faith in branding and marketing, seemingly unwilling to think for ourselves or take any risks.  The irony is that by not choosing and learning from our own experiences, we are taking risks with something we all too often fail to make our top priority – our long-term health.  We don’t think to follow the money.  Many of us should by now recognize that disease is big business.  Perhaps we do not because over the last seven centuries we have been encouraged to regard the curing and healing of disease as a perplexing and complicated science, best left in the hands of medical practitioners.  We are supplied with pharmaceutical drugs that alleviate only the symptoms and the pain of diseases, but rarely cure (and often harm).  In blindly trusting “authority,” we take extraordinary risks with our health and have come to regard sickness as normal . . . “just the way it is.”  It has never been more apparent than now, with so many babies and young children ill with colds, viruses, and miscellaneous physiological and mental conditions (many of which are attributed to vaccines – outside of the pharmaceutical industry, needless to say).  Doctors and surgeons are not out to get us, they just don’t know any differently due to medical schools only teaching about synthetic treatments for the symptoms of actual and impending diseases rather than their prevention.  Arguably, it is for reasons of profit that the industry refuses to consider the real issues of nutrition and toxicity.

      Nutrition is also big business and the supermarket corporations are as guilty as the pharmaceutical industry in damaging our health.  Supermarkets appear ethical by offering ranges such as “Fair Trade.”  But is “Fair Trade” not an excuse for the very rich to exploit the very poor by giving them work for the lowest possible reward, then taking their products to the West to sell for maximum profits?  I call this all-round exploitation.  Furthermore, you only need to look at the limited range of “organic” products on the shelves.  Here, organic is a loose term.  Anyone who grows or buys genuine organic food from a local farm will know that there is no comparison in terms of flavor and general constitution.  Also, the shelf life of these products is far less than those in the supermarket, which is a good sign that what you are eating is as close to its natural state as it should get.  Supermarket labeling and branding is at best confusing and misleading.

      Should we not question why we are bombarded with options for fattening, refined-sugar “treats” and junk food, often incredibly low nutritional value foods – the marketing of which is more prolific than any other type of food, and is especially aimed at our children?  When the inevitable overload of chemicals and additives cause a change in childrens’ behavior, they are diagnosed as having ADD or ADHD.  If these corporations had any morals regarding public health, surely what we would see on the shelves would not be sparse and extortionately priced “organic” options but a majority of healthy foods, and marketing for these things rather than unhealthy junk food?

      The bottom line when approaching the above is common sense; natural over synthetic is best in every case.  We live in a natural world full of natural resources, yet these are suppressed in favor of synthetic products which do not resonate with our bodies.  This much is plain to see for anyone who cares to look.  We either choose or are unwittingly subjected to synthetics and processed junk on a daily basis in the name of “convenience,” widely through lack of knowledge and understanding about the often simpler and healthier options.  Given that convenience food is unlikely to be replaced in a hurry thanks to modern-day hectic lifestyles, it is a shame that there are not more genuine organic food providers offering convenient organic meal preparations as a healthy alternative to fast food.

      The sad truth is that choosing healthy food is now a minefield and that more efforts are needed by those in the know to bring this information to the forefront.  If we wish to survive this tragedy, we need to show others that they have become dependent on convenience; that they should try to look past the official story and recognise that they are the only authority; their own best doctors.  We don’t have any more time to waste.

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

Health recap from saturday

It was wonderful to see you at the conference.

Here is some info that you may need

The levels of radiation worldwide are effecting milk and vegetables.

Everything we can do must now be done.

Iodine, preferably lugols, 10 drops a day

just listen to this also part one David Wolfe is an expert


Health/Codex Links given out at the Freemanity Conference

In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood and Bioterrorism - Official Release: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8674401787208020885#

Fluoride in our water supplies: http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html
Your Toxic Tap Water: www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo6SnvmMP9k

Aspartame info: http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html

Independent news on health, nutrition and more:

Natural Health Information Centre & Natural Cancer/Chronic Disease Cure: http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/

Ex pharma sales rep speaks the truth - Pharma doesn't want to cure you

Health/food/supplements/advice sites:

Codex Alimentarius - (Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs):

Monsanto/Terminator Seeds (Genetically modified seeds and bovine growth hormone): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto and http://www.banterminator.org/The-Issues/Introduction

Thursday, 7 April 2011

All about Vitamin C, by Dominic Spreadlove

Some Important Facts About Vitamin C

If you could take only a single vitamin, it must be Vitamin C or ascorbic acid. The function of vitamin C in the body is not completely understood. Chemically it functions as a reducing agent. Vitamin C concentrates in the organs and tissues of high metabolic activity such as the adrenal and pituitary glands, the brain, eyes, ovaries and other vital tissues.

Functions of Vitamin C

One of the most important functions of Vitamin C or ascorbic acid is in the synthesis and maintenance of collagen.. Collagen is the protein-like cement that supports and holds the body’s tissues and organs together. Collagen cannot be formed without ascorbic acid and in the absence of collagen, our body’s most extensive tissue system, we would disintegrate and dissolve away..When there is deficiency in Vitamin C , it results to disturbance in collagen production causing occurrence of fearful aspects of scurvy, the brittle bones that fracture at the slightest impact since collagen provides bones with their elasticity and toughness, the weakened arteries that rupture the bleed,etc. The gradual deterioration of collagen formation is associated with the entire aging process.
Vitamin also functions as a powerful detoxifier in the body. It negates the effects of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic, the carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide of air pollution and many other carcinogens which if not detoxified can cause cancer.
Vitamin C also increases the therapeutic of various drugs and medicines such as aspirin and insulin, while at the same time reducing their toxic side effects. In large doses , Vitamin C has antiseptic and bacteriocidal qualities. In very large doses about 10 grams to 1000 grams, it helps kill viruses.

Vitamin C Deficiency

Severe deficiency of Vitamin C leads to the sickness known as scurvy. The symptoms include hemorrhage into the muscles and skin, tenderness and aching of joints, a general weakening of connective tissues, lethargy, loss of appetite and anemia.
The following are symptoms of scurvy :
- failure of strength
- skin becomes sallow and dusky
- the gums swell and ulcerate
- teeth drop out
- breath becomes foul
- blood penetrates the muscles and other tissues causing a severe bruising
- in final stage deep exhaustion and diarrhea
- as well as pulmonary and kidney trouble leading to death.

Vitamin C and the Mind

Mental symptoms of Vitamin C deficiency are fatigue, listlessness, lassitude, confusion and depression. The face wears a haggard frowning, “pained” expression with a careworn knitted brow.
Confusional states in the elderly often mistakenly considered as senility may be due to Vitamin C deficiency and will clear with intake of 1000milligrams of Vitamin C daily for three weeks.
Vitamin C in doses of one to two grams at a time works as a tranquilizer for the anxious. Due to the vitamin’s sedative effects , similar doses help the insomniac fall asleep.
A dosage of 3 to 30 grams of Vitamin C daily are helpful in severe mental illness, where the sufferers is stressed by extreme anxiety. Possibly also Vitamin C acts to detoxify a brain poison, as Vitamin C helps convert a body chemical , adrenochrome to leucoadrenochrome, a non-toxic substance. One theory of schizophrenia is that the substance adrenochrome is converted instead to adrenolutin, a toxin which causes hallucination and bizarre sensory dys-perception.
Most animals can manufacture their own Vitamin C through a four-step enzymatic glucose conversion process. However, human beings and other primates have lost that ability and must absorb the nutrient from dietary sources. Guinea pigs and most bats must also obtain Vitamin C from their diets.
Despite its natural abundance, Vitamin C is a relatively delicate nutrient. It decomposes at 190 degrees Celsius and can be destroyed through broiling, grilling, or frying. Boiling fruits and vegetables that contain Vitamin C will not destroy the nutrient, but it does leech easily into the water. If that water is discarded, the nutritional benefits are lost.
Once absorbed, Vitamin C has an astonishingly short 30 minute biological half life in the bloodstream. This means that the nutrient decays in just 30 minutes, and ongoing supplements of Vitamin C are necessary for optimum absorption. Nearly 90 percent of the nutrient is absorbed in the small intestines, and of that, 75 percent will be excreted within 24 hours because it cannot be effectively stored by the body.

Despite its natural abundance, Vitamin C is a relatively delicate nutrient. It decomposes at 190 degrees Celsius and can be destroyed through broiling, grilling, or frying. Boiling fruits and vegetables that contain Vitamin C will not destroy the nutrient, but it does leech easily into the water. If that water is discarded, the nutritional benefits are lost.

Once absorbed, Vitamin C has an astonishingly short 30 minute biological half life in the bloodstream. This means that the nutrient decays in just 30 minutes, and ongoing supplements of Vitamin C are necessary for optimum absorption. Nearly 90 percent of the nutrient is absorbed in the small intestines, and of that, 75 percent will be excreted within 24 hours because it cannot be effectively stored by the body.
Acting as an antioxidant, one of vitamin C important functions is to protect LDL cholesterol from oxidative damage. (Only when LDL is damaged does cholesterol appear to lead to heart disease, and vitamin C may be one of the most important antioxidant protectors of LDL.)1 Vitamin C may also protect against heart disease by reducing the stiffness of arteries and the tendency of platelets to clump together.

The antioxidant properties of vitamin C are thought to protect smokers, as well as people exposed to secondhand smoke, from the harmful effects of free radicals. A controlled trial demonstrated the ability of 3 grams of vitamin C, taken by nonsmokers two hours prior to being exposed to cigarette smoke, to reduce the free radical damage and LDL cholesterol oxidation associated with exposure to cigarette smoke. The smoke-induced decline in total antioxidant defense was also diminished. These beneficial effects were not observed in nonsmokers under normal conditions (no free radical exposure).

Vitamin C is needed to make collagen, the "glue" that strengthens many parts of the body, such as muscles and blood vessels. Vitamin C also plays important roles in wound healing and as a natural antihistamine. This vitamin also aids in the formation of liver bile and helps to fight viruses and to detoxify alcohol and other substances.

Recently, researchers have shown that vitamin C improves nitric oxide activity.

Nitric oxide is needed for the dilation of blood vessels, potentially important in lowering blood pressure and preventing spasms of arteries in the heart that might otherwise lead to heart attacks. Vitamin C has reversed dysfunction of cells lining blood vessels.

The normalization of the functioning of these cells may be linked to prevention of heart disease.

Evidence indicates that vitamin C levels in the eye decrease with age and that supplementing with vitamin C prevents this decrease, possibly leading to a lower risk of developing cataracts.8 9 Healthy people have been reported in some, but not all, studies to be more likely to take vitamin C and vitamin E supplements than are people with cataracts.

Vitamin C has been reported to reduce activity of the enzyme, aldose reductase, in people. Aldose reductase is the enzyme responsible for accumulation of sorbitol in eyes, nerves, and kidneys of people with diabetes. This accumulation is believed to be responsible for deterioration of these parts of the body associated with diabetes. Therefore, interference with the activity of aldose reductase theoretically helps protect people with diabetes.

Vitamin C may help protect the body against accumulation or retention of the toxic mineral, lead. In one preliminary study, people with higher blood levels of vitamin C had much lower risk of having excessive blood levels of lead.13 In a controlled trial, male smokers with moderate to high levels of lead received supplements of 1,000 mg per day of vitamin C, 200 mg per day of vitamin C, or a placebo.14 Only those people taking 1,000 mg per day of vitamin C experienced a drop in the blood lead levels, but the reduction in this group was dramatic.

People with recurrent boils (furunculosis) may have defects in white blood cell function that are correctable with vitamin C supplementation. A preliminary study of people with recurrent boils and defective white blood cell function, found that 1 gram of vitamin C taken daily for four to six weeks, resulted in normalization of white blood cell function . Ten of twelve people receiving vitamin C became symptom-free within one month and remained so for periods of one to three years without additional supplementation. The other two people required long-term vitamin C supplementation to prevent recurrences.

A double-blind trial found that 500 mg of vitamin C per day for one year reduced the risk of developing reflex sympathetic dystrophy (a painful nerve condition of the extremities), after a wrist fracture.

In a small, preliminary trial, vitamin C (500 mg twice daily) combined with rutoside (500 mg twice daily), a derivative of the flavonoid, rutin, produced marked improvement in three women with progressive pigmented purpura (PPP), a mild skin condition. Although not a serious medical condition, cosmetic concerns lead people with PPP to seek treatment with a variety of drugs. The vitamin C/rutoside combination represents a promising, non-toxic alternative to these drug treatments, but larger, controlled trials are needed to confirm these preliminary results.

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

What's Wrong With Food Irradiation, passed on by Mis Perception

revised February 2001

Irradiation damages the quality of food.
· Irradiation damages food by breaking up molecules and creating free radicals. The free radicals kill some bacteria, but they also bounce around in the food, damage vitamins and enzymes, and combine with existing chemicals (like pesticides) in the food to form new chemicals, called unique radiolytic products (URPs).
· Some of these URPs are known toxins (benzene, formaldehyde, lipid peroxides) and some are unique to irradiated foods. Scientists have not studied the long-term effect of these new chemicals in our diet. Therefore, we cannot assume they are safe.
· Irradiated foods can lose 5%-80% of many vitamins (A, C, E, K and B complex). The amount of loss depends on the dose of irradiation and the length of storage time.
· Most of the food in the American diet is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for irradiation: beef, pork, lamb, poultry, wheat, wheat flour, vegetables, fruits, shell eggs, seeds for sprouting, spices, herb teas. (Dairy is already pasteurized). A food industry petition currently before the FDA asks for approval for luncheon meats, salad bar items, sprouts, fresh juices and frozen foods. Another petition before the USDA asks for approval for imported fruits and vegetables.
· Irradiation damages the natural digestive enzymes found in raw foods. This means the body has to work harder to digest them.
· If unlabeled, raw foods that have been irradiated look like fresh foods, but nutritionally they are like cooked foods, with decreased vitamins and enzymes. The FDA allows these foods to be labeled "fresh."
· Irradiated fats tend to become rancid.
· When high-energy electron beams are used, trace amounts of radioactivity may be created in the food.

Science has not proved that a long-term diet of irradiated foods is safe for human health.
· The longest human feeding study was 15 weeks. No one knows the long-term effects of a life-long diet that includes foods which will be frequently irradiated, such as meat, chicken, vegetables, fruits, salads, sprouts and juices.
· There are no studies on the effects of feeding babies or children diets containing irradiated foods, except a very small and controversial study from India that showed health effects.
· Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Some possible causes are: irradiation-induced vitamin deficiencies, the inactivity of enzymes in the food, DNA damage, and toxic radiolytic products in the food.
· The FDA based its approval of irradiation for poultry on only 5 of 441 animal-feeding studies. Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., the toxicologist who chaired the FDA committee that approved irradiation, later said, "These studies reviewed in the 1982 literature from the FDA were not adequate by 1982 standards, and are even less accurate by 1993 standards to evaluate the safety of any product, especially a food product such as irradiated food." The 5 studies are not a good basis for approval of irradiation for humans, because they showed health effects on the animals or were conducted using irradiation at lower energies than those the FDA eventually approved.
· The FDA based its approval of irradiation for fruits and vegetables on a theoretical calculation of the amount of URPs in the diet from one 7.5 oz. serving/day of irradiated food. Considering the different kinds of foods approved for irradiation, this quantity is too small and the calculation is irrelevant.
· Even with current labeling requirements, people cannot avoid eating irradiated food. That means there is no control group, and epidemiologists will never be able to determine if irradiated food has any health effects.
· Science is always changing. The science of today is not the science of tomorrow. The science we have today is not adequate to prove the long-term safety of food irradiation.

Irradiation covers up problems that the meat and poultry industry should solve
· Irradiation covers up the increased fecal contamination that results from speeded up slaughter and decreased federal inspection, both of which allow meat and poultry to be produced more cheaply. Prodded by the industry, the USDA has allowed a transfer of inspection to company inspectors. Where government inspectors remain, they are not allowed to condemn meat and poultry now that they condemned 20 years ago.
· Because of this deregulation (continued under President Clinton, a protégé of Tyson Foods), the meat and poultry industry has recently lost money and suffered bad publicity from food-poisoning lawsuits and expensive product recalls. Irradiation is a "magic bullet" that will enable them to say that the product was "clean" when it left the packing plant. (Irradiation, however, does not sterilize food, and any bacteria that remain can grow to toxic proportions if the food is not properly stored and handled.)
· In 2000, seven meat industry associations submitted a petition to USDA to redefine key regulations relating to contamination. If accepted by USDA, this petition would permit unlimited fecal contamination during production, as long as irradiation was used afterwards.

Labeling is necessary to inform people so they can choose to avoid irradiated foods.
· Because irradiated foods have not been proven safe for human health in the long term, prominent, conspicuous and truthful labels are necessary for all irradiated foods. Consumers should be able to easily determine if their food has been irradiated. Labels should also be required for irradiated ingredients of compound foods, and for restaurant and institutional foods.
· Because irradiation can deplete vitamins, labels should state the amount of vitamin loss after irradiation, especially for fresh foods that are usually eaten fresh. Consumers have the right to know if they are buying nutritionally impaired foods.
· Current US labels are not sufficient to enable consumers to avoid irradiated food. Foods are labeled only to the first purchaser. Irradiated spices, herb teas and supplement ingredients, foods that are served in restaurants, schools, etc., or receive further processing, do not bear consumer labels. Consumer labels are required only for foods sold whole (like a piece of fruit) or irradiated in the package (like chicken breasts). The text with the declaration of irradiation can be as small as the type face on the ingredient label. The US Department of Agriculture requirements have one difference: irradiated meat or poultry that is part of another food (like a tv dinner) must be disclosed on the label.
· The US Food and Drug Administration is currently rewriting the regulation for minimum labeling, and will release it for public comment by early 2002. They may eliminate all required text labels. If they do retain the labels, Congress has told them to use a "friendly" euphemism instead of "irradiation."

Electron-beam irradiation today means nuclear irradiation tomorrow.
· The source of the irradiation is not listed on the label.
· The original sponsor of food irradiation in the US was the Department of Energy, which wanted to create a favorable image of nuclear power as well as dispose of radioactive waste. These goals have not changed. Cobalt-60, which is used for irradiation, must be manufaactured in a nuclear reactor.
· Many foods cannot be irradiated using electron beams. E-beams only penetrate 1-1.5 inches on each side, and are suitable only for flat, evenly sized foods like patties. Large fruits, foods in boxes, and irregularly shaped foods must be irradiated using x-rays or gamma rays from nuclear materials.
· Countries that lack a cheap and reliable source of electricity for e-beams use nuclear materials. Opening U.S. markets to irradiated food encourages the spread of nuclear irradiation worldwide.

Irradiation using radioactive materials is an environmental hazard.
· The more nuclear irradiators, the more likelihood of a serious accident in transport, operation or disposal of the nuclear materials.
· Food irradiation facilities have already contaminated the environment. For example, in the state of Georgia in 1988, radioactive water escaped from an irradiation facility. The taxpayers were stuck with $47 million in cleanup costs. Radioactivity was tracked into cars and homes. In Hawaii in 1967 and New Jersey in 1982, radioactive water was flushed into the public sewer system.
· Numerous worker exposures have occurred in food irradiation facilities worldwide.

Irradiation doesn't provide clean food.
· Because irradiation doesn't kill all the bacteria in a food, the ones that survive are by definition radiation-resistant. These bacteria will multiply and eventually work their way back to the 'animal factories'. Soon thereafter, the bacteria that contaminate the meat will no longer be killed by currently approved doses of irradiation. The technology will no longer be usable, while stronger bacteria contaminate our food supply.
· People may become more careless about sanitation if irradiation is widely used. Irradiation doesn't kill all the bacteria in a food. In a few hours at room temperature, the bacteria remaining in meat or poultry after irradiation can multiply to the level existing before irradiation.
· Some bacteria, like the one that causes botulism, as well as viruses and prions (which are believed to cause Mad Cow Disease) are not killed by current doses of irradiation.
· Irradiation encourages food producers to cut corners on sanitation, because they can 'clean up' the food just before it is shipped.

Irradiation does nothing to change the way food is grown and produced.
· Irradiated foods can have longer shelf lives than non-irradiated foods, which means they can be shipped further while appearing 'fresh.' Food grown by giant farms far away may last longer than non-irradiated, locally grown food, even if it is inferior in nutrition and taste. Thus, irradiation encourages centralization and hurts small farmers. 

· The use of pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and other agrichemicals, as well as pollution and energy use, are not affected. Irradiation is applied by the packer after harvest or slaughter.
· Free-market economists say irradiation is 'efficient': it provides the cheapest possible food for the least possible risk. But these economists are not concerned about the impaired nutritional quality of the food. They are not considering the environmental effects of large-scale corporate farming, the social costs of centralization of agriculture and loss of family farms, the replacement of unionized, impartial government inspectors with company inspectors, the potential long-term damage to human health, and the possibility of irradiation-resistant super-bacteria. All of these developments should be (but are not) considered when regulators and public health officials evaluate the benefits of food irradiation.

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (EMF), passed on by Mis Perception


Taken from Dr Mercola's site

Electromagnetic pollution is a concern for everyone. Increasing news coverage, studies, and even new legislation are all helping educate the public on radiation risks.
One of the foremost experts in electromagnetic pollution is Camilla Rees. She has devoted herself to making people aware of the threat of electrosmog and bringing the problem into the public consciousness.
She has packaged EMF education for distribution to audiences including Congress, state legislatures, health practitioners, patients, schools, businesses, and parents.
Many experts in the field of reducing electromagnetic pollution praise and appreciate the work Camilla has done.
A two-part profile of Camilla Rees and the work she has been doing, originally published in Explore! Magazine for health professionals, has been linked below. You can read about her journey, the growing problem, and the possible solutions. According to the articles:
"[Rees says,] 'This is a species issue ... There is early evidence there may be a link between EMF exposures and autism ... We know radiation is affecting our DNA and jeopardizing the health of future generations. There is research from many countries now showing dramatic decline in sperm count from exposure to cell phone radiation ...
I really don't think it's possible, when you know the disturbing truth, to stop caring -- to stop wanting to support life.'"

Do the words "electrosmog," "dirty electricity," "electrical pollution," and "electrohypersensitivity" mean anything to you? If not, mark my words, they will one day soon.
The threat of numerous forms of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) to human health is becoming increasingly clear, and thanks to champions like Camilla Rees, the dangers are beginning to permeate the mainstream media.
I highly recommend you read through the two-part article linked above when you have a few minutes, as it provides an intriguing overview of this global health issue, including how Rees is working tirelessly to bring this issue to the forefront of not only the media but also government, health practitioners, schools, businesses and parents' agendas.
Her web site, www.ElectroMagneticHealth.org, is a tremendous resource of EMF knowledge and if you're new to this subject it's an excellent starting point. You can also watch this video of Camilla Rees presenting an overview of the heath dangers of excessive exposures to microwave radiation from wireless technologies.
As she told Explore! Magazine in the above article, it's necessary to get the word out about the serious health impacts of EMFs as we are already being exposed at unprecedented levels, whether we like it or not:
"The issue wasn't being covered in the media, and we needed to sensitize journalists and governments to its importance.
Despite the extraordinary influence of the telecom industry on global governments; significant telecom ad revenue received by media outlets resulting in disincentives to cover cell phone and wireless hazards; and the fact that consumers really like a lot of these new communications technologies …
I still trusted that with consistent, credible scientific and medical information delivered to those who could influence change, that we could open up peoples eyes, and once people understood the seriousness of the human health consequences, the right things would eventually be done to protect public health. This was my hope."

Why We Urgently Need More Awareness about Electromagnetic Pollution

We currently exist in an environment that has never before occurred in nature, one that is teeming with varying levels of electrical pollution, or "electrosmog."
This comes from obvious sources like radiofrequency communications -- cordless phones, wireless devices, cell phones and cell phone towers -- as well as the wiring in your walls, electrical outlets, extension cords, lamps, and other electricity sources.
For instance, you could be impacted by power lines to your home that run underground near your sleeping area. Or your cordless phone base station could be giving you health troubles even if it's in another room.
A wireless router in your kitchen or bedroom, or your habit of visiting a "hot spot" for free WI-FI every morning could also be problematic -- even wireless baby monitors and your wireless printer are part of the pervasive "electromagnetic soup" to which we're all now exposed.
As Explore! Magazine author Eve Greenberg, M.A. wrote: 
"B. Blake Levitt, Former New York Times writer and author of "Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, and Editor of Cell Towers, Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?" explains in Rees' book, "Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution" that
"... It turns out that most living things are fantastically sensitive to vanishingly small EMF exposures. Living cells interpret such exposures as part of our normal cellular activities (think heartbeats, brainwaves, cell division itself, etc.) The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren't "normal". They are artificial artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways."
You generally cannot feel or touch EMFs and electricity in your environment, but it's becoming increasingly clear that your cells are indeed impacted. Illness linked to electromagnetic radiation exposure include (and this is only a partial list):
Many cancers
Neurological conditions
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Sleep disorders
Cognitive problems
Cardiovascular irregularities
Hormone disruption
Immune system disorders
Metabolism changes
Stress and Mineral disruption
Fertility impairment
Increased blood-brain barrier permeability
DNA damage
In fact, in Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization, epidemiologist Sam Milham, MD points out that the major diseases plaguing modern man -- heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. -- may be triggered by this prevalent, yet nearly entirely overlooked, cause.
After analyzing health demographic data going back to the early part of the 20th century, Dr. Milham showed that populations without electrification experienced less disease than in urban areas with electrification, and that rural death rates correlated with levels of electrical service for most causes examined. Conditions linked to electrification included cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and suicide.
Dr, Milham says the era of cell phones and WI-FI is really the 2nd major wave of electromagnetic exposure to humans, the first being the introduction of electrification in the early 1900s. Most of America was not electrified until 1956, which allowed Dr. Milham to do this important research comparing health statistics in urban areas, rural electrified areas and rural non-electrified areas, and allowing for the important discovery of the role of electrification in disease.

EMFs as a Root Cause of Illness

I often share details about the underlying causes of chronic illness. Poor diet, lack of exercise, emotional stress all of these are likely familiar to you. What may NOT be as readily apparent are the contributing factors to illness that you cannot see, feel or touch and frequently cannot easily avoid.
Environmental toxins largely make up this latter group, and EMFs are definitely among them. EMFs should be considered a harmful invader to your body just like any other environmental toxin, as they interfere with your health at the cellular and DNA levels.
As Rees said in Explore! Magazine, nearly 18 percent of U.S. GDP is from health care costs …
"What an incredible waste, if you think about this number, when so many illnesses could be prevented if people were warned about the root causes of illness. This includes everyday electromagnetic fields," she said.
"We'd have so many more human and financial resources to create a better society. It's really a travesty that we talk about 'prevention' without first acknowledging all of the sources of imbalance we are trying to prevent, including the environmental ones."
People living in most cities and suburbs are literally bathed in a variety of electromagnetic fields, microwave radiation and dirty electricity 24/7. If we refuse to address the potential hazards of this way of life, we may end up with a currently inconceivable health catastrophe on a worldwide scale.

Certain People are Especially at Risk

It is estimated that 3-8 percent of populations in developed countries experience serious electrohypersensitivity symptoms, while 35 percent experience mild symptoms, according to Dr. Thomas Rau, medical director of the world-renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland.
Dr. Rau also believes that 'electromagnetic loads' lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson's and even back pain. You can listen to an audio interview with Dr. Rau on www.electromagnetichealth.org.
For people with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS), just walking into a coffee shop that is WI-FI equipped can be debilitating, triggering a wide array of symptoms including headache, fatigue, nausea, burning and itchy skin, and muscle aches.
Some students have to drop out of school or are unable to continue on to graduate programs once they become electrically sensitive, irrespective of their intelligence and capabilities. Even just briefly standing on line at the post office, or traveling on public transportation, can be a debilitating experience for some people, sometimes taking hours to restore balance.
Because the symptoms are subjective and vary between individuals, it makes the condition difficult to study, but with the work of Magda Havas, PhD, of the Environmental & Resources Studies Department at Trent University, Canada and others, acceptance is slowly growing and the real health effects of EMF are becoming harder to deny.
For instance, recent research from Dr. Havas revealed that a cordless phone base station placed about two feet from your head and plugged in for three minutes at a time can significantly disrupt your heart rhythm, leading to increases in heart rate, arrhythmias and other disturbances in heart rate variability.
This is among the most solid proof that the effects of EMF radiation are real, as are the symptoms that some people readily experience when they're around such microwave-emitting devices. The biological effects on the heart in the Havas study were found at .3% of the FCC exposure limits.
Researchers have, in fact, found that there are a number of factors that influence the degree to which you may be affected by EMFs. For example, according to research by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, your physical body, such as your body weight, body-mass index, bone density, and water and electrolyte levels can alter the conductivity and biological reactivity to EMFs.
Heavy metals in your brain also act as micro-antennas, concentrating and increasing reception of EMF radiation. Likewise, any kind of metal implants and/or amalgam tooth fillings will significantly increase reception of microwaves, and the mircrocurrents from cell phones and other ambient fields. This is yet another major reason for having your mercury fillings removed by a trained biological dentist.
People who suffer from diseases that cause myelin loss, such as muscular sclerosis, Lyme disease, and other autoimmune diseases are also at greater risk of electro-sensitivity.
Children are also particularly vulnerable.Dr. Klinghardt has noted this radiation can easily flip certain genes in the mitochondria. If this gene sequence is altered in a pregnant woman, she can pass her damaged mitochondria on to her child. The child can then develop a mitochondrial disorder, which can include muscular atrophy and severe developmental problems.
While there are now EMF-Free Zones forming around the globe, such as in southern France, Spain and Italy, these areas are not yet widely available so virtually everyone is still exposed to EMF, even if they're hypersensitive to it. Or if people are severely hypersensitive, they often must go off and live in the mountains or very rural areas where it is easier to find refuge.
What is truly needed is a strong worldwide initiative that focuses on green buildings, green electronics, green IT and new energy technologies that acknowledge the health consequences of these technologies and take steps to effectively reduce them.
Today, much of the green movement is focused on reducing the carbon footprint without considering the biological effects of the new technologies employed, many of which are hazardous, such as 'green buildings' filled with sensors, solar panels installed without recognizing and filtering the dirty electricity generated, wind farms whose vibrations impact the neighbors' health, etc.

How to Protect Yourself From EMFs

An excellent first step, and one that Rees is particularly passionate about, is to test your home and work environment for EMF. The web site www.emfsafetystore.com offers a helpful summary of the various meters recommended to detect EMF and dirty electricity in your home.
If you find elevated levels of dirty electricity, filters and various shields are available to help neutralize them. And if the levels of RF are high, you can carefully shield with special grounded paints, fabrics for curtain linings, and plastic film for the windows (where much RF comes into the house). All of these can be found at www.emfsafetystore.com.
To further avoid EMF exposure, or for those who are especially sensitive, during the night when your body is trying to repair and rebuild:
  • Turn off all the fuses at night that supply your bedroom. You can install a 'demand switch' at your bedside to make this very convenient.
  • Shield your bed with a special metalized fabric canopy to protect yourself from harmful frequencies that can disrupt cellular communication.
  • If you are constructing a new home or renovating one and the walls are being rebuilt you can install radiant barrier, which is a tough type of aluminum foil that will also very effectively screen out the EMF. This is what I did for my own bedroom.
  • At minimum, move your bed so that your head is at least 3-6 feet from all electrical outlets. If you are constructing the walls you can put the wires inside pipes, which will virtually eliminate the fields that are generated in the room when the current runs through the wire.
  • Turn off and unplug everything electrical in your sleeping area, including your computer, WI-FI, cell and portable phones.
  • Sleep on a non-metal bed and mattress.
  • Be aware that cell phones and WI-FI are not the only EMF sources you need to be cautious of. Essentially, most all electronics will generate EMFs, including the wiring in your home, electric alarm clocks, electric blankets, computers and lamps, just to mention a few.
For best results, avoid using electric blankets and electric heating pads, and unplug all electrical appliances when not in use. Even better, at night, turn off the fuses directly.
  • Protect yourself from cordless phones. If you want to avoid the radiation you should switch back to a wired landline and ditch your cordless phone entirely.
If you must use a conventional cordless phone, be sure to keep the base station at least three rooms away from where everyone sleeps and where you spend the most time during the day. Or simply keep it off except in the limited circumstances when you feel you need to use it.
The base station of a DECT phone always transmits at full power, so this is not a device you want sitting on your nightstand next to your bed, on your kitchen counter or even on at all if it is not necessary.

9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims, passed on by Mis Perception

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

.... What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?