In 1941 the American inventor and businessman Henry Ford built a car both made from and fueled by hemp.  Imagine a weed that we spend billions of dollars a day trying to destroy, replaces both steel and oil…

No wonder this stuff is illegal!!! 

If I owned a US senator or two and I fed my family by selling steel, oil, gas, drugs, paper, corn or cotton, it would certainly be in my best interests to get together a few of my friends and use our governmental and media connections to both outlaw and publically slander anything to do with this incredible weed.

So I was thinking about why I like sweet tasting foods no matter how much I know how bad they are for my body.  The answer came to me during my morning meditation.

All you have to do is go back about 150 years or so.  When food was grown locally and spoiled quickly our bodies developed a way to tell if a food was ripe or spoiled.  The flavor sweet meant that the food was safe and good to feed your family.  This was a very effective survival mechanism and served us well for as long as you beleive we have been on this planet.

UNTIL, food processing and manufacturing came into place.  These “food” manufacturers are not in the least bit interested in the nutritional quality of their concoctions.  Thier concerns include a long shelve life and sellability.  One of things these businesses found is that humans love the flavor sweet, but natural sweet things had terribly short shelf life.  To solve this problem they recruited the chemical industry to create sweet tasting chemicals to add to their inert or lifeless products.

Now, we are all faced with a new challenge to the survival of ourselves and our family and our taste buds are no longer an effective method to judge our food.  We must take a more evolved approach to eating.  Overide the genetic signal that sweet means good food, and use other senses and education to figure out if what you are about to put in your mouth is in fact food.  Artificial sweeteners send the signal to your brain that you just ate something nutrition, but soon the hollow status shows up in lack of nutrients to the cells of the body and the hunger center is re-stimulated.  This  creates a vicious circle as your health declines while you repeated consume toxic, good tasting chemicals in place of fresh wholesome foods.

Have a great holiday!

DrD 

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to state that drinking raw milk is like playing Russian roulette with your health, increasing numbers of Americans are seeking out this sometimes elusive raw food.

“We’re not talking about cocaine or guns we’re talking about just milk. And to criminalize that and think that that’s some kinda crime is really quite crazy when you think about it,” said Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy, in response to an FDA investigation into his raw milk.

Currently, sales of raw milk for human consumption are legal in 28 states. However, in most of these, the sales can only be made directly from a farm, or through a cow-share program in which members purchase a portion of the cow, and are therefore owners of the milk it produces.

Raw milk, proponents say, is an outstanding source of beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidolphilus, vitamins, enzmes and calcium. Further, they say that sickness resulting from raw milk is rare — instead, it is pasteurized milk that is often implicated in outbreaks of food-borne illness. According to Mark McAfee, founder of Organic Pastures Dairy, which produces a full line of raw organic dairy products for retail sale, “During the period 2000 through 2004 there were several listeria-related food recalls in California associated with pasteurized milk products and ice cream. During this same period more than 12 million servings of Organic Pastures products were consumed and not one person complained of illness and not one pathogen was ever found either by the state, FDA or Organic Pastures.”

Organic Pastures then hired a laboratory to perform an experiment. The lab added 10 million counts of pathogens to one-milliliter samples of organic raw milk and found that the pathogens not only would not grow but they also died off. The lab concluded: ” … Organic raw milk and colostrum do not appear to support the growth of pathogens … “

Raw milk is only one aspect of the growing raw food movement. Alive in 5: Raw Gourmet Meals in Five Minutes is the perfect cooking companion for anyone who wants to explore more raw foods, or simply get more fresh, healthy and great-tasting foods into their diet — but doesn’t have a lot of time to do it.

What’s Wrong With Pasteurization? Pasteurization, says the FDA, kills any dangerous bacteria while also destroying bacteria that can cause milk to spoil, thereby extending shelf life and increasing milk safety. According to the FDA, pasteurization can help prevent: Tuberculosis Diphtheria Polio Salmonellosis Strep throat Scarlet fever Typhoid fever Raw milk proponents, however, say that milk from healthy cows, raised on pasture, rarely contains any dangerous bacteria.

Further, according to the Weston A. Price Foundation: “Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamins C, B12 and B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Calves fed pasteurized milk do poorly and many die before maturity.

Raw milk sours naturally but pasteurized milk turns putrid; processors must remove slime and pus from pasteurized milk by a process of centrifugal clarification.” Raw milk proponents say they drink raw milk for its health benefits and taste.

The Raw Milk Debate is Heating Up Organic Patures and Claravale Farm, another raw milk producers in California, are currently fighting a new California law, AB1735. The law would limit levels of coliform bacteria (a type of beneficial bacteria) in bottled raw milk to just 10 per milliliter, which is the same level required of pasteurized milk. However, keeping levels this low is nearly impossible in raw milk, which means the law would all but put raw milk producers out of business. After a two-month battle, a Superior Court Judge issued a “temporary restraining order” that is keeping California from enforcing the coliform limit in raw milk, and a new hearing — that could spell either victory or defeat for sales of raw milk in California — will occur in six to eight weeks.

In the meantime, the FDA has been investigating Organic Pastures — including asking two employees to “wear a wire” and suggesting it would be made worth their while to do so — to find out whether the dairy has been illegally selling raw milk out of state. For more information on the fight for raw milk, visit the Campaign for Real Milk Web site.

In a study, published in the March 31 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers studied the effects of starvation on cancerous and normal cells. First, they induced a starvation-related response in yeast cells, which made them 1,000 times more protected than untreated cells.

Then, they tested the effects of fasting on human and cancer cells in a test tube and in mice. The results showed starvation produced between a twofold and fivefold difference in stress resistance between the normal, starvation-treated cells and normal cells. In tests with live mice, of 28 mice starved for 48-60 hours before chemotherapy, only 1 died (less than 4%). Of 37 mice that were not starved prior to treatment, 20 mice died from chemotherapy toxicity (over 50%).

This is another study clearly demonstrating the fact that “the less you eat, the longer you live.”  Any natural approach to recover from cancerous tumors must begin with a fasting and detox routine.  Then only put good stuff in.  Cancer cells love corn syrup.

DrD

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 states,

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It looks like contrary to popular belief, obese people are not “just big boned”  In fact, the following study shows a smaller bone size and strength for obese college age women versus those with less that 32% body fat. 

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 86, No. 5, 1530-1538, November 2007
  

Is adiposity advantageous for bone strength? A peripheral quantitative computed tomography study in late adolescent females^1,2,3

Norman K Pollock, Emma M Laing, Clifton A Baile, Mark W Hamrick, Daniel B Hall and Richard D Lewis ¹ From the Departments of Foods and Nutrition (NKP, EML, CAB, and RDL) and Statistics (DBH), The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, and the Department of Cellular Biology and Anatomy, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA (MWH)

Background: Whereas excess adiposity is presumed to be advantageous for the skeleton, studies investigating relations between bone strength and fat during youth have been equivocal.

Objectives: Relations of percentage body fat (BF) and bone strength indexes were assessed in late adolescent females, taking into consideration surrogates of muscle force [ie, muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA) and bone length]. Bone measurements in the normal- and high-fat groups were also compared.

Design: Late adolescent females (n = 115; aged 18.2 ± 0.4 y) participated in this cross-sectional study. Fat-free soft tissue mass, fat mass, and percentage BF were measured with the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Tibial and radial peripheral quantitative computed tomography measurements were taken at the 4% (trabecular bone), 20% (cortical bone), and 66% (for measurement of MCSA) sites from the distal metaphyses.

Results: Percentage BF was inversely related to radial cortical bone area, total bone cross-sectional area (CSA), cortical bone mineral content (BMC), periosteal circumference, and strength-strain index (SSI) (20% site; all P < 0.05). After control for MCSA and limb length, negative relations remained between percentage BF and radial measurements and were also observed at the tibia (20% site). Unadjusted bone measures were not different between groups. After control for MCSA, the high- compared with the normal-fat group had lower bone measures at the 20% site (cortical bone area and cortical BMC at the tibia, total bone CSA at the radius, and SSI at both the tibia and radius; P < 0.05 for all).

Conclusion: Excess weight in the form of fat mass does not provide additional benefits, and may potentially be negative, for adolescent bone.