essential oils in the bible
8.22.2012
Essential oils were used in the Bible by Moses, and they were referenced 260 times, and over 33 different types of oils are mentioned by name!
In fact, in the book of Exodus when the Lord refers to holy anointing oil it was a specific formula God recommended. This formula was used to anoint priests and kings. And, this holy anointing oil was used when someone went to the priest for healing. The oil was poured onto their head and they were prayed for. And this wasn’t just a ritual, this oil was known to have healing properties. In the book of Numbers 16 Moses tells the high priest Aaron to burn oils as incense to stop a plague. We know that these oils, especially cinnamon, have powerful anti-bacterial properties that could protect the people.
Then as the Bible tells us 3 wise men gave the infant King of Israel gifts of gold to honor his royalty, frankincense as a perfume, and myrrh for anointing oil. Although there is probably some truth to this, other sources claim that the wise men from the far east were actually being more practical by giving the baby Jesus these precious, costly items that could double as potential medical remedies. During that time frankincense was used to support the immune system and fight infection which could heal a sick child. Myrrh was known to help healing after pregnancy and support hormonal health.
In fact, in the book of Exodus when the Lord refers to holy anointing oil it was a specific formula God recommended. This formula was used to anoint priests and kings. And, this holy anointing oil was used when someone went to the priest for healing. The oil was poured onto their head and they were prayed for. And this wasn’t just a ritual, this oil was known to have healing properties. In the book of Numbers 16 Moses tells the high priest Aaron to burn oils as incense to stop a plague. We know that these oils, especially cinnamon, have powerful anti-bacterial properties that could protect the people.
Then as the Bible tells us 3 wise men gave the infant King of Israel gifts of gold to honor his royalty, frankincense as a perfume, and myrrh for anointing oil. Although there is probably some truth to this, other sources claim that the wise men from the far east were actually being more practical by giving the baby Jesus these precious, costly items that could double as potential medical remedies. During that time frankincense was used to support the immune system and fight infection which could heal a sick child. Myrrh was known to help healing after pregnancy and support hormonal health.
Bible Anointing Oil
-- Myrrh 6kg
-- Cinnamon 3kg
-- Calamus 3kg
-- Cassia 6kg
-- Olive Oil 7kg
what is homeoprophylaxis?
4.25.2015
Homeoprophylaxis vs vaccination
What is homeoprophylaxis?
Homeoprophylaxis is the homeopathic method of immunization that can be used instead of vaccination.
For more details and explanation:
http://www.thevaccinealternative.com/welcome
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/parents-do-have-vaccine-alternative?page=2
Dr. Golden's work found improved long term health outcomes of using homeoprophylaxis for children instead of conventional vaccination. It seems that allowing exposure to the natural disease in energetic form carries this benefit without any of the risks. Dr. Golden explains, "I would suggest that HP remedies stimulate the energetic immune response and this must lead to a maturing of the response in an analogous way that infection with simple diseases can help to mature the physical immune response." [4]
I've gone on to use homeoprophylaxis with my own children and countless other children whose parents are looking for a safe alternative. I've met with Dr Golden and others who have successfully applied homeoprophylaxis for epidemics in Australia, Cuba, S. America, India and other nations. In October 2015 Dr Golden along with others from around the world will be gathering to present their findings at a conference called "Homeoprophylaxis: A Worldwide Choice for Disease Protection." [5]
What is homeoprophylaxis?
Homeoprophylaxis is the homeopathic method of immunization that can be used instead of vaccination.
For more details and explanation:
http://www.thevaccinealternative.com/welcome
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/parents-do-have-vaccine-alternative?page=2
Dr. Golden's work found improved long term health outcomes of using homeoprophylaxis for children instead of conventional vaccination. It seems that allowing exposure to the natural disease in energetic form carries this benefit without any of the risks. Dr. Golden explains, "I would suggest that HP remedies stimulate the energetic immune response and this must lead to a maturing of the response in an analogous way that infection with simple diseases can help to mature the physical immune response." [4]
I've gone on to use homeoprophylaxis with my own children and countless other children whose parents are looking for a safe alternative. I've met with Dr Golden and others who have successfully applied homeoprophylaxis for epidemics in Australia, Cuba, S. America, India and other nations. In October 2015 Dr Golden along with others from around the world will be gathering to present their findings at a conference called "Homeoprophylaxis: A Worldwide Choice for Disease Protection." [5]
the (american) history of compulsory vaccination and its ties to eugenics
4.23.2015
This is a little long but I confess that I didn't know about this connection until this article so it's worth your time.
Forced vaccinations and eugenics are quite a pair.
http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/the-american-history-of-compulsory-vaccination-and-its-ties-to-eugenics/
Health Impact News Editor Comments
In the article presented here, Attorney Emord looks at the history of compulsory vaccination, and shows how it was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who stripped away Fourteenth Amendment rights in regards to compulsory vaccination, the very same judge who ruled in favor of forced sterilization which was supported by the “science” of that day, eugenics. Eugenics is the same “science” used by the Nazis in Germany to endorse eliminating “feeble-minded” people in favor of a “master race.”
The National Socialist Roots Of Compulsory Vaccination, by Attorney Jonathan Emord
NewsWithViews.com
Legislators in thirteen states have introduced bills that would severely constrict or eliminate exemptions from compulsory vaccination, with the intended aim of coercing, cajoling, or forcing those who have not been vaccinated to become so. Those states are California (SB 277); Illinois (SB 1410); Maine (LD 606); Maryland (HB 687); Minnesota (SF 380 and HF 393); New Jersey (S 1147 and A351); New Mexico (HB 522); Oregon (SB 442); Pennsylvania; Rhode Island (S381); Texas (SB 1114; SB 538; HB 2006); Vermont (H212; S87); and Washington (HB 2009).
Amidst hysteria arising from a relatively small number of cases of measles (some 600 last year and some 150 this year), law makers would take away everyone’s rights to liberty and personal autonomy.
Given the likelihood that at least some of these draconian measures will pass, it is wise to reflect upon our history to see from whence this peculiar deviation from ordinary protection for liberty rights comes. It is also wise to appreciate that the law favoring compulsory vaccination is now scientifically anachronistic and that modern understanding of immunology enables us to employ measures that reduce the risk of disease carriage and transmission without forcibly tying down children and adults and injecting them with substances they do not wish to have in their bodies.
It will surprise many to learn that the concept of compulsory vaccination has national socialist roots in our country that spring from the same drive for a “master race” that led the Nazis to embrace eugenics (including forced sterilization) and dysgenics (including execution of the Jews and others deemed “undesirable”). It will surprise many to learn that the person most responsible for eliminating constitutional protections against such intrusions (the Fourteenth Amendment) is one regarded as among America’s greatest jurists and legal scholars, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes believed in eugenics and even dysgenics (execution of those whom he regarded as “feeble-minded,” “undesirable,” and “inadequate”).
Horrific to any reasonable person in any age, Holmes relished in the idea of creating a “pure” American bloodline through government mandated infanticide and sterilizations. It was therefore of little consequence to him that individuals be forcibly vaccinated, because in his view the science of eugenics and purification of the race were far more important to protect and advance than the individual’s right to liberty.
When the law gives sanction to compulsory vaccination on the theory that the public interest trumps the individual right of personal autonomy and liberty, precious little defense remains for individuals to dissent from all manner of government health-based impositions. If those in power can compel a person to receive an injection against his or her will to ward off diseases said to be communicable, than what is to stop the state from forcibly requiring that all Americans be tested for, say, heritable disease and sterilized if they are found genetically predisposed to pass on diseases that burden society like certain forms of breast cancer, Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Haemophilia, polycystic kidney disease, sickle-cell disease, or Tay-Sachs disease?
Setting aside whether these diseases are, in fact, heritable rather than the product of environment and whether they would arise even if people who have them were sterilized, it is the popular medical dogma (as it is with diseases for which vaccines have been created) that elimination of them can only be achieved by one sure method: eliminating the culprit genes from heritability.
There is in this compulsory thinking an elitist motive with strong ties to the notion that the power of the state should be marshaled against a minority of those resistant to the popular will in favor of vaccination, taking from them their freedom to ensure that they conform. Indeed, it is an elitest conception of conformity that drives both mandatory vaccination and mandatory sterilization.
If you do not see in this compulsion the hallmarks of national socialism, antithetical to our Constitution of Liberty, you must revisit world history from the age of Enlightenment to the end of Nazi Germany. In between, you will find that the same foul doctrine of authoritarian control over the individual existed in this country as in fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan, as in Communist China today. Indeed, that doctrine was given legal approval by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
In Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes, University of Chicago Professor of Law Emeritus Albert W. Alschuler records Holmes reasons for favoring deprivation of individual liberty to serve the ends of medical science. To quote Holmes, he favored “substitut[ing] artificial selection for natural by putting to death the inadequate.” He professed “contempt” for “socialisms not prepared . . . to kill everyone below standard.” He envisioned “a future in which science shall have passed from the combative to the dogmatic stage, and shall have gained such catholic acceptance that it shall take control of life, and condemn at once with instant execution what now is left for nature to destroy.”
He thought it worth “whatever the cost” to achieve the goal of keeping “certain strains out of our blood.” He believed in “restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn’t pass the examination, etc., etc.” He believed that we should “prevent continuance of the unfit.”
We see comparably repulsive favoritism for ending the lives of others with whom he harbored disdain in a decision by Holmes holding forced sterilization constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, the infamous 1927 decision of Buck v. Bell. In that decision, Holmes wrote that it was within the rightful power of the state to:
“prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” He crudely added, “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Holmes relished the opportunity to transform American law in ways that would elevate the power of the state over the individual such that medical procedures deemed to be for the good of society could trump the individual right to personal liberty and autonomy. His first foray into this realm as a jurist was the 1905 decision of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case, a Massachusetts law permitted forcible vaccination whenever the board of health of a city or town determined it to be necessary “for the public health and safety.” Smallpox had appeared in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the city adopted a regulation compelling vaccination of city inhabitants.
Jacobson did not want to experience any risks arising from the vaccine and had a Fourteenth Amendment liberty right to refuse. Broadly construing the state police power, Holmes argued that the liberty right of the Fourteenth Amendment was not absolute and that to protect the safety of members of society, the interests of “safety, health, peace, good order, and the morals of the community” could override liberty. Holmes therefore ruled that Massachusetts could compel Jacobson’s vaccination.
Decided in 1905, the Jacobson decision has become quite dated, scientifically. While still followed by state courts, the law has failed to keep pace with the evolution in the science of immunology. In 2015, the scientific and medical communities have a far better understanding of the nature of disease transmission and of the relative levels of risk associated with disease. There are numerous less restrictive alternatives to vaccination that provide as great, if not greater, protection against individuals becoming carriers of disease. For example, we now understand well those circumstances that must be present for a disease, like measles, to be transmitted.
Let us assume, for example, that there is an outbreak of measles in a public school in Newark, New Jersey, and your child who is not vaccinated attends school in Camden, New Jersey. Let us assume further that upon consultation with an expert in immunology and based on that consult, you insure that your child takes specific and extensive steps to avoid becoming a carrier of the disease. For example, among other risk reduction strategies, you have your child at school wear a face mask covering nose and mouth and hygienic gloves and avoid any interpersonal contact with other students during the time public authorities say there remains a risk of measles contagion. Because vaccines are not 100% effective, including the measles vaccine, there will be children who will become carriers and may transmit the disease to others even when vaccinated. It is the case, however, that your child, having observed these alternative steps will be at no greater risk of contracting the disease than a child who is vaccinated.
In short, the presence of obvious, less intrusive alternatives to vaccination in aid of reducing to zero or near zero the risk of disease transmission raises a new basis to reverse Jacobson and restore full Fourteenth Amendment protection to the liberty right of the individual who wishes not to be vaccinated. Even in Jacobson, Holmes saw fit to cite United States v. Kirby for the proposition that laws must be given a sensible construction and that “general terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence.”
Compulsory vaccination statutes today are a throw back to a repulsive era in our own nation’s history from the dawn of the Twentieth Century to the end of World War II of national socialism, of eugenics, when the rights of man were made to take a back seat to the quest of nations to develop a master race, free of disease and of all “undesirables,” to quote Holmes. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was a strong advocate of this form of national socialism, believing wholeheartedly in the creation of an American master race in which forced vaccination, sterilization, and extermination of “undesirables” were lawful measures to advance the cause.
That repulsive view, even in the slightest application, has no place in a nation that defends liberty to its fullest rightful extent, as Thomas Jefferson understood it: “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”
In protecting the rights of all, we must especially protect the rights of the minority, because each of us will at some point be a part of a minority standing against the will of a majority with political power. To ensure adequate protection for individual rights, we must ensure that no measure of compulsion adopted by the state is allowed to trump Fourteenth Amendment and, in the case of free exercise of religion against vaccination, First Amendment grounds when there are obvious, less intrusive alternatives to the compulsion. In the case of vaccination, we have reached that point of scientific knowledge whereby it is no longer necessary to traumatize children who wish not to be vaccinated or parents for that matter, so long as they are willing to undertake reasonable alternative measures to reduce the risk of disease carriage and transmission.
© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord – Reprinted with Permission. Originally published at NewsWithViews.com
Jonathan W. Emord has been practicing constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies since 1985. Having begun his career as an attorney in the Federal Communications Commission during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, Emord has maintained an abiding conviction to achieve full First Amendment protection for the freedoms of speech and press. He is routinely consulted by industry, Congress, and the media on regulatory issues that affect health freedom. He is a Guest Lecturer at the Georgetown University, Department of Biochemistry, Course in Nutrition and at the Georgetown University Law Center, Alternative, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Legal Issues Course.
See Also:
Are Proposed Forced Vaccination Laws Comparable to Eugenics Forced Sterilization Laws in the U.S
More than a half century ago, famed writer C.S. Lewis warned about how science (a good thing) could be twisted in order to attack religion, undermine ethics, and limit human freedom. Lewis lived during the era of scientific eugenics, and saw first hand its horrors.
In this documentary “The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism,” leading scholars explore Lewis’s prophetic warnings about the abuse of science and how Lewis’s concerns are increasingly relevant for us today.
Quote from C.S. Lewis:
“I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in.”
Forced vaccinations and eugenics are quite a pair.
http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/the-american-history-of-compulsory-vaccination-and-its-ties-to-eugenics/
Health Impact News Editor Comments
In the article presented here, Attorney Emord looks at the history of compulsory vaccination, and shows how it was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who stripped away Fourteenth Amendment rights in regards to compulsory vaccination, the very same judge who ruled in favor of forced sterilization which was supported by the “science” of that day, eugenics. Eugenics is the same “science” used by the Nazis in Germany to endorse eliminating “feeble-minded” people in favor of a “master race.”
The National Socialist Roots Of Compulsory Vaccination, by Attorney Jonathan Emord
NewsWithViews.com
Legislators in thirteen states have introduced bills that would severely constrict or eliminate exemptions from compulsory vaccination, with the intended aim of coercing, cajoling, or forcing those who have not been vaccinated to become so. Those states are California (SB 277); Illinois (SB 1410); Maine (LD 606); Maryland (HB 687); Minnesota (SF 380 and HF 393); New Jersey (S 1147 and A351); New Mexico (HB 522); Oregon (SB 442); Pennsylvania; Rhode Island (S381); Texas (SB 1114; SB 538; HB 2006); Vermont (H212; S87); and Washington (HB 2009).
Amidst hysteria arising from a relatively small number of cases of measles (some 600 last year and some 150 this year), law makers would take away everyone’s rights to liberty and personal autonomy.
Given the likelihood that at least some of these draconian measures will pass, it is wise to reflect upon our history to see from whence this peculiar deviation from ordinary protection for liberty rights comes. It is also wise to appreciate that the law favoring compulsory vaccination is now scientifically anachronistic and that modern understanding of immunology enables us to employ measures that reduce the risk of disease carriage and transmission without forcibly tying down children and adults and injecting them with substances they do not wish to have in their bodies.
It will surprise many to learn that the concept of compulsory vaccination has national socialist roots in our country that spring from the same drive for a “master race” that led the Nazis to embrace eugenics (including forced sterilization) and dysgenics (including execution of the Jews and others deemed “undesirable”). It will surprise many to learn that the person most responsible for eliminating constitutional protections against such intrusions (the Fourteenth Amendment) is one regarded as among America’s greatest jurists and legal scholars, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes believed in eugenics and even dysgenics (execution of those whom he regarded as “feeble-minded,” “undesirable,” and “inadequate”).
Horrific to any reasonable person in any age, Holmes relished in the idea of creating a “pure” American bloodline through government mandated infanticide and sterilizations. It was therefore of little consequence to him that individuals be forcibly vaccinated, because in his view the science of eugenics and purification of the race were far more important to protect and advance than the individual’s right to liberty.
When the law gives sanction to compulsory vaccination on the theory that the public interest trumps the individual right of personal autonomy and liberty, precious little defense remains for individuals to dissent from all manner of government health-based impositions. If those in power can compel a person to receive an injection against his or her will to ward off diseases said to be communicable, than what is to stop the state from forcibly requiring that all Americans be tested for, say, heritable disease and sterilized if they are found genetically predisposed to pass on diseases that burden society like certain forms of breast cancer, Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Haemophilia, polycystic kidney disease, sickle-cell disease, or Tay-Sachs disease?
Setting aside whether these diseases are, in fact, heritable rather than the product of environment and whether they would arise even if people who have them were sterilized, it is the popular medical dogma (as it is with diseases for which vaccines have been created) that elimination of them can only be achieved by one sure method: eliminating the culprit genes from heritability.
There is in this compulsory thinking an elitist motive with strong ties to the notion that the power of the state should be marshaled against a minority of those resistant to the popular will in favor of vaccination, taking from them their freedom to ensure that they conform. Indeed, it is an elitest conception of conformity that drives both mandatory vaccination and mandatory sterilization.
If you do not see in this compulsion the hallmarks of national socialism, antithetical to our Constitution of Liberty, you must revisit world history from the age of Enlightenment to the end of Nazi Germany. In between, you will find that the same foul doctrine of authoritarian control over the individual existed in this country as in fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan, as in Communist China today. Indeed, that doctrine was given legal approval by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
In Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes, University of Chicago Professor of Law Emeritus Albert W. Alschuler records Holmes reasons for favoring deprivation of individual liberty to serve the ends of medical science. To quote Holmes, he favored “substitut[ing] artificial selection for natural by putting to death the inadequate.” He professed “contempt” for “socialisms not prepared . . . to kill everyone below standard.” He envisioned “a future in which science shall have passed from the combative to the dogmatic stage, and shall have gained such catholic acceptance that it shall take control of life, and condemn at once with instant execution what now is left for nature to destroy.”
He thought it worth “whatever the cost” to achieve the goal of keeping “certain strains out of our blood.” He believed in “restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn’t pass the examination, etc., etc.” He believed that we should “prevent continuance of the unfit.”
We see comparably repulsive favoritism for ending the lives of others with whom he harbored disdain in a decision by Holmes holding forced sterilization constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, the infamous 1927 decision of Buck v. Bell. In that decision, Holmes wrote that it was within the rightful power of the state to:
“prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” He crudely added, “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Holmes relished the opportunity to transform American law in ways that would elevate the power of the state over the individual such that medical procedures deemed to be for the good of society could trump the individual right to personal liberty and autonomy. His first foray into this realm as a jurist was the 1905 decision of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case, a Massachusetts law permitted forcible vaccination whenever the board of health of a city or town determined it to be necessary “for the public health and safety.” Smallpox had appeared in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the city adopted a regulation compelling vaccination of city inhabitants.
Jacobson did not want to experience any risks arising from the vaccine and had a Fourteenth Amendment liberty right to refuse. Broadly construing the state police power, Holmes argued that the liberty right of the Fourteenth Amendment was not absolute and that to protect the safety of members of society, the interests of “safety, health, peace, good order, and the morals of the community” could override liberty. Holmes therefore ruled that Massachusetts could compel Jacobson’s vaccination.
Decided in 1905, the Jacobson decision has become quite dated, scientifically. While still followed by state courts, the law has failed to keep pace with the evolution in the science of immunology. In 2015, the scientific and medical communities have a far better understanding of the nature of disease transmission and of the relative levels of risk associated with disease. There are numerous less restrictive alternatives to vaccination that provide as great, if not greater, protection against individuals becoming carriers of disease. For example, we now understand well those circumstances that must be present for a disease, like measles, to be transmitted.
Let us assume, for example, that there is an outbreak of measles in a public school in Newark, New Jersey, and your child who is not vaccinated attends school in Camden, New Jersey. Let us assume further that upon consultation with an expert in immunology and based on that consult, you insure that your child takes specific and extensive steps to avoid becoming a carrier of the disease. For example, among other risk reduction strategies, you have your child at school wear a face mask covering nose and mouth and hygienic gloves and avoid any interpersonal contact with other students during the time public authorities say there remains a risk of measles contagion. Because vaccines are not 100% effective, including the measles vaccine, there will be children who will become carriers and may transmit the disease to others even when vaccinated. It is the case, however, that your child, having observed these alternative steps will be at no greater risk of contracting the disease than a child who is vaccinated.
In short, the presence of obvious, less intrusive alternatives to vaccination in aid of reducing to zero or near zero the risk of disease transmission raises a new basis to reverse Jacobson and restore full Fourteenth Amendment protection to the liberty right of the individual who wishes not to be vaccinated. Even in Jacobson, Holmes saw fit to cite United States v. Kirby for the proposition that laws must be given a sensible construction and that “general terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence.”
Compulsory vaccination statutes today are a throw back to a repulsive era in our own nation’s history from the dawn of the Twentieth Century to the end of World War II of national socialism, of eugenics, when the rights of man were made to take a back seat to the quest of nations to develop a master race, free of disease and of all “undesirables,” to quote Holmes. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was a strong advocate of this form of national socialism, believing wholeheartedly in the creation of an American master race in which forced vaccination, sterilization, and extermination of “undesirables” were lawful measures to advance the cause.
That repulsive view, even in the slightest application, has no place in a nation that defends liberty to its fullest rightful extent, as Thomas Jefferson understood it: “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”
In protecting the rights of all, we must especially protect the rights of the minority, because each of us will at some point be a part of a minority standing against the will of a majority with political power. To ensure adequate protection for individual rights, we must ensure that no measure of compulsion adopted by the state is allowed to trump Fourteenth Amendment and, in the case of free exercise of religion against vaccination, First Amendment grounds when there are obvious, less intrusive alternatives to the compulsion. In the case of vaccination, we have reached that point of scientific knowledge whereby it is no longer necessary to traumatize children who wish not to be vaccinated or parents for that matter, so long as they are willing to undertake reasonable alternative measures to reduce the risk of disease carriage and transmission.
© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord – Reprinted with Permission. Originally published at NewsWithViews.com
Jonathan W. Emord has been practicing constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies since 1985. Having begun his career as an attorney in the Federal Communications Commission during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, Emord has maintained an abiding conviction to achieve full First Amendment protection for the freedoms of speech and press. He is routinely consulted by industry, Congress, and the media on regulatory issues that affect health freedom. He is a Guest Lecturer at the Georgetown University, Department of Biochemistry, Course in Nutrition and at the Georgetown University Law Center, Alternative, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Legal Issues Course.
See Also:
Are Proposed Forced Vaccination Laws Comparable to Eugenics Forced Sterilization Laws in the U.S
More than a half century ago, famed writer C.S. Lewis warned about how science (a good thing) could be twisted in order to attack religion, undermine ethics, and limit human freedom. Lewis lived during the era of scientific eugenics, and saw first hand its horrors.
In this documentary “The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism,” leading scholars explore Lewis’s prophetic warnings about the abuse of science and how Lewis’s concerns are increasingly relevant for us today.
Quote from C.S. Lewis:
“I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in.”
mayo clinic cures cancer with measles
3.19.2015
This is an amazing study. Big pharma can't profit from these findings so I can't see that they will take this lightly. Pray the truth is found and disseminated WIDELY!
*****************************
Article by Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist - link below
In 2007, I gave a lecture at an international nutritional conference where I discussed how repression of acute and infectious disease and its symptoms can be a catalyst for chronic, degenerative diseases to take hold like asthma and cancer later on.
For example, when the body “gives up” and a person stops experiencing acute illness even as simple as the common cold, which has a powerful detoxifying effect on the entire physiology, the stage is set for chronic illness. A typical scenario for many cancer patients is that they have not had a cold in years. My Father, who is a retired Geriatrician, used to see this in his practice. One story he tells is of a patient who came in for a physical who hadn’t been sick in years and seemed outwardly to be fine. Tests showed that he had cancer everywhere.
When the body has become too weak to respond to acute illness or generate a good, strong fever in response to an invading pathogen, the toxins build up without any release and the inevitable result is chronic disease sometimes very serious in nature.
Here are some other examples of how repression of acute or infectious disease is simply playing a game of whack-a-mole with degenerative disease just popping up instead:
Reducing a fever in children that is nature’s physiological response to acute illness is very detrimental to their health. Repeated forced reduction of childhood fever has been linked to childhood cancer and a very high risk for asthma. And, eliminating fever will usually cause a secondary infection that starts a domino effect toward antibiotic use. In other words, if you want to avoid antibiotics, don’t bring down the fever. Fever reduction suppresses the immune system. Your child is trying to get well himself with the fever and when you bring it down you are opening him up to a secondary bacterial infection that will further entrench the illness. It cannot be stressed enough that fever is a beneficial and detoxifying biological response to illness and has an important role to play in your child’s overall wellbeing.
Nephritic syndrome in children is a condition where the kidneys leak protein. The only known cure for this serious condition is contracting measles—the measles vaccine does not work. Somehow when the child has nephritic syndrome and contracts measles, the acute symptoms resolve the slow, degenerative process of nephritic syndrome.
Cancer remission is frequently triggered by getting strep. Doctors have known about this for years. In some cases, using strep, they have triggered a 40 percent remission rate.
Mayo Clinic Cures Cancer with Measles
Scientific research is now beginning to uncover the manner in which infectious disease plays a role not only in prevention of chronic disease, but in curing it as well.
In May of 2014, the Mayo Clinic published a very compelling report that detailed the complete remission of incurable cancer, multiple myeloma, in a female patient.
The cure?
The measles virus!
In a proof of concept clinical trial, Mayo Clinic researchers demonstrated that virotherapy works by destroying the deadly cancer multiple myeloma with a virus that infects and kills cancer cells but spares normal tissues.
Multiple myeloma is a cancer of plasma cells in the bone marrow, also causing skeletal or soft tissue tumors. This deadly cancer usually responds to immune system-stimulating drugs, but is rarely cured eventually killing almost all patients.
The two female patients in the Mayo Clinic clinical trial received a single intravenous dose of measles virus (this was not a measles vaccine) that was selectively toxic to myeloma plasma cells. Both patients showed a reduction of both bone marrow cancer and myeloma protein. One patient, a 49-year-old woman, experienced complete remission of myeloma and is still clear of the disease many months later.
It is important to note that both women had limited previous exposure to measles (meaning few measles antibodies) and essentially no remaining treatment options.
The second female patient in the study whose multiple myeloma did not respond as well to treatment with the measles virus still provided important feedback for the researchers. Imaging of the woman’s tumor sites provided clear proof that the measles virus did indeed specifically target tumor sites while leaving healthy tissue alone.
Oncolytic virotherapy, using viruses like measles to fight cancer, is not new. It’s been around since the 1950’s. Since that time, thousands of cancer patients have been treated with many different viruses including herpes, chicken pox, and even the common cold. The breakthrough with this study, however, is that it provides the first clearly documented case of a cancer patient who experienced complete remission at all disease sites after administration of the measles virus.A larger phase two of this exciting clinical trial is currently being planned. In the meantime? Don’t be so freaked out by measles! It may yet be proven that these childhood infectious diseases so aggressively avoided by so many are actually beneficial to long term health by natural inoculation, if you will, against degenerative diseases like cancer.
Below is a fun clip of TV shows from the 50’s and 60’s (The Donna Reed Show, 1950, The Flintstones 1961, and The Brady Bunch 1969) which demonstrates the public sentiment about measles at that time.
The verdict before the Big Pharma Marketing Machine for the measles vaccine took over? Measles is really no big deal. My, how quickly we forget!
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/mayo-clinic-researchers-cure-cancer-with-measles/
*****************************
Article by Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist - link below
In 2007, I gave a lecture at an international nutritional conference where I discussed how repression of acute and infectious disease and its symptoms can be a catalyst for chronic, degenerative diseases to take hold like asthma and cancer later on.
For example, when the body “gives up” and a person stops experiencing acute illness even as simple as the common cold, which has a powerful detoxifying effect on the entire physiology, the stage is set for chronic illness. A typical scenario for many cancer patients is that they have not had a cold in years. My Father, who is a retired Geriatrician, used to see this in his practice. One story he tells is of a patient who came in for a physical who hadn’t been sick in years and seemed outwardly to be fine. Tests showed that he had cancer everywhere.
When the body has become too weak to respond to acute illness or generate a good, strong fever in response to an invading pathogen, the toxins build up without any release and the inevitable result is chronic disease sometimes very serious in nature.
Here are some other examples of how repression of acute or infectious disease is simply playing a game of whack-a-mole with degenerative disease just popping up instead:
Reducing a fever in children that is nature’s physiological response to acute illness is very detrimental to their health. Repeated forced reduction of childhood fever has been linked to childhood cancer and a very high risk for asthma. And, eliminating fever will usually cause a secondary infection that starts a domino effect toward antibiotic use. In other words, if you want to avoid antibiotics, don’t bring down the fever. Fever reduction suppresses the immune system. Your child is trying to get well himself with the fever and when you bring it down you are opening him up to a secondary bacterial infection that will further entrench the illness. It cannot be stressed enough that fever is a beneficial and detoxifying biological response to illness and has an important role to play in your child’s overall wellbeing.
Nephritic syndrome in children is a condition where the kidneys leak protein. The only known cure for this serious condition is contracting measles—the measles vaccine does not work. Somehow when the child has nephritic syndrome and contracts measles, the acute symptoms resolve the slow, degenerative process of nephritic syndrome.
Cancer remission is frequently triggered by getting strep. Doctors have known about this for years. In some cases, using strep, they have triggered a 40 percent remission rate.
Mayo Clinic Cures Cancer with Measles
Scientific research is now beginning to uncover the manner in which infectious disease plays a role not only in prevention of chronic disease, but in curing it as well.
In May of 2014, the Mayo Clinic published a very compelling report that detailed the complete remission of incurable cancer, multiple myeloma, in a female patient.
The cure?
The measles virus!
In a proof of concept clinical trial, Mayo Clinic researchers demonstrated that virotherapy works by destroying the deadly cancer multiple myeloma with a virus that infects and kills cancer cells but spares normal tissues.
Multiple myeloma is a cancer of plasma cells in the bone marrow, also causing skeletal or soft tissue tumors. This deadly cancer usually responds to immune system-stimulating drugs, but is rarely cured eventually killing almost all patients.
The two female patients in the Mayo Clinic clinical trial received a single intravenous dose of measles virus (this was not a measles vaccine) that was selectively toxic to myeloma plasma cells. Both patients showed a reduction of both bone marrow cancer and myeloma protein. One patient, a 49-year-old woman, experienced complete remission of myeloma and is still clear of the disease many months later.
It is important to note that both women had limited previous exposure to measles (meaning few measles antibodies) and essentially no remaining treatment options.
The second female patient in the study whose multiple myeloma did not respond as well to treatment with the measles virus still provided important feedback for the researchers. Imaging of the woman’s tumor sites provided clear proof that the measles virus did indeed specifically target tumor sites while leaving healthy tissue alone.
Oncolytic virotherapy, using viruses like measles to fight cancer, is not new. It’s been around since the 1950’s. Since that time, thousands of cancer patients have been treated with many different viruses including herpes, chicken pox, and even the common cold. The breakthrough with this study, however, is that it provides the first clearly documented case of a cancer patient who experienced complete remission at all disease sites after administration of the measles virus.A larger phase two of this exciting clinical trial is currently being planned. In the meantime? Don’t be so freaked out by measles! It may yet be proven that these childhood infectious diseases so aggressively avoided by so many are actually beneficial to long term health by natural inoculation, if you will, against degenerative diseases like cancer.
Below is a fun clip of TV shows from the 50’s and 60’s (The Donna Reed Show, 1950, The Flintstones 1961, and The Brady Bunch 1969) which demonstrates the public sentiment about measles at that time.
The verdict before the Big Pharma Marketing Machine for the measles vaccine took over? Measles is really no big deal. My, how quickly we forget!
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/mayo-clinic-researchers-cure-cancer-with-measles/
no vaccines since 1916 for this family -- all are healthy
12.10.2013
Posted on November 22, 2013 by The Refusers
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/what-happens-if-you-decide-not-to-vaccinate-your-child/#.UpJT3Y0VlgM
The story of a four-generation unvaccinated family. By Jennifer Z. Vaughn
SHOULDN’T THIS FAMILY BE DEAD?
Every American is expected to understand it: “Get the shots that your doctor recommends or suffer dire consequences. Vaccines are one of the greatest achievements of bio medical science and public health. They are the most important and valuable tool in the history of mankind for reducing infectious disease, and those who fail to obtain them are at an elevated risk for injury, disability, even death.“ Children’s programming on Sesame Street once advised:
“Shots are good
Germs are bad.
Get your shots or
You’ll be sad.”
But many of us who are paying close attention are hearing another (and radically different) story. Accounts of vaccine injury, disability, chronic illness and yes, sadly, deaths that result from placing trust in those same declarations.
Mine is an anecdotal story. It’s one that I believe deserves to be told. I won’t be presenting any studies, graphs, tables, statistics—all of which are within easy reach to anyone wanting to see the available ‘science’ on the much-debated subject of vaccination. The result of Googling the word ‘vaccines’ delivers four million, seven hundred eighty-nine thousand, seven hundred seventy-six sites. During the past 35 years, I’ve read thousands of journal articles, research documents, blogs, websites, news items and many books that are often as confounding as they are informative. So in an effort to keep this as simple as possible, think of it as just another story about an average family doing its best to thrive.
Of the countless decisions parents face today, few are as controversial as the vaccine question, and if not for the rising number of alleged injuries the question would be a virtual no-brainer. Unless (and until) someone is personally touched by a vaccine-gone-wrong, the conventional wisdom prevails. Surely doctors, hospitals, public health officials and medical authorities know best? If vaccines presented a genuine danger, wouldn’t they tell us? Is “immunizing” the same thing as “vaccinating?”
Let’s look at this more closely.
It’s undeniably true that we have not seen polio or smallpox outbreak in America for a very long time. Surely that’s because vaccines “work.” Isn’t it? There are also other things happening that we’ve NEVER seen before—like chronic illness in the childhood population, escalating numbers of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, psychiatric medication for childhood behavioral and learning disorders, childhood allergies, Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, unparalleled need for special education facilities…and the list goes on. One would think that with so many ‘life-saving’ vaccines, America would have the healthy child paradigm pretty much sewed up. Right? So what gives?
Maybe the real question could be: What happens if you decide not to vaccinate your child? Public health officials and the mainstream media advise, “don’t risk it.” Doctors warn parents that if they don’t adhere to the schedule, “your child will die.” Collectively, they suggest that despite all the improvements in public sanitation, personal hygiene, availability of nutritious food and accessibility to medical care, we must be evermore vigilant about vaccinating according to this ever-expanding “schedule.” In fact, authorities can (and do) remove children from their homes to administer medical care, including vaccines. And without the necessity of parental consent in extreme cases. But does repeating something often enough and loud enough make it factually true?
I am a member of a four-generation family who has side-stepped the traditional vaccine cover story. Our eldest family member was born in 1916, our youngest in 2005. With very few minor exceptions, we are entirely unvaccinated. The patriarch and matriarch of our family died at the ages of 93 and 84, respectively. The patriarch, my father, was still working in his lifelong career until two weeks before his death. The second generation, (my own) whose formative years ran parallel with the ‘polio era’, are now in our sixty’s, suffer no chronic illness, have no need for prescription drug use, no history of hospitalization or illness-related surgery. I have lived outside the U.S. and visited 18 foreign countries. Unvaccinated, and without incident. The generation of our own children are now also parents of healthy, high-performing unvaccinated children who are scholastic and athletic award-winners who attend both public and private schools with none of the all-too-common maladies of today’s children.
Within this family, we have both mainstream and alternative healthcare professionals, including doctors and nurses. There are also successful small business owners, degreed psychologists, teachers, a certified nutritionist, professional actor, landscaper, building contractor, designer, restaurateur, wind/solar power consultant, organic farmer, artists, song writers, classical musicians, scholarship recipients and numerous perfect attendance awardees.
Even the most skeptical person must ask: How Could This Happen? If, indeed, vaccination is necessary and essential for the health and well-being of children (and adults) how did this family escape certain death? Shouldn’t we at least be sick? Were we simply riding off the so-called “herd immunity” and getting remarkably lucky? Did we dodge the potential bullet of infectious illness because almost everyone around us was vaccinated? Are we healthier now because the majority of the population was vaccinated in the 1950’s? This is, after all, an anecdotal story. Maybe a better question is “What are we doing that helps us maintain robust health despite being vaccine-free?” Isn’t that called immunity?
Did we ever develop acute childhood illnesses? You bet. In the era of commonplace measles, mumps and chickenpox, we (along with the general population) experienced them. Whooping cough? Yes. Did we gain lifelong immunity to these once-common childhood maladies? Yes. Did anyone ever have the flu? Yes, albeit,
rarely. Were our parents frightened and concerned about communicable illness—even polio—when everyone else was freaking out?
The answer is decidedly not. Their understanding was that childhood illnesses were not only harmless to healthy children, but also served an important function in immune system development. This was their focus and priority. During the polio epidemic we were sitting side-by-side with children who were vaccinated with both the Salk vaccine and the live-virus Sabin vaccine, which was known to shed live polio-virus through mucosa and fecal routes. This is a known mechanism for ‘vaccine-induced flaccid paralysis’. [Translation: vaccine-induced polio.] Were our parents reckless and hopelessly deluded? Did some unscientific dogma cause them to put us in front of an unstoppable train called “polio”?
Did they risk our lives to make some sort of religious or philosophical statement? NO. Within this family group, there are Christians, agnostics, Deists, conformists, non-conformists who all believe there is enormous wisdom in the planet’s bounty. We also believe there is more to ‘us’ than our bodies. We humans have the ability to organize, adapt, mobilize and reason. We understand that vaccines are neither the main nor the most important issue in maintaining health today. We understand the age-old building blocks of immunity—diet, hygiene, restful sleep, stress reduction, exercise, Joy!, optimized nervous system function—are all powerful tools for avoiding catastrophic outcomes. As growing children our diets consisted of abundant fresh fruits and vegetables, high-quality protein, selective grains, limited sugar and zero carbonated drinks. Our parents were far ahead of today’s trends because they understood and insisted on healthy fuel for our growing bodies, much like the parents of today who are referred to as ‘crunchy’. As a result of lifelong attention to known health-boosting practices (other than vaccines) what is also “missing” in this atypical family group is that we’re also free of diabetes, arthritis, asthma, autism, ADD, fibromyalgia, infertility, Alzheimer’s, hypertension, obesity, heart disease and the list goes on. I understand that many people have been convinced that their health is a product of their ‘genetics’ and while it’s true that a small number of today’s maladies are inheritable, all signs point to environmental causes as a far greater indicator of our health status. These are things within our conscious control, even if our genes are not. We are not powerless. We have choices.
Besides avoiding the toxic components of vaccines, what else is involved in staying healthy? Naturally, it requires some vigilance toward staying on the safe side of everyday life. It requires a dedication toward healthy eating, healthy pregnancies, breastfeeding, external and internal cleanliness, cultivating loving relationships, finding meaningful life’s work, generosity toward others, spiritual harmony and in our case, naturopathy and chiropractic. But are we ‘purists’? Hardly. None of us are strict vegetarians or vegans, most of us consume alcohol, a few are tobacco users and even some pot smokers. The optimization of naturally-acquired immune function isn’t merely avoiding potentially harmful vaccines. It involves “immunizing” oneself by giving a body the essential environment for vibrant
health. It doesn’t happen by accident, and does require effort. Sometimes it also means sacrificing a momentary indulgence in an effort to serve the greater good, the long- term goal, or the road less-traveled. And in today’s heated medical environment, it can mean derision, ridicule, suspicion and harassment coming your way. No doubt, there will be criticism toward me for even telling this story. Is it “easier” than, via Dr. Nancy Snyderman, just getting “the damn shot?” Hardly. But is it worth that extra effort? Absolutely.
Our bodies are designed to heal themselves. In fact, they are constantly, in every minute, doing so. Drugs and surgeries are sometimes necessary to bring about the optimal conditions for this self-healing to occur. But neither drugs nor surgery “heal” anyone. Neither does any doctor. All healing is an inside job, and can be enhanced in various ways as it occurs from the inside-out. Your capacity to heal is greater than mainstream medicine would have you believe. For the vast majority of humans today, pharmaceuticals are first-line tools in the arsenal of fighting illness. Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that are perceived to keep people “healthier.” But do they? America has the most highly vaccinated population in the history of the world, and ranks frighteningly low in parameters of health and infant survival, but extremely high in medical expenditure. It appears that more might not be better.
The majority of vaccines on today’s U.S. schedule have been created over the past 30 years, coincidentally, since the time that vaccine manufacturers obtained legal immunity for their risk. Before that time, were we seeing large numbers of death attributable to infectious disease? No. The leading causes of death in America (for the past fifty-plus years) are heart disease, cancer and iatrogenic. [Iatrogenic means “caused by doctor and/or treatment”.] Why, suddenly, are we expected to believe that survival is impossible without these so-called life-saving vaccines? Were these vaccines created out of an urgent need to curb death in a country whose access to clean water, clean food and medical care is plentiful?
For any parents who are sitting on the fence about this issue, I implore you to educate yourselves. Long after you are dead and gone, your children will thank you for your love, vigilance, and tenacity regarding their health. Have faith in yourself to make the right decision for yourself and your children. There is no higher gift than having confidence in one’s own integrity—body, mind and soul. In the words of a cherished colleague (whose name you would all recognize) “Today’s unvaccinated children will inherit the earth…and it’s not going to be a pretty job. “ By all means educate yourself. Learn the basics of staying healthy and make the right decision for yourself and your children. Neither the government, the medical profession nor the pharmaceutical industry—even judgmental relatives and neighbors—will step into the abyss if you become a vaccine injury statistic.
Educate Yourself Before You Vaccinate, because once it’s done, you can never un-vaccinate. If it’s true that we‘re helpless without vaccination, the family should be dead, or at the least, sick. True health is within your grasp. Seize it.
Click PLAY to hear Get Your Mandates Out of My Body
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYaZIVskxEw
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/what-happens-if-you-decide-not-to-vaccinate-your-child/#.UpJT3Y0VlgM
The story of a four-generation unvaccinated family. By Jennifer Z. Vaughn
SHOULDN’T THIS FAMILY BE DEAD?
Every American is expected to understand it: “Get the shots that your doctor recommends or suffer dire consequences. Vaccines are one of the greatest achievements of bio medical science and public health. They are the most important and valuable tool in the history of mankind for reducing infectious disease, and those who fail to obtain them are at an elevated risk for injury, disability, even death.“ Children’s programming on Sesame Street once advised:
“Shots are good
Germs are bad.
Get your shots or
You’ll be sad.”
But many of us who are paying close attention are hearing another (and radically different) story. Accounts of vaccine injury, disability, chronic illness and yes, sadly, deaths that result from placing trust in those same declarations.
Mine is an anecdotal story. It’s one that I believe deserves to be told. I won’t be presenting any studies, graphs, tables, statistics—all of which are within easy reach to anyone wanting to see the available ‘science’ on the much-debated subject of vaccination. The result of Googling the word ‘vaccines’ delivers four million, seven hundred eighty-nine thousand, seven hundred seventy-six sites. During the past 35 years, I’ve read thousands of journal articles, research documents, blogs, websites, news items and many books that are often as confounding as they are informative. So in an effort to keep this as simple as possible, think of it as just another story about an average family doing its best to thrive.
Of the countless decisions parents face today, few are as controversial as the vaccine question, and if not for the rising number of alleged injuries the question would be a virtual no-brainer. Unless (and until) someone is personally touched by a vaccine-gone-wrong, the conventional wisdom prevails. Surely doctors, hospitals, public health officials and medical authorities know best? If vaccines presented a genuine danger, wouldn’t they tell us? Is “immunizing” the same thing as “vaccinating?”
Let’s look at this more closely.
It’s undeniably true that we have not seen polio or smallpox outbreak in America for a very long time. Surely that’s because vaccines “work.” Isn’t it? There are also other things happening that we’ve NEVER seen before—like chronic illness in the childhood population, escalating numbers of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, psychiatric medication for childhood behavioral and learning disorders, childhood allergies, Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, unparalleled need for special education facilities…and the list goes on. One would think that with so many ‘life-saving’ vaccines, America would have the healthy child paradigm pretty much sewed up. Right? So what gives?
Maybe the real question could be: What happens if you decide not to vaccinate your child? Public health officials and the mainstream media advise, “don’t risk it.” Doctors warn parents that if they don’t adhere to the schedule, “your child will die.” Collectively, they suggest that despite all the improvements in public sanitation, personal hygiene, availability of nutritious food and accessibility to medical care, we must be evermore vigilant about vaccinating according to this ever-expanding “schedule.” In fact, authorities can (and do) remove children from their homes to administer medical care, including vaccines. And without the necessity of parental consent in extreme cases. But does repeating something often enough and loud enough make it factually true?
I am a member of a four-generation family who has side-stepped the traditional vaccine cover story. Our eldest family member was born in 1916, our youngest in 2005. With very few minor exceptions, we are entirely unvaccinated. The patriarch and matriarch of our family died at the ages of 93 and 84, respectively. The patriarch, my father, was still working in his lifelong career until two weeks before his death. The second generation, (my own) whose formative years ran parallel with the ‘polio era’, are now in our sixty’s, suffer no chronic illness, have no need for prescription drug use, no history of hospitalization or illness-related surgery. I have lived outside the U.S. and visited 18 foreign countries. Unvaccinated, and without incident. The generation of our own children are now also parents of healthy, high-performing unvaccinated children who are scholastic and athletic award-winners who attend both public and private schools with none of the all-too-common maladies of today’s children.
Within this family, we have both mainstream and alternative healthcare professionals, including doctors and nurses. There are also successful small business owners, degreed psychologists, teachers, a certified nutritionist, professional actor, landscaper, building contractor, designer, restaurateur, wind/solar power consultant, organic farmer, artists, song writers, classical musicians, scholarship recipients and numerous perfect attendance awardees.
Even the most skeptical person must ask: How Could This Happen? If, indeed, vaccination is necessary and essential for the health and well-being of children (and adults) how did this family escape certain death? Shouldn’t we at least be sick? Were we simply riding off the so-called “herd immunity” and getting remarkably lucky? Did we dodge the potential bullet of infectious illness because almost everyone around us was vaccinated? Are we healthier now because the majority of the population was vaccinated in the 1950’s? This is, after all, an anecdotal story. Maybe a better question is “What are we doing that helps us maintain robust health despite being vaccine-free?” Isn’t that called immunity?
Did we ever develop acute childhood illnesses? You bet. In the era of commonplace measles, mumps and chickenpox, we (along with the general population) experienced them. Whooping cough? Yes. Did we gain lifelong immunity to these once-common childhood maladies? Yes. Did anyone ever have the flu? Yes, albeit,
rarely. Were our parents frightened and concerned about communicable illness—even polio—when everyone else was freaking out?
The answer is decidedly not. Their understanding was that childhood illnesses were not only harmless to healthy children, but also served an important function in immune system development. This was their focus and priority. During the polio epidemic we were sitting side-by-side with children who were vaccinated with both the Salk vaccine and the live-virus Sabin vaccine, which was known to shed live polio-virus through mucosa and fecal routes. This is a known mechanism for ‘vaccine-induced flaccid paralysis’. [Translation: vaccine-induced polio.] Were our parents reckless and hopelessly deluded? Did some unscientific dogma cause them to put us in front of an unstoppable train called “polio”?
Did they risk our lives to make some sort of religious or philosophical statement? NO. Within this family group, there are Christians, agnostics, Deists, conformists, non-conformists who all believe there is enormous wisdom in the planet’s bounty. We also believe there is more to ‘us’ than our bodies. We humans have the ability to organize, adapt, mobilize and reason. We understand that vaccines are neither the main nor the most important issue in maintaining health today. We understand the age-old building blocks of immunity—diet, hygiene, restful sleep, stress reduction, exercise, Joy!, optimized nervous system function—are all powerful tools for avoiding catastrophic outcomes. As growing children our diets consisted of abundant fresh fruits and vegetables, high-quality protein, selective grains, limited sugar and zero carbonated drinks. Our parents were far ahead of today’s trends because they understood and insisted on healthy fuel for our growing bodies, much like the parents of today who are referred to as ‘crunchy’. As a result of lifelong attention to known health-boosting practices (other than vaccines) what is also “missing” in this atypical family group is that we’re also free of diabetes, arthritis, asthma, autism, ADD, fibromyalgia, infertility, Alzheimer’s, hypertension, obesity, heart disease and the list goes on. I understand that many people have been convinced that their health is a product of their ‘genetics’ and while it’s true that a small number of today’s maladies are inheritable, all signs point to environmental causes as a far greater indicator of our health status. These are things within our conscious control, even if our genes are not. We are not powerless. We have choices.
Besides avoiding the toxic components of vaccines, what else is involved in staying healthy? Naturally, it requires some vigilance toward staying on the safe side of everyday life. It requires a dedication toward healthy eating, healthy pregnancies, breastfeeding, external and internal cleanliness, cultivating loving relationships, finding meaningful life’s work, generosity toward others, spiritual harmony and in our case, naturopathy and chiropractic. But are we ‘purists’? Hardly. None of us are strict vegetarians or vegans, most of us consume alcohol, a few are tobacco users and even some pot smokers. The optimization of naturally-acquired immune function isn’t merely avoiding potentially harmful vaccines. It involves “immunizing” oneself by giving a body the essential environment for vibrant
health. It doesn’t happen by accident, and does require effort. Sometimes it also means sacrificing a momentary indulgence in an effort to serve the greater good, the long- term goal, or the road less-traveled. And in today’s heated medical environment, it can mean derision, ridicule, suspicion and harassment coming your way. No doubt, there will be criticism toward me for even telling this story. Is it “easier” than, via Dr. Nancy Snyderman, just getting “the damn shot?” Hardly. But is it worth that extra effort? Absolutely.
Our bodies are designed to heal themselves. In fact, they are constantly, in every minute, doing so. Drugs and surgeries are sometimes necessary to bring about the optimal conditions for this self-healing to occur. But neither drugs nor surgery “heal” anyone. Neither does any doctor. All healing is an inside job, and can be enhanced in various ways as it occurs from the inside-out. Your capacity to heal is greater than mainstream medicine would have you believe. For the vast majority of humans today, pharmaceuticals are first-line tools in the arsenal of fighting illness. Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that are perceived to keep people “healthier.” But do they? America has the most highly vaccinated population in the history of the world, and ranks frighteningly low in parameters of health and infant survival, but extremely high in medical expenditure. It appears that more might not be better.
The majority of vaccines on today’s U.S. schedule have been created over the past 30 years, coincidentally, since the time that vaccine manufacturers obtained legal immunity for their risk. Before that time, were we seeing large numbers of death attributable to infectious disease? No. The leading causes of death in America (for the past fifty-plus years) are heart disease, cancer and iatrogenic. [Iatrogenic means “caused by doctor and/or treatment”.] Why, suddenly, are we expected to believe that survival is impossible without these so-called life-saving vaccines? Were these vaccines created out of an urgent need to curb death in a country whose access to clean water, clean food and medical care is plentiful?
For any parents who are sitting on the fence about this issue, I implore you to educate yourselves. Long after you are dead and gone, your children will thank you for your love, vigilance, and tenacity regarding their health. Have faith in yourself to make the right decision for yourself and your children. There is no higher gift than having confidence in one’s own integrity—body, mind and soul. In the words of a cherished colleague (whose name you would all recognize) “Today’s unvaccinated children will inherit the earth…and it’s not going to be a pretty job. “ By all means educate yourself. Learn the basics of staying healthy and make the right decision for yourself and your children. Neither the government, the medical profession nor the pharmaceutical industry—even judgmental relatives and neighbors—will step into the abyss if you become a vaccine injury statistic.
Educate Yourself Before You Vaccinate, because once it’s done, you can never un-vaccinate. If it’s true that we‘re helpless without vaccination, the family should be dead, or at the least, sick. True health is within your grasp. Seize it.
Click PLAY to hear Get Your Mandates Out of My Body
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYaZIVskxEw
what to eat when you're broke
11.25.2013
Peposted from: http://eatlocalgrown.com/authors/11356-daisy-luther.html
Daisy Luther, author
The lower your income is, the more difficult it is to be particular about what you feed your family.
This probably isn't an earth-shattering revelation to anyone, but if you feel like experimenting, try to buy a week’s worth of healthy food for a family on a budget of, say, $50-75. Food manufacturers that target lower income shoppers with more affordable products tend to include more GMOs and toxic ingredients in their offerings.
It just isn’t possible to stick to my usual food restrictions. Generally speaking I avoid:
It is a matter, then, of weighing the pros and cons, and figuring out what things, for you, are the most important, while also deciding which standards can be sacrificed. These decisions will be different for everyone, based on their personal health concerns, their genetic propensity for certain diseases, and the members of the family for whom they are buying the food.
Sometimes, when you’re looking at someone else’s situation while you are comfortably backed by a loaded pantry, it’s easy to be judgemental and tell them what they “should” do. The thing that we must all remember is that when times are tough, a person may be down to these two options with a two week grocery budget:
1.) Buy strictly healthy organic foods and feed your family for perhaps 8 out of the 14 days.
2.) Carefully select which standards you will relax to keep the tummies of your family full throughout the wait for the next paycheck.
Very few people are going to choose option one.
Usually, I have an enormous stockpile of non-GMO dried foods and a flourishing garden to serve as a back-up for whatever non-toxic items are being offered at a reasonable price that week. Because I’ve recently moved and am rebuilding my pantry from the ground up, I have no such stockpile right now. I am at the mercy of the food manufacturers.
When your budget is extremely limited, the normal healthy eating suggestions of shopping only the perimeter of the store or visiting the farmer’s market will not suffice to feed a family. As much as you may want to dine only on locally grown, fresh organic produce, a $50 farmer’s market spree will only get you through a few days if you are totally reliant on only this food.
The Lesser of the Nutritional Evils
So what is a broke, but health-conscious, shopper to eat?
After strongly considering the list above, I decided not to cut corners on the organic dairy, neurotoxins, or the GMOs. I have a growing child and these things are at the top of the toxic pyramid for her development. This isn’t to say that the pesticides aren’t harmful, or the preservatives are not a chemical minefield. In a perfect world, I’d avoid all of it, and you should too.
If you are in a situation where you have to feed your family and don’t have a lot of money to do it, you need to do your research well before looking at those brightly colored packages with the false promises of nutrition within. While this list isn’t comprehensive, here are some things to consider about conventional grocery store offerings.
GMOs: Genetically modified foods have not been tested for long-term effects on humans. There is a great deal of evidence to indicate the GMOs can cause a host of illness. Peer reviewed studies implicate GMOs in the development of grotesque tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, severe allergic reactions, a viral gene that disrupts human functions…you can read more HERE.
Hormones and antibiotics: Livestock animals that provide meat or dairy products are tainted with growth hormones, antibiotics, and GMO feed. These items pass through the food chain to the consumer. Growth hormones can cause opposite sex characteristics in developing children, early puberty, the development of cancer, and infertility. Furthermore, the world is quickly becoming immune to the effects of antibiotics because of constant exposure through the food supply, which means that there is the potential for things that should be easily treated to become deadly due to antibiotic resistance.
Pesticides: The use of pesticides in conventional farming is rampant. Even the hijacked the Environmental Protection Agency has to admit that the ingestion of pesticides can cause health problems. They warn of the risk of “birth defects, nerve damage, cancer, and other effects that might occur over a long period of time.” (Keep in mind, however, that despite this warning, the EPA just RAISED the acceptable limit of glyphosate at the behest of Monsanto.) Especially at risk of harm from pesticides are prepubescent children and fetuses.
Neurotoxins: Our water supply is spiked with fluoride, a neurotoxin that lowers IQs, causes infertility, has been linked to cancer and causes hardening of the arteries. Nearly every packaged food on the shelf is seasoned with MSG in one of its many names, and many lower calorie foods and diet drinks are sweetened with aspartame. Both of these are excitotoxins that cause brain cell death instantly, causing decreased IQs, headaches, depression, and seizures.
Assorted chemical cocktails: The length of the ingredients list in your food is often a direct indicator of the unhealthiness of the item. When an item contains a host of additives, colors, flavors, and preservatives, you can safely bet that most of the nutrients are gone. These highly processed foodlike substances are very difficult for the body to break down so that the few remaining nutrients can be used. If you can’t picture what an ingredient looked like in it’s natural state, it probably isn’t something you really want to eat. When is the last time you saw a tertiary butyl hydroquinone grazing in a field, or a calcium propionate growing in the garden?
What should you eat when you’re broke?
Grains: If you can’t swing organic grains, look for whole grains with few or no additives.
Here’s a little primer on those confusing meat labels:
Fruits and vegetables: If organic produce is not an option, look for the items with the lowest pesticide loads. (This list by the Environmental Working Group is based ONLY on pesticide loads – some of the items they recommend could be GMOs). Fruits and vegetables that can be peeled often subject you to less pesticides than thin-skinned items. If you must buy conventional, wash the produce carefully and peel it if possible. Look to these stand-bys:
Organic dairy is still better, because the cattle are fed a healthier diet and are free from antibiotics. If you can’t swing it, at the very least, search for rBST-free dairy products. For products, you can save loads of money by making your own from untainted milk. Learn how to make yogurt, how to make yogurt cheese, and how to make cottage cheese. Plain yogurt can also be used as a healthy substitute for sour cream.
Water: If you are on city water, chances are, your water is loaded with chemicals, from fluoride to ammonia to chlorine. I won’t drink this water, and I won’t let my children drink it either. The large 5 gallon jugs provide the least expensive way to buy water. Also look for sources of spring water to fill your own containers. (This interactive map can help.)
Other Tight Budget Tips
Build your pantry. It’s hard to think about building a pantry when you have barely enough food in the cupboard to make it between paychecks. But if you can purchase one bulk item per shopping trip, in a few months you will have a pantry that will allow you to make higher quality grocery purchases on your weekly trips. At that point, you can start going to the farmer’s market, which in many locations is very reasonably priced, buying in enough bulk to preserve your foods, and have the occasional splurge. Go HERE to learn more about building a whole foods kitchen on a half price budget.
Be scrupulous about food hygiene. Wash your produce very thoroughly and soak it in a baking soda bath. Also remember to careful wash your beans and rice. (Click HERE to see some photos of the dirt that comes off of a cup of rice!)
Get growing. Even if it is the off season, you can sprout some seeds on your counter to add fresh nutrients. You can grow some salad greens and herbs in a sunny windowsill. Invest a few dollars each week in some seeds and you will soon be able to supplement your diet with nutritious, organic, home-grown veggies. Go HERE to get more ideas for growing your own food on any budget, in any location.
Visit outlet stores. Sometimes places like Big Lots or grocery clearance centers have organic options at good prices. You might be able to pick up canned goods, cereals, and crackers at a fraction of the normal grocery store price.
Forage for freebies. In many locations, even the city, there are free delicious foods just waiting for you to pick them. Dandelions, wild berries, nuts, and nutritious leaves abound. Just be very sure you know what you’re picking and then enjoy your wild foods. Check out this excellent guide to the nutritious goodies that may be in your backyard masquerading as lowly weeds.
Plan on at least one extra frugal meal per day. Have peanut butter and crackers, a bowl of oatmeal, or soup for one meal per day – not every meal has to be made up of protein, veggies, and grains.
Don’t give up.
If you are feeling financially defeated, it is sometimes easy to say, “*bleep* it!!!” and just get some Ramen noodles or macaroni and cheese and call it a meal. Don’t do it! Do the very best you can with the resources you have available. Remember, if you can’t afford good food, you definitely can’t afford bad health – it’s even more expensive.
The Simple Truth
There are a lot of things that readers may find to pick apart in this article – and that’s good! By thinking critically and discussing these things, sometimes we can come up with solutions that may not have occurred to us previous to the conversation. I’m not some expert that shouldn't be questioned – I am just a mom on a budget. Some of the suggestions here were gleaned from the comments sections of previous articles.
Do your research and do the best that you can with what’s available given your resources. Create a plan to provide better options in the future. Don’t go down that toxic trail laid out by Big Food without fighting, kicking, and screaming.
Daisy Luther, author
The lower your income is, the more difficult it is to be particular about what you feed your family.
This probably isn't an earth-shattering revelation to anyone, but if you feel like experimenting, try to buy a week’s worth of healthy food for a family on a budget of, say, $50-75. Food manufacturers that target lower income shoppers with more affordable products tend to include more GMOs and toxic ingredients in their offerings.
It just isn’t possible to stick to my usual food restrictions. Generally speaking I avoid:
- Non-organic dairy because of the hormones and antibiotics as well as the GMO feed given to the animals
- Non-organic meat because of the hormones and antibiotics as well as the GMO feed given to the animals
- Anything containing corn, soy, or canola in any form because it is almost certain to be GMO
- Anything with chemical additives like artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives
- Anything that is likely to have been doused in pesticides
- Anything containing neurotoxins like MSG, fluoride, or aspartame (along with other artificial sweeteners)
It is a matter, then, of weighing the pros and cons, and figuring out what things, for you, are the most important, while also deciding which standards can be sacrificed. These decisions will be different for everyone, based on their personal health concerns, their genetic propensity for certain diseases, and the members of the family for whom they are buying the food.
Sometimes, when you’re looking at someone else’s situation while you are comfortably backed by a loaded pantry, it’s easy to be judgemental and tell them what they “should” do. The thing that we must all remember is that when times are tough, a person may be down to these two options with a two week grocery budget:
1.) Buy strictly healthy organic foods and feed your family for perhaps 8 out of the 14 days.
2.) Carefully select which standards you will relax to keep the tummies of your family full throughout the wait for the next paycheck.
Very few people are going to choose option one.
Usually, I have an enormous stockpile of non-GMO dried foods and a flourishing garden to serve as a back-up for whatever non-toxic items are being offered at a reasonable price that week. Because I’ve recently moved and am rebuilding my pantry from the ground up, I have no such stockpile right now. I am at the mercy of the food manufacturers.
When your budget is extremely limited, the normal healthy eating suggestions of shopping only the perimeter of the store or visiting the farmer’s market will not suffice to feed a family. As much as you may want to dine only on locally grown, fresh organic produce, a $50 farmer’s market spree will only get you through a few days if you are totally reliant on only this food.
The Lesser of the Nutritional Evils
So what is a broke, but health-conscious, shopper to eat?
After strongly considering the list above, I decided not to cut corners on the organic dairy, neurotoxins, or the GMOs. I have a growing child and these things are at the top of the toxic pyramid for her development. This isn’t to say that the pesticides aren’t harmful, or the preservatives are not a chemical minefield. In a perfect world, I’d avoid all of it, and you should too.
If you are in a situation where you have to feed your family and don’t have a lot of money to do it, you need to do your research well before looking at those brightly colored packages with the false promises of nutrition within. While this list isn’t comprehensive, here are some things to consider about conventional grocery store offerings.
GMOs: Genetically modified foods have not been tested for long-term effects on humans. There is a great deal of evidence to indicate the GMOs can cause a host of illness. Peer reviewed studies implicate GMOs in the development of grotesque tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, severe allergic reactions, a viral gene that disrupts human functions…you can read more HERE.
Hormones and antibiotics: Livestock animals that provide meat or dairy products are tainted with growth hormones, antibiotics, and GMO feed. These items pass through the food chain to the consumer. Growth hormones can cause opposite sex characteristics in developing children, early puberty, the development of cancer, and infertility. Furthermore, the world is quickly becoming immune to the effects of antibiotics because of constant exposure through the food supply, which means that there is the potential for things that should be easily treated to become deadly due to antibiotic resistance.
Pesticides: The use of pesticides in conventional farming is rampant. Even the hijacked the Environmental Protection Agency has to admit that the ingestion of pesticides can cause health problems. They warn of the risk of “birth defects, nerve damage, cancer, and other effects that might occur over a long period of time.” (Keep in mind, however, that despite this warning, the EPA just RAISED the acceptable limit of glyphosate at the behest of Monsanto.) Especially at risk of harm from pesticides are prepubescent children and fetuses.
Neurotoxins: Our water supply is spiked with fluoride, a neurotoxin that lowers IQs, causes infertility, has been linked to cancer and causes hardening of the arteries. Nearly every packaged food on the shelf is seasoned with MSG in one of its many names, and many lower calorie foods and diet drinks are sweetened with aspartame. Both of these are excitotoxins that cause brain cell death instantly, causing decreased IQs, headaches, depression, and seizures.
Assorted chemical cocktails: The length of the ingredients list in your food is often a direct indicator of the unhealthiness of the item. When an item contains a host of additives, colors, flavors, and preservatives, you can safely bet that most of the nutrients are gone. These highly processed foodlike substances are very difficult for the body to break down so that the few remaining nutrients can be used. If you can’t picture what an ingredient looked like in it’s natural state, it probably isn’t something you really want to eat. When is the last time you saw a tertiary butyl hydroquinone grazing in a field, or a calcium propionate growing in the garden?
What should you eat when you’re broke?
Grains: If you can’t swing organic grains, look for whole grains with few or no additives.
- Wheat flour
- Brown rice
- Pasta (with recognizable ingredients)
- Couscous
- Quinoa
- Barley
Here’s a little primer on those confusing meat labels:
- Hormone-free: This means something with beef, but is nothing but a marketing ploy when you see it on poultry or pork, as the USDA does not allow the use of hormones with those animals. Hormone-free does not mean antibiotic-free
- Antibiotic-free: Because of poor and stressful living conditions, factory-farmed animals are very susceptible to illness. Antibiotic-free means they were not prophylactically treated with antibiotics. This does not, however, mean that the animal is hormone-free.
- Grass-fed: Grass-fed cows are allowed some access to the outdoors and are not fed grains or corn. This does NOT mean they are organic, because the grass they are grazing on may have been chemically fertilized and sprayed. Unless you have actually seen them roaming around the farm, keep in mind their access to the outdoors may not be the lovely rolling pastures that you have in your mind, but a crowded corral with hundreds of other cows.
- Free-range: This label doesn’t mean diddly squat. It means that the animal is allowed a minimum of an hour a day outside. This could mean that they are crammed into an open area with a billion other chickens, still, without room to move, or that their cage is put outside, leaving them still tightly confined. Like the grass-fed cows above, unless you actually see the farm with the gallivanting chickens or pigs, take the label “free-range” with a grain of salt.
Fruits and vegetables: If organic produce is not an option, look for the items with the lowest pesticide loads. (This list by the Environmental Working Group is based ONLY on pesticide loads – some of the items they recommend could be GMOs). Fruits and vegetables that can be peeled often subject you to less pesticides than thin-skinned items. If you must buy conventional, wash the produce carefully and peel it if possible. Look to these stand-bys:
- Apples (peeled)
- Asparagus
- Avocados
- Cabbage
- Cantaloupe
- Eggplant
- Grapefruit
- Kiwi
- Mangoes
- Mushrooms
- Onions
- Oranges
- Pineapples
- Rutabagas
- Sweet Peas
- Sweet Potatoes
- Turnips
Organic dairy is still better, because the cattle are fed a healthier diet and are free from antibiotics. If you can’t swing it, at the very least, search for rBST-free dairy products. For products, you can save loads of money by making your own from untainted milk. Learn how to make yogurt, how to make yogurt cheese, and how to make cottage cheese. Plain yogurt can also be used as a healthy substitute for sour cream.
Water: If you are on city water, chances are, your water is loaded with chemicals, from fluoride to ammonia to chlorine. I won’t drink this water, and I won’t let my children drink it either. The large 5 gallon jugs provide the least expensive way to buy water. Also look for sources of spring water to fill your own containers. (This interactive map can help.)
Other Tight Budget Tips
Build your pantry. It’s hard to think about building a pantry when you have barely enough food in the cupboard to make it between paychecks. But if you can purchase one bulk item per shopping trip, in a few months you will have a pantry that will allow you to make higher quality grocery purchases on your weekly trips. At that point, you can start going to the farmer’s market, which in many locations is very reasonably priced, buying in enough bulk to preserve your foods, and have the occasional splurge. Go HERE to learn more about building a whole foods kitchen on a half price budget.
Be scrupulous about food hygiene. Wash your produce very thoroughly and soak it in a baking soda bath. Also remember to careful wash your beans and rice. (Click HERE to see some photos of the dirt that comes off of a cup of rice!)
Get growing. Even if it is the off season, you can sprout some seeds on your counter to add fresh nutrients. You can grow some salad greens and herbs in a sunny windowsill. Invest a few dollars each week in some seeds and you will soon be able to supplement your diet with nutritious, organic, home-grown veggies. Go HERE to get more ideas for growing your own food on any budget, in any location.
Visit outlet stores. Sometimes places like Big Lots or grocery clearance centers have organic options at good prices. You might be able to pick up canned goods, cereals, and crackers at a fraction of the normal grocery store price.
Forage for freebies. In many locations, even the city, there are free delicious foods just waiting for you to pick them. Dandelions, wild berries, nuts, and nutritious leaves abound. Just be very sure you know what you’re picking and then enjoy your wild foods. Check out this excellent guide to the nutritious goodies that may be in your backyard masquerading as lowly weeds.
Plan on at least one extra frugal meal per day. Have peanut butter and crackers, a bowl of oatmeal, or soup for one meal per day – not every meal has to be made up of protein, veggies, and grains.
Don’t give up.
If you are feeling financially defeated, it is sometimes easy to say, “*bleep* it!!!” and just get some Ramen noodles or macaroni and cheese and call it a meal. Don’t do it! Do the very best you can with the resources you have available. Remember, if you can’t afford good food, you definitely can’t afford bad health – it’s even more expensive.
The Simple Truth
There are a lot of things that readers may find to pick apart in this article – and that’s good! By thinking critically and discussing these things, sometimes we can come up with solutions that may not have occurred to us previous to the conversation. I’m not some expert that shouldn't be questioned – I am just a mom on a budget. Some of the suggestions here were gleaned from the comments sections of previous articles.
Do your research and do the best that you can with what’s available given your resources. Create a plan to provide better options in the future. Don’t go down that toxic trail laid out by Big Food without fighting, kicking, and screaming.
WE SUPPORT RAW DAIRY FARMERS!!!
2.3.2012
Our family fully and completely supports the consumer's right to CHOSE to drink or eat RAW DAIRY, or not.
Further, we fully and completely support any farmer's RIGHT to produce, sell, advertise for sale, drink, talk about, or otherwise use or sell clean, pastured/grass-fed, natural, "organic" RAW MILK AND DAIRY, whether it be through direct sales, cow shares, at farmer's markets, or through home delivery, whether it be in-state or over state lines. It is NOT the federal or state government's business or concern if families or individuals make the INFORMED decision to eat or drink raw, wholesome, unpasteurized dairy products, NOR is it their place to monitor PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS between farmers/producers and consumers. The FDA and the US Government should be ashamed of themselves. (see story below and dozens of others just like it!!) feds finally win - shut down Amish farm for selling fresh raw milk
|
His customers are wary of talking publicly, fearing the FDA will come after them.
“I can’t believe in 2012 the federal government is raiding Amish farmers at gunpoint all over a basic human right to eat natural food,” said one, who asked not to be named but who got weekly shipments of eggs, milk, honey and butter from Rainbow Acres. “In Maryland, they force taxpayers to pay for abortions, but God forbid we want the same milk our grandparents drank.” The FDA, though, said the judge made the right call in halting Mr. Allgyer’s cross-border sales. “Intrastate sale of raw milk is allowed in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Allgyer had previously received a warning letter advising him that interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal,” said Siobhan DeLancey, spokeswoman for the agency. Fans of fresh milk, which they also call “raw milk,” attribute all kinds of health benefits to it — from better teeth to stronger immune systems. It is particularly popular among parents who want it for their children, and, in a unique twist, the movement unites those on the left and the right who argue the federal government has no business controlling what people choose to eat. They rallied outside of the Capitol last year, drinking fresh milk in a park across Constitution Avenue from the Senate. But the FDA says that, after extensive study along with the Centers for Disease Control, it concluded there is no time when raw milk is safer. They dispute those who say that pasteurization — the process of heating food to kill harmful organisms — makes milk less healthy. Many food safety researchers say pasteurization, which became widespread in the 1920s and 1930s, dramatically reduced instances of milk-transmitted diseases such as typhoid fever and diphtheria. The FDA began looking into Mr. Allgyer in late 2009, when an investigator in the agency’s Baltimore office used aliases to sign up for a Yahoo user group made up of Rainbow Acres‘ customers. The investigator placed orders for fresh milk and had it delivered to private residences in Maryland where it was picked up and documented as evidence in the case. By crossing state lines it became part of interstate commerce, and thus subject to the FDA’s ban. At one point the FDA made a 5 a.m. visit to Mr. Allgyer’s farm but he turned them away, though not before they observed milk containers labeled for shipment to Maryland. After the FDA first took action Mr. Allgyer changed his business model. He arranged to sell shares in the cows themselves to his customers, arguing that they owned the milk and he was only transferring it to them. But Judge Stengel called that deal “merely a subterfuge.” “The practical result of the arrangement is that consumers pay money to Mr. Allgyer and receive raw milk,” the judge wrote in a 13-page opinion. The “Grassfed On the Hill Buying Club” has about 500 active members. Liz Reitzig, a mom who has become a raw-milk activist and is an organizer of the group, said the lawyers who pursued the case againstMr. Allgyer ought to “be ashamed.” “Many families are dependent on the milk for health reasons or nutritional needs, so a lot of people will be desperately trying to find another source now,” she said. |