The war on vitamins.

[shawn]

People still cry out to the heavens to be "protected" against quacks and then cry out to the heavens because government is "interfering" in their "free choice".

Modern society, the era of eternal adolescence.

Yes, a goodly percentage of the population has never grown up...most likely never will.
They think the world owes them a living and others should pay mind to the serious matters while they piss around with their mundane activities.

 

[wil]

Some better news:

FDA defeated in federal court over censorship of truthful health claims
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
http://www.naturalnews.com/028929_FDA_health_claims.html

Health freedom has just been handed a significant victory by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled last week that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated the First Amendment rights of a nutritional supplement company when it censored truthful, scientifically-backed claims about how selenium can help reduce the risk of cancer.

See the ANH announcement at: http://www.anh-usa.org/court-finds-...

Essentially, the FDA applied its doctrine of censorship to these selenium supplements in the same way it oppresses truthful and scientifically-supported health claims across all dietary supplements. The purpose of the FDA's censorship of truthful information about the health benefits of dietary supplements, as NaturalNews readers already know, is to keep the American people nutritionally illiterate and protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

In this court case, ALLIANCE FOR NATURAL HEALTH, et al. vs.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, et al., the judge ruled that the FDA violated the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs by restricting their free speech about the anti-cancer benefits of their selenium supplements.

As explained by health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord who argued the case before the Court:

"The decision... reaffirms that FDA is subject to the strictures of the First Amendment in its evaluation of health claims and it faults FDA for failing to follow that standard, holding its suppression of the selenium-cancer risk reduction claims unconstitutional."

Emord goes onto explain:

"The Court concludes that the FDA... has not provided any empirical evidence, such as 'studies' or 'anecdotal evidence,' that consumers would be misled by... plaintiffs' claims were they accompanied by qualifications. Moreover, the explanation the FDA offers to demonstrate that plaintiffs' claims are misleading – that the claims leave out pertinent information – is not support for banning the claims entirely..."

Attorney Jonathan Emord from Emord & Associates is widely regarded as one of the most successful and influential attorneys battling the FDA over free speech and health freedoms.

View my video interview with Jonathan Emord here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbJS...

(The video quality is poor, but it's the best we could capture at the Health Freedom Expo.)

Emord is also the author of a hugely important book that I strongly recommend. It's called Global Censorship of Health Information, and you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Global-Censor...

What it means for health freedom

The upshot of this decision is that the FDA has just been handed a significant defeat that will set a precedent for other dietary supplement companies to make their own truthful, scientifically-supported health claims.

The FDA, of course, recognizes no law other than its own, so it will likely continue to try to terrorize nutritional supplement companies with its usual threats of imprisonment of company founders and seizure of products unless companies voluntarily agree to comply with the FDA's censorship schemes. However, this court decision may finally turn the tide against the FDA's campaign of ignorance that has, for decades, sought to keep the American people nutritionally illiterate while suppressing the dietary supplements industry.

Btu achieving a lasting victory over the FDA will require nutritional supplement companies to stop being intimidated by the FDA and start making truthful, scientifically-supported claims -- and then stand behind those claims with a commitment to sue the FDA if they are threatened with censorship. Until now, most nutritional supplement and vitamin companies have been so intimidated by the FDA that they dared not challenge the FDA's authority -- even when they knew the FDA was flat-out wrong!

The FDA, you see, can always threaten a company using "terrorism-style" tactics such as sending threatening letters that promise to arrest the owners, imprison them, destroy their business, seize their customer records, confiscate their inventory, etc. These tactics have all been used by the FDA to threaten health product companies operating in the United States. See how the FDA runs its own criminal extortion racket right here: http://www.naturalnews.com/024567_h...

Read about how the FDA kidnaps people from other countries in order to incarcerate them for their non-crimes in the USA: http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_G...

Or view more articles about the FDA here: http://www.naturalnews.com/the_FDA.html

These Gestapo-style FDA tactics have been frighteningly effective, given that most U.S. companies don't have the financial resources to engage in a lengthy legal battle with the FDA in order to stand up for their First Amendment rights. That's why this victory by the Alliance for Natural Health is so important: It provides a legal wedge by which other companies can now begin to stand up for their own First Amendment rights, too.

This could be the beginning of the end of FDA censorship of truthful, scientifically-supported health claims.

What we want: Free Speech, not fraudulent speech

As the editor of NaturalNews, I want to be perfectly clear what we stand for here. I do not support a Wild West approach to free speech about supplements where any company can claim anything they want whether it's true or not. That can get entirely out of hand, and it would only encourage the kind of marketing fraud we now see rampant in the pharmaceutical industry.

What I support is truthful health claims that can be backed by a minimum of three articles published in peer-reviewed science journals. This threshold of scientifically credibility is high enough to avoid outright fraudulent quack claims while still allowing truthful claims to be reasonably met through scientific inquiry. If such a rule were adopted, it would open the industry to making a wealth of truthful claims about the beneficial effects of foods, herbs and supplements.

The FDA's current oppression of health claims about cherries and walnuts, for example, would cease. Both the FDA and FTC have been attempting to suppress the truth about cherries for many years, intimidating cherry product companies with all sorts of threats to try to force them to remove any links to scientific information about the health benefits of cherries. To learn more, see: http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html

The federal government has also declared war on truthful speech about the health benefits of walnuts. Read more here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_c...

Why Free Speech can save America from sick-care bankruptcy

Most U.S. consumers have no idea that the FDA is operating as a rogue agency, attempting to destroy nutritional knowledge and intentionally keep consumers in the dark about the health benefits of natural products.

Given that our nation's sick-care system is driving us all into bankruptcy, it would seem more important than ever to allow consumers to learn how to prevent disease and improve their own health through safe, natural and low-cost therapies involving healing foods and nutritional supplements.

In fact, I would argue that any nation that expects to have a viable economic future MUST protect free speech for its health products companies. If Big Pharma and the disease industry is allowed to monopolize all health knowledge while oppressing truthful health claims on competing products, it will only drive that nation into medical bankruptcy. Coincidentally, that is exactly where America is today: Living under an oppressive, monopolized sick-care system that attempts to criminalize truthful speech about the health benefits of natural products. See my CounterThink Cartoon entitled, The New Mr. America: http://www.counterthink.com/The_New...

And yet natural products are the solution to America's health care problems! Read my special report: Nutrition Can Save America! right here (it's free):
http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_c...

There's no question about it: America will be happier, healthier, stronger and more financially solvent if we end FDA censorship and take steps to protect the First Amendment rights of nutritional supplement companies.

NaturalNews will continue to work alongside the Alliance for Natural Health to help make this dream a reality. You can learn more about the ANH at http://www.anh-usa.org

The European branch of this organization is found at http://www.anh-europe.org

Please consider supporting the ANH. It is, in my opinion, one of the most important and effective health freedom organizations on the planet. They are doing fantastic work and they need your financial support to continue fighting (and winning!) these battles against FDA ignorance, tyranny, censorship and oppression.

 

[shawn]

Certainly a good piece of news wil.

The issue has to be broadened somewhat though as the tactics have changed a bit.
For example, it is becoming more known that MSG is not a healthy choice of flavoring. (some people are quite sensitive to it and it is truly good for nobody to eat in any quantity)
So the manufacturers have decided to play it different as they still add the product to their foods & beverages with no intention to change (sheesh...even Starbucks adds it to their coffee), for it enhances the flavor and has an addictive quality to it, hence people will come back for more.
Profit is the goal...right.
So knowing that people read labels they have changed the name (Newspeak anyone?)

[SIZE=+1]These ALWAYS contain MSG[/SIZE] Glutamate
(E 620)
Glutamic acid
(E 620)
Monosodium glutamate
(E 621) Monopotassium glutamate
(E 622) Calcium glutamate
(E 623)
Monoammonium glutamate (E 624)
Magnesium glutamate
(E 625)
Natrium glutamate (natrium is Latin/German for sodium) Gelatin Calcium caseinate Sodium caseinate Textured protein anything "hydrolyzed" any "hydrolyzed ... protein" Yeast nutrient Yeast extract Yeast food Autolyzed yeast Vetsin
Ajinomoto
,
[SIZE=+1]These OFTEN contain MSG or create MSG during processing[/SIZE] Carrageenan Maltodextrin Malt extract Natural pork flavoring Citric acid Malt flavoring Bouillon and Broth Natural chicken flavoring Soy protein isolate Natural beef flavoring Ultra-pasteurized Soy sauce Stock Barley malt Soy sauce extract Whey protein concentrate Pectin Soy protein Whey protein Protease Soy protein concentrate Whey protein isolate Protease enzymes Anything protein fortified Flavors(s) & Flavoring(s) Anything enzyme modified Anything fermented Natural flavor(s)
& flavoring(s) Enzymes anything Seasonings
(the word "seasonings")
These ingredients work synergistically with MSG to enhance flavor
(If they are present for flavoring purposes, so is MSG)
[FONT="]Disodium 5’-guanylate
(E 627)
[/FONT] [FONT="]Disodium 5’-inosinate
(E 631)
[/FONT] [FONT="]Disodium 5'-ribonucleotides
(E 635)

[/FONT] [SIZE=+1]In ADDITION...[/SIZE] The not so new game is to label hydrolyzed proteins as pea protein, whey protein, corn protein, etc.
If a pea, for example, were whole, it would be identified as a pea.
Calling an ingredient pea protein indicates that the pea has been hydrolyzed, at least in part, and that processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is present. Relatively new to the list are wheat protein and soy protein. Disodium guanylate and disodium inosinate are expensive food additives that work synergistically with inexpensive MSG.
Their use suggests that the product has MSG in it.
They would probably not be used as food additives if there were no MSG present.
MSG reactions have been reported from soaps, shampoos, hair conditioners, and cosmetics, where MSG is hidden in ingredients that include the words "hydrolyzed," "amino acids," and "protein."
Low fat and no fat milk products often include milk solids that contain MSG and/or contain Carrageenan, guar gum, and/or locust bean gum.
Low fat and no fat versions of ice cream and cheese may not be as obvious as yogurt, milk, cream, cream cheese, cottage cheese, etc., but they are not an exception.
Protein powders contain glutamic acid, which, invariably, would be processed free glutamic acid (MSG).
Amino acids are not always listed on labels of protein powders.
Drinks, candy, and chewing gum are potential sources of hidden MSG and/or aspartame and neotame.
Aspartic acid, found in neotame and aspartame (NutraSweet), ordinarily causes MSG type reactions in MSG sensitive people.
Aspartame is found in some medications, including children's medications. Neotame is relatively new and we have not yet seen it used widely in the United States. Check with your pharmacist.
Binders and fillers for medications, nutrients, and supplements, both prescription and non-prescription, enteral feeding materials, and some fluids administered intravenously in hospitals, may contain MSG.
According to the manufacturer, Varivax–Merck chicken pox vaccine (Varicella Virus Live), contains L-monosodium glutamate and hydrolyzed gelatin, both of which contain processed free glutamic acid (MSG) which causes brain lesions in young laboratory animals, and causes endocrine disturbances like OBESITY and REPRODUCTIVE disorders later in life.
It would appear that most, if not all, live virus vaccines contain some ingredient that contains MSG.
Reactions to MSG are dose related, i.e., some people react to even very small amounts.
MSG-induced reactions may occur immediately after ingestion or after as much as 48 hours.
The time lapse is typically the same for any one individual.
Note: There are additional ingredients that appear to cause MSG reactions in ACUTELY sensitive people.
Remember: By FDA definition, all MSG is "naturally occurring." "Natural" doesn't mean "safe."
"Natural" only means that the ingredient started out in nature.
From: MSG / monosodium glutamate -- hidden in processed food

Yet there is more, now they are spraying crops as they grow with an MSG based spray which they do not have to declare on the label as it is applied while it is still in the dirt, yet it is absorbed by the plant and becomes part of your dinner.

This is just a small example, a wee peek into a bigger picture which you, whoever you may be, who is still dependent on eating needs to look into as those who are in charge of the food supply, have proven time and again that profit and not quality is the bottom line.

And consider, in our world of huge multi-national corporations and nested ownership, who do you think owns the food production companies?
You will find that it is the same entities who own the pharmaceutical corps, the same names turn up. Who make billions off of people being sick.
And your health is connected to what you stick into your mouths.
So when you eat their crap, your health becomes crap and then you need to buy their crap medicine.
Talk about a sick system.
Technically legal, yet morally and ethically bankrupt.
Evil is a better word.
No conspiracies...what a crock.

 

[shawn]

At several periods of time in my life I have consumed raw milk, both from goats and from cows.
I once worked on a dairy for about a year and had every day fresh milk right out of the separator....delicious.....and unavailable in any store.
I never even had a cold that year, let alone any health problem from the milk. (My anacdotal testimony)
Yet read the portion below:

From: FDA?s Permission Needed When Buying Raw Unprocessed Food

Last month, the FDA responded to FTCLDF’s suit that banning raw milk in interstate commerce is unconstitutional. Their rebuttal contained the following extremely concerning and outrageous statements:

• "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food."
• "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."
• "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."
• FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health."
• "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."

Since when did the FDA have authority to tell you what you can and cannot eat and feed your children? Apparently they believe they’ve had it all along.
If you go by these assertions, it means the FDA has the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing and make it a crime for you to seek it out. If, one day, the FDA deems tomatoes, broccoli or cashews capable of causing you harm (which is just as ludicrous as their assertions that raw milk is harmful), they could therefore enact such a ban and legally enforce it.
What this means is that freedom of food choice is a myth if you live in the United States, and this simply is not acceptable. As FTCLDF states:

“Growing numbers of people in this country are obtaining the foods of their choice through private contractual arrangements such as buyers' club agreements and herdshare contracts.
FDA's position is that the agency can interfere with these agreements because, in FDA's view, there is no fundamental right to enter into a private contract to obtain the foods of choice from the source of choice.
As for the agency's contention that there is no fundamental right to obtain any food, including raw milk, here is what the 'substantive due process' clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Obtaining the foods of your choice is so basic to life, liberty and property that it is inconceivable that the 'right of food choice' would not be protected under the Constitution but FDA is saying "No."”
​

Whether you’re currently a raw milk drinker or not, the FDA’s arrogant attitude that they have authority over your choice of food is atrocious.
​

First Raw Milk, What’s Next?


The FDA never had any grounds for making the sale of raw milk illegal in the first place. Even a quick review of the data shows that this food, which the FDA claims is so harmful to human health, is less harmless than countless food products that have earned the FDA’s seal of approval!
In their lawsuit, FTCLDF pointed out that CDC statistics from 2007 showed over 7,000 outbreaks of food-borne illness related to bacteria, which resulted in 678 hospitalizations and 11 deaths.
In that same year, and using CDC data, raw milk was responsible for only 32 of those cases, which amounts to only 0.5 percent of all food-borne bacteria-related illness. Further, there were only two hospitalizations related to raw milk, and no deaths, whereas three people died from drinking pasteurized milk!
They also pointed out, and rightly so, that the FDA is taking an unfairly harsh approach with raw milk. For instance, unpasteurized juices are sold with just a warning label letting consumers know the juice has not been pasteurized, while raw milk has been outright banned in many states.

Does this start to sound more and more like a plantation or what?

 

[wil]

In the 70's in Oregon we used to be able to buy raw milk and raw cheese at stores...I don't know if that still exists today.

Here in Maryland it is illegal...folks get around it with co-ops....the farmer will sell pieces of the cow...each share holder gets a dividend in a bottle...and they bring their own bottle.

 

[shawn]

In the 70's in Oregon we used to be able to buy raw milk and raw cheese at stores...I don't know if that still exists today.

Here in Maryland it is illegal...folks get around it with co-ops....the farmer will sell pieces of the cow...each share holder gets a dividend in a bottle...and they bring their own bottle.

Post # 24 the article seems to indicate that it is those co-ops which seem to be in jeopardy.
As they have said:

"There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."

But this would, I think, be an easy thing to challenge as all law is basically contract law and all persons/corporations have a fundamental right to contract.

The biggest issue in all of these types of matters is that the big, rich, mega-corps have lots of money and therefore lots of political clout, some of their former executives indeed hold high office in these regulatory bureaus.
That is hard to deal with when you are a small farmer (all on your own) or an individual, or even a small company which distributes some supplement.
Divide and rule.
One stick is easily broken, but a bundle is very durable.
Look at the imagery on either side of the flag.......they get it.

And:

 

[bananabrain]

I don't say that the alternative medicine industry is without its faults as well.
It certainly has them, but that does not negate the benefit.

that's not the point i'm making. my point is that the benefit of the "alternative medicine industry" is *not evidenced*, whereas that of the mainstream medicine industry *is*. both are equally subject to criticism on the grounds of dubious business practices.

I am being reasonable in this regard so why do I get such reactionary responses which are extreme one way or another?

there's nothing reactionary about asking for evidence that the alternative medicine industry provides any benefit. incidentally, i am sure it *does* provide benefit, but in the absence of evidence, i must conclude that the benefit in question is based on the placebo effect.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[shawn]

There are many items which are very well documented to be efficacious in dealing with certain issues/conditions, some of the evidence going back centuries....it is all this coal-tar medicine which is in question.

The majority of the herbal remedies, or supplements are nothing more than concentrated specialty food sources.
The reason behind many conditions is that people do not have certain elements or compounds which they require in their diet, and so a food which is high in those compounds will slowly turn that around and put it right.
This effect is very well documented and evidenced in hundreds of clinical trials conducted world-wide over the past century.

There is no magic pill or nostrum. But some herbals are like a turbo-charge for the immune system (which doesn't shut it down like the allopathic stuff will), or they affect a specific aspect of that system.

The point is that these items are specialty foods, not drugs and they provide what our complex bodies require to live.
Just try getting a placebo effect from eating tree bark and see how long you live on that.
You could survive on eating depleted foods for a while, but you need trace elements and other molecules to function at optimum levels, otherwise you start to run down in a variety of ways and symptoms will manifest and turn into conditions.
That has nothing to do with placebos or drugs, but with proper nutrition.
Try feeding a plant, just nitrogen and see what happens.
If you make a hydroponic broth for plants you need to tailor it for each type of plant, there is a general recipe which works as the base and it consists of more than a couple of ingredients, but each different type of species requires differences in ingredients if you wish to maximize their growth and results.
People are really no different.
We all require a basic nutritional intake, but, dependent on the blood type and other differences people then have different requirements, so we can't say that there is a universal diet which is suitable for all humans, that is patently untrue.
If the different dietary requirements are not received, then symptoms will begin to accrue and these, unchecked will turn into conditions.


The only sellers of herbal remedies which make wild claims are either outright hucksters or are plants who are working for the pharmaceutical corps so they can black-ball the competition. (that does happen, ya know), it is easy to do and very hard to prove, but there have been enough instances to show that should be suspected rather than discounted.

I do agree that there needs to be a more concerted effort by the alternative industry to create authoritative quality information, but, on the same hand, the quality information which already exists tends to get ignored for some weird reason.
Perhaps it is because the allopaths have been working hard at denigrating that industry for the past 70 years.
Like stopping payments and grants to any school which taught any courses related in any way and using the media (whose full support they have had) to connect the idea of quackery and primitivism with alternative medicine so that the consensus would be one of ridicule and not acceptance.
These tactics among others have been very effective in causing the current situation.

 

[wil]

that's not the point i'm making. my point is that the benefit of the "alternative medicine industry" is *not evidenced*, whereas that of the mainstream medicine industry *is*. both are equally subject to criticism on the grounds of dubious business practices.


there's nothing reactionary about asking for evidence that the alternative medicine industry provides any benefit. incidentally, i am sure it *does* provide benefit, but in the absence of evidence, i must conclude that the benefit in question is based on the placebo effect.

b'shalom

bananabrain

BB, are you aware of any double blind studies that have been done in relation to cancer therapies?

Now we know that in autopsies they've discovered folks that had cancer and never died from it, where there body healed itself.

But have we ever done any, one, double blind study on whether operating on cancer or radiating cancer or chemotherapy on cancer vs a placebo or vs an alternative method as to which had more efficacy?

Have you read about the hoxsey formula or essaic tea and the results that occurred and the doctors that supported the efforts but in both cases the gov'ts (Canada and US) shut them down?

 

[shawn]

Have you read about the hoxsey formula or essaic tea and the results that occurred and the doctors that supported the efforts but in both cases the gov'ts (Canada and US) shut them down?

This has been done repeatedly.
For instance, there was a cannabis study which was funded by the anti-marijuana groups as they wished to prove that cannabis was carcinogenic and caused cancer.
They were shocked to find that the active ingredient, THC (among the others CBN, CBD, etc), in fact stopped tumors and caused them to shrink and die, they stopped funding immediately and attempted to sweep that data under the rug (now why would they do that??), but it got out in spite of their efforts to censor.

This (and the many other similar stories) not only proves that the cheap herbal remedies are very useful/helpful, but the allopaths are in active conspiracy to repress this data.
Caught red-handed with hands in the cookie jar is the smoking gun and the allopaths have been so caught, many times.

 

[Dogbrain]

[SIZE=+1]These ALWAYS contain MSG[/SIZE]
Glutamate (E 620)
Glutamic acid (E 620)
Monosodium glutamate (E 621)
Monopotassium glutamate (E 622)
Calcium glutamate (E 623)
Monoammonium glutamate (E 624)
Magnesium glutamate (E 625)

Well, let's see, how many lies have been told in this one list?

Four outright lies and two uncertain terms.

MSG is monosodium glutamate.
MSG is NOT monopotassium glutamate.
MSG is NOT calcium glutamate.
MSG is NOT monoammonium glutamate.
MSG is NOT magnesium glutamate.

MSG MIGHT be in "glutamate", but it could be an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FORM of "glutamate".

MSG is not necessarily "glutamic acid", which might have MSG in it or could be 100% MSG free.

Before you start tossing around chemic all names and claiming that ALL of them "always contain MSG", you need to learn at least what amounts to the chemistry taught to TWELVE YEAR OLDS in the USA. Otherwise, you look like a moron.

Riddle me a riddle, since you are such a self-appointed expert: What is the most common normal function of glutamate in the human body?

 

[shawn]

.................and since I am in a joking mood.........:

Doctors vs. Gun Owners

Doctors:

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. Is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are
120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. Is 80,000,000.


(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
Is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

(Statistics courtesy of FBI)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately

9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,

BUT

Almost everyone has at least one doctor.

This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on

Lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek

Medical attention!

 

[Sam Albion]

I would not buy L-Carnatine again... I have used L-Carnatine as an appetite supressant when dieting, and... it's blooming useless! It's a protein, a meat protein, and supposedly fools your body into believing that you've eaten lots of meat (carne)... hence, supressing your appetite. Unfortunately, the process by which it (supposedly) does this also interferes with your metabolism of thyroid releasing hormones, so, for some people, (those like me, with unstable thyroid levels, and the very old), instead of L-Carnatine making you less hungry, and increasing your energy by upping your metabolic rate a little, L-Carnatine makes you produce less thyroidoxin and makes you... sleepier, hungrier, and fatter!! For me, a borderline thyroid type, it's not such a big deal, but for someone who has really low levels already, they could become unwell. So, this might be a reason why the FDA has banned Carnatine...

 

[shawn]

So that means...what....there ought to be a law?
Prohibition never helped anything except to make certain cartels rich.
If you are truly free, then you are free to consume whatever you wish.
If in ignorance you consume something that harms you, then you bear that responsibility and others who may not have such ignorance should not be penalized.

So person B is restricted from choice because person A made wrong choices.
When that kind of mentality becomes the norm, then we all sink to the lowest common denominator.

People need to educate themselves and take personal responsibility for their choices.
So if person A screws up then Person A pays the price, not person B.

If we don't have the right to choose what we consume then we are slaves who only have revocable privileges.
Is that the brighter future?

 

[shawn]

Re: Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder



(NaturalNews) In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."

But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").

Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is "normal" when it comes to foods?

I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!

Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green

It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.

That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...

Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...

 

[iBrian]

Come on, Shawn - let's avoid personal attacks, please - image removed.

 

[Dogbrain]

Re: Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

No, it is not, no matter how much obsessives and extremists might claim so. Orthorexia nervosa is an excessive obsession with "healthy eating". It's like the difference between remembering to brush your teeth at least daily and brushing your teeth so many times a day that you wear away the enamel.

It's like going through the house once before embarking on a week-long trip to make sure the lights are off and turning back over and over to make sure the lights are off, so you spend the entire week doing nothing more than making sure the lights are off.

 

[shawn]

Re: Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

No, it is not, no matter how much obsessives and extremists might claim so. Orthorexia nervosa is an excessive obsession with "healthy eating". It's like the difference between remembering to brush your teeth at least daily and brushing your teeth so many times a day that you wear away the enamel.

It's like going through the house once before embarking on a week-long trip to make sure the lights are off and turning back over and over to make sure the lights are off, so you spend the entire week doing nothing more than making sure the lights are off.

The last post which you quote was me reporting some piece of news.
I didn't write that quote.

It is true that some people are obsessive compulsive and quite insane about what they do or eat or whatever.
The danger lies in such medical doctrine being used in a malicious fashion and becoming legislation(by the big pharma cartel), which is not paranoia as there is plenty of evidence to prove it is a well founded concern.

 

[Dogbrain]

Re: Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

The last post which you quote was me reporting some piece of news.
I didn't write that quote.

You did forward it without any kind of limitation or substantive commentary, leading any sane, reasonable person to conclude that you believed the contents of what you forwarded. If you don't believe it wholeheartedly, don't forward it in detail.

which is not paranoia as there is plenty of evidence to prove it is a well founded concern.

Cite such evidence from someplace that is not a panic or lunatic fringe conspiracy theory site.

 

[shawn]

Re: Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

Cite such evidence from someplace that is not a panic or lunatic fringe conspiracy theory site.

This is the full sentence:

posted by shawn:
The danger lies in such medical doctrine being used in a malicious fashion and becoming legislation(by the big pharma cartel), which is not paranoia as there is plenty of evidence to prove it is a well founded concern.

The only people who haven't realized that this has been going on for decades are sleeping zombies and shills.
No need to cite anything to prove that one as anyone with eyes can see that it has been done already many times.
(Aspartame anyone)