Dr. Mercola Breaks His Silence on Ebola


I’m surprised Dr. Mercola took this long to put in his two cents worth but it’s nice to hear a respected, sane voice on the matter at any stage of this psyop. He’s telling us exactly what we need to know, and says…

…”even if an infected person were to hop on a plane and fly to the United States, Europe, or elsewhere, tight health care measures would ensure that Ebola will never get far.”

Researchers have also confirmed that Ebola is not airborne. Like HIV/AIDS, the Ebola virus requires contact with bodily fluids of an infected person.

Interestingly, the Ebola virus is inactivated by UV radiation.12 It certainly isn’t the first time sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in the fight against disease, although bacteria appears to be more susceptible to UV radiation than viruses.

Additionally, regular sun exposure will help optimize your vitamin D, which is crucial for overall robust immune function. Americans in particular may want to take that advice to heart, seeing how most are vitamin D deficient and therefore more open to infections of all kinds.’

So, the doctors are real? With a name like “WritEBOL”? What a cooincidence.

Hopefully we can quash the fear and hype the media are incubating in the public and put this hoax where it belongs, along with the H1N1, Bird Flu, Swine Flu… (you’d think they’d give up by now, wouldn’t you?)  ~ BP

Should You Worry About an Ebola Outbreak in the US?


By Dr. Mercola


For the third time in the history of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the agency has raised its level of emergency alertness to “Level 1″—this time in response to the Ebola virus, following outbreaks in West Africa.

CDC Level 1 emergency response, reserved for the most dire health emergencies, was declared for the first time in 2005 following Hurricane Katrina, and again in 2009 for the H1N1 influenza outbreak.1

On August 8, the World Health Organization (WHO) also declared the Ebola outbreak an international public health emergency.2

The outbreak began late last year. Affected areas include Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. At the time of this writing, of the 1,711 people infected 932 have died in these three areas. Nine people have also been diagnosed with the disease in Nigeria.3

While the death rate for Ebola can be upwards of 90 percent, the current outbreak has a death rate of about 55 percent.4

Two American aid workers, Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, have contracted the disease, and have been flown back for treatment in the US, aboard a specially-equipped plane. At least one of the victims is being treated at the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.5, 6


What Is Ebola?


The Ebola virus7 was first discovered in 1976 when an outbreak occurred in Sudan. So far, five subtypes have been identified:

  1. Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV), identified in 1976, is thought to be the most virulent
  2. Sudan ebolavirus, (SEBOV)
  3. Ivory Coast ebolavirus (ICEBOV)
  4. Ebola-Reston (REBOV), isolated from monkeys in the Philippines in 1989. In 2009, this variant was thought to have been transferred from pigs to humans
  5. Bundibugyo ebolavirus (BEBOV). The first outbreak of this virus occurred in the Bundibugyo District, Uganda, in 2007.8 The virus was deposited with the CDC in November 2007, and was patented in 2009.9 It is the most closely related to the ICEBOV strain, but it’s more virulent

The current outbreak involves Zaire ebolavirus, which produces symptoms within six to 16 days of infection. The virus leads to severe immunosuppression, but most deaths are attributed to dehydration caused by gastric problems. Early signs of infection include:

  • Non-specific flu-like symptoms
  • Sudden onset of fever, diarrhea, headache, muscle pain, vomiting, and abdominal pains
  • Other, less common symptoms include sore throat, rashes, and bleeding

As the infection sets in, shock, cerebral edema (fluid on the brain), coagulation disorders, and secondary bacterial infections may occur. Hemorrhaging tends to begin four to five days after onset of the initial symptoms, which includes bleeding in the throat, gums, lips, and vagina. Vomiting blood, excreting tar-like feces indicative of gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver and/or multi-organ failure can also occur.


How Ebola Spreads


According to Fabian Leendertz, an epidemiologist and disease ecologist at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, the West African outbreak is spreading via contact with bodily fluids from an infected person. Those at greatest risk are women caring for sick relatives, those handling the dead, and health care workers.

However, he notes that Ebola doesn’t spread as easily as most people might think. Again, person-to-person transmission requires close personal contact with an infected individual or their body fluids during the late stages of infection, or after death.10

Leendertz recently told Science News11 that “even if an infected person were to hop on a plane and fly to the United States, Europe, or elsewhere, tight health care measures would ensure that Ebola will never get far.”

Researchers have also confirmed that Ebola is not airborne. Like HIV/AIDS, the Ebola virus requires contact with bodily fluids of an infected person.

Interestingly, the Ebola virus is inactivated by UV radiation.12 It certainly isn’t the first time sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in the fight against disease, although bacteria appears to be more susceptible to UV radiation than viruses.

Additionally, regular sun exposure will help optimize your vitamin D, which is crucial for overall robust immune function. Americans in particular may want to take that advice to heart, seeing how most are vitamin D deficient and therefore more open to infections of all kinds.


Read the rest of his detailed article…


Genetic Roulette: How GMO Food Will Be Our Undoing [video]

The Producers of this film are allowing a FULL and FREE viewing through 11/9/13. Please show your support by purchasing a copy of the film! Click HERE for details!

By Dr. Mercola

We are extremely excited to announce another free week-long streaming of the hour-length version of Genetic Roulette—The Gamble of Our Lives,1 winner of the Top Transformational Film of 2012 by AwareGuide and 2012 Movie of the Year by the Solari Report.

Featuring testimony from healthcare practitioners, scientists, veterinarians, parents, and others about the health risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food, this powerful documentary shares the amazing stories of individuals who saw undeniable improvements after switching to a non-GMO diet.

Last year, during its first free showing week, Genetic Roulette garnered over 1.25 million views. Viewers were so moved that many made the decision to eliminate GMOs from their diet before the credits rolled, and subsequently reported profound improvements in their health.

This film could change your life too! So please, take advantage of this opportunity and forward this important film to all of your close personal friends; share it with others on Facebook and Twitter.

“GENETIC ROULETTE unveils a world most of us have never seen. It raises alarming questions about GMOs, and we deserve answers. For all that you love, hear this message and act now.” — Frances Moore Lappé, author of Diet for a Small Planet and EcoMind

Read the rest of the article…



The Definition of “Cancer” May Be Narrowed to Prevent Overtreatment of Harmless Tumors

Finally, some intelligent movement in the allopathic community toward saner diagnosis and understanding of what cancer is.

So far, they have successfully indoctrinated people to believe that a tumour verdict is the kiss of death. Not so! Many are benign and will disappear on their own.

The medical community takes advantage of the deep-seated fear of the “C-word” to rush people into surgery and other dangerous treatments that are not only INeffective, but actually increase the chances they will develop cancer.

These protocols are in the best interests of the hospitals and insurance companies—NOT the patients’. They can’t waste an opportunity to suck people into the “health care” system—which is anything but.

If traditional cancer treatments worked, they would have reduced the number of deaths, but they haven’t. It’s not rocket science.

The “C-Word” isn’t the kiss of death, but the hospital too often is, for many reasons, and people are going to be enraged when they learn the ultimate truths about cancer.

By Dr. Mercola

Nearly two million Americans are diagnosed with cancer every year, and one in three will face a cancer diagnosis at some time in their lives. Yet despite massive technological advances over the past half-century, Western medicine is still at a loss for how to rein in its prevalence.

At this point, it’s becoming increasingly clear that many of the conventional strategies, from diagnosis to treatment are riddled with flawed assumptions and approaches that, in many cases, do more harm than good.

What’s worse, virtually none of the conventional strategies actually address the root of the problem.

Cancer to Be Redefined?

NPR recently interviewed Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society about the National Cancer Institute’s suggestion to change the definition of “cancer.” The reason for this is because mounting research shows that many harmless tumors are being overtreated, thereby causing far more harm than good.

benign tumour

As reported by NPR:1

“[S]ometimes no treatment is needed at all, and that’s why the National Cancer Institute recently recommended that the definition of cancer be changed… Their new definition of cancer would be narrower than current standards.

The Institute hopes that keeping the word cancer out of some diagnoses would minimize unnecessary treatments and help calm patient anxiety.

‘…Essentially, what has happened is our technologies have gotten so good that we can find some early cancers, or things that look like cancer, that we now know, if left alone, would never grow, spread and harm the patient.

So we’re actually treating some lesions that look like cancer unnecessarily,’ [Dr. Brawley says.] ‘What we’re trying to do is spare some people the harms associated with unnecessary treatment…’”

According to Dr. Brawley, thoughts on cancer have started to change as a result of new information. For example, about 50-60 percent of prostate cancer cases would likely be better off being watched instead of treated. Ditto for thyroid- and lung cancer, where 20-30 percent and about 10 percent respectively, should be watched rather than treated.

In the case of breast cancer, about one-third of women currently diagnosed with breast cancer have harmless tumors that pose no threat to their life. As described by New York Times writer Peggy Orenstein:2

“[C]ancer in your breast doesn’t kill you; the disease becomes deadly when it metastasizes, spreading to other organs or the bones. Early detection is based on the theory, dating back to the late 19th century,

That the disease progresses consistently, beginning with a single rogue cell, growing sequentially and at some invariable point making a lethal leap. Curing it, then, was assumed to be a matter of finding and cutting out a tumor before that metastasis happens.

The thing is, there was no evidence that the size of a tumor necessarily predicted whether it had spread. According to Robert Aronowitz, a professor of history and sociology of science at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of ‘Unnatural History: Breast Cancer and American Society,’

Physicians endorsed the idea anyway, partly out of wishful thinking, desperate to “do something” to stop a scourge against which they felt helpless.”

Although More Cancers are Detected, Mortality Rates Remain Stable

Mammography was heralded as the answer, as it could detect tumors at a much earlier stage, and as annual mammograms became the norm in the US, more cancers were indeed detected—yet the rates of women dying from the disease remained virtually unchanged.

As Orenstein points out, “that should have been a sign that some aspect of the early-detection theory was amiss.” But no.. Instead, flawed assumptions were tacked onto flawed theories, and the general thinking remained that detecting cancer earlier-still was the key to saving lives.

Hence, much of the focus on cancer “prevention” has been diverted into early-detection, more or less ignoring the most obvious question, which is: How do we prevent the formation of lethal tumors in the first place?

For all its flaws, cancer research has determined that the disease is more complex than previously thought. For example, it does not necessarily progress in a consistently uniform manner. They’ve also discovered that there are a number of genetically distinct types of breast cancer—each of which may have different triggers and respond differently to current treatments. These include but are not limited to:

  • Estrogen-dependent luminal A and luminal B
  • HER2-positive, which over-produces a protein called human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
  • Basal-like or “triple negative,” which is the most aggressive form of breast cancer. Its growth is unrelated to the most common biomarkers for breast cancer (estrogen, progesterone and HER2); hence the “triple negative” designation

Analysis of 30 Years of Breast Screening Shows Mammograms Do More Harm than Good

Last year, the New England Journal of Medicine3 published an analysis of the effects of breast cancer screening in the US over the past 30 years, which found that 1.3 million women were misdiagnosed and mistreated as a result of regular mammogram screenings over that timeframe. Moreover, while the detection of early-stage breast cancers doubled since the advent of mammography, late-stage cancer incidence decreased by just eight percent in the same time frame, suggesting that catching and treating tumors early does not automatically eliminate more serious cases of cancer.

According to the authors of the study:

“…the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.”

As you can see, there’s a crucial difference between a non-malignant lesions/tumor and invasive cancer. Yet at present, little distinction is made between the two. Either is typically delivered and received as a death sentence. It is this that the National Cancer Institute’s proposed redesignation of “cancer” is aiming to address. I for one believe it can be quite helpful. At present, an estimated 50,000 American women4 are transformed from healthy women with non-lethal lesions into pink-ribboned “cancer survivors”—thinking they survived a brush with death, when in fact they may have just went through hell for no reason…

Mammography May Harm 10 Times More Women Than It Helps

According to recent findings by the Nordic Cochrane Center,5 only ONE out of 2,000 women screened regularly for 10 years will actually benefit from screening due to early detection of breast cancer. Meanwhile, 10 healthy women (out of those 2,000 screened for a decade) will be misdiagnosed, turned into cancer patients, and will be treated unnecessarily.

These women will have either a part of their breast or the whole breast removed, and will typically receive radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. This treatment (for a cancer that was non-existent) subsequently increases their risk of dying from complications from the therapy and/or from other diseases associated with radiation and chemo, such as heart disease and cancer. In all, routine mammography led to 30 percent over-diagnosis and overtreatment, which equates to an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. So, to recap, in order for mammographic breast screening to save ONE woman’s life:

  • 2,000 women must be screened for 10 years
  • 200 women will get false positives, and
  • 10 will receive surgery and/or chemotherapy even though they do not actually have cancer

What these statistics overwhelmingly show us is that just because you were treated for cancer does not mean you’re a cancer survivor. If you really didn’t have cancer to begin with, then you’re really just a “cancer treatment survivor.” Yet all women treated for cancer who survive become part of the official “cancer survivor” statistic that is then used to justify the effectiveness of the current system of diagnosis and treatment!

More carefully distinguishing between harmless lumps and malignant tumors would go a long way toward preventing needless emotional and physical trauma associated with over-diagnosis and overtreatment. It would probably also aid in determining the actual effectiveness of various treatments.

Women Need to Become Better Informed

The conundrum now lies in convincing a petrified public, thoroughly saturated with “awareness” of the lethal consequences of cancer, that it may be in your best interest to forsake some of the diagnostic tests and treatments. This is likely to be a challenge, because few dare to take a less aggressive route when their life might be at stake. As stated by Orenstein:

“The fear of cancer is legitimate: how we manage that fear, I realized — our responses to it, our emotions around it — can be manipulated, packaged, marketed and sold, sometimes by the very forces that claim to support us. That can color everything from our perceptions of screening to our understanding of personal risk to our choices in treatment.”

Again, to give you some more data to chew on, Orenstein discusses the results of other studies as follows:6

“As improbable as it sounds, studies have suggested that about a quarter of screening-detected cancers might have gone away on their own. For an individual woman in her 50s, then, annual mammograms may catch breast cancer, but they reduce the risk of dying of the disease over the next 10 years by only 0.07 percentage points — from 0.53 percent to 0.46 percent. Reductions for women in their 40s are even smaller, from 0.35 percent to 0.3 percent.” [Emphasis mine]

In order to not only make better informed decisions, but also make decisions that are less colored by fear, women need to be provided with all of their screening options, including their strengths and weaknesses; benefits and risks. Today, women are rarely informed about the fact that ionizing radiation is a major contributor to cancer for example, i.e. that routine testing itself can increase their risk of lethal breast cancer.

This is an extremely important point considering the introduction of 3D mammograms, which exponentially increase your exposure to harmful radiation that might lead to cancer later on. To learn more about this, please see my previous article, New 3D Mammography Significantly Increases Radiation Exposure, and Your Risk of Radiation-Induced Cancer.

Results from Other Studies Evaluating Effectiveness of Mammography

  1. Archives of Internal Medicine7 published a meta-analysis of 117 randomized, controlled mammogram trials. Among its findings: Rates of false-positive results are high (20% to 56% after 10 mammograms), and “although few women 50 years of age or older have risks from mammography that outweigh the benefits, the evidence suggests that more women 40 to 49 years of age have such risks.”
  2. A study published in the British Medical Journal8 in December 2011, confirmed that breast cancer screening may cause women harm, especially during the early years after they start screening. This harm is largely due to surgeries, such as lumpectomies and mastectomies, and other (often unnecessary) interventions. The study highlights losses in quality of life from false positive results and unnecessary treatment.
  3. In September 2010, theNew England Journal of Medicine published the first study9 in years to examine the effectiveness of mammograms. Their findings are a far cry from what most public health officials would have you believe. The bottom line is that mammograms seem to have reduced cancer death rates by only 0.4 deaths per 1,000 women—an amount so small it might as well be zero. Put another way, 2,500 women would have to be screened over 10 years for a single breast cancer death to be avoided.

What Causes of Cancer are Currently Ignored?

So what are some of the root causes of cancer that the industry is failing to address? Well, for one, I believe it would behoove us if researchers spent less time and money searching for genetic factors and more on evaluating the carcinogenic impact of various lifestyle- and environmental factors. Because while some cancers may be highly influenced by inherited genetic defects, the emerging science of epigenetics proves that your genetic code is not nearly as predeterministic as previously thought.

You actually have a tremendous amount of control over how your genetic traits are expressed. Your genes will express or suppress genetic data depending on the environment in which it finds itself, meaning the presence or absence of appropriate nutrients, toxins, and even your thoughts and feelings, which unleash hormones and other chemicals in your body. Dr. Susan Love, a breast cancer surgeon and president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation commented on such research back in 2009, saying:10

“It’s exciting. What it means, if all this environmental stuff is right, is that we should be able to reverse cancer without having to kill cells. This could open up a whole new way of thinking about cancer that would be much less assaultive.”

Research into the health of our ancient ancestors11 also suggests that cancer is indeed a manmade disease. Increasingly, environmental and lifestyle factors are being pinpointed as the culprits, and it is my personal belief that our cancer problem is the result of too many people being regularly exposed to too many of these toxic factors, which include:

Read the rest of the article…




Glyphosate Drives Breast Cancer, Study Warns, as Urine Tests Show Europeans have Weed Killer in Their Bodies

Canada banned Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide several years ago, thank goodness, but how long does it take to rid the environment and the bodies of pets and people of this lethal concoction? 

Clearly the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does NOT have our best interests in mind if they raised the allowable limits of glyphosate.  Even trace amounts in soil, water and food is dangerous.
Glyphosate Drives Breast Cancer Proliferation, Study Warns, as Urine Tests Show Europeans have this Weed Killer in Their Bodies

By Dr. Mercola

Disturbing discoveries relating to glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup—keep emerging. No less than two shocking discoveries recently went public on the same day…

Earlier this month, groundbreaking research was published detailing a newfound mechanism of harm of the chemical.

Now, testing shows that people in 18 countries across Europe have glyphosate in their bodies1, while yet another study reveals that the chemical has estrogenic properties and drive breast cancer proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range2. As reported by GreenMedinfo.com:

“Does this help explain the massive mammary tumors that the only long term animal feeding study on Roundup and GM corn ever performed recently found?”

Meanwhile, a new EU-US free trade agreement3,4 known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), has again cracked the door open for genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods into Europe.

This may effectively negate the hard work Europeans have done to limit the proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their food supply, and with genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops and the food made from it come increased glyphosate exposure…

People Across Europe Test Positive for Glyphosate

A 2011 study detected glyphosate in 60-100 percent of all US air and rain samples, and last year another study revealed widespread glyphosate contamination in groundwater. When groundwater is used as a drinking water source, this contamination poses a risk to animals, plants and humans alike.

Now, the first-ever test for weed killer contamination in human bodies was commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe5. Volunteers from 18 different countries provided urine samples.

Of the 182 urine samples tested, an average of 44 percent was found to contain glyphosate, although the proportion of contamination varied from country to country. All volunteers were city dwellers who had not handled or used glyphosate, and only one person per household was tested.

Macedonia and Bulgaria had the least number of positive tests (10 percent), while 90 percent of samples in Malta tested positive. Seventy percent of volunteers in Germany, UK and Poland had the weed killer in their bodies.

Can you even imagine what the results might be if similar testing was conducted in the US, considering the fact that Americans eat their own weight or more in genetically engineered foods6 each and every year—in large part because the US does not require GE foods to be labeled, so many are still completely in the dark about such stealth ingredients.

The fact that close to half of all people are testing positive for glyphosate (including countries that don’t even use it) is profoundly disturbing in light of the recent findings that this commonly used weed killer may be among the most important factors in the development of modern diseases, as the pathway by which glyphosate kills plants is the identical pathway found in animal and human gut bacteria.

According to Friends of the Earth Europe’s spokesperson Adrian Bebb7:

“Most people will be worried to discover they may have weed killer in their bodies. We tested people living in cities in 18 countries and found traces in every country. These results suggest we are being exposed to glyphosate in our everyday lives, yet we don’t know where it is coming from, how widespread it is in the environment, or what it is doing to our health.

Our testing highlights a serious lack of action by public authorities across Europe and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused. Governments need to step-up their monitoring and bring in urgent measures to reduce its use. This includes rejecting any genetically modified crops that would increase the use of glyphosate.”

Glyphosate Found to Be Carcinogenic in Infinitesimal Amounts

The second study pertains to the carcinogenic nature of this popular weed killer. Contrary to Monsanto’s claims that Roundup is “minimally toxic” to animal and humans, along with claims of it being environmentally friendly and biodegradable—claims found to be false in the highest court of law—Roundup is quite the disaster… As reported by GreenMedinfo.com8:

“The study, titled, ‘Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors,’ compared the effect of glyphosate on hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulates hormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what the study authors describe as ‘low and environmentally relevant concentrations.'”

The researchers concluded that glyphosate is a xenoestrogen that is functionally similar to estradiol, the most potent human estrogen, and concentrations in the parts-per-trillion range had carcinogenic effects. Adding insult to injury—in light of the fact that more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered (GE)—they also found that the phytoestrogen genistein, naturally found in soybeans, heightened the estrogenic effects when combined with glyphosate. According to the authors:

This study implied that the additive effect of glyphosate and genistein in postmenopausal women may induce cancer cell growth. In this present in vitro study, we showed an estrogenicity of pure glyphosate… Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genistein which implied that the use of glyphosate-contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity.” [Emphasis mine]

Glyphosate Implicated as Driver of Modern Diseases

Another groundbreaking report, published earlier this month in the journal Entropy9, argues that glyphosate residues, found in most commonly consumed foods in the US, “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease.” As explained by the authors, Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel:

“Glyphosate’s claimed mechanism of action in plants is the disruption of the shikimate pathway… The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosate is not harmful to humans or to any mammals because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals.

However, this pathway is present in gut bacteria, which play an important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology through an integrated biosemiotic relationship with the human host. In addition to aiding digestion, the gut microbiota synthesize vitamins, detoxify xenobiotics, and participitate in immune system homeostasis and gastrointestinal tract permeability. Furthermore, dietary factors modulate the microbial composition of the gut.”

Remember, the bacteria in your body outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. For every cell in your body, you have 10 microbes of various kinds, and all of them have the shikimate pathway, so they will all respond to the presence of glyphosate! It causes extreme disruption of the microbe’s function and lifecycle; worse yet, glyphosate preferentially affects beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow. At that point, your body also has to contend with the toxins produced by the pathogens. Once the chronic inflammation sets in, you’re well on your way toward chronic and potentially debilitating disease. In a nutshell, Dr. Seneff has summarized the two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet as:

  • Nutritional deficiencies
  • Systemic toxicity

She believes glyphosate is possibly the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies, including but not limited to:

Autism Gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn’s disease Obesity
Allergies Cardiovascular disease Depression
Cancer Infertility Alzheimer’s disease
Parkinson’s disease Multiple sclerosis ALS

Meanwhile, the EPA Raises Allowable Glyphosate Limits…

Just as more independent reports are emerging confirming the multivariate health hazards of glyphosate, the Environmental Protection Agency10 (EPA) is proposing to RAISE the allowed residue limits of glyphosate in food and feed crops11. The new allowable level of glyphosate in teff animal feed will be 100 parts per million (ppm). Allowed levels in some fruits and vegetables eaten by humans will also rise. Root and tuber vegetables, with the exception of sugar, will get one of the largest boosts, with allowable residue limits being raised from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm. The new level for sweet potatoes will be 3 ppm.

This is unconscionable, considering the finding that glyphosate is carcinogenic in parts-per-TRILLION concentrations. Previous research by Professor Andres Carrasco documented malformations in frog and chicken embryos at just over 2 ppm glyphosate12.

Not surprisingly, Monsanto has petitioned and received approvals for increases in glyphosate residue levels for several crops. Clearly, they need allowable levels to be raised because farmers are increasingly forced to use more glyphosate due to glyphosate-resistant weed growth. The question is, how many of its citizens will the US government sacrifice in order for Monsanto to continue making money from its failing products?

Help Spread the Word, as Most Consumers Are Still Unaware of Risks from GMOs

The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, is increasing their propaganda efforts to sway opinion against the need to label genetically engineered foods. Many consumers are still in the dark about the very real risks that GE crops pose, both to the environment and human health. This is precisely what the biotech industry wants, even as increasing research demonstrates the many dangers associated with GE foods.

For example, one recent study found that rats fed a type of genetically engineered corn that is prevalent in the US food supply for two years developed massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and other serious health problems. This was at dietary amounts of about 10 percent. Does 10 percent or more of your diet consist of genetically engineered ingredients? Or are you like the average American who eats his or her own weight in genetically engineered foods each year?

If processed foods form the basis of your diet, then you’re likely in the latter category. Unfortunately, you can’t know for sure which items might contain GMOs since the US does not require genetically engineered foods to be labeled. With the latest revelations discussed above, the need for labeling couldn’t possibly be greater.

Last but not least, I would also encourage you to educate yourself a bit more on the topic of food sovereignty, and the critical nature of biodiversity for food sustainability and security. Because aside from the human health hazards associated with GE foods, seed patenting endangers the very future of life on Earth, as it destroys biodiversity and effectively prevents agricultural methods from flourishing that call for less, or no, agricultural chemicals.

An excellent resource is the free e-book, The Law of the Seed13; the result of a working group meeting of leading lawyers, scientists, and members of the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, including the tireless environmental activist Dr. Vandana Shiva14.


Read the rest of the article…

Scientist Accidentally Discovers a Possible Culprit in the Growing Incidence of Cancer

This research applies to both pets and humans. When I read how pet food is processed, I  realized why so many bodies are getting sick these days—four legged and two legged.

Our pet oncologist had us switch our dog Morgan’s food to a home-made, slow-cooked stew with lots of other healthy things like raw hemp oil added and he has responded really well. No more cancer, and his hair is soft and thick again. I noticed how brittle, hard and thin his fur was while on chemo and for a few months after the end of the treatment protocol.

Occasionally we add a raw, frozen lamb patty from the feed store’s freezer to his food. He also gets the odd bite of a banana and berries, but we keep the sugary foods to a minimum. With a new diet, he has more energy and seems to be in perfect health for an 11-year-old.

If we all applied the principal of minimal processing to the human diet, we’d be a lot healthier collectively. Processed food leads to disease.

If you went to see a Naturopath or holistic doctor, they’d put you on a completely different diet than most people eat, but our family doctors don’t tell us that how we cook things affects them on a cellular and molecular level.

For example, something as benign as a potato, when baked or fried, becomes toxic. (Yes, sorry—that means French Fries) I rarely eat potatoes any more and have an extra helping of veggies instead. On a rare occasion I will have French Fries and really enjoy them.

Most people don’t know that olive oil, while one of the most beneficial foods we can consume in its raw, “extra-virgin” minimally-processed form, becomes toxic when exposed to high heat. I cook and bake with coconut oil. (it’s not always a suitable substitute in baking so find another oil to bake with) Here’s an article about safe oils to use for cooking.

And here’s the science behind cooking or processing food that led to this discovery about the increasing cancer in pets.

By Dr. Becker (associate of Dr. Joseph Mercola)

Today I have a very special guest talking with me via Skype, Dr. Robert Turesky. Dr. Turesky is a research scientist working for the Division of Environmental Health Sciences at the New York State Department of Health. Dr. Turesky and I met through a mutual acquaintance, Ted Kerasote, author of a wonderful new book about why dogs become ill and die younger than we believe they should.

Dr. Turesky’s Research on Carcinogens in Cooked Meat

Dr. Turesky wrote a very interesting article for the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry titled “Biomonitoring the Cooked Meat Carcinogen 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazol[4,5-b]pyridine in Canine Fur.” I asked Dr. Turesky to explain that very long title in layman’s terms.

He explained that 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazol[4,5-b]pyridine is a very long name for a carcinogen. The scientific name is often shortened to PhIP.  Dr. Turesky went on to say that he and his research partners are very interested in a class of chemicals called heterocyclic aromatic amines that form in well-done cooked meats, poultry and other protein-based products and their potential role in human cancer.

One of the goals of Dr. Turesky’s research is to develop methods to monitor the exposure to these chemicals in humans, and one way he is doing that is by looking at the bioaccumulation of some of the chemicals in hair. When we eat these foods they are absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract, pass through the liver, and after what’s called first-pass metabolism, a small portion of the chemicals wind up in the bloodstream.

From there they go through what is called systemic circulation. A tiny portion of the chemical ultimately reaches the hair follicle and becomes entrapped. As the hair shaft grows out, the chemical grows out with it, and this activity can be monitored.

First Experiment Involved Dr. Turesky’s Own Dogs

Dr. Turesky says he can take out the hair shaft, cut it, break it open, and do chemical analysis on it using mass spectrometry methods. He first decided to try this on his own dogs to see if he could detect exposure to a potential carcinogen in their fur. He wasn’t really expecting to get a positive result because his dogs don’t eat grilled steaks or hamburgers. So he was very surprised – stunned, in fact – to find that his dogs did indeed have the carcinogen in their fur.

After the experiment with his dogs, Dr. Turesky set up a collaboration with the University of Minnesota’s veterinary college to conduct a small pilot study of about 15 canines. Thirteen of those 15 dogs tested positive for the carcinogen in their fur.

I asked Dr. Turesky if he has done this type of research on mice or other animals. He replied that there’s been a lot of work done in evaluating these chemicals, including experimental animal model studies using mice and rats. Non-human primate studies have also been conducted at the National Institutes of Health.

Some of the chemicals have proved to be carcinogenic in these animal models. Based on the biochemistry in the research done with animals, Dr. Turesky and other researchers have tried to extrapolate to humans. He notes that a structurally related class of chemicals called aromatic amines was first shown to be a bladder carcinogen based on an animal model study of a dog.

Almost No Research Exists on Potential Carcinogens in Processed Pet Food

I was able to find only one other journal article related to pet foods and potential carcinogens. The study is titled “Mutagenic Activity and Heterocyclic Amine Carcinogens in Commercial Pet Foods,” published in July 2003 in the journal Mutation Research. What this study showed was that out of 25 commercial pet foods analyzed for mutagenic activity (the ability to induce mutations in cells), all but one had a positive response. Fourteen of the 25 foods were analyzed for heterocyclic amine mutagens or carcinogens, and all but one contained a carcinogen.

From these findings, it’s hypothesized there is a connection between dietary heterocyclic amines and cancer in animals consuming these foods.

So there are currently only two published studies, including Dr. Turesky’s, demonstrating that when animals eat cooked meat products processed at high temperatures, carcinogens could be present. I find it shocking that Dr. Turesky’s is only the second published article to discuss this, and wonder if it’s because the veterinary community and pet food industry just aren’t interested.

Dr. Turesky responded that he doesn’t know whether or not the pet food industry is interested, but that there is actually a lot of research underway on how this class of chemicals affects humans. He says there’s tremendous interest in the molecular epidemiology community on the role of well-done cooked meats and the risks for certain types of cancers.

Dr. Turesky went on to say the topic hasn’t been extensively studied in animal models such as the canine, but certainly he and his colleagues would love to be able to explore the potential role of heat-processed foods and canine cancer.

Most Pets Eat Nothing But a Processed Diet All Their Lives

Dogs eat these types of foods consistently, whereas most humans have very diverse diets. So a dog’s level of intake and exposure may be much higher than a human’s and the risk much greater as a result. Dr. Turesky believes more research should be done on these chemicals and heat-processed pet foods.

I certainly agree. The fact is, very few pets are fed fresh or unprocessed foods. Most dogs and cats are fed extruded foods. “Extruded” means the batter or ingredient mix is forced through a dye and cooked at very high temperatures. This not only changes the molecular activity of the food, but according to Dr. Turesky’s research, it could also potentially contribute to a heavier carcinogenic load.

I asked Dr. Turesky if when he tested his own dogs he was able to discern the level of carcinogenic material in the fur. He explained there are different levels of accumulation of the carcinogen in fur or human hair. One major factor is pigmentation. In his article he notes that one of the dogs analyzed was Moses, his Bernese mountain dog. Moses has beautiful black hair over his back and hindquarters, and a white mane. When his coat was analyzed, it turn out that the black fur contained all the PhIP carcinogen, while the white fur contained none.

Dr. Turesky believes the reason behind this is that pigments in fur such as melanin or derivatives of melanin have a very high affinity for this carcinogen, so it accumulates in animals with dark fur more so than in animals with light colored coats.

Another factor is level of exposure, which is dependent on the diet of the individual. Other influences can include enzymes and metabolic factors involved in processing the carcinogens.

Dry Pet Food and Poultry-Based Proteins Are a Special Problem

I asked Dr. Turesky if in his small 15-dog study he fed dry food diets. I wanted to know if there were differences between dogs fed canned food or unprocessed food – for example freeze-dried raw — and dogs fed kibble. He explained that as far as he remembered all the dogs but one were fed dry food. And he believes the dog that was not fed kibble had one of the lowest levels – if not the lowest level – of carcinogen in his fur.

Next I wanted to know if Dr. Turesky made any changes to his own dogs’ diets after finding carcinogens in their fur. He replied that he has indeed changed their food. Their previous diet was built around poultry-based protein. As it turns out, under certain cooking conditions the highest levels of PhIP are produced in poultry. The levels can vary tremendously depending on how high the cooking temperature or duration is.

Dr. Turesky decided he didn’t want his pets on a cooked, poultry-based diet. So he switched them to fish – salmon and herring. He hasn’t yet re-analyzed his dogs’ fur because it takes some time before the fur is replaced. He plans to retest in a few months to see if there’s a decrease in levels of PhIP in their fur.

I asked him if he’s still feeding kibble and he is, because as we all know, it’s a challenge switching to fresh or raw foods, in part because of the convenience of kibble.

I’ll be interested to see if the switch in protein from chicken to fish has any impact on the levels of carcinogen in his dogs’ fur, because no matter the protein source in kibbled pet food, it’s all extruded at extremely high temperatures.

High Heat and Longer Cook Times Increase Levels of Potential Carcinogens

I asked Dr. Turesky to talk about differences between meats processed at 200°F versus 400°F – is there a certain temperature at which these carcinogenic materials are more prevalent? Dr. Turesky responded that he can’t answer with regard to dog food, but in the case of human foods, generally speaking, the higher the temperature and the longer the cooking duration, the higher the levels of PhIP and other heterocyclic amines present in cooked meat.

For example, if you roast meats rather than fry or broil them (roasting is done at lower temperatures), you will not produce appreciable amounts of these carcinogens. But when you raise the temperature above about 350°F, these chemicals will be produced at higher levels. They form at the surface of the meat that is in contact with the heating element, which is the location of the highest temperature. According to Dr. Turesky, generally these carcinogens are produced on the external surfaces of cooked meats like hamburgers or the skin or surface of poultry rather than in the center of the meat.

I explained to Dr. Turesky that most of the ingredients in kibbled pet foods have been processed twice. They’re processed first to produce meat meal, and then they go through a second cooking process. So another question I have is, if there are multiple processing procedures performed at high temperatures, does it create risk for even greater carcinogenic exposure?

Will There Be Future Studies on Carcinogens in Processed Pet Food?

I told Dr. Turesky I could provide him with potential research study ideas involving pets, because the fact is he’s the only person I’m aware of who’s conducting this type of research. And while his focus isn’t on the pet food industry, because he has conducted research on dogs, it seems to make sense that we take a minute to reflect on the potential ramifications of feeding highly processed foods to pets.

Next I asked Dr. Turesky what he thought about Ted Kerasote’s new book, Pukka’s Promise: The Quest for Longer-Lived Dogs. He explained he became aware of the book because his wife, who is studying to become a dog trainer, was reading it. She gave it to him to read, and he was particularly interested in the chapters about nutrition and canine health. Dr. Turesky contacted Ted immediately to make him aware of his recent study on PhIP and dog fur. They discussed the study and ultimately Ted introduced the two of us, and we were able to set up this interview.

Dr. Turesky re-emphasized that the levels of carcinogens in the canine diet – as in the human diet – are low, but unlike humans, many pets are consuming processed foods day in and day out for a lifetime. In fact, they’re exposed to it in utero. They’re exposed to these chemicals from before birth for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So he is very interested in the role these chemicals play in disease risk in canines.

Dr. Turesky is hoping to be able to do further research on this very important topic in not only human health, but canine health as well. I asked him if he has any research projects planned involving dogs, and he replied that he’s had some discussions with pet food companies as well as organizations that sponsor pet health research. He says funding is very hard to get in the current economy, but he’s hopeful he’ll be able to continue to pursue research in this area.

That’s wonderful news, because Dr. Turesky’s research has been enlightening for me, and it will be for others as well.

Raw vs. Processed Pet Food Diets

I also want to make the point that dogs and cats are carnivores (dogs are scavenging carnivores and cats are obligate carnivores). Raw meat, which is the food nature intended canines and felines to consume, does not contain heterocyclic amines. It’s when meat is processed that the risk of carcinogens becomes a possibility.

So essentially, raw meat, in and of itself, is beautiful. It seems to me, although the research is not there, that freeze-dried or air-dried meats, because they’re not heated at high temperatures, would be safe.

Dr. Turesky responded that with respect to the class of chemicals he is researching, that is true. He makes the point that while he’s not a microbiologist, there are other health issues with respect to microbes in raw meat that should be considered. But with respect to heat-processed carcinogens — not only heterocyclic amines but also other potentially carcinogenic chemicals produced at high temperatures — clearly they are not present in uncooked meat.

I’d like to thank Dr. Robert Turesky for spending a few minutes chatting with me today about his important discovery of carcinogens in canine fur. I look forward to following his future research.


Ag-Gag Laws: What is Modern Agriculture Trying to Hide?

It’s enough to make you gag…

I had some friends who suddenly chose to go vegetarian after visiting a kill floor or meat processing plant… can’t recall which—but this is far worse, in my humble opinion.

See the undercover activist’s videobut not after a meal. It’s graphic.

By Dr. Mercola

Undercover videos filmed by animal rights groups have exposed some of the most inhumane and unsanitary agricultural conditions imaginable, being passed off as “concentrated animal feeding operations” (CAFOs).

At one egg producer, they saw overcrowding with up to 11 birds per cage, dead birds apparently left untended, and a severe fly infestation capable of spreading salmonella across the chicken population.

Another video showed “egregious violations” of federal animal care regulations by a meat packing company. The company allowed cattle that were too weak or sick to stand on their own to be slaughtered anyway … this led to the largest meat recall in US history.

In 2011, McDonald’s and Target said they would no longer purchase eggs from Sparboe Farms due to potentially unhealthy conditions discovered at Sparboe’s egg laying facilities by an ABC News “20/20” investigation.

This is just a short list of the abuses revealed – and the swift enforcement actions that often follow – by undercover footage.

The videos have given both lawmakers and the public a glimpse into an otherwise secretive world, and now the agricultural industry, rather than pledging to clean up their acts, is trying to make it illegal for undercover videos to be filmed at their industrial farms.

Ag-Gag Bills Seek to Keep You in the Dark About Where Your Food Comes From

Five states have so-called ag-gag laws in place, and another 10 have introduced their own anti-whistleblower laws this year. The laws, which are being heavily promoted by lobbyists for the meat, egg and dairy industries, would essentially prevent anyone from exposing animal cruelty and food-safety issues at CAFOs by:

  • Making it illegal to take undercover photos or videos
  • Requiring anyone applying for a job at a CAFO to disclose affiliations with animal rights groups
  • Requiring activists to hand over undercover videos immediately
  • Requiring mandatory reporting with extremely short timelines so patterns of abuse cannot be documented

These undercover videos and revelations by whistleblowers are often the only glimpse that Americans get into the world of industrialized agriculture. But the industry knows that the more they see, the more uncomfortable people will become with supporting this broken system.

They could simply change their “farming” methods to those that do not abuse and neglect animals, and create extreme food-safety risks. Instead, they’re fighting to protect their cloak of secrecy. The Huffington Post reported:1

“In short, they’re working to prevent Americans from finding out about animal abuse, rather than working to prevent the abuse. They may not be literally shooting the messenger, but they do want to imprison her.”

Big Agriculture Wants to Trick You by Sugar-Coating Their Image

It’s very common for industrialized agriculture to pawn off their modern-day torture chambers as idyllic family farms. Last year, for instance, the Pork Producers Council released a cartoon that made CAFOs look like wonderful places for animals and workers.

They say they put up “modern” barns to protect animals from harsh weather, illness and predators … which when translated to reality means the pigs never get to see the light of day, are packed in so tightly, living in their own feces, that illness runs rampant, and as for predators, well, the farm workers themselves are often caught in acts of abuse.

The Huffington Post2 recently highlighted a column by a pork industry veteran,3 which similarly advises pork producers to simply change the words they use to describe their horrific practices. For instance, he encourages calling gestation crates – two-foot-wide cages where breeding pigs spend nearly their entire lives, unable to even turn around – “individual maternity pens.” Other examples include “harvesting” animals rather than “slaughtering” and “environmentally controlled housing” in lieu of the confinement barns they really are.

It’s because of measures like these that even though most food comes from facilities that resemble factories rather than farms, many Americans still believe their food is grown on small family farms where animals are treated like living creatures instead of commodities. This is exactly what the pork producers and other industrial agribusiness giants want you to believe.

Because if you really knew where your pork, chicken, eggs or beef had come from, there’s a very strong chance you would not only refuse to eat it, but would be incredibly appalled at the very thought. The Huffington Post continued:4

Big Ag is trying to do everything it can to keep Americans in the dark about how it abuses animals. Whether through ag-gag laws to prevent videos of animal abuse from surfacing or through playing the name game, this is an industry that knows it has a lot to hide.

After all, “one of the best things modern animal agriculture has going for it is that most people…haven’t a clue how animals are raised and processed,” wrote an editor of the Journal of Animal Science in an animal agriculture textbook. He aptly concluded, “For modern animal agriculture, the less the consumer knows about what’s happening before the meat hits the plate, the better.”

Agribusiness Uses Intensive Lobbying, Strong-Arm Tactics to Control Government

You might be wondering how ag-gag laws could ever be signed into law, given their implications for public health and animal welfare, not to mention truthful journalism and the First Amendment.  The fact of the matter is, like many other industries, agribusiness uses intensive lobbying, strong-arm tactics and other abuses of power to keep regulations well in their favor. As reported by Occupy for Animals:5

“Federal legislature currently forbids animal waste from being categorized as hazardous. In addition, on the economic level, many corporations are multi-state and can simply move to another state if local laws become too restrictive for their tastes.

Other strong-arm tactics include abuse of power at the highest levels, industry lobby money poured into political campaigns in exchange for less restrictive laws, control of academic resources, and delaying tactics. Perhaps the most damning example of political abuse is the ability of certain corporations to claim immunity to the federal Clean Air Act.”

The end result of these strong-arm tactics is an industry that releases more greenhouse gases into the environment than the entire global transportation industry, as well as produces significant drinking water contamination from the massive amounts of animal waste generated.

Yet, despite their destructive impacts on the environment, animal welfare and human health, the US government is continuing their history of supporting these industrial CAFO operations, both by looking the other way when abuse or contamination occurs, and by directly subsidizing cheaply produced beef, and corn and soy used for feed. As it stands, 2 percent of US livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals,6 and these large, corporate-owned CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.

The only reason CAFOs are able to remain so “efficient,” bringing in massive profits while selling their food for bottom-barrel prices, is because they substitute subsidized crops for pasture grazing. Corporations primarily use the CAFO system because efficiency and profits are valued above all else, even though this frequently violates natural laws and increase the risk to people eating the food they produce. The environmental assaults that follow are considered a cost of doing business, but as the documentary film River of Waste poignantly shared, we should perhaps be heeding this Native American Cree prophecy before it is too late …

“Only after the last tree is cut down, the last of the water poisoned, the last animal destroyed … only then will you realize you cannot eat money.”

Support the Food Producers Who Truly Have Nothing to Hide

You vote three times a day when you choose the foods you eat for your meals. Will you vote for the system that is systematically destroying your health, animal welfare and the planet … or will you support those who are changing the world for the better, one meal at a time? There are basically two different models of food production today, and there’s growing conflict between them. The first, and most prevalent, is the CAFO model that takes a very mechanistic view toward life, whereas the other — the local, sustainable farm model — has a biological and holistic view.

I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area, particularly organic farms that respect the laws of nature and use the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat to create synergistic, self-supporting, non-polluting, GMO-free ecosystems. Whereas industrial agriculturists want to hide their practices from you, traditional farmers will welcome you onto their land, as they have nothing to hide.

Whether you do so for ethical, environmental or health reasons—or all of the above—the closer you can get to the “backyard barnyard,” the better. You’ll want to get your meat, chickens and eggs from smaller community farms with free-ranging animals, organically fed and locally marketed. This is the way food has been raised and distributed for centuries… before it was corrupted by politics, corporate greed and the blaring arrogance of the food industry.

You can do this not only by visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also by taking part in farmer’s markets and community-supported agriculture programs. The following organizations can also help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area, raised in a humane, sustainable manner.



Electron Deficiency May Be the Underlying Cause of Most Chronic Disease

Sounds serious—but it’s a cheap, easy fix!  When we consider that we are made of the same particles as everything else in Creation, including Mother Earth, it’s not such a stretch that to be healthy and fully-functioning, we need to be in sync with her.

When man was created and left here on this beautiful, bountiful planet to thrive, we were provided with everything we need to do just that: THRIVE.

Unfortunately, there are many purposeful strategies at work to undermine our symbiotic existence with Mother Earth, and the result is overwhelming chronic disease and death on a scale never before experienced on this planet.

Getting back to the most basic relationships understood and enjoyed by indigenous cultures, we can reverse physical, emotional, spiritual and psychological damage and return to vibrant health. The following explains a key way we can do that.

I think you’ll agree it just makes sense, and every soul on the planet, without exception, can rebalance their electrical energy systems, their chakras, and no need to be an electrician.

By Dr. Mercola

For thousands of years, Eastern civilizations have used forms of energy medicine to unblock and regulate energy channels in the body. For example, acupuncture has a long history of success in Traditional Chinese Medicine.

The West has been slow to embrace energy medicine, holding a more biochemical view of the human body, as opposed to “the body electric.”

Hold a stethoscope to your body and you’ll hear a lot of electrical chatter. Your nervous system communicates using electricity (i.e., movement of electrons), receiving and transmitting electrical signals throughout your body. Most of your biological processes are electrical.

Most people in the medical world have no background whatsoever in the electrical world, which is why Clint Ober is so uniquely qualified to offer this fresh perspective, which is brilliantly simple and intuitive, given how our ancestors lived.

Ober spent three decades working in the cable television industry prior to changing course to investigate how Earth’s electrical energy influences health. While struggling to recover from his own healing challenges, he received the following internal whisper:

“Become an opposite charge. Status quo is the enemy.”

This inspiration was the beginning of what could end up being a discovery as groundbreaking as germ theory. What he has discovered could be a major underlying thread in all chronic disease, a phenomenon he calls “electron deficiency syndrome.” The premise is simple. If you are deficient in electrons, your body is unable to effectively combat inflammation.

When inflammation runs rampant, as you probably know, you are vulnerable to a plethora of chronic diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and many other illnesses that are appearing at alarmingly high rates today.

The Earth is the natural antidote for electron deficiency and can provide you with an infinite flow of electrons through grounding, also known as “Earthing.” And I will spend a large part of this article explaining how this works. But here’s the rub. You can’t benefit from this electron flow unless you are directly connected to the Earth. And today, people in industrialized countries are anything BUT connected.

Humankind’s Disconnect from a Healing Source: Mother Earth

Industrialization and the introduction of plastics and other synthetic materials have disconnected us from the Earth and her energy. Whereas we once walked barefoot across the grass and slept on the cool dirt floors of a cave, we now live ABOVE the ground, separated from the Earth by raised wooden floors, rubber-soled shoes, and sometimes hundreds of feet of air, if you live (or work) in a high-rise building.

We are ungrounded—literally!

Have you ever noticed how good it feels to walk barefoot on a sandy beach, or in a forest? There is a reason for that—it’s called the grounding effect. The reason you feel so good on that sandy beach is you are receiving a surge of healing electrons from the ground. The Earth is a relatively infinite source of electrons, having a slightly negative charge. But the Earth’s electrons are free to move. So, when you stand barefoot on that sand, electrons from the Earth flow into your body, a virtual “transfusion” of healing power. This occurs until you equalize with the Earth. Meaning, you cannot get too much—the process simply stops when your charge (your voltage) returns to zero. It’s completely safe and natural.

The Earth is the biggest electrical object, and we are part of it. When you are grounded (i.e., in contact with the Earth), it’s impossible for your body to carry a charge.

Humans used to be naturally grounded. First, we were barefoot, and then we donned leather-soled shoes, which are still moderately conductive. When you wear a shoe with a leather sole, your feet sweat and permeate the leather with moisture and body salts, so the shoe becomes a semiconductor permitting you to receive some electrons.

But, for the past 50 years or so, we’ve added carpets, plastics, synthetic-soled shoes, and athletic sneakers, all serving as non-conductive barriers between the Earth and us. During that same period of time, we’ve seen an explosion of inflammation-based diseases. Our immune systems are struggling.

Pets are designed to be in contact with the Earth as well, but now they live above ground in houses, as we do. Anecdotal evidence shows they are suffering the same effects of electron deficiency as humans. Animals that live in the wild are not bothered with inflammation, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, or even plaque on their teeth. This is why your dog or cat will crawl under the porch and lie on the bare earth if he isn’t feeling well.

What animals have always known, “modern science” is just now figuring out.

Even water is influenced by the Earth’s electrical energy. Water in contact with the Earth has a structure that makes it conducive to healing. When you are grounded to the Earth, it is thought that the negatively charged electrons you are receiving may help increase the structure of the water in your cells—just as water increases in structure when a negative charge is introduced by an electrode. By going outside, barefoot, touching the earth, and allowing the excess positive charge in your body to discharge into the earth, you can alleviate some of the stress on your system. So how does this grounding effect work?

You Are An Earthly Antenna

Your body is a conductor. You are an antenna for the Earth. When you are ungrounded, electric fields are attracted to your body and create a surface charge—a voltage. You know this to be true if you’ve ever shocked yourself after walking across a carpeted floor.

When living above Earth, your charge is positive; when connected to the Earth, your charge is negative—in other words, you become an opposite charge. You accumulate this surface charge any time you’re not grounded. When your charge reaches 3,000 to 5,000 volts and you touch a metal object, ZAP… this is static discharge, the sudden outflow of built-up electrical energy from your body.

This static electricity is the reason workers in microchip factories must be grounded—so they don’t blow the chips. The same goes for operating rooms. Everyone involved in a surgical procedure must be grounded—the patient as well as the medical personnel. Your skin offers some protection from static electricity, but when it’s open (as in surgery), that protection disappears. In fact, in the early days of open-heart surgery, this lesson was learned the hard way when many patients died from static electricity because patients weren’t grounded.

The higher the conductivity between you and the Earth, the more likely you’re going to be grounded. Proximity is key.

The more distance there is between you and the Earth, the greater the charge on your body. In fact, this has been precisely calculated. For every meter you are above the ground, 300 volts of charge will build up in your body. (See The Feynman Lectures on Physics) So, if you are in a second story bedroom, your charge would be 1000 volts, on average. Do you think your risk for illness could be higher living on the second floor? How about the 5th floor, or the 25th? Indeed, a study in 2009 from the University of Iowa revealed a 40 percent increase in stroke risk among people living in multistory homes.

Besides living and working above ground, invisible electromagnetic fields from devices such as cellular and cordless phones, computers, tablets and other technology assault us around the clock. You are bathed in background electricity from ordinary household wiring in the walls of your home, which contributes to your positive electrical charge and therefore increases the stress on your immune system. And if you are on the computer several hours a day, combined with several calls on your cell phone followed by an hour or two of television, you are getting several more hefty exposures to these unnatural electrical fields. If you want an in-depth discussion about Earth’s electrical surface potential, read this article by Gaetan Chavalier, PhD.

Read the rest of the article…

You can also sign up for Dr. Mercola’s free newsletters at the above link and get the truth about eliminating and preventing disease and living the most vital life possible. The healthiest people on the planet eat pure food, drink pure water, get regular exercise, don’t take medication, don’t get vaccinations and avoid allopathic doctors and hospitals.