Aspartame causes Cancer, so why is it so widely used?

I came across an article in the news today titled Harvard hospital admits it promoted weak science on aspartame; more specifically weak research on the safety of aspartame regarding the negative and harmful effects of  this artificial sweetener, and its link to cancer in humans.  The article goes as far as saying, "In other words, if you see a headline screaming, “Aspartame linked to cancer,” don’t believe it." 

Wow! I can just smell the corruption through my computer screen!

For those that don't know the history of this cancer causing sweetener, let me fill you in.  Since its discovery by GD Searle and Company in the mid 60's it has endured one of the toughest battles, as far as FDA approval goes, due to what has been called poor, sloppy, almost laughable research by Searle to show that it was indeed safe for human consumption.  In the early 80's the FDA actually concluded that aspartame might induce brain tumors following research by a committee comprised of 3 independent scientist, and actually banned it based on these findings.  So why then is it now not only an approved sweetener, but used in countless processed foods and soft drinks? 

Let's connect the dots shall we?  Here's an abbreviated timeline...

• In 1981 following Reagan's inauguration, a man by the name of Author Hayes Hull Jr. was appointed commissioner of the FDA.  Around that same time, Searle reapplied for FDA approval for its artificial sweetener, aspartame.  A five person scientific committee was appointed to review the previous decision.   As it was becoming clear that the panel would uphold the FDA’s rejection by a vote of 3-2, Hull appointed a 6th member which conveniently caused a deadlock.  And with Hull then becoming the deciding vote, aspartame was approved 4 to 3.  
• Two years later Hull left the administration eventually taking a job with Burston-Marsteller, a public relations firm for Searle and interestingly enough Monsanto. 
• In 1985 Monsanto purchased GD Searle.

Didn’t take long to connect this cancer causing substance with the deep pockets of our nation’s factory farming processed food industry.   Click here for a full timeline.

To make things even more clear, in case you still doubt the corruption that takes place when it comes to the FDA and our food and drug industries, a recent study on the “industry’s” influence on so called scientific research headed by a professor of psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio University’s college of medicine, compared the outcomes of aspartame safety research based on who funded the research.  Surprisingly enough (or not) of the 164 studies performed, 74 were funded by the nutrasweet industry, all of which deemed aspartame safe, while of the 90 independent studies performed, 83 identified aspartame as UNSAFE!  A bit contradicting, wouldn’t you say? 

Here’s a link to a Mike Wallace interview summing things in a bit more detail.

Bottom line, when you read an article telling you that despite all of the research on a substance that has long been tainted as cancer causing, is all of a sudden ok for you… be suspicious!
 

Hell No to GMOs!

I am not sure what is more disturbing to me (and frightening), the intensity behind the pro-GMO campaign push that is going on right now, or the diverse seemingly (at first glance) unrelated group of donors funding GMOs and more importantly the lack of labeling.  The average ill-informed person may not immediately (if at all) make the connection between for instance the apparent "new studies" conveniently surfacing daily it seems within the medical community, trying their hardest to discredit the nutritional importance or even relevance of organic (non-GMO) products.  I think I've either read or seen on the news 3 separate new studies claiming that organic produce is not more nutritious than non-organic, with some even going as far as insisting that choosing organic in order to avoid toxins and pollutants may not even be worth the cost!  These false studies are absurd and those within the medical community that quote them should be ashamed of themselves.  Although it may not be obvious to the average person how or where the connection is between our medical community and pro-GMO supporters, the lines are not blurred to me. 

When you have chemical companies such as Monsanto or BASF or Dow who are up to their necks in the agricultural industry (pesticides and herbicides) making billions in profit on their patented GM seeds (such as corn, soy, cotton, canola, etc.) designed to withstand heavy doses of their respective herbicide or pesticide, you can only imagine the enormous funding these companies provide to universities for research and development in the area of bioengineering and biomedical. With this funding they can fairly easily dictate the focus of such research into their desired directions.  It's a perfect circle of corruption when you can dictate the education of our future doctors and PhD's at the academic level as well as during their medical careers with the help of pharmaceutical companies.  As it should be no surprise, these chemical companies such as Monsanto or BASF or Dow (to name a few) all have another billion dollar industry in common; the pharmaceutical industry. 

Don't be fooled by this relentless campaign which is conveniently coming just ahead of California's big vote come November (proposition 37) for the right to know what's in your food, specifically GMO labeling.  To say there is a lot of money at stake with this vote would be a monumental understatement.  These companies who profit off of GMOs (and the list is endless from chemical companies to food manufacturers) will do anything to convince the general public that not only are GMOs safe for people, animals, and the environment, but also necessary for moving forward in a sustainable manner.

There is a new study out of Canada (a real non corrupted study) proving that Bt-toxin (in Monsanto's Bt GM corn) does in fact accumulate within the human body.

"The toxin was identified in 93 percent of pregnant women tested; 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies; and 67 percent of non-pregnant women."

And another study out of Germany showed that even humans with no direct contact with this toxin (i.e. outside the agricultural industry) have significant concentrations of glyphosate in their urine.

"Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, which is sprayed in large quantities on genetically engineered, so-called "Roundup Ready," crops. Such crops are genetically engineered to withstand otherwise lethal applications of the herbicide."

As shocking as these studies are, what's not surprising is who DID NOT fund this research (Monsanto, BASF, Dow). 

When you read or hear something on the news regarding your health and that of the planet and environment, it is always best to research those who would profit from the research's outcome.  And if the outcome seems fishy, like organic is not healthier than non organic, dig a little deeper and find out for yourself what the truth really is. 

What we should have learned from the Mayan's

When we think of the great Mayan Empire, as with many of the ancient empires that appeared to be ahead of their time (Egyptians, Aztecs, etc.), we can't help but to get lost in the mystique of it all.  We think of all of the great inventions or technological advancements that they displayed whether architecturally, scientifically, and or agriculturally.  And because we often get lost in these awe inspiring worlds that they often dominated, we never stop to question whether some of their so called "advancements" may have actually led to their demise. 

This very question, "What was behind the mysterious collapse of the Mayan Empire?", has been the driving force behind much research, and recent studies have actually pointed to their environmental impact as the cause. 

Sound like a premonition from the great Nostradamus as to the demise of modern society?  It should!

It turns out that the Mayan Empire, like many of the "great" empires of our past, had advancements, in one area in particular, in common that had an enormous negative impact on the future of their survival; Agriculture.  The farming of annual mono-crops to be exact.

The farming of annual mono-crops, and each empire had their own just as we do today (corn and soy), required (as it does today) unnatural and detrimental changes to the natural landscape in order to successfully yield a bounty worthy of a ruling nation.  When we think of something like irrigation, destruction is not what comes to mind.  We often marvel at the ability of these ancient civilizations to have irrigated in such a way as to support the hundreds or thousands of acres of mono-crops they farmed, but we don't often realize that it's these advancements that very well may have drained the life from their world as they knew it.

You can't successfully farm the acreage they did (as we do) without deforestation, or without the damning of rivers and rerouting the water as needed, or without the plowing of perennial prairie land or marsh land.  And each of these environmentally damaging acts takes its toll on the environment, whether it be diminishing soil fertility, destruction of precious sensitive supporting ecosystems, or changes in overall climate.

Unfortunately though it seems to be human nature to focus (idealize) on the success of a nation and their ability rule, rather than to focus on their demise.  If they were so great, where are they today?  The same place we will be years from now if we don't learn from past (and present) mistakes! 

Factory farming as it's called today, or farming that revolves around and depends upon mono-crops (corn, soy, etc.), cannot support a nation.  It can only support its ultimate unavoidable demise.  It leads to drastic negative environmental changes, possibly irreversible in our lifetime, but ultimately death and destruction.  What we have taken from these deceased empires, the farming of mono-crops on such a large scale, has led to the overly processed high sugary foods consisting more of laboratory invented ingredients than of actual naturally occurring ingredients.  It has led to the extinction of hundreds of thousands of species of both plants and animals, as well as to the onset of countless new diseases.  It has led to the creation of GMO's and GE foods and animals.  It has led to horrific animal and environmental abuse and cruelty that is so carelessly swept aside, all in the name of agriculture.  It has led to a sick unhealthy nation dependent upon the pharmaceutical industry for survival.  It ultimately will lead to our demise... unless we change!

Why studies on vitamin D are dangerously misleading

Most all of the 'published' studies, primarily those with the agenda to debunk health claims regarding the benefits of vitamin D have one very crucial flaw in common, the study's participants are always given vitamin D orally via supplements.

There are two major problems with this:

1. The most effective, efficient, and natural source of Vitamin D is from sun exposure through the skin.  UVB rays from the sun triggers your body's natural production of vitamin D.
2. Any dietary source of vitamin D should come from a whole food source such as cod liver oil, wild caught fish, and organic pastured eggs and raw milk, and not via the synthetically derived form found in supplements and processed foods.

 So why is it all of these studies fail to include any of these sources of vitamin D?

The answer is easy, and scary at the same time... scary because it's another example of how our medical industry is influenced by our unhealthy food and pharmaceutical industries.

First let's take a look at the pharmaceutical industry's role in these false claims.  How else could you explain the obvious conspiracy (for lack of a better word) against the sun?

Who in their right mind would have the audacity to even suggest that with the 80+ million years that the evolution of  primates has under its belt, nature has had it wrong from day one.  Maybe instead of selfishly focusing on the development and honing of cognitive skills as well as the development of opposable thumbs nature should have better focused its evolutionary energy on developing a good quality sunscreen.

The truth is sunscreen causes cancer not the sun, but since we cannot patent the sun (yet) it becomes more profitable to create a worldwide scare against that big orange ball of fire and then swoop in to save the day with a miracle cream or spray that will protect you from those evil rays... Don't believe the hype!

Now let's take a look at our food industry and their role in all of this.  If the food industry were to admit that a lack of vitamin D via sun exposure had any negative affect on their product, the entire factory farming industry would come tumbling down.  There simply is no place for a green lush pasture within the walls (and roof) of factory farming.  I mean what would Purdue or Tyson do if they had to actually fess and come clean, admitting to their poor abused sickly flocks of poultry that daylight really does exist and that it wasn't just a rumor started by a bunch of cackling hens... pun intended. 

The truth is pastured poultry (layers and broilers) as well as pastured cows and pigs result in healthier animals due to sun exposure.  Of course daily access to natural healthy forage such as omega-3 rich grasses and herbs also plays a large role, but since both really go hand-in-hand we will consider them one in the same.  And you cannot deny the fact that organic pastured eggs and raw milk are naturally higher in vitamin D then their factory farmed counterpart.  A fact that factory farming and our food industry would rather you not focus on.  Why do you think store bought eggs and milk are fortified with (synthetic) vitamin D?  Maybe because the animal they came from lacked Mother Nature's number one source... The SUN!

Ultimately though the choice is yours; hide from the sun and sport that "I wish I was a vampire look" or embrace the sun (in a safe manner) and get your vitamin D the way nature intended.

Reduced allergy milk? Bad News!

When I read an article in today's health news titled, "Cow named Daisy makes reduced allergy milk", only one thing comes to mind; once again man is meddling where he shouldn't be.

Cows produce milk, like all female mammals, for one reason and one reason only, to feed their young.  This milk, regardless of what mammal it comes from, is packed with nutrients designed to nourish and strengthen, as well as healthy bacteria and digestive enzymes designed to aid in digestion and maintain a healthy gut (immune system).  We humans have decided for one reason or another that feeding our young the milk of another lactating mammal (cow) instead of that of its mother (human) is the better (healthy) or a more socially excepted choice...

Each mammal produces milk specific to the needs and requirements of their own offspring.  And although 'Raw Pastured' cow's milk may be an extremely healthy nutrient rich alternative, the corn-fed hormone induced antibiotic rich variety found at your local food store is anything but.  Add to that it's lack of healthy living bacteria of any kind due to pasteurization and irradiation, and what you are left with is 'more harm than good!' 

Studies have shown that the healthy 'living' (key word here) bacteria present in raw milk aids in the digestion of its proteins.  Therefore it's not the milk per say that is the cause of one of the most common food allergies in humans (dairy allergy) but rather the over consumption of the commercially sold 'dead milk' that we so quickly and willingly subject our young to.  All commercially sold dairy products lack nutrients as well as the necessary digestive bacteria that would render it healthy.

Instead what you have is a highly allergenic protein with some fortified vitamins and minerals, and a lifetime's worth of hormones and antibiotics in every glassful.

So it's your choice as to what you are going to feed your children (pre solid foods), but keep in mind that commercially sold cow dairy products should not be an option, even if they are of the "reduced allergy" kind... sorry Daisy!