Sodium Fluoride is an EPA Registered Pesticide

Written By: admin - Jan• 04•11

Happy New Year, we’ve got another year, let’s hope and work together to make it a good one.  Also hope everyone had wonderful holidays and, personally, thank heavens they are over :o)  Been away from the blog for a bit but am looking forward now to getting back to it and learning together.  For the first post of the new year thought I would go back to an oldie but a goodie topic, namely fluoride.  That said let’s get down to it. (more…)

Merry Christmas!

Written By: admin - Dec• 25•10
John 1:1-14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.  In him was life, and the life was the light of men.  And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.  There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.  This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.  He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.  He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.  He came unto his own, and his own received him not.  But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Luke 2:6-15
And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.  And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear.  And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David.  And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.  And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath shewed to us. 

What Really is DNA? Part II

Written By: admin - Dec• 22•10

Well I certainly set myself up to have to come up with something for this post.  In part I we talked about what is known of DNA and the conventional view that 5% of the genome is the genetic blueprint and 95% of the genome is “junk”, and how the Russian National Academy of Sciences determined that both coding/blueprint AND noncoding/junk DNA were statistically organized along universal linguistic rules.  Who bothers to organize junk?  As I think of it now, it is also true that portions of the “junk” DNA have also been shown to be evolutionarily conserved, i.e. they show up consistently and identically across broad swaths of life.  So, it seems pretty clear to me that “junk” DNA ain’t junk, it’s just tagged that label by defensive Western science that doesn’t know what it does and has nothing bright to say on the subject.  Speaking of bright things to say … (more…)

What Really is DNA?

Written By: admin - Dec• 20•10

The story of DNA keeps becoming curiouser and curiouser.  On the one hand the story of DNA might be viewed as sort of the ultimate triumph of the reductionist Western scientific approach.  The stuff of life is parsed into smaller and smaller pieces until at last the fundamental molecule is found and the clockwork method by which this imparts the generational traits of life is deduced through observation and experimentation.  The “central dogma” then of DNA –> RNA –> protein is enshrined as a comfortable, secular, mechanistic explanation of life.  There are some, shall we say “loose ends” though with the DNA story that are not so easily pigeon holed.  Science as it is presented to society almost always takes the position that things are 90% wrapped up, there are just a few outliers here or there, or unexplained findings which could politely modify the prevailing wisdom.  When one delves into such topics, it often seems that instead there is a small portion of experience where there is perhaps a 1% understanding, while underneath and around this boils a seething cauldron of mystery.  It may be less comfortable but it is more exciting.  (more…)

Avastin and Related … and Unrelated Ruminations: Part I

Written By: admin - Dec• 17•10

Avastin (Bevacizumab) is an anti-cancer drug that is part of relatively new class of drugs known as monoclonal antibodies (note the “mab” at the end of the generic drug name).  Actually monoclonal antibody technology is a little older than most other genetic engineering techniques but still relatively new.  So just what is a monoclonal antibody?  Well that requires a bit of ‘splaining.  Let’s start with the immune system, we know that a large part of the specific or adaptive immune response comes from the production of antibodies by specific cells of the immune system.  These antibodies in turn comprise different classes of secreted proteins which consist of a constant region, seen in all antibodies of a particular class, and variable and hypervariable regions, where amino acids are first shuffled around before becoming part of the antibody.  These variable regions are what give antibodies different affinities for foreign proteins and other epitopes.  There are millions if not billions of different antibodies each of which can glom onto a different foreign invader.

It has been known for some time that in multiple myeloma, a cancer of white blood cells, there is sometimes a very prominent, narrow gel electrophoresis spike when the urine of these cancer patients is analyzed.  This finding came to be known as “Bence Jones proteinuria.”  It was later discovered that these Bence Jones proteins being spilled into the urine were antibodies, but not an assortment of different antibodies, they were all the exact same antibody for any particular cancer patient.

Now to be a little more specific multiple myeloma is a cancer of the plasma cells, the mature white blood cells which produce antibodies.  Once it was realized that each plasma cell produces one unique antibody than something important about cancer could be inferred from Bence Jones proteinuria.  Multiple myeloma patients were spilling one particular antibody into their urine because a single plasma cell had become cancerous and multiplied itself so many times that now there was more of that one particular antibody floating around than the body knew what to do with.

This means that in the case of multiple myeloma, and it is believed in all cancers, the disease does not arise from some sort of field effect, as would be seen for instance in infection or toxic exposure, but from a single aberrant cell which reproduces itself many times over, a clone of cancer cells.  In this light all cancers can be described as monoclonal, though in the case of multiple myeloma we have a cancer that produces monoclonal antibodies.

Going back now to specific or adaptive immunity there are a couple other points which need to be brought out.  Through a very complex process, if the immune system encounters a great deal of a particular toxin, virus, bacteria etc, it is able to up-regulate the production of those specific cells which make antibodies which “stick” to the invader.  This helps render the infection harmless and easily disposed of, subsequently the body maintains a “memory” of that particular foreign exposure and can ramp up production of those antibodies much more quickly if the foreign exposure is encountered again in future.

This is the whole reasoning behind the frequent and massive immunization campaigns, though there are many glaring differences between a vaccine and naturally encountered infection.  Because of these differences it is desperately important that prospective studies look at actual disease rates between immunized and non-immunized groups and not simply whether an antibody immune response has been generated to a needle jab.  Sadly these needed studies are to date pitifully few and far between.

Secondly, the immune system needs to have a “database” of what is “self” versus what is “non self” or foreign.  Otherwise, the body would be mounting an immune response against its own tissues.  Immune system confusion over what is foreign or not then is believed to underlie those diseases classified as “auto-immune” diseases.  The process for how the immune system learns to differentiate self from non-self is complex and not fully understood however any neonatologist will confirm that an infant’s immune system is not fully developed and behaves differently than that of a child or adult.  Indeed, much of the specific immunity for a neonate, even up to one year of age is provided by maternal antibodies that have been donated by the mother.

These immune differences should lead to extreme caution, which is terribly lacking, for any neonatal immunizations.  Not only would such immunizations be expected to deplete the maternal antibodies which protect the infant as its own immune system matures, but also there is at least the theoretical possibility that a neonatal vaccination might generate tolerance for the foreign antigen.  That is to say the immature immune system would classify the foreign epitope as “self.”  In such a case neonates immunized at birth would be at increased risk of acquiring the very disease they had been immunized against.  Certainly, there are no studies that I know of which disprove this especially as such studies would likely take decades to perform and be quite expensive.

Of course there are many other reasons to be especially wary of neonatal vaccinations.  Commonsense wise, it just doesn’t seem to be very caring in the “first do no harm” vein to treat an infant as “welcome to the world … here’s some mock massive infections for you to deal with.”  We have talked in a previous post about the frequent lack of dosage adjustment between infant and adult vaccinations.  There are also the various adjuvants and toxins that are generally present in most vaccinations along with the vaccine.  Further, there are valid epidemiologically grounded concerns associating vaccination with various developmental delays and likely playing a role in both development of autism and sudden infant death syndrome.

Finally in a case such as the recently adopted position of vaccinating at birth for Hepatis B one sees the heights of unreasoning recklessness.  Hepatits B is a blood borne/sexually transmitted disease.  The mother may be tested for this disease prior to delivery.  Providing the parents aren’t planning to take their infant to the tattoo parlor on the way home from the hospital, if the mother does not have hepatitis B the chances of the baby having or developing hepatitis are for all intents and purposes zero.  This addition to the vaccination schedule is in my opinion medical malpractice.  In all areas of medicine, though of likely greatest necessity in neonatology, caution and prudence are the order of the day.  I challenge anyone to provide me a reasonable risk/benefit analysis for subjecting a newborn to vaccination against an easily diagnosable sexually transmitted disease. One might also care to check out what the vaccine related website ThinkTwice has compiled on this topic

People who have spent time on this site realize that I am not a big fan of vaccinations.  I’ve looked at the topic a few other times in the past for those who want further reading.  As a compromise or first area to apply political pressure, I would guess that much, perhaps even half the damages caused by excessive vaccinations could be stopped if the practice were reigned in in the infant and pediatric age groups, i.e. the very age groups subjected to the most intense vaccination schedules.  No vaccinations before the age of two, no more than one vaccination a year before age five, no more than two vaccinations a year before age ten.  Is such a compromise really so much to ask?  Of course it would require going back to how things were done in 2006 when influenza vaccination was not recommended for children, and back to how things were done in the 1980s when Hepatitis B vaccine was not routinely given to newborns, but again it doesn’t strike me as such a radical or impossible change.

Of course it would also be nice to see the whole government coverage of vaccine maker’s liability for injury and death done away with.  Then we might start to see a real evaluation of the true risks/benefits of vaccinations.  However as long as the taxpayers subsidize any harm done by the vaccine makers how can there be any expectation of a balanced approach on the part of vaccine makers?

Well, I’ve gone completely off from what I intended to write about.  I meant to talk about how the breast cancer indication for Avastin (the best selling cancer chemotherapeutic in the world) has just been pulled by the FDA secondary to overwhelming evidence that Avastin is entirely useless in this disease and the FDA was completely in error when it declared it safe and effective.  Ooops, were sorry … actually though, they never did apologize to any of the patients they misled by declaring Avastin safe and effective when it is neither.  They did seem sheepish about how the ruling might affect Roche pharmaceuticals but no apologies to the families of dead and bankrupted breast cancer patients, is that too much to ask either?  They must have been too busy threatening farmers and supplement makers.  Well will try and cover Avastin in more depth in part two.

Why Do Americans Have Such Poor Health?

Written By: admin - Dec• 16•10
By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
December 16, 2003
[Link to Original Article, Link to other Health Essays by Dr. Howenstine]
In order to understand the current status of medical care in the U.S., Canada and Europe it is vital to understand that health care in these 3 regions is nearly completely under the control of the pharmaceutical industry. All major pharmaceutical firms have interlocking boards of directors so there is no real competition among these companies. In the United States the primary function of the Federal Drug Administration is to ensure the profitability of pharmaceutical firms, chemical firms and large agricultural conglomerates. (more…)

None of your Beeswax

Written By: admin - Dec• 14•10

Well at least I’d hope not, there might be a little beeswax in there but we are looking for pure honey.  I bring this up because we are going to take a look at an article from the medical literature on the medicinal use of honey as a wound dressing.  Modern Western medicine, well hates may be too strong a word, but really, really dislikes this sort of approach for a number of reasons. (more…)

Sulfur and Your Health

Written By: admin - Dec• 10•10

The conclusion of MIT Professor Stephanie Seneff’s health essay:

September 15th 2010 (more…)

Even Worse than it Appears

Written By: admin - Dec• 08•10

Having recently published a post on fluoride and dental fluorosis I was feeling pretty good about myself for getting out there and educating people on this topic, while to wrap things up I wanted to contact Dr. David Kennedy, DDS whose photo of dental fluorosis I had used in the post to make sure that he was okay with it being reproduced.  Well as so often happens on this blog, I found that someone I had contacted rather randomly actually knows a good deal more on a topic that I am writing about than myself.  It gets a bit humbling after a while.

I’ll reproduce just a bit of his CV, I think you’ll agree he has credentials and expertise in this area. (more…)


Written By: admin - Dec• 07•10

Alright, perhaps I shouldn’t do this as I’ve repeatedly said on this site that I want to try and stay away from people’s motivations.  I.e you start calling one group fascist, the next a jerk, the next a Nazi and everything gets spun every which way when all one really wants is clean water or no toxins in vaccines etc, etc.  So it is very worthwhile to stay on message and this approach can be counterproductive.  That said, and seeing as I’m going to gossip on something I know nothing about, does anyone else get the feeling the whole “Wikileaks” thing is staged? (more…)