Nuke the Food, Save the Government Welfare Scientists

USDA scientists say irradiation could be key to food safety "We used pretty aggressive levels of chlorine and found they weren't very effective at all. But when you have E. coli inside a leaf, and you irradiate it, the E. coli dies." What about the people who eat the food that was treated in such a way as to eradicate a life form? What effect does the ionizing radiation have on nutrition and cellular integrity?

Brendan Niemira, a microbiologist at the USDA's Eastern Regional Research Center in Pennsylvania who led the research, apparently is not concerned about nutrition, only microbes.

This is the problem with welfare scientists, they are paid with tax dollars to do things that would not be done if free market forces were at work. Where is the investigation as to why E. coli grows on spinach? Could it be the terrain? And if so, why not alter the terrain rather than nuke the vegetable? At least let the consumer decide if she wants to nuke it at home.

If irradiation is the key to food safety, then we have lost hope of ever restoring true understanding as to how to grow food that is fit for human consumption. Far be it from me to point out that we should be more concerned with saving the humans than saving the food, unless of course, humans intend to eat. Then save the food as well, but it all comes down to our understanding of The Law of the Terrain, Milieu or Environment.

You provide the soil in which life-sustaining or pathogenic microbes grow. Change the soil, change what grows there. Irradiate the food and irreparably disrupt its genetic integrity. Do you really think that ionizing radiation will make the food healthier? Enough of the "fear the microbe" garbage. Just grow the food "healthy" in the first place and watch the problem disappear along with this artificial need for "nuclear waste miracle grow" plant food.

Drugs, Vaccines or Nutrition?

UK to force drugmakers to share info "Until a drug has been used by millions of people, the rarest and deadliest side effects may remain unknown." I have often called vaccination a form of Russian Roulette, except that with each violation of a child's dermal layers the bullet always goes in. What you don't know is when it will explode.

Drug companies play a similar game with their synthetic ingestibles, but at least the scientific community acknowledges their toxicity and the mortality rate is widely disseminated. This is why responsible doctors (not totally an oxymoron) warn their patients not to take a drug within five years of receiving FDA approval. It is in those formative years in the monopoly market for drugs that all the "unexpected" deleterious effects are reported. It is fairly simple to cover them up during the approval phase of a drug's history (see Vioxx for one) but much more difficult to hide once people in the real world start dropping like flies on the new meds.

When it comes to vaccination, medical authorities are loathe to link anything deleterious to them, lest compliance rates start dropping precipitously. Why is it that vaccinations have been elevated to unquestionable sacrament? Is it not reasonable to honestly and thoroughly investigate ALL of the potential long term consequences of artificial antibody stimulation? Vaccine-worshippers, whether heavy in a science background or not, attack those who merely question the lack of long-term safety data, even if those questioners are not anti-vaccination.

And what if someone is anti-vaccination? He is treated as a heretic rather than met on the merits of his argument. It is said that if people stopped vaccinating, the whole world would run amok with diseases supposedly eradicated by pharmaceutical injection. While it may be true that certain diseases may become more prevalent by reducing reliance upon the suppression techniques of allopathic medicine, the argument that more people will die is based on abject ignorance of natural healing principles.

Vaccine-apologists are not even aware that they are super-glued to the dogma of an immature understanding of the immune system, based upon Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory. It is NOT true that the mere presence of or contact with a pathogen results in disease, much less death from it. The truth is that coming into contact with disease-causing organisms (pathogens), whether exogenous or endogenous is a normal EVERYDAY occurrence, typically not even resulting in a sniffle.

Even the dreaded polio virus, which was on its way out without Salk's intervention, did not cause paralysis in everyone that it touched. A healthy person might not even know he contracted the virus, but by virtue of his functioning immune system remained largely asymptomatic in overcoming the potentially paralytic virus.

Given that some were immune compromised and did succumb to the viral infection with disastrous results, is vaccination the ONLY way to prevent paralysis to polio, for example? Of course that's an absurd supposition and completely ignores the identification of the Law of the Terrain by Antione Béchamp. When you are healthy and you have a fully functioning immune system, your body has the know-how and the capability to fend off attacks from any microbe known or unknown to man.

Perhaps this is shocking to read, because generations have been to taught to fear the microbe, despite the fact that it is the terrain that determines what can actually grow in it.

In homeopathy, we can also use the "polio" nosode to gently sensitize the immune system and alert it to any potential pathogenic presence. This is done without any danger of causing the disease upon which you are focusing, much less an iatrogenic death caused by the allopathic vaccine intervention.

Should one succumb to any given disease, it is ALSO not true that there is nothing that you can do except antibiotics and other toxic drugs. Whether it be homeopathic medicine, silver hydrosol, olive leaf, oregano oil, garlic, mushrooms, liver support or thousands of other substances and holistic techniques, there are numerous methods to assist a "victim" of microbial overgrowth.

Those that decry an honest discussion regarding the best way to prevent and treat disease, do not understand the concept of treating the whole person rather than the disease. Give me the capability to restore full energy and function to the immune system and I care not what "named disease" is encountered, it will be countered. Don't fear the fever. Embrace it and support it and keep it within safe limits (much higher than most people are willing to admit) and watch the beauty and brilliance of the natural world do its job as if according to some higher plan.

If you are concerned about fever, remember homeopathic phosphorus (homeopathic belladonna for children). If you catch it early enough, remember homeopathic Aconitum.

Who is responsible? The person who relies upon artificial immunity with unknown long term consequences (think chronic diseases of degradation) or the person who does everything within his power to shore up optimal immune function should life do what life does. Life is pro-life, it seeks to strengthen us by experience. Although I tolerate your "belief" in vaccination, I demand that you respect my understanding of the biological milieu as one that needs not rely on allopathic sorcery for its survival.

Whether it be drugs or vaccination, if the damage happens to your child, the risk is 100%. Whether you believe that I am right or wrong in my perspective on the immune system, you cannot justify forced compliance with pharmaceutical intervention as long as one child may die as a result of your public health enforced compassion. What say you?

Biologically Correct Political Incorrectness

Vaccine Failure Is Setback in AIDS Fight "The multiple surprises have reminded researchers how much they still do not know about HIV's biology. It has also focused attention on questions they never asked." How about this one: Why is it that in every other disease "having an antibody" is good news as it indicates that your immune system has met and overcome the challenge, while in the medical world of Bob "Dr. Seuss" Gallo, an antibody indicates inevitable death? Horton, do you hear the WHO -- or the NIH, CDC or FDA? They still do not get it and probably never will.

Abject immune collapse is not the fault of a retrovirus -- especially one never actually isolated from the blood of an AIDS sufferer. If a medical reporter ever looked into (and actually understood) the pathological gymnastics that needed to occur before doctors could point to something they call HIV, the AIDS jig would be up. That is, if they were ever actually allowed to print the truth regarding the shaky foundation that is the HIV causation hypothesis.

You know you are on thin ice when someone yells "Hey, you're on thin ice!" and your response is to curse them for telling you, rather than just getting off the ice.

Are you really a monster if you point out the flaws and scientific-deficiency disease prevalent among HIV-apologists? Where is the vaccine after all these years? And what happens if the vaccine were to stimulate antibodies against HIV? Would these be the ones that signal that you will live? How will they tell them apart from the ones your immune system produced naturally that mean you are going to die? Do the tests actually detect antibodies to HIV, or are they cross-reactive to many potential antibodies?

Questioning the science of AIDS does not make you a "denialist." However, if you are marginalized for your stance by those with pharmaceutical conflicts of interest, you get a gold star in my science book. Scientists who still support Robert Gallo's HIV-test "religion" designed to drive the world to varying degrees of toxic chemotherapy should have their grants revoked and redirected to Peter Duesberg's lab at U.C. Berkeley.

How dare I point out that the so-called antibody tests for HIV do not actually prove the presence or absence of HIV or AIDS? Read the FDA approved inserts for yourself. Ask Kary Mullis, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry, if PCR is an appropriate detection method for HIV in the blood? If HIV behaves as a pathogenic microbe at all (and I'm not conceding the point), it would be due to an exhausted, toxic and deficient biological milieu. Of course, this would require that pharmaceutical pseudo-scientists actually study and understand Antoine Béchamp and The Law of the Terrain (you can hear about Béchamp by clicking this link).

How many billions must be wasted on a failed hypothesis before the scientific method is again restored to immune deficiency disease inquiry? If questioning the real cause of AIDS is shocking to you, perhaps you could do a bit more reading here: Rethinking AIDS. What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?

If you think that I am stating that people are not suffering from multiple immune deficiencies, then you obviously can't read. The immune deficiency is real. The CAUSE is in question. Have you read Professor Peter Duesberg on AIDS?

Only the brave will learn the truth. The cowards will continue to hide behind Taxpayer stolen funds and drug company supported "activist" groups. The first wave of deaths that occurred among those diagnosed with AIDS in the early years (once treatment was available) were actually killed by AZT. This is an admitted fact. Did any of the medical experts who advocated such a disastrous treatment protocol even lose grant money?

AIDS as it is "conventionally" viewed is another "Germ Theory" based failure in the sad history of Death By Modern Medicine. I have been writing on this topic years before "blog" was even a word at my website: http://rsbell.com. If you want to learn more than I have time to write about anew, go there and search for "HIV" and "AIDS" to learn more than you may want to know.

One request: Before striking out in blind emotion, do your homework. Continue to let others tell you what to think and believe about AIDS at your own immune peril. The truth is quite empowering, which may actually be the reason that the medical establishment is so fearful that you may learn it. How powerful is fear? Strong enough to get people with nutritional deficiencies and drug proficiencies to ingest pharmaceuticals able to kill the healthiest among us, much less those who can least afford to be intoxicated by FDA approved substances. How powerful is knowledge? It's not enough to know. The real question is: Are you willing to act on what you know to be true?