Here's a quote from Dr. Mercoa's website:
Cheat Disease by Changing Your Environment
It has become clear to many that efforts to halt the growing epidemics of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and cancer are failing.
Many experts believe a primary reason is easy access to unhealthful foods and busy lives that squeeze out exercise.
As a result, many new preventative health initiatives in states, cities and communities are being inaugurated across the United States.
On September 28, the American Cancer Society (ACS) concluded that only by creating a "social environment that promotes healthy food choices and physical activity" can the United States reduce cancer deaths linked to obesity and lack of exercise.
In response, on October 6 the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation announced an agreement with several food companies to adopt the ACS' nutritional guidelines for snacks sold in schools. Other initiatives, sponsored by government agencies, universities, or private businesses, are growing in number.
Current U.S. health spending is $2.2 trillion a year, and it could reach $4 trillion by 2015. Taking care of the sick accounts for roughly 96 percent of these costs, with only about 4 percent going toward prevention.
USA Today October 18, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
USA Today ran a week-long series on what to do about America's out-of-control health care costs, and they featured experts suggesting more natural solutions. The problem is growing, and the facts are so compelling that even the CDC's director of prevention and health promotion can't ignore them, saying that:
"Two-thirds of the deaths and 80 percent of the cost of health in this country are associated with chronic disease. This country is dramatically moving in the wrong direction."
Why is this important to know?
Well, let me tell you. Our current system is really good at ACUTE care but, as you can see from the conservative estimates of the CDC, that is not what people are dying from.
So when you apply the ER drug/surgical model to chronic disease you have an unmitigated disaster that dramatically exacerbates the problem.
And it's getting worse.
In 2001, fully half of all bankruptcies were the result of medical problems and most of those (more than three-quarters) who went bankrupt were covered by health insurance at the start of the illness. That's 700,000 U.S. households devastated by medically related bankruptcies, with more than 2 million people affected.
But some are taking steps to turn this around, using the only method that will work -- preventing people from getting ill in the first place. In urban Philadelphia, researchers from America and the UK have joined in a social experiment with a huge medical upside:
Offer easy access to healthful foods to an urban neighborhood where little to no options currently exist, except for processed, fast and trans-fatty foods.
This experiment has nothing to do higher insurance premiums or newer, even more expensive and dangerous drugs, and everything to do with the real heart of the health care conundrum. It's all about trading a dangerous cure-based mentality fueled by unnecessary toxic drugs and procedures that may kill you for one focused on treating the true causes of disease safely and naturally.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Muslim Training
Don't be fooled. The Muslims are training their children how to treat non-Muslims.
This article is from Aish.com.
Although Dr. Tawfik Hamid, the author of The Roots of Jihad, won't allow his face to be photographed and refuses to divulge where he lives, he speaks throughout the U.S. on understanding -- and challenging -- radical Islamic ideology.
Dr. Hamid fled his native Egypt because he espouses a peaceful interpretation of Islam based on the Koran. Today he is one of the leading authorities on the Islamic texts (Sulafi) which are responsible for the spread of jihad in the Arab world.
Before he embraced this new way of seeing, Dr. Hamid was an ideological extremist on the fast track to becoming a terrorist.
"I was eight when I first heard the teaching that says, 'When you die a martyr, you are not dead -- you are alive,'" says Dr. Hamid, who was raised in a secular Muslim family. "Dying for Allah was the only guarantee that we would not go to the grave.
"For us, the grave was frightening. Sulafi Islam teaches that only punishment awaits us in the grave. So to me, and many kids around me, the idea of dying for Allah and going to Paradise was wonderful. For me, a child, that meant eating lollipops and candy and chocolate. Believe me. This was my dream!"
The dream later changed.
During medical school, Dr. Hamid joined JI (Jaamma Islameia), an outlaw fundamentalist group calling for jihad against Muslims who have abandoned their faith (apostates) and non-Muslims.
He met Dr. Aiman Al-Zawaheri -- now Al Qaida's second in command under Osama bin Laden -- in JI.
"Al-Zawaheri was a very nice man on the personal level," Dr. Hamid says. "He was very dedicated to the concept of jihad against the U.S. He often came to the mosque I went to. We prayed together. We talked."
Dr. Hamid describes his metamorphosis. "At first I followed the teachings of Sulafi Islam. I changed into a person that justified the killings of innocents. I thought in a totally distorted manner. I became like a beast.
Thinking is probably what saved me. I began to question.
"When it came time to go forward and commit certain acts -- I was invited to go Afghanistan, to train for jihad, to die for Allah -- I felt this struggle between my conscience and the religious teachings. I started to think.
"And this word, thinking, is probably what saved me. I began to question. You see, at the theoretical level things seemed okay. But at the practical level, when I was about to act...
"A friend introduced me to another form of Islamic thinking that was relatively peaceful. This sect was primarily based on the Koran. I began studying Koranic verses in a totally different manner. There are many verses in the Koran that praise B'nai Yisrael; that grant the Israelis the land. Soon I started to preach this new understanding."
One day, he was called to preach at the mosque. "I gave a lecture, and people listened peacefully. It was good. But afterward, some fundamentalists surrounded me. They said, if you come here again we will kill you. Then they attacked me and my friend. We ran. But soon they began stoning me."
Dr. Hamid looks at me with pained and furious eyes.
"Unfortunately, this resistance to peaceful teaching is not limited to fundamentalists. It is now at the level of the people."
The three dominant beliefs encouraged in the popular Sulafi Islamic teachings are killing the apostate, beating women, and declaring war on non-Muslims.
"Clearly," Dr. Hamid adds, "most adherents believe Jews are apes and pigs."
"It is vitally important to confront Islamic organizations in the U.S. on these points. They should clarify their positions in an unambiguous manner. Of course, they will say what they say. But you must put your questions to them in a clear manner. Do not give them a chance to blame the world for their own actions. They know how to play with the words. I know, because I was one of them.
"For example, a Nazi can say Nazism is peaceful. But if they don't denounce the Holocaust or the killing of Jews, what they say means nothing. Ask them, 'What do you think of killing apostates? Is it correct, or absolutely wrong?' If they say it is absolutely wrong, take them to the next question. 'Clarify what Saudi Arabia says about killing apostates.' (The punishment for apostasy in Saudi Arabia is death.) Tell me whether this is wrong. If they say it is wrong, ask them to please put this up on their website, or post it in their mosque, or have them sign a document stating that this is what they believe.
"The same is true of beating women: 'Is it correct or absolutely unacceptable to beat women?' Ask me. I could say to you, 'Islam generally recommends dealing in a good manner with women.' Or you may hear, 'Oh, it's only in rare instances.' I know how they trick the world. I was one of them. Don't let them betray you."
He leans forward on the table.
"Ask Muslim kids what they think about Jews. Kids do not lie. They will tell you what they are being taught. If they say, 'Jews are nice people and we can live with them in harmony,' I will be the first person to congratulate their parents. But I assure you, if you ask Muslim kids living in the U.S. what they think of Jews, you will be shocked."
"Dr. Hamid, do you hate your own people?"
For the first time, he hesitates -- briefly.
"I am against them," he says. "When you preach peace, and the whole community boycotts you and your wife and your children, it is painful. Just because you preach that killing apostates is absolutely wrong and is not mentioned in the Koran, and that Jews are not 'pigs' and 'monkeys,' and the community threatens you, it is painful. But forget my passion, my emotions. Follow the logic."
With the publication of The Roots of Jihad and subsequent speaking engagements to large audiences throughout the US, does he fear for his life?
"Yes. But I feel obligated to expose the truth. I am morally obligated to help Muslims understand the Koran in a peaceful manner. Enabling Muslims to live in harmony with the rest of the world is far more important to me than my life. I always say that in certain times in history, there are people who stand against evil. I am honored to be among them."
This article originally appeared on http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Published: Sunday, October 29, 2006
This article is from Aish.com.
Although Dr. Tawfik Hamid, the author of The Roots of Jihad, won't allow his face to be photographed and refuses to divulge where he lives, he speaks throughout the U.S. on understanding -- and challenging -- radical Islamic ideology.
Dr. Hamid fled his native Egypt because he espouses a peaceful interpretation of Islam based on the Koran. Today he is one of the leading authorities on the Islamic texts (Sulafi) which are responsible for the spread of jihad in the Arab world.
Before he embraced this new way of seeing, Dr. Hamid was an ideological extremist on the fast track to becoming a terrorist.
"I was eight when I first heard the teaching that says, 'When you die a martyr, you are not dead -- you are alive,'" says Dr. Hamid, who was raised in a secular Muslim family. "Dying for Allah was the only guarantee that we would not go to the grave.
"For us, the grave was frightening. Sulafi Islam teaches that only punishment awaits us in the grave. So to me, and many kids around me, the idea of dying for Allah and going to Paradise was wonderful. For me, a child, that meant eating lollipops and candy and chocolate. Believe me. This was my dream!"
The dream later changed.
During medical school, Dr. Hamid joined JI (Jaamma Islameia), an outlaw fundamentalist group calling for jihad against Muslims who have abandoned their faith (apostates) and non-Muslims.
He met Dr. Aiman Al-Zawaheri -- now Al Qaida's second in command under Osama bin Laden -- in JI.
"Al-Zawaheri was a very nice man on the personal level," Dr. Hamid says. "He was very dedicated to the concept of jihad against the U.S. He often came to the mosque I went to. We prayed together. We talked."
Dr. Hamid describes his metamorphosis. "At first I followed the teachings of Sulafi Islam. I changed into a person that justified the killings of innocents. I thought in a totally distorted manner. I became like a beast.
Thinking is probably what saved me. I began to question.
"When it came time to go forward and commit certain acts -- I was invited to go Afghanistan, to train for jihad, to die for Allah -- I felt this struggle between my conscience and the religious teachings. I started to think.
"And this word, thinking, is probably what saved me. I began to question. You see, at the theoretical level things seemed okay. But at the practical level, when I was about to act...
"A friend introduced me to another form of Islamic thinking that was relatively peaceful. This sect was primarily based on the Koran. I began studying Koranic verses in a totally different manner. There are many verses in the Koran that praise B'nai Yisrael; that grant the Israelis the land. Soon I started to preach this new understanding."
One day, he was called to preach at the mosque. "I gave a lecture, and people listened peacefully. It was good. But afterward, some fundamentalists surrounded me. They said, if you come here again we will kill you. Then they attacked me and my friend. We ran. But soon they began stoning me."
Dr. Hamid looks at me with pained and furious eyes.
"Unfortunately, this resistance to peaceful teaching is not limited to fundamentalists. It is now at the level of the people."
The three dominant beliefs encouraged in the popular Sulafi Islamic teachings are killing the apostate, beating women, and declaring war on non-Muslims.
"Clearly," Dr. Hamid adds, "most adherents believe Jews are apes and pigs."
"It is vitally important to confront Islamic organizations in the U.S. on these points. They should clarify their positions in an unambiguous manner. Of course, they will say what they say. But you must put your questions to them in a clear manner. Do not give them a chance to blame the world for their own actions. They know how to play with the words. I know, because I was one of them.
"For example, a Nazi can say Nazism is peaceful. But if they don't denounce the Holocaust or the killing of Jews, what they say means nothing. Ask them, 'What do you think of killing apostates? Is it correct, or absolutely wrong?' If they say it is absolutely wrong, take them to the next question. 'Clarify what Saudi Arabia says about killing apostates.' (The punishment for apostasy in Saudi Arabia is death.) Tell me whether this is wrong. If they say it is wrong, ask them to please put this up on their website, or post it in their mosque, or have them sign a document stating that this is what they believe.
"The same is true of beating women: 'Is it correct or absolutely unacceptable to beat women?' Ask me. I could say to you, 'Islam generally recommends dealing in a good manner with women.' Or you may hear, 'Oh, it's only in rare instances.' I know how they trick the world. I was one of them. Don't let them betray you."
He leans forward on the table.
"Ask Muslim kids what they think about Jews. Kids do not lie. They will tell you what they are being taught. If they say, 'Jews are nice people and we can live with them in harmony,' I will be the first person to congratulate their parents. But I assure you, if you ask Muslim kids living in the U.S. what they think of Jews, you will be shocked."
"Dr. Hamid, do you hate your own people?"
For the first time, he hesitates -- briefly.
"I am against them," he says. "When you preach peace, and the whole community boycotts you and your wife and your children, it is painful. Just because you preach that killing apostates is absolutely wrong and is not mentioned in the Koran, and that Jews are not 'pigs' and 'monkeys,' and the community threatens you, it is painful. But forget my passion, my emotions. Follow the logic."
With the publication of The Roots of Jihad and subsequent speaking engagements to large audiences throughout the US, does he fear for his life?
"Yes. But I feel obligated to expose the truth. I am morally obligated to help Muslims understand the Koran in a peaceful manner. Enabling Muslims to live in harmony with the rest of the world is far more important to me than my life. I always say that in certain times in history, there are people who stand against evil. I am honored to be among them."
This article originally appeared on http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Published: Sunday, October 29, 2006
In the Works
My daughter and son-in-law came over this weekend and helped out some. Virgil and Josiah have been living with his sister in Elizabeth, and Josiah has decided to try public school. So I guess they're gone for the winter. So Amber and Dave helped me get my wood stove going. Dave split all this wood by hand (actually, with an axe), and Amber helped him stack it, cleaned out the stove room, and clean out the stove. Then Dave built a fire, and I've kept it going.
Dave also fixed the stairs in the garage (there was an unfortunate accident while Josiah's friend was over for a sleepover one night and three stairs collapsed). He discovered that the first 3 stairs were constructed with nails instead of screws. That's why they came loose.
Anyway, I'm forever grateful for the inspiration to get to work, and hope the momentum continues, as I have lots to do.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
What Kind of English do you Speak?
http://www.blogthings.com/whatkindofamericanenglishdoyouspeakquiz/
Here's a neat quiz to tell you what percentage yankee or dixie you are.
Here's a neat quiz to tell you what percentage yankee or dixie you are.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Prayer Works
This is from Dr. Mercola:
Prayer and Medical Science
This Commentary originally appeared in Archives of Internal Medicine
by Larry Dossey, MD
"It is fatal to dismiss antagonistic doctrines, supported by any body of evidence, as simply wrong." Alfred North Whitehead, 1948 1
THE RANDOMIZED, controlled trial by Harris et al2 on the effects of remote intercessory prayer on outcomes of patients admitted to a coronary care unit evoked several comments from physicians.
Several respondents implied that the attempt to study the remote effects of prayer is wrong in principle. This is because, according to Dr Sandweiss,3 science deals with facts, not "miracles." Yet, if events occur in controlled laboratory studies, as suggested by evidence cited below, these happenings presumably follow natural law and are not considered miraculous.
We should be cautious in calling events miraculous or mystical, because the subsequent course of history may reveal that these terms reflect little more than our own ignorance. For example, when Newton invoked the notion of universal gravity in the 17th century to explain his observations, he was charged by his contemporaries with surrendering to mysticism, as prayer researchers are often accused today.
As philosopher Eugene Mills4 describes, "[Newton's critics] disapproved of his failure to explain why bodies behaved in accordance with his laws, or how distant bodies could act on one another . . . This sort of worry no longer bothers us, but not because we have answered it."
Today we are as baffled by the remote effects of prayer as Newton's critics were by the distant effects of gravity. But, just as the dispute over gravity gradually abated, the debate surrounding intercessory prayer may also diminish with time, even though our ignorance about the mechanism involved may remain.
Dr Van der Does5 dismisses the effects of intercessory prayer because they would be indistinguishable empirically from the effects of clairvoyance and telepathy, which he implies are nonsense. (He presumably means not clairvoyance or telepathy, which are forms of anomalous cognition, but psychokinesis, the anomalous perturbation of distant events.) However, there is considerable evidence that neither telepathy nor psychokinesis is nonsense,6 in which case the indistinguishability between prayer and psychokinesis would not invalidate prayer.
Dr Sandweiss3 also refers dismissively to psychokinesis, apparently unaware of the evidence favoring this phenomenon. For example, in Foundations of Physics, one of physics' most prestigious journals, Radin and Nelson7 reported a meta-analysis of 832 studies from 68 investigators that involved the distant influence of human consciousness on microelectronic systems.
They found the results to be "robust and repeatable." In their opinion, "Unless critics want to allege wholesale collusion among more than sixty experimenters or suggest a methodological artifact common to . . . hundred[s of] experiments conducted over nearly three decades, there is no escaping the conclusion that [these] effects are indeed possible."
While these hundreds of studies do not involve actual prayer, they nonetheless deal with whether human intention can, in principle, affect the physical world at a distance.
In recent years, researchers have also studied the effects of mental efforts to change biological systems.8 Scores of controlled studies have examined the effects of intentions, often expressed through prayer, on biochemical reactions in vitro, on the recovery rate of animals from anesthesia, on the growth rates of tumors and the rate of wound healing in animals, on the rate of hemolysis of red blood cells in vitro, and on the replication rates of microorganisms in test tubes.
Testing prayer in lower organisms makes sense for the same reason we test drugs in nonhumans. We share physiological similarities with animals and bacteria; if prayer affects them, it may affect us as well.
These studies are too often ignored, even by researchers interested in the effects of intercessory prayer in humans. This is unfortunate because many of these studies9 have been done with great precision and have been replicated by different investigators in different laboratories. They make up the basic or bench science underlying the objective study of prayer.
Dr Sandweiss3 says that since we know that prayer cannot operate remotely, taking this possibility seriously requires us to "suspend natural law," which results in "pseudoscientific mischief." But, as there is no agreement among scientists about which natural laws govern consciousness, it is imprudent to declare which laws might be violated and what mischief might result.
Several outstanding scholars have emphasized our appalling ignorance about the basic nature of consciousness. John Searle,10 one of the most distinguished philosophers in the field of consciousness, has said, "At our present state of the investigation of consciousness, we don't know how it works and we need to try all kinds of different ideas."
Philosopher Jerry A. Fodor11 has observed, "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness."
Recently Sir John Maddox,12 the former editor of Nature, soberly stated, "The catalogue of our ignorance must . . . include the understanding of the human brain . . . What consciousness consists of . . . is . . . a puzzle.
Despite the marvelous success of neuroscience in the past century . . ., we seem as far away from understanding . . . as we were a century ago . . . The most important discoveries of the next 50 years are likely to be ones of which we cannot now even conceive."
If these observers are anywhere near the truth, we should be hesitant to declare emphatically what the mind can and cannot do.
Dr Sandweiss3 states that Harris et al have taken "a P value out of context" and that their P value is "out of control." He implies that the beliefs and practices of physicians depend strongly on statistically valid studies and that P3D.04 is too weak to justify a change in "current theories." Do P values determine what we physicians believe and how we practice medicine?
This is a noble sentiment, but evidence suggests we are not as objective as Dr Sandweiss implies. Yale surgeon and author Sherwin B. Nuland13 states, "Unlike other areas in which fads come and go, medical styles [of practice] are meant to be supported by irrefutable evidence. That assumption is so far off the mark that the term 'medical science' is practically an oxymoron."
Referring to a 1978 report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment,14 Nuland states, "no more than 15 percent of medical interventions are supported by reliable scientific evidence."
Richard Smith,15 editor of the British Medical Journal, agrees, stating, "only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence. . . . This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have not been assessed at all."
And David A. Grimes16 of the University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine states, "much, if not most, of contemporary medical practice still lacks a scientific foundation."
These observations suggest that a double standard is perhaps being applied to prayer research, according to which levels of proof are demanded that may not be required of conventional therapies-the "rubber ruler," the raising of the bar, the ever-lengthening playing field.17
Do serious scientists really believe that the effects of intercessory prayer are fantasy, as several letter writers imply? No doubt some do.
But in a recent survey18 of the spiritual beliefs of American scientists, 39% of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians said they not only believed in God, but in a god who answers prayers.
The highest rate of belief was found in the field of mathematics, which is generally considered the most precise of all the sciences. Many distinguished scientists favor prayer. A long list of individuals, including Nobelists, who have been cordial to consciousness-related events, such as distant, intercessory prayer, has been assembled by philosopher David
Griffin.19
Should the empirical study of intercessory prayer be abandoned, as several letter writers imply? More than a century ago, a similar debate took place among British scientists about telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis, which, like prayer, presume that consciousness can operate remotely.
Nobelist Sir William Crookes (1832-1919), the discoverer of thallium, contrasted his own approach with that of his fellow physicist Michael Faraday (1791-1867), famous for his work in electricity and magnetism. Crookes20 stated:
Faraday says, 'Before we proceed to consider any question involving physical principles, we should set out with clear ideas of the naturally possible and impossible.'
But this appears like reasoning in a circle: we are to investigate nothing till we know it to be possible, whilst we cannot say what is impossible, outside pure mathematics, till we know everything. In the present case I prefer to enter upon the enquiry with no preconceived notions whatever as to what can or cannot be.
The spirit of open inquiry would seem to validate Crookes' stance. Scientific puzzles do not solve themselves unaided. How are the mysteries of consciousness and prayer to be resolved unless researchers take a stab at them?
Dr Sandweiss3 suggests that the lack of an accepted theory underlying intercessory prayer diminishes the respectability of this area of investigation. In the history of medicine, however, we have often tolerated ignorance of mechanism and absence of theory. Examples include the use of aspirin, colchicine, and quinine, as well as the use of citrus fruits in scurvy, as Harris et al point out. The mechanisms of action of most general anesthetics are still a mystery, yet that does not preclude their use.
While it is true that there is no generally accepted theory for the remote actions of consciousness, many mathematicians, physicists, and biological and cognitive scientists are currently offering hypotheses about how these events may happen.
Hypotheses that are compatible with the distant effects of intercessory prayer have been advanced by Nobel physicist Brian Josephson,21 physicist Amit Goswami22 of the University of Oregon's Institute of Theoretical Science, mathematician and cognitive scientist David J. Chalmers,23, 24 systems theorist Ervin Laszlo,25 mathematician C. J. S. Clarke,26 and many other respected scholars.27
These models of consciousness generally advocate a nonlocal view of the mind-a view in which consciousness is not localized or confined to specific points in space (such as the brain) or time.
Levin28 has developed a theoretical model of how prayer may heal that takes several of these hypotheses into account. I have described the implications of a nonlocal model of consciousness for medicine.29 Dr Hammerschmidt30 suggests that Harris et al are "putting God to the test" in their study. Are tests of prayer blasphemous, and are prayer researchers heretics?
I have found that investigators in this area approach their subject with reverence and respect; indeed, I have not found a single exception. They seem to epitomize the view of chemist Robert Boyle,31 the 17th-century author of Boyle's Law, who suggested that experimental scientists are "priests of nature" and that science is so sacred that scientists should carry out their experiments on Sundays as part of their Sabbath worship.
Dr Goldstein32 is "concerned with the potential effect of [the Harris et al] study and its publication on the reputation of hospitals involved and on the integrity of health care organizations in general." The reputation of any healing institution is precious and should be protected, but the suggestion that a hospital's reputation will be endangered by the indiscriminate use of prayer is exceedingly hypothetical.
It is more likely that the widespread application of prayer will enhance the reputation of healing institutions, in view of the facts that nearly 80% of Americans believe in the power of prayer to improve the course of illness,33 and nearly 70% of physicians report religious inquiries for counseling on terminal illness34 yet only 10% of physicians ever inquire about patients' spiritual practices or beliefs.35
In a survey36 of hospitalized patients, three fourths said they believed their physician should be concerned about their spiritual welfare, and one half said they believed their physician should not only pray for them but with them. It is unlikely that prayer could threaten the reputation of hospitals to the extent of many conventional therapies.
A recent meta-analysis of prospective studies by Lazarou et al37 found that more than 100,000 persons die in US hospitals each year from adverse drug reactions, "making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death." A recent survey38 of American adults asked about their concerns before checking into a hospital or other health care facility.
Sixty-one percent were "very concerned" about being given the wrong medicine, 58% about the cost of treatment, 58% about the negative interaction of multiple drugs, 56% about medical procedure complications, 53% about receiving correct information about medications, and 50% about contracting an infection during their stay. Concerns about being indiscriminately prayed for did not make the list.
Dr Pande39 suggests that the analogy by Harris et al with James Lind's discovery of the healing potential of citrus fruits in scurvy is inappropriate. A person deprived of vitamin C will develop scurvy, whereas a person deprived of prayer or believing in God's existence, he states, will not become unhealthy.
There is evidence to the contrary. Scores of studies40, 41 suggest that, on average, individuals deprived of religious meaning live shorter, less healthy lives than people who follow some sort of religious path, which almost always includes prayer.
Drs Sloan and Bagiella42 question whether Harris et al are justified in suggesting that intercessory prayer be considered an adjunct to conventional medical practice, since there is no consensus in medicine about this controversial intervention.
There is indeed no consensus, but whether this is because of a lack of data or ignorance of current evidence is a valid question.43 Certainly further investigation of intercessory prayer is warranted, but we need not wait until all the answers are in before employing prayer adjunctively. This view is represented by Lancet editor Richard Horton44 in his "precautionary principle."
Horton states, "We must act on facts and on the most accurate interpretation of them, using the best information. That does not mean that we must sit back until we have 100 percent evidence about everything. When the . . . health of the individual is at stake . . . we should be prepared to take action to diminish those risks even when the scientific knowledge is not conclusive."
Although skepticism is an invaluable component of scientific progress, it can shade into a type of dogmatic materialism that excludes intercessory prayer in principle,45 as when Newton's critics condemned universal gravity as occult nonsense without weighing the evidence.
Both true believers and committed disbelievers in intercessory prayer might heed the view of mathematical physicist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead,46 who coauthored Principia Mathematica with Bertrand Russell:
" The Universe is vast. Nothing is more curious than the self-satisfied dogmatism with which mankind at each period of its history cherishes the delusion of the finality of its existing modes of knowledge. Sceptics and believers are all alike. At this moment scientists and sceptics are the leading dogmatists. Advance in detail is admitted: fundamental novelty is barred. This dogmatic common sense is the death of philosophical adventure. The Universe is vast."
Larry Dossey, MD
Santa Fe, NM
Archives of Internal Medicine 2000 Jun 26;160:1735-1738.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
There appears to be no question that prayer works. We have many studies now that document that. The science is very solid in excellent peer-reviewed publications. The science is so solid, that it is criminally negligent for physicians not to recommend it.
And talk about cost-effective; there is no cost to prayer except for time. It makes no logical sense to me why someone would not utilize this resource. A simple powerful application of prayer is journaling which articles have showed to be useful in treating chronic illness.
For those who are interested in further reading on this subject, I have read and can recommend Dr. Larry Dossey's excellent reviews of the subject of prayer and distant healing. A must for those interested in this area.
Healing Words : The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine
Be Careful What You Pray For...You Just Might Get It
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. Whitehead AN. Essays in Science and Philosophy. New York, NY: Philosophical Library; 1948:227.
2. Harris WS, Gowda M, Kolb JW, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:2273-2278.
3. Sandweiss DA. P value out of control. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1872.
4. Mills E. Giving up on the hard problem of consciousness. J Consciousness Stud. 1996;3(1):26-32.
5. Van der Does W. A randomized, controlled trial of prayer? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1871-1872.
6. Bem DJ, Honorton C. Does psi exist? replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychol Bull. 1994;115:4-18.
7. Radin DL, Nelson RD. Consciousness-related effects in random physical systems. Found Phys. 1989;19:1499-1034.
8.Dossey L. Distant intentionality: an idea whose time has come. Adv J Mind-Body Health. Summer 1996;12:9-13.
9.Dosssey L. Controlled experimental trials of healing. In: Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine. San Francisco, Calif: Harper San Francisco; 1999:211-235.
10. Searle J. Quoted on front cover. J Consciousness Stud. 1995;2(1).
11. Fodor JA. The big idea. Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992:20.
12. Maddox J. The unexpected science to come. Sci Am. December 1999;281:62-67.
13. Nuland SB. Medical fads: bran, midwives and leeches. New York Times. June 25, 1995:A15.
14. Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States; 1978:7. Publication NTIS/PB-286929.
15.Smith R. Where is the wisdom? BMJ.1991;303:798-799.
16.Grimes DA. Technology follies: the uncritical acceptance of medical innovations. JAMA. 1993;269:3030-3033.
17. Radin D. A field guide to skepticism. In: The Conscious Universe. San Francisco, Calif: Harper San Francisco; 1997:205-228.
18. Larson EJ, Witham L. Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature. 1997;386:435-436.
19. Griffin DR. Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1997:12-13.
20. Crookes W. Quoted by Braude SE: The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1986:86.
21.Josephson BD, Pallikara-Viras F. Biological utilization of quantum nonlocality. Found Phys 1991;21:197-207.
22.Goswami A, Reed RE, Goswami A. The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. New York, NY: Jeremy P Tarcher/Putnam; 1993.
23. Chalmers DJ. The puzzle of conscious experience. Sci Am 1995;273(6):80-86.
24. Chalmers DJ. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
25. Laszlo E. The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual Foundations of Transdisciplinary Unified Theory. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co; 1995.
26. Clarke CJS. The nonlocality of mind. J Consciousness Stud. 1995;2(3):231-240.
27. Dossey L. The return of prayer. Altern Ther Health Med. November 1997;3:10-17, 113-120.
28. Levin JS. How prayer heals: a theoretical model. Altern Ther Health Med. January 1996;2:66-73.
29. Dossey L. Reinventing Medicine. San Francisco, Calif: Harper San Francisco; 1999.
30. Hammerschmidt DE. Ethical and practical problems in studying prayer. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1874.
31. Boyle R. Quoted by: Hellman H. Great Feuds in Science: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1998:26.
32. Goldstein J. Waiving informed consent for research on spiritual matters? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1870-1871.
33. Wallis C. Faith and healing. Time June 24, 1996: 58-63.
34.Cassell EJ.The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1991.
35.Maugans TA, Wadland WC.Religion and family medicine: a survey of physicians and patients.J Fam Pract.1991;32:210-213.
36.King DE, Bushwick B.Beliefs and attitudes of hospital patients about faith healing and prayer.J Fam Pract.1994;39:349-352.
37.Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200-1205.
38. Patient concerns: ICR for American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. USA Today December 7, 1999:7D.
39. Pande PN. Does prayer need testing? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1873-1874.
40. Levin JS, Larson DB, Puchalski CM. Religion and spirituality: research and education. JAMA 1997;278:792-793.
41. Koenig H. Exploring links between religion/spirituality and health. Sci Rev Altern Med. Spring-Summer 1999;3:52-55.
42. Sloan RP, Bagiella E. Data without a prayer. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1870.
43. Larson DB, Milano MAG. Are religion and spirituality clinically relevant in health care? Mind/Body Med 1995;1:147-157.
44.Horton R. The new public health of risk and radical engagement. Lancet 1998;352:251-252.
45. Dossey L. The right man syndrome: skepticism and alternative medicine. Altern Ther Health Med May 1998;4:12-19, 108-114.
46. Whitehead AN. Essays in Science and Philosophy. New York, NY: Philosophical Library; 1948:129.
Prayer and Medical Science
This Commentary originally appeared in Archives of Internal Medicine
by Larry Dossey, MD
"It is fatal to dismiss antagonistic doctrines, supported by any body of evidence, as simply wrong." Alfred North Whitehead, 1948 1
THE RANDOMIZED, controlled trial by Harris et al2 on the effects of remote intercessory prayer on outcomes of patients admitted to a coronary care unit evoked several comments from physicians.
Several respondents implied that the attempt to study the remote effects of prayer is wrong in principle. This is because, according to Dr Sandweiss,3 science deals with facts, not "miracles." Yet, if events occur in controlled laboratory studies, as suggested by evidence cited below, these happenings presumably follow natural law and are not considered miraculous.
We should be cautious in calling events miraculous or mystical, because the subsequent course of history may reveal that these terms reflect little more than our own ignorance. For example, when Newton invoked the notion of universal gravity in the 17th century to explain his observations, he was charged by his contemporaries with surrendering to mysticism, as prayer researchers are often accused today.
As philosopher Eugene Mills4 describes, "[Newton's critics] disapproved of his failure to explain why bodies behaved in accordance with his laws, or how distant bodies could act on one another . . . This sort of worry no longer bothers us, but not because we have answered it."
Today we are as baffled by the remote effects of prayer as Newton's critics were by the distant effects of gravity. But, just as the dispute over gravity gradually abated, the debate surrounding intercessory prayer may also diminish with time, even though our ignorance about the mechanism involved may remain.
Dr Van der Does5 dismisses the effects of intercessory prayer because they would be indistinguishable empirically from the effects of clairvoyance and telepathy, which he implies are nonsense. (He presumably means not clairvoyance or telepathy, which are forms of anomalous cognition, but psychokinesis, the anomalous perturbation of distant events.) However, there is considerable evidence that neither telepathy nor psychokinesis is nonsense,6 in which case the indistinguishability between prayer and psychokinesis would not invalidate prayer.
Dr Sandweiss3 also refers dismissively to psychokinesis, apparently unaware of the evidence favoring this phenomenon. For example, in Foundations of Physics, one of physics' most prestigious journals, Radin and Nelson7 reported a meta-analysis of 832 studies from 68 investigators that involved the distant influence of human consciousness on microelectronic systems.
They found the results to be "robust and repeatable." In their opinion, "Unless critics want to allege wholesale collusion among more than sixty experimenters or suggest a methodological artifact common to . . . hundred[s of] experiments conducted over nearly three decades, there is no escaping the conclusion that [these] effects are indeed possible."
While these hundreds of studies do not involve actual prayer, they nonetheless deal with whether human intention can, in principle, affect the physical world at a distance.
In recent years, researchers have also studied the effects of mental efforts to change biological systems.8 Scores of controlled studies have examined the effects of intentions, often expressed through prayer, on biochemical reactions in vitro, on the recovery rate of animals from anesthesia, on the growth rates of tumors and the rate of wound healing in animals, on the rate of hemolysis of red blood cells in vitro, and on the replication rates of microorganisms in test tubes.
Testing prayer in lower organisms makes sense for the same reason we test drugs in nonhumans. We share physiological similarities with animals and bacteria; if prayer affects them, it may affect us as well.
These studies are too often ignored, even by researchers interested in the effects of intercessory prayer in humans. This is unfortunate because many of these studies9 have been done with great precision and have been replicated by different investigators in different laboratories. They make up the basic or bench science underlying the objective study of prayer.
Dr Sandweiss3 says that since we know that prayer cannot operate remotely, taking this possibility seriously requires us to "suspend natural law," which results in "pseudoscientific mischief." But, as there is no agreement among scientists about which natural laws govern consciousness, it is imprudent to declare which laws might be violated and what mischief might result.
Several outstanding scholars have emphasized our appalling ignorance about the basic nature of consciousness. John Searle,10 one of the most distinguished philosophers in the field of consciousness, has said, "At our present state of the investigation of consciousness, we don't know how it works and we need to try all kinds of different ideas."
Philosopher Jerry A. Fodor11 has observed, "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness."
Recently Sir John Maddox,12 the former editor of Nature, soberly stated, "The catalogue of our ignorance must . . . include the understanding of the human brain . . . What consciousness consists of . . . is . . . a puzzle.
Despite the marvelous success of neuroscience in the past century . . ., we seem as far away from understanding . . . as we were a century ago . . . The most important discoveries of the next 50 years are likely to be ones of which we cannot now even conceive."
If these observers are anywhere near the truth, we should be hesitant to declare emphatically what the mind can and cannot do.
Dr Sandweiss3 states that Harris et al have taken "a P value out of context" and that their P value is "out of control." He implies that the beliefs and practices of physicians depend strongly on statistically valid studies and that P3D.04 is too weak to justify a change in "current theories." Do P values determine what we physicians believe and how we practice medicine?
This is a noble sentiment, but evidence suggests we are not as objective as Dr Sandweiss implies. Yale surgeon and author Sherwin B. Nuland13 states, "Unlike other areas in which fads come and go, medical styles [of practice] are meant to be supported by irrefutable evidence. That assumption is so far off the mark that the term 'medical science' is practically an oxymoron."
Referring to a 1978 report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment,14 Nuland states, "no more than 15 percent of medical interventions are supported by reliable scientific evidence."
Richard Smith,15 editor of the British Medical Journal, agrees, stating, "only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence. . . . This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have not been assessed at all."
And David A. Grimes16 of the University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine states, "much, if not most, of contemporary medical practice still lacks a scientific foundation."
These observations suggest that a double standard is perhaps being applied to prayer research, according to which levels of proof are demanded that may not be required of conventional therapies-the "rubber ruler," the raising of the bar, the ever-lengthening playing field.17
Do serious scientists really believe that the effects of intercessory prayer are fantasy, as several letter writers imply? No doubt some do.
But in a recent survey18 of the spiritual beliefs of American scientists, 39% of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians said they not only believed in God, but in a god who answers prayers.
The highest rate of belief was found in the field of mathematics, which is generally considered the most precise of all the sciences. Many distinguished scientists favor prayer. A long list of individuals, including Nobelists, who have been cordial to consciousness-related events, such as distant, intercessory prayer, has been assembled by philosopher David
Griffin.19
Should the empirical study of intercessory prayer be abandoned, as several letter writers imply? More than a century ago, a similar debate took place among British scientists about telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis, which, like prayer, presume that consciousness can operate remotely.
Nobelist Sir William Crookes (1832-1919), the discoverer of thallium, contrasted his own approach with that of his fellow physicist Michael Faraday (1791-1867), famous for his work in electricity and magnetism. Crookes20 stated:
Faraday says, 'Before we proceed to consider any question involving physical principles, we should set out with clear ideas of the naturally possible and impossible.'
But this appears like reasoning in a circle: we are to investigate nothing till we know it to be possible, whilst we cannot say what is impossible, outside pure mathematics, till we know everything. In the present case I prefer to enter upon the enquiry with no preconceived notions whatever as to what can or cannot be.
The spirit of open inquiry would seem to validate Crookes' stance. Scientific puzzles do not solve themselves unaided. How are the mysteries of consciousness and prayer to be resolved unless researchers take a stab at them?
Dr Sandweiss3 suggests that the lack of an accepted theory underlying intercessory prayer diminishes the respectability of this area of investigation. In the history of medicine, however, we have often tolerated ignorance of mechanism and absence of theory. Examples include the use of aspirin, colchicine, and quinine, as well as the use of citrus fruits in scurvy, as Harris et al point out. The mechanisms of action of most general anesthetics are still a mystery, yet that does not preclude their use.
While it is true that there is no generally accepted theory for the remote actions of consciousness, many mathematicians, physicists, and biological and cognitive scientists are currently offering hypotheses about how these events may happen.
Hypotheses that are compatible with the distant effects of intercessory prayer have been advanced by Nobel physicist Brian Josephson,21 physicist Amit Goswami22 of the University of Oregon's Institute of Theoretical Science, mathematician and cognitive scientist David J. Chalmers,23, 24 systems theorist Ervin Laszlo,25 mathematician C. J. S. Clarke,26 and many other respected scholars.27
These models of consciousness generally advocate a nonlocal view of the mind-a view in which consciousness is not localized or confined to specific points in space (such as the brain) or time.
Levin28 has developed a theoretical model of how prayer may heal that takes several of these hypotheses into account. I have described the implications of a nonlocal model of consciousness for medicine.29 Dr Hammerschmidt30 suggests that Harris et al are "putting God to the test" in their study. Are tests of prayer blasphemous, and are prayer researchers heretics?
I have found that investigators in this area approach their subject with reverence and respect; indeed, I have not found a single exception. They seem to epitomize the view of chemist Robert Boyle,31 the 17th-century author of Boyle's Law, who suggested that experimental scientists are "priests of nature" and that science is so sacred that scientists should carry out their experiments on Sundays as part of their Sabbath worship.
Dr Goldstein32 is "concerned with the potential effect of [the Harris et al] study and its publication on the reputation of hospitals involved and on the integrity of health care organizations in general." The reputation of any healing institution is precious and should be protected, but the suggestion that a hospital's reputation will be endangered by the indiscriminate use of prayer is exceedingly hypothetical.
It is more likely that the widespread application of prayer will enhance the reputation of healing institutions, in view of the facts that nearly 80% of Americans believe in the power of prayer to improve the course of illness,33 and nearly 70% of physicians report religious inquiries for counseling on terminal illness34 yet only 10% of physicians ever inquire about patients' spiritual practices or beliefs.35
In a survey36 of hospitalized patients, three fourths said they believed their physician should be concerned about their spiritual welfare, and one half said they believed their physician should not only pray for them but with them. It is unlikely that prayer could threaten the reputation of hospitals to the extent of many conventional therapies.
A recent meta-analysis of prospective studies by Lazarou et al37 found that more than 100,000 persons die in US hospitals each year from adverse drug reactions, "making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death." A recent survey38 of American adults asked about their concerns before checking into a hospital or other health care facility.
Sixty-one percent were "very concerned" about being given the wrong medicine, 58% about the cost of treatment, 58% about the negative interaction of multiple drugs, 56% about medical procedure complications, 53% about receiving correct information about medications, and 50% about contracting an infection during their stay. Concerns about being indiscriminately prayed for did not make the list.
Dr Pande39 suggests that the analogy by Harris et al with James Lind's discovery of the healing potential of citrus fruits in scurvy is inappropriate. A person deprived of vitamin C will develop scurvy, whereas a person deprived of prayer or believing in God's existence, he states, will not become unhealthy.
There is evidence to the contrary. Scores of studies40, 41 suggest that, on average, individuals deprived of religious meaning live shorter, less healthy lives than people who follow some sort of religious path, which almost always includes prayer.
Drs Sloan and Bagiella42 question whether Harris et al are justified in suggesting that intercessory prayer be considered an adjunct to conventional medical practice, since there is no consensus in medicine about this controversial intervention.
There is indeed no consensus, but whether this is because of a lack of data or ignorance of current evidence is a valid question.43 Certainly further investigation of intercessory prayer is warranted, but we need not wait until all the answers are in before employing prayer adjunctively. This view is represented by Lancet editor Richard Horton44 in his "precautionary principle."
Horton states, "We must act on facts and on the most accurate interpretation of them, using the best information. That does not mean that we must sit back until we have 100 percent evidence about everything. When the . . . health of the individual is at stake . . . we should be prepared to take action to diminish those risks even when the scientific knowledge is not conclusive."
Although skepticism is an invaluable component of scientific progress, it can shade into a type of dogmatic materialism that excludes intercessory prayer in principle,45 as when Newton's critics condemned universal gravity as occult nonsense without weighing the evidence.
Both true believers and committed disbelievers in intercessory prayer might heed the view of mathematical physicist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead,46 who coauthored Principia Mathematica with Bertrand Russell:
" The Universe is vast. Nothing is more curious than the self-satisfied dogmatism with which mankind at each period of its history cherishes the delusion of the finality of its existing modes of knowledge. Sceptics and believers are all alike. At this moment scientists and sceptics are the leading dogmatists. Advance in detail is admitted: fundamental novelty is barred. This dogmatic common sense is the death of philosophical adventure. The Universe is vast."
Larry Dossey, MD
Santa Fe, NM
Archives of Internal Medicine 2000 Jun 26;160:1735-1738.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
There appears to be no question that prayer works. We have many studies now that document that. The science is very solid in excellent peer-reviewed publications. The science is so solid, that it is criminally negligent for physicians not to recommend it.
And talk about cost-effective; there is no cost to prayer except for time. It makes no logical sense to me why someone would not utilize this resource. A simple powerful application of prayer is journaling which articles have showed to be useful in treating chronic illness.
For those who are interested in further reading on this subject, I have read and can recommend Dr. Larry Dossey's excellent reviews of the subject of prayer and distant healing. A must for those interested in this area.
Healing Words : The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine
Be Careful What You Pray For...You Just Might Get It
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. Whitehead AN. Essays in Science and Philosophy. New York, NY: Philosophical Library; 1948:227.
2. Harris WS, Gowda M, Kolb JW, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:2273-2278.
3. Sandweiss DA. P value out of control. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1872.
4. Mills E. Giving up on the hard problem of consciousness. J Consciousness Stud. 1996;3(1):26-32.
5. Van der Does W. A randomized, controlled trial of prayer? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1871-1872.
6. Bem DJ, Honorton C. Does psi exist? replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychol Bull. 1994;115:4-18.
7. Radin DL, Nelson RD. Consciousness-related effects in random physical systems. Found Phys. 1989;19:1499-1034.
8.Dossey L. Distant intentionality: an idea whose time has come. Adv J Mind-Body Health. Summer 1996;12:9-13.
9.Dosssey L. Controlled experimental trials of healing. In: Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine. San Francisco, Calif: Harper San Francisco; 1999:211-235.
10. Searle J. Quoted on front cover. J Consciousness Stud. 1995;2(1).
11. Fodor JA. The big idea. Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992:20.
12. Maddox J. The unexpected science to come. Sci Am. December 1999;281:62-67.
13. Nuland SB. Medical fads: bran, midwives and leeches. New York Times. June 25, 1995:A15.
14. Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States; 1978:7. Publication NTIS/PB-286929.
15.Smith R. Where is the wisdom? BMJ.1991;303:798-799.
16.Grimes DA. Technology follies: the uncritical acceptance of medical innovations. JAMA. 1993;269:3030-3033.
17. Radin D. A field guide to skepticism. In: The Conscious Universe. San Francisco, Calif: Harper San Francisco; 1997:205-228.
18. Larson EJ, Witham L. Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature. 1997;386:435-436.
19. Griffin DR. Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1997:12-13.
20. Crookes W. Quoted by Braude SE: The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1986:86.
21.Josephson BD, Pallikara-Viras F. Biological utilization of quantum nonlocality. Found Phys 1991;21:197-207.
22.Goswami A, Reed RE, Goswami A. The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. New York, NY: Jeremy P Tarcher/Putnam; 1993.
23. Chalmers DJ. The puzzle of conscious experience. Sci Am 1995;273(6):80-86.
24. Chalmers DJ. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
25. Laszlo E. The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual Foundations of Transdisciplinary Unified Theory. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co; 1995.
26. Clarke CJS. The nonlocality of mind. J Consciousness Stud. 1995;2(3):231-240.
27. Dossey L. The return of prayer. Altern Ther Health Med. November 1997;3:10-17, 113-120.
28. Levin JS. How prayer heals: a theoretical model. Altern Ther Health Med. January 1996;2:66-73.
29. Dossey L. Reinventing Medicine. San Francisco, Calif: Harper San Francisco; 1999.
30. Hammerschmidt DE. Ethical and practical problems in studying prayer. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1874.
31. Boyle R. Quoted by: Hellman H. Great Feuds in Science: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1998:26.
32. Goldstein J. Waiving informed consent for research on spiritual matters? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1870-1871.
33. Wallis C. Faith and healing. Time June 24, 1996: 58-63.
34.Cassell EJ.The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1991.
35.Maugans TA, Wadland WC.Religion and family medicine: a survey of physicians and patients.J Fam Pract.1991;32:210-213.
36.King DE, Bushwick B.Beliefs and attitudes of hospital patients about faith healing and prayer.J Fam Pract.1994;39:349-352.
37.Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200-1205.
38. Patient concerns: ICR for American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. USA Today December 7, 1999:7D.
39. Pande PN. Does prayer need testing? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1873-1874.
40. Levin JS, Larson DB, Puchalski CM. Religion and spirituality: research and education. JAMA 1997;278:792-793.
41. Koenig H. Exploring links between religion/spirituality and health. Sci Rev Altern Med. Spring-Summer 1999;3:52-55.
42. Sloan RP, Bagiella E. Data without a prayer. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1870.
43. Larson DB, Milano MAG. Are religion and spirituality clinically relevant in health care? Mind/Body Med 1995;1:147-157.
44.Horton R. The new public health of risk and radical engagement. Lancet 1998;352:251-252.
45. Dossey L. The right man syndrome: skepticism and alternative medicine. Altern Ther Health Med May 1998;4:12-19, 108-114.
46. Whitehead AN. Essays in Science and Philosophy. New York, NY: Philosophical Library; 1948:129.
Journaling Works
From Dr. Mercola:
Writing (Journaling) About Stress Helps Asthma, Arthritis
Writing about stressful life events helped reduce symptoms of asthma and rheumatoid arthritis in patients with these chronic illnesses. The effects of the writing exercise were still evident four months later and resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in patient symptoms.
The new findings add to a growing body of evidence linking mental health to physical well-being. Although researchers are not sure how this technique -- called "expressive writing" -- can lead to improvements in health, they speculate that it may help people better cope with stress, which can take a deleterious toll on health.
On average, asthma patients who wrote about their most stressful life event showed a 19% improvement in a specific measure of lung function, while control asthma patients showed no change, the researchers report. Rheumatoid arthritis patients were found to have a 28% reduction in symptoms, whereas control arthritis patients did not improve.
Ventilation of negative emotion, even just to an unknown reader, seems to have helped these patients acknowledge, bear, and put into perspective their distress. In this and a growing number of studies, it is not simply mind over matter, but is it clear that mind matters.
The Journal of the American Medical Association April 14, 1999;281:1304-1309, 1328-1329
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
I suspect that if the authors of this study were to have provided similar outcome evidence about a new drug, it likely would be in widespread use within a short time. This is a very powerful discipline. I have been journaling for the last fourteen years as a form of spiritual discipline. It is the rare morning where I am not able to journal. It has been an enormous benefit in my life.
For those interested in following a spiritual approach, many find the formula ACTS (Adoration (praise and worshiping God), Confession (reflection on your fewer than perfect actions), Thanksgiving (gratitude for all your blessings), and finally Supplication (Prayer requests). It is a strategy that has helped many through both good times and bad.
Writing (Journaling) About Stress Helps Asthma, Arthritis
Writing about stressful life events helped reduce symptoms of asthma and rheumatoid arthritis in patients with these chronic illnesses. The effects of the writing exercise were still evident four months later and resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in patient symptoms.
The new findings add to a growing body of evidence linking mental health to physical well-being. Although researchers are not sure how this technique -- called "expressive writing" -- can lead to improvements in health, they speculate that it may help people better cope with stress, which can take a deleterious toll on health.
On average, asthma patients who wrote about their most stressful life event showed a 19% improvement in a specific measure of lung function, while control asthma patients showed no change, the researchers report. Rheumatoid arthritis patients were found to have a 28% reduction in symptoms, whereas control arthritis patients did not improve.
Ventilation of negative emotion, even just to an unknown reader, seems to have helped these patients acknowledge, bear, and put into perspective their distress. In this and a growing number of studies, it is not simply mind over matter, but is it clear that mind matters.
The Journal of the American Medical Association April 14, 1999;281:1304-1309, 1328-1329
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
I suspect that if the authors of this study were to have provided similar outcome evidence about a new drug, it likely would be in widespread use within a short time. This is a very powerful discipline. I have been journaling for the last fourteen years as a form of spiritual discipline. It is the rare morning where I am not able to journal. It has been an enormous benefit in my life.
For those interested in following a spiritual approach, many find the formula ACTS (Adoration (praise and worshiping God), Confession (reflection on your fewer than perfect actions), Thanksgiving (gratitude for all your blessings), and finally Supplication (Prayer requests). It is a strategy that has helped many through both good times and bad.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Hey, thanks to my wonderful brother, I finally got two of my Dell's networking. It sure is nice to be able to download a page and read it while another one downloads on the other computer. I'm saving so much time on my slow dial-up internet connection I hardly have time to play Spider Solitaire between pages anymore (although I have graduated to the difficult version--I can win one game in 20).
Anyway, here's a poem I wrote about children:
Life’s Spin
My child’s a button spinning on two strong cords,
Balanced in the middle, alive with motion,
Set in place at conception by loving parents.
Cords which twist together, untwist, twist again
In a pattern of give and take so delicately balanced
That the slightest miscalculation can check the
Finely tuned orchestration of its spin.
As parents we may think we can set life spinning
And then cut it free to go on its own,
But the cords are forever threaded through.
Cords that may lengthen, stretch, thin, or even break.
Cords, nonetheless, which are necessary
For the balance of a child’s spin into adulthood.
Keep the give and take balanced,
So that your child can spin upright,
With a sense of his own independence,
Yet securely held in check by wise and timely tugs.
Anyway, here's a poem I wrote about children:
Life’s Spin
My child’s a button spinning on two strong cords,
Balanced in the middle, alive with motion,
Set in place at conception by loving parents.
Cords which twist together, untwist, twist again
In a pattern of give and take so delicately balanced
That the slightest miscalculation can check the
Finely tuned orchestration of its spin.
As parents we may think we can set life spinning
And then cut it free to go on its own,
But the cords are forever threaded through.
Cords that may lengthen, stretch, thin, or even break.
Cords, nonetheless, which are necessary
For the balance of a child’s spin into adulthood.
Keep the give and take balanced,
So that your child can spin upright,
With a sense of his own independence,
Yet securely held in check by wise and timely tugs.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Mercury in Flu Vaccine
This is from this week's Hallelujah Acres Health Tip by George Malkmous:
3) DANGEROUS AMOUNTS OF MERCURY STILL IN FLU VACCINE As we approach the FLU SEASON, various agencies are pushing certain age groups to get flu shots. Who are supposed to get them? Well, in the October Issue of AARP, we read: "Vaccine makers plan to produce 100 million doses, 17% more than were available last flu season. Consequently, the government is recommending for the first time that people 50 and older be immunized instead of just those 65 and older. That's also the case for children from 6 months to 5-years, up from age 2. Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, in the October 2006 Issue of The Blaylock Report, had the following to say regarding these flu shots: "The flu shot is one of the few remaining vaccines still containing a full dose of mercury (thimerosal). Each vaccine contains about 25 micrograms of ethylmercury. Defenders of thimerosal safety tell the public that such a small amount is harmless. I recently reviewed all the available evidence on thimerosal toxicity for a lecture I gave in Florida. It is known that as little as 0.5 micromole of ethylmercury can produce a 50 percent inhibition of the brain's most important protective system against excitotoxicity. That is less than one millionth of a mole weight of mercury. The government is lying. Unlike the mercury in fish (methylmercury), over 70 percent of the ethylmercury from vaccines is converted in the brain to the ionic form of mercury, which is not only the most damaging to brain cells but is almost impossible to remove. Only 10 percent of methylmercury is converted to ionic mercury. Likewise, ethylmercury is infinitely more toxic in the brains of the very young and the elderly. Because ionic mercury accumulates in the brain, each flu shot adds to the total burden in the brain. Over 10 years, one would have close to 100 micrograms of mercury in their brain. On top of all this, a number of studies have shown that the flu vaccine is effective in only 20 to 30 percent of cases. . . " In Dr. Blaylock's Wellness Report for the month of August 2006, we learned that studies show the vaccine preservative methylmercury used in vaccines for 70 years is the CAUSE OF AUTISM! The article concluded with these words: "The parents of the over 1 million children whose lives have been destroyed by autism spectrum disorders should demand justice, and the public should insist that all mercury be removed from all vaccines." In that same article we read: "Suffice it to say that even though most vaccines had there mercury removed as of 2001, THE FLU VACCINES and Rho Immune Globulin vaccine STILL CONTAIN A FULL AMOUNT. The CDC instituted new guidelines prescribing the flu vaccine for all children between the ages of 6 and 24 months. Then those children are to get shots again annually between the ages of 5 and 18 years. That includes 42 million schoolchildren. Should these guidelines be followed, our children would start life with significant mercury burden and suffer the resulting health consequences. It is important to note that the second-highest site (after the brain) of mercury accumulation in a cell is the nucleus, and studies have shown that even low doses of the toxic substance cause damage to DNA that can lead to cancer and degenerative brain disease, and can be inherited in one's offspring." (For more information or to subscribe to The Blaylock Report call 1-800-485-4350.) ___________________________________________________________
3) DANGEROUS AMOUNTS OF MERCURY STILL IN FLU VACCINE As we approach the FLU SEASON, various agencies are pushing certain age groups to get flu shots. Who are supposed to get them? Well, in the October Issue of AARP, we read: "Vaccine makers plan to produce 100 million doses, 17% more than were available last flu season. Consequently, the government is recommending for the first time that people 50 and older be immunized instead of just those 65 and older. That's also the case for children from 6 months to 5-years, up from age 2. Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, in the October 2006 Issue of The Blaylock Report, had the following to say regarding these flu shots: "The flu shot is one of the few remaining vaccines still containing a full dose of mercury (thimerosal). Each vaccine contains about 25 micrograms of ethylmercury. Defenders of thimerosal safety tell the public that such a small amount is harmless. I recently reviewed all the available evidence on thimerosal toxicity for a lecture I gave in Florida. It is known that as little as 0.5 micromole of ethylmercury can produce a 50 percent inhibition of the brain's most important protective system against excitotoxicity. That is less than one millionth of a mole weight of mercury. The government is lying. Unlike the mercury in fish (methylmercury), over 70 percent of the ethylmercury from vaccines is converted in the brain to the ionic form of mercury, which is not only the most damaging to brain cells but is almost impossible to remove. Only 10 percent of methylmercury is converted to ionic mercury. Likewise, ethylmercury is infinitely more toxic in the brains of the very young and the elderly. Because ionic mercury accumulates in the brain, each flu shot adds to the total burden in the brain. Over 10 years, one would have close to 100 micrograms of mercury in their brain. On top of all this, a number of studies have shown that the flu vaccine is effective in only 20 to 30 percent of cases. . . " In Dr. Blaylock's Wellness Report for the month of August 2006, we learned that studies show the vaccine preservative methylmercury used in vaccines for 70 years is the CAUSE OF AUTISM! The article concluded with these words: "The parents of the over 1 million children whose lives have been destroyed by autism spectrum disorders should demand justice, and the public should insist that all mercury be removed from all vaccines." In that same article we read: "Suffice it to say that even though most vaccines had there mercury removed as of 2001, THE FLU VACCINES and Rho Immune Globulin vaccine STILL CONTAIN A FULL AMOUNT. The CDC instituted new guidelines prescribing the flu vaccine for all children between the ages of 6 and 24 months. Then those children are to get shots again annually between the ages of 5 and 18 years. That includes 42 million schoolchildren. Should these guidelines be followed, our children would start life with significant mercury burden and suffer the resulting health consequences. It is important to note that the second-highest site (after the brain) of mercury accumulation in a cell is the nucleus, and studies have shown that even low doses of the toxic substance cause damage to DNA that can lead to cancer and degenerative brain disease, and can be inherited in one's offspring." (For more information or to subscribe to The Blaylock Report call 1-800-485-4350.) ___________________________________________________________
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Healthier Air Purifier
Here's a link to an article about healthier air purifiers.
http://www.mercola.com/forms/air_purifiers.htm
http://www.mercola.com/forms/air_purifiers.htm
Town of Allopath video
Check out this video about allopathy and its fallacy.
http://www.mercola.com/townofallopath/index.htm
http://www.mercola.com/townofallopath/index.htm
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Here's a song I wrote for Josiah:
The Boy in You
Though you’re growing up, changing into a man,
New manly ways you’re learning, like how to win her hand,
I’ll never stop believing in the boy I rocked to sleep.
Your lock of hair, the toothless grin, they’re all mine to keep.
Reminders of your childhood spark my reverie,
Memories of you playing, tousled and carefree
Marbles, balls, and skateboards, bikes and model cars,
Help me to remember, you’re a child at heart.
God sees the child in you, the babe I held as mine.
Though life’s trials harden you, Grace will smooth the lines.
Don’t ever grow too far away from God on bended knee
That you can’t hear your mother say, “You’re God’s child, I can see.”
The Boy in You
Though you’re growing up, changing into a man,
New manly ways you’re learning, like how to win her hand,
I’ll never stop believing in the boy I rocked to sleep.
Your lock of hair, the toothless grin, they’re all mine to keep.
Reminders of your childhood spark my reverie,
Memories of you playing, tousled and carefree
Marbles, balls, and skateboards, bikes and model cars,
Help me to remember, you’re a child at heart.
God sees the child in you, the babe I held as mine.
Though life’s trials harden you, Grace will smooth the lines.
Don’t ever grow too far away from God on bended knee
That you can’t hear your mother say, “You’re God’s child, I can see.”
Medical errors
Here's an article from Mercola.com:
Hospital Errors Fatal to Indiana Babies
Six premature babies at Indiana's Methodist Hospital received an accidental overdose of the anti-clotting drug heparin. Three have already died.
Premature newborns are often given heparin so that they can be given fluids intravenously.
But each of the six infants was given an adult dose, roughly 1,000 times greater than the amount that should be used on infants.
Clarian Health Partners, which runs Methodist Hospital, is planning to start requiring that all drugs be double and triple checked before they are administered. The hospital has offered to pay for funeral expenses, counseling, and restitution to all six families affected. Some of the families involved are planning legal action.
USA Today September 20, 2006
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
I suspect you won't question why the United States leads the world in medical errors any more after reading this tragic story about these needless deaths.
Medical errors like these are a classic example of why the conventional medical paradigm is fatally flawed. You know the system needs changing when the majority of health care workers observe mistakes made by their peers but rarely do anything to challenge them.
Death rates actually decrease when doctors go on strike, and deaths blamed on mistakes made with prescription drugs sold at pharmacies spike at the beginning of each month.
Meanwhile, clever manipulation of the official government death rates conceals the fact that the conventional medical system, not heart disease or cancer, is the leading cause of death in this country.
The United States is spending literally trillions of dollars every year for a system that obsesses with reducing symptoms while failing to address the underlying cause of disease. Unsurprisingly, our return on this investment is profoundly poor. The bottom line is that the system is crumbling before your eyes.
Hospital Errors Fatal to Indiana Babies
Six premature babies at Indiana's Methodist Hospital received an accidental overdose of the anti-clotting drug heparin. Three have already died.
Premature newborns are often given heparin so that they can be given fluids intravenously.
But each of the six infants was given an adult dose, roughly 1,000 times greater than the amount that should be used on infants.
Clarian Health Partners, which runs Methodist Hospital, is planning to start requiring that all drugs be double and triple checked before they are administered. The hospital has offered to pay for funeral expenses, counseling, and restitution to all six families affected. Some of the families involved are planning legal action.
USA Today September 20, 2006
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
I suspect you won't question why the United States leads the world in medical errors any more after reading this tragic story about these needless deaths.
Medical errors like these are a classic example of why the conventional medical paradigm is fatally flawed. You know the system needs changing when the majority of health care workers observe mistakes made by their peers but rarely do anything to challenge them.
Death rates actually decrease when doctors go on strike, and deaths blamed on mistakes made with prescription drugs sold at pharmacies spike at the beginning of each month.
Meanwhile, clever manipulation of the official government death rates conceals the fact that the conventional medical system, not heart disease or cancer, is the leading cause of death in this country.
The United States is spending literally trillions of dollars every year for a system that obsesses with reducing symptoms while failing to address the underlying cause of disease. Unsurprisingly, our return on this investment is profoundly poor. The bottom line is that the system is crumbling before your eyes.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Truth in Media
This is from Dr. Mercola at mercola.com
Fox Fires Reporters for Telling the Truth About Milk
In 1997, a pair of reporters prepared a report for a Fox TV affiliate in Florida about the dangers of bovine growth hormone (BGH) in milk. Lawyers for Monsanto, a major advertiser with the network, sent letters promising "dire consequences" if the story aired.
After attempts by Fox to bribe the reporters to keep quiet failed, the station agreed to air a revised version of the report. An unheard of 83 edits later (including Monsanto insisting that the word "cancer" be replaced with the phrase "human health implications"), the report was shelved and the courts took over.
Although a lower court ruled in favor of the reporters for some $425,000, a Florida appeals court denied them whistleblower protection, claiming Fox, and the media in general, have no obligation to tell the truth, in effect, having the freedom to report what is fact and fiction as real news.
YouTube.com August 22, 2006
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
This is another dramatic example of how powerfully some corporations control the media. You have heard me rant and rave about the drug companies, but they are the fairy godmother compared to Monsanto.
I simply don't know of any organization on the planet with more sinister plans to destroy the health of your future. They are the central force behind genetically modified foods and have conspired to literally own all future food by unconstitutionally patenting every seed they can get their hands on.
I posted a report two years ago that Monsanto was slowing down sales of its bovine growth hormone (BGH), Posilac, which is put in much of the commercial milk sold in the United States.
That seems to have been a temporary measure for publicity, as Monsanto recently announced plans to start producing the product themselves at a plant in Augusta, GA, instead of licensing another company to do it, and they currently sell more than 33 million doses a year.
There could be no stronger proof than this story that the corporations do not care about your health, but only their profits, and that their paid stooges in the media, the sciences, and the government are only too happy to say whatever they are being given money to say. In the instances where people try to take a stand, like the reporters in this case, they are silenced by their bosses.
There's a reason that the FDA, largely financed by their corporate "partners" these days, declared BGH safe for humans after only a brief study on a few rats. The Canadian equivalent of the FDA came to vastly different conclusions about BGH.
These factors, more than anything else, are the reason the reports you hear about what is healthy and what is not are fatally skewed.
On the brighter side, however, there's been a strong push away from hormone-infested milk and toward raw milk. I do not recommend drinking pasteurized milk, however, even if it doesn't contain hormones, because pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer.
Raw milk, on the other hand, is one of the finest natural sources of calcium available. To find a raw milk source near you, visit the Real Milk Web site.
By the way, the video in the story above is from The Corporation. If you want to have a great video for your library I would recommend picking up a copy. I bought mine on Amazon.
Related Articles:
BGH: Monsanto and the Dairy Industry's Dirty Little Secret
Monsanto Pushes Hormones on School Kids in Their Milk
World's Largest Media Source Controlled by World's Largest Drug Compan
Fox Fires Reporters for Telling the Truth About Milk
In 1997, a pair of reporters prepared a report for a Fox TV affiliate in Florida about the dangers of bovine growth hormone (BGH) in milk. Lawyers for Monsanto, a major advertiser with the network, sent letters promising "dire consequences" if the story aired.
After attempts by Fox to bribe the reporters to keep quiet failed, the station agreed to air a revised version of the report. An unheard of 83 edits later (including Monsanto insisting that the word "cancer" be replaced with the phrase "human health implications"), the report was shelved and the courts took over.
Although a lower court ruled in favor of the reporters for some $425,000, a Florida appeals court denied them whistleblower protection, claiming Fox, and the media in general, have no obligation to tell the truth, in effect, having the freedom to report what is fact and fiction as real news.
YouTube.com August 22, 2006
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
This is another dramatic example of how powerfully some corporations control the media. You have heard me rant and rave about the drug companies, but they are the fairy godmother compared to Monsanto.
I simply don't know of any organization on the planet with more sinister plans to destroy the health of your future. They are the central force behind genetically modified foods and have conspired to literally own all future food by unconstitutionally patenting every seed they can get their hands on.
I posted a report two years ago that Monsanto was slowing down sales of its bovine growth hormone (BGH), Posilac, which is put in much of the commercial milk sold in the United States.
That seems to have been a temporary measure for publicity, as Monsanto recently announced plans to start producing the product themselves at a plant in Augusta, GA, instead of licensing another company to do it, and they currently sell more than 33 million doses a year.
There could be no stronger proof than this story that the corporations do not care about your health, but only their profits, and that their paid stooges in the media, the sciences, and the government are only too happy to say whatever they are being given money to say. In the instances where people try to take a stand, like the reporters in this case, they are silenced by their bosses.
There's a reason that the FDA, largely financed by their corporate "partners" these days, declared BGH safe for humans after only a brief study on a few rats. The Canadian equivalent of the FDA came to vastly different conclusions about BGH.
These factors, more than anything else, are the reason the reports you hear about what is healthy and what is not are fatally skewed.
On the brighter side, however, there's been a strong push away from hormone-infested milk and toward raw milk. I do not recommend drinking pasteurized milk, however, even if it doesn't contain hormones, because pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer.
Raw milk, on the other hand, is one of the finest natural sources of calcium available. To find a raw milk source near you, visit the Real Milk Web site.
By the way, the video in the story above is from The Corporation. If you want to have a great video for your library I would recommend picking up a copy. I bought mine on Amazon.
Related Articles:
BGH: Monsanto and the Dairy Industry's Dirty Little Secret
Monsanto Pushes Hormones on School Kids in Their Milk
World's Largest Media Source Controlled by World's Largest Drug Compan
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Spinach question
Here's the Hallelujah Acres response to the Spinach question:
THE E. COLI - SPINACH SCARE When news first broke that bagged spinach had been withdrawn from supermarket shelves across America following an E.coli outbreak that had killed 1 person and sickened 150 others, Rhonda and I had just purchased, that very day, a 1-pound container of Earthbound Farms organic SPINACH. After hearing the warning, that evening for supper we took a huge handful of that spinach we had just purchased, and had been warned not to eat, out of it's container, added to the other vegetables making up our salad that evening, and ate it - and we did it without any fear of potential harm. You may ask: Why would you not be scared to death to eat it? My answer: Because both Rhonda and I are on The Hallelujah Diet and supplement with probiotics (friendly bacteria). Though The Hallelujah Diet will not make a person immune to all germs, viruses and bacteria, the diet will, in most instances, protect a person from most of them, and if the body does react, it will be a mild reaction. Let's consider the subject of E.coli, an unfriendly bacterium, for a moment: Every year in America, according to the CDC (Center of Disease Control), E.coli causes some 61 deaths, and sickens an estimated 73,000. And according to the CDC, the CAUSE of these outbreaks is contamination coming from ANIMAL sources! So wouldn't it be reasonable to ask: Why does 1 death caused by eating contaminated spinach from 1 field in California result in ALL spinach being removed from restaurant menus and store shelves, and yet when an E.coli outbreak occurs from contaminated animal product, there is no such general recall? Friends, whether we realize it or not, there is a war being waged against those of us who want to eat healthy. Some groups are already trying to use this E.coli/spinach issue to discredit organic farming practices and organic food. If you remember, it was only a few years ago that as a result of just 10 people being infected with E.coli from unpasteurized (raw) bottled juice, the sale of unpasteurized juices came to an almost screeching halt. The next thing to look for in the war against those of us who want to eat healthy, will be an effort to irradiate all fresh produce in order to kill potential contaminating bacteria, not so much for the purpose of protecting the consumer, but rather for the purpose of extending shelf life, resulting in increased profit. Friends, the Genesis 1:29 diet that God gave His human creation there in the Garden of Eden, was a 100% raw diet! Our bodies thrive on raw food, and slowly breaks down and dies on a diet of cooked, pasteurized, and irradiated foods. Finally, let me explain a little bit of the reason why Rhonda and this editor had no concerns regarding the eating of that organically grown spinach the day the warning of E.coli in spinach was issued. God designed our bodies to contain a ratio of about 85% friendly to 15% unfriendly bacteria in our body. When we eat a basically raw diet and supplement with a good probiotic to keep our immune system strong and our friendly bacteria in proper proportions, the friendly bacteria will overwhelm the bad bacteria, such as E.coli, and thus the bad E.coli bacteria will be unable to multiply and harm us. ___________________________________________________________
THE E. COLI - SPINACH SCARE When news first broke that bagged spinach had been withdrawn from supermarket shelves across America following an E.coli outbreak that had killed 1 person and sickened 150 others, Rhonda and I had just purchased, that very day, a 1-pound container of Earthbound Farms organic SPINACH. After hearing the warning, that evening for supper we took a huge handful of that spinach we had just purchased, and had been warned not to eat, out of it's container, added to the other vegetables making up our salad that evening, and ate it - and we did it without any fear of potential harm. You may ask: Why would you not be scared to death to eat it? My answer: Because both Rhonda and I are on The Hallelujah Diet and supplement with probiotics (friendly bacteria). Though The Hallelujah Diet will not make a person immune to all germs, viruses and bacteria, the diet will, in most instances, protect a person from most of them, and if the body does react, it will be a mild reaction. Let's consider the subject of E.coli, an unfriendly bacterium, for a moment: Every year in America, according to the CDC (Center of Disease Control), E.coli causes some 61 deaths, and sickens an estimated 73,000. And according to the CDC, the CAUSE of these outbreaks is contamination coming from ANIMAL sources! So wouldn't it be reasonable to ask: Why does 1 death caused by eating contaminated spinach from 1 field in California result in ALL spinach being removed from restaurant menus and store shelves, and yet when an E.coli outbreak occurs from contaminated animal product, there is no such general recall? Friends, whether we realize it or not, there is a war being waged against those of us who want to eat healthy. Some groups are already trying to use this E.coli/spinach issue to discredit organic farming practices and organic food. If you remember, it was only a few years ago that as a result of just 10 people being infected with E.coli from unpasteurized (raw) bottled juice, the sale of unpasteurized juices came to an almost screeching halt. The next thing to look for in the war against those of us who want to eat healthy, will be an effort to irradiate all fresh produce in order to kill potential contaminating bacteria, not so much for the purpose of protecting the consumer, but rather for the purpose of extending shelf life, resulting in increased profit. Friends, the Genesis 1:29 diet that God gave His human creation there in the Garden of Eden, was a 100% raw diet! Our bodies thrive on raw food, and slowly breaks down and dies on a diet of cooked, pasteurized, and irradiated foods. Finally, let me explain a little bit of the reason why Rhonda and this editor had no concerns regarding the eating of that organically grown spinach the day the warning of E.coli in spinach was issued. God designed our bodies to contain a ratio of about 85% friendly to 15% unfriendly bacteria in our body. When we eat a basically raw diet and supplement with a good probiotic to keep our immune system strong and our friendly bacteria in proper proportions, the friendly bacteria will overwhelm the bad bacteria, such as E.coli, and thus the bad E.coli bacteria will be unable to multiply and harm us. ___________________________________________________________
Monday, October 02, 2006
Goings On
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
