Dark Deception; the Negative Health Implications of Institutionalized Heliophobia

In the old days, you protected your skin from over exposure to the sun with shade and/or clothing. In the process, your skin would at least get some exposure to the sun's rays. Today, perhaps in epidemic proportions, people are getting much less exposure to healthy, unadulterated UV rays of the sun due to the demonization of sun exposure and the near hysterical use of sunblock. Less exposure = less vitamin D....and what myriad problems arise due to a vitamin D deficiency?

While the Wikipedia entry on vitamin D seems to do justice to a summary description of the health problems caused by vitamin D deficiency and the importance of adequate sun exposure, check out how the health authorities try to balance that with the parroting of the old line regarding the avoidance of sun exposure below. Upon reflection, how pathetic a state of affairs do we have when "private" health researchers and medical practitioners rely so much upon the most contradictory recommendations from government ministries?

Wikipedia: Vitamin D

"The use of sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 8 inhibits more than 95% of vitamin D production in the skin.[15][36] Recent studies showed that, following the successful "Slip-Slop-Slap" health campaign encouraging Australians to cover up when exposed to sunlight to prevent skin cancer, an increased number of Australians and New Zealanders became vitamin D deficient."[18]

...and now for the kicker.

"Ironically, there are indications that vitamin D deficiency may lead to skin cancer." [37]

(Am I the only one laughing here?)

"To avoid vitamin D deficiency dermatologists recommend supplementation along with sunscreen use."

[37] Grant WB (2002). "An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the U.S. due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-B radiation". Cancer 94 (6): 1867–75. doi:10.1002/cncr.10427. PMID 11920550.

Here's the problem with the recommended supplementation of vitamin D, whether it be from cod liver oil or a vitamin bottle:

"The currently recommended daily dosage of 400 IU of vitamin D daily appears to be unreasonably low when we know that a light skinned individual makes 20,000 units [5] of vitamin D within 15 to 20 minutes of whole body exposure to the summer sun (before redness appears). This 20,000 IU of vitamin D is five times the amount of vitamin D considered capable of initiating toxic reactions by the Institute of Medicine, demonstrating that these guidelines are set far too low. Dark skinned individuals need 5 to 10 times longer in the sun to produce an equivalent amount of vitamin D as Caucasians, depending on the extent of their pigmentation." Source

Notwithstanding a discussion regarding the chemicals used in sunblock or the benefits of less toxic sunscreens, perhaps it might make more sense to get necessary exposure to the sun for the day on unprotected skin, and only after that, use sunblock to perhaps avoid ruining the holiday with a bad burn. PhD or M.D credentials shouldn't be required to apply a little everyday common sense (unfortunately, such credentials often come with the prohibition of independent thought processes outside of the sanctioned "knowledge"). Either way, you can choose to do some research down the less beaten path or continue to rely upon the spoon feeding for health recommendations from the government ministries with the greatest conflicts of interest, the FDA and CDC.

MSNBC:
'Sunshine vitamin' may ward off breast cancer
Higher levels of vitamin D offer range of health benefits, studies suggest
msnbc.com news services
updated 6:48 p.m. ET, Thurs., May. 11, 2006

"Women who get lots of vitamin D are less likely to develop breast cancer, suggests a pair of studies that add to the already strong evidence that the “sunshine vitamin” helps prevent many types of cancer."

"High levels of vitamin D translated to a 50 percent lower risk of breast cancer, one study found. Even modestly higher levels resulted in 10 percent less risk, which would translate to 20,000 fewer cases a year if it were true of all American women."

"A second study, by Canadian researchers, found that women who spent time outdoors or got a lot of vitamin D from their diets or supplements — especially as teens — were 25 percent to 45 percent less likely to develop breast cancer than women with less of the nutrient."


Heliotherary (sun-therapy) for tuberculosis patients:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/16/7/687.pdf

VITAMIN D CAN HEAL TUBERCULOSIS?
By Dr. James Howenstine, MD

"Research from UCLA [8] and the Harvard School of Public Health revealed that vitamin D plays a key role in the production of a molecule called cathelicidin, which kills the mycobacterium tuberculosis organism."
More.....

Sunshine Vitamin For Prostate Cancer

"Researchers have known for a long time that vitamin D helps the body absorb calcium to build strong bones and teeth. Vitamin D also helps to strengthen the immune system and seems to protect against some types of cancers and as well as other diseases. Scientists and researchers worldwide are working to understand and capitalize on the process to prevent and/or treat as many as 17 types of cancer. Evidence of vitamin D's protective effect against cancer is compelling. Regular sun exposure is associated with lower mortality rates from certain kinds of cancers. Some studies indicate that vitamin D may help prevent cancer of the breast, colon, ovaries and prostate. A recent report indicated those individuals with higher levels of vitamin D in the blood had as much as a 50% lower cancer risk of many types for cancer. "

More....

"As far as I could find out, the flu hit only the vaccinated..."

A friend of mine, who is a pharmacist, just got this letter last week [mid-April 2008]. After he mentioned it and showed it to me, it reminded me of something I had read some time ago regarding an epidemic from the past, the Spanish Flu. Below, is that letter and some reading regarding that period in history. Do take a look.

Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used."

Click on image to the left to enlarge. Then click the back arrow of your browser to navigate back.

Maybe it's silly for me to think it, but wouldn't the challenging of the immune system by mass vaccinations of people who might already be unknowingly infected, exacerbate the situation for them? Why do medical doctors sometimes vaccinate patients who come in for having possibly been exposed to the disease for which they are being vaccinated? Is it wise to use vaccination as if it were a treatment such as an antibiotic?

You may have noticed that researchers are now saying they have analyzed the virus that caused the 1918 global pandemic of flu. They are linking it to a bird virus, which stirs the pot on the current flap about avian flu in Asia. The PR goes this way: If this current bird virus mutates just a little bit in the wrong direction, we could see a replay of the 1918 disaster. Here is another analysis, written over 30 years ago by Eleanor McBean. This excerpt, from chapter two of her book, Vaccination Condemned, makes a quite different observation:

Chap. 2: Vaccination Condemned

by Eleanor McBean
"I WAS AN ON-THE-SPOT OBSERVER OF THE 1918 INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC."

All the doctors and people who were living at the time of the 1918 Spanish Influenza epidemic say it was the most terrible disease the world has ever had. Strong men, hale and hearty, one day would be dead the next. The disease had the characteristics of the black death added to typhoid, diphtheria, pneumonia, smallpox, paralysis and all the diseases the people had been vaccinated with immediately following World War 1. Practically the entire population had been injected "seeded" with a dozen or more diseases — or toxic serums. When all those doctor-made diseases started breaking out all at once it was tragic.

That pandemic dragged on for two years, kept alive with the addition of more poison drugs administered by the doctors who tried to suppress the symptoms. As far as I could find out, the flu hit only the vaccinated. Those who had refused the shots escaped the flu. My family had refused all the vaccinations so we remained well all the time. We knew from the health teachings of Graham, Trail, Tilden and others, that people cannot contaminate the body with poisons without causing disease.

When the flu was at its peak, all the stores were closed as well as the schools, businesses — even the hospital, as the doctors and nurses had been vaccinated too and were down with the flu. No one was on the streets. It was like a ghost town. We [who didn’t taken any vaccines] seemed to be the only family which didn’t get the flu; so my parents went from house to house doing what they could to look after the sick, as it was impossible to get a doctor then. If it were possible for germs, bacteria, virus, or bacilli to cause disease, they had plenty of opportunity to attack my parents when they were spending many hours a day in the sick rooms. But they didn’t get the flu and they didn’t bring any germs home to attack us children and cause anything. None of our family had the flu — not even a sniffle— and it was in the winter with deep snow on the ground.

It has been said that the 1918 flu epidemic killed 20,000,000 people throughout the world. But, actually, the doctors killed them with their crude and deadly treatments and drugs. This is a harsh accusation but it is nevertheless true, judging by the success of the drugless doctors in comparison with that of the medical doctors.

While the medical men and medical hospitals were losing 33% of their flu cases, the non-medical hospitals such as BATTLE CREEK, KELLOGG and MACFADDEN’S HEALTH-RESTORIUM were getting almost 100% healings with their water cure, baths, enemas, etc., fasting and certain other simple healing methods, followed by carefully worked out diets of natural foods. One health doctor didn’t lose a patient in eight years. The very successful health treatment of one of those drugless doctors who didn’t lose any patients will be given in the other part of this book, titled VACCINATION CONDEMNED, to be published a little later.

If the medical doctors had been as advanced as the drugless doctors, there would not have been those 20 million deaths from the medical flu treatment.

There was seven times more disease among the vaccinated soldiers than among the unvaccinated civilians, and the diseases were those they had been vaccinated against. One soldier who had returned from overseas in 1912 told me that the army hospitals were filled with cases of infantile paralysis and he wondered why grown men should have an infant disease. Now, we know that paralysis is a common after-effect of vaccine poisoning. Those at home didn’t get the paralysis until after the world-wide vaccination campaign in 1918.
End of excerpt, John Rappoport

An article below from THE IRISH EXAMINER:

Vaccine not virus responsible for Spanish flu

TCM Archives > Irish Examiner > 2003/05/08

Thursday, May 08, 2003 : FRONT IRELAND SPORT WORLD BUSINESS
RYLE DWYER writes on the horror of the 1918-20 pandemic which the propaganda says was caused by Spanish flu (Irish Examiner, May 1).

How did they know it was the virus of Spanish flu that killed millions of civilians and soldiers?

This disaster occurred when viruses were unknown to medical science. It took a British science team to identify the first virus in man in 1933.As regards the origin of the outbreak, he relates that a senior US army officer suggested that the Germans might have been responsible for the bug as part of their war effort, by spreading it in theatres or where large numbers of people assembled.

Did they also spread it among their own people, killing 400,000 as reported?Ryle would have us believe that all those American soldiers who died from non-combatant causes may have died from Spanish flu.

But US Army records show that seven men dropped dead after being vaccinated.A report from US Secretary of War Henry L Stimson not only verified these deaths but also stated that there had been 63 deaths and 28,585 cases of hepatitis as a direct result of yellow fever vaccination during only six months of the war.

That was only one of the 14 to 25 shots given to recruits.Army records also reveal that after vaccination became compulsory in the US Army in 1911, not only did typhoid increase rapidly but all other vaccinal diseases increased at an alarming rate.

After America entered the war in 1917, the death rate from typhoid vaccination rose to the highest point in the history of the US Army.The deaths occurred after the shots were given in sanitary American hospitals and well-supervised army camps in France, where sanitation had been practised for years.The report of the Surgeon-General of the US Army shows that during 1917 there were admitted into the army hospitals 19,608 men suffering from anti-typhoid inoculation and vaccinia.

This takes no account of those whose vaccine diseases were attributed to other causes.The army doctors knew all these cases of disease and death were due to vaccination and were honest enough to admit it in their medical reports.When army doctors tried to suppress the symptoms of typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid paratyphoid.

But when they concocted an even stronger vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease Spanish flu.After the war, this was one of the vaccines used to protect a panic-stricken world from the soldiers returning from WWI battlefronts infected with dangerous diseases.

The rest is history.

Patrick J Carroll, Lady Lane House,Waterford.

The rest of the story:

WHY YOU SHOULD AVOID TAKING VACCINES
By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.

Investigating a Natural Cancer Cure; A Documentary, "Dying to Have Known"

Unlike Academy Award producer Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism, Michael Moore had little problem distributing his new film SICKO. Interesting. While Moore advocates socialized medicine, which is somehow supposed to make us all healthier, others point to the real problem with the medical industry vis-a-vis degenerative diseases; the lack of knowledge by street level medical practitioners which would otherwise allow them to effectively promote preventative healthcare. A large reason for this problem is not only the existing nutrition myths, for example, that animal fat/red meat causes elevated levels of cholesterol, but also because there is no profit in healthy people. Obviously, the majority of the US population has little clue what the consequences may be to their health, beyond heart disease and/or a weight problem, for lack of knowledge. History shows that an administrative government "war" on something, like the War on Cancer, or the War on Drugs, entails that eradication of the problem is not the desired goal while keeping our eyes averted from seeking a true solution. See: Behind the Drug War--Scratching the Surface.

Those who would invite a further and complete government takeover into healthcare as a solution, are effectively advocating the preservation of the existing healthcare price structure and its inevitable cost increases by having government take over payments. The people are tapped out and this is the provided solution on the horizon. While Moore gives the impression that he is going against the grain (oh my, he went to Cuba), further contemplation about the ramifications of his assertions may lead the more astute to conclude that he is controlled opposition. Is not socialized healthcare what Hillary was pushing for during the Clinton Administration? Moore the democrat, is that not just the other side of the same coin?

The result of a complete government takeover can be compared to the prescription drug bill passed in late 2003, times a factor of 100 or who knows how many zeroes you could add to that. The cost of the Medicare drug bill has been estimated at $1.2 trillion. So how would you like to be in the 45%+ tax bracket even though you take care of your body responsibly and healthy as a horse? Talk to a Canadian resident.

Something is terribly wrong when one of three people will eventually be afflicted with cancer. The ten minute trailer below is an example of the mounting evidence of deliberate supression of natural (and lower cost) solutions for this epidemic. This treatment is an example of many which have been around for many years and thousands upon thousands of people have found themselves cured of cancer following certain natural health protocols. So why do most people march like nut cracker toy soldiers to have themselves injected with toxic chemicals or zapped with cancer inducing radiation to cure what is a nutrition deficiency disease? This is yet another example that is difficult to chalk up to ignorance, at the regulatory agency and medical research level. There is no profit in healthy people or non-patentable natural products. Therefore,under the guise of protecting what the State regards as children of the State (you and me), the heavy hand of the FDA destroys those who makes waves by curing disease and saving lives without the approval of one of the most powerful lobbies on the planet.

Watch this film maker slam the gate keepers in this short video trailer (give it 15 or so seconds to load):



For more information about this DVD, please click: "Dying to Have Known."

Also: THE GERSON INSTITUTE

See also: Healthcare: Their Way or the Highway.

DISCLAIMER: This commentary does not constitute medical advice. Please do your own research.

Healthcare: Their Way or the Highway

Most people don't give a second thought to questioning conventional wisdom, "group think" or consensus reality. But once an individual makes the decision and gets into the practice of taking a few moments to engage in critical thinking, it can get habit forming.

In the arena of health and nutrition, the application of critical thinking shouldn't require a terminal or debilitating disease to provide the motivation for doing bit of research. While modern medicine has advanced incredibly in the area of surgical procedures and generally sowing people back together, when it comes to serious and chronic disease, could it simply be said that it sucks? It's not too difficult to imagine that there might be little motivation from the higher levels of the medical hiearchy in keeping the population healthy and disease free.

Most people do not have the faintest idea that health researchers, mostly those without corporate affiliations (yes, they include researchers with PhDs and MDs) have concluded that heart disease and cancer are nutritional deficiency diseases. Case in point regarding an international comparative study of lung cancer rates between American and Japanese men;

"Rates of lung cancer in American men have greatly exceeded those in Japanese men for several decades despite the higher smoking prevalence in Japanese men."

By the way, Japanese males smoke much more than American males. OK, so you think that ethnic differences have something to do with it. Think again;

"The rates of lung cancer in Japanese migrants and their offspring in the United States are similar to United States-born whites, which strongly suggests that most of the international variation in lung cancer rates is not attributable to ethnic differences in susceptibility."

Could this be as a result of the differences in diet between the two countries?

Now we take a look at heart disease, a disease which was relatively uncommon in the early 1900s. What has changed? A few things come to mind like for example the substitution of animal lard in cooking for processed vegetable oils. Take a look.

Here we had animal lard, chock full of fat soluble vitamins and this dietary staple, consumed by the public in massive quantities when heart disease was not considered a public health issue, and it has been virtually eradicated from the western diet and cooking practices. Are we so sure that the French, with their traditional diet of fatty cheeses, raw milk and steak tartar are experiencing a lower incidence of heart disease solely because of red wine consumption? Have you ever had a friend on the Atkins Diet tell you that his or her cholesterol plummeted once they got on the diet? Sometimes a little hint which is counter to what we've been told can really get our minds going.

Here's a bit of research regarding heart disease by a medical doctor who gets results with his natural treatment protocols, including reversing patient prognoses for heart transplants with the use of mainly vitamins C and E. Included in the research is a comment about the sizable reduction of rates of heart disease in the 1970s, when Linus Pauling recommended increased dosages of vitamin C to help prevent colds. As you peruse the research, keep in mind that Dr. Rath has endured quite a bit of official harrassment. Dr. Rath's web pages also include very interesting research on cancer and the positive results that can be obtain by giving the body what it needs.

Lastly, below is an excerpt of a quick summary on the evolution of modern medicine in America.

"When Flexner researched his report, allopathic medicine faced vigorous competition from several quarters, including osteopathic medicine, naturopathic medicine, eclectic medicine, physiomedicalism, herbal medicine and homeopathic medicine. Flexner clearly doubted the scientific validity of all forms of medicine other than the allopathic, deeming any approach to medicine that did not employ drugs to help cure the patient as tantamount to quackery and charlatanism. Medical schools that offered courses in bioelectric medicine, eclectic medicine, naturopathy, homeopathy, or "eastern medicine," for example, were told either to drop these courses from their curriculum or lose their accreditation and underwriting support. A few schools resisted for a time, but eventually all complied with the Report or shut their doors."

Indeed, the practice of medicine and medical schooling was an unregulated mish-mash less than 100 years ago. While this situation certainly allowed for what we would consider today an unlimited choice for the type of medical care we might desire, perhaps the solution provided went a bit too far when it has become a situation of 'their way or the highway,' literally. Today, thousands of Americans who have taken the time to do research (and have the money), must leave the country to obtain the type of medical care they desire which is either prohibited or career destroying for healthcare professionals to practice in the United States, the land of liberty. I never did realize that the Carnegie Foundation cared so much about protecting our health...or is it the bottom line? Nevertheless, I am sure that there are those out there who are glad that their choices of treatments have been narrowed down for them. Believe it or not, there was a time in the past when "buyer-beware" was a great way for consumers to establish satisfying commercial relationships.

Video trailer, THE GERSON THERAPY; Amazing testimonials regarding a natural cancer cure.




For more information about this DVD, please click: Dying to Have Known.

See also: THE GERSON INSTITUTE

DISCLAIMER: This commentary does not constitute medical advice. You should consult a licensed health professional for specific advice.

The Myths of Vegetarianism

by Stephen Byrnes, PhD, RNCP Originally published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, July 2000. Revised January 2002.

"Humans have always been meat-eaters. The fact that no human society is entirely vegetarian, and those that are almost entirely vegetarian suffer from debilitated conditions of health, seems unequivocally to prove that a plant diet must be supplemented with at least a minimum amount of animal protein to sustain health. Humans are meat-eaters and always have been. Humans are also vegetable eaters and always have been, but plant foods must be supplemented by an ample amount of animal protein to maintain optimal health."
HL Abrams. The relevance of Paleolithic diet in determining contemporary nutritional needs. J Appl Nutr, 1979, 1,2:43-59.

"An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion."—Alfred North Whitehead

Bill and Tanya sat before me in my office in a somber mood: they had just lost their first baby in the second month of pregnancy. Tanya was particularly upset. "Why did this happen to me? Why did I miscarry my baby?" The young couple had come to see me mostly because of Tanya's recurrent respiratory infections, but also wanted some advice as to how they could avoid the heartache of another failed pregnancy.

Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her diet and was also mostly a vegetarian. Because of the plentiful media rhetoric about the supposed dangers of animal product consumption, as opposed to the alleged health benefits of the vegetarian lifestyle, Tanya had deliberately removed such things as cream, butter, meats and fish from her diet. Although she liked liver, she avoided it due to worries over "toxins."

Tanya and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, other supplements and a dietary prescription that included plentiful amounts of animal fats and meat. Just before leaving my office, Tanya looked at me and said ruefully: "I just don't know what to believe sometimes. Everywhere I look there is all this low-fat, vegetarian stuff recommended. I followed it, and look what happened." I assured her that if she and her husband changed their diets and allowed sufficient time for her weakened uterus to heal, they would be happy parents in due time. In November 2000, Bill and Tanya happily gave birth to their first child, a girl.

The Evolution of a Myth

Along with the unjustified and unscientific saturated fat and cholesterol scares of the past several decades has come the notion that vegetarianism is a healthier dietary option for people. It seems as if every health expert and government health agency is urging people to eat fewer animal products and consume more vegetables, grains, fruits and legumes. Along with these exhortations have come assertions and studies supposedly proving that vegetarianism is healthier for people and that meat consumption is associated with sickness and death. Several authorities, however, have questioned these data, but their objections have been largely ignored.

As we shall see, many of the vegetarian claims cannot be substantiated and some are simply false and dangerous. There are benefits to vegetarian diets for certain health conditions, and some people function better on less fat and protein, but, as a practitioner who has dealt with several former vegetarians and vegans (total vegetarians), I know full well the dangerous effects of a diet devoid of healthful animal products. It is my hope that all readers will more carefully evaluate their position on vegetarianism after reading this paper.

Myth #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's natural resources.

Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

Myth #3: Our needs for vitamin D can be met by sunlight.

Myth #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from plant foods.

Myth #5: Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease, and cancer.

Myth #6: Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease, atherosclerosis, and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are healthier for people.

Myth #7: Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.

Myth #8: The "cave man" diet was low-fat and/or vegetarian. Humans evolved as vegetarians.

Myth #9: Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th century, with a corresponding increase in heart disease and cancer.

Myth #10: Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy products.

Myth #11: The human body is not designed for meat consumption.

Myth #12: Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behavior in humans.

Myth #13: Animal products contain numerous, harmful toxins.

Myth #14: Eating meat or animal products is less "spiritual" than eating only plant foods.

Myth #15: Eating animal foods is inhumane.

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html

See also:
The Importance of Saturated Fats for Biological Functions
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/import_sat_fat.html

Cholesterol and Heart Disease--A Phony Issue
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/fats_phony.html

The Benefits of High Cholesterol
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html