Swearing Can Significantly Reduce Physical Pain

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Studies show that swearing can significantly reduce physical pain. But according to a new study, it doesn’t work as well if you curse frequently.

Richard Stephens at Keele University in the U.K. and colleagues found that people who were asked to dunk their hand in ice-cold water were better able to tolerate the pain and they left their hands in the buckets for a full 40 seconds longer if they were allowed to swear, compared with people who were asked to utter a non-curse word. In the new study, Stephens repeated the previous experiment, asking 71 college students to submerge their hands in freezing water for as long as they could bear it. One group was asked to repeat a swear word of their choice — one they might use if they banged their head accidentally, for instance — while their hands were in the water. The other group was asked to repeat a control word they might use to describe a table. Then, both groups repeated the task using the word they hadn’t previously tried. The researchers found that 73% of the participants kept their hands under water longer while swearing, replicating the original finding. On average, the swearers lasted 31 seconds longer in the cold hand plunge.

Interestingly, however, the more frequently participants reported swearing during the course of their daily lives, the less effective cursing was at killing their pain and the shorter their endurance time in the cold water test. It seems that swearing may help relieve pain by activating the brain’s endogenous opioids, the natural pain-relieving chemicals whose effects on the brain are similar to pain drugs like morphine and oxycodone. As with opioid drugs, repeated swearing may increase people’s tolerance to their effects, and cause them to need higher “doses” of cursing to achieve the same effect. In some sense, people may become addicted to — or at least physically dependent on — cursing. The authors note that people who frequently express their anger verbally tend to be more sensitive to both acute and chronic pain. Indeed, research has found that these high “trait anger out” individuals also have a higher threshold for triggering endogenous opioid action in the brain. In other words, unless these people vigorously express their anger verbally, they feel more pain. Although the current study didn’t look at people who have this temperament, it’s possible that those who tend to swear or express their anger frequently are trying to relieve their pain and irritability. They could become more outwardly angry over time, in order to chase opioid pain relief, which they increasingly become more tolerant to. Such individuals may also be especially susceptible to opioid addiction, and if they become addicted, they may be good candidates for long-term maintenance on the drugs to relieve this pre-existing opioid system dysfunction.

For everyone else, using swear words sparingly, and only for the choice pain that really requires them, may help maximize their pain-relieving effect.

Sources:
The study was published in the Journal of Pain.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/23/why-swearing-sparingly-can-help-kill-pain

DIY, shipping container home

For anyone out there that thinks it's too expensive to live a life of luxury... Think again.

These are simple and cheap to make. If you like this idea share with your friends!

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

If you like that you might want to check out these other videos of shipping container homes below:

As Bee Death Toll Skyrockets, Media Forced to Cover Neonicotinoid Pesticides

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

A study published June 14th 2013, in the Journal of Applied Ecology sheds some much needed light on the severe implications of neonicotinoid insecticides. Neonicotinoid insecticides are applied to the seeds of target crops and grow with the plant which make them systemic within these crops, travelling through all the tissues of the plant. This makes them highly effective at killing insects, which in turn makes them the most widely used pesticides in the world.

The use of neonicotinoids is entirely contradictory to the sustainable farming method of integrated pest management (IPM). Also when comparing the cost of application to the benefit provided, the cost of the insecticide is often found to exceed that of actual crop yield. The author of the study, Prof Dave Goulson, says: “Studies from the US suggest that neonicotinoid seed dressings may be either entirely ineffective or cost more than the benefit in crop yield gained from their use. We seem to be in a situation where farmers are advised primarily by agronomists involved in selling them pesticides.”

New findings show that neonicotinoids persist and accumulate in the soil longer than originally findings have shown. Being systemic they are also in the pollen and nectar of treated plants, which provides for their unintended spreading and harm as the concentrations are sufficient to substantially impact colony reproduction in bumblebees. Only 20% of the applied chemical remains with the seed, the other 80% is lost during sowing in the air and soil. The aerial dust alone, that results from sowing seeds, has shown to cause
direct mortality in nearby flying honeybees.

The impact of pesticides on honeybees has taken such a toll that even the mainstream media is now forced to cover it.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

by Matt Agorist, RealFarmacy.com

Source: realfarmacy.com

How the Media Deceives You About Health Issues

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Think about how many times you've heard an evening news anchor spit out some variation on the phrase, "According to experts ." It's such a common device that most of us hardly hear it anymore. But we do hear the "expert" - the professor or doctor or watchdog group - tell us whom to vote for, what to eat, when to buy stock. And, most of the time, we trust them.

Image: dprogram.net 

Now ask yourself, how many times has that news anchor revealed who those experts are, where they get their funding, and what constitutes their political agenda? If you answered never, you'd be close.

That's the driving complaint behind Trust Us, We're Experts, a new book co-authored by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of the Center for Media and Democracy.

Unlike many so-called "experts," the Center's agenda is quite overt - to expose the shenanigans of the public relations industry, which pays, influences and even invents a startling number of those experts.

The third book co-authored by Stauber and Rampton, Trust Us hit bookstore shelves in January.

There are two kinds of "experts" in question -- the PR spin doctors behind the scenes and the "independent" experts paraded before the public, scientists who have been hand-selected, cultivated, and paid handsomely to promote the views of corporations involved in controversial actions.

Lively writing on controversial topics such as

dioxin
bovine growth hormone
genetically modified food
makes this a real page-turner, shocking in its portrayal of the real and potential dangers in each of hese technological innovations and of the "media pseudo-environment" created to hide the risks.

By financing and publicizing views that support the goals of corporate sponsors, PR campaigns have, over the course of the century, managed to suppress the dangers of lead poisoning for decades, silence the scientist who discovered that rats fed on genetically modified corn had significant organ abnormalities, squelch television and newspaper stories about the risks of bovine growth hormone, and place enough confusion and doubt in the public's mind about global warming to suppress any mobilization for action.

Rampton and Stauber introduce the movers and shakers of the PR industry, from the "risk communicators" (whose job is to downplay all risks) and "outrage managers" (with their four strategies -- deflect, defer, dismiss, or defeat) to those who specialize in "public policy intelligence" (spying on opponents).

Evidently, these elaborate PR campaigns are created for our own good. According to public relations philosophers, the public reacts emotionally to topics related to health and safety and is incapable of holding rational discourse. Needless to say, Rampton and Stauber find these views rather antidemocratic and intend to pull back the curtain to reveal the real wizard in Oz.

Metro Media: What was the most surprising or disturbing manipulation of public opinion you reveal in your book?

John Stauber: The most disturbing aspect is not a particular example, but rather the fact that the news media regularly fails to investigate so-called "independent experts" associated with industry front groups. They all have friendly-sounding names like "Consumer Alert" and "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," but they fail to reveal their corporate funding and their propaganda agenda, which is to smear legitimate heath and community safety concerns as "junk-science fear-mongering."

The news media frequently uses the term "junk science" to smear environmental health advocates. The PR industry has spent more than a decade and many millions of dollars funding and creating industry front groups which wrap them in the flag of "sound science." In reality, their "sound science" is progress as defined by the tobacco industry, the drug industry, the chemical industry, the genetic engineering industry, the petroleum industry and so on.

Metro Media: Is the public becoming more aware of PR tactics and false experts? Or are those tactics and experts becoming more savvy and effective?

Stauber: The truth is that the situation is getting worse, not better. More and more of what we see, hear and read as "news" is actually PR content.

On any given day much or most of what the media transmits or prints as news is provided by the PR industry.

It's off press releases, the result of media campaigns, heavily spun and managed, or in the case of "video news releases" it's fake TV news - stories completely produced and supplied for free by former journalists who've gone over to PR. TV news directors air these VNRs as news. So the media not only fails to identify PR manipulations, it is the guilty party by passing them on as news.

Metro Media: What's the solution for the excesses of the PR industry? Just more media literacy and watchdog organizations like yours? Or should the PR industry be regulated in some way?

Stauber: In our last chapter, "Question Authority," we identify some of the most common propaganda tactics so that individuals and journalists and public interest scientists can do a better job of not being snowed and fooled. But ultimately those who have the most power and money in any society are going to use the most sophisticated propaganda tactics available to keep democracy at bay and the rabble in line.

There are some specific legislative steps that could be taken without stepping on the First Amendment. One is that all nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations - charities and educational groups, for instance - should be required by law to reveal their institutional funders of, say, $500 or more.

That way when a journalist or a citizen hears that a scientific report is from a group like the American Council on Science and Health, a quick trip to the IRS Web site could reveal that this group gets massive infusions of industry money, and that the corporations that fund it benefit from its proclamations that pesticides are safe, genetically engineered food will save the planet, lead contamination isn't really such a big deal, climate change isn't happening, and so on.

The public clearly doesn't understand that most nonprofit groups (not ours, by the way) take industry and government grants, or are even the nonprofit arm of industry.

Source: oawhealth.com

146 Ways That Sugar is Destroying Your Health

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Image: sodahead.com

1. Sugar can suppress the immune system.

2. Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in the body.

3. Sugar can cause hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children.

4. Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.

5. Sugar contributes to the reduction in defense against bacterial infection (infectious diseases).

6. Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function, the more sugar you eat the more elasticity and function you loose.

7. Sugar reduces high density lipoproteins.

8. Sugar leads to chromium deficiency.

9 Sugar leads to cancer of the ovaries.

10. Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose.

11. Sugar causes copper deficiency.

12. Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.

13. Sugar can weaken eyesight.

14. Sugar raises the level of a neurotransmitters: dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine.

15. Sugar can cause hypoglycemia.

16. Sugar can produce an acidic digestive tract.

17. Sugar can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline levels in children.

18. Sugar malabsorption is frequent in patients with functional bowel disease.

19. Sugar can cause premature aging.

20. Sugar can lead to alcoholism.

21. Sugar can cause tooth decay.

22. Sugar contributes to obesity

23. High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis.

24. Sugar can cause changes frequently found in person with gastric or duodenal ulcers.

25. Sugar can cause arthritis.

26. Sugar can cause asthma.

27. Sugar greatly assists the uncontrolled growth of Candida Albicans (yeast infections).

28. Sugar can cause gallstones.

29. Sugar can cause heart disease.

30. Sugar can cause appendicitis.

31. Sugar can cause multiple sclerosis.

32. Sugar can cause hemorrhoids.

33. Sugar can cause varicose veins.

34. Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraceptive users.

35. Sugar can lead to periodontal disease.

36. Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.

37. Sugar contributes to saliva acidity.

38. Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity.

39. Sugar can lower the amount of Vitamin E (alpha-Tocopherol in the blood.

40. Sugar can decrease growth hormone.

41. Sugar can increase cholesterol.

42. Sugar can increase the systolic blood pressure.

43. Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.

44. High sugar intake increases advanced glycation end products (AGEs)(Sugar bound non-enzymatically to protein)

45. Sugar can interfere with the absorption of protein.

46. Sugar causes food allergies.

47. Sugar can contribute to diabetes.

48. Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.

49. Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.

50. Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease.

51. Sugar can impair the structure of DNA

52. Sugar can change the structure of protein.

53. Sugar can make our skin age by changing the structure of collagen.

54. Sugar can cause cataracts.

55. Sugar can cause emphysema.

56. Sugar can cause atherosclerosis.

57. Sugar can promote an elevation of low density lipoproteins (LDL).

58. High sugar intake can impair the physiological homeostasis of many systems in the body.

59. Sugar lowers the enzymes ability to function.

60. Sugar intake is higher in people with Parkinson’s disease.

61. Sugar can cause a permanent altering the way the proteins act in the body.

62. Sugar can increase the size of the liver by making the liver cells divide.

63. Sugar can increase the amount of liver fat.

64. Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the kidney.

65. Sugar can damage the pancreas.

66. Sugar can increase the body's fluid retention.

67. Sugar is enemy #1 of the bowel movement.

68. Sugar can cause myopia (nearsightedness).

69. Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries.

70. Sugar can make the tendons more brittle.

71. Sugar can cause headaches, including migraine.

72. Sugar plays a role in pancreatic cancer in women.

73. Sugar can adversely affect school children's grades and cause learning disorders..

74. Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha, and theta brain waves.

75. Sugar can cause depression.

76. Sugar increases the risk of gastric cancer.

77. Sugar and cause dyspepsia (indigestion).

78. Sugar can increase your risk of getting gout.

79. Sugar can increase the levels of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test over the ingestion of complex carbohydrates.

80. Sugar can increase the insulin responses in humans consuming high-sugar diets compared to low sugar diets.

81 High refined sugar diet reduces learning capacity.

82. Sugar can cause less effective functioning of two blood proteins, albumin, and lipoproteins, which may reduce the body’s ability to handle fat and cholesterol.

83. Sugar can contribute to Alzheimer’s disease.

84. Sugar can cause platelet adhesiveness.

85. Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance; some hormones become underactive and others become overactive.

86. Sugar can lead to the formation of kidney stones.

87. Sugar can lead to the hypothalamus to become highly sensitive to a large variety of stimuli.

88. Sugar can lead to dizziness.

89. Diets high in sugar can cause free radicals and oxidative stress.

90. High sucrose diets of subjects with peripheral vascular disease significantly increases platelet adhesion.

91. High sugar diet can lead to biliary tract cancer.

92. Sugar feeds cancer.

93. High sugar consumption of pregnant adolescents is associated with a twofold increased risk for delivering a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infant.

94. High sugar consumption can lead to substantial decrease in gestation duration among adolescents.

95. Sugar slows food's travel time through the gastrointestinal tract.

96. Sugar increases the concentration of bile acids in stools and bacterial enzymes in the colon. This can modify bile to produce cancer-causing compounds and colon cancer.

97. Sugar increases estradiol (the most potent form of naturally occurring estrogen) in men.

98. Sugar combines and destroys phosphatase, an enzyme, which makes the process of digestion more difficult.

99. Sugar can be a risk factor of gallbladder cancer.

100. Sugar is an addictive substance.

101. Sugar can be intoxicating, similar to alcohol.

102. Sugar can exacerbate PMS.

103. Sugar given to premature babies can affect the amount of carbon dioxide they produce.

104. Decrease in sugar intake can increase emotional stability.

105. The body changes sugar into 2 to 5 times more fat in the bloodstream than it does starch.

106. The rapid absorption of sugar promotes excessive food intake in obese subjects.

107. Sugar can worsen the symptoms of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

108. Sugar adversely affects urinary electrolyte composition.

109. Sugar can slow down the ability of the adrenal glands to function.

110. Sugar has the potential of inducing abnormal metabolic processes in a normal healthy individual and to promote chronic degenerative diseases.

111.. I.Vs (intravenous feedings) of sugar water can cut off oxygen to the brain.

112. High sucrose intake could be an important risk factor in lung cancer.

113. Sugar increases the risk of polio.

114. High sugar intake can cause epileptic seizures.

115. Sugar causes high blood pressure in obese people.

116. In Intensive Care Units, limiting sugar saves lives.

117. Sugar may induce cell death.

118. Sugar can increase the amount of food that you eat.

119. In juvenile rehabilitation camps, when children were put on a low sugar diet, there was a 44% drop in antisocial behavior.

120. Sugar can lead to prostrate cancer.

121. Sugar dehydrates newborns.

122. Sugar increases the estradiol in young men.

123. Sugar can cause low birth weight babies.

124. Greater consumption of refined sugar is associated with a worse outcome of schizophrenia

125. Sugar can raise homocysteine levels in the blood stream.

126. Sweet food items increase the risk of breast cancer.

127. Sugar is a risk factor in cancer of the small intestine.

128. Sugar may cause laryngeal cancer.

129. Sugar induces salt and water retention.

130. Sugar may contribute to mild memory loss.

131. As sugar increases in the diet of 10 years olds, there is a linear decrease in the intake of many essential nutrients.

132. Sugar can increase the total amount of food consumed.

133. Exposing a newborn to sugar results in a heightened preference for sucrose relative to water at 6 months and 2 years of age.

134. Sugar causes constipation.

135. Sugar causes varicous veins.

136. Sugar can cause brain decay in prediabetic and diabetic women.

137. Sugar can increase the risk of stomach cancer.

138. Sugar can cause metabolic syndrome.

139. Sugar ingestion by pregnant women increases neural tube defects in embryos.

140. Sugar can be a factor in asthma.

141. The higher the sugar consumption the more chances of getting irritable bowel syndrome.

142. Sugar could affect central reward systems.

143. Sugar can cause cancer of the rectum.

144. Sugar can cause endometrial cancer.

145. Sugar can cause renal (kidney) cell carcinoma.

146. Sugar can cause liver tumors.

Source: http://www.oawhealth.com/learning/146-reasons-why-sugar-is-ruining-your-health.html

Israeli Supreme Court Rules to Remove Fluoride From Nation's Water

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), an Israeli Supreme Court ruling on July 29 requires Israel to discontinue fluoridation of its public water supplies in one year.

Image: Raw For Beauty

In November 2012, Yaacov Gurman, head of the Izun Hozer Association for Dissemination of Health Education, petitioned Israel’s highest court, demanding that the Ministry of Health cease water fluoridation because it presents dangers to health and its benefits are no longer widely accepted.

Fluoridation began in Israel in 1974, after a regulation mandated it. That mandate was removed when a new regulation was introduced in 2003 by the Minister of Health, Yael German.

“It must be known to you that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill,” including “people who suffer from thyroid problems,” German wrote in a letter addressed to doctors opposed to ending fluoridation.

The new court ruling will not only end Israel’s mandatory fluoridation by 2014 but will prohibit voluntary fluoridation as well.

FAN Executive Director Paul Connett, PhD, says, “Zealous fluoridation promoters try to convince the American public that ‘everyone drinks fluoridated water.’ But the opposite is true. An overwhelming number of countries do not fluoridate, including 97% of the European population. In fact, over half the people in the world drinking fluoridated water live in the US. We are the odd ones out.”

“Fluoridation is an outdated, unscientific, failed public health blunder,” says Connett. “What I find remarkable here is that Health Minister German has been able to escape the unscientific belief system on fluoridation that traps so many public health bureaucracies in fluoridated countries.”

In recent years, communities around the world have abandoned the practice of water fluoridation. In the U.S., Wichita, Kansas, and Portland, Oregon have each rejected fluoridation. Hamilton, New Zealand, and Windsor, Ontario have both voted to stop fluoridation. Regional councils in Queensland have halted or rejected fluoridation since its mandatory requirement was removed in November 2012. Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. is currently working to halt fluoridation in New York City.
Research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals indicates that fluoride ingestion is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and harmful to health.

Source: rawforbeauty.com

sacbee.com

Check out this great MSN video - Bizarre fungus waves hello

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine



We figured if anyone knew what this was you guys would. Any clues?

Fluoride is killing you and the environment

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Map of US Fluoridation

How would you like it if someone slipped a carcinogenic, brain damaging, endocrine disrupting, and industrial pollutant into your morning coffee? Well, if you live in the United States there is a 72% chance that this already happens to you on a daily basis. Sound crazy? Well it should sound crazy, but that doesn’t negate the fact that municipalities throughout the US add toxic waste to your drinking water in the name of “dental health.”

Hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride are the by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry, and until recently this was the sole source of the chemicals cities used to “treat” the water supply. Recently, however, many municipalities have been importing a lower quality product from China. The fluoride that is paid for with your tax dollars is actually classified as a hazardous waste by the EPA. The DOT Classification of Hydrofluorosilicic acid is a CLASS 8: Corrosive liquid. If the phosphate fertilizer industry had to pay to dispose of it, they would be paying a pretty penny; instead they use government to profit from the sale of their toxic waste to be dumped in to water supplies ultimately ending up inside your body. Below is the Toxicity Data from the Material Safety Data Sheet on Hydrofluorosilicic acid.

“Severe irritant. Ingestion may cause burns of the gastrointestinal tract leading to vomiting, acidocis, bloody diarrhoea, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache and shock. Circulatory system may be affected with symptoms of shock, rapid, weak or no pulse, severe hypotension and pumonary changes with dyspnea, and emphysaema. In some cases, necrosis and haemorrhage of the  gastrointestinal tract, liver damage and death may occur. Scarring of the gastrointestinal tract may occur in non-fatal cases.” And this is put in to water for you and I to drink.
37 studies have linked fluoride ingestion with reduction in IQ. Most recently was the study out of the Harvard School of public Health that concluded, “children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas.” Dozens more studies show the ineffectiveness of fluoride ingestion in preventing dental caries; they actually show an increase in dental fluorosis instead of a reduction in decay. Even if the science is not enough to make you throw your arms in the air and march into your local city hall to demand they remove the fluoride from the water, the fact that you are being drugged without your consent should be the final nail in the coffin. Yes, the FDA considers fluoride a “drug.”

The question that should be asked now is, if all the information gathered by independent research groups all over the world shows that the effects of fluoridating the water supply are detrimental to the health of the populace, why then would politicians be pushing for it? Why do they continue to ignore the thousands of professionals that constantly petition the state for the removal of fluoride from the water system, the decades of scientific studies, and the horrifying concept of mass drugging a population without consent? In fact, in 1952 The Delaney Committee 82nd Congress Hearings on Fluoride revealed that there was no actual scientific basis for the fluoridation of water supplies in the prevention of tooth decay. Their recommendation was ignored.

There is little doubt that ingesting fluoride is harmful to your health. If you need more evidence of this, simply read the back of your tube of toothpaste. Under warnings, it states something to the effect of “If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.” Exactly how much toothpaste is “more than used for brushing” is a subjective amount, but we can take the fact that the majority of toothpastes on the market contain .15% fluoride ion or 1500 ppm and then convert that amount to drinking water levels. Most fluoridated water contains about 1.0 ppm, if the bureaucracy that runs the poison distribution center is functioning properly.  That means that in 1 liter of water, you would find about 1 mg of fluoride. In about 1.5 ml of toothpaste (a large strip on the bristles) you would find 2.25 mg of fluoride. In a small amount of toothpaste for children, the size of a pea, you would find 0.3 mg of fluoride. Apply these amounts to the 1.0 ppm level in drinking water and somewhere between 300 ml to 2 liters is the same amount of fluoride needed to be ingested that toothpaste manufacturers recommend you put in a call to poison control; and this is in our drinking water.

If the fact the fluoride lowers your IQ, is linked to cancer, is poisonous, is a hazardous bi-product of phosphate fertilizer production, and is being given to you without your consent doesn’t get you riled up, then maybe the environmental aspect will.

A rule of thumb for fluoride dispersion through public water is around 130 lethal doses of fluoride per person annually. Fluoride slowly accumulates in our bodies as well as in the environment. It doesn’t just blow away in the wind, nor get easily expelled in the urine. It first goes to the bone, then to the teeth, then to the hard tissue such as cartilage, tendons, and blood vessel walls, and finally what’s left over gets excreted via the kidneys. Approximately 50% of the fluorine ingested, remains and accumulates in the body.

Fluoride cannot be removed from drinking water with a charcoal filter; only a reverse-osmosis filter or steam distilling process will remove fluoride. Boiling water for soup, coffee, tea or other drink, only concentrates fluoride. Approximately 1.2 grams of sodium fluoride will kill an adult human being. That was the low estimate that Dominic Smith ingested when he died from an overdose of fluoridated water at Hooper Bay, Alaska on 23 May 1992. (Approximately 200 mg will kill a small child.)

Water utility companies advertise that they supply us with approximately 115 gallons of fresh water per person, per day. That’s approximately 400 liters per person, daily. Humans only drink approximately one-fourth of one percent of the fresh water supplied by the water utility companies. Therefore, for every 400 liters per person that gets supplied, just 1 liter get swallowed in food or drink (including coffee, juice, soda pop, soups or any other beverage made with fluoridated water), while the other 399 liters of water goes for baths, watering lawns, washing cars, flushing toilets, putting out fires, etc.

In the fluoridation process at the water treatment plant, fluoride is added to our water supply at the rate of one part per million, or 1 milligram per liter. One milligram is the daily intended “target dose” of this “medicine,” for each child under 14 years of age whose teeth haven’t yet fully formed. Adults and pets supposedly don’t count in this equation, even though they also receive their own fluoride in extremely unreliable and varying dosages. Therefore, for every 400 liters of water supplied to us, a full 400 milligrams of fluoride is added to the water supply. However, since only 1 milligram of that amount (one liter of water) is swallowed, 399 milligrams of excess fluoride literally gets flushed down into the sewer or sprayed out onto the ground as a fully legal toxic waste dumping ground.

Since we even bought the toxic waste, that’s quite profitable for whomever manufactured and sold it, but not very healthy for Mother Earth. Exactly how many lethal doses are disseminated in this manner? Simple math on the above numbers reveals that 140 grams of fluoride per person is dumped into the environment each year. 140 grams of fluoride gives us our rule of thumb of 130 LETHAL DOSES OF FLUORIDE PER PERSON, PER YEAR, DUMPED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT wherever “standard” water fluoridation is used.

Multiply 130 by 150 million people (the total number of U.S. population currently drinking fluoridated water) and that makes 20 billion lethal doses of fluoride per year, dumped into our environment. That’s an additive 10 million tons of rat-poison spread across America yearly, in the name of dental health.

So consider this an ACTION ALERT. Go to your city hall and tell them that you are tired of being poisoned and you don’t want fluoride put in your water supply anymore. Municipalities all over the US have been getting fluoride removed. I live in Louisiana and in 2010 the state passed La. Admin. Code Tit. 48, § 1315 that mandates all supplies with populations over 5000 people be fluoridated, yet we resisted and we won. Thanks to an informed minority, we remain fluoride free! You can do the same.

Source: RealFarmacy.com 

Ground Breaking Study Could Spell the End For GMOs

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

It sounds like science fiction or even quackery. However the results of this latest study conducted by Warrenstown Horticultural College and the Chemical & Environmental Science Dept., University of Limerick, Ireland, say otherwise.

Image: Raw For Beauty

This 35 page report tested the effects of “Vi-Aqua,” a system that electro-magnetically charges water, on a cross-section of vegetation from Rye Grass to ornamental plants of various species. The plant experiment confirmed enhanced vigor of growth and stronger plant structure, which increased damage resistance in the treated specimens.

The study explains, “All vegetation-derived energy on this planet is solar in origin. Only approximately 1% of the solar energy, which impinges on the Earth, is captured. This is through the agency of Chlorophyll in most forms of plant life. Animal life on this planet is critically dependent upon the continued availability of energy donating vegetation for its survival. Since all living organisms have evolved in the presence of a strong natural geomagnetic field the possible influence of magnetic fields on living organisms increasingly has become the subject of research endeavors. The possibility of enhancing plant growth utilizing a natural activity such as magnetism has stimulated research over at least the past six decades.”

The study highlights the effects of the changes of the plants. “Sophisticated tests which measure hydrogen bonding properties indicated that EM radiation reduced the size of hydrogen bonded water networks. In particular the changes in the hydrogen bonding networks affected the solution of naturally dissolved gases in the water. This hydrogen bonding modification slowly decayed to undetectable levels several hours after the treatment was stopped. Modifying hydrogen bonding has had several possible consequences for live plants loosening the hydrogen bonding in cell walls permitted the faster growth of plants due to reduced resistance to cells elongating during the growth process.”

The implications for this technology are optimistic to say the least. If this study can be replicated we could see a major decline in the proliferation of GMOs, because this system can produce very similar resistance in plants simply by making them healthier, hardier and less prone to damage from insects and drought.

by Matt Agorist, REALfarmacy.com

Source: realfarmacy.com