I know a lot of people who are vegetarians, and because they are vegetarians, they would rather take Vitamin D2 than Vitamin D3, since Vitamin D2 is a non-animal product derived from irradiated mushrooms whereas Vitamin D3 is an animal product derived from the lanolin of sheep. But, I really think it's a good idea to make an exception in this case because Vitamin D3 is natural Vitamin D, cholecalciferol, identical to what your body produces from sunlight. But, D2 is a foreign chemical, a drug with some Vitamin-D-like properties, but it is not the real thing. 

An analogy can be made to the drug Progestin, which is a synthetic analogue of Progesterone but not identical to it. It causes lots of problem for women and has lots of risk, whereas natural, bio-identical Progesterone is very safe. And it's the same thing here: Vitamin D3 is natural, bio-identical Vitamin D.

This article just came out about muscule damage in athletes taking Vitamin D2, but it is hardly the first article of its kind. The disruptive dysfunctionality of Vitamin D2 within the human body has been known for years- make that decades. Nobody should be consuming it.

Taking supplemental Vitamin D is a very good idea because practically no one can reach an optimal blood level through sunlight alone. Plus, there is very little Vitamin D in foods, and what little there is occurs only in animal foods. It's true that milk and other foods are often fortified with Vitamin D, but guess what? They almost always use Vitamin D2! So, that's no good either.

I don't eat meat, and I have no desire to. But, I do take Vitamin D3. If that sounds like a contradiction, then so be it! That's because this is very important. Vitamin D has the potential to make the difference between life and death. Vitamin D, among other things, is an anti-cancer compound. It has the ability to destroy cancer cells at their earliest formation. Who doesn't want that working for them? Just be practical about this. I strongly urge you to do so. Now, here is the new artcle:


Results from a new study show that vitamin D2 may not be beneficial to muscle health in athletes.

There is ongoing study about the difference in effects of vitamin D3 versus vitamin D2 on human health. Vitamin D3 is the form of vitamin D that humans produce from sun exposure. Vitamin D2 is a form of vitamin D produced by certain plant species, like mushrooms. Supplement manufacturers make both kinds, but vitamin D3 is more commonly produced and found on store shelves.

In recent years, researchers have found that vitamin D3 may be more beneficial of the two and have questioned the use of vitamin D2.

Recently, researchers at the Appalachian State University in North Carolina set out to see the effects of vitamin D2 supplementation on reducing exercise-induced inflammation and muscle damage in athletes.

The research team recruited NASCAR pit crew members for the study. Pit crew members often undergo intense weight lifting and other muscle related exercise during their job.

They conducted a double blind randomized controlled trial study on pit crew members for six weeks. During the six weeks, the pit crew members either took 3,800 IU/day of vitamin D2 or a placebo.

They found that the pit crew members taking vitamin D2 had increased muscle damage compared to those taking a placebo.

“This is the first time research has shown that vitamin D2 supplementation is associated with higher muscle damage after intense weight lifting, and thus cannot be recommend for athletes,” said lead researcher Dr. David Nieman.

Based on their results, Dr. Nieman suggests that something is occurring at the muscle level with vitamin D2 that specifically worsens muscle damage.

“High vitamin D2 levels are not a normal experience for the human body,” Dr. David Nieman stated. “Taking high doses of vitamin D2 caused something to happen at the muscle that isn’t in the best interest of the athletes.”

During the study, those who took vitamin D2 had their vitamin D3 levels decrease, which is one theory for why vitamin D2 increased muscle damage.


The Silk corporation makes soy milk and almond milk, both of which are widely available in supermarkets. But of late, they have decided to really push the almond milk with advertising. And, I think their tv ads have really been cute and effective.

The ads feature this little almond-man talking to some guy in the kitchen about what to pour over his cereal at breakfast. The little almond keeps saying, "would you rather have this or this?" while the screen flashes back and forth from the two of them to a very close-up picture of a cow being milked, where you can see the udders up-close and some hands yanking on the udders and milk squirting out. It's a reminder of the very bovine nature of milk.

I have visited dairy farms, and it's something that everyone should do because there you really get the sense of how bovine milk is. And when I say bovine, I mean strong-smelling of cow, including cow sweat, cow dung, cow urine, etc., with flies everywhere, etc. Most people don't realize that commercial milk from Big Ag is, among other things, DEODORIZED. After visiting a dairy farm- whether large or small- you don't come away with any desire to drink milk. And I was reminded of that in watching that close-up of a cow being milked in the ad. The only thing it lacked was the flies.    

So, why not get your milk from something as clean as an almond?

As far as the Silk Almond milk goes, I have had it, but it's nothing that I would use on a regular basis. It's OK, but it's sweetened. It has a lot of nutritional fortification, and one of the things it's fortified with is Vitamin D. However, they use Vitamin D2, which is the synthetic, pharmaceutical Vitamin D and not natural Vitamin D, which is Vitamin D3. The Vitamin D Council urges everyone to avoid Vitamin D2, pointing out that virtually all of the cases of Vitamin D toxiciity have involved Vitamin D2 and not Vitamin D3. There is a world of difference between them, and Vitamin D3 is much to be preferred. Again, they use Vitamin D2 in Silk Almond mlk, but fortunately, it is a very low dose.

But, even if that were not an issue, there is no good reason to depend on commercial almond milk when you can make your own so easily. I make it just about every day. I used three kinds of nuts: almonds, pecans, and walnuts. I use a regular blender and a blender cup. A blender cup is just an 8 ounce cup that accepts the blade and housing of the blender, and it's meant for an individual serving. I fill the blender cup with nuts about half-way, and then I fill it to the top with purified water. Then I blend at high speed for about 8 seconds. That's it! It delivers a very white, pure, silky-smooth, delicoius nut mlilk which I pour over whole-grain cereal or oatmeal.

The reason why it is important to use a blender cup is because the nuts and water have to be under pressure in order to force the nuts down into the blade. If you try to use a regular big blender basin, the nuts will just fly around the top, and it will never work. You need that high pressure condition. So, be sure to fill the blender cup to the top with water.

And by the way, it keeps very well too. The blender cup comes with a cap, so if you don't use it all, you can screw on the cap, put it in the fridge, and it's still good the next day.

So, I am very enthused about homemade nut milk, and that's how I make it. I like the idea of the commercial almond milk better than the commecial soy milk, however, it's only something that I might use when I'm traveling. That's it. Otherwise, there's no need for it. Get yourself a blender cup and make your own nut milk at home.

But, they certainly do a good job of selling the idea that nut milk is superior to and preferable to bovine milk. Who needs cow's milk? It's food for baby cows, not adult humans, or even young humans. I wouldn't give dairy milk to kids either.

The Food and Drug Administration is recommending that doctors stop prescribing combination drugs that contain more than 325 milligrams of acetaminophen per tablet, capsule, or other dosage unit, citing the risk of possible liver damage. 

The agency said in a statement Tuesday that limiting the amount of acetaminophen per dosage unit will reduce the risk of severe liver damage from an inadvertent acetaminophen overdose, which can lead to liver failure, liver transplant, and death. 

"There are no available data to show that taking more than 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit provides additional benefit that outweighs the added risks for liver injury," the statement read.  

Combination acetaminophen drugs, such as Tylenol and Panadol, are commonly prescribed to consumers to treat pain, such as pain from acute injuries, post-operative pain, or tooth pain following dental procedures. 

In January 2011, the FDA asked manufacturers of prescription combination drugs containing acetaminophen to limit the amount of acetaminophen to no more than 325 mg in each tablet or capsule by January 14, 2014. 

While more than half of prescription drug manufacturers complied with the request, some  combination drug products containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit remain on the market, according to the agency.

The danger of liver toxicity from Acetaminophen is well known and well understood. People have the sense that Tylenol is the one safe pain killer, without major risk, but it's a mistake. Acetaminophen appears to be less toxic to the kidneys than other pain killers but more toxic to the liver. So, which organ do you like better?

However, there are some things that worsen the danger of liver damage from Acetaminophen:

1. Alcohol. Combining alcohol and acetaminophen multiples the risk of harm. So, DON'T DRINK AT ALL IF YOU ARE TAKING ACETAMINOPHEN.

2. Taking it under fasting conditions, even just missing a few meals, makes it far more likely to do harm. So, you shouldn't take Acetaminophen without eating. Furthermore, eating high anti-oxidant foods seems to offset some of the danger. It is a free-radical reaction that damages the liver, so nutrients that fight free radicals (antioxidants) inhibit the harm.

3. There are specific nutrients, and one in particular, that seem to inhibit the harm, namely, N-Acetyl Cysteine or NAC. I have been told that every hospital in this country- and maybe in the world- keeps NAC in their ER to be used in cases of Acetaminophen poiisoning. Is there any reason why NAC can't be taken preventatively along with Acetaminophen? I don't know of any. And if you didn't want to take it at the exact same time, you could certainly take it on the same day. And that is what I suggest you do. Take 500 mg of NAC two or three times a day whenever you are taking Acetaminophen. And keep taking it for several days after you stop taking Acetaminophen.

4. It can't be stressed enough that limiting the dose of Acetaminophen is extremely important. Just take as little as you can get by with. Be as strong as you can. I realize that pain is debilitating, but just try to get the pain level down to what you can reasonably tolerate. And stop it completely as soon as you can.

Unfortunately, there are no good pain killers, meaning, no safe ones. Using aspirin as a pain-killer is bad for the stomach and the kidneys- and you can bleed to death from it. All of the NSAIDs like Ibuprofen are extremely bad for the kidneys. And the active ingredient in Aleve, Naproxen, is also very bad for the kidneys.

You don't want to mess with your kidneys because damage to your kidneys is often silent and always rreversible. By the time you find out about it, it's too late.

The fact that with Acetaminophen there is a known antidote in NAC makes it more appealling to me. So, I actually keep it around, and have some here right now. Very rarely I have taken it, such as for a tooth ache. But, I have great awareness of the danger of it, and I practice all of the above in order to minimiize it, including taking NAC. I wish everybody would realize that there is a real peril involved with taking Acetaminophen. It should be done with great caution and responsibility.

Researchers reported in a study published in September 2013 that soy isoflavone supplementation improved some menopausal symptoms and increased bone density in menopausal women. The investigators assigned 80 women to receive 90 mg per day of soy isoflavones or placebo for six months. The researchers measured bone mineral density of the radius and tibia using quantitative ultrasound. The researchers measured indices of bone metabolism including calcium, phosphorus and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and serum cytokines interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha). The subjects completed questionnaires regarding menopausal symptoms.

The results showed that tibial bone density increased significantly with isoflavone supplementation compared to the placebo group.

The investigators stated, “For menopausal women, soy isoflavone in the dose of 90 mg per day could improve some menopausal syndromes and was effective on increasing limb bone density."

I realize that soy is a very controversial, and online especially, soy-bashing is rampant. But, I eat some soy, and I will continue to eat some soy. I take it in the form of tofu and tempeh. I do not take soy supplements.

I'll admit that there is a negative case that can be made against soy. Soy is high in phytic acid. But, most and perhaps all plant foods contain some phytic acid. So, you can't avoid it. Phytic acid is thought to interfere with mineral absorption, but it should be kept in mind that in the normal course of eating and living, only a small percentage of the minerals in food get absorbed. At most, 20% of the calcium in food gets absorbed. It's presumed that only 10% of the iron in food gets absorbed- and it may be much less. About 15% of the zinc in food gets absorbed. The phytic acid in plants may be a reason why, but it would be toxic if we absorbed all the minerals in food.  The evidence shows that, despite the phytic acid, plant-based diets are best for bone health, teeth health and mineralizatoin in general. The concern about phytic acid has been exaggerated.

Soy phyto-estrogens have also been a boogey-man to some. But again, many plant foods contain phytoestrogens, and some contain much more than soy, such as sesame seeds. Phyto-estrogens are weak estrogens, and they have been found to be protecxtive against breast cancer in women. Does soy cause feminizing effects in men from the phyto-estrogtens? Well, it hasn't happened to me. And my testosterone level is high for a 63 year old man.

Some of the complaints against soy relate to raw soy beans, such as the digestive antagonists and hemagluttins. These issues apply to all raw legumes, but they are neutralized by cooking. Cooked legumes have been included in the traditional diets of people from all over the world, and scientists agree that legumes are beneficial to health, being cardio-protective, diabetes-preventive, and very high in antioxidants. The USDA lists legumes as 3 of the top 5 foods in antioxidants, the other 2 being berries. The very highest antioxidant food, according to the USDA, is the red kidney bean.

So, beans, in general, are very good foods. I am them almost every day. And I'm not talking about soy. I'm talking about pinto beans, blacks beans, kidney beans, garbonzos, etc. They are truly a staple in my diet. What soy I eat is on top of that, but in smaller quantity.

I don't say that people should be eating large quantities of soy. But to include some is fine, and I do so myself and without worry. It has a positive effect on bones. It has a proven anti-cancer effect, including on prostate cancer in men. And it is definitely cardio-protective. In my book, a little soy is definitely A-OK.   


I got inspired to write about all-raw diets again because I was contacted by a young woman who is having problems after following an all-raw vegan diet for quite some time. She's lost weight and is well under 100 pounds. But, she also complains bloating and digestive sensitivity with food intolerances and systemic Candida. All of that should not be happening to a 29 year old woman.


I am not one to jump on the Candida bandwagon, but there is definitely an element of truth to it. We are all in a constant struggle with yeast. Think of it like a military stalemate- like in Korea. We are most all definitely slightly infected with Candida. We live in a balanced state of push-pull with them. But, nutritional stress can upset the balance, and throw us into a vulnerable state.


What gives Candida the edge? Overly alkaline diets is one thing. Keep in mind that an alkaline diet is definitely a good thing. But if everything you eat is alkaline, you can become over-alkaline. You need acid-forming foods too, such as nuts and grains and beans.


Another thing is protein deficiency. When people try to live on fruits and vegetables and not much of anything else, they can be shortchanged in protein. And that can cause sub-optimal immunological function which can cause Candida to grow excessively.


I regard the raw-food-only movement as misguided. It's all based on an appeal to naturalism. After all, animals in the wild don't cook their food, right?


That's true, but there are lots of things that human beings do that wild animals do not. And on a larger scale of naturalism, modifying nature and our environment is what humans do and have always done. What is natural for us is unlike what is natural for ANY other species.


How long have humanoids been cooking? I say "humanoids" because if you bring it up to homo sapiens, which is our species, we have ALWAYS been cooking. Cooking predates the rise of homo sapiens by the better part of a million years- at least.


But, cooking may go much further back than that. Some paleontologists think that humanoids started cooking several million years ago. The longest estimate I have seen is 9 million years ago. Can you really describe something that our ancestors have been doing for 9 million years as unnatural?


In fact, some paleontologists think that cooking was instrumental in motoring human evolution, that we might not exist today in the way that we do if not for cooking. Cooking has the effect of vastly increasing the variety of food that can be accessed. It has the effect of increasing the digestibility of food, and that of course spurs growth. And cooking can also be said to concentrate the nutritional density of some foods. Does it destroy some nutrients? Yes, but it's not the absolute amount of nutrients that matter, but the amount that you digest and absorb. It's like the difference between the "gross" and the "net" in business. No matter how big the "gross" is, it's the "net" that matters. And that's why they call it the "bottom line." And, we all know what that means, in and out of business.


Now, don't get me wrong: I think that eating a generous amount of raw foods is VERY IMPORTANT. Every single day, I eat generously of raw fruits and raw salad vegetables, and I have raw nuts too. And sometimes I eat raw seeds, although not nearly as often as I eat raw nuts. But, once I've made a point to eat a generous quantity of those foods, I know that I have gotten all the benefits that raw foods have to offer. So from there, if I eat cooked vegetables, and some whole grains and legumes (cooked) I don't see it as a compromise. I see it as a complement.


I am convinced that for most people, including myself, a mixed diet, including raw and cooked foods is best. It's a much more proven diet than an all raw diet. Is it less natural? That is not a point I am willing to concede. I don't think we are doing anything unnatural when we bake a yam or steam some broccoli. I see it as bringing the most out of these wholesome natural foods.


I am going to try to help this young woman, but she is going to have to be willing to change course. That's because if she stays on the course she's on, I know I can't help her.



I want to thank my dear girlfriend Linda Hadley for showing me this article. I agree with it completely. Vaccines are a hoax. They started on the basis of pure superstition, and then, because enormous profits were looming from it, they morphed it into a "science".

We all know essentially how they are supposed to work: Weak antigens are introduced which cause an immunological response, provoking the buildup of antibodies so that when the real microbe comes along, the body will generate a powerful immune response.

Guess what? Most of the MDs who actually administer vaccines to people don't know much more about it than what I just said. They just know what the general idea is; that's all- even though they may spend their whole day injecting poisons into people on the basis of it.

Most of the diseases for which vaccines are given were waning before the vaccines were introduced. There is NO scientific evidence of disease prevention from vaccines. They have evidence of immunological responses to vaccines, yes. They can change antibody titers with it, yes. But, do they actually prevent disease? It has NEVER been demonstrated. Yet, there are many cases in which vaccines have been shown to cause disease and death.

Look at what has happened repeatedly with the so-called swine flu vaccines. Every time they wind up killing more people with the vaccine than the disease kills. Thank God Americans wised up in 2009 and most of them refused to take the swine flu vaccine that year.

Here's the article that Linda found. Please read it and pass it on. This nonsense has to stop. There are no conditions or circumstances that I would ever take any vaccine. If they tried to force me, I would fight, physically fight. And if the alternative was to leave this country, then I would leave, and good riddance. I'm telling you; we are living in an insane world.



An article about all the woes about ObamaCare, inspired this comment by a reader:

"I don't mind going to the doctor at all; it's just that I don't need anything amputated, dissected, poisoned, irradiated, electrocuted, infected, or other such stuff."

And that just about says it all. I have gone my whole adult life without medical insurance, and I don't have any now. And it doesn't trouble me in the least.

Obviously, there is always the risk of trauma, and the most likely cause of that would be a traffic accident. But, what I do about that is carry very high medical coverage on my auto insurance. I think I have half a million dollars, including uninsured motorist. I suppose I could get hurt otherwise, but I don't ski or skateboard or rock climb or do anything dangerous. I don't go looking for trouble.

But, as far as disease goes, what does Medicine have to offer? Cardiology is a wasteland with practically nothing but detrimental to deadly interventions. If I had a cancer and it was highly localized, I might let them cut it out, but I would not do chemo or radiation. For diabetes, Medicine has only one useful drug: Metformin, which fortunately is generic and very cheap. Were I to become diabetic, I would order the Metformin myself online and manage it myself, and of course, diet, exercise, and nutritional  supplements would be the mainstay of the treatment.

Heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are the three main degenerative diseases that people get, and I live my life assuming that I'm heading towards them, and therefore, I had better do all the preventive things I can on a daily basis.

Modern Medicine consists mostly of toxic interventions that alter symptoms and blood test results but make people sicker. That may sound like an extreme statement but it's true.

If you get arthritis, whether osteo or rheumatoid or other, are you going to take their drugs? You'll be a damn fool if you do.

If you start having trouble with your bowels, are you going to take their drugs? You think you're ever going to get to normal by doing that?

There are a few beneficial, even lifesaving things they do in Medicine. But percentage-wise, it's very small. Mostly, they just do mischief- with pharmaceuticals and other things.

Living without Medicine? I can tell you that it's a sweet life. And the sooner you wake up to the reality that Modern Medicine is mostly a menace, the better off you'll be.    


Researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center report a protective benefit for 3,3'-diindolylmethane (DIM), a compound metabolized from indole-3-carbinol which occurs in broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables, against damage caused by radiation. They are hopeful that this finding could lead to protective therapies for humans undergoing radiation therapy or otherwise exposed to radiation.

"DIM has been studied as a cancer prevention agent for years, but this is the first indication that DIM can also act as a radiation protector," stated coauthor Eliot Rosen, MD, PhD, of Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The study involved rats treated with potentially lethal doses of gamma radiation. The animals were divided to receive injections of DIM following periods of up to 24 hours after irradiation. Control groups of rats received injections of an inert substance. "All of the untreated rats died, but well over half of the DIM-treated animals remained alive 30 days after the radiation exposure," reported Dr Rosen, who is a professor of oncology, biochemistry and cell & molecular biology at Georgetown University. "We also showed that DIM enhances the survival time of lethally irradiated mice."

In comparison with untreated animals, mice treated with DIM experienced less of a reduction in red and white blood cells and platelets that normally occurs as a result of radiation therapy. In their introduction to the article, the authors note that low concentrations of the compound have been shown to help protect the cells against oxidative stress.

"DIM could protect normal tissues in patients receiving radiation therapy for cancer, but could also protect individuals from the lethal consequences of a nuclear disaster," Dr Rosen observed.

What I am doing is eating broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables on a regular basis. I anticipate eating a lot of kale this winter because it is growing well and abundantly in my garden, and it is impervious to frost. So, I expect to be harvesting kale regularly from now until April, or at least March.

More Articles...