There is a new film out, available for free on Youtube, entitled The Marketing of Madness that you really should see. It covers the entire history of psychiatric drugs and the manner in which they have been marketed. The most startling thing is that the foundation of modern psychiatry- that mental illness centers around chemical imbalances in the brain- has never been proven. And all attempts to prove it have led to strikingly inconsistent results. For instance, attempts to induce depression by deliberately depleting serotonin have failed miserably.  And despite all the fanfare, Prozac and its pharmaceutical cousins have not been shown to work any better than placebos. It's very unsettling to consider this vast area of health care because it's so widespread and pervasive in our lives (10% of Americans are on anti-depressant drugs), and yet, there is so little science behind it. It's one thing to talk about a chemical imbalance, but once you start treating people for it with potent pharmaceuticals, you had better have a way to measure what you are doing. But no such measurements exist. It's all theoretical. They are treating what they purport to be a physical, organic problem but on the basis of a purely conceptual model that cannot be substantiated- certainly not at the level of the individual patient. And if patients can be forgiven for participating in this scam, can doctors? How many doctors who prescribe Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, etc. have really studied the data on these drugs? Most of them have not studied them at all. In a way, doctors are just like patients: they are cogs in the wheel that keeps the whole psycho-pharmaceutical carousel turning.

Here is the link to The Marketing of Madness. Please watch it.

 

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1nbZCNDgbY

As you probably realize, I don’t refrain from expressing my opinions about national events, particularly the actions of the government, whether it’s outlawing raw almonds or starting another insane and criminal war in the Middle East.

However, this article is not about that. This article is about the war between the tree nuts. Which is the best nut?  

American researchers recently announced that walnuts have the best combination of antioxidants of any nut. They also raved about the quality of walnut protein, saying that it can replace meat in the diet. Of course, they also extolled the omega-3 fats in walnuts.

“Walnuts have a combination of more healthful antioxidants and higher quality antioxidants than any other nut,” were their exact words. Study findings were presented at the 241st National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in Anaheim, Southern California on March 21.  

The researchers based their conclusion on an analysis of antioxidants in nine different types of nuts: walnuts, almonds, peanuts, pistachios, hazelnuts, Brazil nuts, cashews, macadamias and pecans.  "A handful of walnuts contains almost twice as much antioxidants as an equivalent amount of any other commonly consumed nut.”

Those are strong words.  I have always felt that in the domain of nuts, there are so many giants, it’s hard to say which one is best.  But walnuts are, undoubtedly, one of the best. And they have an amazing history too. Walnuts are the oldest cultivated food on planet Earth. And they are also the oldest pre-agricultural food eaten by humans. Walnuts that were quite identical to our modern walnuts grew one million years ago in a large swath of Asia that extended from Iran to India. It was the Romans who introduced walnuts to Europe, planting them in every country that they occupied, including Britain. Americans speak of “English walnuts” but England was actually one of the last stops in the march of the walnut trees. And, walnut trees are very hearty and long-lived: living up to 500 years.

However, what’s interesting is that, in contrast, the US Deptartment of Agriculture rates the pecan as the nut highest in antioxidants. In what they claim was the “largest, most comprehensive analysis of foods to date,” USDA researchers analyzed all kinds of foods and found that “pecans ranked highest among all nuts in antioxidant capacity and were among the highest of all foods in antioxidant capacity.” Pecans, of course, are an all-American nut. They are the only major tree nut that grows naturally in North America, with a natural range that encompasses the central and eastern USA and extending down into northern Mexico. Pecan trees have been known to live 1000 years! And as I have mentioned before, pecans are the highest in zinc of any plant food. Pecans absorb so much zinc that growers here in Central Texas use foliar zinc sprays to insure that the nuts fill out completely. And I don’t have to tell you how important zinc is.

So, which is better, pecans or walnuts? All I can tell you is that I eat both and on a daily basis.       

I never overlook an opportunity to extol the virtues of nuts, and that includes pecans. 

New research out of Loma Linda University (which has penned much of the research about nuts) found that specific naturally occurring antioxidants in pecans support heart health and prevent disease. The results appeared in the January 2011 issue of The Journal of Nutrition.  

Pecans contain high amounts of the various forms of Vitamin E, including tocopherols and tocotrienols.  Pecans also contain numerous “phenolic compounds,” many of which have great antioxidant power. Pecans are especially rich in a form of vitamin E called gamma-tocopherol. It was found that after eating pecans, gamma-tocopherol levels in the body doubled, and oxidation of LDL cholesterol decreased by 33 percent. Oxidized LDL is believed to cause inflammation within the arteries, the harbinger of cardiovascular disease.

"Our tests show that eating pecans increases the amount of healthy antioxidants in the body," says LLU researcher Ella Haddad, PhD, associate professor in the School of Public Health, Department of Nutrition. "This protective effect is important in helping to prevent development of various diseases, including cancer and heart disease."

Dr. Haddad analyzed biomarkers in blood and urine samples from study participants (a total of 16 men and women between the ages 23 and 44) who ate a sequence of three diets composed of whole pecans, pecans blended with water, or a control meal that lacked pecans. The pecan meals contained about three ounces of the nut. Samples were taken prior to meals and at intervals up to 24 hours after eating.

Following the test meals composed of whole pecans and blended pecans, researchers found that amounts of gamma-tocopherols (vitamin E) in the body doubled eight hours after both meals, and oxygen radical absorbance capabilities (ORAC-a scientific method for measuring antioxidant power in the blood) increased 12 and 10 percent respectively two hours after the meals. In addition, following the whole-pecan meal, oxidized LDL cholesterol decreased by 30 percent (after 2 hours), 33 percent (after 3 hours), and 26 percent (after 8 hours).

"This study is another piece of evidence that pecans are a healthy food," says Dr. Haddad. "Previous research has shown that pecans contain antioxidant factors. Our study shows that these antioxidants are indeed absorbed by the body and linger in the body for a long time, helping to prevent disease."

Research from Loma Linda University published earlier in the Journal of Nutrition showed that a pecan-enriched diet lowered levels of LDL cholesterol by 16.5 percent-more than twice the American Heart Association's Step I diet, which was used as the control diet in that study. Similarly, the pecan-enriched diet lowered total cholesterol levels by 11.3 percent (also twice as much as the Step I diet).

The USDA ranks pecans among the top 5 antioxidant foods on the planet.

But, won’t pecans, being high in oil, make you fat? Well, being a Texan, I eat pecans every day.  And I mean that literally. If a day passes in which I don’t eat some pecans, it’s probably because I fasted that day, which I occasionally do. And I am a lean, mean fighting machine. 40+ years of pecan-eating has not made me fat, and I dare say, it’s not going to.    

 

 Many Americans are taking or stockpiling potassium iodide due to the catastrophe in Japan.  It was reported on Friday that miniscule fallout from Japan was detected In Los Angeles.  However, it is Sunday  evening as I write this, and I have not seen any updates to that in the mainstream media.   An alternative media website reports that French authorities have announced that the radioactive plum has already crossed North America, reaching the western Atlantic Ocean, and is now headed towards Europe. They do not consider the amount of radiation being detected to be dangerous.  But, the entire Northern Hemisphere is expected to be affected eventually, which was also true of Chernobyl.

The basis for taking potassium iodide is that radioactive iodine-131 is formed from uranium and plutonium during nuclear fission.  Iodine-131, a potent carcinogen, will find its way to the thyroid gland and cause cancer. Other organs that accumulate iodine are also vulnerable, particularly women’s breasts.  

However, if tissues are fully saturated with iodine, they won’t pick up iodine-131. The standard emergency dose of potassium iodide is to take 130 mgs, which comes to 100 mgs of iodine.  100 mgs is 700x the US RDA for iodine. However, it is only 8x as much as is typically consumed in Japan on a daily basis  The seafood and seaweeds that they consume in large amounts deliver a lot of iodine.

But, it doesn’t have to be potassium iodide for emergency protection.  Any form of iodine will do.  Just don’t rely on iodized salt because consuming that much sodium could kill you.  Lugol’s solution will work, and so will Iodoral.  I keep the 12.5 mg Iodoral  around, which means that I would have to take 8 tabs to get the recommended 100 mgs.  And I will do that, if push comes to shove. Iodoral contains a combination of potassium iodide and elemental iodine.  This is advantageous because some tissues, including the breasts, like the elemental iodine better.

But timing counts for a lot. In order to be effective in blocking I-131 uptake, the 100 mg dose of iodine needs to be taken in a window of 24 hours before and 2 hours after exposure to fallout. If I hear of significant fallout on the West Coast, I am going to take 4 Iodoral  tablets immediately and then more later.  

Although the nuclear fallout from Japan has lost top billing, it’s far from over. As of Sunday night, they are saying that 2 of 6 reactors have been successfully cooled down. However, a third reactor is experiencing high pressure, and they may have to release some radioactive steam into the atmosphere.  They are saying that the risk of a core meltdown has dropped substantially, but it is not non-existent.  

Like most companies, VRP has been sold out of Iodoral and Potassium Iodide, however, they did locate a supply a Potassium Iodate, which is also safe and effective.  If you are interested, you can order it here: http://www.1to1vitamins.com/daily-program.html?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=354&category_id=21

I want to refer you to an excellent article on Evolution by Dr. David Deming entitled “Doubting Darwin.” You can find it here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming5.1.1.html

Dr.Deming makes the important point that Darwin’s theory contradicts the fossil record.  The big question Dr. Deming asks is, “Where are the transitional fossils?” I agree it’s a huge, gaping problem. But, if we hone in on one particular line of evolutionary development, then we can see clearly how gigantic the problem is. 

 

So, let’s take Dr. Deming’s question and get very specific about it. Let us ask: Where are the transitional breast fossils?”

 

Darwinists don’t like talking about breasts. They prefer to talk about eyes. That’s because the evolution of the eye seems very straight-forward. Supposedly, it started with a strip or patch of cells that happened to become more sensitive to light. Then it developed into a cavity so that the light could be channeled. Then there evolved the pupil, the lens, etc. resulting in the modern complex eye, but every step along the way was useful and functional.  Every change conferred a survival advantage.  There is fossil evidence of rudimentary eyes, and there is wide range of complexity in the eyes of existing species. Conceptually, it’s neat and tidy.  Let’s say that they’re able to talk a good game over it.

 

But when the discussion turns to the female breast, it’s much more arduous. There are no transitional breasts in the fossil record, and there are no rudimentary breasts among living species.  A female breast produces a finished product, milk, and nothing less.  It’s hard to imagine what the gradual evolution of the mammary gland was like. What exactly did the first (accidental) genetic changes towards lactation consist of, and what did they accomplish? How did they provide a survival advantage? (And remember, according to Darwin, they had to do so, or otherwise they got chucked.) 

 

Evolutionists have tried to answer that by suggesting that breasts evolved from sweat glands, and that in the beginning, it involved just a transfer of water, and perhaps salt, from mother to infant. But, we should note, first, that that is just a speculation.  There is not the slightest bit of evidence to support it, past or present.  But, not only is it fanciful to suggest that the lapping of sweat by an infant would enhance its survival- it’s preposterous even to suggest that the infant would lap.

 

Infant behavior is instinctual; it is genetically determined. So, you would have to have simultaneous, but independent, genetic changes in the infant brain controlling its behavior at the same time that the maternal breast was evolving, and the changes would have to be synchronous. And remember, we are talking about random, accidental genetic changes. 

 

But, it isn’t just the infant brain that had to evolve. The entire body of the infant had to be completely transformed to turn it into a milk-processing machine. That involved its mouth and teeth, its entire digestive tract, its kidney and liver function, its hormonal function, its immune function, and more.  The entire body of the infant is adapted to a milk diet. These myriad changes would have had to occur at the same time the maternal breast was evolving, and all from accidental, spontaneous mutations.

 

Do you have any idea how many mutations would be involved in the complete metamorphosis of a pre-mammalian infant into a mammalian one?  Can you see now how flighty it is to depict breast evolution as the mere tweaking of sweat glands into mammary glands? What about the infant? How could millions, or perhaps billions, of adaptations take place in the body of the infant to adjust it to a milk diet if the entire process depended on nothing but random, directionless mutations? And why would the very earliest changes in that random process have been naturally selected when there was not yet any milk? Remember, Evolution is blind, directionless. It is not leading anywhere.

 

The point is that with the eye, you just had one thing and one purpose. But, with the breast, you had not only all the changes to the breast, but you also had all the changes to the infant, which amounted to the complete transformation of the organism. We’re talking about a magnitude of change comparable to caterpillar to butterfly. How could it possibly happen by a series of genetic accidents?

 

Let’s compare it to the lottery. If you only had to pick 1 number right out of 45, your chances of winning would be 1 in 45.  If you had to pick 2 numbers right, your odds drop to 1 in 1980.  To pick all 6 numbers right, your odds drop to less than 1 in 15 million. To simultaneously evolve the female breast and the mammalian infant from random genetic mutations, how many numbers would you have to get right?  And what would be the odds against it? Even if you grant that Nature can “select” (through survival of the fittest) a lucky mutation, you still have to get the mutation. You still have to get all of them. The mutation itself is a random event. Nature has no control over that.  How could Nature be so lucky as to keep getting them? Isn’t it like winning the lottery again and again and again, ad infinitum?

 

The stock answer to that is that my foolish self has no idea of the impact of geologic time. We’re talking about eons of time- enough time for evolution by natural selection to do its thing. Well, the Earth is only 4 ½ billion years old, and life on Earth has existed for only 2 billion years.  It’s funny how small those numbers seem in the age of trillion dollar deficits.  But whether 2 billion years was enough time or not is a matter for mathematicians to debate, and according to Granville Sewell, mathematics professor at the University of Texas El Paso, it was not enough time.  Dr. Sewell, like Dr. Deming, is a signee of the Dissent from Darwinism statement of the Discovery Institute. Mathematicians, as a class of scientists, have been the most skeptical of Evolution.

 

The bottom line is that modern Evolutionary theory, which is the foundation of all of Biology including Medicine, is the most colossal fraud in the history of Science, and every aware person should feel an obligation to expose it.