Fresh kale and Thomas Jefferson

One of the best things about growing your own vegetable garden is being able to make a green smoothie using leaves which you harvested only a few minutes before.

I like to walk out in the early morning and cut a few leaves from one of the kale plants, a few leaves of Swiss chard, and throw them right into the blender after a quick rinse-off.

Above is one of our garden's kale plants which, like the mythical hydra, seems to grow two more leaves whenever one of them is cut off.  You may be able to notice from the photo that I like the "square foot gardening" method of Mel Bartholomew.

It is a matter of only a few seconds to throw the fresh leaves of kale and chard into the blender along with a banana, some coconut milk, and some pineapple and blueberries, and mix up a delicious smoothie.  

Here's what it looks like before the pineapple and blueberries go in.  You can see the big leaf of chard behind the kale leaf, both of which were picked just a few minutes before and never had to sit around in a refrigerator.

Charles Hugh Smith has declared that: "A healthy homecooked family meal and a home garden are revolutionary acts."  He has also said, "If you like eating, begin liking dirt."

Thomas Jefferson, who knew a thing or two about this subject of freedom, liberty, and revolutionary acts, seems to agree.  In his landmark Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now" (266).  

Kale and Swiss chard are excellent fall and winter crops for your garden (for readers in the northern hemisphere, that means now!).  

In fact, we are now approaching a full moon (in less than 24 hours).  According to those who know about such things, the time to plant vegetables which produce their harvest above the ground is during the waxing moon (so you've got less than twenty-four hours if you need to plant something in that category for this cycle!), and the time to plant vegetables and tubers which produce their harvest below the ground is during the waning moon.  

Here is a previous blog post which gives a quotation from R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz on that subject, and here is a link to a video with Santos Bonacci in which he briefly discusses the same subject beginning at the 28:00 minute mark.  

You too can rush your own leaves of kale, chard, and whatever else right from the garden to your table, with only a few seconds in between.  All you need is a place to garden -- which can be in the most unlikely of places, as "guerrilla gardening" guru Richard Reynolds has repeatedly demonstrated.  Notably, Richard seems to do much of his gardening at night (perhaps he has also read his Schwaller de Lubicz -- who knows?)  

You may even decide to read aloud from Jefferson as you do so.

Who's unscientific? Vicious critics of Jenny McCarthy and her new role as co-host of The View

This week, it was announced that Jenny McCarthy, a well-known and outspoken critic of the safety of vaccines for some children, has been selected as a co-host of the popular daytime television talk show The View, sparking immediate howls of outrage from those who apparently believe that such opinions should be banned from being broadcast to the masses, whom they do not deem worthy of making their own decisions on important subjects such as vaccinations.

Here is a link to a segment broadcast today on taxpayer-supported National Public Radio, in which only quotations from those calling McCarthy's concerns "baseless" are given airtime, and which ends with the smug observation that View host Barbara Walters had taken some time off this year due to chicken pox, which is now preventable with a vaccine.  The written transcript of that segment can be found here.

During the segment, a university professor calls McCarthy's views "baseless" and says her information "has no scientific support whatsoever."  The author of a book critical of those who question the safety of vaccines is reported to have said that "McCarthy's celebrity ensured her books receive coverage even as the link between autism and vaccines is given credence by no medical authority."  

The university professor adds that it ends up being pretty irresponsible to propound a course of action that actually can endanger the children of your listeners," which presumably means that he is against the selection of McCarthy as a regular co-host on a popular television show, because airing differences of opinion "can endanger" children.

Other popular media outlets did not just imply that those who hold different views about vaccinations should not be given a voice on popular television shows: they came right out and said it directly, often with a great deal of vitriol.  Time magazine's TV critic James Poniewozik published an article entitled "Viruses Don't Care About Your View: Why ABC Shouldn't Have Hired Jenny McCarthy."  In it, he says that, "to legitimize McCarthy’s dangerous anti-science because she will probably get crazy attention and ratings is irresponsible and shameful."  

He then goes further and states that "muddying a vital question of public health by framing it as a 'controversy' that you can hash out in a roundtable" may be the most dangerous aspect of having McCarthy on The View.  In other words, according to Time's TV critic, viewers cannot be allowed to believe that there is any debate about this issue, and to even so much as hire someone who has an alternative belief on a "vital question" is irresponsible.  According to those who see themselves as the gatekeepers of what subjects are open for debate, certain questions are off-limits, and they will decide which questions may be debated and which cannot.

Poniewozik ends his article by referring to Galileo and saying that some questions are already settled, as scientific fact, including the link between viruses and disease.  But this argument is disingenuous -- McCarthy is not necessarily arguing that a virus cannot cause a disease.  She is arguing that there may be a link between some vaccines and harm to some of those who receive them, and that parents should become informed on the issue.  

Furthermore, while one can point to Galileo and say, as Poniewozik does, that "The Earth didn’t revolve around the sun only for Galileo," there have been other beliefs that once had "no scientific support whatsoever" and which were argued only by a tiny minority which later became mainstream.  For example, see this previous post on the scorn that was heaped upon Alfred Wegener just a hundred years ago when he proposed his theory of continental drift, or this post from 2011 entitled "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists," which was a withering barb leveled by a fellow scientist at the work of a man who later became the 2011 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry for his work proving the existence of quasicrystals.

Here are some other scornful articles from around the media world blasting McCarthy and the idea that the safety of vaccines can be questioned: one from Slate calling her a "notorious anti-vaxxer," one from someone calling herself "MD Mama" at Boston.com who says that McCarthy's "claims" are "made up," and one from New Yorker entitled "Jenny McCarthy's dangerous views" which concludes that "Executives at ABC should be ashamed of themselves for offering McCarthy a regular platform on which she can peddle denialism and fear to the parents of young children who may have legitimate questions about vaccine safety."  The author of the Slate article made the added point that, even if McCarthy does not mention her vaccine views, the very fact that she is now a co-host on The View will give her "a tacit credibility to the viewer."

Such virulence reveals the low opinion that those who consider themselves "opinion-makers" have of the general public.  It also reveals their view of the proper role of the media, including daytime talk shows such as The View that purport to discuss subjects from various perspectives.  They clearly see their fellow media outlets (and presumably their own media outlets) as platforms for disseminating the right view of certain important subjects, and wish to make sure that no "dangerous" dissent on certain topics is ever given even "tacit credibility."  

In other words, their view of mainstream media outlets is as organs for the dissemination of propaganda, speaking with one voice on some subjects so that the watchers do not get any ideas or look into certain issues for themselves.  We can identify vaccines as one of these subjects on which many in the media apparently believe no alternative views can afford to be heard.  What might some of the others be?

For her part, Jenny McCarthy's non-profit organization, Generation Rescue, has a website on which an FAQ page gives what appear to be her actual positions on the subject.  There, the organization's position on vaccination is stated in this manner:

Generation Rescue firmly believes that all parents have the power of choice – to vaccinate or not – and should be armed with the right questions to make an informed decision. We encourage all new parents to educate themselves about vaccinations so they can stand with confidence behind their decisions. Parents need to discuss vaccination options directly with their child’s pediatrician.

Now there's a set of assertions that critics can rightly label as "dangerous views" and "irresponsible" -- the idea that "all parents have the power of choice -- to vaccinate or not -- and should be armed with the right questions to make an informed decision."  

As noted above, one need not deny that there is a link between virus and disease to want more information on the safety issues surrounding a specific vaccine, or the preservatives used for a specific vaccine, or the vaccine schedule currently being recommended for young children.  For instance, one could believe that certain vaccines are important, but that others which are recommended (such as the chicken pox vaccine) might not be worth the potential risk.  Or, one could believe that certain vaccines are important, but that the number of vaccines that are now given to infants in rapid succession might be safer if the vaccinations were spread out over a period of months instead of all being given on a single day.  Or, one could believe that certain vaccines are important, but that combining three different vaccines into a single shot administered all at once (such as the DPT vaccine) might be dangerous, and they might wish to seek ways to have these vaccines administered separately instead of all together.

The idea that parents should become more informed on this subject should not be controversial, but some people apparently believe that the mere sight of McCarthy on The View is intolerable because it could cause viewers to start to investigate such issues on their own, and to think for themselves instead of listening to the unified message that they and their fellow media outlets are trying to shape for their audiences.

Finally, many of the critics referenced above condescendingly come right out and say that McCarthy has no right to speak out on this subject because she is not a doctor and because she is an actress and a model.  In just about every crime mystery, this type of argument is put forward by "the authorities" who think they have the crime all figured out, and are upset when an "outsider" such as Sherlock Holmes or the gang from Scooby Doo show up.  They want to marginalize and attack outside voices that threaten the establishment (which they represent, and from which they derive all of their authority and livelihood). 

Jenny McCarthy has just as much right to speak out about this subject as any other human being, and as she is also a mother and someone who believes her child may have been harmed by a vaccine, she has every right to try to become as informed as possible on all sides of the issue, and to share what she believes with other parents of children who are concerned about these issues.  

Additionally, to imply that no medical doctors have any questions at all about the safety of vaccines is simply untrue.  Here are several links to doctors raising various concerns about the safety of the current vaccine methodology, from the website of Dr. Joseph Mercola (another figure that the establishment would like to marginalize and discredit): 

• an article on issues surrounding the DPT vaccine, with discussion of the work of Dr. Peter Aaby.
• an article on issues related to vaccines containing aluminum, with discussion of the work of Dr. David  Ayoub.
• an article discussing safety issues related to mercury derivatives in flu shots, with links to articles saying that the government of Finland suspects a connection between health problems in some children given a flu vaccine and the contents of the vaccine.
• an article discussing studies conducted by university researchers demonstrating that the effectiveness of an HPV vaccine had been fraudulently overstated, and linking to a list of adverse events associated with individuals who received that vaccination reported in the US Health and Human Services Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (which lists all events reported, some of which may be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine).

The data in these articles suggests that the vaccine question may not be such a "closed case" as the authorities -- and those in the media who for some reason want to control all debate on this subject -- want people to believe.  This subject is an outstanding example of a subject in which certain parties do not want anyone to question the official story, and in which those seeking to quell independent investigation on the part of parents or other concerned citizens will resort to throwing around the term "science" to imply that their position is unassailable and that any men or women who question their position are akin to those who believe the earth is flat or that it does not revolve around the sun.

Whatever your position on this particular issue, we should all agree that this kind of name-calling and stifling of debate is reprehensible and ugly.  In fact, it may well be termed "irresponsible" and even "dangerous" -- the very terms the media critics are using to describe Jenny McCarthy's selection as a co-host of The View.  This type of behavior threatens open inquiry and the search for the truth in a wide variety of subjects, from medicine to history to geology and biology, as discussed in this blog in many other posts.  In this way, it is also extremely unscientific -- yet another term that the critics are applying to Jenny McCarthy, but which actually applies to them.

Two very disturbing developments

Recently, disturbing news involving genetics has been making headlines in the US.

On May 29, the US Department of Agriculture announced that test results of wheat plants growing on an Oregon farm confirmed the presence of genetically-engineered wheat, despite the fact that genetically-engineered wheat is not approved for human consumption.

Here is a link to the USDA's press release on the discovery.

This discovery is disturbing in that it reveals the clear possibility that genetically-modified wheat has already entered the food supply, unbeknownst to farmers, regulators, or consumers.  Most commentators are assuming that this GMO wheat is somehow descended from genetically-engineered plants that the USDA allowed to be "field tested" in sixteen states from 1998 through 2005.  

How this wheat spread to fields under cultivation that were not part of the test, and how many such fields are now contaminated, is unknown.  What is known, however, is that it not only did spread but that wheat being grown today is descended from this genetically-engineered variety.

Here is a recent article from the New York Times downplaying the safety concerns of this discovery, saying "Absent any proven health threat, the most common fear is economic — that organic farmers will lose crops, or that food exports to countries that ban imports of gene-altered products will suffer."  In other words, farmers and exporters and other business entities participating in the sale of wheat are the only ones with anything at stake here: no one who consumes such wheat has anything to worry about. 

However, that statement is debatable.  Numerous previous posts have looked at the subject of genetically-modified food, such as this one and this one, and noted that this issue is related to the overarching theme of this blog, which is that individuals should consider the evidence for themselves about important subjects.  

The safety of genetically-modified foods is far from a settled issue.  In fact, there are serious reasons to investigate this question further.  Even if the safety of such foods were settled beyond any doubt (which it is not), there may be reasons of conscience, religion, etc. why some individuals may wish to refrain from consuming genetically-modified foods, and the fact that genetically-engineered wheat may be entering the food chain without their knowledge means that consumers have a stake in this issue, and not just the growers and the exporters as the New York Times story alleges.

Further, the "safety" of this genetically-modified wheat appears to be based on the assertions of its developer, according to the USDA press release.  The USDA release states that:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed a voluntary consultation on the safety of food and feed derived from this GE glyphosate-resistant wheat variety in 2004.  For the consultation, the developer provided information to FDA to support the safety of this wheat variety.  FDA completed the voluntary consultation with no further questions concerning the safety of grain and forage derived from this wheat, meaning that this variety is as safe as non-GE wheat currently on the market.

This is a very illogical paragraph.  It asserts as a conclusion that "FDA completed the voluntary consultation with no further questions concerning the safety of grain and forage derived from this wheat, meaning that this variety is as safe as non-GE wheat currently on the market."  The conclusion that "this variety is as safe as non-GE wheat currently on the market" does not follow at all from the fact that the "FDA completed the voluntary consultation with no further questions."  

All we can conclude from that is that the FDA decided not to question the developer any further.  They could have decided that for a number of reasons, but it does not follow automatically that we must conclude from this that the GMO wheat is "as safe as non-GE wheat currently on the market."

The fact that wheat is used in a tremendous variety of foods, and that the US exports a huge amount of wheat to nations around the world, makes this a very important and disturbing development.  In fact, wheat has been referred to as "the staff of life."  This particular phrase may well descend from the venerable English translation of the 105th Psalm, verse 16, in which we read that, "he called for famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread."

Elsewhere in the news, the US Supreme Court this week decided in a case entitled Maryland v. King that individuals who are arrested may be compelled to yield a DNA sample, which can then be entered into federal crime records.  The case was decided by a vote of 5-4, with an eloquent dissent written by Antonin Scalia, in which he asked why an arrest entitled such an invasion, when an arrest does not entitle a warrantless search of someone's house, for example.  "But why are the 'privacy-related concerns' not also 'weighty' when an intrusion into the body is at stake?  (The Fourth Amendment lists 'persons' first among the entities protected against unreasonable searches and seizures)" (page 35 of the pdf file of the decision).

Remember that an arrest is not a conviction -- a person who is arrested is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.  The Fourth Amendment codifies the inherent right of all men and women to the security of their persons, houses, papers and effects, and declares that this inherent right shall not be violated except by a legally-issued warrant, and that such warrant must specifically -- in fact, "particularly" -- describe exactly what is being searched and what particular person or thing the searching agent is looking for.

This new decision completely overturns that requirement, allowing the state to compel an arrested person (who is innocent until proven otherwise) to give up his or her DNA, which will then be searched not for anything in particular.  It is almost as if the court had ruled that agents could come snooping through someone's home, not looking for anything in particular but just for anything that might tie the resident to any crime, except that snooping through someone's DNA is even more intrusive, at least according to the dissent authored by Scalia and signed by three other justices.

The entire decision can be read online here, with Scalia's dissent beginning on page 33 of the pdf file.

The majority opinion asserts, "By comparison to this substantial government interest and the unique effectiveness of DNA identification, the intrusion of a cheek swab to obtain a DNA sample is a minimal one" (page 27 of the pdf file). 

So, instead of saying, "Papers, please," arresting agents can now say, "open wide" and gather a DNA sample from a citizen, which is a far more comprehensive form of identification than anything seen in the past.

Thus we now have a situation in which citizens apparently do not have a right to know the genetically-modified status of the wheat in their pizza, but the government has the right to demand to know the entire genetic content of an individual who is arrested by authorities.

These developments highlight the importance of thinking for yourself, and not simply accepting at face value every assertion made by the "experts."

GMOs in the news, and in your summer barbecue

Genetically-modified crops have been in the news lately, and as this blog has pointed out before, there are many food items that are literally impossible to find at a normal, non-premium grocery store in the United States that do not contain ingredients from one of the eight often-transgenic crops currently approved for sale as human food.

Those eight crops (as of time of publication -- more may be approved in the future) are: corn, soy, cottonseed (consumed by humans as cottonseed oil), canola, sugar beets, more than half of Hawaiian papaya, and a small percentage of zucchini and yellow (crookneck) squash.  A previous post discussing this list, and some of the arguments of those concerned that genetically-modified organisms may pose hazards to humans who eat them, can be found here.

The first crop on that list, corn, is overwhelmingly transgenic in the US at this time, with over 80% of corn produced now GMO.  Unless specifically told otherwise by a label that reads "GMO free," a consumer who is trying to avoid consuming genetically-modified organisms for any reason (personal conscience, health concerns, or suspicion that these foods might potentially be unsafe in some way) would have to assume that a product containing corn-based ingredients is likely to contain GMOs.  Corn-based ingredients can include corn flour, corn starch, corn oil, or the nearly-ubiquitous high-fructose corn syrup.   

It is not uncommon to encounter entire sections of a typical grocery-store aisle in which none of the options can be safely purchased by someone trying to avoid GMOs.  For example, the hamburger bun aisle at a typical American grocery store is likely to contain seven or eight different brands and styles of hamburger bun, but each and every one of them will contain corn products and none of them will state that they are GMO-free.  Some might prominently state that they have "no high-fructose corn syrup," but an inspection of the ingredients of these will often reveal other corn products instead.

Some will also contain soy products (as do the buns pictured above, in addition to high-fructose corn syrup).  Over 90% of the soy produced in the US is now genetically modified.

Note that you don't have to be a meat-eater to want to purchase hamburger buns.  Even those avoiding the consumption of meat from animals might want hamburger buns with a veggie burger or a giant sauteed portobello mushroom once in a while.

Of course, there are hamburger buns available without corn syrup, other corn products, or soy products, but to find them in the US you will probably have to visit a more "premium" grocery store, one that specializes in a higher percentage of organic ingredients and which caters to a more ingredient-conscious clientele.  These premium stores, of course, also cater to a more affluent consumer.  

One wonders if the general public is aware that so many food categories their grocery aisles seem to deliberately contain ingredients from GMO-approved crops in every single product offering in their category.  One also wonders why manufacturers seem to almost perversely include some corn and/or soy in products that do not seem to call for corn or soy products (even "potato flour" hamburger buns often have corn and soy ingredients!).

Of course, many people believe there are absolutely no dangers to consuming genetically-modified ingredients.  This is an area in which everyone should do their own research and analysis and reach their own conclusions.  However, it almost seems that for the members of the general public who do not have access to a premium grocery store in their area, or who cannot afford to pay a premium for the most-common food items, the choice has already been made for them. 

Is bee pollen one of nature's perfect foods?

(if reading this on a mobile device, please scroll down to read the blog post)

Some previous posts have discussed ancient knowledge about medical science which appears to have been lost (or suppressed) somewhere along the way, and which is no longer common knowledge today.  

For example, the post entitled "Basking in the sun" noted that ancient historian Herodotus recounted stories of the healthful benefits of a daily sun bath, and that Pliny the Elder apparently indulged in a daily sun bath for health as well.  However, few today are told that a sun bath promotes good health, although that post presented some links to modern sources who believe that sun baths are good for health, and who present evidence to support their assertions.

Another practice that was recommended by the ancients, but about which conventional medical professionals remain largely silent, is the consumption of bee pollen for human health.  Again, Pliny speaks extensively of bees, as well as of the beneficial aspects of their products including honey, propolis, and pollen (see his Natural History, which can be read online here, where he discusses bees and their products in Book XI, beginning in chapter 4).  There is evidence that the ancient Egyptians were skilled beekeepers and that they buried honey and possibly bee pollen in their tombs (suggesting a high regard for its properties).  Traditional Chinese medicine also appears to have long recommended the health benefits of bee pollen.

Many voices in the modern alternative medicine community have high praise for the health effects of bee pollen.  This article, for example, on Dr. Mercola's website praises the positive effects of bee pollen so extensively that it is difficult to believe that something so beneficial could be so unrecognized by the general public and the medical community. 

On the other hand, some authors claim that bee pollen's benefits are overhyped and warn that some portion of the population will find bee pollen to cause digestive or other problems.  In Letters from the Hive, Stephen Buchmann argues that:

[. . .] none of the health claims made for pollen have been substantiated in properly controlled clinical trials.  Though it is high in proteins, lipids, antioxidants, and vitamins, these nutrients can be obtained in other, more easily digested foods at considerably less cost.  

And then there are the side effects some people experience when taking pollen.  The major adverse reactions are stomach pain and diarrhea, reported by up to 33 percent of individuals in some studies.  Irritation and itching of the mouth and throat are also sometimes reported.  So leave bee pollen to the bees, and enjoy their honey instead.  247.

While the amazing claims about bee pollen's benefits touted by some proponents might seem somewhat excessive, the arguments against bee pollen in these paragraphs may go too far in the other direction.  Bee pollen is "high in proteins, lipids, antioxidants, and vitamins" but we should "leave bee pollen to the bees" because all of those nutrients can be better obtained elsewhere?  Where else are all of these attributes found, one wonders?  What other single food has such a combination?  

The adverse effects reported for bee pollen should certainly be taken into account, but again the warning that these are experienced by up to 33 percent of individuals seems remarkably high.  Of course, the author says that this was "in some studies," but since those studies are not identified, it is difficult to know how large the studies were or whether other studies had lower incidences of adverse reactions.

There are many areas in which the consensus of "expert opinion" can be completely wrong for decades, a phenomenon which has been discussed in many other posts on this blog.  It is also clear that much ancient wisdom has been lost or even deliberately destroyed or suppressed.  

In Serpent in the Sky, John Anthony West presents evidence that the ancient Egyptians possessed extremely sophisticated medical knowledge, among the other advanced sciences that seem to have appeared "full-blown" at the earliest stages of ancient dynastic Egypt, which together are very difficult to explain under conventional historical models.  Whether the ancient Egyptians were the source of the apparently widespread ancient reverence for bee pollen and other bee products as beneficial to human health is not yet clear.  However, it is an intriguing question.

Readers may be interested in pursuing this subject further on their own.

Fluoridation of the water supply

Above is a link to hour one of a recent Red Ice interview with Dr. Paul Connett, a chemist and retired university professor who specialized in environmental chemistry and toxicology, and who presents some cogent arguments for examining the consensus view (in the United States) that fluoridation of the water supply for the general public is safe and effective for the prevention of dental cavities.

One of Dr. Connett's strongest arguments is the observation that, even if we grant the premise that fluoride is a medically or dentally beneficial substance, the delivery of a medical agent through the water system creates a situation in which there is absolutely no supervision over the amount of the dosage (some individuals may drink gallons of water each day, others very little), and there is absolutely no way to adjust for the bodyweight or other factors of the individual being dosed (tiny infants may be exposed to dosages completely inappropriate for their system and level of development).

He also argues that some recent research strongly suggests that the ingestion of fluoride provides no systemic benefit: fluoride might not go through the body to strengthen the teeth from the inside, the way water fluoridation proponents have argued as one of their main reasons for introducing it into the water supply.  While fluoride applied topically (to the teeth from the outside, through toothpaste or oral rinses) might be beneficial, if fluoride does not act systemically, then there is no need to ingest it.  Individuals who need or want fluoride for topical application can easily obtain it for themselves and monitor the amount they apply.

Further, the introduction of fluoride into the water supply removes individual choice -- fluoride becomes a mandated treatment, rather than a choice left up to individuals and families.  This fact alone shows that fluoridation of the water supply does violence to the free will of men and women and thus represents a violation of human rights which everyone should reject.  The fact that this violation is perpetrated on behalf of a substance of questionable efficacy makes it even worse, but even if fluoride were found to be of unquestioned value, the forceful administration of this chemical to every member of society whether they will it or no would represent a grave injustice, in addition to the medical problems of dosage already discussed.

One of the most troubling aspect of this topic is the fact that the defenders of the status quo (the proponents of the fluoridation of the water supply, particularly in the United States where the practice is extremely common) engage in the ridicule of those who question fluoridation, rather than in honest debate and examination of the arguments for and against the practice.  This type of behavior would seem to be extremely unscientific, and even suspicious.  Such tactics have been discussed in previous posts, such as "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists," and "Read Dr. Daniel Botkin's article, 'Absolute Certainty is Not Scientific'."

Dr. Connett further points out that he is more than happy to engage in public debate over this issue, but that this offer is very rarely accepted by those who prefer to ridicule from afar.  Doesn't an issue of this importance deserve more scrutiny, and public debate?

Because this question of fluoridation is one that impacts a huge number of people every day.  As Dr. Connett points out in his Red Ice interview, fluoridation of the water supply does not just impact those who choose to drink several glasses of water from the tap each day: it impacts the water which is in just about every canned or bottled beverage we consume, whether ice tea, beer, soda (which often contains genetically-modified ingredients to boot), as well as the water that is used to make a huge variety of other foodstuffs from sauces to soups and everything in between.

And, don't forget that if you cook at home and you make pasta using your fluoridated tapwater, or make rice using fluoridated water, or boil potatoes or corn or artichokes, then you are consuming fluoride every time you do so.  If you go to a restaurant and order spaghetti, or sushi made with rice, then those items are probably made using fluoridated water, if you live in a place where the water supply is fluoridated.  In fact, it is incredibly difficult to avoid ingesting more fluoride than you want to think about, once the government starts putting it into the water supply, even if you go to great lengths to avoid drinking it straight out of the tap. 

A topic of such importance deserves open and honest debate and careful examination and analysis of the evidence, not obfuscation, name-calling, and marginalization of anyone who dares to question the dominant paradigm.

Here is a link to the website of the Fluoride Action Network, an organization which also opposes the mandatory fluoridation of the water supply.  The site contains numerous embedded videos with arguments against mandatory fluoridation, including the video below from actor Ed Begley, Jr.

Basking in the sun

As long as we're on

the subject of what the ancients advised

regarding the connection between physical and spiritual health, we might also touch on the fact that the ancient civilizations appear to have set a rather high regard upon deliberate exposure to the sun.

For instance, Herodotus relates that the fact that the Egyptians shaved their heads and exposed them to the sun, which (he relates) apparently causes the skull to become thick and hard, as opposed to the brittle skulls of those who keep their heads out of the sun.  Here is the passage from Book III of the

Histories

by Herodotus (

translation by George Rawlinson

):

On the field where this battle was fought I saw a very wonderful thing which the natives pointed out to me. The bones of the slain lie scattered upon the field in two lots, those of the Persians in one place by themselves, as the bodies lay at the first- those of the Egyptians in another place apart from them. If, then, you strike the Persian skulls, even with a pebble, they are so weak, that you break a hole in them; but the Egyptian skulls are so strong, that you may smite them with a stone and you will scarcely break them in. They gave me the following reason for this difference, which seemed to me likely enough:- The Egyptians (they said) from early childhood have the head shaved, and so by the action of the sun the skull becomes thick and hard. The same cause prevents baldness in Egypt, where you see fewer bald men than in any other land. Such, then, is the reason why the skulls of the Egyptians are so strong. The Persians, on the other hand, have feeble skulls, because they keep themselves shaded from the first, wearing turbans upon their heads. What I have here mentioned I saw with my own eyes, and I observed also the like at Papremis, in the case of the Persians who were killed with Achaeamenes, the son of Darius, by Inarus the Libyan. 

Whatever we think of the propensity of Herodotus to pass along stories that seem a little difficult to believe,

it is clear that at least some ancients appear to have believed in a connection between exposure to the sun and the health and strength of the skull, for what it's worth. 

Nor was Herodotus alone in relating belief in the health-giving properties of habitual exposure to the sun.  The writings of other ancient historians including Pliny the Younger contain descriptions of habitual sun-bathing, often after a meal.  Pliny relates that his uncle, Pliny the Elder, was accustomed to such a sun bath every day.  

Other ancient writers and philosophers also appear to have extolled the virtues of habitual daily exposure to the sun for some period of time.  Like other ancient wisdom, this knowledge appears to have been widespread.  The Vedic traditions, for instance, appear to teach a connection between prana and the habitual daily exposure to the sun's rays.

Some modern medical practitioners now argue that deliberate daily exposure to the sun is extremely beneficial (I am not a doctor, so check with them for your specific case).  Dr. Joseph Mercola, who often discusses areas in which he believes that current medical orthodoxy is mistaken or even potentially harmful, has many articles on his website discussing the importance of deliberate exposure to the sun, and with more of the skin than just the hands and face.  Links to some of his discussions of this subject include:

• "When should you go out in the sun?"

• "Lack of sunshine linked to cognitive decline"

• "My One-Hour Free Vitamin D Lecture"

• "Hello Sun Exposure / Interview with Dr. William Grant"

And there are many others.  Dr. Mercola has also written

a book about evidence

for health benefits of habitual sun exposure.

Even more interesting, perhaps, than the physical benefits of exposure to the sun, however, is the evidence that there may be spiritual benefits to this practice as well. Santos Bonacci, in an interview with Curtis Davis from October of 2011, touches on this important aspect of exposure to the sun  (this is a different interview from the one mentioned in the previous post, but it too can be found on iTunes as a podcast and downloaded for free -- use the search function inside of the iTunes podcast section to look for Santos Bonacci and then look for a date of October 2, 2011).

At 27:51 in that interview, Santos tells us:

The sun provides us with three things, which all begin with "L" -- Love, Light, and Life.  It's the source of all of those things.  So when the rays of the sun bathe us, every atom of our body rejoices.  Our soul is bathed in photons, and this is why we should strip ourselves naked and lie in the sun's rays, as much as we can, to be bathed with those vitalizing little atoms, those electrons and protons which come from the sun.

While we're at it, we may also want to shave our heads as the ancient Egyptians did (according to Herodotus and later

Plutarch

), to help the skull to grow thick and hard!