Friday, 31 January 2025

A kiwi ico or favicon

Favicons are tiny so probably not many people will notice this little kiwi in it's 32x32px display size, so here is a larger version.

The Orange Kiwi logo in 750x750px

 

 With WAPF text added

 
And shrunk down to 32x32px as an ICO


A real Kiwi



Thursday, 30 January 2025

Vaccinations are a delusional Insanity

Delusional Insanity

To see the full length version of this post go to the "PAGES" menu in the to right corner or click on this link:

https://wapfwellington.blogspot.com/p/vaccinations.html

Supporters of vaccinations believe that they are for the greater good; that parents who choose not to vaccinate are selfish, and a threat to other people’s children.

But for a public health policy to be for the greater good, the policy needs to be safe, effective, and the best way of achieving the aims

Many people argue about whether are really dangerous, but the risks are well proven.

What is less often discussed is whether they actually work – ie. do they reduce the spread of diseases? We say they don’t, and not a single properly designed study has ever been done that proves otherwise.

So why do pro vaccine interests claim the dangers are worth risking for “the greater good”? Their position seems indefensible. But there is a 4th thing to consider: Follow the money

https://wapfwellington.blogspot.com/p/vaccinations.html

Wednesday, 29 January 2025

Dr Price & The Eugenics Movement

Dr. Weston A. Price and The Eugenics Movement

In 1932, a year after Dr. Weston Price began his studies on healthy, non-industrialized peoples, New York City hosted the Third Eugenics Conference. Eugenics promoted the “directed evolution of man” made possible by a global scientific and medical dictatorship, which proposed to improve the lot of mankind by making “better” people, rather than resolving the conditions that led to poverty and ill health.

Healthy Seminole peoples

Speaking at the conference, and evoking the Darwinian concept of “survival of the fittest,” Fairfield Osborn, a British Fascist and adherent of Malthusian principles, stated that eugenics “aids and encourages the survival and multiplication of the fittest; indirectly, it would check and discourage the multiplication of the unfitted. As to the latter, in the United States alone, it is widely recognized that there are millions of people who are acting as dragnets or sheet anchors on the progress of the ship of state. . . While some highly competent people are unemployed, the mass of unemployment is among the less competent, who are first selected for suspension, while the few highly competent people are retained because they are still indispensable. [Remember that these remarks occur during the bottom of the Great Depression.] In nature, these less-fitted individuals would gradually disappear, but in civilization, we are keeping them in the community in the hopes that in brighter days, they may all find employment. This is only another instance of humane civilization going directly against the order of nature and encouraging the survival of the un-fittest.” Osborn’s speech was published in the New York Times, August 23, 1932 under the headline “’Birth Selection’ the Remedy in Crisis of Over-Population.”

In the U.S., the practice of eugenics took the form of marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization. Starting in 1907, thirty states passed laws promoting the sterilization of the ”unfit.”

The logo for the Second Eugenics Conference shows a tree with many roots, labeled as follows: anatomy, anthropology, anthropometry, archaeology, biography, biology, economics, education, ethnography, genealogy, genetics, geology, law, medicine, mental testing, psychiatry, physiology, psychology, religion and sociology.

What’s missing here?  Nutrition! Not a single root is labeled “Nutrition.”

While a bunch of pseudoscientists were scheming on how to eliminate the impoverished, the unwashed and the unhealthy, Dr. Weston Price was quietly studying the effects of modern processed foods on the form, health, behavior and intelligence of human beings throughout the globe.

The eugenicists claimed the physical degeneration that Price observed was due to race mixing. Price was quick to disagree. “Nature always builds harmoniously if conditions are sufficiently favorable, regardless of race, color or location,” he said.

In Chapter One of his masterpiece, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Price makes it clear that the change in physical form he observed with the change in diet has nothing to do with heredity or “race mixing” –based on what he observed, unlike the eugenicists whose pronouncements were based on what they wanted to believe.

“It is important to preface the observations by constructing a mental pattern of physical excellence from the pictures of the various primitive groups and, with this yardstick or standard of normalcy, observe our modern patterns. Certain preconceived ideas may have to be modified, as for example, that based on the belief that what we see is due to heredity or that deformity is due to mixing of races. If so, why should the last child in a large family generally suffer most, and often be different in facial form; or why should there be these changes in the later children, even in pure racial stocks, after the parents have adopted our modern types of nutrition? Although the causes of physical degeneration that can be seen easily have been hard to trace, the defects in the development of the brain, which affect the mind and character, are much more obscure, and the causes of mental degeneration are exceedingly difficult to trace. Much that formerly has been left to the psychiatrist to explain is now rapidly shifting to the realm of the anatomist and physiologist (emphasis added).”

In Chapter Twenty-One, “Practical Application of Primitive Wisdom,” Price addresses the subject again, specifically in response to the 1926 book Genius (Some Revaluations) by A. C. Jacobson.

“In the observations and deductions presented in the foregoing chapters are exerting as controlling an influence on individual and national character as seems to be indicated, the problem of the outlook for our modern civilization is changed in many important aspects. One of the most urgent changes in our viewpoint should be to look upon the assortment of physical, mental and moral distortions as due, in considerable part, to nutritional disturbances in one or both parents which modify the development of the child, rather than to accepted factors in the inheritance. The evidence indicates that these parental disturbances of nutritional origin may affect the germ plasm, thus modifying the architecture, or may prevent the mother from building a complete fetal structure, including the brain. In other words, these data indicate that instead of dealing entirely with hereditary factors, we are dealing in part with distortions due to inhibitions of normal hereditary processes. This changes the prospects for the offspring of succeeding generations. Atavism will still have plenty to her credit even if she must give up her claim to distortions of individual characteristics.

“Jacobson has summarized the determining factors in individuality and personality when he says ‘The Jekyll-Hydes of our common life are ethnic hybrids.’ Most current interpretations are fatalistic and leave practically no escape from our succession of modern physical, mental and moral cripples.

“Jacobson says of our modern young people: ‘Very much of the strange behavior of our young people to-day is simply due to their lack of ethnical anchorage; they are bewildered hybrids, unable to believe sincerely in anything, and disowned by their own ancestral manes. To turn these neurotic hybrids loose in the world by the million, with no background, no heritage, no code, is as bad as imposing illegitimacy; their behavior, instead of expressing easily, naturally and spontaneously a long-used credo, will be determined by fears and senseless taboos. How can character be built upon such foundations? There is a ludicrous as well as a pathetic side to the situation presented by a Greek puzzled by his predominantly German children, or by the German woman unable to understand her predominantly Spanish progeny. It is a foolish case over again of hen hatching ducklings, of wolf fostering foundlings.’

“If our modern degeneration were largely the result of incompatible racial stocks as indicated by these premises, the outlook would be gloomy in the extreme. Those who find themselves depressed by this current interpretation of controlling forces would do well to recall the experiments on pigs referred to in Chapters 17 and 18, in which a large colony all born blind and maimed because of maternal nutritional deficiency–from deficient vitamin A–were able to beget offspring with normal eyes and normal bodies when they themselves had normal nutrition.

“Much emphasis has been placed on the incompatibility of certain racial bloods. According to Jacobson: ‘Aside from the effects of environment, it may safely be assumed that when two strains of blood will not mix well a kind of molecular insult occurs which the biologists may some day be able to detect beforehand, just as blood is now tested and matched for transfusion.’

’It is fortunate that there is a new explanation for the distressing old doctrine which holds that geniuses cannot be born unless there is an abundant crop of defectives. In this connection Jacobson says, ‘The genius tends to be a product of mixed ethnic and nervously peculiar stock–stock so peculiar that it exhibits an unusual amount of badness. The human family pays dearly for its geniuses. Just as nature in general is prodigal in wasting individuals for the development of a type, or species, so do we here find much human wastage apparently for a similar purpose. One may think of the insane and the defectives as so many individuals wasted in order that a few geniuses may be developed. It would seem’ that in order to produce one genius there must be battalions of criminals, weaklings and lunatics. Nietzsche must have had biologic implications of this sort in mind when he spoke of the masses as merely fertilizers for the genius. This is why the genius has been compared to the lily on the dunghill. He absorbs all the energy of his family group, leaving the fertilizing mass depleted.’

“Our recent data on the primitive races indicate that this theory is not true, since in a single generation various types and degrees of physical, mental or moral crippling may occur in spite of their purity of blood and all that inheritance could accomplish as a reinforcement through the ages.”

The Nazi application of eugenic principles during the Second World War opened the eyes of the world to what eugenics was really about—a justification for genocide–and the concept fell into disfavor—or at least went underground.  But do not think that eugenic thinking has disappeared. 

In 1972, the Club of Rome published a report titled, “The Limits to Growth,” which argued that if the current trends in population growth and industrialization continued, the Earth would run out of food and resources within one hundred years. In a 2017 interview, Dennis Meadows, one of the report’s main authors (and a member of the World Economic Forum), argued for drastic population reduction.  “We could . . . have eight or nine billion, probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart … and [people have] a low standard of living …  But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down.  I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience.”

Actually, the invisible controllers have already figured out how to reduce the world’s population in a way that is “relatively slow and. . . can be done in a way which is relatively equal. . . so that people share the experience.”  It’s called the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which advocates for a diet based on industrial seed oils rather than nutrient-dense animal fats, and warns against the evils of meat and salt.  It takes several generations, but the negative effects on the health and fertility of the nation have been relentless. (To that add poisoning from vaccinations, fluoride, mercury and agricultural chemicals and you have the perfect “eugenic” formula.)

Since the devastation of these Guidelines has been “relatively equal” on all classes, more prosperous Americans are suffering from infertility or having severely unhealthy children just as frequently as the poor.” Desperate for “designer babies,” they pursue such techniques as genetic testing, in vitro fertilization and egg transplants from attractive donors, and pin their hopes on the promised benefits of cloning and genetic manipulation.   In their book From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler argue for the adoption of as many “eugenic enhancement” technologies as possible, using the genome to have “better babies.”

I have news for these folks: none of these techniques will give them “better” babies.  Only the kind of nutrient-dense diets that nourished healthy primitive people will do that. We need to recognize the fact that the genetic blueprint of every human being is not flawed but perfect; but its full expression requires wise practices in food, farming and the healing arts (including the spacing of children). Eugenics is the duty of every parent, in order to ensure the birthright of every child: good health, perfect form, keen mind and a desire in the heart to create a better world. True eugenics will be accomplished by putting our animals on pasture, eating butter and adding liver to our sausages, rather than by tinkering with the genetic code.

Sally Fallon - Nourishing Traditions

Nourishing Traditions


Tuesday, 28 January 2025

Coffee – the artificial energy you pay for later

 

Americans drink over one hundred and forty-six billion cups of coffee per year.

Coffee plays a prominent role in the culinary and cultural landscape of the US and many other countries. Whether imbibed in the form of endless watery refills at greasy-spoon breakfast joints, or as a custom latte grabbed on the way to work, or as a concentrated espresso to cap a four-star dining experience, coffee has retained or even enhanced its status as “the most popular beverage after water.”1

In its most unprocessed form, coffee is a red (when ripe) cherry-like fruit, with the coffee bean found at the center. Precursors to modern coffee included a beverage made around 1000 AD with the whole fruit—both beans and hull—and a “wine-like concoction” made with the fermented pulp.2 Roasting of coffee beans began in the thirteenth century, setting the stage for today’s ubiquitous caffeinated beverage.

Coffee is an economic mover and shaker, second only to crude oil in its dominance of the global commodities market.3 Coffee exports, currently valued at over twenty billion dollars annually, are at record levels, although the surplus production has contributed to a two-year downward trend in prices that has squeezed the incomes of smaller producers.4 In the U.S., coffee shops are the fastest growing “niche” in the restaurant business, and Starbucks is the country’s third largest restaurant chain3 (without even counting the more than twenty-four thousand coffee shops operated by Starbucks International).5 As a leading purveyor of value-added coffee products, Starbucks’ net earnings (estimated at almost twenty-five billion dollars in 2018)6 have surpassed the monetary value of global coffee bean exports.

Per capita consumption of coffee is highest in countries such as Finland and Brazil, but Americans lead the world in total consumption, downing one hundred and forty-six billion cups of coffee per year.7 Roughly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) drink at least one cup of coffee per day.8 Interestingly, employed adults consume more caffeinated beverages (including coffee) than unemployed adults.9 National studies looking broadly at dietary caffeine intake have showed that two-thirds of daily caffeine comes from coffee (with tea in second place), and—perhaps explaining Starbucks’ astronomical revenues—over half comes from “store-bought coffee.”9

A FALSE FRIEND

Coffee contains more than eight hundred volatile compounds, including caffeine and chlorogenic acid (coffee’s primary polyphenolic compound).10 Caffeine is toxic to some insects and animals, notably herbivores.1 In humans, caffeine is a psychoactive substance and a central nervous system stimulant.11 In an upbeat video about coffee on the Smithsonian website,12 Sir Hans Kornberg (biochemistry professor at Boston University) explains the caffeine molecule’s stimulant effects as follows: ordinarily, something called “cyclic AMP” (a derivative of ATP, the primary molecule required for cellular energy) tells a cell’s machinery to “get moving;” when enough cyclic AMP has been made, “natural mechanisms” come along and call a halt to cyclic AMP production. Caffeine, however, overrides these natural mechanisms, removing the brake and allowing uninterrupted production of cyclic AMP.12 This “amped-up” production of cyclic AMP has been a known biological action of caffeine for decades.13 In lay terms, it means that coffee and caffeine “will cause the body to ‘forget’ that it is tired.”14

Many coffee drinkers celebrate the “alertness, elevated mood, wakefulness, increased speech and motor activity and decrease[d] appetite” that are the temporary hallmarks of their beverage of choice (and indeed, of all stimulants, whether natural or synthetic).15 The French author, HonorĂ© de Balzac, is reputed to have been a major coffee habituĂ©, consuming up to fifty cups a day when in the throes of writing his literary masterpieces.1 As Balzac’s coffee habit implies, caffeine’s ability to stimulate “pleasure and reward” centers in the brain makes it highly addictive; over time, an individual will need to take in ever more caffeine to achieve the same effects.16

Despite Balzac’s example, the founder of a modern company that trains Fortune 500 companies on emotional intelligence claimed in Forbes in 2012 that coffee is actually a “silent killer of success.”17 To explain this assertion, the Forbes author described a variety of undesirable caffeine-induced effects, including hyper-arousal; irritability, anxiety and other forms of emotional hijacking of behavior; rapid shallow breathing that “deprives the brain of the oxygen needed to keep your thinking calm and rational”; and decreased quality of sleep. With regard to the latter, he also noted that “caffeine has a six-hour half-life, which means it takes a full twenty-four hours to work its way out of your system.” A blogger writing for coffee fans concurs, admitting that coffee’s ability to keep drowsiness at bay “provides a short-term solution that creates a long-term problem.”14


EFFECTS ON BODY AND BRAIN

Dr. Louisa Williams (author of Radical Medicine) characterizes caffeinated coffee as a “potent pharmacological agent” that can cause numerous harms (see Table 1).18 Williams encourages coffee drinkers to “gradually detoxify this drug from their bodies and lifestyle,” transitioning first to organic decaffeinated coffee, then switching to organic black or green tea and, finally, drinking herbal teas, beverages made from roasted chicory or simply warm water and lemon juice. (Note that decaffeinated coffee is not a desirable endpoint; it is neither entirely caffeine-free nor free of the other phytochemicals in coffee that can produce strong physiological effects.19)

After ingestion, caffeine is widely distributed throughout the body, “promptly” getting into all the body tissues and crossing the blood-brain, blood-placenta and blood-testis barriers.1 Williams observes that caffeine is a methyl-xanthine—a type of molecular compound that functions simultaneously as a stimulant “that can increase heart rate and blood flow” and as a relaxant “that can open blood vessels and loosen muscular tissues.”20 The stimulant property of methylxanthines is “one of the main reasons people often feel their hearts racing after consuming a lot of caffeinated foods or drinks.”20

Depletion of the adrenal glands and compromised nutrition and digestion are some of the many harmful effects of caffeine outlined by Williams.18 The adrenal glands govern the production of key hormones—including sex hormones, stress hormones such as cortisol and the neurotransmitters epinephrine, norepinephrine and dopamine. Williams and other holistically oriented medical practitioners note that coffee has extremely negative effects on this intricately balanced system. Coffee’s artificial stimulation of the adrenal glands and especially cortisol “means that every time you drink coffee, you’re activating the body’s fight-or-flight response,”21 putting your nervous system “on constant red alert” whether or not there is any actual stress.22 Normally, cortisol levels are high in the morning to help an individual “rise and shine for the day,” but when routine coffee consumption drives up cortisol artificially, it changes the pattern.21 Cortisol ends up being low in the morning instead of high—prompting the person to reach for a morning cup of coffee and perpetuating the topsy-turvy cycle until, finally, more severe adrenal fatigue sets in.23

Research has shown that coffee and caffeine affect utilization and absorption of key nutrients, for example, depleting magnesium and reducing absorption of iron.24 As a diuretic, caffeinated coffee also contributes to calcium excretion to such an extent that it “can add up to significant bone thinning.”25 Although some researchers rate this bone loss effect as “controversial,” one study found that elderly postmenopausal women who consumed about eighteen ounces of brewed coffee a day experienced “significantly higher rates of bone loss at the spine” compared to women with a lower daily intake.26 These effects on bone density prompted Colorado researchers in 2009 to recommend that premenopausal women limit their caffeine consumption to avoid osteoporosis.27

A couple of years ago, reflecting the current trendiness of anything to do with the microbiome, coffee lovers greeted a study published in Science28 with considerable fanfare. Although the study covered an extremely wide range of “intrinsic, environmental, dietary and medication parameters,” coffee enthusiasts pounced on the one sentence linking coffee, tea and wine to “a healthier and more diverse community of microbes living in the gut.”29 The researchers attributed this association to the three beverages’ high polyphenol content.28 Others, however, have suggested that coffee’s impact on the gut may not actually be beneficial. Dr. Edward Group of the Global Healing Center describes numerous undesirable effects on gut health, including a reduction in the stomach acid needed for digestion when morning coffee is consumed on an empty stomach (true for both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee); a weakening of the stomach’s protective mucosal layer; acid reflux and esophageal changes resulting from coffee’s relaxation of the esophageal sphincter; aggravation of bowel disorders or an overactive bowel; and premature release of partially digested food into the small intestine, which can damage the intestinal wall and facilitate dysbiosis.24

Coffee drinkers who are interested in the microbiome might also want to bear in mind the results of a novel study of “coffee machine-associated bacteria” published in Scientific Reports30 and summarized in Scientific American, which found that nine in ten top-of-the-line espresso machines harbored “a whole menagerie of bacteria—including some pathogenic species more commonly associated with the toilet.”31 (About 30 percent of the world’s Michelin-starred restaurants feature the brand of espresso machine examined in the study.32) Given the discovery of bacteria with pathogenic properties “and the fast recovery of the [bacterial] communities after rinsing the capsule container,” the study’s authors advised “frequent maintenance” and preventing contact “of the coffee leach with other parts of the machine to avoid unintended contamination of the beverage.”30

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

Many researchers acknowledge the association of caffeine intake with “reversible and transient physiological effects broadly and cardiovascular effects specifically,” but surprisingly few are willing to pin any blame for more serious chronic health issues on coffee or caffeine.33 At the same time, some experts have called attention to caffeine’s potentially adverse effects on sleep or cardiovascular and other functions in “special” or “vulnerable” populations—broadly defined as “pregnant and lactating women, children and adolescents, young adults, and people with underlying heart or other health conditions, such as mental
illness.”34

Studies and meta-analyses (studies of studies) in humans have linked coffee consumption during pregnancy (including both caffeinated and decaffeinated brews in some studies) to an increased risk of pregnancy loss,35 preterm delivery36 and other adverse birth outcomes.37 A just-published long-term study of Irish mother-child pairs that looked at the effects of maternal consumption of both coffee and tea found “robust” and statistically significant associations of maternal caffeine intake with lower birth weight, shorter birth length, smaller head circumference and shorter gestational age.38 Of note, “similar higher risks of adverse birth outcomes were observed for the highest caffeine intake categories from coffee and tea compared with the lowest intake categories.”38

Studies in rodent models suggest that caution about coffee consumption during pregnancy (and lactation) is also warranted due to potential long-term effects on offspring that are irreversible, including adrenal abnormalities.39 A study by investigators in Turkey—famous for its “robust Turkish coffee and strong black tea”40 and where approximately 60 percent of pregnant women consume caffeine—found that administration of both low and high doses of caffeine to pregnant rats affected sex steroid levels in the fetus and neonate, leading the authors to speculate about likely effects on “behavioral and neuroendocrine functions at some point in adult life.”41

Chinese researchers, also using a rat model, found that prenatal caffeine exposure induced “high susceptibility to metabolic syndrome” in the female adult offspring.42 Metabolic syndrome is the name given to a group of risk factors for heart disease, stroke and diabetes. (The risk factors include apple-shaped obesity, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, a high triglyceride level and low HDL-cholesterol.) Somewhat confusingly, some researchers have reported that regular coffee consumption is protective for metabolic syndrome.43 However, a recent study from Finland (the country with the world’s highest per capita coffee consumption) reported that in individuals who are already type 1 diabetics, both “moderate” (three to five cups a day) and “high” (greater than five cups a day) coffee consumption was associated with increased odds of metabolic syndrome, and any level of consumption increased the risk of high blood pressure.44

A 2012 rat study out of Iran examined caffeine as a potential risk factor for male infertility, considering both in utero and lactational exposures.45 The researchers identified a number of significant long-term and dose-related effects on the “reproductive efficiency of male offspring rats,” including a decline in sperm density, decreased fetal viability and reductions in testosterone levels. A recent survey of “lifestyle causes of male infertility” cites numerous studies linking coffee and caffeine to poor semen quality, sperm DNA damage and prolonged time to pregnancy, although it is unclear whether these effects accrue solely from prior in utero exposure or also from adult caffeine consumption.46

An international childhood cancer consortium also just reported an increased risk of childhood leukemia in the children of regular coffee drinkers.47 The coffee consumption threshold beyond which the researchers detected cancer effects was two-plus cups of coffee a day.

COFFEE DRINKERS FOR LIFE?

Market reports indicate that adolescents “are drinking more coffee every year and continually starting at a younger age”— setting the stage for a life-long coffee-drinking habit.48 Teens and young adults are responding in part to clever marketing that portrays coffee drinking as “classy and sophisticated.”49 This marketing strategy appears to be paying off, because young workers between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four spend an estimated twenty-four to seventy-four dollars per week on coffee.8 The narrator of the Smithsonian’s fluff video on coffee credits entities such as Starbucks for “talking about terroir [and] making the geography of coffee available to people” and also waxes poetic about the current wave of coffee “connoisseurship” and “refinement”; the short video also features a young college student sniffing and tasting a special brew in the manner of a fine wine.12

According to the advisory committee for the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, there is a lack of consensus regarding safe levels of coffee and caffeine intake among children and adolescents.9 This may be due to the “dearth of caffeine research among younger consumers.”50 A research team in Iceland is particularly concerned about the implications of teenage caffeine consumption for long-term cardiovascular health, having found that “early exposure to caffeine may lead to persistent increases in vascular resistance, which in turn is an acknowledged risk factor for the development of hypertension.”50 Headaches are another common vascular symptom associated with coffee drinking. A study that looked at menstruation-related headaches—reported by one in four teenage girls—found that daily coffee (and cola) consumption was associated with more frequent headaches.51

Researchers have raised concerns about increased vulnerability to anxiety disorders resulting from caffeine consumption during the developmentally sensitive adolescent years. A study in rats identified “dysregulation of the neuroendocrine stress response system” following adolescent caffeine exposure, leading to “enhanced anxiety-related behavior” in adulthood.11 Disturbingly, the effects persisted into adulthood “even after removal of caffeine.”

RISKS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

A number of studies and meta-analyses have reported inverse (protective) associations of coffee with a variety of diseases.37 (The lead researcher of one of the more influential meta-analyses smilingly poses with a cup of coffee on his university webpage.52) The coffee lobby and even public health and medical professionals have not hesitated to use these studies to shore up their claim that “coffee is good for you.”53 (Remember when tobacco companies built relationships with academic institutions and funded scientific studies to tout the benefits of another stimulant, called nicotine? Ironically, the companies’ public relations campaigns “often [minimized] nicotine’s health risks by comparing it to caffeine or coffee”!54)

Much of the coffee-is-beneficial research is actually of a mixed-message nature. For example, one study describes coffee as a risk factor for type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis but suggests that it is protective for multiple sclerosis and autoimmune liver disease.55 Another study links coffee to an increased risk of breast cancer (among premenopausal and normal-weight women) but a reduced risk of endometrial cancer.56 A study looking at kidney cancer found that decaffeinated coffee consumption was associated with an increased risk of “aggressive” kidney cancer, while caffeinated coffee intake apparently reduced the risk57—even though other work has pointed to caffeine as a kidney toxin.58 And some investigators deny any coffee-associated cardiovascular disease risk at all,10 while others point to likely interactions with genetics, suggesting that some individuals may be genetically “predisposed” toward coffee-induced high blood pressure.59 (Does this portend a genetic test for would-be coffee drinkers?)

Is it worth running the risk of losing a pregnancy, damaging one’s adrenal system or impairing nutrient availability to obtain coffee’s purported mixed benefits? A Wise Traditions lifestyle that emphasizes a properly prepared nutrient-dense diet, adequate sunlight, time in nature, protection from cell phones and cell towers, and avoidance of toxic pharmaceutical products will go much further toward supporting good health than gambling a ride on the coffee roller coaster.


COFFEE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

When considering what coffee does to humans, we should not overlook what coffee production is capable of doing to the environment. Traditionally, coffee was shade-grown under a diverse canopy of native trees that allowed for a “rich web of plant and animal life,” providing corridors for migrating birds, support for pollinators and “ecosystem services” that stabilized and replenished soil.60 These practices were especially important given that coffee-growing regions are home to some of the planet’s most delicate ecosystems.61 In the 1970s, industry-favorable agricultural policies and coffee’s popularity prompted a shift toward sun-grown coffee produced in plantations with no canopy—this has resulted in massive deforestation, loss of biodiversity, widespread use of toxic chemical fertilizers and soil depletion.60

Intensive agrochemical coffee production relies on an assortment of chemicals with unpronounceable names (such as ametryne, cyproconazole, diuron, epoxiconazole, flutriafol, triadimenol and triazophos), which contaminate both surface water and groundwater62 and create both acute and long-term health risks for farmworkers.63 Residues from these chemicals also pose risks to the end consumer, with “large variations in the stability of pesticide residues” depending on the processing method used.64

Although organically grown, shade-grown and fairtrade coffees have increased in popularity in the U.S., now accounting for 37 percent of American coffee sales by volume, these “specialty coffees” are still swimming against the tide in the global marketplace.60 In fact, a 2014 study reported a worldwide shift toward more intensive coffee farming over the past two decades.65 Although total global production of shade-grown coffee increased over the time period in question, “the area of land used for non shade coffee…increased at a much faster rate, resulting in shade grown coffee falling from 43 percent of total cultivated area to 24 percent”—despite “two decades of growth in public awareness of where coffee comes from and the different ways to manage it for biodiversity.”60

WHAT’S IN THAT COFFEE DRINK?

Consumers who make a habit of drinking the fancy coffee concoctions on offer in places like Starbucks would do well to become familiar with some of the unhealthy ingredients used by these establishments. Joan Salge Blake of Boston University says, “So much is added to [coffee]—the cream, the sugar, the flavoring—that now what people are drinking is almost like a sweetened, creamy beverage with a coffee flavoring to it.”12

According to the Food Babe (a blogger “hot on the trail to investigate what’s really in your food!”), Starbucks uses “Monsanto Milk” (non-organic milk “from farms where the cows are almost always fed a diet that consists primarily of GMO feed. . . that is laden with pesticides”) or dairy-free “milks” that are full of dubious additives such as carrageenan and guar gum.66 The Food Babe also reports that even “taking the milk out of the equation, most of the drinks at Starbucks are still filled with a ton of sugar [including high fructose corn syrup], natural flavors, preservatives, thickeners, emulsifiers and other artificial additives.”

SUBSTITUTES FOR COFFEE

HOT MOLASSES DRINK: 1 tablespoon molasses, 1 tablespoon coconut oil, 1/4 teaspoon powdered ginger in a mug with enough hot water to fill the mug.

CHICKEN BROTH WITH COCONUT MILK: 1 quart homemade chicken broth, 1 can full-fat coconut milk, juice of 1-2 limes, pinch of red pepper flakes.

>WARM FLAVORED MILK: 2 cups whole raw milk, 1 teaspoon vanilla extract, 1/2 teaspoon chocolate extract, 1 tablespoon carob powder, 2-3 teaspoons maple sugar. Use a whisk to blend all ingredients in a glass pyrex measuring pitcher. Set in simmering water until warm to the touch.


REFERENCES

1. Cappelletti S, Daria P, Sani G, Aromatario M. Caffeine: cognitive and physical performance enhancer or psychoactive drug? Curr Neuropharmacol 2015;13(1):71-88.

2. Avey T. The caffeinated history of coffee. The History Kitchen, Apr. 8, 2013.

3. Goldschein E. 11 incredible facts about the global coffee industry. Business Insider, Nov. 14, 2011.

4. “What’s new: record exports in coffee year 2017/18.” http://www.ico.org/.

5. “Starbucks Coffee International.” https://www.starbucks.com/business/international-stores.

6. https://www.statista.com/statistics/266466/net-revenue-of-the-starbucks-corporation-worldwide/.

7. http://www.coffee-statistics.com/coffee-statistics-report.php.

8. https://www.statista.com/chart/1667/coffee-consumption-in-the-us/.

9. Drewnowski A, Rehm CD. Sources of caffeine in diets of US children and adults: trends by beverage type and purchase location. Nutrients 2016;8(3):154.

10. Nieber K. The impact of coffee on health. Planta Med 2017;83(16):1256-63.

11. O’Neill CE, Newsom RJ, Stafford J, et al. Adolescent caffeine consumption increases adulthood anxiety-related behavior and modifies neuroendocrine signaling. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2016;67:40-50.

12. “The history of coffee culture in America.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/arts-culture/the-history-of-coffee-culture-in-america/.

13. Schreiner CM, Zimmerman EF, Wee EL, Scott WJ Jr. Caffeine effects on cyclic AMP levels in the mouse embryonic limb and palate in vitro. Teratology 1986;34(1):21-7.

14. Ramos B. Your brain on coffee: how caffeine affects brain chemistry. I Need Coffee, Dec. 15, 2015. https://ineedcoffee.com/your-brain-on-coffee-how-caffeine-affects-brain-chemistry/.

15. “Stimulant.” https://www.britannica.com/science/stimulant#ref76840.

16. Angelone A. Your morning coffee and adrenal imbalances. Thyroid Nation, Aug. 2, 2014.

17. Bradberry T. Caffeine: the silent killer of success. Forbes, Aug. 21, 2012.

18. Williams LL. Radical Medicine: Profound Intervention in a Profoundly Toxic Age. San Francisco, CA: International Medical Arts Publishing; 2007-2008, p. 247.

19. Todd T. Is decaffeinated or decaf coffee healthy? SteadyHealth, Jan. 7, 2009.

20. “What are methylxanthines?” https://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-methylxanthines.htm.

21. Desjardins N. The impact of coffee on your adrenal glands. https://drjessechappus.com/the-impact-of-coffee-on-your-adrenal-glands/.

22. “The impact of caffeine on your adrenal glands.” https://adrenalfatiguesolution.com/caffeine-adrenal-glands/.

23. Lyke K. The HPA axis. Wise Traditions 2017;18(4):13-24.

24. Group E. Does coffee harm your gut? Global Healing Center, Feb. 9, 2017.

25. Hyland-Tassava S. Does coffee deplete nutrients? Livestrong.com, Oct. 3, 2017.

26. Rapuri PB, Gallagher JC, Kinyamu HK, Ryschon KL. Caffeine intake increases the rate of bone loss in elderly women and interacts with vitamin D receptor genotypes. Am J Clin Nutr 2001;74(5):694-700.

27. Vondracek SF, Hansen LB, McDermott MT. Osteoporosis risk in premenopausal women. Pharmacotherapy 2009;29(3):305-17.

28. Zhernakova A, Kurilshikov A, Bonder MJ, et al. Population-based metagenomics analysis reveals markers for gut microbiome composition and diversity. Science 2016;352(6285):565-9.

29. Netburn D, Healy M. Wine and coffee lovers, drink up! It’s great for your microbiome. Los Angeles Times, Apr. 29, 2016.

30. Vilanova C, Iglesias A, Porcar M. The coffee-machine bacteriome: biodiversity and colonisation of the wasted coffee tray leach. Sci Rep 2015;5:17163.

31. Intagliata C. Espresso machines brew a microbiome of their own. Scientific American, Dec. 1, 2015.

>32. Rainey C. Pod people: Nespresso’s push to become high-end restaurants’ go-to coffee. Grub Street, Mar. 21, 2013.

33. Turnbull D, Rodricks JV, Mariano GF, Chowdhury F. Caffeine and cardiovascular health. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2017;89:165-85.

34. Temple JL, Bernard C, Lipschultz SE, Czachor JD, Westphal JA, Mestre MA. The safety of ingested caffeine: a comprehensive review. Front Psychiatry 2017;8:80.

35. Grosso G, Godos J, Galvano F, Giovannucci EL. Coffee, caffeine, and health outcomes: an umbrella review. Annu Rev Nutr 2017;37:131-56.

36. Eskenazi B, Stapleton AL, Kharrazi M, Chee WY. Associations between maternal decaffeinated and caffeinated coffee consumption and fetal growth and gestational duration. Epidemiology 1999;10(3):242-9.

37. Poole R, Kennedy OJ, Roderick P, Fallowfield JA, Hayes PC, Parkes J. Coffee consumption and health: umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple health outcomes. BMJ 2017;359:j5024.

38. Chen LW, Fitzgerald R, Murrin CM, et al. Associations of maternal caffeine intake with birth outcomes: results from the Lifeways Cross Generation Cohort Study. Am J Clin Nutr 2018 Oct. 19.

39. He Z, Zhu C, Huang H, et al. Prenatal caffeine exposure-induced adrenal developmental abnormality in male offspring rats and its possible intrauterine programming mechanisms. Toxicol Res (Camb) 2016;5(2):388-98.

40. Taviloglu E. Turkish tea and coffee culture: in Turkey, drinking tea and coffee is a way of life. The Spruce Eats, May 14, 2018.

41. Karaismailoglu S, Tuncer M, Bayrak S, Erdogan G, Ergun El, Erdem A. The perinatal effects of maternal caffeine intake on fetal and neonatal brain levels of testosterone, estradiol, and dihydrotestosterone in rats. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 2017;390(8):827-38.

42. Pei LG, Yuan C, Guo YT, et al. Prenatal caffeine exposure induced high susceptibility to metabolic syndrome in adult female offspring rats and its underlying mechanisms. Reprod Toxicol 2017;71:150-8.

43. Kim JH, Park YS, Kim H. Association between metabolic syndrome and coffee consumption in the Korean population by gender: a cross-sectional study in Korea. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2018;27(5):1131-40.

44. Stutz B, Ahola AJ, Harjutsalo V, Forsblom C, Groop PH, FinnDiane Study Group. Association between habitual coffee consumption and metabolic syndrome in type 1 diabetes. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2018;28(5):470-6.

45. Dorostghoal M, Erfani Majd N, Norraei P. Maternal caffeine consumption has irreversible effects on reproductive parameters and fertility in male offspring rats. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2012;39(4):144-52.

46. Durairajanayagam D. Lifestyle causes of male infertility. Arab J Urol 2018;16(1):10-20.

47. Milne E, Greenop KR, Petridou E, et al. Maternal consumption of coffee and tea during pregnancy and risk of childhood ALL: a pooled analysis from the childhood Leukemia International Consortium. Cancer Causes Control 2018;29(6):539-550.

48. “Teenagers and coffee—caffeine and your teen.” http://www.coffeehomedirect.com/coffee-and-teenagers.

49. http://www.cofei.com/health/teen-coffee-drinking-grows.html.

50. James JE, Baldursdottir B, Johannsdottir KR, Valdimarsdottir HB, Sigfusdottir ID. Adolescent habitual caffeine consumption and hemodynamic reactivity during rest, psychosocial stress, and recovery. J Psychosom Res 2018;110:16-23.

51. Carman KB, Arslantas D, Unsal A, et al. Menstruation-related headache in adolescents: point prevalence and associated factors. Pediatr Int 2018;60(6):576-80.

52. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/medicine/postgraduate/research_students/rp4n14.page.

53. Park A. 3 reasons why coffee is so good for you. TIME, Nov. 22, 2017.

54. Ling PM, Glantz SA. Tobacco company strategies to identify and promote the benefits of nicotine. Tob Control 2018 Aug. 9.

55. Anaya JM, Restrepo-Jiménez P, Ramírez-Santana C. The autoimmune ecology: an update. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2018;30(4):350-60.

56. Arthur R, Kirsh VA, Rohan TE. Associations of coffee, tea and caffeine intake with risk of breast, endometrial and ovarian cancer among Canadian women. Cancer Epidemiol 2018;56:75-82.

57. Antwi SO, Eckel-Passow JE, Diehl ND, et al. Coffee consumption and risk of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Causes Control 2017;28(8):857-66.

58. Cosola C, Sabatino A, di Bari I, Fiaccadori E, Gesualdo L. Nutrients, nutraceuticals, and xenobiotics affecting renal health. Nutrients 2018;10(7):808.

59. Miranda AM, Steluti J, Norde MM, Fisberg RM, Marchioni DM. The association between genetic risk score and blood pressure is modified by coffee consumption: gene-diet interaction analysis in a population-based study. Clin Nutr 2018 Aug. 4.

60. Airhart MG. Shade grown coffee shrinking as a proportion of global coffee production. University of Texas College of Natural Sciences, Apr. 16, 2014. https://cns.utexas.edu/news/shade-grown-coffee.

61. Blacksell G. How green is your coffee? The Guardian, Oct 4, 2011.

62. De Queiroz VT, Azevedo MM, da Silva Quadros IP, et al. Environmental risk assessment for sustainable pesticide use in coffee production. J Contam Hydrol 2018;219:18-27.

63. Hutter HP, Khan AW, Lemmerer K, Wallner P, Kundi M, Moshammer H. Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of pesticide exposure in male coffee farmworkers of the Jarabacoa region, Dominican Republic. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(8). Pii:E1641.

64. Chen Z, Song S, Mao L, et al. Determinations of dinotefuran and metabolite levels before and after household coffee processing in coffee beans using solid-phase extraction coupled with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Sci Food Agric 2018 Aug. 2.

65. Jha S, Bacon CM, Philpott SM, Méndez VE, Läderach P, Rice RA. Shade coffee: update on a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 2014;64(5):416-28.

66. “Starbucks finally publishes drink ingredient list… Here are the worst ones!” https://foodbabe.com/starbucks-finally-publishes-drink-ingredient-list/.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Winter 2018

Monday, 27 January 2025

The Mucusless Diet

An early example of a bad diet was the “mucusless diet,” formulated by a German “professor” Arnold Ehret and published in a 1922 book called Mucusless Diet Healing System: Scientific Method of Eating Your Way to Health. Unfortunately, we don’t know the long-term effects of the diet on its inventor because Ehret died after falling on a curb and hitting his head two weeks after writing the book.

According to Ehret, “Every disease, no matter what name it is known by Medical Science, is Constipation. A clogging up of the entire pipe system of the human body. Any special symptom is therefore merely an extraordinary local constipation by more accumulated mucus at this particular place. Special accumulation points are the tongue, the stomach and particularly the entire digestive tract.” He preached that fruit was the perfect food and along with leafy vegetables was enough to sustain a human being in good health. He also advocated fasting, starting with a two- or three-day fast, and promoted longer fasts (up to forty days) once the body was used to going without food.

Like many other practitioners in the early 20th century, Ehret was fixated on the bowels—his contemporary John Harvey Kellogg, for example, believed that three bowel movements per day were a sign of good health. “The average person has as much as ten pounds of un-eliminated feces in the bowels continually, poisoning the blood stream and the entire system,” wrote Ehret. “Think of it! My ‘Mucus Theory’ and ‘Mucusless Diet Healing System’ stand unshaken; it has proven the most successful ‘Compensation-Action’ so-called cure against every kind of disease. By its systematic application thousands of declared-incurable patients could be saved.”

Whereas conventional doctors of the time—also often fixated on the bowels–treated “clogged bowels” with arsenic preparations, Ehret advocated a strict vegan diet—which may have unclogged those stroppy bowels in the short term, but would starve you if you stuck to it, especially if you also engaged in punishing fasts.

Only fruit and leafy green vegetables were allowed. “All other foods of civilization, without exception, are mucus and acid forming, and therefore are harmful.” Apparently, Ehret’s “scientific” approach failed to realize that our mucous membranes are there for a purpose. . . to produce mucus.

Ehret railed against the “heavy breakfast,” calling it “the worst and by far the most unhealthy habit. No solid food should be eaten in the early morning at all if you desire to secure the best results.” He also warned against taking liquids with foods.  “If accustomed to tea or coffee, wait a short while after you have eaten before drinking. Soups should be avoided with meals, as the more liquid taken the more difficult for proper digestion. If a warm drink is desired, for instance, as a breakfast drink during the winter time, make a broth by cooking for a long time different kinds of vegetables, such as spinach, onions, carrots, cabbages, etc., and DRINK THE JUICE ONLY.”

Unfortunately, the mucusless diet did not die with its inventor, but took on a life of its own.  Reprinted in 1953, his book is still out there urging a starvation diet as a way to bodily purity.  The most famous recent advocate for the diet was Apple CEO Steve Jobs who, for the better part of his life, consumed only fruits and vegetables until his death from pancreatic cancer in 2011. 

When Ashton Kutcher, who played the character of Jobs in the eponymous film, tried to follow the mucusless diet, he lost eighteen pounds but he ended up in the emergency room as his insulin levels fluctuated out of control.


What could possibly go wrong on a diet of only fruits and vegetables? Malnutrition, low blood sugar, osteoporosis, dementia, anger and mood swings (Jobs was famous for this), to name but a few. The diet certainly will not prevent cancer, as proven by the example of the late Apple CEO. 

 https://nourishingtraditions.com/weird-diets/

Sunday, 26 January 2025

Vegan Free Carrots

MEATY CARROTS ARE A BIG HIT

A Welsh butcher has been selling meaty ‘carrots’ made with minced pork because he is so fed up with vegans naming food after meat, and they are a huge hit with customers.

Tom Samways, 36, from Cardigan, Wales, used pork mince to make the ‘carrots’, his recipe is finished off with orange glaze for colour and parsley for the leaves.
Tom said the idea was initially a joke until 300 of the pork carrots were sold – the idea came from the fact some vegan food is named after meat products,’ he said.

He said: ‘Everyone loved them. It started out as a bit of a joke, they were just a gimmick – but they have gone down well and we’ll be making more.

‘The idea came from the fact that a lot of vegan food is named after meat products, like vegan sausages and vegan chicken.

‘I just thought, well, let’s make a meat version of vegan food.

‘They’re just pork kebabs really. They’re made from high-quality minced pork meat and are glazed with an Italian herb dressing to get that orange look. Then they’re finished off with a bit of parsley.’

Mr Samways is the owner of T Samways High Class Butchers in Cardigan, West Wales.

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8038117/Butcher-selling-carrots-pork-fed-vegans-naming-food-meat.html

Saturday, 25 January 2025

Avoid Paracetamol

Paracetamol – Toxic, potentially lethal, and totally useless… Avoid this toxic chemical

 

Compared to the "COVID" jab, Paracetamol is probably only moderately lethal, but it's still an extremely dangerous toxin. Here is a quick introduction by Dr Micozzi

Paracetamol has been rolling around since WW II, when U.S. manufacturers first “obtained” the patent from a German chemical company that manufactured toxic dyes. McNeil Labs of Philadelphia then developed acetaminophen into a drug and sold it off to Johnson & Johnson at a huge profit, founding another Philadelphia medical dynasty of ill-gotten gains.

Since then, J&J has been hiding this toxic drug in various products, often combining it with other pain-relieving drugs such as codeine. This ploy hides the fact that Tylenol doesn’t actually work for pain. (More on that in just a moment.)

In the late 1970s, I helped develop testing procedures to detect blood levels of this drug using state-of-the-art analytical instruments. And even back then, we considered Tylenol a toxic chemical. In fact, we included it in a “toxicology panel” to detect poisons.

In the early 1980s, when I worked as a hospital pathologist, I witnessed deaths due to liver failure caused by this drug. When I reported them to the local Medical Examiner, they replied with a yawn that they see such deaths all the time! Later, as a Medical Examiner myself, and as a consulting forensic pathologist and toxicologist, I encountered many more cases.

But I wasn’t the only one.

In the new report, researchers from the U.K. conducted a systematic review of 1,888 studies to document the adverse events associated with Tylenol. The adverse events reported included deaths, as well as toxicity to the heart, GI tract and kidneys.

In this review, eight studies followed participants prospectively over time. I consider these kinds of studies–based on long-term actual observations–the most authoritative.

In studies that examined mortality risk, the death rate for men and women who used Tylenol was 90 percent higher than those who didn’t use the drug. Another study showed a dose-response relationship, meaning the more of the drug the patient took, the higher their risk of death.

Four studies reported non-fatal heart toxicity, again with a strong dose-response effect. In these studies, even men and women who took the lowest dose of Tylenol still had a 20 percent higher risk of suffering non-fatal heart toxicity compared to non-users. Men and women who took the drug at the highest dose range had a 70 percent greater risk of heart toxicity. Furthermore, some studies found the risk went up as high as 160 percent greater.

For GI toxicity, one study reported patients who took the lowest doses of Tylenol ran about a 10 percent increased risk of suffering bleeding and other complications. On the other hand, men and women who took Tylenol at the higher dose range ran a 50 percent greater chance of suffering these dangerous complications.

In terms of kidney damage, four studies found adverse effects, and three studies found a dose-response. Overall, researchers linked the drug to a 30 percent decrease in kidney function. At the lower doses, men and women ran a 40 percent greater risk of damaged kidney function, on average. And at the higher doses, they ran 120 percent greater risk, on average. In some cases, the actual risk was as much as 240 percent higher.

Amazingly, acetaminophen (called paracetamol outside the U.S.) is the most widely used over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription drug for pain worldwide. But recent studies show it doesn’t even work at all for the most common back, neck and joint pains. One study even showed that men and women who took Tylenol for back pain spent one more day in misery than those who took a sugar pill. Not surprising for a metabolic poison.

This drug is the first step on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pain treatment protocol, for reasons they’ve never really explained. Plus, many international medical guidelines recommend Tylenol as the first-line drug therapy for a multitude of acute and chronic pain conditions.

If this useless poison is really the WHO’s first choice, then we must repeat the timeless question of the mid-20th century comedians Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, “WHO’s on first?”

Who’s on first, indeed? Certainly not all the poor patients worldwide suffering from pain.

This pharmacological farce is no laughing matter. It causes countless deaths and complications each year. But sadly, it appears the mainstream medical establishment is just beginning to recognize and report on this tragedy.

Never take acetaminophen (Tylenol) for any reason.

 

 https://drmicozzi.com/mainstream-press-finally-catches-wind-of-tylenols-dangers

Friday, 24 January 2025

Why real food is better

"JUST Egg" is just about anything but egg. This disgusting collection of unnatural and processed vegan fake foods including canola oil (aka. rapeseed oil) and the ever present sugar, is another good example of why it's always best to stick with the real thing.