Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

609 North Main S
Viroqua, WI 54665
http://viroquafood.coop/
 608-637-7511

Even the best diet may not give an animal everything it requires

By SHAWN MESSONNIER / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News

Dear Dr. Shawn: After reading The Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats, I know that you’re a big believer in using supplements. But since I feed my dog what I think is a good natural diet, is supplementation still important?

Answer: I’m a big believer in feeding the proper diet AND combining the best diet with whatever supplements your pet requires. I’m assuming that your pet is healthy and does not have any specific needs that I should address. The foundation of any holistic health program starts with a natural diet, preferably free from by-products and chemicals. Even the best diet may not provide everything your pet needs to maintain health. This is because diets are formulated for the “average” pet, and I’ve yet to see an “average” pet. Evidence from studies supports the benefits of vitamin and mineral supplementation. This is especially true for pet foods that are not natural or holistic. Many foods lack nutritional enhancement, and the ingredients used are by-products from human-grade materials that aren’t fit for human consumption and are deficient in important nutrients. The diet is a starting place, and supplements are used depending upon a pet’s specific needs.

Here are some recommendations that will be true for all pets:

• The supplement should be produced by a company with a good track record. Ideally, the manufacturing company will have the stamp of approval from the National Animal Supplement Council (www.NASC.cc). The supplement should be scientifically formulated.
• The supplement should be formulated with the finest all-natural human-grade ingredients.
• Supplements should be economical to allow you to enhance your pet’s diet and ensure the pet is getting all essential nutrients daily. A little bit of money spent maintaining health is better than spending a whole lot of money to treat illness.
• The supplement should be easy to give to your pet; using a supplement as a treat is better than having to force a pill down. There are many good supplements your doctor might recommend; one of my favorites that I recommend in my practice on a daily basis is by Pet-Togethers and is called PetCentrx “Vim & Vigor”. It’s a wellness formula for pets. By using this high quality supplement, along with feeding a great diet, you’re ensuring your pet’s long term health and wellness.

Dr. Shawn Messonnier is the author of “8 Weeks to a Healthy Dog” and “The Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats.” Send questions to Paws & Claws Animal Hospital, 2145 W. Park Blvd., Plano, TX, 75075, e-mail him at shawnvet@sbcglobal.net

Source: dallasnews.com

Vim & Vigor Daily Supplements

“The Pet-Togethers supplement, Vim & Vigor, is my FAVORITE supplement for dogs and cats. It comes in a delicious treat form (chewable treat for dogs, flavored powder for cats.) I use it to maintain health in my healthy patients (and in my own pets!) and it’s my starting supplement for pets with any illness.”
- Dr. Shawn Messonnier, DVM
-Dr. Shawn, is a natural pet vet and the author of several books on natural health for pets. He is the host of the weekly award-winning radio show, “Dr. Shawn-The Natural Vet”, on Martha Stewart Radio SIRIUS channel 112 on Tuesdays from 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM (EST).

---

Vim & Vigor - Nothing Short of a Miracle! “Vim & Vigor” formula for dogs and cats is serious nutrition that provides serious results. Nothing will convince you more of the incomparable benefits of PetCentrx than personally witnessing the miracles in your feline. If your pet is like many today with nutrient deficiencies, you can expect remarkable changes within just a few weeks, including:

• More Energy
• Healthier Appearance
• Greater Mobility
• Stronger Bones and Muscles
• Fewer Veterinarian Visits
• Happier Disposition
• Greater Rest
• Better Digestion
• Fuller Life

Visit the Pet-Togethers web site.

Click (here) to read dr.shawn’s latest article.

A compact fluorescent light is a type of energy-saving bulb that fits into a standard light bulb socket or plugs into a small lighting fixture, and right now, compact fluorescents seem to be gaining in popularity. But did you know they can also be toxic to your home and the environment?

Fluorescent lights are filled with a gas containing low-pressure mercury vapor and argon, or sometimes even krypton. The inner surface of the bulb is coated with a fluorescent coating made of varying blends of metallic and rare earth phosphor salts. Fluorescent light bulbs are more energy efficient than incandescent light bulbs of an equivalent brightness, and the efficiency of fluorescent lighting owes much to low-pressure mercury photon discharges. But fluorescents don’t produce a steady light, and they burn out more quickly when cycled frequently; they also contain items such as fluorine, neon, and lead powder as well as mercury.

Measuring the environmental impact of mercury use in a particular product is more complicated than you might think. Mercury is an essential element in millions of fluorescent lamps throughout the world, and as those lamps are thrown into landfill, the mercury can escape and contribute to air and water pollution. (It can easily leach into groundwater supplies.)

According to www.lightbulbrecycling.com, each year an estimated 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in U.S. landfills, amounting to 30,000 pounds of mercury waste. Astonishingly, that’s almost half the amount of mercury emitted into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants each year. It only takes 4mg of mercury to contaminate up to 7,000 gallons of freshwater, meaning that the 30,000 pounds of mercury thrown away in compact fluorescent light bulbs each year is enough to pollute nearly every lake, pond, river and stream in North America (not to mention the oceans).

Controlling the waste

Many state governing agencies have adopted their own regulations regarding the disposal of fluorescent lights. In California, Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, it is unlawful for anyone to dispose of fluorescent bulbs as universal waste. These laws are based on the well-documented toxicity of the heavy metal mercury.

Mercury (also called ‘quicksilver’) is a heavy, silvery transition metal most commonly found in thermometers, barometers, and other scientific apparatus. It is used in the electrical industry and in laboratory and medical instruments. Mercury is a known neurotoxin, and elevated blood mercury levels may lead to retardation and deformities in children. Chest pains, dyspnea, coughing, hemoptysis, and sometimes interstitial pneumonitis leading to death may follow acute inhalation exposure to mercury vapor. In America, 1 in 6 children born every year have been exposed to mercury levels so high that they are potentially at risk for learning disabilities, motor skill impairment and short-term memory loss.

If Americans adopt the use of even more compact fluorescent light bulbs, this ratio is like to substantially grow. Breaking one mercury light bulb in your home can contaminate your home to such a degree that hazardous materials experts are needed to remove the mercury. (At great cost, too. A typical mercury removal effort involving the breaking of a single fluorescent light can cost several thousand dollars.) The idea of allowing mercury to be placed in an easily breakable consumer product is fraught with public safety risks. In fact, it required a special exemption from the EPA to allow mercury-fluorescent lamps to be sold to consumers in the first place.

When a fluorescent light breaks, its vapors quickly escape and can be inhaled and absorbed through the skin. Most compounds of mercury are toxic, especially its organic compounds (such as methyl mercury).

A researcher at the University of Illinois at Springfield sums up the basic point behind these fluorescent bulbs: “People need to understand that these bulbs are considered “hazardous” and can cause long term damage to not only the environment, but if broken can cause health problems with people as well. Mercury has the ability to cause humans, as well as animals, serious health problems such as permanent nerve and kidney damage if exposed.”

Alternatives to mercury-containing compact fluorescent lights

Fortunately, consumers no longer have to bring mercury into their homes through the use of fluorescent lights. There are now sensible alternatives. One of the most eco-friendly options is LED light bulbs which are not only mercury free, they’re also 300% more energy efficient than fluorescent lights (and about 1000% more efficient than incandescent lights).

Unlike incandescent light bulbs, which light up regardless of the electrical polarity, LEDs will only light with positive electrical polarity. LEDs produce more light per watt than do incandescent bulbs, and have an extremely long life span (usually about 50,000 hours). One manufacturer has calculated the ETTF (Estimated Time To Failure) for their LEDs to be between 100,000 and 1,000,000 hours, mostly depending on the operating temperature (the cooler the environment, the longer LEDs last). Fluorescent tubes, in contrast, are typically rated at about 10,000 hours, but in practical application, they only last about 2,000 - 3,000 hours. Incandescent light bulbs typically burn out every 1,000 hours. LEDs mostly fail by dimming over time, rather than with the abrupt burnout of incandescent bulbs.

One great advantage about LEDs is that they are difficult to damage with external shock. Fluorescent and incandescent bulbs, on the other hand, are easily broken if dropped on the ground.

LED lights contain absolutely no mercury or toxic chemicals, and conventional LEDs are made from a variety of inorganic semiconductor materials. They don’t generate RF wavelengths that cause radio interference, or emit ultraviolet (UV) light — so LEDs will not readily attract bugs and other insects.

Source: www.newstarget.com

Pet Togethers website
 866-638-7381

110 W. Court St.
Viroqua, WI 54665
www.driftlessfairtraders.com
 608-630-1548

Following are four articles written by Dr. Mercola from 2005-2007…

Article #1 - Bird Flu Epidemic is a Hoax

A draft of the government’s plan to combat a potential super-flu estimates a death toll of up to almost 2 million Americans. The plan is being rewritten to designate who will run the country during a possibly chaotic period that could follow a mutation of a bird flu in Asia.

The draft is based on the last century’s three pandemics, and states that in the best-case scenario, about 200,000 people could die.

The government currently has enough of the anti-flu drug Tamiflu to treat 4.3 million people, and $100 million worth of bird flu vaccine is being manufactured. The draft indicates that tens of millions more doses of each would be necessary, far more than can be manufactured quickly.

USA Today October 8, 2005

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

If you have been viewing the media you must have seen the scare the media and the president are seeking to orchestrate on you and the public. According to a draft of the government’s plan to fight a potentially cataclysmic pandemic, this new bird super-flu could kill nearly 2 MILLION Americans.

But I nearly fell out of my seat in the airplane as I was flying back from a conference in Ft. Lauderdale when I read that in the BEST-case scenario, only 200,000 people might die.

Then they post the frightening picture from the 1918 flu epidemic to heighten the fear. It just amazes me how they can get away with this type of reporting that is so obviously manipulated by the government and drug companies to scare you into taking the flu vaccine.

The popular media continues to reinforce this unbased fear. In the editorial section of the October 17, 2005 issue of the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Henry Miller, former director of the Office of Biotechnology at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeks to frighten the U.S. public by telling us that the bird flu virus can jump from birds to humans and produce, and is a fatal illness in 50 percent of those infected.

Ah, there’s the rub.

A 50 percent fatality rate sounds pretty scary to me. What Dr. Miller and the other experts fail to explain is how these numbers were derived. Did they examine everyone who contracted the bird flu and use those numbers, or did they examine the sickest of the sick who had come down with the bird flu and determine the mortality rate from there? Of course, it was the latter, and from the 60 people who have died from this in THIRD-world countries we are being told that anywhere from 200,000, AT BEST, to 2 million people at worst will die from the bird flu.

This is shoddy science at best and beyond belief that any reputable scientist could get away with such nonsense.

Daily Show Parody

Fortunately, contemporary comedians can see right through this nonsense. Here are the links to Jon Stewart’s scathing and brilliant Daily Show piece on bird flu. But I have to warn you that it may cause you to hurt yourself from laughing so hard, especially the World Health expert comments on the bird flu killing 150 million people and even funnier comment of George Bush on bird-to-people transmission.

Quicktime Link (106 MB) MP3 Link (6.7 MB)

What Happened to Common Sense?

The bird flu epidemic hoax reminds me just how uncommon “common sense” is. Folks, where is the sound basic science here? How do they make the giant leap of faith that 60 deaths will translate to 2 million or even 200,00 deaths in the United States from a virus that does NOT readily spread from birds to humans, or humans to humans?

Most of the people who acquired this infection were bird handlers who were in continuous contact with these sick birds. Does anyone in their right mind envision similar circumstances in the United States?

Research like this would typically be thrown in the trash if it did not strongly support some ulterior purpose.

What might the purpose of these scare tactics be you ask?

Well how about the United States purchasing huge quantities of antiviral drugs and an increase in flu vaccine production, along with purchasing 20 million doses of the highly questionably effective Tamiflu. Guess how much one treatment of Tamiflu costs? Give yourself a slap on the back if you guessed $100.

So those 20 million doses the government has authorized will cost U.S. taxpayers $2 BILLION.

If you haven’t yet read the lead story about Donald Rumsfeld[Article #2 below] in this issue, please do as you will where a significant portion of those funds are being directed to.

Now I think very few of us would mind if this drug actually worked and prevented even a few people from dying. But does it do that? Not really. About all anyone can expect from this drug is that it might make the symptoms a bit less severe. On the downside, (aside from setting you back $100) Dr. Tenpenny explained in her Flu TeleClinic last week that Tamiflu can actually cause the virus to mutate into a more dangerous and potent viral strain.

What they were really saying is they could care less about the public. What their primary focus was on was to not share their windfall profits mandated by the U.S. Congress.

Worthless Flu Shots

Of course, let us not forget the flu shots that many will get when they confuse bird flu with the regular flu. Please understand, even if you believe the flu shots work, the flu shot you can now purchase is in no way, shape or form designed to protect you against the bird flu. They are completely different strains. (Bird flu is H5N1 strain).

But rest assured the makers of flu vaccines will not lose this unusal opportunity to rape the American public for even more profits. Recently we learned that those getting the flu shotsmay see a 25 percent increase in prices at clinics, doctors’ offices and medical centers because of increases in the wholesale cost of the vaccines.

History Repeats Itself

Investigative journalist Ida Honorof for decades published a consumer newsletter and broadcast a regular radio program. Honorof received a first prize award from Associated Press for investigative journalism. The Los Angeles Times and other publications credited her with breaking some of the biggest horror stories of our time.

Ida Honorof wrote, “The most brazen, obscene electioneering ploy ever” and added that it was proposed by the President “and his coterie of scientific hacks, fabricated to cause pure unadulterated panic and guarantee political capital, rammed through without consideration of people’s health and lives and approved by a band-wagon Congress” eager to make the nation’s “health” a bipartisan concern.

The above quote was not written about the bird flu epidemic but the 5 million swine-flu vaccine program of 30 years ago. The hastily contrived program for swine flu resulted in hundreds of Guillain Barre Syndrome paralysis victims as well as countless deaths for a flu pandemic that never materialized.

The pocketbook purloining proposed by the Senate is more than 3,000 percent greater than that of 30 years ago! Has your paycheck increased 3,000 percent in the last 30 years?

Practical Options

First step for anyone caught up in this bird flu hype nonsense is to take a deep breath and relax and realize the truth here. Unless you are a full-time bird handler in a third-world country who has a seriously challenged immune system you probably have a much better chance of wining the lottery than dying from the proposed bird flu epidemic.

More importantly, The Great Bird Flu Hoax exposes what you should REALLY be worried about (truths that have a profound impact on the health and safety of you and your loved ones) and provides you with health solutions to optimize your immune system … so you need not worry about bird flu hype or about the real health threats such as cancer, heart disease and other genuine health issues.

Source: www.mercola.com - 2005

---

Article #2 - Rumsfeld To Profit From Bird Flu Hoax

Finally, the pieces of the puzzle start to add up. Not long ago, President Bush sought to instill panic in this country by telling us a minimum of 200,000 people will die from the avian flu pandemic, but it could be as bad as 2 million deaths in this country alone.

This hoax is then used to justify the immediate purchase of 80 million doses of Tamiflu, a worthless drug that in no way shape or form treats the avian flu, but only decreases the amount of days one is sick and can actually contribute to the virus having more lethal mutations.

So the U.S. placed an order for 20 million doses of this worthless drug at a price of $100 per dose. That comes to a staggering $2 billion.

We are being told that Roche manufactures Tamiflu and, in a recent New York Times article, they were battling whether or not they would allow generic drug companies to help increase their production.

But if you dig further you will find that a drug was actually developed by a company called Gilead that 10 years ago gave Roche the exclusive rights to market and sell Tamiflu.

Ahh, The Plot Thickens…

If you read this link from Gilead, you’ll discover Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was made the chairman of Gilead in 1997.

Since Rumsfeld holds major portions of stock in Gilead, he will handsomely profit from the scare tactics of the government that is being used to justify the purchase of $2 billion of Tamiflu.

Finally Medical Journal Admits the Truth

This week’s British Medical Journal has an editorial on the bird flu in which they state the following:

“The lack of sustained human-to-human transmission suggests that this AH5N1 avian virus does not currently have the capacity to cause a human pandemic”

While they do go on to say the virus could mutate with the influenza A virus and has the potential to acquire the means for rapid human to human transmission, it does NOT have this ability now. All the preparation and fear being created in the media is about a theoretical speculation.

Now I am a former Boy Scout and fully believe in being prepared, but this is nothing even close to following recommendations made by experts to New Orleans that if implemented would have saved 1000 lives and half a million homes and well over 100 billion dollars from Hurricane Katrina.

No this is all about creating fear and panic to benefit the drug companies. Now, I am still not opposed to being prepared for this potential bird flu pandemic. It is POSSIBLE it might materialize. But if it did there is no way that the flu vaccine or Tamiflu will mitigate its damage. No way.

Source: www.mercola.com - 2006

---

Article #3 - Donald Rumsfeld Rakes in $5 Million For Tamiflu

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has made more than $5 million from selling shares in the firm that discovered and developed the flu drug Tamiflu.

He also retains shares worth $25 million or more. Tamiflu is bought in mass quantities by the government in order to treat a predicted outbreak of avian flu.

The drug was developed by Gilead Sciences. Mr. Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead between 1988 and 2001, and was chairman starting in 1997. When he left to join the Bush administration, he retained a large shareholding .

In 2003, the year before concerns about bird flu began, the company took a loss. But in 2004, Tamiflu sales nearly quadrupled, and then nearly quadrupled again in 2005.

Divestiture of his stocks in the corporation is not required by the Office of Government Ethics or the Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office.

Common Dreams.org March 12, 2006

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

Some people may feel I have a grudge against the US Republican party. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a non-partisan issue.

The fact is that government is controlling the media that justifies them purchasing large amounts of drugs for an non-existent epidemic that personally benefits the current U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. The issue would be the same whatever his political party.

This is nothing new here for Mr. Rumsfeld as he has a long history of dabbling in health chicanery. At G.D. Searle he facilitated FDA approval for Nutrasweet.

More recently he served as head of Gilead Sciences, the company that developed, then leased the rights to Roche Pharmaceuticals, to the worthless flu drug Tamiflu.

When I wrote about Rumsfeld in December it was unclear just how much stock he held and how much it was worth. Now we know.

So far, Rumsfeld has made a “killing” (pun intended) on the stock market, and the estimations that set the current value of his remaining stock at $25 million are likely to be well under their actual value, considering Roche’s decision to expand Tamiflu production.

Sadly, current ethics rules in American government don’t prevent Rumsfeld from owning stocks or making money from health-harming substances like Tamiflu or aspartame, even though he likely has some say in their purchase or approval by the government, and therefore their stock value.

No surprise, since drug companies use their largesse to buy favors and influence from Congress and the White House.

The most ironic thing about all of this is that not only is the “avian flu pandemic” a hoax for which there is no evidence, but Tamiflu can actually cause the flu virus to mutate into a more dangerous and potent viral strain, and may have even worse side effects.

Avian flu does NOT readily spread from birds to humans or humans to humans. Most of the (very few) people who have acquired this infection were bird handlers who were in continuous contact with sick birds.

Does anyone in their right mind envision similar circumstances in the United States? Research like this would typically be thrown in the trash if it did not strongly support some ulterior purpose.

Source: www.mercola.com - 2006

---

Article #4 - More Evidence Bird Flu is a Hoax

An international conference of 400 experts in Verona, Italy concurred that there is no sign yet that the deadly H5N1 strain of the avian flu virus has mutated to allow person-to-person infection.

H5N1 has killed scores of people worldwide, and has been found in 11 countries this year, but almost all the people who have come down with the virus have been shown to have been infected through contact with domestic birds.

It was also noted at the conference that the H5N1 virus has been found in only a few birds in Italy itself, even though the country is a major migration route for birds traveling from Africa to Europe.

Heartland Outdoorsman.com March 23, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

It’s been nearly a year since I asked rhetorically, whatever happened to the bird flu epidemic that never came? And, we’re still waiting.

President Bush warned that in the United States alone anywhere from 200,000 (at best!) to 2 million people at worst would die from the bird flu. How do they make the giant leap of faith that the very few deaths so far worldwide will translate to 2 million or even 200,000 deaths from a virus that does NOT readily spread from birds to humans, or humans to humans?

To this date the has not been one single person who has caught this from another human. Virtually every reported case was in a third-world country in which those who were infected had close contact with sick birds.

And why were these birds sick? Not because of some terrible lethal virus. Quite the contrary my friends. It was largely because they were raised under factory-farming conditions that, combined with the terrible food they were given, weakened their immune systems and allowed them to come down with this deadly infection.

Interestingly, this is very similar to the way that many humans actually get sick. The take-home message here, folks, is that it is in no way, shape or form the virus that is the cause of the infection, it is the weakened immune system that results from following or choosing an unhealthy lifestyle.

But the drug companies and secondarily the governments they control will rarely miss an opportunity to use these scare tactics.

Even though the experts at the Italian conference knew this, that fact didn’t stop them from discussing ways to prevent the avian flu from spreading, namely by using vaccines nobody needs that don’t work anyway. They also conveniently forgot that even vaccinating poultry wasn’t a foolproof solution either.

All of which neatly points to the reason for the scare tactics — kickbacks to drug companies. Their drugs may be useless, but the massive windfall from government contracts to help “prepare” against avian flu has helped their bottom lines nicely, not to mention the profits of their allies in the government.

You’ll learn more about the hidden agenda behind the avian flu epidemic that never came after reading The Great Bird Flu Hoax: The Truth They Don’t Want You to Know About the “Next Big Pandemic.”

Source: www.mercola.com - 2007

The idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is a myth. It’s a myth promoted by a profit-seeking tag-team effort between the cancer industry and the sunscreen industry. The sunscreen industry makes money by selling lotion products that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. It then donates a portion of that money to the cancer industry through non-profit groups like the American Cancer Society which, in turn, run herart-breaking public service ads urging people to use sunscreen to “prevent cancer.”

The scientific evidence, however, shows quite clearly that sunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking the body’s absorption of ultraviolet radiation, which produces vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D, as recent studies have shown, prevents up to 77 of ALL cancers in women (breast cancer, colon cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, brain tumors, multiple myeloma… you name it). Meanwhile, the toxic chemical ingredients used in most sunscreen products are actually carcinogenic and have never been safety tested or safety approved by the FDA. They get absorbed right through the skin (a porous organ that absorbs most substances it comes into contact with) and enter the bloodstream.

The benefits of sunscreen are a myth. Proponents say sunscreen prevents sunburn, but in fact, the real cause of sunburn is not merely UV exposure: It is a lack of antioxidant nutrition. Start eating lots of berries and microalgae (spirulina, astaxanthin, blue-green algae, etc.), and you’ll build up an internal sunscreen that will protect your skin from sunburn from the inside out. Sunburn is actually caused by nutritional deficiencies that leave the skin vulnerable to DNA mutations from radiation, but if you boost your nutrition and protect your nervous system with plant-based nutrients, you’ll be naturally resistant to sunburn. The same nutrients, by the way, also protect the optic nerve and eyes from radiation damage. That’s why the consumption of berries and carrots, for example, has historically been associated with healthy eye function. (The same nutrients that protect the eyes also protect the skin.)

Medical nonsense

If sunscreen is so bad for humans, you might ask, then why do so many doctors recommend using it? This might be hard for you to believe, but it wasn’t too long ago that doctors routinely recommended smoking cigarettes, too. The Journal of the American Medical Association, in fact, ran numerous ads promoting Camels as “recommended by more doctors than any other cigarette!” Doctors talked up the “benefits” of smoking cigarettes, urging people to start smoking in order to improve brain function or even — get this — make their teeth stronger!

The truth is doctors are easily influenced by commercial interests and can be readily convinced to recommend practically any product, no matter how toxic, unhealthy or deadly to consumers. Just look at how many doctors wrote prescriptions for Vioxx, for example, after being visited by a Vioxx drug rep pushing it as a “miracle drug” for joint pain.

Also keep in mind that doctor-prescribed medications are the fourth leading cause of death in America today. About 100,000 Americans die each year from following the advice of their doctor. Does it really make any sense to get your health advice from a group of professionals who kill more Americans each year than all the terrorists have ever killed in the history of this country? Besides, doctors know that if they start recommending sunlight and vitamin D, they’ll lose patients and profits because people will start getting well and have no need to keep visiting the doctor. Vitamin D, as you will learn in our free report, The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D, prevents not only cancer, but also diabetes, osteoporosis, depression, heart disease and obesity. It’s the miracle nutrient of the millennium, and yet the entire medical profession tries desperately to pretend that vitamin D has no biological function whatsoever. Hence the support of sunscreen (the anti-vitamin D product).

Sunscreen directly promotes vitamin D deficiency. You show me a person who regularly uses sunscreen, and I’ll show you a person who’s on the road towards cancer and other degenerative diseases. People who use sunscreen are killing themselves and they don’t even know it!

The sunscreen marketing con

The marketing of sunscreen is another great example of consumer product companies fabricating a need in order to sell a high-profit product made mostly with toxic chemicals. There is no need for sunscreen, but the cancer industry and sunscreen manufacturers have created a fictitious need through a campaign of fear and disinformation, hypnotizing practically the entire population into believing one of the most ridiculous ideas in the universe: that sunlight is bad for human health.

Think about it. Our ancestors did not have indoor lighting; they exposed their skin to the sun regularly. They didn’t run and hide from the sun, they used it as nourishment to generate a crucial vitamin that supports human health in a multitude of ways. The idea that “the sun is bad for you” makes about as much sense as “water is bad for you” or “the Earth is flat.” This persistent myth was invented, marketed and publicized by an industry that profits from a gullible public believing demonstrable falsehoods.

But why would the cancer industry go along with the deception, you might ask? Because the continued commercial success of the cancer industry depends on more people getting cancer. In previous articles, I’ve clearly shown that the cancer industry has no interest whatsoever in preventing cancer. The industry, in fact, takes steps to interfere with prevention efforts and thereby ensure the growth in the number of future cancer patients.

The American Cancer Society, for example, still will not recommend that anyone take vitamin D supplements, even though the vitamin can prevent nearly 4 out of 5 cancers. The cancer industry simply has no interest in preventing cancer. It is only interested in treating cancer and profiting from those treatments. (That’s why genuine cancer cures have been routinely suppressed, censored or discredited in the United States.)
The promotion of sunscreen products is a way for the cancer industry to ensure future profits from the treatment of cancer. The more people use sunscreen products, the more they’ll get cancer. And that’s due to two primary reasons: 1) Sunscreen blocks vitamin D production, a nutrient that strongly prevents cancer, and 2) Sunscreen products almost always contain cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream where they cause severe DNA damage, leading to cancer.

Seven important questions about sunscreen

The next time you see some public service advertisement urging you to smother yourself and your children with sunscreen chemicals, think hard before taking action. Ask yourself these seven commonsense questions:

1) Is the sun really dangerous to humans? If so, how did humans survive for the last 350,000 years on planet Earth?

2) Have the chemicals used in sunscreen products ever been safety tested or approved by the FDA? (The answer is no.)

3) Who financially benefits when you keep buying and using sunscreen products?

4) What is the environmental impact of sunscreen chemicals washing off into the ocean, a lake, a swimming pool or being washed down the drain in your shower?

5) Sunscreen manufacturers say the skin doesn’t absorb their chemicals. If that’s true, then how do nicotine patches work? How do transdermal drugs get absorbed through the skin if sunscreen chemicals don’t? (Answer: ALL these chemicals get absorbed through the skin. The skin is not selective about what it chooses to absorb.)

6) If the sun is so dangerous, then why is the vitamin generated by sunlight (vitamin D) so healthy for humans? Why would humans evolve a mechanism for generating a vitamin from sunlight if we weren’t supposed to be exposed to sunlight in the first place?

7) If sunlight is so dangerous, then why is virtually every living creature on planet Earth dependent on sunlight for survival? Plants use sunlight to generate their nutrition, too, and most animals eat either plants or other animals that originally ate plants. Nearly all life on planet Earth is powered by sunlight. Why does the cancer industry believe sunlight causes death when, in reality, sunlight delivers life?

Once you answer these questions, the reality of the situation becomes obvious: Sunlight is good for you, and sunscreen is a hoax.

Action items

Be sure to read our free report on this: The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D. This provides tips on how to safely gauge your level of exposure to sunlight. Don’t just rush out and get burned; boost your nutrition and work up a natural tan as nature intended.

See the article: Vitamin D slashes cancer risk by 77 percent.

Visit our topic page on Vitamin D.

If you choose to buy sunscreen, only buy natural sunscreen products containing no petrochemicals! One brand I recommend is Caribbean Blue Natural Basics “Sun Shield.” You can find more at www.gocaribbeanblue.com

Smearing berries on your skin also works as a natural sunscreen, as does smearing aloe vera gel on your skin. Amazon Herb Co. distributors use a product called Camu C Serum as a natural suncreen. It works great! http://www.amazondreams.amazonherb.net

The best sunscreen, however, is an internal sunscreen built with nutrition. Eat chlorella, spirulina, goji berries, raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, astaxanthin, carrots and nutrient-rich superfoods to boost your skin’s natural UV protection (takes about 30 days of nutrition to boost skin levels).

About the author:

Mike Adams is a natural health researcher and author with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health. He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies’ products. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He’s also a noted pioneer in the email marketing software industry, having been the first to launch an HTML email newsletter technology that has grown to become a standard in the industry. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and pursues hobbies such as Pilates, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known on the ‘net as ‘the Health Ranger,’ Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org

Research from a British university suggests that sodium benzoate, a common preservative found in many soft drinks, has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.

This could eventually lead to diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver and Parkinson’s.

When a UK professor of molecular biology and biotechnology tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells, he discovered that it was damaging important DNA in the cells’ mitochondria.

Mitochondria serve as the “power stations” for cells, and damage to them can lead to serious cell malfunctions associated with aging and age-related disease. The damage caused by sodium benzoate was great enough to cause the mitochondria to stop functioning.

Sodium benzoate occurs naturally in berries in small amounts, but is used in large quantities to prevent mold in soft drinks such as Sprite, Diet Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Dr Pepper. It is also added to pickles and sauces.

The Independent May 27, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

I am still shocked every time I reflect on the fact that the number one source of calories in America comes from soda. To me it is an absolutely mind-boggling fact. Of course, all I have to do to knock my senses back to reality is go to a standard grocery store on a busy weekend and see what people are stuffing in their shopping carts.

We clearly have a long way to go to share even the most fundamental, basic nutrition concepts to the typical highly deceived and manipulated consumer. This new danger from sodium benzoate is simply one among many, as sodas are among the worst possible “foods” you can consume.

Professor Peter Piper, the UK expert who discovered the problem, says that the soft drink preservative can “totally inactivate” and “knock out” cells’ mitochondria. The end result is an increased risk of a slew of diseases.

Sodium benzoate has previously also come under fire because, when combined with the vitamin C in many soft drinks, it forms benzene, a cancer-causing chemical linked to leukemia. In one study, at least five brands of soft drinks were found to contain excessive benzene levels.

Sodium benzoate is used freely in the United States and the UK. Fortunately, you can protect your health from this dangerous substance by not drinking soda (and not allowing your kids to either).

This is one of the easiest — and most significant — things you can do for your health; and aside from the good news that you won’t have to worry about damaging your DNA, giving up soda (if you drink it) can reduce your risk of diabetes, obesity, and cancer.

So put down the can of soda, and pick up a glass of clean water instead.

Source: www.mercola.com

About Face Winona
Skin Care services

About Face Winona is devoted to enhancing the skin’s natural health so that you can look and feel your best at any age and of any gender.

We specialize in anti-aging skin care procedures that when combined with proper nutrition, exercise, hydration, and a healthy lifestyle promote the youthful appearance of the skin and aid in total well being.

About Face offers relaxing as well as clinical facial and body procedures geared towards slowing down the natural aging process in order to obtain the optimum health of the skin. Our goal is to work closely with the client to ensure that all of his/her needs are met in a caring, relaxing, and nurturing environment. In order to individualize each procedure to skin specific needs, a careful consultation is performed and the skin is cleansed and closely examined.

We are happy to design a program of “in spa” and at home care which will address conditions specific to the client and offer procedures designed to increase circulation and promote the production of elastin and collagen, the “building blocks” of firmness, elasticity, and skin tone.

Located within GQ
Winona Mall
By Appointment
 507-454-1580