Friday, March 28, 2014

Eat Insects, Save the World



REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.



                             SPONSORS


              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i



By Dr. Mercola


    The practice of eating insects, known as entomology, may sound extreme,
but it’s actually quite common throughout the world and has been that way for millennia.

    There are more than 1,900 documented edible insect species and some are even
 farmed the way cattle or chickens are in the US.

    With growing concerns over the unsustainable practices that constitute
modern farming, and the very real prospects that food shortages and
environmental destruction could be an inevitable part of the future if more
environmentally friendly farming alternatives aren’tsoon embraced, eating insects
may prove to be a very wise, and necessary, decision.

    In fact, a new report by the Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United
Nations (FAO) highlights the many prospects insects offer for the future of food
and feed security.

Eating Insects Is Already Common in Many Parts of the World

    Although still considered largely taboo in the Western world, many cultures
prize insects as a culinary delicacy.

The FAO report notes:

    From ants to beetle larvae eaten by tribes in Africa and Australia as part of
their subsistence diets  to the popular, crispy-fried locusts and beetles enjoyed
in Thailand, it is estimated that insect-eating is practiced regularly by at least
billion people worldwide.

    The most commonly eaten insect groups include:


Beetles     Caterpillars     Bees    Wasps     Ants    
Grasshoppers    Locusts     Crickets     Cicadas
Leaf and plant hoppers     Scale insects     True bugs
Termites     Dragonflies     Flies


There are several quite compelling reasons that make a strong case for
considering insects as part of a sustainable diet that could end world hunger.
For starters, insects are extremely plentiful and are found in nearly all environments.

There are an estimated 6-10 million species of insects, which are thought to
represent over 90 percent of the differing animal life forms on Earth, according
to FAO. Environmentally, raising insects for food would emit considerably fewer
greenhouse gasses than confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) raising
livestock.

Further:

    Insect rearing does not require clearing land to expand production Insects
are very efficient at converting feed into protein (crickets, for instance, need 12
times less feed than cattle and half the feed as pigs and chickens to produce the
same amount of protein)

    Insect rearing can be low-tech and inexpensive, making it a plausible livelihood
in even the poorest sections of the world Insects have a low risk of transferring
diseases to humans, unlike CAFO beef, pork and poultry

Further, perhaps one of the best reasons to consider eating insects is because
they’re quite healthy, making them a nutritious alternative to common protein
sources like chicken, beef, pork and fish. Insects are:

    Rich in protein and fiber

    Good sources of healthy fats (some species even have similar levels of omega-3
fats as fish) High in nutrients such as calcium, iron, B vitamins, selenium and zinc

Think of Insects as ‘Shrimp of the Land’

    Dutch entomologist Marcel Dicke has stated that the reason many people are
reluctant to eat insects is simply a matter of mindset. His solution? To think of
insects as shrimp of the land.

    In the TED video above, Dicke explains that insects are not only eco-friendly
and nutritious, but they compete with meat in flavor, too. If you can get past the
initial aversion, eating insects may not be entirely different from eating shrimp
or other more unique food sources, such as crabs, oysters and mussels. As written
in the FAO report:

    Common prejudice against eating insects is not justified from a nutritional
point of view. Insects are not inferior to other protein sources such as fish, chicken
and beef. Feelings of disgust in the West towards entomophagy contributes to the
common misconception that entomophagy in the developing world is prompted
by starvation and is merely a survival mechanism. This is far from the truth.
Although it will require considerable convincing to reverse this mentality, it is
not an impossible feat.

    Arthropods like lobsters and shrimps, once considered poor-man’s food in
the West, are now expensive delicacies there. It is hoped that arguments such
as the high nutritional value of insects and their low environmental impact, low
-risk nature (from a disease standpoint) and palatability may also contribute to
a shift in perception.

    Interestingly, at the Nordic Food Lab, a non-profit organization, they’re focusing
on the deliciousness factor of wild foods including edible insects. If people begin
to accept insects as a delicious dietary addition, they will naturally begin to view
them as edible. And this, they believe, is a key factor to getting insects into
mainstream Western diets.

FAO notes:

     By exploring the vast range of flavors, the Nordic Food Lab aims to turn
‘inedible’ into edible ingredients. Seaweed is one such food source: just a few
years ago it was considered in the West as either exotic or niche, but now, in
certain places, it is celebrated as a new, versatile ingredient since it was shown to
be delicious. The head of the culinary research and development group says that
deliciousness is the first and most important factor in developing new gastronomic
building blocks.

        Mayonnaise from bee larvae works not because of its novelty but rather
because of its earthier and more satisfying taste its unique deliciousness.

You’re Probably Already Eating Insects

    Chances are more likely than not that you’ve already sampled your first
(and then some) insect, albeit probably unintentionally.

Insects are a part of nature, and the inevitably end up on a leaf of lettuce or
in your box of cereal. This happens not only in the field but also later, as foods
sit in storage facilities prior to processing. It’s for this reason that the US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) allows certain amounts of bugs in your food.

For instance:

        Canned tomato juice: two whole maggots per 100 grams
        Raisins: FDA won’t take action unless 10 or more whole or equivalent
       Drosophila flies and 35 of its eggs are found per 8 ounces of raisins   
       Macaroni: Anything less than 225 insect fragments per 225 grams in six
       sub-samples is allowed

    It’s certainly unsavory to think about insect parts in your food, but the truth is
it probably isn’t going to hurt you. In fact, depending on the species, it may actually
add some nutrition

The Future of the World’s Food Supply Depends on Sustainability

    Feeding the world in the decades to come is going to depend on broadening
our horizons not only of what we think of as food but also of what we accept as
farming. Insects may very well play a role in this food future. As the FAO report’s
foreword reads:

    It is widely accepted that by 2050 the world will host 9 billion people. To
accommodate this number, current food production will need to almost double.
Land is scarce and expanding the area devoted to farming is rarely a viable or
sustainable option. Oceans are over fished and climate change and related water
shortages could have profound implications for food production. To meet the
food and nutrition challenges of today there are nearly 1 billion chronically
hungry people worldwide and tomorrow, what we eat and how we produce it
needs to be re-evaluated. Inefficiencies need to be rectified and food waste reduced.
We need to find new ways of growing food.

        Edible insects have always been a part of human diets, but in some societies
there is a degree of distaste for their consumption. Although the majority of edible
insects are gathered from forest habitats, innovation in mass-rearing systems has
begun in many countries. Insects offer a significant opportunity to merge
traditional knowledge and modern science in both developed and developing
countries.

    The success of using insects as a food source will depend directly on the
sustainability with which this new food source is raised. Raising insects on a
mass scale may beget many of the same problems already saddling the food
system, such as the threat of genetic engineering, unforeseen pollution,
disruptions to local ecosystems and risks to native insect, animal and plant
species.

    Insects must be raised in a sustainable way if they are to become a
successful part of the worldwide diet, and this is true of any food source. If
agricultural practices such as permaculture, which work with nature instead of
against it, are more widely embraced, the food sources you currently enjoy can
be sustained and flourish.

    For instance, if cattle are rotated across pastures instead of raised in CAFOs,
the animals' grazing will cut the blades of grass, spurring new growth, while
their trampling helps work manure into the soil, fertilizing it naturally. This
healthy soil then helps keep carbon dioxide underground and out of the
atmosphere.

See, it’s not the raising of cattle or poultry or fish that’s the problem; it’s the
way in which they’re being raised that is unsustainable and currently trashing
the planet and threatening the food supply.

    Environmental devastation can even be healed and functional ecosystems
rebuilt using the permaculture concept. So while considering insects as a
sustainable food source is intriguing, it should not replace the ultimate goal,
which is sustainable farming for every species.

Thank You  Dr. Mercola      


 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com


Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Let’s answer these questions...

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

                             SPONSORS


              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i      
               

Let’s answer these questions from 3/24/14



Question #1:

Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner
Linus Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were duplicated
by studies in Canada and Japan) comparing Vitamin C therapy to
chemotherapy. Which group of patients, the ones on vitamin C or
chemotherapy, lived longer on average, and by how much?

Answer: The vitamin C patients lived an average of ten times
longer than the chemotherapy patients. I don’t know why anyone
would be surprised at this result. Cancer in many cases is nothing
but a symptom of a weakened immune system. Chemotherapy virtually
destroys an already weakened immune system, and it is the immune
system that deals with cancer on a normal basis. On the other
hand, Vitamin C helps build the immune system. It makes sense
that someone who has had their immune system built up would outlive
someone who had their immune system destroyed.

Because Dr. Pauling was world famous, and had an impeccable
reputation for quality and integrity, a person might wonder why
the orthodox medical community did not do further studies on
Vitamin C and cancer. They did do further studies on Vitamin C.
But the purpose of these studies was to discredit Dr. Pauling
and Dr. Cameron, as previously mentioned.

Question #2: 

 An American alternative cancer treatment doctor
treated 33,000 cancer patients, many of whom had been given up
for dead by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die.
What was his verified cure rate?

Answer: Dr. William Donald Kelley, a dentist by training, had a
93% cure rate on patients who were not too far gone before
they went to him. This cure rate was verified by a 5-year study
by an orthodox doctor. His technique is called metabolic therapy,
and guess what, it was designed to build the immune system and
safely and selectively kill cancer cells.

But what is of even more significance is the answer to this
question: if we factor out all of his patients who went to
orthodox doctors before they went to Dr. Kelley, and only counted
those who went to Dr. Kelley first, what would his cure rate have
been?

First of all, even for orthodox medicine the vast majority of
cancer patients live for at least a year and a half after their
first diagnosis. But for Dr. Kelley it is logical to conclude
that an even higher percentage of cancer patients, who went to
him first, lived for at least a year and a half because Dr.
Kelley’s treatment does not damage the immune system, rather it
builds the immune system.
Furthermore, Dr. Kelley had a high cure rate even for pancreatic
cancer patients who went to him first.

In other words, virtually all of the cancer patients who went to Dr.
Kelley first were in the group that had a 93% cure rate! If we
further make the even more obvious conclusion that among those
cancer patients in the 93% statistic, those who went to him first
had at least as high a cure rate as those who went to orthodox
medicine first, then we can logically conclude that his cure
rate on patients who went to him first was probably around 90%.

All of this is a highly logical conclusion for three reasons:

First, he used the identical treatment regardless of whether
his patient went to him first or orthodox medicine first,

Second, for those patients who went to orthodox medicine first,
Dr. Kelley lost a lot of time before he was able to start
treating these patients. In other words, he started their
treatments after their cancer was further along (compared to
those who went to him first), and Third, those patients who
went to orthodox medicine first had their immune systems severely
compromised before they went to Dr. Kelley (in other words,
for those who went to Dr. Kelley first, they still had their
immune system intact), thus Dr. Kelley had to rebuild that portion of
their immune system before his treatment started to
become fully effective. This loss of time was in addition to
the lost time caused by these patients going to orthodox medicine
first.

In other words, it is obvious that if 10,000 new cancer patients,
who had not had any orthodox treatments, went to Dr. Kelley first,
his overall cure rate for these people would be close to 90%, and
perhaps even higher! That is far, far higher than the patients
who go to orthodox medicine first.

In fact, as will be shown below, when you factor out all of the
fancy statistical tricks of orthodox medicine, such as their 5-
year cure rate, the true cure rate for orthodox medicine is 3%
or less. Thus, patients who went to Dr. Kelley FIRST had a THIRTY
TIMES higher chance of surviving their cancer than those who went
to orthodox medicine exclusively.

Dr. Kelley’s reward by orthodox medicine for his high cure rate
was to be thrown in jail. Kelley also had to move his treatment
to Mexico. Fortunately, he wrote a book about his treatment:

Cancer, Curing The Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or
Radiation before his death in early 2005.

Because Dr. Kelley had such an incredibly high cure rate for
cancer, much, much higher than orthodox medicine, you might
wonder why the orthodox medical community does not study Dr.
Kelley’s treatment to see if there are ways to improve it.

In other words, why doesn’t the orthodox community use Dr.
Kelley’s treatment in order to obtain a quick and immediate
90% cure rate for new cancer patients, then find ways to improve
on it to get even higher cure rates? Why are they content with
a 3% cure rate when there is a publicly available treatment that
has a 90% cure rate on new patients?

While the Kelley Metabolic treatment is perfectly capable of
curing a person’s a cancer, I should note that it is not advised
that it be the primary treatment for someone who has been on
chemotherapy. Some newer treatments do not depend on building
the immune system before they fully work, thus they are far
more effective on patients who have had their immune system
compromised by chemotherapy.

Question #3:

 Fill in the blank: In a review of 206 human studies, [which food]
consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting foods.

Answer: Here is the complete quote: In a review of 206 human
studies, carrots consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-
fighting foods. The power of carrots lies in the group of
pigments called carotids (beta-carotene is among this group),
which give them their orange color.

While it is nice that scientists have made this discovery,
carrots were used to cure cancer long before any of the 206
human studies the quote refers to. Raw vegetable juices, with
raw carrots as the main ingredient, coupled with a customized
vegan diet, as a replacement for the meat and dairy centered
Western diet, has cured many, many thousands of people of cancer.

I might add that carrot juice is the main ingredient in the
vegetable juice that serves at the heart of the Raw Food Diet,
for which there is an article on this web site.

However, carrot juice based protocols are not rated in the top
layer of alternative cancer treatments for advanced cancer
patients. However, carrot juice is part of some of the best
treatments!!

Question #4:

How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were
they awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop
the Flaxseed Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins)
cancer treatment?

Answer: Two Nobel Prizes, Dr. Otto Warburg (1931) and Dr. Albert
Szent-Gyorgyi (1937). First, Dr. Warburg:

    Dr Otto Warburg, twice Nobel laureate was able to prove
that cancer cannot grow in an high oxygen environment. He states:

Cancer, above all diseases, has countless secondary causes, but
there is only one prime cause: the prime cause of cancer is the
replacement of normal oxygen respiration of body cells by
anaerobic respiration’. In other words, lack of oxygen. His
research revealed that when a cell is denied 60% of its normal
requirement of oxygen, it switches to a fermentation mechanism
and grows out of control.

Second, Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi:

    Dr. Szent-Gyorgy won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for discovering
that essential fatty acids combined with sulphur-rich proteins
(such as those found in diary products) increases oxygenation of
the body.   

Note that both of these Nobel Prizes were awarded in the 1930s.
Dr. Budwig developed a diet to combine these two discoveries
into one simple treatment plan – flaxseed oil and cottage cheese.
Her treatment has cured untold thousands of cancer patients.

Her protocol is actually an integral part of two of the most
potent alternative cancer treatments: the Cellect-Budwig Protocol
and the Bill Henderson Protocol.

Question #5:

It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of
cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure
cancer. True or false?

Answer: I quote from alternative medicine expert Walter Last:

    To show how simple natural methods can be very effective in
overcoming advanced cancer, I like to mention an example from
the book The Food and Health of Western Man by Dr J. L. Mount.
In five reported cases of bowel cancer, surgery revealed that
metastases had already spread all over the body. Therefore, these
patients were just closed up again and sent home to die. But
instead of doing that, independently of each other, these five
changed their diets and from then on ate only homegrown organically
raised food. When they finally did die 21 to 30 years later, no
traces of cancer could be found in post-mortem examinations. Such
cures without medical intervention are regarded as ‘spontaneous
remissions.
   
The vast majority of cancer patients who go into spontaneous remission
made massive changes in their diet after being diagnosed with cancer.

    A study was done on 200 cancer patients who had experienced
spontaneous remission. Doctors call these remissions miracles. They’re
NOT miracles. Here’s how they did it. Eighty seven percent
of them fundamentally changed their diets mostly to vegetarian.
All of the 200 made changes in their lives including nutritional
supplementation and detoxification techniques. What this and other
studies are telling us is that cancer can be cured by fundamentally
changing the chemistry that created it.

    Raymond Francis

Here is another interesting quote:

    A study of four hundred cancer cases that went into
spontaneous remission revealed cures which had little in common.
Some people drank grape juice or swallowed massive doses of
vitamin C; others prayed, took herbal remedies, or simply cheered
themselves on. These very diverse patients did have one thing in
common, though. At a certain point in their disease, they suddenly
knew, with complete certainty, that they were going to get better,
as if the disease were merely a mirage, and the patient suddenly
passed beyond it into a space where fear and despair and all
sickness were nonexistent.

While it is true that many people go into spontaneous remission
by dramatically changing their diet and attitude, imagine what
would happen if newly diagnosed cancer patients were told:

1) What foods contained the most cancer-killing nutrients,
2) What foods contained the best nutrients to build the immune
system,
3) What foods feed cancer cells and thus cause the cancer to
grow faster (these are foods to avoid),
4) The best supplements to kill cancer cells and build the
immune system, and they were told
5) What things in a person’s life can damage a natural treatment
plan (e.g. chlorine in tap water)?

For example, changing to a vegan diet would not necessarily cure
cancer, but going on a selective vegan diet and eating only the
vegetables and fruits known to contain large amounts of cancer
killing nutrients, and avoiding foods that feed the cancer, and
avoiding foods that interfere with the effectiveness of the cancer-
fighting foods, would yield a much higher cure rate than any
orthodox treatment, even better than Vitamin C therapy. But
alternative medicine can do much better than even this selective
vegan protocol.

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved.


 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Monday, March 24, 2014

What Do We Hear From The Media???


REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.


                             SPONSORS


              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i



Written by Webster Kehr, Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc


    An educated person is one who has learned that information
almost always turns out to be at best incomplete and very often
false, misleading, fictitious, mendacious  just dead wrong.
Russell Wayne Baker (1947  ) American Journalist

Is what you hear in the media based on who has the most truth or
is it based on who has the most money?

To demonstrate just how one-sided your information has been,
answer these two questions. First, when was the last time you
saw a dramatic show on a major television network where the
hero was an alternative medicine practitioner who was making
alternative cancer treatments look safe and effective? Second,
name 10 of the most effective alternative cancer treatments?

What you are about to read will contradict everything you have
heard in your life. Your natural reaction at times will be
disbelief. But if you are willing to finish reading this eBook
(i.e. about truth table #3 and truth table #4), it could very
well lead to a journey that will save your life or the life of
a loved one!

After studying all four parts of the above truth table for hundreds of
hours, as I have, I am certain it will be in your best interests to
continue reading.

Before going on, let us first clarify a key point. Some readers
probably think that this article is about comparing:

1) Orthodox treatments, enhanced or complemented with alternative
treatments (called complementary medicine), versus

2) Orthodox treatments without alternative treatments.

While this would be an interesting topic, it has nothing to do
with this article.

This article is about comparing:

1) Orthodox treatments without alternative treatments, versus,

2) Alternative treatments without orthodox treatments (in most
cases).

In other words, this eBook is about using alternative cancer
treatments, meaning the use of natural substances, instead of
orthodox treatments. Welcome to truth table #3 and truth table
#4. You need to start thinking about natural substances as a
complete, stand-alone treatment for cancer.

An Alternative Cancer Treatment Quiz

Let’s find out what you know about alternative treatments:

Question #1: Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner
Linus Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were duplicated by
studies in Canada and Japan) comparing Vitamin C therapy to
chemotherapy. Which group of patients, the ones on vitamin C or
chemotherapy, lived longer on average, and by how much?

Question #2: An American alternative cancer treatment doctor
treated 33,000 cancer patients, many of whom had been given up
for dead by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die.
What was his verified cure rate?

Question #3: Fill in the blank: In a review of 206 human studies,
[which food] consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-
fighting foods.

Question #4: How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were
they awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop
the Flaxseed Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins)
cancer treatment?

Question #5: It is absurd to think that a person can be cured
of cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can
cure cancer. True or false?

             Continued  3/26/14


Written by Webster Kehr, Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc



 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.