Saturday, August 10, 2013

The Health Ramifications of Mass Medicating with Fluoride.


                The Solution For Disease FREE Health.


World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer Treatments


            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today


           Continued From Last Post

The Health Ramifications of Mass Medicating with Fluoride.

    In the early 1990’s Dr. William Marcus, a senior scientist with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), released a memorandum outlining
the adverse effects of fluoride in drinking water. For example, tests
showed fluoridated drinking water caused bone and liver cancer in animals.

Dr. Marcus was subsequently terminated from his position with the EPA.
He later won a wrongful termination suit against the agency and was

reinstated, as it was determined that “his employment was terminated
solely because he questioned and opposed the EPA’s fluoride policy.”

    So much for scientific freedom and public safety.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),41 percent
of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis —unattractive discoloration
and mottling of the teeth that indicateoverexposure to fluoride. But that's not all.
Evidence suggests thatswallowing fluoride can also cause:

Weakened bones, and fatal bone cancer (osteosarcoma)

Impaired mental development, lowered IQ, and dementia

Gastrointestinal problems

Hyperactivity and/or lethargy

Arthritic symptoms

Kidney issues

Lowered thyroid function

Chronic fatigue

Disrupted immune system

This is what the science is telling us about the ramifications of fluoride
use. And yet, rather than taking the precautionary approach and stopping
fluoridation until we know more, our policymakers continue to blindly forge
ahead; refusing to give the scientific evidence the attention it deserves.

Interestingly enough, a toxicology review is actually required by statute to
ensure that fluoride-delivery agents, such as Hexafluorosilicic acid, are
safe. But no such review exists for Hexafluorosilicic acid... It is a man-
made, bioaccumulative toxin, and you cannot use dilution as a defense for
adding a contaminant to public drinking water.

And yet, it’s being done...

According to the EPA’s local's president, Bill Hirzy, a chemist in the EPA's
Office of Toxic Substances, water fluoridation remains a government policy
because of “institutional inertia [and] embarrassment among government
agencies that have been promoting this stuff as safe.”

In October last year, the world’s leading expert on fluoride toxicity and
author of "The Case Against Fluoride," Dr. Paul Connett, gave the following
presentation in Wichita, Kansas. In it, he addresses the dangers of adding
fluoride to communal water supplies, and the health risks associated with
drinking fluoridated water.

Why is the American Dental Association Ignoring the Science?

    According to a 2006 report on water fluoridation produced by the US
National Research Council, the benefits from fluoride are topical only,
and cannot be achieved through ingestion. It also detailed positive

associations between fluoride ingestion and bone fractures, cancer,
reduced IQ and dementia.

    Meanwhile, the American Dental Association (ADA), which is mired in
conflicts of interest with the amalgam industry, has had “amalgam safety”
and “universal water fluoridation” as their top two highest goals for their
National Oral Health Agenda as of 2009. Furthermore, the ADA, one of the
most influential trade lobbies in the US,  believes that:

  “All communal water supplies

containing less than the optimal level of fluoride should be adjusted
to an optimum level. Toward this end, the ADA is urging Congress and
state legislators to make capacity-building funds readily available to
help communities establish, upgrade and maintain an effective public
water fluoridation infrastructure.”

    The ADA spent $2.56 million on their lobbying efforts last year, and
more than half of its lobbyists (11 out of 20) have previously held
government jobs, again demonstrating the revolving doors between government
and industry. This is a key feature found among most highly effective
lobbying groups.

    The ADA is also one of the most secretive when it comes to its funding.

It was one of just a handful of groups that declined to provide information
to The Chronicle about their responses to Senator Charles E. Grassley, who
in 2009 asked 33 nonprofit health and medical groups to report how much money
they received from pharmaceutical, medical-device, and insurance companies,
and how they disclose such information to the public.

    The association has also spent much of its time defending the dental
profession against lawsuits that charge the mercury used in fillings causes
health problems.

    The ADA has close ties with the world’s leading supplier of dental
mercury (amalgam) fillings, Henry Schein, and has steadfastly refused to
admit that placing neurotoxic mercury in your mouth might not be a good

In recent years, many dentists have reconsidered this archaic practice and
about half of all American dentists are now mercury-free, but the ADA’s
dismissal of the evidence has led to low-income children being
disproportionately harmed. Amalgam is still the primary filling material
used in many underprivileged children due to it being the least expensive
alternative. Henry Schein also makes sure uninsured children receive their
toxic wares via “charity” programs like the annual Give Kids a Smile program
to which it donates dental supplies.


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

Water Fluoridation...Is it Healthy for us???



                The Solution For Disease FREE Health.


World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer Treatments


            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today


    Water fluoridation...

is considered one of the most notable advancements inpublic health, and
cities around the US spend millions adding fluoride tocommunal water
supplies each year.

    But, as stated in the video above, 99 percent of that fluoridated water
ends up on your lawn and in your toilet, where it’s really nothing but an
environmental pollutant. Then there’s the issue of safety when ingested on a
daily basis...

    An increasing number of dentists and scientists are raising serious
concerns about these chemicals, which by the way have never been approved by
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — the agency responsible for food and
drug safety.

    Many do not realize...

that fluoride is a drug that is available only with aprescription. Yet it's
added to municipal water supplies used by more than180 million
Americans, including infants and the elderly without anyattention
to personalized dosing or potential interactions.

    This is a significant problem, because once you add it to the water
supply, you have no way of determining how much of the drug any
particular person will consume on any given day.

    Also consider this: It is illegal, medical malpractice, and unethical for
a physician to prescribe a drug without specifying dosage, and to fail to
monitor your health for side effects from the drug.

    Yet, your water authority is not only allowed, but encouraged to add a
toxic drug — fluoride — to your drinking water without your consent and
without any way of knowing who in your household is drinking it, how much,
and the effect it is having.

    Worse yet, while scientific studies have been done on pharmaceutical
grade fluoride, none have been made on the fluoride that is actually used for
water fluoridation. This chemical (hexafluorosilicic acid) is an industrial
waste product that is likely to be even more toxic than medical grade

    It’s illegal to dump it into rivers and lakes or release the parent gases
into the atmosphere. In fact, municipalities that decided to stop
fluoridating their water had to keep going until all the chemicals were used
up because they couldn’t afford the hazardous waste disposal fees!

    Dr. William Hirzy from the EPA...

has even pointed out that if it goes intothe air, it's a pollutant. If it goes
into the local water, it's pollution.

But if the public water utilities buy it and purposely pour it in our
drinking water, it's no longer a pollutant. All of a sudden, by some magic
sleight of hand, it's a beneficial public health measure...

Concerns About Water Fluoridation Safety Keep Mounting

    One of the latest outspoken critics of fluoridation is Daniel M. Merfeld,
Ph.D. Professor of Otology and Laryngology at Harvard Medical School,
who has stated that:

        "Most European countries do not fluoridate their water, because such
mass medication is considered ineffective and unethical."

    After reviewing the evidence, Professor Merfeld agrees that water
fluoridation is indeed a form of unchecked mass medication. According to
Merfeld, there are "three indisputable facts” with regards to fluoridation
that makes it a highly questionable practice:

        1) Fluoridation provides an uncontrolled fluoride dose.

        2) Fluoridation began before research showed that fluoride’s benefits
were due to topical application not ingestion.

        3) Fluoridation began before all its side effects were known. When
water is fluoridated, the dose is uncontrolled as the amount ingested varies
with water intake. Can you imagine your health care professional telling you
to just put your prescription drugs in your water, ingest the drugged water
when you are thirsty, and go ahead and share your drugged water with others?

Of course not!

    For those who listen to the propaganda that dental health improved after
water fluoridation was instituted should take note that dental health
actually improved across the board even in areas that did not add fluoride to
their water, simply because better dental care and dental hygiene became
available around the same time.

        "In fact," professor Merfeld says, "research shows no significant
difference in the number of cavities for US communities with and without
fluoride in the drinking water. As another example, the vast majority of West
European countries do not fluoridate; yet the dental health of Western Europe
is no worse than for US communities that fluoridate."


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

Friday, August 9, 2013

People With Mental Illness 70 Percent More Likely to Smoke!



                      The Solution For Disease FREE Health.


World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer Treatments


                             New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today


           Continued From Last Post

People With Mental Illness 70 Percent More Likely to Smoke

    New data from two federal health agencies revealed that more than one in
three adults (36 percent) with a mental illness smoke cigarettes, compared
with about one in five adults (21 percent) with no mental illness. According
to the CDC, there has been direct tobacco marketing to people with mental
illness, a population that generally has more stressful living conditions
that make it more challenging to quit. Plus, the mood-altering effects of
nicotine may make people with mental illness an easy target for addiction.
Some mental health facilities even use smoking as a reward for progress!

Most Apartment Dwellers Exposed to Secondhand Smoke

    One area where electronic cigarettes have an advantage over conventional
cigarettes is the fact that they lessen exposure to secondhand smoke. By now
most everyone is aware of the risks of secondhand smoke. Children who grow up
with smokers in their homes are more likely to develop lung cancer in their
later years than those children who come from non-smoking homes.

    And children who breathe secondhand smoke are more likely to suffer from
pneumonia, bronchitis and other lung diseases, while those who have asthma
and who breathe secondhand smoke have more asthma attacks. Secondhand smoke
also accounts for as many as one-quarter of cases of lung cancer in non-
smokers. It’s obvious that you’re exposed to secondhand smoke if you live
with a smoker, but even people who live in smoke-free apartments are often
unknowingly exposed.

    A new study by CDC researchers found that up to 46 percent of apartment
dwellers were exposed to secondhand smoke in their apartments during the last
year. The smoke can seep from one apartment to another through insulation,
cracks and power outlets. The problem potentially affects an estimated 44
million Americans who live in multi-unit buildings, including the nearly 29
million with supposedly “smoke-free” units.

What’s the Best Way to Quit Smoking?

    If you’re thinking of quitting smoking, swapping conventional cigarettes
for electronic cigarettes may simply expose you to a new set of health risks.
This is also the case with drugs designed to help you quit. Take the stop-
smoking drug Chantix, for instance. This drug may cause an inordinately high
number of serious side effects, including suicides and psychotic reactions
where people with no history of violent behavior suddenly kill themselves or
others after taking the drug.

    So, what's the trick to quitting smoking?

    I believe the "secret" is to get healthy first, which will make quitting
all that much easier. Exercising is part and parcel of this plan, and as
research shows people who engage in regular strength training double their
success rate at quitting smoking compared to those who don't exercise.

Healthy eating is another crucial aspect that can't be ignored. In short, if
you want to quit, here are the three basic tips to get you started:

        Read through my recently revised and very comprehensive free
nutrition plan to get started eating right.

        Develop a well-rounded exercise regimen. It is your ally to fighting
disease and to quitting smoking. Strength training is an important part, but
also remember to incorporate high-intensity interval exercises like Peak
Fitness, core-strengthening exercises and stretching.

        Find a healthy emotional outlet. Many people use exercise,
meditation, or relaxation techniques for this, and these are all great. I
also recommend incorporating the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), as this
can help clear out emotional blockages from your system (some of which you
might not even realize are there), thus restoring your mind and body's
balance and helping you break the addiction and avoid cravings.

    Once you are regularly doing these three things, then you can begin to
think about quitting smoking. The best method to do so appears to be cold
turkey, as research shows that two-thirds to three-quarters of ex-smokers
stopped unaided. The best choice for your health, and the health of those
around you, is to quit smoking in order to reduce your exposure to toxins.

    However, if you’re a current smoker you should know about astaxanthin,
which has been found to be powerful enough to help prevent oxidative damage
in smokers. Astaxanthin is produced by the microalgae Haematococcus
pluvialis, and is currently thought to be the most powerful antioxidant found
in nature. It’s found in sea creatures that consume the algae, such as
salmon, shellfish, and krill, as well as in higher doses in supplement form.

Thank You Dr. Mercola


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Electronic Cigarettes Contain Higher Levels of Toxic Metal Nanoparticles Than Tobacco Smoke!


                The Solution For Disease FREE Health.


World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer Treatments


            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today


Electronic Cigarettes Contain Higher Levels of Toxic Metal 

Nanoparticles  Than Tobacco Smoke

    If you’re a smoker, you’ve probably seen the relatively new electronic
cigarettes on the market. Maybe you’ve even tried them in an attempt to quit
your cigarette habit.

    My mom has been a smoker for over sixty years and I really don't hassle
her about it because she is not taking any medications, has a really great
diet and uses a device to poke holes in her cigarettes that reduces the
amount of smoke she inhales by 95%.

    I have learned that it is best to allow her to have this one vice and
help control the other variables, which are far more damaging to her health,
but she also recently asked me about the electronic cigarettes.

    Electronic cigarettes are touted as a safer, cleaner alternative to
smoking, but new research suggests there’s more to the equation than meets
the eye.

    While they may not expose you to the thousands of toxic compounds in the
average conventional cigarette, they do contain hazardous chemicals -- and in
some ways these entirely manmade ‘tobacco alternatives’ may be even more
dangerous to your health than regular cigarettes.

How do Electronic Cigarettes Work?

    When you take a puff of an electronic cigarette – which one in five
current smokers have tried -- a battery heats up a liquid that contains a
flavoring (such as tobacco, menthol, cherry, vanilla, or java), a humectant
(typically propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin) and, sometimes, nicotine.

    As you inhale, you get a “dose” of flavored nicotine without the
chemicals typically produced from burning tobacco. You also get the oral
satisfaction of bringing a cigarette-like device to your mouth, which other
nicotine replacements, such as the patch or gum, do not offer. While this
sounds safer than traditional smoking, the short- and long-term health
effects of electronic cigarettes are not entirely understood.

    To date, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has detected a
potentially deadly antifreeze chemical called diethylene glycol in an
electronic cigarette cartridge, along with tobacco-specific nitrosamines,
which are linked to cancer. In the latest study, researchers hypothesized
that since electronic cigarettes contain various metal components, so too
might the aerosol that you inhale, and their hypothesis turned out to be

Electronic Cigarettes Contain Toxic Metal Nanoparticles

    After testing the aerosol from a leading manufacturer of electronic
cigarettes, it was found to contain metals including tin, copper, nickel and
silver, silicate beads and nanoparticles. In some cases, such as in the case
of tin particles, the amounts were greater than you might be exposed to from
smoking a conventional cigarette. The researchers concluded:

        “Cartomizer aerosol from a leading manufacturer of EC [electronic
cigarette] contained metals, silicate beads, and nanoparticles. Poor solder
joints appear to have contributed to the presence of tin in the aerosol. In
cytotoxicity tests, cartomizer fluid containing tin particles inhibited
attachment and survival of hPF [human pulmonary fibroblasts].

        Other metals likely came from the wires (copper, nickel, silver) and
other metal components used in the cartomizers, while silicate particles
appeared to come from the fiberglass wicks.

        While the outer fibers filtered out many of the tin particles,
significant amounts of tin, other metals, and silicate beads escaped into the
aerosol and would result in human exposure, in some cases probably greater
than a conventional cigarette user would experience.” [emphasis added]

    The effects of toxic metal exposures can range from subtle symptoms to
serious diseases. Since metals build up in your body over time, symptoms are
often attributed to other causes and people often don't realize that they
have been affected by metals until it's too late. Further, once metals build
up in your body they can cause irreversible damage.

Why Breathing in Metal Nanoparticles May be Dangerous

    Adding to the potential risks are nanoparticles, which, due to their
ultramicroscopic size, can easily enter your bloodstream, blood vessels and
other body tissues, causing unknown consequences. As written by Sayer Ji,
founder of

        “One of the unintended, adverse consequences of nanotechnology in
general is that by making a substance substantially smaller in size than
would occur naturally, or though pre-nanotech production processes, the
substance may exhibit significantly higher toxicity when in nanoparticle

        Contrary to older toxicological risk models, less is more: by
reducing a particle's size the technology has now made that substance capable
of evading the body's natural defenses more easily, i.e. passing through
pores in the skin or mucous membranes, evading immune and detoxification
mechanisms that evolved millions of years before the nanotech era.

        For example, when nickel particles are reduced in size to the
nanometer range (one billionth of a meter wide) they may actually become more
toxic to the endocrine system as now they are capable of direct molecular
interaction with estrogen receptors in the body, disrupting their normal
structure and function. Moreover, breathing these particles into the lungs,
along with other metals, ethylene glycol and nicotine produces a chemical
concoction exhibiting synergistic toxicity, i.e. the toxicity of the whole is
higher than the sum of their parts.”

Graphic Warning Labels Won’t be Mandated for Cigarette Packages

    Conventional cigarettes obviously carry significant health risks of their
own, and some of these were intended to be displayed prominently on cigarette
packages. But the FDA’s campaign to put such graphic images of people dying
from smoking-related disease, as well as other gruesome images portraying the
health damages of smoking, on cigarette packages has been abandoned. Instead,
the Agency said it plans to revise package labels with less-shocking

    The graphic label images surely would have created a much larger market
for electronic cigarettes as more people became motivated to quit. But
tobacco companies filed lawsuits over the campaign, claiming it was not
simply providing factual information but rather was promoting an anti-smoking
agenda. A US District Court later ruled that the graphic-image mandate would
violate the US Constitutions free speech amendment.


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

The Food and Drug Industries Don’t Want You to Know the Facts


                The Solution For Disease FREE Health.



World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer Treatments


            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today


           Continued From Last Post

The Food and Drug Industries Don’t Want You to Know the Facts

    As stated by Kessler, we have more than enough evidence that using
antibiotics as growth promoters is threatening human health. Yet the drug and
food industries are doing everything they can to block proposed legislation
that would limit this practice, and both the FDA and the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions aid and abet them. For example, the
Committee took no action on a proposal from Senators Kirsten E. Gillibrand
(D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), which would require the FDA to report
data on agricultural antibiotics that it already collects but does not
disclose. According to Kessler:

        “'In the House, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and
Louise M. Slaughter of New York, also Democrats, have introduced a more
comprehensive measure. It would not only authorize the FDA to collect more
detailed data from drug companies, but would also require food producers to
disclose how often they fed antibiotics to animals at low levels to make them
grow faster and to offset poor conditions.

        This information would be particularly valuable to the F.D.A., which
asked drugmakers last April to voluntarily stop selling antibiotics for these
purposes. The agency has said it would mandate such action if those practices
persisted, but it has no data to determine whether the voluntary policy is
working. The House bill would remedy this situation, though there are no
Republican sponsors.' ...Lawmakers must let the public know how the drugs
they need to stay well are being used to produce cheaper meat.”

How to Avoid Hidden Antibiotics in Your Food

    This is one of the many reasons why I always recommend buying your meat,
whether beef or poultry, from a local organic farmer rather than your local
supermarket. The only way to avoid this hidden source of antibiotics is to
make sure you’re only buying organic, grass-fed, free-range meats and organic
pasture-raised chickens, as non-medical use of antibiotics is not permitted
in organic farming.

    If you live in an urban area, there are increasing numbers of community-
supported agriculture programs available that offer access to healthy,
locally grown foods even if you live in the heart of the city. Being able to
find high-quality meat is such an important issue for me personally that I've
made connections with sources I know provide high-quality organic grass-fed
beef and bison, free-range chicken and ostrich, all of which you can find in
my online store. The farms our supplier uses have three USDA inspectors on
hand that regularly inspect the packaging facility. Additionally, all of the
cattle are grass-fed on open pastures, and E. coli 0157 testing is performed
daily. You can eliminate the shipping charges though if you find a trusted
farmer right in your area.

    The Weston Price Foundation has chapters all over the world and many of
them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase these
types of foods locally. Another resource you can try is Local Harvest, which
you can use to find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of
safe, sustainably grown food in your area.

For Optimal Health, Tend to Your Gut

    The micro-organisms living in your digestive tract form a very important
"inner ecosystem" that influences countless aspects of health, including your
weight. More specifically, the type and quantity of organisms in your gut
interact with your body in ways that can either prevent or encourage the
development of many diseases, including heart disease and diabetes, and may
help dictate the ease with which you’re able to shed unwanted pounds.

    Since virtually all of us are exposed to factors that destroy beneficial
bacteria in the gut, such as antibiotics (whether you take them for an
illness or get them from contaminated animal products), chlorinated water,
antibacterial soap, agricultural chemicals and pollution, ensuring your gut
bacteria remain balanced should be considered an ongoing process.

    Cultured foods like raw milk yogurt and kefir, some cheeses, and
fermented vegetables are good sources of natural, healthy bacteria. So my
strong recommendation would be to make cultured or fermented foods a regular
part of your diet; this can be your primary strategy to optimize your body's
good bacteria. If you do not eat fermented foods frequently, taking a high-
quality probiotic supplement is definitely a wise move. In fact, this is one
of the few supplements recommended for everyone. A probiotic supplement can
be incredibly useful to help maintain a well-functioning digestive system
when you stray from your healthy diet and consume excess grains or sugar, or
if you have to take antibiotics.

 Thank You Dr. Mercola

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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

The Hidden Health Hazards of Antibiotics in Meat


                The Solution For Disease FREE Health.


World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer Treatments


            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today


           Continued From Last Post

The Hidden Health Hazards of Antibiotics in Meat

    A related news story highlights one hidden source of antibiotics that can
have a significant and long-term impact on your gut flora and overall health.

Writing for the New York Times,8 David A. Kessler, former commissioner of the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1990 to 1997, warns that antibiotic-
resistant pathogens in livestock are on the rise as a result of the fact
that, in the US, antibiotics are routinely fed to livestock not only to fight
infection, but to promote unhealthy (though profitable) weight gain.

        “While the F.D.A. can see what kinds of antibiotic-resistant bacteria
are coming out of livestock facilities, the agency doesn’t know enough about
the antibiotics that are being fed to these animals,” he writes. “This is a
major public health problem, because giving healthy livestock these drugs
breeds superbugs that can infect people. We need to know more about the use
of antibiotics in the production of our meat and poultry. The results could
be a matter of life and death. ... It may sound counterintuitive, but feeding
antibiotics to livestock at low levels may do the most harm.

 When he accepted the Nobel Prize in 1945 

for his discovery ofpenicillin, Alexander Fleming warned that 'there is the
danger that theignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing
his microbes tononlethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.' He probably
could nothave imagined that, one day, we would be doing this to billions of animals
infactory-like facilities.”

    The link between antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic-resistant disease is
so clear that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animalfeed has been
banned in Europe since 2006.9 In sharp contrast, according tothe first-ever report
by the FDA10 on the topic, confined animal feedingoperations (CAFOs) used a
whopping 29 million pounds of antibiotics in 2009,and according to Kessler,
that number had further risen to nearly 30 millionpounds in 2011, which
represents about 80 percent of all reported antibioticsales that year.

    What’s more, on December 22, 2011, the FDA quietly posted a notice in the
Federal Register11 that it was effectively reneging on its plan to reduce the
use of antibiotics in agricultural animal feed – a plan it has been touting
since 1977.

    Instead, the agency decided it will continue to allow livestock producers
to use the drugs in feed unabated. Only one class of antibiotics,
cephalosporin, has been restricted from use in livestock.12 This class of
antibiotics, which are regularly prescribed to humans, are implicated in the
development and spread of drug-resistant bacteria among humans that work
with, and/or eat, the animals. As of April 5, 2012, the antibiotics are no
longer be allowed for use in preventing diseases in livestock, although they
are still allowed for treatment of illness in livestock.


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

How Gut Bacteria Affects Your Weight, and Why CAFO Meats Promote Antibiotic- Resistant Disease


                The Solution For Disease FREE Health.


World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer Treatments


            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today


    Recent studies 

have repeatedly demonstrated that the makeup of your
intestinal flora can have an impact on your weight, and your propensity
to gain or lose weight.

    Most recently, research1 also suggests that as much as 20 percent of
the substantial weight loss achieved from gastric bypass, a popular
weight loss surgery, is actually due to shifts in the balance of bacteria
in your digestive tract. According to co-author Dr. Lee M. Kaplan:

        “The findings mean that eventually, treatments that adjust the
microbe levels, or 'microbiota,' in the gut may be developed to help people
lose weight without surgery.”

Gut Microbes May Be Behind Weight Loss After Gastric Bypass

    To investigate the potential link between gastric bypass surgery and
alterations in gut flora, fattened-up mice were divided into two groups. The
test group underwent gastric bypass surgery while the control group received
sham surgery. After the sham surgery, the controls were further divided into
two groups: One received a fatty diet; the other a weight-loss diet.

    In the test group, the microbial populations quickly changed following
surgery, and the mice lost weight. In the control group, the gut flora didn’t
change much, regardless of their diet. After the bypass surgery, the test
group was found to have more of certain types of microbes, including:

        Gammaproteobacteria, particularly Escherichia species, which can help
prevent inflammation and maintain intestinal health, although some species of
Escherichia are pathogenic

        Akkermansia bacteria, which can feed on mucus found in your


    According to the featured article:

        “Next, the researchers transferred intestinal contents from each of
the groups into other mice, which lacked their own intestinal bacteria. The
animals that received material from the bypass mice rapidly lost weight;
stool from mice that had the sham operations had no effect.”

More Research Shows Your Gut Bacteria Impacts Your Weight

    Previous research has also shown that lean people tend to have higher
amounts of various healthy bacteria compared to obese people. For example,
one 2011 study5 found that daily intake of a specific form of lactic acid
bacteria could help prevent obesity and reduce low-level inflammation.

    In this study, rats given the bacterium while in utero through adulthood
put on significantly less weight than the control group, even though both
groups of rats ate a similar high-calorie diet. They also had lower levels of
minor inflammation, which has been associated with obesity.

    Similarly, gut bacteria have also been shown to impact weight in human
babies. One study6 found babies with high numbers of bifidobacteria and low
numbers of Staphylococcus aureus -- which may cause low-grade inflammation in
your body, contributing to obesity -- appeared to be protected from excess
weight gain.

    This may be one reason why breast-fed babies have a lower risk of
obesity, as bifidobacteria flourish in the gut of breast-fed babies.

Probiotics also appear beneficial in helping women lose weight after
childbirth when taken from the first trimester through breastfeeding.

    Two other studies found that obese individuals had about 20 percent more
of a family of bacteria known as firmicutes, and almost 90 percent less of a
bacteria called bacteroidetes than lean people. Firmicutes help your body to
extract calories from complex sugars and deposit those calories in fat. When
these microbes were transplanted into normal-weight mice, those mice started
to gain twice as much fat. This is one explanation for how the microflora in
your gut may affect your weight.

    Yet another study from 20107 showed that obese people were able to reduce
their abdominal fat by nearly five percent, and their subcutaneous fat by
over three percent, just by drinking a probiotic-rich fermented milk beverage
for 12 weeks. Given that the control group experienced no significant fat
reductions at all during the study period, this is one more gold star for

    Probiotics have also been found to benefit metabolic syndrome, which
often goes hand-in-hand with obesity. This makes sense since both are caused
by a diet high in sugars, which leads to insulin resistance, fuels the growth
of unhealthy bacteria, and packs on excess weight.

Diet and Environmental Factors Affect Your Gut Flora

    I have long stated that it's generally a wise choice to "reseed" your
body with good bacteria from time to time by taking a high-quality probiotic
supplement or eating non-pasteurized, traditionally fermented foods such as:

        Fermented vegetables
        Lassi (an Indian yoghurt drink, traditionally enjoyed before dinner)
        Fermented milk, such as kefir
        Natto (fermented soy)

    One of the reasons why fermented foods are so beneficial is because they
contain lactic acid bacteria, which of course has health benefits over and
beyond any weight-loss benefits, as well as a wide variety of other
beneficial bacteria. Ideally, you want to eat a variety of fermented foods to
maximize the variety of bacteria. But eating fermented foods may not be
enough if the rest of your diet is really poor. Your gut bacteria are an
active and integrated part of your body, and as such are vulnerable to your
lifestyle. If you eat a lot of processed foods, for instance, your gutbacteria
are going to be compromised because processed foods in general will
destroy healthy microflora and feed bad bacteria and yeast. Your gut bacteria
are also very sensitive to:

        Chlorinated water
        Antibacterial soap
        Agricultural chemicals


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513