GeneLadd.com

I am disgusted by WikiLeaks. I see it as part of a growing effort simply to topple established order in the belief that no order is better than what we have; or, that something better will emerge. Or, that those pulling the strings simply seek to have power for their own edification and control. That said, I am going to show you a quote from the leaks that demonstrates how our government has been a servant of power and not the people.

“In 2007, then-U.S. ambassador to France Craig Stapleton was concerned about France’s decision to ban cultivation of genetically modified corn produced by biotech giant Monsanto. He also warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across Europe …

In the leaked cable, Stapleton writes, quote, ‘… Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice.’”

This only proves what many of us have always known, that the government and its regulators are working for Monsanto and other Petro-Pharmas behind our backs and against our will. Genetic modification of seeds has not improved production or reduced the cost of farming. It has done the very opposite with more idle land recuperating from toxic chemical over-load, more toxic chemical contaminants coming to market and untold peripheral damage done to the balance of nature. GMOs serve only one purpose and that is the creation of intellectual property and patents in an attempt to control food production for a worldwide monopoly. Do not take my word for this; do your own research. The information is out there and easy to obtain.

Here is what troubles me more: in 2007 we knew what was taking place between the Petro-Pharmas and our government. Now it is 2011: pharmaceuticals were not touched by health care reforms (they still have the blank check Bush gave them), one of the first acts of the now defunct Democrat majority was approval of the biggest junk-food supportive farm bill ever passed, gasoline is over $3 per gallon and few people can afford to fill their tanks with home heating oil, not to mention fill a prescription. WikiLeaks did not tell us anything we did not already know about the Bush and previous administrations, but we have to ask: What has changed? I am not talking about jobs, housing and the economy, they will take time. I am talking about attitude and relationships, and do we see a change or does Petro-Pharma still have its way with Washington?

We need to prune our idiom to remove some phrases: lock and load, on target, bull’s eye, take aim, in my sights and other words and phrases that create violent imagery. While we are at it let’s get rid of phrases such as “shot in the arm” and others that indicate a benefit from drug abuse. We can easily drift into to a “bug spray mindset” that solves problems by killing or eliminating life forms that challenge us. Overwhelming with love is more desirable than killing. And if we cannot convey our love to a rattlesnake, we can leave it alone and it will leave us alone. We want a “clicker” for real life. If we tire of a person or an idea, or it challenges our belief system we are inclined to push the button for a change of channels. Real life has no instant elimination provisions other than violence.

If we speak and think in terms of violence and eliminating those that challenge us, we have no space within us for love. The first to suffer from a lack of love is self. If my mind is filled with images of violence and destruction, my self image suffers and self love is the first to go. We all want control of our lives and our space, but if we cannot fill our own space with love we invite our own destruction. Maybe life is not a “fight for survival in which only the fit survive” after all. Maybe it is not a fight. Maybe life and survival are enjoyed by those who love and are loved. Tolerance works. The real life clicker will never work. Destruction leads to destruction and love leads to love. Words do much more than create images, they carry energy. Our thoughts are the most powerful force in our Universe. Health and harmony begin in our own mind.

While thousands of health experts are reporting amazing results from increased consumption of Vitamin D, the Institute of Medicine’s Food and Nutrition Board acted in the expected manner in setting new RDAs (recommended daily allowances) for Vitamin D. The FNB approved only a slight increase: It found that infants under one year of age do not need any Vitamin D, all others including pregnant women need only 600 IUs until the age of 70 when the recommendation increases of 800 IU. Unfortunately, we see again that commercial interests can dominate the decisions that are supposed to be scientific. The members of the FNB panel maybe scientists, but their decisions can, and often do, reflect their monetary interests.

For example one member of the panel is tied to a pharmaceutical firm that is developing a synthetic Vitamin D. Other members have questionable experience with the vitamin. Many of the older members were bumped off in favor of the new members who set the standards for Vitamin D.  In fact the only benefit recognized for the vitamin is its importance for healthy bone mass. The FNB ignored the field experience and thousands of studies showing that Vitamin D is important for everything from cancer protection to healthy metabolism. It is as important as Vitamin C for protection from colds and flu. Is it possible that the increased consumption and supplementation of Vitamin D is reducing the need for harmful antibiotics and flu shots? Just asking.

I have counseled many people who are taking daily amounts of Vitamin D far in excess of the RDA and all report improvement. They take 2,000 IU daily year ‘round and many increase that amount during the winter months when they get less sunshine. The only negative for Vitamin D can be its source. If it comes from fish liver oil, it will contain loads of Vitamin A, 10 to 1. To get 1000 IU of D, you are saddled with 10,000 IU of A and that can be excessive. If the supplementary Vitamin D comes from the lanolin of lamb’s wool, there is no Vitamin A; and that makes the larger doses acceptable.

As a cancer survivor, I take at least 2,000 IU daily, and often more in the winter months. I know some people who take 10,000 IU daily without any negative side effects. Sorry FNB, life experience is still more convincing than your little box. Perhaps the bigger disappointment is that petro-pharma still runs Washington and the new guys are either part of it or simply unprepared to represent us. Either way we are betrayed.

A letter to the Editor on the proposed soda tax in New York. As it appeared in the Times-Herald-Record
Friday, December 26, 2008

I could support Gov Pattersonç—´ proposal to tax soda if it included all soda, but not just the sweet stuff. Average consumption is 600 12 oz cans per person each year. A Harvard study blames soda for doubling childhood obesity in the last fifteen years. Soda is not only tied to obesity, but also linked to diabetes, osteoporosis and other conditions. The High Fructose Corn Syrup is known to contribute to obesity by stimulating hunger. If Gov Patterson would exclude diet sodas from the fat-tax, he needs to do more homework. Diet sodas still contain enough caffeine to make them addictive according to Johns Hopkins researchers. The artificial sweetener in most diet sodas is a rat poison called aspartame. It is linked to more health problems than HFCS or sugar. There are some one hundred neurological symptoms, including seizures, caused by aspartame when it interferes with aspartic acid, a neurotransmitter. As it metabolizes some of the aspartame converts to a highly toxic substance, methanol. Also, aspartame is linked to increased apatite and obesity. A fat-tax or health tax should be on all soda. If only one is taxed, it should be on diet soda.