"In Science it's not a sin to change your mind when the evidence demands it." 

Fluoridation toxicity has already been established.  What's required now is to fight, to lead a letter-writing campaign against each municipal that allows it in its water.

Fluoride is an endocrine disrupter.  Has an adnormal affect on endocrine functions.  Fluoride disrupts thyroid function.

Fluoride in your water violates our rights to abstain from any treatment.  You know this already.  This documentary does a good job of presenting the argument that you're already familiar with.  Enjoy.

h/t Lew Rockwell

Busy Person = Better Brain

From the UK's Independent's Will Worley.

Busy people may have better-functioning brains in old age than those who are less busy, scientists have suggested.

A healthily busy lifestyle is associated with improved cognitive function, the Dallas Lifespan Brain Study found, particularly when it comes to working memory, reasoning and vocabulary. 

However, the scientists were not able to say if the heightened brain function is caused by being busy, or vice versa. 

A total of 330 volunteers aged between 50 and 89 filled in questionnaires for the project, which was published in the journal Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. The volunteers also completed a series of neuropsychological tests which measured their cognitive performance. 

Denise Park, the director of the Dallas Lifespan Brain Study, said she was surprised at how little research had been carried out on the subject, given that being too busy "seems to be a fact of modern life for so many".

And while the research was not affected by an individual’s level of education and age, Ms Park said that a link had been discovered between busy lifestyles and superior processing speed of the brain, working memory, reasoning and vocabulary.

In particular, there was a strong association between busyness and memory - specifically, the ability to remember certain events in the past.

Sara Festini, lead author of the study, said: "We show that people who report greater levels of daily busyness tend to have better cognition, especially with regard to memory for recently learned information."

However, the results also raised further questions – such as whether being busy improves cognitive function or if people with heightened neurological characteristics simply tend to be busier people. 

The researchers hypothesised another possibility: That busier people, by the nature of their lifestyles, have more opportunities to learn through the wider variety of situations they find themselves in, which results in stimulating cognition. 

"Living a busy lifestyle appears beneficial for mental function, although additional experimental work is needed to determine if manipulations of busyness have the same effect," said Dr Festini.

While being overly busy can lead to conditions like chronic stress, other experts have supported the claim that a healthy level of busyness can also be important for mental health. Doctors often instruct patients with depression to keep busy to try to distract themselves from their condition.

Clinical psychotherapist Dr Nikki Webber told Medical Daily: “Isolation is a leading contributing factor to depression and leading a busy lifestyle can offer more opportunities to connect to others, which many people underestimate the need for.”

"Fasting is a challenge to your brain."

Love this quote, "Humans live on one-quarter of what they eat.  On the other three quarters live their doctor." 
 Dr. Mark Mattson above explains the benefits not only to your overall health but also to brain health of fasting.  Huh.  Who would have thought?

In almost all things established in politics, economics, history, and whatnot, what I love most is questioning conventional wisdom.  This presentation does just that.  

The presentation begins by questioning the conventional wisdom of eating three meals plus one or two snacks a day.  One, who set this regimen?  And two, who benefits financially?  To answer the second question I would think that the food industry benefits, no?  I mean wouldn't it get people addicted to, well, food, all kinds of food from snacks to cereals to fruits even vegetables?  And even if one is not addicted to the foods, they can easily be keyed into the oversold benefits of different kinds of foods and be thinking about food, about getting to the grocery store, about preparing and cooking their next meal which if done three times a day including snacks is only minutes away.  

Why is it that the normal diet is three meals a day plus snacks? It isn’t that it’s the healthiest eating pattern, now that’s my opinion but I think there is a lot of evidence to support that.  There are a lot of pressures to have that eating pattern, there’s a lot of money involved. The food industry—are they going to make money from skipping breakfast like I did today? No, they’re going to lose money. If people fast, the food industry loses money.  What about the pharmaceutical industries? What if people do some intermittent fasting, exercise periodically and are very healthy, is the pharmaceutical industry going to make any money on healthy people?  

That should be an eye-opener.  Do you really need those three meals plus snacks?  Hmm.  Maybe.  I know that Barry Sears' Zone Diet recommends three meals, light but functional meals mind you (and who also understands calorie restrictions--hence, the smaller sized meals), plus two snacks in his diet.  I should I know.  I studied it and followed it religiously until all the benefits, at least for me, plateaued.  But I still observe many aspects of his Zone Diet.  I still try to keep my hormones in balance with a low protein profile, a higher healthy fat content, and vegetable enzymes to break proteins down and enhance digestion. 

One of the key points that Dr. Mattson makes above is that "fasting twice a week could significantly lower the risk of developing both Parkinson’s   and Alzheimer’s disease."  Okay, this should stand out as news to anyone, I mean anyone concerned about their long-term health. I wonder if one of the reasons that people who are very ill or injured tend to eat less or don't want to eat at all.  And folks who are healthier tell them, "Well, you've got to eat."  Ah, no, I don't. 

The benefits of fasting to the brain are impressive.

Fasting does good things for the brain, and this is evident by all of the beneficial neurochemical changes that happen in the brain when we fast. It also improves cognitive function, increases neurotrophic factors, increases stress resistance, and reduces inflammation.

Fasting is a challenge to your brain, and your brain responds to that challenge by adapting stress response pathways which help your brain cope with stress and risk for disease. The same changes that occur in the brain during fasting mimic the changes that occur with regular exercise. They both increase the production of protein in the brain (neurotrophic factors), which in turn promotes the growth of neurons, the connection between neurons, and the strength of synapses.

Challenges to your brain, whether it’s intermittent fasting [or] vigorous exercise . . . is cognitive challenges. When this happens neuro-circuits are activated, levels of neurotrophic factors increase, that promotes the growth of neurons [and] the formation and strengthening of synapses. . . .

Fasting can also stimulate the production of new nerve cells from stem cells in the hippocampus. He also mentions ketones (an energy source for neurons), and how fasting stimulates the production of ketones and that it may also increase the number of mitochondria in neurons. Fasting also increases the number of mitochondria in nerve cells; this comes as a result of the neurons adapting to the stress of fasting (by producing more mitochondria).

By increasing the number of mitochondria in the neurons, the ability for nerons to form and maintain the connections between each other also increases, thereby improving learning and memory ability.

Intermittent fasting enhances the ability of nerve cells to repair DNA.  

Remarkable. 

Think about what this means.  You eat less you'll do better following an illness and injury.  Eat less.  A lot less.  And when you do eat, eat functional foods.  Think bone broth for recovery.  

Mattson refers to Upton Sinclair's essay, called The Fasting Cure.  Give a read.

Our Food Supply Is Controlled by Chemical Giants

A class-action lawsuit for false advertising has been filed against Quaker Oats after traces of the pesticide glyphosate were found in samples of oatmeal.The complaint is not that the levels were thought to be dangerous, but that the company was not telling the truth when it labeled the product as 100% natural. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s weed-killer, Roundup. Plaintiffs are seeking refunds and asking PepsiCo (Quaker’s parent company) either to reformulate the product or disclose the presence of glyphosate in it. Eater 2016 May 2 

Here is the full story.  

"80% of beef in America is controlled by only 4 companies"

John Moody is back on the Tom Woods Podcast, where he talks about the "Wholesome Meat Act of 1967."  Government destroys both the means and the end. 

What follows are my notes from the show, from John Moody and Tom Woods.  Enjoy.

3:15  Just last week 2.5 million pounds of poultry were recalled because of what the FDA called "extraneous contamination," meaning that when you bite your chicken nuggets [or some other chicken product], you get bits of plastic or rock. 

Statistics show that it has made our food supply less safe.

Why would the food be not safe?  Food system used to work and look, and legislation distorted the food system and how it works.  Cows used to be butchered at 10,000 locations and be fed a lot less grain.  Meat in America used to be a highly diversified and competitive industry.  When you see all these different labels and different products

Now we have it where 80% of all meat in the US is controlled by 3 to 5 companies.  With this consolidation of control, you have consolidation of processing. 

The meat you have in the hamburger you ordered at a local restaurant comes from the beef of tens of thousands of cows that have been all ground together, whereas in the old days we had 10,000 different locations that used to butcher the beef.  Today we have only a few. 

If there was one sick cow or one sick employee or one improperly sanitized step in that process, with all of these commingled cows, you now get the multi-million-pound food meat recalls.  Only way people could keep up with meat regulations and additional costs they created was by consolidating to keep up.  And the consolidation made the meat supply less and less safe.  It's astoundingly sad to see an action how badly this legislation turned out for the American people and the American farmer.

Meat wasn't unsafe before the wholesome meat act.  It was driven by the fictional writing by Upton Sinclair.  He had in his sites labor and not so much the meat industry.  If these foods meat and raw milk were so unsafe, none of us would have ever gotten here.  We're indoctrinated into believing that before the government got involved in these industries, these industries were killing people left and right. 

If we want a safe meat industry . . . , no such thing in a no-risk option, it would be a decentralized meat system, where animals are not being commingled, where you're not putting 3000 chickens an hour through a multi-step chlorine bath from chickens that have been raised in their own fecal matter. 

A few years ago, ConsumerReports did a study where they sampled poultry right off the shelf for its safety.  USDA Inspected, FDA Approved.  The CR results were terrifying.  3/4 of the chickens tested positive for pathogenic bacteria and over half tested positive for strains that are antibiotic resistant. 

Woods, "this helps to account for the increasing interest of getting all foods from local farms."   It is illegal for farmers to choose where they have their animals butchered because of the Wholesome Meat Act, 1967.  Some states for instance, one farmer lives right along the state line, he has to take his animals all the way to the

Custom slaughterhouse.  He took two cows to be butchered.  Took two weeks to pick them up when they're all done--they need to be hung and aged.  the packaging said "Not for Sale."  Because the meat was butchered at a custom slaughterhouse.  It magically becomes unsafe when

Who is the beneficiary in all of this? 

The processing cartels and the larger players in the meat industry.  80% of beef in America is controlled by only 4 companies.  They enjoy cost advantages and economies of scale over small farmers that would not exist if local farmers were allowed to sell directly to the consumer.  He can give the meat away, have friends over to eat that meat at this house, eat himself, but once he tries to sell it it becomes unsafe and he would be a criminal.  Enjoy massive subsidization because of the Farm Bill. 

Cans of Coca Cola are cheaper than carrots. 

The Federal Government recently approved American raised chicken can be killed in America and frozen, then shipped to China, unfrozen there and processed, then refrozen and shipped back to the United States, and allowed to be labeled "Raised in America."  You as a consumer will not know it is Chinese processed chicken.  The feds will allow the chicken to be labeled "Grown in America" or "Raised in America."   

You as a consumer will not know.  Cheaper for a chicken to cross the road to China and back than it is for a chicken to come from a local farm. 

WHAT COULD THE MOTIVATION BE BEHIND THIS FEDERAL ACT? 

To create trouble for small business owners. Temporary inspector was so bad, that a few employees quit in tears.  How does this affect the big players?  They're having 3,000 chickens an hour going through the process line.  How much control is the inspector exerting on the large farms?

Only when undercover whistle blowers have recorded abuses by the Federal food inspectors.   If the animal is 30 months or older, that animal must be condemned.  This is for animals with the best cuts of meats.  Smaller and local farmers don't use grain.  It takes longer.  Here's a regulation that tilts in favor companies he's competing against.  If the inspector decides that the animal is older than 30 months, the small farmer can lose all those good cuts of lucrative meat.  Those Chinese chickens receive literally billions of dollars per year in government subsidization before they go to China through the perverse incentives of grain subsidization.  See Denis Minger's, Death by Food Pyramid.  No section of the economy that has been as tampered with as food and farming.  So you have these massive grain subsidies that prop up the feeding of animals who aren't designed to eat grain feeding them grain.  Then you have these regulatory frameworks that favor massive consolidation as the only way to comply with these huge costs of these regulatory structures for the butchers.  And every step of the way, small farmer can't externalize his cost onto others.  As a small farmer, manure is an economic benefit, not an economic liability.  CAFO's, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, have manure lagoons that contaminate ground water, causing the collapse of aquifers all over the country and externalizing all of these environmental costs onto their communities in terms of gobbling up all of the groundwater, contaminating ground water supplies, odor issues, other noxious issues.  His friends in Indiana where the farmers can't go outside their homes because the smell of the manure is so bad and the government protects this pollution.  Property rights are being denied to them because of big agra businesses.  Subsidization to the Agricultural giants.  "Beef: it's what's for dinner."  Industry trade groups?  No.  Quasi governmental trade group that the supreme court ruled can force all farmers to contribute to them.  They're called "Check-offs."  The Supreme Court said these check-off programs can force all farmers in the nation to contribute money to them even if you don't agree with them, even if you don't want to support them.  They're basically a government mandated cartel.  The Supreme Court treats it as a tax.  These programs are shielded from FOIA requests.  Because the check-off programs are using the money they're extracting from all farmers to basically lobby against and hurt others who are forced to contribute to them. 

WHAT IS THE PRIME ACT?  WHAT WOULD THIS DO AND WHAT'S DESIRABLE ABOUT IT? 

The Prime Act would be the first rollback to federal meat inspection in history.  Called the Prime Act.  Would allow individual states to opt out of the requirement for USDA Inspection for by-the-cut meat butchering sales.  If he were trying to sell ground beef from a cow he butchered, he would become a criminal.  So his meat would have to go to a USDA meat-inspected facility.  If that were to pass, it would allow farmers to sell meat from custom slaughterhouses.  It's a bill.  Not law yet.  Done fairly well in the house.  Thomas Massie introduced the bill.  Found sponsors and co-sponsors in the Senate.  It would have traction because people on both sides see this bill as being a win.  For Republicans, it's a limited-government bill.  On democrat side, it's local government. 

His site is a 501C4, Not for Profit.  It advocates for a truly free food system to protect consumers and producers and access to food with no government regulation and regulations.  Taking away the ability of government to be taken away from corporations.  Wants people to have the ability to opt out of the regulated food system.  Engage in lobbying, litigation, and education.  1960, 10,000 to 20,000 of butchering options to now less than 3,000.  Went from a beef industry with thousands of players and businesses to a beef industry of four.  None of this would have ever happened had the government not stacked the deck to eliminate competition to encourage and create consolidation.  Woods shows how government inhibits competition.