The Acid-Alkaline Theory

QUESTION: What’s all this about acid-alkaline diets. Does it really help my health to eat alkaline foods? - Tory

ANSWER: The notion that we need to eat predominantly “alkaline” foods crops up repeatedly, usually to justify the endorsement of a largely or exclusively vegetarian diet, or fasting based on vegetable juices.

The thesis is that foods in themselves can have immediate acid or [tag]alkaline-forming[/tag] effects on the blood and tissues. The theory derives from the fact that when entirely burned, foods leave an ash or residue that is either acidic, alkaline or neutral.

• Breads, cereals, fish, meats, eggs and poultry usually leave an acid-ash residue due to high amounts of chlorine, sulphur (in the case of meats and eggs) and phosphorus (in the case of meat and whole grains).
• Alkaline-ash foods are those in which the elements potassium, sodium, calcium and magnesium predominate, including most vegetables and fruitseven fruits with a high acid component like citrus and tomatoes, because these acids can be completely metabolized in the body into carbon dioxide, water and energy.
• As for nuts: almonds, chestnuts and coconuts are alkaline-ash foods, while Brazil nuts, peanuts and walnuts yield an acid ash.
• Most legumes are alkaline-ash foods except for lentils, which yield an acid ash.
• Neutral-ash foods are the pure fats like butter and lard, because they can be completely burned, and refined carbohydrates like white sugar and cornstarch, because they contain no minerals.
• Milk products yield an alkaline ash due to high levels of calcium.
• Phytates in whole grains complicate the picture because they bind with alkaline-ash minerals and carry them out of the body.
• Additives found in various foodstuffs have an unpredictable effect on the food residue.

The important thing to stress here is that just because a specific food may burn to an acid or alkaline ash does not mean that it will have a direct acidifying or alkalinizing effect on the complicated biochemistry of the body.

Under normal conditions, the blood, saliva and extra-cellular fluids are slightly alkaline, while the urine is slightly acidic. The pH value of these fluids is maintained by a series of complex feedback mechanisms in the body and, in general, is not dependent on dietary excesses of either acid or alkaline foods. After a meal rich in proteins, the blood will become more alkaline for a short period, which is in effect a balancing reaction to the secretion of large amounts of hydrochloric acid in the stomach. Following this the blood then undergoes a short-lived increase in acidity, which is again a balancing reaction to the heavy secretion of alkaline enzyme-rich solutions from the pancreas. These reactions are completely normal and should in no way be interpreted as justification for avoiding high-protein, “acid-forming” foods.

In the most simple terms, the normal, slightly alkaline condition of the blood is maintained primarily by the action of the kidneys and the lungs regulating the balance between the amount of carbon dioxide and bicarbonate ions in the blood. Problems with the kidneys or lungs, dehydration, ingestion of certain drugs, diabetic conditions or other causes may lead to acidosis, with symptoms of drowsiness, progressing to stupor and coma. This acute condition may be relieved by taking an alkaline solution, such as bicarbonate of soda. The condition of alkalosis may likewise be caused by impaired kidney function as well as hyperventilation, ingestion of certain drugs such as diuretics or steroids, and loss of acid from the body due to vomiting or gastric drainage. Symptoms include cramps, muscle spasms, irritability and hyper-excitability. Treatment of this acute condition may include breathing expired carbon dioxide from a paper bag or taking an acidic solution, such as ammonium chloride.

Unusual chronic or long-term conditions of acidosis or alkalosis may be relieved by stressing more acid-forming or alkaline-forming foods in the diet, but such regimes can also lead to deficiencies that actually worsen the condition. Many people with perfectly normal blood pH values have followed “alkalinizing diets” without realizing that there is no particular need to do so. One particularly dangerous theory suggests that the human diet should be composed entirely of alkaline-forming fruits and vegetables to the exclusion of protein-rich “acid-forming” foods. Under the vast majority of conditions, high-protein foods, such as meat and eggs, do not cause the blood to be pathologically acidic. On the contrary, good quality protein is needed for the body to maintain the proper pH values of the blood and extra cellular fluids and to maintain the health and integrity of the lungs and kidneys, those organs which have the most to do with regulating the pH values of the blood. Phosphorus in whole grains, which is an “acid-forming” mineral, actually plays an important role in preventing the blood from becoming too acid.

The notion that we should consume mostly alkaline-ash foods was proposed during the 1930s, when [tag]Dr Weston A Price[/tag] was carrying out his pioneering studies of traditional peoples. Dr. Price responded to proponents of this theory by pointing out that the diets of healthy primitives contained more “acid” food than “alkaline” foods, because of the high consumption of [tag]animal foods[/tag] and, in some cultures, whole grains. For example, Dr. Weston Price found that the Eskimo, living on a diet composed almost exclusively of “acid-forming” high-protein foods, showed no signs of acidosis. These healthy diets were rich in both acid-ash and alkaline-ash foods, with acid-ash foods predominating.

The important point is that we need lots of [tag]minerals[/tag] in our diets. An unbalanced diet consisting mainly of “alkaline-forming” fruits and vegetables, while possibly useful in the short term as a fast, can lead to serious deficienciesof minerals and also of vitamins–in the long run; for diabetics and those who suffer from hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) a diet composed exclusively of fruits and vegetables can be dangerous even in the short term.

A quick test that is often recommended to determine whether the body is too “acid” is the saliva pH testyou merely test the pH of your saliva with a special strip of paper which turns dark if the saliva is slightly alkaline. Some years ago I tested the saliva of myself and my family–it was consistently alkaline even though we ate a lot of animal foods and whole grains. Then I got the bright idea of testing the saliva of our dog, who consumed only meat, organ meats and bones. His saliva was alkaline also! So much for the theory that eating meat will cause the body to be too acid.

But deficiencies in protein and in minerals can create such a condition, in which case, the solution is a nutrient-dense diet contain adequate protein, one that is rich in minerals and also in vitamins A and D, which the body needs to absorb minerals. [tag]Vitamins A and D[/tag] are found in egg yolks, butterfat and [tag]organ meats[/tag] of grass-fed animals, shell fish, fish eggs and [tag]cod liver oil[/tag]

Source: http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/the-acid-alkaline-theory

Healthy Eating Plate & Healthy Eating Pyramid by Harvard School of Public Health

The Healthy Eating Plate, created by nutrition experts at Harvard School of Public Health and editors at Harvard Health Publications, was designed to address deficiencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s MyPlate. The Healthy Eating Plate provides detailed guidance, in a simple format, to help people make the best eating choices.

Use The Healthy Eating Plate as a guide for creating healthy, balanced meals—whether served on a plate or packed in a lunch box. Put a copy on the refrigerator as a daily reminder to create healthy, balanced meals!

• Make most of your meal vegetables and fruits – ½ of your plate:

Aim for color and variety, and remember that potatoes don’t count as vegetables on the Healthy Eating Plate because of their negative impact on blood sugar.

• Go for whole grains – ¼ of your plate:

Whole and intact grains—whole wheat, barley, wheat berries, quinoa, oats, brown rice, and foods made with them, such as whole wheat pasta—have a milder effect on blood sugar and insulin than white bread, white rice, and other refined grains.

• Protein power – ¼ of your plate:

Fish, chicken, beans, and nuts are all healthy, versatile protein sources—they can be mixed into salads, and pair well with vegetables on a plate. Limit red meat, and avoid processed meats such as bacon and sausage.

• Healthy plant oils – in moderation:

Choose healthy vegetable oils like olive, canola, soy, corn, sunflower, peanut, and others, and avoid partially hydrogenated oils, which contain unhealthy trans fats. Remember that low-fat does not mean “healthy.”

• Drink water, coffee, or tea:

Skip sugary drinks, limit milk and dairy products to one to two servings per day, and limit juice to a small glass per day.

• Stay active:

The red figure running across the Healthy Eating Plate’s placemat is a reminder that staying active is also important in weight control.

The main message of the Healthy Eating Plate is to focus on diet quality.

• The type of carbohydrate in the diet is more important than the amount of carbohydrate in the diet, because some sources of carbohydrate—like vegetables (other than potatoes), fruits, whole grains, and beans—are healthier than others.
• The Healthy Eating Plate also advises consumers to avoid sugary beverages, a major source of calories—usually with little nutritional value—in the American diet.
• The Healthy Eating Plate encourages consumers to use healthy oils, and it does not set a maximum on the percentage of calories people should get each day from healthy sources of fat. In this way, the Healthy Eating Plate recommends the opposite of the low-fat message promoted for decades by the USDA.

Your Questions Answered

Are the relative sizes of the Healthy Eating Plate sections based on calories or volume?

The Healthy Eating Plate does not define a certain number of calories or servings per day from each food group. The relative section sizes suggest approximate relative proportions of each of the food groups to include on a healthy plate. They are not based on specific calorie amounts, and they are not meant to prescribe a certain number of calories or servings per day, since individuals’ calorie and nutrient needs vary based on age, gender, body size, and level of activity.

What about alcohol? Isn’t alcohol supposed to be good for you in small amounts?

Alcohol in moderation is beneficial, and it’s illustrated in Harvard’s Healthy Eating Pyramid from 2005. But it’s not for everyone, which is why it is not included in the Healthy Eating Plate.

Will the Healthy Eating Pyramid be going away?

Generations of Americans are accustomed to the food pyramid design, and it’s not going away. In fact, the Healthy Eating Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Plate complement each other.

Consumers can think of the Healthy Eating Pyramid as a grocery list:

• Vegetables, fruits, whole grains, healthy oils, and healthy proteins like nuts, beans, fish, and chicken should make it into the shopping cart every week, along with a little yogurt or milk if desired.

• The Healthy Eating Pyramid also addresses other aspects of a healthy lifestyle—exercise, weight control, vitamin D, and multivitamin supplements, and moderation in alcohol for people who drink—so it’s a useful tool for health professionals and health educators.
• The Healthy Eating Plate and the companion Healthy Eating Pyramid summarize the best dietary information available today. They aren’t set in stone, though, because nutrition researchers will undoubtedly turn up new information in the years ahead. The Healthy Eating Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Plate will change to reflect important new evidence.

When was the USDA Food Guide Pyramid first created?

In 1992, the USDA created a powerful icon: the Food Guide Pyramid. This simple illustration conveyed what the USDA said were the elements of a healthy diet. The Pyramid was taught in schools, appeared in countless media articles and brochures, and was plastered on cereal boxes and food labels.

However, the information embodied in this pyramid was based on shaky scientific evidence, and it was seldom updated to reflect major advances in our understanding of the connection between diet and health.

The USDA retired the Food Guide Pyramid in 2005 and replaced it with MyPyramid. Critics complained that the symbol was vague and confusing, so in June 2011 the USDA replaced MyPyramid with a new and simpler icon, MyPlate.

The USDA’s pyramids and MyPlate had many contributors. Some are obvious—USDA scientists, nutrition experts, staff members, and consultants. Others aren’t. Intense lobbying efforts from a variety of food industries also helped shape the pyramid and the plate.

As an alternative to the USDA’s nutrition advice, faculty members at the Harvard School of Public Health created first the Healthy Eating Pyramid and recently the Healthy Eating Plate. Just as the Healthy Eating Pyramid rectifies the mistakes of the USDA’s Food Guide Pyramid, the Healthy Eating Plate addresses flaws in the USDA’s MyPlate. Both the Healthy Eating Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Plate are based on the latest science about how our food, drink, and activity choices affect our health.

Will following the Healthy Eating Pyramid and Healthy Eating Plate guidelines really make me healthier?

According to research done at Harvard School of Public Health and elsewhere (1-3), following the Healthy Eating Pyramid and Healthy Eating Plate guidelines can lead to a lower risk of heart disease and premature death:

• In the 1990s, the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion created the Healthy Eating Index “to measure how well American diets conform to recommended healthy eating patterns.” (4) A score of 100 meant following the federal recommendations to the letter while a score of 0 meant totally ignoring them.
• To see how well the principles embodied in the Healthy Eating Pyramid stacked up against the government’s advice, Harvard School of Public Health researchers created an Alternate Healthy Eating Index with a scoring system similar to the USDA’s index. They then compared the two indexes, using information about daily diets collected from more than 100,000 female nurses and male health professionals taking part in two long-term studies.
  • The eleven components assessed by the Alternate Healthy Eating Index were dairy products; vegetables; fruit; nuts & seeds; bread/grains; meat, poultry & fish; cholesterol; fat; sodium; alcohol; and multivitamins.
  • Men who scored highest on the USDA’s original Healthy Eating Index (meaning their diets most closely followed federal recommendations) reduced their overall risk of developing heart disease, cancer, or other chronic disease by 11 percent over 8 to 12 years of follow-up compared to those who scored lowest. Women who most closely followed the government’s recommendations were only 3 percent less likely to have developed a chronic disease. (5)
  • In comparison, scores on the Alternate Healthy Eating Index created at the Harvard School of Public Health did appear to correlate more closely with better health in both sexes. Men with high scores (those whose diets most closely followed the Healthy Eating Pyramid guidelines) were 20 percent less likely to have developed a major chronic disease than those with low scores. Women with high scores lowered their overall risk by 11 percent. Men whose diets most closely followed the Healthy Eating Pyramid lowered their risk of cardiovascular disease by almost 40 percent; women with high scores lowered their risk by almost 30 percent.

Two studies offer further evidence of the disease prevention benefits that accrue from following a diet similar to one based on the Healthy Eating Pyramid:

• A study that tracked 7,319 British civil servants for 18 years found that men and women with the highest scores on the Alternate Healthy Eating Index had a 25 percent lower risk of dying from any cause, and a 42 percent lower risk of dying from heart disease, than people with the lowest scores. (3)
• Another observational study in 93,676 post-menopausal women found that following a Healthy Eating Pyramid-style diet (as measured by adherence to the Alternative Healthy Eating Index) was superior to following a low-fat diet at lowering cardiovascular disease and heart failure risk. (1)

Permission of use

The Healthy Eating Plate image on this Web site is owned by Harvard University. It may be downloaded and used without permission for educational and other non-commercial uses with proper attribution, including the following copyright notification and credit line:

Copyright © 2011, Harvard University. For more information about The Healthy Eating Plate, please see The Nutrition Source, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, www.thenutritionsource.org, and Harvard Health Publications, www.health.harvard.edu.

Any other use, including commercial reuse or mounting on other systems, requires permission from the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health. To request permission, please contact us to use the Healthy Eating Plate reprint request form.

References

1. Akbaraly, T.N., et al., Alternative Healthy Eating Index and mortality over 18 y of follow-up: results from the Whitehall II cohort. Am J Clin Nutr, 2011. 94(1): p. 247-53.

2. Belin, R.J., et al., Diet quality and the risk of cardiovascular disease: the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). Am J Clin Nutr, 2011. 94(1): p. 49-57.

3. McCullough, M.L., et al., Diet quality and major chronic disease risk in men and women: moving toward improved dietary guidance. Am J Clin Nutr, 2002. 76(6): p. 1261-71.

4. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, The Healthy Eating Index (PDF), 1995.

5. World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, Continuous Update Project Report Summary. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer, 2011.
Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu

Keep the Body Alkaline for Optimum Health

(NaturalNews) The term pH stands for potential hydrogen. It is the degree of concentration of hydrogen ions in a substance such as water, blood and food. pH is measured on a scale from 0 to 14. The lower the pH reading - the more acidic a substance is. The higher the pH reading, the more alkaline the body is. A pH of 7 is neutral. Ph balance is the balance of acid and alkaline in all fluids and cells throughout your body. Our bodies are alkaline by design and acid by function. This means that our bodies function more efficiently when slightly alkaline, but bodily functions, such as digestion, are acid producing. So what can we do to ensure that our bodies remain more alkaline and balanced?

The human body's metabolic process is naturally acid producing. However, this waste needs to be neutralized or "balanced" so it can be safely eliminated from the body without damaging tissues and organs that are responsible for detoxifying the body. Alkalinity is needed to neutralize and balance acidity. The presence of alkalinity in the body's acid producing environment is counteractive to the onset of illness and disease and also prevents decomposition.

"Acidosis" refers to an acid pH. It is an imbalanced acidic condition of all bodily fluids. Almost all cellular functions in the body are sensitive to the pH of their fluids. If the pH falls too far to the acidic side the cells become poisoned in their own toxic wastes and will die. All chemical processes have an ideal pH. Your blood should have a pH of 7.35 - 7.45. Many studies show that people with a correct blood pH enjoy good health; whereas, people with a low, or acidic, pH are more likely to be ill. The slightest imbalance can cause serious illness and disease.

The body will do whatever it must to maintain the blood pH balance, and will continually steal acidneutralizing minerals from wherever necessary, such as calcium from bones and teeth. The blood will dump the acid into other body organs in an effort to detoxify itself. The organs then dump the acid back into the blood, creating a vicious cycle of trying to rid itself of acidity. This cycle can be ended with a properly balance pH.

Symptoms of mild cases of acidosis include headache, lack of energy, sleepiness, fast and shallow breathing, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration and loss of appetite. Acidosis can result in rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, lupus, tuberculosis, osteoporoses, high blood pressure and most cancers.

Metabolic acidosis occurs when the body has more acidity then alkalinity in it. Eating a diet of excessive meats, grains and breads, dairy products, sugar, overcooked, refined and processed foods and fast foods, can lead to an acidic pH balance. Other factors can include overload from pollutants and chemicals, emotional stress and negative thinking. Even excessive exercising (past the point of exhaustion) causes acidity.

The most important way to stay alkaline is to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

- Increase the amounts of vegetables and fruit (alkaline foods) that you eat while decreasing the amount of acid-forming foods, such as grains, dairy products, pasta and breads. Juicing vegetables can be an excellent way to increase your alkaline food intake.

Just because a fruit or vegetable may be acid, that doesn't mean it will be acid when it is digested. When foods are digested, they turn into "ash". This ash is what determines if a food is acid or alkaline.

- It is important to remember that the method of cooking will also have either an acidic or alkaline reaction. For example, a potato that is baked or boiled in its jacket is alkaline food, whereas a fried potato is acid-forming.

- Make sure you drink at least 2 liters of good water per day. Normal tap water falls short of being good for you. Most city water has additives such as chlorine and fluoride, which are acid forming. Distilled water, water treated by reverse-osmosis or alkaline waters are best.

- Stress - Joy helps to alkalize the body. Take time to relax, have fun and laugh!

- Exercise will tend to make the body more alkaline, but exercising excessively will become acid-forming.

www.thewolfeclinic.com/phbalancearticle.html

www.antiagingresearch.com/ph_balance_rx.shtm...

www.zphbalance.com/

About the author

Alex Howard is author of "WHY ME? My Journey from M.E. to Health and Happiness" and founder of The Optimum Health Clinic, an award winning clinic specialising in M.E./C.F.S./Fibromyalgia based in Harley Street Clinic, London, UK. The clinic has treated over 5,000 patients with M.E./Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromyalgia in over twenty-five countries around the world, and is currently running a two year clinical trial in conjunction with two top universities. A free information pack, including a 75 documentary about the clinic and its work, can be ordered from www.FreedomFromME.co.uk

Source: 

http://www.naturalnews.com/027280_alkaline_body_balance.html#ixzz3DO4FyMTt

CDC Whistleblower ~ Vaccine-Autism Fraud Revealed

O Governo dos EUA sempre negou a ligação entre autismo e vacinas. No entanto, o governo americano secretamente recompensou no Juizado Especial da Vacina mais de 83 famílias com crianças autistas, admitindo desta forma a correlação entre autismo vacinas. Aqui está um estudo sobre esta questão.

Por mais de 20 anos, o governo federal negou publicamente uma ligação entre a vacina e o autismo, mas ao mesmo tempo, seu "Programa de Compensação por Lesões Causadas Por Vacinas" (VICP) pagou indenizações por danos de vacinas para crianças com lesão cerebral, convulsão e autismo. Uma nova investigação, com base em dados verificáveis do governo, traz novas informações ao controverso debate sobre a ligação entre as vacinas e o autismo. A investigação revelou que um número substancial de crianças recompensadas por danos da vacina também tinham autismo e que esses casos que já existiam desde 1989, um ano após o VICP ter sido formado.

O Diretor Executivo da SafeMinds, Lyn Redwood, comentou: "Este estudo muda dramaticamente o debate sobre autismo e vacinas. A questão não é mais se é possível que as vacinas causem o autismo? A resposta é clara. Agora, temos de perguntar: Quantos casos de autismo as vacinas causaram e como nós podemos prevenir novos casos?" O governo tem afirmado que "não monitora" a ocorrência de autismo entre aqueles lesados por vacina. O SafeMinds responde que não procurar é a maneira mais fácil de não encontrar coisa alguma. SafeMinds está pedido uma imediata investigação federal nos mecanismos de lesão nestas crianças em um esforço de proteger outras crianças contra futuros danos, e pede também a ação do Congresso para

reformar o VICP.

O estudo peer-reviewed analisou os casos de lesão por vacinas que foram recompensados monetariamente pelo Programa Federal por Danos de Vacinas. O estudo foi publicado duas semanas atrás no jornal acadêmico Pace Environmental Law Review. O estudo investigou aproximadamente 1.300 casos de lesão cerebral infantil como resultado de vacinas em que o Juizado Especial da Vacina deu o ganho de causa para os demandantes, em busca de referências ao autismo, sintomas de autismo ou desordens comumente associadas ao autismo. O estudo mostrou que 21 casos realmente mencionavam "autismo ou os sintomas como os do autismo" nos registros do tribunal. 

Os pesquisadores então identificaram e contataram as mais de 150 famílias recompensadas pelo tribunal para descobrir se as crianças tinham autismo. Eles foram capazes de encontrar um adicional de 62 casos (superior a 40% de sua amostra) totalizando 83 casos de autismo. Em 39 casos (47%) houve confirmação de autismo, além do próprio reporte dos pais.

O governo federal americano tem chamado o autismo de uma "emergência de saúde nacional", que afeta pelo menos 1 em cada 110 crianças e custa ao país bilhões de dólares a cada ano. Se uma parcela destes casos de autismo são induzidas pelas vacinas e houver evidências de que os funcionários fizeram "vista grossa", isto não pode ser tolerado. A recente tentativa do VICP de recusar mais de 5.000 casos do Omnibus Autism Proceedings é suspeito à luz destas novas descobertas com base em seus próprios registros.

Fontes:

* http://maralmeida68.blogspot.pt/

* [ESTUDO] Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury (PDF)

* Vigilant Citizen: Government Secretly Settled 83 Vaccine-Autism Cases in the Last 20 Years

* Pr News Wire: 83 Cases of Autism Associated with Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensated in Federal Vaccine Court

* Safeminds Press-Release

E se o Ébola fosse uma arma biológica?

O que a seguir se escreve poderá ser considerado especulativo, mas que há coincidências com este vírus, lá isso, há. 

Vejamos:

Alguns acreditam que o Ébola ressurgiu após um acidente numa estação de pesquisas biológicas mantida pelo governo norte-americano em África. Essa base secreta, disfarçada como agência de saúde internacional, realizaria experiências com elementos perigosos para a eventual utilização num palco de guerra biológica. 

Activistas de movimentos pela erradicação de armas dessa natureza acreditam que possa ter havido uma quebra de protocolo de segurança que infectou funcionários dessa estação. Verdade ou mero boato, uma estação de pesquisas privada em Serra Leoa foi recentemente desactivada, contudo a ligação com o governo norte-americano não foi confirmada, será por isso mera especulação?

Poderá ser especulação, mas ainda mais intrigante foi o aparecimento quase que de imediato, de um "antídoto" contra o Ébola de nome "ZMapp" que é um soro que foi administrado de "imediato" a Kent Brantly, um médico norte-americano infectado com Ébola na Libéria, que se encontra numa unidade de isolamento em Atlanta, Estados Unidos. O soro provocou uma notável reversão da doença ao fim de uma hora e o estado de saúde do médico tem melhorado, segundo descreve a CNN.

Fonte: http://portugalglorioso.blogspot.pt

A perturbadora verdade por trás do surto de Ebola na África

Após décadas de uso de armas químicas e biológicas em guerras e experimentos, os governos ocidentais e suas organizações “internacionais” de saúde já deram razões de sobra para serem vistos com desconfiança e medo pelos países do Oeste africano

Original em New Eastern Outlook, tradução por Vinicius Gomes – da Fórum Semanal 143

No artigo do The Guardian, “Pânico com o vírus mortal do Ebola se espalha pelo oeste da África”, lia-se:

“Desde o surto na Guiné do mortal Ebola Zaire, em fevereiro, cerca de 90 pessoas morreram, na medida em que o vírus se propagou para países vizinhos, como Serra Leoa, Libéria e Mali. O surto lançou ondas de choque pelas comunidades que sabem pouco sobre a doença ou sobre como ela é transmitida. Os casos no Mali aumentaram o temor de que esteja se espalhando pelo Oeste da África.”

O jornal também relatou que os Médicos Sem Fronteiras (MSF) estabeleceram centros de tratamento na Guiné, e um deles chegou a sofrer um ataque dos locais, que acusaram o grupo de assistência de ter levado a doença ao país. Também é alvo de críticas o governo de Guiné, que se mostrou incapaz de lidar com a crise.

Esse ultimo surto, que ainda precisa ser contido e está sendo considerado pelo MSF como uma “epidemia sem precedentes”, ilustra diversas verdades inconvenientes a respeito do tratamento médico global, da resposta emergencial a surtos e da percepção que muitos têm de que o Ocidente está submetendo o mundo em desenvolvimento a uma “tirania médica”.

A Falha na preparação

Em 2012, quando os MSF concluíram sua resposta a um surto de Ebola em Uganda, escreveram: “A resposta de emergência dos Médicos Sem Fronteiras a um surto de Ebola em Uganda chegou ao final. A equipe médica entregou ao Ministério da Saúde de Uganda o centro de tratamento que havia montado no distrito de Kibaale.”

Lia-se também no texto: “Como parte de um plano de preparação para futuros surtos, os MSF também restauraram uma unidade de tratamento no hospital de Mulago, localizado na capital Kampala. ‘Uganda desenvolveu a capacidade de responder a crises de Ebola’, disse a coordenadora da MSF, Olímpia de la Rosa. ‘Nós podemos confiar na capacidade da equipe do Ministério da Saúde em assumir e gerenciar casos de Ebola, com todas as garantias de segurança.’”

Se os MSF e outras organizações internacionais podem treinar uma equipe médica ugandense e entregar ao governo de Uganda a responsabilidade de prevenir futuros surtos, por que não houve ações similares em países como Guiné, Libéria, Mali e Serra Leoa? De acordo com a Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), surtos de Ebola ocorrem “primeiramente em vilas remotas no centro e no oeste da África, próximos a florestas tropicais”. Por que, então, os países nessas regiões da África não foram preparados para tais surtos – principalmente pelo fato de que muitos dos países que financiam os MSF já estão fortemente envolvidos com os assuntos internos de seus assuntos internos?

Apenas a França tem gasto centenas de milhões de euros em suas operações militares no Mali – em 2013 foram quase 2,7 milhões de euros ao dia. O dinheiro investido em operações militares designadas para promover a hegemonia ocidental por todo norte e oeste da África – uma extensão da intervenção ocidental na Líbia – faria qualquer um acreditar que tais fundos deveriam também ser direcionadas para prevenir “epidemias sem precedentes” de doenças mortais como o Ebola, mas aparentemente as mesmas preparações feitas na Uganda foram negligenciadas em Mali (ocupada pela França), assim como em outros países tendentes aos surtos de Ebola.

Além de Guiné, os países mais afetados pelo surto do vírus mortal foram Libéria, Serra Leoa e Mali (Divulgação)

Enquanto o Ocidente posa como um chefe arbitrário da humanidade através de suas organizações internacionais, intervindo em crises pontuais, sua falha em preparar outras nações vulneráveis ao surto de Ebola usando a mesma fórmula de Uganda, no mínimo, abala a confiança pública. Esta é ainda mais enfraquecida quando o Ocidente intervém nesses mesmos países por ambições geopolíticas, sob a justificativa de “democracia”, “desenvolvimento” e “direitos humanos” e, em seguida, falha terrivelmente em atender a necessidades desesperadoras, como prevenção de epidemias, das mesmas populações.

Colabore com a mídia independente e tenha acesso liberado ao conteúdo da Fórum Semanal, que vai ao ar toda sexta-feira. Assine aqui

Desconfiança gera suspeita

Enquanto os MSF e o governo de Guiné alegam que as pessoas que atacaram os médicos estavam apenas em pânico, existem verdades perturbadoras a respeito do Ocidente e seu uso de agentes químicos e biológicos tanto para experimentos como parte do avanço de suas ambições geopolíticas – que resultou na genuína suspeita dos locais de que o surto de Ebola foi intencional.

A devastação deixada na esteira do uso de Agente Laranja na guerra do Vietnã e na contínua tragédia resultante do uso de urânio empobrecido no Iraque são dois exemplos extremos de como o Ocidente submeteu populações inteiras a agentes mutagênicos que irão ecoar nas gerações ainda por vir. Mais perturbador ainda é o papel que agências internacionais, supostamente neutras, tiveram ao encobrir tais atrocidades.

O artigo do Guardian, “Como a OMS encobriu o pesadelo nuclear do Iraque”, mostra como as conclusões da organização foram manipuladas por uma ciência politizada. Além do Agente Laranja e urânio empobrecido, a ONU e os EUA são acusados de ter participação em centenas de milhares de casos de esterilizações forçadas no Peru entre 1995 e 1997. Houve também uma matéria da NBC, intitulada “EUA pede desculpas à Guatemala pelos experimentos com DST”, onde lia-se:

“Os pesquisadores da área de medicina do governo dos EUA infectaram propositalmente com gonorréia e sífilis centenas de pessoas na Guatemala, incluindo pacientes mentais institucionalizados, sem o conhecimento ou permissão deles, há mais de 60 anos.

Muitos desses infectados eram encorajados a passar a doença para outros, como parte do estudo. Cerca de um terço dessas pessoas nunca conseguiram tratamento adequado”.

Mais perturbadoras ainda são as palavras dos políticos e lobistas do Ocidente: a ideia de usar armas biológicas em alvos geneticamente escolhidos foi mencionada no Projeto Neoconservador para um Novo Século (PNAC, sigla em inglês) de 2000: “Remontando as Defesas da América”, no qual lia-se em algumas partes:

“A proliferação de mísseis balísticos e veículos aéreos não-tripulados tornarão muito mais fácil projetar um poder militar ao redor do mundo. As próprias munições estão ficando cada vez mais precisas, enquanto novos métodos de ataque – eletrônicos, não-letais, biológicos – estarão amplamente mais disponíveis.

Como a conclusão do processo de transformação pode levar décadas, a arte de se guerrear no ar, na terra e no mar estará muito diferente do que é hoje e o ‘combate’ provavelmente se dará em novas dimensões: no espaço, no ‘cyber-espaço’ e talvez no mundo dos micróbios. 

E formas avançadas de tecnologia de guerra biológica que podem ‘alvejar’ genótipos específicos podem transformar o arsenal biológico do reino do terror em uma ferramenta politicamente útil.”

Helicóptero dos EUA espalhando o “Agente Laranja”, durante a Guerra do Vietnã, As consequências dessa arma química são sentidas até hoje pela população vietinamita (Wikimedia Commons)

Quando lobistas dão declarações dizendo “formas de guerra biológica que podem ‘alvejar’ genótipos específicos” como “ferramentas politicamente úteis”, frente a seu comprovado histórico de utilização de agentes químicos e biológicos em outras populações, percebe-se que não foi mero “pânico” o que levou à violência contra os trabalhadores dos MSF em Guiné.

Se o último surto de Ebola é parte de alguma conspiração ou não, talvez nunca se saiba. A questão central é a falta de confiança que se tem nas agências ocidentais quando eles tentam responder a uma crise. Desconfiança baseada não em medos irracionais, mas em de décadas de abusos, atrocidades, exploração e, principalmente, na contraprodutividade do que o Ocidente faz além de suas fronteiras.

E se o Ocidente falha em sua função como único árbitro da humanidade, o que deveriam fazer os outros países do mundo? A resposta é bem simples: devem construir um mundo multipolar com agências multipolares que colaborem entre si em vez de depender constantemente do Ocidente e de suas organizações “internacionais”. As nações do Norte e Oeste da África que enfrentam potenciais surtos de Ebola – ou então as nações por toda a Ásia que encaram temores similares quanto à Síndrome Aguda de Respiração Severa (SARS) – , precisam, elas próprias, encontrar parceiros internacionais. A estes não devem recorrer apenas em tempos de crise, mas para treinar e preparar seus profissionais de saúde para que sejam autossuficientes e capazes de lidar com surtos antes que eles ocorram.

Parte do que muitos chamam de “tirania médica” do Ocidente é a criação de circunstâncias nas quais os países da “periferia” dependem constantemente deles para ajuda, expertise e assistência. Tal dependência é contrária ao conceito de soberania nacional e ameaça a liberdade e segurança de indivíduos dentro da nação. Em Guiné, a inabilidade do governo em lidar com a crise permitiu que ela ganhasse proporções perigosas, enquanto as pessoas necessitavam da ajuda de agências estrangeiras nas quais simplesmente não confiavam.

Os países precisam chamar a responsabilidade para eles ao terem de lidar com surtos e nações parceiras deveriam guiá-los nessa tarefa, em vez de “segurar sua mão” a cada crise que surge. O último surto no Oeste africano ilustra o quão mal preparadas estão essas agências “internacionais” do Ocidente para proteger a população global, e como essa mesma população global estaria melhor assistida se procurasse meios de se proteger sozinha.

http://www.revistaforum.com.br/

Can GMOs Help Feed the World?

The claims about genetically engineered foods have been quite lofty. Monsanto and other proponents of biotechnology are fond of saying that genetic engineering is necessary if the world's food supply is to keep up with seven billion people and counting. They claim GE crops produce higher yields, solve pest and weed problems, are safe for humans and the environment, and are the cure for world hunger.

As John Robbins writes, if Monsanto's true goal is addressing hunger, then their seeds would be designed to fix the core problems that underlie the hunger issue, such as:[1]

Able to grow on substandard or marginal soils

Able to produce more high-quality protein with increased per-acre yield, without the need for expensive machinery, chemicals, fertilizers or water

Engineered to favor small farms over larger farms

Cheap and freely available without restrictive licensing

Designed for crops that feed people, not livestock

If GE foods were really a viable way to eliminate world hunger, then meeting these challenges would be a powerful argument in their favor, would it not? So, what does the science say?

Monsanto gets a failing grade across the board.

With nearly 100 million acres of GE food now planted worldwide, Monsanto's crops have yet to do one thing to alleviate hunger, particularly for the world's less fortunate. In fact, most of that acreage is devoted to growing corn and transgenic soybeans for livestock feed.

GE Crops Produce a Higher Yield ... Right?

No—their yield is actually lower. Overall, research has shown a 5 to 10 percent reduction in yield for GE soybeans versus the conventional variety. Other GE crops are performing equally poorly.[2]These plants are weak, malnourished and fail with the slightest environmental stress or drought. Agronomists and plant scientists have made far greater advances in yields with conventional breeding methods than with GE crops.

The yields of GE cotton have been particularly abysmal. Scientists have determined that growing GE cotton in the US can result in a 40 percent drop in income. In India, the situation is much worse with up to 100 percent failure rates for Bt cotton, leaving farmers in total financial ruin. According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, more than 182,900 Indian farmers took their own lives between 1997 and 2007 as a result of GE crop failures—a staggering 46 farmer suicides each and every day.[3]

GE Crops Require Fewer Chemicals ... Don't They?

It turns out that GE crops fail miserably in this respect too. GE crops actually need more toxic chemicals, not less. Eighty-five percent of all GE seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance—specifically, Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. As a result, pesticide use has increased dramatically. Since the introduction of GE crops, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides have been used in the US.[4]

Sixty percent of GE crops are resistant to weed killers, fueling a dramatic rise in herbicide use—especially Monsanto's Roundup, which contains the extremely toxic chemical glyphosate. Roundup is now used in more than 80 percent of all GE crops worldwide, and the only one who benefits from THIS is Monsanto. They produce the seeds that require a massive application of an herbicide that they just happen to produce. How convenient for them!

Not only are these toxic chemicals being used far too heavily, but they are killing our bees and butterflies, polluting our waterways, destroying our soil, and creating resistant superweeds and mutant pesticide-resistant insects that we have no way to control.[5]

Mother Nature Hates Monocultures

Studies comparing large mechanized farms to small farms have shown that small farms doing multiple and succession plantings are significantly more productive than the monoculture plantings used in large mechanized farms. A report compiled by about 400 of the world's top scientists concluded our current agricultural system is unsustainable. We need farming methods that rebuild our ecological systems rather than demolish them. Organic farms consistently produce 80 to 90 percent higher yields than monoculture operations.[6] Genetic "bio-invasion" is the biggest risk organic farmers face today.[7]

Biodiversity is key to a healthy ecosystem—and therefore a healthy food supply. In a diverse population, some plants will have natural resistance and will fare better than others, saving the group as a whole from catastrophe. Poor soil quality is a serious problem for farmers across the globe. Our soil is depleting at more than 13 percent the rate it can be replaced due to our chemical-based agriculture system. Massive monoculture has also resulted in the extinction of 75 percent of the world's crop varieties over the last century.[8]

It can be safely said, then, that GE crops were not developed for the purpose of solving world hunger, but to ensure that everything we eat is owned by them. Their goal is maximum profit.

History has proven that artificially inserted genes can have unintended and disastrous consequences. The reality is that GE farming practices are not the solution to world hunger, but rather the very heart of the problem, virtually guaranteeing future crop collapses and subsequent famine. Sustainable, biodynamic agriculture is the real solution!

To learn more about GMOs visit the Greenmedinfo.com GMO research guide.

[1] Earth Island Journal, Book Excerpt: The Food Revolution by John Robbins

[2] Union of Concerned Scientists: Failure to Yield April 2009

[3] Infochange India 2008

[4] Mercola.com 2009

[5] Mercola.com 2011

[6] Agriculture at a Crossroads: Synthesis Report 2009

[7] Organic Consumers Association

[8] Growing Change (documentary, Simon Cunich) 2012

Source: http://www.greenmedinfo.com

14 year old Rachel Parent debates Kevin O'Leary on the issue of Genetically Modified Food