The Spice That Prevents Fluoride from Destroying Your Brain

Turmeric is the base for most curries. “A curry a day keeps the doctor away.”

Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why new research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising!

Fluoride’s neurotoxicity has been the subject of academic debate for decades, and now a matter of increasingly impassioned controversy among the general public, as well. From ‘conspiracy theories’ about it being first used in drinking water in Russian and Nazi concentration camps to chemically lobotomize captives, to its now well-known IQ lowering properties, to its ability to enhance the calcification of the pineal gland – the traditional ‘seat of the soul’ – many around the world, and increasingly in the heavily fluoridated regions of the United States, are starting to organize at the local and statewide level to oust this ubiquitous toxicant from municipal drinking water.

Now, a new study published in the Pharmacognosy Magazine titled, “Curcumin attenuates neurotoxicity induced by fluoride: An in vivo evidence,” adds experimental support to the suspicion that fluoride is indeed a brain-damaging substance, also revealing that a natural spice-derived protective agent against the various health effects associated with this compound is available.

Read more by Sayer Ji at The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain

Perfluorooctanoic Acid in DuPont’s Non-Stick Cookware

‘Epic’ Legal Battle Against DuPont Sheds Light on Deceptive Practices

DuPont is one such company, which has recently seen a slew of negative press following the filing of thousands of personal injury claims in what The Intercept1 calls “an epic legal battle” against the company — a battle that has been waged for the last 15 years, with little media coverage.

According to The Intercept:

“Concerns about the safety of Teflon, C8, and other long-chain perfluorinated chemicals first came to wide public attention more than a decade ago, but the story of DuPont’s long involvement with C8 has never been fully told…

[A] long trail of documents has emerged that casts new light on C8, DuPont, and the fitful attempts of the Environmental Protection Agency to deal with a threat to public health.

This story is based on many of those documents, which until they were entered into evidence for these trials had been hidden away in DuPont’s files.

Among them are write-ups of experiments on rats, dogs, and rabbits showing that C8 was associated with a wide range of health problems that sometimes killed the lab animals.”

DuPont’s Toxic Legacy: PFOAs

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8), was an essential ingredient in DuPont’s non-stick cookware for decades.

The chemical is also used in hundreds of other non-stick and stain-resistant products, from microwave popcorn bags and fast-food wrappers to waterproof clothing and soil-repellant carpet and furniture treatments.

It’s also found in flame retardant chemicals, and hence items treated with flame retardants, which run the gamut from children’s items to furniture and electronics…

Read more at Perfluorooctanoic Acid in DuPont’s Non-Stick Cookware

People Are Dying: Evacuate the Gulf Now

The people in the Gulf are in grave danger. The health reports, the geological reports and the weather reports are suggestive of one thing, the people of the Gulf are looking at greatly reduced lifespans. If they move now, they could mitigate some of the effects. The key word is some.
From the scientific evidence that I have seen,  if I lived in the Gulf, I would immediately leave to a safer location.


There are many quiet voices, fearing repraisal who say that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, is still leaking oil. There are others, shrimp fisherman out of work, who are hired by BP to help with Corexit dispersal missions. Over five years after the accident, Corexit is still being sprayed at night by BP, for profit, and they are using people from the Gulf who have lost their incomes and need the work. They will speak privately, but are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their income. I have spoken with a half dozen over the last three years. These Corexit spraying missions are endangering the quality of the air, the water, the land and the food. The Gulf is catastrophe of Bibllical proportions waiting to consume millions with related health effects caused by Corexit. Originally, the EPA told BP, Nalco and Goldman Sachs that they could not use Corexit on the oil spill. BP gave the EPA the big middle finger. Further, as I covered 5 years ago, the Corexit does not disperse the oil, it submerges it into the water column. This sucks all the CO2 out of the water and has a devastating impact on the environment and the species inhabitating this environment.

There were strong and early indications that the use of Corexit, combined with the leaking oil, were producing, both long term and short term, catastrophic environmental and individual health effects. Oil and Corexit, used to “disperse” the oil spill have impacted untold numbers of Gulf residents’ health. Additionally, both the food supply and the food chain are being adversely impacted. The air and the subsequent evapotranspiration cycle has been irreversibly altered which, in turn, impacts the water table and the safety of water supplies as well as the safety of crops. The most devastating finding relates the events of the oil spill to the phenomena of the ever-widening Louisiana sinkholes and the related underground explosions as well as the very high concentration of toxic and highly flammable methane in the air and in the water.

One of the major threats to the Gulf Coast comes from an imperiled food supply which is the result from the explosion on the Deep Water Horizon oil rig.

Dr. Wilma Subra, a MacAuthur (Genius) Award winning chemist.who investigated the effects of corexit on humans very early on, stated that the corexit was “in the air, the water, and the food we consume”. Dr. Subra test many people in the Gulf and found Benzine levels at 65 times the level that one would expect. This speaks to the genocide that is coming to the Gulf with regard to the contraction of various cancers and other related diseases… “the health impacts that were and are continuing to be caused by the BP crude and dispersants. We have a very, very large and very, very sick population.”

Corexit is banned in 17 countires. Because it is manufactured by NALCO, both BP and Goldman Sachs profit ad the people suffer. …

Our daily poison

Solution? Don’t buy anything manufactured by a big company. Investigate the companies you buy from. Even small companies that developed good reputations through years past have been bought out by mega corporations. “Natural” is the new buzz word; it does not mean organic. Buy everything you can organic, locally grown, non-GMO.

When all people buy is organic, farmers and corporations will catch on. As this film points out – farmers are victims of their own poison use.  What pesticides do to bugs, they eventually do to us.

Physics Today Refuses to Publish Rebuttal Re: “Global Warming”

I’ve been made privy to an email exchange with the editor of Physics Today regarding a rebuttal letter to badly botched article by Spencer Weart that ignored a good portion of climate history. So far, editor Marty Hanna seems to be ignoring his own policy on right of reply for proper formatted and sourced letters. So, I’ve been asked to run it here. – Anthony

Letter to Editor Submission:

Reply to “Climate Change Impacts: The growth of understanding”

In his September 15 article in Physics Today, “Climate Change Impacts: The growth of understanding,” Spencer Weart presented a decidedly one-sided and incomplete history of the intersection of climate science and climate policy.[1] Since he refers dismissively to a publication (actually, a series of books under the title Climate Change Reconsidered [2]) that we contributed to, we have asked for this opportunity to present an opposing view. We are grateful for this opportunity to share our perspective with Physics Today readers.

First, we largely agree with Weart on several aspects of his narrative. Before the mid-1980s, very few climate scientists believed man-made climate change was a problem. But Weart fails to report that this non-alarmist “consensus” on the causes and consequences of climate change included nearly all the leading climate scientists in the world, including Roger Revelle, whom Weart mentions specifically. This informed dissent by many leading scientists continues to this day.[3, 4]

Most of the reports purporting to show a “consensus” beginning in the 1980s came from and continue to come from committees funded by government agencies tasked with finding a new problem to address, or by liberal foundations that have little or no scientific expertise.[5] These committees, as Weart writes, produce reports making increasingly bold and confident assertions about future climate impacts, but they invariably include statements “admitting deep scientific uncertainty.” The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) are replete with examples of this pattern.

Weart interprets this pattern as part of a “cautious approach” typical of committees seeking consensus, which may be correct. However, in the climate debate this practice has been exploited by politicians (such as Al Gore [6]), environmental groups (such as the Environmental Defence Fund [7]), and rent-seeking corporations in the renewable energy industry. These groups routinely quote alarming claims and predictions without acknowledging the deep doubts and scientific uncertainties that belie them. As a result, the public is misled concerning the quality and solidity of scientific research underlying the forecasts.

Weart alludes to “a serious controversy during the discussions leading to the IPCC’s initial report of 1990” but fails to cite any authors or publications that voiced these concerns. [8] And controversy didn’t end with the 1990 report, but has dogged every IPCC assessment since then. [9, 10] The criticism hasn’t come solely from conservatives or others outside the climate science community: the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s national science academies to provide advice to international bodies, produced a blistering criticism of the IPCC’s procedures for recruiting authors, conducting peer-review, and presenting its conclusions. [11]

All this brings us to Weart’s reference to an unnamed “Heartland Institute publication” that, Weart says, “declared that ‘more carbon dioxide in the air would lead to more luxuriant crop growth and greater crop yields’ while taking no account of the likely heat waves and droughts.’ No careful study or hard analysis backed up such statements.”

Criticism of one’s work is a healthy and necessary part of scientific research, but dismissing a four-volume series totalling more than 3,000 pages of summaries of peer-reviewed climate science, with contributions by more than 50 scientists, with a single sentence and then failing even to reference the original reports is prejudicial and unfair to both authors and readers. All four volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered series are available online (for free) and individual volumes in the series have been cited nearly 100 times in peer-reviewed articles. [12]

There is indeed “a major problem in communicating climate realities to the public,” but it is not the one Weart describes in his conclusion. It is that, starting in the 1980s, “consensus by committee” replaced real science in the climate debate and interest groups exploited that transition to turn a genuine scientific puzzle into a social and political movement. The results have been tragic for science as well as for the billions of people who now suffer adverse effects from public policies adopted at the height of this scandal.

Again, I’m not a climate scientist and I’m open to the possiblity.  But aside from the lack of empirical confirmation for the theory (both historical and present-day), I see a lot of marketing PR behind the headlines and also how the GW agenda fits the robber barons’ malthusian eugenics agenda to a tee.  I also see traces of an evidentiary trail of elite planning dating back to the club of rome document.  This is how social engineers manipulate whole societies: by creating crises and controlling the response to them (9/11 and the “war on terror” for instance).

The Real Enemy: YOU

GMO and The Puppetmasters of Academia

“Reading the emails make(s) me want to throw up” tweeted the Food Babe after reading a lengthy series of them posted online by the NY Times on Sept 5th. The emails in question result from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and are posted in the side bars of a front-page article by Times reporter Eric Lipton (“Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show”). The article is highly disturbing, but, as the Food Babe implied, the Times buried the real story. The real scoop was not the perfidy and deceit of a handful of individual professors. Buried in the emails is proof positive of active collusion between the agribusiness and chemical industries, numerous and often prominent academics, PR companies, and key administrators of land grant universities for the purpose of promoting GMOs and pesticides. In particular, nowhere does the Times note that one of the chief colluders was none other than the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

All this is omitted entirely, or buried in hard-to-notice side bars, which are anyway unavailable to print readers. So, here is the article Eric Lipton should have written.

First, The Lipton Story

The Lipton article seems, at first sight, to be impressive reporting. Lipton describes how Kevin Folta, Chair of the Dept. of Horticulture at the University of Florida secretly took expenses and $25,000 of unrestricted money from Monsanto to promote GMO crops. On behalf of the biotech industry, or via the PR firm Ketchum, Folta wrote on websites and attended public events, trainings, lobbying efforts and special missions.


Parts of this were already known, but Lipton digs up further damning evidence and quotes from Folta. They include an email to Monsanto that solidly contradicts Folta’s previous denials of a relationship with Monsanto and the biotech industry: “I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment,” Folta wrote after receiving the $25,000 check, thereby showing both a clear understanding of his role and the purpose of the money. The article goes on to similarly expose Bruce Chassy (Prof Emeritus, University of Illinois) and David Shaw (Mississippi State University). It also discussses, presumably for “balance”, agronomist and GMO critic Charles Benbrook, then at Washington State University, who unlike the others openly acknowledged his funding.

What Lipton Missed

But readers of the emails can find facts that are much more damaging to perceptions of academic independence than that contained in the main article.  For one thing, the money Folta received is insignificant besides the tens of millions his university was taking from Syngenta (>$10million), Monsanto(>$1million), Pioneer (>$10million), and BASF (>$1million). Money that it’s hard to believe did not have a role in protecting Kevin Folta as he roamed zealously (and often offensively) over the internet, via his twitter account, blog, podcast, and OpEds, squelching dissent and ridiculing GMO critics wherever he went.

Also missing from the main Times article is a sense of the extensive and intricate networking of a small army of academics furthering the interests of Monsanto and other parts of the chemical, agribusiness and biotech industries. Folta rarely acted alone. His networks are filled with economists, molecular biologists, plant pathologists, development specialists, and agronomists, many of them much more celebrated than Kevin Folta, but all of them in a knowing loop with industry and the PR firms. Their job was acknowledged openly in emails (“We are all bad-ass shills for the truth. It’s a pleasure shilling with you.” Or, as Folta himself put it: “I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like.”). More generally, the group’s role was to initiate academic publications and other articles and to firefight legislative, media and scientific threats to the GMO and pesticide industries, all the while keeping their industry links hidden.

The academics identified by these emails as cooperating with industry and PR firms include:

Profs. Bruce Chassy (University of Illinois) and Alan McHughen (University of California, Riverside) who worked together to destroy the credibility of Russian scientist and GMO critic Irina Ermakova. They persuaded the journal Nature Biotechnology to interview Ermakova about her research and describe it. This interview was followed by a detailed critique of her research (about which none of the authors were expert). Ermakova was neither told of the critique nor given a chance to answer it. This whole elaborate subterfuge required her to be sent a dummy proof of the article she thought she was publishing in the journal. …

Cooperation among academics is not a crime. But these emails show, as in the EPA letter example, that a company (usually Monsanto, but also Dow and Syngenta and a PR firm, often several of them, plus sometimes the biotech lobbyists BIO or CropLife America) were invariably looped in to these emails, and further, that initiatives usually began with one of these non-academic entities, and were shepherded by them. Only rarely is there even a suggestion from the emails that the various academics were out in front, though that was always the intended impression of the result.

But perhaps the biggest of all revelations within these emails is the connivance of senior university administrators, especially at Cornell University. The NY Times article focuses on the misdeeds of Mississippi State University Vice President David Shaw. But, looped into one email string, along with the PR firm Ketchum and Jon Entine are various Cornell email addresses and names. These are ignored by Lipton, but the email addresses belong to very senior members of the Cornell administration. They include Ronnie Coffman (Director of Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Science) and Sarah Evanega Davidson (now director of the Gates-funded Cornell Alliance for Science).

The Alliance for Science is a PR project and international training center for academics and others who want to work with the biotech industry to promote GMOs. It is funded ($5.6 million) by the Gates Foundation. Its upcoming program of speakers at Cornell for September include Tamar Haspel (Washington Post reporter), Amy Harmon (New York Times reporter) and Prof. Dan Kahan (Yale Law School). These speakers are the exact ones mentioned in a proposal worked out between Kevin Folta and Monsanto in a series of email exchanges intended to enhance biotech outreach. These email exchanges also propose setting up “Ask Me Anything” events to be held at universities around the country with Kevin Folta as of the panelists. …

Is it such a stretch to think that a similar corporate network operates to promote the global warming agenda?  But evidence for such a network has already been uncovered.   The climategate hack showed an organized effort to manipulate data to fit the agenda, although the actual corporate money trail remained hidden.  It’s hard to guess which scientific scam could have worse consequences for the planet (gmo or gw) if left unchallenged.

The False Assumption Behind the War on Cancer

A recent publication, which received sustained media attention, claimed that most cancers are just “bad luck” (Tomasetti and Vogelstein 2015). Its authors stated that only about one-third of cancer mutations are caused by known lifestyle or environmental factors (smoking, alcohol use, UV light and human papilloma virus). The other two-thirds of cancers, said the authors, are random (stochastic or chance) mutations with no known cause. Therefore, we can do very little to prevent cancer except to avoid these known risk factors.

But such conclusions fail to explain changes in the rates of cancer over time, or the wide variation in cancer prevalence between different human populations. They are flawed for a very fundamental reason: they assume that most types of cancer are caused by DNA mutations. This is the mutation theory of cancer. It serves as a fundamental explanation of cancer development and thus is a central focus of cancer research and clinical practice.

For at least a half-century, our thoughts about cancer—its causes, its treatments, even its business—have mostly relied on this under appreciated assumption. We assume that cancer begins when an environmental chemical carcinogen or some type of radiation causes a genetic mutation, and this converts a normal cell to a cancer prone one. Although the body normally repairs most of these mutations, a few become fixed during cell division. The resulting cancer-prone cells then grow into a cluster of next generation cells through a series of additional mutations, ultimately giving rise to a mass of cells that become diagnosed as cancer. Such is the mutation theory of cancer.

In line with this theory, to avoid or to intercept cancer means avoiding the agents that cause these mutations. This is prevention. Failing this, treatments are applied to find ways to selectively kill these cancer cells with surgery, chemotherapy or radiation. We do not, however, expect diseased cells to revert to normality because mutations, once established, are not considered reversible.

I disagree with this theory. I suggest that failing to question the mutation theory of cancer is the underlying scientific reason the War on Cancer is not being won.

A nutritional theory of cancer

My laboratory began NIH-financed research on cancer causation over five decades ago. It eventually led to a far more promising theory of cancer development. This theory was initially based on limited observations in humans; but further investigations with laboratory rats showed how cancer, although initiated by a mutation, was not subsequently dependent on the accumulation of additional mutations.

In our most thoroughly investigated experimental model, cancer is initiated by a gene mutation caused by a powerful chemical carcinogen called aflatoxin (Appleton and Campbell 1983a; Appleton and Campbell 1983b; Youngman et al., 1992). Then, cancer development (primary liver) is predominantly promoted by feeding protein at levels typical of the protein content of most human diets, which are substantially above the levels necessary for good health. We believed cancer development in our studies was not caused by additional mutations because 1) the original mutation-producing chemical was no longer present during promotion and 2) dietary protein is not directly mutagenic. This suggested that, although mutations prime cells for cancer development, further progression to diagnosable cancer is typically nutritionally controlled. No mutations are necessary.

Consistent with this, when protein consumption was decreased to the amount adequate for good health, cancer growth was reversed. Remarkably, cancer growth could be turned on, then off, then on, then off again by a nutrition protocol that did not involve mutations (Schulsinger et al., 1989). Further research showed that promotion of cancer growth occurred with animal-based protein but not plant-based protein.

In follow-up studies we found many other non-mutation mechanisms that promoted cancerous growth. Each of these mechanisms acts interdependently. Animal-based protein increases levels of a growth hormone that encourages cancer growth (insulin-like growth factor), compromises the body’s natural killer cells that normally destroy cancer cells and favors calories being used for cancer growth, among many other non-mutation dependent mechanisms. Thus, initial mutations prime cells for cancer development but then these mutations may lie dormant for relatively long periods of time with a low protein diet. Later, they can be activated to support new cancer growth when higher levels of animal protein consumption are reached. Much like a rash returning when an allergen is reintroduced.

Human evidence strongly supports these experimental animal studies (and refutes the “bad luck theory”). For example, cancer rates for different populations vary widely, being close to nil in some populations for some cancer types. Rates for major cancers (e.g., breast, colon, prostate) correlate with animal protein-based diets. Most of these studies refer to total or saturated fat, but this is a surrogate measure for animal-based food. Other studies, conducted 40-50 years ago, clearly showed that people migrating from one country to another assumed, within a generation or so, the cancer risk of the country to which they moved, without changing their genetics and only changing their nutritional practices.

The mutation theory of cancer has long been the Holy Grail of most cancer research, so much so that hypotheses that rely on promoting cancer by non-mutation mechanisms (like nutrition and chemical contaminants) are often ignored, especially by professionals with little or no knowledge of the science of nutrition.

The consequences of this mutation theory of cancer are deadly. Wrongly assuming that cancer is primarily a product of genetic mutations implies that cancer progression is unstoppable. It implies that cancer control will depend on identifying and selectively killing specific cancer cells and blocking their responsible genes with targeted drugs. This strategy has been and will continue to be severely limiting because countless combinations of genes and their products can change cancer development. But understanding and accepting a new paradigm would mean accepting that funding research to identify new cancer drugs, especially targeted drugs with certain but unpredictable side effects, is the wrong priority for cancer research.  …

It would also mean shutting down one of the most profitable scams in western medicine.