jts - selected news

Textbook of Americanism - Ayn Rand

2011-08-24T14:12:00.000-07:00

TEXTBOOK OF AMERICANISMby Ayn Rand
[These articles were written in 1946 for and appeared originally in THE VIGIL, a publication of The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, Beverly Hills, California. The subject of these articles was limited to the sphere of politics, for the purpose of defining and clarifying the basic principles involved in political issues. The series is incomplete; the twelve questions reprinted here were only the first third of a longer project; the rest has remained unwritten.]
1. What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?
The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.
Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.
These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.
2. What Is a Social System?
A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question:Isthe power of society limited or unlimited?
Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.
Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes.
Example: Under a system of Individualism, a million men cannot pass a law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill him, they are breaking the law -- which protects his right to life -- and they are punished.
Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not recognized.
Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to protect himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number.
In the first case, the law represents a moral principle.
In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no moral principles, and men can do anything they please, provided there's enough of them.
Under a system of Individualism, men are equal before the law at all times. Each has the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million others with him.
Under a system of Collectivism, men have to gang up on one another -- and whoever has the biggest gang at the moment, holds all rights, while the loser (the individual or the minority) has none.Any man can be an absolute master or a helpless slave -- according to the size of his gang.
An example of the first system: The United States of America. (See: The Declaration of Independence.)
An example of the second system: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Under the Soviet system, millions of peasants or "kulaks" were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-kulak. Under the Nazi system, millions of Jews were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-Semitic.
The Soviet law and the Nazi law were the unavoidable and consistent result of the principle of Collectivism. When applied in practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual rights, can result in nothing except brutality.
Keep this in mind when you try to decide what is the proper social system. You have to start by answering the first question. Either the power of society is limited, or it is not. It can't be both.
3. What Is the Basic Principle of America?
The basic principle of the United States of America is Individualism.
America is built on the principle that Man possesses Inalienable Rights;
that these rights belong to each man as an individual -- not to "men" as a group or collective;
that these rights are the unconditional, private, personal, individual possession of each man -- not the public, social, collective possession of a group;
that these rights are granted to man by the fact of his birth as a man -- not by an act of society;
that man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective -- as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross;
that these rights are man's protection against all other men;
that only on the basis of these rights can men have a society of freedom, justice, human dignity, and decency.
The Constitution of the United States of America is not a document that limits the rights of man -- but a document that limits the power of society over man.
4. What Is a Right?
A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission.
If you exist only because society permits you to exist -- you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.
If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society -- you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.
Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer's permission. He does not hold it by permission -- but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot.
5. What Are the Inalienable Rights of Man?
The inalienable Rights of Men are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The Right of Life means that Man cannot be deprived of his life for the benefit of another man nor of any number of other men.
The Right of Liberty means Man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative, and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.
The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness, and to work for its achievement so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man's existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.
6. How Do We Recognize One Another's Rights?
Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.
For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man. and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do.
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: "I'll do as I please at everybody else's expense." An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man -- his own and those of others.
An individualist is a man who says: "I'll not run anyone's life -- nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone -- nor sacrifice anyone to myself."
A collectivist is a man who says: "Let's get together, boys -- and then anything goes!"
7. How Do We Determine That a Right Has Been Violated?
A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent -- his right has been violated.
Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division -- not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. NO MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER MAN.
The practical rule of conduct in a free society, a society of Individualism, is simple and clear-cut: you cannot expect or demand any action from another man, except through his free, voluntary consent.
Do not be misled on this point by an old collectivist trick which goes like this: There is no absolute freedom anyway, since you are not free to murder; society limits your freedom when it does not permit you to kill; therefore, society holds the right to limit your freedom in any manner it sees fit; therefore, drop the delusion of freedom -- freedom is whatever society decides it is.
It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill -- but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a "compromise" between two rights - but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society -- but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society -- but is implicit in the definition of your own right.
Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.
8. What Is the Proper Function of Government?
The proper function of government is to protect the individual rights of man; this means to protect man against brute force.
In a proper social system, men do not use force against one another; force may be used only in self-defense, that is, in defense of a right violated by force. Men delegate to the government the power to use force in retaliation -- and only in retaliation.
The proper kind of government does not initiate the use of force. It uses force only to answer those who have initiated its use. For example when the government arrests a criminal, it is not the government that violates a right; it is the criminal who has violated a right and by doing so has placed himself outside the principle of rights, where men can have no recourse against him except through force.
Now it is important to remember that all actions defined as criminal in a free society are actions involving force and only such actions are answered by force.
Do not be misled by sloppy expressions such as "A murderer commits a crime against society." It is not society that a murderer murders, but an individual man. It is not a social right that he breaks, but an individual right. He is not punished for hurting a collective. He has not hurt a whole collective -- he has hurt one man. If a criminal robs ten men -- it is still not "society" that he has robbed, but ten individuals. There are no crimes against "society" -- all crimes are committed against specific men, against individuals. And it is precisely the duty of a proper social system and of a proper government to protect an individual against criminal attack -- against force.
When, however, a government becomes an initiator of force, the injustice and moral corruption involved are truly unspeakable.
For example: When a Collectivist government orders a man to work and attaches him to a job, under penalty of death or imprisonment, it is the government that initiates the use of force. The man has done no violence to anyone -- but the government uses violence against him. There is no possible justification for such a procedure in theory. And there is no possible result in practice -- except the blood and the terror which you can observe in any Collectivist country.
The moral perversion involved is this: If men had no government and no social system of any kind, they might have to exist through sheer force and fight one another in any disagreement; in such a state, one man would have a fair chance against one other man: but he would have no chance against ten others. It is not against an individual that a man needs protection -- but against a group.Still, in such a state of anarchy, while any majority gang would have its way, a minority could fight them by any means available. And the gang could not make its rule last.
Collectivism goes a step below savage anarchy: it takes away from man even the chance to fight back. It makes violence legal -- and resistance to it illegal. It gives the sanction of law to the organized brute force of a majority (or of anyone who claims to represent it)-and turns the minority into a helpless, disarmed object of extermination. If you can think of a more vicious perversion of justice -- name it.
In actual practice, when a Collectivist society violates the rights of a minority (or of one single man), the result is that the majority loses its rights as well, and finds itself delivered into the total power of a small group that rules through sheer brute force.
If you want to understand and keep clearly in mind the difference between the use of force as retaliation (as it is used by the government of an Individualist society) and the use of force as primary policy (as it is used by the government of a Collectivist society), here is the simplest example of it: it is the same difference as that between a murderer and a man who kills in self-defense. The proper kind of government acts on the principle of man's self-defense. A Collectivist government acts like a murderer.
9. Can There Be A "Mixed" Social System?
There can be no social system which is a mixture of Individualism and Collectivism. Either individual rights are recognized in a society, or they are not recognized. They cannot be half-recognized.
What frequently happens, however, is that a society based on Individualism does not have the courage, integrity and intelligence to observe its own principle consistently in every practical application. Through ignorance, cowardice, or mental sloppiness, such a society passes laws and accepts regulations which contradict its basic principle and violate the rights of man. To the extent of such violations, society perpetrates injustices, evils, and abuses. If the breaches are not corrected, society collapses into the chaos of Collectivism.
When you see a society that recognizes man's rights in some of its laws but not in others, do not hail it as a "mixed " system and do not conclude that a compromise between basic principles, opposed in theory, can be made to work in practice. Such a society is not working; it is merely disintegrating. Disintegration takes time. Nothing falls to pieces immediately -- neither a human body nor a human society.
10. Can A Society Exist Without a Moral Principle?
A great many people today hold the childish notion that society can do anything it pleases; that principles are unnecessary, rights are only an illusion. and expediency is the practical guide to action.
It is true that society con abandon moral principles and turn itself into a herd running amuck to destruction. Just as it is true that a man can cut his own throat anytime he chooses. But a mancannot do this if he wishes to survive. And society cannot abandon moral principles if it expects to exist.
Society is a large number of men who live together in the same country, and who deal with one another. Unless there is a defined, objective moral code, which men understand and observe, they have no way of dealing with one another -- since none can know what to expect from his neighbor. The man who recognizes no morality is a criminal; you can do nothing when dealing with a criminal, except try to crack his skull before he cracks yours. You have no other language, no terms of behavior mutually accepted. To speak of a society without moral principles is to advocate that men live together like criminals.
We are still observing, by tradition, so many moral precepts that we take them for granted, and do not realize how many actions of our daily lives are made possible only by moral principles. Why is it safe for you to go into a crowded department store, make a purchase and come out again? The crowd around you needs goods, too; the crowd could easily overpower the few salesgirls, ransack the store, and grab your packages and pocketbook as well. Why don't they do it? There is nothing to stop them and nothing to protect you -- except the moral principle of your individual right of life and property.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that crowds are restrained merely by fear of policemen There could not be enough policemen in the world if men believed that it is proper and practical to loot. And if men believed this, why shouldn't the policemen believe it, too? Who, then, would be the policemen?
Besides, in a Collectivist society the policemen's duty is not to protect your rights, but to violate them.
It would certainly be expedient for the crowd to loot the department store -- if we accept the expediency of the moment as a sound and proper rule of action. But how many department stores, how many factories, farms or homes would we have, and for how long, under this rule of expediency?
If we discard morality and substitute for it the collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it's done by a majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong), how are men to apply this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered.
If you think that this is just abstract theory, take a look at Europe for a practical demonstration. In Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, private citizens did the foulest work of the G.P.U. and the Gestapo, spying on one another, delivering their own relatives and friends to the secret police and the torture chambers. This was the result in practice of Collectivism in theory. This was the concrete application of that empty, vicious Collectivist slogan which seems so high-sounding to the unthinking: "The public good comes above any individual rights."
Without individual rights, no public good is possible.
Collectivism, which places the group above the individual and tells men to sacrifice their rights for the sake of their brothers, results in a state where men have no choice but to dread, hate and destroy their brothers.
Peace, security, prosperity, co-operation and good will among men, all those things considered socially desirable, are possible only under a system of Individualism, where each man is safe in the exercise of his individual rights and in the knowledge that society is there to protect his rights, not to destroy them. Then each man knows what he may or may not do to his neighbors, and what his neighbors (one or a million of them) may or may not do to him. Then he is free to deal with them as a friend and an equal.
Without a moral code no proper human society is possible.
Without the recognition of individual rights no moral code is possible.
11. Is "The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number" A Moral Principle?
'The greatest good for the greatest number" is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.
This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.
What is the definition of "the good" in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.
If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynch mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.
There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.
But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn't. Because "the good" is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.
The unthinking believe that this slogan implies something vaguely noble and virtuous, that it tells men to sacrifice themselves for the greatest number of others. If so, should the greatest number of men wish to be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the smallest number who would be vicious and accept it? No? Well, then should the smallest number be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the greatest number who would be vicious?
The unthinking assume that every man who mouths this slogan places himself unselfishly with the smaller number to be sacrificed to the greatest number of others. Why should he? There is nothing in the slogan to make him do this. He is much more likely to try to get in with the greatest number, and start sacrificing others. What the slogan actually tells him is that he has no choice, except to rob or be robbed, to crush or get crushed.
The depravity of this slogan lies in the implication that "the good" of a majority must be achieved through the suffering of a minority; that the benefit of one man depends upon the sacrifice of another.
If we accept the Collectivist doctrine that man exists only for the sake of others, then it is true that every pleasure he enjoys (or every bite of food) is evil and immoral if two other men want it. But, on this basis, men cannot eat, breathe, or love. All of that is selfish. (And what if two other men want your wife?) Men cannot live together at all, and can do nothing except end up by exterminating one another.
Only on the basis of individual rights can any good -- private or public -- be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake -- neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others -- only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible.
Do not think that the opposite of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is "the greatest good for the smallest number." The opposite is: the greatest good he can achieve by his own free effort, to every man living.
If you are an Individualist and wish to preserve the American way of life, the greatest contribution you can make is to discard, once and for all, from your thinking, from your speeches, and from your sympathy, the empty slogan of "the greatest good for the greatest number." Reject any argument, oppose any proposal that has nothing but this slogan to justify it. It is a booby-trap. It is a precept of pure Collectivism. You cannot accept it and call yourself an Individualist. Make your choice. It is one or the other.
12. Does The Motive Change The Nature Of A Dictatorship?
The mark of an honest man, as distinguished from a Collectivist, is that he means what he says and knows what he means.
When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate -- not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.
You cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday," just as you cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in an emergency," or "man's rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose."
Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as "semi-inalienable" and consider yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man's rights who may violate them at his discretion. Who? Why, society -- that is, the Collective. For what reason? For the good of the Collective. Who decides when rights should be violated? The Collective. If this is what you believe, move over to the side where you belong and admit that you are a Collectivist. Then take all the consequences which Collectivism implies. There is no middle ground here. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You are not fooling anyone but yourself.
Do not hide behind meaningless catch-phrases, such as "the middle of the road." Individualism and Collectivism are not two sides of the same road, with a safe rut for you in the middle. They are two roads going into opposite directions. One leads to freedom, justice and prosperity; the other to slavery, horror and destruction. The choice is yours to make.
The growing spread of Collectivism throughout the world is not due to any cleverness of the Collectivists, but to the fact that most people who oppose them actually believe in Collectivism themselves. Once a principle is accepted, it is not the man who is half-hearted about it, but the man who is whole-hearted that's going to win; not the man who is least consistent in applying it, but the man who is most consistent. If you enter a race, saying: "I only intend to run the first ten yards," the man who says: "I'll run to the finish line," is going to beat you. When you say: "I only want to violate human rights just a tiny little bit," the Communist or Fascist who says "I'm going to destroy all human rights" will beat you and win. You've opened the way for him.
By permitting themselves this initial dishonesty and evasion, men have now fallen into a Collectivist trap, on the question of whether a dictatorship is proper or not. Most people give lip-service to denunciations of dictatorship. But very few take a clear-cut stand and recognize dictatorship for what it is: an absolute evil in any form, by anyone, for anyone, anywhere, at any time and for any purpose whatsoever.
A great many people now enter into an obscene kind of bargaining about differences between "a good dictatorship" and a "bad dictatorship," about motives, causes, or reasons that make dictatorship proper. For the question: "Do you want dictatorship?," the Collectivists have substituted the question: "What kind of dictatorship do you want?" They can afford to let you argue from then on; they have won their point.
A great many people believe that a dictatorship is terrible if it's "for a bad motive," but quite all right and even desirable if it's "for a good motive." Those leaning toward Communism (they usually consider themselves "humanitarians") claim that concentration camps and torture chambers are evil when used "selfishly," "for the sake of one race," as Hitler did, but quite noble when used "unselfishly," "for the sake of the masses," as Stalin does. Those leaning toward Fascism (they usually consider themselves hard-boiled "realists") claim that whips and slave-drivers are impractical when used "inefficiently," as in Russia, but quite practical when used "efficiently," as in Germany.
(And just as an example of where the wrong principle will lead you in practice, observe that the "humanitarians," who are so concerned with relieving the suffering of the masses, endorse, in Russia, a state of misery for a whole population such as no masses have ever had to endure anywhere in history. And the hard-boiled "realists." who are so boastfully eager to be practical, endorse, in Germany, the spectacle of a devastated country in total ruin, the end result of an "efficient" dictatorship.)
When you argue about what is a "good" or a "bad" dictatorship, you have accepted and endorsed the principle of dictatorship. You have accepted a premise of total evil -- of your right to enslave others for the sake of what you think is good. From then on, it's only a question of who will run the Gestapo. You will never be able to reach an agreement with your fellow Collectivists on what is a "good" cause for brutality and what is a "bad" one. Your particular pet definition may not be theirs. You might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the poor; somebody else might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the rich; you might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain class; somebody else might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain race. All you will agree on is the slaughter. And that is all you will achieve.
Once you advocate the principle of dictatorship, you invite all men to do the same. If they do not want your particular kind or do not like your particular "good motive," they have no choice but to rush to beat you to it and establish their own kind for their own "good motive," to enslave you before you enslave them. A "good dictatorship" is a contradiction in terms.
The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper to enslave men? The issue is: is it proper to enslave men or not?
There is an unspeakable moral corruption in saying that a dictatorship can be justified by "a good motive" or "an unselfish motive." All the brutal and criminal tendencies which mankind -- through centuries of slow climbing out of savagery -- has learned to recognize as evil and impractical, have now taken refuge under a "social" cover. Many men now believe that it is evil to rob, murder, and torture for one's own sake, but virtuous to do so for the sake of others. You may not indulge in brutality for your own gain, they say, but go right ahead if it's for the gain of others. Perhaps the most revolting statement one can ever hear is: "Sure, Stalin has butchered millions, but it's justifiable, since it's for the benefit of the masses." Collectivism is the last stand of savagery in men's minds.
Do not ever consider Collectivists as "sincere but deluded idealists." The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal; brutality is not "idealistic," no matter what its purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.

Dr. Karalis - Tumors

2011-07-21T17:51:00.000-07:00

link

There are all kinds of tumors: non-benign, benign, malignant or cancerous tumors, nerve tumors, bone tumors, brain tumors, glandular tumors, blood-vessels tumors, skin tumors, digestive organs tumors etc, to many to mention. The causes of all tumors are always the same, long standing toxemia (catabolic waste retained in the blood too long) in the blood. This toxemic waste forms a catarrh and causes sub-acute inflammation in the mucus membranes: then hypertrophy of the tissue (thickening, enlarging) takes place called tumors, growths or indurations. They vary in structure in keeping with the tissue (histology) involved. A simple fibroid will take on so- called malignancy (auto generation) if environment inhibits expansions to the extent of cutting off the circulation, causing asphyxiation. The word "HYPERPLASIA" means an excessive formation of tissue. It is impossible for a tumor to appear, unless the toxic waste in the blood is retained to long and causing these inflammations. This toxic waste will only stay in the blood as long as there is a low supply of nerve energy. Body needs good nerve energy to function and to eliminate its waste, without nerve energy we will not be able to exist.
Nothing can cure tumors permanently, unless we clean the blood toxicity and restore the body's immunity's defense to its normal state. No operations, radium treatment or chemotherapy will cure permanent cancer. Only with a drastic blood and tissue detoxification together with a better style of living we will eradicate cancer or any other disease in that mater. Education of the patient of what is disease and on how to live afterwards is absolutely essential.
Many of my readers will wonder, what on earth does Dr.Karalis mean by saying the absence of acute diseases, like fevers and cold are symptoms of energy deficiency. Surely he doesn't mean that we must have fever and cold in order to be well?
Paradoxical as it may sound my friend, this is the solid truth.
Colds and all acute crises are blood detoxifiers and restorers of the immunity system. Are the body's efforts to eliminate blood obstructions (mucus, phlegm, catabolic waste and acid) in order to free the circulation and restore normal metabolic fuction? The higher the vitality, the stronger are the healing crisis (like in the young children).

Every person in good health and especially children, have this crisis once or twice a year normally. (If blood toxicity exists). When an individual celebrates year after year that he never gets a colds in spite of course and abuse eating, it is certain that a chronic disease of some sort is on its way, (cancer, arthritis, ataxia, (posterior sclerosis), Parkinson, asthma, sinusitis etc). This is a shock and sad news for most humans to hear. Certainly it will bring the strongest protest and loud hooting from the medical brethrens. Naturally every owl likes to hoot in the dark, yet when we bring it out in to the light it stops hooting.

It will be better for the world, if the medical profession start to realize the real cause of disease and stop chasing the virus superstition. Virus is acting only under certain conditions, namely when filthy environment exist in the circulation. They try to promote the elimination of the waste and not otherwise. We could not be able to exist without their assistants! Antibiotics are the creators of new SUPER virus pandemics where death only relieves the inflicted sufferer. Vaccinations (pus of cows or bovines) and the Sterilizations with antibiotics are of the dark eras remedies “the religious demons" modernized at moment under with the new banner "SCIENTIFIC MEDICATION".

Last updated November 2008 Many of my readers will wonder, what on earth does Dr.Karalis mean by saying the absence of acute diseases, like fevers and cold that are symptoms of energy deficiency. Surely he doesn't mean that we must have fever and cold in order to be well?
Paradoxical as it may sound my friend, this is the solid truth.
Colds and all acute crises are blood detoxifiers and restorers of the immunity system. Are the body's efforts to eliminate blood obstructions (mucus, phlegm, catabolic waste and acid) in order to free the circulation? The higher the vitality, the stronger the healing crisis.

Every person in good health and especially children, have this crisis once or twice a year normally. (If blood toxicity exists) When an individual celebrates year after year that he never gets a colds in spite of course and abuse eating, it is certain that a chronic disease of some sort is on its way, (cancer, arthritis, ataxia, (posterior sclerosis, Parkinson, asthma, sinusitis etc). This is a shock and sad news for most humans. Certainly it will bring the strongest protest and loud hooting from the medical brethrens. Naturally every owl likes to hoot in the dark, yet when we bring it out in to the light it stops hooting.

It will be better for the world, if the medical profession start to realise the real cause of disease and stop chasing the virus superstition. Virus is acting only under certain conditions, namely when filthy environment exist in the circulation. They try to promote the elimination of the waste and not otherwise. We could not be able to exist without their assistants! Antibiotics are the creators of new SUPER virus pandemics where death only relieves the inflicted sufferer. Vaccinations (pus of cows or bovines) and the Sterilizations with antibiotics are of the dark eras remedies " the demons" modernised at moment under with the new banner "MEDICATION".

Autolysis - chapter 5

2011-07-21T17:29:00.000-07:00

Autolysis

Autolysis
CHAPTER V
In order that we may understand much that takes place within the fasting organism, it is necessary that we have an understanding of the process of autolysis, which, although very common in nature, has been all but overlooked by physiologists generally. We have previously mentioned the fact that the vital or functioning tissues of the fasting organism are nourished off the food reserves stored in the body. These reserves are stored as rather complex substances, such as sugar (glycogen), fat, protein, etc., and are no more fitted for entrance into the bloodstream and use by the cells than are the fats, proteins and carbohydrates of another animal, or another food. Before they can be taken up by the circulation and assimilated by the cells, they must first be digested.
Let us begin with a familiar example of the digestion and absorption of a part of a living organism by the organism itself. In the process of becoming a frog the tadpole grows four legs. After these are fully formed, he no longer has use for the tail that served so well in the tadpole stage, so he proceeds to get rid of it, not by shedding it as is popularly supposed, but by absorbing it. The tail is made up of muscle, fat, nerves, skin, etc. To absorb these structures, they are digested in the same way that fat and muscle are digested in the digestive tract. By the action of the appropriate enzymes the proteins and fats are broken down into their constituent amino and fatty acids. Only thus are they fit to re-enter the circulation. Only as fatty acids and amino acids can they be re-used with which to nourish other structures of the body of the frog.
During the period when the tail of the ex-tadpole is being absorbed, the young frog does not eat. Indeed, it ceases to eat when the forelegs come into view. Fasting may be essential to the absorption of the tail, at least it hastens the process, for it compels the utilization of the tail as food with which to nourish the vital tissues of the fasting frog.
We may liken this process to that of the eating of its skin by the toad. Toads molt several times yearly. They swallow their molted skin after they emerge from it. To make use of the molted skin, the toad must first digest it. Its proteins and fats must be reduced to simple acceptable compounds, such as amino acids and fatty acids. This is done in this instance in the stomach and intestine of the toad. But in the case of the fasting frog digesting its tail, the work is done within the tail itself.
The word autolysis (a-tol-i-sis) is derived from the Greek and means, literally, self-loosing. It is used in physiology to designate the process of digestion or disintegration of tissue by ferments (enzymes) generated in the cells themselves. It is a process of self-digestion--intra-cellular digestion.
A number of autolytic (a-to-lit-ik) enzymes are known and are included under the general terms, oxidases and peroxidases. Physiologists know that proteolytic (protein digesting) enzymes are formed within many, if not in all living tissues. Apparently every tissue turns out its own enzyme, which, probably, under all ordinary circumstances of life, is employed in the regular processes of metabolism. Under other conditions the enzymes may be employed to digest the substances of the cells themselves. In their Textbook of Physiology (1946 edition) Zoethout and Tuttle mention that under certain experimental conditions the unrestrained activities of the enzymes normally present in the liver (proteases, lipases, carbohydrases) digest the proteins, carbohydrates, and fats of the liver. In normal life this digestion of the liver does not occur. These various intra-cellular enzymes play a conspicuous part in the metabolism of food substances; that is, in the normal or regular function of nutrition or metabolism.
A few familiar examples of autolysis will prepare the reader to understand its use in "disease." The phenomena of fasting supply many examples of the control the body exercises over its autolytic processes. For example, tissues are lost in the inverse order of their usefulness--fat and morbid growths first, and then the other tissues. These tissues (fatty tissue, bone marrow, etc.) and food substances (glycogen) are not fit to enter the blood stream before they are acted upon by enzymes. Indeed, human fat, or human muscle, is no more fitted to enter the circulation without first being digested, than is fat or muscle from the cow or sheep. Glycogen (animal starch), stored in the liver, must be converted into a simple sugar before it can be released into the blood stream. This conversion is accomplished by enzymic action.
The manner in which an abscess "points" on the surface of the body and drains its septic contents on the outside is well known to every one of my readers. What is not generally known, is that this "pointing" on the surface is possible only because the flesh between the abscess and the surface is digested by enzymes; that is, it is auto-lyzed and removed.
The absorption of the bone-ring support established about the ends of a fracture is made possible by the autolytic disintegration of the bone-ring. The re-arrangement of materials in pieces of planaria and the dissolution of the pharynx in the piece containing this, to form a new one to fit the new size, as described elsewhere, is made possible by autolysis.
AUTOLYSIS IN PLANTS
The plant kingdom teems with examples of autolysis, but a few familiar examples will suffice for our present purpose. All bulbs, of which the onion will serve as an example, maintain within themselves a new plant surrounded by sufficient food to tide it over during a period of rest, during which period it does not take up food from the soil and air. Indeed, it may be taken out of the ground and stored for long periods. The onion may begin to grow in the bin or bag in which it is stored. It sends up stems and soon almost the whole of the bulb of the onion is transformed into green blades. The bulb gradually becomes soft, and finally, there is left a mere shell, as the growing plant digests and utilizes the substance of the onion. Beets, turnips and many other tubers will grow in the same manner. By autolytic digestion of the substances in the tuber, material is provided for growth and, even while out of the ground, these plants will put forth stems and leaves and grow.
Who has not seen the housewife put a sweet potato in a jar of water and hang it up and watch it grow. It sends out stems which grow to great lengths and puts out many green leaves. Such a potato plant will continue to grow so long as there remains any of the food that was stored as sweet potato. The so-called Irish potato will also put forth stems and leaves and these will grow, drawing upon the substances stored in the potato as their sole source of food. If there is light, the leaves and stems of the potato will be green; if they are kept in the dark, the stems and leaves will be white. If there is a crack several feet away through which a little light enters, these stems will grow in the direction of the source of light and will grow several feet long, if the light is that far away. By autolysis the stored food substances in the tubers are broken up and made usable by the young plant.
The early growth of all plants from seed involves digestion of food stored in the seed. Seed, like the eggs of animals, are chiefly storehouses of food. The actual living part of the seed is almost microscopic in size.
A rose cutting or a fig cutting placed in the soil and watered, will put forth roots and leaves and grow. Both the leaves and the roots are grown from materials within the cutting. Cut a begonia leaf into small pieces and properly tend these and each piece will grow into a new begonia plant. The substances of the fragment of the leaf are used out of which to build a new plant. These are instances of the autolysis, redistribution and reorganization of materials contained within the part.
AUTOLYSIS IN ANIMALS
At the very commencement of life autolysis is an essential process. The embryonic development of animals in eggs involves digestion of the food stored in the eggs. Eggs, however large or small, contain a living germ that is microscopic in size which is the only living part of the egg. The remainder of the egg consists of stored food material out of which the evolving animal constructs its organs and parts. This food substance is no more suited to the use of the evolving embryo than it is suited to the use of the adult animal. Before it can be used in making tissue, it must be digested. This digestion is achieved by enzymes produced by the embryo.
The fasting salamander, the tail of which has been cut off, grows a new tail. It draws upon its general food stores for materials out of which to construct the new tail. These materials must first be broken down (digested) by the process of autolysis and then transferred to the growing tail. Here we watch a process that is somewhat the reverse of that seen in the frog that is absorbing its tail. Here materials are taken from the body and used in producing a tail; there materials are taken from the tail and used with which to nourish the body.
The enormous growth of the gonads of fasting salmon is accomplished by transferring materials from the body of the salmon to the testicles. Autolysis is necessarily the first step in this transfer of materials.
The body is not only able to build tissue, it can also destroy tissue. It can not only digest and utilize the tissues of other organisms, it can digest and use its own tissue.
AUTOLYSIS DURING PUPAL SLEEP
The period of pupal sleep in the life of insects is a period of great and complex organizational changes, resulting in a new and radically different insect. The larvæ of insects devote their whole attention to growing and molting. They eat enormous quantities of food and grow large and fat. The silk worm, for example, during its thirty-day period of growth, increases its weight fifteen thousand times. At the end of its larval stage the silkworm spins for itself a cocoon by which it protects itself in the pupa stage. There emerges from the cocoon, not a worm but a silkfly. The caterpillar of the butterfly changes to a chrysalis. The outer covering of the chrysalis is a hardened shell, usually brown in color. There emerges from this, not a worm, but a butterfly. Whereas, the worm-like larva enters the cocoon or chrysalis, it emerges an adult butterfly or moth, totally changed, both in internal and external structures, with different functions to perform and a different life to lead.
It is during the stage of pupal sleep that the entire organism of the insect undergoes a complete and radical metamorphosis, there is a tearing down of old structures, a re-shuffling of materials, the creation and re-aggregation of parts, so that what emerges from the pupa, when the transformation is complete, is an organism so unlike either the pupa or the larva that it may easily be mistaken for a totally new and distinct species.
It is interesting to note that during the pupal stage of insect life no food is taken. During this period of outward quiescence, all of the material stored up by the gluttonous larva is used out of which to construct a totally new and different organism. By autolysis old structures are torn down, stored materials are digested and prepared for new use, the materials are shifted from one part of the organism to another. All of this marvellous process of metamorphosis takes place while the animal is fasting. Here is a striking example of the constructive work that the organism may carry on while abstaining from food. But it should be understood that materials could not be shifted from one part of the body to another and no-longer-needed structures could not be torn down and the materials of which they are composed could not be used out of which to construct new structures, except they they are first digested. Autolysis is as essential at this stage of the
DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS
The severely wounded animal refuses to eat, yet its wound heals. Great quantities of blood are sent to the site of the wound. This represents a great quantity of food taken to the part. The blood is the distributing agent in all higher forms of life. The fasting animal draws upon its reserves of food materials out of which to repair its torn, cut or broken tissues. These are first autolyzed and then carried to the part of the body where they are needed. The body can not only distribute its nutritive supplies; it can also re-distribute them. It possesses the ability to shift its chemicals and fasting supplies many examples of this. Autolysis makes re-distribution possible.
The ability to re-distribute substances and supplies is common to all forms of life. This ability is an ever-present protection against injury, except under the most prolonged deprivation. The digestion and re-organization of parts seen in worms and other animals, when deprived of food, the digestion and re-distribution of reserves, surpluses and non-vital tissues, as seen in all animals, when forced to go without food, constitute, for the writer, some of the most marvellous phenomena in the whole realm of biology.
AUTOLYSIS IS CONTROLLED
Autolysis is a rigidly controlled process; it is no blind, undirected bull-in-a-china-shop affair. Not only throughout the fasting period, but also throughout the starvation process, as well, the body exercises control over autolysis. The most rigid economy is exercised throughout both periods in the digestion and utilization, not of the vital and most vital tissues, but of the dispensable and expendable tissues. In a later chapter we shall study the control of the autolytic process during fasting. Here I wish to call attention to the fact that in starvation there is no indiscriminate wasting of the body, but rather the same safeguarding of the more vital tissues and a slow sacrifice of the less vital tissues that is seen in the fasting period.
When the frog fasts during the time it is consuming its tail, only the tail disappears. Never does one of the legs of the frog undergo autolytic disintegration. No needed structure is digested and absorbed. If planaria, or flat worms, are cut into small pieces and placed where they can absorb nourishment, each piece will grow into a small worm. If they cannot get nourishment, they cannot grow. Each piece, therefore, completely re-arranges its materials and becomes a perfect, but very minute worm. The piece that contains the pharynx, finding this too large for its diminished size, will dissolve it and make a new one that fits its new size. We have here a process similar to the metamorphosis of insects that goes on in the pupal stage. Here is manifest the ability to tear down a part and shift its constituent materials. The same thing is seen in the softening and absorption of the bone-ring support around a point of fracture. Only part of the bone-ring is digested, the remainder is retained to reinforce the weakened structure.
Zoethout and Tuttle point out that autolysis is a controlled process and mention the following examples of carefully controlled autolysis that normally occur at certain periods of life: "atrophy of the mammary glands at the close of lactation, of the uterus after parturition, the general atrophy of old age, and the resolution (dissolution) of the exudate formed in the lungs during pneumonia." The atrophy of the thymus gland at puberty should also be included in this list.
These authors offer other examples of controlled autolysis, saying: "During starvation some organs (heart and brain) are absolutely necessary and their activity cannot be dispensed with; hence they must be supplied with proteins. These proteins are obtained from the skeletal muscles, which must be looked upon not only as organs of contraction but also as storehouses for proteins. The proteins of the muscles and other organs are digested by the intracellular proteases (enzymes) into soluble proteins, amino acids, which are then carried by the blood stream to the vital organs. Another striking illustration of the transfer of protein from one organ to another is seen in the tremendous development, in the spawning and fasting salmon, of the ovaries at the expense of the muscles, which lose as much as 30 per cent of their weight."
Neither the ovaries, nor the heart, nor the brain can live, grow and function on a diet of amino acids. They need minerals, carbohydrates, fats and vitamins. Fasting salmon lose more than weight of muscle; they also lose fat and glycogen. There is a great accumulation of phosphorus in the gonads of fasting salmon.
It is interesting to note that this control of autolysis extends also to pathological tissues, such as tumors, deposits, effusions, etc. and is not confined to the normal tissues of the body. Examples of this will be given later.
The fact that autolysis is a rigidly controlled and not a haphazard process, is our guarantee that the vital tissues of the body will not be sacrificed during even prolonged abstinence from food. It guarantees us that only the non-vital tissues will be digested and their constituents carried throughout the body to nourish the vital tissues.
Three important facts stand out clearly in what has gone before:
1. By reason of its possession of intracellular enzymes the body is capable of digesting its own proteins, fats and carbohydrates.
2. It is fully capable of controlling the self-digesting process and rigidly limits it to the non-essential and less essential tissues. Even in starvation, when vital tissues are destroyed, there is rigid control of the process and the tissues continue to be drawn upon according to their relative importance.
3. The body is capable of utilizing the end-products of autolytic disintegration of its own tissues to nourish its most vital and most essential parts.
THE AUTOLYTIC DISINTEGRATION OF TUMORS
Trall asserted that all abnormal growths possess a lower grade of vitality than normal growths, hence are easier to destroy. I think it may be equally true that they do not command the support of the organism as do normal growths, as they are lacking in nerve and blood supply. This lack of support makes them the ready victims of the autolytic processes of the body. It is generally held by men with wide experience with the fast that abnormal tissues are broken down and eliminated more rapidly than normal tissue during periods of abstinence. Physiologists have studied the process of autolysis, although they have suggested no practical use that may be made of it save that of employing it to reduce weight. It now remains for physiologists to learn that by means of rigidly controlled autolysis, the body is able to digest tumors and utilize the proteins and other food elements contained in them to nourish its vital tissues. Why have they not investigated this vitally important subject? The facts have been before the world for more than a hundred years.
More than a hundred years ago Sylvester Graham wrote: "It is a general law of the vital economy, that when, by any means, the general function of decomposition exceeds that of composition or nutrition, the decomposing absorbents always first lay hold of and remove those substances which are of least use to the economy; and hence, all morbid accumulations, such as wens, tumors, abscesses, etc., are rapidly diminished and often wholly removed under severe and protracted abstinence or fasting."--Science of Life, pp. 194-195.
The process of autolysis may be put to great practical use and may be made to serve in getting rid of tumors and other growths. To fully understand this, it is necessary for the reader to know that tumors are made up of flesh and blood and bone. There are many names for the different kinds of tumors, but the names all indicate the kind of tissue of which the tumor is composed. For example, an osteoma is made up of bone tissue; a myoma is composed of muscular tissue; a neuroma is constituted of nerve tissue; a lipoma consists of fatty tissue; a fibroma is composed of fibrous tissues; an epithelioma is composed of epithelial tissue, etc. Growths of this nature are known, technically, as neoplasms (new growth) to distinguish them from mere swellings or enlargements. A large lump in the breast may be nothing more than an enlarged lymphatic gland, or an enlarged mammary gland. Such an enlarged gland may be very painful, but it is no neoplasm.
Tumors being composed of tissues, the same kinds of tissues as the other structures of the body, are susceptible of autolytic disintegration, the same as normal tissue, and do, as a matter of experience, undergo dissolution and absorption under a variety of circumstances, but especially during a fast. The reader who can understand how fasting reduces the amount of fat on the body and how it reduces the size of the muscles, can also understand how it will reduce the size of a tumor, or cause it to disappear altogether. He needs, then, only to realize that the process of disintegrating (autolyzing) the tumor takes place much more rapidly than it does in the normal tissues.
In his Notes On Tumors, a work for students of pathology, Francis Carter Wood says: "In a very small proportion of human malignant tumors spontaneous disappearance for longer or shorter periods has been noted. The greater number of such disappearances has followed incomplete surgical removal of the tumor; they have occurred next in order of frequency during some acute febrile process, and less frequently in connection with some profound alteration of the metabolic processes of the organism, such as extreme cachexia, artificial menopause, or the puerperium."
No more profound change in metabolism is possible than that produced by fasting and the change is of a character best suited to bring about the autolysis of a tumor, malignant or otherwise.
The conditions Dr. Wood mentions as causing spontaneous disappearance of tumors are, for the most part, "accidents" and are not within the range of voluntary control. Fasting, on the other hand, may be instituted and carried out under control and at any time desired. It is the rule that operations are followed by increased growth in the tumor. Spontaneous disappearance following incomplete removal is rare. The same may be said for extreme cachexia and artificial menopause. In fevers we have rapid autolysis in many tissues of the body and much reparative work going on, but we cannot develop a fever at will. Pregnancy and childbirth occasion many profound changes in the body, but they are certainly not to be recommended to sick women as cures for their tumors. Even if this were desirable, it would be a hit-or-miss process. The effects of fasting are certain. There is nothing hit-or-miss about the process. It works always in the same general direction.
Fever is a curative process and does help to remove the cause of the tumor. None of Dr. Wood's other causes of spontaneous disappearance assist in removing the cause of tumors. Fasting does assist greatly in the removal of such cause.
During a fast the accumulations of superfluous tissues are overhauled and analyzed; the available component parts are turned over to the department of nutrition to be utilized in nourishing the essential tissues; the refuse is thoroughly and permanently removed.
Due to a variety of circumstances, some known, others unknown, the rate of absorption of tumors in fasting individuals varies. The general condition of the patient, the amount of surplus contained in is body, the kind of tumor, the hardness or softness of the tumor, the location of the tumor and the age of the patient are all known to influence the rate of tumor absorption. Let me cite two extreme cases to show the wide range of variation in this respect.
A woman, under forty, had a uterine fibroid about the size of an average grapefruit. It was completely absorbed in twenty-eight days of total abstinence from all food but water. This was an unusually rapid rate of absorption. Another case is that of a similar tumor in a woman of about the same age. In this case the growth was about the size of a goose egg. One fast of twenty-one days reduced the tumor to the size of an English walnut. The fast was broken due to the return of hunger. Another fast a few weeks subsequent, of seventeen days, was required to complete the absorption of the tumor. This was an unusually slow rate of tumor-absorption.
Tumor-like lumps in female breasts ranging from the size of a pea to that of a goose egg will disappear in from three days to as many weeks. Here is a remarkable case of this kind that will prove both interesting and instructive to the reader. A young lady, age 21, had a large, hard lump--a little smaller than a billiard ball--in her right breast. For four months it had caused her considerable pain. Finally she consulted a physician who diagnosed the condition, cancer, and urged immediate removal. She went to another, and another and still another physician, and each made the same diagnosis and each urged immediate removal. Instead of resorting to surgery the young lady resorted to fasting and in exactly three days without food, the "cancer" and all its attendant pain were gone. There has been no recurrence after twenty-three years and I think that we are justified in considering the condition remedied.
Hundreds of such occurrences under fasting have convinced me that many "tumors" and "cancers" are removed by surgeons that are not tumors or cancers. They cause me to be very skeptical of the statistics issued to show that early operation prevents or cures cancer.
Let me cite a comparatively recent instance from my own practice. A manufacturer brought his wife to me from Los Angeles. A growth in one of her breasts had caused her to consult two or three physicians in that city. Each of them had insisted upon the immediate removal of her breast. I placed her upon a fast which was continued for thirty days. At the end of the fast, the tumor, which was about the size of an English walnut at its beginning, had been reduced to the size of a pea. In less than a month on a vegetable and fruit diet this small remainder disappeared.
Subsequently the woman gave birth to two children at about two year intervals. She nursed each child for two years during which nursing periods the formerly tumurous breast functioned well. The health and vigor of the boys presented unequivocal evidence of the quality of the mother's milk. Was this not better than removal of the breast? Was this an exceptional case? By no means. I see them regularly. Such cases are seen daily in institutions in various parts of the world where fasting is employed.
The removal of tumors by autolysis has several advantages over their surgical removal. Surgery is always dangerous; autolysis is a physiological process and carries no danger. Surgery always lowers vitality and thus adds to the metabolic perversion that is back of the tumor. Fasting, by which autolysis of tumors is accelerated, normalizes nutrition and permits the elimination of accumulated toxins, thus helping to remove the cause of the tumor. After surgical removal tumors tend to recur. After their autolytic removal, there is little tendency to recurrence. Tumors often recur in malignant form after their operative removal. The tendency to malignancy is removal by fasting.
John W. Armstrong (England) says: "I have seen lumps in female breasts treated to fast, some of them after diagnosis by 'experts,' the bulk after self-diagnosis and to disappear, on water only, in from four to twenty days."
Bernarr Macfadden says: "My experience of fasting has shown me beyond all possible doubt that a foreign growth of any kind can be absorbed into the circulation by simply compelling the body to use every unnecessary element contained within it for food. When a foreign growth has become hardened, sometimes one long fast will not accomplish the result, but where they are soft, the fast will usually cause them to be absorbed."
A small tumorous growth which had existed for more than twenty years was absorbed during Mr. Pearson's longest fast and did not return thereafter. Dr. Hazzard records the recovery, during a fifty-five days' fast, of a case diagnosed by physicians as cancer of the stomach. Tilden, Weger, Rabagliati and many others record many such cases.
I have seen repeated instances of the absorption of tumors in my own patients. I had one complete recovery in the case of a uterine cancer during a thirty days' fast. I have seen numerous small tumors completely absorbed and large ones greatly reduced in size.
In Europe and America, literally thousands of tumors have been autolyzed during the past fifty years, and the effectiveness of the method is beyond doubt. I can give no definite information about bone tumors and nerve tumors; but, since these are subject to the same laws of nutrition as all other tumors, I am disposed to think that they may be autolyzed as effectively as other tumors.
In my own experience I have seen numerous fibroid tumors of the uterus and breast, lipomas in various parts of the body, a few epitheliomas, a whole group of myomas and a number of tumors that were apparently early cancer autolyzed and absorbed while the patient fasted. I have seen many warts disappear during fasting and I have seen many warts on which the fasting process seemed to have no effect. I have never seen a mole affected by the fasting process. I have seen a number of cysts completely destroyed by fasting and others that were merely reduced in size. It will be recalled that Graham mentions having seen cysts (wens) absorbed during fasting.
It is certain that the autolyzing process has its limitations. For example, a tumor that has been permitted to grow to enormous size cannot be autolyzed in one fast. Indeed, many of them are so large that several long fasts during the course of two years or more, with a rigid feeding schedule between fasts, would be required to break them down and absorb them, if, indeed, it could be done. There was a school in Chicago some years ago that taught that "the normal tissue may be consumed before the morbid tissues are used up," in fasting. While this school did not confine this statement to tumors, there are few conditions in which this can be a fact, and in large tumors it may be so. Aside from large tumors, it is hardly probable that this is so in any recoverable cases. Only in rare instances, where the amount of morbid tissue is very great, and these are probably all irremediable, can this occur.
In general, good tissue is not used up as fast as bad and the tumor will "starve" before the body. Except where it is very large, we may be sure that in all cases, hunger will return before any damage is done to the vital tissues. In more than one case of cancer, where opiates had been used to relieve pain, I have seen three or four days' fasting bring relief.
One other limitation must be noted; namely, tumors that are so situated that they dam-up the lymph stream will continue to grow (feeding upon the excess of lymph behind them) despite fasting.
In cases where complete absorption is not obtained, the tumor is sufficiently reduced in size not to constitute a menace. Thereafter proper living will prevent added growth. Indeed, we have seen a number of cases where a further decrease in size followed right living subsequent to fasting.

Autolyzing Tumors

2011-07-21T17:15:00.000-07:00

Autolyzing Tumors by Dr. Herbert M. Shelton

The word autoloysis is derived from Greek and means, literally, self-loosing. It is used in physiology to designate the process of digestion or disintegration of tissue by ferments (enzymes) generated in the cells themselves. It is a process of self-digestion.
Enzymes exist throughout nature. All organic processes are accomplished by their aid. Seeds sprout by the aid of enzymes. Every tissue has its own enzyme.
It is now common knowledge that the processes of digestion that take place in the mouth, stomach and intestine are made possible by active agents or ferments known as enzymes. For instance, starch is converted into sugar by digestive enzymes that are said to be starch splitting, or amylolytic; proteins are converted into amino acids by protein-splitting, or proteolytic, enzymes. The digestive enzymes digest only "dead" substances and therefore, do not digest the stomach and intestine.
Acids and alkalies do not accomplish the work of digestion. They only supply favorable mediums for the work of the digestive enzymes. The enzyme, ptyalin, of the saliva acts only in an alkaline medium and is destroyed by a mild acid; the enzyme, pepsin, of the gastric juice works only in an acid medium and is prevented from working by an alkali.
It should be equally well known that the chemical changes that take place in the cells and tissues are instigated by enzymes, of which there are a number in every living thing. Simple sugar (monosaccharide) is absorbed from the intestine and carried to the liver where it is converted, by an enzyme, into glycogen (animal starch) and stored until used. When the body needs sugar, the glycogen is reconverted into sugar, again by enzymic action. It is now general knowledge that insulin secreted by the pancreas is necessary to the metabolization (oxidation) of sugar and that when the pancreas fails to turn out sufficient insulin, unoxidized sugar is excreted in the urine.
A number of autolytic enzymes are known and are included under the general terms, oxidases and peroxidases. Physiologists know that proteolytic (protein-digesting) enzymes are formed within many, if not in all, living tissues.
These various intracellular enzymes play a conspicious part in the metabolism of food substances; that is, in the normal or regular function of nutrition or metabolism. A few familiar examples of autolysis will prepare the reader for what is to follow about tumors.
When a bone is broken, a bone-ring support is built around the fractured section, extending each way from the point of fracture. After the bone is reunited and knitting or healing is completed, and the circulatory channels are reestablished, the bone-ring support is softened and absorbed, except about a quarter of an inch about the point of fracture.
If planaria, or flat worms, are cut into small pieces and placed where they can absorb nourishment, each piece will grow into a small worm. If they cannot get nourishment, they cannot grow. Each piece, therefore, completely rearranges its materials and becomes a perfect, but very minute worm. The piece that contains the pharynx, finding this too large for its diminished size, will dissolve it and make a new one that fits its new size.
The manner in which an abscess "points" on the surface of the body and drains its septic contents on the outside is well known to everyone of my readers. What is not generally known, is that this "pointing" on the surface is possible only because the flesh between the abscess and the surface is digested by enzymes; that is, it is autolyzed and removed.
Certain animals have specialized stores in which they store up a reserve of nutrition to feed them during periods of scarcity or during hibernation. These physiological storehouses are analogous to the "water tank" possessed by the camel. Examples of this are the big-tailed sheep of Persia, the gila monster of our Western plains and the Russian bear. Other animals, including man, possess only the generalized reserves found in the bone marrow, liver, blood, fatty tissue, etc., and the private reserve possessed by each cell in the body.
Both types of animals may draw upon these reserves for supplies with which to nourish their vital tissues, if raw materials from without are not to be had; or, if, due to sickness, they cannot be digested.
These tissues (fatty tissue, bone marrow, etc.) and food substances (glycogen) are not fit to enter the bloodstream before they are acted upon by enzymes. Indeed human fat, or human muscle is no more fitted to enter the circulation without first being digested, than is fat or muscle from the cow or sheep.
Glycogen (animal starch), stored in the liver, must be converted into a simple sugar before it can be released into the bloodstream. This conversion is accomplished by enzymic action.
Many more examples of autolysis could be given, but enough have been presented to convince the reader that it is a common fact of everyday life. It remains now to show that the body possesses control over this process, just as it does over all the other processes of life: that the process is not a blind, undirected bull-in-a-china-shop affair.
A remarkable example of this control is afforded by the piece of diced plenarium that contains the pharynx. Here is manifest the ability to tear down a part and shift its constituent materials. The same thing is seen in the softening and absorption of the bone-ring support around a point of fracture. Only part of the bone-ring is digested, the remainder is allowed to remain to reinforce the weakened structure.
The phenomena of fasting supply many examples of the control the body exercises over its autolytic processes. For instance, tissues are lost in the inverse order of their usefulness—fat and morbid growths first, and then the other issues. In all animals, from worms to man, the various organs and tissues differ very greatly in their rates of loss while fasting. Usually the liver loses more in weight relative to the rest of the body than the other organs, especially in the earlier stages, due to the loss of glycogen and fat. The lungs lose almost nothing and the brain and nervous system still less.
The vital tissues are fed on the stored reserves and the less vital tissues, so that abstinence from food can produce damage only after the body's reserves have been exhausted.
The body possesses the ability to shift its chemicals and fasting furnishes many remarkable instances of this. The digestion and reorganization of parts seen in worms and other animals, when deprived of food, the digestion and redistribution of reserves and surpluses and nonvital tissues, as seen in all animals, when forced to go without food, constitute, for the writer, some of the most marvelous phenomena in the whole realm of biology.
The body is not only able to build tissue; it can also destroy tissue. It can not only distribute its nutritive supplies; it can also redistribute them. Autoloysis makes redistribution possible.
I propose now to show the reader that this process of autolysis can be put to great practical use and be made to serve us in getting rid of tumors and other growths in the body. This fact is not exactly new for it has been known for a long time. Over a hundred years ago, Sylvester Graham wrote that when more food is used by the body than is daily supplied, "it is a general law of the vital economy" that "the decomposing absorbents (the old term for the process of autolysis) always first lay hold of and remove those substances which are of least use to the economy; and hence, all morbid accumulations, such as wens, tumors, abscesses, etc., are rapidly diminished and often wholly removed under severe and protracted abstinence and fasting."
To fully understand this, it is necessary for the reader to know that tumors are made up of flesh and blood and bone. There are many names for the different kinds of tumors, but the names of all indicate the kind of tissue of which the tumor is composed. For instance, an osteoma is made up of bone tissue; a myoma is composed of muscular tissue; a neuroma is constituted of nerve tissue; a lipoma consists of fatty tissue; etc.
Tumors being composed of tissues, the same kinds of tissues as the other structures of the body, are susceptible of autolytic distintegration, the same as normal tissue, and do, as a matter of experience, undergo dissolution and absorption under a variety of circumstances but especially during a fast. The reader who can understand how fasting reduces the amount of fat on the body and how it reduces the size of the muscles, can also understand how it will reduce the size of a tumor, or cause it to disappear altogether. He needs, then only to realize that the process of distintegrating (autolyzing) the tumor takes place much more rapidly than it does in the normal tissues.
In his Notes on Tumors, a work for students of pathology, Francis Carter Wood says: "In a very small proportion of human malignant tumors spontaneous disappearance for longer or shorter periods has been noted. The greatest number of such disappearances has followed incomplete surgical removal of the tumor; they have occurred next in order of frequency during some acute febrile process, and less frequently in connection with some profound alteration of the metabolic processes of the organism, such as extreme cachexia, artificial menopause or the puerperium.
No more profound change in metabolism is possible than that produced by fasting and the change is of a character best suited to bring about the autolysis of a tumor, malignant or otherwise.
The conditions Dr. Wood mentions as causing spontaneous disappearance of tumors are, for the most part, "accidents" and are not within the range of voluntary control. Fasting, on the other hand, may be instituted and carried on under control and at any time desired. It is the rule that operations are followed by increased growth in the tumor. Spontaneous disappearance following incomplete removal is rare. The same may be said for extreme cachexia and artificial menopause. In fevers, we have rapid autolysis in many tissues of the body and much curative work going on, but we cannot develop a fever at will. Pregnancy and childbirth occasion many profound changes in the body, but they are certainly not to be recommended to sick women as cures for their tumors. Even if this were desirable, it would be a hit-or-miss remedy. The effects of fasting are certain. There is nothing hit-or-miss about the process. It works always in the same general direction.
Fever is a curative process and does help to remove the cause of the tumor. None of Dr. Wood's other causes of spontaneous disappearance assist in removing the cause of tumors. Fasting does assist greatly in the removal of such cause.
During the fast, the accumulations of superfluous tissues are overhauled and analyzed; the available component parts are turned over to the department of nutrition to be utilized in nourishing the essential tissues; the refuse is thoroughly and permanently removed.
I could quote numerous men of wide experience with fasting to corroborate what I am going to say about autolyzing tumors, but I do not desire to weary any reader with quotations. I will content myself with one quotation. Mr. Macfadden says: "My experience of fasting has shown me beyond all possible doubt that a foreign growth of any kind can be absorbed into the circulation by simply compelling the body to use every unnecessary element contained within it for food. When a foreign growth has become hardened, sometimes one long fast will not accomplish the result, but where they are soft, the fast will usually cause them to be absorbed."
Due to a variety of circumstances, some known, others unknown, the rate of absorption of tumors in fasting individuals varies. Let me cite two extreme cases to show the wide range of variation in this process.
A woman, under forty, had a uterine fibroid about the size of an average grapefruit. It was completely absorbed in twenty-eight days of total abstinence from all food but water. This was an unusually rapid rate of absorption.
Another case is that of a similar tumor in a woman of about the same age. In this case, the growth was about the size of a goose egg. One fast of twenty-one days reduced the tumor to the size of an English walnut. The fast was broken due to the return of hunger. Another fast a few weeks subsequent, of seventeen days, was required to complete the absorption of the tumor. This was an unusually slow rate of tumor absorption.
Tumor-like lumps in female breasts ranging from the size of a pea to that of a goose egg will disappear in from three days to as many weeks. Here is a remarkable case of this kind that will prove both interesting and instructive to the reader.
A young lady, age 21, had a large hard lump—a little smaller than a billiard ball—in her right breast. For four months it had caused her considerable pain. Finally she consulted a physician who diagnosed the condition, cancer, and urged immediate removal. She went to another, end another and still another physician, and each made the same diagnosis (an unusual thing) and each urged immediate removal.
Instead of resorting to surgery, the young lady resorted to lasting and in exactly three days without food, the "cancer" and all its attendant pain were gone.
There has been no recurrence in thirteen years and I feel that we are justified in considering the condition "cured." Hundreds of such occurrences under fasting have convinced us that many "tumors" and "cancers" are removed by surgeons that are not tumors or cancers. They cause us to be very skeptical of the statistics issued to show that early operation prevents or "cures" cancer.
The removal of tumors by autolysis has several advantages over their surgical removal. Surgery is always dangerous; autolysis is a physiological process and carries no danger. Surgery always lowers vitality and thus adds to the metabolic perversion that is back of the tumor. Fasting, by which autolysis of tumors is accelerated, normalizes nutrition and permits the elimination of accumulated toxins, thus helping to remove the cause of the tumor. After surgical removal, tumors tend to recur. After their autolytic removal, there is little tendency to recurrence. Tumors often recur in malignant form after their operative removal. The tendency to malignancy is removed by fasting, in Europe and America literally thousands of tumors have been autolyzed during the past fifty years, and the effectiveness of the method is beyond doubt. The present writer can give no definite information about bone tumors and nerve tumors; but, since these are subject to the same laws of nutrition as all other tumors, he is disposed to think they may be autolyzed as effectually as other tumors. These things are certain—the process has its limitations and tumors that have been allowed to grow to enormous sizes will only be reduced in size; while, not all cysts will be thus absorbed. It is advisable, therefore, to undergo the needed fast or fasts while the tumor or cyst is comparatively small.
One other limitation must be noted; namely, tumors that are so situated that they dam up the lymph stream will continue to grow (feeding upon the accumulated excess of lymph behind them) despite fasting.

GMOs In Food

2011-02-20T01:30:00.000-08:00

GMOs in Food

GMOs in Food
Here is a summary of crops, foods and food ingredients have been genetically modified as of May, 2010:
Currently Commercialized GM Crops in the U.S.:

(Number in parentheses represents the estimated percentage that is genetically modified.)

Soy (91%) Cotton (71%) Canola (88%) Corn (85%) Sugar Beets (90%) Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%) Alfalfa (at Supreme Court), Zucchini and Yellow Squash (small amount) Tobacco (Quest® brand)

Other Sources of GMOs:
• Dairy products from cows injected with the GM hormone rbGH
• Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the
sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses
• Meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed
• Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen
• Contamination or pollination caused by GM seeds or pollen
Some of the Ingredients That May Be Genetically Modified: Vegetable oil, vegetable fat and margarines (made with soy, corn, cottonseed, and/or canola)

Ingredients derived from soybeans: Soy flour, soy protein, soy isolates, soy isoflavones, soy lecithin, vegetable proteins, textured vegetable protein (TVP), tofu, tamari, tempeh, and soy protein supplements.

Ingredients derived from corn: Corn flour, corn gluten, corn masa, corn starch, corn syrup, cornmeal, and High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

Complete List of Invisible Ingredients

Some of the Foods That May Contain GM Ingredients:

Infant formula
Salad dressing
Bread
Cereal
Hamburgers and hotdogs
Margarine
Mayonnaise
Crackers
Cookies
Chocolate
Candy
Fried food
Chips
Veggie burgers
Meat substitutes
Ice cream

Frozen yogurt
Tofu
Tamari?and Soy sauce
Soy cheese
Tomato sauce
Protein powder
Baking powder
Any sugar not 100% Cane
Confectioner's glaze
Alcohol
Vanilla (may contain corn syrup)
Peanut butter
Enriched flour
Past
Malt
White vinegar

Non-Food Items That May Contain GM Ingredients:
Cosmetics
Soaps
Detergents
Shampoo
Bubble bath

References:
Natural Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, US Department of Agriculture: Acreage. Click here to download PDF (2009)

Ruth Winter , A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives: Descriptions in plain English of more than 12,000 ingredients both harmful and desirable found in foods, 6^th ed. (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004).

Robert S. Igoe , The Dictionary of Food Ingredients, 2^nd ed. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989).

Research Triangle Institute, "Economic Characterization of the Dietary Supplement Industry" March 1999. Click here to download PDF

Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) Online Database of the World Health Organization(WHO) Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) of the United Nations and the reports of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Available at: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/additives/index.html

The University of Maryland Medical Center database of supplements by name: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/index.htm

Archives of the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/

Reports of the European Commission Scientific Committee for Food: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/reports_en.html

U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) PubMed Central (PMC): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

Monsanto Roundup Problems

2011-01-18T15:36:00.000-08:00

Jeffrey Smith The world’s leading consumer advocate promoting healthier, non-GMO choices Posted on 6:00 pm January 14, 2011
Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health

The following article reveals the devastating and unprecedented impact that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is having on the health of our soil, plants, animals, and human population. On top of this perfect storm, the USDA now wants to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which will exacerbate this calamity. Please tell USDA Secretary Vilsack not to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa today. [Note: typos corrected from Jan 16th, see details]

While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked passed a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and ’10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.

The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber

Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.

This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.

Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)

Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.

Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease

More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

(Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)

The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.

The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.

Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.

The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin , damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.

Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984

Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.

that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn’t killed (see photo).

The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”

By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”

Roundup promotes human and animal toxins

Photo by Robert Kremer

Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.

But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.

As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets

When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did—slightly—for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.

Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.

Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.

As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.)

In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.

Corn dies young

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’re never seen anything like it.

“A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.”

Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.”

A question of bugs

In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That’s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.

Roundup persists in the environment

Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.

Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims.

Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.

The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart).

As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.

The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application.
Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.

Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications.

Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.
Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!

Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.

Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate—which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.

Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)

Nutrient loss in humans and animals

The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.

Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.

This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.

Livestock disease and mineral deficiency

Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent—93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.

This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese—in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ½%.

Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.

Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA

As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?”

Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.

Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart).

The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And “Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.”

It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.

In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.

Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Please send a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, and to fully investigate the damage that Roundup and GMOs are already inflicting.

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

2010-10-13T14:50:00.000-07:00

from Gatecreepers

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

Article written by Gatecreepers.

The purpose of this article is to redress a number of general myths concerning so-called 'conspiracy theories', repeated by media organisations and other self-proclaimed guardians of the orthodoxy, as well as people who have been erroneously convinced that conspiracy theories are intellectual aberrations rather than the acknowledgment of a common historical and social phenomenon.

This document does not claim that every event is the product of a conspiracy. It remains true, however, that conspiracies are far more common than admitted by the establishment. Whether conspiracy or coincidence was involved, we believe that the matter should be arbitrated by evidence rather than falsehoods on the alleged motives or state of minds of alternative researchers.

For the purposes of this guide, a conspiracy theory may be defined as:

A theory detailing the involvement of two or more people who have secretly or otherwise conspired to commit an act that is against the public interest, and furthermore who may have conspired to cover up these acts in concert with the media and other authorities.

Conspiracy theories should not be confused with other schools of alternate reality. Such claims may include:

Supernatural claims. Elite groups may believe and act upon them, but those beliefs alone do not pertain to conspiracy as discussed in this document.
Mythological or religious claims. A theory that an occult group engages in subversion according to its religious beliefs may be considered a conspiracy theory, but interpretations of religion and scriptures are not covered by this manual.
Claims pertaining to alternative science. The act itself of covering up scientific discoveries is a conspiracy, but the legitimacy of the scientific claims are to be determined by researchers with the proper qualifications.
Existential claims. Claims pertaining to the alleged existence of hidden or unobservable phenomena or beings (such as aliens) are not in and of themselves conspiracy theories. Inexperienced proponents of such claims however may attempt to justify their lack of evidence with a conspiracy theory, usually that the evidence is covered up by the government or the entity alleged to exist (in most cases, however, this is a straw man). This secondary claim must be addressed apart from the primary claim with at least evidence that the alleged conspirators believe in the existence of the alleged phenomena, and that they have made attempts to cover it up.

If the entity is alleged to be a participating actor in a conspiracy, then its existence must be proven and the entire claim must be treated as a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy myths may be divided into the following categories:

Claims that discredit proponents of conspiracy theories as legitimate researchers

Ad Hominem attacks are often leveled at conspiracy theorists to label them as paranoid, delusional, extremist, hyperbolic or mentally incompetent. In the case of academics, attempts will be made to undermine their credibility by labeling them as incompetent, unprofessional, or lacking objectivity, or by publicising issues of their lives or beliefs that are unrelated to the theories they propose.

Claims that associate conspiracy theories with group behaviour or psychological pathology

This category is a subset of the first category, but it gets special mention because a large amount of anti-conspiracy propaganda aims at using scientific-sounding theories to equate it with paranoia, frivolous fantasies or security blankets.

Claims of this nature are usually made by purported experts from various academic fields. Like the specifically listed claims such as #1, #5, #9, #13, #20, #21 and #22, other claims trying to pin conspiracy theories on group behaviour and psychological disorders are groundless and pseudo-scientific.

In extreme cases of demonisation, there may be attempts to conflate belief in conspiracies with paranoid delusion. As pointed out in Myth #16, pathologising anti-establishment researchers has been done in many authoritarian regimes such as current Communist China and the historical Soviet Union, with various labels ranging respectively from 'political maniac' to 'sluggishly progressing schizophrenic'.

There may also be attempts to pin belief in conspiracies on sociological reasons, such as alleged needs to 'make sense of a traumatic event' and similarly formulated 'theories'. Those claims are usually found in articles which, despite being written by experts in their own field, rarely cite or point to academic research, are filled with political bias and aim at discrediting a specific conspiracy that started to gain prominence. Articles of this nature are formulaic and often start with statements alleging that conspiracy theories are popular amongst average people and have accompanied most major events (Claim #29).

Claims made by academic scholars that delegitimise the role of conspiracies played in society and history

Many scholars reject conspiracy theories in favour of the so-called 'institutional' perspective, which ascribes events to the dynamics of institutions rather than organised groups. We do not believe that conspiracies and institutions are mutually exclusive; they often work together. Certain institutions that are taken for granted originated from conspiracies; likewise, institutional factors may explain what motivates people and groups to conspire.

We believe that the conspiratorial point of view has its merits because not all activities operate within recognised institutions. Hidden, extra-institutional groups can exert major influence in ways that are overlooked by institutionalists.

Possible reasons why conspiracy theories are frequent targets of ridicule may include:

Institutionalised intellectual elitism. Mainstream media personalities and academics may feel that their authority and experience are challenged by what they perceive to be 'amateur' research, while seeing themselves in the role of gatekeepers who filter the information to protect the public from what they view as 'unsuitable' information.
Deliberate propaganda campaigns aimed at protecting established truths. An example of such a practice has been documented by a declassified document admitting attempts by the CIA to use academics and the media to discredit alternative theories on the assassination of JFK. The document reveals that many of the myths still widespread today and debunked in this document originated from the CIA (see Countering Criticism of the Warren Report). Other documents reveal CIA infiltration of American and foreign media as well as academia (see How to co-opt academia and Operation Mockingbird).
The presence of unfounded and over the top conspiracy theories which undermine the credibility of more rational theories. It is speculated that many of those theories were deliberately spread in order to divide or ridicule research communities as well as confuse or turn away people who come across the alternative versions of the official story.
Perception of conspiracy theories as being part of a cultural phenomenon or fad rather than a serious investigation of the motives and actions of the ruling elite. Such perceptions are reinforced by stereotypical portrayals in movies and sitcoms, such as 1997 movie Conspiracy Theorist and Dale Gribble in King of the Hill. This stereotypical view of conspiracy theorists, however, appears to be limited to American culture; in fact the expression 'conspiracy theorist' itself appears to be an invention of the American media. Most equivalent terms in other languages are directly translated, sometimes awkwardly (such as in French "partisan de la théorie du complot"), and are not used to label other people to the extent that they in the United States. It is also mainly in American language that one finds expressions such as "tin-foil hat". It is thought that those cultural caricatures originate from the controversies around the JFK assassinations, possibly with initial or on-going prompting from the CIA (see point #2).

The following is a collection of general statements purporting to dismiss conspiracy theories heard in various places from mainstream media articles to discussion forums. A separate document with sources and examples will be provided in the future.

Myth #1: Conspiracy theories offer a simplistic view of how the world is run.
Myth #2: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
Myth #3: Conspiracy theories violate Occam's Razor
Myth #4: Conspiracy theorists believe in UFOs / Aliens / Apollo Moon / Holocaust denial
Myth #5: Government conspiracy theories provide false relief from fear of real social problems
Myth #6: Conspiracy theories violate Popper's rule of falsifiability
Myth #7: Governments are unable to cover up their conspiracies
Myth #8: Conspiracies would be quickly exposed by the media
Myth #9: Conspiracy theories are attractive for their entertainment value
Myth #10: Conspiracy theorists repeat their claims no matter how much they are debunked
Myth #11: Conspiracy theories undermine confidence in the democratic system
Myth #12: Conspiracy theories are based on faith
Myth #13: Conspiracy theorists are paranoid and engage in fearmongering
Myth #14: Conspiracy theorists are anti-semitic
Myth #15: Conspiracy theorists give themselves a false academic façade to tell half-truths
Myth #16: Conspiracy theorists are crazy / nutty / kooky / cranky
Myth #17: Conspiracy theories assume the involvement of a large number of people
Myth #18: Conspiracy whistleblowers would be dead if their claims were true.
Myth #19: Conspiracy theories blame evil actors whilst failing to address root causes
Myth #20: Conspiracy theories give a sense of exclusive knowledge
Myth #21: Conspiracy theorists feel powerless and blame the establishment for their failures
Myth #22: Conspiracy theories are reassuring because they give a sense of order
Myth #23: Conspiracy theorists accuse people who disagree with them of being part of the cover-up
Myth #24: The world is chaotic rather than conspiratorial
Myth #25: Conspiracy theorists believe that all aspects of every official story have to be consistent
Myth #26: Conspiracy theory is an 'industry'
Myth #27: Conspiracy theorists dismiss evidence against their arguments as being part of the conspiracy
Myth #28: There have been conspiracy theories about every major historical event
Myth #29: Conspiracy theories are convenient to their proponents because they are impossible to prove
Myth #30: Conspiracy theories gain acceptance because they make sense out of traumatic events by designating scapegoats
Myth #31: People look into conspiracy theories because they bring relief to uncertainty of traumatic events by filling the void
Myth #32: Conspiracy theorists select evidence and fix it according to predetermined conclusions
Myth #33: Conspiracy theorists are political extremists
Myth #34: Conspiracy theorists only look at evidence that confirms their theories
Myth #35: Conspiracy theories can cause insurrections
Myth #36: Conspiracism results in an excessively diverse set of different narratives based on different assumptions
Myth #37: Believing in conspiracy theories makes people become paranoid
Myth #38: Conspirators would be overcome with guilt and confess
Myth #39: Conspiracy theories can only be proven through official acceptance
Myth #40: Conspiracy theories are a waste of time
Myth #41: Conspiracy theories ascribe too often on malice what should be blamed on incompetence
Myth #42: Conspiracy theories appeal because they validate personal biases
Myth #43: People believe in conspiracies because they don't know how things work
Myth #44: People believe in conspiracies because they make them feel empowered
Myth #45: Conspiracy theories appeal to common sense
Myth #46: Conspiracy theories assume that big events cannot result from small causes
Myth #47: Conspiracy theories are based on accumulation of circumstantial evidence rather than a chain of evidence
Myth #48: Conspiracy theorists over-interpret evidence and documents
Credits and Thanks

Myth #1: Conspiracy theories show a simplistic view of how the world is run.

This claim is made about theories that involve elite organisations and secret societies. Academics claim that such theories are simplistic because they offer certainty and knowledge of hidden affairs, that secret activities are easily understood, only obscured. In other words, the actual claim is that real world is confusing and random (see Myth #24). The claim that conspiracy theories are too simple really says that conspiracy theories are too clear and well defined.

However, such dismissals are often used as a pretext to trivialise the roles played by secretive elite groups. Theories that rule out the importance of elite organisations that wield dominant power offer a view of the world that is not only simplistic, but that distorts the reality of power relations and hides the inequities and democratic deficits of the world.

Another purpose behind this claim is to take a political, military or national security disaster and revise it to fit the image of the familiar stressful day to day world, with all it's accompanying incompetencies. Yet, it is precisely this picture that is simplified. There are no conspiracies, only mistakes. There are no unseemly activities except for those named in the statutes of the state. Lying on the witness stand is illegal, yet lying to the people is a misunderstanding.

In either case, there is little grounds for the claim that conspiracy theories simplify the world. Below the surface, they require people to understand complex concepts including propaganda mechanisms, manufacturing of consent, and how elites gain and maintain their positions of power. Such concepts are not readily accessible to the general public because they are usually ignored or ridiculed by the mainstream media.

On the other hand, theories that rule out the existence of elite organisations are appealing because they give people the illusion that they have power and are living in an open society. Therefore, the absence of the concept of a destructive elite will mean that the people never take action to defend against the activities of that elite.

Myth #2: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

Just because someone says a claim is extraordinary does not make it so. People often label any theories that are contrary to the government's version as 'extraordinary', thus implying that the government and it's associated media have a monopoly on what is considered reasonable.

Claims are only extraordinary if they have no historical precedent. Therefore, all that is needed to prove that the theory can be proven with ordinary evidence is to point out to a similar case that has happened before.

Myth #3: Conspiracy theories violate Occam's Razor

Many people use the phrase as a slick way of dismissing an argument without confronting its supporting evidence, sometimes assuming that the evidence is speculation without having looked at it at all. Often, those people miss the fact that the official theory is questioned partly because it violates Occam's Razor

Many conspiracy theorists accept Occam's Razor as a useful technique to refine their theories and eliminate those that rest on too many unproven assertions. However, its premises have been challenged, not least by Occam's contemporaries. Walter of Chatton, for example, formulated his own anti-razor: ("If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on").

Thus, the theory of parsimony only applies insofar as the simplest theory sufficiently explains how the events occur. It must therefore be discarded in favour of a more complex theory if the previous one has holes. The misconception that only simple theories are acceptable flies in the face of the argument that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof', because it makes it impossible to prove theories that rely on complex evidence.

Furthermore, Occam's razor is a scientific theory, and thus applies to scientific principles. When two scientific theories make the same prediction, and both predictions appear to be correct then the one that is most simple is accepted.

This is inapplicable to social sciences however because of the unpredictable human element involved. Whilst purely physical or chemical reactions can be held to Occam's razor, activities by conscious beings cannot, as conscious beings can deliberately add complexity to events, or they can behave in irrational ways. As an example: the capacity for evil is part of human nature, so it is known that both government and non-government entities are equally capable of evil acts. The way to determine which is more likely to do the evil task is completely based on subjective opinion.

Theories should be eliminated by the success or failure of experiments to test their predictions, rather than by Occam's razor alone. It should also not be interpreted as excluding speculation. In the presence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, such as conflict of interest, historical precedents and previous incidents of cover-ups, it is acceptable to assume that some evidence is still being covered up and will not be shown to the public.

Myth #4: Conspiracy theorists believe in UFOs / Aliens / Apollo Moon / Holocaust denial

This is a straw man and an ad hominem fallacy. Not all conspiracy theorists believe in the same things, nor does believing in aliens invalidate their arguments on other theories. The only thing linking these things is that they are all perceived to be conspiracy theories. Each should be evaluated on its own merits.

However, if a theorist bases their beliefs on poor argumentation, then other conspiracy theorists may want to distance themselves from him/her or question that theorist's ability to support their own ideas. Many such people are accused of being deliberately planted to discredit other theories, a technique called the 'poisoned well'. The media then proceeds to discredit an entire investigative movement based on a few silly theories - a strawman attack.

When the media lumps anybody who doesn't trust the government version of 9-11 into the category of flat earthers and holocaust deniers, any real conspiracy there might have been is given the ultimate defense. Namely, a pre-emptive, universal ad hominem on anyone who would dare talk about it publicly, the archetypal 'tin foil hatter'.

Myth #5: Government conspiracy theories provide false relief from real social problems

Actually, the opposite is true. People would rather believe that the government is benevolent and works in their interests, and are repelled by the idea that it would conspire against them. Part of the reason is knowing that there is something wrong with the system would force people to take actions they would otherwise avoid. Hence, it is the denial of the conspiracy rather than the theory that relieves them from dealing with a problem.

Far from being comforted by conspiracies, those who already believe them feel distressed or resentful towards the ruling elites who perpetrate the problems. This myth also contradicts the idea that conspiracy theories make people paranoid (Myth #37).

Myth #6: Conspiracy theories violate Popper's rule of falsifiability

Karl Popper's rule of scientific falsifiability is useful to discard many bogus theories, especially those relying on pseudoscience. However, groupthink and predetermined conclusions are problems that every researcher has to face. Conspiracy theorists are no exceptions; they also need to avoid those pitfalls.

Detractors who raise Popper's rule claim that conspiracy theorists justify lack of evidence by saying that the evidence is covered up by the government. This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy and it should be avoided. However, such arguments are mostly seen in casual debates from people who have not conducted thorough research on the subject and have run out of arguments. In addition, while this particular argument may be unfalsifiable, just the fact that it is sometimes used does not invalidate conspiracy theories on the whole as unfalsifiable.

Some of the claims dismissed by Popper's test are not actual conspiracy theories, yet are used to judge conspiracy theories in general. An example of such ideas would be existential claims (as explained in the introduction). In other cases, claims may actually be speculative and not claimed to be factual.

It is sensible to speculate on why a government would be interested in keeping evidence secret - when it can be proven that they are withholding evidence. In these cases, conspiracy theories are acceptable, as a conspiracy of secrecy has taken place. It may also be sensible to speculate that more evidence will be uncovered as more whistle blowers come forward, when they realise that enough people have caught on for them to present their stories. However, contrarily to popular myth, conspiracy theorists do not use this to 'prove' their theories, as they usually are backed by evidence.

Obviously, for any evidence to be valid it must fit all legal and scientific definitions of what it means to be "evidence." Due to the fact that a conflict of interest exists with individuals in government not being willing to expose or prosecute themselves or their associates, it is reasonable to assume that any small amount of legitimate evidence of wrongdoing which has "slipped through the cracks" should be reason for further investigation by an impartial third party, rather than an investigation potentially run by the perpetrators themselves.

Legitimate evidence that exists is often not given the necessary attention until long after the crimes were committed, giving the damage from the crimes much time to escalate past the point of being correctable. Given such a scenario, it is the nature of the institutions rather than that of the accusations which is the cause for the catch-22.

Myth #7: Governments are unable to cover up their conspiracies

This is flatly untrue. There are many examples of government projects that involved thousands of people who did not speak out, including the Manhattan Project.

Even if taken at face value, the people who attempt to blow the whistle usually do so because the government was unable to cover up its activities, but are often silenced or ignored by the media. The people who do take them seriously are usually marginalised and discredited on grounds of other myths, such as the one holding that whistleblowers would be killed by the government (Myth #18). The result is that of a circular logic loop that makes real questions impossible.

This claim is also based on a misconception regarding the possible actors in a conspiracy: incompetent politicians and bureaucrats are very different from highly trained military intel and determined corporations.

Contrarily to popular beliefs, conspiracy theorists do not view the government as an omnipotent, omnipresent and infallible entity. In fact, a lot of their evidence comes from slip-ups or failures by elites to cover up their crimes, but people refuse to believe it because they are conditioned into the circular belief that the same evidence being exposed to the public would have been exposed to the public.

Even in the event that some of the cover-up falls apart, governments exercise damage control in order to allow only part of the conspiracy to be exposed. For example, the fact the so many people now believe there was a 9-11 conspiracy is evidence that any cover-up has not been completely successful. To say that the government could not be involved because no whistleblowers have come forward to admit involvement is essentially flawed in two distinct ways:

Firstly, it assumes that any guilty parties would incriminate themselves, something that is ludicrous to assume, knowing the penalty for treason (see Myth #38).

Secondly, a false dichotomy is erected, stating that, without whistleblowers and leaks, the coverup is 'too perfect', therefore the absence of whistleblowers is the absence of conspiracy, when a logical reason for the absence of whistleblowers has already been provided.

Myth #8: Conspiracies would be quickly exposed by the media

In a society where the media is free and the society is open and democratic, this would seem to be an appropriate assumption. However, many societies that claim to have a free press actually have a corporate-controlled press, infiltrated by state intelligence agents. The elite that controls the media has the advantage to cover up its own crimes or protect their cronies while pretending to keep the rulers in check.

Conspiracies are only exposed in medias that are independent and not controlled by the ruling elite. People are often made to believe that the society they live in is open and democratic, even if the opposite is true. This illusion plays a large role in leading people to assume that conspiracies would not happen because they would be exposed, which is what conspirators rely upon to commit their crimes without being exposed.

When confronted with whistleblowers, the media either refuses to cover their story, only cover the least damaging aspects of the story, or only expose minor scandals to maintain the illusion of a press doing its job as an investigator. Conspiracies are often too complex to be covered by the modern day 30 second-per-story summaries that masquerade as television news.

Revealing a conspiracy would endanger a journalist's job or freedom, and damage relations between the authorities and the corporate media, as well as making the population suspicious and possibly uncontrollable. It is easier to cover-up difficult subjects.

In general, establishment medias tend to scorn conspiracy theories, whether they have substance or not. This may be motivated by ego: if a journalist only received information from an official propaganda outlet or PR department, and this information was later disproven, it would show the public how bad the journalistic research was, and those organisations would then suffer a loss of credibility.

In the cases of elitist groups, it is worth noting that they are often owned or controlled by the members of the same societies whose importance they trivialise. Such a state of affairs makes it easy for the political elite to hide their actions in plain view, as the media distracts most people from them by giving them little coverage, and spins them for the people who do notice.

Myth #9: Conspiracy theories are attractive for their entertainment value

Conspiracy theories, whether true or not, are better known to grow in an atmosphere of official secrecy and lies rather than out of a desire for entertainment, which is already plentiful in the media. From experience, conspiracy theorists have learnt to distrust the official story peddled by the government.

Also, people who take such theories seriously tend to be more frightened or angered than entertained, because of the implications of having been deceived.

Myth #10: Conspiracy theorists repeat their claims no matter how much they are debunked

This is a cop-out excuse to avoid addressing the issues, and it relies on the assumption that all the claims have been debunked. Often times the people who make those claims only address the weakest or silliest arguments while ignoring the strongest ones, a tactic called the straw man. In some cases, the objections raised by the person have already been debunked elsewhere, though the rebuttals will be dismissed as 'repeating' claims. In the most extreme cases, the person will claim that the theory has been debunked over and over again by 'experts', even though there are no such rebuttals.

It must also be pointed out that debunking articles are not always final, but rather they may be part of an ongoing debate between theorists and anti-theorists.

Myth #11: Conspiracy theories undermine confidence in the democratic system

The opposite is true. It is democratic deficit and decrease of confidence in the system that makes conspiracy theories more credible in the face of the lies told by the establishment media.

Some systems are demonstrably corrupt and need to be exposed. Even so, no system has the right to demand silence and absolute obedience from it's subjects. Variety of opinion is important. If there is suspicion or proof of wrongdoing then conspiracy theorists must provide good reasons not to trust the system. If the theorists are wrong then the theories should be disproven, not suppressed because they are inconvenient for the system. What kind of honest respectable system requires information suppression in order to function?

Myth #12: Conspiracy theories are based on faith

Many people, especially atheists, scientists and historians, tend to put conspiracy theories in the same category as creationism and holocaust revisionism. This is illogical, and is only intended as an 'attack by association'. It should be pointed out that an attacker may lack sufficient evidence to attack a theory directly, so they settle for the easy but illogical option of associating a theory with a ridiculous myth because the myth is easy to discredit. This is a variation of the straw man attack.

In truth, conspiracy theories have little to do with religion. Like court charges, they may be held accountable to evidence, whether in favour or against, in the form of inconsistencies and material proof (or lack thereof) of motive, means, precedent, intent, and execution. Religions, on the other hand, rely solely on ancient scriptures which often have been tampered, translated, are subject to broad interpretation (far more so than the more far-fetched conspiracy theories), and were written in times when scientific knowledge was much less developed.

Another reason this argument is made is because atheists believe that conspiracy theorists are absorbed in their beliefs in the same way that religious people believe in their religion based on faith rather than reason. Such cases are not specific to belief in conspiracy theories; rather they are an ego reaction inherent to the underdog status of conspiracy theories conferred by the media.

Most conspiracy theorists do not feel emotional attachment to their theories; only some of them do after being marginalised for promoting an alternative view. Ridicule targets the theorist personally, by attributing the silly aspects of the theory to him, and thus the ridicule defines his relationship toward the proponents of the status-quo. The theorist, on some level, links the ridiculed theory to his integrity and honesty and so strives to prove it's validity, in order to clear his smeared name.

Similar irrationality can also be seen with official story proponents who are unwilling to believe that authority figures may conspire to harm their citizens, and would have much to lose from realising that the world they are living in is far more corrupt than they want to believe.

Myth #13: Conspiracy theorists are paranoid and engage in fearmongering

The news media engages in far more fearmongering than do conspiracy theorists, by making people believe that criminals and terrorists are out to get them. The difference is that conspiracy theorists say that the government is usually the cause, and not the solution to those problems.

Politicians use fearmongering to make people accept their rules about how society should be controlled, and the mainstream media helps them do this. Conspiracy theorists have no such goals of control, nor the means to achieve those goals.

Paranoia is a mental disorder - and so this myth suggests that conspiracy theorists are inventing enemies and tormentors, when in fact many theories arise as challenges to percieved impossibilities or inaccuracies in an official story, rather than non-existent entities.

This myth by itself neither proves nor disproves any proposed theories. This myth also contradicts the idea that people use conspiracy theories to assuage their fears of social problems (Myth #5).

Myth #14: Conspiracy theorists are anti-semitic

Most conspiracy theorists are not interested in the conspirator's origins or religion at all. They wish to study and expose a corrupt system. They do this by pointing out special and suspicious relationships, not culture. This is an important difference. Many of the organisations mentioned in conspiracy theories lack any religious or cultural identity. They are corporate, military, financial or petroleum-based. That being said, Jews engage in conspiracies like other people, and are not immune from criticism.

While a minority of conspiracy theorists do believe that there is a specifically Jewish elite, most conspiracy theorists are far more concerned by political agendas, such as Zionist and Israeli influences in national governments, than Jewish cultural and racial issues. Many conspiracy theorists are not concerned with Jews or Zionism at all, but are accused of anti-semitism because they denounce the excessive power held by international bankers (which is claimed by organisations like the ADL to be 'code' for Jews).

In turn, the stereotype is used by some people as an ad hominem attack on conspiracy theorists and critics of Zionism, as well as a straw man, much like the Jewish conspiracy originated as an ad hominem attack on communists, as many of them were Jews at the time. Disinformation agents can also publically pose as anti-semitic conspiracy theorists in order to get all conspiracy theorists smeared with these characteristics.

It is up to the accusers to prove the presence of anti-semitism in specific relevant cases, and furthermore to prove the theory wrong. Pointing out anti-semitism does not render a theory false.

Myth #15: Conspiracy theorists give themselves a false academic façade to tell half-truths

Conspiracy theorists do not need a façade when they present whistleblowers, financial accounts, official documents, video footage, declassified documents and relevant quotes from the people they accuse. The accusation above suggests that the theorists only use a façade, which isn't true: evidence and credible interviewees are frequently presented.

Also, this is a conflation of an argument usually made about Holocaust revisionists and creationists. Conspiracy theorists do not generally have financial or prestige motives to destroy their academic credibility for the sole purpose of promoting their pet theories

The situation is different for the corporate media, which promotes their propaganda using paid scientists either to sell their products, or because they are controlled by elites wishing to maintain their power. Therefore, accusing conspiracy theorists of posing as academics is more than hypocritical.

Myth #16: Conspiracy theorists are crazy / nutty / kooky / cranky

According to the Soviet and the Chinese governments, so were the political dissidents who were interned in psychiatric hospitals.

Most conspiracy theorists are rational people who simply believe in a different version of events than the one promoted by the official media. In fact, the term 'conspiracy theory' was invented for that purpose by the media to discredit people who did not accept the official story of President Kennedy's assassination.

On the internet, conspiracy topics unfortunately suffer from attacks by professional disinformation agents who pose as conspiracy theorists. They then support blatently ridiculous ideas and present those ideas in a manner that is difficult to take seriously, thus smearing all conspiracy theorists with the same characteristics.

It is important to have varied sources of information. If one only relies on information fed to them by the corporations and governments, how is one able to have a realistic enough view on reality to decide who is insane and whom is not?

Myth #17: Conspiracy theories assume the involvement of a large number of people

Conspiracy theories usually require only the top of the hierarchical structures to be in on the conspiracy, not the subordinates. While the subordinates may be involved in a conspiracy, they are usually unaware of their part in that conspiracy because they are split up and made to focus on very specific tasks which require their skills: a phenomenon called compartmentalisation. However, it often happens that they find out, and either blow the whistle or get silenced.

Compartmentalisation attempts to ensure that any spy, worker or whistleblower is only able to gather knowledge related to their compartment, thus preventing them from seeing the details of the operation in it's entirety.

Anti-conspiracy theorists often inflate the possible number of participants in a conspiracy to ridiculous proportions. They then use this exaggerated example as a straw man that they can easily knock down, because it is so extensive and unreasonable.

Myth #18: Conspiracy whistleblowers would be dead if their claims were true.

Governments do not kill people because they point out conspiracy theories. Rather, they rely on repeating myths such as this one to ensure that people do not believe anything other than what is deemed acceptable by the controlled media. However, this tactic is a double-edged sword: if they do kill a whistleblower, then it makes the government look like it is desperate to hide a secret and therefore gives credence to his theory. This is why the government only silences or harrasses whistleblowers who threaten to release inside evidence that is not already public and would threaten the entire operation.

While killing whistleblowers may be necessary as an example to prevent others from speaking out, it is done as a last resort because it would risk driving more important people into spilling the beans, thinking that they have nothing to lose and would more likely be saved by making their deaths pointless.

Another reason why prominent activists aren't killed is that many of them are planted gatekeepers whose purpose is either to limit the debate, or discredit the movement.

Myth #19: Conspiracy theories blame evil actors whilst failing to address root causes

This argument is often used by left gatekeepers, especially radical leftists who blame the problems of society on the capitalist system and believe that conspiracy theorists are right-wingers.

While it is true that conspiracy theorists tend to focus a lot on the actions of individual actors, their theories usually rely on the assumption that corruption runs deep into the system. Examples of recurrent themes include media control by the elite, and phony democratic systems.

In fact, conspiracy theorists question deeper into the system than most mainstream theorists, as they take into account many factors that are usually ignored, such as the involvement of secret societies, think tanks and elitist organisations.

The 'underlying system' is not available for public scrutiny, and the key information is often classified and withheld. Conspiracy theorists must do what they can with what they have.

Myth #20: Conspiracy theories give a sense of exclusive knowledge

People are drawn to conspiracy theories because they are generally curious and want answers that offer more detail than the mainstream media gives. This is not exclusive knowledge. Many conspiracy theorists strive to share their sources of info, not hide them.

People are drawn to the 9-11 conspiracy theories because they fill a gap in logic that is starkly absent from the official version of events. Is it easier to believe that a plastic laminated terrorist passport was planted evidence at ground zero, or that it survived the impact of the plane, the huge fireball, the raging inferno for a few hours and also the collapse that turned the whole building to dust, rubble and molten metal?

If anything, it is the mainstream media that should be blamed for not doing their jobs by exposing the information in the first place.

Myth #21: Conspiracy theorists feel powerless and blame the establishment for their failures

This is not logical. Powerlessness alone does not cause people to question their leaders. However, observation and study of the political and economic causes of powerlessness can lead to acceptance of conspiracy theory. In other words, it is not the powerlessness of the individual which enables suspicion, but rather the systemic causes of that powerlessness.

The same goes for claims that conspiracy theorists distrust their friends, which conflates suspicion of government with paranoid delusion. Suspicion is targeted specifically towards the political elite, while in many cases friendships may be strengthened out of solidarity in its opposition. Likewise, whether the conspiracy theorist will fight against the system or use the knowledge as an excuse to justify their apathy depends on the personality of the subject.

Myth #22: Conspiracy theories are reassuring because they give a sense of order

The claim that conspiracy theorists crave order is based on the erroneous belief that conspiracy theorists suffer from an a perceived absence of central authority. In fact, the majority of theorists prize individuality and freedom more than the average person, and will therefore be more sensitive to systemic abuse.

Furthermore, reassurance isn't possible because most conspiracy theories refer to corrupt dishonest leadership, and/or semi-secretive criminal activities which are damaging to society.

Myth #23: Conspiracy theorists accuse people who disagree with them of being part of the cover-up

Like other people, conspiracy theorists occasionally fall prey to ad hominem fallacies, but those accusations may sometimes be justified. Naturally, such charges need to be backed up with evidence.

Cases where there might be justifiable grounds to be suspicious include researchers (whether establishment or not) who systematically and deliberately use personal attacks or a tone aiming at discrediting their opponents, resort to fallacious argumentation, or ignore key points in the arguments made by their opponents. Furthermore, if those fallacies are out of character with their usual argumentation style or depth of reasoning, there might be grounds to suspect that the subject(s) were silenced or blackmailed. Suspicion alone, however, should not be equated with the arguments made to counter the claims of the opponent.

It is to be noted that if an investigation is led by the same people who are being accused, it will rightfully be regarded as suspicious. In those cases, the logic loop is perpetrated by the official story proponents rather than the alternative theorists. Independent investigations should at all times be made sure to be truly independent.

Myth #24: The world is chaotic rather than conspiratorial

This is circular argumentation. While it may be portrayed as a 'reasonable' or 'moderate' assumption about the world, it is based on no other evidence than events appearing to be coincidental, which is due to lack of exposure of conspiracies. Hence, conspiracies are assumed to not occur because the world is chaotic, which is believed to be so because conspiracies are assumed to not occur.

In reality, it is extremely difficult to determine how many events are coincidental and how many are conspiratorial, because there can be chaos and unpredictability within conspiracies and there can be chaos amongst a very large number of conspiracies committed by many groups of people. It may be that conspiracies are actually a normal modus operandi for governments, just like they are known to be for terrorists.

When it comes to the authorities, almost everything is a conspiracy of one kind or another. It is not logical to think that their activities are nothing but coincidence. Most of the activities are neutral or perhaps benign to society, and the remainder are malevolent. The likelihood of an organisation taking part in a malevolent conspiracy increases in relation to the amount of resources they possess, and also to the amount of resources they wish to possess.

Myth #25: Conspiracy theorists believe that all aspects of every official story have to be consistent

Apart from trivialising the efforts of researchers to improve understanding of events and implying that government-sponsored theories are 'good enough' and should not aim to be accurate, this claim misrepresents the reasons why certain people doubt the mainstream theories.

Contrarily to the stereotype of conspiracy theorists fiddling at 'loose ends' to draw their own alternative conclusions, it is not only inconsistencies that make people interpret events in different ways, but rather those inconsistencies in combination with important facts that are altogether ignored by the official investigation which potentially implicate actors who stand to gain from the events. The questions of who benefits from the conspiracy and who has the means to carry it out is of far greater importance to the investigator, an absence of which makes the 'loose ends' of the story wholly irrelevant.

Myth #26: Conspiracy theory is an 'industry'

Even though a conspiracy theory might eventually become widespread, it is difficult for individual authors to gain recognition or wealth from their books or films because they are ignored by the mainstream publications and are on shoestring budgets. In fact, few rich authors have made their fortunes from conspiracy theories, except for a few writers and directors whose challenges to the establishment are limited and general, or disguised as fiction.

While the leading conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and David Icke sell many DVDs, their profits are small and mostly spent on producing their material and to sustain themselves and their employees, often at their personal financial loss. Also, more often than not, the distribution of their material on the internet at no charge far outweighs their sales as a means to make their ideas gain acceptance.

It is also important to point out that this claim neither proves nor disproves any proposed theories.

Myth #27: Conspiracy theorists dismiss evidence against their arguments as being part of the conspiracy

A corollary to Myth #23. As with their proponents, the arguments may be dismissed if they appear to be propaganda, disinformation, or if they are a red herring which contradicts many other facts.

Most, if not all true conspiracies would automatically be accompanied by a denial and disinfo campaign anyway, so contradictions in presented evidence are to be expected.

It is again to be noted that in any circumstances, evidence presented by an investigation led by the same party being accused is likely to be falsified, whether the subject is the government or a criminal organisation.

Myth #28: There have been conspiracy theories about every major historical event

Whether true or not, this statement is supposed to discredit conspiracy theories on account of their frequency. Like Myth #24, what the claim implies assumes what it is trying to prove, and is rarely accompanied by evidence that most historical events were the result of coincidences rather than conspiracies.

Myth #29: Conspiracy theories are convenient to their proponents because they are impossible to prove

This claim falsely assumes that conspiracy theorists feel the need to keep their theories alive solely out of emotional attachment for them. As shown in Myth #12, this is not the case; most people are only convinced by conspiracies when given an amount of evidence they consider sufficient; those who become emotionally attached only do so as a result of a defence mechanism against external pressure.

Like every other theory, conspiracy theories can be proven or disproven with evidence. However, the reason why this claim is made is because most investigations are neither independent nor transparent, and in many cases inexistent. Whether a conspiracy theory is true or false, both its proponents and its opponents should be part of the investigation rather than left only to trust and interpret its conclusions.

Myth #30: Conspiracy theories gain acceptance because they make sense out of traumatic events by designating scapegoats

While this theory sounds very academic, it is a carefully crafted spin. It is true that people need to make sense of traumatic events, but in a state of panic people will usually cling to the first explanation they hear, which is the reason why such events are so often and easily exploited (and in many cases staged) by governments for their own agendas. Hence, it is the government theory, which, often being itself a conspiracy theory and designating scapegoats, accomplishes the role of making sense out of the traumatic event, while alternate theories are shut out of the debate, and only gain acceptance much later when the shock effect settles down.

Myth #31: People look into conspiracy theories because they bring relief to uncertainty of traumatic events by filling the void

Even granting the allegations that conspiracies bring relief from uncertainty, it comes at the greater cost of stress associated with having to face a corrupt government and being forced to question the legitimacy of the system. In addition, adding complexity to a story is likely to bring less certitude, rather than more of it. In any case, conspiracy theorists are not particularly fearful of uncertainty, as they feel perfectly comfortable juggling with many different possibilities with regards to alternative theories to the official story.

Whether or not elements of conspiracy bring a soothing sense of certitude to a traumatising event, it does not make the official story more true or plausible. When all available evidence relating to a disputed event is put together, the likely conclusion is often more supportive of the leading conspiracy theories than of the official story, so it does not matter how people feel, as this is an issue concerning evidence, not emotions.

Furthermore, this accusation better fits the official story. Because people need to make sense out of traumatic events, they will cling to the first story that is presented to them. Hence, in order for the perpetrators to cover up their crimes, they must sell their cover story to the public before any alternative theory emerges.

Myth #32: Conspiracy theorists select evidence and fix it according to predetermined conclusions

Contrarily to media-spread stereotypes, conspiracy theorists don't make up theories just for fun. They are prompted by the existence of important evidence that contradicts the official story, or points at actors other than the ones being accused. Although they believe that all things presented as facts by the establishment should be questioned and taken with a healthy dose of skepticism, it does not mean that they will cling to the first theory they encounter. Often times they judge other alternative theories involving different actors and eliminate them when they cannot be sustained with evidence.

Pro-government researchers themselves may start from the conclusion because they are under pressure to prove the government's story. In these cases, the scope and methods of their investigations are pre-decided and faulty - this can result in the creation of alternate theories which include evidence and research not carried out by official representatives.

Myth #33: Conspiracy theorists are political extremists

This claim is not completely logical as it is rarely defined and attempts to smear conspiracy theorists through the universal application of an unpopular attribute - extremism. Whilst it can be argued that some theorists are extremists, by extension it must mean that others are not. It must be repeated that it is the theory itself which is under scrutiny, not the theorists, so attacks on the theorists don't address the issue which originally prompted this claim.

Accusations of political extremism imply that there are limits set as to which topics and ideas may and may not be debated, which effectively stigmatises certain ideas simply for being different from the norm. In practice, more often than not, those limits are defined by agents of socialisation affiliated to the political elite opposed by the conspiracy theorists.

Myth #34: Conspiracy theorists only look at evidence that confirms their theories

This phenomenon is called confirmation bias. While systemic bias can be found in any area of research, especially when dealing with politically charged subjects, it is not a feature particular to conspiracy theories. This claim assumes that conspiracy theorists have an inherent motive to predetermine the outcome of their research, a falsehood addressed in Myth #32.

Furthermore, this claim wrongly assumes that because there may be omitted evidence, that this evidence is both relevant and damaging enough to confront the conspiracy theory.

Myth #35: Conspiracy theories can cause insurrections

Whether people would rise up or not depends on the political culture of that country. In countries with frequent social upheavals, high solidarity and low trust in government institutions, awareness of a conspiracy may be more likely to lead to political pressure. However, those reactions are much less likely when the population is divided and more interested in entertainment than politics, and especially if the public has been successfully conditioned to trust its government.

Such criteria, however, should not be determined by the sole fact that that state's media has claimed its country to be democratic. An accumulation of awareness in government abuse may eventually lead to insurrection, although it may take much more time for people to grow restless.

It must be added that not all people truly value their lives or their liberty, and so they do not fear the loss of said values; they do not educate themselves on threats to these values, and they do not act to prevent these threats. The image of a mass insurrection is therefore unrealistic, as not all are motivated to take part.

Myth #36: Conspiracism results in an excessively diverse set of different narratives based on different assumptions

This is usually argued as opposed to the idea that so-called 'scientific' process would lead to a streamlined or 'united' theory. In fact, there are many examples in the domain of scientific research that show that this is not necessarily the case.

As in any ongoing investigation, a number of hypotheses are formulated and, over time, some are disproven whilst others are strengthened or proven. Of particular importance is the slow, ongoing release of evidence which helps or terminates these investigations. It is unscientific to demand the removal of narratives before evidence is found to prove or disprove them.

Indeed, the motivation behind this myth may be a dishonest one: to convince theorists to narrow the set of narratives until what remains is easily disprovable or dismissable due to lack of supporting evidence, or due to vagueness.

Myth #37: Believing in conspiracy theories makes people become paranoid

This myth fails to address the validity of the theory itself.

The use of the keyword 'paranoia' suggests strongly that the accused are inventing enemies because of mental disorders, rather than legitimately fearing existing dangerous entities. Essentially, the accusation suggests no proof or reasonable doubt supports the theorists' behaviour. This accusation may be made by people who, for political reasons, are ignoring, and will continue to ignore inconvenient truths.

If an entity can be legitimately feared, then it is reasonable to distrust anything else associated with it, as the entities' questionable behaviour is usually part of an ongoing pattern. This pattern suggests that what is known of that entities' actions is only a fraction of the true extent of their previous (and potential) actions. This may seem like paranoia to the inexperienced observer.

Myth #38: Conspirators would be overcome with guilt and confess

This myth, if used by itself, attempts to avoid all the evidence that supports the alternative theory, whilst attempting to apply the capacity for normal empathy and sympathy onto those who may not possess such capabilities. The plan is to use this manufactured 'humanity' to 'prove' that the accused were incapable of such acts.

This myth does not care to make the observation that many mass murderers, for example, have not shown remorse after their crimes - an indication that those who commit serious crimes repeatedly do not possess normal sympathetic and empathetic capabilities.

Myth #39: Conspiracy theories can only be proven through official acceptance

This myth may be used to suggest that any and all independent investigations are a waste of time - basically this myth is an appeal to authority. In truth, once a theory has enough supporting evidence, it proves itself. If the authorities do not acknowledge it, then they demonstrate themselves to be liars and damage their credibility further.

Myth #40: Conspiracy theories are a waste of time

This is a completely subjective observation that fails to address the validity of the theory itself. It is also false; in the pursuit of further understanding of the systems associated with these theories, the theorists usually learn much about the nature of politics, and are therefore better able to hold their leaders to account.

Myth #41: Conspiracy theories ascribe too often on malice what should be blamed on incompetence

Incompetence and accident are common defences for perpetrators when they are caught committing a crime. While it is true that principles of fundamental justice dictate that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, this does not mean that conspirators should continue to be presumed incompetent when evidence points towards a motive behind their alleged incompetence. The argument of incompetence wears thin when it can be shown that the entities in question have committed malicious acts in the past.

Myth #42: Conspiracy theories appeal because they validate personal biases

This is an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy coated with pseudoscientific psychology. While some people may attempt to justify otherwise unsustainable preconceived beliefs with conspiracy theories, this does not establish bias as the primary source of conspiracy theories. Furthermore, due to the limited importance of personal biases, the myth must therefore assume that all theorists carry these same biases as a common feature - which is unrealistic given how widespread conspiracies are today. Such theories rarely grow in complexity in the absence of supporting evidence unless there is a deliberate attempt at deception. Such an assertion would itself involve a conspiracy.

Myth #43: People believe in conspiracies because they don't know how things work

This is usually a stealthy appeal to authority, as it allows the proponent of this myth an opportunity to introduce their own chosen authority, after suggesting 'the masses' are unaware of reality or unable to comprehend aspects of it.

Pseudo-skeptics may also attempt to drown people in the details of the official theory in order to make them give up pursuit of the truth by 'demonstrating' how 'complicated' things are, and to give their own studies a façade of legitimacy through sheer complexity.

Myth #44: People believe in conspiracies because they make them feel empowered

This myth contradicts the idea that conspiracy theories justify apathy (see Myth #21). Both suggest a purely selfish and emotional basis for conspiracy theory - similar to Myth #12, rather than a basis of evidence or reasonable suspicion. This myth seeks to remove the very foundation of its chosen theory, so that that theory can be quickly dismissed on false claims of wishful thinking, as opposed to the evidence it was really built on.

Myth #45: Conspiracy theories appeal to common sense

This dismissal assumes that conspiracy theories are 'simplistic' explanations (see Myth #1). More often than not, this dismissal is a derivation of the fact that the official explanations are so absurd that they need to rely on obfuscation and sophistry in order to conceal their shoddy foundations.

Myth #46: Conspiracy theories are based on the psychological assumption that big events cannot result from random small causes

There are specific reasons for suspecting more than meets the eye in cases of traumatic events, not only psychological motives. As interested parties are more likely to benefit from major events than minor events, they are more likely to manufacture said events on a grander scale in order to achieve the maximum effect. It follows that major events are less likely to be random than minor ones.

Myth #47: Conspiracy theories are based on accumulation of circumstantial evidence rather than a chain of evidence

A corollary of this myth is the idea that conspiracy theories hold together even when part of it is disproved. This accusation is often leveled at conspiracy theories, but is usually vague as to how the evidence is 'circumstantial' or 'unstructured' as alleged. It also has more to do with the fact that the theories are alternative to the official one, than with their conspiratorial nature.

By their nature, alternative theories need to make the additional step of disproving the official theory. The alleged "chain of evidence" of the official story often ignores evidence that contradicts it; this is why the entire pool of evidence must be reassessed after the official story is dismantled, by taking into account the previously ignored anomalies and contradictory evidence. For a while, this gives the impression that the alternative theories lack structure; however they gain it as more evidence comes up to reinforce them.

During the time that the alternative theories are being built up, the void is filled both by solid and by disprovable evidence. It may take a while before the weak evidence is rejected and the strong evidence put together into a solid chain.

Myth #48: Conspiracy theorists over-interpret evidence

Evidence supporting conspiracy theories often lie in plain view and require little interpretation. In fact, detractors of conspiracy theorists who are confronted with such evidence often try to explain it away with an alternative explanation which requires more interpretation than the one they seek to dismiss (see Myth #2).

This accusation is commonly leveled at conspiracy theorists when they attempt to interpret official documents. Unfortunately, such documents are often deliberately written vaguely, both to hide information from the public and to give a cover of plausible deniability, making accusations difficult both to prove and for people to believe, however not impossible as is often claimed (see Myth #29).

Credits and Thanks

The following have contributed in some way to the completion of this document: ntltrmllgnc, Dazed42 and Edwardo-noitv. The following have reviewed this document prior to its completion: mu-tiger, Dr. Duke, Luxpropane and Orethrius.

Copyright Gatecreepers.com. This material may be reproduced and distributed as long as a link to the original article is included.

Food police target organic foods in California!

2010-10-12T15:47:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration is Red

2010-09-20T13:57:00.000-07:00

Blaze Mix Video! Top 20 Pro-Socialism Sound Bites of Obama, Advisors & Allies

Great American Food Experiment

2010-09-04T15:58:00.000-07:00

Learn the facts about GM foods.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #239: Never be afraid to mislabel a product.

2010-09-01T18:33:00.000-07:00

Why you should NEVER trust labels on food: 'Fresh' food that isn't fresh. 'Natural' colours that are chemicals and 'real' fruit juice that only 5 per cent fruit

By Alex Renton

Last updated at 2:11 PM on 1st September 2010

A few days ago, I was out food shopping with my five-year-old daughter, Lulu. ‘Daddy,’ she squealed, rushing up to me with a box of Mr Kipling’s vanilla-filled Angel cake slices in her hand, ‘can I have these, please?’

I glanced at the packaging quickly. Even in the midst of a rushed family shop, I was still concerned — as many parents would be — about the food I’m feeding my daughter.

‘No artificial colours or flavours. No hydrogenated fat,’ it read in large letters
on the front. Reassured, I popped the packet in our trolley.

But back in the comfort of home, I took a closer look (and I needed my reading glasses for the small print) and pretty quickly concluded that I’d been had.

Facing the food facts: Alex Renton, pictured with his daughter Lulu, five, investigated the claims made on food packaging after realising that many were confusing, a point backed by consumer watchdog Which?

While the packet claimed there were no ‘artificial’ colours, I found — under a tiny heading of colourings — ‘titanium dioxide, cochineal and lutein’, chemical compounds I’d never heard of before (and more of which later).

And while it also insisted there were no artificial flavours, why couldn’t I find any real vanilla extract, when the cakes were so clearly labelled ‘with a delicious vanilla filling’?

In fact, the number of ingredients in the cakes totalled 35, of which almost none I’d ever heard of before.

So far, so utterly confusing. But it turns out I’m not alone.

Last week, a survey by consumer watchdog Which? found that food label claims such as ‘pure’, ‘fresh’, ‘non-artificial’, ‘natural’ and ‘real’ are largely unregulated and are confusing shoppers.

For example, 33 per cent of shoppers thought ‘real fruit’ meant fruit was the main ingredient (even though this was wildly off the mark); and 43 per cent believed products labelled ‘juice drink’ must contain at least a quarter fruit juice (again, something they found to be untrue, with some juice drinks containing barely 5 per cent juice from concentrate).

So how and why are our food manufacturers allowed to get away with this? And what is the truth about our ‘natural’ food labels?

Flavoured v Flavour

For food manufacturers, ‘flavoured’ and ‘flavour’ mean totally different things. The first, very importantly, means natural ingredients are used in the production.

However, the second means that the ‘flavour’ can be artificial — created by a chemical such as isoamyl acetate, an organic compound formed from isoamyl alcohol and acetic acid.

It is often used in many pear and banana-flavour sweets and snacks because it gives off that odour in its reduced form.

However, even more often it is used in solvents, and until recently was used extensively in the aircraft industry for stiffening and wind-proofing fabric flying surfaces. Not the most appealing of thoughts.

The real problem — and one that we should all be looking out for — is that manufacturers are beginning to combine the use of ‘real’ ingredients with synthetic ones, so it’s often impossible to avoid eating chemicals alongside your ‘real’ fruit.

So, for example, while some products, such as Nestle’s Munch Bunch Fromage Frais, boast of being made ‘with real fruit puree’, a look at the lifesmall print shows they also contain ‘flavouring’.

What this ‘flavouring’ is exactly is not labelled on the packet (that is not a legal requirement), but it is often synthetic — and, worryingly, how much of the synthetic flavouring is used does not have to be stated.

No artificial colouring

What you and I call artificial and what the food industry calls artificial are surprisingly different.

While we might expect food with no artificial colouring to be made only with colours occurring from fresh ingredients, there are a number of ‘natural’ colours that appear to be anything but.

Cochineal, the commonly used red colouring I found in Mr Kipling’s ‘no artificial colouring’ vanilla slices, is made from the eggs of a beetle that lives on cactuses.
Natural? Well, according to the rules it is. You may argue that petrol is natural,
in so much as the crude oil it comes from was once a plant.

Titanium dioxide, another of the ‘natural’ colourings I found in the vanilla slices — and commonly used in other foods — is a white pigment made from the rust of the metal titanium,which is mined and purified before being used in paint as well as cakes.

Lutein is extracted from marigolds and is also used to make battery chickens’ skin look nice and yellow. ‘Not artificial’ does not mean natural — simply ‘not synthetic’.

The truth is that these and many other colours are used principally because they are cheaper, and they also last longer than colours from, say, fruits.

Tradition and fierce lobbying by the powerful food industry has kept them on the list of ‘not artificial’. The difference with Mr Kipling is that they list their colours: many manufacturers now merely put ‘colouring’ or ‘naturally sourced colouring’ on the ingredients list.

But if a label does not boast about using fruit-derived colours, you can be sure they’re using some you may well find less attractive.

Real

Another much-abused word.

Fruity: But how much 'real' fruit is actually in your ice lolly?

'Real fruit’, often used in ice lolly and soft drinks packaging, can mean fruit concentrate (which is a boiled-down and stabilised ‘concentrate of fruit’).

And there is no law governing how much ‘real fruit’ you have to use in order to put the label on the front of your product: most ice lollies are largely sugars and water, with the fruit content being one part in 20.

Natural

This is another term that has more or less lost any meaning in food. A recent Trading Standards Officers’ survey found more than 80 different uses of it in food marketing, of which 79 per cent were ‘unacceptable or misleading’, and in 1989 the then Ministry of Agriculture issued voluntary guidelines asking manufacturers
to avoid phrases such as ‘natural goodness’ or ‘nature’s way’. It was ignored.

Children’s favourite Capri-Sun tropical juice drink boasts ‘nothingartificial at all’ on the label, yet read the ingredients and you’ll find artificial sweeteners such as
acesulfame K and sodium saccharin, both chemical compounds that some experts warn could be carcinogenic.

I found only tiny amounts of fruit concentrate listed, and more sugar content than you’d find in most real fruit.

‘Juice drink’ is another of those labelling red-lights: according to European legislation ‘fruit juice’ and ‘fruit juice from concentrate’ must have minimum amounts of fruit. But ‘fruit drink’ has no rules.

The only way to guarantee a ‘real’ fruit drink is to go to the greengrocer, buy some fruit, cut it up and juice it in a mixer yourself.

Fats

All of us need to eat fat as part of a healthy diet. The key question is what sort and how much.

Food manufacturers are faced with a quandary — fat carries taste, and if you want to take it out of a product you usually have to replace it with things that consumers have been warned against: salt, sugar and flavourings.

McVitie’s Chocolate Digestive Lights, for instance, contain 30 per cent less fat than normal chocolate digestives, but they also containmore sugar than the full-fat ones.

Tricks played with ‘fat’ on labels include ‘lower fat’ — which often merely means that a high-fat product has had the content trimmed a little, not that it is healthy.

Young’s Seafood recently got a rap over the knuckles from the Advertising Standards Agency for misleading customers about the amount of saturated fat in its Chip Shop cod fillets.

A TV advert it ran, boasting the fillets were ‘still below 5 per cent saturated fat’, implied that the fish was low in this dangerous fat that is linked to heart disease.

However, for a food product to be officially ‘low’ in saturated fat, only 1.5 per cent or less of the total product can contain saturated fat, according to government rules.

Healthy Brands

Not so Special: It used to be just a slimmers breakfast cereal, but it now includes snack bars that contain little fat, but a huge amount of sugar.

Food manufacturers have found there’s money to be made by exploiting the fact that few of us spend much time studying a product — research says the average time spent at the supermarket shelf before making a choice is seven seconds. So we rely on trust and logos we associate with health.

Kellogg’s Special K, originally just a breakfast cereal aimed at slimmers, has been expanded to a wider brand including snack bars that contain little fat, but a huge amount of sugar.

Its 23g bars which boast of having fewer than 90 calories actually have more than a third of their weight in sugar — twice as much as is contained in some ice creams, and putting them well into the Food Standards Agency’s ‘high in sugar’
bracket.

In 2008, Innocent, a brand that specialises in healthy drinks, had to withdraw an advertisement for a ‘simple, natural’ fruit-flavoured water, called This Water, because it failed to mention that each bottle contained up to 89g per litre of added sugar.

Sugar free

If there's no sugar then there will almost certainly be other sweeteners, such as aspartame and acesulfame K.

While these are good alternatives for people worried about calories, manufacturers using them now have to warn that they are a ‘source of phenylalanine’ — a chemical that can cause severe health problems to people with a particular disorder.

Very high doses of this chemical have been linked to minor effects on health.

Fresh

This much-abused term has troubled government regulators for decades. Effectively, it means little more than ‘not frozen’ and uncooked — but products can have been chilled or, as with fish, kept on ice.

Salads, fruits and meat can be kept in ‘modified atmosphere’ packaging that uses gases or vacuum to stop them going off.

‘Freshly squeezed’ means something should have been processed within two weeks of its use-by date, and there are rules governing ‘farm fresh’ poultry and eggs.

Under EU rules, ‘fresh’ poultry is just a term governing how the meat is chilled, not how long it has been since the bird was killed.

‘Extra fresh’ eggs must be on sale less than nine days after laying. ‘Best before’ is a date 28 days after the egg was laid. But ‘fresh’ is sovague it is regularly abused.

In July, Tesco was reprimandedby the Advertising Standards Authority for TV adverts promoting ‘fresh bread, baked from scratch’, when it was baked from
scratch in only around a quarter of its stores. In most Tesco stores, the ready dough is shipped in from centralised processing plants.

This is why there are no jobs in America

2010-08-25T20:29:00.000-07:00

Click here for the source.

This is why there are no jobs in America

Posted: August 24, 2010
10:37 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

I'd like to make you a business offer.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like ... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
Oh ... and one more thing.
Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees, I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur, if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public, you'll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me, but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is Amerika, isn't it?
That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs.
Editor's Note: Learn more about Porter Stansberry's work.

G20 Toronto Reports and Comments

2010-07-01T02:41:00.000-07:00

2 videos about the G20.

G20Toronto Video Report (1/2) TRUTH

G20Toronto Video Report (2/2) TRUTH

For those who don't keep up with unfiltered news (news not filtered by
government or mainstream sources who appease government), G20 is about
setting up world totalitarian government.

Stefan Molyneux comments on the G20 Toronto.
True News: The 'Violence' of the G20 Protests

Camp FEMA: American Lockdown - FULL MOVIE

2010-06-18T20:42:00.000-07:00

Voting Machines (dishonest elections)

2010-06-18T13:18:00.001-07:00

Shrinkiatry

2010-06-18T13:17:00.001-07:00

Polly Ticks (= many little blood suckers)

2010-06-18T13:15:00.000-07:00

Laws Against telling the Truth

2010-06-18T13:14:00.001-07:00

Islam is Evil

2010-06-18T13:13:00.001-07:00

Doctors Whose Patients Get Well

2010-06-18T13:11:00.000-07:00

Blaylock Videos

2010-06-18T13:06:00.000-07:00

Hidden Names of MSG

2009-08-25T17:15:00.000-07:00

Food companies hide MSG (monosodium glutamate) on purpose. They do this knowing that some people would not buy the product if they knew it had MSG in it. I call that dishonesty.

Avoid all the following ingredients. source msgmyth

Hidden Names for MSG

The following substances contain the highest percentage of factory created free glutamate, with MSG containing 78%:

MSG Gelatin Calcium Caseinate

Monosodium glutamate Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (HVP) Textured Protein

Monopotassium glutamate Hydrolyzed Plant Protein (HPP) Yeast Extract

Glutamate Autolyzed Plant Protein Yeast food or nutrient

Glutamic Acid Sodium Caseinate Autolyzed Yeast

Vegetable Protein Extract Senomyx (wheat extract labeled as artificial flavor)

The following substances contain some factory created free glutamate in varying amounts. Please note that some food labels list several of these items, which can add up to a considerable and dangerous amount in one product:

Malted Barley (flavor) Natural Flavors, Flavors, Flavoring Modified food starch

Barley malt Reaction Flavors Rice syrup or brown rice syrup

Malt Extract or Flavoring Natural Chicken, Beef, or Pork, Flavoring "Seasonings" (Most assume this means salt, pepper, or spices and herbs, which sometimes it is.) Lipolyzed butter fat

Maltodextrin, dextrose, dextrates Soy Sauce or Extract "Low" or "No Fat" items

Caramel Flavoring (coloring) Soy Protein Corn syrup and corn syrup solids, high fructose corn syrup

Stock Soy Protein Isolate or Concentrate Citric Acid (when processed from corn)

Broth Cornstarch fructose (made from corn) Milk Powder

Bouillon Flowing Agents Dry Milk Solids

Carrageenan Wheat, rice, corn, or oat protein Protein Fortified Milk

Whey Protein or Whey Anything enriched or vitamin enriched Annatto

Whey Protein Isolate or Concentrate Protein fortified "anything" Spice

Pectin Enzyme modified proteins Gums (guar and vegetable)

Protease Ultra-pasteurized dairy products Dough Conditioners

Protease enzymes Fermented proteins Yeast Nutrients

Lecithin Gluten and gluten flour Protein powders: whey, soy, oat, rice (as in protein bars shakes and body building drinks)

Amino acids (as in Bragg's liquid amino acids and chelated to vitamins) Algae, phytoplankton, sea vegetable, wheat/ barley grass powders

European numbers for glutamate containing additives:

620 625

621 627

622 631

623 635

624

Avoid all the above ingredients. If you avoid all these ingredients, you will end up with mostly food that has nothing but food in it.

Avoid restaurants. I have 2 rules about restaurants.
1. All restaurants are guilty until proved innocent.
2. I'm not interested in any evidence that they are innocent.

MSG	Gelatin	Calcium Caseinate
Monosodium glutamate	Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (HVP)	Textured Protein
Monopotassium glutamate	Hydrolyzed Plant Protein (HPP)	Yeast Extract
Glutamate	Autolyzed Plant Protein	Yeast food or nutrient
Glutamic Acid	Sodium Caseinate	Autolyzed Yeast
Vegetable Protein Extract	Senomyx (wheat extract labeled as artificial flavor)

Malted Barley (flavor)	Natural Flavors, Flavors, Flavoring	Modified food starch
Barley malt	Reaction Flavors	Rice syrup or brown rice syrup
Malt Extract or Flavoring	Natural Chicken, Beef, or Pork, Flavoring "Seasonings" (Most assume this means salt, pepper, or spices and herbs, which sometimes it is.)	Lipolyzed butter fat
Maltodextrin, dextrose, dextrates	Soy Sauce or Extract	"Low" or "No Fat" items
Caramel Flavoring (coloring)	Soy Protein	Corn syrup and corn syrup solids, high fructose corn syrup
Stock	Soy Protein Isolate or Concentrate	Citric Acid (when processed from corn)
Broth	Cornstarch fructose (made from corn)	Milk Powder
Bouillon	Flowing Agents	Dry Milk Solids
Carrageenan	Wheat, rice, corn, or oat protein	Protein Fortified Milk
Whey Protein or Whey	Anything enriched or vitamin enriched	Annatto
Whey Protein Isolate or Concentrate	Protein fortified "anything"	Spice
Pectin	Enzyme modified proteins	Gums (guar and vegetable)
Protease	Ultra-pasteurized dairy products	Dough Conditioners
Protease enzymes	Fermented proteins	Yeast Nutrients
Lecithin	Gluten and gluten flour	Protein powders: whey, soy, oat, rice (as in protein bars shakes and body building drinks)
Amino acids (as in Bragg's liquid amino acids and chelated to vitamins)	Algae, phytoplankton, sea vegetable, wheat/ barley grass powders