If you’re pro-natural already, will you help educate others?

2nd December 2011

It’s well worth pondering the meaning of life often.  When you do this, think hard about from where our bodies have originated — in evolutionary terms.  Ponder then the sheer length of time our ancestral cells have spent interacting with our natural environment, one untainted with the products of human activity.

New-to-nature clash with nature

If you imagine the last 500,000 years of human evolution as a 24-hour clock, the industrial revolution began just 30 seconds ago.  The post-WWII boom in new-to-nature agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and vaccines started around 10 seconds ago and the first commercial GM crop was planted (in 1996) less than 3 seconds ago.

In this context, the situation in which we find ourselves today is somewhat absurd.   There’s little doubt in our minds that a global corporatocracy is trying to control the way we live, whether it’s how we look after our bodies, cultivate our foods or manage our still-expanding global population.  This movement is led by the likes of Monsanto, Pfizer, GSK, Bayer and others, and is supported heavily by undemocratic bodies such as the European Commission and the US Food and Drug Administration.  It seems we’re meant to accept their new-to-nature inventions or face doom.  

Are we doing enough to prepare the way for the next generation?

Accept it or die?

But the people in these companies and institutions fail to take into account that many of us are not going to accept it all lying down.  We take a very keen interest in our own health and that of our environment.  We care about the kind of world in which our children and our children’s children will grow up.  We look closely at what is on offer, and we see little on offer that betters what nature came up with over its millions of years of musings with things both living and non-living.

This week’s stories, on vaccines and GMOs, are classic examples of technologies that are thrown at us as if they were creations on which the survival of our species now depends.  We think not. If anything, we might suggest, these kinds of technologies could be our downfall.

Living or dying at the hand of human technology

Think of the life of a typical western human being.  It grows, first of all, in a uterus starved of key essential fats, exposed to chemicals it’s not adapted to detoxify, and receiving nutrients through the umbilical cord that are skewed by the simple carbohydrate-rich diet of the mother.  After birth, the baby is challenged by a succession of 15 to over 20 vaccinations representing every serious childhood disease known from every continent on Earth.  This contrasts with the development of natural immunity, by periodic and random exposure to childhood diseases.  And of course the vaccines don’t just contain the bugs, the inactivated bugs or bits of bugs.  Often, they also contain a host of other chemicals, mercury, in the preservative thimerosal, being one that has been the subject of particular study.  Breast feeding is optional, and apart from the cow’s milk, the child then faces a lifetime of wheat, sugar and soya, the foods most commonly associated with adverse reactions in humans.

And the medics wonder why there’s an epidemic of chronic, metabolic, inflammatory diseases.  Yet most seem to do everything in their power to avoid dealing head on with the agricultural, food production, diet and lifestyle issues that lie behind these diseases.  We also find it hard to use scientific arguments to stop the deadly trends in human technological ‘development’ because we have, as yet, no universally accepted scientific methodologies available to understand these kinds of complex interactions. Instead, the scientific community, in general, has opted for reductionism, the compartmentalised approach to science that has yielded patentable, new-to-nature technology.  Yes, it’s ultimately more about what goes on in the boardroom of a few transnational corporations than it is about saving the world.?

Here's a grab from a recent ANH-Intl campaign poster

Opt in or opt out — it’s your choice

Here’s our take-home message for this week’s eAlert.  You can opt out of most of this — if you so choose.  You can teach kids about it too, and bring up a new generation of children who know about Monsanto and the drug companies, rather than accepting their offerings unquestionably.

Here at ANH, we see raising awareness about natural healthcare as one of our most important tasks.  But we can’t do it without you.  On our website, in our news and features archive, on our campaign pages and on our facebook page, there is a mass of information.

Please delve into the bits you feel are helpful to you, and share it as widely as you can, verbally, by email or through your social networks.  Knowledge is empowerment, and empowerment informs choice.  That choice is yours.

Happy reading and sharing:   
 

Winter's upon us: Vaccination FAQ

ANH-Intl answers some Frequently Asked Questions about vaccines

Read More

Monsanto flouts its own mission statement

ANH investigates given Roundup weed failure

Read More