By Dan Barcelon- Non-Athlete Fitness,


Organic foods are everywhere. Vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, and meats are a given. Nowadays you can find nearly any junk or convenience food marked with a big fat organic label too.

Organic ice cream?
Organic cookies, cakes, and pies?
Organic deep-fried chicken?

They’re healthy because they’re organic, right? Of course not.

We’re not here today to bash all organic food though. We’re here to assist you with research, definitions, and valuable information to guide you so that you can make an informed decision on organics.

There’s a lot of misinformation and grey areas to cover. Are you ready? Let’s decode the world of organics.

not just any food can be labeled as organic foods


The USDA is the only governmental body that can determine eligibility for their seal. Their rules are stringent, but they do employ a full board and open door policy that allows farmers, consumers, and businesses a voice.

Any deviation from the rules means a company, farmer, or grower can’t call themselves or their products organic. They do offer a few exceptions, such as for research.

However, the tight guidelines can make it difficult for small and medium farms to afford and fully comply. It’s not always about raw cost and fees.

For example, a farm uses organic principles, but neighboring conventional farms halt them from receiving organic certification due to contamination. Keep this in mind because we’ll bring this point up again.


• Synthetic fertilizer
• Sewage or sludge
• Most synthetic pesticides
• Irradiation
• Genetic engineering of any kind
• Non-organic feeds for livestock
• Antibiotics except when an animal is ill
• Growth hormones


• Crop rotation
• Livestock manure, green manure, and compost
• Mulch
• Insect traps
• Natural pesticides and synthetic pesticides approved for organic farming
• 30% pasture feeding for livestock and outside access
• Proper living conditions
• Organic animal feed
• Vaccinations


In the US, for a farmer or company to sell certified organic products, they must meet the standards of the United States Department of Agriculture. If an item claims to be organic or “organically grown”, but it doesn’t carry the seal, you’ll be gambling.

We see these signs mostly at farm stands from small farmers. They might not be able to afford the cost of entering the USDA organic program for certification or otherwise not meet the criteria.

Talk with the farmer. Inquire about their practices for pesticides and herbicides. Ask about their neighboring farms if applicable. Pesticides can travel, but locally grown produce can be closer to organic than conventional varieties.

Another advantage to locally grown is you’ll support your neighborhood farmer. Sharing your thoughts and concerns with them might guide them to make better choices for their crops and the environment too.



Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are engineered foods, animals, and microorganisms. Scientists make them in a lab. They splice genes from other foods, bacteria, virus, animals, and organisms and combine them with seeds for farmers to grow.

In other words, they create seeds and foods that can’t occur in nature. It is not the same as selective breeding or manipulated cross-pollination.

You will find them mostly hiding in prepackaged foods, and at this time, the government doesn’t require companies to place it on the label. This is a bane for those with food allergies and some illnesses, such as celiac disease. You have no way of knowing what scientists have used to create their GMO crop.

Are they safe? Currently the government grants them a status called generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

To date, we have no long-term studies on human or animal consumption to support their inclusion into the food chain. This status also doesn’t account for the environmental and economic impact of GMO crops.

However, GMO ingredients have no place in USDA certified organic foods.


In a perfect world, pests and weeds would leave farmers and gardeners alone. We don’t live in that world, so our options are to spray for pests and do our best to control weeds.

Organic farming uses natural, non-toxic, and environmentally friendly methods. Farmers can use a small selection on synthetic pesticides in last resort situations only, and they generally can’t sell their produce as organic if they do.

Synthetic pesticides, even at low doses, can wreak havoc on your body. Many can trigger neurodegenerative diseases, like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. Other pesticides have a direct link to cancer and infertility.

Breathing, eating, and drinking pesticides is something the average American does every day without knowing it. Substituting organics in your diet can alleviate some of that exposure.


We’ve heard this rebuttable a lot to the organic movement. However, science and the EPA clearly disagrees.

Some pesticides can be in the flesh of fruits and vegetables. This is common in thinner-skinned produce and animal fat. Plus, many nutrients and vitamins are in the skins. Peels also contain fiber and antioxidants.

foods labeled as "organic"


• USDA Certified Organic—Seal allowed
• Made with 95% Organic Ingredients—Seal allowed
• Made with Organic Ingredients—No seal allowed

However, the guidelines vary for prepackaged organic food. A box of organic cereal only has to contain 95% organic ingredients to carry the seal.

According to the USDA, foods with at least 70% organic ingredients can carry an organic label. However, they can’t display the organic seal. These foods might say, “Made with Organic Corn,” for example.

Companies are free to list their organic ingredients, such as organic sugar on the nutrition label. They can’t advertise it on the front of their packaging or use the official seal.

Keep in mind some parts of the food industry have separate rules. Seafood can’t be organic under current guidelines. Alcohol can carry an organic seal, but they have different guidelines set by the federal advisory board.


When we first began our organic research, we faced marketing terms left and right. Cage free, vegetarian fed diet, free range, grass fed, certified humane, and wild caught are terms you likely know already.

Did you know that none of these are organic?

We quickly discovered that some mean nothing (see “natural” below) while others have third-party regulation.


Yes, this means chickens aren’t cooped up in cages. It also doesn’t mean they’re running around grassy hillsides pecking at bugs. They might only have limited outdoor access if at all.


This marketing term graces cartons of eggs and packages of chickens. It sounds great at first glance, doesn’t it?


Chickens eat vegetables, true. However, chickens love bugs. Insects provide them with nutrients, exercise, and play. A chicken fed a vegetarian diet also has zero access to the outdoors.


Okay, this term does hold value. It means the livestock has adequate room to roam when weather and season permits. Their diet will be mostly forage with animal feed supplements.

Non-organic free range meat, eggs, and dairy are the next best choice to certified organic.


You can find two meanings for this term, and it can coincide with free range. For example, often free range cattle receive a grain filled fattening period before butchering.


True grass fed and finished cows are lean.

What does it mean for the animal? They might spend a good deal of their life roaming free and noshing on grass, but their last few months will be in a feed lot.

What does it mean for consumers? Unless your beef is organic, the cows likely consumed a large portion of GMO feed. Your expensive grass fed beef is now no healthier than conventional meat.

On the other hand of the term, you don’t have to worry about marketing gimmicks with grass fed butter and dairy products.


While not perfect, the organization behind this seal does help protect animal welfare. Farmers have many standards they must meet and uphold. Some regulations might not sit well or meet your definition of humane.

The label also means nothing in terms of organic.


Currently the USDA has no regulations for fish and seafood in determining organic. This leaves you with fisheries and wild caught operations.

Be wary of fisheries. We won’t say avoid, but do your homework and ensure they use sustainable practices and don’t feed their fish GMO food. It does occur, and many fisheries use soy-based formulas.

Wild caught labeling means exactly as it says. Still, look into companies. They should still use sustainable practices, such as not overfishing, eco-friendly traps, or old fashioned hook and lines.


Yes and no.

Organic whole foods are most certainly natural. USDA certified organics are natural too. However, no government body regulates the word natural. Natural labeled foods can still contain unnatural and unsafe ingredients and preservatives, such as high fructose corn syrup and BHT.


A large review of existing data shows numerous, scientifically backed value in consuming organic foods for health, safety, sustainability, and the environment. The study review addresses current concerns, such as the growing antibiotic resistance.


• Less pesticide and toxic heavy metal exposure
• No GMOs to worry about
• More healthy fats in organic meat, dairy, and plants
• No antibiotics or synthetic hormones
• Some organic foods pack higher antioxidant values
• Organic produce is often fresher
• People who buy organic whole foods tend to be healthier than those who don’t, which leads to a decrease in chronic disease


• Fewer pesticides released into the water supply, air, and soil, and fertilizers have a lower toxic profile
• Fewer heavy metals
• Sustainable without genetic engineering
• Improved animal treatment, shelter, and diets; conventional feeds contain GMO ingredients not allowed in organic livestock food
• Biodiversity for improved soil and pest management
• Crop rotation reduces the need for fungicides
• Less soil erosion
• Addresses climate change by reduction of non-renewable resources



Organic foods do tend to be pricier than their conventional counterparts. However, consumer costs have lessened in recent years. Demand is one explanation, but you also have store and private labels producing organic food too.


• Shop around and compare prices, including online
• Buy in season produce
• Buy frozen organic fruits and vegetables
• Support local organic farms
• Join a co-op
• Consider a buying club or start your own
• Look for bulk purchases of non-perishable staples
• Don’t forget about coupons
• Eat less meat and more plant proteins and fats
• Start a garden
• Don’t discount organic store brands
• Limit organic junk food; bake your own instead
• Buy wild caught fish and seafood or farmed from eco-friendly sustainable fisheries


• Supermarket
• Health food stores
• Big box retailers
• Online stores
• Local farms
• Farmers markets
• Your backyard if you garden organically


With the growing concerns on pesticide exposure, antibiotic resistance, and the negative environmental impact of feed lots and mass conventional and GMO farming, yes. Organic foods are better for your body and the environment.

However, we can only really compare whole food diets in terms of healthfulness.

If you’re swapping regular nacho chips and French fries for organic versions, you’re not going to see major health benefits. Another example is someone who eats vegan, which can be healthy, but they eat mostly processed vegan meals and snacks.

If you’re serious about making the switch to organic, you should analyze your diet too. No one will deny you an occasional snack or unhealthy indulgence, but if your daily fare consists of convenience foods, the cost you’ll spend on organic equivalents will be much higher and with little benefits.


Cost is the largest hurdle most people face when swapping over to organics. We feel a base whole food diet with little junk will give you an easier transition without sacrificing health benefits. It’s also cheaper too if you follow the previous tips.


• Strawberries
• Apples
• Peaches
• Bell peppers
• Potatoes
• Grapes
• Lettuce
• Kale, spinach, and collards
• Blueberries
• Celery
• Nectarines
• Cherries

According to, you should aim to eat from the dirty dozen list only when organic because they contain pesticides after washing and peeling from upward of 67 sources. Be sure to continue washing your produce even if it’s organic.


• Sweet corn (non-GMO)
• Frozen sweet peas
• Onions
• Papayas (non-GMO)
• Eggplant
• Kiwi
• Cantaloupe
• Asparagus
• Honeydew melon
• Mushrooms
• Broccoli
• Cabbage
• Pineapples (non-GMO)
• Avocado
• Cauliflower

The Environmental Working Group compiled a list of produce that you can consume from conventional or locally grown sources without risks of pesticides. Pineapples, papayas, and sweet corn GMO varieties can lurk in markets, so if you want to avoid them, buy organic.


For conventional prepackaged goods that are not organic, you can look for the Non GMO Project verified seal. They are a non-profit organization companies can submit their products to for testing.

The not for profit tests their source materials for GMO contamination, including meat, eggs and dairy. Animal sourced ingredients can contain contamination from the foods they ate when alive too.

While it’s not as good as organic or food you grow in your backyard, the Non GMO Project can make it easier when you’re on a budget, transitioning to organic foods, or you can’t find an organic equivalent.

organic foods have a lot of benefit for your health


We found health and environmental reasons to eat more organic foods. The low doses of pesticide residue can and do cause harm to adults. Children will be more susceptible too.

Environmentally, organic farming makes sense. It’s better for our soil, the animals, the air, and our water supply. These time tested techniques can produce greater yields too, and they manage pest control without poisoning us with unnecessary (and more dangerous) pesticides and untested GMO technology.

However, if you have no room in your current budget for organics, we’ll be the first to say that conventional whole foods are still better than avoiding them completely.

Take baby steps with the dirty dozen, use our money-saving tips, start a garden, shop organic when possible, and ease forward into the nutritious and delicious world of organic food.



Terran Cognito 10-20-19… “Confirmation of two Galactics in images”

I recall seeing this posted on FB and Twitter all around the place, and finally landed on Terran Cognito’s blog page. Pretty fascinating image here, and also I found them in this Whitehouse video some may wish to view (Lila appears at around 6:15, Rralt Aln’s hands are visible at about the same time (didn’t see his full figure, though)). In my view, they certainly appear “non-terrestrial”.

From the Denice / Terran discussion, the two pictured at left with President Trump are Lila (Pleiadean Commander) and Rralt Ahn (Commander of the Lyran Complex). Here’s a couple highlights related to them.


“Terran: I know the names are withheld [according to Stan X] … but could I ask what star nation the black man next to the Lila-like blonde was from? [I wasn’t expecting names – If I had known I’d get them I would have had the image with me!]



“Messages seemed to end there… felt like there was a celebration going on…”


Confirmation of two Galactics in images

October 18,2019

Denice sent a tweet Friday night while I was driving…


Terran: Is that the one where she calls out Hillary?

Denice: Wild!

Denice: Things are flowing

Terran: They certainly are!

…. [chit chat type conversation; go to original page to view]

Terran: Before I get back on the road does anyone want to talk?


Terran: Which images?


Terran: Oh that was fun!


Terran: I know the names are withheld [according to Stan X] … but could I ask what star nation the black man next to the Lila-like blonde was from?  [I wasn’t expecting names – If I had known I’d get them I would have had the image with me!]


Terran: So that’s what the non-feline [human] Lyrans look like!

Terran: Yes. I Feel you. You feel joyful!


Messages seemed to end there… felt like there was a celebration going on…

Terran to Denice: I really feel like I know Lila [from a prior incarnation]

Denice: ?

Terran: No specifics just recognition [huge recognition]

Denice: Yes

Denice: Catch you soon?

Terran: Sure! Was that Thor? [uncertain as to sender… messages were similar to Thor’s but without his name. Energy felt female. Conversation felt like it had less protocol]

Denice: ?

Denice: Feels like Lila 

Aroma of Plum and Cherry With a Hint of Roundup

It is no longer a secret there is a serious issue in the food supply. Toxicity levels in food are rising as conventional agriculture continues to be a leading cause of environmental pollution and destruction. Toxins may accumulate during plant growth, as they can be added during harvesting and processing or introduced during manufacturing.

One serious toxin in the food supply is glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. No other pesticide has come even close to the “intensive and widespread use” it enjoys in agriculture. As I’ve written in the past, glyphosate has been tested and found in breast milk, water, disposable diapers and honey.

A recent segment of 60 Minutes Australia called glyphosate a “toxic villain … likely to be sitting on a shelf in the backyard shed of most Australian families.” In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer,1 an arm of the World Health Organization, determined glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

Even Organic Wines Contain Roundup

Glyphosate use affects not only the crops being sprayed, but those in the vicinity as well. While the chemical is not allowed in organic farming, the results of one analysis revealed glyphosate in all bottles of organic wine tested. Dr. Rupa Marya, associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, spoke with East Bay Express about the pervasive nature of glyphosate.

She commented on a beer and wine study in which glyphosate was found in all organic bottles tested, as cited by the California Wine Institute on their website:2 “You can’t even buy organic wine that’s truly organic. All the organic wines tested contained glyphosate. It’s in our water table.”

Jay Feldman, director of the environmental group Beyond Pesticides, commented on the difficulty associated with linking chemical exposure to the onset of chronic disease. He points out the problem is the toxic soup in which we live, making it difficult to isolate a single chemical or pesticide that may trigger the problem.

The recent jury award in a lawsuit filed against Monsanto, now Bayer, may have broken through a roadblock that had in the past appeared impenetrable. The jury found Monsanto officials “acted with malice and oppression” when they sold Roundup, a product their executives had full knowledge of as being dangerous to the user.3

Glyphosate is used to kill the weeds around the vines; it’s not supposed to be sprayed directly on non-GMO grapevines as this would kill the plants. Organic wines may become contaminated when the pesticide plume drifts into vineyards, carried by the wind.

In addition, the chemical may remain in the soil for more than 20 years.4 Aaron Taylor has watched first hand as the past year’s application of glyphosate on adjoining farms keeps new growth from sprouting beneath the vines.5

Alameda County Counts Immediate Cheap Over Long-Term Cost

California has a large wine industry responsible for applying 300,000 pounds of glyphosate-based herbicide in 2017, according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. In Alameda County, California, the wine industry used 1,634 pounds of the 30,000 pounds used across the county.6

Despite the growing mountain of evidence against glyphosate, and the recent lawsuit won by a school groundskeeper for health damage attributed to Roundup, Alameda County public groundskeepers continue to use the product to fight weeds.

Although Ed Duarte, pest management expert for Alameda County Department of Agriculture, said their policy is to use pesticides only when necessary, he also said,7 “It’s a cost-benefit assessment — what is the cost of using these pesticides, and what are the benefits?”

In other words, for Alameda County, the benefit of a weed-free park using Roundup is worth the cost. Kristie and Rick Knoll live in Alameda County,8 where they run one of the few farms that do not knowingly use pesticides and herbicides on their plants. But in this area, their attitude is the exception. Of the 2,600 acres of fruit trees and grapevines, only 200 acres are certified organic.

Even if you don’t use glyphosate-based herbicide personally, your health is still at risk since testing has revealed many foods are contaminated. Just as concerning is the fact that more than 70% of Americans have detectable levels of glyphosate in their body. The herbicide works by inhibiting the shikimate pathway in the plant, a pathway also found in human gut bacteria that plays a crucial role in human health.

Glyphosate is only one of many different types of toxins. As more people become aware of the damage to health and environment that stems from conventionally grown food, organic foods are growing in popularity. To read more about these issues and find a list of organizations to help you locate farm fresh foods in your area, see my past article “What Makes Most Food So Dangerous.”

Biodynamic Principles Surpass Organic Growing

In this interview with Elizabeth Candelario, we talk about biodynamic farming principles and how wineries were among the first farms to move toward biodynamic strategies.9 This happened as winemakers noticed some of the best wines were the product of biodynamic farming.

As Candelario explains the history of biodynamic principles and organic farming includes the work of Rudolf Steiner, who, in the 1920s, developed the idea of treating a farm as a living organism that could sustain itself by following the cycles of nature.

Seventeen years later, according to Candelario, “Lord Northbourne wrote a book in which he talked about the differences of chemical versus organic farming, coining the word organic from Steiner’s reference to the farm as an organism.”10

Biodynamic farming principles are now used in vineyards and farms across the country, treating the land as a single organism intended to function as a whole. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette call this “a holistic view of agriculture.”11 Just as recognizing the interconnectedness of systems in the human body improves overall health, biodynamic farming principles have resulted in the production of some of the best wines and healthiest foods in the world.

Effects of Biodynamic Farming on Food and the Environment

In February 2019, Candelario stepped down as the managing director of Demeter, where she served for nearly 11 years. Demeter12 is a global Biodynamic certification agency started by small farmers who were well versed in Steiner’s agricultural principles.

To ensure the standard would maintain integrity, they set up a strict certification program in 1928, and it has remained the oldest ecological certification organization in the world. As Candelario explains, organic farming principles are about what you do not do, such as using synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. Biodynamic principles maintain the core idea that the farm is a living organism, which means it meets organic standards.

The farmer seeks solutions to pest and weed control within the system, maintaining the idea the farm is a closed system. To receive an organic certification, a farm must not use prohibited materials on a specific number of acres, which may then be certified as organic acreage.

To receive a Biodynamic certification the entire farm must meet the standard. Animals are a core principle, as well as a focus on their welfare and the integration of soil biodiversity. The broader vision is to heal the planet through agriculture by transitioning from conventional to organic and ultimately Biodynamic.

One of the challenges has been the small number of Demeter certified family farms selling its products locally or regionally. Candelario began working with Whole Foods to select companies aligned with Biodynamic principles. For more information, see my past article, “The Effects of Biodynamic Farming on the Environment and Food Quality.”

Choosing Your Next Bottle of Natural Wine

When a wine is produced biodynamically, it usually means the vineyard is located nearby since production is part of the overall sustainability of the operation.13 If a wine is produced this way, you may assume it is also organic since the biodynamic certification has higher standards.

Look for certifications on the back of the wine label, including Demeter and SIP Certification, both of which speak to sustainability of the farm where the grapes were harvested. While Demeter certifies farms producing any crop, SIP Certification is aimed specifically at vineyards.14

The cost of certified sustainable wines starts at $15, which means you don’t have to break the bank to savor a glass that isn’t laced with glyphosate and other toxins. As the demand for healthier wines rises, wineries are producing nearly every type you may have purchased from a conventional winery, including red, white, rose and sparkling.

While Alameda County continues to embrace glyphosate, Sonoma County wineries have embraced Biodynamic principles.15 On the Sonoma County website16 you’ll find a list of farms implementing the biodynamic and organic approaches to wine making, along with their contact information and a little bit of history about each farm.

Novel Way to Treat Resistant Vaginal Infections

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a common and undertreated condition. A disruption of the natural vaginal microbiome, BV is believed to afflict up to a third of women of reproductive age. Though often not serious unto itself,1 BV can predispose a woman to an increased risk of upper genital-tract infections, greater susceptibility to sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy complications.2 It is often characterized by a malodorous discharge.3

BV is usually treated with antibiotics but, as I have often pointed out in my newsletters, sometimes antibiotics can do more harm than good. In the case of BV, the harmful bacteria usually return after a round of antibiotics and, worse, the antibiotics invite other bacteria to overgrow.

Now comes news that the same restoration and repopulation of important microbiota that have been developed with “fecal transplants” may well be possible with BV. Recently published research suggests that transplants from those with healthy vaginal fluid, called microbiome transplantation (VMT), may help women suffering from these resistant vaginal infections.

A Technology Transferred From Intestinal Research

In recent years, scientists have discovered the microbes in our gut, collectively called our microbiome, can affect a lot more than digestion: They can affect mood,4 weight,5 asthma,6 acne, childhood disorders like ADHD,7 cardiovascular disease8 and, likely, our predisposition to disease.9

As scientists discovered the powerful and subtle workings of the gut microbiome, they also found it could be “reset” or repopulated with a fecal transplant from a healthy donor, in cases where it is not working properly.

This new technology of fecal transplants is especially impressive in helping to eradicate the tenacious and dangerous intestinal bacterium C. Difficile.10 Often gut microbiome impairment such as C. Difficile is caused by common pharmaceutical drugs like antibiotics and the overprescribed proton pump inhibitors.11

Now the same methodology may help women suffering from BV. Like the intestinal microbiome, the vaginal microbiome seems to recognize and respond to the introduction of “good” bacteria, according to recent research. Both microbiomes are also affected by diet and lifestyle, though less research has been conducted with BV.

Slight Bodily Changes Can Cause BV

BV occurs when the vaginal microbiome becomes altered, resulting in a drop in Lactobacillus, a desirable bacterium, allowing other bacteria to take over and pH values to change.12 Lactobacillus is desirable because it tends to have a higher lactic acid content and lowers alkaline levels.

In fact, physicians in the 1800s had already figured out that Lactobacillus could reduce the risk of vaginal microbiota sepsis that can occur post-childbirth, no doubt because of its acidic characteristics.13 This is how the BBC explains the inter-relationship:14

Experts know healthy microorganisms in the vagina prefer an acidic environment, and when the pH becomes too alkaline other bacteria — including those that cause BV — can thrive.

A number of factors can raise vaginal pH and make BV more likely, including having sex (semen and saliva are slightly alkaline) and using douches or vaginal washes, as well as hormonal changes at particular times of the month during a woman’s menstrual cycle.

Laura Ensign, Ph.D., an investigator into the new vaginal fluid transplants, agrees:15 “In the vagina, the dominance of these lactobacillus bacteria keeps the vaginal pH acidic, and that’s how you keep other [bad] bacteria out.”

Promising New Research Is Good News for Women

Building on the success of fecal microbiota transplants to restore the gut microbiome, researchers at the Hebrew University Hadassah Medical Center and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel recently developed the first vaginal discharge transplant or vaginal microbiome transplantation (VMT). This is what the researchers, writing in Nature Medicine, report:16

“We report the results of a first exploratory study testing the use of vaginal microbiome transplantation (VMT) from healthy donors as a therapeutic alternative for patients suffering from symptomatic, intractable and recurrent bacterial vaginosis ( NCT02236429).

In our case series, five patients were treated, and in four of them VMT was associated with full long-term remission until the end of follow-up at 5–21 months after VMT, defined as marked improvement of symptoms, Amsel criteria, microscopic vaginal fluid appearance and reconstitution of a Lactobacillus-dominated vaginal microbiome.

One patient presented with incomplete remission in clinical and laboratory features. No adverse effects were observed in any of the five women. Notably, remission in three patients necessitated repeated VMT, including a donor change in one patient, to elicit a long-standing clinical response.

The therapeutic efficacy of VMT in women with intractable and recurrent bacterial vaginosis should be further determined in randomized, placebo- controlled clinical trials.”

Encouraging Results in First Small Study

As the researchers write in Nature Medicine, two subjects in the study experienced remission immediately after VMT and two other subjects experienced remission when the VMT was repeated. A fifth subject experienced remission after changing to a new donor, suggesting that a donor match may be a contributory factor to a successful transplant. Dr. Ahinoam Lev-Sagie, one of the researchers in the Nature Medicine article, described the breakthrough in The Jerusalem Post:17

“We believe that testing larger VMT doses in future trials, or alternatively generating insights on donor selection, may enable [us] to optimize donor- recipient pairing and improve the chances of full success of this treatment. The results were amazing …

… Topics related to women’s health have been often under-studied and even neglected in clinical medicine. Bacterial vaginosis, while not life-risking, is an exceedingly common female disorder that bears a severe toll on women’s lives. I think it is amazing that we, as physicians, have the option to offer people something that can change their lives.”

The researchers are hoping to create a simple, standardized “microbial cocktail” that could be used with more BV sufferers and reduce the costs in providing a first treatment.

Strict Criteria for Vaginal Fluid Donors

Not just anyone can be a VMT donor, of course. A team of researchers at Johns Hopkins University that is also investigating vaginal microbiota transplants (VMT) points out that care must be taken in who would be appropriate donors for women suffering from BV and interested in such transplants.

The ideal donor, they say, would be asked to abstain from sex for at least a month before donating a sample and be screened for HIV and any other sexually transmitted infections to prevent them being passed on to a VMT recipient.18

The actual transplant process is not too complicated. According to BBC, the donor woman “inserts and removes a flexible plastic disc — similar to a menstrual cup or contraceptive diaphragm — to collect the sample.” Then the donated vaginal fluid “would be drawn into an applicator for the recipient to insert in a similar way to how a tampon.“

“The donation is a self collection, which we know people tend to prefer … It’s quick and easy and one sample collected like that would be enough material to make one dose for transfer,” Ensign said.

Vaginal Microbiota Transplants Will Also Help Self-Esteem

Aside from the risks for more serious conditions that BV poses, it also affects self-esteem. Here is how one woman describes her own case which led her to counsel others.19

“I’m 51 now, but in my 20s and 30s I suffered from infections over a 10-year period, before there were over-the-counter treatments. I was a nurse but I didn’t have a clue about BV. I’d buy probiotic yoghurt from my local health store and whack that up there on a tampon, because I had this vague idea that it would restore [the bacteria], but that probably didn’t do any good either …

… I do speak to women who are constantly getting it, going on antibiotics, getting thrush … Then they’re desperate, and buying any old intimate hygiene product to get rid of the smell, which then exacerbates or masks the problem. This is really exciting research, and the transplants would be utterly amazing to help women break out of that cycle.”

Until now, there have been few treatment options available for BV and those that exist are seldom fully curative or restorative. The ongoing research into the natural and drug-free vaginal microbiota transplants is encouraging for all women who suffer from BV.

The Role of Fungus in Cancer

Oftentimes, even the most unlikely-sounding theories can be scientifically validated if you just wait long enough. That certainly rings true for recent headlines declaring fungi and bacteria may be playing a role in the development of certain types of cancer, combined with previous research showing baking soda may be a useful remedy.

In 2011, shamed Dr. Oz for allowing me on his show,1 and one of the “reasons” given was that I had at one time published information about a novel hypothesis — the idea that cancer could be caused by common fungi and might be treatable with baking soda.

Two early proponents of this hypothesis were Tullio Simoncini2,3 and Mark Sircus.4 As you might expect, they were unsuccessful in their attempts at getting the conventional medical establishment to take the hypothesis seriously and have been maligned and marginalized for promoting these ideas.

So, mark my surprise when October 3, 2019, The New York Times published an article5 titled, “In the Pancreas, Common Fungi May Drive Cancer.” The article reported the findings of a study6,7 published in the October 2019 issue of the prestigious Nature journal. According to this study:8

“Bacterial dysbiosis accompanies carcinogenesis in malignancies such as colon and liver cancer, and has recently been implicated in the pathogenesis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). However, the mycobiome has not been clearly implicated in tumorigenesis.

Here we show that fungi migrate from the gut lumen to the pancreas, and that this is implicated in the pathogenesis of PDA. PDA tumors in humans and mouse models of this cancer displayed an increase in fungi of about 3,000-fold compared to normal pancreatic tissue.”

Fungal Microbiome May Play a Role in Pancreatic Cancer

More specifically, the mycobiome (the fungal microbiome) found in pancreatic tumors was distinctly different from the mycobiome found in the gut and in normal pancreases.

According to the researchers, PDA tumors had far greater amounts of a common fungal genus called Malassezia. Killing off the mycobiome with an antifungal drug was found to be protective, slowing down the progression of the tumor. As reported by Medical News Today:9

“The team found that treating mice with a strong antifungal drug called amphotericin B reduced tumor weight by 20–40%. The treatment also reduced ductal dysplasia, an early stage in the development of pancreatic cancer, by 20–30%.

Antifungal treatment also boosted the anticancer power of gemcitabine, a standard chemotherapy drug, by 15–25% …”

On the other hand, repopulating the tumor with Malassezia accelerated tumor growth, except when Candida, Saccharomyces or Aspergillus genera were used. This suggests Malassezia is the main culprit in this kind of cancer. When other genera were included, tumor growth was much slower.

“We also discovered that ligation of mannose-binding lectin (MBL), which binds to glycans of the fungal wall to activate the complement cascade, was required for oncogenic progression, whereas deletion of MBL or C3 in the extratumoral compartment … were both protective against tumor growth,” the authors note,10 concluding that:

“Collectively, our work shows that pathogenic fungi promote PDA by driving the complement cascade through the activation of MBL.”

In summary, the fungi trapped in the pancreas appears to drive tumor growth by activating MBL (mannose-binding lectin), a liver protein that triggers the complement cascade11 — an immune mechanism involved in fighting infections.

The problem is that this mechanism can also promote the growth of cells after the infection has been resolved.12,13 When MBL activation was inhibited, tumor growth was also inhibited.14

Microenvironment Is an Important Consideration

As reported by The New York Times,15 up until very recently, the pancreas was thought to be a sterile organ, which made these findings all the more surprising. The New York Times goes on to state:

“There is increasing scientific consensus that the factors in a tumor’s ‘microenvironment’ are just as important as the genetic factors driving its growth.

‘We have to move from thinking about tumor cells alone to thinking of the whole neighborhood that the tumor lives in,’ said Dr. Brian Wolpin, a gastrointestinal cancer researcher at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

The surrounding healthy tissue, immune cells, collagen and other fibers holding the tumor, as well as the blood vessels feeding it all help support or prevent the growth of the cancer.

Microbes are one more factor to consider in the alphabet soup of factors affecting cancer proliferation. The fungal population in the pancreas may be a good biomarker for who’s at risk for developing cancer, as well as a potential target for future treatments.

‘This is an enormous opportunity for intervention and prevention, which is something we don’t really have for pancreatic cancer,’ said Dr. Christine Iacobuzio-Donahue, a pancreatic cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York.”

That this research is being taken seriously is evidenced by its widespread media coverage. As reported in an accompanying article in Nature News and Views:16

“The mycobiome is a historically under-recognized player in human health and disease, but its role in both is essential. Harmless organisms called commensals, including fungi, inhabit mucosal surfaces such as the linings of the gut, nose and mouth, and can activate inflammatory processes as part of the immune system’s response to injury or infection …

Moreover, it is becoming apparent that there is a relationship between the gut mycobiome and human cancers, including colorectal and esophageal cancer.”

Baking Soda Inhibits Cancer Metastasis

While the featured Nature study did not address the potential use of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate), research17 published in the journal Cancer Research in 2009 did. According to the abstract:18

“The external pH of solid tumors is acidic as a consequence of increased metabolism of glucose and poor perfusion. Acid pH has been shown to stimulate tumor cell invasion and metastasis in vitro and in cells before tail vein injection in vivo.

The present study investigates whether inhibition of this tumor acidity will reduce the incidence of in vivo metastases. Here, we show that oral NaHCO3 selectively increased the pH of tumors and reduced the formation of spontaneous metastases in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer.

This treatment regimen was shown to significantly increase the extracellular pH, but not the intracellular pH, of tumors … NaHCO3 therapy also reduced the rate of lymph node involvement, yet did not affect the levels of circulating tumor cells, suggesting that reduced organ metastases were not due to increased intravasation.

In contrast, NaHCO3 therapy significantly reduced the formation of hepatic metastases following intrasplenic injection, suggesting that it did inhibit extravasation and colonization.”

The authors point out that the extracellular pH of malignant tumors typically ranges between 6.5 and 6.9, whereas normal tissues have an alkaline pH typically ranging between 7.2 and 7.5.

They also cite previous studies showing solid tumors excrete acid and that the spread of cancer cells is stimulated by acidic conditions in the surrounding tissues. The paper also points out that “acid is a byproduct of glucose metabolism,” which ties in with research showing cancer feeds on and is accelerated by a diet high in sugar.

In this experiment, mice injected with cancer cells were given either plain drinking water or water with 200 mmol/L bicarbonate. Calculations suggest the equivalent dose in human terms would be 12.5 grams (0.4 ounces) of bicarbonate per day for an individual weighing 154 pounds or 70 kilos. 

While the bicarbonate therapy had no effect on the rate of growth of the primary tumors, it did significantly reduce the number and size of metastatic tumors in the lungs, intestines and diaphragms, which in turn resulted in improved survival. According to the authors:19

“In the 30-day experiment, pooled data showed that the bicarbonate-treated mice had a total of 147 metastatic lung lesions, whereas the control group had 326 lung lesions. The average lesion diameters were 4.5 ± 0.12 and 5.2 ± 0.14 mm in the NaHCO3 and control groups, respectively.”

Baking Soda Might Not Be as ‘Quack’ as You Thought

In 2012, Mark “Marty” Pagel Ph.D., associate professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Arizona, was given a $2 million grant to investigate whether drinking baking soda water might help patients with breast cancer.20,21

Interestingly, while the use of baking soda in the treatment of cancer has been written off as the worst possible type of quackery by skeptics and critics, the University of Arizona Cancer Center has actually been studying its use for nearly two decades. As reported by Cancer Active in 2017:22

“… in 2003 (Raghunand) they showed how drinking sodium bicarbonate resulted in the alkalization of the area around cancer tumors resulting in a cessation of new metastases23

Further research has shown that sodium bicarbonate had an effect on breast and prostate cancers but had mixed results with other cancers … 2009, Robey et al showed that drinking sodium bicarbonate caused new metastases to stop, whilst injection of Bicarbonate into tumors caused regression of the cancer24

Ed: At CANCERactive we have a simple view that is identical to that of American cancer researcher Ralph Moss. This is research every cancer patient should know about. If drinking sodium bicarbonate can restrict cancer metastases then it should be considered as a part of an Integrated Cancer Treatment Programme, especially if it enhances the action of chemotherapy drugs.”

While Pagel’s team has published a number of studies since then, including one detailing the ways in which extracellular pH can be assessed inside in vivo tumors,25,26 they’ve not yet published anything discussing the use of baking soda as an adjunct to breast cancer treatment.

Baking Soda Found to Improve Cancer Treatment

More recently, a study27 published in 2018 concluded the addition of baking soda can improve the effectiveness of conventional cancer treatments. According to these findings, published in the journal Cell, when tissues are acidic, cancer cells can go dormant, thereby allowing them to hide from the treatment. Lead author Chi Dang told

“Many of the therapies we have — chemotherapy, targeted therapy — work in cells that are actively functioning and dividing. When you awaken cells from a resting state into an active state, they become more vulnerable to cancer therapy.”

This study also found that when pH is low, it disrupts your circadian clock. “Buffering against acidification or inhibiting lactic acid production fully rescues circadian oscillation,” the researchers found.29 Acidification also suppresses mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling, and this too plays a role. According to the authors:

“Restoring mTORC1 signaling and the translation it governs rescues clock oscillation. Our findings thus reveal a model in which acid produced during the cellular metabolic response to hypoxia suppresses the circadian clock through diminished translation of clock constituents.” expounds on the findings:30

“‘What we’ve discovered in this study is that there’s a very rapid mechanism by which low pH, or acid itself, turns off a key toggle in the cells that controls the cell’s ability to make proteins,’ Dang said. In other words, it prevents cells from dividing.

As their processes slow down, the cells go into hibernation, making them invisible to cancer treatments. Dang and his team wanted to see if they could reverse that process, and they came up with a simple solution: neutralizing the acid with baking soda.

They tested their theory by adding baking soda to the drinking water of mice that had been grafted with tumors. ‘What we found is that the areas that were acidic, now are no longer acidic, and they become more active,’ Dang said.

‘So this toggle comes back on, so that cells that are at rest can now be reawakened.’ That allows chemotherapy and other treatments to find and destroy cancer cells … “

acid suspends circadian clock

Source: Cell June 28, 2018; 174(1): 72-87

Cancer Prevention and Treatment Options

While I wouldn’t say the evidence is anywhere near overwhelming, it’s certainly intriguing. Perhaps someday there will be enough evidence to warrant baking soda therapy for the prevention of certain cancers, or as an adjunct to improve the effectiveness of other cancer treatments.

In the meantime, there are many other therapies that have a more solid grounding in science. Among them is the use of nutritional ketosis, which I’ve written about in:

Limiting protein is another strategy that makes a lot of sense, as excessive protein activates mTOR, which plays an important role in cancer development. Other oft-ignored prevention strategies include sun exposure and near-infrared light, which like a ketogenic diet helps structure the water in your cells. This too may be part of the cancer puzzle, according to Dr. Thomas Cowan, author of “Cancer and the New Biology of Water.”

Additional guidance when it comes to diagnosis and treatment can also be found in “The Cancer Revolution: A Helpful Program to Reverse and Prevent Cancer,” which features Dr. Leigh Erin Connealy, and in my interview with Dr. Nasha Winters, a naturopathic physician who specializes in cancer treatment.

Money is a Commodity

By Anna Von Reitz

I keep saying this from time to time, but people also keep missing the point.
Money is a commodity like rice, beans, and soybeans. Nothing more or less.
If you “corner the market” on any commodity, you can control the supply and if you keep the supply below the level of demand for that product, you can keep the “perceived value” of that commodity high. 
When the world had many different competing national currencies, there was a healthy and more or less honest exchange of goods and services.

Gradually, however, the Rothschilds and others controlling the transport of money — like J.D. Rockefeller who made his fortune by controlling the transport of oil — rigged and manipulated the market for money, just like some group might conspire to rig the market for pork bellies or fava beans.

This process culminated in the founding of the Federal Reserve Plan at Jekyll Island, Georgia, during the bankruptcy of the Scottish Commercial Corporation doing business as “The United States of America” — Incorporated.

Basically, what the bankers in control of the transportation of money and a substantial share of the actual gold and silver decided, was to give themselves and all their corporations a Big Break, and load as much of the tax burden (as much as possible at every opportunity) onto the backs of all those ugly little people, the workers and farmers.

They also agreed to make their commodity, money, extremely plentiful for a period of ten years so as to devalue it, and then cut the supply of their commodity—money, — a maneuver we all know as The Great Depression. This enabled the bankers to buy up vast amounts of actual assets for almost nothing.

Make no mistake, this was a criminal conspiracy for purposes of Unjust Enrichment that ultimately caused two World Wars. 
And it went unrecognized and unpunished as a crime.

Now they are doing the same thing again, only their success with these prior schemes has encouraged them to think bigger and to aspire to literally ruling the world by manipulating currencies and especially THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOLLAR known as the USD.

This is a currency fronted by — you guessed it — not our country, but a corporation “representing” itself as something to do with our country, when in fact it is another impostor “trading upon” our credit under False Pretenses.

What these criminals propose to do, is to hyperinflate supplies of the USD by direct counterfeiting of USD in foreign countries and by “Quantitative Easing” which is another form of counterfeiting. Once again we see the same plan in motion— devalue the currency, then cut off supplies, while the schemers claim bankruptcy protection at our expense and skate. 
When the Secondary Creditors come to collect, they will show up on your doorsteps claiming that a municipal franchise corporation named after you owes them hundreds of thousands of dollars. You will look at them. They will look at you. 
Nobody will know that the actual scoundrels set you up and set up those Secondary Creditors, too. 

But, now you know. That is what is going on. A plan by these bankers and politicians to foist their debts off onto innocent people and on equally innocent business partners who have supplied them with everything from jet planes to champagne to wing nuts.

They plan to ride off into the sunset, still in control of the money supply, in possession of all their ill-gotten gains, and sit there, enjoying the show, watching everyone else starve to death and lose their homes and lives for lack of what?

Money, a commodity that the bankers produce just like Exxon produces oil, and which they control the supply of, just like OPEC. 
To avoid the catastrophic “end of the world” that the bankers have planned for 90% of humanity, the military of many nations must wake up, and the politicians must be convinced that their lives are on the line, which they are— because if the banker’s “end of the world” scenario doesn’t kill them, the rest of us surely will. 
And all of this is over nothing. It’s over chits, like poker chips– “symbols” of value. 
The only reason it is even a serious threat, is that people don’t realize that “money” is a commodity like Oreo Cookies, so don’t pay attention to what the bankers are doing and don’t ride herd on the bankers and don’t hold the bankers feet first to the fire for their crimes. 
Let me suggest that all those people in Washington, DC are either (a) complicit in this crime; or (b) too clueless to live. This has been coming at us for at least five decades, and now, it has arrived.

The US, Russian, and Chinese military all sit around on their thumbs because they have been paid off with peanuts to do nothing. The idiot “Dems” and “Republicans” provide a sideshow entertainment to keep public attention distracted away from the hyperinflation that is stealing the value of the digits in your bank accounts and IRAs. 
They are too banal and self-satisfied to realize that they are the intended scapegoats.

And the Pope, who occupies “the” position that is most responsible for all this greed and guile and cruelty and criminality, does nothing at all. Perhaps he thinks he will survive the debacle that his lack of decisive action against the banks is allowing.

And now, it comes down to me and you. What are we going to do, besides wising up? 
I encourage you to join your State Assembly and to do so as quickly as possible.

I encourage you to support your lawful government, The United States of America, with might and main, with prayers and with pennies. 
This is a completely ridiculous situation but we are ham-strung by a doltish misdirected military and corrupt politicians. Unless this situation is promptly rectified, the entire world will suffer needlessly because criminals have been left in charge of money supplies and they have not been adequately recognized as the cause of the problems they are creating. 
They’ve gotten away with these “games” in the past, and see no reason why they shouldn’t get away with another round. Let’s let them know that we know what “money” is — whether it is paper, gold, or plastic.  And we know who to hold responsible.


See this article and over 2000 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

Your brain doesn’t stop growing – even in your 90s

(Natural News) Some experts believe that the brain stops producing new brain cells after childhood — but that’s not the case, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Medicine. This study suggests that the brain continues to grow even in your 90s. Researchers from Spain reached this conclusion after looking at the…