posted June 29, 2010 07:25 PM         

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."

But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").

Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is "normal" when it comes to foods?
I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!

Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green
It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.

That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...

Sources for this story include: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...

posted June 29, 2010 07:52 PM         

i didn't see anything about outlawing broccoli, it does seem they are talking about extreme cases where people are so paranoid about food that they don't eat enough...

nor do i see anyone from the medical profession shrieking about the fact that the obamas have planted an organic kitchen garden at the white house..

i think it is possible to worry too much about the establishment.

Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods. i think this is stretching the truth too. spiritual awareness has been attained by people on their deathbeds, on junk food or close, and on healthy food too. it is not exclusive to foodies (which is what they call people who are extra-interested in what they eat where i live).

did you write the article, or find it somewhere? i'd love the source...

posted June 29, 2010 08:10 PM         

quote:

---

Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods. i think this is stretching the truth too. spiritual awareness has been attained by people on their deathbeds, on junk food or close, and on healthy food too. it is not exclusive to foodies

---

posted June 29, 2010 10:58 PM         

for some reason this reminds me of a blurb put out by some green association that has spots on one of the radio stations i listen to...a little chat about how the saliva of ticks appears to be great medicine for destroying cancer cells...and how we should be careful not to destroy nature because "even tick spit serves a purpose"...of course it also carries lyme disease if you pick the wrong tick but let's never mind about that!

posted June 29, 2010 11:30 PM         

Yeah, it beats me too.

did you catch this one?:

"One result of this is that yoga is getting a bad rap, as a culture of Yogier-Than-Thou, which has people running back to the gym in droves. No one wants to be made to feel like a lesser being, especially while already lurching around in Tree Pose like a drunken sailor. "

posted June 30, 2010 02:49 AM         

But with that said, the general vibe of the article is very good, and on the right track, although the author could have toned down some of his own conclusions. I could have written it better, there is a potential to spark much disagreement taking away the point of the article.

The article is from www.naturalnews.com
I think it was featured yesterday.

posted June 30, 2010 10:08 AM         

It's unbelievable, and, yet,
it's highly predictable, too.

This culture is so backwards that
when you try to live in balance with Nature,
and promote a naturally balanced perspective,
you're labeled an extremist, or mentally ill.
It's really amazing so many don't see it.

As for eating and spirituality:

Eating healthy is one factor
contributing to spiritual health.

Not everyone who eats healthy
will be more spiritual than
everybody who doesn't.

But, a person who eats healthy
will be more spiritual than
that person would have been if
they'd not eaten healthy.

Linda Goodman, for instance,
could have reached new heights
on a truly healthy diet.

The same could be said for yoga.

posted June 30, 2010 10:17 AM         

The Three Gunas

Sattvic foods :

* Are fresh, juicy, light, unctuous, nourishing, sweet and tasty.
* Give the necessary energy to the body without taxing it.
* The foundation of higher states of consciousness.
* Examples : juicy fruits, fresh vegetables that are easily digestible, fresh (raw) milk and butter, whole soaked or also sprouted beans, grains and nuts, many herbs and spices in the right combinations with other foods,…

Rajasic foods :

* Are bitter, sour, salty, pungent, hot and dry.
* Increase the speed and excitement of the human organism.
* The foundation of motion, activity and pain.
* Examples : sattvic foods that have been fried in oil or cooked too much or eaten in excess, specific foods and spices that are strongly exciting

Tamasic Foods :

* Are dry, old, decaying, distasteful and/or unpalatable.
* Consume a large amount of energy while being digested.
* The foundation of ignorance, doubt, pessimism, …
* Examples : foods that have been strongly processed, canned or frozen and/or are old, stale or incompatible with each other - meat, fish, eggs and liquor are especially tamasic.

Saints and seers can survive easily on sattvic foods alone. Householders that live in the world and have to keep pace with its' changes also need rajasic energy. They ought to keep a balance between the sattvic and rajasic foods and try to avoid tamasic foods as much as possible.

posted June 30, 2010 11:09 AM         

Anything can be taken to excess,
and consequently become a disorder.
Nobody is denying that for a second.

But what appears excessive to some
may in fact be perfectly reasonable,
under the circumstances.

The article SunChild showed us
wasn't about people becoming sick.
It was about labeling people sick
who are perfectly healthy.

Certainly, foolish people are going to
end up malnourishing themselves, whether
they focus on eating healthy or not.

There are a lot of claims about what
is or is not healthy, and you have
to be a smart consumer, right?

Is being stupid a disorder now?

No, I didn't read the other article.
But I've read about Ayurveda before.

I don't know how skilled that guy is.
He reported the basics correctly,
and that's what I quoted.

posted June 30, 2010 08:40 PM         

I respectfully disagree, Kat.

This is bigger than you realize.

Apricot Seeds
(containing high amounts of B-17,
an extremely popular cancer remedy)
banned by the FDA:

http://www.experts123.com/q/why-is-b17-apricot- seeds-and-laetrile-banned-in-the-usa-by-the-food-and-drug-administrationfda.html

quote:

---

Apricot kernels and cancer:
© What Doctors Don't Tell You

One reader wanted to know if apricot kernels really were a cancer fighter. It's a subject that's been raised before and, once again, many readers point to the work of Philip Day, and his research into the subject, which is encapsulated in his book 'Cancer: Why we're still dying to know the truth' (see: http://www.credence.org). One reader explains that apricot kernels contain vitamin B17, which is also known as laetrile or amygdalin. They're used as metabolic therapy in clinics. It's been recommended to eat 10 kernels a day as a preventative, and 40 as a therapy. They have a very bitter taste, and that's because of the cyanide in them. Readers assure us that the cyanide is inert, and can cause no harm - a view not shared by regulators in Australia, where they have been banned, according to one of our readers in New South Wales. A herbalist in New York tells us that our healthy cells have an enzyme that helps protect them from the cyanide, but cancer cells don't have the enzyme and so get zapped by the cyanide. It certainly seemed to work for one reader, who went for treatment at the Oasis of Hope clinic in Mexico. The therapy was mainly dietary, and focused on daily treatment with B17, vitamin C and other chelation infusions, plus the occasional colonic/coffee enema. Another reader stresses the importance of diet in relation to B17 therapy. He believes that cancer can be associated with a lack of two pancreatic enzymes and B17. While we produce the two enzymes naturally, we also use them to help digest animal protein, and so it's important to follow a vegan diet while supplementing with B17. The vitamin is found in the kernels and seeds of many non-citrus fruits, such as cherries, nectarines, peaches, plums and apples, although its highest concentration is found in apricot kernels.
http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.aspx?Id=2593

---

posted June 30, 2010 08:52 PM         

quote:

---

Anything can be taken to excess,
and consequently become a disorder.
Nobody is denying that for a second.

---

Nobody here is denying that eating healthy isn good for you either.

But for some people who obsess over everything they put in their mouth, it can be. Some go so far as to make themselves sick over it, the opposite of what they desire to do. That's the disorder part. And I know someone with a disorder of this nature. Whatever you want to call it. It aint pretty.

posted June 30, 2010 08:52 PM         

Since around 1920, practitioners of alternative cancer therapies and remedies and their messengers have been marginalized, harassed, imprisoned, and even killed. Federal agencies have been used to bring about bogus charges or IRS tax liens that are enforced by US Marshals the way Dr. Gary Glum was hassled for even writing books on Essiac Tea. See Natural News article "Essiac Tea: A Cancer Cure Big Pharma Doesn't Want You To Know About." http://www.naturalnews.com/026928_c....

A young Brooklyn man, Jason Vale, was imprisoned because he refused to stop telling others on TV and in lectures how he cured himself of cancer using those nasty apricot pit kernels! Jason is a more recent public example of the Medical Mafia's grip on the legal system regarding B17. Laetrile, which is non toxic, was banned by the FDA in 1971.

Shortly after the 1971 laetrile ban, a practicing physician in San Francisco, Dr. John Richardson, who had been using laetrile successfully on cancer patients, came to his friend G. Edward Griffin, a published investigative journalist, and asked Griffin if he could write up something to help him and others continue using laetrile on their cancer patients.

G. Edward Griffin's research evolved into his groundbreaking book, World Without Cancer. This book not only explained laetrile and chronicled several cancer cures, but Griffin's investigative nose led him down the rabbit hole and into the underbelly of the cancer industry's efforts at keeping alternative cancer cures from the light of day. That's how he discovered that the Sloane-Kettering Cancer Institute had buried documentation from scientists' research, which proved laetrile was "highly effective" at curing cancer.

Griffin received those documents himself from a Dr. Ralph Moss, who had been told to cover up that evidence and claim that laetrile was worthless. He refused and left his position as PR manager with Sloane-Kettering. Since that time in 1977, Dr. Ralph Moss has gone on to write or edit several books on cancer cure options. It's always encouraging to see an insider come out! Someone else filled Dr. Moss's vacant position and lied the lies about laetrile that filled the medical journals.

And what about those medical journals? Lately, the most prestigious New England Journal of Medicine dropped its standard of not allowing articles contributed to the journal from anyone who was receiving money from Big Pharma, as long as it's less than 10 grand annually. If they didn't drop that standard, there wouldn't be enough articles to fill the journal! Of course, most medical journals are glossy ad forums for Big Pharma anyway.

Both G. Edward Griffin with World Without Cancer and Phillip Day in his book Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth, make it very clear that the cancer industry does not really want a cure. Even non-profit organizations get millions in donations from the brainwashed, huddled masses along with funding for promoting Big Pharma. A non-profit organization can and will have key people working for 6 figure plus annual salaries, by the way.

Doctors mostly do as they are trained and told; medical journals contain false reports and lies. Cancer foundations have breast cancer months or whatever as PR to get people into the disease industry's money mill as early as possible, and at the top, there is Big Pharma. It's all about money and career. Not about public health and "The War on Cancer."

So far in mainstream medicine, it's been a losing battle with more getting cancer than ever. Around 1 out of 3 is destined to get cancer these days, and more are dying from cancer after conventional treatments. Talk about pandemics! All this with lots of cash going their way, enabling some to live a lush lifestyle and others hanging on to their comfy, secure jobs at the expense of our health.

Meanwhile, too many true humanitarian doctors and herbalists and writers concerned with the truth wind up being treated like criminals or nut cases, sometimes with their lives destroyed. That's tragic. And so is the fact that millions suffer and die while being conditioned against using effective and less painless procedures.

posted June 30, 2010 09:02 PM         

You're asking for it, huh?
Okay, here we go...

posted June 30, 2010 09:09 PM         

And "asking for it"? Get a grip.

posted June 30, 2010 09:22 PM         

Sorry, I didnt feel like you held a mirror up to me...

posted June 30, 2010 09:38 PM         

But you didn't judge me, huh?
I'm the only one judging, right?

Because I say people are close-minded
when they trample the cure for cancer
and say they want to "execute" me?

Because I say they lack compassion
when they contribute to animal torture?
Didn't Buddha say the same thing?

posted June 30, 2010 09:44 PM         

quote:

---

Whatever. You put me in this mood.
Take responsibility for something.

---