Too Much Hygiene Is Making Us Sick... Yeah Right

Don't you just love some of the "claims" that comes out of so-called scientists. And this is one that really takes the cake.

Some bofin reckons that our super-hygienic lives (anti-bacterial soaps, shampoos and lotions, filtered air and water, and disinfecting cleaning products) don't give our immune system enough to do. And as a result, our immune system doesn't develop as it should, and doesn't learn how to fight all the bugs it needs to. With the result being that, when we get a bug we are more likely to get sick. And this is supposedly evidenced by the ever increasing sickness people seem to have.

As usual, I have a different and more-realistic conclusion.

IF we are indeed suffering more sickness - and this could be true - it is NOT due to leading hygienic lives. It is due to the increased use of immune-system-hampering chemicals in our lives - and - the increased consumption of moldy food stuffs, as mold is a well-known immune system suppressor.

So while the so-called scientist says the chemicals used to kill germs doesn't give our immune system enough to do and so it gets weaker, I say, the chemicals used to kill germs are being ingested by us and overloading our immune system - giving it too much to do - and so it cannot effectively deal with the germs that enter the body.

The moldy food comes into play due to our increased consumption of bread and other processed foods loaded with sugar. Often, the sugar is used to help mask the fact the food in a can or whatnot has gone moldy. Wheat silos are sprayed with anti-mold chemicals - some of which DO get into the flour, as a matter of course throughout the processing - and some wheat doesn't get the chemical on it allowing mold to grow at will. This wheat is then turned into bread - and - placed in air-tight plastic bags, which is just how mold likes it - air-tight with moisture.

Don't believe me? Next time you buy bread, buy two loaves. Eat one and leave the other one on the counter or in your fridge for a week. Notice how it goes moldy. Which doesn't mean it "goes moldy". It means the mold that was already on it, has now grown enough so you can see it. It was there all along. It is just that it wasn't large enough for you to see.

Mold is VERY difficult for the body to deal with. Breathing in mold spore does cause illness in adults and children alike. There are countless documented cases of widespread illness being traced back to mold growing in the home - specially after prolonged rain or flooding. I have heard that it says in the Christian's bible back in the Moses or Noah days, that if the house you live in gets mold to burn it down. It has been established scientifically that one of the seven plagues of Egypt - the one that killed the first borns - was due to mold. And it happened like so...

The harvest had taken place. The grain had been stored. And then the "flood/rain" happened. This got the grains wet and not used, long enough to allow mold to begin growing - specially on the outside layers of grain. As was the custom on those days, after such periods the first borns - who were usually the strongest and heirs - were given the first food stuffs available. And that meant the top most layers of grain - which were the moldy layers. The animals and humans were fed this moldy grain and subsequently died due to the mold ingested.

Some scientists describe mold's effect on our immune system as gagging it. Though, regardless of how you call it, mold hampers our immune system reducing its ability to function adequately. So when it is trying to defeat the mold that keeps being consumed and also the chemicals that are also continually consumed, it is no wonder we get sick.

And when we do get sick, and our body tries to fight it, we then take an anti-biotic (anti-biotic means anti-life). So now our body has to also deal with the pill we took, because it is a foreign substance too.

Let me give you an example of chemical overload and how easily we put it into our lives...

A few years ago I had a client who was serviced every couple of months. And every time I was in their house - every single time - my throat used to become agitated. And the reason was, they had these plug-in air-fresheners. Where there is a small reservoir of fragrant oil which is gradually heated into gaseous form and goes into the air. We then breathe this fragrant chemical in. And in my case, it agitated my throat.

Anyway. One day she asked me to look at one of their windows to see if I knew what the odd fog-like substance was - there was something on the glass which made the glass look like how a car window is fogged over on cold days from the warm breath inside. And I traced it to her anti-mosquito plug-in pesticide burner next to the window. They had only had this thing for a month and that day my throat was particularly bad. Which isn't surprising considering she was putting a pesticide into the air.

I noticed she was walking around with a tissue in hand - something she had always done - because she had a constantly runny nose. To me, that was a sign her mucus linings were being agitated by the chemicals in the air. And I told her as much - based on how my throat was being extremely agitated by my brief time in her place. She denied it and said she just "had a cold."

She moved a couple of months later into a larger home. And in that home the chemical in the air was worse, because she had the plug-in air-fresheners in EVERY room. And on top of that, she had the place shut up tight. Not a window open in the joint. It was that bad I had to open windows and stand next to them to get a breath of uncontaminated air, and to hopefully dilute the fragrant chemical in the air.

In the new place she was still walking around with a tissue and constantly blowing her nose. Her dogs, of which she had two, and which were always locked inside breathing the chemicals, were in bad states of health.

A couple of months later when I went back, she was laid up sick in bed with her "cold". And she never recovered. She kept going down hill until she died. (You see how you feel after breathing in pesticide and fragrant chemicals 24/7. I bet you'll go down hill too. After all, if the chemical in the air can kill a mosquito, what is it doing to us!?)

I know a family whose three kids ALL suffered from "asthma." They lived near an experimental farm. Where new farm practices and chemical fertilizers and the like were tested. When they moved away, miraculously the asthma in ALL their children went completely away never to return.

There is a new product on the domestic market - which has been available for years in the commercial market - that puts a measured spray of air-freshener into the air every X number of minutes. Meaning, you will have chemical in the air you breathe in your home, all the time. You will not be free of it unless you go outside. You will spend 8 hours sleeping in it. You WILL get sick. And some dork of a scientist will say it is due to sterilizing your hands or being too hygienic and not letting your immune system do its job and get strong by doing its job.

Animals are smarter than people. To prove it, get a large plastic container. The kind people store things in. Now put a small hole on the side near the bottom. A hole a pen could fit through. Now go to the pet store and buy a mouse and put it in the container. And now spray air-freshener into the container. Or light an incense stick, put it in a corner and put the lid back on.

Here is what will happen: In an effort to get good clean air, the mouse will run to the hole and stick it's nose out and breathe the air outside of the container. The mouse will NOT have to be taught this. It will do it all by itself.

And yet, people are the complete opposite. We deliberately put smelly chemicals into the air we breathe. Then wonder why we get breathing problems or general illness due to a chronic lack of oxygen getting into our bodies, and getting chemicals into our blood via our lungs and skin.

Of course, we also get chemicals into us from processed foods. Yep innocent numbers are not so innocent. And you can prove it to yourself.

Visit your local supermarket with a pen and paper - or go through your pantry - and jot down the chemical numbers on the food products. Preservative 220, 442, etc. Then do a Google for "MSDS 220" or whatever number you have. Also do a search for "Material Safety Data Sheet 220" or whatever number you have.

What you will find are the safety directions related to that chemical - and - its side effects. And you will find out such things as, the chemical in coconut cream/milk is a blood oxygen inhibitor. It can stop oxygen getting into the blood. Can cause asthma. And other nasty stuff - even death!!! And yet, this is in our food. And when we consume it our immune system has to deal with it.

We breathe the chemicals in, eat them and drink them. And do so while also eating moldy food. THIS is what messes with our immune system enabling us to get sick easier. NOT being too clean and hygienic.

Labels Are Dangerous

We live in a world of labels. Many of them self-imposed. And the end result is, we often think of ourselves as the label.

An example would be stuttering. Those who stutter consider themselves to BE stutterers instead of someone who stutters on occasion. They are their ailment, in their own eyes. And having accepted that, they will continue to stutter - because that is what stutterers do.

The same applies to alcoholics. "I am an alcoholic" those who attend the meetings say. Even if they haven't had a drink in eight or nine years. How stupid is that? If they do not drink they are NOT alcoholics. They are people who do not drink alcohol - like myself. And I wouldn't walk around calling myself an alcoholic when I don't drink. To do so would be stupid.

People who speed are known as Speeders. This implies a state that is unchanging. Like being a Caucasian or Asian. They are speeders and so speed, because that is what speeders do.

Perhaps one of the more dangerous areas of labels is in politics.

I call people lefties and leftists because it is an easy way for me to group people together. As those people tend to exhibit certain similar traits - such as wanting a more socialist system in place, a system that removes individual freedoms and responsibility. But it is how people view themselves, that holds the dangers.

For instance: I call myself a "right leaning libertarian". I do this NOT because that is what I am, but because other people have this need to categorize things. And to help them in that process I give them a label that is close to something they can understand.

See. A libertarian, as most people understand it to be, is someone who could belong to the libertarian party. However, that implies the existence of a govt, even if it is limited. I am anti-govt. Which is to say, I do not believe in a govt; I don't believe they are necessary for society to function.

I add "right leaning" to indicate that I believe in personal responsibility and that changes should only happen when necessary, and not just for the sake of it, as the left seems to do. It also indicates I am not for a free-for-all society without morals - as being a libertarian could imply. Because to my mix I would have to add "Objectivist" and a person that believes through-out self-interest is a good thing.

In short, much of my take goes AGAINST the standard libertarian view point. I am just me, with my own thoughts.

However, those on the right, for example, might change their thoughts to match their label.

Take abortion, as an example. It is widely held that conservatives - and people on the right - are anti-abortion (pro-life; anti-death). BUT, I am certain, some on the conservative right WOULD think abortion is ok as a choice, and not just for medical emergencies. That they view themselves as a conservative and conservatives are pro-life, they will be under great pressure to conform to the label... to change their mind about things so they fit the label.

And that is the danger. People fight against their natural disposition to try to fit a label. They try to BE a conservative instead of someone with some conservative thoughts. And this can play havoc with your mind. Can lead you into hypocritical actions and thoughts.

It's like people walk around calling themselves Christian. Then do the most unChristian things you can imagine - like molesting children. It would be better if they simple said they were people who followed some of Jesus' teaching and not all of them. It would be more truthful.

The guy at my local fruit & veg store asked me WHAT I was - as in nationality/ethnicity. I told him, "I am a human. I am an entity. I live on a planet known as Earth." We chat sometimes. I think I fascinate him as he can't figure me out, and is spun out when I tell him something that should be obvious to everyone, but isn't.

I do NOT view myself as an Australian. I view myself as a person who currently lives in a country called Australia. Hence, I have no national pride. Because I don't deem myself to be a part of a nation - any nation.

Many people would not be able to comprehend this. And that is fine. They will also be the first to label themselves as something - their job, the suburb, whatever. And maybe, after all this labeling, will go on a retreat into the bush to help "find themselves." Then they might give themselves a new label - a new ager. HA!

There is a difference between BEING a label and being a person who does some things associated with that label. And the difference can be subtle.

Let me ask you a question... do you want one million dollars - or - would you rather be a millionaire?

There is a difference. Can you see it? You can BE a millionaire - or - you can BE someone who wants a million dollars. And if you choose the latter, then you will always remain someone who wants a million dollars. If you choose the former, then you will begin a journey to become the millionaire you say you want to BE.

And this is the power of labels... and why they can be dangerous. What label are you?

Get Ready, Cause Here I Come, $4,500 Extra Tax A Year Is Fun

Have you heard the good news? The Australian govt wants to increase taxes by an ADDITIONAL $4,500 a year to cover the cost of aged care. Of course, they are quick to add that by the year 2044 when this would be fully in force, our average incomes will have risen by $35,000 a year and so this tax will only take about 15% of that. However, they fail to also mention that, by then, we will be earning so much and be on the highest tax bracket which takes about 50% of the income, that of that additional $35,000 earned, we might only get to keep $13,000 of it - with the rest going in silly taxes!

I think it's interesting to see the govt's mind-set on this. They are talking about increasing taxes instead of, encouraging people to save and build wealth so they can fund their own aged care.

Also, they are not mentioning that those who will be on aged care in 2044 are 26 years old today!

It has been proposed that "having babies" could be one solution to the future problem. But the govt knocked this on the head. Which, at first glance, seems understandable. As it is too long before babies are productive members. BUT, when you give it a couple of seconds thought, you realize the govt is full of bullshit. Because they are saying, having a bunch of babies NOW, will NOT add additional taxes to the kitty in 40 years time. And that just ain't so. It WILL add additional tax to the kitty. In fact, it will have added additional tax for around 20 years before the burden comes around.

It has been suggest to allow more migrants into the country. And the govt also knocked this on the head. They claim, it would take an immigration number close to 500,000 a year, with a total population of 80 million people in 2044 to solve the problem. And that would mean a 500% increase in the current immigration numbers of 100,000 a year. And is greatly above the estimated population of 28 million by 2044.

In short, the solution of having more people in the country, which would provide more tax dollars and thus fund this "problem," have been knocked on the head.

The concept of encouraging people to "save" for their retirement and aged care, is being ignored. The underlying message is that you do NOT need to prepare for the future because the govt will take care of you by taxing the heck out of those who are working in 2044.

How much? Well... the govt reckons there are currently a little over 5 workers for every person on aged care. But by 2044 there will only be about 2.4 workers for those on aged care. And so those 2.4 will be a life-support system (a wallet, if you will) for irresponsible people who didn't prepare for their future.

If this is in the works NOW, it tells me NOW is also the time to start making plans to leave Australia - if you live here. Otherwise, you will be sucked dry to keep old people alive who couldn't be bothered preparing for their own future. And, quite frankly, be buggered if I will be a party to that. We already support enough bludgers on the welfare system as it is, without being FORCED to give up more of my effort for the care of a bunch of old and irresponsible people. I am already forced to fund their ambulance trips. Be stuffed if the govt thinks I will fund the rest of their "care."

If you are interested in breaking free of daddy govts and their humongous taxes, then check out Sovereign Life for the tools and information you need to free yourself of the heavy tax burdens daddy govt wants to impose on you.

Interestingly, the govt can see this "problem" coming. So my question is, why do the tax payers have to pay more for it, instead of the govt better managing the money they already suck out of us for this purpose?

Could it be just another "excuse" for a money grab? Like my being forced to pay Ambulance tax under threat of loss of electricity supply.

I don't know. To me it makes more sense to teach people how to prepare for their older years. But then again, if the govt did that then people wouldn't be dependent on the govt. And they might come to realize they don't need a govt at all. But this way, the govt kind of forces dependence onto us.

For me, I think it would be wise for us to vote with our feet. If that means leaving the high-tax country Australia will become, then so be it. If that means those left behind will have to pay even more taxes, then so be it. They can leave too, if they want. Unless all international travel is banned due to the War of Terror.

So far, after this announcement, I haven't seen or heard too much outrage at it. Makes me wonder if the govt has asked the press not to make a big deal out of an additional $4,500 tax being forced onto the people. Or maybe, this is just the kind of thing the lefty press want... more forced social welfare.

Left is Right and Vice Versa

The political left hates the political right and the political right hates the political left. But they are really the SAME side of the same coin, only viewed from different angles.

Consider the left... associated with socialism, leading to communism and ultimately some kind of dictatorial like state.

Consider the right... associated with capitalism, leading to tighter and tighter controls, fascism and some kind of dictatorial like state.

Both want to impose their doctrine onto the public. With neither doctrine seeing the public actually free.

Both increase taxes - even when they decrease them, other taxes are increased to make up for it. Effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Both only ever create an increase in govt and govt spending.

Both make new rules and laws to keep us in check.

They may disagree on certain things. But it is often only the degree which they disagree on, and not the thing itself.

Take Australia's involvement in Iraq. The main disagreement is really a matter of WHEN our troops come home. The left, knowing they can get free publicity out of it and that it is not possible, want our troops home soon. The right want them home when the job is done. So both sides want them home with only the time difference varying.

The right "claim" to want to decrease welfare. And put in place "work for the dole" schemes. The left dislike these schemes and don't want a decrease in welfare - unless - certain conditions are met, such as testing the means of the welfare recipient. Notice that neither side is willing to abolish welfare at all. They are both quite happy to take our money and give it to other people. Only the degree varies.

The right "claim" to want a smaller govt. But in their push for "progress" and ever more controls, we need more govt to oversee it all. The left like more govt as their push for ever more departments and committees and the like reveals. The result is the same... more govt. Only the degree varies.

The right and left aren't really that different from each other. But they do play the part well.

Recently, George Bush senior and Bill Clinton have been seen together. And they appear to be getting along great guns. These two political adversaries are chummy chum with each other as if they have been buddies the whole time. Odd, isn't it?

Pauline Hanson threatened to upset that applecart in Australia. Both parties attacked her. Accused her and her party of all kinds of things. Even got her sent to jail. Only the degree of their hate for her varied.

Honest Politician has to be an oxymoron. Which is why I call them all "Lying Bastards." It is in their nature to lie. They have to. To keep up the charade that there are two opposing political forces in action, when really there aren't any. For if it became apparent to the people they have no choice, the people might rebel and oust the govt.

Someone said Ross Perot would make a good president. And if he ran the govt like a business I am sure he would. However, he would be stepping on too many toes in the process. So he becoming president could not be allowed. And we are left with Democrat and Republican.

Dubbya and Kerry are supposed to be both Skull and Bones men. No matter who would be elected you got a Skull and Bones man at the helm, the only difference was in the degree of the disagreement.

Dubbya and Kerry agreed on homosexuals getting together as legal couples. Only the method of that union varied.

Despite what the press said, both were in favor of stem cell research. Only the degree of freedom in that research varied.

But we are presented with a picture of two opposing forces. The left and the right. The reality is, we have one force wearing two different masks. The result of all their actions is the same. Only the degree varies. And that variance is often only slight.

Come election time our choice is...

Party A who will only kick us in the guts 7 times a week

And...

Party B who will kick us in the guts 8 times a week, but only softly.

In essence, each party tries to get us to vote for them by telling us they will kick us in the guts less than the other party. No party ever promises to NOT kick us in the guts. Thus, the left/right game is a good distraction to divert our attention away from the truth - that we don't really have a choice, only the appearance of choice.

Which Food Fad Has Infected Your Brain?

It seems that every year or so there is another food fad, or version of a food fad. And as I look at the fads in turn, not any of them actually address the "problem" they claim to address. And often, they make the problem worse.

Take the "No Fat" craze. It's logic was simple... to stop being a fatty, don't eat fat. After all, fat has loads of calories.

On the surface this seemed to make sense. To reduce the amount of calories consumed, eat less of the food high in calories. And fat has the highest calories of all.

What was ignored was... fat makes us feel satisfied/full. So we would tend to eat less of it as a matter of course.

So. Instead of eating fat, people went for the carbo-loaded foods. And felt good about doing it because they weren't eating fat. But little did they realize, they were eating the worst thing they could... dense carbohydrate.

Dense carbohydrate is a "no no" because it is easily and rapidly turned into glucose. Which raises the blood sugar levels. Insulin kicks in to get it out of the blood. And in so doing it is stored as... fat!

But because no fat was being consumed, feeling full was not accomplished when eating the dense carbo foods. And as the glucose spike was so high, and the insulin response equally high, too much glucose was stored as fat, leading to a too-low level of glucose in the blood. So the body would crave a dense carbo food to rectify the situation. And here we go again... another glucose spike followed by an insulin reaction storing the excess as fat.

So as people went off foods with fats, they increased their consumption of dense carbo foods, which made them fat.

We had the "no salt" fad too.

Interestingly, if you eat a salty food you feel thirsty. The reason is, your body takes fluid from itself and sends it to the stomach to help dilute the salt. You thus feel thirsty and so drink water... water which your body will also use to help dilute the salt and replace the fluids it sent to the stomach to dilute the salt.

But there is really only so much salt which you can eat. At a point you will not feel like anything with salt in it at all. So by removing the salt in those dense carbo foods, to cater to people's sudden dislike for salt, the consumer was able to eat more of the food.

We had the "natural" fad. Everything had to be "natural". And companies were quick to tell us how natural their products were. Problem was, they reckoned that sugar was natural. So you'd see the most sugar-loaded food you could think of being passed off as natural. And people bought in droves. And ate in bigger droves because it was natural.

But because it contained loads of sugar and other processed foods that were called natural and which were dense carbs, people put on even more weight. (It's like the Natural Confectionery Company - sugar in the form of candy but called natural.)

It was fat free, had no salt and was natural. Yet eating it sent the insulin response into overdrive and the excess energy that was hitting the body in waves and in amounts far greater than the body could use, was stored as fat. People got fatter! And over time the insulin response got weaker from over-use and diabetes was the result.

And because of the increase in sugar consumption, calcium was being leeched out of our bones to process the sugar. Making our bones weaker.

Next we have the "no sugar" fad. And again we see the problem not being addressed.

So the food has no sugar. Instead it has the poison called aspartame (see www.dorway.com for extensive information about the health dangers of aspartame).

Anyway. Without sugar, people felt they could eats lots of it. It had no sugar, was fat free, had no salt and was called natural. Thus, it was consumed by the bucket full. And people got fatter.

Then we have the "no hydrogenated oil" fad. And while I commend the push to educate people about these types of oil, I feel it is a wasted effort unless full nutritional education is also given. Otherwise we will have people consuming foods by the plate full simple because it doesn't have any "bad fat."

No fat, no sugar, natural, no salt, no hydrogenated oil. BUT, the darn food is so loaded with dense carbs its not funny.

Then we have the small glimmer of hope... the GI index... an index designed to let us know which foods are high on the list, and which will therefore send glucose/insulin response into over-drive.

The problem with this index is the terminology used... Low GI, Medium GI, High GI. And also, that the GI level can change with cooking. And you must consider the GI Load (the available carbo within the food multiplied by the volume of food consumed)!

What this means is, manufacturers can claim their food is low GI, as it is. But seeing as the food needs to be cooked, then the GI rating can change from low to high. And if the available carbs within the food are fully available, then the GI Load will be high as well. Totally negating any benefit you thought you were getting by eating low GI.

In other words, manufacturers are playing around with the term "Low GI" just like they play around with the word "Natural."

We have the Vegetarian fad. This one is really dangerous because those on it think they are eating healthy by avoiding meat, but could be consuming increased amounts of other toxins and the like.

For instance, I saw a woman who was vegetarian but hated vegetables. She lived on breads, cakes, chocolate, potato chips and so on. Drank liquid candy (Coke, Pepsi, etc.). Ate ice-cream. Pasta with rich sauces. And generally was eating garbage food.

One thing the vegetarians - and vegans - can get tricked into eating is tofu. Tofu comes from soy and as a result is not good for them. And seeing as they don't eat meat, they make up for it by eating loads of tofu and other soy products.

Without getting into the full range of things soy does to us - which you can check out for yourself by visiting www.soyonlineservice.co.nz - all you need to know is that it interferes with the thyroid. As that helps increase or decrease metabolism, a slowed down thyroid can lead to slow metabolism and a tendency to gain weight and difficulties in burning it off.

Which brings us to the soy fad...

The biggest pushers of soy as a wonder product are the soy makers.

For instance, the Independent Soy Association (or whatever they are called) in Australia, is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church who also owns Sanitarium, the largest seller of soy milk and other soy products in Australia!!! (Can you say "conflict of interest"?)

Soy flour is in ALL bread. So not only do you get a dense carb likely to cause an insulin spike and store the energy from the bread as fat, you are also consuming at the same time, a substance which prevents your body from burning off that fat. Double whammy!!

Ok. Time for a rehash... so far we have covered...

No fat
No sugar
No salt
Low GI
Bad oils
Vegetariansm/Veganism
Soy
Natural foods when they aren't.
Carbo Loading for energy

Now let's move onto the diets...

Without getting into the various diets, of which there are many, they all seem to advocate a higher protein intake. The logic is simple... eating protein does NOT cause an insulin spike. So if you have no high levels of insulin in the blood telling the body to store energy, it will be easier for your body to burn the excess fat off.

This actually does work. And it works wonders. Fat does burn off rather fast with only moderate amounts of physical activity. The problem is, you are eating a hard-to-digest food loaded with pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, bacteria and viruses. So what can happen is this...

The immune system has to deal with the chemicals in the meat. While it is busy doing this, the bacteria from the meat can multiply and hamper an already overrun immune system. The antibiotics kill our good bacteria and the hormones interfere with our natural hormonal system. But hey, you will burn off fat. And possibly have bad breath too - if eating total meat only.

As the meat is hard to digest, it puts an undue amount of pressure on the digestive system. But our "regularity" may pay a high price, as we have rotting decaying meat in us for a longer period of time.

During all this food fad stuff, there are some fundamentals which would do people much better. One is simply this... if the food is NOT as nature provided, do not buy it.

If people followed this alone, they would be forced to eat low carb, high nutrient, quality foods without artificial chemicals and additives in them. Their health would improve as a matter of course. And there would be no need to buy the latest fad book, or course of fat burning pills.

You could call it HI (Human Interference). The greater the HI, the less of it we should buy. If you want to "process" food - liquefy it, juice it, blend it, cook it, whatever - then YOU do it yourself from fresh ingredients. I guarantee you will burn off excess weight and cease the insulin spikes. You will also get "regular."

Of course, it means no more canned stuff. No bread or pasta - unless you want to make it yourself from low-GI flour. No soy products. No dairy - milk, cheese, eggs. And does mean fresh fruit and vegetables. But you won't be a fad-victim. And your health should improve no end.

What will be the next fad? Well, MacDonald's and Burger King / Hungry Jacks are offering "Healthy Choices" in their menu - doesn't that mean they admit their other food is not healthy? But the problem is, people who go to those places want fat. Otherwise they'd be making their own salad sandwiches. So I see their "healthy" menu falling by the way side.

As for fads for the general population... more of the same with slight twists. Maybe even a GM low-GI grain or some bullshit. But consumption of chemicals and other stuff will still flourish. The only thing is to educate yourself and do your own thing.

You'll get odd looks. Something I get all the time when people offer me a beer or coffee and I tell them I don't drink that stuff. And as they offer me other beverages and foods, I decline it all. Which leads to questions from them. And answers from me about my "no wheat, no sugar, no soy, no diary, no eggs, no meat, no processed or canned food, diet."

Like two days ago (Friday). A client asked me about milk drinking. I told her I call milk "runny pus" and cheese is "moldy pus" - because they contain cow pus (white blood cells). And if drinking cows milk is ok/normal, why not cat milk, or dog milk, or rat milk! To which I get no answer.

But now we have the "eat fat" fad appearing on the horizon. Coming from Poland, of all places. It will be interesting to see how much popularity this one gains.