EZEKIEL

and YHWH’s

Judgment

for the

Good News

PEOPLE

VOLUME XVII

Health and Healing

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

Judgment for the

Good News People

Volume XVII--Health and Healing

by

an unworthy servant

And you shall know the truth,

and the truth will make you free.

(John 8:32)

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.

Contents

Volume XVII--Health and Healing

CHAPTER PAGE

- Cover Page 1

- Title Page 2

- Contents 3

- Publisher’s Preface 5

Part YY--Christian Food

250 Sun Worship and Diet I 6

251 Sun Worship and Diet II 13

252 Sun Worship and Diet III 27

253 Sun Worship and Diet IV 32

254 Sun Worship and Diet V 43

Part ZZ--Christians and Health

255 Sun Worship and Health I 57

256 Sun Worship and Health II 71

257 The Health Crisis I 85

258 The Health Crisis II 94

259 Tobacco and Smoking I 105

260 Tobacco and Smoking II 115

261 Caffeine 124

Part AAA--Healing Alternatives

262 Health Alternatives? 138

263 Healing in the Scriptures 150

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

Publisher’s Preface

Greetings! The following presentation is volume seventeen of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site.

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

Chapter 250--Sun Worship and Diet I

Sun Worshippers Eat Anything

One of the common characteristics of Western, sun worshipping people is their willingness and propensity to eat almost anything (sometimes, within certain limits), and particularly pork, duck, shrimp, lobster, catfish (the bad fish of Matthew 13:48), fat and blood (yes, blood pudding is popular among many Europeans).

Some of the Blacks in Africa have been cannibals--even in modern times. In the East, Mongolian sun worshippers go far beyond pork when they extend their diets to mice, rats; and of course, dogs (yes, almost all of the historic Mongolians and their fall-out peoples have been dog eaters). In portions of Asia, the animals are often skinned alive before killing and cooking. Asians claim that this helps the taste.

For sure, Mongoloid peoples have traditionally eaten cats, dogs, rats, mice, snakes and similarly small forms of life. The American Indians were dog eaters. Early historical records indicate that all the Indian tribes ate dogs, except for possibly the Shoshone Indians who may have not ate them.

Years ago, this writer heard the story of how an American boy in an American town used to make a little spending money. There was a Chinese restaurant in his town. Late at night, he could and often did bring a cat by and knock on the door where the Chinese owner lived. The owner would take the cat and pay the boy a quarter (this was years ago before inflation set in). One should keep this story in mind when eating out at an Asian restaurant.

My mother told the story of how a man used to sell hot tamales out of a street cart at Sulphur, Oklahoma where there was a local state park. On the weekends, many people would come to the park. The man and his hot tamale cart would set up at the park and sell to the tourists. Eventually, the man left town. Someone moved into his former house. Under the house, the new resident found a huge assortment of cat and dog bones.

A news report on Mar 2, 1998, noted that there is now a cat shortage in Vietnam which is causing a rat explosion. The cat shortage has surfaced because the people there have been eating most of them. The government is encouraging people to switch from cats and snakes to rats.

An exception to this attitude of widely experimenting with food and diet in Asia might exist with the Chrishna sun worshippers, who even today in the Hindu East tend to be ascetics and vegetarians, like some Christian sects. With the loss of records and writings of ancient times, it is somewhat difficult to determine any details on diet in early Chrishnaism in the West.

However, it does seem evident that the Chrishna worshippers probably tended to be vegetarians--as was their European leader and founder, Apollonius of Tyana (mentioned earlier). The question of eating plant foods versus meat will be broached in the following chapters. But for now, the focus will be on meats.

Clean and Unclean

Importantly, the Scriptures repeatedly emphasize the classification of meat products for human food (with a life source such as animals, fish, insects, etc) as being clean or unclean--to include an absolute restriction on blood (animals must be properly bled when killed), among other things, as discussed in a prior chapter examining the Acts 15 religious conference in Jerusalem.

Actually, there are a host of Scriptures which deal with food and what food items can be eaten in the vein of clean meats (Gen 7:2; 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:23-27; 11:1-47; 17:10-14; 20:25; 22:8; Deut 12:16, 23; 14:3-21; I Sam 14:32-36; Acts 15:29, etc.). As a minimum, clean animals are those that part the hoof and chew the cud. Clean fish are those that have both fins and scales.

Clean fowls are more complicated; but can be defined as those that have craws or crops and gizzards, have elongated middle front toes and hind toes which spread so that the three are on one side of the perch while the hind one is on the other side, catch food in the air and bring it to the ground to divide before eating (as opposed to those who eat their food in the air), and must not be birds of prey.

While there seems to be restrictions on insects, there are some allowances to eat certain ones that “creep on all fours” --like certain locusts, destroying locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers (Lev 11:20-23). The problem here is that the insects cited have six legs and not four legs (Aug-Oct 2002 “Hebrew Roots,” p. 4). One explanation is that they only use four for walking and all six for jumping. But this theme remains unclear.

Most of these Scriptures are fairly plain and not subject to confusion. Some Christians try to make a big deal over the restrictions on using contaminated pots and pans (Lev 11:33). Likely, this reference focuses on pots and pans that cannot be properly cleaned after use (like pottery, in the days of old). Stainless steel is “possibly” in another category since it can be cleaned.

The point of these Scriptural references is that The ELOHIM wasn’t just filling up space in His Book when He caused those remarks to be recorded.

If it was sin for Adam, Avraham, Moshe, Shmuel, David, Eliyahu and YESHUA to eat unclean meats, then be assured that it’s sin for others to eat them as well. YHWH is the same forever and He does not change His definition of right and wrong to appeal to ancient or modern peoples.

Christian Thinking

So, 2,000 years ago, Christianity came along and adopted the food precedents already established and followed in the Western, sun worship culture. Christians declared that YHWH’s Torah was done away with and that they could eat anything that they wanted to eat. And Christians have generally done that precise thing for the last 2,000 years. They eat almost anything!

In order to support their rebellious desire to eat anything and everything, Christians typically seize upon a couple of New Testament texts which they almost always misunderstand and misapply to themselves and their acts of contempt and rebellion towards the Torah.

The two primary texts are Mark 7:1-15 (with the words of YESHUA on the matter of washing hands before eating) and Acts 10:9-28 (regarding Kefa’s visit to Cornelius). Both of these references have been discussed at some length in previous chapters herein--but not in the vein of the food and diet issues.

Mark 7:1-15

In the first place, the presentation in Mark 7:1-15 concerns the several ritualistic washings and dippings in water of the hands, fingers, pots, cups etc in connection with the process of eating. These rituals were pushed by the Haverim and/or Shammai Pharisees in the Talmudic teachings that they were trying to impose on the population on a law or commandment level.

Obviously, people can and do eat with dirty hands (from common, ground dirt, which is usually clean and especially if worms and soil bacteria are present and the soil is exposed to sun light) without defiling their food--as YESHUA correctly notes.

However, let us suppose that a medical individual has been working in a morgue and dissecting a dead person who died from AIDS, EBOLA, TB, or hundreds of other terrifying diseases. Does The MESSIAH’s words about eating suggest or imply that the medical individual can now, all of a sudden, eat without washing his hands?

The same analogy applies if an individual has been handling toxic wastes or perhaps has some very poisonous antifreeze splashed on his hand. Should this person proceed to eat without washing his hands? Would not the handling of diseased body tissues or toxic poisons render the hands unclean and demand that they be washed? Of course, the answer is yes.

Any person above the idiot level would say that the hands must be washed. No thinking and intelligent person would thereupon try to argue that what goes into the stomach (from dirty hands defiled with diseased body tissues or toxic poisons) will only pass harmlessly from the body as waste products (in the urine or fecal matter).

Plainly, hand washings for sanitation purposes are categorically essential and are surely communicated (at least in principle) in Leviticus (chapters 11, 15 and 17) on the questions of sanitation and quarantines.

Of course, YESHUA’s whole focus in Mark 7 was only upon the issue of whether a believer had to submit to ritualistic washings, as prescribed in the traditions of the elders (per the Haverim/Shammai Pharisees). Here, the answer is no!

Not Addressed

Mark 7:1-15 categorically does not address the question of the food mitzwot already established in the Torah. This condition can furthermore be proven by a little logic and common sense. Certainly, in Mark 7, none of the disciples of YESHUA took the discussion in Mark 7 to mean a setting aside of the clean and unclean meat mitzwot already established in the Torah.

All of the disciples understood that the OT food laws, per se, were not even at issue in YESHUA’s words in Mark 7. If the disciples thought that the clean and unclean mitzwot were abolished in Mark 7, then there would be no need for the events (on the question of diet) in Acts 10 or 15 even to take place.

For sure, Acts 10 to 15 (as with Acts 10, Acts 15 has been previously discussed in some detail) happened from ten to twenty years after the death of YESHUA. Obviously, if YESHUA set the clean and unclean meat laws aside in Mark 7, the disciples would have correctly understood what had happened and thereby rendered Acts 10 unnecessary.

Therefore, ten years later Kefa would not be confused over eating meat in Acts 10, nor would Shaul and the Jerusalem leadership have the discussion they did on the eating of blood and so forth in Acts 15. The very fact that we have these issues arise in Acts 10 and 15 many years later, clearly proves that YESHUA did not abolish the food laws in Mark 7.

Acts 10:7-28

In turning to Acts 10:7-28, the context is clear that Kefa certainly had no preconceived ideas or thinking about the setting aside of the clean and unclean meat mitzwot when he was told to eat unclean species. As the Book reports, Kefa said “no” that he would not eat because he had never eaten any thing unclean earlier in his life.

Thereafter, Kefa never went against his word that he would not eat unclean species. But he did get the message or the instructions which The RUACH HA KODESH was putting across in the vision. The issue was not over the propriety of eating unclean foods; but rather, the subject was the matter of Kefa going to the uncircumcised and supposedly unclean Cornelius.

Thus, Kefa got the point of the vision and complied with it. He manifestly never tried to mix apples and oranges, as Christians try to do when improperly mixing things up when reading texts like this one.

In the reality that this discussion in Acts 10 did take place long after the death of The MESSIAH, it would be impossible to change His testament that was sealed at His death (Heb 9:15-17, as described in a former chapter). It becomes assuredly ludicrous to try to talk about changes at this late date in the course of events.

Furthermore, since The ELOHIM is immutable and changes not, it would also be totally and completely impossible for any changes to appear any place in His Word--whether in Mark 7, Acts 10 or Acts 15. It is pure and simple Christian hogwash, rebellion and contempt for the Torah to believe that any thing in the NT changed the mitzwot in the Torah. It is out of the question.

More Christian Theology

In their decision to do away with The ELOHIM’s mitzwot in general and particularly those affecting food and diet, the willingness of Christians to eat almost anything extends to polluted and poisoned foods (to be discussed in later comments herein) which ultimately bring great harm and hurt on the health of persons consuming such items.

Anyway, some Christians like to argue against YHWH’s commandments on clean and unclean meats. Some have tried to argue that chickens are as dirty as pigs (in eating anything and everything). In their warped thinking, it must be wrong to eat chickens if it is wrong to eat hogs. Alternatively, from their perspective, if it is all right to eat chickens, then it must also be all right to eat swine!

In rebellion and contempt toward The ELOHIM, sinning Christians apply their own reasoning and thinking to the subject, as if they have personal knowledge about right and wrong. But there is a difference. The difference is that The CREATOR has declared pork eating wrong while He “seems” to allow the consumption of chickens in His Word, as most students of the Word suggest.

Does The CREATOR have more perception about this issue than a little man (an insignificant part of His creation)? In other words, why is it that the created order insists on trying to argue with The CREATOR and ends up committing sin?

Even the modern medical profession (as sorry as it is, as will be shown in subsequent chapters) recognizes that pork eating can cause human health problems. Whenever a person gets sick, his or her doctor will often prescribe that no more pork be eaten. Pork and tobacco products are especially condemned whenever one has a heart attack.

Fat

The problem with fat should be obvious to anyone (Lev 3:17). Poisons seem to accumulate and are stored in fat tissues. A person eating animal fat is eating a vast quantity of stored poisons. Significantly, the restriction in Leviticus 3:17 was not repeated or mentioned in Acts 15 for whatever the reason, which does not seem to be stated.

It’s hard to fathom why fat was left out in Acts 15; but “possibly,” there was some limited allowance for the use of clean animal fats for those Israelites removed from Palestine, who did not have access to olives and other warm climate vegetable oils which could be used to grease skillets to make bread.

Today, almost all Israelites have ready access to vegetable oils in their culture. There is manifestly no reason to have or use the fats from clean animals. However, historically, in past ages when Israelites were in land areas where there was no olive trees and where technology was not available to press oils from various vegetable products, people could have had a problem in making bread, as just noted.

It is said that some of the early Seventh Day Baptists in West Virginia used beef tallow to grease their skillets since they were totally opposed to pork, as was commonly used in early America. Of course, it would have been virtually impossible to find olive oil in most of early Canada or America.

Still the fat prohibition is in the Torah and seems to deserve obedience by the faithful and particularly in the context that vegetable oils are readily available commercially. There is absolutely no problem in finding and using vegetable oils today. So the question need not come up for believers today in our time.

Moreover, vegetable oils do not break down and become rancid as fast as animal fats. Because of this factor alone, most bakers prefer to use vegetable oils. The faithful should always check labels for ingredients when buying products from sun worship stores. Such a check only takes seconds, and it is imperative that the believer walk the extra mile in an effort to obey and please The MOST HIGH.

It is no problem to find vegetable oils in products and rarely do producers use animal fats. Consequently, only products made with vegetable oils should be bought and used. This practice is not hard to follow.

Since olives and olive oils are Scriptural products, they should always be preferred (extra virgin olive oil is the best since it is more natural and less subject to man’s processing). Above all else, pork fat or lard is totally out in the Word and should never be consumed by followers of YHWH.

Blood

For many obvious reasons, blood is assuredly condemned in both the OT and the NT (Lev 3:17; Acts 15:20, 29). Blood is bad because life is in the blood and because blood carries waste poisons which will either be disposed of or stored in fat. Blood streams also carry disease bacteria and viruses to further prohibit blood consumption.

Modern meat packers are interested in one thing and one thing only--profits! In this context, their products are sold by weight. So the more pounds that they can put into a side of beef means the more income to them. Accordingly, meat packers seem to go out of their way to be sure that their meat is oozing with blood, as it is sold to stores and wholesalers.

The Scriptures demand that “clean” animals be properly bled when slaughtered for Adamic consumption. That’s one of the reasons that strangled animals were out for food in the Acts 15 conference, discussed previously herein.

But as just noted above, modern meat packers could care less about what the Word says--because profit is the name of their game. So they make little or no effort to properly bleed animals.

The result of this common commercial practice to make money means that even so-called “clean” meats often have an excessive amount of blood still present. This blood is so diffused throughout the meat (since the animal was not properly bled) that it is extremely difficult to get the blood out.

Sometimes, it takes several washings in clean water and a good soaking over night in more clean water to even begin to get the blood out. But there is a problem here because too much washing and water will cause the meat to lose much of its taste and nutritional value.

Regardless, this extensive washing costs money and it is something that businesses are just not going to do. Most canneries, stores and restaurants making chili, soup or stew take few if any steps to wash the blood out before putting the meat into their products. Again, money is the name of the game and the added weight from the blood helps in this regard.

Since the Christian, sun worship public could care less about the presence of blood in their food, the producers have no incentive to try to clean up their act. They literally get away with selling blood in their food items and Christian sun worshippers accept it and never bat an eye.

Because canneries and food producers are so careless, indifferent and irresponsible about selling blood, this writer has long ago abandoned any desire to eat their products.

If a believer must eat clean meats, by all means buy “kosher” meats, as certified by Jewish Rabbinic authorities. But there is still more to this problem of eating (clean) meats in the current sun worship culture, as will be shown in the next chapters.

Chapter 251--Sun Worship and Diet II

Poisoned Meats

While the Word defines certain meats as being clean and proper for human consumption, as opposed to unclean meats not proper for eating (as described in the prior chapter), that is only the beginning of the problem in terms of eating meat in today’s world. True, one should eat clean meats. But even the Scripturally clean meats may be “unclean” and thus questionable to eat at present. Why?

Well, all of a sudden, the people raising of what should be clean livestock for eating (cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, etc) have begun injecting (or feeding) them growth hormones (like DES, to be later discussed), antibiotics (24.6 million pounds per year, per Tom Valentine, in the Feb 26, 2001, “Spotlight,” p. B-1), drugs for various purposes (even as they walk into the packing plants); and in recent years, foods grown with pesticides and poisons, plus changing their diets from historically proper animal foods to unbelievable things to save money.

For example, modern animal producers are feeding animals the remains of other dead animals (like cats, dogs and others found along the roads or wherever they can be obtained--dead remains that used to go to soap factories), manure and waste products from various other animals (like chicken manure to cattle), newspapers (with lead poisoned printing/ink), cardboard, sawdust and on and on (usually mixed with some traditional grains and hay).

Most cities and towns across America have dog pounds which collect stray cats and dogs--many of which are diseased, sick, injured and/or dying. These pounds generally make every effort to place all picked up animals in a new home. But that option is not always possible and unwanted dogs and pets have been a problem--that is before the new feeding methods came along.

The last several years have seen dog pounds across Europe and America turn their unwanted animals over to animal food processors to kill, cut up and process into feed for cattle (or for dog and cat food). The cattle producers don’t seem to have any problem at all over feeding dead dogs and cats (even those that were sick or diseased, to include their blood) to cattle, awaiting butchering for human consumption.

NBC News

NBC’s nightly news with Tom Brokaw had a special on this tragedy on August 22, 1997. As the NBC report suggested, alfalfa for cattle costs a lot of money in the present society. Conversely, chicken manure (often from the diarrhea of sick birds) and waste products of dead animals and birds can be bought for pennies on the dollar, in comparison with using alfalfa and historic grains to feed animals.

Money is the name of the game and most of these cattlemen don’t eat the cows they raise and sell to the public slaughter houses.

Since most producers could care less what they feed to animals going to the packing plants (providing that they are not killed by the poisons before they reach the packing plants) and since the public willingly buys the finished products (steaks, hamburger or whatever), everybody seems happy with the status quo.

One cattle feedlot operator on the NBC report said that he didn’t see any difference between the cattle raised by the old grain and hay feeding methods, as opposed to the modern approach of feeding them manure and waste products. He expressed his (unlearned) opinion that the meat was the same in both cases.

The only difference between the two feeding methods that this man could see was the costs of production. Manure and ground up dead animals are a lot cheaper than alfalfa. A news report on Feb 1, 1998, said that 14% of the feed for American cattle is now the remains of other dead animals. On this theme, it has a clear linkage to the Scriptures (which suggest that it is sin to sell and eat such defiled meat).

This whole situation resembles one mentioned in the media years ago. It seems that a vegetable producer in Southern California was using an excessive amount of deadly pesticide poisons on his crops. A colleague expressed concern to him over it. He replied that there was no problem over the produce since it was being shipped to New York.

Clean and Unclean Meats, Revisited

The earlier outline in the preceding chapter on clean and unclean animals discussed YHWH’s laws on which meats are suitable for human consumption.

A study of those animals communicates that meat eating animal species are generally unclean, while clean animals are those that can be classified as vegetarians (like cattle, sheep, goats, deer, etc, which by nature naturally eat vegetation), with horses being a clear exception since their hoofs are not divided.

In “God’s Key to Health and Happiness,” Elmer A. Josephson noted that unclean animals were created to be scavengers to clean up anything left dead in the fields. As a rule, they are meat eaters prepared to eat and clean up the worst of filth--the remains of dead animals which have bloated and broken open, and are filled with maggots and putrefaction. Scavengers eat this filth to keep the disease germs from spreading.

Meat eating scavengers like hogs, buzzards, hawks, dogs, cats, catfish, etc are always unclean. Hogs, for example, are so unclean, that as scavengers, they can eat the most dirty, vile, dead remains and poisons that would kill most other forms of life. Allegedly, their system can even consume strychnine without bad side effects. Ducks are also unclean because they are web-footed walking disease banks.

Chickens are in a questionable status here since the Scriptures are not so clear on them, though most students of the Word believe that they are clean (as noted earlier) because of their gizzards and digestive systems. While chickens naturally may tend to eat various items (like insects), they have clearly been designed to be fed grains, mash and other vegetarian foods.

Obviously, cattle were designed, created and meant to eat vegetation products and not meat. The modern aberration of grinding up cannibalistic remains of dead animals and feeding them to vegetarian animals, as a part of their diet (by force, since the animals have no choice in what man feeds them in the penned up feedlots), is totally unscriptural and contrary to nature.

Cow Diseases

By the way, cattle producers in Britain started feeding dead animals to their cattle some years ago--including even the dead remains of sick and diseased cows. In time, Britain came to have an outbreak of Mad Cow decease which many observers said could be traced to the feeding of dead, diseased and sick animals to other animals that were destined for human consumption.

A reader’s letter in the Mar 1998 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 83) outlines the origin of the Mad Cow disease phenomenon now on the world scene. The letter said the disease first began in Britain because of sheep, some of which had a disease called “Scrapey.” The Scrapey disease was not transferable to humans.

But when sheep leftover byproducts (feces matter and the remains of dead or slaughtered sheep) were processed into regular cow feed, the malefactor (or malefactress) proteins were sometimes able to mutate into a new form of protein which is malignantly able to cause the “Crazy Cow” disease.

The disease is worse than AIDS. It cannot be cured or arrested. It represents a sure death. Present research indicates that no way has been so far found to kill or obviate the new mutant protein. As soon as it comes into contact with another protein molecule, it causes the captive protein to mutate also, in a doubling or compounding process. It is a life quenching process (a curse).

In America, a related or similar disease is apparently called “downer cow syndrome” (per Dr Brander C. Kitchin’s article on the Internet), although the US national leaders try to hide and cover-up from the public the connection of the disease to Britain’s Mad Cow disease (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 43). Reportedly, some 300,000 to one million US cattle die annually from the downer cow syndrome.

While authorities did not believe that Mad Cow disease, per se, had spread to North America, bad news surfaced in early 2003 in Canada when the Mad Cow disease was found in Alberta, Canada (May 21, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A1). So, in the vein of Mad Cow or downer cow syndrome, North America does have the problem.

Mad Cow Spreads

In the year 2000, the Mad Cow disease spread into large areas of Europe--especially in France, Spain, Italy and Germany because those nations irresponsibly also allowed cattle producers to turn their animals into meat eating cannibals. After all, profit is the name of the game in Europe in the same way that it is in Britain and the US.

Some of the countries in Eastern Europe responded by establishing embargoes on meat from Western Europe. France passed a law to discontinue the practice of feeding animal remains to their cattle in an effort to try to stop the epidemic from spreading. Soon the European Union proper took a similar action and even went further to order the slaughter of older animals which could have been exposed.

It appears that the massive slaughter of animals seems to be the reaction of the various governments to the threat of the Mad Cow disease. The Dec 31, 2001, “American Free Press” (p. B1, B9) had a report from the Acres staff on “How Bad is ‘Mad Cow.’” Per this story, the US government already has plans for the slaughter of livestock as being the solution if the disease breaks out here in force in 2002 or later.

Though not mentioned in the report, there are at least three features of this typical government reaction. First, of course, the diet being fed the cattle will never receive any attention at all. Instead, the solution will be one of reaction by the massive slaughtering of cattle at large.

Next, there will be a huge benefit or fall out of this process to the big cattle producers. This effort will wipe out a lot of production from small producers. Only the more richer, larger and stronger producers will remain in business (yes, the eliminating of competition serves to benefit the big time producers).

Last, this whole motion could be one more step in the move to world government and the complete control of a dwindling supply of food. This reality will be discussed in later chapters herein.

Suffice to say, the massive slaughter of cattle will greatly curtail beef supplies. In turn, this will further enhance the role of government in the overall control of food (as is envisioned in the coming New World Order, to be described in some detail in subsequent chapters).

In early 2001, the Mad Cow disease was reportedly in Brazil (which is a big cattle producing nation). Many other countries (including the US) followed the precedent set in Europe by declaring that they will no longer buy beef from Brazil. In March 2001, animals with the disease have allegedly been found in Vermont and in Minnesota. At least, two Americans died with an illness which could link to the Mad Cow disease.

US health authorities announced in January 2001 that they would not accept blood from donors who had been in Europe in the past several years. They will surely soon follow suit on people visiting Brazil since the disease is now there. Thus, what a tragedy it is that man’s whole focus is upon greed, get, gain and profits. Why can’t men concentrate instead upon truth and righteousness, rather than on making profits?

Hoof and Mouth

Beyond the absolute explosion of Mad Cow disease all over Britain and Europe, news reports of Feb 23, 2001, said that Britain is now experiencing a wild outbreak of Hoof and Mouth (or foot and mouth) disease which may finish off the cattle industry in Britain. Even Britain’s pigs and sheep are suffering a disaster as well.

In March 2001, Hoof and Mouth spread to Argentina, France and Holland and may soon cover much of Europe and South America. Millions of animals are being slaughtered in an effort to head off the disease, but it was still spreading rapidly in Aviv of 2001. Soon, it logically should be in America.

Apparently, this 2001 outbreak of Hoof and Mouth disease commenced in Britain from livestock brought there from Asia (when will man learn to quit moving life forms around?)--or alternatively, from an act of internal terrorism (to be later discussed).

This disease is deadly serious and it spreads rapidly through the air. Although not mentioned in news reports, one has to wonder if the rapid spread of the disease in Britain is some way related to the diet and state of health of British animals.

More on the US Situation

Otherwise, the US Department of Agriculture, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration (which would oversee this issue) have maintained that these cattle diseases have not reached the continental United States.

Despite these assurances, some observers feel that Mad Cow disease is already here in March 2001 (like in Minnesota and Vermont, as noted above, and possibly in the presence of downer cow syndrome, as cited in the preceding comments).

Investigative reporter Linda Howe (cited elsewhere herein) was on the “Dreamland” radio program on Feb 4, 2001, with Whitley Strieber. She had a report on the possible surfacing of something similar to Mad Cow disease with elk and deer in the Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska areas.

This wild animal disease is slightly different from the Mad Cow disease of Europe. But it seems to have some similarities in definition and in effects. With these animals, it is called a “chronic wasting disease” which also seems to describe the European Mad Cow version.

No one seems to understand what could be causing deer and elk to come down with this disease. Although nothing was settled in Linda’s presentation on the subject, she did open the door to the possibility that it could be passed on to wild animals when they feed upon the cannibalistic diets being fed to US cattle.

More on the Wildlife Problem

The managers of one Colorado state agricultural farm station said that they were feeding their animals a grain based diet which should not present a problem to deer and elk. While it might be true that this one agency might have been using decent grains for their animals, there must have been thousands of other ranchers and farmers who were feeding the cannibalistic remains of dead animals to their cattle.

Once this food is placed out in the wilds for cattle to eat (and especially in the winter when snow covers the ground and grass is hard to come by), it is routine and normal that deer and elk will come into areas with cattle and feed upon the hay, etc, as provided to the cattle.

The Jan-Apr 2002 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 36) had a news report on “Mad Deer” which indicated that the deer and elk version of Mad Cow (the “chronic wasting disease” as noted above) had jumped from Colorado to Wisconsin.

Per the story, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources recently conducted a ten county winter deer hunt to kill some deer which could be tested for the disease. Some ten deer in this recent hunt have been found testing positive. Three others were discovered earlier--making a total of thirteen.

While officials suggest that the disease is probably spread by the animals in contacts in the wild, the “Hebrew Roots” editor asked if the animals may have picked it up from food being fed dairy cattle? If so, does this possibility raise questions about the safety of milk and other dairy products?

The Jun 14, 2002, “The Week” (p. 20) had a report indicating that the chronic wasting disease (Mad Cow or Mad Deer) is reaching epidemic proportions in wildlife (deer and elk) in eight states (CO, WY, MT, SD, WI, NE, KS and OK) and two provinces in Canada. Five people have died with a brain wasting disease called Creutzfeldt-Jacob which could be related.

Neurobiologist Stanley Prusiner of the University of California says that “We don’t understand the transmission, we don’t understand the origin... We don’t understand anything” (ibid, p. 20).

The Feed Problem Generally

This writer sees wild animals feeding on hay and grain put out for cattle often here in the Pacific Northwest and especially in the winter when deer and elk really have to scrounge for food with the heavy snows that blanket the ground.

If there is a further outbreak of this disease in the US West, it makes perfect sense that it is being passed to deer and elk when they come to cattle areas and feed upon the food provided by the ranchers/dairy owners for the cows. If it is being passed to wild life, it won’t be long and US cattle will soon be killing people. Will anyone stop and ask why this is happening? Or will the status quo continue?

Still More on the US Situation

There seems to be several other aspects about the Mad Cow disease which has only surfaced in early 2001. Just as a very similar and related disease may be striking deer, elk and wild animals, there is also some possibility of other strange variations and cognates of Mad Cow disease affecting other traditional domestic animals used for food.

On the Coast to Coast AM radio program on Feb 6, 2001, Art Bell mentioned some comments from Dr Laurane Day of San Francisco. Dr Day is one of the American physicians who has been extremely familiar with the AIDS crisis and the government efforts to bungle it and not address it properly.

She told Bell that the Mad Cow disease is now in the US and that it affects more than just cattle. Per Dr Day, a similar variation can occur with pigs, chickens, sheep and so forth. Perhaps the cannibalistic remains of dead animals do not react the same in all animals. Maybe, the remains of dead sheep being fed cattle kicked the disease off in Britain. But it seems to have went beyond that state.

Evidently, per the words of Dr Day and the Linda Howe report on deer and elk in the West, the evidence seems to be that the dead remains of different animals may react differently in various animals. Also, it seems clear that different species of animals themselves have a propensity to produce a slight variation of the disease.

Therefore, maybe the basic problem is called Mad Cow disease in terms of cattle (or “downer cow syndrome,” as mentioned in the above comments). But with deer, sheep, elk and other animals, the disease pops up in a slightly different form and context.

Dr Day mentioned one other aspect about this disease which could have far reaching repercussions. She noted that many food supplements have bovine or other animal products in them. Also, many gelatin products are animal based--to include the gelatin capsules used by drug stores and pharmaceutical houses to provide the containers for small doses of drugs, vitamins, herbs and so forth.

While some of these capsules are vegetarian based, many are derived from animals--especially pigs. The question comes up--can this Mad Cow or related disease be spread in any of these gelatin products derived from animals? Clearly, there can be a number of ways for this disease to spread in America, once it gets started.

Oprah Winfrey

The American public is absolutely goo goo eyed over television talk show host Oprah Winfrey (as they are over most big shot Black entertainers and sports figures). In 1997, Oprah made the mistake of mentioning the Mad Cow disease problem in Britain and the allegations of a link between it and the diet that cattle are fed.

Immediately, the US cattle industry sued Oprah for liable. She was tried in Texas. Now, Oprah is one of the richest entertainers in America. She had the best of lawyers. Being Black, she personally had the most favorable media news coverage and plenty of it for her trial in Amarillo in early 1998. Yet, the media rarely gave any of the details on what the suit was all about.

In other words, the nightly news showed pictures of Oprah and mentioned her trial, but never bothered to explain that the real issue focused on the cannibalistic diet fed to animals. For her benefit, she won in court. But most people watching the controlled media never had the foggiest clue on what the real reason was that prompted the litigation.

More Health Fallouts

The fall of 1997 saw all kinds of reports surfacing about contaminated meat products in the US. In one instance, a packing plant in Nebraska had to recall something like 25 million pounds of beef that had been shipped to stores and restaurants (including Burger King). Apparently, there was concern that some or all of this beef had E Coli bacteria contamination.

On Apr 29, 1998, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said that they had just issued another recall order for 282,000 pounds of beef because of E Coli bacteria contamination. The USDA noted that the public should cook beef thoroughly to 160 degrees to be sure that all bacteria is killed.

Another recall of 172,000 pounds of beef was issued on June 30, 1998, because of believed E Coli bacteria contamination. On Nov 4, 1998, two recall orders were issued on the same day. Some 550,000 pounds of beef was recalled for an alleged E Coli bacteria presence and around 1.5 million pounds of hot dogs, bologna and other meats were recalled by Winn-Dixie stores for suspected bacteria.

From 1998 and on forward, meat recalls continued to spiral upward across America and real reports or allegations of E Coli contamination continued to surface. On December 4, 2000, a meat packing plant in St Paul, Minnesota had to recall one million pounds of hamburger because of E Coli contamination which caused a disease outbreak in the Mid West.

On April 23, 2001, a packing plant in Canada (the IBP plant) had to recall some 2.4 million pounds of hamburger because of alleged E Coli bacteria contamination. On May 6, 2001, Impact Foods of Milwaukee, WI recalled almost one-half million pounds of hamburger for reported E Coli contamination.

The week of July 22, 2002, saw the Con-Agra Foods of Greeley, Colorado recall 18.6 million pounds of hamburger meat because of E Coli bacteria contamination (Aug 2, 2002, “The Week,” p. 5). This recall was the second largest to date in US history. The problem is becoming so common place and routine that almost no one in public pays any attention to it.

As late as Oct 9, 2002, Wampler Foods of Philadelphia issued a recall of 295 thousand pounds of cooked deli products possibly contaminated with listeria. And on Oct 14, 2002, the company followed up with a recall of 27.4 million pounds of the same type of products (Oct 14, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A2). The interesting thing about these recalls was that they concerned so-called “cooked” meats.

Too, while there is some media notoriety on the recalls, it is clear that some significant portion of contaminated meat is not discovered and recalled. In other words, for every recall order, there are other instances of meat problems which do not face publicity and recall actions.

Thus, it seems that the meat packers are having to face periodic and constant recall orders because of the dangers of contamination--principally, in hamburger products. Historically, in American culture, such dangers were unheard of. Now, they are routine and commonplace.

Obviously, something is profoundly wrong with what should be clean meat. It should not take too many brains to figure out that the once clean meats are typically no longer clean meats in today’s modern world (hence, it is sin to produce, sell and eat them). Yet, almost no one in power seems able to put two and two together and understand why (the reason is that profits are involved and no one can question the money factor).

More Gross Problems

The E Coli bacteria problem has even entered incredibly new dimensions--per a news report in early September 1999 from upstate New York. Per the story, some 600 people become infected with E Coli bacteria from drinking some water at a county fair in Greenwich, NY. At least two died and many more were on the critical list.

The water came from an underground well source which had become contaminated with the bacteria, merely from run off from the fair’s cattle barn (Sep 20, 1999, “US News & World Report,” p. 56). A few days later, on Sep 15, 1999, another E Coli bacteria problem erupted when 313 people became infected in Petersburg, Illinois, while they were attending a cornstalk festival in a cow pasture.

Another concern over E Coli was outlined in the May 4, 2001, “The Week” (p. 19) which noted that people can pick up the infection by simply petting animals at zoos or farms. Children are notorious for petting animals and then eating food without washing their hands. Petting animals can lead to a contagion of E Coli. It now seems dangerous to have any contact with animals.

The latest E Coli outbreak was reported by National Public Radio on July 30, 2002, when several US beaches had to be closed to swimmers that summer because of E Coli bacteria. This NPR report focused upon the closure of the beaches at Lake Michigan. Authorities said that they did not know what was causing the contamination.

Historically

This writer once lived on a farm and believe me there should be no problem at all of getting sick from the feces of cattle. But there is today--because something is wrong with the cattle!

In the old days, many American farm families used to use hot cow manure as a poultice to be placed on the chest of a person sick with pneumonia or a bad cold which was in the lungs. On the American plains, people burned dried buffalo dung for fuel. Cow manure was also burned for heat in some areas. Even YHWH allowed Yechezkel to burn cow dung for baking his bread (Ezek 4:15).

For ages, it used to be said that a raw beef steak was good to bring healing to cuts and bruises. When children (or adults for that matter) had a fist fight in the old days, which resulted in some bruises to the face or a black eye, a raw beef steak was supposed to be the perfect poultice to bring healing. Today, the public is warned about even handling raw meat and told to wash their hands afterward.

The purpose in mentioning cow dung and raw beef steaks is not to endorse either or both of them as being good for healing, in the context noted. Instead, it is to show the incredible change that has occurred in cattle over the years. Historically, there never was seemingly a former time when people had to flee cow dung and raw beef steaks for fear of becoming sick to even be in their presence.

Something is now fundamentally wrong and no one (in authority or in the media) appears to even be aware of it or care about it. Will the national leaders and people ever put two and two together and understand that profits and money are not the most important things in life?

Still More Problems

Beyond all the other problems, some persons believe that modern meat products also contribute to Alzheimer’s disease. John T. Hale, in the fall 1997 issue of “The Omega Times” (p. 10), alleges that 80% of all of America’s beef and dairy cattle have “bovine leukemia cancer virus and 50% have bovine immunodeficiency AIDS virus and an unknown percentage have Mad Cow disease.”

He suggests that all this stuff is transmissible to humans in infected milk and beef products. Hale’s insight is so provocative that it is enough to scare the day lights out of people trying to live and subsist in this present contemporary sun worship society.

Yes, Dairy Cattle

While the preceding comments have primarily focused upon meat products from cattle, one should not lose sight of the same type of implications that can be found in the dairy industry (as just briefly alluded to above, in observations by John T. Hale and the previous Jan-Apr 2002 “Hebrew Roots” article).

Thus, many dairy cattle are being fed the same cannibalistic diets--plus new kinds of female hormones to make cows give more milk.

Apparently, almost all dairy products now sold in stores (milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, butter, etc) can pose potential health problems. It would appear that butter fat could be especially dangerous since poisons would tend to accumulate in butter fat more quickly than in most other dairy products.

There may not be a solution in this regard. But if someone must eat dairy foods, perhaps fat free items might be preferred. However, some better alternative sources are available--like soy milk (although modern soy beans can have problems--as will be addressed later on genetically engineered foods).

Also, goat’s milk is great if a person can find a local source where some confidence can be had in the diet being fed the goats. Goat’s milk is naturally homogenized and can be fed infants and others who cannot handle cow’s milk.

Pigs Too

While this discussion has focused primarily on beef, it goes without saying that if greedy animal factories are feeding cannibalistic products to cows (chickens are also fed similar diets), you can imagine what all they are feeding to hogs.

Hogs were made by The CREATOR to be scavengers with a diet of almost anything to include garbage and dead animals. Obviously, producers are feeding the same diet or something far worse to pigs. Perhaps this sickening diet does not adversely affect pigs as much as it does cattle. After all, pigs were designed and created to handle such filth.

More on Poultry Problems

Moreover, Salmonella bacteria is now a growing problem in poultry being currently produced by the new methods. Constantly, the public is being told about Salmonella which was largely unheard of in historic times.

As late as October 10, 1998, the USDA announced a recall of two million pounds of poultry products that were in the hands of schools, hospitals and other institutions. The problem was Salmonella bacteria. And as always, the establishment leaders were at a loss on what could be the cause.

A news report in the June-July 1998 “Search the Scriptures” (p. 10) noted that a new drug-resistant Salmonella bacteria is increasing dramatically. Researchers said that the continued practice of feeding antibiotics to livestock is exacerbating the problem. Salmonella poisoning now affects four million Americans annually and 500 die from it each year.

Tom Valentine, Revisited

Tom Valentine, previously quoted, addressed the drug problem in animals in a story on “The Drugging of America’s Food” in the Feb 26, 2001, “Spotlight” (p. B-3). Valentine says that the massive quantities of drugs and antibiotics being fed animals is beginning to have a fall-out on people who later eat those animals.

Specifically, he noted the situation with “Escheria coli,” a common organism in the human gut that is not normally pathogenic to so-called human beings. The poultry industry uses a drug called Baytril to supposedly control this bacteria in chickens. Now, per Valentine, this bacteria has mutated to form a resistant strain which can be deadly to humans/humanoids, eating the poultry.

In treating a flock of chickens for E-Coli bacteria, the drugs used may cure the E-Coli, but the fall-out is that they cause another kind of bacteria to surface--campylobacter (which builds up a resistance to the drugs being used). This means that people eating the chickens later run a risk of contacting fluroquinolone-resistant campylobacter. Campylobacter is the most common bacterial cause of diarrhea in the US today.

The Jan 6 & 13, 2003, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a report that almost half of the chickens being sold in supermarkets contain bacteria and much of it is drug resistant. The bacterium Campylobacter was found in 42% of chickens and Salmonella in 12%.

Surely, someone with brains would come along and put two and two together and understand the source of the problem with these drugs, but not so. After all, Americans (like their old, sun worship ancestors) eat almost anything, including dirty pigs and dirty ducks.

More on the Drug Problem in Meat, Milk and Eggs

Previous comments mentioned the growing dilemma over both milk and meat products because of the extensive use of antibiotics, various drugs and hormones to make either more meat on animals or make animals produce more milk, eggs and so forth. Actually, there are a host of drugs and chemicals in use--like the previously mentioned female hormones, DES, pesticides, poisons and on and on.

A story on “Organic foods offer peace of mind--at a price” by Mary Brophy Marcus in the Jan 15, 2001, “US News & World Report” (USNWR, p. 48-50) assessed the problem and outlined some of the present concerns.

Marcus pointed out that there is now some speculation that some of the growth hormones used on cattle, goats, chickens, etc show evidence of some dangerous trends--like the increasingly early onset of puberty by children (especially girls--some of whom are showing signs of breast development and pubic hair as early as age eight).

This writer is aware of this growing trend and also the fact that many young boys seem to be developing breasts that protrude from their bodies. This process may excite and please the demented faggot population. But it should be a point of serious concern to parents (it should be, but it does not seem to be of much concern in the real world).

USNWR went on to suggest that the heavy doses of antibiotics given animals appear to represent an even clearer threat to human health because they seem to spawn antibiotic resistant bacteria that may spread from animals to humans.

Ms Marcus quoted a report from the April 2000 “New England Journal of Medicine,” which said that antibiotic-resistant microbes in livestock can be linked to Salmonella in a young farm boy, whose infection resisted 13 powerful drugs (as allowed earlier, in the discussion on drugs used in the poultry industry).

The point of this USNWR story is that man may be stupidly releasing or creating all kinds of new problems with the increasing use of chemicals, drugs and poisons in the production of animals for meat, milk and eggs. A very dangerous trend or motion can be underway which may offer enormous problems down the road.

The Russian Fall-out

The growing US use of antibiotics, drugs and chemicals in the production of animal based foods is now causing concern even in Russia, as a news report in the March 8, 2002, “The Week” (p. 7) outlined.

The problem arises because the Russians love chickens for food. They are big chicken consumers and particularly chicken legs, which they seem to especially cherish. Since the United States is a big chicken producing country (which makes massive exports worldwide), it was only natural that Russia would become a big buyer of US chickens.

However, the Russians have not been moved to continue to be utterly stupid and indifferent about what is happening to the US food supply. Maybe Americans are lost in a daze over the incredible excessive use of chemical poisons, hormones, antibiotics, etc in the production of animals, but the Russians have not been--or at least, they finally have awoken in early 2002 to the threat.

Anyway, the Russians have become so concerned that they have threatened to stop all imports of American chickens unless the US tells it what kind of chemicals are being used on the chickens. Of course, a revelation of this magnitude would cause a strong reaction from the US chicken industry. These people are simply in no mood to allow consumers to know the truth about the poisons being used.

Since this chicken business was promoted to Russia by the former President George H. W. Bush, the Russians now call the drumsticks-- “Bush legs.”

The Historic Farms

Years ago, this writer lived on a farm (as briefly allowed above) where the chickens were on the ground. Beyond what the chickens ate on the ground, they were fed a diet of traditional grains and mash.

Eggs from chickens on the ground are a world apart from eggs from the egg factories where the hens are cooped up all of the time, and where they are fed a fixed diet of some of the mentioned poisons--coupled with drugs and antibiotics to keep them from molting (as is naturally required), and alive long enough to make them profitable.

Chickens on the ground produce egg yolks that are firm and really a beautiful, tasty orange. Eating those eggs is a wonderful experience. Compare eggs from chickens on the ground with the modern, store-bought, pale ones from egg factories. Not only do they look different, but the taste difference is quite obvious.

It used to be true that people could eat eggs cooked sunny side up, over easy, etc. Indeed, some persons could and would even eat raw eggs and particularly so in cocktails. But this condition has changed dramatically. Modern Americans have been warned by the public health people to cook eggs thoroughly and hard. The reason for why is that the eggs today are contaminated and will cause disease and illness.

Even chickens eaten after being on the ground, versus those from poultry houses, taste differently. The ones off the ground taste really good (like organic vegetables taste, as opposed to those grown on poisoned fields). There is a distinctive difference!

Chapter 252--Sun Worship and Diet III

The Need for Space

The CREATOR made animals in a way that they need space and sufficient land area to transit about and roam. In nature, it’s always that way. Yet, modern man pens these animals up; so that in many cases, they are cramped together, almost side by side, with no opportunity to move about and while wading in their own fecal and urine wastes.

They are forced fed a hostile diet, as noted in preceding chapters, and pumped full of antibiotics and drugs to keep them alive long enough to be slaughtered for meat. The many of them that die are ground up and fed to the survivors so that nothing is lost to the producers (often large, multi-national corporations which have no conscience or concern for right or wrong).

Greed, get, acquire and profits are the names of the game in the historic sun worship society. It was that way 3,000 years ago and it’s still that way today in the Christian, sun worship culture. However, something is fundamentally wrong with this pen up of animals and the diet that they are fed. This should be obvious to anyone!

Many people who have lived on a farm in the old days (pre WWII--before the new animal factories took over) know and understand that something is now wrong with even the smell which used to be tolerable on American farms. Farm animals and their waste products have not historically stunk, as they do today in the animal factories.

The stench of modern, penned-up animals is almost unbearable. Physically pass by any of these animal factories and the stench can make a person sick. Their fecal matter is totally different from the way it was on the traditional American farms. Why? The answer is obviously due to their penned up conditions, coupled with the drugs and cannibalistic food which they are fed.

Healthy animals are like healthy people. Their fecal matter generally does not stink and it comes out of them in a solid, firm, semi-soft condition. But animals in animal factories are usually sick (although kept alive by drugs). Many of them have diarrhea and their fecal waste comes out as a watery squirt. It stinks beyond description.

Not only are these manure and waste products diseased, stinking and sickening, but under the new feeding methods in use today, the animal factories merely turn this stuff around and process it into feed (usually with sawdust) for other surviving animals that have not yet died or been slaughtered (often, meat packers quickly butcher sick cattle before they have a chance to die. It is no wonder that the US has problems).

Art Bell

Art Bell, on the Coast to Coast AM radio program for May 14, 2001, read some recent news reports, some of which are quite alarming. Bell noted the situation with foot and mouth disease and its spreading around the globe. He reported that there is now some concern that it is being spread by biological terrorists. If so, this issue could add a whole new dimension to the problem.

In his news summary, Bell also related another most shocking and potentially terrifying thing now happening in America--or at least, in Kentucky. Just recently (during the month of Ziw 2001), mare horses in Central Kentucky have aborted fetuses, birthed dead foals or produced sick foals which soon died after birthing.

On May 23, 2001, Art Bell’s Coast to Coast program had a follow-up report by Linda Howe on the situation in Kentucky. The count of aborted horses or dead or dying foals had reached 532, as of that day. Linda’s report included interviews with various authorities in Kentucky. They have suspected diet in some way is causing the problem, but they have been unable to precisely establish what it is.

One horse nutritionist suggested that only a very few of the aborted fetuses have been reported. He put this reported figure at 10%, which would mean that the total number of deaths have been more in the range of 5300. Many of these lost colts were expensive race horses which supposedly received the best of care and diet.

The disease is called the “Mare Reproductive Loss Syndrome.” Kentucky veterinarians suggest that one in five mares will lose her foal next year (May 28, 2001, “US News & World Report,” p. 42).

Some agricultural scientists first speculated that there must be some strange fungus in the grass this spring in Kentucky which was killing the horses. However, this theory proved wrong. So an explanation behind the crisis remains a question mark. But the point of the story is that something is wrong--at least, in Kentucky, and in the environment where those horses lived. What is it? Who knows?

The Health Problem From China

Writer Richard Hoskins says that the reason so many killer viruses come out of China is because the Chinese raise and eat so many ducks. Being scavengers, these ducks are the main reservoirs for human influenza viruses which can be passed on to humans (“Proclaim Liberty Hot Sheet,” undated).

For years now, new flu bugs have been coming out of Asia with regularity (Hong Kong Flu, Asian Flu and so forth). Hong Kong had a flu breakout in 1997 from poultry which necessitated the slaughter of millions of ducks and chickens. In May 2001, another flu outbreak occurred in Hong Kong which necessitated the slaughter of 1.2 million chickens, ducks and quail (Jun 1, 2001, “The Week,” p. 7).

On the virus problem, Richard Hoskins suggests that in China, catfish are raised in duck ponds so that baby catfish can be eaten by the ducks. The catfish are fed pig and duck feces. Dead ducks and dead catfish are fed to the pigs. The result is a combination of viruses which can cause periodic epidemics.

More recently, in March 2003, a mysterious respiratory illness (called SARS) surfaced in the Guangdong Province of China, Vietnam and Hong Kong to begin killing and sickening hundreds of people (Mar 15, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A6). It soon spread to the West and within two months had infected thousands of people with hundreds of deaths worldwide.

There have been some reports that the SARS problem surfaced in China when clean chickens were fed with unclean pigs. As is the chicken practice, they will pick out the undigested grain from the feces of large animals. Thus, the chickens received some of the DNA of pigs when in contact with them. The chickens then become carriers of diseases (Nissan/Iyar 5763 “Jerusalem Prayer Mandate,” p. 4).

More on Pigs

Filthy pigs also more directly pass along viruses. A 1999 report out of Southern Malaysia noted that an encephalitis virus had broken out there in one province which was traceable to hogs. Mosquitoes pick the virus up from dirty pigs and then transmit it to humans.

Some fifty people had died and the government began slaughtering the 300,000 hogs in the province and burying them in holes dug by bulldozers (Mar 21, 1999, “Spokesman-Review,” p. A8).

The Jul/Aug 2001 “Believer’s Advocate” (p. 23) had a couple of news reports from 1997, which tied various health problems to pigs.

First, the “Monroe (NC) Evening News,” of Mar 22, 1997, had an AP report on the “1918 flu bug finally traced to U.S. pigs,” which focused upon an autopsy made by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology on the remains of a soldier who died in 1918 of the flu. It was found to be a unique virus, but closely related to the “swine flu.”

The second story concerned “60 Minutes,” from Jul 6, 1997, and a report on the pig factories in NC. Just as big business has taken over everything, animal factories are now in existence--which turn out animals for American meat. Pig farms are common where factories are bunched together and can have multiplied thousands of pigs confined in small pens very near each other. The stink in these areas is unbelievable.

The report said that run-off waters from the farms are so contaminated with pig urine and feces that when it reaches creeks and rivers, fish are killed and the water is algae. When floods occur, this mess comes upon the land to pollute it and present health problems to the human population. The story asked--what next?

The Alleged Wisdom of the USDA

All of a sudden, in the last few years, the US Department of Agriculture has been running ads about the need to thoroughly wash one’s hands after handling raw meat because of the fear of disease, as pointed out in previous commentary.

Similar ads, as mentioned above, have been repeatedly run stressing the need to cook meat thoroughly. Rare meat is now out, although it had been perfectly acceptable for many preceding centuries.

As late as April 11, 1998, national news reports said that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was concerned with meat products being sold to American consumers. The report said that “new strains of bacteria more deadly than in the past” are now appearing in meat products sold in local food markets.

The report went on to emphasize that the FDA did not know what the problem was with the new bacteria, but indicated that the government was proposing new regulations and controls on meat products--all the way from producers to consumers. What this amounts to is that the US FDA and USDA are beginning to realize that diseased and infected food is being sold to the American public.

Don’t Know

But the heads of government bureaucrats are so pathetically buried in the sand that they don’t have the foggiest notion of what could be wrong to cause this upsurge in dangerous food products.

Rather than deal with the problem, the government solution is more dictatorial regulations and controls--even over the few producers who feed their animals properly with hay, grass and grain. This government oversight will force the small operators out of business, leaving only the large, corporate producers (which is one of the goals of the process).

Greed and the incredible power of the large corporations and producers of most of these products will not allow scientists to even acknowledge the primary source of the problem (the diet and atmosphere of the animals). Actually, if any scientist did dare to speak out, he would be immediately castigated, criticized, condemned and fired (especially if he was with the government).

Monsanto Corporation

Just like the ax of a costly lawsuit fell upon Oprah Winfrey (described previously), the Monsanto Corporation is getting in on the act of suing anybody and everybody who dares to question its efforts to alter and change the historic diets of Americans into something which could be poisonous and certainly contrary to the Scriptures.

The lawsuit prone Monsanto was covered in an article on “Monsanto and it’s public image” in the Jan-Feb 2000 “Jubilee” (p. 1, 7). Monsanto is the company or at least one of the companies which has developed and is selling the artificial bovine growth hormone BGH (Posilac) which is designed to increase milk production (as outlined earlier).

However, many farmers don’t want to use the new chemical being pushed to probably poison their cattle and the humans who drink the contaminated milk. Accordingly, many farmers are selling their milk under a label that says it is BGH free. Moreover, the state of Vermont has went along with this process and has actually allowed it.

Monsanto got mad and began a campaign of intimidation by launching a number of civil lawsuits against the farmers and even the state of Vermont.

Whereas Oprah Winfrey had the money to fight oppression, many of these farmers simply won’t be able to stand up to the legal coercion (as discussed earlier). So they will likely have to give up their free speech in order to accommodate a rich chemical company which is out to deceive the gullible public.

Chapter 253--Sun Worship and Diet IV

The Question of Plant Foods, Revisited

The Spring 1998 issue of “Back to the Garden” (p. 5) had some comments by Rhonda J, Malkmus that quotes Genesis 1:29 with a conclusion that man’s diet should be raw fruits and vegetables. This reference has some support from Gen 3:17-19--when Adam was destined to eat of produce from the soil. Both of these texts were briefly discussed earlier.

Perhaps these remarks in the Torah have prompted various Christians to become ascetic vegetarians over the years.

However, as noted earlier, truth is established by all Scriptures on a subject and not just one or two. Thus, beyond Genesis 1:29 and 3:17-19, there are a number of other texts which allow other food items in a diet.

On this line, the issue primarily concerns clean meats (Lev 11:1-47; Deut 14:3-21) which were addressed in the former chapters. Thus, the question arises about this paradox between Genesis 1:29 and the later texts allowing certain other foods.

The explanation here is fairly simple. As discussed in a prior chapter on blood types, YHWH made Adam essentially as a herbivore (in Genesis 1:29); but not totally, nor by commandment. Thus, plant foods (vegetables, fruits, grains, etc--which, of course, includes olive oil and cooked bread and cereal) should be Adam’s primary or basic diet for health and sustenance.

Alternatively, in the Word, The MOST HIGH does allow some variation in a permissible vein with some clean meats, salt, honey, wine (to be discussed shortly), etc.

Repeatedly, the Scriptural rule on diet is moderation and especially on these auxiliary and/or supplemental food items that are permissible. Thus, these other Scripturally identified and authorized foods (like salt, honey, wine, dairy products, clean meats, etc) are allowable, but in moderation. Truly, Adam was meant to be basically a herbivore and not a carnivore.

But some meats can be tasty and beneficial in diet. It’s just that they should not be the primary staple of Adam. Therefore, plant foods are the general rule for Adam. However, The CREATOR does allow some exceptions, in moderation (perhaps to offer some variety/enjoyment in eating).

Genesis 9:2-3

Next, the situation with Genesis 9:2-3 must be noted. Many people suppose that in Genesis 1:29, YHWH only allowed plant foods for Adam and then in Genesis 9:2-3, He allowed everything in the creation as food.

Still later, these persons want to believe that in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, YHWH laid on some restrictions on meats. But this theory seems to have some serious flaws in it.

Frankly, this writer has doubts that The ELOHIM changed His position at all on Adamite foods in the different time frames. Hence, the approved diet for Adam probably never changed. This option has support when one recognizes that the distinction between clean and unclean meats was evidently in effect before the flood (Gen 7:2, 8; 8:20).

On the premise that YHWH is consistent and never changes (as is the correct way to approach the question), a check of Genesis 9:2-3 can be most revealing.

Rahmas

For example, the issue involved is the Hebrew word “rahmas” which does not refer to all animals, fish and birds in general. Rahmas and its cognate rehmes (as translated in the KJV as moveth and moving thing) seem to identify certain small species of life.

“The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament” (TWOT, v. II, p. 850) says it pertains to small creeping things--like possibly mice, reptiles, certain small fish and so forth. The term appears several times in the creation account (Gen 1:21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 6:7; 7:8, 14, 21, 23; 8:17, 19; 9:2, 3) where it would seem to suggest insects and/or very small creatures in general (in contrast to larger life forms).

Elsewhere, rahmas/rehmes also seem to be differentiated from other forms of non-Adamic life--including the behemah, chaiyah, miqneh, tson, eleph and sharas/sherets (Gen 7:21; Lev 5:2; 11:20-46; Deut 14:19). It appears that sharas/sherets are used for particular insect forms--in the context of certain allowable clean meats (but these words do not appear in the creation account in Gen 1).

In a review of several different commentaries and lexicons, this writer could not find a precise definition for rahmas, although TWOT did offer the just noted possibilities. Perhaps one of the clearest Scriptural uses specifically refers to particular life forms in the sea (Ps 104:25). The word is also used in Leviticus 11:44 and 46 which does lay out a limitation, but not a definition.

This limitation in Leviticus would seem to prohibit all forms of “rahmas.” And if so, then a definite conflict surfaces with Genesis 9:2-3. In order to try to reconcile the two references, it might be that Genesis 9:2-3 specifically refers to just certain rahmas in a limited sense (like those of the sea and the allowable insects, as is covered in the context of Lev 11), but not all (as would seem to be implied in Lev 11:44).

Possibly, Leviticus 11:44 is the general negative restriction--while Genesis 9:2-3 and Leviticus 11:21-22 offer a specific positive allowance. In any case, there is no reason to jump in and intrepid Genesis 9:2-3 in any broad way of allowing all life forms for Adamic food. As a minimum, Genesis 9:2-3 must correlate with Leviticus 11:44 which appears to restrict such foods.

Thus, one would have to be sure of what is covered in Genesis 9:2-3 and Leviticus 11:21-22 before eating of it. Importantly, Rabbinical authorities now disallow all forms of locusts because the kinds cited in Leviticus 11 are not currently known (”The Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs,” p. 451).

The Vegetable and Fruit Problem

Moreover, there can be problems with plant foods in modern times. The modern diet of vegetarians is not all lily-white and perfect.

Later comments will focus in some detail upon the use of poisonous pesticides and their impact upon what should be thought of as clean fruits and vegetables. The truth is that since modern agriculture has entered the arena, most store-bought fruits, vegetables and grains are reeking with pesticide chemical poisons.

People working with this stuff in the local food markets have to wear rubber gloves because the poisons are so extensive and dangerous. While this issue will be broached later, there are also some interesting fallouts on-going which seem to relate to the previous discussion on poisoned meats and how the USDA is constantly urging people to thoroughly cook meat.

A news report in Mar 1998 noted that washing fruits and vegetables may not be enough to prevent food-borne illnesses which affect thousands of people in the US every year, according to US scientists and health officials (Mar 1998 “Search the Scriptures,” p. 8).

The story said that rinsing fruits would not completely eliminate harmful microbes which cause infectious diseases. A study of raspberries tainted with Cyclospora found that some 81% of them, causing a disease outbreak in 1996, had been rinsed.

Cooking Now Required

Continuing, the report didn’t explain what the impetus was that was causing the outbreaks, but argued that fruits and vegetables must be washed and cooked to avoid problems.

Does this mean that stupid, rebellious, greedy man is approaching the place where he cannot eat raw fruits and salads? Does this mean that fruits and vegetables must now be cooked before eaten?

Evidently, the ruling pundits are now recommending the cooking of fruits and vegetables because on May 11, 1998, another news report surfaced again warning about fruits and vegetables (because of possible Salmonella contamination). Apparently, the US is now importing some 12-34% of its consumption of fruits and vegetables and the USDA only inspects some 2% of it.

Obviously, something is wrong with the modern fruits and vegetables being grown on the presently polluted and nutritionally deficient soil. Certainly, some of the problems involve poisonous chemical pesticides and herbicides which will be discussed in a later chapter.

But there could be other problems in the context of preservatives and other poisons being added to fresh fruits and vegetables.

For example, fresh cucumbers particularly and fresh tomatoes to a lesser extent are subjected to various preservatives. Both are often covered with wax or oil based preservatives. Who knows what all kinds and for what purposes this poisonous stuff is being used on food.

Finally, there is the likelihood that in some areas (particularly certain foreign countries), human fecal matter and waste products are used for fertilizer. Obviously, some fruits and vegetables can be tainted with this material. No wonder the USDA now claims that the agency cannot guarantee the safety of food being sold in local food markets.

Refined and Processed Foods

A later chapter will focus on the current cancer explosion which frequently can be traced to unscriptural foods and diets. For example, honey is a Scriptural blessing to man in moderation (Prov 24:13; 25:27).

But certainly, the excessive eating of “refined” sugar (which is unscriptural) causes all kinds of problems (bad teeth, heart disease, diabetes, etc). It is highly likely that man-made, refined sugar becomes a toxin or poison to the human body, as well as other man-made chemical products which are unscriptural.

An article, on “Spinning off diabetes in Zuni land” in the Jan 1, 2001, “US News & World Report” (p. 60), discussed some of the fall outs of the modern diet among the Zuni Indian peoples of Arizona. The story essentially focused upon the reality that years ago, diabetes was virtually unheard of among the Zuni. Today, diabetes plagues over 50% of the people over age 49 (a very high rate).

So, what could be the problem which is causing a health crisis among the Zuni?

Well, the story got to the heart of the matter by pointing out that the disease had been influenced by “processed foods, TV and cars.” There is little doubt, but that food and a lack of exercise has been a disaster for the Zuni people.

And in the context of food and diet, the tremendous consumption of refined sugars has to be one of the easiest culprits in causing disease. In today’s modern world, it is extremely difficult to eat and especially in restaurants without getting a dose of refined sugar. Refined sugar is in almost everything sold in the ready to eat category (from bread to desserts and so forth in diet).

There is so much processing of food products that many of them are today very flat in taste. This is particularly true with food used in the fast food chains--like McDonalds, Burger King, etc. NPR, on Mar 12, 2001, had a commentator on to discuss how these chains obtain common “tasty” sales items which have been processed and stored so long that they are actually bland and repulsive in taste.

So, how do the fast food chains obtain a common taste (where McDonald hamburgers and French fries taste the same all over the world) and one that is “tasty and good” to consumers? The fast food companies use chemical flavor enhancers to put a taste in products which otherwise would be tasteless and flat. What do these chemicals do to human health? Who knows--but they help sales and make much in profits.

Consumable Poisons

Moreover, it has been known for ages that sugar substitutes, like saccharin, are carcinogens. Even the popular Nutra-Sweet (containing aspartame, made by the previously mentioned Monsanto Corporation) is questionable since it seems to be poisonous to the body.

An article by Don Harkins on “Clinton may be suffering aspartame poisoning,” appearing in the June 1999 “Idaho Observer” (p. 16), outlined the methanol toxicity of aspartame (to be addressed in later comments).

The article noted that aspartame is not only a poison, but it seems to have an accumulating effect. In other words, over time, the more aspartame consumed, the more poisoning occurring to the human body. Slick Clinton is a big drinker of Diet Cokes. So the question comes up if he could be suffering from methanol poisoning?

Harkins outlined some of the symptoms of aspartame poisoning--to include headaches, mind fog, feel unrest, poor memory, confusion, anxiety, irritability, depression, mania, insomnia, dizziness, slurred speech, sexual problems, body and joint pains, ringing in ears, nausea, seizures, poor vision, hearing, taste, fatigue, weakness, red face, itching, rashes, burning eyes or throat, hair loss, obesity, bloating, poor or excessive hunger or thirst, diarrhea or constipation, breathing problems, asthma, racing heart, high blood pressure, and erratic blood sugar levels.

Even butter substitutes are made with questionable products (like the use of embalming fluids in margarine).

Perhaps man-made white bread, with its processing to remove the wheat bran and germ, fits into the same category and particularly so when man adds a number of other chemicals and poisons as preservatives to it to extend shelf life in stores (because money is the name of the game).

Microwave

One of the biggest fads in the past 30 years has been the incredible popularity of microwave (meaning electromagnetic radiation) ovens to allow the quick cooking of foods which normally take time because of being slow cookers (meat, beans, etc). Many American homes now have microwave ovens and they are extensively used because they are convenient and fast.

But are they safe? For sure, that question was never on the table for discussion when the microwave ovens were invented and distributed to the gullible public. As always, no one thought to ask--so microwaves have been and will be used extensively over many years before questions are raised.

Lay scientist Walt Myers (in his video on “Technology and the Mark of the Beast”) addressed that issue. He categorically declares that this intense heat destroys not only the vitamins and nutritional values in food, but even protein molecules in food. Consequently, eaters of microwaved food are eating bulk and apparently calories, which have enormous survivability features.

Besides destroying nutritional qualities, which the human body needs to sustain life, there are still other questions that remain unanswered by the proponents of this process. Is it plausible that the electromagnetic radiation being pumped into the food could otherwise injure or damage the human body in some manner?

Some History

Interestingly, a “Spotlight” report of Apr 30, 2001 (p. B-6), by William Knoff, on “Studies Draw Attention to Potentially Harmful, Toxic Effects of Household Microwave Ovens,” seems to tell the tale on microwave ovens.

Microwave ovens were first developed by the Germans in WWII to lessen cooking time for foods on the Eastern front.

In those early years, the Germans and later the Russians both did extensive studies, tests and investigations into the use of this technology. While much of this research has been available, it has been largely ignored by microwave oven sellers and the FDA in post WWII America. After all, the ovens do speed up cooking time.

In any case, Knoff brought out some of these studies showing that microwave ovens can cause cancer and many other ailments in the human body (in digestion and in the lymphatic system). They do present major health problems to users.

Irradiated Food

While the whole nuclear energy question will be examined in a later chapter in the context of radioactive pollution, there is a need to now look at something in this industry which affects the food supply.

The last several years has seen the establishment and its leaders come out in unison with a continuous barrage of information on the benefits of irradiation which involves blasting food with high doses of radioactive energy before selling it to the public.

Supposedly, the big push for this need comes from the frequent reports of E-Coli and Salmonella infected meat, fruit and vegetable products, as described earlier herein. The advocates claim that radiation bombardment kills all the bacteria leaving the foods clean and wholesome to eat.

US Health and Human Services Secretary Otis R. Bowen said on April 15, 1986, that “low-level radiation is a new technology that can produce benefits to consumers.” He added that the “process causes minor changes in foods...nutritional values are not significantly altered” (“Scriptures for America,” Vol 1, 1998, p. 10).

One rad (roentgen absorbed dose/unit) is more than a chest x-ray and 300 rads will kill half the people exposed to them. The new FDA limits are 100,000 rads for fruits and vegetables, 3,000,000 rads for herbs and spices, and 3 million to 5 million rads for meats. Obviously, something big is going on in this industry that needs some explanation.

US Congressman Doug Bosco said on Apr 17, 1986, that “the government has been trying to figure out what to do with our radioactive nuclear waste” and the apparent “solution seems to be to force the American people to eat it” (ibid, p. 10).

Hence, it seems that Big Brother has joined in with the big nuclear industry to promote the use of radiation to supposedly bombard the food supply with radioactive energy in an effort to make it palatable.

But as incredibly dangerous and threatening that radiation is, one has to ponder why in the world modern man would come up with this just described incredibly ridiculous scheme.

Perhaps the problem is that in man’s insoluble greed for more and more profits, he has created a food supply that is reeling with live bacteria, sickness and disease (which is about to bring havoc to the entire, gullible, eating public). Maybe man’s solution is to use radioactive energy to “sterilize” the present dangerous food supply.

The Impact?

The only problem is that no one has the foggiest notion of what the food producers and processors are doing or what the ultimate impact will be on people’s health after eating these irradiated foods. Possibly, some one should ask about those “minor changes” in the food products, as mentioned by Bowen.

What are these minor changes? Does anyone have the foggiest notion of what the impact will be for people who eat food that has underwent these “minor changes”? Perhaps down the road and after millions are adversely affected in some manner, science will come out and admit the stupidity of the whole approach.

In an article on “The Real Truth Behind Food Irradiation,” Dr Scott Priebe quoted several studies on irradiation--which found that irradiated foods lost flavor and odor, speeded up the process of decomposition, experienced a vitamin loss, and underwent a texture change (“Scriptures for America,” Vol. 2, 1998, p. 6).

Priebe also noted that flies given irradiated food showed increases in sexually bound recessive mutants and in mortality; animal fertility is decreased when fed irradiated food (maybe, this is a part of plans for population reduction, to be later discussed); highly irradiated foods caused chicks to have problems in growth, vitality and mentality; rats and dogs had changes in organs--kidneys, spleen, heart, lungs, sex organs; and mice faced increases in cancer (ibid, p. 6).

Additionally, Scott indicated that formaldehyde can form in irradiated foods and clostridium botulinum (which produces the botulinus toxin) can grow on irradiated food, since the process destroys the toxins’ natural competitors. Finally, the doctor said he would pass on irradiated foods, regardless of what the FDA says (ibid, p. 6).

Genesis 2:9, Revisited

Incidentally, this issue of clean and unclean foods offers a classic illustration of man eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, discussed in a prior chapter, instead of following YHWH’s instructions to eat from the tree of life (Gen 2:9).

While it would be quite simple and easy to merely obey The MOST HIGH’s laws and have life, men typically choose another approach. Limited, little, sinning men like to apply their own reasonings, theories, beliefs and speculations often on this matter of diet instead of relying on The CREATOR’s wisdom and thinking, as outlined in His Word.

Stupid, rebellious men can rationalize that eating pork and other unclean or poisoned foods is all right because The ELOHIM’s laws were done away with or some other ridiculous justification.

With this mental reasoning and intelligence, men and women go on and eat whatever they want to eat with a cavalier, could care-less attitude about YHWH’s laws and right and wrong.

So the years pass and so-called human beings eventually began having sickness, disease and affliction--never understanding why. Of course, there is a cause and effect relationship in process on this thing. None of us get away with sin, despite our misunderstanding and confusion on the subject.

Proper Foods

If there is anything to be said about diet and food, man should eat those foods (in a natural and organic state) described and mentioned as food in the Scriptures (honey, salt, olive oil, grains, clean meats, vegetables, fruits, etc).

Once the sun worshipping culture begins to process food items and add preservatives, chemical poisons, etc (as they have historically done), watch out.

If a modern person is uninformed and ignorant about what is happening to the food supply, then he or she should spend some time in a grocery store and read those can and jar labels on food products before buying them. Most of them (like wine, to be next assessed) have all kinds of poison additives to serve various purposes (and make more profits for the manufacturers and sellers, since money is the name of the game).

Alcoholic Beverages

A former chapter herein discussed the question of wine in the vein of the Passover and especially as the “fruit of the vine” which was used by YESHUA to symbolize His blood. Without repeating those comments (as they are lengthy), a few remarks will be recalled in order to usher in the overall question of alcoholic beverages.

Manifestly, wine (the Hebrew “yayin” and the Greek “oinos”) was a proper and often used food product in Second Temple Judaism. As outlined in the previous presentation, YESHUA, Himself, clearly used fermented wine (yayin). This reality is proven in at least two places in the NT.

First, YESHUA turned water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (not grape juice). As noted earlier, this was wine because the ruler of the feast acknowledged that every man serves his good wine first at a feast so that after the people had drunk it (and were beginning to be a little intoxicated), the bad wine then could be served, when they would not know the difference (Jo 2:10).

Second, as also pointed out earlier, it is absolutely a surety that YESHUA, Himself, drank fermented wine on occasion because the Pharisees accused Him of it and He clearly admitted it (Matt 11:18-19).

Moreover, it is important to note that the famous feast which Melchizedek and Avraham enjoyed in Genesis 14:17-20 involved the Hebrew yayin (fermented wine). Obviously, wine was a proper and good beverage for use as a food item at meals (just as it is today among Israelis and by numbers of Europeans). It is tasty, enjoyable and very helpful in digesting food.

Some Questions

Yet, wine is a mocker (Prov 20:1); and the priests serving YHWH in the Temple were expressly prohibited from drinking yayin while on duty and working at the Temple (Lev 10:9).

The general rule in Judaism is that religious leaders are forbidden from entering the Temple, blessing the congregation, or rendering religo-legal decisions if they have drunk even a minimal amount of wine (Feb 22, 2002, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 39). However, the “rabbis” do seem to allow an exception to this strictness in terms of celebrating Purim, where there is much drinking (Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 7b).

In any case, the prohibition against yayin for priests on duty at the Temple makes it clear that priests off duty could drink the liquid (otherwise, the prohibition would serve no purpose).

Moreover, on the subject of alcoholic beverages, there are some other Scriptures which raise legitimate questions. For example, drunkenness is much condemned and cast in a bad light in the Word (Gen 9:21; Deut 21:20; I Sam 1:14; I Kg 16:9; 20:16; Job 12:25; Ps 107:27; Prov 23:21; 26:9; Eccl 10:17; Isa 19:14; 24:20; 28:1-3; 51:21; Jer 25:27; 46:10; 51:57; Ezek 23:33; Joel 1:5; Nah 1:10; 3:11)

Even the NT condemns drunkenness (Lu 21:34; Rom 13:13; I Cor 5:11; 6:10; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:18; Rev 17:6). Assuredly, there is absolutely no basis in the Scriptures that will allow a person to get drunk and commit sin.

Yet, as just noted, wine is a proper beverage which Scriptural people drank on occasion and certainly at meals and times of joy and happiness (as suggested in Genesis 14:17-20).

More Issues

Perhaps one of the good features of wine is that its alcoholic content is not necessarily that high, as compared with some other alcoholic beverages. Possibly, beer and brandy are in a similar category, although the Word does not seem to address them in this regard. Certainly, brandy is a fruit product which can be close to wine (but with substantially more alcoholic content).

Thus, one might drink a little wine with a Sabbath meal. But beer and brandy would remain in a questionable category and would have to be used with some caution, care, concern and prayer.

Other alcoholic drinks (whiskey, gin, vodka, etc) are also in somewhat of a questionable state since they are not precisely identified as such in the Word. However, they could be included in the Hebrew term “shekar” which means “strong drink,” in the vein of fermentation and alcoholic content.

Strong drink is differentiated from wine and is also sometimes condemned (Lev 10:9; Deut 29:6; I Sam 1:15; Prov 20:1; Isa 28:7). If “strong drink” can properly include other alcoholic beverages (beyond wine), as is probable, there seems to be some allowance then for some of these products--along with wine (Deut 14:26; Prov 31:6).

Just as wine is sometimes used in food or as a drink, when eating, the same can be said for most any of these alcoholic beverages. Years ago, this writer had an opportunity to eat at a place called O’Donnel’s in Washington, DC. They served rum rolls (which were not only alcoholic, but absolutely delicious). Also, years ago, a business colleague of mine had a party and served ice cream, mixed with champagne.

Howbeit, there is always the prevailing condemnation of getting drunk. So maybe, some small quantities of these beverages can be used--especially at meals. But the Word is clear--they must be used sparingly and in moderation (the Book does prescribe moderation in all things!).

In Conclusion

Finally, there are a couple of other features about this subject which need further mention.

First, just as modern man is busy poisoning his fields with pesticide poisons and pumping chemicals into all kinds of consumable foods, the same realty happens with grapes, wine, brandy, beer, whisky, etc. They are produced from pesticide laden fruits and grains and later have huge quantities of chemical additives added.

There is one more issue at stake here--which must be understood by anyone choosing to drink a little at meals or socially in moderation. One of the things finally understood by modern man is that most of these alcoholic beverages can be a terror or catastrophic for health.

They cause liver problems, mental problems and on and on (and it is a sin for man to injure/hurt his body, to be later addressed). Most modern medical doctors and practitioners readily agree pregnant women should not drink alcoholic beverages at all for fear of damage to the child being carried. Perhaps this evidence is sufficient to preclude pregnant women from ever using such alcoholic drinks.

Otherwise, the health issues remain and must be addressed if a person insists on drinking (even in moderation or at an occasional meal). While this writer does not have the details of all the health problems and the whys for them, one health news item on drinking did seem relevant once to me.

It seems to be a truism that an inadequate diet (alternatively) is often the culprit for many of the health problems arising in drunks and drinkers. For example, it is known that magnesium protects from the adverse features of alcoholic beverages, if properly available in the diet of a drinker.

In the modern world, where man’s diet is highly inadequate and lacking (because of depleted and poisoned soil), it appears that nutritional problems abound.

Obviously, when a nutritionally deficient person drinks, his health problems multiply. Surely, the digestion benefits of a little wine (and wine is a help to digestion) might be allowable. But anything else has to be questionable (certainly in the absence of a proper diet).

Chapter 254--Sun Worship and Diet V

Genetically Engineered (GM) Food

Beyond the previously noted problems of selling chemical poisons as food, in the former chapters, there is a far more disturbing trend on the horizon with the introduction, production and consumption of “genetically engineered” foods. Scientists are already experimenting with all kinds of new vegetables and fruits and even animal products developed from genetic engineering.

For example, experiments have been underway for years to produce “seedless” grapes, watermelons and tomatoes (if they are totally seedless, how can they reproduce?) and to supposedly make some plants more insect and disease resistant--as well as making material alterations in any number of vegetable and fruit products.

Despite all of the unanswered questions which have persisted over the years, as man has worked tirelessly in his goal of genetically altering growing plants, work has reached a certain plateau of success. Today, in the early 21st century, genetically engineered plants and vegetation (for food) are now a reality. It is the real world.

The Apr-Jun 2001 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 36) quoted a recent “NY Times” which said that in 2000, some 100 million acres of genetically engineered crops were planted. This was a 25 times increase over four years ago.

Background on Genetically Engineered Food

“US News & World Report” (USNWR) of Jul 26, 1999 (p. 38-41), had an in-depth story by Phillip J. Longman on “The Curse of Frankenfood” which assessed man’s supposed achievements and the controversy (the still remaining unanswered questions) surrounding his work.

The article described the genetically engineering breakthrough as having occurred in the last five years, although man has been crossbreeding plants for much of the last 100 years for various and sundry reasons. The present efforts involve the process of taking genes from one plant specie and splicing them into another specie--like maybe taking a gene from a dog and putting it into a cat.

For example, scientists have taken an anti-freeze gene from founder fish and introduced it into tomatoes with a view that the gene will help protect tomatoes from cold weather. While this sounds good, no one knows what the ultimate outcome of these crossings will bear.

The very description of this undertaking spells out at once that it is illegal and contrary to the Torah. Genesis 1:11-12 and 21-25 establish broad principles that kind are supposed to reproduce after kind. And this includes all forms of life--vegetation, animals, fish, humans and so forth.

Moreover, as outlined in a former chapter, Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11 categorically declare it illegal and wrong for man to mix or blend kinds in any manner. This wonderful message recognizes that man would have the capability and therefore could (from a biological point of view) alter life forms by interbreeding, crossing and genetically engineering the different kinds.

Of course, this mixing and blending realization surfaced 3,500 years ago. So it is not something new in the early 21st century. As Longman noted, man has been interbreeding diverse kinds for ages. But what is new is the ability to take genes from one kind and splice them into another kind in the context of laboratory experiments, without any regard whatsoever to the outcome.

A Principle

One principle in food is that if bugs and varmints (like mice) won’t eat it, then it is not fit for human consumption. Therefore, one must wonder about refined flour which bugs and varmints won’t eat because of the poisons present. Is refined flour good for humans? No, of course not! Now, how about genetically engineered products which even bugs refuse to eat or die if they do eat them?

The USNWR story (cited above) noted that in 1998, some 25% of corn, 38% of soybeans and 45% of cotton grown in the US has been genetically altered to make them supposedly resistant to plant-killers or to produce their own pesticides. Longman suggested that it is now virtually impossible to eat American food without eating genetically modified organisms.

In the produce department of today’s (2003) modern supermarket, most of the produce for sale have been genetically engineered. It is increasingly more difficult to find natural produce the way The MOST HIGH created them. Moreover, “genetically modified ingredients are already used in everyday items like Coca-Cola, Heinz ketchup and Betty Crocker cake mixes (Aug 17, 2000, “Spokesman Review,” p. B6).

An advertisement in the Apr 30, 2001, “Spotlight” (p. B-5) reported that today over 75% of the foods we eat (in America) come from genetically engineered plants, as altered by giant food corporations. Obviously, the problem is serious and it is growing daily.

Questions

Beyond the very obvious from the standpoint of food production, there are also fantastic questions about what all this genetically engineered food might be doing to the ecology of other growing plants and various animal, bird and bug populations (after all, bees and wasps are friendly insects which sustain plant life).

And what about the effects of this food upon the human body, after its consumption? Who knows what this food will do to sick, sun worshipping humans/humanoids? Of course, science will say that it is the same as the food items produced naturally in nature. But is it? Science has been wrong about a lot of things over the ages--as outlined in this study at hand.

Perhaps the US insurance industry has the right attitude about the introduction of genetic engineering in America’s food supply. American insurance companies have made it plain that they will not provide liability coverage for long term catastrophic environmental damage from genetically engineered plants because the industry lacks a risk assessment science (Aug-Sep 1999 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 54).

In other words, these unanswered questions persist. Tragically, this alteration condition is now a fact of life and one that is growing by leaps and bounds.

More Concerns Remain

Moreover, other unanswered questions remain--in the context of human health risks and environmental risks--to include losing a safe, natural pesticide (plants have natural qualities to fight off disease and bugs) and the possibilities of spawning super plants with resistance attributes which can be passed on to other plants in the environment (in other words, the altered factors in one plant can, in nature, be theoretically passed as pollen or something else to the entire plant kingdom to cause who knows what)?

Phillip J. Longman outlined in his USNWR article (cited above) the human health risks as toxicity (by pumping unanticipated poisons into the food supply), allergies (by creating new ones previously unheard of), bad nutrition (not only are some of the new ones nutritionally deficient, but who knows what might otherwise occur to the consumers) and antibiotic resistance (genes can be passed on to humans which might be disease causing or antibiotic resistant).

The StarLink Corn Problem

A classic illustration of how dangerous genetically engineered food can be surfaced in the fall of 2000 when it was discovered that a genetically engineered corn product called StarLink had improperly entered the US corn supply used for human consumption.

The background was that this corn was engineered with an inherent pesticide toxin present (Cry9C protein, 50-100 times more toxic than that allowed in GM corn intended for human consumption) and there was concern of what would happen if humans ate it.

The plan was that this corn would be used strictly for animal feed. It seems that the pundits, planners and schemers were not concerned with cows, pigs and chickens eating the corn and then humans eating the cows, pigs and chickens or using the cow’s dairy products or eggs from the chickens.

The word was that this corn simply had not been tested on humans and the powers that be didn’t know what would happen with human consumption. Of course, the so-called scientists (who developed this product) didn’t have the foggiest notion of what would happen when the product was fed to animals. Anyway, ignorance did not keep back the massive use of this corn.

It Mixed

By the time that the fall of 2000 rolled around (Sep-Nov), this particular corn product (StarLink) was all over the United States--both in animal feed and in human food. There were several massive food recalls (to include one recall of tacos by Taco Bell). In other words, the pesticide engineered corn could not be kept separate and apart from other corn supplies. The two mixed.

While there was a careless mixing of corn by producers and grain silos, a Feb 9, 2001, news report said the corn pollen mixed in nature naturally, as allowed above. In one case, a manufacturer of genetically engineered food sued a man for using one of its modified corn products illegally in his fields (news reports heard by this writer did not seem to explain how the farmer got the corn, but presumably he did).

Anyway, in a counter-suit, the farmer charged that the corn involved was used in adjacent agricultural farms and the pollen simply crossed over to his fields to contaminate his corn. This case seems to have been still in a trial state in 2002-2003 and it is unclear what the final outcome will be. But the point is that once this stuff is introduced, it can spread unchecked throughout nature.

This StarLink corn started small--10,000 acres were planted in 1998, 250,000 acres in 1999, and 350,000 acres in 2000. And by 2000, it had co-mingled with other corn in twelve states, according to the Seed Savers Exchange (Mar-Apr 2002 “EAOY Newsletter,” p. 3).

This cross-contamination problem finally woke some people up at the USDA. In 2001, the US allocated $20 million (originally intended for natural disaster relief for farmers) to help buy back 300,000 to 400,000 bags of contaminated seeds, in an effort to contain (not control) the crisis (ibid, p. 3). About ten percent of all corn stored in America is now contaminated with StarLink (ibid, p. 3).

The Canadian Canola Problem

Percy Schmeiser is a third generation grain farmer in Saskatchewan, Canada. Percy is in his seventies and has been growing his own canola for forty years (for seed oil). Every year, he conscientiously saved seed over from year to year for planting the next year. Though some other farmers in that area of Canada began using genetically modified seed from Monsanto in the late 1990s, Schmeiser did not (ibid, p. 1).

But the wind and bees were at work and soon Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola pollen had infected Percy’s fields. Without his consent, his canola grain became contaminated with the Monsanto GM product. When Monsanto found out that its GM grain was in Percy’s fields, Monsanto sued him for patent infringement. Monsanto sought $400,000 in damages (ibid, p. 1).

In June 2000, the Monsanto versus Schmeiser trial took place in Canada. Monsanto argued that whether Schmeiser knew about the contamination of his corn or not, it mattered not at all. Percy was alleged to be guilty. Accordingly, the “supposedly intelligent” judge (W. Andrew MacKay) found for Monsanto that Schmeiser was guilty of having the benefit of the GM seed without paying for it.

Not only was poor Percy faced with damages and enormous legal fees, he completely lost his forty years of work of developing his own canola seed supply. His entire canola seedline was contaminated and seized by government authorities (ibid, p. 2).

Perhaps one of the most startling fall outs of this case was the revelation that enormous cross-contamination of fields is now occurring from the use of the GM products. Accordingly, Monsanto has filed hundreds of lawsuits claiming patent infringement on their GM seeds. Obviously, many farmers, and particularly those who are organic farmers, are concerned.

More Coming Trouble

Despite all of the questions, “science” has forged ahead with this GM effort. But there are some bad omens out there which are causing some concern and apprehension.

For example, Cornell University researchers found in May 1999 that monarch butterflies (found mainly in the corn producing states of the US Midwest) fed pollen from certain genetically engineered corn either died or developed abnormally. This finding, disputed by industry proponents, came five years after its use and when 25% of US corn production is coming from the hybrid strains.

Butterflies are one of the great insect creations of YHWH; because, they, like bees and wasps, carry the pollen from one plant to another to allow the reproduction of kind after kind. And what about the wonderful worms which irradiate the soil and make for healthy plants? Obviously, as man stupidly destroys all of the butterflies, worms, wasps, bees and so forth, he will have a crises of unequaled proportions.

Besides destroying many of these wonderful species which The ELOHIM gave to propagate food crops, there is another fall out on the use of genetically engineered plants. On the June 18, 2000, “Dreamland” program, Whitley Strieber mentioned a news report which could have far reaching consequences in the use of genetic engineering.

He said that in using a different gene in a plant to ward off bugs and predators, there is now evidence that this gene “jumped” to certain bacteria in the stomach of honey bees. The implications here could be enormous if altered genes or DNA can and should jump from plants into bugs and other forms of life. Like the situation with the Monarch butterflies, who knows what might happen, as this gross stupidity continues.

“The Lancet”

The “Spotlight” paper for Aug 30, 1999 (p. B3-B5), had a whole section on genetically engineered food. One of the “Spotlight” features was a reprint of an editorial from the prestigious medical journal “The Lancet.”

“The Lancet” said: “Crops genetically modified to have reduced susceptibility to pests are promoted as a solution to low food yields in developing countries. The motive for these promoters is profit, not altruism...

“In view of this unbridled commercial approach to genetic modification, it is perhaps not surprising that companies have paid little attention to the potential hazards to health of genetically modified foods.”

Going on, “The Lancet” also noted that the US FDA has not changed its stance since 1992 and the introduction of these products. The FDA policy has been that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant (in the sense that genetically altered plants are no different than any of the others).

The kicker was raised on this subject when “The Lancet” said that this FDA stance is taken “despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist. For instance, antibiotic-resistant genes are used in some genetically modified plants as a marker of genetic transformation.

“Despite repeated assurance that the resistance genes cannot spread from the plant, many commentators believe this could happen. Of greater concern is the effect of the genetic modification itself on the food. Potatoes have been engineered with a gene from the snow-drop to produce an agglutinin (immune antibody) which may reduce susceptibility to insects.

“In April of last year, a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating genetically engineered potatoes. Pusztai said he wouldn’t eat such food himself and that it was unfair to use his fellow citizens as guinea pigs.”

As “The Lancet” noted, Pusztai’s comments caused a storm of protests. He was immediately fired from his job. Despite his complaints, the process continues and now some 75% of processed food in the US has genetically modified ingredients.

There is little doubt about it. Powerful forces are promoting genetically engineered foods. On the surface, profits are the name of the game. However, there could be other motives. One such possibility might be population control, as will be assessed in a later chapter herein.

The Seedless Problem

One of the important features of genetic engineering has been the ability to produce so-called food products which have no seeds to contend with in their consumption. In terms of some popular fruits and vegetables, this has been a perfect joy for a lot of consumers. Many people have come to like the previously mentioned seedless watermelons, seedless grapes and so forth.

However, one of the big issues which has been largely neglected by producers (who are only concerned about getting profits) and consumers (who are often more focused upon convenience and taste) is that the seeds in various plants have nutritional values that cannot be found in any other place.

Vitamin E is such a product which is found not only in grains, but also in certain other seeds. And almost without exception, various seeds are rich in polyunsaturated oils which are not only valuable for cooking, but for nutrition as well.

When The MOST HIGH made watermelons, grapes, various citrus fruits and a host of other plants, He made them to be eaten. Yes, the seeds and rinds of tangerines and lemons contain bioflavonoids which are not only of nutritional benefit, but they provide enormous help to the body in assimilating vitamin C.

Grape seeds have been found to contain nutritional factors which support the body’s immune system and provide other needed benefits. While genetic engineering has eliminated grape seeds in the fruits sold in grocery stores, some people with brains realized that a few nutritionally conscious persons would still buy grape seed extracts which are now available in health food stores.

Watermelon seeds may no longer be found in many commercial watermelons, but they once were a very popular snack item. The revolutionary Red Chinese Army, led by Mao Tse-tung, in their long march from Jiangxi North to the Shaanxi province in 1934-1935, subsisted upon watermelon seeds as one of its main staples.

Apricot/Peach Pits

Some years ago, it was found that the real seed cores or pits of apricot and peach seeds contained a product (laetrile) which was useful in fighting cancer. Many health food stores began to carry these apricot and peach pits for sale.

In 2001, Israeli researchers at the Institute of Technology at Haifa, Israel have discovered beneficial effects of pomegranate seed oil in the battle of breast cancer. The juice of the fruit is toxic to most breast cancer cells; yet, it seems to have no effect on healthy cells.

Pomegranates seem to replace the estrogen prescribed to protect postmenopausal women against osteoporosis, etc. Dr Marven Goldman says that this is a safe substance, for use on women at high risk for developing breast cancer (Jan 2002 “Bible Light International JPM News & Prayer Requests, p. 1).

The enormous value of sunflower seeds is well established along with the whole grain seeds of various grains produced for cereal and bread. It is these whole grains which contain an array of vitamins, minerals, proteins and benefits which The HIGHEST created for consumption.

What a tragedy it has been for men to blanch off or extract the bran and germ of wheat so that consumers can buy white flour (which contains almost nothing, but fattening carbohydrates). True, a few stores sell wheat germ (which is powerful and nutritionally rich), but the nutritional factors needed are otherwise not typically available in most grain products sold commercially.

The Seed Terminator

The Jul-Aug 1998 “Jubilee” paper (p. 1, 17) had a story by Geri Guidetti on “Seed Terminator and Mega-Merger Threaten Food and Freedom” which focused upon one of the recent acts of genetic engineering of American food products. The gist of the report concerned the work of the USDA and the Delta and Pine Land Company to obtain a patent on a new product.

Per the report, the Company had created a process where “sterile seed” could be produced which would kill its own embryos. Various seed companies can obtain a license to use this new technology for the agricultural seeds sold to the sun worshipping public.

This technology was developed to prevent farmers from saving non-hybrid, open-pollinated or non-genetically altered seed sold by seed companies. The idea of this scheme is to sell the farmers seed which are good for one planting and will not reproduce seed that can be saved and carried over for future plantings (as has been the historic position in agriculture).

The essence of this new technology is that seed companies will get to sell new seed each year without fear of farmers carrying over seed from the prior year. Obviously, everybody makes gobs and globs of new money on the process. One must always remember that profits are the name of the game in the Christian, sun worship culture. Everything is geared to greed, get and acquire--more and more!

The article raised the question of the safety of the use of these seeds. Will they spread to surrounding food crops or create a natural environmental crisis of some sort? No one knows the answer presently.

But the Scriptures do seem to have some remarks which make the whole issue not only questionable, but also likely sinful. The Word says that the earth brought forth vegetation, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind; and The ELOHIM saw that it was good (Gen 1:12).

Manifestly, the conspiracy ruling this world is marching full time in the direction of eliminating man’s capability to have his own garden and food production means, as has been present historically for 6,000 years (because of man’s ability to carry forward seeds from year to year).

The Cross-Pollination Problem, Revisited

Here, on Terminator, a question must surface on whether Terminator could get out of control and spread to other crops. For an assessment of this question, it would be well to revisit some comments herein.

The previously quoted Mar-Apr 2002 “EAOY Newsletter” (p. 1-4 of the insert) had a Food Supply Update with an article also by Geri Guidetti of the Ark Institute (PO Box 142, Oxford, Ohio 45056). The focus of this update was the Percy Schmeiser and StarLink cases where the nation’s grain fields are being contaminated by nearby genetically engineered crops (as outlined above).

This cross-contamination is growing by leaps and bounds and soon may affect most all US gains and who knows what else as this stuff spreads rapidly.

The EAOY article by Guidetti also addressed the new Terminator technology, cited above, which will force farmers to routinely and regularly each year have to go the Terminator patent owner in order to buy seeds to plant. The scheme is simple. The patent owner, the Delta & Pine Land Company, will make barrels of money.

Will Terminator Spread?

Anyway, Guidetti took note of the great ease in which cross-contamination occurs. So, what will happen once these Terminator seeds begin appearing in America’s agricultural fields? Is it possible that the Terminator sterile seed pollen will spread from field to field to literally destroy much or all of a particular food product?

If this thing should spread, there will be clearly no reason to even attempt to save planting seed from year to year in order to have a crop. The Terminator characteristic will destroy all of them. Thus, the Terminator may terminate all seeding plants (effectively all agricultural corps) beyond those sold by the Terminator patent holder.

This single prospect for the future should scare the daylights out of all Americans. It simply means that we may reach the point where no one can even own a garden without going to one company, man or source of power in order to obtain garden seed.

The previously quoted Apr-Jun 2001 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 36) article (which cited the “New York Times”) said that already organic food products that are supposed to be GM Free (genetically engineered free) are testing positive for genetically engineered cross contamination.

So cross pollination is occurring and it is affecting not only organic produce but everything else, as well, with the reality of what happened to Percy Schmeiser and the StarLink mess (as cited above).

The Labeling Problem

A news report on Dec 21, 2000, mentioned one of the most classic illustrations of the madness in using these genetically engineered products. It seems that producers and distributors of genetically engineered vegetables and fruits have the gall to advertise and sell this stuff as “natural” products or as “organic” products.

Some states have actually been looking at these labels and have been trying to impose some standards. The only problem with this is that once governmental jurisdictions start establishing standards, they will take over the complete regulation of these products. The outcome can be the imposition of licenses and other controls which could ultimately be detrimental to consumers.

The story involved focused specifically upon the advertising and sale of genetically engineered products as “organic,” which commands a higher sales price in stores. Can the reader see what can happen if an genetically engineered product with a inherent pesticide (like the corn, mentioned above) is sold as organic?

Frankly, this writer does not want to eat or consume any of the scientifically developed genetically engineered products. The best products to use are those developed by The CREATOR in nature and by organic farming methods. It disturbs me that this trash called genetically engineered food can be sold as organic and/or as natural.

The Export Problem

The latest crisis in the US production of genetically engineered food arose in the summer of 2003 when various foreign countries around the world either refused to import any US GM products (without an assurance and proof of the safety of them); or if they do import them, they have chosen to label them as such so that foreign buyers and consumers will know what they are buying and eating.

Europe, in particular, has taken the position that any genetically modified US foods must be labeled as such to be sold in most European countries. Now, the latest is that some of the Asian and African countries have followed the European lead and started labeling genetically modified foods from the US as such.

Some countries have even went so far as to demand proof that the GM products are safe even before they will allow them to be imported. Obviously, this is causing a crisis in the giant GM corporations because no such proof exists. Foreign buyers and consumers are expected to be as gullible and stupid as American food buyers are in accepting the safety claims of the big US corporations--like Monsanto.

And of course, the US government has entered the fight on the side of the big US corporations to “demand” that foreign countries accept the US GM products without question and not label them as such (which might scare off some of the potential buyers). Since 70% of US food exports involve GM products, this is a problem.

A Jul 5, 2003, NPR news report said that US aid and assistance to various foreign countries will be stopped if those countries attempt to refuse US GM products or label such products. Much of the dilemma hangs on the fact that there is no proof of safety for these genetically engineered products, beyond the words of the giant US corporations which produce and sell them (like Monsanto).

US government spokesmen have been ferociously attacking any country which asks for proof that the US GM products are safe or attempts to label them as such when they are sold in those countries. US authorities insist on hiding this information from foreign buyers like it is hid in the US. The accelerating US threats against various foreign countries suggest that these questions could bring on a trade war.

More Problems

There is still one more profound fall-out of this evil and depravity facing man. This one arises because, increasingly, man’s food production capabilities are being placed into the hands of a few, giant, multi-national corporations. Today, large multi-national food corporations produce the world’s food supply and not small farmers, as noted herein.

As this new food stuff comes down the pike, it will be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. The London “Guardian Weekly” of Dec 21, 1997, noted that six giant agrochemical corporations are poised to dominate the world’s food production, eventually with genetically engineered food (Mar 1998 “New Beginnings,” p. 13).

The Guardian called this a $400 billion gamble with the world’s food. The result will be that millions of (small and independent) farmers will become unemployed as the six super giant corporations take over all food production. Clearly, Revelation 13 is on the horizon.

The bottom line on man’s supposed great intelligence and efforts to conquer and control nature is that The ELOHIM is manifestly far more intelligent than scientists working in their laboratories. The MOST HIGH obviously had a reason when He said certain things in the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy).

So-called humanity should be spending time and effort in learning the directions, teachings and instructions contained in the Torah, rather than in lawless rebellion and contempt toward the Torah. What a tragedy Christianity has been for the creation in the last 2,000 years. Yes, this genetic engineering evil is being done by Christians in a Christian world using Christian money and resources.

Even dumb, Christian, sun worshippers are the people who sit back and allow this sickness to happen and then eat the food as it comes down the pike. If Christian preachers, teachers and pastors would spend a portion of their time to teach the Torah (rather than support the politically correct, Christian status quo of profits at all cost and greed, get and acquire), the world would be a better place.

Another Twist on the Food Problem

One of the fallouts of the plutocratic rule of the super rich in America has been their continuous push for more and more profits at the expense of both the nation and its people. Quickly, the Amalek-Edomite bankers found themselves in close league (on racial and ethnic grounds) with organized crime which has been essentially in Edomite hands for the last 100 years, as discussed previously herein.

During the days of prohibition, the gangs found out that if a product (like say whiskey) was outlawed, it placed all aspects of the production, marketing and sale of that product in the hands of organized crime. By controlling all factors associated with the sale and consumption of a product, enormous profits can be made.

With the outlaw of the product (like whiskey), the government entered into an alliance with the mobsters to take all measures necessary to drive all competition out of the picture from anyone in America who would dare try to make or sell whisky to compete with the Mob.

The idea was that if government (as directed by prostitute politicians, who were paid off by the Mob) would use her full resources and capabilities to crack down on all the small, little people in America who would dare try to produce and sell whisky, it would leave the entire whisky business in the hands of the professional criminals (usually under Amalekite control and direction).

In this sense, the US Government aggressively took after small time whiskey operators with a vengeance during prohibition (which has continued on until today). Since some farmer in the mountains could not distill liquor and sell it (without being pursued vigorously and caught and prosecuted to the full limit of the law), it meant that most of the whisky production was done overseas, under control of the Mob.

Booze was illegally transported into the US by the Mob. And it was sold in America illegally by the Mob. In time, the whiskey business belonged lock, stock and barrel to organized crime. Even petty crooks who tried to move in and get some of the action would be murdered by the Mob whenever possible. The Mafia was in no mood to share its profits with anyone (beyond payoffs to prostitute politicians and police).

Since the Mob involves big money (and especially in the context of the ruling Amalekites, who controlled both politicians and the media), the real people in charge of the liquor trade would never be pursued, caught and prosecuted, as would small time distillers or local bootleg distributors. The whisky business made millionaires out of many people (like JFK’s father Joe Kennedy).

The crooks in charge were never in any threat from government agencies because of their money and ability to pay off government officials and use the controlled media to assist them in their nefarious activities. Contrariwise, everyone else at the low levels who tried to make some money from bootleg whisky ran a risk of being caught and jailed.

When the American people voted whisky back in legally in the US in the early 1930s, the Mob turned to various drugs--marihuana, cocaine, heroin, etc to continue its illegal money making schemes. But in order to implement this motion, it was necessary that government take action to make all of these products illegal. The federal and most state governments complied at once.

And as is the normal methodology, the US government has continuously had a vigorous campaign to stomp out the production and sale of drugs by all people, except the big boys at the top who make payoffs for protection.

Marijuana

Marijuana has been an important US crop for years. It has prompted a number of people to raise their own supply (to avoid the high costs of buying marijuana from organized crime with its exorbitant prices).

Obviously, the Amalekite plutocrats ruling American politicians and the media have been in no mood to sit back and allow small time farmers to raise marijuana to compete with organized crimes’ importation and distribution of the weed.

Since Clinton and a number of other high ranking government leaders have been receiving drug money for years (as established in other comments herein), government has pulled out all of the stops to go after little producers. The little people must be put out of business at all costs.

Regularly, federal black helicopters are patrolling the skies and looking for marijuana wherever it is grown. Small time raisers and sellers of this stuff have been hotly pursued from day one. Yet, the big boys, who really are calling the shots (and making the profits), never seem to face problems over their roles.

In any case, political leaders like Slick Clinton, the Bush presidents and their evil colleagues have been busy trying to accommodate the gangs (which are making the profits and payoffs).

The Planned Fungus

The latest innovation to help the Mob make money has been the development of a genetically engineered fungus which is designed to attack and destroy marijuana plants.

July 1999 news reports said that the US government would introduce this fungus in Florida (where there are a lot of small time marijuana producers) to supposedly wipe out the US production of marijuana (and thus eliminate a lot of the petty, small time competitors of organized criminals, who bring marijuana in here from Latin America and other parts of the world in mass quantities).

There was a brief discussion of this scheme on the Art Bell Coast to Coast AM program on Jul 29, 1999. This fungus was supposedly introduced into the Florida environment on July 31, 1999. So it has concerned a number of people. One biologist at Florida State University has expressed his opposition to the practice.

He says that science does not know what will happen to other plants when this fungus is released. Is it possible that an apocalyptic nightmare might develop to spread rapidly out of control to destroy not only marijuana, but any number of other plants and forms of vegetation?

Once released, will it spread North from Florida into the rest of the United States? These questions have not been answered. But profits are the name of the game. So the US government will proceed with the scheme (to help and benefit organized crime). Experience is a dear school and fools will learn from no other.

Animals and Other Life Forms?

Scientists have proceeded beyond food into other areas--just as questionable. Linda Howe was on the “Dreamland” program on Jan 14, 2001, with a report that the University of Oregon had now genetically engineered a monkey by altering its DNA in some manner (with the DNA of a jellyfish).

A preceding chapter quoted a fascinating and tragic story from the June 3, 2002, “U.S. News & World Report” (p. 61) by Nell Boyce on “Engineered to run wild.” The essence of Boyce’s report was the plans of scientists to now develop, produce and turn loose genetically engineered animals and life forms to ostensibly fight pests and disease.

One of the species of life on the drawing board are mosquitoes (which will be further addressed in a later chapter on pollution). While there is much thinking about producing altered life forms in seven to ten years, some people with some perception are raising questions about this present insanity (as discussed in the previous remarks on this theme).

For sure, man is tampering with things which can bring on an absolute crisis in nature of unequaled proportion. Man had better back off and leave nature alone. Manifestly, science has now or will soon be graduating from food, monkeys and mosquitoes to so-called human beings and who knows what else!

The Bottom Line on Diet

The Nov 22, 2002, “The Week” (p. 11) put the diet problem in perspective with a report that each year 76 million Americans get sick from something they eat (per the US Centers for Disease Control). More than 300,000 of them are hospitalized and 5,000 die annually--just from food and diet. Therefore, is the question of diet important?

Chapter 255--Sun Worship and Health I

Modern Medicine, Drugs and Surgery

Furthermore, on this just developed theme of health in the prior chapters, it should be noted that the Greek words pharmakon, pharmakia, pharmakos and pharmakus (commonly translated as Witchcraft, sorcery, etc in the KJV) are all cast in an unfavorable light as sin in the Scriptures (Gal 5:19-20; Rev 9:21; 18:23; 21:7-8; 22:14-15).

It is from the meaning of these Greek words that the modern world has developed pharmacies, drug stores, drugs and medicine. It also seems quite manifest that these words and their conceptual uses would include the so-called hard drugs on earth--such as opium, cocaine, crack, heroin, marijuana, etc, as well as prescription type medicines found in local pharmacies.

Revelation 18:23 is interesting in prophesying that by the sorceries (pharmakia) of Mystery Babylon, all nations were deceived (per the KJV). In a book on “Drugs in Prophecy” (p. 2), Sheldon Emry wrote that that text literally reads “by thy drugs were all nations drugged.”

Per a 2001 survey, it has to be significant that some 80% of American adults take at least one type of medication (prescription drug, over-the-counter drug or herbal remedy), evidently daily (Jan 25, 2002, “The Week,” p. 19). Over half of the people in the survey take prescription drugs while another 14% take over-the-counter drugs.

The most commonly used drugs were pain relievers such as ibuprofen, aspirin, and acetaminophen. Women over 65 were more likely to be on drugs; and men, ages 18 to 44, were less likely. It would be very safe to say that modern Americans are truly “drugged.”

Drug Trade is Big Business

Of course, in most of Adam’s history, such possibilities of drugging all of the nations (or peoples) would seem far fetched and out of the question. But then, in the 19th century, Britain set up the Hong Kong colony for the purposes of trade with mainland China.

The method of carrying this trade and commercial objective out was that the ruling British (actually Amalek-Edomites, discussed earlier in this work) got the Chinese hooked on opium which they could trade for silk and tea to export to Britain (to be addressed in some detail in a later chapter). Even the Royal family got a slice of the action (profits, quite naturally).

Well, that situation in China has proved to be only the tip of the iceberg because all kinds of similar drugs have been outlawed in the West, only to be placed into the hands of the Mafia (also largely controlled by Amalek-Edomites, rather than Sicilians, as one might suppose at first), gangsters and drug runners.

Often, these drug warlords have developed connections (payoffs) with important politicians (like Christian Bill Clinton in the Mena, AR airport operations, per “The Mena Cover-up” video, discussed earlier), key government agencies (like the CIA, per “Air America” and “Double Crossed” videos and other sources), as well as the situation with the British Royal family just outlined.

Truly, Mystery Babylon (managed by the international, super rich, money power, operating from behind the scenes) has made these drugs illegal (by prostitute politicians), only to be placed into the hands of international crooks (operating under the money power and controlled by them) for sale and profit.

Other Items

Caffeine, nicotine and possibly hard liquors are all similar drugs of some type. They all are addictive and defile the temple of the body, as will be established in subsequent chapters. The Scriptures are quite precise in condemning the hurt of the body (Deut 4:15-16; Matt 5:16; Jo 8:34-35; Rom 8:13; 12:1; I Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 10:31; II Cor 7:1; Eph 2:10; II Pet 2:18-20).

Truly, the world would be a better place if these things were not commercially available or at least not used by humans/humanoids. But that’s not the way the human mind works. As long as they are available and as long as people want them, they will be sold. No one can stop this inevitable process.

Back in the 1920s, the US tried prohibition (because of the push by prostitute politicians and ascetic Christian Churches) only to be placed into the hands of mobsters like Joseph Kennedy (father of Jack), Al Capone, Meyer Lansky and others, as noted elsewhere in other discussions herein.

The big boys made bundles of bucks from prohibition.

Drugs

And for a number of years, the fat cats have been raking in the dollars in basketfulls from illegal drugs and the so-called war on drugs. The alleged war on drugs has been specifically designed by the Amalekites, making the money, to pacify the ignorant public and make them “think” that something is being done to stop drugs; when, in fact, nothing is being done.

The May 24, 2002, “The “Week” (p. 4) had a news item that the United States had spent some $929 million in its five-year war on drugs. Now, US Drug Czar John Walters admits that this so-called war on drugs has been a failure. The campaign has simply not reduced drug use in America. Some $180 million annually is being spent on advertisements which teenagers simply ignore.

The world drug trade (and it is a world problem, although the United States is the biggest offender) is astronomical in size. Big money is involved. William F. Dankenbring reports that “some put the volume of drug trafficking at the $500 billion to $1 trillion dollar range annually” (Mar-Apr 1997 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 48).

In recent years, “Slick” Clinton and the forces of government started a move on tobacco products so that the Mob can take them over for distribution as well (naturally, with Bill and his friends getting a slice of the action/payoffs from the profits).

Be assured that the fat cats will make far more profits out of illegal tobacco than they ever made from tobacco while it was legal (with their ownership and control of the tobacco companies). Money is always the name of the game in the Western, sun worship culture.

Can Doctors Be Wrong?

Can the organized medical profession be wrong? Well, they have been wrong on many occasions. Back in 1847, a Hungarian doctor, named Ignaz Phillipp Semmelweis (1818-1865), working in an Austrian hospital, was concerned over the huge number of deaths of people whenever they were admitted to the hospital for care.

Phillipp became convinced that sanitation had something to do with it. After all, in those days, doctors never washed their hands between patients. Consequently, a doctor might do an autopsy on the dead body of a sick person in the dissecting room and then turn to deliver a baby from a healthy woman in the maternity ward and never bother to wash his hands between the two.

Well, Semmelweis questioned the practice and was denounced and ridiculed by the “approved” medical authorities and kicked off of the hospital staff. Then, a few years later, a man named Louis Pasteur came along and proved the germ theory of disease. So doctors began washing their hands after handling the sick.

For centuries, “approved” medical science and practitioners advocated bleeding for illness. Thus, if a sick person went to his friendly doctor, the doctor would cut him and let him bleed awhile to supposedly get well. The elderly George Washington was sick with a bad cold.

He went to his doctor and was bled. He died, not from the cold, but from being bled to death. Poor George should have read his Scriptures instead of relying upon the approved medical doctors of his day. George could have lived a few more years if he would have just refused the medical cuttings of his flesh (prohibited in Lev 19:28; 21:5; Deut 14:1). This point will be further discussed in later comments.

In modern times, the “approved” medical science people began a war on salt which lasted for years. These people, on the know it all “god” level, told the American people that salt was not good for them and that they should be on a low sodium diet for health reasons. Then, in 1998, some studies were made public indicating that reasonable uses of salt did have health benefits.

In other words, the body needs a little salt--not only for taste purposes in some instances, but also for health purposes. The CREATOR of limited, little humans has seen forth to postulate the value of salt as a seasoning--particularly on meat, eggs, etc (Lev 2:13; Ezra 6:9; 7:22; Job 6:6; Ezek 43:24; Matt 5:13; Mk 9:49-50; Col 4:6).

Bad Drugs

About the year 1940, “smart and well meaning” doctors began prescribing a drug called diethylstilbestrol or DES (mentioned earlier) for pregnant women in the belief that it would prevent miscarriage. But for the three million or so women who would take the drug, the stage had been set for vaginal and cervical cancer years later in the women’s daughters.

By 1970, doctors in Boston began discovering the problem, then surfacing in young women whose mothers took the medicine. In 1971, the US FDA took action to ban the drug for direct use for so-called humans (of course, the 260 or so chemical companies producing the poison merely started selling it to cattle ranchers and feedlots for consumption or injection into animals as a growth hormone, as cited earlier).

Since 1971, scientists have discovered structural abnormalities in the reproductive organs of women--and some men--whose mothers took DES. Besides the many cases of cancer, DES daughters also have high rates of menstrual problems, tubal pregnancy, miscarriage and premature delivery. As many as half have some reproductive problem, research suggests.

Another case surfaced around the years 1957 to 1961 when doctors began using a sleep inducing drug called “thalidomide” for various patients, including pregnant women. Soon, some 8,000 babies were born physically deformed (often with flappers for arms and legs, etc) because their mothers had taken thalidomide.

Starting in the 1850s, a whole host of drugs have been developed to supposedly deal with the disease problems. As the July 1999 “Taking Aim” (p. 8) noted, the result has been epidemics of cancers and more diseases and a very rich and powerful pharmaceutical industry. Nothing has really changed for the good.

Modern Drugs as Well

An April 15, 1998, news report mentioned the danger associated with the use of modern prescription drugs. The report outlined the serious side effects of drugs and said that 100,000 people are killed annually from modern prescription drugs (per a news report on the G. Gordon Liddy Radio Talk Show).

A follow-up report in the June-July 1998 “Search the Scriptures” (p. 10) went on to note that adverse drug reactions appear to be a major cause of deaths among US hospital patients. This report put the 1994 death rate at 106,000 annually from fatal drug reactions.

While most people have a difficult time in getting it through their heads, but many of the common drugstore drugs are processed, chemical poisons and are actually harmful to one’s health--beyond the illegal ones just discussed. For example, aspirin makes the stomach convulse and bleed internally. Thus, there are real questions about the propriety of most all types of drugs.

“Spotlight” on the Dilemma

One of the common ailments in today’s modern society is hypertension or high blood pressure. It is so common and routine that today in America, it affects one in every four persons.

The interesting thing about hypertension is that there are slugs of drugs on the market, ostensibly used to control high blood pressure. Some of these drugs are extremely costly and make much money for the doctors and the pharmaceutical industry.

The “Spotlight” paper of Apr 30, 2001 (p. B-5), had an article by William Carmichael on “Doctors Admit They Know Little About Hypertension.” This story title pretty well tells the tale of Carmichael’s research and findings. William correctly noted that establishment medicrats are at odds over what to do about the problem (despite their confusion, they do continue to try to treat it).

Carmichael cited several recent “scientific” studies which illustrate the confusion and lack of consensus among medical researchers. Many of these studies and research efforts have proven to be actually contrary and conflicting--to add to the confusion and dilemma of dealing with the disease.

One of the popular approaches in treating the disease is the use of calcium channel blockers (which apparently comes in several different drug forms and potencies). Years ago, some researchers concluded that the shorter acting calcium channel blockers posed significant health risks. Yet, some few doctors continued to prescribe them to patients.

In one of the most recent studies (cited by Carmichael), Dr Marco Pahor of Wake Forest University combined some nine smaller previous studies into one new effort which involved investigators at Albert Einstein College in New York and the University of Washington in Seattle.

Pahor’s work indicated that the broad use of calcium channel blockers (evidently, of all types) offered a 27% increase in the likelihood of a heart attack and a 26% increase in the risk of having a stroke. Still, some 28 million people worldwide use the calcium channel blockers. Per the story, some 85,000 such users will suffer unnecessary heart problems because of the drugs.

Of course, the controlled medical establishment is telling patients to not get concerned (excited) over these new studies; but rather, patients should continue the treatments being prescribed by their doctors.

The point of this report by William Carmichael is that so-called medical science is not on the “god-level.” Doctors don’t know it all (though they may think and act like they know it all). People who insist on going to their friendly AMA approved MDs need to pull their heads out of the sand and understand that MDs have made many gross, serious blunders in history. They can be wrong!

250,000 Deaths

Through mistakes and incompetence, modern doctors now kill more people annually than auto accidents and guns combined (Jul 1999 “Taking Aim,” p. 8).

The Dr Bob Martin’s radio talk show program on Dec 5, 1999, put the number of deaths annually, which are caused by mistakes by medical doctors (incompetence) or improper drugs, at 250,000 people. On Dec 7, 1999, the US president (Slick Clinton) tried to get on board to talk about the problem (he put the annual deaths at 100,000--which means that he is either lying or just ignorant).

By 2001, the Jul 2001 “American Sentinel” (p. 9) put the accidental death rate caused by physicians at 120,000 per year (which is 0.171 deaths per physician, as compared with 0.0000188 accidental deaths yearly per gun owner). Probably, this 120,000 figure reflects only the deaths directly caused by doctors. Perhaps the 250,000 figure by Martin consists of those caused by both doctors and bad medicine.

The Dec 15, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A12) had the results of a recent survey of Americans which said that four in ten have themselves or relatives been a victim of doctor errors. Even one in three doctors said the same thing (30% of doctors have seen errors in the past year). Nearly 10% of these victims have died from the mistakes. Despite the problem, all agreed that doctor mistakes are not a top priority.

The interesting thing about these numbers is that they are accelerating up each year. Things are getting worse and not better, despite all the hype and lies told to the public by the nation’s leaders.

For example, a man in England went into a local hospital to have a bad kidney removed. Instead of taking out the supposedly bad kidney, the surgeon removed the man’s good kidney. A news report on Jan 28, 2000, said that the man was in critical condition from the “adverse clinical action.” This writer heard no more about the incident. So the man must have died.

Medical malpractice is a common occurrence these days--either involving the administration of bad drugs or some stupid blunder by a surgeon. It is not uncommon at all that surgeons become confused and take out good organs, while leaving bad ones in a person. Medical blunders are so prevalent that malpractice insurance premiums for doctors have went out of the sky (which also drives medical costs up).

A Jan 19, 2003, report in the “Idaho Spokesman-Review” (p. A3) noted that a study found that surgeons accidentally leave medal clamps, electrodes, sponges and other tools inside about 1,500 US surgery patients a year. These mistakes often cause tears, obstructions, infections, another operation and/or death.

Another factor entered the equation from a news report on July 20, 2002, which said that the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta had released a statement saying that in the year 2000, some 100,000 people died from infections and problems surfacing from their hospitalizations. Apparently, this 100,000 must be added to the above stated 250,000 deaths.

The point being is that when a sick person goes to the approved medical profession to consult its doctors, take its drugs or go into its hospitals, there is a significant probability of dying--either from catching a disease or problem at the hospital, experiencing a bad reaction to the prescribed drugs or dying from the malpractice or incompetence of the AMA approved doctor.

Andrea Yates

Besides the direct deaths of huge numbers of people annually from doctor administered drugs, there is another fall-out to this problem--in the context of indirectly related deaths and tragedies. For example, a woman named Andrea Yates in Houston, TX went to her friendly drug oriented MD for depression. He gave her some potent drugs to supposedly relax and help her.

According to the July 2, 2001, “Newsweek” (p. 24), she took a powerful anti-psychotic drug called Haldol. In time, her “supposedly informed” doctor took her off of Haldol and put her on some other medication. “Newsweek” said, per the existing hindsight, that this was “an unfortunate step.”

Unbeknown to the poor woman, the new drugs (or the doctor directed switching of the drugs) were inclined to make people emotionally and mentally destabilized (literally, to go crazy or almost crazy). So the woman took the drugs. On June 20, 2001, she flipped and proceeded to murder her five kids by drowning them in the bathtub while she was drugged up.

There is another fall-out of this tragic Andrea Yates story. She was tried in March 2002 for capital murder and found guilty (and given life imprisonment). Surely, this whole thing turned out to be a terrible nightmare for her--however innocent or guilty she truly could have been.

In listening to the public’s reactions, many persons were upset that Andrea’s husband was not also tried and found guilty. After all, he was the head of her person and her household. Instead of caring for her and expressing some concern over her plight, it seems that he merely continued to keep her pregnant.

However, there is still one more disturbing feature of this whole theme. This writer leans more in the direction that the doctor involved was the primary culprit. This is not to take away any of the responsibility for the murder of those children from the father and mother. Surely, they were both guilty.

But in all fairness, the most guilty person of all was the doctor who prescribed the bad medication for the poor woman, and apparently gave her no help whatsoever (but like other doctors, this one was assuredly on the “god” level). Howbeit, in our modern, enlightened society, it’s hard to pin anything on worthless doctors who may be incompetent or simply just ignorant on the use of the drugs that they prescribe.

Drugging Up Children

One of the incredible phenomenons of the post American culture, following WWII, has been the increasing use of drugs by doctors to drug up children on the pretext that something is wrong with modern kids (actually, commentary below and in later chapters will suggest that there are forces at work to cause problems for all persons, including children, as will be sufficiently established).

The now present alleged problems with children are typically classified as “attention deficit disorders.” Several powerful drugs are used by the professional medical society to treat kids--like Ritalin, Concerta, Metadate, Dexedrine, and/or Adderall.

But substantially more problems are coming down the pike on this subject, as was illustrated in remarks in the April 2002 “American Sentinel” (p. 1-3). The Sentinel focused upon current plans and schemes emanating in the US Department of Education and the Social Security Administration by Washington bureaucrats.

What is happening is that these agencies are busy pushing highly addictive psychotropic narcotics to millions of American children on the pretext of solving their problems instead of focusing upon the failed American public education system (which is much of the problem).

Some 40% of the drugs being used go to children, aged three to nine, and many for children even younger. There is an obsession in the American society that a pill (or the American dollar) can cure anything. But that belief is not the truth!

The latest scheme is that Big Brother in Washington will reimburse local school districts that classify children as “problem kids” or “learning impaired kids,” and then prescribe some of these powerful behavior altering drugs to supposedly help the children. Today, some five million American children are being treated by these drugs, in the sense that the so-called attention deficit disorder is a medical disability.

The Sentinel asks if the cited drugs might be the cause of the shootings by children during the Clinton era? This source then outlined the case of a boy named Eric Harris, who made fame when he became one of the gunmen to shoot people in Littleton, Colorado at Columbine High (to be discussed in later chapters).

Eric had been drugged up with the psychotropic drug “Luvot” before his killing spree. He and his partner killed fifteen persons. This tragedy is much like the situation with Andrea Yates, as described in the above comments herein. Poor Andrea was likewise drugged up when she murdered her five small children in a bathtub.

Dr Peter Breggin

Dr Peter Breggin, Director of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, testified before Congress and noted the addictive nature of these drugs being given small kids today on the premise of treating Attention Deficit Disorders. Breggin placed some of these drugs in the same category as cocaine.

His statement was borne out earlier (in May 2000) in a report from the US Drug Enforcement Agency which said that Ritalin produces “behavioral, psychological, subjective and reinforcing effects similar to cocaine.”

The National Institute of Health’s Consensus Development Conference and the American Academy of Pediatrics said that there is no biological basis for Attention Deficit Disorders and that “Any brain abnormalities in these children are almost certainly caused by prior exposure to psychiatric medication.”

Dr Breggin added that “Stimulants often become gateway drugs to additional psychiatric medications. Stimulant-induced over-medication, for example, is often treated with addictive or dangerous sedatives, while stimulant-induced depression is often treated with dangerous, unapproved antidepressants.

“As the child’s emotional control breaks down due to the medication’s effects, mood stabilizers may be added. Eventually, these children end up on four or five psychiatric drugs at once and a diagnosis of bipolar disorder by the age of eight or ten.”