Friday, May 15, 2015

Nutritional Nonsense: from Coffee to Cancer

I recently spotted, this question on Quora: "What are the nutritional benefits of consuming coffee on a daily basis?" And I thought, now there's an interesting challenge for the 'science of nutrition'. So, I took it upon myself to answer with current nutritional science - according to Wiki, and to add some comments about the lack of science.  My answer, by the way, has already been down-voted.

What are the nutritional benefits of coffee? There were, of course, many answers, ranging from antioxidants, to protection against diabetes and dementia, to the nonsensical 'it gives you energy' - coffee has no calories, therefore it cannot give you energy.

What are the nutritional benefits of coffee according to nutritional science? I typed the 'nutrition of coffee' into Google and got the following from Wiki:
------------------------------------------------------
Coffee: Nutrition Facts Amount Per 1 fl oz (29.6 g)100 grams 6 fl oz (178 g)1 cup (8 fl oz) (237 g)100 grams   - Calories 0

% Daily Value*
Total Fat 0 g 0%
Saturated fat 0 g 0%
Polyunsaturated fat 0 g
Monounsaturated fat 0 g
Trans fat 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg 0%
Sodium 2 mg 0%
Potassium 49 mg 1%
Total Carbohydrate 0 g 0%
Dietary fiber 0 g 0%
Sugar 0 g
Protein 0.1 g 0%
Caffeine 40 mg
Vitamin A 0%
Vitamin C 0%
Calcium 0%
Iron 0%
Vitamin D 0%
Vitamin B-6 0%
Vitamin B-12 0%
Magnesium 0%

* Per cent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.
------------------------------------------------------------
My Notes:
1. Coffee has zero calories.  It is not a source of energy, although it might 'energize' you. Actually, according to the above list, coffee has a small amount of protein, and proteins contain calories.
2. Most of the items on the list of nutrients have zero value, indicating that they are NOT PRESENT in coffee.  This is a telling fact about many nutritional labels, the presence of non-ingredients.
3. The only nutritional contents of coffee, according to the science of nutrition, are sodium, potassium, protein, caffeine.
4. Many ingredients of coffee, are simply ignored by the nutritional analysis, because they are 'not on the list' of nutrients that have been deemed important by nutritional scientists. Studies of the benefits of coffee cite anti-oxidants and other chemicals, but they are 'not on the list'.
5. The listing for "Total Carbohydrate" has an error, even though carbohydrates are not present in coffee. But that's not enough error, The list of ingredients shows a 'Daily Value' of zero percent.  But there is no Daily Value for carbohydrates, so a Daily Value score of zero is nonsense.
6. The nutrient list contains 'Saturated Fats' and 'Monounsaturated Fats' even though coffee contains no saturated fats and no monounsaturated fats. Presumably this is because we used to believe that saturated fats were unhealthy.  Science has recently proven this theory wrong - and also proven that the benefits believed to come from monosaturated fats are illusory. But much of published science has not yet caught up to the latest research.
7. The nutrient list includes 'Trans Fats', even though coffee does not contain any trans fats, and trans fats are not nutrients - they are toxic chemicals.
8. The largest part of coffee is, duh.... water.  But water is not listed as a nutrient, even though the theoretical 'Daily Value' of water is 8 glasses.
9. According to Wiki, if you consume a diet of "2000 calories" of coffee daily, you will receive almost no nutrients.  And... according to Wiki, coffee contains zero calories, so a 2000 calorie diet requires drinking a few million cups a day, for nothing. Or adding milk and sugar.

In short, the nutritional value of coffee given by Google, from Wiki is mostly bunk, error prone nonsense, full of empty non-facts, non-ingredients, missing the most common ingredient - water, and missing any ingredients that are actually studied research into the benefits of coffee. At the same time as it misses most of the healthy ingredients of coffee, it lists many items that are not present at all.

Frankly, much of the current science of nutrition is similar BUNK, and this question and answer provides ample proof.

But this is not the only example.  Let's get more serious about the science of nutrition.

What foods cause cancer, and what foods protect against cancer?

This is a serious, important question. What does science have for an answer?  A recent meta-study produced this informative graphic, from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.



It seems clear from the graphic, what everyone already knows.  Everything causes cancer.  And everything protects against cancer. Coffee causes cancer, coffee protects against cancer, and one study says we're not sure. That's the current state of nutritional science.

How can this happen? Why does this happen? There are two main causes.

Studies of Illness

Health is whole, illness - is a hole in your health.  Healthiness and illness are like 'light and darkness'. If someone spends their entire life studying darkness, they will know nothing about colour, saturation, hue, brightness, heat, wavelengths, rainbows, etc.  Their knowledge will be limited to various shades of black and grey, dark and darker. And so it is with health and illness. Many scientists spend their entire lifetimes studying illness, measuring illness, searching for illness and trying to 'kill' illness, or if killing it is not possible, to 'treat' the symptoms of illness.

But we know little about healthiness, there is no science of healthiness.

There are no scientists who study healthiness. There is no science of healthicine. Alice and Zizi provide the classic example.  Alice and Zizi are two women, two friends, neither of whom has any illness.  They are both 'healthy' according to modern medical science. But the question arises:

Who is healthier, Alice - or Zizi?

The more we look into this question, the more we realize that we have no tools, no techniques, no science to measure healthiness.  Alice and Ziz have no illness, no signs and symptoms of illness, so in theory, they are both perfectly healthy.  But we know this is not true. One of them is probably 'healthier' than the other. But which one? A historical analysis might show that Alice gets more colds than the other, for example, and that their colds last longer. Is that a measure of healthiness? And Zizi might be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow.  Such is the nature of cancer diagnosis. But today, we have no tools to answer the question:  "Who is healthier, Alice or Zizi?"

Nutritional studies are based entirely on illness. As a result, we have four scientific studies showing that coffee prevents cancers, one study that shows no harm or benefit, and four studies showing that coffee cause cancer.  Nutritional science in action.  Bunk.

Reductionism

When we attempt to study healthiness by measuring single things in isolation, we get nonsense.

Attempting to measure the benefits of coffee by analysis of the individual contents, and ignoring the contents that are 'not on our list' result in superficial analysis and nonsense.

Attempting to measure the effects of 'coffee' on cancer, in isolation from everything else in the diet, results in nonsense.

And the proof is there for everyone to see.

What is the way out?

Nutritional science finds some truths about nutrition.  Unfortunately, many of the 'truths' that are found are simplistic nonsense, useless to anyone who actually wants to find health.

If studies of illness, and reductionist studies cannot find the truth about nutrition, how can we find the answers?

The answer can only be found in studies of healthiness: healthicine. When we begin to study healthiness in earnest, we will begin to see many truths that are invisible today.  When we turn away from studies of illness, the darkness, we will begin to see the light.  There is a lot to learn.

to your health, tracy

Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine:

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Medical Bigots

According to Webster's, a bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc." What is a medical bigot?  A medical bigot strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc in various fields of medicine.  A medical bigot sees things in black and white, devoid of color, or complexity. A medical bigot wants simple answers, the simpler the better.

"A strong or unfair dislike for other people, ideas, etc." perfectly describes the bigot. A bigot has a strong dislike for strange persons, unfamiliar ideas, difficult questions, challenges, controversy, etc., preferring the safety of their current knowledge, and position. Medical bigots don't make good scientists, because scientists are always ready, willing and able - eager even, to challenge their current knowledge.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Vaccine Debates: A Healthicine View



The internet is awash with vaccination posts.  Everybody, it seems, has an opinion, and want you to see their point of view. Punt "vaccine myths and facts" into Google today and you will see over 700,000 hits. Many of the so called "myths" are not myths at all. The 'myths' chosen, and the 'facts' that follow are opinions, designed to support each individual author's objectives.

Let's forget myths.  What vaccine facts are actually important? What vaccine questions are important? What answers are important?

This post presents some important questions about vaccines - as a test.  Can you answer these questions?  Check it out, move the cursor over the answer of your choice and see your results.

1. What is the purpose of a vaccine?

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Toronto Star vs the Vax-apologists

The Toronto Star recently published a report about the HPVvaccine Gardasil. The result was a firestorm from vax-apologists. The vax-apologists would like the story to disappear. There are reports of people cancelling their subscriptions to the Star.
Maybe the Star should reconsider the title of the story, and the point. Let's suppose the Star had printed a different story.  A different heading.  But the same facts, minus the vaccine references. The Star might have reported a story like this:
==============================================
Young Girls Suffer and Die, But No-one Cares

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

A New Equation for Stupidity

In a TED talk filmed in November 2013, Alex Wissner-Gross offers "A new equation for intelligence".  I'm not sure if there was an 'old equation for intelligence'? The talk was based on the concepts of a research paper published in April 2013: Causal Entropic Forces. I must confess that the mathematics of this paper is way beyond my understanding. However, many of the statements made in the TED talk simplify the concepts to the point where we can understand and make sense (or perhaps nonsense) of them.

According to Wissner-Gross, "Intelligence is a force F that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'."  This is a complex statement, but in does make some sense.  In a much simpler way, we might say that "Intelligent things are things that attempt to optimize and maintain their future flexibility, their future options."

Wissner-Gross describes a number of experiments that demonstrate this theory and support this formula for intelligence.  The experimental descriptions in the TED talk, and in the research paper are deliberately simple. They are designed to 'optimize or maintain their options for future states'.

How can this be done?  You can only create a system that can "optimize it's future options", if you make the system, in some way,
 - aware of it's current state in some trivial representation
 - able to make choices and to take actions (modeled as entropy)
 - and able to count resulting future options, eg. aware of ALL OF the consequences of it's choices.
and one other point, which is not discussed by the Wissner-Gross presentation, ignorance of external systems and variables.  We shall come to discuss this later.

In other words, Wissner-Gross created a system with a fundamental level of 'self consciousness' although no sense of 'free-will'. They are computer programs designed, driven to seek actions that 'optimize future options' by creating 'simulated entropy' models. There is no free to chose other options.

What Wissner-Gross observed was that when we build a self-aware simulation and force it to 'choose', actions that result in the most 'future possible choices', we get a system that appears to be 'intelligent'. Is it intelligent? We might say that, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it looks intelligent, and acts like it is intelligent, then it is intelligent. Or maybe not?

Wissner-Gross gives us a mathematical formula, or equation for intelligence: Intelligence is a force F that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'.

F(intelligence) = T ∇ Sτ

It's an interesting formula. Intelligence the force, the drive that results when an entropic system falls into a state where it naturally chooses actions that maximize future options. When we consider that for a moment, we can rephrase the formula. We originally described it as:

F(of intelligence) = T ∇ Sτ

We might instead view it as:

F(of healthiness) = T ∇ Sτ

Thus, the force of healthiness acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'.


We can look at this formula from another perspective.  Maybe it's the formula for 'life'?

F(of life) = T ∇ Sτ

The life force is the tendency for systems that make choices that increase their future options - to live longer and build complexity. Health is a result of life and does not exist without life. Life, intelligence, and healthiness emerge and become more complex as the system becomes more complex. Intelligence and healthiness are different ways of looking at the same thing. The systems created in Wissner-Gross's simulations are not 'alive', and they are supported by external decision systems that make their choices. Real life evolves from simple, similar situations, that facilitate a rise in complexity.  That 'rise in complexity' occurs when simple systems encounter other systems with similar and complimentary properties and discover, or evolve, the ability to cooperate with other systems.

Life is a result of freedom to choose, including choosing to cooperate with other entities (systems) that have freedom to choose, thus increasing the freedoms of all involved.

Which came first: intelligence or life?  Is it a chicken-egg question? Or does it depend on how we define intelligence, and how we define life?  Does life, or does intelligence exist as soon as a system gains 'freedom to choose'? Or does 'freedom to choose' arise out of system complexity, as it approaches 'life' and 'intelligence'? Can intelligence exist without life? Can life exist without intelligence? Or does 'freedom to choose' simply not exist, except as an illusion we believe, because our life systems are so complex that the give us the illusion of choice?

It is also interesting to consider the 'time horizon', because different time horizons can lead to very different results - in more complex systems. An action that might be intelligent when considering a daily activity, might be stupid when we consider it from a month, year, or lifetime perspective.

And that leads us to the question of 'stupidity'.  If we have a formula for intelligence, is there a formula for stupidity? Is stupidity the inverse of intelligence, and intelligence the inverse of stupidity. Is a rock stupid? No. A rock is dumb, because it cannot hear, it cannot see, it cannot speak, it cannot think or decide, and it cannot act.  But it is not stupid, because it cannot make stupid decisions nor take stupid actions. Stupid things (or stupid systems) are things that take stupid actions.

What is a stupid action?  What is stupidity? If "Intelligence is a force F that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'."

Then Stupidity is "a force F that acts so as to limit or minimize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'."

F(stupidity) = T ∇ Sτ

Intelligence is a set of actions that are deliberately considered and chosen to keep the system alive and as active as possible.  Stupidity is the set of actions that are deliberately considered and designed to shut down the system.  Entropy is naturally stupid. It works inexorably to diffuse energy in a system.  But stupidity is even worse. Stupidity is 'system suicide'.

Now we can see that something is clearly wrong.  In real life, stupidity is not 'suicide'.  Stupidity does not lead directly to death - in real life. Sometimes it even does quite well, thank you very much. Stupid luck exists.

In the model of healthiness and unhealthiness discussed in the post Embracing Unhealthiness, we recognized that healthiness is linked to unhealthiness such that the sum of healthiness and unhealthiness equals 100 percent of our health potential.  The sum of healthiness and unhealthiness is your 'potential for healthiness'.

What about the sum of intelligent choices and stupid choices? Now we can see the cracks in this model of 'intelligence'. The model is not 'free to choose', it can only choose what is calculated as optimal in terms of future freedoms within the specified time period.

It reminds me of an old joke about an uncle, and a small boy.  The uncle calls over one of the relatives and says "Watch this!". Then he turns to the small boy and asks "Would you like to have this nice, shiny silver dollar, or would you prefer this old, dirty, crumpled up five dollar bill?" The young boy chooses the shiny silver dollar.

But when the relative talks to the boy later, and asks "Don't you know that you could buy 5 silver dollars with that bill?", the young boy answers "Of course I do.  But, as soon as I take the paper money, he'll stop offering me the silver dollar."

The boy has figured out something intelligent.  He does not make the 'optimal decision'.  He does not have a specific 'time horizon' in mind.  He would prefer that there is no time horizon, as long as he keeps getting paid.  He has used his intelligence to look 'outside the system'.  This is one thing Wissner-Gross's models cannot do.  They are designed to take all of the information available, and calculate the best option. There are no external variables, no external facts.

Intelligence is making good decisions when you DON'T have all the facts. If you have all of the facts, you don't need intelligence to decide - a machine can decide.

There is another serious flaw in the Wissner-Gross model of intelligence. Real intelligence must acknowledge that other intelligences exist, learn to cooperate with them, and to compete with them. One of Wissner-Gross's models seems to present 'cooperation', but it's not cooperation between two systems, where each gets to 'choose to cooperate or not', it's simply a complex model that searches for the best solution, and as a result, looks like it is cooperating.

The goal of a real intelligence is to understand more.  And when it understands more, to find better questions. And sometimes, the goal of a real intelligence is suicide.  We are all going to die.  Some of us want to choose when and how to die.  The Wissner-Gross model of intelligence ignores this aspect of intelligence.

The Wissner-Gross model is missing two more fundamental elements of intelligent decisions.  Memory and risk.  A real intelligent system has a memory of past decisions, and can make rapid decisions, when necessary - based on memory, not on calculation.  Decisions based on memory free up the calculation parts of the brain for decisions where time is not a priority. Risk assessment is also a fundamental factor in intelligence.  What good does it do to choose the 'most future options' if what you are choosing is the number of bee stings you might receive?

If the Wissner-Gross model is not 'intelligence', what is it? It is a formula for self interest, based on rational calculations. The formula can drive the system towards a longer life, a more stable life. Maybe even a more boring life. But, boring can be intelligent if you are an accountant, trying to make money.

In real life, we often use our intelligence to rationalize our decisions. And that's a good way to succeed. If we attempt to only make 'rational' decisions, that are rationalized before the decision is made, we will make very few decisions - because all of the facts are not available.

The Wissner-Gross formula is a powerful tool for decision making.  Much like a calculator, or a spreadsheet.  But it is not a formula for 'intelligence'. Intelligence requires irrational thought.

This is a blog about health freedom. What has this got to do with health, and health freedom? There are some powerful implications for freedom, and also for health. Freedom to choose increases our ability to make intelligent decisions. Constraints on freedom reduce our ability to make intelligent decisions, resulting in more stupid decisions. This is not stated directly by the Wissner-Gross model, because the model is not actually free to choose.  It can only choose the option that has the most future freedoms.

In a similar fashion, we can also see that the sum of intelligence and stupidity (unintelligence), the sum of decisions that maximize future options and decisions that minimize future options in any system - the total potential for action in any system is 100 percent.  None of the systems created by Wessner-Gross exceeded their systemic limits of intelligence. None of the systems exhibited 'exceptional' intelligence. This might seem obvious, but it is worth understanding.  No single system can exceed its own limits of intelligence.

The best way to increase intelligence is to increase the complexity of the analysis, not to limit it.  The best way to increase intelligence is through communities, not rationalization by a single individual. The best way to improve healthiness is to recognize that healthiness is not just an individual trait, it is also a measure of the success of our societies, our communities. The best way to create healthy communities, is to work to create healthy communities, not to create selfish independent models of intelligence.

to your health, tracy

tracy
Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine: 


Thursday, January 29, 2015

Embracing Unhealthinesses

















In Healthicine, a healthiness is a measure of health. Measures of illness are often direct measurements of signs or symptoms.  Measurements of healthiness are more complex.  A measurement of healthiness must, at the very least, contain a ratio.  

For example, height is not a measure of healthiness. Nor is weight.  When we combine the measure of height with the measure of weight in ratio – as we do when we calculate BMI (Body Mass Index), we begin create a crude measure of healthiness.

However, BMI is not a useful measure of healthiness without a goal. Different people have different BMI goals, and therefore one BMI result might be very healthy for one person, and not so healthy for another person.

When we have a goal, we can rank the health measurement against the goal, and create a percentage of healthiness. If my BMI goal is 20 and my BMI is 25, then my BMI health score might be calculated as 20/25 or 80 percent. Of course that calculation technique is arbitrary, and a different method of calculating might determine that my health score is actually only 65 percent.  At present, there are no standards for measuring or calculating health scores – and the field is very, very complex. We can expect that, as the science of healthicine advances, some calculating techniques will have more value than others. We need to learn to measure healthiness, and to calculate healthiness scores.

Once we can calculate a score for a specific healthiness, we can see that it has an inverse.  If you BMI health score is 65%, then the inverse is 35%.  What is the name of the ‘inverse’ of your healthiness score?

The inverse of the healthiness score, when the score is calculated as a percentage is your ‘potential for improvement in healthiness’. You can improve your BMI healthiness by 35%, and no more – because at that time your BMI healthiness will be 100 percent. Each different healthiness score gives a specific healthiness rating and a corresponding level or potential for improvement, a corresponding level of unhealthiness. 

There is another important term for ‘potential for improvement in healthiness’: unhealthiness.  When we measure healthiness, and map it to a percentage scale:

 the inverse of healthiness is ‘unhealthiness’.

Unhealthiness is not ‘bad’.  It is simply your potential for improvement.  This is an important concept of healthicine. If we do not have any unhealthiness, we have no room to improve our health. A very unlikely situation, less likely to last for any length of time. 

If we are to learn about health, to improve our health, we need to embrace the concept of 'unhealthiness', to recognize that we each have many levels of unhealthiness, many types of "room for improvement" in our health, We need to learn to use that room, that unhealthiness, to improve our health. When we do, many so called 'illnesses' and 'diseases' will be understood to be unhealthiness, which cannot be cured by medicine, only by health

tracy
Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine: 


Monday, January 19, 2015

Is Medicine harming your Health?

Is your medicine making you healthier, or sicklier? Many medicines are designed to be very strong, so strong that they harm your healthiness - to fight your sickness rapidly. Which medicines improve your healthiness?

Is Medicine harming your Health? Is the field of medicine harming our health?  Are you taking medicines that are decreasing your healthiness?

Modern medicine is blind to health.  You'll often hear phrases like 'keep your health', 'restore your health', 'regain  your health', 'protect your health' from practitioners of medicine.

What's wrong with that?  Each of those phrases suggests that health can only be 'present', or 'absent'.

Health is always present, unless you are dead. You cannot 'lose your health'. When you are sick, you 'haven't lost your health'. It's still there, fighting your illness. Your health is only 'lost' when your life ends.

Medicine, is a tool we use to fight illness. In many cases, the medicines we use to fight illness also fight healthiness. But this is not printed on the label.

Which medicines harm your healthiness? Which medicines improve your healthiness?  Which medicines harm your healthiness, so that it can improve?  Which medicines improve your healthiness, so it can fight your illness? Which medicines improve your 'symptoms' while harming your healthiness?  Which improve your symptoms while improving your healthiness?  Which might make your symptoms worse, while improving your healthiness?

A medicine improves your state of wellness, decreasing your illness, but does little to change your healthiness.

A symptomicine can improve your symptoms of illness, while actually decreasing your healthiness. Most medicines sold today are symptomicines - because they appear to give positive results.

A healthicine increases your healthiness, and can also improve your state of wellness, decreasing your illness, at the same time.

The wrong medicine can only harm your health. We need to track wrong medicines, because they are often administered by medical professionals as well as by ourselves.

None of this is printed on the label. None of it is studied by medical science.

The label lists 'side effects'.  What are side effects? Side effects are usually negative health effects. But medicine, the science of medicine, is blind to health, does not study healthiness - and thus cannot put 'healthiness' information on the label.

What can you do?  If you are prescribed a medicine, ask two very important questions:

1. Will this medicine cure my illness.  If it does not cure, it is not a true medicine.
2. Is this a medicine designed only to treat my symptoms.  Most medicines are symptomicines. But if you really want to improve your healthiness, to beat your illness, you need more than a symptomicine.

If we are to find health, we need freedom, not just freedom to act, we also need free access to information, real information, about the medicines we are using.

to your health, tracy

Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine: 


Saturday, January 10, 2015

Vitamin Victory over Corporate CODEX Shame?


Scott Tips is fighting for all of us, when he says “If Codex wants to remain relevant to consumers, then it must create food standards that are truly healthy and make sense.”

Scott C. Tips is a man I can support. As far as I know, he is the only person in the world who is actively fighting for your health. Scott works for the National Health Federation, an organization that fight for your health rights. Although I might quibble with the NHF's definition of health, I support their goals and many of their actions. I want more.

As far as I can tell, Scott Tips has, for many years, been the only 'human' representative at the meetings of CODEX, an organization of organizations of organizations, setting up worldwide standards for commerce, including the commerce of nutrition, thus health.

CODEX is a corporation of corporations.  It has no interest in the health of people, only in the 'persons' who are corporations.  CODEX knows nothing about health, and cares less.

CODEX defines, among other things, Nutrient Reference Values - recommend amounts of essential nutrients 'for health'.  But in truth, NRVs are not defined for health, and are often defined by 'as much illness as we can tolerate'.  All CODEX standards are defined by illness. There is no organization in the world that studies health and healthiness, much less a world wide organization devoted to the study of health.  Someday....

Scott Tips recent report on Vitamin C, gives some insight.  CODEX has for many years, discussed setting the Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for consumption of Vitamin C at 45 mg. There is danger in nonsense, and this value is nonsense.

Health is not meeting a 'minimum' need. Health, true health, is searching for the optimal intake of all nutrients, not just essential vitamins and minerals.  How can we find the optimal intake? We need to look for it.

Health cannot be found by setting worldwide limits on the sale of essential nutrients to people, worldwide limits on what you can purchase.  True health is found in true freedom, not in legislation designed by and designed to support goals of corporations.

Yesterday, the NHF and Scott Tips report that CODEX has agreed to set the NRV for Vitamin C at 100 mg per day, and the suggested level of 45 mg per day has disappeared from the discussion.  I don't know how much the efforts of Scott helped facilitate this decision, but I applaud him for being there and reporting on the proceedings - as our the representative of the people.

If you want to learn more about CODEX, check out some of Scott's blog posts.

My hat's off to you, Scott Tips, and to the National Health Federation. Keep up the good work!
tracy
Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: