'Genetic' is a Lie
In Short :
If people believe most common diseases are 'genetic', pharmaceutical companies can sell lots of drugs 'attacking our genetic shortcomings'. Logically, 'they' want us to believe common diseases are genetically determined. The strong increase in diseases like cancer, dementia and vascular diseases however excludes the possibility of a 'genetic cause', for being ill does not enhance the multiplication rate. Only rare diseases can be 'genetic'.
Most common diseases are caused by consuming proteinacous prepared food (like heated-in-any-way fish, -meat, -beans, -soy or -eggs) and milk in particular. (see other WaiSays sites) And since protein consumption has increased, and food is often heated more than once, those diseases have increased too.
Most common serious diseases can be prevented by consuming as little prepared food, and as much fruits (there are about 6000 different fruits), and some fresh raw animal food, like sashimi, regularly.
These foods combined, contain an abundance of all the nutrients you need. Also, be sure to eat one or two munch items containing little protein but lots of fat and sugars every day, which satisfies your cravings without making you gain weight.
In Detail ;
Thanks to Science
Thanks to medical science we live to be older than we ever did before. Genetically determined diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, vascular diseases, obesity, diabetes and osteoporosis can, or can soon be attacked through 'neutraceuticals' and drugs compensating our genetic shortcomings.
That is what 'they' want us to believe. Because that would make us depend on the 'added-value-' products of the combined pharmaceutical- and food industry.
But do we live to be older than we ever did before ?
If we look back about a hundred years, it is true ; in 1900 we only lived to be 47 years old. But what about way before ? The bible mentions some extremely old people ; is it rubbish, or somewhat based on true facts? That some people grow older than a hundred years has been known since millennia, and very probably way before.
People who are born in the sixties or before, probably remember that many people died over the age of 90. (malnutrition and contagious diseases excluded) Now less people die of contagious diseases and death can be postponed through surgery much more effectively. But the oldest people now die younger ; individual maximum age of death (we are not talking average age here) has decreased instead of increased.
Considering that harsh physical labor is rare and that we can consume all the foods we need, we should all be healthy while reaching the age of 120. And death should be caused when the heart stops beating. Instead, when we survived chemotherapy and grow 'old', our bones are weak, we swell up, don't recognize our grandchildren, have to wear diapers, and can't clean ourselves.
If a substantial portion of common diseases are truly genetically inherited, whom did we inherit these diseases from? And if these diseases were in fact genetically inherited, then the extraordinary increase in illness and obesity is the result of genetically diseased parents producing children far in excess of normal, "non-diseased" parents. This is absolutely impossible because genetic deficiencies can not increase the ability to bear offspring
So why do we buy 'their' lies ?
Because other solutions fail to make us healthier ; we keep on gaining weight, no matter whatever diet, and even notorious vegetarians and vegans get cancer.
And yet the solution is already there; hidden in thousands of scientific investigations, financed to explore pharmaceutical 'solutions', but which reveal that substances in our day to day food cause all the diseases mentioned above. Knowing the cause offers us the opportunity to prevent. We are always told that vegetables, grains and beans are healthy, on the contrary, prevention does not require consuming such 'cattle-food' at all, or other unnatural foods, such as soy products.
But how about official food-recommendations ?
These recommendations are a fraud, a political-economical choice, not based on scientific facts.
For millions of years, humans did not consume any grains, dairy products, beans or most vegetables at all. Logically, these foods do not contain a single nutrient we cannot obtain by consuming by consuming fruits or fresh raw animal foods; our natural foods. Also, vegetables, grains, beans and dairy products contain substances inhibiting absorption of essential nutrients. (see 13/plants) And these substances can only be partly destroyed through heat, which creates carcinogenic- and neurotransmitter-impairing substances
But aren't we taller than ever before, thanks to our current food ?
We all know those images reflecting human evolution. (as shown below) These images however, always reflect that humans have become increasingly taller as progressing through time, which is absolutely not true ;
Australopithecus Homo erectus Neanderthal Homo sapiens
In Kenya, 1.6 million year old bones were found, of a boy who died at the age of 9. (at the age of 12 considering a modern human growth pattern) This boy was already 1,68 meters tall (5 feet 6) (1), which means that, as an adult, he ultimately would have been 1,98 meter tall (6 feet 6), again taking into account a modern human-growth pattern. (2)
His specie, Homo erectus, was already very much human, with a rather human-like growth-pattern (3). But even considering a (unrealistic) chimpanzee-growth-pattern, this boy ultimately would have been at least 1,82 meters (6 feet) tall. (4)
African Homo erectus normally was over 6 feet tall. (5) These humans lived in an area where they could find fruits all year, and they also ate raw fish and other raw animal food.
Not until a million years later, man first began to use fire to prepare his food. (6) Subsequently, more than half a million years later, man began to domesticate cattle and cultivate land. Isn't it therefore infinitely stupid to think that we need the calcium in cow's milk for our bones? Tall humans have existed ever since 2-3 million years ago. But only for the past 0.01 million years (maximally!), some humans have been consuming cow's milk. If we really needed cow's milk, man could never have grown that tall, 1,6 million years ago. In fact, humans wouldn't even have existed, since sufficient calcium is essential to become an adult, and to bear children eventually.
Is it a coincidence that later, after many humans had left the original natural habitat, they were not that tall anymore ?
Of course not.
Most importantly, the availability of easy digestible food containing lots of energy, stimulates growth. (and intelligence) The main ingredients in mother's milk for example, are fats and sugars. Mother's milk contains little protein (1%) and no fibers. While mother's milk does stimulate growth most, that's where it's designed for.
Because fruits were harder to find when our ancestors multiplied and moved away from their natural habitat, they were forced to eat less digestible foods, such as grains and vegetables. And because that food wasn't as ideal as fruits, humans were less tall as time progressed ; The half-a-million-years-younger Indonesian pithecanthropus was 1,70 metres high (5 feet 6.9). Sinanthropus, who lived in China more than a million years after the 'Turkana-boy', was about 1,56 metres (5 feet 1.4) high. The later Neanderthals in Europe were about 1,67 (5 feet 5.7) high, and the Neanderthals in the Middle East were one inch taller. So, though the Neanderthals consumed much more animal food than Homo erectus, they were smaller ! (see site18) Also, grains do contain more protein than fruits, but obviously more protein inhibited rather than enhanced growth.
Logically, after introduction of agriculture modern man was even smaller, until the second half of the 20th century.
Out-of-Africa Homo erectus Neanderthal 21st cent. man
3 - 0.5 m.y. bc ; +/- 1.63m +/- 1.68m 1.76m average
Australopithecus Kenya-Homo erectus (male height) Modern man until 21st cent.
< 1.40 meter 1.6 m.y. bc ; +/- 1.90m < 1.60m
Why did man grow taller in the second half of the 20th century ?
Because of the greater availability of easy-to-digest foods with lots of fats and sugars. And certainly not because we consume more protein. On the contrary ; it takes more energy and vitamins to process protein (B2, B6 and folic acid in particular ; pregnant mothers should therefore consume little protein), inhibiting optimum growth.
Protein requirement in fact is very limited ; Even if you eat the right fruits only, you will lack energy before you can possibly lack whatever amino acid (protein). But governments and food-manufacturers don't want you to know that ;
Feeding their people is the first responsibility of every government in the world. And if any government fails to efficiently regulate food supply, it either has to be extremely repressive (North Korea), or it will be replaced. That's why no government wants to depend on foreign food supply. Most developed countries however, can never ever produce sufficient quantities of fruits to feed their people, and that's why the people are not told that humans thrive on fruits and raw animal food. Instead, people are told to eat grains, vegetables and dairy products, which can be produced in every country.
Food = politics. For example : though the opposite is true (see site4), we always have been told to consume milk to absorb sufficient calcium, in order to support the economic value of the countryside. Now that the image of milk is not entirely intact anymore, soy is another 'health-product' that has to increase profits of agricultural companies. Unfortunately, like milk, soy can be very unhealthy.
Regarding most common physicians, you need to consume vegetables, grains and dairy products, which never has been scientifically supported. Researching nutrient-contents (the USDA Nutrient Database and Souci, S.W. et al, Food Composition and Nutrition Tabels, Medpharm Scientific Publishers Stuttgart), does show that fruits plus sashimi alternated with egg yolk contains all nutrients you need. (see site3 and submit your diet to the nutrient calculator)
If you really want to know what's healthy, you should look at the scientific (biochemical) facts.
Most dieticians and healthcare- and national institutions don't want to face the facts, forcing them to do research, and instead they simply repeat what they have been told, in the name of economy.
To prevent radical dietary changes from affecting economic status quo, everybody is warned against 'people' like Wai :
''Any site that has strikingly different information (different from common health-sites) is a warning sign that it may be an unprofessional site''. (American Elle, May 2000 ; The best of everything on-line. (supplement) / p.26)
'They' don't trust your judgmental abilities, because they are afraid you might draw the 'wrong' conclusions once you get to know the facts :
"How can you separate fact from fiction and know if you are doing the best thing for yourself ?" (at a site always ranking high in search engines, discouraging, in disguise, alternative food-consumption behavior. By the way, regarding human biochemistry they are right about this : you definitely need vitamin B12.)
How can you know if you are doing the best thing for yourself ?
In nature there is a reason for everything. It all makes sense, and so should our food consumption pattern.
Read the accompanying sites, and see if the presented information makes sense to you.
If it does, try consuming an abundance of fruit (think kilo's a day) and some fresh raw animal food, like sashimi, regularly for a few weeks. To make sure you are absorbing all essential nutrients, submit your diet (the fruits, nuts, oil and fresh raw animal food) to this nutrient calculator.
You can eat one or two 'munch-foods' every day (containing little protein but lots of fat and sugar to satisfy your cravings). But don't consume any grains, vegetables, beans or dairy products. If you then return to eating common food, you will definitely feel the difference.
Listen to your body very carefully and trust your instincts.
Your health does not have to end up depending on a pharmaceutical non-solution.
© 2000-2006 Copyright Artists Cooperative Groove Union U.A.
Home + navigation bar:
or without frames:
Abstracts of most sources can be found at the National Library of Medicine
(1) Brown, F. et al, Early Homo erectus skeleton from west Lake-Turkana, Kenya. Nature 1985 / 316 (6031) / 788-792.