Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Jai Mati
Recent Activity
-
Jai commented on the article |Someone Talk to this lady and listen to what she sais
if Gvernment thought like her, Americans would be healthier, our enviroment would be healthier, our choices would be greater, "One ounce of prevention is worth one pound of cure" some people might even get cured god forbid of diseases, political reasoning would not enter into the equation , Americans Health would.
Greater prevention equals less sick, less need of money infusions from Gov.
Expansion of approved treatment options, more healthy Americans. (Accupuncture, Chiropractic, etc..etc.. should be covered as they prevent chronic diseases and acualy cure afflictions, without surgery nor drugs they should be promoted not limited, these are just common sense adjustments.
Here go check out what American Health is really about, pretty much a Political ground battle and little to do with assuring our Health :
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
This is one who doesn't speack with a forked tongue and who knows how first avoid , then work to cure with treatments that are usualy less bad than the treatments.
Existing Laws and lobbyist pressures is what is determining our health care options and results, time to change the sistem and make health care , its main objective, if it benefits the american people's health , that should be the deciding factor and if others loose millions because of it , Tough . That's health CARE . everything else is BOLONY ! -
Jai commented on the article |On that Note , I would like to remind everyone , that "
one ounce of prevention avoids one pound of cure"
So maybe we should start being smart and looking at things as one should: Here I quote someone else more prepared than I on the subject of rash "Chemical" decisions and how we could be avoiding much, instead of curing little :
"
by Natasha Chart Published January 19, 2009 @ 07:44AM PST
http://food.change.org/blog/view/evolutionary_arms_race
Human beings did not invent pesticides. Plants and fungi got there way before us. Humans in general have learned practically nothing from their experiences. Consider the tobacco plant. Highly poisonous to insects, its presence in a garden, or its leaf extracts sprayed over an infestation, can keep crawly plant predators at bay. Or there are endophytic fungi, which intertwine their thread-like mycelial bodies all throughout the body of a plant alongside its cells, such that when predators attempt to eat the plant, they're repelled. It used to be that plants were almost all inhospitable to animals. The older plant families, your ferns, cycads, horsetails, these are plants that are either poisonous outright or contain very little in the way of animal nutrition. (And for the purposes of discussion, it should be remembered that insects, spiders and worms, etc., are also animals.) Then a fascinating thing happened - some plants evolved parts that were intended to be eaten by animals. You could also say that they started producing non-toxic, edible starches in quantities never before encountered. The flowering plants - which includes all our major food crops, because the grain-bearing grasses are also flowering plants, really the vast majority of human food - took a major detour from previous plant strategies, which had been all about developing enough toxins to keep yourself from being eaten. When you can't run away, this is a significant problem. So before, plants would develop toxins, and animals would develop immunities, then the cycle would start all over again. Flowering plants instead evolved strategies like making most of their body parts poisonous, but having very tasty pollen so that insects would help them mate instead of having to rely solely on wind or water dispersal. Or putting starchy, tasty, fleshy wrappers around their hard and toxic-laced seeds, so animals would eat the fruit on the one hand, but perform the very useful service of carrying their seeds far away on the other. Endless variety, endless mixes of the various survival strategies. Flowering plants went on to become the largest family of plants, even though they were the most recent to evolve. There's a fairly obvious lesson in the story. Consider this, from Sandra Steingraber's 1997 book, "Living Downstream", p. 152: ... In 1950, fewer than 20 species of insects showed signs of pesticide resistance. By 1960, Rachel Carson had documented an alarming 137 species resistant to at least one pesticide and urged that we should hear in this statistic the early rumblings of an avalanche. She was right. By 1990, the number of pesticide-resistant insect and mite species stood an 504. In creating pests impervious to the arsenal of chemical weapons directed at them, the story of herbicides reiterates the story of insecticides. Herbicide-resistant weeds are not mentioned in Silent Spring, as they did not yet exist. Today, weed scientists have identified 273 such species. In tracing the explosion of herbicide resistance among weed species that began in the late 1980s, researchers conducting a recent study were forced to conclude that the "short-term triumphs of new pest control technologies have carried with them the seeds long-term failure." ... Evolution doesn't work like this out of intent, obviously, even though it makes it easier to talk about it to speak as though that were true. This response to survival pressure over time is simply how species of living things are affected by their environment - the ones left standing by the latest catastrophe have more offspring and dominate the genetic makeup of the next generation. For insects, and many plants, whose lives are so much shorter than our own, this happens very fast. So the long term effects of a strategy of total war against pests on our part have been the creation of ever greater numbers of pests resistant to our best weapons. Clever, clever us. " -
Jai commented on the article |The person that I recognize has been the most active
yet the least endorsed, in defending my health freedoms
Other than from the public themselves, someone who proposes in not limiting the possible care for americans but expanding it with what God in whom we supposedly trust has provided for us as US citizens and world wide.
Who defends the peoples right to choose which way to be treated rather than forcing them to any one option while ommiting all others, for the benfit of special interest pharma
The only person I believe would defend my right to PROPER health care , gets my vote for Surgeon general and I am sure I am not the only one.... However I doubt big Pharmaceutical co's would approve. But then their is your opportunity to prove to the US citizens whom their government works for really,
the people or big Pharmaceutical co's ?
if this women was chosen , we the people would get better health care options, increased possibilities of getting CURED and Healthy again, freedom of choice, and all that, benefits.
everything that we have been missing for long now, as the FDA makes rulings that make any 12 year old look Wiser.
My Nomination for Surgeon General and your opportunity to truly be speaking about "HEALTH CARE" rather than legislated sales of Pharmaceutical drugs for the benefit of the few over the health of many ;
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
She is my and many others choice, for this post where Health, not political clout should be addressed.
No one other than this person in 40 years has proven yet in office or position to really make change for Cures....
Instead of Pharmaceutical sales.
Otherwise why do so many go elsewhere to get their diseases Cured , because they are no longer fooled at laws that prohibit Na no Silver, promote forced Vaccinations with unknown long term results, and have a record of creating more diseases in the last 50 years that curing them .
Please awaken Health care is about Health,giving and providing freedom to have options to do what one feels is best for him or her health as the patient and citizen. Not promoting elongated and debilitating unnecessary drug dependencies and side affects, for the sake of a few stock holders over the American public well being.
We as the citizens of the US are well aware how our health has become a political pond for the profit of a few over the Health of many, the statistical facts prove my statements , more diabetes, more cancers, more heart attacks, more chemicals in everything from food , water , and air.
exactly what they are supposed to be protecting us against is what they are promoting instead of protecting the US citizens again the gov seems to clearly favour lobbyist, over our safety and the freedom to choose as a minimum.
so far they do neither. but they do do the opposite of what they are there for- If someone wants to have faith from the sick
they should allow for ways that do cure and not just make them illegal to protect certain commerce. as is obvious as that is what is done to date. The people are not all fooled , so give a peoples representative a true chance to help not only health care but our economy and productivity as well as alleviating much unneeded surgeries and drug consumption, as I thought our country was on a war on drugs, except they seem to forget that there are many drugs that are protected when it is known to hurt people , so someone better clean this up. and it
" ain't" special interest chemical lobbying groups who should be consulted, but people who have proven to want the best for patients , True doctors not politicians we know how well they decide things and from what stance .
OK that the end of my expressions of thought , for the benefit of all !
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits