New York Times: Spike the food supply with sterilization chemicals to cause global infertility and depopulation

A November 24, 1969 New York Times feature article authored by Gladwin Hill called for sterilization chemicals to be added to the food supply in order to achieve globalist goals of human depopulation. That article, entitled “A Sterility Drug in Food is Hinted” came with the byline, “Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth.”
Until the New York Times memory holes the article, you can still find it in the NYT archives at this link, in fact. You can also see a partial photo of the NYT article below.
Most people living today — especially younger people — have no idea that a key agenda of globalism is the elimination of “undesirable” humans from the gene pool. They believe that ideas of “eugenics” and genocide were only carried out by the Nazis, not by American university professors and presidential science advisors. So they have no grasp of the context in which Planned Parenthood, for example, operates today as a depopulation engine to eliminate blacks from society. (Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a black-hating eugenicist whose ideas directly inspired the genocidal goals of the Third Reich.)
The New York Times article, shown below, quotes Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a depopulation advocate, as well as President Richard Nixon’s chief science adviser, Dr. Lee DuBridge, who said that “population control should be the prime task of every government.” (Read PopulationControl.news for more headlines on this subject.)

Compulsory family regulation run by government

In the article, shown below, Dr. Ehrlich laments the fact that biologists believe, “compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth.” In essence, he is arguing that the government should be in charge of reproductive rights, determining who is allowed to reproduce and who must be sterilized.
To achieve the sterilization goals, he “urged establishing a Federal Population Commission ‘with a large budget for propaganda,'” reports the New York Times. He also called for, “the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply” in order to cause mandatory infertility.
Dr. Barry Commoner of Washington University in St. Louis added to the discussion:
Can we not invent a way to reduce our population growth rate to zero? Every human institution – school, university, church, family, government and international agencies such as Unesco – should set this as its prime task.

This agenda is already well under way

Most Americans have no awareness that this agenda is well under way. Flu shots, for example, are now scientifically confirmed to cause spontaneous abortions, a form of infertility and population control. This explains exactly why the CDC began pushing for flu shot vaccines during all three trimesters of gestation in expectant mothers.
Sperm viability is also plummeting across the modern world, according to dozens of published scientific studies. One such study — conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem — found that sperm concentrations have plummeted more than 50 percent from 1973 to 2011. According to the abstract of this study as reported in Science Daily:
These findings strongly suggest a significant decline in male reproductive health that has serious implications beyond fertility and reproduction, given recent evidence linking poor semen quality with higher risk of hospitalization and death.

Covert vectors for depopulation that are being pursued right now

The depopulation goals from 1969 are in full force in America today. Some of the vectors for covert sterilization and depopulation now include:

• Covert genetic modification of crops to grow RNA interference fragments that nullify male fertility in humans.
• The continued use of toxic mercury in flu shots in order to cause spontaneous abortions in pregnant women.
• Planned Parenthood abortion centers that target minority communities for eugenics “cleansing” of the gene pool.
• Inoculation of all vaccine recipients with hidden, cancer-causing viruses that are deliberately allowed to contaminate many vaccines. (See the SV40 Simian Virus fiasco affecting 98 million Americans via the polio vaccine.) (Also, read the book “Plague” by Judy Mikovitz.)
• The planned, deliberate use of cancer-causing ingredients in the popular food supply, including sodium nitrite in processed meat, inducing widespread cancer and early deaths (the clueless population then eats itself to death, while enriching the cancer industry).
• Spiking public health vaccines with covert sterilization chemicals, exactly as has been confirmed in African vaccination campaigns that target young black women for sterilization without their knowledge or consent.

If you do not know that mass sterilization efforts are underway right now to eliminate human fertility and drastically reduce the global population, then you are not yet well-versed on reality. Even Bill Gates openly talks about achieving the correct amount of population reduction by using vaccines and other vectors, saying:
The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
For the sake of preserving the historical record, we are reprinting the NYT article here, knowing that they are very likely to attempt to memory hole this article in another swipe at Orwellian-style revisionist history.
A STERILITY DRUG IN FOOD IS HINTED
Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth
By GLADWIN HILL
Special to The New York Times
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 24 – A possibility that the government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication was envisioned today by a leading crusader on the population problem.
The crusader, Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, among a number of commentators who called attention to the “population crisis” as the United States Commission for Unesco opened it 13th national conference here today.
Unesco is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The 100-member commission, appointed by the Secretary of State, included representatives of Government, outside organizations, and the public. Some 500 conservationists and others are attending the two-day meeting at the St. Francis Hotel, devoted this year to environmental problems.
President Nixon’s chief science adviser, Dr. Lee DuBridge, brought up the population question in his keynote speech last night, calling the reduction of the earth’s population growth rate to zero “the first great challenge of our time.”
Godfrey a Speaker
His comments went beyond recent statements of President Nixon, who in a message to Congress stressed the provision of birth control information to underprivileged women.
But the Federal Government’s willingness to come to grips with population limitation was questioned by another speaker, Arthur Godfrey, radio-television star and a conservation campaigner.
“Dr. DuBridge rightly said that population control should be the prime task of every government,” he said. “But is there anyone here – anyone – who thinks that this Administration, or the next of the next, will act with the kind of force that’s necessary?”
Dr. Erlich, who is a biologist said:
“Our first move must be to convince all those we can that the planet Earth must be viewed as a spaceship of limited carrying capacity.”
“I think that 150 million people (50 million fewer that there are now) would be an optimum number to live comfortably in the United States.
‘Alternative to Armageddon’
“Some biologists feel that compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth. It is a dismal prospect – except when viewed as an alternative to Armageddon.”
He urged establishing a Federal Population Commission “with a large budget for propaganda,” changing tax laws to discourage reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control instruction in public schools.
He also urged “changing the pattern of Federal support of biomedical research so that the majority of it goes into the broad areas of population regulation, environment sciences, behavior sciences and related areas rather than into short-sighted programs on death control.”
If such steps are unavailing, he continued, the nation might resort to “the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply,” with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery.
Although it might seem that such a program could be started by doctoring foods sent to underdeveloped countries, he said, “the solution does not lie in that direction” because “other people already are suspicious of our motives.”
Economic Pressure Urged
Rather, he suggested,  the United States should stop economic aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations.
Dr. Barry Commoner of St. Louis, Washington University ecologist, in an ensuing discussion period differed with Dr. Ehrlich.
He said that he thought the urge to multiply was rooted in the sense of insecurity. And that the better way to reduce reproduction was by “increasing the well-being of peoples.”
He also opposed chemical strategems on the ground that “every technological trick like that we’ve tried  has caused disaster.”
Recapitulating the environmental problems stemming from population, Dr. Dubridge said: “Do we need more people on the earth? We all know the answer to that is no. Do we have to have more people? Also no.
“Can we reverse the urges of a billion years of evolving life? We can. We know techniques for reducing fertility. We are not fully utilizing them.”
Citing a widespread attitude, he said: ‘We have the right to have as many children as we can afford,’ we say. Do we, today? No.
“Can we not invent a way to reduce our population growth rate to zero? Every human institution – school, university, church, family, government and international agencies such as Unesco – should set this as its prime task.”
Source: The New York Times
Published: November 24, 1969

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-14-new-york-times-spike-the-food-supply-with-sterilization-chemicals-to-cause-global-infertility-and-depopulation.html

Starving artists? Feds sending millions to billionaires

A new study indicates that contrary to the argument that without federal funding, those “starving artists” just won’t make it, the U.S. government sends millions of dollars every year to organizations that are worth billions.
Michael McGrady writes for the Heartland Institute of a recent audit of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, which is responsible for the National Endowment of the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, gave more than $441 million to some 3,000 groups in 2016.
Seventy-one of those groups, which received about $20.5 million of the total, already had assets above $1 billion.
Each.
The audit of the agency was conducted and published by Open The Books, a project of the non-profit American Transparency, which aims to limit government by exposing how it spends taxpayer funds.
Adam Andrzejewski, the chief operating officer of American Transparency, said the “argument for public funding of the arts goes something like this: If you eliminate public funding of the arts, then the starving artists will go away, and you need this to have a vibrant culture in our country.”
Get “The Devil in DC: Winning Back the Country From the Beast in Washington” from the WND Superstore to learn how Americans can fight back against the establishment.
McGrady said the audit found that most of the grants don’t go to starving artists.
“They go to well-heeled, asset-rich organizations. In fact, about $8 out of every $10 go to organizations with high assets,” he said.
McGrady also cited Jonathan Bydlak, president of the Coalition to Reduce Spending, who said government bureaucrats use arts subsidies to tell artists what to say and how to say it.
“This opens up the door to all sorts of perverse incentives, and doesn’t exactly support true creativity,” he said.
The study states:
“Every year, celebrities such as Katy Perry, Pharrell Williams, Madonna, Alex Rodriguez and Jennifer Lopez grace the red carpet at the ‘Met Gala,’ a benefit for New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. The star power helps the organization raise up to $300 million annual. Since 2009, however, the Met has received federal grants totaling $1.2 million from the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities (NFA-H). The Met can’t argue that it needed the money – it has more than $3.7 billion in financial assets.”
The full report is here.
The report said that in the arts community, there is “a stark contrast between the haves and the have-nots.”
“We found 71 charitable organizations – with at least $1 billion each in assets – received nearly $120 million in federal funding since 2009. Then, there were the ‘starving artist’ organizations – 1,027 organizations with assets under $1 million – that received just $41 million in federal grants (FY2016).”
The report noted President Trump wants to eliminate federal funding for arts and is getting resistance from wealthy arts organizations, raising several questions for the American public:

• “Why are taxpayers funding nonprofits that have assets of at least $1 billion? Do charities have a right to public funding no matter how strong their balance sheet?”
• “If the public purpose is to fund the starving artist, then why are small organizations (less than $1 million in assets) receiving just $1 of every $4 in NFA-H nonprofit grant-making?”
• “Should prestigious universities receive arts and humanities funding despite their billion-dollar endowments?”
• “Who can explain the public purpose in forcing working-class taxpayers to fund arts organizations that obviously don’t need the money?”

The study found there were 71 groups worth more than $1 billion each that got a total of $20.5 million, even though the groups have a cumulative worth of $366 billion.
Then there were 39 groups worth between $500 million and $1 billion each that got $4.8 million, even though their cumulative worth is $27 billion.

read more: http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/starving-artists-feds-sending-millions-to-billionaires/

Here’s the shocking REAL reason why aluminum is added to vaccines

The question of whether or not to vaccinate your baby is one which every new mother must face. Bombarded with conflicting “evidence” about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, many are very confused, afraid to cause long-term damage like autism, but bullied by the mainstream media and medical professionals into believing that failing to vaccinate will result in serious, even fatal diseases.
One of the issues which often crops up in vaccine debates is that of adjuvants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claims that adjuvants are ingredients added to vaccines to create stronger immune responses in recipients’ bodies. “In other words, adjuvants help vaccines work better,” they insist. The CDC also claims that adjuvants have been safely used in vaccines for many decades.
One of the most commonly used adjuvants is aluminum.
Does the addition of aluminum really “help vaccines work better?” What is the real reason it’s added to vaccines, how does it affect the immune system, and what link is there between aluminum and autoimmune diseases? (Related: Find out all you need to know at Vaccines.news.)
These issues and others were recently addressed in an interview by iHealthTube.com with Dr. Suzanne Humphries, M.D., board certified internist, nephrologist (nephrology is the study of the kidneys and their diseases), and author of Dissolving illusions, rising from the dead.
Dr. Humphries explained that while vaccines do leave an infant with a “super-charged immune system” for a time, this is not a healthy state for the immune system to be in.
There are two types of vaccines, Humphries explained: killed vaccines and live vaccines. Live vaccines simulate the disease in the immune system more successfully than dead vaccines, and have a better influence on the immune system – that is, Dr. Humphries pointed out, if they don’t kill you or give you encephalitis. It is the dead vaccines to which aluminum is generally added as an adjuvant.
Dr. Humphries explained the reason for the addition of aluminum as follows:
“When it comes to these sub-unit, or killed vaccines, the infant immune system just won’t respond to it. … There’s a program in that infant immune system to make that infant anti-inflammatory, and there’s a reason for it, because that infant is becoming acquainted with a world full of microbes. … Imagine if we reacted to all the microbes that we’re getting in our mother’s breast milk, colonizing our gut and landing on our skin and our throats and our ears – we would be an autoimmune nightmare. And so, there’s something called molecular mimicry, which pretty much God put into the system of us relating to the world, in that the proteins in microbes very similarly mimic our own proteins in the blood vessels and the heart and the brain and many different places, depending on which microbe you’re talking about. You throw aluminum into that vaccine and molecular mimicry becomes a problem and that baby’s immune system gets ramped up.”
So, basically, aluminum is added to vaccines to short-circuit a vitally important element of the protective measures of a baby’s immune system.
This temporary super-charging of the immune system does not promote long-term health. What aluminum in vaccines does do, is trigger an allergic response in most people.
Such vaccines also do not build up the immune system to fight disease better.
Humphries cited a study in Denmark which examined hospitalization rates for all sorts of infections in children under the age of 4 who had received either live or dead vaccines. The research team determined that if a killed vaccine had been a child’s last vaccine, it generally had a detrimental effect on their overall immune response to other infections.
As Dr. Humphries noted, “These killed vaccines skew the immune system and make a person more susceptible to other infections. So, while it might protect you from pertussis for a short period of time, you could be susceptible to RSV, croup, or other kinds of infections that could land you in the hospital. So, again, to me that’s not a very good trade off.” (Related: Aluminum and vaccines – what the research reveals.)
And aluminum’s devastating affect on the body’s natural immune defense system helps explain the surge in autoimmune diseases in recent years.
It seems there is one thing new moms can be sure of: Vaccinating your child with a vaccine that contains aluminum as an adjuvant will not strengthen their immune system, may result in an allergic response, could lead to an autoimmune disease, and may make them more susceptible to other infections.
Sources include:
YouTube.com
CDC.gov

read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-01-heres-the-shocking-real-reason-why-aluminum-is-added-to-vaccines.html

New science confirms: Earth was WARMER during Medieval period

A new technical paper that was published in GeoResJ shows that it is not possible to confirm that any recent warming of our planet is due to unnatural causes. After a team of scientists led by Jennifer Marohasy and Dr. John Abbot used big data techniques to assess six 2,000-year proxy temperature series, they discovered the recent warming on Earth might have happened even if there had never been an industrial revolution.
The most recent forecasts using artificial neural networks are believed to be more accurate than the general circulation models that have typically been used until now. The researchers fed data from various methods of measuring temperatures during the last 2,000 years, like coral cores and tree rings, into a machine learning neural network that predicted patterns of temperatures over the two millennia had there not been extra carbon dioxide from industrialization.
What the computer predicted was almost exactly what the temperatures around the world actually were during the time period under study. Indeed, the average divergence between their projection and the proxy temperature record was just 0.09 degree Celsius. This means that even without fossil fuels burning and the industrial revolution, warming would have still been noted on our planet through the 20th century.
After studying the six-proxy series from various geographic regions that have already been published in mainstream literature on climate science, they discovered lots of zigzags. However, there were two rising trends, one of which peaked around 1200 A.D. in the Medieval Warm Period and a second that peaked in 1980 before dropping off. The Little Ice Age occurred in the time between these peaks. During the earlier warming period, agriculture thrived in England. It was around this time that the Vikings settled Greenland and men donning tunics built great cathedrals.

Evidence piling up that Medieval period was hotter

The researchers’ evidence also shows that it was actually around one degree warmer throughout Europe during that time, confirming past studies. Some researchers have used remodeling in their favor to flatten the Medieval Warm Period and try to downplay its significance, but hundreds of scientists from 40 countries around the world have contributed peer-reviewed papers proving that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present and this study is just the latest.
The findings of Marohasy and Abbot add to a growing mountain of evidence pointing to warmer temperatures during the past. According to a report from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Medieval Warm Period was not only warmer than the current period, but it also lasted longer than the current warm period and was global in scope.
A comprehensive study out of Germany published in Nature Climate Change examined tree ring data and found that earlier estimates of historical temperatures during times like the Middle Ages and Roman Era were too low.
If the climate has been warmer in the past in the absence of any significant carbon dioxide emissions, it means that CO2 emissions do not have the huge impact on the climate that some parties with vested interests claim. It might be true that greenhouse gases can have a warming effect, but experts like respected climatologist Judith Curry believe that natural climate variability is playing a much stronger role in all this than human impact.
Sources include:
Spectator.com.au
Express.co.uk
ClimateDepot.com
TheRegister.co.uk

read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-27-new-science-confirms-earth-was-warmer-during-medieval-period.html

Top 8 organic MISTAKES most people make because they have not done the research

There are no absolutes when it comes to a healthy lifestyle and clean eating. Many foods that were perfectly wholesome just months ago may be tainted and contaminated now if the farmer, company or corporation that makes them changed even just a few key ingredients, or worse yet, sold out to “Big Food.” Nothing is 100 percent reliable either. People jump on diet bandwagons and think some new fad is the “be all, end all” of diets and if they can just stick to it they’ve “got it made.” Wrong.
There are holes in every game, and exceptions to every rule. There are major problems with labels like “all natural” and “gluten free,” but we’ll save those topics for another article. If you thought going 80 percent or 90 percent or even 100 percent organic was “all good,” then you’ve got a bit more homework to do, but don’t worry, we’ve got your back. Let’s talk about organic mistakes millions of people are making and exactly why, so we can all stay on track with eating clean daily.

#1. Buying from organic companies that sold out to Big Food’s evil corporations

If you’re one of those smart shoppers who buys mainly organic, you better take a second look at “who” you’re buying, instead of just “what” you’re buying. Over the past few years, several smaller organic companies sold out to huge corporations so they could retire and enjoy the good life. Problem is that “good ole” company is now a bastard child of Big Food, and you can bet all the products that were once clean are now polluted with toxic foods, even though they’re still organic. Yes, it’s true. Big Food loves to push unfermented soy and rapeseed (canola) on us, and even when they’re organic they’re still bad for the body over the long term. Watch out for those high estrogen levels and that coagulating blood! Nothing good comes from it.
Here are some examples in case you aren’t up to date on the “who owns who” of the organic world of tainted food. Purdue Farms owns Hans. Coca Cola owns Suja juice, Green Mountain Coffee and Honest Tea. Not so “honest” anymore, huh? Campbell Soup Company owns Wolfgang Puck, Plum Organics and Bolthouse Farms. Nestle owns Sweet Leaf Tea and Tribe Mediterranean Foods. Pepsi owns Naked Juice and Stacy’s Pita Chips.
Wait, there are more. Hain Celestial owns Spectrum Organics, Garden of Eatin and Ella’s Kitchen, just to name a few. Kellogg owns Bare Naked, Kashi and Morningstar Farms. Did you know J.M. Smucker owns Santa Cruz Organic? You should also know that General Mills owns Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, LaraBar and Annie’s Homegrown – the latter of which might not be so “homegrown” anymore.

#2. Buying organic foods that contain canola

Organic or not, canola oil is synthetic oil bred from its parent rapeseed. Big Food needed a cheap substitute for imported coconut oil and palm oil and bam! A creative Canadian scientist took the most toxic of all food-oil plants and reduced the toxicity to meet FDA “standards” (nothing to write home about). Canola oil is still toxic even when it contains zero pesticides, and that’s why it doesn’t matter if it carries the “certified organic” seal of approval from the USDA.
Studies of rats consuming canola revealed degeneration of the heart, kidneys, thyroid gland and adrenals. As soon as the scientists withdrew canola from the rats’ feed, the health damage rescinded. Don’t forget, humans are animals too, with 96 percent the same DNA as the rest of the animals on planet Earth, so don’t think this alarming canola research doesn’t apply to us. Canola oil is high in glycosides, which means it inhibits enzyme function and destroys the protective coating surrounding your nerves, and once that sheath is gone, you’re done for. Nerve damage sets in.
Canola oil, over the long term, can cause emphysema, constipation and respiratory distress. Don’t be fooled by the happy little term “expeller pressed.” It doesn’t matter because canola still carries the mutated rapeseed genes. Big Food still has to bleach it and deodorize it to remove the stink. Almost all organic mayonnaise products and organic salad dressings are loaded with canola or soy or both! Watch out.

#3. Buying organic foods that contain unfermented soy

Just since the year 2000, U.S. food manufacturers have introduced over 3,000 soy-based foods, many of which are labeled “certified organic,” but does that even matter? Any soy that is unfermented, whether organic or not, is linked to immune-system malfunctions, thyroid dysfunction and cognitive decline. In fact, no soy was fit to eat until the discovery of fermentation techniques during the Chou Dynasty. Anyone eating unfermented soy would suffer from eating anti-nutrient toxins that block the enzymes humans need for protein digestion, and that’s at just two tablespoons a day.
Hundreds of health studies reveal infant abnormalities, kidney stones and food allergies thanks to soy consumption. If you read or hear about the benefits of soy, they’re talking about fermented soy only. Most organic mayonnaise products and organic salad dressings are loaded with canola or soy or both! Watch out.

#4. Buying anything “certified organic” that was grown in China

With three times the population of America, China suffers major environmental pollution problems, including waste management, industrial and agricultural contamination, pharmaceutical contamination, plus inadequate water treatment. At least 70 percent of China’s water is so polluted it’s deemed unsafe for human contact. Some of the rivers there have such high metal content that they literally run red from rust. That means even if food is grown organically without pesticide use, it’s still contaminated across the board.

#5. Assuming that “USDA certified organic” means no heavy metal toxins

The USDA does not inspect certified organic food for heavy metal toxins at all. That would include lead, aluminum, mercury, nickel, copper, tungsten and arsenic. Can you believe it? You can have your levels tested by a Naturopathic Physician. Your best bet is to avoid all organic food that’s imported from China – the most polluted industrial nation in the world.

#6. Putting organic food in the microwave oven

The “nuker” not only destroys nutritive qualities of food within seconds, but produces wave energy radiation that interacts with food molecules, changing their polarity from positive to negative at millions of times per second. This severe agitation and friction bombards the food and forcefully deforms it. The scientific name for this is “structural isomerism.”

#7. Cooking organic meat on an outdoor grill

Even if meat is organic, when you grill it at high temperature and fat drips onto the heat source, potent carcinogens are created called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s). There is also a chemical reaction between the amino acids and creatine in the meat that forms dangerous heterocyclic amines (HCA’s). Lastly, you’re increasing the amount of advanced glycolytic enzymes (AGE’s) already present in the meat, causing inflammation and oxidative damage to tissues in your body.

#8. Boiling organic vegetables in water you got from the tap

You can’t boil out cancer-causing, IQ-lowering sodium fluoride from tap water. You need a high quality water filtration system like Big Berkey to do that. Don’t pollute your clean food with toxic tap water. Enough said.
Sources for this article include:
Cornucopia.org
NaturalNews.com
Koshland-Science-Museum.org
NaturalNews.com
FDA.news
News.BBC

read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-23-top-8-organic-mistakes-most-people-make-because-they-have-not-done-the-research.html

MUMMIFIED ALIEN CORPSE UNEARTHED IN NAZCA PERU!!

Opium-like painkiller alternative can be found growing in your backyard

If you’re suffering from pain of any type, your first impulse might be to reach for a pill. If that is the case, then you are not alone. Many people rely on over-the-counter or prescription pain medication, but these come with the risk of severe side effects and drug dependency issues. A large segment of our population is popping these highly addictive meds like candy, often masking the problem rather than fixing it.
Did you know that many herbs and spices can treat inflammation and other related conditions that cause acute or chronic pain? Big Pharma, or the “legal drug lords” as Natural Blaze calls them, have most of us believing that if you want the “good stuff,” you need their drugs.
While they are laughing their way to the bank, millions of people are becoming addicted to these pills, which has led to the current epidemic of opioid addictions and overdoses. In the United States, it is so bad that prescription opioid-related deaths have surpassed gun-related deaths. Furthermore, once these people are caught in the web of a “legal” drug addiction, the step to the illegal market and heroin is easily made when they get turned away from the medical system.

Wild lettuce, a healthy morphine-like pain alternative growing in your backyard

Wild lettuce is a tall, leafy plant with small, yellow buds commonly found in gardens across North America and England. Also known as Lactuca Virosa, opium lettuce, or bitter lettuce, this medicinal plant has long been used in folk medicine as a substitute to opium, hence its name opium lettuce. While it has been used for centuries, it was in the 1970s that it started to gain significant popularity, both for pain relief and recreational purposes.
Opium lettuce’s pain-relieving and sedative effects come from the white substance, called lactucarium, found in the stem and leaves. Just like morphine, compounds in the milky substance act directly on the central nervous system to lessen the feeling of pain. Unlike its name may suggest, the plant doesn’t contain any opiates and is legal.
Patients with Epstein-Barr Virus, Fibromyalgia, nerve injury, surgical pain, and inflammation could all benefit from making the switch to this natural remedy. As reported by Ask A Prepper, next to its pain-relieving properties, this medicinal plant also works wonders in the treatment of coughs, insomnia, and anxiety. Migraine sufferers claim that they experience fewer migraine attacks when they use wild lettuce.
Furthermore, it can be very beneficial for asthma patients since opiate medications can cause more asthma episodes when they go through opiate withdrawal. The use of opium lettuce instead of opiate drugs could give the same results while keeping withdrawal symptoms and additional asthma attacks at bay.
There are many ways to consume the plant to reap its pain-relieving benefits. In the old days, people used to steep a herbal tea of the dried leaves and stems or cook the plant in water with a sugar mix until a syrup-like substance is left. While tea remains popular today, because of its bitter taste, many people are also using the dried leaves and stems for smoking or vaporizing. (RELATED: Learn more about natural remedies at Remedies.news.)
If you are not living in a place where this medicinal plant grows in the wild and are in pain, you shouldn’t miss out on its pain-relieving benefits. You can purchase wild lettuce as a dried herb, extract or resin. However, these commercial options may disappear in the near future. Given its euphoric qualities and recreational use, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is trying to add this natural, non-opiate plant to the list of illegal substances.
Sources:
NaturalBlaze.com
AskAPrepper.com
NaturalNews.com

Read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-04-09-opium-like-painkiller-alternative-can-be-found-growing-in-your-backyard.html