This blog site — Bluebonnet Natural Healing Therapy— is for general health information only. This blog site is not to be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment of any health condition or problem. Users of this blog site should not rely on information provided here for their own health concerns. Any questions regarding your own health should be addressed to your own physician or other healthcare provider.

Donna Earnest Pravel makes no guarantees, warranties nor express or implied representations whatsoever regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, comparative or controversial nature, or usefulness of any information contained or referenced on this blog site. Neither does Donna assume any risk whatsoever for your use of this blog site or the information contained herein.

Health-related information changes frequently and therefore information contained on this blog site may be outdated, incomplete or incorrect. Statements made about products have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

Donna Earnest Pravel is not a physician or anything close to a licensed health care professional. Use of this blog site does not create an expressed or implied physician-patient or any other health care giver-patient or client relationship.

Readers are advised to consult with a physician or other professional health-care provider prior to making any decisions, or undertaking any actions or not undertaking any actions related to any health care problem or issue you might have at any time, now or in the future.

In using this blog site you agree that neither Donna Earnest Pravel nor any other party is or will be liable or otherwise responsible for any decision made or any action taken or any action not taken due to your use of any information presented on this blog site.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

WiFis and Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer and Destroy DNA in Little Girls' Eggs

Hey y'all!

I am sooo excited, because I have new readers from around the world! I want to give a hearty Texas "yeehaw" to my new friends in Australia, Egypt, Spain, and Peru! Y'all bless my heart! On to today's shocking report:

WiFi and electromagnetic frequencies in cell phones and other mobile devices cause brain cancer, destroy DNA in the eggs of little girls, and make men sterile-image by

Today I want to talk about WiFi and EMFs. This is a *huge* topic that I've known about for maybe 5-7 years. I am so very glad to see that the "mainstream": natural health community is becoming aware of the alarming dangers of  ElectroMagnetic Fields (Frequencies). Electromagnetic frequencies emit from our wireless computers, our cell phones and cell phone towers, our Smart phones (and soon there will be entire Smart windows just like in the movie "Minority Report," our big flat screen HDTVs, and the Big Brother Smart meters electric companies are putting on our homes without our permission.  I'm not exactly sure how we natural health advocates are going to make people aware of the dangers of electromagnetic fields other than to teach folks like y'all, and then ask you to repost and warn your friends and loved ones.

Dr. Joseph Mercola warns that pregnant women should not use cell phones because a clinical study just published in the March 2012 issue of Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine performed on pregnant rats showed that microwave radiation from cell phones caused *certain* harm to fetal rat brains.  Dr. Mercola goes on to say that scientists have been collecting data on over 13,000 preschool children since 2008. The data shows that even when mothers use handsets and only use their cell phones two or three times a day, unborn babies and children under seven years old are at a much greater risk for hyperactivity, behavior problems, and relationship issues. The risk of behavior issues explodes if children are allowed to use cell phones themselves before school age.

I am so glad to have international readers, because y'all are way ahead of the U.S. The World Health Organization issued a potential link from cell phone use to brain cancer, which has caused several countries to ban or limit cell phone use. However, top American scientists in the field of electromagnetic frequencies such as Dr. Martin Blank, PhD., state emphatically that there is peer-reviewed science proving that EMFs alter our DNA. This makes the long-term consequences of repeat exposure to cell phones and other WiFi devices of grave concern.

It gets worse. published an article in November 2011 stating that when men place wireless laptops on their laps, the electromagnetic radiation actually toasts their testicles and kill their sperm. This effect did not happen when the laptops were plugged into the wall. But the real kicker for me personally, and the reason I have joined the fight against WiFi, EMFs, cell phones, wireless laptops, microwaves, and electromagnetic radiation in other forms is this: electromagnetic radiation gets into the ovaries and eggs of little girls and permanently alters their DNA.

Watch this short video interviewing scientist Barrie Trower:

Microwave radiation from electromagnetic fields in cell phones, cell phone towers, microwave ovens, WiFi laptops, cordless telephones. Smart meters, and flat screen TVs are permanently destroying our daughters' and future granddaughters' eggs, causing our men to be sterile, causing our little ones to become holy terrors, and has strong links to brain cancer.

All I can say is that we are the voice of change.

There are things we can do to protect ourselves and our loved ones from electromagnetic radiation. I'll talk about this in my next post on Bluebonnet Natural Healing Therapy.

What do you think about this? Are you willing to give up your cell phone? How about your children's cell phones and laptops?

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Dr. Mercola Donates $.5M to CA's Right to Know GMO Labeling Campaign While Monsanto's Minions Fight Back

Hey y'all,

It looks like the battle for GMO labeling is really heating up in California! Why is this important? If the residents of California can persuade their legislators to pass a bill to get food packers and processors to label food containing GMOs, then legislators in other states are much more likely to follow suit. All the "Right to Know" bill does is give consumers the right to choose whether to purchase and eat GMO foods or not. It does not affect farmers, it does not affect food producers, it just adds a label like a K does for kosher food. It's not hard.

The demand for organic, non-GMO food grows daily. Farmers and vendors are more than willing to meet this demand- image by Andrew Ciskel

Monsanto is fighting back, saying that this is ridiculous legislation, because  "to require labels on virtually all processed foods as possibly containing GMOs, because of widespread use of genetically modified soy, corn, canola, cotton, sugar beet and alfalfa seed, amounts to meaningless disclosure."  That's right, folks, virtually all processed food that we can buy at the grocery store is made from genetically engineered ingredients.

Read this post from the Organic Consumers Association. We need to know how Monsanto is arguing against this legislation so we can be ready to talk to our own representatives. I've copied it for you under the Fair Use Agreement:

Monsanto's Minions Attack CA's Right to Know About GMOs

Web Note: Apparently too many critical comments inspired the Sacramento Bee to remove the comments feature from the article in question. Please contact them and let them know your opinion on this issue.

You can't argue with consumers' right to know what's in our food. That's why 9 out of 10 people support labels for genetically engineered food.

But, money talks, and companies like Monsanto that have gotten rich hiding GMOs in our food are already on the attack in California, where a movement to label GMOs is working to get the issue on the November 2012 ballot.

Monsanto found an ally in Dan Morain at the Sacramento Bee who tried to find fault with the CA Right to Know/Label GMOs coalition.

Here are Morain's points, along with our rebuttal. Please go to the editorial, scroll down and add your comments. (See Web Note above.)
  • #1 "Although there's no proof that genetically modified food has caused anyone's nose to fall off, labeling is not a terribly bad idea. People like to know what they're eating."

Guided by common sense, Dan Morain can't help but to agree with us.

But, then he lets Monsanto's spin distract him from the simple fact that GMO labels protect our right-to-know...
  • #2 The CA Right to Know/Label GMOs coalition consists of "[r]ich people with a cause [who] cannot seem to resist inflicting their world views on California politics."
The CA Right to Know/Label GMOs coalition consists primarily of non-profit sustainable agriculture organizations, as well as natural, organic and non-GMO businesses, many of whom are based in CA, and all of whom have a large base of members and customers in California.
  • #3 Voters should decide whether or not to support the Label GMOs initiative based on what they think of $500,000 donor Dr. Joseph Mercola, "an osteopath who lives in suburban Chicago and runs a website,, which promotes his alternative, though generally unproven, health-related products and ideas."
We're very proud to have the financial and educational support of Dr. Mercola, and we encourage everyone interested in learning more about natural health and the potential health impacts of consuming genetically engineered food to But, that's not what this initiative is about. It's about the right to know. All we want are labels.
  • #4 The initiative would open farmers and food producers to litigation.
This isn't about farmers. It's about packers and processors. Packers and processors have to follow labeling laws.

It isn't about litigation, either. Consumers already have the right to sue to enforce California's food labeling laws. This initiative can't change that one way or the other. All it can change is what gets labeled. Again, 9 out of 10 people think GMOs should be labeled.
  • #5 "The initiative wording is ambiguous and could be interpreted to bar companies from calling any product "natural" if it has been subject to 'processing such as canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation or milling.'"
Morain thought he had a clever way to undermine support for the initiative proposition that GMO foods should not be marketed as "natural." He took a talking point straight from Monsanto's playbook - only he didn't get the point.

What spokespersons for Monsanto and the agricultural biotech industry usually say is, to require labels on virtually all processed foods as possibly containing GMOs, because of widespread use of genetically modified soy, corn, canola, cotton, sugar beet and alfalfa seed, amounts to meaningless disclosure. Morain must not understand what genetic engineering is. He heard that "virtually all processed foods" would have to be labeled and somehow he figured this was because of the way they were processed. Morain doesn't get that almost all processed foods contain ingredients that are genetically engineered.

If everyone knew that all the processed food they were eating contains GMOs, labels would be meaningless, but in the United States, a country where virtually everyone is eating GMOs, only about one quarter of the population is aware of it. In this context GMO labels are anything but meaningless.
  •  #6 "[H]umans have been modifying crops for 10,000 years. Durham wheat, Asian pears, domesticated cattle and many other commodities would not exist without some sort of engineering. Of course, genetic engineering and irradiation are different from cross-breeding of days past. But in very real ways, [professor Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of Life & Health Sciences Research Development in the UC Davis Office of Research] said, new techniques are much more controlled. 'This is tested so thoroughly,' Newell-McGloughlin said.
Again, the CA Right to Know/Label GMOs initiative isn't about the merits of GMOs. If genetic engineering is so great, its proponents should agree that food labels are a good idea. Of course, the fact is that Monsanto and the other agricultural biotech companies don't want you to know about GMOs in your food because they don't want you to wonder whether it's safe.

Newell-McGloughlin's statement that "[t]his is tested so thoroughly," would lead the reader to believe that independent scientists who work for public research institutions are carefully safety testing each new GMO before it enters our food. On the contrary, the government's policy that there is "no material difference" between GMOs and normal foods obviated the need for review. Companys that want to market new GMOs don't have to prove that they're safe, only that they are similar to normal foods - and they get to do their own research.

In the case of GMO salmon, for instance, the applicant, AquaBounty, submitted data to the FDA that showed their genetically engineered salmon was less nutritious, more likely to trigger allergies and had higher levels of a hormone linked to human cancers than normal salmon. The FDA noted this, but concluded that it wasn't different enough from normal salmon to be blocked or even labeled.

But, that discussion isn't even relevant to this issue of GMO labels. Safety tested or not, genetically engineered food should be labeled.

For more information and to volunteer to help collect signatures for the California Ballot Initiative to Label GMOs go toOrganic Consumers Fund.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Nursery Water: Fluoride-Laced Bottled Water for Babies and Toddlers

Hey y'all!

Y'all know I am privileged to write for Natural Mike Adams, the editor of Natural News, sat in for Alex Jones today at Prison At the beginning of the broadcast, Mike showed a short video clip that Alex Jones shot at a grocery store or some drug store. Alex was on the baby product aisle and noticed a baby product called "Nursery Water." Like Alex, I was curious to know what marketing trick was being done to get precious new mothers to buy specially-labeled bottled water for their babies and toddlers over the regular bottled water they could get a few rows over.

Nursery water is steam distilled water, which may be fine for children. I have to say *may* be fine, because I just found out this past weekend that children's immune systems are not fully developed until they are somewhere between 7 and 18 years old. What I thought I knew about children's health may have just been thrown out the window with this news. I have so much new information I am doing research on right now it is crazy, but I will teach you what I have learned in due time. The shocker about Nursery water is that it has added fluoride!

Fluoride-laced bottled water for babies and toddlers is marketed as a safe and healthy choice- image by

I just about fell over when I found out that a company who is considered a trusted brand of water for babies, toddlers and preschool children adds fluoride in the name of children's health. Go back and read my posts entitled Just How Bad is Fluoride in Drinking Water?: Fluorosis in Teeth and The Fluoride Conspiracy... Yes, I Said Conspiracy. I can't say it enough times, that fluoride is the same stuff used in rat poison, it is a toxic chemical, it has never been proven either safe or effective by independent scientific studies, it rots the teeth of children before their permanent teeth come in, and it's being linked to rotting bones and brains in older adults.

First of all, babies under the age of six months do not need to drink water at all. Babies should be strictly breast fed until the first baby tooth comes in, according to the American College of Nurse-Midwives. Even the professional union of the EPA does not recommend fluoridation, so why on Earth would a company whose primary target market is new mothers lie and say that fluoridated drinking water is safe?

Evidently, I am not the only person who has asked this question. In 2008 the Environmental Working Group filed a class action lawsuit against Nursery Water stating that the company was skirting FDA regulations. The FDA's position was, and is currently:

 "Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay]" but“the health claim is not intended for use on bottled water products specifically marketed for use by infants” (FDA 2006).

Nursery brand drinking water was twisting studies and statements made by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association in order to make their products sound safe without any real supporting scientific evidence. I just went to the Nursery water website- those words are still there. However, if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the website page, you see in the footer at the very bottom, this statement: "Consult your physician or dental professional if using another fluoridated product."

That's how the company has resolved this issue. That's it.

How much fluoride are our babies actually getting for their size?- image by fatherspoon

This is the deal- Nursery water contains just under the maximum dose of fluoride recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services... for adults. There is no safe dosage recommendation for babies or children. This company is adding fluoride at a level the federal government considers safe or acceptable for adults, but is selling it to mothers who will offer it to their infants. Unfortunately,  these mothers are also helping their children brush their teeth with a fluoride toothpaste. We all know we are supposed to spit the toothpaste out and rinse well, but we parents also know that children may swallow more toothpaste than we do. So just how much fluoride per body weight are these babies and children getting? And what is it doing to these little ones' teeth, bones, and IQ?

What do y'all think about this?

P.S.: I want to give a huge shout out to my international readers! I am so excited and honored to have readers in Canada, all over Europe, Russia, and India! Big hugs from deep in the heart of Texas!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

GMOs May Be Killing Our Babies: The Voice of the Midwives

Hey y'all,

I'm writing this blog post with a very heavy heart. A couple of nights ago, I saw an article come through the Natural feed on Facebook. I write for Natural News, and am an affiliate there. The article was so shocking that I burst into tears. A midwife from Indonesia, "Mother Robin" Lim, was telling the world that GMOs are killing our babies. Our human babies. I used to be a lay midwife, so I understood every word Mother Robin said. Today I want to write a response to that article, from both the perspective of a former midwife and a mother who has had five home births and two all-natural, midwife-assisted births in the hospital or birthing center. I will warn anyone who has a sensitive stomach that there are images on this post for education purposes that may be a little bit much to take. But I think my readers need to know what this midwife is talking about. GMOs may be killing our babies.

Here is a link to the original article on the article, GMO Foods and the Damage to Human Babies, Placentas, and Umbilical Cords, by Om Shanti, Ibu Robin Lim. No copyright infringement is intended by re-posting most this article with my inserts and comments. I am going to put my comments in blue so you can see them better.

Short umbilical cords causing strife.
Shorter umbilical cords are being tied to consumption of GMO food.
Shorter umbilical cords- tied to consumption of GMO food. The problem stems worldwide now through U.S. businesses.
(JAKARTA) - I am writing from Indonesia, the country who got GMO soy first... 

This is Mother Robin writing. In 1995, Monsanto introduced "Roundup ready" genetically modified soybeans to the agricultural market. I have blogged about GMO foods and grains on BNHT before, in Roundup and Roundup Ready Foods Are Causing Reproductive Issues in Humans and Roundup Ready GMO Plants and Seeds Are Destroying the Health of Animals and Humans Alike. In 1997, only 8% of all soy crops were GMO. According to the 2010 National Agricultural Statistics Board report, 93% of all U.S. soy crops in 2010 were Monsanto's GMO soy. 

...[I}n 2008 Bumi Sehat Bali received 573 babies. We saw an increase in retained placentas....

This was about ten years after the introduction of GMO soy to the international market. 

The placenta is the "afterbirth" after a mother delivers a baby. It looks like a large piece of calf's liver when delivered. The umbilical cord is attached at one end to the baby's navel, called the umbilicus, and to the placenta at the other end. The placenta is what nourishes the fetus while it is inside the mother's womb. The mother's nutrient-rich blood goes through the placenta, down the umbilical cord, and directly into the baby through two arteries. The used fetal blood then travels back up the umbilical cord through a vein to mix with the mother's blood in the placenta.

 This is a healthy placenta, seen from the baby's side- image by Skeptic North

This is what a healthy placenta looks like from the mother's side where it attached to the uterus- image by Robin Elise Weiss, LCCE of A "retained placenta" means that the placenta does not detach on its own after the birth. Normally, a placenta will be delivered on its own in about twenty minutes or less with one or two good contractions from the mother's uterus. A retained placenta is a complication that every midwife is trained how to identify and correct, but midwives know that this is not normal and not healthy.

...Also I am seeing an increase in velamentous cord insertion....

Look at the first of the two images I provided. See how the cord is right smack in the middle of the placenta and there are some really nice, healthy blood vessels radiating out of it? This is what we want to see. This is good.

Now look at this image of a velamentous cord insertion:

See how the cord is attached way over at the edge of the placenta? This has real potential danger, as you will soon see- image by

...One would expect given the rate of malnourishment here - ....

We do have to keep in mind that Mother Robin's birth clinic does see a lot of malnourished mothers, and that this does play a factor in birth outcome. However, the midwives there have been delivering babies at the clinic for years, and these placenta and cord complications are statistically "new."

...that the birthing women would use every bit of Qi to push out their babies (and we go so gently) - leaving little or not much Qi for releasing the placenta and involution....

She's saying it takes a tremendous amount of energy and patience to deliver a baby naturally, and even more effort is required of a mother who is malnourished.

...However, in 2008 and so far in 2009 we have seen many too many 'sticky' placentas,...

Mother Robin originally wrote this in 2009. A sticky placenta is the nickname for a retained placenta.

 ...two [mothers] even had to be transported... a hospital, because the midwives knew these were real medical emergencies requiring an obstetrician.

... (we do manual removal...

 ...of the placenta by either pulling on the cord or going up inside the mother to tear the placenta off the wall of the uterus- this is *never* something a midwife wants to do.

... on site when absolutely necessary - but 2 really had to go in, one for a hysterectomy, in another - Dr. Weda gama [sic] nearly took her into surgery... but was able to remove the placenta (over 1 liter blood loss!)....

The alternative to hysterectomy would have been the death of the mother in these cases. The second mother lost a quart of blood. This is the real danger with retained placentas- "bleeding out," or hemorrhaging to death.

...In the last 6 weeks of 2008 I had to go after [manually remove from inside the mother] 4 placentas!!! It was not pretty, and I do not take it lightly. (usually never more than 1 per year)...

She's saying she had to save these mother's lives in very high risk situations. This is extremely abnormal for midwives to see, and they never want to have to resort to this kind of action. A midwife never attends a birth if she sees a complication during prenatal care she knows she could not handle. These placenta problems she has been witnessing have come as a great, alarming surprise.

...Also most shocking is the empirical experience ( I have no research to prove it) of seeing an increase of velamentous umbilical cord insertion and short cords....

A normal umbilical cord is 60-70cm (about 2 feet) long at birth, according to Yale University School of Medicine. A short cord indicates that the baby has not been very active in the uterus, and may have a lowered IQ or motor abnormalities. If the cord is too short, the baby will not be able to be delivered vaginally.

...Two weeks ago we had Padma, a vegetarian for 15 + years... third baby died the week before birth - from what was diagnosed as a cord accident. This 4th baby was born healthy... but the cord was flat and 4 to 5 cm wide (looked like a tape worm) and had five skinny vulnerable vessels arriving each separately to the placenta!!!....

A flat cord means there is not nearly enough Wharton's jelly in it. A normal umbilical cord looks like an old fashioned white telephone cord with blue cords inside. Wharton's jelly protects the fetal arteries inside the cord. A loss of Wharton's jelly is usually seen (extremely rarely in midwife assisted births) down at the baby's side. But she is saying this cord was not only flat, but the blood vessels weren't even contained in the cord where they were attached to the placenta side. I think she is also saying that instead of the normal three blood vessels in an umbilical cord, there were five. She is using exclamation points for good reason!

... I am seeing a decrease in Wharton's jelly among all our babies....

This is not good at all. The umbilical cords are too thin and too short.

...Last week a young mom lost her baby in labor... suddenly FHT went from 150 to zero exactly 15 minutes between listening times... there was no dipping or drop in heart tones, but we were concerned as they had gone up to 160 and once above... but easily stabilized with position change of mother. We had no time to transport before infant demise.....

Midwives are trained to check the fetal heart tones (FHT) every fifteen minutes in a normal labor. They will listen continuously if they detect a problem. FHT's are the first "alert" that the baby is in distress during labor. A baby's normal heart rate is 140 beats per minute. It's usually slightly lower for boys and higher for girls. The top high range of normal is 160. The base low range of normal is 120. She's saying the midwives were keeping a close watch on this baby's FHT's because they went too high twice earlier in the labor. But, changing the mother's position got them back down to normal. This is routine procedure. But she's also saying the FHTs were 150 (normal for a girl) 15 minutes before at the last check, and the baby had flat-lined at the next check, with no real warning. 

...Five hours later a lovely baby girl was born dead.... The cord was less than 30 cm [a foot] long and had been pulled too hard as it was wrapped tightly around her foot....

I cannot imagine the devastation.

Yesterday evening we had a 2nd time mom come in,very poor and malnourished. On arrival FHT were above 160, [above normal signalling fetal distress] she was 9 cm,... transition- when the cervix, the neck of the uterus,  is stretched out to 10 cm the mother can push the baby out.

...but nothing we did to try to stabilize baby worked... and when we got up to 188 and climbing (that is with O2 support! and hands and knees) we transported... 

She knew this baby was coming fast, and by this time she had had enough bad experience to know this was a life-threatening situation. They had to have been working fast with all they had to get the pressure off the cord and giving the mother oxygen.

...stat cesarean, baby was very weak low apgars...

 The Apgar scores are a standard newborn assessment of a newborn's health at one and five minutes.

... but she has come around and my staff midwife has gotten her out of hospital nursery and onto breast. This baby would not have survived our normal hands-off gentle birth. Saved by O2, a doppler and cesarean - is this the kind of drama the placentas want now????

She's saying that normal, all natural birth is gentle and sacred. This high drama, emergency cesarean birth is anything but normal, yet she is seeing an alarming increase of this kind of birth. 

...Cords are shorter. We don't cut them for a minimum of 3 hours at Bumi Sehat and many families choose lotus birth...

Lotus birth is where the parents decide not to cut the cord at all, and place the placenta in a basket or blanket next to the baby until the umbilical cord falls off at one week or so after the baby is born. we hang out with the cords a long time. Last week our midwife Ayu had to cut a cord after birth of head, as the body would not follow, it was that short a nuchal cord... she had never had to do this before in her life as a midwife!.... This morning Dita having her second baby was stuck at 9 cm [10 cm is complete] (with crazy transient but strong intermittent urge to push) from 7 pm to next morning at 8:30 she finally got complete....

Eleven and a half hours of transition labor? It usually takes a lot less than an hour for a cervix to stretch from 9 to 10cm.

...After hands and knees with butt up, moxa Kidney 1 [an acupuncture or reflexology-type move] and pulsatilla [an herb to induce contractions] to dis-engage baby from pelvis and then elephant walking stairs to bring him down right...

The baby had cephalopelvic disproportion at the angle his head was fitting into the pelvis and he couldn't get through. They had to back him out of the pelvis and then re-position him during the brief intervals between intensely painful uterine contractions. This was why it took so long.

.... we had had strange bleeding in first stage [first stage is the labor stage before pushing], but baby remained strong and stable, mom also was quite well through the long labor - but I was spooked to speed this up in any way... just wanted the cord to stretch gently.... 

That strange bleeding plus the long transition, plus all the recent cord issues alerted her that there might be a problem "behind" the head. Her "midwife's intuition" told her not to rush the birth, even though she had red flags.

...20 minutes before the birth FHT were suddenly absent.[No heartbeat] Hands and knees, O2 and slowly slowly, he came back. [Compressed cord] Now Dita was really urging to get her baby out. He was most stabile when she squatted, but this was not our preffered [sic] gentle birth... Dita did it (we had not time to transport - I actually considered episiotomy - imagine,...

An episiotomy is a surgical cut made between the base of the vagina down toward the rectum. This is routinely done to hurry the birth and avoid deep tears in obstetrics but is almost "never" done in midwifery. Every midwife worth her salt prides herself on her ability to keep a mother's perineum intact and deliver a baby without so much as a nick.

... and had ready a quiwi to vacuum him out!!!)

This is emergency obstetrics, not the arena of a midwife! This is certainly nowhere near a gentle, natural birth.

...our 3.6 kilo [eight pounds] Baby boy's cord was short, just about 40 cm. velamentous insertion... AGAIN. Yet another.....

...Last week we had a five babies in a 12 hour night... two had velamentous cord insertions! It's just not average anymore. In five days time I saw one fatal cord accident, another cord problem leading to stat cesarean birth, and today another incident of deep fetal distress due to cord problems. BTW - none of these three were nuchal cords [cords wrapped around the baby's neck], just short and velamentous.....

...We really don't want GMO foods, or anything, i.e. environmental pollutants etc. to make changes in placentas. It would be shattering. As I see it we have Three combined potential ways in which the placentas are being affected in Indonesia ; Malnutrition, Pollution (including Roundup) and GMO soy. We can also add to that economic and emotional stress, which taxes pregnant women's vitamin and mineral stores, add to that increased cortisol, which Dr. Odent has proven impairs brain development in fetus. I hope I am wrong....

First published by Birth of a New Earth

I hope she is, too. Do you?

Please support Ibu (Mother) Robun Lim and her non-profit work in Indonesia by "liking" her on Facebook.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Just in Time for Valentine's Day: Raw Chocolate Cherry Lava Cake

Hey y'all!

One of my favorite people I have met on Google+ is a guy named Raymond Ho of  Zen My Fitness. I'm going to put his site into my Link Love box so you can pull Raymond up any time you want. I was attracted to Raymond because he combines his Zen spirituality with body building/fitness and get this... raw food. His feed on Google+ is as entertaining as it is informative, and some of his recipes are to die for!

This morning Raymond posted a recipe for a Raw Chocolate Cherry Lava Cake. I died and went to heaven. When I came back, I thought of y'all.


I'm sharing this recipe with you from Raymond's Ho's Google+ feed, so you totally have to give him credit for the recipe. Better yet, click on his website and check him out.

Raw Chocolate Cherry Lava Cakes
Raw Lava Cake Base

1 cup raw pecans
1/2 cup of dates
3 tables spoons of Cocoa
few splashes of Almond (oat, rice, dairy) Milk

Pulse nuts first until
Blend rest of ingredients together until nearly smooth
Line ramekin moulds with glad wrap ( or similar ) press in mixture about 6 mm thick to make a cup.
Roll rest of mix flat between baking paper and cut out a round shape to match the diameter of the ramekin for a cover.
Place both in freezer while making filling.

Raw Cherry Lava Filling

1 avocado
Hand full of fresh Cherries
4 tables spoons of Raw Honey
2 table spoons of Cocoa
1 teaspoon on vanilla
splash or two of Almond milk

Simply blend until smooth

Remove Ramekins from freezer
Remove formed cups from Ramekins ( if they are stuck place in hot water for a few seconds)
Fill cups with filling
Place cover on top and press ends together
Turn upside down and place back in freezer for 30 minutes and serve and devour.

Donna again: When you break these open, the chocolate filling oozes out like lava. Garnish with a cherry that has a stem.

The recipe does not specify how many cupcakes the recipe makes.

You can use a muffin tin if you do not have individual ramekins.

It may be hard to get fresh cherries in February. I know our grocery store often carries frozen ones. Do not use Maraschino cherries. You can probably get fresh raspberries, and I know you can get strawberries now. I think any of these would be a special treat for Valentine's Day that is actually healthy.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

The Truth About Neotame and USDA Certified Organic Food

Is Neotame lurking in USDA certified organic food without our knowledge?-image by OM Organics

Hey y'all!

This morning Natural News published a great article bringing public awareness about an artificial sweetener made by... guess who... Monsanto. This artificial sweetener is called Neotame. Neotame is a modified form of aspartame, which many people recognize as Equal and NutraSweet. Neotame came on the market in 2002 as an inexpensive alternative to sugar and high fructose corn syrup. This cost savings proved to be very attractive to consumer food manufacturers. There is a mistake in the Natural News article, which will most likely be corrected shortly. The article states that Neotame does not have to be labeled, so the additive could be in certified organic food without anyone knowing about it. Certified organic growers and producers cannot, by federal law, add Neotame or any other additive without USDA approval. The Internet rumor concerning Neotame needs to be stopped.

What is wrong with Neotame?

Neotame is the same exact thing as aspartame, except for the addition of one chemical. This chemical is a  3,3-dimethylbutyl group. What  this chemical does is make Neotame safe for PKU patients by blocking phenylalanine. Although the FDA approved Neotame in 2002, and the artificial sweetener was declared safe by the  Center for Science in the Public Interest, opponents are concerned about the scientific studies performed to get the sweetener approved for the consumer market.

Opponents of Neotame argue that the scientific studies performed with Neotame were all corporately sponsored. This means that corporations who had a vested interest in seeing Neotame approved were funding the studies. The two key human trials reported in "Neotame: a Scientific Overview" on the Neotame website showed no adverse reactions in adults for thirteen weeks or diabetics for two weeks. However, natural health advocates who are keenly aware of the links from aspartame to neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's would argue that Neotame is simply a modified aspartame product that has no long-term safety studies attached to it.  

The NutraSweet Company "Material Data Sheet," published in 2007 provides information about the safety and handling of Neotame. 

Is Neotame added to certified organic foods and products without consumer knowledge?

In a word, no. According to the Organic Consumers Association, a grassroots organic food watchdog effort, and The Cornucopia Institute, a lobbying group for family farms, the rumor that Neotame is being added to certified organic foods and products is false. The truth is that for any organic farmer or producer to be approved as being USDA Certified Organic, no synthetic additives can be added at all. The only exception to this federal regulation, according to Emily Brown Rosen, Standards Specialist for the USDA's organic division, is for a synthetic additive which is listed on the National List of Approved and Prohibited Substances. Neotame is not on that list, so it cannot be legally added to any organic food product. 

No organic grower or producer in sound mind and body would add anything synthetic to a certified organic product anyway, imho. So Neotame is not potentially lurking in organic food without consumer knowledge. 

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

The Fluoride Conspiracy... Yes, I Said Conspiracy

Hey y'all!

I can write a lot of articles about fluoride toxicity in drinking water, and most likely will. However, I think the readers of Bluebonnet Natural Healing Therapy are highly intelligent and can handle a lot of information at once. I highly recommend that you watch this documentary in its entirety. It's a hard-hitting look at the fluoride battle from the perspective of award-winning and former BBC investigative journalist Christopher Bryson, based on over ten years of research.

Highlights include facts such as:

  • Fluoride in drinking water is based on fraudulent science
  • The original source for adding fluoride to the drinking water supply was the aluminum industry, which was looking for a way to get rid of it due to potential law suits from its employees
  • The USDA connected air-borne fluoride to bone disease in livestock in 1970
  • The leading scientist who promoted the safety of fluoride for drinking water was involved in the Manhattan Project, which developed the nuclear bomb during the 1940's
  • Information which showed the toxicity of fluoride was destroyed, by order of the U.S. government
  • In the 1950's corporate lawyers representing ALCOA (Aluminum Corporation of America), Dupont, Monsanto, and other corporate giants pressured scientists to only publish research showing fluoride to be safe
  • Industry giants hired top advertisers to get doctors and dentists to say fluoride was safe
  • A leading scientist with the EPA was fired after he blew the whistle on fluoride when a connection was found to bone cancer
  • Fluoride has been found to cause ADHD and reduces the IQ in children, but the scientist who made this connection was fired instantly after going public

Fluoride in our drinking water supply is a result of aluminum and fertilizer companies dumping fluoride into the water in order to dispose of it. Livestock and wild animals who drink fluoridated water get sick and die. Sodium fluoride is the main ingredient in rat poison and some insecticides. 

Fluoride builds up in the body over time and does not come out on its own. There are ways to chelate fluoride and other heavy metals and toxins out of the body by using certain herbs and activated charcoal. As the blog grows, I will teach the readers of Bluebonnet Natural Healing Therapy how to do this. But for now, quit drinking fluoridated water.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Just How Bad is Fluoride in Drinking Water?: Fluorosis in Teeth

Before I get into the body of this post, I want to give a warm welcome to all of my new subscribers! I am thrilled and honored to have you aboard and hope I can provide you with meaty content that you can take home and use in your real lives.

I got a wonderful response to my post called "Water, Water Everywhere, But Nary a Drop to Drink... From Your Tap, That Is!" People from all over the U.S. made comments on Facebook and Google+ telling me all the "gross stuff" they were finding in their city's tap water. I got into an insightful discussion with an environmental scientist in Iowa who told me how the EPA slaps nasty fines and legal action against cities who do not comply with the federal guidelines for safe drinking water. Then he said, "... but their idea of safe and our idea of safe may not be the same thing."  He said clean water doesn't come cheap, and it is up to the voters within each city to bring pressure to bear on their city officials to ensure the cleanest tap water possible. They can and will do it, if the voters are willing to pay for it. I'd like to challenge the readers of Bluebonnet Natural Healing Therapy to lead in taking civic action to clean up our water supply.

On to today's post...

One of the ways many of us can lobby for clean water is to get our city leaders to take the fluoride out of our drinking water supply. Today I want to give you just one reason to remove fluoride from your drinking water: fluorosis in teeth.

Dental fluorosis has become a widespread problem in children due to consuming too much fluoride- image by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Haven't we all been taught to believe that fluoride reduces or prevents tooth decay? Good parents who are concerned about their children's dental health dutifully purchase toothpastes which contain fluoride, dental rinses and gels containing fluoride, and even prescription fluoride tablets which are supposed to help prevent tooth decay and cavities (caries). On top of this, fluoride is added to city drinking water because it was once believed that doing so reduced the risk of dental caries and tooth decay. The practice of over-using fluoride products has lead to an alarming occurrence of dental fluorosis in children under eight years old.

When children consume too much fluoride while their permanent teeth are developing under their gums, the fluoride actually eats away at the enamel of the teeth. Very mild fluorosis looks like this:

It may be hard to detect very mild cases of fluorosis, but the vertical ridges and the white spots near the edge of the teeth are there. It may be easier to see fluorosis when it looks like this, which is still considered a mild case:

Here the mottled, white edges are quite visible, along with a small amount of enamel erosion. Have you seen children with teeth like this?

While most people would believe that fluorosis is caused by fluoride toothpaste and rinses, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention says that 75% of fluoride comes from tap water consumption. To quote the CDC: "In the United States, water and processed beverages (e.g., soft drinks and [commercially prepared] fruit juices) can provide approximately 75% of a person's fluoride intake."

Here I must ask a question: If fluoride can dissolve children's teeth while the teeth are inside the gums, what is it doing to other tissues, such as bones? The Fluoride Action Network certainly thinks fluoride is dissolving bone tissue, in a fascinating article called "Fluoride and Bone Fracture." In the article, the author gives clear evidence, supported by both animal and human clinical studies, that long-term consumption of fluoridated water causes an increase in bone fractures in all populations.

Do you agree that we need not only to get fluoride out of our drinking water, we also need to stop drinking soft drinks and commercially-prepared juices, energy drinks, and even vitamin waters, because they may contain fluoridated water?