In Defence of God

I think that I have reached the ‘anger’ stage of grief over the recent death of our former Prime Minister. He demonstratively cared for the ‘least of these’, and governed this nation responsibly through this time of economic uncertainty. The only way to logically and responsibly govern God’s creation is to cooperate with the Creator.

David attended Combermere School 1972. I followed in 1975. As a senior student, David would care for those in the surrounding community, even convincing the headmaster to allow the boys in the community to use the school’s facilities. During his political career, David meaningfully cared for his St John constituents, and shielded the reputation of his friends and political colleagues from damage, by choosing to be the lighting rod that attracted some of the most damaging political invective. Having been the recipient of such public invective once, for simply suggesting that higher professional standards should be reclaimed by the public sector, I cannot imagine the cumulative effect of receiving it for 14 years. Yet he willingly accepted it, and did not appear to reciprocate.

I do not believe that David should have died from cancer at 48 years old, but he did. Following his death, every commentator that I have heard has accused our loving heavenly Father of taking our Prime Minister. I do not think that such accusations are fair.

It may be too late for me

Despite my change in eating habits (see my last article for details), I must face the possibility that it may be too late for me. Whenever I fall off of the proverbial wagon, and eat what I should not, then I feel the familiar pain in my head and I am reminded that my death is just around the corner. I have accepted that I may succumb to crippling diabetes, chronic heart disease, or painful cancer, because I have poisoned my body for decades. Why would I do such a stupid thing? I did so in ignorance – just like you probably did. Let me explain.

Food science is a discipline that should never have been allowed to leave the universities, because it lacked sufficient knowledge about food, and its complex interaction with our bodies, to make conclusive pronouncements. These pronouncements have influenced the manufacture of processed foods with disastrous, including fatal results for mankind.

Few sought to verify the assumptions upon which food scientists based their most damaging conclusive statements. The institutions that were responsible for protecting consumers from harmful food products chose to protect the food scientists from criticism, by attributing the consumers’ ill-health and deaths to factors other than the obvious culprits.

Did God take me?

When I go to the great beyond, the religious leader(s) conducting my funeral event may try to comfort those in attendance by claiming that God took me. While I yet have control over my faculties, let me declare that unless you see a chariot of fire descend from the heavens to take me home, or some other dramatic exit, then do not repeat such nonsense. God took Enoch, Elijah and Moses. God gave me a body, but I poisoned it with a steady diet of processed products over the past 40 years, and I would have simply reaped the consequences of my actions. God will receive me, for I am His, but He did not take me (unless you see the blazing chariot as previously described), rather, I was deceived into believing that carefully disguised poison was food.

One example should suffice. People have been eating whole foods and animal products for thousands of years. Approximately a century ago, food scientists claimed that butter was bad for us and synthetic margarine, loaded with the artery clogging, and potentially cancer and diabetes producing trans-fat, was a healthy alternative. The food processors did not verify any of the incorrect assumptions on which food scientists based their dangerous claims. Neither did the government regulatory agencies. So the supermarkets sold this poison as food.

I have learned, albeit too late, that government regulators and supermarkets do not acknowledge their ‘gate-keeper’ responsibility to protect us from harmful ‘foods’; and the medical community does not protect us from the food scientists’ irresponsible claims. Actually, the only beneficiaries for feeding us disguised poison appear to be:

• Food scientists, who remain employed to make further claims when their previous ones are inevitably found to be false;
• Food manufacturers and supermarket owners, who profit by deceiving consumers that they are offering them healthy products;
• Doctors, who have a steady supply of clients to treat, rather than cure; and
• Religious leaders who mislead the bereaved by blaming God rather than the steady diet of poison sold by the supermarket, approved by the Government, and manufactured by greedy individuals who fund the food scientists’ research that sanction their products.

When it is my time to go, please do not blame my Lord. We should accept our basic responsibility of  maintaining our bodies in good health.

So what can you do? As a rule of thumb, if your ‘food’ packaging lists ‘high fructose corn syrup’, or ‘partially hydrogenated oil’ as an ingredient, then either toss the product it in the garbage and ‘go and sin no more’, or put your house in order. I urge you to follow the suggestions in ‘Principles of Good Health’ – the information is free, but the decision to eat responsibly requires fortitude, and the action to carry it out requires discipline. It is now up to you.

Regards,

Grenville

The king is dead. Long live the subjects.

I must take time to acknowledge the passing of our Prime Minister, David Thompson, who died of pancreatic cancer at the age of 48.  His death has caused me to contemplate why.  Perhaps I will memorialize him in another article, because our lives followed similar and diverging paths.

I have deliberately waited until after his funeral to share what has been on my mind for the past month, for while I cannot help David, I may be able to help those of you who remain.  I shall try to approach the subject gingerly.

Saved from certain death

Food provides us with, inter alia, energy to work, nutrients and other components to keep us healthy, and pleasure.  The most beneficial parts of our food decomposes sometime after the food is harvested.  Whole foods are most beneficial to us when they are eaten fresh.

The modern food industry aims to extend the shelf-life of our food, and they do this by processing it – hence, the term ‘processed food’.  Food is generally processed by, inter alia, destroying the beneficial component that decomposes rapidly, and adding chemical preservatives and other unhealthy additives to the remainder.

If we could really see what we actually eat, perhaps, we would not consciously decide to harm our bodies.  Approximately one decade ago, I visited Dr Babb at the Sir Winston Scott Polyclinic to request a CAT scan, because I was experiencing pain in my skull.  She ordered a set of tests, and called me in for the results.  She essentially told me to change my eating habits or order a casket because I would likely be dead within one year.  She then directed me to the polyclinic’s nutritionist, Dr Mark Alleyne, and told me to get a massage.

I obeyed her completely; but I needed her blunt presentation of my options to force me to confront what I was habitually doing to my body.  Perhaps I can help you in a similar manner.

A recent review of the contents of the major supermarkets in Barbados tends to suggest that we actually eat a bowl of diabetes in the morning, a plate of cancer for lunch, and a dish of heart disease for dinner.  Statistics on diseases tend to suggest that the results of this diet are manifested in our bodies in approximately 40 years.  If you are mainly eating processed food, and you are over 40 years old, then you are living on borrowed time my friend.  Better put your house in order.

What should you do now?  I urge you to read ‘Principles of Healthy Diets’, which I have hyper linked for your convenience.  It should take you less than 10 minutes, and it may just save your life.

If you have the time, you can also read the evidence in Dr Price’s invaluable original research, which is recorded in his book ‘Nutrition and Physical Degeneration‘.  Both publications are free.  No more excuses.  Live long and prosper.

Regards,

Grenville

Hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.

With Standard and Poor’s recent downgrade of our economic forecast to negative, I do not believe that the Government will have the resources to support the mass of unemployed and under-employed persons if the high level of predicted unemployment is realised.  Let me recommend a solution for Barbados, and other nations that face a similar predicament.

One solution is for the Government to encourage all property owners to plant food crops on their available lands.  A suitable incentive would be a reduction in their land or property tax bill. 

 How can this work?

A property owner who plants 50% of their available land in vegetables should pay 50% less tax on the land value assessed.  If they planted 100% of their available land in food crops, then they should pay no tax on the land value assessed.

 We can go further with this.  An added incentive would be for the property owner to pay a similar reduction on the improved (house) value.  Therefore, if the property owner planted one large tree, like breadfruit, mango or golden apple, for every 50 sq-m area of available land, then they should pay no tax on the land improved value, because they can feed many in the community.  If they planted one large tree for every 100 sq-m area of land, then they would pay 50% of the tax on the land improvement value, and so on.

 How can this be assessed?

 An efficient way of assessing the taxes payable would be to pay for two high resolution images of Barbados each year, and digitally overlay the Land Valuations maps.  Therefore, each property can easily be examined in the comfort of an air-conditioned office, and verification visits can be conducted as required.

 What are the likely benefits?

 There are several potential benefits which can be realised within one year.

 1.  It can leave more money in property owners’ possession, so that they can purchase additional goods and services and indirectly stimulate the local economy.

 2.  It can reduce the burdensome national food import bill as property owners and their neighbours begin to eat more of the food that they grow.

 3.  It can reduce the burdensome national drug import bill as more households begin to eat the healthier food that they grow, and get more physical exercise during the planting, maintaining, and reaping of this food.

 4.  The unemployed property owner will have an independent source of food and revenue.

 Regards,

Grenville

Marijuana in the Balance

Dear Readers:

Why is marijuana an illegal substance? According to the scriptures, God created herbs and proclaimed His Creation good. The scriptures also teach that herbs are for medicinal purposes. Medical researchers have actually found medicinal uses for various herbs, including marijuana, and persons have attested to the curative qualities of this plant. So why is it illegal?

To justify its illegal status, those in favour of marijuana remaining illegal note the reported negative effects of smoking marijuana, which include addiction, short-term memory loss, and lung cancer. These effects reportedly lead to the smokers neglecting their responsibilities, and engaging in criminal activity if they do not have the income to support their addiction. Those who smoke marijuana report that it gives them momentary pleasure.

In North America, some youths derive pleasure from inhaling toxic paint and glue fumes. The paint and glue are useful substances, but they have become harmful to the misguided youths who abuse these substances’ normal uses. Similarly, the marijuana plant is good and has medicinal benefits when ingested; however it is harmful to the individual when inhaled. Therefore the problem arises when persons decide to smoke this medicinal plant and therefore abuse its normal use.

While abusing marijuana is harmful to the individual, it is also costly to the nation who must bear the cost of: patient care when they become sick, rehabilitation when they want to change, law enforcement when they behave irresponsibly, and incarceration when they are convicted. The nation must also bear the cost of their general loss of productivity, and the inefficient use of educational resources since their learning is negatively affected.

But is keeping marijuana illegal the answer to these social problems? The costs to the individual and nation are just as severe from those who sniff paint and glue fumes, as they are from those who smoke marijuana. However it would seem ridiculous to make paint and glue illegal. Similarly, just because some misguided persons abuse marijuana and engage in irresponsible behaviour should not disqualify the rest of mankind from benefiting from this God given natural cure. Misguided persons may try to find ways of abusing the normal uses of various substances, however it would not benefit any nation to react by simply making such substances illegal.

How many have had to suffer needlessly just because the treatment to their ailment was illegal, for no other reason than irresponsible persons abusing the use of a curative plant? A balance should therefore be found and the following course of action is recommended.

1. Educate our children about the lunacy of smoking medicine, or taking medicine when they are not sick, regardless of the pleasure that it may bring. Discussions should also be held with the Rastafarian community, with a view to having them re-examine their religious stance on smoking marijuana. Smoking is an unhealthy and addictive practise, which is at variance with their reportedly healthy lifestyle.

2. Restrict the planting, harvesting and dispensing of marijuana to herbalists who are approved by the Caribbean Association of Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (CACAM) and licensed by the Ministry of Health. Treatment should only be available at the licensed office of a herbalist who should follow strict protocols for its use. These protocols should be published by CACAM and based on published peer reviewed scientific research.

3. Any unlicensed person found with any quantity of marijuana should be fined heavily and made to perform many months of community service. Also, any herbalist misusing the treatment or not following the approved protocols should be fined heavily, incarcerated, and have their licence permanently revoked.

In conclusion, the possession of marijuana should remain illegal to all but licensed herbalists and their patients. This should allow all persons to benefit from this God given natural cure for a host of ailments, without the negative social effects.