In a study of 337 cases of people who have reported encounters with the dead, many of the apparitions were of people who have died violently, particularly males. If the apparition was of someone who died violently, it was more likely to appear to a stranger. On the other hand, apparitions of people who died naturally were more likely to appear to a friend or family member.
Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson, a psychologist at the University of Iceland, investigated the cases in the 1980s by conducting interviews with the people who reported the encounters, as well as any other witnesses. He also checked official records to verify the details of death for the apparitions. The cases he studied were all from Iceland, but he cites other research in his study that shows encounters with the dead are reported by as many as 25 percent of Western Europeans and 30 percent of Americans.
Dr. Haraldsson wrote: “Unexpectedly, the apparitions were predominantly male (67 percent). This surprising dominance of males is remarkably uniform in the experiences of both male and female experiencers. It confirms the results of our previous representative survey in which 77 percent of both sexes reported encounters with males.”
The cause of death was known and verified by checking official records for about 80 percent of the cases, and in 30 percent of these cases the person had died violently. The percentage of violent deaths in the study was almost four times higher than the percentage of death by violence in Iceland during the relevant time period.
Other researchers have encountered similar findings. The late Dr. Ian Stevenson, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, analyzed 314 apparitional cases recorded in the 1886 book, “Phantasms of the Living,” coauthored by Edmund Gurney, Frederic Myers, and Frank Podmore. Dr. Stevenson found the mode of death was violent in 28 percent of cases in which the cause of death was known.
Dr. Stevenson is best known for his reincarnation research. His successor in this work, Dr. Jim Tucker, told Epoch Times in an unrelated interview in February that he has observed a similar prevalence of violent, male deaths in reincarnation cases. Dr. Tucker has been analyzing thousands of cases of children who seem to remember past lives. He found approximately 70 percent of the cases were reported by little boys…
(NaturalNews) One of the world’s most lucrative industries, spending on cancer drugs reached an all-time high last year, as it was valued at more than $100 billion. Spending on cancer drugs increased 6.5 percent annually over the past five years and is expected to continue growing at a rate of 8 percent each year through 2018, according to figures provided by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.
That spending is highly concentrated, as the US and five of Europe’s largest countries account for nearly two-thirds of the entire market.
This means that billions and billions of dollars are secured by Americans being diagnosed with cancer.
That’s one profitable industry; however, it could all be completely dismantled by one thing: a cure.
As Mike Adams recently reported, “A universal cancer cure would destroy the profitability of the highly lucrative cancer industry and collapse the American Cancer Society,hospitals, oncology clinics and pharmaceutical companies that depend on chemotherapy revenues to stay profitable.”
This means that anyone moving closer to developing a cure for cancer would be considered an extreme threat to the medical establishment and likely stopped at any cost.
If anyone was close to finding a universal cure for cancer and would ensure the public had access to it, it would likely be natural health doctors, or naturopaths, as they’re less likely to prescribe drugs and more likely to try and heal the body naturally using holistic medicine and nontoxic approaches.
Breakthroughs using this type of medicine are extremely “controversial,” as they threaten everything that the medical-industrial complex stands for, i.e. costly chemotherapy treatments and cancer drugs.
Doctors leading this type of research are routinely raided and shut down by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),after which they’re treated like criminals and their reputations smeared.
This is typically orchestrated against doctors who are considered a threat by the medical establishment.
Renown olistic doctor found dead one week after FDA raids clinic
This seems to be the case with Dr. James Jeffrey Bradstreet, who was recently found dead after his body was discovered floating in a North Carolina river with a single gunshot wound to the chest. Bradstreet, a renowned physician known for his skepticism of immunizations (particularly the MMR vaccine), and his progressive autism research, was raided by the FDA one week before his mysterious death. The details of the raid remain largely unknown.
Personally affected by autism, as both his son and stepson were diagnosed with the condition, a significant portion of Dr. Bradstreet’s work was dedicated to this cause. He even testified twice before the U.S House of Representatives about the link between vaccines and autism.
As Natural News‘ reported, leading up to his death, Dr. Bradstreet was working with a little-known molecule that occurs naturally in the human body. GcMAF (Globulin component Macrophage Activating Factor), which is the GC protein after it combines with vitamin D in the body, has the potential to be a universal cure for cancer…
Earlier today the grandiloquently named “Future of Life Institute” (FLI) announced an open letter on the subject of ‘autonomous weapons.’ In case you’re not keeping up with artificial intelligence research, that means weapons that seek and engage targets all by themselves. While this sounds fanciful to the uninformed, it is in fact a dystopian nightmare that, thanks to startling innovations in robotics and artificial intelligence by various DARPA-connected research projects, is fast becoming a reality. Heck, people are already customizing their own multirotor drones to fire handguns; just slap some AI on that and call it Skynet.
Indeed, as anyone who has seen Robocop, Terminator, Bladerunner or a billion other sci-fi fantasies will know, gun-wielding, self-directed robots are not to be hailed as just another rung on the ladder of technical progress. But for those who are still confused on this matter, the FLI open letter helpfully elaborates: “Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group.” In other words, instead of “autonomous weapons” we might get the point across more clearly if we just call them for what they are: soulless killing machines. (But then we might risk confusing them with the psychopaths at the RAND Corporation or the psychopaths on the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the psychopaths in the CIA or the psychopaths in the White House…)
In order to confront this pending apocalypse, the fearless men and women at the FLI have bravely stepped up to the plate and…written a polite letter to ask governments to think twice before developing these really effective, well-nigh unstoppable super weapons (pretty please). Well, as I say, you can’t blame them for trying, can you?
Well, yes. Actually you can. Not only is the letter a futile attempt to stop the psychopaths in charge from developing a better killing implement, it is a deliberate whitewashing of the problem.
According to FLI, the idea isn’t scary in and of itself, it isn’t scary because of the documented history of the warmongering politicians in the US and the other NATO countries, it isn’t scary because governments murdering their own citizens was the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century. No, it’s scary because “It will only be a matter of time until [autonomous weapons] appear on the black market and in the hands of terrorists, dictators wishing to better control their populace, warlords wishing to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, etc.” If you thought the hysteria over Iran’s nuclear non-weapons program was off the charts, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait till the neo-neocons get to claim that Assad or Putin or the enemy of the week is developing autonomous weapons!
In fact, the FLI doesn’t want to stop the deployment of AI on the battlefield at all. Quite the contrary. “There are many ways in which AI can make battlefields safer for humans” the letter says before adding that “AI has great potential to benefit humanity in many ways, and that the goal of the field should be to do so.” In fact, they’ve helpfully drafted a list of research priorities for study into the field of AI on the assumption that AI will be woven into the fabric of our society in the near future, from driverless cars and robots in the workforce to, yes, autonomous weapons…
For example, in January 2015 self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown was sentenced to 63 months in prison for hacking-related activities including linking to leaked material online. Edward Snowden is currently exiled in Russia after leaking the global surveillance operations of the NSA and GCHQ.
Prosecutions of hacktivists intensified in 2013, when Andrew “weev” Auernheimer was sentenced to 41 months after exposing a vulnerability that affected 114,000 iPad users on AT&T’s service. Jeremy Hammond was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison after hacking and releasing documents about military subcontractor Stratfor. Aaron Swartz, who was facing a prison sentence of 25 years after hacking into JSTOR – a database of academic articles – committed suicide in January of that year. Chelsea Manning leaked secret military documents to Wikileaks and was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment in August.
Long arm of the law is getting longer
While these are US citizens subject to US laws and punishments, the Obama administration has recently indicated that it will also aggressively pursue hackers located overseas for alleged criminal activities.
So in July 2015, British hacktivist Lauri Love was re-arrested under a US warrant for violating the Computer Misuse Act. His case, like those mentioned above, illustrates the remarkable steps the US government will undertake in the pursuit and prosecution of hackers.
In 2013 the US District Court for New Jersey issued an indictmentagainst Love, charging him with hacking into the US Missile Defense Agency, NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency and other government departments. The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York claims Love stole the sensitive personal information including emails of Federal Reserve employees.
The leaked Federal Reserve emails may have been part of Operation Last Resort, an Anonymous project to avenge the death of Swartz, which they linked to prosecutorial harassment and the over-zealous enforcement of outdated computer crime laws. Like all major Anonymous operations, Operation Last Resort was a visual spectacle, including hijacking an MIT website to put up a Swartz tribute, releasing the names and contact information of 4,000 banking executives, and hacking the US Sentencing Commission website.
Are hackers terrorists?
Like Hammond, Manning and Snowden before him, Love is accused of hacking into government agencies and leaking information in an effort to make federal agencies more transparent.
Love faces extradition to the US, even though a British police investigation failed to turn up any incriminating evidence. The Crown Prosecution Service acknowledged it didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute and Love was released from bail in 2014.
The impending threat of US extradition is powerful enough to have kept Wikileaks publisher, Julian Assange, holed-up in Ecuador’s London Embassy for three years – and it is not difficult to understand why. Extradition law is generally reserved for serious criminal suspects such as those accused of terrorism.
Consider some of the individuals who have been extradited from the UK to the US: Abdel Abdel Bar and Khalid Abdulrahman al-Fawwaz, wanted in connection with the 1998 terrorist bombing of US Embassies in East Africa; KGB spy Shabtai Kalmanovich; al-Qaeda operative Syed Fahad Hashmi; and Christopher Tappin, accused of selling weapons parts to Iran…
Hunting has long been a highly controversial activity, whether as a sport (leisure or recreational), for commercial purposes or if done for cultural reasons. African countries that legalise hunting activities experience scrutiny around their conservation efforts, and how much money they make from it.
Trophy hunting, which is offered in 23 sub-Saharan African countries, generates an estimated US$201 million per year. Out of the 23 countries taking part in legal hunting activities, Tanzania, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa have the most effective controls and the highest levels of transparency.
Countries such as Chad, Sudan, Congo, Mali, Senegal, Togo and Nigeria – to name a few – suffer from political instability that disrupts the ability to effectively implement control regimes on hunting.
The magnifying glass has been focused on hunting on the continent because of the kinds of animals hunted as well as the increase in illegal activities. Arguments around the viability of hunting are often related to the difficulty in regulating the numbers of animals hunted and transparency around what happens to the money generated.
As a consequence, debates spearheaded by the European Union in its strategic approach to African Wildlife Conservation steer towards a highly restricted approach to hunting in Africa.
This policy was designed as a response to global concerns about the vulnerability of African wildlife. Changes in demographic and economic trends have lead to resources being used up more rapidly. This has included a rise in illegal hunting as well as landscapes being degraded.
How hunting makes money
The relevant government bodies issue hunting licences and permits. These costs are included in the trophy/hunting fee. This fee is determined according to staff wages – professional hunters, trackers, camp set-up, accommodation, field staff – and the government levy.
The government levy varies from country to country, ranging between 12% and 17% of the trophy/hunting fee in Mozambique, Tanzania and South Africa.
Hunting fees also range between different countries depending on the services provided. Zambia has overtaken Botswana as the most expensive. South Africa, where hunters can pay only for what they shoot, is among the cheapest.
The hunting fee of an elephant can be priced upwards of US$49,000 for a hunting package. Lion hunting fees are dependent on the sex and origin of the animal and can be upward of US$20,000.
Canned hunting is the hunting of animals that have been bred for that purpose. Although canned hunting of varies species takes place around the world, the lions have become the preferred prey. Hunted lions are sourced from captivity or from the wild. The justification of canned hunting is that wild lion populations are not affected.
Different approaches yield different results
Wildlife tourism in Tanzania – in the form of hunting concessions, trophy licences, live animal export and non-consumptive tourism – generates 12% of the country’s GDP.
Tanzanian wildlife is governed by a number of acts and departments. The Wildlife Conservation Act and the National Parks Act sets out the management and administration of permits in Tanzania. The Wildlife Protection Unit regulates the unlawful utilisation of wildlife.
As a result of this regulation, the Tanzanian government benefits from hunting through tourism and the levies paid by hunting concessions. The money then goes towards wages, maintenance and the running of protected areas, which makes up 40% of Tanzania’s land mass.
Extensive policies and legislation help Tanzania continue its hunting activities. This holds true for other sub-Saharan African countries, such as Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique. South Africa alone generates about US$77 million from hunting, about 0.25% of the national GDP. As a whole, Southern African Development Community countries with hunting tourism generate US$190 million…
You may think Robert Arthur is weird. But he isn’t. You are. You’re the one with the problem. Trust me on this.
IN YOU WILL DIE: THE BURDEN OF MODERN TABOOS, PUBLISHED BY THE CONSISTENTLY AWESOME FERAL HOUSE, ARTHUR WRITES ABOUT OUR CULTURE’S RIDICULOUS PHOBIAS AND BELIEFS THAT OFTEN CAUSE TEDIUM, SUFFERING, AND DEATH. OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDIA USE THESE TABOOS TO LIE AND MISLEAD BY PUSHING PANIC FOR VOTES AND VIEWS. BY DOING SO, THEY THWART OUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. ARTHUR’S BOOK IS NOT SIMPLY A NOVEL EXPLORATION OF SEX AND DRUGS, BUT ALSO OF INDIVIDUALITY, LIBERTY, AND WHAT THINGS AROUND US MEAN.
I talked to Robert about excrement, sex, drugs, and death.
This book has been kicking around in different forms for years now. How did you start this process, and how did it find its way to Feral House?
I began writing You Will Die when I was living in an abandoned schoolhouse in south central Pennsylvania after law school in 2001. After years of higher education, I finally had the time to read books that were not assigned. One of the books I read was Peter McWilliams’ Ain’t Nobody’s Business if You Do about the folly of criminalizing consensual crimes. I started to explore how our “modern” society could be so bizarrely irrational. This led me to the concept of taboos, an area I had previously studied for my senior thesis on Howard Stern’s humor.
I researched, wrote, and illustrated “You Will Die” primarily on the side for the next eight years. I mailed a self-published version of my book to Feral House even before I found an agent because I figured it was one of the only publishers that would touch such a controversial and quirky book. I didn’t hear back for … it must have been years. I later learned Adam Parfrey, Feral House’s owner, had chucked it originally not because of the content but because he thought my illustrations were immature. It probably didn’t help that I bound my first self-published books in cereal box covers.
Mark Frauenfelder, the founder of Boing Boing, was a fan of my cereal box book and ran political cartoons from my blog, Narco Polo, on Boing Boing. He later recommended to Adam that Feral House publish “You Will Die.” At that point, I think Adam actually read it and that is when he contacted me. I vividly remember the first time I spoke to Adam because I was surrounded by chickens in Guatemala.
Feral House dumped my illustrations and went for a more hard-core look. I miss some of those illustrations like the ones of the amazing variety of vaginas and the homosexual sex techniques of manatees, but I’m a fan of memento mori art and the Feral House cover is a great skull image. Clean those teeth because that is all that’s going to be left someday!
Topics that are taboo have always been fascinating to me. The fact that our government and media play a large role in deciding what is okay to talk about has always made me a tad angry. Why do you think it is important to be able to talk openly about some of these things in your book?
A tad angry? It makes me sweat hate lasers. Sometimes I wish the government and media would not talk about tabooed topics at all because when they do, it is often blatantly misleading or downright fiction. Despite that misgiving, it is important to talk about these things because our ignorance causes suffering. It causes death and ruins lives. The carnage caused by taboos is invisible to most Americans because it occurs predominantly among the poor, minorities, and citizens of less-developed countries. Probably the biggest example of the ongoing slaughter is the effects of America’s drug war in Mexico.
A more subtle and unexplored effect of taboos is that Americans don’t realize how extremely prudish and square our Western culture is compared to other cultures and even our own culture in the recent past. Unfortunately, the only celebrity that defends drugs (beyond marijuana) and alternative sex publicly is Charlie Sheen when he is manic, and he doesn’t cite peer-reviewed journals. The citizens in Arabic countries where alcohol is banned probably don’t think they are missing out on alcohol. Their media presents the same skewed and sensationalized view of alcohol that our media does with illegal drugs. Our cultural and legal cages are similar. The beauty of taboos’ social control is that we are not even aware of the cages.
Sex is a complicated issue for many. I recently worked on a book with Rebecca Lord, who has done many different types of sex work. Can you tell me some of the things in your book that touch on sex and the social lies we freely tell ourselves about it?
Imagine what the art of cooking would be like if any exchange of money for food was outlawed and we were brought up to believe that beans and rice were the only appropriate foods. The people who would eat more than beans and rice would do it secretly to avoid being labelled perverted.These kinky eaters would receive mainstream media coverage, but it would most often be as the person who gets killed at the beginning of CSI episodes.
Any area of human interest would be grossly stifled if no commerce was allowed around it. And yet the mainstream media still lives under the puritanical delusion that most people who engage in sex work are slaves of some sort or another. In my book I show how mainstream coverage of the sex industry is dominated and skewed by anti-sex feminist “experts” who believe voluntary sex work does not exist and who produce tons of shoddy junk science, e.g. unrepresentative study samples, to support that thesis.There is a chasm between sex slavery numbers from anti-sex feminist research and from the research of real scientists who study the issue to prevent AIDS.
I find it amusing that some promo material has said that your book “vigorously defends heroin users.” Can you tell me a little of what that means?
Opiates are highly dangerous because of the effects of criminalization.Legalized opiates would be safer than alcohol for numerous reasons. Because of space limitations I will only mention a few:
Without the additives involved with black-market heroin, the long-term health of heavy users would be remarkably better than alcoholics whose livers are destroyed.
Opiate addicts can function at relatively high levels unlike alcoholics who are in a constant danger to themselves, e.g. drunk driving.
The risk of overdose would likely be similar to alcohol under legalization. Under legalization users of heroin would know exactly how much they are taking and opiate antidotes like Narcan would be widely available.
If this sounds crazy, it should be remembered that during prohibition, bootleg alcohol was killing a lot of people. Some people were shooting it up. It was making people permanently blind. (The number of blind bluesmen was not a coincidence.) Can you imagine the sensational romper room blind alcoholics would be for yellow journalism today? This is the same media that blamed cannibalism on “bath salts” with fabricated anecdotal evidence. Sayonara, craft beer…
Before launching my blog, I did extensive research. My background in research rarely allows me to simply tackle a new project blindly, I understand the importance of researching and understanding the environment that I am choosing to dive into, how those before me succeed, and how they failed. All of this information helps me prepare myself for the challenges that I will face ahead.
For many, blogging is a business, or a way to market their business, meaning there should be a strategy in place. The best way to strategize, is to be aware of your peers and your audience. One thing I love so much about being a part of the blogging community is just how helpful fellow bloggers are. Always prepare to support new bloggers, it is truly a welcoming community, if you leave yourself open to it.
How do great bloggers find success?
Blogging is challenging, it is time-consuming, and feels like a full-time job a lot of the time, especially if you are doing it right. If your goal is to create a great platform for your brand to reach out or to build a great business through the blog, then you should certainly spend as much time as possible building your blog. Some of the greatest qualities the most successful bloggers have are listed below.
Being resourceful is a necessary quality in every area of life, and the great bloggers are always resourceful. We are aware of how resourceful they are because they offer their the experience with resources freely. By sharing knowledge, bloggers are able to encourage the sense of community that is so important with their own blog and with fellow writers.
Before launching my new blog, I spent hours exploring several bloggers, including Elaine of XOMISSE, and her amazing list of blog resources, tutorials and tips. From design, to coding tips, you will learn how to not only launch a great blog, but how to create a beautiful blog. There are many online classes that give you step-by-step blogging advice.
The blogging community is full of networks, with a focus on community. As I mentioned above, there is a strong sense of community and those that have found success, enjoy offering as much support as possible to other writers. Being friendly to other bloggers will help you to connect and network with the best. In the future, other bloggers will feel comfortable approaching you, and can create wonderful opportunities for you.
Be Experienced in Writing
A background in writing is important in blogging. Creating great, and engaging content is essential in blogging. The average reader is very savvy and can easily find another source of information if yours is not there. Without great content, it will be impossible to keep your audience engaged, and will certainly make it difficult to keep them coming back for more. Your ability to offer solutions and answers to their questions through your content is what will help to build value in your brand over time.
A great blogger is organized. Managing a blog requires the ability to multi-task and to juggle multiple responsibilities. A blogger needs to be organized, especially if your goal is to expand and to write for other publications. Use tools at your disposal to create an easy to follow blog calendar in order to organize your content and to remain consistent for your readers…
Science journalist Anil Ananthaswamy thinks a lot about “self” – not necessarily himself, but the role the brain plays in our notions of self and existence.
In his new book, The Man Who Wasn’t There, Ananthaswamy examines the ways people think of themselves. And how those perceptions can be distorted by brain conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Cotard’s syndrome and Body Integrity Identity Disorder, a psychological condition in which a patient perceives that a body part is not his own.
Ananthaswamy tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross about a patient with BIID who became so convinced that a healthy leg wasn’t his own that he eventually underwent an amputation of the limb.
“Within 12 hours, this patient that I saw, he was sitting up and there was no regret. He really seemed fine with having given up his leg,” Ananthaswamy says.
Ultimately, Ananthaswamy says, our sense of self is a layered one, which pulls information from varying parts of the brain to create a sense of narrative self, bodily self and spiritual self: “What it comes down to is this sense we have of being someone or something to which things are happening. It’s there when we wake up in the morning, it kind of disappears when we go to sleep, it reappears in our dreams, and it’s also this sense we have of being an entity that spans time.”
On how to define“self”
When you ask someone, “Who are you?” You’re most likely to get a kind of narrative answer, “I am so-and-so, I’m a father, I’m son.” They are going to tell you a kind of story they have in their heads about themselves, the story that they tell to themselves and to others, and in some sense that’s what can be called the narrative self. …
There are also other ways of thinking about the self. For instance, you and I right now are probably sitting on our chairs, and we have a sense of being a body that is in one place and we can feel sensations in our body. …
We can think back to our earliest memories, we can imagine ourselves in the future, and whatever perceptions arise when we remember or when we imagine, whatever emotions arise, they again feel like they’re happening to the same person. So all of these things put together, in some sense, can be called our sense of self.
OnCotard‘s syndrome, in which a person believes he or she is already dead
Cotard’s Syndrome was something that was first identified by a French doctor in the late 1800s, his name was Jules Cotard and it’s named after him. It’s a constellation of symptoms … and the most characteristic symptom is the situation where people say that they don’t exist. This is a perception that they have, and you cannot rationalize, you cannot really give them evidence to the contrary and expect them to change their mind. It is a complete conviction that they have that they don’t exist. … It’s very, very paradoxical. It poses a great philosophical challenge to people who are trying to understand what it means to say “I exist” or “I don’t exist.” It also makes you wonder about all the other things that we are certain about, like you and I probably are very certain that we exist, well, these people are just as certain that they don’t. So it makes you question about perceptions that arise in the brain and somehow, in this case, the delusion is so complete and so convincing that you really cannot shake their conviction that they are dead.
On what brain imaging of a patient withCotard‘s syndrome shows us
What seems to be happening is that there is a network in the brain that is responsible for internal awareness, awareness of our own body, awareness of our emotions, awareness of our self-related thoughts and in Cotard’s, it seems like that particular network is tamped down. In some sense, their own experience of their body, in all its vividness, in experience of their own emotions in all its vividness, that’s compromised very severely.In some sense they’re not feeling themselves vividly. It’s as simple as that. But, then there’s something else that’s happening in the brain. It seems like parts of the brain that are responsible for rational thought are also damaged. First of all, what might be happening is a perception that arises in their brain saying that they are dead because they’re not literally perceiving their own body and body states and emotions vividly and then that perception — irrational though it is — is not being shot down…
More than likely, you want to keep your immune system running at its peak condition, and you likely put forth the effort every day by getting enough sunshine, sleeping well, and exercising.
But diet also plays a huge role in our lives, and there might even be some foods you’re eating right now that you didn’t know were harmful.
Sugar, fried foods, and meat are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to foods that will destroy your immune system. Even some “healthy” foods will contribute to immune system suppression over time.
Foods That Compromise Immune Function
Food manufacturers, particularly those that market their brand as natural, have become very clever at making their products seem relatively benign in the terms of health. Some foods that are by no means healthy are marketed as such, and the unbeknownst consumer is being subjected to dangerous ingredients that could be inhibiting proper immune function. Here are 5 foods that will destroy your immune system.
1. Red Meat
A recent study from the University of California suggests red meat can trigger a dangerous reaction that can weaken the immune system. The issue comes from a natural sugar in red meat that our bodies can’t digest. The sugar is believed to cause a host of other health problems—a higher risk of cancer being one of those.
2. Fried Foods
In addition to being full of fats that could increase your “bad” cholesterol, fried foods can also trigger irritation and swelling in the body, leading to lower immunity. But one study suggests that just cutting back on fried foods—or better yet, getting rid of them altogether—could “help restore the body’s natural defenses regardless of age or health status.”  Plus, fried foods accumulate acrylamide, a dangerous carcinogen.
If you’re drinking soda—it really doesn’t matter what it’s sweetened with—you’re likely destroying your immune system. Even diet soda is a bad option. Because soda has no beneficial nutrients, drinkers are less likely to get enough vitamin A, calcium, and magnesium—all necessary for an optimum immune system. And, if that wasn’t enough, phosphoric acid (found in sodas) can also deplete calcium and magnesium in the body.
4. Sugary Snacks
Some sugars—refined ones are the absolute worst—can actually suppress the immune system. One study suggests that the sugar actually targets the cells that attack bacteria.And the effect can even last for hours after you eat something sugary.
5. Processed Foods
One of the most dangerous foods to immune health, in my opinion, is processed foods. How come? Because there are many food companies out there who are using the terms “natural” to describe their product, even though their foods may have a hefty amount of refined carbohydrates, sugar, and hidden flavorings. Even organic processed foods, like cereal and breads, can contain immune-suppressing sugar. Processed foods are basically anything that comes in a package, contains more than one ingredient, and has been cooked and modified mechanically. Eating processed foods can lead to chronic irritation in the body. A recent study even suggests that the toxins of a modern diet completely outweigh the possible nutritional gains.  All this is leading us to weaker immune systems, higher rate of illnesses and diseases, and all-around poor health.
Natural Immune System Support
If you want a healthy immune system, in addition to getting rid of these foods, you could also try eating some that boost your immunity instead. These include vitamin C-rich foods like green vegetables and citrus. Exercise is also a healthy component, as is stress reduction and vitamin D supplementation. Oregano oil is also a powerful harmful organism cleanser and may have some benefit for immune health.