As if the federal government doesn't already have more than enough to do . . .

I've been listening to lectures from past Acres USA conferences (2007 and 2008) and have heard quite a bit about NAIS (National Animal Identification System--a federal program "intended to identify animals and track them as they come into contact with, or commingle with, animals other than herdmates from their premises of origin" but that actually places unbelievable financial and paperwork burdens on even backyard keepers of a few chickens, ducks, or goats (not to mention larger animals like horses, donkeys, cows or pigs).

According to the NAIS regulations, every property on which any such animals are kept is supposed to be registered with the federal government, and, then, unless the owner of such animals also owns and/or operates the meat or egg processing plant, every individual animal is also supposed to receive a unique, 15-character animal identification number which is to be attached directly to the animal itself. And--just as FedEx and UPS now track and report the movements of every item throughout their distribution systems, so the movements of every animal are supposed to be tracked and reported to the federal government.

NAIS was supposed to be "voluntary" (ha ha!), but with federal muscle behind it, Wisconsin, the first state to implement the regulations, made it absolutely mandatory. --Interestingly, the registration system, mandated by law, is "not maintained by state government, but instead relies upon the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC) to maintain the database of Premises ID registrants. This is currently continuing with the RFID tagging database as well.[19] The WLIC is a private interest group made up of Big Agribusiness, including Cargill, Genetics/Biotech Corporations, like ABS Global, and RFID tagging companies such as Digital Angel[20]. . . . There are also in fact only 6 RFID tags that are approved by WLIC/NAIS at this time: 2 manufactured by Allflex, 2 by Digital Angel, one by Y-Tex and 1 by Global Animal Management. All four are WLIC members." (Wikipedia article on the National Animal Identification System.

Now we are told that, as of February 2010, NAIS was being abandoned in order to

re-focus its efforts on a "new framework" for animal traceability. The Secretary stated the new framework would apply only to animals that cross state lines and would encourage the use of low-tech methods of identification.

The USDA's announcement sparked widely divergent reactions. Groups representing independent farmers and local consumers applauded the USDA's decision. But the proponents of NAIS, namely the Big Ag and Big Tech groups, expressed disappointment and issued statements about the horrible things that could supposedly happen without a centralized ID system. These pro-NAIS entities quickly re-grouped and announced plans to adopt "model regulations" (i.e. NAIS-type regulations) at the State level.

But the issue is also still far from over even at the federal level. Despite USDA's announcement, Big Ag and Big Tech are pushing for a more expansive federal program. And key bureaucrats who developed NAIS continue to work within the agency, and they do not seem to have changed their views despite the announcements from the top.

--Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF)

Oh! But we haven't begun to discover how far the federal government is wanting to extend its grip into issues for which one would think the interstate commerce clause should limit its reach.

Now comes Senate Bill 510, due for a vote any day now. Possibly even today.

And what does SB510 have to say? Well, here's a rather calm review of some of its more egregious features.

• It will "enable FDA potentially to regulate all farms marketing food products direct to consumers even if the farms engage only in intrastate commerce." --In other words, the local farmers who sell in your local farmer's market: They will be subject to federal oversight. Your neighbor who owns a few chickens and sells or gives you eggs: Such behavior will be subject to federal (FDA) oversight.
  
  If you think it’s a good idea to give FDA more power,
  
  • Here are the agency’s views on your freedom to obtain the foods of your choice; these are direct quotations from the agency’s response to a lawsuit the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) filed earlier this year challenging the interstate ban on raw milk for human consumption:
    
    • "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [A--p. 25]
      
    • "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [A--p. 26]
      
    • "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [A--p. 26]
      
    • "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [A--p. 27]
  • For those who think it is a good idea to give the FDA more power, here are some of the products FDA has allowed in the marketplace:
    
    • MSG (monosodium glutamate),
      
    • high fructose corn syrup (HFCS),
      
    • aspartame,
      
    • genetically-modified organisms (GMOs),
      
    • Avandia (prescribed for type 2 diabetes) and
      
    • Vioxx (arthritis pain medication).
    If none of these items alarms you, I guess I have not been doing my job! There is strong evidence of major human health problems related to each and every one of these substances. But the FDA has done nothing to protect us.
    
    Meanwhile, as reported here a few days ago, the FDA is standing in the way of full disclosure of health benefits of good foods like tart cherries and walnuts, claiming that any producer or distributor of such products who associates any health benefits to these items--even if the benefits are well-documented in peer-reviewed scientific papers--the producer/distributor is engaged in the illegal sale of an unapproved drug until it has submitted its specific cherries or walnuts (or whatever) to a costly FDA approval process. . . .
    
    And we are interested in permitting them more power?

Linn Cohen-Cole wrote a powerful post on an earlier (and less-egregious-than-it-is-now) version of the same bill:

Wisdom says stop a bill that is broad as everything yet more vague even than it is broad.

Wisdom says stop a bill that comes with massive penalties but allows no judicial review.

Wisdom says stop a bill with everything unspecified and actually waits til next year for an unspecified “Administrator” to decide what’s what.

Where we come from, that’s called a blank check. Who writes laws like that? ”Here, do what you want about whatever you want and here’s some deadly punishments to make it stick.”

Wisdom says know who wrote that bill and be forewarned.

Wisdom says wake up.

Here’s the bill. Let’s use our imaginations and extrapolate from the little bit it reveals and from the reality we know.

SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

(a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respectto food production facilities, to–

(1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United Statesand in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;

(2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;

(3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;

(4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate;

(5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health andfarm practices.

(b) Inspection of Records- A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator–

(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or

(2) to track the food in commerce.

(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall–

(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally,and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

(3) include with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment . . . and water;

Ah, such a little paragraph, and so much evil packed in it. Notice they mention harvesting, sorting and storage operations? Notice they never mention seeds? But they are precisely what those words cover.

Come again? What's that? Why this concern about seeds?

Because, Cohen-Cole says, that is exactly what these kinds of regulations are always about: maximizing profits for Big Ag (the Monsantos and Cargills of the world). [Interesting: That is what the FTCLDF also says: "[The] FDA’s true clients are not the American people but rather the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries."

But, but . . . wait a second! What do seeds have to do with Big Ag? And why this interest in seeds?

• Watch where Monsanto is and has been going for the last 15 to 20 years, say the observers. Monsanto has been aiming for a monopoly on seed production worldwide. And they are getting closer than most of us would care to know!

Cohen-Cole writes:

When you know that Monsanto with the help of the US government plundered ancient and rare seed banks in Iraq that held seeds with a genetic heritage (a biohistory belonging to all of us) going back 1000s of years and then made it a crime for farmers there to collect or use their own normal and non-patented seeds off their own land, you see how extreme the intent to control is. . . .

The Iraqis are now utterly at the mercy of Monsanto and the US for survival itself and will have to pay whatever prices are set for food. They can no longer just grow their own and be free people. So, no matter what form of government they may ever have, as long as this is true, they are now enslaved because the control over them is that extreme. Kissinger was right – control food and you control people. . . .

In Afghanistan, people are buying and planting beans from America which at the end of the season have nothing whatever inside, the pods are empty. In Ecuador, the potatoes there do not develop eyes so can’t be planted next season to grow potatoes.

Biotech’s claim to care about feeding starving multitudes is belied by its blocking human access to normal seeds and its terminator technology (empty beans). Monopoly is monopoly is monopoly. And at this level, and when it comes to seeds which are life itself, monopoly terminates democracy as well as beans.

Please, read The World According to Monsanto by Marie-Monique Robin I told you about a few days ago.

"Watch how they will be able to easily criminalize seed banking and all holding of seeds," Cohen-Cole writes.

First, to follow how this will be done, you must understand that:

1. there is a small list inside the FDA called “sources of seed contamination” and

2. the FDA has now defined “seed” as food,

3. so seeds can now be controlled through “food safety.” . . .

Farmers, gardeners, seed saving exchanges, seed companies, scientific seed projects, and seed banks, all require sorting. All are working overtime to protect biodiversity that is rapidly disappearing specifically because of genetic engineering. As Monsanto began reducing access to seeds, people around the world have worked hard to compensate.

But now the effort is to take over the whole game, going after even these small sources of biodiversity – by simply defining seeds as food and . . . all farmers’ affordable mechanisms for harvesting (collecting), sorting (seed cleaning) and storing (seed banking or saving) as too dirty to be safe for food.

Set the standard for “food safety” and certification high enough that no one can afford it and punish anyone who tries to save seed in ways that have worked fine for thousands of years, with a million dollar a day fine and/or ten years in prison, and presto, you have just criminalized seed banking.

The penalties are tremendous, the better to protect us from nothing dangerous whatsoever, but to make monopoly over seed absolutely absolute. One is left with control over farmers, an end to seed exchanges, an end to organic seed companies, an end to university programs developing nice normal hybrids, and an end to democracy – reducing us to abject dependence on corporations for food and gratitude even for genetically engineered food and at any price. . . .

There are three other items of the list which surely will be controlled as well. In toto, that little list of six items (agricultural water, manure, harvesting, transporting and seed cleaning equipment, and seed storage facilities) contains the pieces to deconstruct farming itself, especially organic farming.

Oh, there is more, much more! Please take a look at the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund page about S510. As I said above, it is non-alarmist. But it ought to cause your hair to stand on end.

The article was written in September and concludes,

S510 is not about protecting the public health but rather about increasing federal control over food and transferring market share from the local food system to the industrial food system. The bill grants broad rulemaking power to FDA, a grant not merited by the agency’s track record. Its passage will cripple local food over time.

There have been reports in the media that S510 is dead. Don’t believe them. The bill could still be brought to the Senate floor before Congress’ pre-election break and it could also be brought up for a vote during a lameduck session after the elections.

Guess what? Cloture was passed yesterday. It is being voted on during the lameduck session. It is time to take action.

For more on the subject, see S510 Talking Points by Pete Kennedy, Esq.

And for a relatively easy method of figuring out how to communicate with your senators, go to the FTCLDF's Action Page.

Health insurance? Or disease and accident insurance?

A couple of months ago, Dr. Jonathan V. Wright featured a couple of articles in his newsletter that spoke to some of the issues that I've been slowly discovering through experience and sorting through in my mind.

In his lead article, Wright suggests we need to take a different approach to health insurance.

[W]hat's generally called "health insurance" really isn't about being healthy at all. It's about being able to pay for doctors, hospitals, and patent medicines--all of which are very expensive--just in case we get sick, or are in an accident. A more accurate term for this kind of insurance is "disease and accident insurance."

Real health insurance helps insure that we stay healthy! Real health insurance isn't cheap, but it's a lot less expensive than "disease and accident insurance." Real health insurance includes an excellent diet, appropriate exercise, a positive mental attitude, getting enough sleep, and avoidance of toxins, including tobacco and other addictive substances, and no more than a little alcohol.

But the most commonly consumed toxins--herbicides, pesticides, other agricultural and food chemicals, as well as artificial flavorings and preservatives--are somehow regarded as too costly to avoid.

Wright continues with a powerful argument for (doing what Sarita and I have begun to do in the last several months) avoiding conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables and eating organic instead. (See The Organic Center's report about the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods (19.5MB PDF) or, at least, the Executive Summary (1.8MB PDF).)

Are organics expensive? Oh, yes! But are they as expensive as the kinds of issues that the SAD (Standard American Diet) is creating in so many of us, the problems associated with obesity and inflammation and heart disease and diabetes? I don't think so.

On the other hand, as numerous people have pointed out, the federal government of these United States subsidizes the lousy foods (with our tax money) and then makes us pay full boat for the good stuff. (More about that subject in a later post.)

Wright concludes his article with the words,

While it's very important for optimal health to avoid as many herbicides, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals, it's also now well established that organically grown foods have not only higher levels of many important nutrients, but a wider, more diverse set of nutrients than conventionally grown foods.

Now that's really "health insurance"! Why not buy it for your family?

A couple of pages later, Wright then quotes a letter he received from a doctor (MD) who has been moving more and more toward a "natural" or "naturopathic" approach to medicine.

He wrote to Wright with the following story about "what I see in practice much too often."

I thought, "Good grief! This is my experience!"

"Dear Dr. Wright," he began,

Sometimes it is a curse to have generous health insurance.

Last week, I saw a 55-year-old woman who is very, very sick due to insurance-covered treatment with patent medicines.

Ten years ago she had her gallbladder removed. She never was told about needing to take bile salts with oily meals from then on so she'd absorb lipid-soluble vitamins and other nutrients. [I have to ask my daughter, who just had her gallbladder removed, whether she has been told any such thing. --JAH]

Eight years ago she was said to have "gastro-esophageal reflux disease" (GERD) and has taken a proton pump inhibitor ever since to suppress her stomach acid. Nobody ever told her that stomach acid helps break minerals from their matrix (for absorption), helps break down proteins into amino acids, and keeps the stomach free of intestinal bacteria. [Yeah. No one mentioned that when my doctor casually prescribed Famotidine for my gastric reflux. Oh, yes! It gave me almost immediate relief from a number of problems for which I had not realized I could enjoy relief. Wonderful! . . . Until I started reading about the downsides of this approach to acid reflux. --JAH]

Seven years ago she was diagnosed with adult onset diabetes mellitus (AODM), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia and was put onto an insulin pump (her condition was too brittle for anything else), a statin to lower cholesterol, and strong anti-hypertensive drugs. She started to get muscle aches, cramps, and very poor endurance. Nobody told her that statins interfere with the body's ability to make Co-Enzyme Q₁₀, nor did they put her on a healthy daily dose of Co-Enzyme Q₁₀. [Gee! Is this surprising? I had the same experience. "You've got elevated cholesterol. Let's put you on a statin." --Now that particular doctor also put me on CoQ₁₀, but he never explained that the two were related, nor that it might be possible to lower overall cholesterol and rebalance it through non-pharmaceutical means. --JAH]

Five years ago she started to get peripheral neuropathy (pain with numbness) and skin lesions, which she was told were of unknown cause. ("You have dry skin. Here, rub on this emollient cream.") More drugs for neuropathic pain.

Three years ago she was diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance ("MGUS"; overproduction of gamma-globulin from a single line of blood cells). Old Human tactic: if you don't know what it is, put a name on it to make it less scary.

Two years ago she was diagnosed with severe anxiety, so she was given Xanax and other psychotropics. . . .

Naturally, with all of this, her liver enzymes are up, and so is her creatinine (indicating early kidney failure)!

She is postmenopausal, but never has been tested, never been put on bio-identical hormone replacement. She can't sleep, of course, so there goes another patent medicine into the mix. . . .

Incredibly, the list of ailments and failed (and failing) pharmaceutical "fixes" continues!

Wright says this is a good description of "what 'great insurance coverage' can do to good health. It's a tragic description of how 'health insurance' can do exactly the opposite, actually insuring a more rapid progression of illness, as well as allowing disease to proceed because patent medicines never, ever address causes, but just cover up symptoms for a variable period of time."

How do you get off the conveyor belt of declining health? Wright suggests eating healthy foods and pursuing naturopathically oriented doctors like those you'll find through the American College for Advancement in Medicine, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, or the International College of Integrative Medicine. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to read a well-researched and heavily referenced newsletter like the one Wright publishes.

What happened with the nematodes?

I ended my "Microbes and Soil" post with two photos: one of a nematode that had been trapped by a fungal hypha, and another of a nematode as it made its way into the stem of a tomato plant, unhindered by fungal hyphae or any other defensive mechanisms. And my last words in the post were these:

"Why wasn't this [second] nematode attacked, and where were the fungal hyphae that killed off the first nematode?"

I didn't say anything about answering those questions. But the answers are clear. And both have to do with the soil in which the plants were growing.

In the first photo--the one in which the nematode is trapped by the hypha--the plant was growing (and the fungus and the nematode were living and growing) in healthy soil--soil filled with a huge variety and quantity of protozoa, earthworms, arthropods, algae, bacteria and fungi.

The second photo was taken of a plant that was being grown in typical modern agri-soil--soil that had been tilled and sprayed and treated with pesticides and herbicides and NPK fertilizer and in which, therefore, there was almost none of the microbial life that healthy soil exhibits.

Funny (or maybe not): The use of herbicides and pesticides and NPK (and no other) fertilizers can actually, over time, reduce plants' ability to protect themselves from predators. It can increase plants' susceptibility to disease.

As Elaine Ingham, president of Soil Food Web, Inc., suggests in her Foreword to Teaming with Microbes,

Urban dwellers and other growers have been pouring toxic chemicals on their soils for years, without recognizing that those chemicals harm the very things that make soil healthy. Use of toxics to any extent creates a habitat for the "mafia" of the soil, an urban war zone, by killing off the normal flora and found that compete with the bad guys and keep them under control. . . . If toxic material was applied only once in your life, the bad situation we have today would not have developed, but typically with that first application, thousands of organisms that were beneficial to your plants were killed. A few bad guys were killed as well, but good guys are gone, and they don't come back as fast as the bad guys.

Think about your neighborhood: who would come back faster if your neighborhood was turned into a chemical war zone? Opportunistic marauders and looters, that's who comes back in after disturbances. In the human world, we send in the National Guard to hold the line against criminals. But in soil, the levels of inorganic fertilizers being used, the constant applications of toxic pesticide sprayed, mean the National Guard of the soil has been killed, too. We have to purposefully restore the beneficial biology that has been lost.

--Teaming with Microbes, p. 9

You may be wondering: What does all of this have to do with health and healthcare?

Well, ultimately, our health is dependent on the quality of the foods we eat, isn't it? And the food? Upon what is it dependent?

Among other things, the soil in which it is grown . . . and the presence--or absence--of life in the soil.

Something to think about, anyway.

Mercury in the body . . .

My naturopath wanted to test me for mercury. Mercury contamination, he said, is a major cause of rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid problems ("I cannot state 100%, but I am quite sure . . . almost with 100% assurance: Every patient of mine who has suffered a thyroid problem, whether hypo- or hyper-, autoimmune or otherwise, I have found to have elevated levels of mercury in the body.") . . . indeed, many of the issues I have faced or am facing right now.

He said there are two ways of testing for mercury. One is called unprovoked; the other, provoked. The unprovoked test simply measures how much mercury is excreted in a person's urine over a 24-hour period; the other uses a chelating agent (my naturopath prefers an infusion of DMPS (sodium salt of 2,3-dimercapto-1-propane sulfonic acid)) to "provoke" the release of mercury and then a collection of urine.

"The problem with an unprovoked test is that mercury and other heavy metals have very strong affinities for different organs within the body. Once there, they don't let go. They do their damage, but you won't necessarily find them floating around in the body for excretion. You have to use agents to get them to release from the tissues where they are hiding." [Understand that I'm not quoting him exactly. But I am attempting to give the gist of what he said.]

Based on his input, I agreed to have the test. But I thought I would ask my conventional doctor at Kaiser whether he would authorize a test. Maybe I could save some money if I could get the test through my insurance provider!

To my mild astonishment, my Kaiser doctor agreed and set me up for that test in addition to a few others--one of which, also, is urine-based.

One minor complicating factor: the other urine-based test requires a different collection bottle. So I would have to collect urine for two days.

I figured that would be fine. I would get the microalbumin collection done one day, turn it in to the Kaiser lab, get the chelating agent injection after that from my naturopath, then do the urine collection for the mercury.

So I finished my microalbumin collection and turned it in, went to my naturopath, and then found him discouraging me from using Kaiser for the mercury test: "If you have any elevated levels of mercury within you, you will shock your doctor. He is used to unprovoked, unchelated numbers." And, moreover, "chelated urine collection should proceed for only 6 hours."

"That's fine," I said. "So I will simply not do the collection for Kaiser."

Four days later, however, I got my test results from Kaiser and the lab had analyzed the one collection for both microalbumin and mercury.

Mercury was at less than 4 mcg/L, well within the "standard range."

Well, by that point I had long since turned in my 6-hour collection of chelated urine.

I just got those results. Mercury: 29 mcg/g creatinine. Reference range (based on unchelated/unprovoked tests): less than 3 mcg/g creatinine--so about 10 times higher than "acceptable." Cadmium and Lead, too, were high (though just--and I mean "just"--outside the reference range. Antimony was at the top edge of the reference range. Everything else was either undetectible (11 metals) or well within the acceptable reference range (6 metals).

I just had hair, blood and another small urine sample sent to a different lab to determine whether the mercury in my system is methylated (from organic sources--most likely fish) or inorganic (amalgam tooth fillings? broken mercury thermometers? playing with the stuff when I was a kid? a broken fluorescent bulb?). The tests are also supposed to determine whether my kidneys are up to handling a heavy release of mercury if we go forward with chelation therapy.

Meanwhile, I realize I have some research to do. (Is that surprising?) What I have discovered in just the last few hours has put me in a mood to look for some alternative to the therapy--DMPS infusions (one per week for four weeks, then one every-other-week for six weeks)--my naturopath is suggesting.

Of minimal concern, frankly, is the fact that DMPS is not approved by the FDA. The FDA is not necessarily the world leader in pharmaceutical evaluation. DMPS, I am given to understand, is (and has been, for quite some time) used rather commonly in Germany.

More disturbing to me are other claims against DMPS chelation. For example:

• There are numerous reports concerning the toxicity of DMPS (despite Dr. John Cline's remarks about its safety being so great that it is freely available, without a prescription, in Germany). (One alarming collection of anecdotes may be found here.)
  
• There are far fewer such adverse reports for DMSA by mouth, I am told.
  
  And while we're talking about DMSA, we ought to note that . . .
  
• DMSA is FDA-approved. Whereas, as already noted, DMPS is not.
  
• DMSA (according to some sources) is more effective than DMPS for removal of mercury, lead, and arsenic.
  
• DMSA passes the blood-brain barrier and removes mercury; DMPS does not. (Methylmercury is especially attracted to and toxic to neurons, so having a chelating agent that can cross the blood-brain barrier is extremely important!)
  
• DMSA is much more convenient to use. ("The usual adult dose for mercury removal is 500 mg DMSA (five 100 milligram capsules) on an empty stomach on first arising in the morning with a glass of water or juice, and no food for another 30 minutes. This dose is taken 3 days per week with at least one day between each dose. Monday, Wednesday and Friday is a convenient schedule. This is continued for 3 months. Then wait another month without DMSA before retesting mercury levels" (John A Cranton, ARNP). My naturopath, meanwhile, has told me that DMPS chelation will take 10 injection/infusions over the course of a minimum of 16 weeks (four months).)
  
• DMSA is much less expensive. Between the cost of the DMPS and the doctor's office charges, I understand, DMPS is at least 10 times more expensive.
  
• And then, of course, there is the fundamental charge that provoked testing is simply a bunch of poppycock to begin with. (A charge countered by others that "[t]he quantity of heavy metal returned [by the provocation test] has generally correlated well to the symptom severity of the patients [they] have seen. Furthermore, the changes in metal excretion with this provocation test have corresponded well to the changes in symptom severity of the patients [they] have seen" (Mercury Toxicity and the Use of DMPS Chelation, John C. Cline, MD, Medical Director, Oceanside Medical Clinic)

But when all is said and done, I am struck with the claim by Elmer M. Cranton, MD, that "Scientific research shows that once a source of excessive mercury exposure is eliminated, half of the remaining mercury in the body is excreted naturally in less than 3 months, with no treatment whatsoever. Even methyl mercury is naturally eliminated from the brain. Mercury is eliminated normally in urine, feces, hair, skin, sweat, bile, etc. One year after excessive exposure has been eliminated, 95 percent or more of the excess mercury is gone from the body with no specific treatment."

I sense Jana's summary of what should--or should not--be done with DMPS is level-headed and appropriate. If you're considering DMPS therapy, I strongly encourage you to read her brief article.

Follow the money, Part 2

Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott wanted to demonstrate that university researchers are not "in the pocket of Big Ag." And to that end, therefore, she was pleased to post a brief paragraph about an article in the Seattle Times about an Organic farming study at - gasp! - a research university.

I have attempted to develop the case that even without direct manipulation of results; even while leaving research scientists to come to their own, independent conclusions, "Thems that's got the money makes the rules." And in the world of agriculture, those who have the money are companies like Monsanto. And they are able to fund research projects that they view as favorable to their cause, and they are able to defund project that they view as unfavorable. Meanwhile, "Little Ag" as we might call most of the biodynamic/pro-organic/anti-GMO crowd, lacks the funds and, more importantly, any similar financial incentives to sponsor similarly complex and large-scale research that may prove favorable to its cause.

In this post, however, I want to push one step further along the lines of how, it appears, companies like Monsanto really are controlling a lot of the research that impacts their bottom lines and our (consumers') health . . . for good or ill.

Let me begin with a broad-based documentary book: The World According to Monsanto by Marie-Monique Robin, an award-winning French journalist and filmmaker.

It is filled with testimonies of people here in the United States and around the world whose lives, they claim, have been upended due to the products and practices of Monsanto.

When I say "upended," I am referring to businesses destroyed, livelihoods wiped out, interminable and extortionate lawsuits pursued against those who, I imagine most of my readers would agree, should have never been sued in the first place. It includes detailed stories of children and adults whose lives have been threatened--indeed, whose bodies have been injured--by the promotion of soy as a primary food (at the expense of a much more diverse diet) . . . and by the use of Monsanto's prize herbicide, Roundup^®.

Robin develops these stories in detail.

For example, she describes the situation in Argentina where, apparently, soy is consumed at far higher rates than it is here in the United States. She quotes an Argentine doctor who says,

Several colleagues in the region and I have observed a very significant increase in reproductive anomalies such as miscarriages and premature fetal death; malfunctions of the thyroid, the respiratory system--such as pulmonary edemas--the kidneys, and the endocrine system; liver and skin diseases; and severe eye problems. . . . We have observed in the region a significant number of cases of cryptorchism and hypospadias in boys, and hormonal malfunctions in girls, some of whom have their periods as young as three.

Robin explains what cryptorchism and hypospadias are: "Cryptorchism is a birth defect characterized by undescended testicles; hypospadias is a malformation of the urethra [in which] it does not reach the tip of the penis." (The World According to Monsanto, p. 266)

After reading this and other similar stories, I expect you will take Dr. Mercola's warnings about eating soy even more seriously.

Back to Robin.

She quotes a French researcher who found that Roundup^®, even at concentrations significantly less than those used in farming (the scientist referenced a concentration of 0.05%, whereas concentrations used in farming are normally 1 to 2%) . . . --Even at concentrations significantly less than those used in farming, Roundup^® kills human embryonic cells. "And," the scientist continued,

When you use an even weaker concentration--by diluting the product bought in a store 10,000 or even 100,000 times--you find it no longer kills cells but blocks the production of sex hormones, which is also very serious, because of those hormones enable the fetus to develop its bones and form its future reproductive system. It can therefore be concluded that Roundup is also an endocrine disruptor.

You would think, with such powerful testimonies against it, Monsanto might have difficulty promoting its wares. It does not. In fact, if anything, it seems to enjoy the aid of governments around the world. Robin provides enough details, in general, to explain that oddity. I need to let you get a-hold of your own copy and read it.

But the following item may help explain the phenomenon.

• Many--some would say most--of the primary American government oversight agencies that are supposed to be ensuring Monsanto "plays fair" are, themselves, overseen by . . . former and/or future Monsanto employees! Possible conflicts of interest?
  
  • Perhaps most shocking, for me, was to see that Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court judge who wrote the opinion that granted Monsanto and other such companies full patent rights over genetically modified seeds. --Not that Thomas' role in the case was more egregious than many other connections between Monsanto and the government; it was "just" that I had no idea that a person of Thomas' stature would have permitted himself to play a role like that in which potential conflicts-of-interest would be so visible.
    
    Then again,
    
  • Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the Food and Drug Administration commissioner before he left to work for a law firm that was seeking to gain FDA approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone. Taylor then became deputy commissioner of the FDA from 1991 to 1994. Taylor was later re-appointed to the FDA in August 2009 by President Obama.
    
  • Dr. Michael A. Friedman was a deputy commissioner of the FDA before he was hired as a senior vice president of Monsanto.
    
  • Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) before she was a vice president at Monsanto from 1995 - 2000. In 2001, Fisher became the deputy administrator of the EPA. --Any potential conflicts of interest, there, you think?
    
  • Michael (Mickey) Kantor is a former United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce for the United States, and member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation. --No conflicts of interest?
    
  • Michael Taylor, a Monsanto attorney, is, I am given to understand, largely responsible for writing the federal "regulations" for genetically modified foods! --And can you guess what company owns patents on the genetic codes of 90 percent of all transgenic crops? It wouldn't be Monsanto, by any chance? (Oh, yes, it would!)
    
  • And on and on these lists go.
  For just a few references on this subject (that document these matters far better than I have), see Lies and Deception: How the FDA Does Not Protect Your Best Interests, Why are Monsanto Insiders Now Appointed to Protect Your Food Safety?, and the Public officials formerly employed by Monsanto section of the Wikipedia article about Monsanto . . . just for starters.

Robin and others have documented the shenanigans Monsanto engages in to discredit and destroy any scientists who dare to speak out against GMOs. I urge you to read the story of Ignacio Chapela and David Quist on pp. 246-253 in Robin's book. It is quite chilling.

If you are reluctant to purchase the book or borrow it from the library, then I urge you simply to click through to this article by Jeffrey Smith and published and commented upon by Dr. Mercola. It summarizes the stories of researchers Arpad Pusztai, Irina Ermakova, Andrés Carrasco, Judy Carman, Terje Traavik, Allison Snow, Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey, Bela Darvas and many more.

You can look these people up elsewhere on the web. Their stories, happily, are known (to those who know to look them up). Sadly, most of us are unaware of how our information is being manipulated.

For more on Monsanto, I encourage you to read Dr. Mercola's Evil Monsanto Finally Reaping Its Just Desserts.

--If you have read this far, I thank you. But I want to be fair.

There is--or, at least, there appears to be--another side to the story.

Jeffrey Smith is vilified as being a nutcase whose views are unworthy of your consideration. Are his opponents' criticisms worthy of consideration? {Note, for example, that they take on Irina Ermakova's claims about the dangers of GMO. But then, again, see what Ermakova has to say about her own work.) Who should you believe?

For more on GMOs and Monsanto, I encourage you to go to Jeffrey Smith's website, Seeds of Deception. But check out, too, Monsanto's website to get their take. And The GMO Crop (mis)Information Page.

Monsanto sounds very reasonable on its own website. "If you have questions, please contact us and we will do our best to respond in a timely manner," they say.

Maybe I will write. . . .

Follow the money, Part 1

I've had a number of conversations in the last few weeks that have all led me to the same conclusion: It really does make sense to "follow the money" when it comes to evaluating the claims of various experts. It's not that an expert deliberately misleads or lies due to funding sources. Rather, the advice the expert provides may be skewed by--he or she may be rendered ignorant as a result of--funding sources (or the lack thereof).

This idea came up most recently just yesterday, at lunch.

One of my family members commented that medical doctors, in general, are ignorant about a lot of the impact of diet on health (i.e., they don't "even" recognize diseases or disease conditions caused by inappropriate diet and/or diseases or disease conditions that are only treatable by change in diet) . . . because . . . well, there is no money in it for them.

And that's not to say they are "only in it [medicine] for the money." Rather, that's to acknowledge that . . .

• The entire conventional medical (allopathic medical) approach--believed in and practiced by the doctors and their staffs, and believed in and pursued by their patients--has to do with diagnosing a condition that can be "fixed" ("healed") by a medicine and/or procedure. . . . If there is no known prescribable medicine and/or procedure, then . . . well, . . .
  
  • The doctor has failed to fulfill his patient's expectations. ("You're supposed to have a prescription for this! A nostrum! A medication! A 'magic bullet' that takes care of these kinds of problems! . . . You're supposed to be able to 'fix' me! . . . I shouldn't have to change my lifestyle in order to 'fix myself'!")
    
  • There are so many conditions for which the medical doctor does have a medication he or she can prescribe, why would he or she waste the time studying conditions that don't match that model?
    
    But even prior to the doctor's motivations and/or incentives,
    
  • What's in it for pharmaceutical companies . . . or food companies, for that matter . . . to study dietary solutions? Foods, in general, are non-patentable. So to discover that cherries, for instance, reduce inflammation: who is going to pay for the research and/or pay to ensure medical students are taught about cherries' unique healing attributes?

More or less saying what I have just said, but from a different angle:

• With no financial incentives, the pharmaceutical industry isn't going to ensure physicians are instructed about the benefits of dietary changes. Rather, their incentives are all aligned with ignoring diet and, rather, producing, distributing and marketing more drugs.
  
• Even, interestingly, the FDA--what should be a neutral "policeman" in this arena--is financially incentivized to promote drugs and ignore--or, actually, discriminate against dietary solutions to disease.
  
  How and why is this the case?
  
  Drug manufacturers have to invest millions--indeed, we are given to believe, normally hundreds of millions--of dollars to jump through all the hoops of a New Drug Application required for FDA approval of any drug "made by a different manufacturer, [that] uses different excipients or inactive ingredients, is used for a different purpose, or undergoes any substantial change" from those already on the market.
  
  And you are probably thinking, "So what does that have to do with dietary solutions to disease?"
  
  Well, as numerous companies and food trade groups have discovered to their own dismay, "If you dare discuss the health benefits of any food or natural substance while you are selling such items, you will be branded a criminal by the FDA, threatened with criminal prosecution and potentially have your company raided by the FDA along with armed law enforcement agents with guns drawn." (Check out FDA censorship of nutritional science threatens health of all Americans for a broad overview. But for more specific examples of what I'm talking about, see the story about Diamond Foods and what happened when it attempted to promote the health benefits of walnuts. Or the story of the FDA as it came against marketers of cherries who referenced and/or linked to scientific studies that described health benefits of cherries.)
  
  Because Mike Adams, the author of the articles I have just referenced, sometimes states his case in a deliberately provocative manner, let me link to a few typical warning letters from the FDA, so you can see how they phrase things.
  
  Check out, for example, this letter to Payson Fruit Growers of Payson, Utah, or to Cherry Lands Best of Appleton, Wisconsin. --Or take a look at any of the dozens of similar "Labeling and Promotional Violations" letters on the FDA website. --October 17, 2005 was a good date for cherry marketers.
  
  As the letters explain, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man are drugs" and any health claims made for any product "cause [such] product to be a drug."
  

  Because [cherries, walnuts, or whatever food are] not generally recognized as safe and effective when used as labeled, [they are] also . . . new drug[s] as defined in Section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 321(p)]. Under Section 505 of the Act (21 U.S .C. 355), a new drug may not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved New Drug Application (NDA).

But this is not only an issue when it comes to foods--as our family was discussing yesterday.

It comes out in areas like farming and gardening as well.

Several weeks ago, one of my brothers raised questions about International Ag Labs, the soils testing and amendment recommending company whose services we have chosen as we seek to improve the soil on our prospective farm and in our garden. He referenced a post by a skeptical Extension Specialist in Urban Horticulture.

The initial post is mildly critical of IAL and, as I said, it is clearly skeptical. But it sounds relatively open-minded. As happens so often with some blogs, however, fireworks begin to explode in the comments afterward (including what the blogger herself, Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott, says).

Several IAL clients respond: "Look at the results! Here's my story!"

Chalker-Scott and other skeptics reply, "That's not science." And, as she notes (February 23, 2010):

My job - and the job of ANY university extension specialist - is to provide science-based information to the public. . . . What you won't find from university scientists, including extension specialists like myself, is a promotion of products or practices with no basis in science.

Subsequent discussion is then comprised primarily of further testimonials . . .

• "Dear Linda, I have run over 600 soil tests through IAL in the past 4 years. I have a very successful business that has been serving our community for over 55 years. We used other labs here in California with very poor results. I will say with out a doubt that the information that comes from IAL is remarkable and has help my business grow because of the results." --George Schnackenberg.
  
  Or,
  
• "I am an amateur gardener. I tried IAL last year and had the joy of tasting some of the most amazing vegetables. For example, broccoli that was actually sweet like carrots." --Nick.
  
  And,
  
• "I'm a small market farmer not a scientist. IAL's recommendations worked for me. I used the [products IAL recommended]. My pluots averaged 20-22 Brix. You can't argue with results. It is my understanding that [the materials work in the following way. However,] I don't have to know exactly how it works I just know it works." --Jeannie.
  
• Etc.

. . . and Chalker-Scott and one of her cohorts replying (in three separate comments dated February 25, 2010) with,

• "I'm sorry, but if you want me (or any other scientist) to be convinced of a particular viewpoint, then support it with published, peer-reviewed data. That's the way science works. If you don't like the accepted paradigm, then don't use it. But don't expect scientists to take you seriously.
  
• "Anecdotes, regardless of how passionately people believe them, aren't scientific data."
  
  And,
  
• "I'm happy to hear that your garden is doing well, but the fact that you followed IAL's recommendations does not prove that those recommendations are any better than the recommendations from another lab. Furthermore, it's possible that, by using IAL's recommendations, you overfertilized making your plants look good but poisoning the environment. To test these possibilities side by side studies need to be conducted. Without studies like these we're left with anecdotal evidence which carries little weight. Once again, show us the science which proves IAL gives recommendations which are better than other labs -- show us evidence supporting the wacky things they seem to be recommending -- We won't be changing our minds without that kind of data."

Things get a bit nasty (or, shall we say, at least testy) as the IAL promoters tell their stories and charge the scientists with being closed-minded and--not quite in so many words, but, in essence--being toadies to and fools for "big ag" corporations like Monsanto. And the scientists respond with increasing exasperation at what they perceive as unfair charges.

I don't want to get sidelined with a discussion about methods of "argumentation" (or, in far too many cases, presentation--since, too often, the anti-professorial disputants present no real arguments but, instead, "simply" spew venom). People like "The Justin" are merely embarrassing. And especially so when put up against Chalker-Scott's astonishingly gracious response to a wholly obnoxious and venomous diatribe.

But Chalker-Scott and her fellow Garden Professors eventually "can't take" the . . . ummmm . . . the . . . what we might call . . . anti-scientistic libels anymore.

In an October 13 post she admits, "I’m angry. Really, really angry. . . . [And] this is why I’m mad. There’s widespread perception among nonacademic types that corporate grant money “buys” results. That’s insulting. Most scientists do what they do because they love the thrill of discovery. There’s no thrill if you’ve rigged the results. Moreover, if you rig the results you’re going to be found out . . . eventually."

The next day, her co-blogger, Jeff Gillman, writes a thoughtful post about Where the Money Comes From:

After reading Linda’s excellent post yesterday I got to thinking about all of the discussions I have had over the years with people who didn’t know or understand where we (and by we, I mean my research group) got the money to do the work which we do. Oh, they thought they knew, but they were usually way, way off.

So he then lists five sources:

1. Endowment (a sizable fund whose earnings are used to underwrite a professor's salary, research expenses, etc.).
   
2. Hard ("fixed") funding from the university (to enable a professor to pursue research in line with his or her area of expertise).
   
3. Gifts (one-time presents of money).
   
4. Government Grant.
   
5. Industry Grant ("similar to a Government Grant except that it is given by an industry group, such as the Minnesota Turf and Grounds Foundation, or by a particular company, such as Bayer. Industry groups are a preferred source of income, [because] money from chemical companies, and other independent companies, does have a little bit of a stigma associated with it – it feels like you’re doing something to benefit one company instead of society as a whole. Chemical company money is not sneered at, but often you do have to conduct research that may not be at the top of your priority list").

As for conflicts of interest:

I’d like to conclude by saying that, in the case of dollars from chemical companies, I don’t personally know of any researcher who has purposefully falsified, failed to report, skewed, or selectively excluded data to make the chemical company happier with the results. Doing so would ultimately just make that researcher (and the chemical company) look like an idiot.

I have personally given data to chemical companies which shows that their stuff doesn’t work that well – they don’t like it, but they appreciate it – marketing something that doesn’t work isn’t good for anyone. I do know of a case where a researcher proposed a study to a large chemical company which would examine unseen dangers of a particular pesticide and was turned down – this was disappointing to me. I think that many companies feel that they have a duty to seek out obvious dangers and that the government has a responsibility to fund research investigating unseen or unlikely dangers – but that’s just my own opinion.

My thought: I don't think these professors--or 99.9% of all professors or researchers--engage in any purposefully misleading, fraudulent, or, as Chalker-Scott describes it, "rigged" research. They would be and/or are genuinely horrified to find themselves being charged with acting as shills for big-ag chemical companies like Monsanto.

However, I think Chalker-Scott and Gillman somehow forget the golden rule that "He who has the gold makes the rules." And the "rules" that companies like Monsanto are able to establish include prescriptions of what will be studied (not the specific results that a researcher is to arrive at, but, "simply," the subject matter itself). Companies like Monsanto have enough potential profit to make if a study turns their way, and/or, they believe they can gain enough social capital by funding certain relatively innocuous studies, that . . . it behooves them to fund such studies.

For research projects that could prove wonderfully profitable if it goes "right" (or terribly destructive to the sponsor's bottom line if it goes "wrong"), the sponsor need "merely" track the project as it goes forward. And if it appears test results are heading in the "wrong" direction for the company's interests, the company need "merely" terminate the research and/or deep-six the results.

We'll talk more about some of those kinds of situations in "Follow the money, Part 2."

Meanwhile, organizations like International Ag Labs that have no patentable products that could potentially gain traction in the marketplace if certain research projects turned out in their favor: what incentives do they have to sponsor the kind of research that Chalker-Scott and her cohorts demand?

They have none.

Microbes and Soil

As I began digging into Lynn Margulis' Kingdoms & Domains, I was struck by the diversity of microbial life she describes. And I was struck by the thought that microbes are not only invisible to the naked eye, but they are, as it were, largely invisible to our minds. We don't think about them.

Not only do we not think about bacteria and protozoa; we tend to ignore fungi, algae, worms and beetles, too.

As E. O. Wilson says in the Foreword to Margulis' book:

About 1.8 million species [of living organisms] . . . have been discovered and described [as of 2009]. that includes perhaps three-fourths of the extant hundred thousand or so vertebrates, and, at a guess, ninety percent of the quarter million species of flowering plants thought to exist. But the sixty thousand known fungi are fewer than five percent of the estimated total, and the fewer than twenty thousand named nematode worms, the most abundant animals on Earth, are probably an even smaller fraction of the whole. Moreover, all this ignorance shrinks in the dismaying presence of the "dark matter" of the eukaryotic universe--or if you prefer, the Subkingdoms (Domains) of Archaea and Eubacteria. The exploration of what could turn out to be tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of well-differentiated strains of these subvisible organisms has scarcely begun.

--Kingdoms & Domains, p. lxi

What Wilson says is one way to look at or think about the diversity of life of which we are unaware.

I would like to suggest a few other ways, too . . . for your thoughtful consideration.

1. Dr. Bonnie Bassler of Princeton University describes an amazing bacterial "social life." Yes, they actually communicate . . . in rather intricate ways. --That's the primary thrust of the following video. But she says something else, about a minute into the video, that ought to catch your attention, I think. Paraphrased: The human body has about a trillion cells in it. And those trillion cells host--either in you or on you--about 10 trillion bacteria. You have about 30,000 genes in you; the bacteria you host have about 100 times the amount of genetic material or information. "So," says Bassler, "when I look at you, I think of you as 1 or 10 percent human and either 90 or 99 percent bacterial."
   
   
   
2. Based on a study of the bacteria on 51 different people's hands, researchers found that the average person had more than 150 different species of bacteria living on his or her hands. But get this. The researchers summarize their findings in this way: "[W]e identified a total of 4,742 unique phylotypes [species of bacteria] across all of the hands examined. Although there was a core set of bacterial taxa commonly found on the palm surface, we observed pronounced intra- and interpersonal variation in bacterial community composition: hands from the same individual [i.e., the left and right hands--JAH] shared only 17% of their phylotypes, with different individuals sharing only 13%." [Emphasis added.]
   
3. "Good soil is absolutely teeming with life. . . . A mere teaspoon of good garden soil, as measured by microbial geneticists, contains a billion invisible bacteria, several yards of equally invisible fungal hyphae, several thousand protozoa, and a few dozen nematodes."
   -- Teaming with Microbes, p. 19.
4. "Remember that teaspoon of good garden soil? Perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 different species make up its billion bacteria--a healthy population in numbers and diversity."
   --Ibid., p. 24.
5. "[A]n acre of good garden soil teems with life, containing several pounds (about 1 kilogram) of small mammals; 133 pounds of protozoa; 900 pounds each of earthworms, arthropods, and algae; 2000 pounds of bacteria; and 2400 pounds of fungi."
   --Ibid., p. 28.
6. Allan Savory presents a fairly standard food-web energy pyramid in his Holistic Management book (mentioned in my Monday post, "Weird" Science #3: Soil, Part 1):
   
   
   
   
   I think this is pretty common knowledge: Animals are unable to convert solar energy into forms useful for metabolism. Therefore, in order to survive, they (we!) depend upon plants and algae to convert the energy from sunlight into organic matter--carbohydrates, fats, proteins and innumerable vitamins and phytonutrients--that we are then able to ingest and metabolize for our life needs.
   
   However, Savory pushes this energy pyramid idea forward several more steps . . . in ways I had never imagined . . . primarily due to my blindness to the world of microbes and soil:
   

   The energy pyramid also extends below ground where the energy flow greatly affects . . . a biologically active soil community that [also] requires solar energy to be conveyed underground mainly by plant roots or surface-feeding worms, termites, dung beetles, and others.

   --Holistic Management, pp. 151-152.

From here, things get really strange.

I first heard about what I am about to share in a series of lectures from Acres USA. But now I am reading all about these things, in detail, in Lowenfels and Lewis's truly wonderful Teaming with Microbes.

In the same way we humans have domesticated and now farm plants and animals for our benefit, so (say leading soils researchers) plants have established interdependent, symbiotic relationships with most of the protozoa, earthworms, arthropods, algae, bacteria, and fungi that surround their roots. The plants send food (about half of all the carbohydrates and other nutrients they produce) down to their roots . . . and then, through their roots, they exude these nutrients (in a liquid called exudate), into the soil. This exudate, in turn, feeds the bacteria and other organisms that live in the rhizosphere (the area of the roots).

Meanwhile--hang onto your hat!--the microbes in the soil protect the plants' roots. Literally. And, in many ways, they also feed the plant.

As Lowenfels and Lewis explain things: "In return for exudates, [mycorrhizal] fungi provide water, phosphorus, and other necessary plant nutrients" (p. 25). Similarly, some plants prefer nitrogen in the form of ammonium (NH₄) while others prefer it in the form of nitrate (NO₃). Well guess what? The types of nitrogenous compounds available to plants are largely controlled by the microbes in the soil: "In fungally dominated soils, much of the nitrogen remains in ammonium form." In bacterially dominated soils, certain bacteria will convert the ammonium into nitrate. . . .
******
I'm going to quit here.

. . . Oh!

No I'm not.

I wanted to show you two photographs. So let me do that and then I'll quit.

These two photos are from Teaming with Microbes, pp. 12 and 13.

I said above, "[T]he microbes in the soil protect the plants' roots. Literally."

Lowenfels and Lewis discuss many ways they do this besides what I am about to show you. But these two photos did for me what the authors say they did for them. They woke them up--and they snapped me to attention--and they caused me to think: What is going on that I am unaware of down there under the soil?

The authors explain: "[O]ne autumn, . . . a gardening friend e-mailed two stunning electron microscope pictures. The first showed in exquisite detail a nematode trapped by a single looped fungal strand, or hypha. . . ."

Continuing with the story as the authors tell it:

Wow! This was quite a picture--a fungus taking out a nematode! We had never heard of, much less seen such a thing, and it started us wondering: how did the fungus kill its prey? What attracted the blind nematode to the rings of the fungus in the first place? How did the rings work?

The second image showed what appeared to be a similar nematode, only this one was unimpeded by fungal hyphae and had entered the tomato root. . . .

The authors ask about this photo: "Why wasn't this nematode attacked, and where were the fungal hyphae that killed off the first nematode?"