30 1 min 8 yrs

Better safe than sorry …

Can you believe that the CDC’s “guidelines” on salt are not just misguided, but may actually cause health problems? Say it ain’t so! A new CDC study says that the 1500 mg-level (whatever that is) long sanctioned by Nanny is not just wrong, but that it may lead to an increased risk of heart attacks and death. This is not news to ATW regulars. (Coming next: saturated fat and cholesterol aren’t bad for you afterall.)

More than an increased risk of heart attacks, a reduced salt intake can lead to many problems. So enjoy glorious salt, just not that rubbish, bleached out stuff. Goodness knows what’s in that, but it includes plenty of chemicals. I recommend a decent sprinkling of Maldon Sea Salt with every dish. You’ve never tasted salt ’till you’ve had some of this.



Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. Pete this at least the third time since the demise of the dinosaurs that you have raved about Maldon sea salt.
    Have you got shares in the company?

  2. No shares, no connection whatsoever with the firm. No word of a lie, I simply think the salt they harvest is sensational. I can’t use any other kind now.

    Get a box and put a dab on your tongue. You’ll see what I mean then.

  3. I’ve got some thankyou.
    But I prefer seriously sexy Saxa on my fish and chips..

  4. There is plenty of evidence linking high salt intake with increased blood pressure. Like sugar, it needs to be taken in moderation. Nanny has a point, even if the suggested limit is too low.

  5. Colm,
    No, there is a difference between the flavours of Maldon sea salt and seriously sexy Saxa salt. Maldon is a zinggy refined, “kissed by the sun and the sea” kind of taste such as gentlemen of breeding and Pete might use.

    Whereas seriously sexy Saxa salt is kinda salty and compliments very vinagery Sarsons, and cod. And chips.
    My taste buds are no longer what they were. Gone are the days when I could find the one grain of Maldon hidden in a thousand thousand grains of seriously sexy Saxa salt.
    (I LIKE saying that! Seriously sexy Saxa, seriously sexy…yeah!)

  6. I use Saxa, on my garden path in the winter.

    That’s all table salt is good for.

  7. Well thanks for that Mairin. It seems like I was wrong. Salt is an Aladdins cave of weird and wonderful treasures by the thousand. I notice the website mentions Kosher salt – that should provoke a new debate between Allan and Agitated.. 😉

  8. Pete this at least the third time since the demise of the dinosaurs that you have raved about Maldon sea salt.
    Have you got shares in the company?

    Not at all Agi. this is all Pete needs and he’s salt sorry, sold 😉

    Operating out of traditional black Essex weather-board buildings as it did back in 1882, Maldon Salt remains an enduring symbol of English manufacturing.

  9. Kosher salt comes with a Rabbinic warning advising that too much salt can ruin your beef..

  10. How about, ignore everything Pete says about food?!

    Pete — Do you bring Maldon sea salt round your mum’s on Sundays?

  11. I tend to look at independent reviews of government ‘advice’. Here can be seen clearly how government lies about vaccines so it’s improbable that the government isn’t going to lie about food. After all, it’s not as if government is really concerned about us. Do you think for an instant that David Cameron is concerned about your well-being? Below one can see for oneself from source materials (minutes of meetings, communications, transcripts) the sordid details of the cover-ups and conflicts of interest in the government/pharmaceutical ‘health’ monopoly:

    – Deliberately concealing information from the parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could thus be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program. –


    In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:
    1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either
    a) took no action,
    b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and
    c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;
    2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;
    3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;
    4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;
    5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;
    6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;
    7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;
    8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;
    Notably, all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI’s own Code of Practice.

    And one can find out where ‘sudden infant death syndrome’ comes from.

  12. The government campaigns against tobacco must all be wrong too.

    Light up, boys.

  13. No Phantom – ‘diversionism’ like that doesn’t work any more. I have linked to source materials i.e. the UK government’s own transripts and minutes of meetings. The linkages between corporate pharmaceuticals and government are clear and in writing so you may wish to inform yourself, or you may wish not to be informed: your choice. Now, from your own comments recently, you pointed out that farms are owned by corporate agri-business and seeds are owned by Monsanto – but the agri-businesses and Monsanto are owned by the same interests. It is therefore highly improbable that there is no conflict of interest unless those in charge have suddenly developed some ethics.

  14. No Phantom – it’s corporates taking over government and shafting the public. Nothing to enjoy there.

  15. Corporates are a vast part of the market.

    And the market is always right. 🙂

    Seriously, the government didn’t cause the rise in farm prices for the most part,and lots of farmers think that the price rise is great.

    And government didn’t invent GM seeds, Monsanto scientists did.

    Get your head out of the Paulie Box and start looking at the evidence.

    And no I am not spending the rest of the day in ” debate ” with the Reality Deniers on this either.

  16. Phantom – there’s no debate as there’s nothing to debate. The source documents which reveal the hand-in-glove workings of government and corporates to impose unsafe, untested vaccines on the public are there in my link of 1.38pm. You should “start looking at the evidence”. No ‘conspiracy theory’ – just conspiracy fact, and it is the template for all sectors, including what passes for ‘food’.

  17. Phantom’s unique.

    I’ve never seen anyone else troll the blog where he has posting rights.

  18. I have linked to source materials i.e. the UK government’s own transripts and minutes of meetings.

    You linked to the website of “The British Society for Ecological Medicine”. The document is the opinion of Lucija Tomljenovic.

  19. Lucija Tomljenovic? Sounds like some filthy immigrant the Labour party IMPORTED.

  20. Fews – within the linked document are hyperlinks to the source data. It’s quite easy really and well within the capability of somebody who has actually looked at the content of the report. For example, on page 3 of 45 is found:

    As early as 1981, the JCVI had substantial documentation which associated the measles vaccine with serious adverse reactions including death and long-term adverse neurological outcomes. At the JCVI meeting held on 9th April 1981 (http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/DH_095169), in discussing a paper that summarised all the reports of adverse reactions to the CSM, the following was noted:

    (5.b.) Adverse Reactions to measles vaccine

    “All reports since 1970 of encephalitis, encephalopathy or sudden death shortly after vaccination had been reviewed; 60 patients were involved of whom 8 had died, 36 had made an apparent complete recovery and 16 were left with permanent sequelae. The high proportion of deaths and patients with sequelae was surprising in comparison with the findings of the NCES [National Childhood Encephalopathy Study].”(5.b. Adverse Reactions to measles vaccine)

    See it? It’s the bit that starts with ‘http’ and clicking on that will take you to the archives in which the cited document is found. And from there onwards, just do the same.

    Fews – a couple of questions arise from your post of 5.50pm:

    1. what is the field in which you would claim expertise?
    2. how many vaccinations have you had?

  21. So the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation examined reports of reactions to various vaccinations.

    Seems to be a reasonable thing for them to do.

    For example in Section 6 they discussed that the reaction rate for the UK measles vaccine was 10 times higher than in the USA suggesting that “the combined measles rubella vaccine was more benign”. I assume that this information might have been used in relation to adopting the MMR vaccine.

  22. Indeed Fews, except that the MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps was called Trivirix in Canada. After severe reactions to this vaccine, Canada withdrew the licence so the vaccine was relabelled Pluserix in the UK and employed against British children, but had to be withdrawn in 1992 after children developed meningitis. Of course, these facts should not be reported otherwise the take-up of MMR would be reduced and corporates won’t get their immediate (from MMR jab) and long-term (for provision of other drugs for those damaged by the MMR vaccine) profits:

    Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action

Comments are closed.