MIKIVERSE HEALTH

THE BREAST CANCER HOAX REVEALED

2012-02-17T18:33:00.000-08:00

by Jonathan Landsman

(NaturalNews) It's alarming how a growing number of young women are getting diagnosed with breast cancer - every year - throughout the world! But, there's more to this story than meets the eye - no thanks to the "controlled reality" of conventional media outlets.

Click Here to learn more about the breast cancer hoax by watching our short video or

Copy and paste the link below to watch "The Breast Cancer Hoax revealed" on tv.NaturalNews:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=2C5BBDED498EA360F2A5C0FF727EB38A

Did you know there is a tremendous amount of little known (suppressed) scientific research proving that woman can significantly reduce their risk of breast cancer and many other chronic diseases through natural therapies? In fact, there are literally thousands of medically documented and scientifically proven (natural) ways to cut your risk for disease.

Eating the right foods; participating in immune-enhancing activities; sleeping better and using herbs, supplements, meditation, detoxification techniques can produce powerful results. It's easier than you think!

The NaturalNews Talk Hour presents "Natural Solutions for Breast Cancer" with our special guest Christine Horner, M.D., nationally known surgeon, author, and professional speaker.

"Thank you all for these programs. Bless your heart! - Love and Peace, Marisa"

Former American Cancer Society doctor admits to being brainwashed

For over 10 years, Dr. Christine Horner worked with the American Cancer Society. In fact, she was taught to tell patients "we don't know what causes breast cancer, we don't have any known cure for it, so the best thing women can do is get mammograms and breast exams in an effort to catch it early and save lives". Does this previous statement trouble you - as much as it troubles me?

Since 1972, there's been a war on drugs with over $200 billion collected and the best thing conventional western medicine can say is "we don't know what causes breast cancer". I say it's time to fire every cancer researcher (sponsored by big pharma) and recruit more capable healthcare professionals. Stop wasting our money!

Sadly, Dr. Horner lost her mother to breast cancer while following conventional medical wisdom including mammograms. Needless to say, her world was rocked and became highly-motivated to find a better way of treating disease.

The NaturalNews Talk Hour begins this Thursday evening at 6pm Pacific / 9pm Eastern, and registration is FREE. Click this link - http://www.naturalhealth365.com and enter your email for FREE show details + a FREE gift!

What is wrong with the American diet and lifestyle

Epidemiological studies show that breast cancer rates are much higher in American women versus Asian women. Even when Asian women move to the United States - their risk goes up. In fact, according to scientific research, women that consume the most red meat create a 400 percent greater risk for getting breast cancer!

We need to dramatically improve the quality of our food choices and promote healthy living before it's too late!

This week's guest: Christine Horner, M.D., nationally known surgeon, author, and professional speaker.

Natural Solutions for Breast Cancer - Thu. Feb. 16

Christine Horner, M.D. is a board certified and nationally recognized surgeon, author, professional speaker and a relentless champion for women's health. She spearheaded legislation in the 1990s that made it mandatory that insurance companies pay for breast reconstruction following mastectomy.

She is the author of Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer winner of the Independent Book Publishers Award 2006 for "Best Book in Health, Medicine, and Nutrition". Her book describes all the research-proven natural approaches - foods, herbs, spices, supplements, and activities - that dramatically lower the risk of breast cancer and help women who have this disease improve their chances of living a long healthy life.

The breast cancer hoax exposed! Join us - as we make history. It's time to get the word out about the effectiveness of natural remedies for cancer and other chronic diseases. Share this news with your family and friends and help us improve the lives of millions of people.

Click this link - http://www.naturalhealth365.com and enter your email for FREE show details + a FREE gift!

U.S. SCHOOLCHILDREN NOW SUBJECTED TO SACK LUNCH SEARCHES BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO ENFORCE NUTRITIONAL INSANITY

2012-02-17T18:20:00.001-08:00

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) First it was the TSA searching your underpants at the airport, claiming to be protecting you from "terrorists." Now a local elementary school in North Carolina issearching the homemade lunches of schoolchildren with the goal of forcing children to ditch their nutritious, home-made meals and learn to consume pasteurized, homogenized USDA-approved cow's milk and chemically-laced processed meats that promote cancer.

This is what happened, as reported in the Carolina Journal yesterday:

"A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious."(http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-wit...)

The paper goes on to report:

"The girl's turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day."

Hold on a sec there, partner. There are AGENTS inspecting lunch boxes of schoolchildren?

You thought the TSA was bad? Get ready for school lunch pat-downs!

That's the first highly disturbing part of this entire story. See, the corrupt state is trying to take over everything, including the American family. Telling little Johnny that his mom packed an "inferior" lunch is one way of teaching children that they should worship the state instead of their parents. It's entirely consistent with the actions of pathetic child health sellouts such as California Governor Jerry Brown who recently signed a law giving 12-year-old children the right to "consent" to being injected with Gardasil vaccines as long as they don't tell their parents. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033831_Jerry_Brown_Gardasil.html)

Parents are useless. The state is God. Write that down, boys and girls, as you'll be tested on it later. And please don't tell all the TSA perverts that new jobs are opening up involvingsearching the sacks of elementary schoolchildren, or they'll quit the TSA in droves and line up to be part of anything that might involve touching little children (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=979D7B9F44BA6EAE0DF65B3DE6E4EE33).

In North Carolina, the homemade school lunches that don't meet USDA guidelines are then "enhanced" with what the state calls the "missing items" (the processed meat laced with chemicals, or the dead, pasteurized milk, produced with Bovine Growth Hormones). Parents are then billed (fined) for the additional cost of these "missing" items.

In other words, the state is forcing parents to buy cancer-causing processed foods and feed them to their children!

"What got me so mad," said the girl's mother, as reported in CarolinaJournal.com, "...is, number one, don't tell my kid I'm not packing her lunch box properly. I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn't really care for vegetables." (http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-wit...)

But the other truly disturbing part about all this is that the "official" USDA-approved nutritional requirements for children are nothing more than a total sellout to the corrupt dairy industry! Here, drink pasteurized, homogenized, hormone-produced milk which will probably make the girls hit puberty at age 9 while causing the little boys to grow armpit hair before they're old enough to tie their own shoelaces.

Ditch your healthy food and eat this homogenized crap!

So the girl brought to school a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, some potato chips and some apple juice. Admittedly, it's not the lunch of champions or anything, but guess what the school forced her to eat instead? Chicken nuggets.

Yeah, those are the deep-fried "parts is parts" chicken-like objects made from mechanically-separated chicken (yuck). They probably contain MSG or some other taste-enhancing chemical, too, and they're no doubt fried in genetically-modified soy oil or corn oil. That must be very conducive to a learning environment, huh?

And this elementary school's current home page features a giant photo of children holding up signs that read, "HELP FIGHT HEART DISEASE." (http://whes.hcs.k12.nc.us/) Seriously? Do they honestly think feeding chicken nuggets to preschoolers is an intelligent way to fight heart disease? (Dear God, what has public education come to in America?)

Since when was the state any kind of authority on nutrition anyway?

All this takes a lot of gall for a government that routinely formulates the most nutritionally-depleted school lunch programs and prison food imaginable. If the government was in charge of our nutrition, we'd all be eating genetically modified poison laced with pharmaceuticals and birth control. It's almost like Bill Gates' heavenly recipe for "feeding the world," huh?

Eat this and die. That's what the government's pushing these days. After all, the sooner you all die, the more money the government will save on social security, Medicare and other entitlements it can't afford to pay for much longer. I bet that's one social science lesson these kids aren't taught in school. You're more valuable to the state dead than alive.

The government likes to act like it's all "official" or something, and that it's somehow looking out for the welfare of these children. It was the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services which enforced these loony requirements. According to all those "officials" (i.e. government nutritional morons who eat junk food all day while sitting at their desks and injecting themselves with insulin all day), a "healthy" meal for a child should consist of:

• One serving of meat, such as sausages laced with cancer-causing sodium nitrite, which is linked to a 300% increase in brain tumors in children and a 67% increase in pancreatic cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/007133.html).

• One serving of pasteurized, homogenized, heart-disease inducing cow's milk which also causes allergies, autoimmune disorders and digestive problems.

• One serving of grain, which could be met by serving some nutritionally-depleted white bread.

• Two servings of fruit or vegetables, including those gross canned peaches floating in corn syrup.

Yep! That's the USDA's pathetic definition of nutrition, folks. A bunch of disease-inducing processed dead food that's sanctioned by the very same state that wants a dead population. So it all makes sense, you see.

God forbid the mom that packs a lunch for her child that looks something like this:

• A fresh sprout salad (state officials have never seen living sprouts and would probably condemn them as being too "alive" to be safely consumed. Irradiate it!).

• A fresh avocado sprinkled with paprika and nutritional yeast (huh? Is that a fruit? A vegetable? What does it count for? This would confuse school officials for weeks who would have to convene a committee to study the issue...)

• An egg sandwich made from free-range chicken eggs, served up on gluten-free whole grain English muffins (what? No meat! You are murdering your child, you careless parents! Call Child Protective Services!)

• A bottle of fresh juice made that morning from oranges, carrots, lemons and a hint of ginger. (LIVING food? That's the food of terrorists! Nothing alive is allowed in the schools! Forbidden!)

You see, school officials wouldn't recognize a nutritious lunch of it slapped them across the face. There's nothing quite like being cold-cocked with an egg-and-tomato sprout sandwich.

Instead, these pathetic state "health department" enforcers apparently ended their own nutritional education with health class in high school, which gives you even less education than the innate knowledge of a typical mule, because at least the mule knows to eat the living grass and flowers growing right out of the soil. Yep, I said it: These state officials know less than an ass about nutrition.

Coming next: Government agents inspecting children's meals IN YOUR HOME

But where is this school lunch inspection behavior really heading? Well, since the state loves your children so much, and since it is now the full responsibility of the state to care for your children, vaccinate them, feed them and program their brains with false U.S. history, the next step is government food agents conducting door-to-door surprise inspections at your house!

There's a knock on the door. You foolishly answer it, only to find three trendy government agents with fake smiles plastered on their faces, flashing their badges. "We're from the health department, and we're here to inspect your refrigerator. You have children here, correct?"

The next thing you know, they discovered a sprouting machine on your countertop and your stash of raw milk hidden away in the back of the fridge. "Looks like we got ourselves a food terrorist here!" one of the agents mutters to the other. "Call in CPS! And the SWAT team!"

A few minutes later, you're face down in the dirt in your own front yard, where the local city council fined you for trying to grow tomatoes, by the way (http://www.naturalnews.com/032960_Julie_Bass_home_gardening.html). Health department thugs are grinding a knee into your lower back, and one of them leans in to whisper into your ear: "You think those are YOUR children? WE are their parents now, get it? And we control what they eat and what medicine they get from now on."

One of them cracks the back of your head with the butt of his government-issue rifle, slapping your nose into the soil as a sharp reminder. "And don't make us come back, or we'll have to take your little Johnny away and make him disappear into our world, where there are at least a dozen sexually frustrated agents who are looking for fresh meat, so to speak. Because meat is a USDA requirement, get it?"

That's what could soon be coming your way in America -- a nation that's beginning to resemble North Korea in its total abandonment of human rights and human decency.

When schools denounce the role of parents in feeding their own children -- and when doctors denounce the role of parents in making health care decisions for their own children -- we aren't too far away from the total state-run takeover of parenting.

Worship the state; surrender your children to total sterilization

You think it's a coincidence that the health department wants your children to eat GMO food that's chemically contaminated with brain-damaging excitotoxins? Of course not: The state wants to, at minimum, make your children sterile. If all the toxic GMOs and food chemicals happen to give them cancer or some other chronic disease in the mean time, that's just a bonus dividend paid out by the pharmaceutical industry for all its profiteering on human suffering.

And hey, if your kid actually dies from all the poisonous food, the deadly vaccines, or the radiation fallout from all the deteriorating nuclear power plants across the country, that's just a bonus for Bill Gates who factors it into his depopulation equation: P = P - 1 , where P = Population. Your kid is the "minus one" part of that calculation.

Of course, that's good for the planet, right? So you should be happy to sacrifice your children to the state, as long as their early death brings down CO2 emissions. Just how much carbon dioxide does a pair of tiny lungs generate with its last dying breath, anyway? It gives a whole new meaning to the "depart" segment of the phrase "Health DEPARTment."

That's the point of the Health Department, you see: To make you depart from this world by destroying your health first.

The point is that as long as you follow the USDA, follow the Health Department, and submit to the new "food police" agents conducting random sack searches (and no, I don't mean the TSA again) then you'll get along just fine with the status quo. The government worshippers. The trendy statists who think it takes a village of government agents to raise a child.

It's not enough to raise Amish raw milk farmers at gunpoint, you see, or for the government to destroy $50,000 worth of raw wholesome milk that was about to fed to hungry infants and babies (http://www.naturalnews.com/033220_Rawesome_Foods_armed_raids.html). In order to completely crush all remaining shards of liberty and drive the stake of total tyranny through the American family, the government has to punish nutritional non-conformity. Any parent who attempts to pack a school lunch that does not contain processed cancer-causing meat and pasteurized dead cow's milk shall be punished, blamed and publicly humiliated.

Down with nutrition! Conformity is safety! Obedience is freedom! Chant that mantra of oppression fifty times until you start believe it, and then stop homeschooling your children and send them off to be de-educated in public schools, where both their minds and their bodies are poisoned on a daily basis so that they can grow up to become reporters for CNN.

Bow down before your new God, the all-powerful, all-seeing, all-spying Government. We are your parents now, little children. Worship us and you will be rewarded with coupons and trinkets. We may even give you an iPhone if you take enough vaccines without telling your parents. Shhhh!

Let your voice be heard

The school that allowed this "food police" activity to take place is the West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford, North Carolina. Its web page is:
http://whes.hcs.k12.nc.us/

The school's slogan is: West Hoke Elementary School commits to promoting education by providing an environment conducive to learning.

Really? I guess nutrition doesn't play any role in that learning "environment." Forcing little children to eat processed chicken nuggets and pasteurized, homogenized, dead cow's milk that's filled with pus (yes, that's true) isn't much of a commitment to learning, is it now?

The principal of this school is Jackie Samuels. He is not the bad guy here and may not have even been aware this was going on. It was the state officials who conducted this food police activity at the school, not the school administrators.

The phone number of the school is: 910-875-2584

If you do contact this school or its principal Jackie Samuels, please be polite. Don't go all crazy on 'em. Remember: Teaching is a very tough job, and most teachers are dedicated professionals who genuinely want to help. My beef is with the state officials who conducted these sack lunch searches, not the elementary school staff. Just let principal Samuels know that you don't approve of them allowing government food police use their school as a "food police checkpoint" that only indoctrinates little children into learning obedience to the growing police state.

After all, elementary school is a place of learning. But WHAT are the kids learning if the school teaches them it's okay for government agents to deny them their own lunches and force them to eat processed toxic food instead? The message is clear: Your parents are bad! Government is God! Worship the state, or you will be punished.

CALIFORNIA FAMILY AMBUSHED BY SCHOOL OFFICIALS, TV NEWS CREW AFTER THEY REFUSED TO VACCINATE THEIR DAUGHTER

2012-02-17T17:55:00.000-08:00

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer (NaturalNews) A Sacramento, Cal., family was recently bombarded by a news crew from KXTV News 10 and several officials from the Natomas Unified School District (NUSD) in Sacramento County for not vaccinating their daughter. Cayleh Morrison was one of several students in her neighborhood who legally refused the Tdap vaccination for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (whooping cough), which prompted a surprise ambush at her home that is now the subject of a new lawsuit.Courthouse News Service reports that on September 23, 2011, Heyman Matlock, the student service director of NUSD where Cayleh is a student; a school nurse; and a camera crew from KXTV came unannounced to Cayleh's home in an attempt to forcefully administer the Tdap vaccine to her. The crew not only trespassed private property, but KXTV cameras filmed the house, the family, and a list containing detailed personal and medical information about Cayleh and the other "truant" students, all of which was broadcast on television."Plaintiff Leisa Wells (Cayleh's mother) answered the door and found Mr. Matlock and the nurse on her doorstep, and was shocked to find that she was being filmed head-on by a KXTV television news crew as the crew was standing on her lawn," says the complaint. "Mr. Matlock stated that he was there with the nurse to administer a Tdap vaccination to Cayleh Morrison. Shocked at being filmed in this interaction and with the presumptuousness of Mr. Matlock's approach, she told him forcefully to leave, and closed the door."While canvassing the neighborhood in pursuit of the other unvaccinated children, Matlock apparently also implied to KXTV that Cayleh and the other children were "under an obligation to be vaccinated," which is entirely false. California law provisions that individuals can opt out of getting vaccinated for both medical and philosophical reasons (http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx).But Matlock made no mention of this fact during his apparent vaccination crusade, which the lawsuit identifies as "intentionally disseminat[ing] negative information" that resulted in numerous "unwelcome contacts to the family from numerous places around the country." The family's contact information, of course, was visually displayed on screen during the KXTV report, as part of the charade.Cayleh's family is currently seeking damages for trespass, invasion of privacy, conspiracy, and unlawful dissemination of private information and school and medical records.However, vaccine "non-compliance" stunts like this one could soon be replaced by forced vaccination of students in private, as drug company-backed legislation in California is currently pushing to allow secret vaccinations of young students without parental consent (http://www.naturalnews.com/033629_vaccinations_parental_consent.html).Sources for this article include:http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/10/43779.htm

WHILE GOVERNMENT DISCREDITS RAW MILK, IT KEEPS NAMES OF SALMONELLA OUTBREAK RESTAURANTS SECRET TO PROTECT CORPORATE PROFITS

2012-02-07T19:24:00.001-08:00

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is getting increasingly bold these days with openly admitting that it works directly for big industry interests rather than public health interests. In a recent report on why the agency did not disclose Taco Bell as being the "Mexican-style" restaurant chain involved in a recent salmonella outbreak, the FDA essentially admitted that it is more concerned with upholding a close-knit relationship with big industry players like Taco Bell than it is with being transparent and telling the truth for the public interest.

Last fall, at least 68 people in ten states were infected with salmonella poisoning from food sold at an undisclosed Mexican-style restaurant chain, according to an FDA announcement. At least 20 of these people became so ill that they had to be admitted to the hospital for treatment, and yet, the entire time, the FDA refused to disclose the name of the chain, which was later uncovered to be Taco Bell.

Any rational person can see that disclosing such information is not only pertinent and beneficial to public health efforts, but also a necessity if the information itself is to have any benefit or reason for being announced in the first place. But the FDA disagrees, having told ABC News in a recent interview that the agency often does not disclose this crucial information for fear that "it could have the effect of discouraging ... cooperation between our agencies and the food industry."

What this really means, of course, is that the FDA places a higher priority on catering to its special interests, which in this case includes fast food restaurant chains like Taco Bell, than it does to protecting public health. Obviously the public has a right to know if a major food producer is even potentially selling food that is tainted with harmful bacteria, despite what the FDA claims about the situation.

And yet if this same salmonella outbreak had been in any way linked to raw milk, you can be sure the name of the company involved would have been prematurely published far and wide, even if said outbreak later turned out not to have anything to do with raw milk. This is exactly what happened to Organic Pastures Dairy in California back in December when regulators illegitimately framed the company and shut down its business indefinitely (http://www.naturalnews.com).

Regulators know that naming companies can be used as a weapon to destroy their businesses

When responding to why it did not name Taco Bell as the salmonella offender in the outbreak last fall, the FDA declared that the situation was no longer a hazard, and that disclosing it was not necessary. And one of the FDA's allies expressed a key opinion in the matter that has huge implications for why the agency so heavily attacks small farmers and raw milk dairies.

"In any restaurant after the outbreak is over ... the only thing to gain from giving out the name of the restaurant is that it would lose business," said Dr. William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University about the FDA's policy of withholding company names during outbreaks.

This admission illustrates very clearly that the FDA, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and others know that naming companies severely hurts the businesses involved. This is why these agencies so often name companies allegedly linked to raw milk outbreaks, even before actually showing any evidence that there might be a connection.

Sources for this article include:

http://abcnews.go.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/029178_raw_milk_food_freedom.html

FDA’S NEW CLAIM: “YOUR BODY IS A DRUG—AND WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE IT!”

2012-02-06T17:11:00.001-08:00

FDA’S NEW CLAIM: “YOUR BODY IS A DRUG"

In another outrageous power-grab, FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!

We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-SD™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.

The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Clinic for two reasons:

Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)
The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”

We discussed the very ambiguous issue of interstate commerce last September—it’s an argument the FDA frequently uses when the basis for their claim is otherwise lacking. As we noted then, the FDA holds that an “interstate commerce” test must be applied to all steps in a product’s manufacture, packaging, and distribution. This means that if any ingredient or tool used in the procedure in question was purchased out of state, the FDA would in its view have jurisdiction, just as they would if the final product had traveled across state lines.

This time the FDA just nakedly says in court documents that the agency wants to protect the market for FDA-approved drugs. No more beating around the bush—their agenda is right out in the open! This appears to be a novel interpretation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), as evidenced by the government’s failure to cite any judicial precedent for their argument.

The implication of the FDA’s interpretation of the law, if upheld by the court, would mean that all food, drugs, devices, and biologic or cosmetic products would be subject to FDA jurisdiction. The FDA is expanding its reach even to commerce within the state, which we argue is far beyond its jurisdiction, in order to protect drug company profits.

Last year we ran a two-part series on the current status of federal and state law—and FDA jurisdiction—and how it affects integrative treatments (part one and part two).

The Centeno-Schultz Clinic takes your blood, puts it into a centrifuge machine that separates the stem cells, and a doctor puts them back in your body where there is damaged tissue. The clinic has argued numerous times that stem cells aren’t drugs because they are components of the patient’s blood from his or her own body.

The FDA says otherwise: “Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure, or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. At this time, there are no licensed stem cell treatments.” There they go again, saying that components of your body are drugs and they have the authority to regulate them! It’s the only way the agency can claim that adult stem cell therapy is within FDA’s purview.

However, the agency seems to be of two minds. When ESPN magazine was doing a story on stem cell treatments, the FDA stated that US policy is to allow the injection of stem cells that are treated with “minimal manipulation,” which federal regulations define as “processing that does not alter the relevant biological characteristics of cells or tissues”—which is certainly the case with the Regenexx clinic.

Despite this policy, FDA has been attacking the clinic for the past four years. They have tried injunctions and demanded inspections in their attempts to make the company bend; this court battle is merely the latest salvo.

The primary role of adult stem cells in a living organism is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. The hard part has been to get enough of them. But new technology is giving doctors the ability to obtain more stem cells from a patient than previously thought possible, which is why we’re now seeing new treatments. Blood, fat, or tissue is withdrawn from the patient, stem cells are obtained using one of these new processes, and the cells are injected back into the patient where they can repair the patient’s tissue.

Gov. Rick Perry received this kind of stem cell therapy. We and others noted that the governor’s defense of freedom of healthcare choice when it came to his own treatment was starkly at odds with his directive to administer HPV vaccines to young girls against their own (and their parents’) wishes. It’s also at odds with his support for some of the most egregious witch-hunters on the Texas State Medical Board, which he appoints.

Behind Perry’s blatant inconsistency and the latest FDA attempted power grab lies the same problem: a medical system run by special interests under the leadership of the US government, the same government that is supposed to represent “we the people.”
http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/fdas-new-claim-your-body-is-drugand-we.html?spref=fb

'MOST RUNWAY MODELS MEET THE BMI CRITERIA FOR ANOREXIA', CLAIMS PLUS-SIZE MAGAZINE IN POWERFUL COMMENT ON BODY IMAGE IN THE FASHION INDUSTRY

2012-01-15T16:40:00.000-08:00

By Tamara Abraham

Last updated at 12:08 PM on 12th January 2012

A magazine dedicated to plus-size fashion and models has sparked controversy with a feature claiming that most runway models meet the Body Mass Index criteria for anorexia.

Accompanied by a bold shoot that sees a nude plus-size model posing alongside a skinny 'straight-size' model, PLUS Model Magazine says it aims to encourage plus-size consumers to pressure retailers to better cater to them, and stop promoting a skinny ideal.

Size 12 (U.S.) model Katya Zharkova, 28, stars in the shoot, which has a powerful statistic accompanying each image.

Size matters: PLUS Model Magazine has shot size 12 Katya Zharkova pose with a 'straight-size' model to demonstrate the difference between them

One, printed alongside a photo of the Russian beauty holding a tape measure across her rear, reads: 'Twenty years ago the average fashion model weighed 8% less than the average woman. Today, she weighs 23% less.'

Another states: 'Ten years ago plus-size models averaged between size 12 and 18. Today the need for size diversity within the plus-size modeling industry continues to be questioned.

'The majority of plus-size models on agency boards are between a size 6 and 14, while the customers continue to express their dissatisfaction.'

And finally, further highlighting how poorly the fashion world caters to plus-size women, the magazine tells us: '50% of women wear a size 14 or larger, but most standard clothing outlets cater to sizes 14 or smaller.'

Body image: The Russian beauty poses with a tape measure around her rear alongside a statistic that shows how different models are from real women

In an accompanying editorial, the magazine's editor-in-chief, Madeline Figueroa-Jones, explains that the feature is a response to a fashion and beauty industry which continues to endorse a skinny ideal that is not always healthy and alienates a huge percentage of the market.

She writes: 'We are bombarded with weight-loss ads every single day, multiple times a day because it’s a multi-billion dollar industry that preys on the fear of being fat.

'Not everyone is meant to be skinny, our bodies are beautiful and we are not talking about health here because not every skinny person is healthy.'

Ms Figueroa-Jones says consumers can no longer identify with models; the disparity between real woman and those that grace ad campaigns and the covers of magazines is to wide now.

Body image: The model proudly bares her U.S. size 12 curves in the magazine shoot

'Small women cannot be marketed to with pictures of plus-size women, why are we expected to respond to pictures of small size 6 and 8 women?' she asks.

The PLUS Model Magazine feature has generated a mixed response from its readers though.

While some have praised the statements the shoot makes, others believe that positively endorsing a fuller figure is as dangerous as advocating a skinny one.

Big deal: The magazine wants to encourage women to embrace their bodies as they are, and not strive to emulate an unrealistic ideal

One reader on the magazine's website comments: 'If this article is saying you should feel pretty at any size, fine. but don’t tell me you’re obese and healthy. We have a twisted sense of what healthy is in this country and an even more twisted sense of what people are allowed to say about it.'

Another adds: 'I don’t think the fashion world should support obesity, just as I don’t think it should support anorexia.'

The article has also generated an equal share of agreement, though. Reader Danae writes: 'We all women are brainwashed to believe that we are ugly and men will never look at us if we are not starving... We need more variety of healthy female body images.'

The January issue of PLUS Model Magazine is on sale now; plus-model-mag.com

AWAKENING THE FOUR LEVELS OF THE HEART

2012-01-12T18:08:00.000-08:00

72 YEAR OLD VEGAN SHOWS LITTLE TO NO SIGNS OF AGING -FOX NEWS

2012-01-07T17:19:00.000-08:00

MOUNTAIN DEW ‘DISSOLVES A MOUSE’. IN OTHER NEWS, PEOPLE STILL DRINK MOUNTAIN DEW.

2012-01-03T20:14:00.000-08:00

news.com.au

January 04, 2012

Company claims Mountain Dew soft drink can dissolve a mouse. Picture: Courier Mail The Courier-Mail

Man claims he found a mouse in his can of Mountain Dew
Tasted something foul and spat out the carcass
Company says soft drink would have dissolved the mouse

A MAN is suing Pepsi Co after claiming he found a dead mouse in a can of Mountain Dew.

But the company has denied the man's claims saying the rodent would have been dissolved by the soft drink by the time he drank it.

The Madison County Record reports that oil company worker Ronald Ball was drinking a can of the soft drink purchased from a company vending machine in 2009 when he tasted something foul and spat out the drink to reveal a dead mouse.

He said he sent the remains to the company, who had them tested by experts and then destroyed the mouse.

He is seeking damages of $50,000.

Pepsi denies Ball's claims, and has moved to dismiss the case.

Lawyers for the soft drink giant Pepsi have denied Mr Ball's claims saying testing showed the mouse would have dissolved in the soft drink had it been inside from the time of bottling to the time he claimed to have drank it.

They say the mouse would have dissolved into "jelly”.

PSYCHIATRIST CALLS FOR LITHIUM TO BE ADDED TO WATER

2011-12-07T19:32:00.001-08:00

The Irish Times - Friday, December 2, 2011 GORDON DEEGAN

A consultant psychiatrist last night called on Government to add lithium salts to the public water supply in a bid to lower the suicide rate and depression among the general population.

At a mental health forum on “Depression in Rural Ireland” in Ennistymon, Co Clare, Dr Moosajee Bhamjee said that “there is growing scientific evidence that adding trace amounts of the drug lithium to a water supply can lower rates of suicide and depression”.

Lithium is used by doctors as a mood stabiliser in the treatment for depression.

Dr Bhamjee said: “A recent article in the British Journal of Psychiatry found the beneficial uses of lithium when it was added to the water supply in parts of Texas.”

He said the Government should consider a pilot project for a town in Ireland where lithium salts could be added to the water in very small doses and examine the results.” He said there was already strong precedent for governments intervening in the operation of public water supply for health benefits by adding fluoride.

Dr Bhamjee said that a community would not get “hooked” on lithium “because the doses would be so small”.

He said: “There are 200,000 people suffering from depression in Ireland and the Government must think of new ways of tackling the problem.”

Fine Gael TD and chairman of the Irish Association of Suicidology, Dan Neville, told the forum the average annual suicide rate in Ireland in the 1960s was 64-65.

He said: “Last year, 483 people died by suicide and if you add the 123 undetermined deaths, the suicide number is over 600.”

He said: “This compares to 212 who died by road accidents, which is itself unacceptable.

“Research shows during international recessions, the suicide rate increases by 25 per cent. Ireland has the fourth highest youth suicide rate in Europe.”

Mr Neville added: “Suicide is the most common death for 15 to 24-year-olds and accounts for more than those who die from cancer and road accidents combined.”

The Limerick West deputy said that the attitude in mental health service towards those with mental health problems should be recovery and not containment.

He said: “Early intervention, you have 90 per cent cure and late intervention you have difficulties for life.”

Mr Neville said that with the well-publicised suicide of footballer Gary Speed, it raised contagion or copycat suicide concerns.

HOW TO DOUBLE YOUR BRAIN'S PERFORMANCE

2011-11-30T15:48:00.001-08:00

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

SEVEN FOODS THAT EXPERTS WONT EAT

2011-11-19T16:30:00.001-08:00

By Eddie Sage on 18 November 2011i

1. Canned Tomatoes
The Expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A
The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.”
The solution: Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe’s and Pomi.
2. Corn-Fed Beef
The Expert: Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming
The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. More money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. “We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure,” says Salatin.
The solution: Buy grass-fed beef, which can be found at specialty grocers, farmers’ markets, and nationally at Whole Foods. It’s usually labeled because it demands a premium, but if you don’t see it, ask your butcher.
3. Microwave Popcorn
The Expert: Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group,
The problem: Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize-and migrate into your popcorn. “They stay in your body for years and accumulate there,” says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.
The solution: Pop natural kernels the old-fashioned way: in a skillet. For flavorings, you can add real butter or dried seasonings, such as dillweed, vegetable flakes, or soup mix.
4. Nonorganic Potatoes
The Expert: Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board
The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes-the nation’s most popular vegetable-they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. “Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won’t,” says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher ofPrevention). “I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.”
The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn’t good enough if you’re trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh.
5. Farmed Salmon
The Expert: David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and publisher of a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish.
The problem: Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. “You can only safely eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer,” says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. “It’s that bad.” Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.
The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon. If the package says fresh Atlantic, it’s farmed. There are no commercial fisheries left for wild Atlantic salmon.
6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones
The Expert: Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society
The problem: Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. “When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract,” says North. As it turns out, the casein in milk protects most of it, according to several independent studies. “There’s not 100% proof that this is increasing cancer in humans,” admits North. “However, it’s banned in most industrialized countries.”
The solution: Check labels for rBGH-free, rBST-free, produced without artificial hormones, ororganic milk. These phrases indicate rBGH-free products.
7. Conventional Apples
The Expert: Mark Kastel, former executive for agribusiness and codirector of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods
The problem: If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don’t develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. “Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,” he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson’s disease.
The solution: Buy organic apples. If you can’t afford organic, be sure to wash and peel them first.

http://majortrend.tv/4630/7-foods-experts-won’t-eat/

ARE YOU EATING THIS ALL-TIME FAVOURITE “CANCER-IN-A-CAN” SNACK?

2011-11-07T20:51:00.000-08:00

Posted By Dr.Mercola | November 07 2011

Story at-a-glance

• Stackable chips oftentimes contain solittle actual potato that they cannot, technically, be considered “potatochips”

• One of the most hazardous ingredientsin potato chips is not intentionally added, but rather is a byproduct of theprocessing. Acrylamide, a cancer-causing and potentially neurotoxic chemical,is created when carbohydrate-rich foods are cooked at high temperatures,whether baked, fried, roasted or toasted

• According to a 2005 analysis, ALLpotato chip products tested exceeded the legal limit of acrylamide by 39 to 910times, and baked chip products oftentimes contain more acrylamide than their fried counterparts

• There are more than 800 differentheat-induced compounds, 52 of which are potential carcinogens. Three of themost well-known, aside from acrylamide, include Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs),Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Advanced Glycation End Products(AGEs)

• Ideally, you should consume foods thatare raw or minimally processed to avoid these types of toxic byproducts ofhigh-heat cooking and processing. The more raw food, the better, but strive toconsume at least one-third of your food raw to protect your health

By Dr. Mercola

To understand the nature of Pringles andother stackable chips, forget the notion that they come from actual potatoes inany recognizable way.

The Pringles Company (in an effort to avoidtaxes levied against "luxury foods" like chips in the UK) once evenargued that the potato content of their chips was so low that they aretechnically not even potato chips.

So if they're not made of potatoes, whatare they exactly?

The process begins with a slurry of rice,wheat, corn, and potato flakes that are pressed into shape.

This dough-like substance is then rolledout into an ultra-thin sheet cut into chip-cookies by a machine.

Accordingto io9:

"The chips move forward on aconveyor belt until they're pressed onto molds, which give them the curve thatmakes them fit into one another.

Those molds move through boiling oil ...Then they're blown dry, sprayed with powdered flavors, and at last, flippedonto a slower-moving conveyor belt in a way that allows them to stack.

From then on, it's into the cans ... andoff towards the innocent mouths of the consumers."

I suspect nearly everyone reading thislikely enjoys the taste of potato chips. However, they are clearly one of themost toxic processed foods you can eat—whether they're made from actual potatoshavings or not.

Potato Chips are Loaded withCancer-Causing Chemical

One of the most hazardous ingredients inpotato chips is not intentionally added, but rather is a byproduct of theprocessing.

Acrylamide, a cancer-causing andpotentially neurotoxic chemical, is created when carbohydrate-rich foods arecooked at high temperatures, whether baked, fried, roasted or toasted. Some ofthe worst offenders include potato chips and French fries, but many foodscooked or processed at temperatures above 212°F (100°C) may contain acrylamide.As a general rule, the chemical is formed when food is heated enough to producea fairly dry and brown/yellow surface. Hence, it can be found in:

• Potatoes: chips, French fries andother roasted or fried potato foods

• Grains: bread crust, toast, crispbread, roasted breakfast cereals and various processed snacks

• Coffee; roasted coffee beans andground coffee powder. Surprisingly, coffee substitutes based on chicoryactually contains 2-3 times MORE acrylamide than real coffee

How Much Acrylamide are You Consuming?

The federal limit for acrylamide indrinking water is 0.5 parts per billion, or about 0.12 micrograms in aneight-ounce glass of water. However, a six-ounce serving of French fries cancontain 60 micrograms of acrylamide, or about FIVE HUNDRED times over theallowable limit.

Similarly, potato chips are notoriouslyhigh in this dangerous chemical. So high, in fact, that in 2005 the stateof California actually sued potato chip makers for failing to warnCalifornia consumers about the health risks of acrylamide in their products.A settlementwas reached in 2008 when Frito-Lay and several other potato chipmakers agreed to reduce the acrylamide levels in their chips to 275 parts perbillion (ppb) by 2011, which is low enough to avoid needing a cancer warninglabel.

The 2005 report "How PotatoChips Stack Up: Levels of Cancer-Causing Acrylamide in Popular Brands of PotatoChips," issued by the California-based Environmental Law Foundation (ELF),spelled out the dangers of this popular snack. Their analysis found that allpotato chip products tested exceeded the legal limit of acrylamide by aminimum of 39 times, and as much as 910 times! Someof the worst offenders at that time included:

• Cape Cod Robust Russet: 910 times thelegal limit of acrylamide

• Kettle Chips (lightly salted): 505times

• Kettle Chips (honey dijon): 495 times

Beware: Baked Chips May Be WORSE thanFried!

If you think you can avoid the health risksof potato chips by choosing baked varieties, which are typically advertised asbeing "healthier," think again. Remember that acrylamide is formednot only when foods are fried or broiled, but also when they are baked. And according to U.S. Foodand Drug Administration (FDA) data on acrylamide levels in foods, bakedchips may contain more than three times thelevel of acrylamide as regular chips!

Interestingly, the same trend holds truefor other foods, too, which suggests that baking processed potatoes at hightemperature may be one of the worst waysto cook them. For instance, according to the FDA's data, Ore Ida Golden Friescontained 107 ppb of acrylamide in the regular fried version and 1,098 whenbaked. So remember, ALL potato chips contain acrylamide, regardless of whetherthey are natural or not; baked or fried. Likewise, they will ALL influence yourinsulin levels in a very negative way.

Acrylamide is Not the Only Danger

Acrylamide is not the only dangerousgenotoxic compound formed when food is heated to high temperatures.

A three-year long EU project, knownas Heat-GeneratedFood Toxicants (HEATOX), whosefindings were published at the end of 2007, found there are more than800 heat-induced compounds, of which 52 are potential carcinogens. In addition to their finding that acrylamide does pose a publichealth threat, the HEATOX scientists also discovered that you're far lesslikely to ingest dangerous levels of the toxin when you eathome-cooked foods compared to industrially or restaurant-preparedfoods.

Additionally, the HEATOX findings alsosuggest that although there are ways to decrease exposure to acrylamide, itcannot be eliminated completely.

According to their calculations, successful application of all presently known methods would reducethe acrylamide intake by 40 percent at the most—which makes me wonder whether chip manufacturers have really succeededat this point in reducing acrylamide levels to within legal limits... There'sno updated data as of yet, so there's no telling whether they've been able tocomply with the 2005 settlement.

For more in-depth information aboutacrylamide, I recommend reading the online report Heat-generatedFood Toxicants, Identification, Characterization and Risk Minimization. Ingeneral however, just remember that cooking food at high temperatures is illadvised. A few of the most well-known toxins created in high-temperaturecooking include:

• Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs): These formwhen meat is cooked at high temperatures, and they're also linked to cancer. Interms of HCA, the worst part of the meat is the blackened section, which is whyyou should always avoid charring your meat, and never eat blackened sections.

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs): When fat drips onto the heat source, causing excess smoke, and thesmoke surrounds your food, it can transfer cancer-causing PAHs to the meat.

• Advanced Glycation End Products(AGEs): When food is cooked at high temperatures (including when it ispasteurized or sterilized), it increases the formation of AGEs in your food.When you eat the food, it transfers the AGEs into your body. AGEs build up inyour body over time leading to oxidative stress, inflammation and an increasedrisk of heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease.

The Search for a "Healthful"Chip Continues...

Like a modern-day search for the HolyGrail, chip manufacturers keep searching for methods to improve the image oftheir health-harming but profitable snacks. For example, by the end of 2011,about half of Pepsi's Frito-Lay brand snacks will be reformulated withall-natural ingredients. The switch is part of PepsiCo's master plan to tapinto the healthy foods market share. The WallStreet Journal recently reported the company hopes to boost theirnutrition business from $10 billion to $30 billion by 2020.

The company will remove dietary hazardslike monosodium glutamate (MSG), replacing it with natural seasonings, such asmolasses and paprika. Artificial colors will be replaced with beet juice,purple cabbage and carrots. All in all, about different 60 snacks are scheduledto get an all-natural makeover.

This is certainly a good example of howconsumer demand can alter the direction of food manufacturers in a positiveway.

The reformulated chips may end upbeing less bad for you than theoriginal formulations. However, chips will never be truly healthful. All-natural chips may be the lesser of twoevils, but if consumed regularly, they will still push your health in the wrongdirection... There's no getting away from the fact that modern plagues such ascancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes have a dietary component, andpotato chips and French fries will always be a losing bet if you want to avoidbecoming another disease statistic.

How to Avoid Heat-Induced Toxins in YourDiet

Ideally, you should consume foods that are rawor minimally processed to avoid these types of toxic byproducts—the more rawfood, the better. Mynutrition plan emphasizes the need for at least one-third of yourfoods to be consumed raw. Personally, I consume about 80 percent of my foodraw, and I find it is one of the most important factors that help keep mehealthy.

It may take you awhile to switch over to aless processed diet, but throwing out the most obvious culprits would be agreat start.

These would include:

• French fries and potato chips

• All sodas (both regular and diet, asartificial sweeteners may be more problematic than fructose)

• Doughnuts

Healthy Eating Made Easy

Aside from creating potentially toxicbyproducts, cooking and processing also depletes the food of valuablemicronutrients, which is another reason for eating as much raw food aspossible. This includes protein sources such as eggs. Rawwhole eggs from organic, pastured chickens are an incredible source ofhigh-quality nutrients that many are deficient in. Raw milk is another goodexample of a food that is beneficialin its raw state but becomes harmful after it is pasteurized.

By opting for foods that will benefit yourhealth, such as raw, preferably organic and/or locally-grown vegetables,organic grass-fed meats, healthyoils, raw dairy, nuts and seeds, you can change your health for the better.These are the foods that are truly natural, and quite easy to prepare once youget the hang of it.

For a step-by-step guide to make thetransition to a healthier diet as simple and smooth as possible, simply follow the advice in myoptimized nutrition plan.

Remember, eating fresh whole foods is the"secret" to getting healthier, losing weight and really enjoying yourfood. It's unfortunate that so many are under the mistaken belief that it's"next to impossible" to create a meal without processed foods. BruceWeinstein and Mark Scarbrough tackle this issue head-on in their book RealFood Has Curves, which is a great starting point to "relearn" thebasics of how to enjoy and prepare real food.

Once you get used to it, you'll find youcan whipup a healthful meal from scratch in the same amount of time it wouldhave taken you to drive down the street to pick up fast food. The maindifference will be greater satisfaction, both physically and mentally, andperhaps even financially, as processed foods typically end up being more expensive thancooking from scratch.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/07/the-shocking-true-story-of-how-pringles-are-made.aspx?e_cid=20111107_DNL_art_1

DOES ADYA CLARITY DECALCIFY & REMOVE HEAVY METALS?

2011-10-05T18:12:00.000-07:00

NATURALNEWS EXPOSES SECRET VACCINE INDUSTRY TIES AND MILITARY INVOLVEMENT WITH INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, REVEALS FATAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AT IOM

2011-08-29T20:07:00.000-07:00

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The Institute of Medicine is suddenly in the news following the release of its vaccine "adverse events" research which found that MMR vaccines actually cause measles, seizures and anaphylactic shock. The old media predictably distorted the story and used it to deceptively announce that "vaccines are not linked to autism!"

In falsely reporting this study from the IoM, however, the old media reporters never bothered to even read the adverse reactions report. Nor did they ask a few simple questions such as "Who is funding the Institute of Medicine? And what is the agenda of the IoM?"

Today, NaturalNews publishes a stunning story about the IoM which reveals this government-created non-profit to be a key player in the military medical complex involving a shady network of weapons manufacturers, the Department of Homeland Security, top pharmaceutical companies and population control globalists such as Bill Gates. Here, we expose who's giving the IoM money and why the actual sources of funding behind the IoM destroy any credibility it once claimed to have on the subject of public health.

We've already published the first honest assessment of the IoM's report in a news item posted yesterday:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_I...

That story takes an honest investigative look at the IoM and what its report really says. The old "dinosaur" media, as usual, has predictably twisted this story around and falsely claimed that it gives vaccines a clean bill of health. Only NaturalNews (and other alternative media organizations) dares tell the truth while questioning the IoM's financial ties and funding sources. The entire mainstream media blindly accepts the IoM's "authority" as beyond reproach, neglecting to conduct basic journalism and follow the money as NaturalNews is doing.

By the way, you can view the IoM's full report for yourself at:
http://naturalnews.com/files/Advers...

Why does the truth about the Institute of Medicine really matter?

Because the IoM is positioned by the federal government as an independent, "prestigious" organization whose decisions are based on scientific facts. When the U.S. government rolls out its upcoming mandatory vaccination requirements, it will cite the Institute of Medicine as the source that said vaccines were safe (even though that's a lie).

The FDA, for example, cites the Institute of Medicine is setting its own vaccine policies (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVa...). The USDA also turns to the IoM for its recommendations on things like school lunch programs (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/pressre...).

Even more to the point, President Obama's recent demand that health insurance companies pay for birth control medication was based on the Institute of Medicine's recommendation (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/01/...). It was the IoM that put forth the guidelines to "require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services" including "FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling."

Even the CDC commissioned the IoM to study the control of viral hepatitis infections, after which the CDC quickly advised that all infants should be injected with multiple hepatitis vaccines "...as soon as they are stable and washed." In this same set of recommendations, the IoM advised that students who are not vaccinated against hepatitis B should not be allowed to attend school. (http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/IOMnew...)

The IoM, in other words, is the go-to organization for the setting of government health policy. Never mind the fact that the IoM is two-thirds funded by government itself and also takes money from the world's top vaccine manufacturers. The conflicts of interest within the IoM are not merely notable, but severe conflicts of interest. They are so prominent, in fact, that no person in their right mind should believe a word the IoM says about vaccines, yet both the government and the mainstream media is positioning the IoM as (somehow) being a trustworthy independent non-profit that tells the truth about vaccines.

Even the Washington Legal Foundation (http://www.wlf.org), a group that advocates free choice in health care (and personal freedom in general), charged that the FDA could not legally accept recommendations from the Institute of Medicine because the committee members put forth by the IoM did not meet the lawful requirement of being "fairly balanced."

"Using advice from a committee that lacks fair balance encroaches upon Congress' mandate that each Advisory Committee should be representative of a broad range of viewpoints and should include affected individuals," said WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp after filing WLF's Citizen Petition. (http://www.policymed.com/2011/07/in...)

This is where the danger really lies. Everybody else in government listens to the IoM and usually adopts its recommendations as public health policy. And yet the IoM is actually run and financed by a complex network of globalists and vaccine promoters, as you'll see below.

Because of the IoM's unchallenged influence in setting public health policy, we are all being set up for a military-run mass vaccination campaign funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and relying on vaccine-tracking information technology from companies like Northrup Grumman, a weapons manufacturer with a history of illegal international arms trafficking. (More details below.)

This is what vaccines have become in America today: A military agenda against the People. And the IoM sits at the hub of influence for this diabolical command center. This is all explained in more detail in the rest of this story, as well as in upcoming stories about the IoM slated for publication here on NaturalNews.

Please share this story far and wide so that your friends and colleagues can learn the truth about the IoM and where its money really comes from.

I wish to thank the NaturalNews Facebook fans who conducted much of this research to help us find the truth behind the Institute of Medicine (www.Facebook.com/HealthRanger)

The IoM's secret ties to the military and weapons manufacturers

The Institute of Medicine was created by Congress in 1970. On its website, the IoM claims "we do not receive direct federal funding for our work," which as you will soon see is a highly misleading statement, given that 64.9% of the IoM's funds actually come from the federal government.

NaturalNews learned that the IoM is funded by the Who's Who of the most evil corporations, non-profits and government organizations involved in things like secret medical experiments on humans, global population control agendas, the spread of degenerative disease, international arms trafficking and crimes against humanity (see list below).

The IoM is also blatantly deceptive about where its funding comes from. While its website claims it does not receive federal funding for its work, an investigation by Senator Coburn's office reveals that 55% of the IOM's funding comes from the government (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/ind...). This number varies year to year, of course, and we've found documentation showing this number to be as high as 64.9%.

It all begs the question: Why would the IoM try to hide the fact that it receives so much money from the federal government? We'll get more into that later, but first, check out some of the government organizations from which the IoM receives its money:

Government departments that fund the IoM

• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of Defense
• Department of Health and Human Services
• EPA (in charge of allowing corporate pollution of our nation)
• USDA (the pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO sellout)
• Social Security Administration

In all, two-thirds of the IoMs money comes from government sources, several of which are military and "homeland security" related. What this reveals is that various government agencies function as "shell companies" to funnel money into the IoM. More than five percent of the IoM's funding comes from the Department of Defense, and a further 3.6% comes from the Department of Homeland Security.

It makes you wonder: What does WAR have to do with medicine? Well, everything, as you'll soon see. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security requested that the IoM conduct a workshop entitled, "Medical Preparedness for a Nuclear Detonation in a Major U.S. City". (http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Nuc...) The workshop "assessed the ability of emergency services, healthcare, and federal, state, and local authorities to respond to a nuclear weapon equivalent to 10 kilotons of TNT detonated during a workday in a central business district of a large U.S. metropolitan area."

The IoM even managed to twist the terror attacks of 9/11 into its own pro-vaccine agenda, issuing a strongly worded press release on November 5, 2011 which declared, "[America's] capacity to develop, produce, and store vaccines to deal with these agents is inadequate to meet the nation's needs." The IoM then recommended the creation of a "National Vaccine Authority" which would be used to spearhead the U.S. government getting into the vaccine manufacturing business in what the IoM calls a "the creation of a government-owned, contractor-operated national vaccine facility." (i.e. the federal government actually manufacturing vaccines, mandating their use, outlawing lawsuits against vaccines and imprisoning those who refuse to take them). (http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20An...)

The IoM describes this "vaccine authority" as a group that "...could become a source of appropriate reliable information to the media health care personnel, policy-makers, and the public." (i.e. a vaccine propaganda Ministry of Truth.)

Vaccinating all the children of the world

Immediately following this recommendation, the IoM published a document called "The Children's Vaccine Initiative: Achieving the Vision" which it describes as "...an international endeavor to ensure that children throughout the world are immunized. One of the best opportunities to address the growing problem of immunization in the United States ...lies in marshaling the vaccine development and production efforts in the United States and abroad." (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?reco...)

In addition to receiving funds from the DOD and DHS, the IoM also allows its key reports to be reviewed by weapons manufacturers before they are published. Its recent report on vaccine adverse reactions, for example, was reviewed by Sam Shekar from the military defense contractor Northrop Grumman, a weapons manufacturer and military technology engineering company that has been caught engaging in illegal international arms trafficking by the U.S. State Department. A subsidiary of Northrup Grumman "provided portions of the computer source code of Air Force One to a Russian company in 1998," reports Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northr...).

Northrup Grumman also illegally sold computer guidance systems to Angola, Indonesia, Israel, China, Ukraine and Yemen.

On the health front, Northrup Grumman was awarded a key role in a $5 billion grant from the CDC to run a "public health" information technology program. (http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/...)

What's a public health information technology program? It is a cybersecurity technology system used to track people who have been vaccinated while monitoring the spread of infectious disease (which the IoM admits is caused by the vaccines themselves). Remember: Most people who are diagnosed with infectious disease are the very same people who were vaccinated against those diseases! (http://www.naturalnews.com/033399_v...)

We suspect this technology will likely be used to track and enforce an upcoming militarized mandatory vaccine agenda in much the same way that IBM sold its technology to the Nazi regime in World War II to track Jewish prisoners as they were hauled off to concentration camps. (http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/h...)

In this, we have a blurring of the lines between military and medicine. The theme that emerges from all this is that conventional medicine is being militarized, and the signs of that are all around us (see more, below). For example, the FDA has stepped up its armed raids on innocent dairy farmers, using "shock troop" tactics while borrowing techniques from the KGB to build a network of spies and infiltrators (http://www.naturalnews.com/033428_F...).

That an international arms trafficker is now being given grant money by the CDC to engineer and run a "CDC global health mission" is a direct admission of the globalist agenda behind these criminal organizations. The Northrup Grumman press release on this admits that the contract work with the CDC will be conducted in "50 countries around the world" involving "20 business and university partners."

Private sources of money for the Institute of Medicine

While 64.9% of its funding comes from the federal government, 32.7% comes from private sources. See page 55 of the following report to see for yourself:
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/Pr...

That funding chart does not break down private sources of money for the IoM, so once again, NaturalNews turned to its researchers on Facebook (www.Facebook.com/HealthRanger) to find out where all this money is actually coming from. The answers may surprise you.

For starters, the IoM receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which is, of course, a total front for vaccines and Big Pharma. This alone completely biases the IoM, as having financial ties with this foundation is really like being caught with your hand in the vaccine cookie jar.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for those who don't know, recently declared this to be the "decade of vaccines" (http://www.naturalnews.com/031703_B...) and pledged ten billion dollars to make sure that every man, woman and child on the planet is injected with at least one vaccine shot, and preferably several.

And what's the real agenda behind this? Bill Gates has publicly stated that vaccines will be used to reduce the global population. Specifically, he says, "The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent." (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v...)

Watch the video of Bill Gates saying this at:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A...

By accepting money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Medicine is taking part in a campaign of human genocide while exposing its own pro-vaccine interests.

Bill Gates is also listed as a "lifetime contributor" to the IoM, giving "$100,000 or more" to the IOM. Other contributors who gave big money to the IoM include Margaret Hamburg, the current head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the same agency currently masterminding KGB-style infiltration schemes and running an illegal network of government spies to destroy the raw dairy industry (http://www.naturalnews.com/033428_F...).

In addition, globalist Ted Turner is listed as a major contributor. See the rest of the names of those who give money to the IoM at the end of this article -- it's a who's who of globalists, financial elitists, pharma executives and vaccine pushers, including people with links to the Federal Reserve, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefellers and more.

Junk food promoters found funding the Institute of Medicine

Beyond taking money from the genocidal Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the IoM is also funded at times from junk food and soda companies such as PepsiCo (http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Mit...)

Even more interestingly, a prominent board member of PepsiCo is also a member of the Institute of Medicine: Victor J. Dzau, a conventional medical doctor, has made the rounds through Harvard Medical School and Duke University. Now he's a top PepsiCo board member while simultaneously serving as a director of these three pharmaceutical and medical device companies: Genzyme Corporation, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Medtronic, Inc. (http://www.pepsico.com/Company/Boar...) and (http://people.forbes.com/profile/vi...)

Ring any bells? Medtronic is the company that was recently caught bribing a doctor to fabricate study results (http://www.naturalnews.com/027745_M...). The company was also caught up in allegations of Medicare fraud (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/b...) and was sued by 22 states, which said Medtronic "unlawfully and unabashedly developed, marketed and promoted its biliary stent medical devices for uses unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration." (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_art...)

Genzyme Corporation, on which Victor Dzau also sits as a board member, is a fully owned subsidiary of Sanofi-Aventis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genzyme), one of the world's largest vaccine manufacturers and the company that recently received hundreds of millions of dollars in government vaccine contracts for the hyped up H5N1 swine flu scare. Sanofi-Aventis admittedly received $192.5 million from the U.S. government just in the second quarter of 2008 to produce vaccines for a "pandemic stockpile" against H5N1 (http://en.sanofi.com/press/press_re...).

Genzyme produces medicines to treat kidney disease, one of the most common side effects of flu vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/030299_v...) In this way, the more vaccines that are injected into people, the more kidney disease drugs can be sold by companies such as Genzyme.

And yet Genzyme has questionable health practices itself! In June, 2009, Genzyme's U.S. manufacturing plant was shut down due to the discovery that it suffered from a "viral contamination." In November of 2009, "fragments of stainless steel, rubber, and fiber-like material were discovered in some of Genzyme's drugs," after which the FDA said all those drugs should stay on the market because there was no evidence of any side effects from those materials. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genzym...)

Not surprisingly, Victor Dzau was named a "Distinguished Scientist" by the American Heart Association and was the recipient of the 2004 Max Delbruck Medal, Berlin, Germany. Max Delbruck, by the way, was a German biophysicist who promoted the idea that living systems (including humans) are nothing more than biochemical robots, and his work on molecular genetics was, in many ways, ground-laying work for modern-day genetic engineering (GMOs).

Other board members of PepsiCo, in case you were curious, read like a who's who of the most powerful (and some say "evil") corporate giants in the world: JP Morgan, Colgate-Palmolive, Google, Novartis AG and more.

Beyond PepsiCo, the IoM also receives money from these producers of processed dead foods, fast foods and foods made with (collectively) hundreds of different synthetic chemicals and preservatives:

• Kraft Foods, Inc.
• Mars Incorporated
• McDonald's Corporation
• Mead Johnson Nutritionals

The IoM's ties to Big Pharma

In addition to its ties with junk food companies, the IoM receives millions of dollars in grant money from pharmaceutical companies, using that money to create new staff positions which claim to be "providing the nation with sound advice grounded in scientific evidence, to improve people’s health and well-being." For example, the IoM received this $2 million grant from a pharmaceutical company (Schaeffer): http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/Suppor...

Schaeffer is a total pharma insider, according to Forbes Magazine, which lists him as the director of pharma giant Allergan, Inc: http://people.forbes.com/profile/le...

Allergan is most famous for producing BOTOX, a cosmetic treatment made from a deadly viral strain best known for killing people through food poisoning.

In addition, the IoM has financial ties to Merck, Pfizer, Astrazeneca and nearly all the top pharmaceutical companies, most of which also profit from producing and selling vaccines:

• AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P.
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
• Eli Lilly and Company
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC
• Merck & Company, Inc.
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
• Pfizer, Inc.
• Sanofi Pasteur
• Sanofi-aventis
• Wyeth

In addition to promoting pharmaceutical interests, the IoM has also pushed its agenda of regulating dietary supplements as if they were drugs, thereby hoping to outlaw virtually all supplements sold on the market today (http://www.anh-usa.org/u-s-institut...).

IoM's huge conflicts of interest with vaccine producers

Notably, the pharmaceutical companies listed above represent the top vaccine producers on the planet, once again showing that the IoM has severe conflicts of interest in producing a report on vaccine adverse reactions.

This is like the fox guarding the hen house! If the IoM told the truth about the dangers of vaccines, it would risk losing a significant portion of its funding and discrediting many of its most prominent financial supporters. (It makes you wonder: Why didn't Forbes raise this question? Or the NY Times? Or Washington Post? Or any mainstream media organization? Why is real journalism dead in America today everywhere except in the alternative media like NaturalNews, which is fast becoming the most popular choice for discerning readers?)

In addition, vaccines cause the very health conditions which are profitably treated by the pharmaceutical products of these companies. Thus, today's entire medical racket of treating sickness and "managing disease" requires that disease to be propagated in the first place. Vaccines play a key role in causing immunological disorders, compromising the nervous system, damaging kidneys, promoting cancer and causing the very diseases that keep Big Pharma in business.

If you're skeptical of that, watch this stunning, jaw-dropping video admission of much of this from a top Merck scientist, the "father" of many modern vaccines, who openly admits that vaccines contain hidden cancer viruses:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=13EAA...

The IoM's ties to foundations and globalist groups

The IoM also receives funding from other institutions (such as NIH) which are funded by government -- and they largely operate as pharma front groups to push more vaccines, more pharmaceuticals and more medications for Americas; often while downplaying any role of nutrients such as vitamin D.

Here's a list of some of the non-profit groups that donate money to the IoM. Note the presence of all the corporatists and globalists:

• W. K. Kellogg Foundation (tied to the Kellogg's cereal company)
• The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• Merck Company Foundation
• The Rowe Family Foundation
• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Global Impact Funding Trust, Inc.
• The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
• The Whitehead Foundation (ties to Goldman Sachs, and John C. Whitehead was a former board member of the Federal Reserve. He also oversaw the Whitehead family's fortune of investments in the Rockefeller Group.)

IoM's ties to globalist food and agriculture companies

The food and agriculture companies that give money to the IoM represent some of the most evil corporations in the world, including Monsanto which seeks to dominate the world food supply through its GMO seed technologies.

Here are some of the food and agriculture companies that financially support the IoM:

• Cargill, Inc.- sold ground turkey widely contaminated with salmonella, which resulted in fatalities (http://www.naturalnews.com/033283_g...)

• ConAgra, Inc.- sued for falsely labeling GMO oils as "natural" (http://www.naturalnews.com/news_000...)

• General Mills, Inc. - engaged in deceptive food labeling (http://www.naturalnews.com/031053_G...)

• McDonald’s Corporation - sells Chicken McNuggets that contain an industrial chemical (http://www.naturalnews.com/032820_C...)

• Monsanto Company - voted "most evil corporation" by NaturalNews readers (http://www.naturalnews.com/030967_M...)

• PepsiCo, Inc. - produces aspartame-laden diet soft drinks also made with high-fructose corn syrup. Uses MSG throughout many of its snacks.

As you can see, these companies aggregately support factory farmed animal meat production, dishonest and deceptive food labeling, "terminator" seed technology that destroys seeds and is contributing to the global spread of suicides by farmers, the promotion of obesity and diabetes through the use of high-fructose corn syrup, the neurotoxic poisoning of consumers through aspartame-sweetened beverages, monopolistic trade practices, abuses of the court system and much more.

If Hell had a board of directors, many of these corporations would have members sitting on it. And these are the members who financially support the Institute of Medicine.

Interestingly, the IoM also has financial ties to several health insurance companies who profit from sickness, disease and vaccines, including Aetna Inc. and Kaiser Permanente.

The IoM's financial ties to the sickness and disease industry

Not surprisingly, the IoM is funded by a large number of influential (and wealthy) organizations in the cancer industry, the diabetes industry, and the sickness industry in general.

Here are some of the national groups -- all of which profit from disease -- that funnel money to the Institute of Medicine:

• American Association for Cancer Research
• American Cancer Society, Inc.
• American Chemistry Council
• American Diabetes Association
• American Hospital Association
• American Medical Association
• American Nurses Association
• American Society of Clinical Oncology
• Association of American Medical Colleges
• College of American Pathologists
• Critical Path Institute
• Infectious Diseases Society of America
• National Association of Chain Drug Stores Foundation
• National Society of Genetic Counselors
• Oncology Nursing Society
• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
• Task Force for Child Survival and Development

As you can probably tell, nearly all of these organizations are pro-chemical, pro-chemotherapy, pro-vaccine, anti-nutrition, anti-health freedom organizations that function as disease parasites on society, profiting from sickness rather than showing people how to be healthy. None of these organizations, for example, has yet to firmly promote vitamin D as a simple, low-cost, nearly-miraculous nutrient that can prevent cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, depression, gum disease, kidney disorders and many other health conditions.

They are all steeped in the false mythology of western medicine and its drugs-pushing, profit-seeking agenda which includes the mass vaccination of the population.

IoM is headed by pro-vaccine globalists with ties to WHO, CDC

After learning who funds the IoM, you might still be wondering: Who runs the Institute of Medicine?

The IoM is currently headed by Dr. Harvey Fineberg, a globalist with ties to the World Health Organization, which of course heavily pushed its H5N1 swine flu vaccination charade through a "panel of experts" who were taking money from the pharmaceutical companies to declare a global pandemic when there wasn't one. The whole purpose of this conspiracy involving the WHO and the CDC was to sell more vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029481_v...)

Dr. Fineberg also has ties to the CDC, the other group pushing vaccines and killing children through its incessant infectious disease mongering. The CDC's own vaccine research scientist, Poul Thorsen, has been indicted under federal law for alleged money laundering (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_T...). See the Web of Alleged Fraud involving the CDC, Merck, Thorsen and medical journals at: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/We...

In 1988, Dr. Fineberg received the Joseph W. Mountin Prize from the CDC. Fineberg is, predictably, a Harvard graduate where he earned a conventional medical degree from Harvard Medical School plus a Ph.D. in government from a Harvard graduate school. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey...) Harvard is a source for many of the most despicable medical globalists who promote things like GMOs, vaccines and even chemotherapy for children.

Fineberg also served as the president of the Society for Medical Decision Making, a Big Pharma front group that promotes the use of vaccines and pharmaceuticals while claiming to follow a "scientific" decision process. This group receives money from the PhRMA Foundation, a total Big Pharma money funneling outfit that uses its grant money to influence the work of other organizations. It is funded by Merck, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and all the big pharmaceutical players.

Dr. Fineberg is a pro-vaccine globalist who even describes the 1976 swine flu vaccination fiasco which killed hundreds of Americans and damaged thousands from vaccine side effects a "qualified success" because it resulted in 40 million Americans being vaccinated. The way these vaccine pushers think, the more people get vaccinated, the better... no matter how many people die in the process. They literally do not seem to mind sacrificing the lives of innocent people as long as more vaccines can be injected into the masses.

To this day, the IoM still will not openly admit that the 1976 swine flu vaccines killed anyone at all. In fact, the IoM was instrumental in laying out the false fairy tale that swine flu vaccines were never responsible for Guillain-Barre syndrome. As the totally discredited government website Flu.Gov explains:

"The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had a slight increased risk for developing GBS. Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown." (http://answers.flu.gov/questions/4204)

In other words, they swept it under the rug and now pretend such a link doesn't exist.

A total Big Pharma cesspool of money, influence and quackery

Essentially, what we're looking at here with Institute of Medicine, its director, its funding sources and its laughably unscientific conclusions is an orgy of Big Pharma money and influence peddling masquerading as scientifically-grounded public health.

When the IoM recently issued its report on vaccine adverse effects, what it was essentially doing was running interference for all its financial supporters which are, of course dominated by vaccine manufacturers and dubious government organizations such as the Dept. of Health and Human Services which oversees the criminal U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The point of all this is to spread the fabricated story that "vaccines are essentially safe" and thus there is no harm in mandating that the entire population be injected with them.

That's what's coming soon, you see: A mandatory vaccination policy which will no doubt cite this IoM report as being a "credible" and "scientific" review of all the evidence concerning vaccines. Such a claim would be, of course, completely laughable if it weren't dealing with life and death issues.

Countless children are killed every year by vaccines, and many more become autistic after their nervous systems collapse in the hours or days following vaccine injections. And yet what's clear from all the attacks, the lies, the cover-ups and the total criminal corruption from the medical industry that we've seen over the past couple of years is that the medical military establishment is desperately trying to destroy or dismiss all the evidence linking vaccines to autism.

This IoM report is essentially the work of vaccine industry cover-up con artists and quacks who are protecting their financial sponsors: the vaccine manufacturers.

Is anyone really surprised?

List of other big-money contributors to the IOM

Who else supports the Institute of Medicine? Here are some of the biggest individual contributors. NaturalNews has not yet had the time to research the backgrounds and globalist ties of these individuals. If you recognize any of these names as being involved in the vaccine industry, the banking industry or the military industrial complex, please let us know so we can update this article:

John Abelson
Bruce and Betty Alberts
Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson
John and Lise Armstrong
Richard C. and Rita Atkinson
Norman R. Augustine
Francisco J. and Hana Ayala
William F. Ballhaus, Sr.
Craig and Barbara Barrett
Jordan and Rhoda Baruch
Warren L. Batts
Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr.
Kenneth E. Behring
C. Gordon Bell
Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp
Diane and Norman Bernstein
Mrs. Elkan R. Blout
Harry E. Bovay, Jr.
David G. Bradley
Donald L. Bren
Sydney Brenner
Fletcher and Peg Byrom
Russell L. Carson
Ralph J. and Carol M. Cicerone
A. James Clark
James McConnell Clark
Dale and Jeanne Compton
Roman W. DeSanctisa
Robert and Florence Deutsch
George and Maggie Eads
Robert and Cornelia Eaton
Richard Evans
Harvey V. Fineberga and Mary E. Wilson
Tobie and Dan Fink
George and Ann Fisher
Harold K. and Betty A. Forsen
William L. and Mary Kay Friend
Eugene Garfield
William H. Gates, III
T. H. Geballe
Penny and Bill George
Nan and Chuck Geschke
Bernard M. Gordon
Barbara N. Grossman
Corbin Gwaltney
Margaret A. Hamburg and Peter F. Brown
William M. Haney, III
Michael and Sheila Held
Jane Hirsh
M. Blakeman Ingle
Joan and Irwin Mark Jacobs
Robert L. and Anne K. James
Anita K. Jones
Thomas V. Jones
Trevor O. Jones
Kenneth A. Jonsson
Yuet Wai and Alvera Kan
Fred Kavli
Cindy and Jeong Kim
Olga Kirchmayer
Frederick A. Klingenstein
William I. Koch
Jill H. Kramer
John W. Landis
William W. Lang
Geralda and Doris Laubach
Whitney and Betty MacMillan
William W. McGuirea
Burton and DeeDee McMurtry
Richard and Ronay Menschel
Dane and Mary Louise Miller
Mrs. G. William Miller
George and Cynthia Mitchell
Gordon and Betty Moore
Joe and Glenna Moore
David and Lindsay Morgenthaler
Richard M. Morrow
Philipa and Sima Needleman
Gerda K. Nelson
Ralph S. O’Connor
Peter O’Donnell, Jr.
Kenneth H. Olsen
Doris Pankow
Lawrence and Carol Papay
Jack S. Parker
Shela and Kumar Patel
Percy Pollard
Robert A. Pritzker
Dr. and Mrs. Allen E. Puckett
Ann and Michael Ramage
Simon Ramo
Carol and David Richards
Anne and Walt Robb
Henry M. Rowan
George Rowe, Jr.
Jack W.a and Valerie Rowe
Mrs. Joseph E. Rowe
William J. Rutter
Stephena and Anne Ryan
Jillian Sackler
Raymond and Beverly Sackler
Henry and Susan Samueli
Bernard G. and Rhoda Sarnat
Leonard D. Schaeffera
Wendy and Eric Schmidt
Sara Lee and Axel Schupf
Shep and Carol Ruth Shepherd
Melvin I. Simon
Georges C. St. Laurent, Jr.
Charlotte and Morry Tanenbaum
Ted Turner
Leslie L. Vadasz
Roya and Diana Vagelos
Charles M. and Rebecca M. Vest
John C. Whitehead
Wm. A. Wulf
Alejandro Zaffaronia
Janet Zucker and Jerry Zucker

Share this story

We need your help to spread the word about vaccines, drug makers and the outrageous conflicts of interest at the Institute of Medicine.

Please share this story on social networks and websites. Forward it to your friends or even post it on your website (with proper credit and a link back to NaturalNews, please).

NaturalNews is, to my knowledge, the only news organization in the world that has taken the time to really dig into the financial ties of the Institute of Medicine. All the other mainstream media presstitutes have long ago surrendered to a globalist agenda and no longer practice anything resembling journalism. They merely regurgitate corporate lies, then call it "medical news."

But here at NaturalNews, we believe that the role of journalism in a free society is to ask the tough questions... to be a little pushy and look for the real story behind the P.R. announcements. It is sad that only the alternative media (which is quickly becoming the dominant media now) dares cover the truth about this story, but that's exactly why we need your help in getting this story more widely read by others.

This story can't be completely told, by the way, without mentioning the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, an elaborate scheme set up by the U.S. government to insulate pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits that should have been filed by all the parents of children damaged by vaccines. Think about this: Vaccines are so dangerous that the U.S. government had to set up an extra-constitutional court system just to make sure the American people can't seek justice against Big Pharma!

The vaccine industry is run by such a powerful cabal of medical criminals that even the U.S. Supreme Court says it has no jurisdiction whatsoever when it comes to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. In other words, this kangaroo court is more powerful than the U.S. Supreme Court! And its sole purpose, of course, is to make sure vaccine companies can never be sued, even as their products cause widespread fatalities and neurological harm in children, including autism. (http://www.naturalnews.com/031484_S...)

Check NaturalNews and InfoWars.com for more details

There's more to come in all this, too: NaturalNews is currently researching the military ties behind HHS and the medical industry, and we plan to publish a truly eye-opening article very soon that shows why the FDA (among other government agencies) is becoming militarized and conducting so many armed raids against innocents.

Watch for that news here on NaturalNews.com. In addition, you may see me appearing on the Alex Jones Show (www.PrisonPlanet.tv) this coming week as InfoWars covers this issue as well. (www.InfoWars.com)

Also check out coverage of this topic at www.NaturalNewsRadio.com where Robert Scott Bell is covering this issue with his fantastic daily radio show.

Thank you for your support and your interest in this topic.

Research documents cited in this article include

The President's Report Supplement - an overview of the IoM's finances (2010)
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/Pr...

The Institute of Medicine's report on Vaccine Adverse Reactions (2011)
http://naturalnews.com/files/Advers...

You may notice that this document is 666 pages in length. It actually downloads as 667 pages, but the last page is blank, making it 666. Page 666, by the way, features the minutes from a presentation made by the Keck Center of the National Academies which offers talks with such titles as "The Immune Response to Vaccines and Natural Infection" and "Antibodies, Vaccines, Neuroinflammation, and the Blood-Brain Barrier".

METHAMPHETAMINE NOW PRESCRIBED FOR ADD AND NARCOLEPSY 67

2011-08-15T22:59:00.000-07:00

By CodyPhrenism

Meth for ADD?

Does it seem strange? Paradoxical? Unbelieveable? Believe it or not, it is technically lawful to prescribe methamphetamine to any child 6 and over in the United States with ADD, obesity and narcolepsy under the brand name Desoxyn.

It's odd to think that the same government who ravenously handed out fliers entitled "Meth is Death" and "Meth Kills" and labeled meth as the most addictive drug on the earth is now completely fine with readily prescribing methamphetamine to those with ADD, even children. Were the dangers portrayed in these pamphlets and propaganda incorrect or is there more? From their actions, the looks as if United States Government feels it is moral to imprison those who use methamphetamine for up to 10 years for personal use, while allowing this "dangerous drug" to be prescribed to children; it seems as if someone is being paid to rule in favor of the pharmaceutical industry.

Desoxyn

Dangers of Meth

Elevation of blood pressure, tachycardia and palpitation. Fatal cardiorespiratory arrest has been reported.
Psychotic episodes have been reported at recommended doses
Urticaria.
Suppression of growth has been reported with the long-term use of stimulants in children
Dizziness, dysphoria, overstimulation, euphoria, insomnia, tremor, restlessness and headache. Exacerbation of motor and phonic tics and Tourette's syndrome.
Potent neurotoxin, shown to cause dopaminergic and serotonergic degeneration. (Less Dopamine + Serotonin, can cause major depression)
Numbness, Heart Attack, Stroke, Death
High Addiction Risk

Does this sound a bit cruel for a 6 year old? It seems a little bit ridiculous to me. If an adult chooses to chooses to take methamphetamine then that is their own choice; however it's disgusting to be prescribing 6 year old children meth because they can't sit still in class.

In fact, all popular attention deficit disorder drugs have chemical structures similar to meth (other amphetamines/salts) or Cocaine(Ritalin, Focalin). In fact, Focalin is more potent than cocaine per milligram and lasts longer - these drugs are more potent and just as addictive as cocaine and they are being prescribed to children. There is either a flaw in the way America looks at drugs or in the pharmaceutical industry - I suggest both.

There has been some communication that I don't understand dose dependence, however that is not the case. All of the above side effects have been shown in 5mg doses of Desoxyn - taken straight from the pharmaceutical company site. My goal is not to demonize any sort of drug, however it was to make people aware of the double standards set within law and pharmaceuticals. No harm intended.

RENSE & JONATHAN EMORD - FDA NEW, STEALTH DIRTY TRICK TO TAKE YOUR SUPPLEMENTS

2011-08-15T19:13:00.000-07:00

THE HEALTHY DRINK THAT MAY DESTROY YOUR SLEEP

2011-08-09T23:52:00.000-07:00

Posted By Dr. Mercola August 09 2011

By Dr. Mercola

Dr. Mercola Recommends...

Every "Like" Helps Support This Cause

The pineal gland is a small endocrine gland located between the two hemispheres of your brain. It is sometimes called the "third eye" due to its resemblance to the human retina. While your pineal gland is only about the size of a single grain of rice (5-8 mm), it performs several functions that are extremely important to your body.

One main role of your pineal gland is to produce melatonin, the natural sleep hormone that plays a vital role in your normal sleep function. Melatonin is not only necessary for proper sleep however, it also regulates the onset of puberty and fights against harmful free radicals. When your pineal gland function is suppressed, melatonin production suffers and you are putting yourself at risk for a number of startling conditions including:

Alzheimer's disease	Circadian dysregulation	Insomnia
Bipolar disease	Hormone imbalances: low melatonin	Low back pain

When Your Pineal Gland Stress Leads, Disease Follows

Any form of pineal gland stress is concerning due to its integral role in your body, which has been studied for thousands of years. In the third century, a prominent Roman physician named Galen described the pineal gland as the "seat of the soul."

This term was referenced once more by the prominent philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), who went on to write about the pineal gland in depth. Adding to Galen's thoughts on the gland, Descartes stated:

"My view is that this gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed."

One form of pineal gland stress is known as pineal gland calcification -- the cause of which may be shocking to you. Sodium fluoride, present in your drinking water and certain store-bought products, and other sources such as Prozac (fluoxetine), fluoroquinolone antibiotics and non-stick cookware could all be contributing to the alarming increase in pineal gland calcification.

I have been warning you about the toxic effects of fluoride for years, and during this time more and more scientists have begun to recognize the dangers. There are so many studies highlighting the toxic effects of fluoride on your body, particularly affecting brain function, yet remarkably, a majority of the tap water in the United States, as well as a few other countries, is still heavily fluoridated.

The connection between pineal gland calcification and fluoride intake may very well be one of the most vital pieces of information in the fight against water fluoridation. You see, up until the 1990's, no research had ever been conducted on the impact of fluoride on the pineal gland. However, we now have major universities discovering that your pineal gland is a primary target of fluoride accumulation in your body.

Research Confirms Pineal Gland as a Major Fluoride Collector

Thanks to research first conducted by the University of Surrey in England in 1997, it is now known that the soft tissue of the adult pineal gland contains more fluoride than any other soft tissue in your body. In fact, the levels of pineal gland fluoride examined in the study were high enough to inhibit enzymes.

When your enzymes are damaged, it can lead to collagen breakdown, eczema, tissue damage, skin wrinkling, genetic damage, and immune suppression. It can also cause problems with your:

Immune system
Digestive system
Respiratory system
Blood circulation
Kidney function

Pineal gland fluoride levels were measured at ~330 parts per million (ppm). The EPA currently sets the maximum allowed level of sodium fluoride in the drinking water at 4 ppm. This is nothing compared to the amount of fluoride found to be stored in the harder tissues of your pineal gland known as hyroxyapatite crystals. Fluoride levels observed in the hard tissue were found to be as high as 21,000 ppm. Hyroxyapatite crystals store more fluoride than any other hard tissue in your body, including teeth and bone.

After researchers concluded that the pineal gland was a major target for extreme fluoride accumulation in your body, they decided to conduct a series of experiments to determine if it was enough to impact the functioning of the gland, particularly melatonin production. Dr. Jennifer Luke from the University of Surrey in England led the researchers in performing the study.

The results were surprising even to the scientists on the research team. Animals treated with fluoride not only had lower levels of melatonin as expected, but female animals experienced an early onset of puberty. Due to the interference of melatonin production in the animals in response to the fluoride treatment, the hormonal triggers that are responsible for puberty were disturbed.

Dr. Luke summarized the findings:

"In conclusion, the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty."

The Early Puberty Connection

U.S. girls are reaching puberty at younger ages than ever before. In the 1990s, breast development -- the first sign of puberty in girls -- at age eight was considered an abnormal event that should be investigated by an endocrinologist. However, by 1999, following a 1997 study that found almost half of African Americans and 15 percent of whites had begun breast development by age eight, the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society suggested changing what is viewed as "normal."

Could pineal gland calcification be the cause of early puberty in young girls?

As mentioned earlier, the major study performed by the University of Surrey in England says absolutely YES. The connection between gland calcification and an early onset of puberty was even mentioned as a main point in the study's summary by Dr. Luke.

It is important to remember that the groundbreaking study was conducted in 1997, before the 1999 research that brought to light the epidemic of early puberty. We have known all of this time about the correlation between fluoride exposure and early puberty, yet there has been little coverage of the subject!

The Explosion of Information on Pineal Gland Toxicity

Following the initial breakthroughs on the link between fluoride and pineal gland calcification, scientists began to examine the issue more closely. In 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) released its report: "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards."

The NRC began working on the report in 2003 as requested by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to review the latest research on fluoride toxicity and assess the EPA's current safe drinking water standards for fluoride. In 2006, the report was released with a summary that backed up the work of Dr. Luke and her research team who conducted the first experiment on the role fluoride plays in pineal gland calcification back in 1997. The summary was printed in the National Academies Press, Washington D.C. P221-22:

"The single animal study of pineal function indicates that fluoride exposure results in altered melatonin production and altered timing of sexual maturity... Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease."

Mainstream Medical Community Still in the Dark about Fluoride

There are so many scientific studies showing the direct, toxic effects of fluoride on your body, it's truly remarkable that it's NOT considered a scientific consensus by now. It truly amazes me that the medical (and dental) communities are so stubbornly resistant to connect the dots when it comes to the skyrocketing increase of cognitive decline in adults (Alzheimer's and various dementia's), and behavioral issues in children (ADD, ADHD, depression and learning disabilities of all kinds).

In fact, there have been over 23 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage. This includes such effects as:

Reduction in nicotinic acetylcholine receptors	Damage to your hippocampus	Formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer's disease)
Reduction in lipid content	Damage to purkinje cells	Exacerbation of lesions induced by iodine deficiency
Impaired antioxidant defense systems	Increased uptake of aluminum	Accumulation of fluoride in your pineal gland

What is perhaps most surprising is that the harmful effects of fluoride have been known about by conventional medical organizations for over half a century. The Journal of the American Medical Association also stated in their September 18, 1943 issue that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes.

And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, October 1, 1944, stated:

"Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good."

Yet, this element, or as some may call it, this caustic industrial chemical, is deliberately added to about two-thirds of U.S. public water supplies. Now that it has been established that fluoride is extremely toxic to the health of you and your family, what can be done to prevent exposure?

Limiting Exposure to Toxic Fluoride and Other Substances

As mentioned, fluoride currently contaminates nearly 70 percent of the U.S. public water supplies. Therefore, it is an extreme challenge to limit your exposure even inside the safety of your own home. For people living in areas with fluoridated tap water, fluoride is a part of every glass of water, every bath and shower, and every meal cooked using that water.

Fluoride is not the only toxic substance in your tap water, however.

While chlorine is right at the heart of this matter, there is an even larger threat to your health. It is important to understand that when chlorine interacts with organic matter found in your water, disinfection byproducts (DBPs) form. And these DBPs are far more toxic than the chlorine itself. In fact, DBPs are responsible for the vast majority of the toxic effects of chlorinated water… toxic effects that can potentially lead to…

Increased cancer, asthma, and skin irritation risks
Respiratory irritation and fatigue
Weakening of your immune system

The problem is that a hot steamy shower:

Triggers your skin pores to open, which in turn…
Spikes a high absorption rate of chlorine and other chemicals directly into your system and…
Helps create a 'free pass' of foreign chemicals into your body fluids and bloodstream – unlike drinking tap water where your digestive processes at least get a chance to filter out some of the harmful contaminants.

Important! The producers of this powerful film are allowing a full and FREE preview

through August 13th in celebration of Fluoride Awareness Week (Aug 7 - 13)! You can support Fluoride Action Network by purchasing the Professional Perspectives DVD at a special price of $10 during Fluoride Awareness Week.

Taking Action Against Fluoride

In addition to protecting yourself and your family from toxic consumption of fluoride on a personal level, there is also a political battle over removing it from the water supply altogether.This Fluoride Awareness Week will hopefully bring us a lot closer to that goal by spreading mass awareness.

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is an absolutely phenomenal resource for further education, and they're doing much to pressure the U.S. government for change. We are working together to tackle this issue head on. Once we reach the tipping point, which may be as little as 5 percent of the population, we will be able to reverse the policies of water fluoridation.

Please, join the anti-fluoride movement in the US, New Zealand and Canada by contacting the representative for your area below.

Contact Information for Canadian Communities:

If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at diane.sprules@cogeco.ca.
The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at aliss@nutrimom.ca.

Contact Information for American Communities:

We're also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:

New York City, NY: With the recent victory in Calgary, New York City is the next big emphasis. The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 "prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply."

A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S. If you live in the New York area I beg you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference.

The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com . Please contact her if you're interested in helping with this effort.
Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or fluoride.info@yahoo.com, or by regular mail or telephone:
POB 7486
Austin, Texas 78713
Phone: (512) 371-3786
San Diego, California: Contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at pbrooks936@aol.com.

Contact Information for New Zealand Communities:

New Zealand: Contact Mary Byrne if you live in Hastings, New Plymouth, Hamilton or Wellington. Mary would like to hear from you! Email her at: mbyrne64@yahoo.co.nz

In addition, you can:

Tell the EPA you expect them to uphold their duty to protect you and your children from this toxic food fumigant.
Make a generous tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network, to help them fight for your rights to fluoride-free food and water.
Check out FAN's Action Page, as they are working on multiple fronts to rid our food and water supplies of fluoride.
For timely updates, join the Fluoride Action Network Facebook page.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/09/fluoride-and-pineal-gland.aspx?e_cid=20110809_DNL_art_1

THE WELLBEING FILES: SIX SIMPLE STEPS TO FEELING HEALTHY AGAIN

2011-08-09T21:27:00.000-07:00

Originally posted within the mikiverse, August 10, 2010.
Aug 09 10:19am By Sarah Brooks-Wilson

You know those days when you just don’t feel very healthy, well I’m having one of those now. I’ve just been on holiday for a week and while I did lots of relaxing, I also did lots of eating and drinking and I didn’t much sleep either. Now I know that’s all part of the holiday spirit and having a break from the day to day routine, but when you get back from holidays, you also want to feel healthy, invigorated and well rested.

Top tips from Miranda Kerr's yoga instructor

So what do you do to make yourself feel better? Well there are some small things you can do to get back on track in just a matter of hours and days. These little health tricks worked for me, so I hope they do for you too.

The mini detox

Give your system a break for the first day after a holiday or long weekend, by increasing the amount of fruit and veggies in your diet. Wake up and have a big bowl of fruit salad with natural yoghurt, eat a big salad with lean meat for lunch and steam some fish and eat it with lots of green veggies for dinner. Snacks should be fruit or a handful of nuts. You’ll be amazed at how much better you feel by the end of the day.

Cut out alcohol

Doctors recommend at least two alcohol-free days a week, but when you’ve over indulged, it’s time to give up drinking for at least a week to give your body a real break. When you drink everyday, your body has to constantly work harder to break it down making you feel lethargic and tired. You will feel so much brighter and alert by not drinking.

Sleep tight

Too many late nights? It’s time to go to bed early every night for a week. By that I mean 9 to 9.30pm. If you can’t fall asleep that early, read until you can’t keep your eyes open. It will give your body a chance to repair itself and you will feel less groggy when you wake up, not to mention more have more energy throughout the day.

Exercise

Make that part of your everyday routine for the next seven days. Even if you only get time for a walk in the park, it’s better than nothing and will get your circulation. Fresh air and movement just gets everything moving inside and out.

Drink more water

Aim for at least seven glasses a day. Drink one glass on rising, have another one before breakfast, one mid morning, and one with lunch and switch that afternoon cuppa to a glass of water instead. Sip one with dinner and one before you hit the pillow. Make sure you always drink a glass of water after going to the loo or if you have a coffee. See, it’s easier than you think.

Quick pampering

Get in a hot bath and give your skin a good old scrub with a loran to get the circulation going. Do it for at least ten minutes, until the skin is slightly red and tingly. Put on a deep cleaning face mask and lie back and chill for 20 minutes. You’ll get out with more than just soft skin; you’ll feel really clean and invigorated.

See it’s not hard and you’ll be raring to go again.

From; http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/lifestylechannels/4404/the-wellbeing-files-six-simple-steps-to-feeling-healthy-again/

THE CODEX, FLUORIDE, AUSCHWICZ, MONSANTO CONNECTION

2011-08-09T20:58:00.000-07:00

REPOST. Originally posted within the mikiverse, August 11, 2010.

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

What do Codex Alimentarius with its official food standards, the fluoridation of our water and food supply, genocide at the Auschwitz concentration camp, and Monsanto, the company responsible for genetically altering the world’s food supply all have in common? Is there a connection that binds these seemingly diverse organizations together? Yes, there is. In fact, they are so inextricably bound that separating them is all but impossible.

Let’s start at the beginning with Auschwitz and connect the dots.

Auschwitz

Auschwitz was known for its “network of concentration and extermination camps built and operated in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. It was the largest of the German concentration camps (Wikipedia).”

Auschwitz also had a factory called I. G. Auschwitz:

I.G. Auschwitz, founded in Kattowitz on April 7, 1941, was intended to be the largest chemical factory in Eastern Europe and at the same time a building block in the process of “Germanizing” the region. According to the plan, the production facilities were to supply the Eastern European market with plastics in peacetime, following their use for wartime production. In addition to German skilled workers and forced laborers from all over Europe, increasing numbers of prisoners from the Auschwitz concentration camp were deployed at the gigantic construction site in Auschwitz. In 1942 I.G. Auschwitz built its own corporate concentration camp, Buna/Monowitz. (Wollheim Memorial)

In fact, I.G. Auschwitz was designed from the very first to be an extremely complex chemical factory, producing, besides Buna, high-performance fuels (including aviation gasoline and fuel oil for naval use), various plastics, synthetic fibers, stabilizing agents, resins, methanol, nitrogen, and pharmaceuticals. (Wollheim Memorial)

I.G. Farben, which consisted of BASF, Bayer, and Hoechst (now known as Aventis), owned I.G. Auschwitz. A man called Frits ter Meer was on the I.G. Farben Managing Board from its foundation, and was responsible for I.G. Auschwitz. I. G. Auschwitz had a cozy relationship with the Auschwitz concentration camp, in that it used forced labor of the prisoners to work in its factory, and also used them as guinea pigs.

Under Frits ter Meers direction, I.G. Farben used a fluoridation program to control the population at the Auschwitz concentration camp in any given area through the mass medication of drinking water supplies.“By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication (fluoride) that would produce sterility in women, and so on.” (ShopUSI)

Frits ter Meer was ultimately convicted at Nuremberg of plundering and slavery, but his sentence was commuted due to friends in high places. Fritz then went on to become one of the architects of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1962/3.

Codex Alimentarius

Codex was created by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations (UN). According to the Codex official site:

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.(Codex Alimentarius)

The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade.(Organic Consumers)

In other words, under the auspices of “protecting the public health and ensuring fair trade practices,” the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program is implemented by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The FAO and WHO set the standards, and the Codex Commission implements them. All members of the UN are obligated to comply with these standards.

So, what does Codex have to do with fluoridation, and just how could a mass fluoridation program be implemented without our knowledge or consent under Codex guidelines?

The answer is – WHO has already determined that fluoride should be included in our food and water supply because it is “necessary for public health:”

Many countries that are currently undergoing nutrition transition do not have adequate exposure to fluoride. There should be promotion of adequate fluoride exposure via appropriate vehicles, for example, affordable toothpaste, water, salt and milk. It is the responsibility of national health authorities to ensure implementation of feasible fluoride programmes for their country. Research into the outcome of alternative community fluoride programmes should be encouraged.

Here is the reference document:

Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases PDF

A 1994 World Health Organization expert committee suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre) (Wikipedia)

Currently, compliance with WHO’s directive of the fluoridation of water, salt, and milk varies from country to country. Water fluoridation has been introduced by varying degrees in many countries. View each country HERE. An interesting fact to note is that drinking water is not fluoridated in any part of Germany. Is it mere coincidence that one of the founders of the Codex Alimentarius Commission just happened to be in charge of the fluoridation program at Auschwitz, and that Germany is somehow exempt from fluoridation? Or, maybe they know something that we don’t.

The Public Fluoridation Deception

Most are aware of the water fluoridation program that has been foisted upon us as a “treatment for dental disease” and cure for cavities. This is proven propaganda and has been disputed in the EPA’s own documents, which list fluoride as a contaminant, as well as in countless other professional publications. Yet, the mass water fluoridation program continues, causing food and liquids that use this contaminated water to contain fluoride also. According to our own CDC Department of Health and Human Services:

“fluoridated water is diffused throughout the population as residents of non-fluoridated communities increasingly consume foods and beverages processed and bottled in fluoridated communities. Thus, many individuals residing in non-fluoridated communities have benefited from fluoridation policies.”

This is called “Building Capacity to Fluoridate.” (CDC)

So you see, our country is complying with the UN/WHO/FAO/Codex fluoridation policy and we the people don’t even know it. Just like the prisoners at Auschwitz most likely didn’t know that they were being subjected to a fluoridation program and being poisoned with their water until it was too late. If food is produced using fluoridated water, then it contains fluoride. All you have to do is contaminate the water, and the food issue takes care of itself.

The following chart shows just how “in compliance” the U.S. is: Percent of U.S. Population Receiving Fluoride

And if some of you are still wondering if we are really following Codex mandates, wonder no more. Many do not know this, but ‘Codex’ already consists of around 300 official food standards, some of which have been in ‘global effect’ since as long ago as 1966 (Rath Foundation). So it shouldn’t come as a big surprise to find out that fluoridation is just another facet of this program. Here is a list of foods from the Codex Alimentarius site.

The Monsanto Connection

Monsanto, Cargill, BASF, Bayer, and Aventis (or I.G. Farben) are all in partnership under the banner of Crop Science. They are partnered in various ways, such as:

BASF Plant Science and Monsanto to expand their collaboration in maximizing crop yield.

Monsanto, Bayer team up on herbicide tolerance

Mergers and acquisitions

Monsanto and Cargill team up

Monsanto and Cargill are in a 50/50 joint venture partnership. Monsanto makes the seeds, which make the crops, and Cargill makes the fertilizer. Cargill also just happens to be responsible for 70-75% of the hazardous waste hydrofluosilicic acid used in fluoridation programs. (Fluoride Action Network)

The U.S. government considers the basic chemical composition of hydrofluosilicic acid, a toxic waste, and fluoride to be the same when dumped in the water supply:

Due to the obviously intriguing aspect of this “waste disposal policy”, there has naturally been quite a bit of curiosity concerning the safety of this public health practice. Apparently, however, there are no government safety studies currently available on fluosilicic acid. This is because the government is basing their fluoridation policy on the assumption that there is no chemical difference, after dilution into the water supply, between pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride and the industrial grade hydrofluosilicic acid.(Fluoride Action Network)

Oregon, which is very low on the compliance list with only 19.4% fluoridation, is attempting to increase that level considerably. In 2007, HB 3099, the Oregon water fluoridation bill, would have required community water suppliers serving more than 10,000 people to “optimally fluoridate.” Fortunately, it was not passed. If passed, it would have increased the fluoride levels in Oregon to 68%. Good for Cargill and Monsanto, bad for us.

Reasons Not to Fluoridate

The following partial list is compiled from Fluoride Alert:

Fluoride is a cumulative poison.

Chromosome damage

Kidneys

Brain

Alzheimers

Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or “couch potato” syndrome)

Lowering of IQ

Early onset of puberty

Affects thyroid gland

Arthritis

Cancer

Infertility

Harms bones – brittle

It is up to us to stand up and say no to mass water fluoridation. If someone wants fluoride, then let him/her take it. I have no problem with that. But to forcibly administer this poison to an unsuspecting and unwilling populace without prior knowledge or consent is criminal. We are not Auschwitz prisoners….yet.

HEALTH CONCERNS ABOUT DAIRY PRODUCTS

2011-08-09T20:36:00.000-07:00

Originally posted within the mikiverse, August 11, 2010.

Many Americans, including some vegetarians, still consume substantial amounts of dairy products—and government policies still promote them—despite scientific evidence that questions their health benefits and indicates their potential health risks.

Osteoporosis
Milk’s main selling point is calcium, and milk-drinking is touted for building strong bones in children and preventing osteoporosis in older persons. However, clinical research shows that dairy products have little or no benefit for bones. A 2005 review published in Pediatrics showed that milk consumption does not improve bone integrity in children.¹ Similarly, the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study,²which followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years, showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk. While calcium is important for bone health, studies show that increasing consumption beyond approximately 600 mg per day—amounts that are easily achieved without dairy products or calcium supplements—does not improve bone integrity.²

In studies of children and adults, exercise has been found to have a major effect on bone density.^3-5

You can decrease your risk of osteoporosis by reducing sodium and animal protein intake in the diet,^6-9 increasing intake of fruits and vegetables,^9,10 exercising,^4,11 and ensuring adequate calcium intake from plant foods such as kale, broccoli, and other leafy green vegetables and beans. You can also use calcium-fortified products such as breakfast cereals and juices, although these products provide more concentrated calcium than is necessary.

Fat Content and Cardiovascular Disease
Dairy products—including cheese, ice cream, milk, butter, and yogurt—contribute significant amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat to the diet.¹² Diets high in fat and saturated fat can increase the risk of heart disease, among other serious health problems. A low-fat vegetarian diet that eliminates dairy products, in combination with exercise, smoking cessation, and stress management, can not only prevent heart disease, but may also reverse it.^13,14 Non-fat dairy products are available; however, they pose other health risks as noted below.

Cancer
Prostate and breast cancers have been linked to consumption of dairy products, presumably related to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I).¹⁵ IGF-I is found in cow’s milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood of individuals consuming dairy products on a regular basis.¹⁶ Other nutrients that increase IGF-I are also found in cow’s milk.

Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-I concentrations and prostate cancer risk.¹⁷ One study showed that men who had the highest levels of IGF-I had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer compared with those who had the lowest levels.¹⁸ Other findings show that prostate cancer risk was elevated with increased consumption of low-fat milk, suggesting that too much dairy calcium could be a potential threat to prostate health.^19,20

Ovarian cancer may also be related to the consumption of dairy products. The milk sugar lactose is broken down in the body into another sugar, galactose. Research suggests that the dairy sugar galactose might be toxic to ovarian cells.²¹ In a study conducted in Sweden, consumption of lactose and dairy products was positively linked to ovarian cancer.²² A similar study, the Iowa Women’s Health Study, found that women who consumed more than one glass of milk per day had a 73 percent greater chance of ovarian cancer than women who drank less than one glass per day.²³

Lactose Intolerance
Lactose intolerance is common among many populations, affecting approximately 95 percent of Asian Americans, 74 percent of Native Americans, 70 percent of African Americans, 53 percent of Mexican Americans, and 15 percent of Caucasians.²⁴ Symptoms, which include gastrointestinal distress, diarrhea, and flatulence, occur because these individuals do not have the enzyme lactase that digests the milk sugar lactose. For those who can digest lactose, its breakdown products are two simple sugars: glucose and galactose. Nursing children have active enzymes that break down galactose. As we age, many of us lose much of this capacity.²⁵ Additionally, along with unwanted symptoms, milk-drinkers also put themselves at risk for development of other chronic diseases and ailments.

Vitamin D
Individuals often drink milk in order to obtain vitamin D in their diet, unaware that they can receive vitamin D through other sources. The natural source of vitamin D is sunlight. Five to fifteen minutes of sun exposure to the arms and legs or the hands, face, and arms can be enough to meet the body’s requirements for vitamin D, depending on the individual’s skin tone.²⁶ Darker skin requires longer exposure to the sun in order to obtain adequate levels of vitamin D. In colder climates during the winter months the sun may not be able to provide adequate vitamin D. During this time the diet must be able to provide vitamin D. Fortified cereals, grains, bread, orange juice, and soy- or rice milk are healthful foods that provide vitamin D. All common multiple vitamins also provide vitamin D.

Contaminants
Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow’s body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.²⁷ Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition requires the use of antibiotics, and antibiotic traces have occasionally been found in samples of milk and other dairy products. Pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer.²⁸

Milk Proteins and Diabetes
Insulin-dependent (type 1 or childhood-onset) diabetes is linked to consumption of dairy products.²⁹ A 2001 Finnish study of 3,000 infants with genetically increased risk for developing diabetes showed that early introduction of cow’s milk increased susceptibility to type 1 diabetes.³⁰

Health Concerns of Infants and Children
Milk proteins, milk sugar, fat, and saturated fat in dairy products pose health risks for children and encourage the development of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that infants below one year of age not be given whole cow’s milk,³¹ as iron deficiency is more likely on a dairy-rich diet. Cow’s milk products are very low in iron.³² If dairy products become a major part of one’s diet, iron deficiency is more likely. Colic is an additional concern with milk consumption. Up to 28 percent of infants suffer from colic during the first month of life.³³ Pediatricians learned long ago that cow’s milk was often the reason. We now know that breastfeeding mothers can have colicky babies if the mothers consume cow’s milk. The cow’s antibodies can pass through the mother’s bloodstream, into her breast milk, and to the baby.^34,35 Additionally, food allergies appear to be common results of cow’s milk consumption, particularly in children.^36,37 Cow’s milk consumption has also been linked to chronic constipation in children. Researchers suggested that milk consumption resulted in perianal sores and severe pain on defecation, leading to constipation.³⁸

Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and can, in fact, be harmful to health. It is best to consume a healthful diet of grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and fortified foods including cereals and juices. These nutrient-dense foods can help you meet your calcium, potassium, riboflavin, and vitamin D requirements with ease—and without health risks.

References
1. Lanou AJ, Berkow SE, Barnard ND. Calcium, dairy products, and bone health in children and young adults: a reevaluation of the evidence. Pediatrics. 2005;115(3):736-43.
2. Feskanich D, Willett WC, Colditz GA. Calcium, vitamin D, milk consumption, and hip fractures: a prospective study among postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;77(2):504-11.
3. Lunt M, Masaryk P, Scheidt-Nave C, et al. The Effects of Lifestyle, Dietary Dairy Intake and Diabetes on Bone Density and Vertebral Deformity Prevalence: The EVOS Study. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12:688-698.
4. Prince R, Devine A, Dick I, et al. The effects of calcium supplementation (milk powder or tablets) and exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res. 1995;10:1068-75.
5. Lloyd T, Beck TJ, Lin HM, et al. Modifiable determinants of bone status in young women. Bone. 2002;30(2):416-21.
6. Finn SC. The skeleton crew: is calcium enough? J Women’s Health. 1998;7(1):31-6.
7. Nordin CBE. Calcium and osteoporosis. Nutrition. 1997;3(7/8):664-86.
8. Reid DM, New SA. Nutritional influences on bone mass. Proceed Nutr Soc. 1997;56:977-87.
9. Lin P, Ginty F, Appel L, et al. The DASH diet and sodium reduction improve markers of bone turnover and calcium metabolism in adults. J Nutr. 2001;133:3130–3136.
10. Tucker KL, Hannan MR, Chen H, Cupples LA, Wilson PWF, Kiel DP. Potassium, magnesium, and fruit and vegetable intakes are associated with greater bone mineral density in elderly men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69:727-36.
11. Going S, Lohman T, Houtkooper L, et al. Effects of exercise on bone mineral density in calcium-replete postmenopausal women with and without hormone replacement therapy, Osteoporos Int. 2003;14(8):637-43.
12. Warensjo E, Jansson JH, Berglund L, et al. Estimated intake of milk fat is negatively associated with cardiovascular risk factors and does not increase the risk of a first acute myocardial infarction. Br J Nutr. 2004;91:635-42.
13. Szeto YT, Kwok TC, Benzie IF. Effects of a long-term vegetarian diet on biomarkers of antioxidants status and cardiovascular disease risk. Nutrition. 2004;20:863-6.
14. Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, et al. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? Lancet. 1990;336:129-33.
15. Voskuil DW, Vrieling A, van’t Veer LJ, Kampman E, Rookus MA. The insulin-like growth factor system in cancer prevention: potential of dietary intervention strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:195-203.
16. Cadogan J, Eastell R, Jones N, Barker ME. Milk intake and bone mineral acquisition in adolescent girls: randomised, controlled intervention trial. BMJ. 1997;315:1255-60.
17. Cohen P. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I levels and prostate cancer risk—interpreting the evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:876-9.
18. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Science. 1998;279:563-5.
19. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Ma J, Gann PH, Gaziano JM, Giovannucci E. Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74:549-54.
20. Tseng M, Breslow RA, Graubard BI, Ziegler RG. Dairy, calcium and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:1147-54.
21. Cramer DW, Greenberg ER, Titus-Ernstoff L, et al. A case-control study of galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9:95-101.
22. Larsson SC, Bergkvist L, Wolk A. Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:1353-7.
23. Kushi LH, Mink PJ, Folsom AR, et al. Prospective study of diet and ovarian cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:21-31.
24. Bertron P, Barnard ND, Mills M. Racial bias in federal nutrition policy, part I: the public health implications of variations in lactase persistence. J Natl Med Assoc. 1999;91:151-7.
25. Swallow DM. Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance. Annu Rev Genet. 2003;37:197-219.
26. Holick M. The vitamin D epidemic and its health consequences. J Nutr. 2005;135:2739S-48S.
27. Outwater JL, Nicholson A, Barnard N. Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF-1, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis. Med Hypothesis. 1997;48:453-61.
28. Baars AJ, Bakker MI, Baumann RA, et al. Dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs: occurrence and dietary intake in the Netherlands. Toxicol Lett. 2004;151:51-61.
29. Saukkonen T, Virtanen SM, Karppinen M, et al. Significance of cow’s milk protein antibodies as risk factor for childhood IDDM: interaction with dietary cow’s milk intake and HLA-DQB1 genotype. Childhood Dibetes in Finland Study Group. Dibetologia. 1998;41:72-8.
30. Kimpimaki T, Erkkola M, Korhonen S, et al. Short-term exclusive breastfeeding predisposes young children with increased genetic risk of Type I diabetes to progressive beta-cell autoimmunity. Diabetologia. 2001;44:63–69.
31. Gartner LM, Morton J, Lawrence RA, et al; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics. 2005;115(2):496-506.
32. Pennington JAT, Douglass JS. Bowes and Church’s Food Values of Portions Commonly Used. 18th ed. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
33. Lucassen PL, Assendelft WJ, van Eijk JT, Gubbels JW, Douwes AC, van Geldrop WJ. Systematic review of the occurrence of infantile colic in the community. Arch Dis Child. 2001;84:398–403.
34. Jarvinen KM, Makinen-Kiljunen S, Suomalainen H. Cow’s milk challenge through human milk evoked immune responses in infants with cow’s milk allergy. J Pediatr. 1999;135:506-12.
35. Paronen J, Bjorksten B, Hattevig G, Akerblom HK, Vaarala O. Effect of maternal diet during lactation on development of bovine insulin-binding antibodies in children at risk for allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106:302-306.
36. Sampson HA. Food allergy. Part 1: immunopathogenesis and clinical disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:805–819.
37. Host A. Frequency of cow’s milk allergy in childhood. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002;89(6 Suppl 1):33-7.
38. Iacono G, Cavataio F, Montalto G, et al. Intolerance of cow’s milk and chronic constipation in children. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(16):1100-4.

THAI PUMPKIN COCONUT SOUP VEGAN, GLUTEN & LACTOSE FREE

2011-08-09T20:22:00.000-07:00

Originally posted within the mikiverse, August 11, 2010.
By Darlene Schmidt,

In Thailand, pumpkin and coconut milk are commonly paired up to make a variety of soups, curries, and even sweet dishes. Here they are combined with a lightly curried soup that makes for a wonderful vegetarian/vegan entree - similar to those served at Thai or Vietnamese restaurants throughout North America. The addition of lemongrass makes it particularly healthy - great for chasing away cold & flu bugs. This soup is wonderful on its own, or serve it like they do in Thailand: with plain steamed rice or noodles on the side. Enjoy!

Prep Time: 15 minutes

Cook Time: 10 minutes

Total Time: 25 minutes

Ingredients:

6 cups good-tasting faux chicken or vegetable stock (SERVES 2 as a main entree, 4-6 as an appetizer)
1/3 to 1/2 can thick coconut milk (preferably not 'lite')
4 Tbsp. minced fresh lemongrass (see below), OR frozen-prepared (available at Asian stores)
3 kaffir lime leaves, left whole (available fresh or frozen at Asian stores)
3 cups pumpkin or squash, peeled and cut into bite-size chunks
2 cups yam, peeled and cut into chunks
1-2 cups soft tofu, sliced into cubes (or substitute chickpeas)
1 shallot, minced, OR 1/4 cup minced purple onion
3 cloves garlic, minced
1 thumb-size piece galangal or ginger, grated or sliced thinly into matchsticks
1-2 fresh red chilies, sliced, OR 1-2 tsp. Thai chili sauce, OR 1/4 to 1/2 tsp. dried crushed chili
1/2 tsp. turmeric
1/2 tsp. regular chili powder
3/4 tsp. ground coriander
1 tsp. ground cumin
4 Tbsp. soy sauce (use wheat-free for gluten-free diets)
1 tsp. brown sugar
2 Tbsp. fresh-squeezed lime juice
1-2 generous handfuls baby spinach, washed
1/2 cup fresh basil + 1/2 cup fresh coriander for toppings

Preparation:

For more on how to buy and cook with lemongrass, see: All About Lemongrass: Buying, Preparing, and Cooking with Lemongrass.

For a non-vegetarian version of this soup, see: Thai Pumpkin Coconut Soup Recipe.

Place stock in a pot over high heat. If making your stock from cubes or powder, be sure to make it strong-tasting - this will give you the best soup! Now add the lemongrass (include the leftover stalk pieces if using fresh lemongrass), plus the kaffir lime leaves, shallot, garlic, galangal or ginger, and chili. Bring to a boil.
Add the pumpkin (or squash) and yam. Reduce heat slightly and gently boil for 6-7 minutes.
While the soup is cooking, add the spices/flavorings, stirring with each addition: turmeric, chili powder, ground coriander, ground cumin, soy sauce, brown sugar, and lime juice.
When pumpkin and yam are soft enough to eat, reduce heat to low. Now stir in the coconut milk (start with 1/3 can and increase to 1/2 can if you want it creamier or less spicy).
Stir well and taste-test the soup for salt and spice, adding more soy sauce or a little salt if not salty or flavorful enough (this will depend on the taste of your original stock). Add more lime juice if it happens to be too salty or sweet. If it's too sour for your liking, add a little more sugar; also adjust the spice level by adding more chili or chili sauce. If too spicy, add more coconut milk.
Just before serving, add the soft tofu and spinach and gently stir it into the soup (the spinach will wilt instantly and the soft tofu will heat up in seconds). Portion out into bowls and top with the fresh basil and coriander. Note that this soup can be served as is, or with rice or noodles. In Thailand, it is served with rice on the side, each person adding their own directly to the soup. Enjoy!

Other Vegetables: Other veggies that can be added to this soup include: carrots, chopped red or green bell pepper, broccoli, mushrooms, and bok choy.

SECRET GM WHEAT EXPERIMENTS BEGIN IN AUSTRALIA

2011-06-14T22:29:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 by: Neev M. Arnell
(NaturalNews) Australia's first trial of genetically modified wheat and barley is under way near Narrabri, New South Wales in the south-eastern area of the country. The goal of the GM wheat is said to be more nutritious bread (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gm-wheat-...).

How exactly the genes were altered to create this alleged more nutritious bread remains a secret. All that is known is that 14 different strains of wheat and barley will be grown. Some strains will allow researchers to look at enriching the crops with extra nutrients, and others will look at using nitrogen in the soil more efficiently, which could mean higher productivity with less fertilizer.

The CSIRO, which is running the three-year experiment, said the gene combinations in the trial are secret because they are subject to commercial-in-confidence agreements that protect the interests of the government research agencies involved and a U.S. company, Arcadia Biosciences.

Environmental groups and organic farmers oppose the GM trial, arguing that it is quite possible, and even likely, for the GM wheat and barley to mix with natural strains and 'contaminate' some of Australia's wheat crop with the genetic modification.

Environmental group Greenpeace opposes the trial, furthermore, because the safety of the modified crops for human and animal consumption has not been tested in any scientific trials.

The CSIRO says it will follow the safety requirements of the license issued by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

"The risk assessment concluded that this proposed limited and controlled release ... poses negligible risks to the health and safety of people or the environment as a result of gene technology," the gene technology regulator said.

Certain safety measures will also be taken, according to Dr. Matthew Morell, a researcher with the CSIRO's Future Food division.

"[The GM crops] will be separated from other crops by 200 meters, and wheat pollen travels about one meter, so it is highly unlike any will be found beyond that,' Morell said. 'Because these are patented technologies, there is still a need for restricting the details in terms of protecting commercial information."

Greenpeace is not buying it, saying that GM trail crops can easily break containment through human error, as past cases show. In one instance, seeds from a GM canola crop in NSW appear to have spilled from trucks driving down roads near an experimental farm, spreading the seeds and potentially contaminating organic farms.

"The Australian government's decision to go ahead with GM wheat field trials," said Greenpeace spokeswoman Laura Kelly, "amounts to a covert decision taken on behalf of Australia's wheat farmers, consumers and export markets that Australian wheat will be GM."

Sources for this story include:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gm-wheat-...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.co/032699_GM_wheat_Australia.html#ixzz1PJtFgxVn

GM WHEAT TRIAL BEGINS AMID SECRECY

2011-06-14T21:54:00.000-07:00

Ben Cubby May 28, 2011

AUSTRALIA'S first trial of genetically modified wheat and barley has begun near Narrabri in NSW, with the ultimate goal of producing more nutritious bread.

But details of how exactly the genes were altered remain secret. The CSIRO, which is running the three-year experiment, said the various gene combinations in the trial were subject to commercial-in-confidence agreements to protect the interests of various government research agencies and a US company, Arcadia Biosciences.

The trial has been criticised by environment groups and some organic farmers, who say there is no known way to stop the altered wheat and barley from mixing with natural strains and ''contaminating'' a swathe of Australia's wheat crop.

The CSIRO says it will follow the safety requirements set down in a licence issued by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. ''They will be separated from other crops by 200 metres, and wheat pollen travels about one metre, so it is highly unlike any will be found beyond that,'' said Matthew Morell, a researcher with the CSIRO's Future Food division. ''Because these are patented technologies, there is still a need for restricting the details in terms of protecting commercial information.''

Fourteen separate strains of wheat and barley will be grown. Some will test the viability of enriching the crops with extra nutrients, and others will focus on using nitrogen from the soil more efficiently, which would in theory lead to higher productivity without requiring more fertiliser.

''We have done testing in greenhouses on these crops before but we also need to see how they react in the field, with the presence of other plants,'' Dr Morell said. ''At the end of the process we should have two or three years of data, and we can make an assessment about it.''

The licence says the risk of the genetically modified crops escaping their containment is very low. ''The risk assessment concluded that this proposed limited and controlled release … poses negligible risks to the health and safety of people or the environment as a result of gene technology,'' the gene technology regulator said.

However, the environment group Greenpeace opposes the trial, on the basis that there have been no laboratory trials on the safety of the modified crops for human or animal consumption.

It says genetically modified trial crops have usually broken their containment lines as a result of human error. In the case of a modified canola crop in southern NSW, seeds appear to have spilled from trucks driving down roads near an experimental farm. This spread the canola and potentially exposed government agencies to legal action from farmers who market their products as organic.

A Greenpeace spokeswoman, Laura Kelly, said: ''The Australian government's decision to go ahead with GM wheat field trials amounts to a covert decision taken on behalf of Australia's wheat farmers, consumers and export markets that Australian wheat will be GM.''

An organic farming group, The Biological Farmers of Australia, said the trial should not proceed without safety tests first.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gm-wheat-trial-begins-amid-secrecy-20110527-1f8hl.html

WHAT YOU NEVER KNEW ABOUT DAIRY

2011-03-17T04:10:00.000-07:00

What you never knew about dairy from Animals Australia on Vimeo.

Baking soda can clean your teeth, clear your complexion and act as a natural antacid

2011-03-15T07:51:00.000-07:00

Sunday, February 18, 2007 by: Kelly Joyce Neff
(NaturalNews) Many components of the modern western diet – meats, fish, dairy products, most grains, sugars, alcohol and caffeinated drinks (in fact, almost everything except vegetables, millet, most fruits and, as we have just seen, apple cider vinegar) – contribute to one's body becoming too acidic. This in turn can open the door to a variety of problems, some of them (including arthritic complaints) potentially serious if this acidic condition persists for many years.

This is because your body will attempt to compensate by retaining alkaline salts in the bloodstream to offset the increase of tissue acidity. Since your body can only tolerate a small imbalance in blood pH (the acid-alkali balance), it will rob alkaline components from other places – including your body's precious alkaline reserves – in an effort to restore proper pH equilibrium. This can result in heartburn, digestive distress, stomach upset, fatigue and a multitude of other symptoms. Simple, inexpensive kitchen baking soda can fix this.

Very useful in keeping the body healthily alkalized is half to one teaspoon a day of baking soda in water. Don't take it with or within an hour of meals, though, as the stomach needs to retain its acidity in order to perform its digestive functions effectively. A great deal of tap water (or even store-bought spring water) is surprisingly acidic; filtration will remove toxins but will not affect the pH balance of the water. (Baking soda can be used to reduce the corrosion of acidic drinking water in municipal water supplies, therefore reducing the toxicity of the lead and copper, which are dissolved from the pipes.) You can purchase a pH testing kit for home use very cheaply, and if the water you usually drink is acidic (i.e. with a pH of less than 7.0) you could remedy this cheaply and easily by adding a pinch of baking soda to all the water you consume.

Baking soda is also effective for polishing teeth (without scratching the tooth surface) and fighting bad breath (sprinkle a little on the toothbrush bristles). It can even be tried for exfoliating skin when acne is a problem (add a little to a facial cleanser in place of using a commercial facial scrub).

When baking soda is added to bath water, sunburn sufferers often experience a notable reduction in pain. Place a cup (8 ounces) of baking soda under the running bath tap so it dissolves completely, and soak in a lukewarm tub for about half an hour. Such a bath will soothe the pain – and you won't have to endure the stinging sensation of a shower. Adding baking soda to a hot bath at any time also helps wash acid wastes out of the body.

In addition, baking soda can be used in cool (but not cold) bath water to soothe other skin irritations and alleviate itching from prickly heat, bee stings, insect bites, and other minor skin ailments. A paste (made with just enough water to get the desired sticky consistency) placed on an insect bite or sting and allowed to dry is a time-tested approach for drawing out and neutralizing poisons.

People with skin allergies who tend to react to commercial laundry detergents might find that washing their clothing and bedding in baking soda is less irritating.

Simple baking soda may also weaken the desire for a cigarette as well as reduce the desire for sugar and sweets. It's used in kidney dialysis to reduce the level of acids in the bloodstream, and acts to prevent bacterial growth in food products. For general purposes of alkalinizing the body, quarter to half a teaspoon twice a day in water is usually enough.

The medicinal and self-care uses of baking soda were recognized by the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) more than 150 years ago. For years, baking soda has been recommended because of its antacid effects, mainly to neutralize stomach acids that can cause heartburn, acid indigestion and related discomforts.

As it mixes with the hydrochloric acid in the stomach, baking soda triggers a chemical reaction, and its end products are salt (NaCl, or sodium chloride), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. The water is harmless, and the carbon dioxide gets released as a gas, producing a familiar burp once the acid is neutralized.

However, commercial antacid products only lessen symptoms of over-acidity by blocking the production of acid and can often produce unwanted side effects. They alter your body's ability to absorb protein and calcium, which can then create the need for a calcium supplements to compensate.

If it were not for the presence of sodium – which makes the tissue in the stomach highly alkaline – the lining would be destroyed by the hydrochloric acid in the stomach. The stomach, intestines, joints and ligaments are in constant need of natural food-source sodium. Naturally occurring sodium is not to be confused with the sodium from common commercial table salt, which is processed with extreme heat using many chemical and bleaching agents.

Potassium neutralizes acid wastes, and in combination with sodium, maintains a healthy acid/alkaline balance. Potassium and sodium are nearly always found together in the body and perform many of the same functions. Second only to breathing and maintaining a heartbeat the most important metabolic function our body performs is to maintain a balanced pH. Baking soda, in small amounts, performs this function.

Kelly Joyce Neff has an interdisciplinary degree in Celtic Studies which includes work in cultural anthropology, history, linguistics, language, and literature. She is a traditional midwife and herbalist, a reiki master, and an active craftsperson. She lives in San Francisco.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/021618_baking_soda_home_remedies.html#ixzz1GgDDj41X

THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION EXPOSES THE TRUTH ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION AND THE PHOSPHATE MINING INDUSTRY

2011-03-12T19:43:00.000-08:00

COKE/PEPSI AS PESTICIDE

2011-02-18T15:12:00.000-08:00

FIRE WATER:MALCOLM McCLURE INTERVIEW

2011-02-16T21:58:00.000-08:00

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

PART 5

FIRE WATER:DR. ANDREW HARRIS INTERVIEW

2011-02-16T21:50:00.000-08:00

CHOOSING HEALTHY FOODS NOW CALLED A MENTAL DISORDER

2011-02-13T07:50:00.000-08:00

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."

But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").

Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is "normal" when it comes to foods?

I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!

Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green

It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.

That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...

Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...

THIS COULD THREATEN THE FUTURE OF FOOD – DESTROYING THE ENTIRE FOOD CHAIN…

2011-02-13T05:29:00.000-08:00

Posted By Dr. Mercola February 02 2011

Roundup, Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide, is causing Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease, in many fields. Study after study shows that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but also to the outbreak of numerous other diseases.

Glyphosate is the world's bestselling weed killer; it was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced "Roundup Ready" crops -- genetically modified (GM) plants that can withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

But the herbicide doesn't destroy plants directly; instead, it creates a unique perfect storm of conditions that activates disease-causing organisms in the soil, while at the same time wiping out plant defenses against those diseases.

The Institute for Responsible Technology reports:

"By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don [Huber, a plant pathologist], 'There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate …'

Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed ... They've 'been linked to the plague epidemics' of medieval Europe, 'large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,' esophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia."

Sources:

Institute for Responsible Technology January 14, 2011

More than:

75 percent of soybeans
65 percent of cotton
10 percent of corn grown in the United States

… contain the genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready gene, which allows farmers to spray Monsanto's Roundup herbicide directly onto their fields, killing weeds without harming the crops … theoretically.

However, this convenience comes at a steep price, as evidence shows that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, is actually devastating crops and human and animal health around the world, even when the exposure is restricted to residues leftover in the soil.

"The Perfect Storm" for Plant Devastation

Glyphosate is the world's bestselling weed killer, and it's found in more than 30 percent of all herbicides. While Roundup Ready crops can withstand the toxin because of GM genetic material from viruses and bacteria, the weed killer is thought to be contributing to Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a deadly plant disease that causes plants to turn yellow and die.

As reported by GM expert Jeffrey Smith, numerous studies have linked glyphosate to increases in SDS, including in crops that have never been sprayed with the herbicide but were planted in a field that received an application the previous season.

As Smith points out:

"The herbicide doesn't destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited."

In fact, Roundup herbicide weakens plants and promotes disease in a number of ways, including:

Acting as a chelator of vital nutrients, depriving plants of the nutrients necessary for healthy plant function
Destroying beneficial soil organisms that suppress disease-causing organisms and help plants absorb nutrients
Interfering with photosynthesis, reducing water use efficiency, shortening root systems and causing plants to release sugars, which changes soil pH
Stunting and weakening plant growth
Promoting disease-causing organisms in soil, which then overtake the weakened crops

So the glyphosate in Roundup is not only weakening plants, it's changing the makeup of soil and boosting the number of disease-causing organisms, a deadly recipe for crops around the globe.

As Don Huber, a plant pathologist at Purdue University, stated:

"There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease."

As the use of Roundup has increased, so too has the prevalence of potentially devastating plant diseases, which could threaten future food crops and the food chain that depends on them.

Dangers for People and Animals Too

It's not only plant life that's threatened by the use of Roundup -- human and animal toxins are created too. As Smith reported, glyphosate promotes the formation of certain types of fungi that are dangerous to people and contaminate food and animal feed. One such fungi, the Fusarium fungus, has been linked to plague epidemics, cancer, infertility and animal diseases.

Residues of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide found in GM food and feed have also been linked to cell damage and even death, even at very low levels. Researchers have also found it causes membrane and DNA damage, and inhibits cell respiration.

It's also possible that glyphosate is significantly altering the nutrient content of our food, through its chelating mechanism, leading to widespread mineral deficiencies in animals and humans. Smith writes:

"The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases …

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply."

Roundup in the Environment

Monsanto long used the slogans, "It's Safer than Mowing," "Biodegradable," and "Environmentally Friendly" to describe Roundup -- until the real effects of this toxic herbicide were revealed and they were forced to discontinue their deceptive advertising.

The truth is Monsanto's own tests showed that only 2 percent of the herbicide broke down after 28 days, which means it readily persists in the environment. Glyphosate is actually the most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers in California. Additionally:

The surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself, and the combination of the two is even more toxic.
Glyphosate is suspected of causing genetic damage.
Glyphosate is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance.
Laboratory studies have identified adverse effects of glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing.

In one animal study, rats given 1,000 mg/kg of glyphosate resulted in a 50 percent mortality rate, and skeletal alterations were observed in over 57 percent of fetuses!

And just so you understand, GM crops that are resistant to Roundup are the most widely sold GM varieties. So if you eat GM foods, there is a very good chance those foods contain Roundup residues -- and possibly hefty amounts of them.

According to Smith, by 2004 farmers used an estimated 86 percent more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM. Higher levels of herbicide residue in this GM soy might cause health problems, and many symptoms identified in one UK soy allergy study are also related to glyphosate exposure.

The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption.

Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate's breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.

Again, the use of Roundup herbicide has increased dramatically since the GM Roundup Ready crops were introduced. In the first 13 years, American farmers sprayed an additional 383 million pounds of herbicide due to these herbicide-tolerant crops. And now the repeated exposures have given Mother Nature all she needs to stage her comeback in the form of devastating superweeds.

How Can You Avoid Roundup and Roundup Ready Crops?

Did you know that genetically modified foods are so prevalent in the United States that if you randomly pick an item off your grocery store's shelves, you have a 75 percent chance of picking a food with GM ingredients?

It's true. At least seven out of every 10 processed food items have been genetically modified, and there's more to come.

The potential health ramifications of these world-wide experiments with our food supply are frightening to say the least. If you care about the health and future of your family, I strongly urge you to refuse to participate in this destructive trend.

How?

It's actually simpler than you might think... By buying only non-GM foods.

The True Food Shopping Guide is a great tool for helping you determine which brands and products contain GM ingredients. It lists 20 different food categories that include everything from baby food to chocolate.

Additionally, here are four simple steps to decrease your consumption of GM foods as much as possible:

Reduce or eliminate processed foods in your diet. The fact that 75 percent of processed foods contain GM ingredients is only one of the many reasons to stick to a whole foods diet.
Read produce and food labels. Conventionally raised soybeans and corn make up the largest portion of genetically modified crops. Ingredients made from these foods include high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn flour and meal, dextrin, starch, soy sauce, margarine, and tofu.
Buy organic produce. By definition, food that is certified organic must be free from all GM organisms, produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed.

You can also get involved in helping to defeat GM crops at the regulatory level. Right now the USDA is considering the approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, which would lead to the application of millions more pounds of Roundup herbicide each year.

You can urge U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to NOT approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which would lead to the addition of more Roundup on U.S. fields and in our food, by using this action form from the Institute for Responsible Technology

THE NEWEST DANGEROUS SWEETENER TO HIT YOUR FOOD SHELVES...

2011-02-12T20:29:00.000-08:00

February 08 2008, By Dr. Mercola

Since 2002 an artificial sweetener called neotame has been approved for use in food and drink products around the world, although so far its use appears to be very limited.

Neotame is a chemical derivative of aspartame, and judging by the chemicals used in its manufacturing, it appears even more toxic than aspartame, although the proponents of neotame claim that increased toxicity is not a concern, because less of it is needed to achieve the desired effect.

Neotame is bad science brought to you by the Monsanto Company.

If Monsano truly had nothing to fear with either of these artificial chemical sweeteners, they would have funded rigorous independent testing for safety. To date they have not, and they won't, because virtually every independent analysis of aspartame not conducted by Monsanto partners has revealed a long list of disturbing side effects, mostly neurological in nature.

Monsanto also has now sold the NutraSweet Company to someone else, but the approval of neotame came under Monsanto's ownership, and was most likely a result of Monsanto's cozy relationship with the FDA. More about that in a minute.

My recommendation for neotame is the same as that for aspartame, which is: it should be avoided if you care about your health.

Why is Neotame Dangerous?

Hopefully by now you are aware of the dangers of aspartame, if you aren't, please review this previous article.

But as if aspartame wasn't bad enough, NutraSweet (a Monsanto subsidiary at the time of neotame's approval) "improved" the aspartame formula, making neotame 7,000-13,000 times sweeter than sugar (sucrose) and 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.

How did they do this?

In 1998, Monsanto applied for FDA approval for neotame, "based on the aspartame formula" with one critical addition: 3-dimethylbutyl, which just happens to be listed on the EPA's most hazardous chemical list.

So not only is neotame potentially more devastating to your health than aspartame, it is also approved for use in a wider array of food products, including baked goods, because it is more stable at higher temperatures.

What is 3-Dimethylbutyl?

Neotame is manufactured by combining aspartame with 3,3-dimethylbutyraldehyd, which was added to block enzymes that break the peptide bond between aspartic acid and phenylalanine, thereby reducing the availability of phenylalanine.

This eliminates the need for a warning on labels directed at people who cannot properly metabolize phenylalanine.

However, 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde is categorized as both highly flammable and an irritant, and carries risk statements for handling including irritating to skin, eyes and respiratory system.

In other words, the NutraSweet company assures you that neotame is perfectly safe, while at the same time they manufacture neotame through a chemical reaction between aspartame and a substance that is highly flammable and a skin, eye and respiratory irritant (that must be handled with extreme caution by anyone involved in the manufacturing process).

Does this sound like something you want to put into your body?

Why are These Chemicals Approved for Human Consumption?

Many people actually consider the FDA to be a "subsidiary" of the Monsanto Company. It sounds impossible, but when you look at all the Monsanto executives who have gone through the revolving door between private industry and government oversight, a truly disturbing picture emerges of the foxes guarding the henhouse..

The FDA is packed by pro-business, pro-corporation advocates who often have massive conflicts of interest when it comes to protecting the health of the public.

In fact, the revolving door between private industry and government oversight agencies is so well established these days, it has become business as usual to read about scandal, conflicts of interest and blatant pro-industry bias, even when it flies in the face of science or the law.

A few examples include:

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, a former dental amalgam company executive, helped subvert a federal judge's order to label mercury fillings as a hazard to children and pregnant women.
The FDA's top medical-device regulator, Daniel Schultz, resigned following internal dissent over decisions that his critics said were too friendly to industry.
Janet Woodcock, the director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, was accused of a massive conflict of interest stemming from an ethics complaint filed by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The agency's list of corruptions and collusions is now a mile long. And each piece of new legislation aimed to improve its function seems to do just the opposite—making the FDA even more dependent upon financial support by Big Pharma.

Why Aspartame and Neotame are NOT a Dieters Best Friend

On of the biggest marketing and PR tactics for man-made chemical sweeteners has been the claim that they help in the battle against obesity. Folks, they don't. They never have and they never will.

The research and the epidemiologic data suggest the opposite is true, and that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and neotame tend to lead to weight gain. As I've often said, there's more to weight gain or weight loss than mere calorie intake.

One reason for aspartame and neotame's potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame and are also present in neotame -- are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage.

Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism.

So although you're not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame and neotame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.

Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to it, just as your body can become resistant to insulin, and once that happens, your body can no longer "hear" the hormonal messages instructing your body to stop eating, burn fat, and maintain good sensitivity to sweet tastes in your taste buds.

What happens then?

You remain hungry; you crave sweets, and your body stores more fat.

Leptin-resistance also causes an increase in visceral fat, sending you on a vicious cycle of hunger, fat storage and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and more.

The Real Reason Artificial Sweetener Use Has Exploded

If you want some answers in scenarios like this it is typically useful to follow the money trail. Aspartame currently has the largest market share of all artificial sweeteners, and the people at NutraSweet would like to keep it that way.

Artificial sweeteners cost a great deal less than real sugar, corn syrup or molasses, so the processed food and beverage industry saves money by using LESS of these man-made chemicals to create MORE sweetness in their products.

Neotame is manufactured from aspartame, and builds on aspartame's ability to provide more sweetness from less raw material, as it is 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.

Unfortunately, one byproduct your body creates by breaking down aspartame is formaldehyde, which is extremely toxic to your health even in very small doses. The NutraSweet Company claims the addition of 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde to aspartame makes it more stable at higher temperatures, and reduces the availability of phenylalanine. But nowhere do they discuss the formation of formaldehyde when your body breaks down aspartame, which is the main ingredient of neotame.

In a search of pubmed.gov, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which has over 11 million medical citations, neotame returns zero double-blind scientific studies on toxicity in humans or animals.

If neotame was indeed completely safe to ingest, you would think the NutraSweet Company would have published at least one double-blind safety study in the public domain? They haven't.

You have to ask yourself "why not?"

Have You Experienced a Bad Aspartame or Neotame Reaction? Be Heard!

Did you know that only a fraction of all adverse food reactions are ever reported to the FDA? This is a problem that only you as the consumer can have an impact upon.

In order to truly alert the FDA to a problem with a product they've approved, they must be notified – by as many people as possible who believe they have experienced a side effect. This mean you can take action against the manufacturers of these chemicals that continue to put your optimal health at risk, if you feel you have had a bad reaction to their product.

I urge you, if you believe you have experienced side effects from aspartame or neotame, let the FDA know about it!

Please go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number listed for your state, and report your adverse reaction.

There's no telling just how many reports they might need before considering taking another look at the safety of aspartame or neotame, but the only way to press them is by reporting any and all adverse effects!

And in the meantime, do your health and the health of your family a favor and treat all foods and drinks that contain aspartame or neotame as if they were deleterious to your optimal health. Because, in my opinion, they are.

MANY GET ANTIDEPRESSANTS FOR NO PSYCHIATRIC REASON

2011-02-11T07:09:00.000-08:00

By Frederik Joelving

NEW YORK | Fri Feb 4, 2011 4:20pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - More than a quarter of Americans taking antidepressants have never been diagnosed with any of the conditions the drugs are typically used to treat, according to new research.

That means millions could be exposed to side effects from the medicines without proven health benefits, researchers say.

"We cannot be sure that the risks and side effects of antidepressants are worth the benefit of taking them for people who do not meet criteria for major depression," said Jina Pagura, a psychologist and currently a medical student at the University of Manitoba in Canada, who worked on the study.

"These individuals are likely approaching their physicians with concerns that may be related to depression, and could include symptoms like trouble sleeping, poor mood, difficulties in relationships, etc.," she added in an e-mail to Reuters Health. "Although an antidepressant might help with these issues, the problems may also go away on their own with time, or might be more amenable to counseling or psychotherapy."

The researchers tapped into data from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiologic Surveys, which include a nationally representative sample of more than 20,000 U.S. adults interviewed between 2001 and 2003.

Roughly one in ten people told interviewers they had been taking antidepressants during the past year. Yet a quarter of those people had never been diagnosed with any of the conditions that doctors usually treat with the medication, such as major depression and anxiety disorder.

According to The National Institute of Mental Health, nearly 15 million American adults suffer from major depression, and 40 million more have anxiety disorders.

Although the survey didn't include all mental illnesses that might have led doctors to prescribe an antidepressant -- say, obsessive-compulsive disorder or to help quit smoking -- other experts said the new findings are not exaggerated.

"Reviews of claims records, which are diagnoses actually given by health care professionals, suggest that only about 50% of patients who are prescribed antidepressants receive a psychiatric diagnosis," said Dr. Mark Olfson, a psychiatrist at Columbia University in New York.

"These findings raise questions about the clinical appropriateness of antidepressant treatment selection for many primary care patients," he added in an e-mail to Reuters Health.

With sales of $9.9 billion in 2009, up three percent since the previous year, antidepressants rank fourth among prescription drugs in the U.S., according to IMS Health, a company that analyzes the pharmaceutical industry.

Popular brand names include Pfizer's Zoloft, Forest Laboratories' Lexapro and Eli Lilly's Prozac.

While studies have shown the drugs may help some people with depression, they come with a price tag -- and not only the $100 or more that a month's supply can cost. Some users experience sexual problems or gain weight, for instance.

"Nearly all medication has side effects, so there are undoubtedly a large number of Americans who are taking antidepressants that may not be effective at treating their conditions, yet they suffer from the side effects," said Jeffrey S. Harman, an expert in health services at the University of Florida in Gainesville, who was not involved in the new study.

"Not to mention inappropriate use of our health care dollars that comes along with inappropriate prescribing," he added in an e-mail.

Still, Harman said the findings, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, didn't necessarily mean doctors are prescribing more antidepressants than they should.

"As far as overprescribing, I don't think you can say that it is occurring as a blanket statement," he explained. "There are undoubtedly many people being prescribed antidepressants that may not be effective for them, but there are also millions of Americans suffering from depression who are not being prescribed antidepressants or are being prescribed them at a suboptimal dose."

Pfizer did not comment directly on the new findings, but told Reuters Health it was dedicated to ensuring "that patients and their doctors have the most up to date medical information on which to base their treatment decisions."

SOURCE: bit.ly/eXPVSL Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, online January 25, 2011.

Originally published in Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/us-many-get-antidepressants-no-psychiatr-idUSTRE7136EW20110204?pageNumber=1

THE LETHAL MEDICAL FAILURE THAT'S STILL RECOMMENDED BY YOUR DOCTOR

2010-12-29T19:33:00.000-08:00

In April, the government of India called a halt to trials of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine. This came about because of a civil society-led investigation which highlighted serious ethical violations in at least one trial.

In India, civil society groups have long been voicing their concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of the two HPV vaccines, along with the aggressive promotion of the vaccines and the need to investigate reported deaths and adverse events post vaccination.

According to Economic and Political Weekly, the investigation that led to the ban highlights how:

"... the promotional practices of drug companies, pressure from powerful international organizations, and the co-option of, and uncritical endorsement by India's medical associations are influencing the country's public health priorities."

In the US, only about one third of eligible young U.S. women complete a full course of the vaccine against the human papillomavirus. The older the woman, the less likely she is to have gotten even one of the three doses.

A study looked at almost 10,000 women between the ages of 9 and 26 eligible for HPV vaccination. Of these, only 39.1 percent received a single dose, 30.1 percent received two doses, and 30.8 percent completed the three dose regimen.

According to Yahoo News:

"Women between the ages of 18 to 26 were least likely to get even a single dose, which ... was probably due to the influence of parents on younger women, since parental consent is required for getting the vaccine under age 18."

Sources:

Economic and Political Weekly November 29, 2010

E! Science News November 9, 2010

Yahoo News November 9, 2010

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

This is all good news, considering the fact that the HPV vaccine may be one of the most dangerous and unnecessary vaccines on the market.

Millions of women in the U.S. were scared by Merck's powerful ad campaign into becoming "one less" victim to cervical cancer by getting vaccinated with Gardasil. But instead of saving women from cancer, the vaccine has turned an increasing number of formerly healthy girls into "one more" victim of vaccine abuse.

The reported death toll for the HPV vaccine now stands at 89, and the first male death has also been reported. A young boy died just eight days after being vaccinated with Gardasil.

As of November 3, 2010, there were also 20,575 adverse reactions, the Age of Autism reports, and 352 reports of abnormal pap smears post vaccination. Keep in mind however, that it has been estimated that only 1 to 10 percent of all vaccine adverse events are ever reported, which means there could actually be millions of vaccine injuries related to Gardasil, and perhaps thousands of deaths.

Shockingly, the vaccine is now also related to infant deaths.

Breastfed Infants Die after Mothers get HPV Vaccine

Yes, according to a November 1, 2010 PRLog press release:

"Information has been received from a physician for the pregnancy registry for GARDASIL, concerning a female who on September 1, 2010 was vaccinated with the first dose of GARDASIL intramuscularly while breastfeeding. Her baby was 40 days old. It was reported that the mother's and baby's health were good (well controlled).

On September 2, 2010, in the morning, the baby's condition was still good, but in the afternoon the condition suddenly dropped. The family immediately took the baby to hospital but it did not help since the baby died shortly after that. The cause of death was not reported…"

Two additional VAERS reports of infants dying in a similar fashion have been filed in the last 16 months.

"Where is government accountability and responsibility in allowing this uncontrolled medical experiment on adolescents and women of child-bearing age?" the press release states.

"How many lives will be destroyed before they realize the travesty that is unfolding as they stand by and say and do nothing – other than "monitor" the situation?"

Those are the same questions I ask myself each time I write on this topic…

Unethical Clinical Research Performed in India, Civil Society Group Claims

In March of this year, a team of women's rights activists visited one of the vaccination sites in the Khammam district of India. According to Economic & Political Weekly:

"A look at the findings of this visit… suggests that these projects – which were in fact research – violated existing ethical guidelines on clinical research, as well as child rights.

These violations include – but are not limited to – testing on vulnerable and marginalized groups (particularly pediatric populations), who are not likely to benefit from the results of the research, and without taking their proper informed consent or assent."

This seems to be more the rule than the exception when it comes to many pharmaceutical companies' drug studies overseas. India in particular has seen an upsurge of clinical pharmaceutical studies, and the questionable practices employed are becoming increasingly apparent.

According to an article published last June, "proposed new laws to prevent pharmaceutical companies from conducting clinical studies of medicines involving humans without obtaining permission from accredited ethical committees may soon come into force in India."

The article goes on to say that:

"Deaths during clinical trials are increasing in India in the recent years even as the country emerges to be one of the most sought-after destinations of human studies of experimental medicines.

According to the figures collated with available information collected, as many as 308 persons died in the year 2009 till the month of August, reports said."

The Indian government suspended Merck's Gardasil study in April, when they discovered that four of the young participants had died, and more than 120 girls suffered severe adverse reactions, including:

stomach disorders
epilepsy
headaches
early menarche

HPV Vaccine Doesn't Even Work as Advertised

The marketers of Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil would like you to believe that getting your daughter vaccinated can save her from HPV related illnesses like cervical cancer and genital warts, but where is the good evidence to show that is true?

There are more than 100 viral strains of HPV. Of these, about 30-40 are sexually transmitted and 15 strains are associated with cervical cancer. Several HPV strains are also associated with skin infections that cause genital warts or common warts on your hands and feet.

But Gardasil contains only four of these HPV strains, so if you contract one of the 96+ types that aren't included, you're out of luck. And, if you've already been exposed to one of the four types of virus in the vaccine, it doesn't work against those either.

Therefore, even if you accept the risks and get vaccinated, your chances of getting some form of HPV are still very high.

But even then there's actually very little cause for alarm because, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states, "In 90 percent of cases, your body's immune system clears the HPV infection naturally within two years."

This is true whether the infection is the type that can cause warts or cancer.

Personally, I don't see how the mediocre-at-best benefits of Gardasil could possibly outweigh its risks.

How Does HPV Vaccine Cause Injury and Death?

All vaccines, like all pharmaceutical products, have risks and can cause reactions that can lead to permanent health problems or even death. HPV vaccine is no different. Ever since the vaccine was fast tracked by the FDA and licensed in 2006, there have been many reports of Gardasil-related injuries and deaths.

The symptoms and causes of death after Gardasil vaccination include:

blood clots
acute respiratory failure
cardiac arrest
"sudden death" due to "unknown causes" shortly after receiving the vaccine

According to the National Cancer Institute, an estimated 4,210 women will die from cervical cancer in the U.S. this year. Many of these mostly older women will have had high risk factors for developing a chronic HPV infection that leads to cervical cancer, such as lack of regular pap screening tests that could have promptly identified pre-cancer signs and led to life saving treatment. In fact, other high risk factors for chronic HPV infection that is associated with development of cervical cancer also include smoking; co-infection with HIV and chlamydia; and long term oral contraceptive use.

Cervical cancer CAN be prevented without vaccination and yet it looks like we may have already lost 89 healthy children and young women to HPV vaccination in the effort to spare them from the possibility of developing cervical cancer later in life.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees that as morally reprehensible!

Can Gardasil Increase Your Chances of Cervical Cancer ?

Yes, according to information Merck presented to the FDA prior to approval, if you have already been exposed to HPV 16 or 18 before getting a Gadasil shot, then Gardasil may increase your risk of developing precancerous lesions and cancer by nearly 45 percent!

None of this is advertised by Merck or public health officials, and the FDA has not recommended screening for HPV prior to vaccination. The FDA did not even demand that a warning be included in the package insert.

This is yet another potential hazard that no one is talking about, let alone making parents fully aware of before vaccinating their daughters (and sons).

Cervical Cancer Virtually 100 Percent Avoidable

Cervical cancer is well documented to be caused by an infection acquired through sexual contact. So it is virtually 100% behaviorally avoidable. According to a New England Journal of Medicine study, the use of condoms reduces the incidence of HPV by 70 percent, offering FAR better protection than Gardasil.

According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease in America. The majority of people, who are sexually active, have had contact with HPV viruses. More than 6 million women contract HPV infection annually, yet, as I already mentioned, more than 90 percent of these women will naturally clear the virus from their body without any residual health effects. And if girls and women get regular pap screening tests, which identify pre-cancerous lesions early, they can greatly reduce their chances of eventually being one of the estimated 4,200 American women to die from cervical cancer.

Why?

Because if you are healthy, your immune system is usually strong enough to clear up this kind of infection on its own, and does so in more than 90 percent of all cases.

Rather than subjecting your daughter or son to this unnecessary and potentially dangerous vaccine, you may want to nip the problem in the bud before it starts.

Here's how:

Recognize that cervical cancer (or any cancer) is not caused by a "vaccine deficiency."
Talk to your kids about HPV. This infection is sexually transmitted, so it is 100 percent preventable through lifestyle choices.
Keep your immune system strong. A healthy immune system is better able to handle a heavier emotional and physical stress load. I've written many times on how to supercharge your immune system as an alternative to vaccinations, but I can't stress it enough: Proper diet, exercise, good hygiene, staying well rested, and hand-washing are excellent ways to begin the road to a long, healthy life, no matter what your age.

I also advocate getting plenty of the most natural health-booster of all, something that's free from Mother Nature – sunshine. Or, when you can't be out in the sun, supplements of Vitamin D, and particularly Vitamin D3, can keep your immune levels up.

SCIENTISTS SHOW THAT THEY CAN CHANGE PEOPLE'S MORAL JUDGMENTS

2010-12-29T18:39:00.000-08:00

Posted By Dr. Mercola | December 29 2010

Scientists have shown they can alter your moral judgments just by disrupting a specific area of your brain with magnetic pulses.

A region of your brain just above and behind your right ear appears to control morality -- a bundle of nerve cells known as the right temporo-parietal junction (RTPJ).

When the researchers used magnetic pulses to block cell activity in that region, they impaired volunteers' notion of right and wrong.

BBC News reports:

"In one scenario participants were asked how acceptable it was for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knew to be unsafe. After receiving a 500-millisecond magnetic pulse to the scalp, the volunteers delivered verdicts based on outcome rather than moral principle. If the girlfriend made it across the bridge safely, her boyfriend was not seen as having done anything wrong."

TURMERIC HEALTH BENEFIS:HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR WITH TURMERIC

2010-12-29T18:07:00.000-08:00

December 29, 2010 Dr. Andrew Weil Founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine
Posted: December 28, 201

Looking for a simple New Year's resolution for health? Add turmeric to your diet.

Turmeric (Curcuma longa) is a culinary spice, a major ingredient in Indian curries, and the source of American mustard's bright yellow color. Used as both medicine and food for centuries, accumulating evidence suggests that this relative of ginger is a promising preventive agent for a wide range of diseases, probably due largely to its anti-inflammatory properties.

The National Institutes of Health lists 24 current studies on the effects of turmeric and its chief active component, curcumin. Such studies raise the question of which is better to take: whole turmeric, generally used as a powdered spice with food; or curcumin, which is usually taken as a supplement? Each has been shown to have health benefits, but unless you have a specific condition such as inflammatory bowel disease, I favor using turmeric (especially in cooking) rather than taking curcumin pills. This reflects my general belief that, until proven otherwise in head to head studies, whole plants are usually a better choice than isolates. On the other hand, curcumin appears to have a more rapid and dramatic effect, and may be the better choice as a therapeutic (rather than a preventative) preparation.

Here's a quick roundup of recent research on both turmeric and curcumin.

Curcumin seems to delay liver damage that can eventually lead to cirrhosis, according to preliminary experimental research at the Medical University Graz in Austria.
Kansas State University research found that adding certain spices, including turmeric, can reduce the levels of heterocyclic amines -- carcinogenic compounds that are formed when meats are barbecued, boiled or fried -- by up to 40 percent.
Rodent studies at the University of Texas indicate that curcumin inhibits the growth of a skin cancer, melanoma and also slows the spread of breast cancer into the lungs.
Researchers from the University of South Dakota have found that pretreatment with curcumin makes cancer cells more vulnerable to chemo and radiotherapy.
Epidemiologists have hypothesized that the turmeric that is part of daily curries eaten in India may help explain the low rate of Alzheimer's disease in that country. Among people aged 70 to 79, the rate is less than one-quarter that of the United States.

And at least one new study suggests curcumin's value for arthritis treatment. Since arthritis is so common and the results so interesting, it's worth a closer look.

This research, from Italy, was a three-month trial involving 50 patients diagnosed by x-ray with osteoarthritis of the knee. The Italian team was investigating the effect on arthritis symptoms of a curcumin-based preparation optimized for better absorption. Participating patients took the formulation in addition to standard medical treatment; those in the second group continued following their physicians' recommendations.

After 90 days, the researchers found a 58 percent decrease in overall reported pain and stiffness as well as an improvement in physical functioning among the curcumin group compared to the controls. They also found, via a standardized testing procedure, a 300 percent improvement in the emotional well being of the curcumin patients compared with the others. And blood tests showed a 16-fold decline in C-reactive protein, a marker for inflammation. Patients in the curcumin group were able to reduce their use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by 63 percent, compared to the other group.

The bottom line that the therapeutic advantages of turmeric and curcumin are almost too numerous to list. An overview published in Advanced Experimental Medical Biology in 2007 states that, "Curcumin has been shown to exhibit antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antibacterial, antifungal, and anticancer activities and thus has a potential against various malignant diseases, diabetes, allergies, arthritis, Alzheimer's disease and other chronic illnesses."

If you find this compelling, there are many ways to add turmeric to your diet. Some Americans may find straight turmeric powder bitter or otherwise off-putting, but when a teaspoon or two is added to a pot of soup or stew, the flavor disperses and adds a subtle depth and complexity that most people find appealing. If even that's too much for you, both turmeric and curcumin supplements are now widely available -- just take one along with your daily multivitamin. Note, however, that turmeric and curcumin are poorly absorbed from the G.I. tract. A recent finding is that absorption is enhanced in the presence of piperine, a constituent of black pepper. Indian cuisine commonly uses turmeric and pepper together. I suggest using only turmeric and curcumin supplements that contain piperine or black pepper extract.

If, like me, you love the flavor of turmeric, try this recipe for turmeric tea.

Naturally, there's far more to good health than adding this spice to your meals. But as part of an overall plan that includes an anti-inflammatory diet, regular exercise, stress-reduction and prudent supplementation, a daily sprinkle of turmeric in your cooking can be a valuable addition to your healthy lifestyle, and a great habit with which to begin a happy new year!

Andrew Weil, M.D., is the founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine and the editorial director of www.DrWeil.com. Become a fan on Facebook, follow Dr. Weil on Twitter, and check out his Daily Health Tips Blog.

Follow Dr. Andrew Weil on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrWeil

POMEGRANATE JUICE COMPONENTS BLOCK CANCER CELL MIGRATION

2010-12-29T02:01:00.000-08:00

NaturalNews.com printable article

Originally published December 29 2010 by S. L. Baker, features writer

(NaturalNews) One of the most dreaded consequences of cancer is when the disease metastasizes -- meaning it spreads from the primary site where it started to other parts of the body. But University of California, Riverside (UCR) scientists have announced what could be a major breakthrough in halting metastasis. They've discovered components in pomegranate juice that inhibit the movement of cancer cells and weaken the attraction of malignant cells to a chemical signal that has been shown to promote metastasis.

The UCR findings were just presented at the American Society for Cell Biology's 50th Annual Meeting, which is being held in Philadelphia. Specifically, the research team from the UCR laboratory of Manuela Martins-Green, Ph.D., found that pomegranate juice seems to block the spread of prostate cancer cells to the bone. The group is planning additional tests to determine the effects of various doses of the natural pomegranate compounds and whether there are any side effects.

In earlier studies, Dr. Martins-Green and her colleagues used a standardized concentration of pomegranate juice on two types of laboratory-cultured prostate cancer cells that were resistant to the male hormone testosterone. Scientists have long known that when cancerous cells are resistant to testosterone, that's an indicator those cells have a strong potential to metastasize. Not only did the research team find pomegranate juice killed many cancer tumor cells -- the pomegranate juice treatment also increased cell adhesion and decreased cell migration in those cancer cells that had not died.

Next the scientists analyzed the pomegranate juice to figure out which specific ingredients produced the molecular impact on cell adhesion and migration in metastatic prostate cancer cells. Dr. Martins-Green, graduate student Lei Wang and undergraduate student Jeffrey Ho discovered the answer: phenylpropanoids, hydrobenzoic acids, flavones and conjugated fatty acids found in the fruit.

"This is particularly exciting because we can now modify these naturally occurring components of the juice to improve their functions and make them more effective in preventing prostate cancer metastasis," Dr. Martins-Green said in a media statement."Because the genes and proteins involved in movement of prostate cancer cells are essentially the same as those involved in movement of other types of cancer cells, the same modified components of the juice could have a much broader impact in cancer treatment."

The idea that pomegranate phytochemicals have an anti-cancer effect isn't new. In fact, evidence has been steadily accumulating over the past few years that along with other health benefits (such as soothing inflammation in the body and potentially reducing the risk of heart disease) pomegranates can prevent and/or treat cancer. For example, earlier in 2010, NaturalNews reported on a study published in the journal Cancer Prevention Research showing that phytochemicals known as ellagitannins found in pomegranate fruit could prevent the development of hormone-dependent breast cancer and halt the growth of estrogen-driven tumors (http://www.naturalnews.com/027947_p...).

In addition, in a 2006 study of prostate cancer patients who drank eight ounces of pomegranate juice every day, UCLA researchers found a decline in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels that suggested a potential slowing of cancer progression. More recently, the results of a long-term study published in the Journal of Urology concluded pomegranate juice may effectively slow the progression of prostate cancer, even when regular treatment has failed (http://www.naturalnews.com/026190_c...).

However, despite all the science showing pomegranate juice could have anti-cancer effects, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has come down hard on claims about those potential benefits. In Sept. 2010, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Pom Wonderful, the natural foods company that provided the pomegranate juice for the UCLA research and has supported other research on pomegranate juice, charging the company's claims about the juice's health benefits were misleading.

For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/pomegran...

ECO-BULBS 'A HEALTH HAZARD FOR BABIES AND PREGNANT WOMEN DUE TO MERCURY INSIDE'

2010-12-25T01:51:00.000-08:00

By David Derbyshire 23rd December 2010

Energy-saving light bulbs were at the centre of a fresh health scare last night after researchers claimed they can release potentially harmful amounts of mercury if broken.

Levels of toxic vapour around smashed eco-bulbs were up to 20 times higher than the safe guideline limit for an indoor area, the study said.

It added that broken bulbs posed a potential health risk to pregnant women, babies and small children.

From a normal light bulb to the energy saving model. There are fears that broken eco-bulbs pose a health risk

The concerns surround ‘compact fluorescent lamps’ (CFLs), the most common type of eco-bulb in Britain, which are mini-versions of the strip lights found in offices.

The European Union is phasing out the traditional ‘incandescent bulbs’ used for more than 120 years and is forcing people to switch to low-energy alternatives to meet its climate change targets.

A CFL uses a fifth of the energy of a conventional bulb and can save £7 a year in bills. However, critics complain that CFLs’ light is harsh and flickery. Medical charities say they can trigger epileptic fits, migraines and skin rashes and have called for an ‘opt out’ for vulnerable people.

Incandescent bulbs do not contain mercury, along with other variants of energy-saving lights, such as LEDs and halogen bulbs. The study, for Germany’s Federal Environment Agency, tested a ‘worst case’ scenario using two CFLs, one containing 2 milligrams of mercury and the other 5 milligrams. Neither lamp had a protective casing and both were broken when hot.

Scientists at the Fraunhofer Wilhelm Klauditz Institute found that they released around 7 micrograms (there are 1,000 micrograms in a milligram) per cubic metre of air.The official guideline limit is 0.35 micrograms per cubic metre.

Federal Environment Agency president Jochen Flasbarth said: ‘The presence of mercury is the downside to energy-saving lamps. We need a lamp technology that can prevent mercury pollution soon.

‘The positive and necessary energy savings of up to 80 per cent as compared with light bulbs must go hand in hand with a safe product that poses no risks to health.’

During tests the German government agency’s researchers were alarmed to discover that some bulbs had no protective cover and broke when hot.

High levels of mercury were measured at floor level up to five hours after the bulbs failed.

A spokesman for the agency said: ‘Children and expectant mothers should keep away from burst energy-saving lamps.

‘For children’s rooms and other areas at higher risk of lamp breakage, we recommend the use of energy-saving lamps that are protected against breakage.’ However, the UK Government insisted the CFL bulbs were safe – and that the risk from a one-off exposure was minimal.

The Health Protection Agency says a broken CFL is unlikely to cause health problems. However, it advises people to ventilate a room where a light has smashed and evacuate it for 15 minutes.

Householders are also advised to wear protective gloves while wiping the area of the break with a damp cloth and picking up fragments of glass. The cloth and glass should be placed in a plastic bag and sealed.

CFLs are not supposed to be put in the dustbin, whether broken or intact, but taken as hazardous waste to a recycling centre.

A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: 'Guidance from the Health Protection Agency makes it clear that the mercury contained in low energy bulbs does not pose a health risk to anyone immediately exposed, should one be broken.'

Friends of the Earth said the switch to low-energy bulbs would reduce exposure to mercury from coal-fired power stations.

FLUORIDE=THE PINEAL GLAND KILLER=BLOCK DMT SENSITIVITY

2010-12-21T02:46:00.000-08:00

CANCER AND SODIUM BICARBONATE

2010-12-21T02:43:00.000-08:00