Saturday, June 16, 2012

GENETICALLY MODIFIED SHOWDOWN:MONSANTO SUED BY ORGANIC FARMERS


Imagine if Apple tried to charge you every time you accidentally glanced at an iPhone on the street. That's basically the policy that Monsanto, an agriculture giant whose patented genes are in 95% of all soybeans and 80% of all corn grown in the U.S, enforces. The company is notorious for suing farmers that the company suspects of violating patents in even inadvertent manners. Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers and received over $15 million from these patent-violation cases (PDF), which have included incidences of farmers being sued because pollen from nearby farmers' Monsanto-brand genetically modified crops blew over the fence onto their field. Now, finally, organic farmers are fighting back.
The lawsuit, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed this week on behalf of 12 seed businesses, 26 farms and farmers, and 22 agricultural associations, all of whom question whether Monsanto should have the right to sue farmers for patent infringement if GM seeds inadvertently end up on their property. 
The suit, filed by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), explains:
In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers
are ever contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, they
need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason
justifying this result is that Monsanto's patents on genetically
modified seed are invalid because they don't meet the "usefulness"
requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT's Ravicher, plaintiffs'
lead attorney in the case. Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening
filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic
and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified
seed --increased production and decreased herbicide use--are false.
Translation: According to the farmers, not only is Monsanto's patent policy out of control, but its patents aren't even useful in the first place--they're harmful. The lawsuit couldn't come at a better time for the organic farming industry; GM alfalfa, a crop whose pollen can travel via wind up to five miles, has been approved by the U.S government. And GM sugar beets, which can easily cross-contaminate with non-GM sugar beets, were also recently approved. Having protection against Monsanto's lawsuits will be a necessity for these farms in the coming years.
Reach Ariel Schwartz via Twitter or email.
[Homepage photo by Flickr user Mahalie]

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1677863/genetically-modified-showdown-monsanto-sued-by-organic-farmers

Friday, June 8, 2012

FOODS THAT FEED THE PINEAL GLAND

http://www.riseearth.com/2011/12/foods-that-feed-pineal-gland.html

Our pineal gland otherwise known as our master gland or the gland that governs over our third eye is the center of psychic awareness in the human mind. It is about the size of a pea and sits inside a cave located behind the pituitary gland. It naturally produces a hormone called melatonin which regulates human daily body rhythms that deal directly with the day and night cycles. Developing and expanding the function and the energy of your pineal gland is extremely important as it affects every system in your body physically and it has the potential to determine the expansion or the contraction of your psychic awareness, consciousness, and experience.

Sunlight is extremely important for the pineal gland and yes sunlight is a form of food as food is any substance that nourishes the body. Sunlight can be taken in and digested through the eyes, skin, hair, nose hairs, and ears and should be consumed for at least 30 minutes a day. To fully engage the pineal gland, sunlight should be taken in through the pupils.


Seaweed vegetables that are sun-dried by the sun contain high amounts of vitamin D, many vitamins in the B-vitamin family and iodine. Those vegetables include and are not limited to kombu, arame, wakame, dulse, nori, etc.

Dark leafy greens like our kale, turnip greens, mustard greens, bok choy, collard greens etc are extremely nourishing for the pineal gland as this gland absorbs the properties of the green color 
of the vegetables and properly distributes them to the appropriate systems of the body so that the body is thoroughly nourished. 

Consuming meats including fish that has high amounts of mercury, carbonated beverages, fluoride in our water and our toothpaste and access to smog negatively affect the pineal gland and can block its ability to function properly. When you consume meat from an animal, you are ingesting the DNA of that animal and therefore taking on the negative and positive experiences of an animal which could interrupt the ability of the pineal gland to take on its own psychic awareness blueprint of the individual.

The proper foods can positively affect your pineal gland but you can also activate your pineal gland by eating more of a raw foods, vegan, or vegetarian diet, running an ozone machine in your home to clean up the air in your home, and drinking filtered water. As much as the pineal gland needs sunlight, it also needs to produce enough serotonin to be activated so that it can increase its psychic awareness therefore serotonin is produced when the brain is asleep and therefore sleeping in a very dark room is extremely nourishing for the pineal gland as well. Foods that produce serotonin are almonds, bananas, hot peppers, rice, potatoes, and black-eyed peas and when consumed can also nourish and feed the pineal gland as well.

Source: selfgrowth

MAKING A MARKET IN ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS: AN IRONIC TRAGEDY

Posted by Dr. Peter Breggin, Huffington Post: 09/23/10
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/making-a-market-in-antips_b_720861.html

Remember not so long ago when Prozac became the world's largest selling medication of any kind, and then for years how Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft took over many of the top 10 spots? Remember the explanations at the time--that they were wonder drugs and that 15-50 percent or more of Americans would need them some time in their lives? To many people this seemed like a scientific breakthrough when in reality it was ... a triumph of marketing. Some studies suggest that the antidepressants are little or no more effective than a sugar pill and a lot more dangerous. Recent research examined all antidepressant studies submitted in recent years to FDA in regard to antidepressant efficacy and found that the drug performed no better than placebo except in "severely depressed patients," reaching "clinical significance" only "at the upper end of the very severely depressed category." Even then, the difference between the antidepressant and the placebo was "relatively small."
In addition to being largely ineffective, the antidepressants can be very distressing to withdraw from, which keeps the market artificially inflated by people who would desperately like to stop but find the process too emotionally or physically painful. Often these individuals fail to realize that they are undergoing withdrawal and instead mistakenly conclude that they "need" the medication to control their original psychiatric problems.
Now look what have become the new top selling drugs in the world: antipsychotic drugs like Risperdal, Zyprexa, Abilify, Seroquel, Geodon and Invega. Although the FDA has been expanding the approved use of some of these drugs to some cases of autism, Tourettes and a variety of other problems, their original purpose and their main use in psychiatry until now has been largely confined to psychosis and acute mania. Psychosis and acute mania afflict a very small portion of the the population. Yet these drugs are now at the top of the list of most widely prescribed medications worldwide. How did these incredibly toxic chemicals become daily pharmacological mainstays for so many millions of children and adults? It's time to face the truth that the prescription of psychiatric drugs is driven by marketing trends--and now for the first time by something even more dreadful and insidious than mere marketing.
To begin their market campaigns for the newer antipsychotic agents, the drug companies created the myth that these products were not as dangerous as the old antipsychotic drugs, which were becoming recognized as highly toxic. Especially hard to ignore, it was demonstrated that the old antipsychotics cause tardive dyskinesia, a disfiguring and sometimes disabling array of abnormal movements in 5-8 percent per year cumulative of otherwise healthy patients and more than 20 percent of older patients. But even the unproven and ultimately false claim that the newer drugs were safer could not make a huge market for them. Even if these were wonder drugs, they were wonderful for a relatively tiny percent of the population. The drug companies had to create a new patient population market and that market became "bipolar disorder."
Once much rarer than schizophrenia, bipolar disorder would soon become one of the most common diagnoses made in medicine and psychiatry. Indeed, while ordinary folks used to talk about their biochemical imbalances and depression, now they've upgraded to having bipolar disorder.
Lithium, once the magic bullet without side effects for bipolar disorder--then called manic-depressive disorder--had turned out to be a severe central nervous system toxin that over the years ruins mental function while also producing thyroid disorders, kidney failure and a host of other serious problems. The discrediting of lithium created a new niche for antipsychotic drugs--to be used as "mood stabilizers" for people with severe ups and downs. But it was a relatively smalll niche to begin with.
Where would all the new bipolar patients come from? Many of them would come from the fertile imagination of drug company sponsored psychiatrists who found bipolar disorder in everything from toddlers with temper tantrums to adults with bursts of energy followed by a natural period of feeling fatigued. Leaders in child psychiatry like Harvard's Joseph Biederman were literally paid under the table to push antipsychotic medications for bipolar disorder in children. A recent study showed that children labeled bipolar actually receive more adult antipsychotic drugs than adults labeled bipolar . Another recent study covering 2000-2002 showed that 18 percent of child visits to a psychiatrist included antipsychotic treatment, and 92 percent of those were for the newer so-called second generation drugs. It took a great deal of marketing to convince physicians that these relatively untried and highly toxic antipsychotic drugs are that safe and effective in children.
But even marketing bipolar disorder to the professions and the public was insufficient to create a huge enough market to satisfy the drug companies. Here's where the irony of ironies came into play. The newer antidepressants--once the leading drugs in the world--frequently cause mania. They do so in millions of patients, children and adults alike, every year. These once most popular drugs in the world by causing mania made and continue to make the market for the next wave of most popular drugs--the antipsychotic drugs being used as mood stabilizers.
How common is antidepressant-induced mania? Very common. Several studies have found that 6 to 8 percent of patients exposed to antidepressants will develop a manic disorder. One research study, for example, found in a retrospective study that Paxil produced mania in 8.6 percent of patients exposed. Other studies find the rates as high as 17 percent And if a person has already shown a manic tendency or has experienced a manic-like episode, antidepressants will push one-quarter to one-third into new manias (For a review, see P. Breggin, Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, 2008, pp. 157-165) . Yet misguided psychiatrists commonly give antidepressants to patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The result? Millions of people suffer from medication-induced mania and other expressions of what I call "medication madness."
When I took my psychiatric residency at Harvard in Boston and at SUNY in Syracuse in the early 1960s, we never saw or diagnosed bipolar disorder in children. In my four years of training, I saw one 19-year-old in a manic state and a few adults. When a person was admitted in a manic condition talking a mile a minute, imagining grand things about themselves, making outrageous plans, bursting with anger and energy, unable to sleep and otherwise euphoric, the condition was so unusual that we would hold grand rounds, a medical show-and-tell, to discuss the patient.
Now psychiatric wards are filled with patients having their second and third or umpteenth manic episode and every psychiatrist's day is filled with patients diagnosed bipolar. It's mostly about antidepressant-induced mania. Every single child I have evaluated who has suffered what looks like a manic episode has been taking stimulants or antidepressants, both of which cause mania. At least 9 out of 10 adults I've seen in the last two decades who have suffered emotional episodes that could be diagnosed as mania had them in direct response to stimulants or antidepressants--mostly the newer antidepressants starting with Prozac.
In the official diagnostic system, these are not cases of bipolar mania but cases of medication induced mood disorder with manic features; but they are almost always mistakenly called bipolar disorder in order to avoid identifying the drug and the prescriber as the causative agents.
For those who want further details, I have reviewed all the studies mentioned in this report in my medical book, "Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Second Edition" (2008). In my popular book, "Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime" (2008), I have provided dozens of in-depth illustrations of lives ruined by psychiatric drugs, especially the newer antidepressants.
Never before in the history of civilization has this occurred. Drugs are marketed and become bestsellers when their most notable effect is to cause a severe disorder that paves the way for the next generation of bestsellers--and nobody's noticed. Was this done intentionally? Not likely. Is this unfortunate situation being covered up and used to their advantage by the drug companies and those who advocate their products? Definitely.
Well, it's been noticed. It is time to stop ignoring the havoc created by psychiatric drugs. The drug companies and organized medicine and psychiatry must be stopped from benefiting from the creation of lifelong patients suffering from chronic medication-induced madness.
Peter R. Breggin, MD is a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York, and the author of more than twenty books and dozens of scientific articles. His professional website is www.breggin.com. He can be reached at 607 272 5328 or empathictherapy@hotmail.com. Dr. Breggin and his wife Ginger have formed a new nonprofit organization, The Center for the Study of Empathic Therapy (empathictherapy.org) with a free newsletter and founding memberships now available.
The first annual conference will be held in Syracuse, New York, April 8-10, 2011. Dr. Breggin is no longer affiliated with the organization he founded in 1972 and led until 2002, the Center for the Study of Psychiatry, informally known as the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology.
Follow Dr. Peter Breggin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@GingerBreggin

EX PHARMA SALES REP SPEAKS THE TRUTH - PHARMA DOESN'T WANT TO CURE YOU

Ex pharma Rep speaks out about Pharma and their real motivations and lack there of to cure , heal and care for you or your best interests. Only to cure the space in their pockets not yet filled with your cash.

THE COKE NIGHTMARE REVEALED – IT MAY REQUIRE “CANCER WARNING” ON BOTTLES


By Ethan A Huff
Natural News:
Back in January, the state of California added to its list of cancer-causing chemicals an ingredient commonly used in flavored soda beverages, which has sent major shockwaves throughout the processed food industry. And according to numerous reports, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and even Whole Foods are having to alter their soda beverage recipes in order to avoid being required by the state of California to label their products as causing cancer.
The cancer-causing chemical in question is 4-methylimidazole, or 4-MI, a byproduct formed during the production of caramel color, an additive commonly used in processed cola beverages. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), caramel color produced using ammonia or ammonia-sulfites creates both 4-MI and 2-MI (2-methylimidazole), which have been shown to be carcinogenic (http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/caramel_coloring_petition.pdf).
CSPI last year petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove its “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) status from caramel colors produced in this way, but the FDA refused, insisting that caramel color with 4-MI is safe. But Californians apparently believe otherwise, as they overwhelmingly voted to have 4-MI added to the list of toxic substances covered under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65.
As a result, corporate beverage giants are having to change the way they produce caramel color in order to maintain levels of 4-MI that are below the threshold limit. In the process, they are having to spin the story publicly to make it seem as though 4-MI is not dangerous, and that altering the beverage formulas will not change the taste, color, or consistency of their beverages.
But a 2008 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology found that 4-MI is toxic, and that it is linked to causing clonic seizures, hyperactivity, impaired gait, chronic inflammation, focal fatty change in the liver, carcinoma, leukemia, and adenoma, among other conditions. The study essentially confirmed that 4-MI is carcinogenic(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17619857).
If it is possible to make caramel color without 4-MI, why have beverage producers continued to knowingly produce the toxic variety?
In a public statement, Coca-Cola denied that 4-MI is carcinogenic, and openly called the cancer warning mandate “scientifically unfounded.” But the science speaks for itself, particularly in beverage products made by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo that have been shown to have high levels of both 2-MI and 4-MI. CSPI covered this extensively in its petition to the FDA:
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/caramel_coloring_petition.pdf
It is no big secret, in other words, that 4-MI is an “undesirable” byproduct of the caramel color manufacturing method long-used by both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. And yet these companies have continued to rely on this method, despite obvious awareness about its toxicity, even though less-toxic methods were most obviously a viable alternative.
The CSPI report names Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc.’s Dr. Pepper, and Whole Foods’ 365 Cola as having unsafe levels of 4-MI that will have to be reformulated. The same report says the amounts of 4-MI contained in these beverages before the reformulation is responsible for causing roughly 15,000 cancers in the U.S. every year.
Sources for this article include: