18 Links About Cancer, Cures, Safer Treatments, And How To Prevent It

cancer-treatment

Today is World Cancer Day. Now I am all for awareness for diseases and whatnot, but I think it’s safe to say we all know what cancer is. The issue on hand is the fact that most people are more focused on the dangerous treatments they use to treat or rid themselves of the disease, which normally results in the cancer patient dying anyway. It’s also safe to say that we have all lost at least one person in our lives to cancer. The focus should really be on the ways to PREVENT cancer and also the many alternative methods to treat and cure cancer. They are out there, but the government is in bed with the pharmaceutical companies and most of us know it’s all about the money. Finding or approving a cure would mean that Big Pharm would lose A LOT of money. Continue reading

Advertisements

Psychiatric drugs kill 500k+ Western adults annually, few positive benefits – leading scientist

pills
Psychiatric drugs lead to the deaths of over 500,000 people aged 65 and over annually in the West, a Danish scientist says. He warns the benefits of these drugs are “minimal,” and have been vastly overstated.

 

Research director at Denmark’s Nordic Cochrane Centre, Professor Peter Gøtzsche, says the use of most antidepressants and dementia drugs could be halted without inflicting harm on patients. The Danish scientist’s views were published in the British Medical Journal on Tuesday. Continue reading

New Study Finds GMO Soy Toxic to Kidneys, Liver, and Reproduction

Soy_gm_bean_dna_735
In North America, approximately 75 to 89% of the soy beans grown are genetically modified (GM). One may not realize it, but this is concerning news – especially because recent research found that GM soy is toxic to the kidneys, liver, and more.

There isn’t just one smoking gun anymore pointing at GMO toxicology. There is now an entire arsenal of scientific research proving that genetically modified organisms adversely affect the body. In yet another new study conducted by Egyptian researchers, rats given GM soy were found to have deadly amounts of toxicity in their kidneys, liver, testes, sperm, blood and even DNA. Continue reading

14 charged in deadly 2012 meningitis outbreak

NECC-600x400

Two pharmacists from Massachusetts were charged with second-degree murder in connection with a deadly 2012 meningitis outbreak that killed at least 64 people and injured about 750, according to an indictment made public Wednesday. Continue reading

The Anger Phase Of Humanity Is Coming

Senate Passes Monsanto Protection Act Granting Monsanto Power Over US Govt

1aa

(Natural Society) -In the typical slippery nature of Monsanto’s legislation-based actions, the biotech giant is now virtually guaranteed the ability to recklessly plant experimental GM crops without having to worry about the United States government and its subsequent courts. The Monsanto Protection Act buried deep within the budget resolution has passed the Senate, and now nothing short of a presidential veto will put an end to the ruling.

In case you’re not familiar, the Monsanto Protection Act is the name given to what’s known as a legislative rider that was inserted into the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill. Using the deceptive title of Farmer Assurance Provision, Sec. 735 of this bill actually grants Monsanto the immunity from federal courts pending the review of any GM crop that is thought to be dangerous. Under the section, courts would be helpless to stop Monsanto from continuing to plant GM crops that are thought even by the US government to be a danger to health or the environment.

Senate Passes Monsanto Protection Act Despite Outcry

It is a lobbyist-created recurring nuisance that has been squashed in previous legislation thanks to outcry from not only grassroots but major organizations. Last time we saw The Center for Food Safety, the National Family Farm Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists all come out against the Monsanto Protection Act from the 2012 Farm Bill.

This time, there was a swift resistance I thought might be enough, however sadly the Senate acted so quickly on this and almost entirely ignored the issue that it has now passed despite thousands of fans signing the old petition I linked to in my previous articles on the subject. The old petition by Food Democracy Now detailed the effects of the bill:

“If approved, the Monsanto Protection Act would force the USDA to allow continued planting of any GMO crop under court review, essentially giving backdoor approval for any new genetically engineered crops that could be potentially harmful to human health or the environment.”

 

That said, now a new petition exists telling Obama to veto the bill. The reality is that the bill is actually seen as a positive one by most politicians, which is where Monsanto lobbyists were so deceptive and slippery as to throw in their rider (the actual Monsanto Protection Act into the bill). This makes it very unappealing to veto the bill, but also we must remember that Obama actually promised to immediately label GMOs back in 2007 when running for President.

Ushering In a New Era of Activism

The simple fact is that this bill will likely not be vetoed by Obama, and instead Monsanto will get what they wanted. That said, this ushers in an entirely new era of activism. Monsanto has decided to push the envelope in a way that is unprecedented, fighting the US federal courts. I expected to see almost immediate legal action taken that will certainly hit the headlines, leading to even more people to become aware of what’s really going on with this company and therefore their dinner.

Sometimes in order to truly have an intellectual revolution on a subject, the people need to see exactly what they are facing. With the truly blatant and downright arrogant Monsanto Protection Act, it’s now clearer than ever.

 

Aspartame in Milk Without a Label? Big Dairy Petitions FDA For Approval

aspartame in milk

(Activist Post) -Two powerful dairy organizations, The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), are petitioning the Food and Drug Administration to allow aspartame and other artificial sweeteners to be added milk and other dairy products without a label.

The FDA currently allows the dairy industry to use “nutritive sweeteners” including sugar and high fructose corn syrup in many of their products. Nutritive sweeteners are defined as sweeteners with calories.

This petition officially seeks to amend the standard of identification for milk, cream, and 17 other dairy products like yogurt, sweetened condensed milk, sour cream, and others to provide for the use of any “safe and suitable sweetener” on the market

They claim that aspartame and other artificial sweeteners would promote healthy eating and is good for school children.

According to the FDA notice issued this week:

IDFA and NMPF state that the proposed amendments would promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood obesity by providing for lower-calorie flavored milk products. They state that lower-calorie flavored milk would particularly benefit school children who, according to IDFA and NMPF, are more inclined to drink flavored milk than unflavored milk at school.

Although the FDA considers aspartame to be a “safe and suitable” sweetener, a recent Yale University study appears to directly challenge the claim that aspartame would reduce obesity. In fact, the study concluded just the opposite, that artificial sweeteners actually contributed to obesity and Type 2 diabetes.

The IDFA and NMPF argue “that the proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity would promote honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace” yet they don’t want changes to the labels on dairy products.

Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”

It’s unclear how consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners without labels.

Quoting Section 130.10 of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the dairy giants claim a new label is not required because sugar is added to milk without labeling it, and “the modified food is not inferior in performance” and “‘reduced calorie’ (labels) are not attractive to children” so marketing as such is of no benefit or detriment.

The FDA has opened public comments until May 21 for anyone interested to “submit comments, data, and information concerning the need for, and the appropriateness of, amending the standard of identity for milk and the additional dairy standards.”

To submit a formal comment or send data to the FDA concerning adding aspartame and other artificial sweeteners to milk products CLICK HERE.

FDA raid company in Florida for illegal dietary supplements

1aa
(Digital Journal) -The FDA and U.S. marshals have raided a company in Flordia  called Globe All Wellness LLC and have seized supplies of the dietary supplement  Meridia, a weight loss drug that was withdrawn from the market in 2010.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated that the illegal dietary supplements from the  Florida based pharmacy were seized because some may contain a dangerous  pharmaceutical ingredient.

According to Consumer Lab, the drugs seized included SlimXtreme,  SlimXtreme Gold, SlimPlus, SlimLee, GelSlim, SlimDrops, and Colonew.

Speaking about the action, Howard  Sklamberg, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug  Evaluation and Research, is quoted by UPI as saying: “Companies that distribute products  containing undisclosed drugs are not only breaking the law, they are putting  consumers at risk. With these kinds of hidden dangers, consumers cannot make  informed decisions about the products they are taking.”

The drug in question is Meridia, a weight loss dietary supplement. The drug is  usually in the form of the hydrochloride monohydrate salt compressed into a  tablet, and is taken as an oral anorexiant. The drug was withdrawn in 2010  because of concerns that  consumption of the pills could increase the risk of  heart attack and stroke. This was based on a study, reviewed by the FDA, which showed that the drug (under the  drug’s generic name Sibutramine) posed a significant risk of an adverse  cardiovascular event occurring in patients.

Although the FDA, along with the  European Union, banned the drug from sale, in October 2011, the FDA warned that 20 brands of dietary supplements were  tainted with sibutramine.

The news of the FDA raid follows other  concerns with dietary supplements, pills that are not subject to the same  regulations as prescription medicines. In 2012, the Digital Journal reported that a dietary supplement called  Reumofan Plus, manufactured in Mexico and sold in the USA, has been found to  contain ‘unlisted ingredients’ which are harmful to human health. Also during  2012, three different supplements manufactured in the U.S: Cataplex ACP,  Cataplex C, and Pancreatrophin PMG were withdrawn from the market due to suspected contamination  with Salmonella bacteria.

Read more:  http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343841#ixzz2LNgyHdx7

BREAKING NEWS: Now Tesco say their Everyday Value Bolognese also contained up to 100% horsemeat

(Daily Mail) Tesco has admitted that samples of its frozen Bolognese ready meals were up to 100 per cent horsemeat

The Everyday Value Spaghetti Bolognese, which sells for £1, was made for the supermarket giant by Comigel of France.

This is the same company implicated in the manufacture of beef products for Findus and Aldi, which were contaminated with horsemeat.

It is claimed that horses slaughtered in Romania were used by Comigel factories to make ready meals distributed across Britain and Europe.

Contaminated: The Everyday Value spaghetti bolognese has been found top be up to 100% horsemeatContaminated: The Everyday Value spaghetti bolognese has been found top be up to 100% horsemeat

As the contamination scandal deepens, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is conducting tests to determine whether veterinary drug phenylbutazone, known as bute, is present in some of the horsemeat.

Animals treated with the drug are not allowed to enter the food chain.

The Tesco group technical director, Tim Smith, apologised to customers over the latest revelation.

He said: ‘A week ago Tesco withdrew a frozen Everyday Value Spaghetti Bolognese product from sale.

Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, today updated ministers about the investigation into horsemeat contaminationOwen Paterson, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, today updated ministers about the investigation into horsemeat contamination

‘We did this as a precaution because Findus products from the same factory were reportedly at risk of containing horsemeat.

‘Since then, we have carried out a number of tests on the product and those tests identified the presence of horse DNA.

‘Of the positive results, most are at a trace level of less than one per cent but three showed significant levels of horse DNA, exceeding 60 per cent.

‘We have carried out further tests to ensure that there is no danger to health through the presence of potentially harmful bute. The test for bute was clear.’

He added: ‘The frozen Everyday Value Spaghetti Bolognese should contain only Irish beef from our approved suppliers.

‘The source of the horsemeat is still under investigation by the relevant authorities.

‘The level of contamination suggests that Comigel was not following the appropriate production process for our Tesco product and we will not take food from their facility again.’

Mr Smith, who is former chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, said: ‘We are very sorry that we have let customers down.

‘We set ourselves high standards for the food we sell and we have had two cases in recent weeks where we have not met those standards.

‘Our DNA testing programme is underway and will give us and our customers assurance that the product they buy is what it should be.’

Tesco’s shock announcements are the latest news in the horsemeat scandal that has rocked consumer confidence in retailers and producers.

Six supermarket chains in France withdrew ready-meals from Findus and Comigel following Findus's decision to take its frozen beef lasagne, made by Comigel, off the British shelvesDomino effect: Six supermarket chains in France withdrew ready-meals from Findus and Comigel following Findus’s decision to take its frozen beef lasagne, made by Comigel, off the British shelves

Mr Paterson faced a grilling from Labour MP Mary Creagh over his handling of the crisisMr Paterson faced a grilling from Labour MP Mary Creagh over his handling of the crisis

Families could still be unwittingly tucking into horsemeat which may be harmful to human health, the Environment Secretary warned yesterday.

Owen Paterson said he was prepared for ‘further bad news’ as the results of tests on processed beef products are published later this week.

And today he announced to the House of Commons that officers from the Metropolitan Police have met with counterparts at Europol about a potential criminal fraud investigation.

He said: ‘The events we have seen over the past few days in the UK and in Europe are completely unacceptable.

‘Consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. It’s outrageous that consumers have been buying products labelled beef that have turned out to be horsemeat.’

He says the investigation into the source of the horsemeat is still ongoing and that major food retailers are in the process of testing meat products, and must report the results by Friday at the latest.

‘Food businesses need to do whatever is necessary to provide reassurance to consumers that their products are what they say they are,’ he added.

‘There needs to be openness and transparency in the system.’

The logo of Comigel, the French food company that supplied frozen lasagne found to contain up to 100 per cent horsemeat to British supermarkets, including supermarket leader TescoThe logo of Comigel, the French food company that supplied frozen lasagne found to contain up to 100 per cent horsemeat to British supermarkets, including supermarket leader Tesco

Under investigation: The Spanghero depot in Castelnaudary, in south western France. The firm supplied meat for French frozen food giant ComigelUnder investigation: The Spanghero depot in Castelnaudary, in south western France. The firm supplied meat for French frozen food giant Comigel

Mr Paterson said that unless products had been designated as unsafe by the Food Standards Agency, consumers should not worry.

He said: ‘The advice on food is very, very simple. I have been completely consistent on this. I have been absolutely clear, the independent agency which gives professional advice is the Food Standards Agency.

‘I, you, MPs, and the public should follow their advice – so as long as products are free for sale and they have not been recommended for withdrawal by the Food Standards Agency, they are safe for human consumption.’

Moments earlier, Mr Paterson told MPs it appeared that ‘criminal activity’ had been at the heart of the scandal.

He said there would be immediate testing of products across the supply chain, telling the Commons this would also include tests at schools, hospitals and prisons.

The FSA had also reassured him that the products recalled did not present a risk to the public, but consumers who had bought Findus beef lasagnes should return them to the shop they had bought them from as a ‘precaution’.

Withdrawn: Tesco says it instructs suppliers to only use Irish beef to make The Everyday Value Spaghetti BologneseWithdrawn: Tesco says it instructs suppliers to only use Irish beef to make The Everyday Value Spaghetti Bolognese

Conspicuous absence: Retailers began a mass clear out of beef products linked to the horsemeat scandalConspicuous absence: Retailers began a mass clear out of beef products linked to the horsemeat scandal

He said the ‘ultimate source’ of the problem was not yet known but agencies were investigating a supply network that stretched across Europe.

Mr Paterson said: ‘At the moment this appears to be an issue of fraud and mis-labelling, but if anything suggests the need for changes to surveillance and enforcement in the UK we will not hesitate to make those changes.

‘Once we have established the full facts of the current incidents and identified where enforcement action can be taken, we will want to look at the lessons that can be learned from this episode.

‘I want to re-iterate that I completely understand why people are so concerned about this issue. It is unacceptable that people have been deceived in this way. There appears to have been criminal activity in an attempt to defraud the consumer.

‘The prime responsibility for dealing with this lies with retailers and food producers who need to demonstrate that they have taken all necessary actions to ensure the integrity of the food chain in this country.’

Familiar scenes: This is the latest in a series of recalls of beef products tainted with horseFamiliar scenes: This is the latest in a series of recalls of beef products tainted with horse

 

There are an estimated 70,000 horses unaccounted for in Northern Ireland, Labour claimed today as the Government sought to allay fears that contaminated meat was being sold in British supermarkets.

Shadow environment secretary Mary Creagh said unwanted horses were given false paperwork in Northern Ireland before being sold for 10 euro (£8) and then resold to dealers for meat for as much as 500 euro (£423).

She said there was currently a ‘lucrative’ trade in horses, claiming that while the Polish and Romanians were being ‘conveniently’ blamed for the scandal, the contamination problem had started across the Irish Sea.

Tesco withdrew the own-brand lasagne, as well as the Findus product, when fears over horsemeat contamination were first raisedTesco withdrew the own-brand lasagne, as well as the Findus product, when fears over horsemeat contamination were first raised

Speaking in the Commons, Ms Creagh said: ‘The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have clear evidence of an illegal trade of unfit horses from Ireland to the UK for meat, with horses being re-passported to meet demands for horse meat in mainland Europe.

‘It says that there are currently 70,000 horses unaccounted for in Northern Ireland. Unwanted horses are being sold for 10 euro and being sold on for meat for 500 euro – a lucrative trade.

‘It is very convenient to blame the Poles and the Romanians but so far neither country have found any problems with their beef abattoirs.’

Many horses are also believed to be contaminated with the carcinogen phenylbutazone, often referred to as bute, she said, claiming that the Environment Secretary Owen Paterson had been ‘incompetent’.

The lack of information from the Government had been a ‘disgrace’, Ms Creagh added, telling MPs the British public’s confidence in the food chain was ‘sinking like a stone’.

It emerged last night that officials are investigating whether horsemeat found in beef products in Britain and France came from a Romanian abattoirMeaty origins: It emerged last night that officials are investigating whether horsemeat found in beef products in Britain and France came from a Romanian abattoir

Ms Creagh accused the Environment Secretary of not taking the situation seriously enough as he had to be called back to London from a long weekend last Friday to deal with the crisis.

She also claimed the Environment Agency and police failed to act on information she provided that three British companies were involved in potentially importing beef that contained horse.

The information was handed to the Serious and Organised Crime Agency but there was no ‘live’ investigation.

Mr Paterson also failed to share the names of the three companies with industry leaders during a meeting on Saturday, Ms Creagh told MPs, adding the Government was ‘dangerously complacent’ about the situation.

It was not good enough for there to be a 10-week delay before the results of the first tests are known, she added, as she accused Mr Paterson of ‘hiding behind civil servants’.

Ms Creagh added: ‘The French government estimates that the Findus fraud alone has netted criminals 300,000 euros. This is clearly big criminal business.’

Factory: Findus' food processing facility in Longbenton, a suburb of Newcastle upon TyneFactory: Findus’ food processing facility in Longbenton, a suburb of Newcastle upon Tyne

Meanwhile, officials are investigating whether a Romanian abattoir was the ultimate source of the ‘beef’ products harbouring horsemeat in Britain, via France.

The chairman of the Commons food and rural affairs committee, Conservative MP Anne McIntosh, yesterday reiterated calls for a temporary ban on all processed or frozen meat imports from the EU until the source of the contamination was found.

But Mr Paterson said it was impossible to ban imported meat products within the rules of the EU. A moratorium along the lines of the Continental ban on British beef during the BSE scare would only be permitted if products adulterated with horsemeat are found to be a health risk.

 

Doctors Kill 2,450% More Americans Than All Gun Related Deaths Combined

(Natural News) -Everyone agrees the Sandy Hook shooting was a tragedy. Lots of people subsequently exploited the deaths of those children to push a political agenda of disarming Americans by claiming “guns kill people.”

But compared to what? Swimming pools kill people. Horseback riding kills people. And yes, even childbirth kills people. (Does that mean we should criminalize getting pregnant?)

To make any sense of death statistics, we have to ask, “Compared to what?” Because if we compare deaths by firearms to other causes of death, the picture is very, very different from the doomsday fear mongering scenarios CNN and other gun control pushers have whipped up into a nationwide frenzy. In fact, as the following infographic shows, doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined.

Your doctor is FAR more likely to kill you than an armed criminal

It’s true: You are 64 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than by someone else wielding a gun. That’s because 19,766 of the total 31,940 gun deaths in the USA (in the year 2011) were suicides. So the actual number of deaths from other people shooting you is only 12,174.

Doctors, comparatively, kill 783,936 people each year, which is 64 times higher than 12,174. Doctors shoot you not with bullets, but with vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals… all of which turn out to be FAR more deadly than guns.

This is especially amazing, given that there are just under 700,000 doctors in America, while there are roughly about 80 million gun owners in America.

How do 700,000 doctors manage to kill 783,936 people each year (that’s over one death per doctor), while 80 million gun owners kill only 31,940? Because owning a gun is orders of magnitude safer than “practicing” medicine!

Check out the following infographic, which can also be viewed in a higher resolution at:
www.naturalnews.com/Infographic-Firearms-vs-Doctors-Drugs.html

As the infographic explains, you are over three times more likely to be killed by a drug side effect than a firearm.

On the firearms side of things, you are almost twice as likely to be killed by YOURSELF than by someone else using a gun. But even this number can’t be blamed on guns themselves, because if people really want to commit suicide, they will find other ways to accomplish it (such as jumping off buildings or bridges).

Where is the call for “doctor control?”

Despite the statistical fact that you are overall 24.5 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than by a gun — and it’s actually far worse if you spend more time around doctors than you do gang members — there is absolutely no call in the media for “doctor control.”

There’s zero talk about making medications safer, or reducing the number of people who are medicated every day in America.

There’s no mention of the astonishing fact that surgical procedures do not need to be proven safe and effective before being tried on patients. Surgery in America is, in effect, a grand experiment often conducted with little or no scientific support.

There’s no discussion of the fact that psychiatric drugs promote violent shootings as we’ve seen over and over again across America.

Nope, the entire focus is on how BAD guns are, while the government simultaneously promotes how GOOD vaccines are! …and chemotherapy, surgery, pharmaceuticals and everything else that’s killing us en masse.

Every U.S. hospital is another Sandy Hook

Hundreds of people are killed every single day across U.S. hospitals from pharmaceutical side effects alone. On top of that, hospitals are killing people with superbug infections, fouled up surgeries, and failed heart stents, among other deadly problems.

Sandy Hook was the tragedy the government wanted you to see. But they didn’t want you to pay attention to all the deaths happening elsewhere — in far greater numbers — such as at hospitals and via pharmacies.

Because all those deaths overseen by doctors and pharmacists are making billions of dollars for the corrupt, criminally-run pharmaceutical industry and the for-profit, corporate-driven health care complex.

While Sandy Hook was mass murder, the U.S. health care system is practically a holocaust. In fact, the U.S. health care system has killed more people than Adolf Hitler – by far!

Spread the word: If we want to save lives, the most important place to start is at the doctors and drug companies. They are dealers of death who have been granted obscene monopolies by the FDA and state medical boards. Until their stranglehold on U.S. health care is finally broken, millions more innocent Americans will die at the hands of doctors, surgeons and pharmacists.

Warning: Many Childhood Vaccines Contain Aborted Human Fetal Protein, DNA

1a

(Ethan A. Huff) The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a non-profit vaccine safety group, recently conducted an independent review of the contents of childhood vaccines and found that many of them are tainted with ingredients that would shock most parents. Continue reading

Gatorade pulls ingredient linked to flame retardant

Gatorade will remove a controversial chemical from its ingredients. Brominated vegetable oil, a synthetic chemical that has been patented in Europe as a flame retardant, will no longer double as an ingredient in Gatorade sports drinks.

(LA Times) Molly Carter, a spokeswoman for Gatorade owner PepsiCo Inc., said the company has been considering the move for more than a year, working on a way to take out the ingredient without affecting the flavor of the drink.

A recent petition on Change.org to drop the chemical – which has more than 200,000 supporters – did not inspire the decision, Carter said, though she acknowledged that consumer feedback was the main impetus.

In the petition, posted by Sarah Kavanagh of Hattiesburg, Miss., “BVO” is described as banned in Japan and theEuropean Union.

The effort quotes a Scientific American article suggesting that “BVO could be building up in human tissues” and that studies on mice have shown “reproductive and behavioral problems” linked to large doses of the chemical.

The reformulated Gatorade flavors “will start rolling out in the next few months,” Carter said.

There’s no hard date for the launch because “we’re not recalling Gatorade,” she said. “We don’t think our products are unsafe. We don’t think there are health or safety risks.”

The BVO ingredient was used as a flavor emulsifier, helping to distribute Gatorade’s coloring throughout the bottle, Carter said. Now, the company is swapping in another emulsifier with an intimidating name: sucrose acetate isobutyrate.

We’re in contact with uncontrolled chemicals

1a

(McClatchey) -In testimony before a Senate subcommittee, Ken Cook spoke passionately about 10 Americans who were found to have more than 200 synthetic chemicals in their blood.

The list included flame retardants, lead, stain removers, and pesticides the federal government had banned three decades ago.

“Their chemical exposures did not come from the air they breathed, the water they drank, or the food they ate,” said Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a national advocacy group.

How did he know?

The 10 Americans were newborns. “Babies are coming into this world pre-polluted with toxic chemicals,” he said.

More than 80,000 chemicals are in use today, and most have not been independently tested for safety, regulatory officials say.

Yet we come in contact with many every day – most notably, the bisphenol A in can linings and hard plastics, the flame retardants in couches, the nonstick coatings on cookware, the phthalates in personal care products, and the nonylphenols in detergents, shampoos, and paints.

These five groups of chemicals were selected by Sonya Lunder, senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, as ones that people should be aware of and try to avoid.

They were among the first picked in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent effort to assess health risks for 83 of the most worrisome industrial chemicals.

Lunder’s basis was that they are chemicals Americans come in contact with daily. You don’t have to live near a leaking Superfund site to be exposed. They are in many consumer products, albeit often unlabeled.

Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others have shown that they are detectable in the blood or urine of many of us.

Plus, much data exist showing their harm. “We have an incredible body of evidence for all these chemicals,” she said. “In all cases, we have studies linking human exposure to human health effects.”

Lunder and others see these five as symbolic of the government’s failure to protect us from potential – or actual – toxins.

“A lot of people presume that because you’re buying something on the store shelf … someone has vetted that product to make sure it is safe,” said Sarah Janssen, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, another advocacy group. “Unfortunately, that’s not true.”

Some chemicals are regulated through laws governing, say, pesticides or air quality.

But most are regulated through the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. It has been identified as the only major environmental statute that has not been reauthorized, or revised, since its adoption in the 1970s.

Since 2005, U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., has worked to change that. In 2010, he introduced the first version of the Safe Chemicals Act, which would require companies “to prove their products are safe before they end up in our home and our children’s bodies,” he said recently by email.

A later version, with 27 co-sponsors, passed out of committee in July. He has vowed to keep fighting for a vote in the full Senate.

The American Chemical Council, a trade association representing large chemical manufacturers, declined comment, although it too has called for reform.

“Public confidence in TSCA has diminished, contributing to misperceptions about the safety of chemicals,” council president Cal Dooley said in 2011 testimony. But he said the proposed law would cripple innovation in fields from energy to medicine. It would “create an enormous burden on EPA and on manufacturers with little benefit by requiring a minimum data set for all chemicals.”

EPA officials declined comment, but in a series of appearances before the Senate subcommittee on the environment, staffers repeatedly said the current law is not protecting Americans.

In July, Jim Jones, acting administrator of EPA’s office of chemical safety, said that “with each passing year, the need for TSCA reform grows,” noting that it had “fallen behind the rapidly advancing industry it is intended to regulate.”

When TSCA was passed, it grandfathered in, “without any evaluation,” the 62,000 chemicals in commerce that existed before 1976, Jones said.

He noted that in the 34 years since TSCA was passed, the list of chemicals has grown to 84,000, and EPA has been able to require testing on only about 200 of them.

Also, the agency has regulated or banned only five.

 

An oft-mentioned case of regulatory failure is that of cancer-causing asbestos. In 1989, “after years of study and nearly unanimous scientific opinion,” Jones said, the EPA banned it.

Two years later, a federal court overturned most of the action because the EPA had not chosen the least burdensome control on industry, as required.

The court ruled that old asbestos uses could not be revived. New uses were prohibited. But current uses could remain.

Adam Finkel, executive director of the University of Pennsylvania Program on Regulation, said that Europe leads the U.S. in chemical testing and regulation. There, officials put the onus on the makers to prove a chemical is safe.

Meanwhile, the science keeps outpacing the rules.

 

“The real issue of TSCA reform is that science is not what it was 30 or 40 years ago,” said Linda Birnbaum, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

In the past, she said, “we were looking almost exclusively at visible birth defects. We were concerned with cancer.”

Researchers are now looking at chemicals’ effects – some extremely subtle – on numerous other conditions, including reproductive development and disorders, diabetes, heart problems, asthma, autism, even obesity and learning disorders.

Paradigms have evolved so that researchers can study concurrent exposure to more than one chemical, as happens in real life. Toxicology has grown from a descriptive science of what has occurred to a predictive one.

Of the five chemicals identified by Lunder, flame retardants have figured prominently in recent research studies.

In late November, researchers led by Duke University chemist Heather Stapleton showed that a flame retardant removed from children’s sleepwear as a suspected carcinogen was still in lots of couches.

More than 40 percent of the 102 couches bought between 1985 and 2010 had the chemical, called tris, according to the study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

That issue also published a study by the Silent Spring Institute, an advocacy group in Massachusetts, that traced the path of toxic flame retardants from couches to household dust to the bodies of children, who often crawl on floors and put fingers in their mouths.

 

Officials say children’s small size and rapid growth may make them more vulnerable to toxins.

The research showed that most homes had levels of at least one flame retardant that exceeded a federal health guideline.

One of the latest health studies of PBDE flame retardants, in November’s Environmental Health Perspectives, found that fetal or infant exposure could adversely affect a child’s fine-motor coordination, attention span, and IQ.

A Chicago Tribune investigation, published in May, found that many flame retardants do not even provide meaningful protection from fire.

 

Bisphenol A, another chemical facing scrutiny, held promise because it could be used to make hard, clear plastic and protective liners for canned foods and beverages.

Noting thousands of studies examining its effects, the National Resources Defense Council petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to limit its use as a food additive, which would also preclude its use in packaging.

The FDA denied the petition last year, although many manufacturers have removed it from baby bottles and sippy cups. Some, including Campbell’s Soup, say they plan to shift to alternatives.

THE EPA’S MOST WORRISOME TOXINS

Bisphenol A (BPA)

Uses: It hardens clear “polycarbonate” plastics, which are used in compact discs, plastic dinnerware, eyeglass lenses, toys, beverage bottles, and impact-resistant safety equipment. Also used in the linings of food cans, in dental sealants, and on cash register receipts.

Health concerns: BPA is considered estrogenic and has been shown to affect the reproductive systems of laboratory animals. BPA also has been linked to many other disorders. Potential harm is considered highest for young children, because their bodies have immature systems for detoxifying chemicals.

How to limit exposure: Limit consumption of canned foods and canned liquid baby formula. Avoid plastics marked with the recycling code “7.” Avoid microwaving baby food or drinks in plastic containers.

Nonylphenols, including nonylphenol ethoxylates

Uses: Laundry detergents, shampoos, household cleaners, latex paints.

Health concerns: NPs have been detected in human breast milk, blood, and urine, and are associated with reproductive and developmental effects in rodents. Fish exposed to low levels can become feminized. EPA concerns center mostly on industrial laundry workers.

How to limit exposure: This is difficult. Experts say to avoid using detergents, cleaning agents, and other products that contain nonylphenols, but many times they are not labeled. They recommend calling the manufacturer and asking. Some organizations, including the Environmental Working Group, publish guides to safer cleaning products.

PFCs (perfluorinated chemicals)

Uses: Widely used water, grease, and stain repellents. Contained in the coatings of nonstick cookware. Used to greaseproof paper and cardboard food packaging. Added to carpeting and clothing for stain protection.

Health concerns: They are bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans, and are persistent in the environment. They are toxic to laboratory animals and wildlife. The EPA says that “to date, significant adverse effects have not been found in the general human population. However, given the long half-life of these chemicals in humans (years), it can reasonably be anticipated that continued exposure could increase body burdens to levels that would result in adverse outcomes.”

How to limit exposure: Avoid nonstick cookware. Avoid highly processed and fatty foods. Skip optional stain treatments. Use real plates instead of paper. Cook popcorn on the stove, not in microwave bags.

Flame retardants, including PBDE

Uses: To prevent the spread of fire, many versions of these chemicals are added to upholstered furniture and mattresses – including many products for babies – plus textiles, plastics, electronics, wire insulation.

Health concerns: PBDEs are not chemically bound to plastics or other products in which they are used, making them more likely to leach out. “Certain PBDEs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the environment,” the EPA states. Concern is highest for children, who might crawl on the floor, get dust containing PBDEs on their hands, and then put their hands in their mouths.

How to limit exposure: PBDEs are being phased out, so beware of old foam items, which are most likely to contain PBDEs. Use a vacuum with a HEPA filter. Clean carefully after removing old carpet and padding. When dusting, use a damp cloth or a cloth with microfibers that will trap and hold the dust better.

Phthalates

Uses: They make plastics more malleable, and are found in vinyl shower curtains, toys, vinyl flooring. They help lotions penetrate skin, so they are found in a wide variety of personal care products, including cosmetics, fragrances, and nail polish. Also found in air-fresheners and cleaning products.

Health concerns: Known to interfere with the production of male reproductive hormones in animals and considered likely to have similar effects in humans. The EPA is concerned about phthalates because of their toxicity and the evidence of pervasive human and environmental exposure to these chemicals. Phthalates have been detected in food and also measured in humans.

How to limit exposure: Manufacturers aren’t required to list phthalates on the label, but any item listed as “fragrance” can be a chemical mixture containing phthalates. Buy cosmetics from companies that have pledged not to use phthalates. Avoid items with PVC, V, or the No. 3 recycling code on the item or its packaging.

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council

Global Treaty Signed to Stop Deadly Mercury While FDA Allows it Unchecked In Your Food

mercuryhighfructosecornsyrup 265x165 Global Treaty Signed to Stop Deadly Mercury While FDA Allows it Unchecked In Your Food

(Natural Society) -Over 140 nations have come together under a new treaty to curb deadly mercury pollution over serious risks to worldwide health, but meanwhile the FDA is still allowing the mass majority of US citizens to chomp down on mercury-containing processed foods. Specifically, mercury has actually been found in the highly popular genetically modified junk ingredient high-fructose corn syrup — an ingredient present in over 90% of processed foods.

I’ve been very vocal about this issue since it was originally reported by the Washington Times in 2009 despite little syndication by the mainstream media. The report could not mention brand names for legal reasons (although I wish they would), however it was found that half of all high-fructose corn syrup samples tested contained mercury. It was also found in about a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products in which high-fructose corn syrup is listed as one of the top two ingredients.

You can easily imagine that this includes major soda brands, candy manufacturers, and much more.

But what does the FDA say about this? Or how about the corporations responsible for churning out mercury-ridden products for children and pregnant women to consume? Well, after the report surfaced in 2009, action groups began calling on the FDA for action. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy was one such organization, with member and co-author of the two studies that identified mercury in HFCS stating on record in the report:

“Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply.”

 

Needless to say, the FDA did not warn the US public about the mercury content in these foods. Instead, it continues to protect billion dollar corporations who continue to literally poison the nation with foods that are unfit for consumption.

As reported with the original article surrounding the new treaty, mercury is a highly dangerous substance — especially for developing and unborn children. Brain development can be majorly impaired, and pregnant mothers consuming mercury can alter the very growth of their babies. As the article states:

“Mercury is a serious health threat, especially for unborn children, and exposure to it can not only have neurological effects but also an impact on the digestive and immune systems.”

Next time you go shopping, be sure to avoid any items containing high-fructose corn syrup and processed foods at large. I recommend always purchasing high quality organic foods to avoid not only high-fructose corn syrup, but a wide variety of toxic ingredients that come along with ‘traditional’ (pesticide-laced, GMO-containing junk) options. We simply cannot count on the FDA or any other ‘watchdog’ US government agency to warn consumers when it comes to what we are putting into our mouths.

It is beyond ironic and more geared towards disturbing that 140 nations have signed off on this treaty to curb mercury emissions when many US citizens (a first world nation) are actually putting it directly into their mouths.

Diet Soda, Aspartame Shown to Destroy Kidney Function

sodasugarfree 265x165 Diet Soda, Aspartame Shown to Destroy Kidney Function

(Natural Society) -In an 11-year study by scientists at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, there was a strong positive correlation found between degeneration of kidney function and consumption of aspartame-containing diet soda.

Published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, the study followed 3,318 women for a number of years as they consumed diet soda containing artificial sweeteners like Aspartame. Scientists took into account each participant’s age, blood pressure, smoking habits (when applicable), and pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes, and administered food frequency questionnaires in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998. Two or more diet drinks daily, it was found, led to a doubled risk in fast-paced kidney decline.

A separate study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that, contrary to safety claims made by the manufacturers of aspartame, health-related concerns including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and leukemia still abound. While study authors at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School admitted that there were other variables to consider, such as the sex of the consumer in that particular case, they remained troubled by the risks associated with diet soda.

It’s worth noting that diet soda is also high in sodium—and in greater amounts than found in sodas sweetened with sugar or corn starch (which were not examined in either study).

Corruption: a Brief History of Aspartame

Is diet soda really that bad for you? This is neither the first nor will it be the last time diet soda and artificially sweetened goods will come under fire from the scientific community. The Food and Drug Administration quickly approved aspartame, called “NutraSweet,” in 1974 in use for limited foods, but only after examining studies provided by G. D. Searle Co.. Yes, the inventor of aspartame.

 

It was only after a research psychiatrist concluded that aspartic acid—a key ingredient in aspartame—made holes in mice brains that the FDA rounded up a task force to investigate Searle’s claims. The investigation unveiled a series of falsified claims, corrupted study results, and information that simply wasn’t there. Although the FDA moved for further investigation of Searle by grand jury, US Attorney Thomas Sullivan and Assistant US Attorney William Conlon didn’t lift a finger to help. Conlon, however, found a job at the law firm representing Searle.

Since then, the genetically modified creation, aspartame, has been implicated in a number of studies as potentially causing tumors, seizures, brain holes, and reproductive problems. But the mainstream media won’t report on the aspartame-cancer link.

Other Sweeteners, the Good and the Bad

Other artificial sweeteners, like sucralose (supposedly “made from sugar”), have been implicated in other health problems like changing the gut flora environment and preventing proper nutrient absorption, according to the January 2008 issue of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health.

Thus far, Stevia has drawn little fire comparative to artificial sweeteners, although excessive use might be cautioned as with anything. Stevia is, however, safer to use than artificial or GMO sugar, especially for diabetics.

Federal Court Admits Hepatitis B Vaccine Caused Fatal Auto-Immune Disorder

vaccinesbluevial 265x165 Federal Court Admits Hepatitis B Vaccine Caused Fatal Auto Immune Disorder

(Natural Society) -In our society today, newborns are injected with loads of chemicals nearly as soon as they enter the world. In the name of “prevention”, we give them vaccines that we aren’t even sure are safe. As a matter of fact, in many cases, we know them to be unsafe. This is the case with the hepatitis B vaccine, approved for infants at birth but admittedly responsible for causing serious illness and even death.

The United States Court of Federal Claims sided with the estate of Tambra Harris, who died as a result of an auto-immune disease called systemic lupose erythematosus (SLE). The court awarded $475,000 following her death after finding the hepatitis vaccine caused her injury in the form of SLE. But this near-admittance of a cause-effect relationship between the vaccine and the illness and subsequent death isn’t enough. No, we still give the shot to babies.

So, what is hepatitis B and why are we told that it is so important that newborn infants are vaccinated against it? Hepatitis B is not pleasant and can be deadly. But newborns (and the vast majority of people at any age) aren’t at risk of contracting the disease. It’s spread by contact with bodily fluids, as in through unprotected sex or dirty needles.

The risks associated with the hepatitis B vaccine are far more pressing than the risk of contracting the disease, says Dr. Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). “For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B.”

Still, newborns are given the vaccine within moments of entering the world.

 

Considered by many to be crimes against infants, the hep-b vaccination, the vaccine has been linked to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), multiple sclerosis, and other autoimmune disorders. Many experts have questioned the prolific use of the vaccine since it stepped on the scene a few decades ago. What’s more, many parents are starting to question the need for the vaccine.

“In increasing numbers, parents across the country are contacting the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) to report opposition to regulations being enacted by state health department officials that legally require children to be injected with three doses of hepatitis B vaccine before being allowed to attend daycare, kindergarten, elementary school, high school or college,” National Vaccine Information Center reads.

As a parent, it is still your decision whether or not to vaccinate your child. There is plenty of research out there to help guide you in this decision. Don’t let your doctor or the people around you be your only source of information. Do your research and determine the best solution for your child’s long-term health.

U.S. Drone Pilot: ‘Did We Just Kill A Kid?’

(PekinTimes)

After Barack Obama joined the rest of us in mourning the slaughter of innocent children in Newtown, Conn., Sanford Berman, a Minnesota civil liberties activist, wrote me: “Obama’s tears for the dead Connecticut kids made me sick. What about weeping over the 400 or more children he killed with drone strikes?”

Indeed, our president has shown no palpable concern over those deaths, but a number of U.S. personnel — not only the CIA agents engaged in drone killings — are deeply troubled.

Peggy Noonan reports that David E. Sanger, in his book “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” discovered that “some of those who operate the unmanned bombers are getting upset. They track victims for days. They watch them play with their children.” Then what happens: “‘It freaks you out’” (“Who Benefits From the ‘Avalanche of Leaks’?” Wall Street Journal, June 15).

For another example, I introduce you to Conor Friedersdorf and his account of “The Guilty Conscience of a Drone Pilot Who Killed a Child” (theatlantic.com, Dec. 19).

The subtitle: “May his story remind us that U.S. strikes have reportedly killed many times more kids than died in Newtown — and that we can do better.”

The story Friedersdorf highlights in the Atlantic first appeared in Germany’s Der Spiegel about an Air Force officer (not CIA) who “lamented the fact that he sometimes had to kill ‘good daddies’” … (and) “even attended their funerals” from far away.

And dig this, President Obama: “as a consequence of the job, he collapsed with stress-induced exhaustion and developed PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).” Yet these drones, “Hellfire missiles,” are President Obama’s favorite extra-judicial weapons against suspected terrorists.

Getting back to the Air Force officer, Brandon Bryant, with the guilty conscience. Friedersdorf’s story quotes extensively from Der Spiegel’s article, which recalls that, when Bryant got the order to fire, “he pressed a button with his left hand and marked the roof (of a shed) with a laser. The pilot sitting next to him pressed the trigger on a joystick, causing the drone to launch a Hellfire missile. There were 16 seconds left until impact …

“With seven seconds left to go, there was no one to be seen on the ground. Bryant could still have diverted the missile at that point. Then it was down to three seconds …

“Suddenly a child walked around the corner, he says. Second zero was the moment in which Bryant’s digital world collided with the real one in a village between Baghlan and Mazar-e-Sharif. Bryant saw a flash on the screen: the explosion. Parts of the building collapsed. The child had disappeared.

“Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.

“‘Did we just kill a kid?’ he asked the man sitting next to him.

“‘Yeah. I guess that was a kid,’ the pilot replied.

“‘Was that a kid?’ they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

“Then someone they didn’t know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. ‘No. That was a dog,’ the person wrote.

“They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?”

Friedersdorf adds: “The United States kills a lot of ‘dogs on two legs.’ The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported last August that in Pakistan’s tribal areas alone, there are at least 168 credible reports of children being killed in drone strikes.” As for those in other countries, he adds, that’s “officially secret.”

He writes: “Presidents Bush and Obama have actively prevented human-rights observers from accessing full casualty data from programs that remain officially secret, so there is no way to know the total number of children American strikes have killed in the numerous countries in which they’ve been conducted, but if we arbitrarily presume that ‘just’ 84 children have died — half the bureau’s estimate from one country — the death toll would still be more than quadruple the number of children killed in Newtown, Conn.”

Are you proud, as an American, to know this?

After reading about Obama’s silence in “The Guilty Conscience of a Drone Pilot Who Killed a Child,” does the conscience of those of us who re-elected Obama ache?

As Friedersdorf writes, Obama has never spoken of these deaths as he did about the ones in Newtown, when he said: “If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent … then surely we have an obligation to try. … Are we really prepared to say that dead children are the price of our freedom?”

Do you mean, Mr. President, only the dead children of Newtown?

These targeted killings continue in our name, under the ultimate authority of our president — as the huge majority of We The People stays mute.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.

Sweeping new gun laws proposed by influential liberal think tank

Washington Post – by Philip Rucker

With President Obama readying an overhaul of the nation’s gun laws, a liberal think tank with singular influence throughout his administration is pushing for a sweeping agenda of strict new restrictions on and federal oversight of gun and ammunition sales.The Center for American Progress is recommending 13 new gun policies to the White House — some of them executive actions that would not require the approval of Congress — in what amounts to the progressive community’s wish list.

CAP’s proposals — which include requiring universal background checks, banning military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, and modernizing data systems to track gun sales and enforce existing laws — are all but certain to face stiff opposition from the National Rifle Association and its many allies in Congress.Obama, as well as Vice President Biden, who is leading the administration’s gun violence task force, has voiced support for many of these measures. Yet it is unclear which policies he ultimately will propose to Congress. Biden is planning to present his group’s recommendations to Obama on Tuesday.CAP’s recommendations, presented Friday to White House officials and detailed in an 11-page report obtained by The Washington Post, establish a benchmark for what many in Obama’s liberal base are urging him to doafter last month’s massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

“There’s nothing here that interferes with the rights of people to have a gun to protect themselves,” CAP President Neera Tanden said. But, she added, “We have daily episodes where it seems that guns are in the wrong hands, and that’s why we think it’s important that the president acts.”

On Monday, Tanden will moderate a public discussion with three Democrats who have played leading roles in the gun debate: Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who during the Clinton administration helped get the 1994 assault-weapons ban passed; Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who helped write that bill as a House member; and Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.), who chairs the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

One of CAP’s suggestions to toughen federal regulation of gun sales is to make the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is currently an agency within the Department of Justice, a unit of the FBI. CAP says absorbing the ATF into the FBI would better empower the ATF to combat gun crime and illegal trafficking.

“It is a beleaguered agency lacking leadership and resources,” said Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president of CAP. “It needs to be a well-functioning federal law enforcement agency, and we need to figure out ways to ensure that happens.”

CAP’s top recommendation is to require criminal background checks for all gun sales, closing loopholes that currently enable an estimated 40 percent of sales to occur without any questions asked. The organization also wants to add convicted stalkers and suspected terrorists to the list of those barred from purchasing firearms.

CAP is urging the Obama administration to back Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposal to ban assault weapons. The California Democrat wants to prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 bullets.

The group also suggests requiring firearms dealers to report to the federal government individuals who purchase multiple semiautomatic assault rifles within a five-day period. Current law requires reporting multiple purchases of handguns, but not semiautomatic assault rifles.

CAP also wants the administration to free public health research agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to study the impact of gun violence on injuries and deaths. For years, lawmakers, urged by the NRA, have placed riders on spending bills that restrict these and other agencies from conducting such research.

ENOUGH! (Guns, Active Shooters And Pharma)

The Market Ticker

I’m done being nice.

And I’m doubly-done with the damned leftists in this country performing the moral equivalent ofritual human sacrifice of children to advance their gun-control agenda.

That’s what I charge they’re doing.

And I’m going to back it up with mathematics, using just one of the common psychotropic medications used commonly today — Paxil.

This is from the prescribing information for Paxil:

Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk:

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), both adult and pediatric, may experience worsening of their depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior (suicidality) or unusual changes in behavior, whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. Suicide is a known risk of depression and certain other psychiatricdisorders, and these disorders themselves are the strongest predictors of suicide. There has been a long-standing concern, however, that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depressionand the emergence of suicidality in certain patients during the early phases of treatment. Pooled analyses of short-term placebo-controlledtrials of antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) showed that these drugs increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults (ages 18-24) with majordepressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older.

That’s a problem.  What’s worse is this:

The following symptoms, anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania, have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for majordepressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric. Although a causal link between the emergence of such symptoms and either the worsening of depression and/or the emergence of suicidal impulses has not been established, there is concern that such symptoms may represent precursors to emerging suicidality.

And it doesn’t end there:

Screening Patients for Bipolar Disorder

A major depressive episode may be the initial presentation of bipolar disorder. It is generally believed (though not established in controlledtrials) that treating such an episode with an antidepressant alone may increase the likelihood of precipitation of a mixed/manic episode in patients at risk for bipolar disorder.

Now let’s be frank: Mixed manic states are mental states during which all sorts of really ugly things happen, including panic attacks, agitation, impulsiveness, paranoia and rage — all at extreme levels.

In other words, if you miss someone being bipolar and give them this drug you may precipitate a full-on Hulk-style “rage monster” sort of attack!

How often does something like this happen?

Activation of Mania/Hypomania:

During premarketing testing, hypomania or mania occurred in approximately 1.0% of unipolar patients treated with PAXIL compared to 1.1% of active-control and 0.3% of placebo-treated unipolar patients. In a subset of patients classified as bipolar, the rate of manic episodes was 2.2% for PAXIL and 11.6% for the combined active-control groups. As with all drugs effective in the treatment of major depressive disorder, PAXIL should be used cautiously in patients with a history of mania.

So if you miss a bi-polar person in your “analysis” before prescribing, it’s more than doubly-likely that they will have a “rage-monster” episode than if not.

So let’s assume we’re not talking about bi-polar people — that is, let’s make the assumption that we properly screen for each person and perfectly identify all bi-polar people before we prescribe.

What is the expected number of people who will undergo some sort of manic episode, which includes the subset that will turn into rage-monsters and shoot up schools, movie theaters and other public places?

Answer: About 0.7% more that can be charged to the drug (the risk if you do nothing is 0.3%.)

Other similar drugs have similar risk profiles; Paxil is not particularly-remarkable in this regard.

I note, and you should note, that 0.7% is a pretty low risk!  That is, 993 people out of 1000 can get a perfectly good outcome from the drug (or at least no harm) but that other 7 in 1000 have an outcome ranging from bad to catastrophically-bad.

Now let’s assume for the sake of argument that we are 99% effective in physician monitoring of these patients.  That is, we’re able to somehow confirm that they take the drug exactly as prescribed (no more or less), and we have enough time and physician resources to evaluate them on a regular and continuing basis.  This, incidentally, is a fantasy-land level of performance; no profession could possibly meet that standard of care, but we’ll use it to make the point.

But this level of performance, which we can never meet, would provide that of the rage monsters we potentially create with these drugs we catch 99% of them before the episode escalates into something “bad.”

That’s 1% of 0.7%, incidentally, or 0.007% of the total users who (1) have the bad reaction and then (2) we fail to detect via monitoring.  In other words, those are the people who shoot up the schools, movie theaters and US Representatives.

The last figures I have are that in 2005 27 million people in the United States, or close to 1 in 10 of all persons, are on some sort of antidepressant carrying these risks.

So if 0.7% of 27 million people have a manic episode caused by these drugs – that is, under perfect conditions where we catch every single bipolar individual first and never prescribe to any of them we will have 189,000 persons in a year who have a manic reaction to these drugs.

That’s horrifying.

But what’s worse is that if we assume 99% effective surveillance by the medicalprofession — that is, 99% of the time the doctor intercepts the person with themanic episode and modifies or terminates their use of the drug before something bad happens….

WE CREATE AND THEN FAIL TO DETECT, WITH NEARLY PERFECT PERFORMANCE (that we will never achieve) 1,890 RAGE MONSTERS EVERY YEAR WHO ARE MENTALLY CAPABLE OF COMMITTING A MASS HOMICIDE.

We’re surprised that there are a few of these a year, when we create more than 5 of them each and every day with near-perfect performance — and likely several times that many given the real-world monitoring that can actually be achieved?

We create these Zombies.

We prescribe the drugs to them.

We do this knowing that the risk exists and that at least one subset of that risk is materially higher for those under the age of 25 who are consuming these drugs. 

In point of fact, most of the rage monsters who have committed these crimes are under the age of 25 and either using or having recently terminated the use of these drugs.

Again I reproduce the information directly from the maker of Paxil:

There has been a long-standing concern, however, that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depressionand the emergence of suicidality in certain patients during the early phases of treatment. Pooled analyses of short-term placebo-controlledtrials of antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) showed that these drugs increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults (ages 18-24) with majordepressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Short-term studies did notshow an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24;

Something changes around the age of 24 with these drugs and their interaction with the human mind.  We don’t know exactly what it is, but we know that it happens.  We also know that these substances have a low but present risk of inducing mania, including rage.

Utterly nobody is bringing this element to the table in debate, but we must, as the rise of these incidents isdirectly correlated to the gross increase in the number of people, including most-especially young people, taking these drugs.  The number of users doubled from 1996 – 2005.

If you want to address a problem you must look at the data and follow it where it leads.

Where it leads is into a horrifying mess of prescription psychotropic drug use among our youth and the rare but catastrophic side effects they sometimes produce.

I have friends who have versions of the problem in their families among older individuals; members of the family who doctor-shop for prescription on top of prescription and are mentally questionable to start with.  We’re supposed to have some sort of reasonable check and balance on this and indeed Florida claims to have clamped down on the “pill mills” but I can tell you right now that this is utter and complete crap.  There is nothing preventing people from going to 10 different doctors until they find three or four that will write scripts and then abusing the drugs — and when they run out “early” calling up for a refill — and getting it.  It happens every damned day and if other family members try to intervene, including getting the physicians or the law involved (prescription fraud is supposed to be illegal!) they’re blown off!

It’s true that most of the crazy people in the world aren’t violent, and that being crazy, standing alone, is perfectly legal.  It’s also true that nearly all of the people who take these drugs won’t become violent — that’s a side effect that only bites a small percentage of the people who take the drug.

But the risk of turning people into rage monsters and suicidal maniacs appears to be mostly confined to those under the age of 24 according to the drug companies own information and this information is strongly correlated with the actual real-world data on these incidents.

We must have a discussion about this as a society.  We might decide that out of the 27 million or more Americans taking these drugs that enough get benefit that we are willing to accept the occasional school or movie theater shooting gallery as the price of prescribing these drugs to those under the age of 24.

If so then we need to be honest about the trade-off we have made as a society and shut the hell up instead of dancing in the blood of dead children to score political points and destroy The Constitution.

But if not, and you can count my vote among the “No” votes in this regard, then we must ban these substances from those under the age of 24 until we understand what’s different among that age group that alters the risk unless and except those persons are under continual professional supervision such as inpatient hospitalization.

Yeah, I understand this will cut into the profits of the big drug companies and thus is “unacceptable” to many political folks, not to mention that the media won’t even talk about the subject due to the advertising they run on their networks on a daily basis for this drug or that.

But unless we want to keep burying kids we had damned well better have that debate.

Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama and the rest on both the left and right who are refusing to go where the data leads are all practicing the moral equivalent of ritual child sacrifice, fueling the pyre under the bodies of our kids with the Bill of Rights.

Stand up America and say in a loud voice: ENOUGH!

Flu epidemic strikes millions of Americans already vaccinated against the flu

1aa

(NaturalNews) The USA is in an official flu pandemic panic right now, with Boston declaring a public health emergency and hospitals setting up flu treatment tents as if cities were war zones. The CDC says it’s the worst flu pandemic in a decade, and it’s of course urging everybody to get injected with flu vaccines.

But here’s the dirty little secret the vaccine industry doesn’t want you to know: Most people getting the flu right now are the same people who were vaccinated with the flu shot.

The CDC refuses to release any statistics on this, of course, because then the total hoax of the flu shot would be exposed. But I’ve been making phone calls to a large network of friends and professional contacts, and they’re all telling me the same thing: Of the people they know who are getting sick, about two-thirds routinely get flu shots!

Check with your own friends, family members or co-workers on this point. Ask the ones who got sick: Did you get a flu shot? See if the answers you get are about the same as mine: Two-thirds.

If this holds true across a larger data set, it means that flu shots actually make you MORE susceptible to the flu. That’s because far less than two-thirds of the U.S. population takes flu shots. So if two-thirds of those getting the flu this year are the same people who got flu shots, mathematically it can only mean that flu shots INCREASE vulnerability to the flu.

In this way, people who get flu shots are acting irresponsibly because they increase their risk of spreading the flu to others. Instead of taking care of their health with nutrients like vitamin D, they act with neglect and seek out a flu shot that poses a very real increased risk to public health and safety.

What’s in flu shots? Aluminum, mercury, MSG and formaldehyde

The CDC openly admits that vaccines contain a toxic cocktail and metals and synthetic chemicals that we all know cause neurological damage. Those include aluminum and mercury.

These metals and chemicals also suppress the immune system, and that’s the primary purpose of vaccines: To actually cause an epidemic so that more people rush out to buy more vaccines. The whole point is to sell more vaccines, not to improve public health. And the fastest way to sell more vaccines is to make sure the vaccines themselves contain chemicals and metals that make people more vulnerable to infection.

What, you don’t believe me? You think Big Pharma is a collection of compassionate, loving angels who care about the people more than they care about profits? Wake up and smell the chemicals. Vaccine manufacturers are, on the record, criminal organizations that are repeatedly found guilty of felony crimes — everything from price fixing to the bribery of doctors and the commission of marketing fraud.

Drug companies have zero ethics. They kill children to test their vaccines. They conduct medical experiments on prisoners and mental patients. Do you honestly think they wouldn’t use vaccines as a way to make people sick and create an infectious disease scare that sells more vaccines?

Real solutions to the flu

If you really want to stay healthy this flu season, the answer is pretty simple. It all starts with the top three nutrients for flu prevention:

1) Vitamin D
2) More vitamin D
3) And yet more vitamin D

If you’re not taking at least 5,000 IUs of vitamin D each day during the winter flu season, you’re probably vitamin D deficient and that’s making you a sitting duck for influenza.

In addition to vitamin D, there are all sorts of other herbal remedies, trace minerals (like zinc), and superfood nutrients that can help protect you.

And, of course, don’t suppress your immune system with flu shots, chemotherapy or prescription medications. All those things make you more vulnerable to infection and makes you a repeat customer for the “sick care” cartels that profit from human suffering.

Secret government documents reveal vaccines to be a total hoax

1aaa

(NaturalNews) If you have children, you are more than likely already aware of the official U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “Immunization Schedules,” which today recommend an astounding 29 vaccines be given between birth and six years of age, including yearly flu shots, as well as another five to 16 vaccines between ages seven and 18 (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/). But a recent investigative report compiled by Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., uncovers more than 30 years of hidden government documents exposing these vaccine schedules as a complete hoax, not to mention the fraud of the vaccines themselves to provide any real protection against disease.

Though her paper focuses primarily on the British health system’s elaborate cover-up of the dirty truth about its own national vaccination program, the tenets of the study’s findings still apply to vaccination schedules in general, which are typically designed for the purpose of serving corporate interests rather than public health. Government authorities, it turns out, in an ongoing bid to satisfy the private goals of the vaccine industry, have deliberately covered up pertinent information about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines from parents in order to maintain a high rate of vaccination compliance. And in the process, they have put countless millions of children at risk of serious side effects and death.

You can access Dr. Tomljenovic’s full paper here:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

Hiding the truth and covering up data to encourage vaccine compliance

Through several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Dr. Tomljenovic was able to obtain transcripts of private meetings that were held between the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), a so-called “independent expert advisory committee” that makes recommendations to the government about vaccine policy, and various British health ministers over the years. And after poring through this plethora of information, which had previously been veiled from public view, Dr. Tomljenovic made some disturbing discoveries.

“[T]he JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization) made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity,’ a concept which … does not rest on solid scientific evidence,” explains Dr. Tomljenovic in the introduction to her paper.

“Official documents obtained from the U.K. Department of Health (DH) and the JCVI reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.”

These are some strong accusations, but the information Dr. Tomljenovic gathered speaks for itself. Not only did the JCVI routinely ignore questions of safety as they came up with regards to the ever-expanding vaccination schedule, but the group actively censored unfavorable data that shed a “negative” light on vaccines in order to maintain the illusion that vaccines are safe and effective. Beyond this, the JCVI regularly lied to both the public and government authorities about vaccine safety in order to ensure that people continued to vaccinate their kids.

You can access Dr. Tomljenovic’s full paper here:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

JCVI was fully aware of MMR vaccine dangers as early as 1989, but covered them up

Beginning on page three of her report, Dr. Tomljenovic begins outlining the sordid details of meetings held as early as 1981 where the JCVI clearly engaged in fraud, cover-up, and lies about vaccines to protect the vaccine industry, not children, from harm. Minutes from these meetings reveal that the JCVI actively tried to cover up severe side effects associated with common vaccines like measles and whooping cough (pertussis), both of which were clearly linked at the time to causing severe brain damage in a substantial percentage of the children that received them.

Of particular concern was how the JCVI handled unfavorable data on the controversial MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella. 10 years before Dr. Andrew Wakefield published his study on MMR in The Lancet, JCVI was already fully aware that the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) had identified a clear link between MMR and vaccine-induced meningitis and encephalitis. But rather than come forward with this information and call for further safety assessments on the vaccine, the JCVI instead censored this critical information from the public, and blatantly lied about the safety of MMR for years.

“The extent of the JCVI’s concerns with the implications of scientific assessment of vaccine safety on vaccine policy explains why they were opposed to any long-term surveillance for severe neurological disorders following vaccination,” writes Dr. Tomljenovic. “[I]nstead of re-evaluating the vaccination policy, at least until safety concerns were fully evaluated, the JCVI chose to support the existing policy based on incomplete evidence that was available at that time.”

In other words, the JCVI was more concerned with protecting the reputation of the dangerous MMR vaccine, as well as many other questionable vaccines, than with protecting children from sustaining serious injuries as a result of getting the jabs. As far as the MMR vaccine is concerned, this critical piece of information not only reinforces the legitimacy of Dr. Wakefield’s findings from 10 years later, which were illegitimately declared to be fraudulent by the establishment, but also illustrates just how painfully long this scam has been taking place.

Vaccine companies urged to manipulate data sheets, skew safety studies to promote vaccines

If this is not bad enough, Dr. Tomljenovic also drudged up copious amounts of information on the JCVI’s longtime habit of encouraging vaccine companies to deliberately alter their data sheets in order to make dangerous and ineffective vaccines appear safe and effective, in accordance with their recommendations. When the JCVI’s guidance contraindications for MMR, for instance, did not match those of the vaccine’s manufacturer, JCVI apparently instructed the manufacturer to alter its data sheets to avoid “legal problems.”

Similarly, the JCVI’s official policy was to cherry-pick unreliable studies to support its own opinions on vaccines rather than rely on independent, scientifically-sound studies to make vaccine policy recommendations. Once again, the JCVI’s position on the safety and effectiveness of MMR is an excellent example of this, as the group flat out ignored legitimate MMR studies in favor of industry-backed junk studies like the infamous 2005 Cochrane Review, which technically proves nothing about the alleged safety of MMR because the 31 studies it evaluated did not even meet the group’s basic methodological criteria.

“Over the years, the JCVI has consistently promoted the MMR vaccine as safe, based on studies that have been proven to be either irrelevant, inconclusive, or methodologically questionable,” explains Dr. Tomljenovic, adding that the JCVI routinely chose to rely on flawed epidemiological studies that only identified “association” rather than “causation,” a rather ironic inaccuracy in light of how scrutinizing the establishment typically is of studies that contradict its own positions.

The eye-opening, 45-page paper goes on to explain how vaccine schedules were established through the calculated downplaying of vaccine safety concerns and the over-inflating of vaccine benefits; the promotion of dangerous new vaccines into the pediatric schedule through deception; the discouraging of vaccine safety follow-up studies; and the widespread brainwashing of the public through manipulation and scientific sleight-of-hand tricks.

Be sure to check out the complete study for yourself:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

Tax on flu vaccines help fund national debt. (Twice as sick)

Photo - AP Photo

(Examiner) – The new flu shot has a 40 percent failure rate, according to reports, but that’s not stopping Uncle Sam from slapping a tax on it.

Legislation is moving through Congress to impose a 75-cent tax on new seasonal flu vaccines, as the government already does on existing vaccines. The tax money is used to fund the The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund which covers vaccine-related injury or death claims for covered vaccines.

Without the tax fund, officials said, drug makers wouldn’t make new vaccines to replace older ones.

The website Speak With Authority noted that the fund has about $3.5 billion in it, but it’s paid out only $2.5 billion in the last 25 years.

Says the site: “Although the taxes raised by the vaccine tax go into a ‘Trust Fund,’ this trust fund, like most government trust funds, is on paper only. According to the most recent report on the fund, November 2012, the balance in the fund is nearly $3.5 billion. Since the program’s inception in 1988, the fund has paid out only $2.5 billion in 25 years for cases involving all vaccines, not just the flu vaccine. The balance in the fund could conceivably last another 25 years with no further tax revenue. The $3.5 billion balance, of course, is ‘invested’ in ‘US Treasury Securities.’ In other words, financing a portion of the $16.5 trillion national debt.”

Poland Bans Genetically Modified Crops

 

(WakingTimes) – The North-Eastern European country, Poland, has become the latest EU nation to ban the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, although, the European Food Safety Authority has approved GM crops as being safe for cultivation. Poland’s Ministry of Agriculture has opted to take advantage of  a special ‘safeguard clause’ which allowed them to reject these GM crops, allowing Poland to protect their agricultural base from contamination.

Recently, the European Union approved two GM crops for Europe, Monsanto’s MON810 Maize, and BASF’s Amflora Potato, however, Poland’s ban will take effect on January 28th.

“To justify the enactment of these regulations, the Ministry of Agriculture pointed out to the impossibility of the coexistence of GM crops and the natural varieties, without the risk of contamination of the latter. The Ministry also draws attention to the threat of contamination of honey by pollen of maize MON 810 and the lack of research supporting the safety of GM crops on the environment and human health. From now on, a farmer who illegally sows MON 810 maize or Amflora potato may be levied with severe financial penalties and even with the destruction of his crop.” (GMWatch)

This is good news for opponents of genetically modified foods as their consumption has been linked to cancers and other health problems in labratory animals and in humans. Last year, Russia temporarily banned the production of several GM crops, but in the last week “Russia’s Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare conducted its own safety assessment of NK603 and concluded that there were no adverse effects on humans.” (AGProfessional)

This is a small and perhaps temporary victory in the fight against franken-foods, but activists must remain steadfast and dedicated to stop the tidal wave of genetically modified crops, which rely much more heavily on boutique pesticides and herbicides than traditionally cultivated crops. And organizations working toward this goal, like GreenPeace, are quick to point out that we must remain vigilant so that the EU is not able to overturn this ban, and also that proper oversight is implemented to ensure that GM crops will be controlled effectively and that the ban is actually observed by local farmers.

Healthcare companies bribing customers with gift cards if they get mammograms

 

(NaturalNews) The cancer industry is getting so desperate to recruit new customers that it is resorting to cheap gimmicks and bribery to convince women to get screened for breast cancer. It recently came to our attention that numerous hospitals and cancer centers across the country are now advertising “free” gift cards to their members who agree to get mammograms, as if the irradiating medical procedure was some kind of “Black Friday” special just in time for Christmas.
The UCare health group in Minneapolis, for instance, sent out pamphlets to its members notifying them that if they fall between the ages of 50 and 69, they are eligible to receive a $25 gift card if they get a mammogram. Eligible members do not even have to fork over a co-payment — all they have to do is have their health provider fill out, sign and mail in a voucher, similar to how a mail-in rebate would be redeemed for a discounted television.
You can view the UCare form here: http://www.ucare.org
The CentraState Healthcare System in New Jersey offers a similar program to members who agree to get a mammogram. According to the health group’s website, women who agree to have their breasts blasted with cancer-causing, ionizing radiation will receive not only a $30 gift certificate towards a one-hour health spa session, but also a one-week pass to the CentraState wellness center. (http://health.gmnews.com)
And in Michigan, the Henry Ford Health System entices local women, and particularly minorities, with $20 gift certificates in exchange for getting mammograms. According to the group’s website, this carrot-on-a-stick approach to convincing more women to get mammograms is part of an affirmative action-type program to “eliminate [the] racial gap in mammogram screening.” (http://www.henryford.com/body.cfm?id=46335&action=detail&ref=753)
And the list goes on and on, with health groups in Illinois (http://thesouthern.com), Wisconsin (http://www.publichealthmdc.com/wwwp/documents/KomenFlyer.pdf), and many other places all offering trifle rewards for compliance with the mammogram agenda. Some hospitals are even encouraging local women to hold so-called “mammogram parties” for the purpose of getting women drunk and persuading them to get irradiated. (http://abcnews.go.com)

Mammogram hysteria a direct result of emerging research on its dangers

Somehow, none of this is surprising, especially when considering the fact that at least a dozen scientific studies published in recent years have identified mammograms as not only highly dangerous (http://www.naturalnews.com/033458_mammography_dangers.html), but also a direct cause of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_breast_cancer_mammograms.html). A Danish doctor actually published a study in the journal The Lancet back in 2006 that showed mammograms offer absolutely no health benefits at all. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021608_mammograms_cancer_risk.html)
So you can expect to see a whole lot more bait-and-switch marketing, cheesy gimmicks, and other ridiculous shenanigans aimed at the basest instincts of human nature. Free money? You can do whatever you want to my body! In truth, accepting a gift card in exchange for having your breasts medically molested is actually a form of medical prostitution.
It is almost as ridiculous as dangling free flu shots as an incentive to convince people to turn in their guns, which is what the city of Worcester in Massachusetts is currently trying to do (http://www.naturalnews.com). Anything to persuade free individuals to give up their rights, their dignity, and their informed consent is open game to the eugenicists, who want nothing more than to seize all of these things and more from the American people in exchange for a few pieces of silver.

Top 10 Most Dangerous U.S. Government Agencies

CAV logo

(Activist Post)  We have chosen to highlight United States agencies; however, this top 10 list has global impact, as the U.S. has now proven to be the enforcement division of the overarching globalist agenda of centralized control.

One could argue that every government agency serves the purpose of stifling freedom and wasting taxpayer money. Yet, the 10 listed below go the extra mile for their sheer corruption, draconian regulations, and ultimate impact upon the largest number of citizens.

The main criteria for inclusion in the top 10 is the amount of money spent by the taxpayer according to official budget declarations, and then attaining the highest level of doing exactly the opposite of what they were supposedly created for.

Here is the countdown to the top 10 most dangerous U.S. government agencies to the freedom, prosperity and health of its citizens . . . .

#10 – Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – annual budget $8.5 billion: Their record of ignoring environmental damage and the health effects on humans from major events such as 9/11, the Exxon and Gulf oil spills to the worst case, Fukushima, is unparalleled.

Rather than investigate and warn of real dangers, they have gone after farmers for dubious claims of water contamination, while treating milk spills as they should have treated oil spills.

Even worse, the EPA has concluded that there is no law preventing it from doing “research” on Americans. A recent lawsuit over the EPA’s work with airborne pollutants will put this claim to the test in Federal court. Their illegal human experiments could break the Nuremberg Code (source: The Washington Times).

#9 – Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – annual budget $13.3 billion:  Cries of “End the Fed!” continue to get louder, while more people are beginning to wake up completely and couple this with “End the IRS!” In fact, the two were developed together 100 years ago making the private Fed and the government IRS fraternal twins in creating a system of indentured servitude through dollar devaluation and arbitrary tax collection, respectively.

The Fed enslaves through stealth, while the IRS uses force to impose itself through ever-expanding regulations and the threat of fines and imprisonment. As the collection division, the IRS rakes in a staggering $2.3 trillion annually.

Despite that massive amount, the IRS has a distinguished record of ignoring the shenanigans of major corporations and federal employees, while focusing harshly on the average private citizen and small businesses in particular. Thankfully, there is some momentum toward abolishing the IRS throughFairTax legislation. Now would be a good time, as the IRS will be empowered even further when the healthcare overhaul takes effect. #8 – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – annual budget $13.5 billion: Despite massive funding to help people in dire need of assistance, FEMA has failed spectacularly in the cases of Katrina and Sandy, even hindering the ability of people to make it on their own, asgun confiscation was ordered against the population affected by Katrina.

The mechanics of offering aid to legitimate victims of Sandy are still being debated by the U.S. government.  Additionally, there is a disturbing amount of evidence that suggests FEMA would be instrumental in enslaving large populations following an economic collapse or civil unrest. FEMA centers are now open knowledge and if implemented will likely resemble the squalor and horror that refugees encountered when jammed into the New Orleans Superdome following Katrina.

#7 – Department of Justice (DoJ) – annual budget $28 billion: This includes the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) which has its own annual budget of $8 billion. The “Department of Justice” is perhaps the most Orwellian oxymoron of all government agencies.  For decades they have pursued a failed War on Drugs that targets small-time users while ignoring the true drug criminals. In fact, they’ve even armed the drug gangs as revealed in the Fast and Furious scandal. We have a Justice Department more concerned with going after whistleblowers of crimesthan the criminals themselves.

The FBI deserves a whole section unto itself given their recent behavior. The only “terrorists” they’ve caught since 9-11 are the ones they have created with their own material support. Further, the FBI is increasingly using illegal surveillance tactics for peaceful activists like Occupy demonstrators and others.

It has recently been revealed that the FBI was actually spying on Occupy protesters at the behest of banks, not the government, even refusing to tell Occupy leaders that there were assassination plots against them. Finally, it must be noted that no bankers have gone to jail from the immense fraud that led to the financial collapse of 2008 and beyond; no one significant has gone to jail for torture and other war crimes; and government corruption has been all but legalized.

#6 – Spy Agencies: The nation’s 17 spy agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) – annual budget $55 billion? Many of the intelligence accounts are classified, so we can’t really know the true total, but we do know that the budget for spy agencieshas doubled since 9/11. The NSA has grabbed the most attention as of late with plans to expand into their new $2 billion data mining center in Bluffdale, Utah set to launch in September of this year. Whistleblowers like William Binney have stated that the agency is already spying on its own citizens domestically.

As the war on terror increases its scope through drone surveillance on American soil, the NSA’s budget will only increase, while increasing the danger posed to large sections of the U.S. Constitution. The CIA of course has long been implicated in usingassassination rings to topple foreign governments and political opponents, while being at the center of the Guantanamo Bay and rendition torture apparatus. With the arrival of no-holds-barred legislation like NDAA 2013, the intelligence regime becomes more dangerous than ever.

#5 – Department of Education (ED) – annual budget $70 billion: The way that America has chosen to educate its youth is the beginning of the justifications for the abuses of every other federal agency. The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, as Charlotte Iserbyt has called it, has resulted in a once independent, entrepreneurial nation becoming a collectivized horde of selfish, but not individualistic, youth.

There is much less attention paid to vocational skills, and much more attention paid to training the next bunch of public officials or bureaucracy enforcers. Furthermore, the public school system is clearly engaging in prisoner training with the actions of children becoming criminalized at an ever-greater pace. With the recent CT school shooting, we can expect that this will now become part of the curriculum as justification for the surrounding police state will be taught as a logical consequence in the face of such random threats of terror.

#4 – Department of Homeland Security (DHS) annual budget $100 billion (3,000 page PDF): – Much like the Department of Defense, the activities of DHS are all-encompassing including the goon squad of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which has employed untrained, low IQ, and criminal elements including pedophiles to reach into the pants of men, women and children.

The TSA is also responsible for introducing cancer to its employees and the public through its backscatter radiation naked imaging machines. And now they are set to hit the streets across America with their spin-off VIPR teams. DHS has set up the ultimate framework for tyranny, including secret lists, secret arrests, activist surveillance, biometric immigration measures, control of cyberspace, Orwellian telescreens and PSA’s that increasingly portray average citizens who are engaged in normal activities as worthy of suspicion and interrogation. They are sure to be on the front lines of any gun control and confiscation initiatives, as they clearly have been stockpiling their own ammunition in ever greater numbers.

#3 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – annual budget $155 billion:  If there is one agency that is administering the globalist directives of Agenda 21, it is the USDA. They have recently begun putting dubious embargoes on small farms, which is leading to economic and literal starvation of people and animals alike. Through their trickle down directives, farmers can even be charged in a different county after being cleared of wrongdoing in a previous case.

This is the hallmark of bureaucratic tyranny. The USDA has been instrumental in clearing Dow Chemical’s GM soy, giving Monsanto’s GMO crops special ‘speed approval,’ and covering up pesticide damage to humans and bee populations. But in true absurdist bureaucratic style, the same organization that has consistently overlooked the health and economic threats to countless millions of people decided to fine a family $4 million dollars for selling bunny rabbits.

#2 – Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – annual budget $892 billion – This gargantuan structure includes the FDA, CDC and the National Institutes of Health among others. The FDA has its own annual budget of $4.5 billion. This agency has approved prescription and over-the-counter drugs that knowingly have killed hundreds of thousandsof people annually, has increased irradiation of the food supply, and has covered up vaccine injuries, But if you want Big Pharma, you can get it from a vending machine, thanks to the FDA. No surprise, the FDA has ties to Monsanto and ties to Bayer.  Now our food is being made and modified by the largest pesticide manufacturer, while any move to label GMO is shut down by the agency.

The FDA has additionally approved AquaBounty’s GE Salmon despite a statement by The Center for Food Safety, that its “bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry, and bad for the environment.” Among other gems are dangerous animal feed additives, approving dangerous anti-viral drugs for infants, and policing food safety in foreign nations.

As for the CDC, or Center for Disease Creation as some natural medicine practitioners have coined the agency (budget $11 billion), they have encouraged vaccination to such an extent that some have questioned whether their mandated vaccine schedule is part of a compulsory sterilization program.

#1 – Department of Defense (DoD) – annual budget ??? – Officially $613 billion This agency is in desperate need of returning to its more honest original name: The War Department. In addition to being the recipient of the highest percentage of the federal budget, the DoD’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) division almost deserves a category of its own. Many of DARPA’s projects fall into the money pit of “black budget” secret projects not even subjected to presidential and congressional oversight. With DARPA’s “mad science” reputation, it is no doubt one of the top recipients of the $50 billion annual black budget, making this one of the most dangerous federal agencies to both the economy of the U.S. and to world peace. Overall, the Department of Defense as the coordinator for anything that falls under “national security” is responsible for openly killing millions and eviscerating the Constitution … and there is no sign that they are letting up any time soon.

Neurotoxic Flu Drug Approved for Use on Infants

pillflu 265x165 Neurotoxic Flu Drug Approved for Use on Infants

(NaturalSociety) -Tamiflu, the antiviral drug facing international criticism for its deadly side effects, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use on infants just two weeks old.

The FDA’s decision comes amidst international controversy over Tamiflu, known generically as oseltamivir. Since the drug’s approval in 1999, several suicide deaths and incidents of bizarre side effects have been recorded. In the UK, where use of Tamiflu was relatively low at the time of publication of a 2005 article, only 41 “yellow card” reports of adverse reactions were recorded, just one being agitation and two being “confusional states.”

In Japan, however, close to the cries of a then-imminent avian flu pandemic, 54 people with no previous discernible psychiatric or health complications were dead after taking Tamiflu in 2005.

Tamiflu-maker, Roche Holding AG, responded chillingly. “These events are extremely rare in relation to the number of patients treated.”

Haruhiko Nokiba, whose a 17-year old victim who committed suicide in 2004 after taking Tamiflu, says, “Had they issued a warning earlier, then the number of deaths could have been halved.”

FDA Following the Money

A warning label about such bizarre psychiatric side effects—like the one the Japanese pharmaceutical company Chugai slapped onto Tamiflu in 2004—might have affected Roche’s sales, which is where the FDA’s priority seems to be. This is, of course, conjecture—like the kind the FDA used when approving Tamiflu for use on infants under a year old.

Because of the unlikelihood that any parents would subject an infant to controlled, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of a drug associated with psychiatric distress, the FDA made their approval decision based on conjecture from studies involving older children and adults.

Existing Data Encourages Caution

What this conjecture fails to take into consideration, however, is an infant’s significantly greater vulnerability to drugs. Their lesser developed blood-brain barriers and detoxification mechanisms make them less capable as adults of keeping chemicals out of their developing brains and bodies.

As a neuraminidase inhibitor, Tamiflu blocks the principle enzyme in a flu virus that allows it to enter through the membrane of the host cell. Because mammals have four variations (that we know of so far) of neuraminidase enzymes, known as sialidase homologs, a drug like Tamiflu that targets these neuraminidases is likely very imprecise. These enzymes are crucial for neurological health, so “cross reactivity” associated with Tamiflu may be to blame for many things, like an increased risk of birth defects in offspring of pregnant women given Tamiflu.

In fact, existing data rather than conjecture should have turned the FDA away from this approval. According to a study published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, the majority (54 percent) of evaluable infants treated with Tamiflu experienced complications. “The most serious of [these complications] were meningitis in 1 infant (1 percent), pneumonia in 9 (6 percent), and [ear infection] in 2 (1 percent).”

Another study, published in the International Journal of Vaccine Risk and Safety in Medicine, tracked down 119 reports of Tamiflu-induced death, 38 of which were of sudden deterioration within 12 hours of prescription. “These findings are consistent with sudden deaths observed in a series of animal toxicity studies, several reported case series and the results of prospective cohort studies.”

The FDA Doesn’t Care About You

This is just another blight on the FDA’s pock-marked, industry-linked record. In other examples, the FDA openly endorses and is pushing for the expansion of GMOs in our food supply and environment, most famously GM corn and wheat, but also GM salmon. In efforts to squelch the GMO labeling movement in early 2012, the government also erased 1 million signatures from the “Just Label It” campaign.

They have even set their sights on labeling walnuts as drugs for their coveted omega 3 content and banning vitamin B6 from stores in favor of pharmaceutical company BioStratum’s prescription drug using Pyrodoxamine, a natural form of vitamin B6. Forces within our own government—selected by people they then do nothing to care for—are turning nature’s bountiful resources into purchasable and often unaffordable products.

 

FDA approves experimental tuberculosis treatment that carries increased risk of death

CAV logo

(NaturalNews) Bedaquiline, a drug developed by Johnson & Johnson for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, relies on a new mechanism of action that blocks an energy-carrying enzyme necessary for the growth of TB bacteria. Unfortunately, this medicine comes with some worrying side effects.

High liver toxicity, heart condition and death are shrugged off as inconclusive

Although the drug is effective according to preliminary tests, it carries an unusually high risk of liver toxicity, heart problems and even death. According to FDA advisers, patients who took Bedaquiline showed increased levels of liver enzymes consistent with liver toxicity, and long QT levels, which are evidence of a rare heart condition characterized by abnormal heartbeat. Long QT Syndrome can cause palpitations, fainting and sudden death.
Although the patients who took Bedaquiline were more likely to die than the patients who followed other treatments, Chrispin Kambili, the doctor in charge of Bedaquiline for J&J’s Janssen Therapeutics unit, said that his company was unable to find a common pattern to explain the high death rates and that the FDA advisers did not offer any “unifying findings”.
Consequently, the FDA approved the drug on Monday, right before New Year’s Eve, with financial analysts estimating that Bedaquiline will register annual sales of $300, a relatively modest amount according to industry standards.
CDC reports show that 1.4 million people died from TB in 2011 alone, with 9 million people have been infected. Other sources show that a new TB infection occurs every second, although the number of world infections has been steadily decreasing since 2006. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis affects about 650,000 people each year.

Natural treatments for tuberculosis

Tuberculosis can kill very quickly, and while most people prefer to use conventional medical treatments, there are holistic, natural health remedies available for those who seek alternatives. Since tuberculosis is caused by bacteria, natural treatments focus primarily on strengthening immunity and secondly on relieving the symptoms of infection.
According to the International Journal of Health research, consuming a handful of barberry berries each day can help alleviate TB symptoms thanks to a compound called berberine, which is a powerful bactericide. The same editorial mentions that diets low in specific nutrients, like vitamin B12, vitamin C and vitamin D, can weaken the body in its struggle with TB.
Getting plenty of sunlight (also known as heliotherapy) is crucial in boosting immunity. Before the development of modern drugs, sunbathing was one of the most widespread treatments against non-pulmonary TB, for two main reasons: UV light and hot temperatures can kill bacteria, and the natural production of vitamin D supports immunity.
Horsetail has also been found effective against TB. Since TB causes a decrease in silica levels, which is needed in small amounts for strong bones and joints, wound healing, and immunity, horsetail can help replenish silica and speed up the healing of pulmonary damage.

How Many Pills Until Pharmageddon?

 

https://i1.wp.com/www.freakingnews.com/pictures/25000/Prozac-Santa-Claus-25108.jpg

(Survival Sherpa) -Expert preppers recommend at least a years worth of the 3 B’s: food (beans), guns and ammo (bullets), and first aid supplies (band aids). I addressed this issue in a previous post about becoming a producer. All this stuff is consumable. What then?

A question I don’t see addressed by many experts is: What happens when the psychotropic drugs run out? How many Adam Lanza-types, armed and drugged, do we work with, live beside, or are married to?

The other day a fellow teacher told me that one of my students in his class must be off his meds. “What happened,” I asked.

“He was flopping on the floor like a fish and making strange sounds and had crazy eyes,” my friend said.

Most times, teachers just send out of control behavior to me to handle. I’ll ask if they took their medicine. The usual reply is negative.

The link between school shootings/violence and legal pharmaceuticals is disturbing to say the least. Here’s a sobering read on the effects of all the mind-altering pills swimming in public schools (Hat Tip to Caroline Cooper – a regular Sherpa commentista). What a disastrous mix: Big Pharma, Medical/Psychiatric Establishment, Industrial Food Complex, and Gun-Free Zone Government Schools. Our appetite for quick fixes, coupled with pharmaceutical profits, places America on top of other pill-popping nations consuming 60% of all psychotropic pills manufactured.

Every year it seems, we hear of another manufactured illness. Ever heard of ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder)? Here’s how the Mayo Clinic defines ODD: [NOTE: I added emphasis in bold, a helpful layman’s interpretation for those not familiar with psychobabble, and alternative solutions to pills in brackets]

if your child or teen has a persistent pattern of tantrums[take Jane or Johnny to the woodshed], arguing, and angry or disruptive behavior [see Founding Fathers] toward you and other authority figures [Police State, the collective, Leviathan –  they know what’s best for their subjectscitizens] he or she may have oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).

As a parent, you don’t have to go it alone in trying to manage [not raise] a child with oppositional defiant disorder. Doctors, counselors and child development experts [BEWARE of ALL ‘experts’] can help.

Treatment of ODD involves therapy, training to help build positive family interactions, and possibly medications to treat related mental health conditions (follow the money equation: more patients = more money).

A “problem” child often gets labeled with a mental disorder by refusing to submit and obey the oppressive rules, constant spying, and authoritarian rule in public schools. A school counselor pointed out to me that one of my students (we’ll call him John) must have this dreaded ODD mental order. He would often refuse to sit down and shut up. His mom made the decision to take him off the prescription drugs the previous year. He was making great strides in my math class. Unfortunately, the target was already painted on his back. And he knew it. I responded to the genuinely concerned counselor by saying that I think I must have caught the ODD too. This young man and I had a great year together. I ran interference for him as much as possible to give him a chance to learn. You see, once a child gets labeled, the collective memory of staff and teachers can’t be erased. Finally, his mom moved him to another school.

Zombie Factories

Image credit

Government schools are the perfect Petri dishes for profitable pharmaceutical companies. Anti-psychotic drugs, once only prescribed to adults, are readily available to school aged children. Unruly children are drugged for social compliance more than for the mental health of the individual. I call it the zombiefication process. Mix a mind-numbing cocktail of strong anti-psychotic drugs and the invisible straightjacket turns any student into a compliant zombie. Even after John’s mom took him off the drugs, I believe his young, developing brain was badly affected.

Parents and teachers embrace and encourage the pill-popping culture in Zombie Factories. In this fantasy world of rainbows and flying unicorns, we can alter behavior with a prescription pill. We are no longer responsible. Big Psychiatry will “save the children” – some doctor, bought by Big Pharma, will make everything okay with a pill. Like I tell my students repeatedly, school is not the real world. The real world is not fair. Everyone doesn’t “win” and get a trophy. It’s even more cruel when living as mind-controlled zombies drugged on legally addictive pills.

Big Pharma’s Best Kept Secret

Can prescription drugs cause you to kill someone? “Absolutely”, says Dr. David Healy, author of Phamageddon. “Violence and other potentially criminal behavior caused by prescription drugs are medicine’s best kept secret,” he adds. Want to find out if the drugs you or a loved one are taking might cause violent behavior? Enter the name of the drug over at the Violence Zone. Even if it’s “just” a pill to help you quit smoking, side effects can be deadly. Don’t expect to hear about this on major media outlets. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in keeping journalists inline.

Dr. Mercola reports on a disturbing top-ten list below.

Antidepressants Top List of Most Violence-Inducing Drugs

It’s certainly worth paying heed to drug interactions such as violence and homicidal leanings, both as a patient and as a concerned parent, family member or friend. According to a 2010 study published in the journal PLoS One, half of the top 10 drugs disproportionately linked with violent behavior are antidepressants:

  1. Varenicline (Chantix): The number one violence-inducing drug on the list, this anti-smoking medication is 18 times more likely to be linked with violence when compared to other drugs
  2. Fluoxetine (Prozac): This drug was the first well-known SSRI antidepressant
  3. Paroxetine (Paxil): Another SSRI antidepressant, Paxil is also linked with severe withdrawal symptoms and a risk of birth defects
  4. Amphetamines: (Various): Used to treat ADHD
  5. Mefoquine (Lariam): A treatment for malaria which is often linked with reports of strange behavior
  6. Atomoxetine (Strattera): An ADHD drug that affects the neurotransmitter noradrenaline
  7. Triazolam (Halcion): This potentially addictive drug is used to treat insomnia
  8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox): Another SSRI antidepressant
  9. Venlafaxine (Effexor): An antidepressant also used to treat anxiety disorders
  10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq): An antidepressant which affects both serotonin and noradrenaline

The big lie laid on our pill-for-everything culture destroys self-reliance and individual responsibility. The food I eat makes a huge difference in my overall health. The S.A.D. (Standard American Diet) served in government school lunchrooms won’t create physical specimens of students, much less mental health. Could our stomachs be connected to our mental health? I think so. I’m not alone. Below you can check out a few resources to put you on the road to enlightenment and self-healing.

The typical food storage recommendations by prepper experts are loaded with foods that destroy the brain-gut-axis. I wrote about my Primal Pantry here. My Down and Dirty Sauerkraut is loaded with gut-healing probiotics. Maybe it’s time to rethink food storage methods.

How many pills?

So, this brings me back to the original question: How many pills? What happens when your personal stock of antidepressants run out? The drug-altered fantasia will disappear when the pain of withdrawal grips the one in ten Americans dependent on psychotropic pills just to get through the day – when times were normal. Times won’t be “normal” when the sh*t hits the fan.

Images of maniacs shooting up innocent victims could pale in comparison once the prescription pill machine grinds to a halt. Adding insult to injury, all the  stuff needed to combat depression are the exact things that will be hard to come by in a prolonged SHTF situation. For instance, proper amounts of sleep, vitamins like B12 and D, omega-3 fats, and exercise all have been proven to help with mental well-being.

Educating yourself, then taking action, could save you and yours lots of future pain. A few small steps now could help you prepare for the coming Pharmageddon.

FDA Quietly Pushes Through Genetically Modified Salmon Over Christmas Break

While you were likely resting or enjoying time with friends and family over the Christmas break, the United States Food and Drug Administration was hard at work ramming through genetically modified salmon towards the final acceptance process. Despite the frankenfish actually being blocked by Congress last year over serious health and environmental concerns, the FDA is making a massive push to release the genetically modified salmon into the world as the FDA-backed biotech giant and creator of the fish AquaAdvantage screams for profits.

These fish of course threaten the very genetic integrity of the food chain when considering the fact that they will ultimately be unleashed into waters with other salmon and likely even the ocean at large. The AquaAdvantage genetically modified salmon have been engineered through genetic manipulation to grow double the size and weight of the average salmon. Hitting 24 inches instead of 13 and weighing in at 6.6 pounds instead of 2.8, the GM fish contains both a gene from another salmon known as the Pacific Chinook as well as an eel-like fish.

This unnatural genetic infusion allows the fish to generate a growth hormone 24/7, making it a massively mutated ball of growth hormones and disease.

Genetically Modified Salmon Threaten Genetic Stability of Food Chain

In the event that awareness is not spread and Congress allows the FDA to approve AquaAdvantage’ GM salmon, it will become the first approved GM animal for growth and human consumption.

Modified salmon will mate with regular breeds, creating hybrid mutations that may likely never be tracked. Hybrid families that may continue to repopulate for generations, all containing modified genes. After being consumed by predators like sharks or others, the sharks are then affected by the genetically modified fish through the development of various health conditions conditions. In mice trials alone it was found that eating GMOs triggered mass tumors and early death in the animals — and that’s just crops. Genetically modified crops are concerning enough, but are much less complex than animals.

The fact of the matter is that no one truly knows the long term effects of GM crops, let alone GM animals. But hey, why not test it out on the public? After all, who cares? It’s not like the FDA will do anything to Monsanto despite the numerous studies linking GMOs to disease. Instead, they just say it’s pseudo science and that only FDA-backed ‘science’ is worth anything. Forget the fact that the only lifelong rat study done on GMOs found it led to tumor development.

So what can we do?

geneticallymodifiedsalmon1 260x162 FDA Quietly Pushes Through Genetically Modified Salmon Over Christmas BreakThere are a number of methods here, but first and foremost the word needs to be spread far and wide that genetically modified salmon is being pushed through by the FDA. People despise GM products on average, with 90 plus percent in favor of at least labeling. In addition, there is a petition going around to send to politicians to ask them to stop this approval as they did in 2011.

Ultimately, it comes down to opposition. If enough people know this is coming and are very upset about it, they will have trouble ramming it through. That’s why they announce these things over Christmas weekend. They don’t want anyone to even hear about it — they want to make it harder to popularize since hardly anyone saw it.

We can beat this as we did back in 2011, and the FDA knows it. Their dirty tactics are not effective in the technological age in which the transfer of information is more powerful than ever. Share this news and spread the word. Block genetically modified salmon from getting put on your dinner table without any labels.

FDA: Drug Companies Faked Thousands of Drug Documents

fraud1 260x162 FDA: Drug Companies Faked Thousands of Drug Documents

(Natural Society) According to the Food and Drug Administration, a major drug research contractor has been found faking documents and manipulating samples. The firm, Cetero Research, has tested medicines for major drug companies that are now being forced to reevaluate their products in response to warnings issued by US regulators. The news may be from 2010, but is an example of pharma corruption nonetheless.

North Carolina-based Cetero performs early-phase clinical research and bioanalytics for many pharmaceutical companies, which use the results to receive FDA approval for drugs. Exactly which companies used Cetero’s services for FDA drug approval remains unclear, though such companies are being asked by the FDA to come forward.

A series of investigations—two 2010 inspections, an internal company investigation, and a third-party audit—uncovered “significant instances of misconduct and violations” at Houston’s Cetero facility.  The FDA adds that “the pattern of misconduct was serious enough to raise concerns about the integrity of the data Cetero generated” between April 2005 and June 2010.

In those five years, laboratory personnel supposedly busy conducting studies were revealed in the investigations as not even being present in the Cetero facilities—in 1,900 instances. The FDA also suspects that Cetero “fixed” studies to skew outcomes or failed to mention others in their reports.

The regulators say that the investigation’s scope is “too narrow to identify and adequately address the root cause of these systemic failures.”

Root cause? Maybe greed is a good place to start.

Widespread Fraud in Big Pharma

Greed seems to be a common denominator between Cetero and Roche and Genentech, a Swiss-based pharmaceutical company and its US affiliate, which were probed by the European Medicines Agency and found to have failed to submit 80,000 reports of products marketed in the US that left 15,161 patients dead. Your doctor could be one of the may paid to falsify data to get published. Even the Mayo Clinic has stated that the last 10 years of cancer research is useless due to widespread fraud.

 

Study: Antibiotics ineffective in treating persistent coughs

(Digital Journal) – A new study into the efficacy of antibiotics in treating  persistent coughs concludes they provide little benefit, while prescribing  antibiotics can have a deleterious effect on health.

The study, based on just over 2,000 patients, was led by  Professor Paul Little from the University of Southampton. Previous research had  produced inconclusive results on the effects of antibiotics on persistent mild  coughs. The new study proves more conclusive.

The BBC  reported Prof. Little said:

“Using the antibiotic amoxicillin to treat respiratory infections in  patients not suspected of having pneumonia is not likely to help and could be  harmful.

Overuse of antibiotics, dominated by  primary care prescribing, particularly when they are ineffective, can lead to  the development of resistance and have side effects like diarrhoea, rash and  vomiting.

Our results show that people get better  on their own. But given that a small number of patients will benefit from  antibiotics the challenge remains to identify these individuals.”

The study, published in the Lancet,  concludes: “When pneumonia is not suspected clinically, amoxicillin provides  little benefit for acute lower-respiratory-tract infection in primary care both  overall and in patients aged 60 years or more, and causes slight harms.”

The National  Health Service is seeking to raise antibiotic awareness. It warns that the  unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics is increasing the number of infections  with antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Infants as medical guinea pigs?

pillsinfant 260x162 Infants as Medical Guinea Pigs?

(Natural Society) -When Big Pharma wants a drug approved, ideally they should go through several stages of trials and tests, where the drug is tested for effectiveness and side effects before being approved. But what happens when the intended audience of the drug is children? Many children have been victimized by doctors prescribing adult drugs without knowing their effects on smaller and younger people, and it’s because of this that some are calling on drug companies to run more trials—this time on infants.

Newborns, according to experts, are a “underrepresented population” in the world of clinical drug trials. While pediatric drug studies are becoming more common, testing newborns remains rare for a variety of reasons -at least as far as the general public knows. And according to doctors of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, the University of Cincinnati, and likely many more, this should change.

The idea behind drug trials is to test a pharmaceutical drug for dangerous side effects before it is approved. These tests are carried out in order to ensure prescription drugs are as safe as possible. That’s the ideal situation. But, as we’ve seen, these tests aren’t always done properly, nor are they always analyzed and reported accurately. For example, last year the Department of Justice fined GlaxoSmithKline $3 billion for misreporting safety issues and illegal advertisement of some of their drugs. Among other things, the pharmaceutical giant didn’t disclose that their diabetes drug Avandia significantly increased the risk of heart attack.

According to Natural News (and anyone who spends anytime researching medical journals and reports), inaccurate and downright fraudulent medical studies are at “epidemic” proportions.

And now they want to subject infants to these flawed studies and hastily concluded drug trials.

“Of over 120,000 studies at the National Institutes of Health clinical trials repository, only 0.6% involves neonates; in total, only 3.4% of all registered pediatric studies involve neonates,” according to the Journal of Pediatrics. So, in their mind, the number of infants being used as lab animals should increase.

Yet another example of children being used as guinea pigs can be seen in the case involving Oxycontin, a heavy duty narcotic painkiller. Primarily to keep it’s drug patent, the maker of Oxycontin, Purdue Pharma LP, decided to test the drug on children as young as six years old. By starting new trials on children, Purdue Pharma is able to extend their patent by six months.

If you’re someone to give your baby pharmaceutical drugs, even in the face of all the dangers associated with the creations, it would probably be best to have pharmaceutical drugs that were actually ‘proven safe’. And in order to prove these drugs safe, they would need to have been tested on children under similar circumstances. This is one reason why some individuals see drug-testing on children and infants as a ‘rational solution’. However, it’s clear this is just one morally questionable debate to add to those surrounding Big Pharma’s takeover of public health.

 

Obama Revision to FOIA Rules Keeps Evidence of Vaccine Dangers From Public

 (Occupy Corporatism) -In 2011, the Obama administration proposed revising rules concerning the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to allow federal agencies to conceal information requested, fabricate information or deny the information existed to keep citizens, advocates and journalists from knowing the truth.

Under the guise of protecting national security secrets, those requests falling under FOIA would be in jeopardy with the issuance of a Glomar response – when the government neither confirms nor denies the existence of the requested material.

This essentially gives federal law enforcement agencies the right to lie to the American people without repercussions for the sake of protecting sensitive data and derails citizens from obtaining information about on-going cases that would expose governmental corruption.

This action becomes pertinent after investigations into vaccines and the UK government’s vaccine committees led to exposure of the scheme to keep parents ignorant about the dangers of inoculations for the sake of keeping children on a regular schedule of vaccines – which is leading to development of neurological disorders and death.

In the report entitled, “The Vaccination Policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI): Are They At Odds?” explains the “deliberate concealment [of] information from parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an ‘official’ vaccination schedule [which] could be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.”

Dr. Lucija Tomljeovic, author of the paper, states that “JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity’, a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence.”

This is directly causational to children being exposed to dangerous and deadly vaccinations without the true nature of the substances being explained to parents prior to administering of the inoculations. The JCVI had complete knowledge of the risks and expected adverse effects of the vaccines, yet intentionally withheld those facts from parents; stifling their ability to make an informed decision which may have resulted in opting out of the vaccination program.

This was a direct violation of the International Code of Medical Ethics as well as the governmental adherence to the Code of Practice.

Tomljeovic reveals that “transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake.” The agendas of these meetings were never intended for public consumption nor made available and were pried out of the JCVI after FOIA requests.

Between 1983 and 2010 it is clear that:

The JCVI intentionally “a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavorable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines”

Suppressed access to contrary research to ensure adherence to vaccination schedules

Collaborated with pharmaceutical corporations in hiding risks and dangerous side effect information

Used bogus studies to justify the use of vaccines

Used propaganda to coerce the public into keeping up with vaccine schedules

Promoting more vaccines without providing information on their viability and necessity

Thwarted research explaining the dangers of vaccines

Used public ignorance against parents while engaging in fear-mongering to ensure they adhered to vaccine schedules

The same vaccines mentioned in this paper are administered to children in the US under coercion by pediatricians across the country.

Groups such as the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society take the influential position that they “oppose any legislation or regulation that would allow children to be exempted from mandatory immunizations based simply on their parents, or, in the case of adolescents, their own secular personal beliefs.”

In 2011, a study linked the incredible adherence to rising schedules of vaccines to the onset of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). There was an obvious correlation between the amount of vaccines, their dosages and SIDS in the data analyzed from 34 countries and records of 1000 babies.

Other studies have shown that the DTap inoculations are associated with numerous deaths of infants in the US.

Other health risks associated with vaccinations include:

• Influx of occurrences of autoimmune diseases
• Foreign protein particles
• Mercury
• Aluminum
• Formaldehyde
• Laundry detergent

In a vaccine study that was ignored by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers discovered that when monkeys were injected with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, they exhibited autistic reactions that mirror those that human children experience.

Laura Hewitson, Ph.D. and lead researcher, studied macaque monkeys that were given the exact same MMR vaccine as children in 1994 – 1999. The results entitled “Influence of pediatric vaccines on amydgala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study” were published in Acta Neurobiological Experiments in 2010. This vaccine has the mercury based preservative Thimerasol.

Hewitson discovered that: “Vaccine-exposed and saline-injected control infants [monkeys] underwent MRI and PET imaging at approximately 4 and 6 months of age, representing two specific timeframes within the vaccination schedule . . . These results suggest that maturational changes in amygdala volume and the binding capacity of [11C]DPN in the amygdala was significantly altered in infant macaques receiving the vaccine schedule.”

The research paper documented findings that there were significant biological changes and altered behaviors that occurred in the vaccinated monkeys that were identical to children diagnosed with ASD (autism).

The unvaccinated monkey exhibited no changes or symptoms whatsoever.