Miles To Go

Diseased African Monkeys Used to Make Swine Flu Vaccines; Private Military Contractor Holds Key Patents

2009-08-06T00:19:00.000-07:00

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

You gotta read this one:

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=35456803

A Longer Condensation of Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? By Randy Alcorn

2009-08-03T14:20:00.001-07:00

This is very informative and well worth the read.

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Longer_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

2009-07-22T19:29:00.000-07:00

NaturalNews Tip of the day (from Mike):

Those "baby carrots" you buy at the grocery store are not baby carrots: They're actually cut out of rejected full-sized carrots, then soaked in a chemical solution to prevent mold. That's why they never seem to mold in the plastic bag. That's also why they have no skin, and why they're all exactly the same shape (like chicken McNuggets...)

Curcumin may Prevent Breast Cancer in Women Who Took Hormones

2009-07-22T19:22:00.000-07:00

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

NaturalNews.com printable article

(NaturalNews) It's not only estrogen that can spark breast cancer. Some malignant tumors are sensitive to the hormone progestin. And studies have shown that postmenopausal women who took a combination of estrogen and progestin in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have an increased likelihood of developing progestin-fueled breast cancer. But new research concludes a natural therapy could help. University of Missouri researchers have found that curcumin, a popular Indian spice derived from the turmeric root, could reduce the risk of breast cancer risk in women exposed to HRT.

"Approximately 6 million women in the United States use hormone replacement therapy to treat the symptoms of menopause," Salman Hyder, the Zalk Endowed Professorship in Tumor Angiogenesis and professor of biomedical sciences in the University of Missouri's College of Veterinary Medicine and the Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, said in a statement to the media. "This exposure to progestin will predispose a large number of post-menopausal women to future development of breast cancer. The results of our study show that women could potentially take curcumin to protect themselves from developing progestin-accelerated tumors."

For their study, which has been accepted for future publication in the journal Menopause, the research team found that curcumin delayed the first appearance of progestin-accelerated tumors in lab animal experiments. The spice also decreased the incidence and reduced the numbers of progestin-fueled breast tumors in the animal studies. In fact, curcumin prevented the appearance of gross morphological abnormalities in the animals' mammary glands.

In previous studies, University of Missouri researchers showed that progestin caused the accelerated development of certain tumors because the hormone increases production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). VEGF is known to spur the supply of blood to cancerous tumors, making them grow more quickly. Hyder explained in the media statement that curcumin has been found to inhibit progestin-induced secretion of VEGF from breast cancer cells. So, by blocking the production of VEGF, the proliferation of breast cancer cells should be reduced .

"Curcumin and other potential anti-angiogenic compounds should be tested further as dietary chemopreventive agents in women already exposed to hormone replacement therapy containing estrogen and progestin in an effort to decrease or delay the risk of breast cancer associated with combined hormone replacement therapy," Hyder said.

According to the American Cancer Society, using HRT which combines estrogen with progestin for several years increases not only the risk of developing breast cancer but also the chances of dying from the disease. HRT containing both hormones makes breasts more dense and raises the risk the cancer may be found at a more advanced stage.

Author's note: NaturalNews is opposed to the use of animals in medical experiments that expose them to harm. We present these findings in protest of the way in which they were acquired.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026674_cancer_brst_cancer_curcumin.html

The Caduceus Decoded: Secret Symbols Reveal Dark Agenda of Western Medicine

2009-06-29T13:36:00.000-07:00

The Caduceus Decoded: Secret Symbols Reveal Dark Agenda of Western Medicine
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Everywhere in western medicine you find the Caduceus symbol: It's the staff entwined with two serpents, with wings at the top. You'll find it emblazoned on medical texts, medical school certificates, medical websites and even in hospitals and medical buildings.

But what does the symbol mean, exactly? I decided to conduct a bit of research to find out some possibilities.

The Caduceus, it turns out, was a staff carried by the Greek god Hermes. Hermes is best known as the messenger of the gods, but he is also well known as the protector of liars, gamblers and thieves. He's also prominently known as the guide of the dead.

According to Wikipedia, the name of the staff, Caduceus, is adapted from the Greek word kerukeion, which means "herald's wand" -- the staff of the public messenger. It's related to the words kerux and kerusso, which pertain to someone who announces information to the public.

From a Biblical point of view, the two serpents on the staff are, of course, symbols of evil and deception. There is a Greek myth about the two serpents on the staff which states that Tiresias found two snakes copulating and he beat to death the female snake with his staff.

So far, then, we have a staff carried by the Greek god Hermes, a protector of liars and thieves (who is also the guide of the dead), named as a staff or wand related to announcing information to the public, encircled by two serpents representing evil, and tied to yet another Greek myth about the female being beat to death.

This is the symbol of modern-day western medicine.

The evil of western medicine revealed
The part about the female being beaten to death is especially relevant, given how our male-dominated western medical system considers virtually all female physiology to be disease (pregnancy, menstruation, etc.). Women are treated like animals in many ways, through endless breast cancer screening and mandatory HPV vaccines. Female organs are considered useless or disease-ridden, such as when hysterectomies are performed to remove women's "hysteria" (madness). That's where the name "hysterectomy" actually comes from, of course.

That the two snakes representing evil would encircle the staff of public announcement could be an indication that the purpose of the staff is to announce evil (the propaganda of western medicine). At the same time, the mythological carrier of the staff is the protector of liars and thieves (the drug promoters and drug companies).

Once you understand the symbology, it becomes quite evident that this prominent symbol of western medicine was not chosen by chance: It sends a powerful subconscious message, much like the symbols of secret societies used on dollar bills, for example (the all-seeing eye floating above the pyramid on the back of the dollar bill). It might even be said that, through the repetition of this symbol which adorns the most important documents and texts used in the medical schools, doctors are, in a very true sense, being continuously indoctrinated with the powerful symbols of evil and death.

Once these impressionable young doctors graduate from their medical schools, they are given the tools of death to "treat" patients: Chemotherapy poisons, toxic pharmaceuticals, scalpels and radiation machines. They slice off women's breasts and call it "cancer prevention." They poison children's brains with chemicals and call it "medicine." They damage and destroy key organs like the heart, liver, kidneys and brain through the forced application of toxic chemotherapy agents, sometimes at gunpoint (as with the case of Daniel Hauser).

And all the while, they sit in their offices, with a dozen diplomas on the walls, many containing the Cauceus symbol that is effectively broadcasting a message into the office space of that doctor, further imprinting his mind with the death agenda of modern medicine.

To read the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.naturalnews.com/026504_medicine_Caduceus_western_medicine.html

Now You Can Post Comments

2009-06-10T19:34:00.000-07:00

I didn't realize that there was something that I had to fix in order for you all to be able to post comments, but now it is corrected so please do feel free to comment.

Soy Protein Used in "Natural" Foods Bathed in Toxic Solvent Hexane

2009-05-21T08:53:00.000-07:00

This is such a long article it is best that you go directly to it:

http://www.naturalnews.com/z026303.html

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

Speech of Ron Paul, Introducing the Parental Consent Act

2009-05-05T06:53:00.000-07:00

NaturalNews.com printable article
Originally published May 2 2009
Speech of Ron Paul, Introducing the Parental Consent Act
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Rep. Ron Paul has introduced the Parental Consent Act to protect families from mandatory "mental health screening" -- a thinly-veiled attempt by Big Pharma to drug expectant mothers and new moms with dangerous psychiatric drugs.

Here's the full text of the speech given by Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, April 30, 2009:

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as "ADD" or "hyperactive" and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes.

Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication.

Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.

Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists "intolerance" as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because "intolerance" is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a "mental disorder."

Madam Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents' right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as "mentally ill" or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation's parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.

You can also follow the news on the Mother's Act from CCHR's Twitter feed:

http://www.twitter.com/cchrint

I Love to Hear From You

2009-04-28T08:20:00.000-07:00

It's great to hear from those who faithfully read my blog, but I would love it if you would leave comments. Also, if you have any special requests please let me know. Everyone have a great day and keep safe. Here are some wonderful promises to keep you in these trying days:

Psalm 91:
He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God: in him will I trust.
Surely he shall deliver three from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night nor for the arrow that flieth by day.
Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand, but it shall not come night thee.
Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge even the most High, thy habitation;
There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder; the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him; I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.
He shall call upon me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him and honour him.
With long life will I satisfy him and shew him my salvation.

As Swine Flu Spreads, Conspiracy Theories of Laboratory Origins Abound

2009-04-27T08:11:00.000-07:00

Please check out the following link from naturalnews.com by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor published April 27 2009. It has some very good information. It also explains why it might NOT be good to even consider taking the vaccine offered and the dangers involved.

http://www.naturalnews.com/z026141.html

Monsanto's Roundup Residues in GM Food Cause Cell Damage

2009-04-23T21:23:00.000-07:00

Residues of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide found in GM food and feed can cause cell damage and even death, even at very low levels. The authors of a study on the subject say their research "... points to undesirable effects which are currently masked or hidden from scientific scrutiny."

Roundup herbicides are among the most commonly used in the world, especially on GM crops that are engineered to be Roundup resistant. Their residues are among the major pollutants, and they are authorized as residues contaminating GM foods and feed at the tested levels.

The researchers studied toxicity mechanisms of four different Roundup formulations in human cells. The formulations were diluted at minimal doses (up to 100,000 times or more), but they still caused cell death within a few hours. The researchers also noted membrane and DNA damages, and found the formulations inhibit cell respiration.

Roundup Ready soybean, cotton and corn crops are the world’s largest group of genetically modified crops. In fact, the GM Roundup Ready gene is part of more than 75 percent of soybeans, 65 percent of cotton and 10 percent of corn grown in the United States.

This particular variety of GM crops became so popular because it allows farmers to spray Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide directly onto their fields without harming the crops. Ordinarily, if you were to spray Roundup, or any other glyphosate-based herbicide, onto a plant, it would die.

Millions of pounds of Roundup are used every year on U.S. gardens, lawns and farms. It works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase, which is necessary for plants to grow. Without it, plants are unable to produce essential proteins so they slowly yellow and die. The GM Roundup Ready crops, however, produce an enzyme that has the same function as EPSP synthase, but is not affected by Roundup.

As you might imagine, the use of Roundup herbicide has increased dramatically since the GM Roundup Ready crops were introduced, and serious problems have been reported ever since.

GM Crops May Contain Toxic Roundup Residues

It’s widely known that GM Roundup Ready crops contain Roundup residues. This latest study showed, for the first time, just how toxic these residues may be to your health. Even when researchers tested formulations of Roundup that were highly diluted (up to 100,000 times or more) on human cells, the cells died within 24 hours.

They also found damage to cell membranes and DNA, along with an inhibition of cell respiration.

Further, the researchers discovered that the mixture of components used as Roundup adjuvants actually amplified the action of the glyphosate, making at least one of its metabolites even more toxic. The researchers wrote:

“This work clearly confirms that the adjuvants in Roundup formulations are not inert. Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from Roundup formulation-treated crops.”

More Dangerous Roundup Research

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

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, is the most commonly-reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers in California. Additionally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GM Foods are NOT Safe

This latest study is just one more reason why you should be very careful about keeping GM foods out of your diet. Aside from their potential to be contaminated with toxic Roundup residues, GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels, or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene.

This results in brand new proteins that have never before existed in food, some of which may be causing severe allergic reactions.

Creating a GM crop can also produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant‘s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, or change their levels of protein expression. No one knows how this will impact human health, but so far Jeffrey Smith has documented at least 65 serious health risks related to GM foods.

Among them:

• Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
• Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
• The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
• Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed GM corn varieties
• Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

Further, just last year a long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety confirmed GM corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice.

The results were so worrisome that GM opponents called for an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops in order to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.

Important Tips for Avoiding GM Food

About 70 percent of the foods in your grocery store contain GM foods, so it can be difficult to eat a GM-free diet, but I feel strongly it is one of the more important things you can do for your health, and to help protect the environment.

Particularly in the United States, the GMO giants have been very effective in eliminating legislation that would require them to clearly label GM products and, as a result, most grocery stores in the United States do not post signs next to produce to let you know it’s been genetically modified.

So here is the way you can do it:

Examine the little sticker on the produce and if you see a five-digit number that begins with an 8, take a big pass, as that produce is GM.

Most processed foods and drinks also contain genetically modified ingredients, unless they are organic.

As an aside, if the health risks alone aren’t enough to make you change your mind about eating GM foods, perhaps this little tidbit will be: Farmers who buy Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save or sell the seeds, which has been the traditional practice since the beginning of agriculture.

The result of this insane practice is that farmers across the world must now buy new seeds every year, and they must buy them from Monsanto.

So whether you do it for health purposes or to keep an evil company like Monsanto from gaining control of the food supply, making an effort to avoid GM foods is a wise decision.

Sources: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/07/Monsantos-Roundup-Residues-in-GM-Food-Cause-Cell-Damage.aspx

Researchers Accidentally Discover Link between Vinyl Flooring and Autism

2009-04-23T13:51:00.000-07:00

NaturalNews.com printable article
Originally published April 23 2009

by Louis Lazaris, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) In a study published on March 30, Swedish, Danish and U.S. scientists have discovered a link between vinyl flooring and autism in children. The purpose of the study -- which involved nearly 5,000 children -- was to investigate the connection between indoor air pollutants and allergies, however, the autism connection was accidentally found instead.

The findings, published in the journal Neurotoxicity, surprised even the scientists involved in the study, and are the first to find a connection between an environmental chemical and autism. Although their purpose was not to study autism, they recommend that the results be taken seriously and that further studies be conducted on a larger group to confirm the link.

The study followed the children from infancy up to at least 6 years of age and was conducted by having Swedish family members fill out surveys asking various questions related to their indoor environments. Of the study's 4,779 children aged 6-8 years, 72 had autism and 60 of those were boys.

Four factors were connected to the children's autism: family economic issues, poor ventilation, the mother's smoking, and vinyl flooring. Children under 3 years of age who slept in bedrooms with vinyl, or polyvinyl chloride (PVC), flooring, or whose mothers smoked, were twice as likely to develop autism. The children with autism were also more likely to have asthma.

"A greater proportion of children with autism spectrum disorder were reported to have PVC as flooring material in the child's and the parent's bedroom in 2000 compared to children without autism spectrum disorder," reported the researchers. "Furthermore, children with autism spectrum disorder were reported to live in homes with more condensation on the inside of the windows, which... may be seen as an indicator for deficient ventilation."

Scientists not involved in the study have been cautious about making any definitive statements about the results, citing the study's limitations. Those leading the research made similar statements in their report. "The data are far from conclusive. They are puzzling, even baffling, and not readily explicable at this time," they wrote. "However, because they are among the few clues that have emerged about possible environmental contributions to autistic disorders, we believe that they should be weighed carefully and warrant further study."

As a possible explanation for the link, the researchers -- from Karlstad University in Sweden, the universities of Rochester and Texas in the U.S., and the Technical University of Denmark -- suggest that the children breathed in dust full of phthalates produced by vinyl flooring. If this is the cause, they believe that children are most vulnerable in the womb when their brains are still developing.

Past studies have shown household dust to be contaminated with phthalates as well as with other hazardous substances such as pesticides and alkylphenols. Phthalates are used to soften plastics in vinyl flooring and other household products.

In 2008, the U.S. banned the production and sale of toys and childcare products containing certain phthalates. The same ban has been put in place in Europe, Argentina, Japan, Israel, and Mexico.

It is estimated that 1 in 150 children in the U.S. suffers from autism.

Sources:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...
http://www.safer-products.org/downl...
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17047721/

Miracle Cure for Gout and Arthritis Pain? Six Cherries a Day

2009-04-21T11:36:00.000-07:00

Check out this article:

Miracle Cure for Gout and Arthritis Pain? Six Cherries a Day
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

http://www.naturalnews.com/026091.html

Shootings in Germany, Alabama Underscore Violent Side Effects of Psychiatric Medications

2009-03-30T09:56:00.000-07:00

NaturalNews.com printable article
Originally published March 11 2009

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) A 17-year-old former student opened fire near Stuttgart, Germany, killing at least 16 people. The teenager was a former student at a Winnenden school, where he initiated the shooting spree. Three teachers and at least 10 students were killed by his actions.

The media is reporting that Tim Kretschmer, "walked calmly into three classrooms and opened fire, without saying a word." Following the shooting at his school, Tim ran to a psychiatric clinic school and killed an employee there. (Did he have a link to the psychiatric staff members there?)

A day earlier, a man in his mid-30's opened fire in Alabama, killing ten people before he was shot and killed by law enforcement.

It's the medication, not the firearms
In seeing the news reports on these events, the ignorant masses quite predictably leaped to the conclusion that "guns are the problem." Apparently in their minds, these shootings were carried out solely by guns and have nothing whatsoever to do with the people pulling the triggers. But the truth is far more insidious: It is the psychiatric medications that are causing violent shooting sprees in America, Germany and elsewhere.

These dangerous psychiatric medications drastically imbalance brain chemistry, causing teens (and adults) to feel distanced from reality, as if they are walking through a video game. In fact, this was exactly how the Columbine school shooters described their experience of carrying out the infamous shootings in Colorado.

The report that Germany's shooter, Tim Kretschmer, "walked calmly into three classrooms and opened fire, without saying a word" is a strong indication that he was almost certainly suffering the brain-altering side effects of psychiatric medication.

The pharmaceutical companies, of course, incessantly attempt to deny the reality that their drugs cause school shootings. In fact, their psychiatric drugs actually cause the very same things they often claim to treat! Antidepressants, for example, can cause depression, suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. They also directly promote weight gain, obesity and diabetes, and those health conditions can then lead to more depression, requiring more "treatment" with medication.

It's all a gigantic scam. These drug companies are just selling patented chemicals for profit while destroying the lives of human beings in the process. In my view, Big Pharma is responsible for the deaths of all those killed by drug-induced shooting sprees. Read the jaw-dropping collection of quotes (below) from authors on this issue to learn even more.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media remains virtually silent on this issue, not even mentioning any link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings. The media, you see, is largely funded by drug company advertisements.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE: http://www.naturalnews.com/025826.html

Edited

2009-03-23T13:58:00.000-07:00

http://www.naturalnews.com/z025595.html

I noticed that the link did not work for the article on vaccinations so I edited it and I also decided to put the link here as well.

The Toxic Twelve List

2009-03-09T08:01:00.000-07:00

The Toxic Twelve List

Aging is not just the way we look but, more importantly, it’s the degenerative diseases which prematurely change our life.

Breast Cancer Heart Disease
Depression Hormone Disruption
Obesity Memory Loss
Birth Defects ADD

The following are the worst of the worst, toxic, carcinogenic list commonly found in most skin and personal care products. Each is directly linked to one or more of the above conditions.

Benzoyl Peroxide: Frequently used in acne products, the MSDS states “Facilitates action of known carcinogens…Possible tumor promoter. May act as mutagen; produces DNA damage in human and other mammalian cells in some concentrations. Also, toxic by inhalation. May be harmful if swallowed and in contact with skin. Eye, skin and respiratory irritant.”

DEA (Diethanolamine), MEA (Monoethanolamine), & TEA (Triethanolamine): This foam booster is a skin/eye irritant and causes contact dermatitis. Easily absorbed through skin to accumulate in body organs, even the brain. Repeated use resulted in major increases of liver and kidney cancer.

Dioxin: Won’t appear on an ingredient list. Often contained in antibacterial ingredients like triclosan, emulsifiers, PEGs and ethoxylated cleansers like Sodium Laureth Sulfate. Dioxin causes cancer, reduced immunity, nervous system disorders, miscarriages and birth deformity. It’s a hormone-disrupting chemical with toxic effects measured in the parts per trillion – one drop in 300 Olympic-size swimming pools! Our bodies have no defense against its damage. Most visible example was Yushchenko, the Ukrainian President, who suffered from dioxin poisoning and looked old overnight.

DMDM Hydantoin & Urea (Imidazolidinyl): Just two of many preservatives that often release formaldehyde which may cause joint pain, cancer, skin reactions, allergies, depression, headaches, chest pains, ear infections, chronic fatigue, dizziness, and loss of sleep. Exposure may irritate the respiratory system, trigger heart palpitations or asthma, aggravate coughs and colds.

FD&C Color & Pigments: Synthetic colors from coal tar contain heavy metal salts that deposit toxins in skin, causing skin sensitivity / irritation. Absorption can cause depletion of oxygen and death. Animal studies show almost all are carcinogenic.

Parabens: (Methyl, Butyl, Ethyl, Propyl) - used as preservatives and aren’t always labeled "parabens." They’re used in deodorants and antiperspirants and have been found in breast cancer tumors. Parabens, as xenoestrogens (hormone disruptors), may contribute to sterility in male mice and humans. Estrogen-like activity causes hormone imbalance in females and early puberty.

PEG (Polyethylene glycol): Made by ethoxylating Propylene Glycol. Dangerous levels of dioxin have been found as a by-product of the ethoxylation process. PEGs are in everything including personal care, baby care and sunscreens.

Phthalates: Xenoestrogens are commonly found in many products, usually not listed on labels. Health effects include damage to liver/kidneys, birth defects, decreased sperm counts and early breast development in girls and boys.

Propylene Glycol (PG) and Butylene Glycol: Petroleum plastics act as surfactants (wetting agents, solvents). EPA considers PG so toxic it requires protective gloves, clothing, goggles and disposal by burying. Because PG penetrates skin so quickly, EPA warns against skin contact to prevent brain, liver, and kidney abnormalities. There is NO warning label on products where concentration is greater than in most industrial applications.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) and Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES): Detergents and surfactants that pose serious health threats. Used in car washes, garage floor cleaners, engine degreasers and 90% of personal-care products that foam. Animals exposed to SLS experienced eye damage, depression, labored breathing, diarrhea, severe skin irritation - even death. SLS may also damage skin’s immune system by causing layers to separate, inflame and age.

Sunscreen chemicals: avobenzone, benzphenone, ethoxycinnamate, PABA are commonly used ingredients that are known free radical generators and are believed to damage DNA or lead to cancers.

Triclosan: Synthetic "antibacterial" ingredient with chemical structure similar to Agent Orange! EPA registers it as a pesticide, posing risks to human health and environment. Classified as a chlorophenol, chemicals suspected of causing cancer in humans. Tufts University School of Medicine says triclosan is capable of forcing emergence of 'super bugs' it cannot kill.

All information taken from The ToxicAlarm™ Guide - courtesy of The ToxicFree® Foundation

Harmful Chemicals Found in Liquid Medicines for Babies

2009-03-02T17:02:00.000-08:00

by Reuben Chow, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Newborns are not able to swallow pills and capsules, and liquid medicines are thus used to treat any medical problems they may have. And premature babies, being out in the world early, have a higher chance of being hit by various health complications and diseases. A study published in the Fetal & Neonatal Edition of Archives of Disease in Childhood has revealed that newborns who consume liquid medications may be exposed to dangerous toxins which are added to improve their effectiveness, taste and appearance. What is more worrying is that the babies' intake levels may be even higher than recommended adult guidelines.

Details of Study

For the study, the drug records of 38 premature babies admitted from June 2005 to July 2006 to a neonatal intensive care unit in England were looked at. The newborns had been born at or before the 30-week mark of pregnancy, and they all weighed below 1.5kg at birth. The researchers analyzed the type and ingredients of liquid medicines which had been given to these babies.

For a period of between 2.5 and 9 weeks, the newborns had undergone varying treatments, ranging from iron and vitamin drops to Furosemide and Dexamethasone.

Findings of Study

The study team found that the babies suffered regular exposure to 20 different types of excipients. Such chemicals are typically used to improve the administration, absorption or preservation of the active ingredients in the medicines. Excipients are also used to give the taste and look of the medicines a lift. They include antiadherents, binders, coatings, disintegrants, fillers or diluents, flavors, colors, glidants, lubricants, preservatives, sorbents and sweeteners, and these substances can potentially damage the nerves.

Ethanol (in iron and Furosemide), sorbitol (in Dexamethasone and iron), Ponceaau 4R (in iron) and propylene glycol (in Dexamethasone) were examples of excipients discovered in the medicines. According to the researchers, there is little information available on how safe specific excipients could be, especially in patients who are still so young.

Just how bad was the chemical exposure for the newborns? Ethanol exposure was found to range from 0.2 to 1.8 ml each week - that equates to about 1 to 7 units of alcohol, while sorbitol exposure ranged from 0.1 to 3.5g per kg per week. Guidelines for adults recommend that sorbitol intake should not exceed 20g per day. When reduced accordingly by weight, it was found that 18 babies were ingesting more than this amount for at least a week. Further, all the infants who took Dexamethasone went over the limit for propylene glycol, which is said to be two-thirds stronger than ethanol.

It was even worse for the seven kids who had gotten severe lung disease. Due to the more intensive treatment they had to undergo, they were exposed to even higher levels of excipients.

The UK Food Standards Agency has recommended that the colorant Ponceau 4R, which was found in the iron given to the newborns, be removed due to its possible negative effects on neurodevelopment.

Discussion and Conclusion

"This study documents a worldwide problem. It shows that the collection of medicines given to babies may ultimately lead to them being exposed to harmful chemicals with the potential for short and long-term toxic effects. Our research highlighted this, and we are planning further studies on the chemicals to understand exactly what these effects might be. What our study hasn't done is find any direct evidence on the cause and effect of these chemicals and the medical problems that these babies might be being treated for," said Hitesh Pandya, a Senior Lecturer in Child Health in the Department of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Leicester, a Consultant Pediatrician at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, as well as the leader of the study.

While more research is underway, this study has surfaced serious concerns. Information relating to the large array of chemical toxins which our young ones are assaulted with on a daily basis continues to accumulate. And it is very ironic that toxic substances are introduced to the body as part of formulations which are supposed to help deal with health issues. What's worse is that the little ones are exceptionally vulnerable. Is it, then, any wonder that our children nowadays are beset with unprecedented occurrences of all kinds of strange health conditions?

Let us hope that, at the very least, such important information will be made available to practitioners and consumers. Better still, current practices should be reviewed as soon as possible to avoid further poisoning of babies. As the study team concluded: "We feel it is important that the [medicines regulators] not only ensure that all manufacturers provide detailed labeling of the excipient content of their products but all lead action to determine whether existing practice constitutes a risk, and if so, how this might be dealt with."

Will this be done any time soon? Don't count on it. But parents, armed with this knowledge, can perhaps take better precautions.

Sources

Babies Exposed to Harmful Toxins in Liquid Medicines (http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/50/2...)

Premature babies exposed to toxins in liquid medicines (http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excipient

Big Brother Health Care Provisions Slipped Into Economic Stimulus Bill

2009-02-18T09:14:00.000-08:00

Big Brother Health Care Provisions Slipped Into Economic Stimulus Bill
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The new $800 billion economic stimulus bill contains some striking new "Big Brother" health care language that should give pause to all freedom-loving Americans. For starters, the bill requires the electronic tracking of the medical records of all Americans. All your private medical data will be stored in a government database, including your history of disease, pharmaceutical treatments, surgeries and even emergency room visits.

How would you like the government knowing all the details about your drug rehab? Or alcoholism treatments? Abortion? Sexually-transmitted disease diagnosis? Pregnancy status? Blood test results?

But it gets even more interesting than that: Under the new provisions found in the bill, all U.S. doctors will now be stripped of autonomy and forced to follow the medical treatment guidelines dictated by the government.

This news should rock the medical world (once they truly understand it). It means doctors can no longer make their own decisions about patients' needs or treatment protocols. From now on, all health care decisions will be centrally planned by a dictatorial, Big Brother health care authority in the federal government.

How to turn doctors into sheeple
As Bloomberg.com reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...), Tom Daschle was one of the architects of this plan, and he says that doctors "have to learn to operate less like solo practitioners."

Any doctor that deviates from that plan would be penalized by the government. That means, for example, that a local doctor who knows the patient and his family, and who is aware of specific local circumstances affecting that patient will no longer be able to apply any of that knowledge in treating the patient. All treatments will be dictated from the government, obliterating the whole point of allowing doctors to operate with some degree of autonomy in the first place.

Effectively, this bill transforms the entire U.S. medical profession into nothing more than pill-pushing puppets. It wipes out the intelligence of a local doctor and replaces it with the stupidity of Big Government.

If the government says all expectant mothers must be screened for depression and put on antidepressant drugs, then all the doctors have to play along and do that if they don't want to be fined or have their medical licenses taken away. If the government says nutritional supplements are dangerous and cannot be recommended to patients, then all doctors must remain silent and avoid telling patients the truth about helpful nutritional supplements. Whatever the government dictates must now be mirrored by all practicing doctors.

And don't forget: The U.S. government is largely controlled by the pharmaceutical companies, and that means these health care dictates are almost certain to emphasize pharmaceutical treatments, disease "screening" and disease mongering provisions designed to sell more drugs. You can count on there being increased requirements for vaccinations (HPV vaccines, too) and mental health screenings (psychiatric drugs, anyone?).

Communism is alive and well in America's health care system
Americans asked for health care, but what they got was Health Communism. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a centrally-controlled government body has any ability to make good health care decisions for individual patients across America. There is also no reason to believe the U.S. government will safeguard patient medical data or even respect the privacy of patients. This is the same government, after all, that has been caught routinely spying on its own citizens by tapping phone lines, emails, faxes and internet traffic.

If anything, the U.S. government has proven itself over the past few years to be the enemy of the American people on the issue of health care. Just look at the actions of the FDA in censoring nutritional supplement health claims (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html), or the FTC in assaulting herbal product companies (http://www.naturalnews.com/025303.html). This government is clearly dead set against health care in America, and the more we put government in charge of making health care decisions, the worse the outcome is going to be.

Obama cried "catastrophe" in urging lawmakers to pass this economic stimulus bill. It's funny how fear is now being used to pass every trillion-dollar spending scandal in Washington these days. That's one thing the government learned very well from 9/11 - fear sells. And it sold Congress on this stimulus bill, too.

But in terms of health care, the only thing this bill is going to stimulate is more disease, more dead Americans and more profits for Big Pharma. There's nothing in the bill about ending FDA censorship, or teaching the public about nutrition, or banning pharmaceutical advertising on television. All this bill has accomplished is to spend Americans ever more quickly into financial destitution and medical desperation. It is one of the final nails in the coffin of American prosperity.

From now on, America will largely be defined by disease and debt, and the Obama administration apparently has no answer to either one.

Watch out, folks. The government is here to save us.

Why Vaccinations Harm Children: Health Experts Sound Off

2009-02-12T07:08:00.000-08:00

Click on this link http://www.naturalnews.com/z025595.html and it will take you to naturalnews.com that has a fantastic article with extensive sources of why and how vaccines harm children. Check it out. It will really be worth your while.

Ban Plastic Water Bottles

2009-02-03T09:38:00.000-08:00

NaturalNews.com
Originally published January 30 2009

Ban Plastic Water Bottles
by Jo Hartley, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Bottled water is typically considered to be a healthy alternative to drinking plain tap water. In fact, Americans drink approximately eight million gallons of bottled water every year. While bottled water is definitely a better choice than soft drinks or sports drinks that contain high fructose corn syrup, bottled water is not a good choice for the wellbeing of the earth. Here are some of the health and environmental issues associated with consuming bottled water.

1.It takes three to five times more water to manufacture the plastic water bottle than actually is contained in the water bottle itself. Because each bottle should only be used one time (so as not to contaminate water with phthalates) this seems to be an inordinate amount of water utilized in the manufacturing process.

2.Plastic is a petroleum product so using plastic water bottles depletes this non-renewable resource. The Pacific Institute has calculated that the manufacturing process for making plastic water bottles used in the US consumes roughly 17 million barrels of oil every year.

3.Plastic water bottles are not recycled the way they should be. It is estimated that in 2005 only about 12% of plastic water bottles were recycled. This is partly because water bottles are many times not included in local recycling plans. Another factor is that bottled water is often consumed away from home and so is disposed of in mixed-trash containers instead of being recycled. In a 2002 study by Scenic Hudson it was reported that 18 percent by volume of recovered litter from the Hudson River was beverage containers. In landfills, water bottles will remain biodegrading for approximately 1,000 years. Incinerating used water bottles produces toxic byproducts including chlorine gas and ash that contains heavy metals.

4.Roughly 94 % of the bottled water in the U.S. is bottled domestically. Of this percentage, approximately 25 percent sold is just reprocessed municipal water according to a 1999 study by the National Resources Defense Council.

5.Using plastic bottles that contain Bisphenol A is detrimental to human health. Bisphenol A behaves similarly to estrogen. This means that when enough of this accumulates in the body there will be negative health effects. Bisphenol A has been linked to obesity, diabetes, breast cancer, and hyperactivity.

Alternatives to Plastic Bottles:

Stainless steel, glass, and aluminum water bottles are safer and more earth-friendly. There are also many companies manufacturing BPA-free and phthalate-free plastic water bottles.

Whatever kind of plastic is used, it is important to hand wash any plastic food and beverage items in warm (not hot) water. Washing plastic items at the high and sustained temperatures of an automatic dishwasher is detrimental to human health and should be avoided at all costs.

Source: http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pb...
http://www.pacinst.org/

High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated with Toxic Mercury

2009-01-28T07:57:00.000-08:00

High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated with Toxic Mercury, Says Research (opinion)
by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) New research published in Environmental Health and conducted in part by a scientist at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has revealed that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is contaminated with the toxic heavy metal mercury.

That means that many of the products using HFCS may also be contaminated with mercury. Carbonated sodas are sweetened with HFCS, as are candy bars, bread, salad dressings, pizza sauce, fruit drinks and thousands of other grocery items.

Mercury is so highly toxic that it causes severe neurological disorders. It can also result in the loss of hair, teeth and nails as well as muscle weakness, loss of kidney function, emotional mood swings and memory impairment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercur...) (P.S. Somebody please update this Wikipedia page with this latest research about HFCS being a source for mercury exposure, too.)

The highest level of contamination found in the study (http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2) was 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of HFCS. The EPA says that an average-sized woman should consume no more than 5.5 micrograms per day of mercury, meaning that the average American consumer may be eating five times the upper safety limit of mercury every day due to high-fructose corn syrup consumption if they consume the foods tested in the study.

That's because the average American consumes 12 teaspoons of HFCS every day! So just by eating the standard American diet of processed foods, consumers are right now potentially exposing themselves to exceedingly high levels of mercury that far surpass the safety limits set by the EPA.

Buy groceries, get free mercury!
High-fructose corn syrup is used in almost everything, it seems. A second study conducted by David Wallinga, M.D., entitled "Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup" (http://healthobservatory.org/librar...) reveals that nearly one-third of all grocery items sweetened with HFCS were contaminated with mercury.

Eating some sweetened yogurt? Mercury!

How about some salad dressing with HFCS? Mercury!

Want some ketchup on that burger? Mercury!

In fact, mercury is found in thousands of grocery products sold across the world right now. And it's no exaggeration to say that mainstream consumers of popular food items are likely suffering from widespread mercury poisoning (especially if you add in the mercury exposure they're getting from dental fillings).

Where does all the mercury come from?
Most people don't know how high-fructose corn syrup is really made. One of those processes is a bizarre chemical brew involving the creation of caustic soda by exposing raw materials to pools of electrified mercury in a large vat. Through this process, the caustic soda gets contaminated with mercury, and when corn kernels are exposed to this caustic soda to break them down, that contamination is passed through to the HFCS.

Another toxic chemical, glutaraldehyde, is also used in the production of HFCS. It's so toxic that consuming even a small amount of it can burn a hole in your stomach.

But don't worry: The Corn Refiners Association insists that HFCS is a "natural" ingredient, and their Chicago-based PR firm Weber Shandwick is now also claiming that HFCS has been declared "natural" by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It hasn't really, of course, but that doesn't stop the press releases from claiming it has. (If you think a liquid sugar processed with glutaraldehyde and contaminated with mercury is "natural," then you've been duped. There's nothing natural about a processed food ingredient made with toxic chemicals.)

A Weber Shandwick representative calls me every time I post an article about HFCS, by the way, usually with demands that I remove the entire article. I've invited the Corn Refiners Association to a phone interview to defend their position that HFCS doesn't cause diabetes or obesity, and to answer questions about whether HFCS is really "natural." So far, they have declined to be interviewed. It seems they don't want to face real questions from an honest journalist who refuses to be censored by powerful corporations.

One thing I've got to say about the Corn Refiners Association is that they have a well-funded PR machine running around the internet trying to make everybody remove stories that say anything negative about HFCS.

I've noticed that the Corn Refiners Association is a master at spinning the truth. For example, the president of the CRA, Audrae Erickson, said this in a statement responding to the mercury findings: "Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two reagents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years."

Well sure, that's true. But what is Erickson NOT saying? She's not saying that ALL the HFCS is made without mercury. She just says that somewhere in the industry, somebody is using a mercury-free version of the caustic soda. That doesn't mean all the HFCS is mercury free, yet if you don't read her statement carefully, you might be misled into thinking that. Her statement, in fact, leaves open the possibility that 99% of all HFCS might still be manufactured using mercury.

Note carefully that Erickson does not say all HFCS sold in the U.S. is free from mercury. Instead, she makes a clever statement that results in most readers assuming that's what she means. The CRA is well known for using this kind of language spin tactics.

NaturalNews challenges the CRA to state that all HFCS is free from mercury (see below).

The HFCS fairy tale
The CRA isn't just in the business of pushing HFCS, by the way. It's also in the business of denial. For example: Virtually everyone who understands holistic nutrition agrees that HFCS promotes diabetes and obesity. But in much the same way that Big Tobacco executives once swore that "nicotine is not addictive," the Corn Refiners Association insists that high-fructose corn syrup does not promote diabetes or obesity.

So don't worry about the mercury in your HFCS. Or the other toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing process. That's all natural, we're supposed to believe. And high-fructose corn syrup is a healthy, wholesome, all-American sweetener grown without pesticides by poor Midwestern farmers who have given their lives and souls to create a sweeter, happier America.

Or at least that's the fairy tale version of the story. In reality, HFCS is created by corporate agriculture giants using toxic pesticides and herbicides on the crops who subject their corn to numerous toxic chemicals in the creation of this potentially mercury-contaminated processed sweetener that promotes tooth decay, obesity, diabetes and possibly even neurological disorders thanks to the mercury.

Yum. I can't wait to gobble down another chocolate candy bar sweetened with this stuff...

Politics at the FDA
There's an angle on this story that nobody is yet reporting. The lead author of this study, Renee Dufault, used to work for the FDA. In fact, she investigated the use of mercury at chlorine plants, where the manufacturing process results in the chlorine being contaminated with mercury. With chlorine being dumped into the public water supply, this is obviously a health concern.

Renee Dufault retired from the FDA last year. Only now, nearly a year after her retirement, has she dared to release her findings about mercury and high-fructose corn syrup.

Can you guess why? As an employee of the FDA, there's little question she would have been pressured into silence about the HFCS mercury contamination issue. A lot of powerful corporations that wield steady influence over the FDA would not be happy to see the truth come out about HFCS and mercury. So she waited until after retiring from the FDA to go public with these findings.

In fact, Reuters is now reporting that Dufault told the FDA about her findings, but the agency did nothing to act on them. Is anybody really surprised?

Lies about mercury
The Corn Refiners Association, predictably, is attacking these study results, claiming "This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance..."

That's because the samples used in the study were taken in 2005. The CRA seems to imply they've cleaned up their act since then and are now using a mercury-free process (see statement from Erickson, above). But note that the CRA carefully avoids claiming all HFCS is free from mercury. Their official reply to the Environmental Health article is a perfect example of corporate doublespeak: http://www.corn.org/mercury-HFCS-st...

Specifically, note that the statement avoids promising that all HFCS meets the FDA's definition of the term "natural" or that all HFCS is free from mercury.

NaturalNews challenges the honesty of the Corn Refiners Association in making these seemingly deceptive statements. We request that if the CRA is really to be believed, it must publicly state that all HFCS sold in America today is free from mercury and that all HFCS meets the definition of "natural" as described by the FDA.

Don't hold your breath on that. I can already tell you the CRA will never make such statements because it knows they would be provably false. The truth is that last thing the CRA wants to make public, in my view. I think it's really in the business of creating the illusion of truth through clever P.R. tactics.

Did the CRA know about the mercury contamination of HFCS?
But let's give the CRA the benefit of the doubt for a minute here. Let's suppose that right up to 2005, HFCS was routinely contaminated with mercury, but now suddenly it's all mercury free.

Doesn't anybody wonder why didn't the CRA recall the mercury-contaminated HFCS when it became aware of the issue?

If all HFCS is now manufactured in a mercury-free process (which is highly doubtful, by the way), then that means at some point the CRA must have realized HFCS was contaminated with mercury and it made a decision to switch to a mercury-free process. Why was the public never warned about the pre-2006 mercury in HFCS? And why weren't foods containing HFCS recalled from store shelves due to their mercury content?

If the CRA's present-day statements are to be believed, it means the group must have been aware of the mercury contamination of HFCS through 2005 and yet it did nothing to make that fact known to the public.

So even if HFCS is free from mercury today, the CRA has a lot of explaining to do. The group either knew about the mercury contamination and did nothing to warn the public, or it didn't know about the mercury contamination, putting it in a position of remarkable ignorance about the safety of a product it has routinely claimed to be "safe" and "natural" for many years.

So which is it? Is the CRA run by liars, or just fools?

My offer for a phone interview with a CRA representative remains open. If anybody from the CRA wants to get on the phone with me and defend HFCS, the door is wide open. You know how to reach me.

Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece. All statements are my own opinion and are obviously not agreed to by the CRA, which vigorously defends the safety of HFCS. Almost as if their jobs depended on it, come to think....

Sources for this story:

Environmental Health: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...

Reuters: http://uk.reuters.com/article/healt...

Huffington Post: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2
and
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/20...

Root Canals Can Have Devastating Effects on Health

2009-01-26T14:29:00.000-08:00

Originally published January 26 2009
Root Canals Can Have Devastating Effects on Health
by Jo Hartley, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Is it wise and prudent to have a root canal? There are issues with root canal therapy that everyone should know before deciding to have one.

There has been recent research that presents valid proof of systemic illnesses that are a direct result from latent infections lingering in filled roots. These conclusions are based on research performed by Dr. Weston Price over a 25 year period in the beginning of the twentieth century.

The research done by Dr. Weston Price discusses how root canals can cause bacteria to become trapped inside the structure of teeth. This can be the cause of many diseases that can be traced to one single source.

A high percentage of chronic degenerative diseases may actually originate from root canals. The most common diseases are circulatory and heart disease. The next common diseases are those involving joints and arthritis.

The allegation is that there was a series of events that led to important information being hidden about seventy years ago by a group of doctors who didn't fully understand the "focal infection theory."
What is the focal infection theory…and how is it connected to root canals?

The focal infection theory says that germs from a central focal infection (decaying teeth, roots, inflamed gum tissues, and tonsils, can metastasize to the heart, eyes, kidneys, lungs, or other organs and tissues. This then spreads the same infection to these new areas. This theory has been proven extensively and is regarded as fact.

Focal infection states that the bacteria can move into surrounding tissues and travel to other locations in the body through the bloodstream. This new location may be an organ or tissue and the new colony will be a new infection for the body.

Currently, however, patients and doctors have been led into complacency by believing that infections are not as serious because of antibiotics. This is simply not true. In the situation of root-filled teeth, the no longer alive tooth does not have blood being supplied to its interior. This means that antibiotics will not reach this area and will not fight any bacteria that exist there.

Dr. Price performed many experiments while conducting his research. One such experiment involved removing an infected tooth from a woman who had severe arthritis. Dr. Price took the infected tooth and implanted it under the skin of a healthy rabbit. Incredibly, within 48 hours the rabbit had severe arthritis as well.

The claim is that all root-filled teeth contain bacteria or other infective agents. It doesn't matter what technique is used or what material is used.

Another important point is that the main part of teeth that appear solid is called "dentin." While this appears solid, it is actually made up of tiny "tubules." In healthy teeth, these tubules will transport a fluid that nourishes the inside of the tooth. A root-filled tooth does not have any fluid circulating through it anymore, but the tubules remain. The bacteria that are present in this area of the root-filled tooth seem to be out of reach of antibiotics. The tiny organisms hiding in the tubules move further in to the interior of the tooth to stay and then multiply.

One more factor that plays an important role in this situation is the fact that large bacteria are common in the mouth. These bacteria will change and adapt to changing conditions. They can shrink to fit small areas and they can also survive on small amounts of food. The organisms that must have oxygen are able to mutate and then survive without oxygen. Because of this adaptation, these organisms can become pathogenic and are able to produce serious disease.

Today's scientists are able to confirm the research conducted by Dr. Price all those years ago. Recent research has shown strains of "streptococcus," "staphylococcus," and "spirochetes" existing in root canals.

Root canals will not make everyone sick. However, current belief is that every root canal filling will leak and this leakage will allow bacteria to invade the structure. The variable between those who become sick with a degenerative disease and those who do not seems to be the strength of a person's immune system. People who are in good health will be able to control the organisms that escape from their teeth and infiltrate other areas of the body.

This is because the white blood cells and other fighters are not constantly busy with other diseases. The immune system is able to prevent new bacterial colonies from taking over other tissues in the body. Over time, however, most people who have had root canals seem to develop various types of systemic symptoms that were not previously present.

If an extraction is necessary, it is now apparent that merely extracting the tooth is not enough. It has been determined that bacteria are present in the tissues and bone just adjacent to a tooth's root. The new recommendation is slow-speed drilling with a burr to remove 1 millimeter of the entire bony socket.

If the tooth is dead and can't be saved, then the best course of action would be to have a root canal with a material called "Biocalex." "Biocalex" eliminates many of the dangerous bacteria and will cause fewer complications. If this fails, it may be necessary to extract the tooth. It would be best to find a biological dentist for this procedure. Many biological dentists have alternative methods that can save a tooth in some cases.

Sources: http://www.healingdaily.com/exercis...

Root Canal Cover-Up by George Meinig

UN Treaty Might Weaken Families

2009-01-14T10:53:00.001-08:00

The following is an article, though not having to do with health, still I find worthy to make note of:

Washington Times Op-ed—U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families

by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

One of the issues American families could face this year is the ramifications from a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

You may ask, “How could a treaty directly affect internal decision-making by American families?” We generally think of treaties as agreements affecting international relations between countries. The U.N., however, has initiated treaties that not only affect international relations, but also the domestic relations of member nations as well. These treaties, sometimes called “conventions,” require member nations that ratify the treaty to implement the requirements as binding law or rules.

On Nov. 20, 1989, the U.N. adopted the CRC and submitted it for ratification to the member nations. It has been ratified by 193 nations—the United States is one of the few countries that has not ratified it.

The ratification process requires a two-thirds vote by the U.S. Senate. On Feb. 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., signed the CRC on behalf of the United States. The CRC, however, has never been sent to the Senate for ratification because there is insufficient support to pass it.

Due to the recent election, however, there are rumblings from Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to seek ratification of the CRC during the next congressional cycle. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty, and as secretary of state, would have direct control over the submission of treaties to the Senate.

Why should passage of the CRC be of concern? It likely would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties—and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties—“the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects.

Article 43 of the CRC establishes an international committee on the rights of the child to examine compliance by member nations. This committee, which sits in Geneva, has final authority concerning interpretation of the language contained in the CRC.

Two central principles of the CRC clearly are contrary to current U.S. laws related to parent-child relationships. The CRC provides that in all matters relating to children, whether private or public, or in courts, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Additionally, nations should ensure that children are capable of expressing their views freely in all matters affecting them, giving due weight to the age and maturity of the child.

This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making. The importance of this tradition and practice is that the government may not substitute its judgment for that of the parent until there is proof of harm to the child sufficient to justify governmental intervention. It is clear that in two very important areas of the parent-child relationship, religion and education, there will be potential for tremendous conflict.

The international committee in Geneva, in reviewing the laws of practice of countries that have ratified the CRC, has expressed its concern that parents could homeschool without the view of the child being considered; that parents could remove their children from sex-education classes without the view of the child being considered; that parents were legally permitted to use corporal punishment; and that children didn’t have access to reproductive health information without parental knowledge.

The bottom line is the CRC would drastically weaken the United States’ sovereignty over family life, which would have a substantial impact on every American family. For more information on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, visit www.parentalrights.org/learn.

Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at (540)338-5600; or send email to media@hslda.org.

Welcome to the New Era of Eugenics

2009-01-11T18:04:00.002-08:00

NaturalNews.com printable article
Originally published January 11 2009
Breast Cancer Gene-Free Baby Is Dangerous Sign of New Era of Eugenics, Genetic Class Wars
by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The era of pre-birth genetic screening of babies has commenced. Doctors at University College in London have produced what they called the "world's first breast cancer gene-free baby" by screening a baby for the BRCA1 gene, which they claim causes breast cancer. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/78196...)

That announcement is saturated with so many medical myths, it's difficult to know where to begin. For starters, the idea that the BRCA1 gene causes cancer is pure hogwash. There's no such thing as a gene that causes cancer by itself. The truth is that environmental factors such as exposure to cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products, pesticides or other industrial chemicals causes the expression of the cancer gene. Without all that toxic chemical exposure, the gene never gets expressed in the first place.

And it gets even better: You can eat raw broccoli sprouts or other cruciferous vegetables and suppress the BRCA1 gene so that you never grow cancer tumors at all. Thus, the patient has complete control over the expression of their genes based on their diet and environment, and there are literally hundreds of different foods that have an anti-cancer effect: Cruciferous vegetables, onions, garlic, red wine, green tea, raw cacao, omega-3 oils, and of course a whole universe of anti-cancer herbs and superfoods.

This doesn't even mention the effects of vitamin D and exercise on the BRCA1 gene, both of which also suppress cancer.

But modern medicine -- which is largely based on marketing-motivated quackery -- wants women to believe they have no control over breast cancer and that it all comes down to your genes, not your choices. That's the little trap they set for women, stripping them of their power and condemning them to a lifetime of medical "treatment" that just happens to earn outrageous profits for the drug companies.

Welcome to the new era of eugenics
So now we have a new era being unleashed where babies born with the BRCA1 gene are going to be considered "defective" while babies born without the gene will be considered "superior."

This is leading us into a dangerous new mindset where babies will be condemned as second-class citizens from the moment they're born simply because they carry a gene that the corrupt medical system mistakenly believes is a causative factor for some disease.

The relevant movie to watch here is GATTACA (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/), a film that depicts a future society where your genes determine every opportunity you have in life: Your job, you income, your social standing and much more.

GATTACA is a smart movie that sends a highly relevant warning message: If we begin to profile babies for their genes, then we are heading down a slippery slope of defunct medical ethics that could ultimately lead to a new division between the "genetic upper class" and the "genetic lower class."

The next class war could very well be based on genetics, and parents will fret over the genetic makeup of their children, choosing to abort babies that don't have the "right" genes, even if those babies are perfectly healthy. And then we'll have medical companies offering to manipulate the genes of the fertilized egg, promising to give parents a baby with blond hair, or a high IQ, or a thin physique...

It's just what we need, huh? A whole society of genetically-selected supermodels running around society, thinking they're superior because they've been genetically designed by scientists who think they're God.

These gene-pushing doctors mistakenly think they can determine the future of a human being by manipulating the genes of the fetus. It's no surprise, after all: Most conventionally-trained physicians believe in outright determinism, thinking that there is no such thing as a soul, or free will, or a spiritual reality of any kind. You're born with genes, you "play out" your predetermined fate recorded in those genes, and then you die and that's the end of everything. It's a deeply pessimistic, deterministic point of view, and yet it's the view that's held by the vast majority of western doctors.

The real truth is that while genes certainly have potential influence over a person's health, it is the environment (foods, health habits, exercise, exposure to chemicals, etc.) that is the far more important factor in determining what happens to an individual's health. I can take a room full of a thousand BRCA1 gene carriers and show every one of them how to live a life 100% free of breast cancer through simple, safe and low-cost methods that are available to everyone.

Modern medicine refuses to do that. Because despite all the grand technology, the manipulation of human life and the arrogant playing God that takes place daily in the minds of western doctors, there's one thing they still haven't figured out how to do: Tell the truth to a patient about how they can prevent cancer, regardless of their genes.

Modern medicine is a huge technical success and a complete humanistic failure. It offers the most impressive technology in the world and puts it into the hands of the most ethically-deficient professionals who are so pessimistic about the nature of reality that they don't even believe in the existence of their own souls.

And do you really want scientists who don't even believe in the existence of the human soul to be playing God with your baby's genes?

Disturbing.

It should also be noted, by the way, that this whole process of "gene screening babies" involves testing the embryo at the eight-cell stage (when conception has already taken place and the baby is beginning to grow), and then throwing away any embryos that don't fit the desire genetic profile.

In effect, the gene screening of babies involves the systematic destruction of viable human embryos that could grow into full-fledged babies. This opens up a whole new debate on the issue of abortion, of course, and I'd like to hear your comments on all this. Simply post your thoughts in the comment section below.

The key issues are: At what point is the genetic screening of a baby going too far? Most people might agree, for example, that screening for major birth defects is acceptable, but is it acceptable to screen for things like blue eyes and then toss out the embryos that don't carry that gene?

What will happen in the future of society if the gene screening of embryos becomes socially acceptable and is embraced by parents?

What are the risks posed by a race of beings that engages in routine genetic selection? (For example, might be lose biodiversity? Might the BRCA1 gene have another positive purpose that doctors haven't identified yet?)

Should humans be genetically engineered to insert new traits? Larger brains? Stronger muscles? Bigger boobs? (Parents could actually order up a boob job on their daughter before she's born!)

Think carefully about this one. It's a hugely complex sociomedicalethical issue.

visit www.NaturalNews.com/

Bayer Knowingly Sold HIV-Contaminated Vaccines, Say Internal Documents

2009-01-06T16:33:00.000-08:00

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, January 5, 2009
Key concepts: Bayer, Vaccines and HIV

Here's a little-known truth about Bayer that needs to be revisited. In 2006, it was discovered that Bayer found out a vaccine it was selling in the United States was accidentally contaminated with HIV.

In order to cover its tracks, say the journalists in this video (below), Bayer pulled the vaccines off the market and sold them to consumers in Japan, France, Spain and other countries, where hemophiliacs were then contaminated with HIV due to the vaccine.

Watch the video yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs

And yet, despite these apparent crimes, no Bayer executives ever faced arrest or prosecution in the United States.

A Bayer spinmeister had this to say: "Bayer behaved responsibly, ethically and humanely... [and its actions] were consistent with regulations."

Sure they did. Don't forget that Bayer is the same pharmaceutical company linked to Nazi Germany's medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. They have a long and dark history of being involved in the manufacture of chemical weapons. As stated on CorporateWatch.org (http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profi...):

" IG Farben continued to grow during the inter-war period as one of the most powerful chemical and pharmaceutical companies in the world. Products included polyurethanes and the first 'sulpha' drugs. It is during Nazi-era Germany and WW2 that IG Farben (Bayer) entered its most sinister phase. IG Farben as the leading chemical company in Nazi Germany took over chemical plants across Nazi occupied Europe, used slave-labour in their factories (including operating their own concentration camp), conducted medical experiments on those held in the concentration camps and manufactured the poison gas used to kill thousands. At the end of the war the 1945 Potsdam Agreement called for the break up of IG Farben into its constituent companies. Twelve IG Farben employees and directors were jailed for war crimes at the Nuremburg Trials."

Anybody who takes anything made by Bayer is, in my opinion, supporting a corporation that has been committing crimes against humanity for nearly a hundred years.

www.naturalnews.com

Dangerous Food Additives

2008-12-19T08:54:00.000-08:00

article by:
Mike Adams
Consumer health advocate
www.NaturalNews.com

Were you aware that food companies add chemicals to their products that stimulate hunger and disrupt normal appetite control?

It's a clever (but downright devious) strategy for selling more food and boosting the profits of food corporations.

But the truth about these chemicals -- known as excitotoxins -- is never explained to consumers. The food companies don't want you to know that these chemicals cause obesity, infertility, migraines and cancer, among other health problems.

Dirty food company secrets revealed!

Now, in an exclusive Mike Adams interview, Dr. Russell Blaylock reveals the startling truth about these common taste-enhancing chemicals: monosodium glutamate, aspartame, yeast extract, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, autolyzed proteins and more!

Download the full interview right now at:
http://downloads.truthpublishing.com/Aspartame_Truth.pdf

In this tell-all interview, you'll learn:

How MSG and aspartame are related to cancer, obesity, neurodegenerative diseases, and metabolic disorders.
How food companies hide MSG on food labels by using a "secret code" of innocent-sounding ingredients.
Why kids eating Splenda may end up with suppressed immune systems.
How the manufacturers of artificial sweeteners enforce scientific censorship on the dangers of their products.
The real reason why the American Diabetes Association won't speak out against aspartame.
Why yeast extract is more dangerous than monosodium glutamate.
The hidden link between soy and dementia.
Why many foods labeled "all natural" aren't healthy -- or natural!
How you can slow MSG and glutamate absorption using nutrients and herbs.
How aspartame both causes and accelerates cancer.
Why the pharmaceutical industry needs MSG to help create more patients.

Check your food labels now

How common are these dangerous ingredients? Check the ingredients labels of the food in your pantry right now. Look for yeast extract, aspartame or monosodium glutamate. Also check for any ingredient that's hydrolyzed or autolyzed. If you spot any of these, you have excitotoxins in your food!

You'll find these excitotoxins in:

Diet soda
"Sugar-free" drinks and sweets
Canned soups
Frozen pizza
Vegetarian foods, including veggie burgers
Snack chips
Diabetic foods
Salad dressing
Breakfast sausage
Beef jerky and chicken strips
Frozen foods, even "natural" ones
Instant dinner mixes
Baby food
Ranch-flavored dips and sauces
Gravy mixes and dip mixes
Bullion cubes and flavor packets

... and hundreds of other grocery products and restaurant foods.
As Dr. Russell Blaylock explains, these excitotoxin ingredients are known to promote:

Migraines
Seizures
Neurological disorders
Blurred vision
Increased appetite / overeating
Infertility and reproductive disorders
Impaired brain function
Cancer / brain tumors
Heart damage and cardiovascular harm
Endocrine system damage (affecting hormones)

If you suffer from any of these symptoms or conditions, it is imperative that you download and read this interview today.

To your health,
Mike Adams
Consumer health advocate

Celtic Woman A Christmas Celebration-Ding Dong Merrly.......

2008-12-15T20:24:00.001-08:00

Something special for you to enjoy.....

The Dangers of Bleaching Your Teeth

2008-12-11T07:42:00.000-08:00

If you ever bleach your teeth with those home kits or have ever thought of bleaching your teeth, this is an article that you should read.

http://health.yahoo.com/oralcare-inspirational-stories/the-dangers-of-bleaching-your-teeth/prevention--23239-print.html

Fighting Disease with Garlic

2008-12-08T08:22:00.000-08:00

Fight Disease with Garlic
by Sheryl Walters, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) Garlic is a powerhouse super food that can wipe out unwanted visitors in the body and prevent disease. Garlic has been used throughout recorded history for both culinary and medicinal purposes. Its pungent, spicy flavour adds a kick to any dish. Just one clove a day will provide your body with vitamins A, B and C, as well as a vast array of minerals including selenium, iodine, potassium, iron, calcium, zinc and magnesium.

Garlic is generally regarded as more beneficial when it is fresh out of the bulb. Within a short time of being smashed it begins to lose it potency. Some of the healing benefits of garlic include:

Potent Antioxidant

Garlic prevents free radical damage to protect against aging and disease. It fights against the oxidative damage from the environment and cigarette smoke. Garlic contains allicin, which increases blood levels of two powerful antioxidant enzymes: catalase and glutathione peroxidase. Because of its free radical power, it prevents aging, keeping the body detoxified and youthful.

Cancer Prevention

Research shows that the antioxidant allicin is anti cancerous. When the garlic is eaten, a chemical reaction occurs which can kill tumors. Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill analyzed 18 studies looking at garlic eaters and revealed that high people who ate a high amount of raw or cooked garlic had a decreased risk of colorectal cancer of 10% to nearly 50%. It also showed that the risk of developing stomach cancer halved for those who consumed the most garlic.

Slashes the Risk of Heart Disease

According to scientists at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York, the compounds in garlic may play a significant role in maintaining a healthy cardiovascular system. Garlic lowers LDL “bad” cholesterol and blood pressure. A study published in the Journal of the Royal College of Physicians reviewed data on cholesterol and found that after just four weeks there was a 12 per cent reduction in cholesterol levels in the research groups that had taken garlic. And a study in the Journal of Hypertension showed that taking garlic tablets cut volunteers' blood pressure by between one and five per cent. It is also a natural blood thinner, which means that it can reduce the incidence of blood clots, leading to stroke and thrombosis.

Fights Colds, the Flu and Parasites

Garlic is one of nature’s antibiotics because it fights against bacteria, virus, and protozoa (a type of parasite) in the body. Yet there are no nasty side effects as there are with taking antibiotics so there is not risk of wiping out good bacteria, lowering the immune system or building up a resistance.
A recent study found that the daily intake of garlic reduced the risk of volunteers catching a cold by half. The researchers also discovered that even when those who did catch the cold got over it quicker than the subjects who did not take garlic.

Anti Fungal
This potent super food also contains anti-fungal properties which can be great for yeast infection. Some women have even had success using garlic as a pessary when they get thrush.

Melamine Found Contaminating Soy Meal Fed to Organic Chickens

2008-12-02T07:34:00.000-08:00

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, December 2, 2008

Want to know what organic chickens are fed? If it's soy meal from China -- a cheap source of protein -- it may also contain melamine.

That's what happened with 300 tons of soy meal being fed to organic chicken in western France. Authorities discovered the soy meal contained an astonishing 50 times the maximum limit of melamine: 116mg per kg of soy meal.

This cheap Chinese soy meal was delivered to 127 "organic" chicken farms in France. Nobody yet knows how many organic chicken farms in the U.S., Canada, U.K. or Australia might also be feeding their chickens toxic levels of melamine.

This is part of the dangerous widening of the melamine scandal I predicted earlier today: Melamine contamination is now reaching into the meat supply, and it could even include organic meats such as beef, pork and chicken.

The truth is, nobody knows if meats sold in the U.S. are free of melamine because nobody has tested the meat! But we do know one thing: Factory meat farms will feed just about anything to cows, including cheap protein sources from China. And melamine could very easily be found in toxic quantities in feed products right now being fed to dairy cows or other animals harvested for their meat.

It also means that organic meat may be contaminated with melamine due to the feed sources. Certainly, organic meat is usually safer than conventional meat, but if organic poultry farms can be caught up in the melamine scandal, then just about any animal farming operation could be hit next (except for 100% free-range animals eating nothing but live grasses in the fields -- and this is so rare that for all practical purposes it does not exist in the food supply).

I fully expect this scandal to widen even further, eventually encompassing conventional dairy farms. It all comes down to the FEED, and conventional farmers are notorious for buying the cheapest sources of feed, even if they come from China. Cattle farms, after all, feed their cows chicken poop. Really. It's a USDA-approved feed ingredient for cattle operations. What happens if those chickens are eating melamine in their soy meal? They have melamine-contaminated poop, and that gets eaten by the cows, which creates melamine-contaminated milk or cow meat. And that gets eaten by the humans.

You Hold Your Life In Your Hands With One Pill

2008-11-25T14:28:00.000-08:00

After reading the two latest articles that I have posted about the "legal" drug industry, that is exactly how I feel. I have felt that way for some time, but it definitely re-enforces that fact... that I may literally be holding my life in my hands in taking the pharma drugs. It really does give you food for thought... doesn't it!!

AP IMPACT: Govt pays millions for unapproved drugs

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and FRANK BASS, Associated Press Writers Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar And Frank Bass, Associated Press Writers – Mon Nov 24, 3:24 am ET

WASHINGTON – Taxpayers have shelled out at least $200 million since 2004 for medications that have never been reviewed by the government for safety and effectiveness but are still covered under Medicaid, an Associated Press analysis of federal data has found. Millions of private patients are taking such drugs, as well.
The availability of unapproved prescription drugs to the public may create a dangerous false sense of security. Dozens of deaths have been linked to them.
The medications date back decades, before the Food and Drug Administration tightened its review of drugs in the early 1960s. The FDA says it is trying to squeeze them from the market, but conflicting federal laws allow the Medicaid health program for low-income people to pay for them.
The AP analysis found that Medicaid paid nearly $198 million from 2004 to 2007 for more than 100 unapproved drugs, mostly for common conditions such as colds and pain. Data for 2008 were not available but unapproved drugs still are being sold. The AP checked the medications against FDA databases, using agency guidelines to determine if they were unapproved. The FDA says there may be thousands of such drugs on the market.
Medicaid officials acknowledge the problem, but say they need help from Congress to fix it. The FDA and Medicaid are part of the Health and Human Services Department, but the FDA has yet to compile a master list of unapproved drugs, and Medicaid — which may be the biggest purchaser — keeps paying.
"I think this is something we ought to look at very hard, and we ought to fix it," said Medicaid chief Herb Kuhn. "It raises a whole set of questions, not only in terms of safety, but in the efficiency of the program — to make sure we are getting the right set of services for beneficiaries."
At a time when families, businesses and government are struggling with health care costs and 46 million people are uninsured, payments for questionable medications amount to an unplugged leak in the system.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has asked the HHS inspector general to investigate.
That unapproved prescription drugs can be sold in the United States surprises even doctors and pharmacists. But the FDA estimates they account for 2 percent of all prescriptions filled by U.S. pharmacies, about 72 million scripts a year. Private insurance plans also cover them.
The roots of the problem go back in time, tangled in layers of legalese.
It wasn't until 1962 that Congress ordered the FDA to review all new medications for effectiveness. Thousands of drugs already on the market were also supposed to be evaluated. But some manufacturers claimed their medications were "grandfathered" under earlier laws, and even under the 1962 bill.
Then, in the early 1980s, a safety scandal erupted over one of those medications. E-Ferol, a high potency vitamin E injection, was linked to serious reactions in some 100 premature babies, 40 of whom died.
In response, the FDA started a program to weed out drugs it had never reviewed scientifically. Yet some medications continued to escape scrutiny.
Sometimes, the medications do not help patients. In other cases, the FDA says, they have made people sicker, maybe even killed them. This year, for example, the FDA banned injectable versions of a gout drug called colchicine after receiving reports of 23 deaths. Investigators found the unapproved drug had a very narrow margin of safety, and patients easily could receive a toxic dose leading to complications such as organ failure.
Critics say the FDA's case-by-case enforcement approach is not working.
"The FDA does not appear to have a systematic mechanism to report these drugs out," said Jon Glaudemans, senior vice president of Avalere Health, a health care industry information company, "and there doesn't seem to be a systematic process by which health insurance programs can validate their status. And everyone is pointing the finger at someone else as to why we can't get there."
In most cases, doctors, pharmacists and patients are not aware the drugs are unapproved.
"Over the years, they have become fully entrenched in the system," said Patti Manolakis, a Charlotte, N.C., pharmacist who has studied the issue. Only a few unapproved drugs are truly essential and should remain on the market, she added.
Tackling the problem is made harder by confusing — and sometimes conflicting — laws, regulations and responsibilities that pertain to different government agencies.
Medicaid officials said their program, which serves the poor and disabled, is allowed to pay for unapproved drugs until the FDA orders a specific medication off the market. But that can take years.
Compare that with Medicare, the health care program for older people.
Medicare's prescription program is not supposed to cover unapproved drugs. Medicare has purged hundreds of such medications from its coverage lists, but continues to find others.
It might be easier to sort things out if the FDA compiled a master list of unapproved drugs, but the agency hasn't. FDA officials say that would be difficult because many manufacturers do not list unapproved products with the agency. Yet, the AP found many that were listed — a possible starting point for a list.
Among the drugs the AP's research identified were Carbofed, for colds and flu; Hylira, a dry skin ointment; Andehist, a decongestant, and ICAR Prenatal, a vitamin tablet. Medicaid data show the program paid $7.3 million for Carbofed products from 2004 to 2007; $146,000 for Hylira; $4.8 million for Andehist products, and $900,000 for ICAR.
Grassley said the system is failing taxpayers and consumers.
"The problem I see is bureaucrats don't want to make a decision," Grassley said. "There is no reason why this should be such a house of mirrors when so much public money is being spent." Grassley is considering introducing legislation to ensure that consumers are told when a medication is unapproved.
FDA officials say they tell Medicaid and Medicare when the agency moves to ban an unapproved drug, so the programs can stop paying.
"The situation is complicated by the fact that Medicaid and Medicare have a different regulatory regime than FDA does," said FDA compliance lawyer Michael Levy. "There are products that we may consider to be illegally marketed that could be legally reimbursed under their law."
The FDA began its latest crackdown on unapproved drugs two years ago and has taken action against nine types of medications and dozens of companies. Typically, the agency orders manufacturers to stop making and shipping drugs, and it also has seized millions of dollars' worth of medications. But federal law does not provide fines for selling unapproved drugs, and criminal prosecutions are rare.
Some manufacturers of unapproved drugs say their products predate FDA regulation and are "grandfathered in."
"These are drugs that don't require an FDA approval," said Bill Peters, chief financial officer of Hi-Tech Pharmacal in Amityville, N.Y. "These are products with active ingredients that have been on the market for a long time." The company is moving away from older products, Peters said, and its new market offerings are FDA-approved.
Levy said the FDA is skeptical that any drugs now being sold are entitled to "grandfather" status. To qualify, they would have to be identical to medications sold decades ago in formulation and other important aspects.
The agency is targeting drugs linked to fraud, ones that do not work and, above all, those with safety risks. While the crackdown has helped, it does not appear to have solved the problem.
The gout drug banned by the FDA this February is not the only recent case involving safety problems.
Last year, the FDA banned unapproved cough medicines containing hydrocodone, a potent narcotic. Some had directions for medicating children as young as age 2, although no hydrocodone cough products have been shown to be safe and effective for children under 6.
In a 2006 case, the agency received 21 reports of children younger than 2 who died after taking unapproved cold and allergy medications containing carbinoxamine, an allergy drug that also acts as a powerful sedative. Regulators banned all products that contained carbinoxamine in combination with other cold medicines.
"We as Americans have a belief that all the prescription drugs that are available to us have been reviewed and approved by the FDA," said Manolakis, the pharmacist. "I think the presence of these drugs shows we have a false sense of security."

Big Pharma's Pills Contaminated with Machine Parts at Pill Factories

2008-11-24T08:20:00.000-08:00

by Mike Adams Originally published October 27 2008

(NaturalNews) An investigation by the Associated Press (AP) has uncovered evidence of widespread quality control problems in pills produced in Puerto Rico, a region that manufactures many of the prescription medications sold in America. Puerto Rico has one of the highest concentrations of pharmaceutical factories in the world, producing $35 billion worth of drugs each year. The United States, with its $300-billion annual drug market, is the island's primary customer, and 13 of the country's top 20 selling drugs are produced in Puerto Rico.

But an AP review of FDA documents finds widespread contamination problems at Puerto Rican pill factories, which have led to the export and sale of tainted and potentially unsafe medications. The documents reviewed concerned FDA inspections of 13 Puerto Rican factories between 2003 and 2007, accounting for approximately half of the pill factories on the island.

"People would be shocked to find this whole variety of contamination," said Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen. "The common denominator of all these is there's really poor quality control."

This is especially interesting given that the FDA has acted to protect Big Pharma's monopoly drug pricing scheme in the United States by claiming that pills imported from Canada, Mexico or other countries might be unsafe due to contamination or poor quality control. Therefore, the FDA claims, American consumers should be forced to pay the highest prices in the world for drugs sold at monopoly prices in the United States. And yet we're now finding that even those drugs sold in U.S. pharmacies aren't manufactured here, and they may be even more dangerous than the same medications purchased from Canada.
Metal particles, door paint found in medication pills
Among the incidents identified in the AP review was a case where a worker sorting blood pressure pills for Biovail Corp. noticed blue flecks on the pills that matched the paint on the factory's doors. Eventually, the employee's reports led to the factory covering the drug carts, but no investigation was launched into whether contaminated shipments had gone out, and the incident was written off as a fluke.

"[The] incident was considered an isolated event ... even when the employee reported having observed the same particles before," the FDA report on the incident reads.

In another case, a plant owned by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries continued exporting drugs that it knew to contain small metal particles inside pill bottles or even embedded in the pills themselves. In addition to being aware of conditions inside the factory, the company had received at least six consumer complaints about the pills.

When challenged by the FDA, the company's quality control unit said that the presence of metal in the pills was normal, because the plant's machinery was made out of metal!

The plant closed two months later. As in most similar cases, the company denied any connection between the defective pills and the factory shutdown.
Machine parts ground into medication pills?

In May 2006, after patients complained of finding machinery pins inside pill bottles of Wyeth's depression drug Effexor and heartburn drug Protonix, the FDA sent a warning letter to the factory in question, asking why the plant was not "able to detect that the affected equipment was missing some of its parts."

Not all cases involved foreign materials. In March 2005, the FDA raided a Puerto Rican GlaxoSmithKline plant after receiving reports that pills of the antidepressant drug Paxil CR had split apart, making it hard for patients to calculate proper dosages. In that raid, agents found tablets of the diabetes drug Avandemet that contained improper dosages.

The FDA has been criticized for failing to monitor the drug industry well enough to make sure that such errors do not occur, or that they are corrected more quickly. Critics point out that the FDA often fails to act until several incidents have occurred.

The agency says that it dislikes challenging companies after only one incident, because it is hard to prove that the problem is systemic, as seen in the incident of the paint-flecked pills, which Biovail claimed was a fluke. (Quiz time: How many flukes does it take to make a pattern? FDA answer: There are no patterns. They're ALL flukes!)

The FDA inspects each factory in Puerto Rico approximately once every two years, by the way. That's one day out of 730 days.

By the way, wasn't it the FDA that urged Americans to not buy pharmaceuticals from Canada or Mexico because they might not be safe? Apparently swallowing ground-up machine parts from a pill factory in Puerto Rico is safer than buying quality-controlled pharmaceuticals from Canada, if you ask the FDA. Then again, maybe they're just trying to protect the U.S. pharmaceutical monopoly.
The pills are dangerous even if they're manufactured correctly
What these outrageous quality control problems bring to light is the fact that pharmaceuticals are dangerous to your health on two levels: First, there's the risk of harm or death caused by the drugs themselves, even when they are properly manufactured and consumed. Around 100,000 Americans are killed each year by FDA-approved prescription drugs, according to research conducted by the American Medical Association.

But now, there's a whole new level of risk: Contamination at the factory. With medication pills possibly containing machine parts, pieces of metal, paint and other contaminants - and the utter lack of proper FDA oversight of these factories - it presents yet another good reason for consumers to find natural alternatives to dangerous prescription medications.

These pharmaceutical pills that are contaminated with metal parts and other chemicals do serve one purpose, however: They make patients sick, bringing them back to the hospital where they are almost certain to be prescribed yet more prescription drugs sold by the very same companies the manufactured the contaminated pills in the first place. Repeat business, anyone?

(reprint from www.Natural News.com)

Attack of the Tiny Nano Particles - Be Slightly Afraid

2008-11-19T10:17:00.000-08:00

Attack of the Tiny Nano Particles - Be Slightly Afraid
Report calls for more tests on 'wonder ingredient'
By Ian Sample
The Guardian / UK, November 15, 2008
Straight to the Source

Proliferation of nano materials could pose risk

The government must begin a "major and urgent" effort to assess the safety of nanomaterials, the tiny particles commonly used in products as varied as sun creams, sports clothing and medicine, leading experts warn today.

Hundreds of consumer products made with nanoparticles, which can be 100 times smaller than a virus, are already on the market, despite an almost complete lack of knowledge of the dangers they may pose to human health and the environment, according to a report by the royal commission on environmental pollution.

Nanoparticles have been embraced as a wonder ingredient across manufacturing industry. Cosmetic companies add titanium dioxide nanoparticles to sun creams to make them transparent instead of white. Sports clothing firms have introduced odour-free garments containing nanosilver particles that are twice as toxic to bacteria as bleach. The motor industry has added carbon nanofibres to car tyres and body panels to strengthen them. Many nanomaterials are so poorly understood that scientists are unable to predict how they will behave, and are unclear even how to check their safety, the report says.

Sir John Lawton, who chairs the commission, said the lack of tests and environmental monitoring for nanoparticles meant it was impossible to know if the materials were already a cause for concern. "Would we know if nanomaterials were causing harm? The answer is, no we wouldn't. We have no evidence that they cause harm, but a lot of that is because of a lack of evidence," he said. Professor Sir John Lawton on need to test nanotechnology Link to this audio

Industry figures estimate at least 600 products are already available globally that contain nanomaterials of some form, but that figure is expected to rise steeply.

The report warns that the proliferation of nanoparticles will see more of them released into the environment where they could be inhaled, discharged into water courses, and potentially introduced into the food chain with unknown consequences.

Lawton acknowledged nanoparticles were "exceedingly useful", but said there was "a major gap between the pace at which new nanomaterials are being developed and the generation of environmental health and safety data". Some scientists who gave evidence to the commission said it could be 20 years before sufficient safety measures were in place to monitor nanotechnology. "We don't want to be alarmist, but experience says the more we find out about this the better," said Lawton. "We're saying [to the government] get your finger out and get on and do something. This is really urgent."

Last week, the Royal Society expressed its dismay at the government's lack of action following its own report on nanotechnology in 2004, which also called for more stringent safety checks.

Nanoparticles lend their success to the extraordinary, and sometimes highly unusual, properties they have. For example, carbon nanotubes are incredibly strong, while pieces of graphite easily sheer apart. Nanoparticles of silver are significantly more toxic than lumps of the metal because the tiny particles have a huge surface area. The medical industry is investing heavily in nanoparticles to create precision drugs that can target specific tissues, such as cancer cells.

The report calls on government departments to back immediate research into toxicity tests for nanoparticles and the impact of nanomaterials in the environment.

The commission picks out three types of nanoparticle it says are of particular concern. Highly toxic nanosilver will inevitably get into the water supply when sports garments incorporating silver nanoparticles are washed. These could cause problems at sewage treatment works, which rely on beds of bacteria to purify water. Carbon nanofibres, which can be added to car tyres or woven into clothing to produce different colours without using dyes, are likely to be shed into the environment where they could be inhaled.

Finally, "buckyballs" - microscopic football-shaped cages of carbon - can be absorbed by simple organisms, according to the report, raising concerns that they could contaminate the food chain.

A spokesperson for Defra said: "As the commission states, it has found no evidence of harm to health or the environment from nanomaterials, but the government remains committed to researching their health and environmental impact." Backstory

Eric Drexler, an American engineer sketched the scenario whereby nanomachines no bigger than molecules run amok, consuming the planet's resources and leaving nothing but grey goo, in his 1986 book Engines of Creation. He has now dismissed that view, but more realistic concerns remain. Nanotechnology encompasses any material suited to measurement in billionths of a metre, or nanometres: connections in a chip, fibres in a tennis racket, or particles absorbing UV light in suntan lotion. Nanoparticles behave unlike lumps of the same material - stronger, more toxic, and with radically different electrical properties. What makes them so useful also makes their safety so uncertain.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

A New Direction

2008-11-19T10:06:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since I have posted anything here and I have decided to go a completely new direction in my posts. As I am involved in selling health products and come across amazing information, I have decided to start sharing the articles that I find exceptionally informative. So, Stay posted.....

And She's 92

2008-04-08T14:46:00.000-07:00

An Amazing "Box Skit"

2008-02-16T09:40:00.000-08:00

Someone recently sent this to me. It was amazing so I thought to share this with all.

Are You A Sojourner

2006-11-10T09:49:00.000-08:00

Recently, I came across excerpts from Rick Warren's book (The Purpose Driven Life)
In view of my recent contemplative moments, especially concerning "Character", I found it very interesting............

"When you fully comprehend that there is more to life than just here and now, and you realize that life is just preparation for eternity, you will begin to live differently. You will start living in light of eternity, and that will color how you handle every relationship, task, and circumstance. Suddenly many activities, goals and even problems that seemed so important will appear trivial, petty, and unworthy of your attention. The closer you live to God, the smaller everything else appears.
When you live in light of eternity, your values change. You use your time and money more wisely. You place a higher premium on relationships and character instead of fame or wealth or achievements or even fun.

The fact that earth is not our ultimate home explains why, as followers of Jesus, we experience difficulty, sorrow, and rejection in this world. It also explains why some of God's promises seem unfulfilled, some prayers seem unanswered, and some circumstances seem unfair. This is not the end of the story.
In order to keep us from becoming too attached to earth, God allows us to feel a significant amount of dissatisfaction and discontent in life--longings that will never be fulfilled on this side of eternity. We're not completely happy here because we're not supposed to be! Earth is not our final home; we were created for something much better.
In God's eyes, the greatest heroes of the faith are not those who achieve prosperity, success and power in this life, but those who treat this life as a temporary assignment and serve faithfully, expecting their promised reward in eternity. The Bible says this about God's Hall of Fame: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Â They desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a city" (Hebrews 11:13,16). It takes faith to live on earth as a foreigner."

A Question of Character

2006-10-30T14:15:00.000-08:00

I guess this blog reflects a contemplative time of my life. Lately, I have been thinking a lot of my upbringing and especially about “Character” and how an individuals “Character” is developed. Yes, I do believe that the trials of life help us, through whatever choices and decisions we make, to form our character whether good or bad, but I also believe that the majority of “ourself” that defines who we are is instilled in us in our early years by the training we receive and the examples that we see. As we progress in our lives we can make determined choices to either strengthen or lessen what traits were initially instilled, or to embrace new traits, but that still brings me to the question of what exactly is “Character” and what do we base it on. As a Christian, the Bible is our yardstick of how we judge something as good or evil. We determine this by the 10 commandments, by the lives and the fruits of those lives that are written about in the Bible, and most importantly by the life that Jesus lived and the Words that He gave us, such as the Beatitudes and I Corinthians 13, etc. Having good Character goes right along with living by decided principles. The principles we choose to live by are those things that we determine are worth living regardless of the opinion of others. These are the things that we embrace and live regardless if anyone notices or not. It also sometimes means standing up for something when all others are against us. Having good Character can be described as The inward motivation to do what is right, the desire to choose the "high road” rather than the “low road”. It is choosing to do what is right regardless of the sacrifice and the circumstances. When we repeatedly choose to “take the high road” then it becomes easier and easier to make the right decision, at least in that area. Since we are all human, we will never be perfect and will often make wrong choices and decisions. Even this forms our character as some of the greatest things we learn are from our mistakes …………

The Mid-Life Point

2006-10-22T08:22:00.000-07:00

There are times in life where you reach a crisis and I believe one of those times is when you reach what is considered that “midlife” point where many have their own particular self evaluations of what they have accomplished thus far in their lives and what they would yet like to do. I have traveled the world, birthed babies, survived incredible situations, experienced amazing things, viewed unbelievable mountain peaks of reality, and learned from both the good and the bad, yet this mid point has been more of a challenge than any thus far. In reflection my greatest joy has been that of birthing both spiritual and physical babies. To all the spiritual ones, I was blessed to have been at the right place at the right time and blessed to have heard and obeyed those whispers. To those I either physically birthed or had a hand in raising, I was doubly blessed. To each one of these, Kirsty, Boo, Lani, Julia, Shelly, and Rosie… I love you and you each will forever hold a special place in my heart. May you in turn be blessed in your lives…. By following those whispers. As for my future, it is yet to be seen, but I do know where it leads......

The Reason WHY

2006-10-06T05:39:00.000-07:00

Well, some have asked me, WHY "Miles To Go" for my blog name. My answer.... read the lyrics to the following song by Celine Dion. It says it all. GB!

Miles To Go
I would walk to the edge of the universe for you
Paint you a crimson sunset over sheltering skies
I could learn all the world dialects for you
Whisper sonnets in your ear discovering truth
I could never worship pagan gods around me
I will only follow the path that leads me to you baby... always
Every step I take for you
I will always defend, never pretend
That every breath I take for love
I could never be wrong, the journey is long
With miles to go before I sleep, miles to go before I sleep...
I would carry the rock of Gibraltar just for you
Lifted like a pebble from the beach to the skies
I could build you a bridge that spans the ocean wide
But the greatest gift I give you would be to stand by your side
Some can criticize and sit in judgment of us
But they can't take away the love that lives inside us always
Every step I take for you
I will always defend, never pretend
That every breath I take for love
I could never be wrong, the journey is long
With miles to go before I sleep, miles to go before I sleep...
I won't run from the changing signs along the highway
Let the rivers flow to the highest ground created

It's a Beginning

2006-10-03T13:42:00.000-07:00

I'm new to this and as I learn more about what I am doing I will be making changes and adjustments, but at least I am "on the air".