Rather Be Healthy

Vaccinated children have up to 500% more disease than unvaccinated children

NaturalNews) Suspicions have been confirmed for those wary of vaccinating their children. A recent large study corroborates other independent study surveys comparing unvaccinated children to vaccinated children.

They all show that vaccinated children have two to five times more childhood diseases, illnesses, and allergies than unvaccinated children.

Originally, the recent still ongoing study compared unvaccinated children against a German national health survey conducted by KiGGS involving over 17,000 children up to age 19. This currently ongoing survey study was initiated by classical homoeopathist Andreas Bachmair.

However, the American connection for Bachmair’s study can be found at VaccineInjury.info website that has added a link for parents of vaccinated children to participate in the study. So far this ongoing survey has well over 11,000 respondents, mostly from the U.S.A. Other studies have surveyed smaller groups of families.

Nevertheless, the results were similar. Of course, none of these studies were picked up by the MSM (mainstream media). None were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the World Health Organization (WHO) or any national or international health agency or medical profession group (http://healthimpactnews.com).

They don’t dare compare the health of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children objectively and risk disrupting their vaxmania (vaccination mania). The focus for all the studies was mostly on childhood illnesses occurring as the children matured.

Dramatic, debilitating, or lethal vaccine injuries were not the focus since so few, five percent or less, actually get reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Injury Reporting System) in the U.S.A. for various reasons including:

* It’s a complicated system that takes time from a doctor’s practice.
* Most parents don’t know about it.
* Only adverse reactions that occur immediately after vaccinations are considered.
* Since VAERS is voluntary, most doctors don’t want to incriminate themselves with vaccination injuries and maintain their denial of vaccine dangers.

Consequently, even the most terrible adverse reactions are minimally acknowledged, while long term negative health issues resulting from vaccines are not even considered relevant.

Different surveys summarized
The childhood diseases usually posed to respondents by the independent surveys involved asthma, reoccurring tonsillitis, chronic bronchitis, sinusitis, allergies, eczema, ear infections, diabetes, sleep disorders, bedwetting, dyslexia, migraines, hyperactivity, ADD, epilepsy, depression, and slower development of speech or motor skills.

In 1992, a New Zealand group called the Immunization Awareness Society (IAS) surveyed 245 families with a total of 495 children. The children were divided with 226 vaccinated and 269 unvaccinated. Eighty-one families had both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The differences were dramatic, with unvaccinated children showing far less incidence of common childhood ailments than vaccinated children (http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf).

From a different survey in the South Island New Zealand city of Christchurch, among children born during or after 1977, none of the unvaccinated children had asthma events where nearly 25% of the vaccinated children were treated for asthma by age 10 (http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf).

Many of the comments from non-vaccinating parents to VaccineInjury.info for the ongoing Bachmair survey mentioned vaccination danger and developing true immunity naturally were concerns (http://www.vaccineinjury.info).

A PhD immunologist who wrote the book Vaccine Illusion, Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, has gone against the dogma of her medical training and background. She asserts that true immunity to any disease is not conferred by vaccines. Exposure to the disease, whether contracted or not, does (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org).

Perhaps the most informal grass-roots survey going on now is by Tim O’Shea, DC, author of Vaccination is Not Immunization. He simply has non-vaccinating parents email him with comparisons of their children’s health to friends and families they know with vaccinated children. That and more is available on his site (http://www.thedoctorwithin.com).

Sources for this article include:

Home

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf

Link to participate in Bachmair survey here: http://www.vaccineinjury.info

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036220_vaccinated_children_disease_allergies.html#ixzz2EMJyBG3x

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The Atlantici recently reported on the findings of new research into the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically engineered foods.

The authors of the report GMO Myths and Truthsii took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, and came to the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increase yield potential do not support the claims made at all. In fact, the evidence demonstrates that the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown; they simply aren’t true…

The featured article summarizes the evidence presented, which shows that genetically engineered (GE) crops:
•Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GE crops
•Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
•Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
•Do not increase yield potential
•Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
•Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
•Have mixed economic effects
•Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
•Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
•Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
•Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on

The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou, PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He’s a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies; as well as John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GMO testing.

If you want to get an in-depth understanding of genetically engineered foods, I highly recommend reading their reportiii, which covers the ins-and-outs of genetic engineering and the disturbing findings of a large number of scientific studies.

Three Sources of Adverse Health Effects from Genetically Engineered Foods

According to their reportiv, there are three potential sources of adverse health effects from genetically engineered foods:
1.The genetically modified (GM) gene product – for example, the Bt toxin in GM insecticidal crops – may be toxic or allergenic
2.The GM transformation process may produce mutagenic effects, gene regulatory effects, or effects at other levels of biological structure and function that result in new toxins or allergens and/or disturbed nutritional value
3.Changes in farming practices linked to the use of a genetically modified organism (GMO) may result in toxic residues – for example, higher levels of crop contamination with the herbicide Roundup are an inevitable result of using GM Roundup Ready® crops

I’ve already written quite extensively on all three of these. You can locate all previous articles written on genetically engineered foods on my dedicated GMO page. To give you an example of these adverse health effects, when Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bt corn was approved, Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assured everyone that only insects would be hurt by the Bt toxin produced by these plants. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and would not have any impact at all.

They were proven wrong when doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the toxin circulating in the blood stream of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant womenv. Shockingly, the toxin was identified in 93 percent of pregnant women, 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67 percent of non-pregnant women tested.

The Bt crop varieties were first introduced to the market in 1996, and since then, many of the disorders that have subsequently been linked to Bt crops have risen exponentially. The fact that the toxin is flowing through our blood supply and passes through the placenta is a potent indicator that the Bt crop varieties cannot be considered harmless at all. For example, government-sponsored research in Italyvi showed a wide range of immune responses in mice fed Monsanto’s Bt corn. The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were elevated are also found to be higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders as indicated in the following chart.

Elevated interleukins

Associations

IL-6

Rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, various types of cancer (multiple myeloma and prostate cancer)

IL-13

Allergy, allergic rhinitis, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease)

MIP-1b

Autoimmune disease and colitis.

IL-12p70

Inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis

Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GE Corn

Over the years, genetically engineered crops have proven disastrous for animals, although the conventional media has done a remarkable job of keeping such details from the public. Most recently, the Swiss biotech company Syngenta had criminal charges filed against it by a German farmer. Sixty-five of his cows died after he fed them Syngenta’s genetically modified Bt corn. He alleges the company not only knew the corn could be lethal to livestock, but was also covering up deaths that occurred during clinical trials.

According to a recent press release by GM Watchvii, the lawsuit asserts that Syngenta committed a grave criminal offense by deliberately withholding the results of a feeding trial in which four cows died in two days. The deaths prompted the company to halt the test. No health problems or deaths were reported in the control group, which was not fed the genetically engineered Bt 176 corn.

Other health ramifications from the Bt 176 corn have also been found. In April 2004, Spain banned Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn on the grounds that it may confer resistance to the antibiotic ampicillinviii. As of December that same year, the EU decided to prohibit genetically engineered crops with antibiotic resistance genes, and cultivation of Bt 176 crops were subsequently discontinued in the EU in 2007. However, similar varieties, such as Bt 11 sweet cornix are still cultivated for both animal and human consumption…

The Health Effects of GE Feed on Livestock

As reported by Institute of Science in Societyx, mysterious animal deaths are not limited to Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn. Thousands of livestock deaths have been reported across India as a result of grazing on genetically engineered Bt cotton, for example.

“Shepherds’ own observations and post-mortem analysis carried out in the laboratory revealed abnormal liver, enlarged bile ducts and black patches in the intestine. The shepherds said that the sheep became “dull/depressed” after 2-3 days of grazing, started coughing with nasal discharge and developed red lesions in the mouth, became bloated and suffered blackish diarrhea, and sometimes passed red urine.

Death occurred within 5-7 days of grazing. Sheep from young lambs to adults of 1.5-2 years were affected.

One shepherd reported getting diarrhea from eating the meat of an affected sheep. The vets declared that the toxicity could be due to the Bt toxin but this could not be proven as results were confounded by additional pesticides used on the fields. The shepherds were however, advised against letting the sheep graze on any more Bt cotton plants,” Institute of Science in Society writesxi.

The Philippines have also reported cases of villagers suffering health effects from surrounding Bt crop fields. In 2006, the blood of 38 individuals was analyzed and all tested positive for antibodies specific to Cry1Ab, suggesting an immune reaction to the Bt toxinxii.

GE Crops Seriously Threatens Reproductive Health

According to Dr. Don Huber, an expert on the toxicity of genetically engineered plants, a new organism linked to GE crops appears to be the cause of high reproductive failure in livestock. The organism was initially identified by veterinarians around 1998—about two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, which is one of the staple feeds. The vets were puzzled by sudden rates of miscarriages. While sporadic at first, the phenomenon has continued to increase in severity.

In an interview last year, Dr. Huber stated:

“We [recently] received a call from a county extension educator, indicating that he has a dairy that has a 70 percent [spontaneous] abortion rate. You put that on top of 10 to 15 percent of infertility to start with, and you’re not going to have a dairy very long. In fact, a lot of our veterinarians are now becoming very concerned about the prospects for being able to have replacement animals.”

According to a recent report by the European GM Watchxiii, Russian scientists have also jumped into the fray, proving the existence of “very serious health risks for animals given genetically modified (GM) feed.” This announcement was reportedly made during a press conference of the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS). As a result of the findings, the Russian Parliament is considering a new veterinary law, which could potentially include a ban on genetically engineered animal feed.

“According to the authors; a number of pathological changes were discovered in the experimental animals that consumed the GM feed,” GM Watch reports. “A delay in development and growth was detected, plus a distortion of the sex ratio in breeds with an increase in the proportion of females, reducing the number of pups per litter, up to their complete lack in the second and third generation…

According to the President of NAGS Alexander Baranov, the main negative impact of GM feed, which was discovered during the investigation, is a “ban on reproduction,” making it almost impossible to obtain third-generation animals.”The results of our study confirmed the findings of European scientists who pointed out the negative impact on the health of animals from the GM ingredients in feed of animals,” Baranov, said. “We used soybean meal, which is widely used in Russia for fattening livestock. Soya of the line 40-3-2, contained in extracted meal, which is allowed in Russia. It is also for use in human food.” he added.”

Engineering Washington Politics

Why do American politicians and government health, environmental, and agricultural officials seem to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to all these concerns? In short, they’ve sold their souls and the future of this planet. They’re paid to not give a damn…

A recent article in the GMO Journal addresses the profound influence of biotech lobbying on our political processxiv. The article lists a number of facts showing how companies like Monsanto manipulates Washington to pass laws and regulations wholly in their favor. This includes preventing much-needed legislation to label genetically engineered foods. Thousands of ingredients must be listed on food labels, and yet genetically engineered ingredients, which have never been proven safe, do not need to be specified. Certainly, it is NOT because they are proud of their product and convinced it is superior to conventional or organic products. And it’s not because it would be cost-prohibitive.

Again, countless other ingredients and health claims have been added to labels through the years, without sending prices soaring. I’m not sure what it’ll take to make them grow a conscience and realize the dangers they’ve unleashed, and continue to support. As suggested in the GMO Journalxv, it’s time to realize that this industry is based on profit alone, at the expense of everything and everyone else.

“To borrow a phrase from Bill Maher, here’s a New Rule: anytime a GMO advocate gushes about the benefits and safety of genetically engineered products, someone must recite the following statistics from Food & Water Watchxvi:
1.Since 1999, the 50 largest agricultural and food patent-holding companies and two of the largest biotechnology and agrochemical trade associations have spent more than $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures.
2.Lobbying expenditures for food and agricultural biotechnology more than doubled between 1999 and 2009, rising 102.8 percent from $35 million in 1999 to $71 million in 2009.
3.Food and agricultural biotechnology PACs made more than $22 million in campaign contributions since 1999.
4.Food and agriculture biotechnology firms employ more than 300 former congressional and White House staff members as lobbyists.
5.In addition to in-house lobbyists, the food and agricultural biotechnology firms employed more than 100 lobbying firms in 2010.”

How to Protect Your Health

Until genetically engineered foods are labeled, your BEST strategy is to buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, as these do not permit genetically engineered ingredients, or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers.

The majority of the genetically engineered ingredients you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with altered ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

Please Continue Supporting California’s Ballot Initiative to Label GMO’s!

Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what genetically engineered foods are. We now have a great opportunity to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue supporting the California ballot initiative—which will require labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients, and ban the routine industry practice of labeling and marketing such foods as “natural”—in any way you can. The voting takes place in November, so we still have a few more months to go, and we need “all hands on deck,” so to speak, until then.

Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would likely affect ingredients and labeling nationwide, as large companies are not likely going to label their products as genetically engineered when sold in California, but not when sold in other states. Doing so would be a PR disaster.

But it’s an enormous ongoing battle, as the biotech industry will outspend us by 100 to 1, if not more, for their propaganda.

Needless to say, the campaign needs funds. So if you have the ability, I strongly encourage you to make a donation.

They also need more volunteers, because that’s how we’re going to win this battle. The biotech industry may outdo us in funding ability, but we as consumers still outnumber them. Pamm Larry, the California grandmother who created the initiative, is correct when she says we need to reach every single California community—large and small. I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S. states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!
•If you live in California and want to get involved, please contact LabelGMOs.org. They will go through all volunteer requests to put you into a position that is suitable for you, based on your stated interests and location.
•No matter where you live, please help spread the word in your personal networks, on Facebook, and Twitter. For help with the messaging, please see LabelGMOs.org’s “Spread the Word!” page.
•Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort, either through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
•For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter
If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Is the Western toilet in part responsible for problems like hemorrhoids, constipation, IBD (Inflammatory Bowel Disease), appendicitis, and even heart attacks?

If you examine the data, there is a great deal of evidence this is true. The modern toilet has required us to change the position we use to evacuate our bowels, which changes the anatomy of… well, a poop, to put it bluntly.

Infants instinctively squat to defecate, as does the majority of the world’s population. But somehow the West was convinced that sitting is more civilized.

Sitting on the modern Thomas Crapper-style sit-down toilet is designed to place your knees at a 90-degree angle to your abdomen. However, the time-honored natural squat position places the knees much closer to your torso, and this position actually changes the spacial relationships of your intestinal organs and musculature, optimizing the forces involved in defecation.1

Sitting to evacuate your bowel requires you to apply additional force (straining), which has some unwanted biological effects, including a temporary disruption in cardiac flow.

Can the Toilet Be Blamed for Increasing Rates of Colon and Pelvic Disease?

Squatting is the way our ancestors performed their bodily functions until the middle of the 19th Century. Chair-like toilets were reserved for the royals and the disabled. But the “progress” of westernized societies may be partly to blame for higher rates of colon and pelvic disease, as described by a report in the Israel Journal of Medical Science:2

“The prevalences of bowel diseases (hemorrhoids, appendicitis, polyps, ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, diverticular disease, and colon cancer) are similar in South African whites and in populations of prosperous western countries. Among rural South African blacks with a traditional life style, these diseases are very uncommon or almost unknown.”

As globalization continues to make its way across the world, squat toilets are being converted to sitters. For example, Thailand’s Health Ministry just announced it will replace squat toilets with the sit-down varieties at all public facilities.3 This may be a bad thing for public health, as a wide range of health problems have been associated with the transition from squatting to sitting. In fact, health problems potentially stemming from the sitting position include the 15 outlined in the following table.

Appendicitis

Constipation

Hemorrhoids

Incontinence

Colitis

Crohn’s Disease

Diverticulitis

Contamination of the Small Intestine

Gynecological Disorders, including Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Uterine Fibroids

Colon Cancer

Hiatal Hernia and GERD

Pregnancy and Childbirth

Prostate Disorders

Sexual Dysfunction

Reduced Risk of Cardiac Events

The Straight Poop

Evidence suggests bowel and pelvic problems may be related to improper potty posture. Only with the traditional squat position is your body aligned in a way that promotes complete bowel emptying. As you can see from the diagram, squatting actually straightens and relaxes your rectum.

Reference: Tagart REB. The Anal Canal and Rectum: Their Varying Relationship and Its Effect on Anal Continence, Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1966: 9, 449-452.

According to Jonathan Isbit of Nature’s Platform:

“For safety, nature has deliberately created obstacles to evacuation that can only be removed by squatting. In any other position, the colon defaults to ‘continence mode.’ This is why the conventional sitting position deprives the colon of support from the thighs and leaves the rectum choked by the puborectalis muscle.These obstacles make elimination difficult and incomplete – like trying to drive a car without releasing the parking brake.

Chronically incomplete evacuation, combined with the constant extraction of water, causes wastes to adhere to the colon wall. The passageway becomes increasingly constricted and the cells start to suffocate. Prolonged exposure to toxins will often trigger malignant mutations.”

He goes on to explain how the kink where your sigmoid joins your rectum (refer to the colon diagram above) serves an important function in continence. It “applies the brakes” to the flow of peristalsis, reducing the pressure on your puborectalis muscle. According to Isbit’s article, squatting offers seven advantages:

Makes elimination faster, easier and more complete. This helps prevent “fecal stagnation,” a prime factor in colon cancer, appendicitis and IBD

Protects the nerves that control the prostate, bladder and uterus from becoming stretched and damaged

Securely seals the ileocecal valve, between the colon and the small intestine; in the conventional sitting position, this valve is unsupported and often leaks during evacuation, contaminating the small intestine

Relaxes the puborectalis muscle which normally chokes the rectum in order to maintain continence

Uses the thighs to support the colon and prevent straining. Chronic straining on the toilet can cause hernias, diverticulosis, and pelvic organ prolapse

A highly effective, non-invasive treatment for hemorrhoids, as shown by published clinical research

For pregnant women, squatting avoids pressure on the uterus when using the toilet; daily squatting helps prepare pregnant women for a more natural delivery

Hemorrhoid Prevention

Two common problems are hemorrhoids and constipation. Unfortunately, many people needlessly suffer because they are too embarrassed to broach the topic with their healthcare providers. Fortunately, these all-too-common problems can be resolved with similar strategies because they share the same causative factors, including the typical Western diet, inadequate exercise, chronic dehydration, and stress. Surveys suggest that, in westernized countries, as much as half the population over age 40 may suffer from hemorrhoids.

Hemorrhoids are veins in the wall of your rectum and anus that have become twisted, swollen and inflamed. They can form either internally or externally, and the resulting lumps can cause pain and bleeding.

Hemorrhoids are most often created by an increase in pressure, usually from straining to have a bowel movement. Hemorrhoids are common in people with chronic digestive disturbances – especially constipation. They are also seen in the elderly, and during pregnancy. If you’re pregnant, the additional pressure your growing baby places on your uterus can result in hemorrhoids. Childbirth can increase the problem, but fortunately, most hemorrhoids caused by pregnancy resolve after delivery.

There is research casting doubt on the theory that hemorrhoids are caused by insufficient dietary fiber, but instead by other factors such as the loss of the “ancestral diet,” and the straining associated with defecating from a sitting position.4

Dr. Berko Sikirov, an Israeli physician who studied the health effects of squatting for elimination, found that hemorrhoids were virtually eliminated when hemorrhoid sufferers switched their toileting position from sitting to squatting.5 Sikirov concluded hemorrhoids result from continual aggravation and injury from excessive straining by defecating in the sitting position. Straining is necessary to overcome the constriction in the rectum designed to maintain continence.

To prevent hemorrhoids, you should also stay hydrated with adequate water daily, seek to control your emotional stress, and get plenty of exercise. Make sure your diet includes plenty of probiotics, such as those present in traditionally fermented foods like sauerkraut and other fermented vegetables, which are important for maintaining optimal intestinal flora. For a complete discussion of hemorrhoid prevention and treatment, refer to my earlier article on this topic.

Occasionally a deficiency of bioflavonoids allow blood vessels to break easier and if this is the case a supplement called rutin is particularly helpful at correcting. If you bruise easily this is a strong suggestion that you would benefit from taking rutin.

Natural Constipation Relief Strategies

Constipation and hemorrhoids are two sides of the same coin. Your risk for hemorrhoids increases greatly if you have recurring episodes of constipation. One of the biggest hindrances to your success may be not realizing you’re constipated in the first place. Regular bowel movements are extremely important for your health because, without them, toxins accumulate and are recirculated in your bloodstream. If elimination is not regular and complete, the wastes will dry and become cemented to the walls of your colon.

Constipation has been shown to increase your risk of colon cancer and has been implicated in diverticulosis and appendicitis. The cumulative lifetime use of commercial laxatives has been associated with increased risk of colon cancer.6

Conventional medicine typically defines constipation as fewer than two or three bowel movements a week. But you should really be having one bowel movement a day, and preferably two or three. So if you are having less than one bowel movement per day, you should take steps to increase them. Some of the common causes of constipation include laxative abuse, hypothyroidism, IBD, and ignoring the urge to go. If you consistently ignore the urge to have a bowel movement – for instance, to avoid using a public toilet – eventually you may stop feeling the urge.

Laxatives are NOT a good option as your body may become dependent on them. Laxatives may decrease your colon’s ability to contract and can even eventually damage your large intestine’s nerves, muscles, and other tissues. This applies to both pharmaceutical laxatives, as well as herbs like cascara. Fortunately, although constipation is very common, it is also usually temporary and relatively easy to resolve – without resorting to laxatives. Squatting is one of the best interventions, preventing constipation in four ways:
1.Gravity does most of the work. The weight of the torso presses against the thighs and naturally compresses the colon. Gentle pressure from the diaphragm supplements the force of gravity.
2.The ileocecal valve, between the colon and the small intestine, is properly sealed, allowing the colon to be fully pressurized. The pressure creates a natural laxative effect. In the sitting position the IC valve is unsupported and tends to leak, making it difficult to generate the required pressure.
3.Squatting relaxes the puborectalis muscle, which normally chokes the rectum to maintain continence.
4.Squatting lifts the sigmoid colon to unlock the “kink” at the entrance to the rectum. This kink also helps prevent incontinence, by taking some of the pressure off the puborectalis muscle.

Preventing and treating constipation is very similar to preventing and treating hemorrhoids. Pay attention to your diet, exercise, hydration and stress level. Consume probiotic-rich foods and possibly add a probiotic supplement.

Chia and organic psyllium are excellent sources of soluble and insoluble fiber, aloe vera and magnesium supplements can also be useful tools to speed up your bowel movements.

For a complete discussion of constipation prevention and treatment, refer to my earlier article on this topic.

Are You Ready to Assume the Position?

The scientific benefits of squatting have sparked efforts to design devices that help would-be squatters to return to a more natural pooping position. However, if you’ve been using a sit-down toilet your entire life and haven’t squatted since childhood, squatting may present somewhat of a physical challenge – to say the least!

Various devices have appeared in the marketplace to assist with this problem, such as the Squatty Potty, developed by Robert Edwards, a 37 year-old contractor and designer in Utah who sought a way to help his mother relieve her problems with constipation and hemorrhoids.7 You may wish to check out some of these contraptions on the Internet.8 Squatting involves strength and flexibility that adults tend to lose over time, but children have naturally. These devices – special toilets and stools that get your body into a more “squatty” position – may help you get closer to the ideal.

Another advantage of squatting? Killer thighs. Nothing builds your thighs like a squat. Adding some squats at the gym will undoubtedly help you with your squats in the bathroom!

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The Lies You’re Told about Genetically Engineered Foods

The Atlantici recently reported on the findings of new research into the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically engineered foods.

The authors of the report GMO Myths and Truthsii took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, and came to the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increase yield potential do not support the claims made at all. In fact, the evidence demonstrates that the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown; they simply aren’t true…

The featured article summarizes the evidence presented, which shows that genetically engineered (GE) crops:
•Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GE crops
•Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
•Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
•Do not increase yield potential
•Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
•Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
•Have mixed economic effects
•Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
•Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
•Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
•Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on

The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou, PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He’s a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies; as well as John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GMO testing.

If you want to get an in-depth understanding of genetically engineered foods, I highly recommend reading their reportiii, which covers the ins-and-outs of genetic engineering and the disturbing findings of a large number of scientific studies.

Three Sources of Adverse Health Effects from Genetically Engineered Foods

According to their reportiv, there are three potential sources of adverse health effects from genetically engineered foods:
1.The genetically modified (GM) gene product – for example, the Bt toxin in GM insecticidal crops – may be toxic or allergenic
2.The GM transformation process may produce mutagenic effects, gene regulatory effects, or effects at other levels of biological structure and function that result in new toxins or allergens and/or disturbed nutritional value
3.Changes in farming practices linked to the use of a genetically modified organism (GMO) may result in toxic residues – for example, higher levels of crop contamination with the herbicide Roundup are an inevitable result of using GM Roundup Ready® crops

I’ve already written quite extensively on all three of these. You can locate all previous articles written on genetically engineered foods on my dedicated GMO page. To give you an example of these adverse health effects, when Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bt corn was approved, Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assured everyone that only insects would be hurt by the Bt toxin produced by these plants. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and would not have any impact at all.

They were proven wrong when doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the toxin circulating in the blood stream of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant womenv. Shockingly, the toxin was identified in 93 percent of pregnant women, 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67 percent of non-pregnant women tested.

The Bt crop varieties were first introduced to the market in 1996, and since then, many of the disorders that have subsequently been linked to Bt crops have risen exponentially. The fact that the toxin is flowing through our blood supply and passes through the placenta is a potent indicator that the Bt crop varieties cannot be considered harmless at all. For example, government-sponsored research in Italyvi showed a wide range of immune responses in mice fed Monsanto’s Bt corn. The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were elevated are also found to be higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders as indicated in the following chart.

Elevated interleukins

Associations

IL-6

Rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, various types of cancer (multiple myeloma and prostate cancer)

IL-13

Allergy, allergic rhinitis, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease)

MIP-1b

Autoimmune disease and colitis.

IL-12p70

Inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis

Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GE Corn

Over the years, genetically engineered crops have proven disastrous for animals, although the conventional media has done a remarkable job of keeping such details from the public. Most recently, the Swiss biotech company Syngenta had criminal charges filed against it by a German farmer. Sixty-five of his cows died after he fed them Syngenta’s genetically modified Bt corn. He alleges the company not only knew the corn could be lethal to livestock, but was also covering up deaths that occurred during clinical trials.

According to a recent press release by GM Watchvii, the lawsuit asserts that Syngenta committed a grave criminal offense by deliberately withholding the results of a feeding trial in which four cows died in two days. The deaths prompted the company to halt the test. No health problems or deaths were reported in the control group, which was not fed the genetically engineered Bt 176 corn.

Other health ramifications from the Bt 176 corn have also been found. In April 2004, Spain banned Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn on the grounds that it may confer resistance to the antibiotic ampicillinviii. As of December that same year, the EU decided to prohibit genetically engineered crops with antibiotic resistance genes, and cultivation of Bt 176 crops were subsequently discontinued in the EU in 2007. However, similar varieties, such as Bt 11 sweet cornix are still cultivated for both animal and human consumption…

The Health Effects of GE Feed on Livestock

As reported by Institute of Science in Societyx, mysterious animal deaths are not limited to Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn. Thousands of livestock deaths have been reported across India as a result of grazing on genetically engineered Bt cotton, for example.

“Shepherds’ own observations and post-mortem analysis carried out in the laboratory revealed abnormal liver, enlarged bile ducts and black patches in the intestine. The shepherds said that the sheep became “dull/depressed” after 2-3 days of grazing, started coughing with nasal discharge and developed red lesions in the mouth, became bloated and suffered blackish diarrhea, and sometimes passed red urine.

Death occurred within 5-7 days of grazing. Sheep from young lambs to adults of 1.5-2 years were affected.

One shepherd reported getting diarrhea from eating the meat of an affected sheep. The vets declared that the toxicity could be due to the Bt toxin but this could not be proven as results were confounded by additional pesticides used on the fields. The shepherds were however, advised against letting the sheep graze on any more Bt cotton plants,” Institute of Science in Society writesxi.

The Philippines have also reported cases of villagers suffering health effects from surrounding Bt crop fields. In 2006, the blood of 38 individuals was analyzed and all tested positive for antibodies specific to Cry1Ab, suggesting an immune reaction to the Bt toxinxii.

GE Crops Seriously Threatens Reproductive Health

According to Dr. Don Huber, an expert on the toxicity of genetically engineered plants, a new organism linked to GE crops appears to be the cause of high reproductive failure in livestock. The organism was initially identified by veterinarians around 1998—about two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, which is one of the staple feeds. The vets were puzzled by sudden rates of miscarriages. While sporadic at first, the phenomenon has continued to increase in severity.

In an interview last year, Dr. Huber stated:

“We [recently] received a call from a county extension educator, indicating that he has a dairy that has a 70 percent [spontaneous] abortion rate. You put that on top of 10 to 15 percent of infertility to start with, and you’re not going to have a dairy very long. In fact, a lot of our veterinarians are now becoming very concerned about the prospects for being able to have replacement animals.”

According to a recent report by the European GM Watchxiii, Russian scientists have also jumped into the fray, proving the existence of “very serious health risks for animals given genetically modified (GM) feed.” This announcement was reportedly made during a press conference of the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS). As a result of the findings, the Russian Parliament is considering a new veterinary law, which could potentially include a ban on genetically engineered animal feed.

“According to the authors; a number of pathological changes were discovered in the experimental animals that consumed the GM feed,” GM Watch reports. “A delay in development and growth was detected, plus a distortion of the sex ratio in breeds with an increase in the proportion of females, reducing the number of pups per litter, up to their complete lack in the second and third generation…

According to the President of NAGS Alexander Baranov, the main negative impact of GM feed, which was discovered during the investigation, is a “ban on reproduction,” making it almost impossible to obtain third-generation animals.”The results of our study confirmed the findings of European scientists who pointed out the negative impact on the health of animals from the GM ingredients in feed of animals,” Baranov, said. “We used soybean meal, which is widely used in Russia for fattening livestock. Soya of the line 40-3-2, contained in extracted meal, which is allowed in Russia. It is also for use in human food.” he added.”

Engineering Washington Politics

Why do American politicians and government health, environmental, and agricultural officials seem to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to all these concerns? In short, they’ve sold their souls and the future of this planet. They’re paid to not give a damn…

A recent article in the GMO Journal addresses the profound influence of biotech lobbying on our political processxiv. The article lists a number of facts showing how companies like Monsanto manipulates Washington to pass laws and regulations wholly in their favor. This includes preventing much-needed legislation to label genetically engineered foods. Thousands of ingredients must be listed on food labels, and yet genetically engineered ingredients, which have never been proven safe, do not need to be specified. Certainly, it is NOT because they are proud of their product and convinced it is superior to conventional or organic products. And it’s not because it would be cost-prohibitive.

Again, countless other ingredients and health claims have been added to labels through the years, without sending prices soaring. I’m not sure what it’ll take to make them grow a conscience and realize the dangers they’ve unleashed, and continue to support. As suggested in the GMO Journalxv, it’s time to realize that this industry is based on profit alone, at the expense of everything and everyone else.

“To borrow a phrase from Bill Maher, here’s a New Rule: anytime a GMO advocate gushes about the benefits and safety of genetically engineered products, someone must recite the following statistics from Food & Water Watchxvi:
1.Since 1999, the 50 largest agricultural and food patent-holding companies and two of the largest biotechnology and agrochemical trade associations have spent more than $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures.
2.Lobbying expenditures for food and agricultural biotechnology more than doubled between 1999 and 2009, rising 102.8 percent from $35 million in 1999 to $71 million in 2009.
3.Food and agricultural biotechnology PACs made more than $22 million in campaign contributions since 1999.
4.Food and agriculture biotechnology firms employ more than 300 former congressional and White House staff members as lobbyists.
5.In addition to in-house lobbyists, the food and agricultural biotechnology firms employed more than 100 lobbying firms in 2010.”

How to Protect Your Health

Until genetically engineered foods are labeled, your BEST strategy is to buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, as these do not permit genetically engineered ingredients, or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers.

The majority of the genetically engineered ingredients you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with altered ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

Please Continue Supporting California’s Ballot Initiative to Label GMO’s!

Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what genetically engineered foods are. We now have a great opportunity to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue supporting the California ballot initiative—which will require labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients, and ban the routine industry practice of labeling and marketing such foods as “natural”—in any way you can. The voting takes place in November, so we still have a few more months to go, and we need “all hands on deck,” so to speak, until then.

Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would likely affect ingredients and labeling nationwide, as large companies are not likely going to label their products as genetically engineered when sold in California, but not when sold in other states. Doing so would be a PR disaster.

But it’s an enormous ongoing battle, as the biotech industry will outspend us by 100 to 1, if not more, for their propaganda.

Needless to say, the campaign needs funds. So if you have the ability, I strongly encourage you to make a donation.

They also need more volunteers, because that’s how we’re going to win this battle. The biotech industry may outdo us in funding ability, but we as consumers still outnumber them. Pamm Larry, the California grandmother who created the initiative, is correct when she says we need to reach every single California community—large and small. I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S. states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!
•If you live in California and want to get involved, please contact LabelGMOs.org. They will go through all volunteer requests to put you into a position that is suitable for you, based on your stated interests and location.
•No matter where you live, please help spread the word in your personal networks, on Facebook, and Twitter. For help with the messaging, please see LabelGMOs.org’s “Spread the Word!” page.
•Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort, either through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
•For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The nation’s largest holder of genetically-modified (GM) soybeans, DuPont, is taking the biotechnology industry’s mafia-style intimidation tactics to the next level by hiring its own private paramilitary police force to scare American farmers into continuing to purchase its products in accordance with patent protection laws. As reported by Bloomberg, the biotech giant is planning to hire an additional 35 former police officers within the next year to make surprise visits at farms that use its Monsanto-licensed Roundup Ready soybeans to ensure they are in compliance.

Farmers that have agreed to purchase GM soybean seeds from DuPont are required to abandon the longtime farming tradition of saving seeds every year, and instead purchase new ones for each planting season. Though the legitimacy of this requirement is currently being challenged in federal court (http://www.naturalnews.com), existing patent laws appear to protect companies like DuPont in their pursuit of farmers that try to buck the requirement and save seeds in defiance of its harsh contract provisions.

This is the exact reason, of course, why DuPont has decided to begin patrolling rural America in search of farmers that might be saving seeds in violation of its patent requirements. In Canada, where DuPont also has a considerably large agricultural presence, the company has already established a paramilitary force of 45 mostly ex-cops whose only job is to visit farms; examine their planting and purchase records, walk their fields, and make assessments on whether or not they are in violation. If farmers are found to be in violation, DuPont then pursues legal action against them, and many end up losing their farms and livelihoods.

“Farmers are never going to get cheap access to these genetically engineered varieties,” said Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, to Bloomberg about the industry’s approach to creating and marketing its “Frankenseeds.” “The biotech industry has trumped the legitimate economic interests of the farmer again by raising the ante on intellectual property.”

Monsanto to unveil ‘Roundup Ready 2’ to keep farmers chained to its patents
Benbrook is referring, of course, to a new lineup of so-called “Roundup Ready 2” crops that will supersede existing Roundup Ready crops, many of which are set to lose their patent protections within the next year or two. Many farmers are planning to either continue replanting existing Roundup Ready crops once their patents expire, or ditch GMOs altogether and revert back to natural crops for which there are no restrictive patent requirements.

Organic crops, after all, have been shown in numerous studies, including a 2011 Rodale Institute study, to outperform GMOs both in yields and in overall sustainability. And with a growing public awareness of the presence of GMOs in the food supply, as well as the dangers associated with GMO consumption, it only makes sense that farmers would choose to make the switch back to the organic crops of our ancestors, few of whom suffered from autoimmune disease and the many other chronic illnesses that pervade society today. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033925_organic_farming_crop_yields.html)

Sources for this article include:

http://www.bloomberg.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038218_DuPont_GMOs_farmers.html#ixzz2EASfhs9c

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

(NaturalNews) There has been a firestorm of activity concerning Dr. Oz following his publication of an opinion piece in TIME Magazine calling people who buy local, organic, non-GMO food “snobs” and “elitists” and “snooty.”

To say this rubbed the organic food movement the wrong way would be an understatement. Dr. Oz’s facebook page was hit with a barrage of angry comments denouncing Oz as being “totally out of touch” with real people who want clean, non-GMO food that isn’t sprayed with chemical pesticides.

You can read some of the ongoing comments in my original article that called Dr. Oz a “sellout” for caving in to corporate interests and betraying the healthy food movement.

As part of the backlash against Oz, health pioneer and free speech advocate Gary Null wrote this letter that lays it out. Natural News applauds Gary Null for joining the call for Dr. Oz to retract his attack against organic food consumers and publicly announce his advocacy for organic food and, at minimum, GMO labeling.

Gary Null calls out Oz, asks him to reconsider
Source: http://prn.fm/2012/12/03/gary-null-letter-dr-oz/

Dear Dr. Oz,

You may remember when I invited you to appear in a PBS special, Get Healthy Now, along with other medical panelists, in 1999. We have not spoken since, however, my audience and I are very concerned about the inflammatory comments that you made in a recent issue of TIME Magazine. In effect, you stated that there is no basic difference between non-organic, genetically modified produce and organic varieties and that people are wasting their money buying organic foods. You also suggest that individuals who purchase organic foods are taking part in a “snooty” form of “elitism” and that in effect, it’s the “99%” just trying to act like the “1%”.

This was unexpected as a person with your reputation and resources could easily have found the several hundred to several thousand peer-reviewed articles highlighting the dangers of consuming pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and genetically engineered foods, especially to those people most vulnerable to chemical toxicity or environmentally-induced illnesses, such as children. Also, you could have examined the 40 years of scientific and lay literature on the plight of farm workers who experienced the highest incidence of birth defects and other adverse health consequences as a result of working with toxins in the soil as well as the hundreds of studies confirming the damaging effects of modern commercial meat, poultry and fish production on our health the environment. Additionally, you could have carried out a review of the water and soil conservation literature that shows how the enormous quantities of excess nitrogen released during the production of our commercial, factory farmed foods have contributed to massive fish die-offs and dead zones, the largest of which is at the mouth of the Mississippi river and is larger than the state of New Jersey. And finally, you may want to have a conversation with your wife, who recently used our studios at the Progressive Radio Network along with Jeffrey Smith, the leading critic of GMO foods in the US, to narrate a documentary challenging genetic engineering. Certainly your wife, a dedicated, conscientious and highly educated consumer activist, would be a great resource for you.

My hope is that this information will motivate you to have your staff do their due diligence, research the facts and realize that you are supporting the “1%”- Monsanto, your television network and their sponsors- and that may be a position in need of reevaluation. I will remain optimistic that you will be thoughtful enough to set aside your ego and any special interests that have propagandized you, and that you will seek the truth, speak out and write a rebuttal. I look forward to your communication.

Sincerely,
Gary Null

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Are you being fooled by your labels? 50 percent of people falsely believe ‘all natural’ means no GMOs
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038206_food_labels_GMO_natural_foods.html#ixzz2E4kp7xLT

Navigating the grocery store aisles in search of truly healthy food can be a daunting task, especially if you do not know exactly what to look for. And according to a new survey put out by ViJuvenate.com, as many as half of all shoppers are still confused by the terms “natural” and “all natural,” falsely believing them to imply that a food item is free of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

Based on a survey that included 206 respondents from across the U.S., it was determined that 50 percent of shoppers from varying backgrounds and income levels falsely believe that “natural” foods automatically contain no GMOs. As can be expected, this assumption lies in the obvious fact that GMOs are not natural, and thus would not feasibly be found in foods bearing such a label.

But as we have pointed out in the past, terms like “natural” and “all natural” are very loosely regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which means food producers are free to use them interchangeably on all sorts of food items that are not technically natural. Unlike certified organic products, “natural” products are not required to be GMO-free, nor are they necessarily required to be grown without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

According to the Rodale Institute, the USDA’s guidelines for “natural” foods are ambiguous at best, and the term can be used voluntarily by food companies at their own discretion, with no anchoring to any set of standardized guidelines. And while the USDA website states that all natural claims “should be accompanied by a brief statement which explains what is meant by the term natural,” this requirement is hardly enforced.

At the same time, 43 percent of survey respondents indicated their belief that the word “natural” is highly regulated by the USDA, while 33 percent said they believe “natural” products are grown without synthetic chemicals. Even among those who said they regularly purchase organic food, 41 percent indicated their belief that “natural” foods are GMO-free.

NaturalNews has been trying to get the word out for years about widespread deception in the “natural” foods industry. Not all food products labeled “natural” are bad, of course, but there are a number of popular “natural” brands such as Barbara’s Bakery and Kashi that are deliberately betraying their customers with deceptive advertising, and the public needs to know about it.

Unless a food product specifically states that it does not contain GMOs; has been officially certified by the Non-GMO Project as being GMO-free; or bears an official USDA certified organic seal, you can be sure that it most likely contains GMOs if it was produced in the U.S., even if it also bears a “natural” label.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.vijuvenate.com

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/organic_or_natural

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.fsis.usda.gov

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038206_food_labels_GMO_natural_foods.html#ixzz2E4k9JNj4

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

(NaturalNews) Biotechnology giant Pioneer Hi-Bred, which is owned by chemical giant DuPont, has made a strategic inroad into public education in Hawaii. According to The Garden Island, this key purveyor of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) has developed a partnership with Eleele Elementary School (EES) in Eleele, Hawaii, where the company has apparently been given free reign to subtly indoctrinate the school’s students into GMO dogma while bribing them with so-called “seed” money.

According to the paper, 59 students at EES were recently each given $25 in seed money to open bank accounts at Kaumakani Federal Credit Union as part of a program known as the Children’s Savings Project, which is meant to teach kids how to manage their money as well as how to participate in the banking system. But the program’s collaboration with Pioneer Hi-Bred opens up a whole new can of worms politically, as the concepts of saving money, growing food with seeds, and biotechnology are all being intermingled with one another for what appear to be ulterior motives.

“Through a grant with DuPont Pioneer, every student who opened a savings account received $25 in seed money,” explained Lori Carl, a third-grade teacher at the school, to The Garden Island. “Each month throughout the year, Kaumakani Federal Credit Union will come into their classrooms and because of DuPont Pioneer’s generosity, students will be able to add to their deposits.”

Corporate generosity, a tax-deductible brainwashing ploy
This is all good and well, except for the fact that part of the program involves making students painfully aware of who is funding the whole thing — Pioneer Hi-Bred. The students are being told they will one day be able to attend college because of the “generosity” of Pioneer Hi-Bred, for instance, even though the company very likely receives its own “generous” tax deductions for contributing to the program. And in the process, Pioneer Hi-Bred also gains the convenient opportunity to soften the minds of the next generation towards its GMO technologies.

The setup is quite similar to the Monsanto-backed “Biotechnology Day” that was held at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences earlier this year. Thousands of students, parents, and other patrons that toured the museum that day were given a healthy dose of pro-GMO propaganda in conjunction with the typical “natural sciences” experience, which in a much less subtle fashion conveys the idea that biotechnology is somehow natural.

But as long as there is plenty of cash flow coming in from these “generous” companies, educators like those at EES, museum curators, and others apparently have no problem allowing their students and visitors to be exposed to the corporate agenda of GMOs hidden behind the disguise of charity. And as long as parents continue to sit on the sidelines and allow these wolves in sheep’s clothing to target their children, the madness will never end.

Sources for this article include:

http://thegardenisland.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/036371_biotechnology_museum_Monsanto.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038207_DuPont_students_seed_money.html#ixzz2E4fJS7Zk

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Most anyone interested in natural health will understand that artificial sweeteners are not healthy for you. But nearly everyone of us leads busy lives that limits us from reading all we would like to, especially about things that may not be that much of a problem anyway.

After all, millions of people drink diet sodas every day and they aren’t dropping dead like flies, and the government did approve this sweetener as safe so it can’t be too bad.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

If you believe the above you are in for a sorry surprise. The beautiful aspect of this movie is that in a short ninety minutes you will easily in the relaxed comfort of your own home finally understand why aspartame is a toxic poison and needs to be avoided at all costs.

Personally I own Dr. Robert’s $100 phone book size reference on Aspartame and a number of other books on the topic. However, I have never had the time to read them and understand at a foundational level why aspartame was so toxic. I just knew it was not natural and should be avoided and there were many that had problems with it. This movie allowed me to easily and passively learn the specific reasons and details on why aspartame is best avoided by all humans who are interested in staying healthy.

I had this movie for six months before I had a chance to finally have some free time and pop it in the DVD player to view it. Once I did I had to do some EFT and tapping to forgive myself for not watching this video sooner. It was one of the best DVDs I have seen on health and I highly recommend and endorse this movie.

If you, or someone you know and love, drinks diet soda or consumes aspartame in any form, then this video is an absolute must see for you.

Riveting Industry Case Study of a Food Supply in Crisis

“Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World” reveals one of the most pervasive, insidious forms of corporate negligence since tobacco.

The toxic long-term effects of aspartame are often dismissed as a “hoax” by the sweetener industry; however this new documentary thoroughly unravels something infinitely more alarming than merely a “hoax.”

About 200 times sweeter than the refined sugar it is meant to replace, Aspartame is the artificial sweetener used in such brands as Equal and Nutrasweet. Not long ago, aspartame was on a Pentagon list of biowarfare chemicals submitted to Congress – yet this lethal product remains on grocery shelves and continues to be highly touted in the media.

FDA Approved Biomedical Genocide is Revealed

Aspartame complaints represent 80-85% of food complaints registered with the FDA. So-called “diet” products containing the chemical sweetener aspartame can have multiple neurotoxic, metabolic, allergenic, fetal and carcinogenic effects.

Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, many people still see aspartame as a safe diet aid – even though it has been demonstrated that the use of this product actually causes people to consume more food.

Aspartame is not your friend. In 1991, the National Institutes of Health listed 167 symptoms and reasons to avoid the use of aspartame, but today it remains a multi-million dollar business. Known to erode intelligence and affect short-term memory, the components of this toxic sweetener may lead to a wide variety of ailments including:
Brain tumors
Birth defects
Diseases like lymphoma, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue
Emotional disorders like depression and anxiety attacks
Epilepsy/seizures
Migraines
Numbness
Hearing Loss and ringing in the ears
Blindness, blurred vision and other eye problems
Stomach disorders

Your body does not do well with regular sugar, let alone poisonous synthetic sugars like aspartame. With some resources indicating that aspartame may be found in over 9000 consumable products, this man-made sweetener is becoming increasingly more difficult to avoid.

The American diet may well be one of the reasons 18 million of us suffer from migraines, with aspartame at the top of the list of possible culprits.

Eliminating aspartame from your diet would go a long way toward improving your health. If you aren’t familiar with all the ailments associated with this artificial sweetener, “Sweet Misery” will indeed open your eyes to a biomedical genocide that has been covered up for far too long.

A Personal Journey Uncovers the Medical Horrors of Aspartame

Part documentary, part detective story, Sweet Misery starts with filmmaker and narrator Cori Brackett’s poignant story about how she discovered aspartame’s ill effect on her health. Brackett had a strange cause-and effect experience with the diet cokes she was drinking and quickly found herself disabled and diagnosed with MS.

Her condition quickly progressed to the point that she had double vision, slurred speech, and weak limbs forcing her to use a wheelchair. When she read an article about aspartame being connected to many health problems, Cori immediately quit using products that contain aspartame – like diet soda.

As if by magic, many of her symptoms disappeared. Through dietary changes and a host of therapies, Cori’s condition improved and continues to do so to this day. After spending a decade in a mental fog, unable to do anything – today she is medication and symptom free.

Cori Brackett’s journey takes us across the United States to learn more about the devastating effects of aspartame from an impressive list of medical experts – including renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock. Dr. Blaylock explains how aspartame is a slow neurotoxin that’s particularly harmful for diabetics.

Brackett also consults two respected MDs and a psychologist to describe what aspartame does to the body and the brain. All agreed – aspartame is poison.

Another source of Brackett’s inspiration came from Dr. Betty Martini, the director of the nonprofit group Mission Possible. Martini has been searching the globe for over 12 years for every shred of evidence that exists about the dangers of aspartame – attracting the expertise of principled professionals who have furthered our understanding of aspartame biochemistry to the point where no valid arguments counter claim the absolute conclusion that aspartame is a toxic poison unfit for human consumption.

Credible Evidence Validates Corporate Fraud and Manipulation

In “Sweet Misery” aspartame victims throughout the country are finally given a voice. A close examination of the process for approving aspartame by the FDA leads to examples of how powerful corporations are influencing once trusted institutions. Loaded with compelling interviews, this powerful examination includes:
Archival footage from G.D. Searle, the producer of aspartame, and federal officials to describe the amount of propaganda and “dirty tricks” big business used to push aspartame on the market.
Many heartfelt conversations with some of the aspartame victims. One victim, a middle-aged mother, suffers in a different and more agonizing way than most. This woman is serving a 50-year sentence for allegedly poisoning her late spouse, despite that many of the health signs point to her late husband’s bad reaction to aspartame.
Key dialogue with Arthur Evangelista, a former Food and Drug Administration investigator, who exposes how far major conglomerates went to legalize the use of aspartame in the United States, and the resulting domino effect on its use in other countries
Consumer Attorney Jim Turner’s candid report of his exchange with Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was the CEO of Searle, and, at the same time, part of Reagan’s transition team when the FDA’s board of inquiry was overruled to allow the marketing of Aspartame as a food additive. Until this time aspartame was unanimously rejected by the FDA.

A Must See Movie that Can Literally Save Your Life

For those who have seen Sweet Misery – adjectives like “incredible” are often used to encourage others to see the world’s main experts on aspartame expose and invalidate the propaganda put out by the pharmaceutical industry. And those in the field of medicine who were directly involved with the making of this film maintain, “Anybody who sees this movie will now know the whole story.”

The fact that tons of aspartame is pumped into the world population each year, knowingly and deliberately – especially with the historical and documented record of fraud and misrepresentation expertly defined by this movie – constitutes a conspiracy of the highest order, as well as criminal negligence.

The only rewards of continued use of aspartame are increased profits for the medical and pharmaceutical industries and chemical companies that produce aspartame and treat people suffering from its toxic deadly effects. I could not encourage you more strongly to watch this documentary – your life may well depend on it.

Order “Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World” Today

You can now own the powerful documentary “Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World” for just $17.95. If you are concerned about your health, and the health of your family and friends, this DVD will shed much needed light on the controversy surrounding aspartame. Don’t miss this film – it can significantly change your health and your life! Order your DVD now.

Incredible Deal!
Sweet Misery DVD

List Price:

$26.95

Your Price:

$17.95

You Save:

$9.00 (33%)

I am so confident that you will be happy with your purchase, that I am providing you with my 30-Day Unopened Return Protection! In the event you find something elsewhere, change your mind, or give the item as a gift, you can return it.

In order to get a full refund* (less shipping charges), Sweet Misery DVD must be returned unopened within 30 days of receipt.

Click Here for Full Return Policy Details

PHONE ORDERS

Toll Free: 877-985-2695 | Int’l Customers : 847-252-4355
MON – FRI (7am – 8pm CST) | SAT – SUN (8am – 5pm CST)

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Dr. Oz has finally done it: He has sold out to Big Ag by declaring organic foods to be “elitist,” “snooty” and no better than conventional foods. The man who once urged Americans to eat organic has sold his soul to the criminally-run food giants in a mind-blowing editorial piece recently published in TIME Magazine.look for Dr. Oz to promote GMOs next, as cozying up to Monsanto probably won’t be too far behind. The man is already on the record pushing vaccines, talking about how good they are for “public health” while failing to mention that vaccines admittedly contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and MSG.

He’s also the same guy who was behind the “RealAge” internet scheme that recruited people into a promotional network where they were barraged by drug-pushing ads from Big Pharma. Dr. Oz also owned a huge number of option shares in a vaccine technology company.

In his TIME Magazine editorial piece, Dr. Oz declares organic foods to be “elitist” and appropriate only for “the 1%.” This clever bit of propaganda is designed to try to align conventional foods (i.e. pesticide ridden GMO foods) with the “99%” by making them sound more populist. As if, the “People’s food” is pesticides and GMOs, you see.

Does the man have no shame? Is there any corporate poison he won’t promote to his viewers?
Oz declares organic food is “not democratic”
“Organic food is great, it’s just not very democratic,” Dr. Oz declares, as if choosing organic is somehow an affront to America. “You don’t need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily,” he says. In other words, keep sucking down more GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and chemicals, and you’ll be a good little American food slave. Buying organic is anti-American, you’re being told.

Dr. Oz’s message, of course, has become indistinguishable from that of Monsanto. It’s all the same deception: You don’t need clean, non-GMO food to be healthy. Keep eating all the conventional crap that poisons you with synthetic chemicals, and you’ll be just fine! How about some GMO Corn Flakes for breakfast, even!

Dr. Oz also attacks farmers markets, because he apparently thinks buying local food is a silly waste of time. “Nutritionally speaking, there is little difference between the farmer’s-market bounty and the humble brick from the freezer case,” he somehow says with a straight face. Oh really? There’s no difference between fresh, locally-grown food versus frozen, corporate-produced food trucked in from a thousand miles away? The ignorance of this guy is just flat-out stunning. Does he know nothing about where food comes from and how it is produced?
Dr. Oz: Eat more feedlot beef!
In an even more grotesque sellout to factory foods, Dr. Oz pushes feedlot beef, saying, “Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say, grass-fed beef and the feedlot variety.”

This is just a flat-out lie, of course. There’s a huge difference nutritionally between free-range beef and feedlot beef. Feedlot beef, for starters, is raised on genetically modified corn containing BT toxin, while free-range beef has been consistently found to be higher in omega-3 fatty acids. And that doesn’t even cover the ethical and environmental differences. In promoting feedlot beef, Dr. Oz positions himself squarely against the environment while also pushing animal cruelty.
Dr Oz has chosen a side, and it’s the side of corporate biotech chemical agriculture
Above all, with this piece Dr. Oz has now clearly chosen a side in the realm of food. Betraying his own viewers and readers, he has chosen to jump in bed with Big Ag, Monsanto, chemical pesticide producers, processed food companies and feedlot cattle factories.

As is now self-evident, Dr. Oz has aligned himself AGAINST everything the organic movement stands for: Honest food, local food, free-range meat, avoidance of GMOs, avoidance of synthetic chemicals and so on. His TIME Magazine piece is an insult to all the good people in America who simply want honest food produced without cruelty or chemicals. Dr. Oz calls those people “snooty” and “elitists.”

And what does that make him? Oh, now he’s the leader of the “populist poison foods movement” that tries to convince the American masses to eat more GMO, more pesticides, more store-bought foods and more feedlot beef, chicken and pork. The food industry must love this guy! (Watch for new sponsorship contracts to fill his pockets with cash right around the corner…)
Dr. Oz makes himself irrelevant to the discussion on food
By joining forces with Monsanto, Bayer and Big Ag, Dr. Oz has now taken a position squarely against organic foods, against farmer’s markets, against free-range animals and against non-GMO.

It begs the question: Why pay any attention to Dr. Oz at all anymore? He’s just parroting the same corporate lies and deceptions we can just as easily get from the New York Times, or the USDA, or Monsanto itself. By attacking organics, Dr. Oz has just made himself irrelevant to thinking people everywhere.

He’s got nothing to say anymore, and more importantly Dr. Oz no longer has any credibility whatsoever. He’s just committed professional suicide. I can’t wait to hear what Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumers Association has to say about Dr. Oz’s comments.

Because Oz has sold out to the GMO-producing, chemical-producing, animal cruelty feedlot sectors of the corrupt food industry, watch for the mainstream media to keep propping up Dr. Oz and attempt to make him a puppet of “authority” on all things related to food and health. Heck, why not make the guy Surgeon General and enact a law population control law that mandates the consumption of feedlot Soylent Green?

Dr. Oz’s purported audience is a sham, by the way. Natural News has a far larger audience than Dr. Oz, especially when you count the cumulative IQ points of our respective followers. While the low-IQ zombified consumers may still think Dr. Oz has something resembling credibility, all the in-the-know organic food consumers and activists are fully aware of who is on their side and who isn’t. Dr. Oz clearly isn’t. His audience exists only as a fabrication of persistent corporate promotion.

Without the corporate backing, Dr. Oz is a nobody.

Spread the word, folks: Dr. Oz is a sellout. Share this story and warn your friends.

Story photo by David Berkowitz
Official response from the Cornucopia Institute
Here’s the response from Cornucopia on the TIME Magazine “sellout” piece by Dr. Oz.

The original TIME cover story was published on 12/3/2012 and is entitled “What to Eat Now” by Dr. Mehmet Oz. It’s available at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2129811,00.html

The full story is available to Time subscribers only. Excerpts from the article, with Cornucopia’s responses:

Dr. Oz: “Nutritionally speaking, there is little difference between the farmer’s-market bounty and the humble brick from the freezer case.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz compares conventional and organic foods throughout the article by focusing exclusively on the differences between a handful of nutrients. This is exactly what the agrochemical and conventional farming industries, and their front group, the Alliance for Food and Farming, would like the American public to focus on. Just two months ago, Dr. Oz told the viewers of his syndicated television show to buy organic vegetables to avoid pesticide residues. Now, in his copywritten Time story, the word “pesticide” or “agricultural chemical” is never mentioned.

Dr. Oz: “Dispelling these myths — that boutique foods are good, supermarket foods are suspect and you have to spend a lot to eat well — is critical to improving our nation’s health. Organic food is great, it’s just not very democratic.”

Cornucopia response: What can be more democratic than consumers voting with their food dollars to support organic farmers who protect our environment and our health by eschewing harmful and polluting agrochemicals?

Even if there were no direct benefit to our families (plenty of published scientific research indicates there is), when we choose organic food we are protecting farmers and farmworkers from exposure to toxic chemicals. Many farmers, farmworkers and their children have elevated levels of certain cancers and chronic diseases.

Dr. Oz: “The rise of foodie culture over the past decade has venerated all things small-batch, local-farm and organic — all with premium price tags. But let’s be clear: you don’t need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily.”

Cornucopia response: Organic foods are not for the “1%.” Organic foods are for everybody, and are accessible and affordable to most families who prioritize their expenses. Many organic consumers forgo other “luxuries,” whether it be iPhones, vacations, new cars — all of which are advertised in the same Time magazine where Dr. Oz’s article appears — in order to be able to afford organic foods to protect their family’s health. These decisions should be applauded, not turned into a character flaw.

Dr. Oz: “After several years of research and experience, I have come to an encouraging conclusion: the American food supply is abundant, nutritionally sound, affordable and, with a few simple considerations, comparable to the most elite organic diets. Save the cash; the 99% diet can be good for you.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz’s research apparently missed the countless studies showing that organic foods are nutritionally superior, lower in pesticide residues, lower in antibiotic-resistant pathogen contamination, etc. In addition to being published in peer-reviewed journals, testing by independent sources such as Consumer Reports (Consumer Union) and government agencies such as the USDA corroborate these findings.

Dr. Oz: “I consider it a public-health service to the consumer who has to feed a family of five or the person who wants to make all the right choices and instead is alienated and dejected because the marketing of healthy foods too often blurs into elitism, with all the expense and culinary affectation that implies.”

Cornucopia response: The added expense of buying organic foods is an investment in health. In the interest of public health, Dr. Oz should have mentioned the pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, synthetic preservatives, artificial dyes and sweeteners, and other harmful inputs used in conventional farming and food production. Comparing nutrients is just one aspect of a cost-benefit analysis. Dr. Oz owes his loyal fans, who respect his judgment, a more thoughtful and nuanced analysis.

Dr. Oz: “There’s no question that free-range chickens and grass-fed, pasture-dwelling cows lead happier — if not appreciably longer — lives than animals raised on factory farms. They are also kept free of hormones and antibiotics and are less likely to carry communicable bacteria like E. coli, which are common on crowded feedlots. If these things are important to you and you have the money to spend, then by all means opt for pricier organic meats.”

Cornucopia response: Yes, Dr. Oz, avoiding hormones and antibiotics is important to us, and it should be to you, too.

However, just because a package says “free range” or “grass-fed” does not mean it is certified organic, and therefore is not certified to be produced without some of the most dangerous and objectionable drugs. Concerned consumers should go out of their way to seek out the organic seal.

Dr. Oz: “But for the most part, it’s O.K. to skip the meat boutiques and the high-end butchers. Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say, grass-fed beef and the feedlot variety.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz’s statement is not backed by scientific data, which consistently shows lower levels of cholesterol and saturated fat and higher levels of beneficial omega-3 fats and vitamins in grass-fed beef compared with feedlot beef.

Dr. Oz: “Let’s also take a moment to celebrate the tuna-salad sandwich, which is to lunch what the ’57 Chevy is to cars–basic and brilliant.”

Cornucopia response: It is unconscionable that Dr. Oz touts the nutritional benefits of canned tuna, without mentioning the FDA and EPA warnings concerning methylmercury contamination. The FDA and EPA recommend that women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children limit their consumption of canned light tuna to no more than 12 ounces per week, and their consumption of canned albacore tuna to no more than 6 ounces per week.

Dr. Oz: “Preserves and jams without added sugar can be great sources of dietary fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C and potassium.”

Cornucopia response: Preserves and jams without added sugar often contain added artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame, which has been linked in studies to cancer and neurological damage. Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are banned in organic products.

Dr. Oz: “We know more about the connection between food and health than ever before — down to the molecular level, actually. This has provided us the curious luxury of being fussy, even snooty, about what we eat, considering some foods, well, below our station. That’s silly. Food isn’t about cachet. It’s about nourishment, pleasure and the profound well-being that comes from the way meals draw us together.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz spends the entire article attempting to convince the American public that there are few, if any, differences between conventional and organic foods. Yet in his closing paragraphs he tacitly acknowledges that we “know more about … food and health than ever before – down to the molecular level.” This contradicts his earlier statements that there are no differences.

Most people who buy organic foods do so not because they are “snooty,” as Dr. Oz suggests, but because they seek to protect themselves and their families from the widely recognized harmful effects of pesticides and other agrichemicals.

Source:

Organic: Food Justice for the 99%

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038157_Dr_Oz_organic_food_sellout.html#ixzz2DtOH3eAJ

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.