Rather Be Healthy

The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity

The GMO debate is over. There is no longer any legitimate, scientific defense of growing GM crops for human consumption. The only people still clinging to the outmoded myth that “GMOs are safe” are scientific mercenaries with financial ties to Monsanto and the biotech industry.

GMOs are an anti-human technology. They threaten the continuation of life on our planet. They are a far worse threat than terrorism, or even the threat of nuclear war.

As a shocking new study has graphically shown, GMOs are the new thalidomide. When rats eat GM corn, they develop horrifying tumors. Seventy percent of females die prematurely, and virtually all of them suffer severe organ damage from consuming GMO. These are the scientific conclusions of the first truly “long-term” study ever conducted on GMO consumption in animals, and the findings are absolutely horrifying. (See pictures of rats with tumors, below.)

What this reveals is that genetic engineering turns FOOD into POISON.

Remember thalidomide? Babies being born with no arms and other heart-breaking deformities? Thalidomide was pushed as “scientific” and “FDA approved.” The same lies are now being told about GMO: they’re safe. They’re nutritious. They will feed the world!

But the real science now coming out tells a different picture: GMOs may be creating an entire generation of cancer victims who have a frighteningly heightened risk of growing massive mammary gland tumors caused by the consumption of GM foods. We are witnessing what may turn out to be the worst and most costly blunder in the history of western science: the mass poisoning of billions of people with a toxic food crop that was never properly tested in the first place.

Remember: GMOs are an anti-human technology. And those who promote them are, by definition, enemies of humankind.

GMOs are unfit for human consumption
The evidence keeps emerging, day after day, that GMOs are absolutely and without question unfit for human consumption. France has already launched an investigation that may result in the nation banning GM corn imports. It’s already illegal to grow genetically modified crops in France, but the nation still allows GMO imports, meaning France still allows its citizens to be poisoned by imported GM corn grown in America.

The GMO industry, not surprisingly, doesn’t want any independent research conducted on GMOs. They don’t want long-term feeding trials, and they most certainly do not want studies conducted by scientists they can’t control with financial ties.

What they want is to hide GMOs in products by making sure they’re not listed on the labels. Hence the biotech industry’s opposition to Proposition 37 (www.CArighttoknow.org).

The tactics of the biotech industry are:

• HIDE genetically modified ingredients in foods
• FALSIFY the research to claim GMOs are safe
• MANIPULATE the scientific debate by bribing scientists
• DENY DENY DENY just like Big Tobacco, DDT, thalidomide, Agent Orange and everything else that’s been killing us over the last century

Monsanto is now the No. 1 most hated corporation in America. The company’s nickname is MonSatan. It is the destructive force behind the lobbying of the USDA, FDA, scientists and politicians that have all betrayed the American people and given in to genetically modified seeds.

These seeds, some of which grow their own toxic pesticides right inside the grain, are a form of chemical brutality against children and adults. This is “child abuse” at its worst. It’s an abuse of all humans. It is the most serious crime ever committed against nature and all of humankind.

Science for sale
That’s what you get with payola science… science “for sale” to wealthy corporations. Nearly all the studies that somehow conclude GMO are safe were paid for by the biotech industry. Every one of those studies is unreliable and most likely fraudulent. Every scientist that conducts “research” for Monsanto is almost certainly a sellout at minimum… and more likely a jackal operative working for an industry of death.

Corporate science is fraudulent science. When enough money is at stake, scientists can be bought off to even declare smoking cigarettes to be safe. And they did, throughout the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s. Some of those very same scientists are now working for the Monsantos of the world, peddling their scientific fraud to the highest bidder (which always happens to be a wealthy corporation).

There is no poison these scientists won’t promote as safe — even “good for you!” There is no limit to their evil. There are no ethics that guide their actions.

GMO-promoting scientists are the most despicable humanoid creatures to have ever walked the surface of this planet. To call them “human” is an insult to humanity. They are ANTI-human. They are demonic. They are forces of evil that walk among the rest of us, parading as authorities when in their hearts and souls they are actually corporate cowards and traitors to humankind. To pad their own pockets, they would put at risk the very future of sustainable life on our planet… and they do it consciously, insidiously. They feed on death, destruction, suffering and pain. They align with the biotech industry precisely because they know that no other industry is as steeped in pure evil as the biotech industry. GMO pushers will lie, cheat, steal, falsify and even mass-murder as many people as it takes to further their agenda of total global domination over the entire food supply… at ANY cost.

This is war at the genetic level. And this kind of war makes bullets, bombs and nukes look downright tame by comparison. Because the GMO war is based on self-replicating genetic pollution which has already been released into the environment; into the food supply; and into your body.

The hundreds of millions of consumers who eat GMO are being murdered right now, with every meal they consume… and they don’t even know it. GMO-pimping scientists are laughing at all the death they’re causing. They enjoy tricking people and watching them die because it makes their sick minds feel more powerful. These were the geeks in school who were bullied by the jocks. But now, with the power of genetic manipulation at their fingertips, they can invoke their hatred against all humankind and “bully” the entire world with hidden poisons in the food. That makes them smile. It’s the ultimate revenge against a world that mistreated them in their youth. Death to everyone!

Society must respond in defense of life on Earth
The sheer brutality of what the GMO industry has committed against us humanity screams out for a decisive response. It is impossible to overreact to this. No collective response goes too far when dealing with an industry that quite literally threatens the very basis of life on our planet.

To march government SWAT teams into the corporate headquarters of all GMO seed companies and shut down all operations at gunpoint would be a mild reaction — and fully justified. To indict all biotech CEOs, scientists, employees and P.R. flacks and charge them with conspiring to commit crimes against humanity would be a small but important step in protecting our collective futures. To disband all these corporations by government order have their assets seized and sold off to help fund reparations to the people they have harmed is but a tiny step needed in the defense of life.

The truth is that humanity will never be safe until GMO seed pushers and manufacturers are behind bars, locked away from society and denied the ability to ever threaten humanity again.

What the Nuremberg trials did to IG Farben and other Nazi war crimes corporations, our own government must now do to Monsanto and the biotech industry.

It is time for decisive intervention. Monsanto must be stopped by the will of the People. The mass poisoning of our families and children by an evil, destructive corporation that seeks to dominate the world food supply must be halted.

The GMO debate is over. The horrors are now being revealed. The truth can no longer be hidden, and the reaction from the public cannot be stopped.

Prediction: Activist attacks on GM seeds and the criminals who promote them
The era of GMO deception is history. A food revolution is upon us. And if governments will not halt the mass poisoning of our world by evil corporations, I have no doubt that the People will, by themselves, eventually invoke other necessary methods of halting this great evil.

I predict a future where — and for the record I DO NOT encourage this — shipments of GM seeds to farmers are raided and destroyed by activists. I predict Monsanto employees being publicly named and shamed on websites. I predict — but DO NOT CONDONE — scientists who conduct research for Monsanto being threatened, intimidated and even physically attacked. Again, for the record, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY condone such behavior, but I predict it will emerge as an inevitable reaction to the unfathomable evil being committed by the GMO industry and all its co-conspirators. The “Army of the 12 monkeys” may become reality. (See the sci-fi movie “12 monkeys” starring Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis.)

What we are fighting for here is the protection of our species. We are fighting for the sanctity of life on our planet. Those who threaten that life must be stopped from continuing to harm us. This evil must be put back in its box and prevented from ever threatening us again.

Even Congress is starting to state the obvious on how evil Monsanto really is. Just yesterday, Congressman Dennis Kucinich demanded GMO labeling in a powerful speech. Watch that at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_YvtbSSqg

Also, watch this video of the French scientists discussing how GMOs and Roundup caused grotesque cancer tumors to grow in mice:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037262_GMO_Monsanto_debate.html#ixzz2HZ1SX4bp

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

What’s in your salt shaker? The fascinating varieties of salt and how to use them

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038617_table_salt_coarse_kosher.html#ixzz2HYyQZymU

Let’s get right to the point — most people love salt. Perfecting how to eat salt is an art most have not yet discovered. Not all salts are equal. Alton Brown of Food Network Fame explains that all salt is sea salt from one time or another, even if it’s found in the Himalayas.

Many natural salts have gained gourmet status and are recommended for their rich mineral content providing numerous health benefits. Choosing a salt depends on individual taste preferences and upon the application for which it will be used. So without further ado — I give you salt.

Kosher salt versus table salt
Table salt is the most common salt found in most kitchens. It’s a finely ground, refined form of rock salt, slightly bitter tasting from additives used to keep it from clumping. Most minerals are removed during processing. Some forms of table salt are artificially treated with iodine.

Kosher salt has a milder, less pungent taste than table salt and is the choice of many chefs. The flavor disperses quickly as it dissolves fast. The coarse crystals are excellent for curing meats.

Coarse salt

Himalayan pink salt: A star among salts, Himalayan salt is typical of coarse salts, with large-grained crystals best used in a salt grinder. Coarse salts are not as moisture sensitive as other types, allowing them to be stored for long periods. Himalayan pink salt is unrefined and high in minerals, making it a healthful choice. Useful for both seasoning or as a finishing salt.

Seasoning salt versus finishing salt
Brown explains that seasoning salt draws out and enhances the flavor of food during cooking. Finishing salt is sprinkled just before eating, “…adding a burst of salty goodness and crunchy texture at the very end.”

Seasoning salts

Kala Namak: Unrefined, authentic Indian salt with a strong sulfuric flavor. Preferred by vegan chefs for adding an egg-like flavor to dishes.

Hawaiian Alaea sea salt: Traditional red-colored salt used for preserving and seasoning foods. Enriched with Alae, a volcanic baked red clay, which adds iron oxide for color and flavor. Earthy and mellow tasting and used in authentic Hawaiian dishes.

French sea salt: Hand harvested from the Atlantic coast of France, this salt is unrefined and high in minerals, especially natural iodine. A perfect replacement for the chemical taste of iodized salt. The salt has a moist texture and is lower in sodium chloride than other salts.

Finishing salts

Italian sea salt: From the coast of Sicily, this unrefined salt is rich in magnesium, iodine, fluorine, potassium and sodium chloride. Delicate and flavorful.

Hawaiian Hiwa Kai or Black sea salt: Black in color due to the addition of activated charcoal, which enhances the flavor. The charcoal is known for its ability to aid a detox as well as neutralize stomach acids, helping to prevent acid reflux.

Celtic sea salt or Grey salt: Grey salt, collected by hand on the Brittany coast in France, is considered one of the best salts by many in the culinary world. The unrefined salt is loaded with minerals, comes in coarse, fine or extra fine grind and provides a rich, luscious flavor.

Fleur de sel: Considered the caviar of salts, this specialty salt is hand harvested from the Guerande region salt ponds in France. The salt blooms like a flower on the water’s surface under “just right” weather conditions. It’s only harvested once a year. Said to melt slowly on the tongue with a lingering, earthy flavor.

Sprinkling salt
Most restaurant and professional chefs are taught to salt a dish by using the three-fingered pinch method. Although this seems like a lot of salt the first time you take a pinch, in reality it’s the equivalent of 1/8 to 1/4 tsp. So salt with style using this method and stay in control to prevent over-salting a dish. What’s in your salt cellar?

Sources for this article include:

http://www.thekitchn.com/cooks-talk-a-threefingered-pin-90144
http://www.thekitchn.com/salt-101-alton-brown-and-the-p-104293
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCOB-n9V93A
http://www.realsimple.com
http://homecooking.about.com/od/spices/a/saltvarieties.htm
http://www.saltworks.us/salt_info/si_gourmet_reference.asp

About the author:
READ MORE OF JEAN (JB) BARDOT’S ARTICLES AT THE FOLLOWING LINKS:
Natural News: http://www.naturalnews.com/Author1686.html
The Best Years in Life:
http://www.tbyil.com/JB_Bardot_Articles.htm
AlignLife:
http://alignlife.com/author/bardotj/
Real Health Talk http://www.realhealthtalk.com/JB_Bardot_Published_Articles.html

JB Bardot is an herbalist and a classical homeopath, and has a post graduate degree in holistic nutrition. Bardot cares for both people and animals, using alternative approaches to health care and lifestyle. She writes about wellness, green living, alternative medicine, holistic nutrition, homeopathy, herbs and naturopathic medicine. You can find her on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001364941208&ref=tn_tnmn or on Twitter at jbbardot23 or https://twitter.com/jbbardot23

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038617_table_salt_coarse_kosher.html#ixzz2HYyDPouN

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

The Top 5 Healthiest Condiments (and the WORST)

by Mike Geary, Certified Nutrition Specialist, Certified Personal Trainer
Author of best sellers: The Truth About Six Pack Abs &
The Top 101 Foods that FIGHT Aging

I’m sure you can think of all sorts of condiments that are obviously NOT healthy…

What about Mayo? Sorry…

With processed refined soybean oil as the main ingredient in most mayos, there’s NOTHING healthy about mayonnaise. It causes internal inflammation and harms your omega-6 to omega-3 balance with excess omega-6 fats. Tartar sauce has the same issues as mayo. If you can find a mayo made with 100% olive oil instead of soybean oil, this would actually be a healthy choice.

Ketchup? Not quite…

Yes, ketchup is made from tomatoes so it does contain the beneficial nutrient lycopene. Unfortunately ketchup has a high % of sugar, and most brands are made with nasty high fructose corn syrup. Not good. Hey, I’m a ketchup lover myself, but I just try to keep the quantity small to minimize the sugar intake.

Barbeque Sauce? Nope…

BBQ sauce is actually worse than ketchup because it has higher levels of sugar or HFCS and lower levels of actual tomato. Strike 3 with BBQ sauce.

Salad Dressing? Not most store brands…

As you know from this salad dressing article of mine, there’s not much healthy about most store bought salad dressings…most contain HFCS and soybean oil or unhealthy canola oil as the main ingredients.

Most “fat-free” salad dressings are simply loaded with extra sugar. Plus, remember that you need a good fat source to go with your salad to help absorb the vitamins and minerals in your veggies, so fat-free dressing is not a good option. Even most salad dressing brands that claim to be “made with olive oil” only have small amounts of actual olive oil, while unhealthy soybean or canola oils are main oils used. Instead, follow my healthy salad dressing recipe if you want a lean healthy body.

So, what are the top 5 healthiest condiments?

Below, I give you my top 5 picks for the healthiest condiments for a lean healthy body. Sure, there might be a few others not on this list that are also healthy, but these are my top 5 picks:

1. Mustard

That’s right… mustard is absolutely one of the healthiest condiments! First, it has no added sugar. Also, mustard seed itself is a source of powerful antioxidants. In addition to the antioxidants in the mustard seed, most yellow mustards also contain turmeric (one of the healthiest anti-cancer spices) and paprika, which both contain powerful antioxidants as well!

2. Guacamole

I know, I know… when do I ever stop talking about avocados and guacamole. Sorry, it’s one of my favorite foods, and I eat avocados or guac just about every single day. At this point, I don’t think I need to explain why Gauc is healthy, as I think everybody knows this by now… but a quick recap: lots of healthy fats (that satisfy your appetite and regulate hormone balance), lots of fiber, and plenty of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants.

And creamy guac just makes anything taste better! I put it on eggs, on burgers, on chicken or fish, or just eat it with veggie sticks. If you buy pre-made guac from the store, just be sure to check the ingredients and make sure it doesn’t have added trans fats or other artificial ingredients. But it’s so simple and fast to make fresh guac, I don’t know why anybody would buy pre-made guac.

3. Salsa

Although ketchup was on the unhealthy list due to the sugar content, salsa makes the super healthy list as it almost never has added sugars if you get a good brand. Salsa is mostly just vegetables so it’s hard to go wrong. I like it on my morning eggs for variety sometimes. I also like to mix salsa half and half with guac for a delicious party treat!

And if you’re a ketchup lover and want to reduce your sugar intake, just try salsa instead for a much healthier option. Trust me… salsa on a burger is just as delicious as ketchup on a burger.

Just remember that the corn chips that people generally cram down their throats with salsa are NOT even close to healthy. Corn chips are almost always fried in a heavily refined omega-6 oil such as corn or soy oil, and are inflammatory. Plus, most corn used for corn chips is genetically modified. Organic corn chips are a small step in the right direction (this ensures it’s not GMO corn), but I’d still try to keep the quantity small if you’re going to eat corn chips with salsa.

4. Hummus

Hummus is mostly just chickpeas, tahini, garlic, lemon, and olive oil, and is easily one of the healthiest condiments or as a separate snack by itself.

The main thing to look for when buying a good hummus is to make sure it’s made with olive oil and NOT soybean or canola oil. Unfortunately most brands use cheap soy or canola oil, but if you’re a label reader, it’s easy to find a brand that uses solely olive oil.

One of my favorite snacks is just veggie sticks with hummus. However, hummus is also a delicious condiment to go with sandwiches, on top of meat dishes, etc.

5. Pesto

Pesto is generally a mashed mix of garlic, pine nuts, basil, olive oil, and grated cheese. It’s a great source of healthy fats and also powerful antioxidants, mostly from the garlic and basil, but to some extent from the pine nuts and olive oil too.

Pesto goes incredibly well with sandwiches, on meat dishes, or surprisingly, even on eggs.

There’s one more condiment we didn’t cover yet that you might be wondering about…

What about hot sauce? Actually, hot sauce is fairly healthy. Most hot sauces don’t have added sugars. And the hot peppers are actually good for you too and could even cause a slight and temporary metabolism increase. The only drawback to most hot sauces is a moderately high sodium content. But unless you go nuts with loads of hot sauce on every meal, the sodium content in hot sauce will not be an issue.

So now that you know 5 of the healthiest condiments, don’t be afraid to indulge next time you need one of these tasty additions to your meal.

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

Junk food and sugary beverages contribute to skyrocketing rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, and even strokes — and not just among adults1.

Food and beverage companies spend around $2 billion a year promoting unhealthy foods to kids2, and while ultimately it’s the parents’ responsibility to provide their children healthy foods and drinks, celebrity endorsements can make this much more difficult than it should be.

The latest example is that of Beyonce, who just signed a $50 million deal with Pepsi as its global brand ambassador.

PHOTO CREDIT: JUST ONE EYE

Another far more bizarre example of unhealthy celebrity endorsements is that of the Olsen twins, who recently released a very limited edition collection of handbags, retailing for an absurd $55,000 per bag. Besides the outrageous price tag, the most shocking thing about these bags is that they’re decorated with prescription pills, which has raised more than a few eyebrows.

As reported by Toofab.com3:

“Making the artistic decision even more odd is the knowledge that Mary-Kate Olsen’s friend, Heath Ledger, died of an accidental overdose of prescription drugs including pain killers, sleeping pills and anti-anxiety medication.”

Giving Prescription Drugs a Glam Makeover

It’s hard to tell what the underlying message of the pill-encrusted bags is intended to be, but it certainly comes across as an attempt to glamorize the use of prescription drugs — especially among those who can actually afford both the drugs and the bags.

While I’ve not heard of any links between the Olsen twins and Big Pharma, these kinds of fashion statements may be among the most effective forms of advertising of all, especially among the younger crowd…

As described in the 1928 book “Propaganda” by Edward Bernays, the father of PR, the public relations business is less about selling things than about creating the conditions for things to sell themselves. And what better way to increase social acceptance of drugs — and hence their use — than having them featured on exclusive fashion items? I bet CEO’s at pharmaceutical companies everywhere are smiling from ear to ear at the thought of receiving such fantastic advertising for their wares… It’s the kind of marketing that is truly priceless.

The Burdens of a Role Model

Beyonce’s new Pepsi deal has also garnered a lot of criticism, which can be seen as a sign that the tide is finally starting to change. It would seem people are getting sick and tired of role models who don’t, well, act like role models. Reporting on the singer’s controversial decision to attach her face and talent to Pepsi, Frugivoremag.com writes4:

“Reactions have been mixed. Fans view the campaign as a momentous accomplishment for the singer, while others chide Beyoncé for supporting a sugary-soda brand which is a health affront to many American consumers. They even accuse the diva of hypocrisy for appearing in Michelle Obama’s ‘Let’s Move’ initiative to encourage good health among children and later, shelling Pepsi cans.

One commenter said: ‘Parkinson’s, heart disease, obesity, stroke and Alzheimer’s tincture. Another celebrity getting paid to keep America on their mainline like heroine. I respectfully decline supporting this travesty.’ Another writes: ‘With diabetes and other ailments at an all time high, one would wonder why celebrities who claim to care so much about their fans would endorse soda. Almighty dollar.'”

Beyonce has defended her decision stating that the Pepsi brand “embraces creativity and understands that artists evolve” and that “as a businesswoman,” this allows her to “work with a lifestyle brand with no compromise and without sacrificing my creativity.” Be that as it may, no company on earth pays $50 million for a “brand ambassador” unless they’re quite certain their chosen endorser will have a positive effect on their bottom line. In this case, that means more people chugging more Pepsi. Some may argue that celebrities should not be held responsible for the bad choices their fans make, but if it’s a bad choice, why attach your name and reputation to it?

Big Pharma has become one of the most powerful influences in the US, if not the world, because of effective marketing. Ditto for the junk food and soda industries. In short, advertising works, and with the right celebrity endorsement, you could sell ice to an Eskimo… The Center for Science in the Public Interest is now urging Beyonce to reconsider her collaboration with Pepsi. In a letter to the star, CSPI writes5:

“More than any other category of food or beverage, sugary drinks are associated with increased risk of weight gain and obesity, which increase the risk of diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease… In fact, each additional sugary drink consumed per day increases the likelihood of a child becoming obese by 60 percent. Each soda consumed per day increases the risk of heart disease in men by 19 percent. Drinking one or two sugary drinks per day increases one’s risk for type 2 diabetes by 25 percent…

You occupy a unique position in the cultural life of this country and are an inspiring role model for millions of young people. Your image is one of success, health, talent, fitness and glamour. But by lending your name and image to PepsiCo, you are associating those positive attributes with a product that is quite literally sickening Americans.”

Again, while artists want to be respected for their creative and artistic visions, it sure would be nice if more of them would embrace the responsibilities (unwanted as they may be) that come with being a high-profile personality and role model, especially if they have a younger audience, like Beyonce and the Olsen twins do…

Is Beyonce Part of Pepsi’s Plan to Cash in on Health-Conscious Consumers?

Pepsi has repeatedly tried to weasel their way into the pantries of health-conscious consumers, so in that respect, the choice of Beyonce fits the bill in more ways than one. Remember Pepsi Raw, which was introduced in the UK in 2008? In the US, a similar product was released under the name Pepsi Natural. This was just one of many of the soda company’s attempts at cashing in on the rise in popularity of all things natural and healthy. The attempt flopped, and the product was removed from the market just two years after its release.

Last year, Pepsi Next was released. Pepsi Next claims to have 60 percent less sugar without sacrificing taste, but the secret to keeping its sweet taste comes from the use of not only high fructose corn syrup, but also THREE artificial sweeteners: aspartame, acesulfame potassium, and sucralose, all of which are linked to several dozen serious health risks6. It’s all part of the company’s plan to beef up their share of profits from the “healthy foods” category, with reports noting they hope to boost their nutrition business from $10 billion to $30 billion by 20207.

This is a classic corporate move. Find something that people are interested in and sell it to them even if it is deceptive and worsens their health. Most of these companies have absolutely no interest in protecting or promoting good health; they are focused on their bottom line profits — and star power like Beyonce, and many others, help them do just that.

Beware: It Starts Early — Your Child’s Taste Preferences are Created by Age 3!

Did you know that when you feed preschool-aged children junk foods high in sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, it has a lasting impact on their taste preferences? Think about it — how many kids and teens do you know that don’t like soda and sweet foods? Part of the reason for this limited taste preference is the fact that their taste buds are literally trained within the very first years of life (in some cases from birth, as infant formula can contain loads of sugar!).

In a recent study8, all of the children tested showed preferences for junk foods, and all (even those who were just 3 years old!) were able to recognize some soda, fast food, and junk food brands. The researchers concluded what you probably already suspect: kids who were exposed to junk food, soda and fast food, via advertising (and also because their parents fed them these foods), learned to recognize and prefer these foods over healthier choices.

This does have an impact on their health, as nutrients from quality foods are critical in helping your child reach his or her fullest potential.

Another study9 from British researchers revealed that kids who ate a predominantly processed food diet at age 3 had lower IQ scores at age 8.5. For each measured increase in processed foods, participants had a 1.67-point decrease in IQ. As you might suspect, the opposite also held true, with those eating healthier diets experiencing higher IQ levels. For each measured increase in dietary score, which meant the child was eating more fruits and vegetables for instance, there was a 1.2-point increase in IQ.

The reality is, the best time to shape your kids’ dietary habits is while they’re still young. This means starting from birth with breast milk and then transitioning to solid foods that have valuable nutrients, like egg yolk, avocado and sweet potatoes. (You can easily cross any form of grain-based infant cereal off of this list.)

From there, ideally you will feed your child healthy foods that your family is also eating — grass-fed meats, organic veggies, vegetable juice, raw dairy and nuts, and so on. These are the foods your child will thrive on, and it’s important they learn what real, healthy food is right from the get-go. This way, when they become tweens and teenagers, they may eat junk food here and there at a friend’s house, but they will return to real food as the foundation of their diet — and that habit will continue on with them for a lifetime.

When Great Superstars Endorse Bad Lifestyle Choices

My newly revised nutrition plan offers a step-by-step guide to feed your family right, and I encourage you to read through it now. You need to first educate yourself about proper nutrition and the dangers of junk food and processed foods in order to change the food culture of your entire family. To give your child the best start at life, and help instill healthy habits that will last a lifetime, you must lead by example. Children will simply not know which foods are healthy unless you, as a parent, teach it to them first.

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

Disregarding Half of US Dentists and Ignoring the Environment, ADA Shills for Dental Amalgams

As countries around the globe phase out the use of mercury amalgam in dentistry, citing mounting evidence of significant environmental and human health risks, the United States has stayed mum.

That is, until last November when the American Public Health Association (APHA) issued an incredulous policy statement affirming that dental amalgam is “safe” and its contribution to environmental mercury contamination “minimal.”

The policy not only advocates the use of dental amalgam as “safe and effective in treating dental cavities,” it goes so far as to say that limiting or curtailing its availability could have negative health consequences, particularly in low-income areas.

Unfortunately, as one of the largest public health associations the APHA has great influence within the World Federation of Public Health Associations, so its position on this issue will be viewed as a broad pronouncement about what is good for the public’s health not just within the United States, but also abroad. To add fuel to the fire, the American Dental Association (ADA) has also come out in full support of the APHA’s statement…

ADA Still Supports the Use of Dental Amalgam

Out of step with a world trying to replace mercury-based products with non-toxic alternatives, heedless of dentist-members who have rejected amalgam, aware that taxpayers must foot the bill for the pollution caused by pro-mercury dentists, the ADA continues to shill for mercury fillings. The ADA is also riddled with massive conflicts of interests as it is a former patent-holder of amalgam, and helped draft the current resolution, which could be used to derail worldwide efforts to curtail use of dental amalgam to protect against the devastating ecological damage caused by mercury pollution.

Reportedly, ADA lobbyists presented a sequence of falsehoods to APHA leaders in the resolution they helped draft. The resolution claims that mercury fillings’ contribution to overall mercury pollution is “negligible” — when in reality, dentists are the number one purchaser of mercury in America for product use and the number one polluter of mercury into municipal waste water.

The ADA has also historically covered up the fact that the term “silver filling” is profoundly deceptive, as the composite material contains anywhere from 49 to 54 percent mercury, thus should be called mercury fillings not the euphemistic and deceptive term silver filling. At one time they even declared that removing mercury fillings is unethical and many dentists lost their licenses for removing them. The ADA aided and abetted dental boards to yank licenses from dentists who truthfully told patients that amalgam is mainly mercury and who advised against its use. This was despite the known fact that dental amalgam emits mercury vapor after it is implanted in your mouth, and this mercury bioaccumulates and endangers your health in many ways.

Objection to the resolution inside APHA was reportedly fierce, with opposition expressed at both the public hearing and the Governing Council meeting. Both the Environment, Occupational, and Maternal and Child Health sections urged a no vote, but the ADA political machine won out and is now able to say that the APHA’s policy “further vindicates the ADA’s own long-standing and scientifically based policy.”

Some believe the ADA is actually using APHA’s resolution as a way to derail the global World Health Organization’s (WHO) new policy to “phase down” amalgam — and influence negotiators who are considering incorporating the WHO policy into a global legally binding treaty on mercury1 when they meet for the final time in Geneva in mid-January.

World Health Organization, European Environmental Bureau Take Clear Stance Against Mercury Amalgam Pollution

In a letter to European Union (EU) member state representatives and dental experts, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) asked recipients to support a phase-out of the use of mercury in dentistry, both in the EU and around the world. The EU has been aggressive in both their intent and actions aimed at reducing mercury usage, and even adopted a mercury strategy in 2005, which contains 20 measures to reduce mercury emissions, cut supply and demand protections against exposure. The EEB letter came on the heels of a July 2012 European Commission report by BIO Intelligence Service (BIOS),2 which also recommended the phase-out of dental amalgam and mercury in button cell batteries.

Sweden has already phased out dental mercury, and several other European countries have either significantly reduced its use or have imposed restrictions on it. The use of mercury fillings is very much an issue of global concern, as once in the environment, dental mercury converts to its even more toxic form, methylmercury, and becomes a major source of accumulated mercury in the fish you eat. So even if you were somehow ok with implanting this toxin directly into your mouth, it’s difficult to ignore the environmental ramifications. Mercury from dental amalgam pollutes:
•Water via not only dental clinic releases and human waste (amalgam is by far the largest source of mercury in our wastewater)
•Air via cremation, dental clinic emissions, sludge incineration, and respiration; and
•Soil via landfills, burials, and fertilizer

The fact that amalgam releases so much mercury into the environment is one reason why WHO also urges “a switch in use of dental materials” away from amalgam.3 They, too, noted that dental amalgam raises “general health concerns.” The WHO report observed:

“According to the Norwegian Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, the majority of cases of side-effects of dental filling materials are linked with dental amalgam.”

Why Would the ADA Defend a Toxic Dental Product When Safer Alternatives are Readily Available?

The environmental health effects of amalgam are well known and include brain damage and neurological problems, especially for children and the unborn babies of pregnant women. With dental mercury uncontrollably entering the environment from multiple pathways, phasing out amalgam and transitioning to non-mercury alternatives is the only way to reduce – and eventually eliminate – this significant source of mercury that threatens our environment and ultimately our health.

But the ADA has continued to defend their use, even though amalgam fillings contain more mercury than any other product sold in the United States and safer alternatives, such as resin composite, are readily available.

Under a “drill-fill-and-bill” approach that puts profits about patients, amalgam remains popular with dentists who choose not to get training in modern alternatives. Such protection of the economic status quo makes a smooth transition to mercury-free dentistry all the more difficult. Dentists inexperienced with mercury-free alternatives claim they install amalgam fillings much faster than the primary alternative, composite fillings, but nations like Denmark, which has made the transition, discount the claim that amalgam is more efficient. So the rationale – a false one because of the external costs of amalgam – is to give amalgams as a cost-savings for tight healthcare budgets. Low-income and middle-income people, people in third-world countries, and our soldiers – even the pregnant ones – get mercury fillings based on this bogus “efficiency” argument.

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

Act Now to Stop Genetically Engineered Fish from Receiving Approval

On December 21, 2012 — while everyone was busying themselves with preparations for holiday festivities—the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a giant step closer toward the final approval of the first genetically engineered (GE) fish food — a salmon designed to grow abnormally fast.1

It’s a move that many, including myself, have worried might happen, and it now appears the first GE fish could reach your dinner plate within the next year or two, unless a sufficiently strong opposition is mounted.

According to the FDA,2 the GE salmon is “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon,” but many have brought up significant flaws and limitations of the environmental assessment (EA) on which this conclusion is drawn. The FDA’s draft EA3 is now open for public comment.

What are the Potential Dangers Associated with GE Salmon?

According to Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety:4

“The GE salmon has no socially redeeming value. It’s bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment. F.D.A.’s decision is premature and misguided.”

Two years ago, GMO expert Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, called the potential approval of genetically engineered salmon “a move that will go down in history as one of the most asinine and dangerous ever made by our government.” According to Smith, evidence5 suggests the buffed-up salmon might have higher levels of a potentially cancer promoting hormone, IGF-1, more antibiotics, and more of potentially life-threatening allergen(s).

In a recent statement, Michael Hansen PhD, Senior Scientist with Consumers Union said:6

“The Environmental Assessment (EA) states that the FDA has found that the salmon is safe to eat. However, we are deeply concerned that the potential of these fish to cause allergic reactions has not been adequately researched. FDA has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six engineered fish — tests that actually did show an increase in allergy-causing potential.” [Emphasis mine]

But that’s not all. The salmon — which contains a spliced-in growth hormone gene that makes it grow up to five times faster, reaching market size in about 18 months instead of three years — poses a significant threat to the environment and natural fish stocks as well. According to a Purdue University computer model that tracked the effects of releasing just 60 “Frankenfish” into a population of 60,000, there was a complete extinction of the normal fish in just 40 fish generations. It appears the larger size, which attracted mates more easily, combined with a slight reduction in survival rates, was a killer combination. Furthermore, according to Jeffrey Smith, Canadian scientists also engineered their own set of fast growing salmon and tested their behavior in tanks with other fish.

“When there was sufficient food, all was fine. When food stocks decreased, the Frankenfish freaked,” he says. “They became cannibals, attacking and killing other fish — whether GE or natural. Their unexpected behavior resulted in population crashes or complete extinctions in the fish tanks. The study also suggested that if released, these ravenous aggressive salmon would pursue and consume other types of fish.”

The FDA pooh-pooh’s such fears. As reported by the New York Times:7

“The agency [FDA] said the chance this would happen was ‘extremely remote.’ It said the salmon would be raised in inland tanks with multiple barriers to escape. Even if some fish did escape, the nearby bodies of water would be too hot or salty for their survival. And reproduction would be unlikely because the fish would be sterilized, though the sterilization technique is not foolproof.”

The issue of the sterility of the fish is a can of worms in and of itself. According to Hansen:

“…We are also concerned that FDA puts great weight, in their finding of ‘no significant impact,’ on the fact that the engineered salmon would be sterile females. However FDA indicates that only 95 percent of the salmon may be sterile, and the rest fertile. When you are talking about millions of fish, even one percent comes to thousands of fish. Moreover, perhaps even more important, the fish at the egg production facility in Prince Edward Island, Canada would obviously not be sterile — otherwise they could not produce eggs…”

And what about the promise that these GE salmon will be firmly landlocked, with no possibility of escape? This may sound good and well to some people, but it’s important to remember how the process typically ends up working — “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile,” as the saying goes. George Leonard, writing for the National Geographic recently addressed this with the following statement:8

“While this initial application to grow GE salmon is for land-based facilities, the prospect of even larger profits from growing GE salmon in the ocean will certainly create pressure for approval in these more environmentally risky systems in the future.

The U.S. is poorly equipped to deal with this future scenario. In June 2011, NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco released a National Aquaculture Policy to guide how marine aquaculture proceeds in our ocean waters. While the policy includes some strong environmental provisions, it does not categorically prohibit the growing of GE fish in the ocean. It should.

Given FDA’s action yesterday and NOAA’s failure to prohibit GE fish in its aquaculture policy, the time has come for Congress to intervene. Congress should work to pass Senator Mark Begich’s PEGASUS Act or similar legislation that requires FDA to take the environmental risks seriously before approving GE fish. If Congress doesn’t act soon, the nation’s ocean may suffer from FDA’s efforts to chart a course for GE salmon.”

Environmental Assessment ‘Woefully Inadequate,’ Scientist Says

The video above is two years old, but the arguments made in it remain unchanged. The video features Michael Hanson, a brilliant senior scientist with the Consumers Union (the publisher of Consumers Reports), and Val Giddings, a biotechnology consultant to various governments and companies. One major concern is that the containment systems designed to segregate these fish from wild fish could fail. I am convinced this is the MAJOR argument against the approval of these GE fish, not the allergencity of them. As explained by Hanson, the fact that the FDA is only looking at two facilities, both outside the United States, and that they’ve only performed an environmental assessment on ONE facility, specifically located on Prince Edward Island (PEI), is of major concern. There’s no assessment of the environmental impact if the fish are produced elsewhere.

In his 2010 comments to the FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee Meeting, he stated:9

“A fundamental problem with all the phenotypic characterization data, and indeed all the nutritional and food safety assessment data, is that they all come from GE Salmon raised in the PEI facility, not at the facility in Panama. FDA admits that the culture/husbandry conditions at the facility in Panama will likely differ significantly from the conditions at the PEI facility with unknown effect on the GE salmon’s phenotype but then concludes that it has no concerns with the different culture conditions: ‘the culture (e.g., water temperature, pH, alkalinity, etc.) were likely to be significantly different from the facility at PEI as a result of differences in, among others, water surface, facility design, and environmental factors due to geographic location. …the effect of the difference between the PEI and Panama facilities, especially temperature, on the resulting AquAdvantage phenotype is unknown.

Conclusion: The husbandry and rearing conditions at the PEI and Panama facilities do no present concerns with respect to animal health.’

We do not understand how FDA can conclude, in the absence of any data on the phenotype of GE salmon raised at the Panama facility, that there are no animal health concerns with GE salmon raised at the Panama facility. This lack of data is highly problematic as the GE salmon that consumers will be exposed to will be those grown at the Panama facility. FDA appears willing to conclude that there are no animal or human safety problems from AquAdvantage salmon raised in Panama based on no data at all…”

Furthermore, another major concern that environmental activists have is that if the fish accidentally get out into the wild, they’re more aggressive; they feed more, and can easily outcompete not only other salmon but any local fish. As mentioned earlier, Canadian researchers showed this to be the case — when food supply was scarce, the GE salmon turned cannibalistic, resulting in complete extinctions within the fish tanks…

The approval of these salmon is just the beginning, and for that very reason, we should insist on caution and the strictest, most detailed scientific inquiry possible, and this is simply NOT the case here… As Giddings says, if these fish are approved, “it will demonstrate that there’s a functional regulatory system that is able to look at the data and make a reasoned, science-based decision based on the data,” and this would naturally open the door to the introduction of other genetically engineered animal-based foods. According to Hanson, the scientific bar should be set very high when it comes to evaluating the health- and environmental impact of GE animals, but the FDA is “setting it about an inch off the floor.”

Breakdown of the Federal Government’s Science Integrity Process

Forbes magazine10 recently ran an article questioning whether the federal government’s science integrity process has completely broken down as the White House administration stands accused of openly meddling with the approval of the controversial Frankenfish.

Two years ago, the FDA promised to release the environmental assessment of AquaBounty’s modified salmon “within weeks.” But it didn’t… A draft assessment was eventually produced, dated April 19, 2012, but it ended up not being released. Why? According to Forbes, the draft was blocked on orders from the White House, and subsequently delayed seven months — presumably to protect President Obama’s reelection efforts.

“Genetically modified plants and animals are controversial among the president’s political base, which was thought critical to his reelection efforts during a low point in the president’s popularity,” Forbes writes.11

“…According to sources, the White House political block — a direct violation of numerous ethics regulations and possibly of federal laws — was instituted over the objections of scientists at the FDA, but with the awareness of HHS Secretary Sibelius, her senior adviser Andrea Palm and the Office of Science and Technology Policy and its director John Holdren, who is responsible for enforcing ‘science integrity’ across government agencies. The OSTP had overseen an inter-agency review process that was completed by early spring. According to sources, Holdren stood by as the White House openly meddled.

The revelations have come as an embarrassment to the administration, say sources. As president, Barack Obama had pledged to change ‘the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology.’ To publicly guarantee that, the White House had issued a science integrity memorandum in 2009 pledging, ‘Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions,’ and putting Holdren in charge of enforcement.

FDA scientists and staffers say they were instructed not to discuss the decision to approve the salmon — a violation of the agency’s scientific integrity guidelines adopted last February that require the FDA to shield its staff from ‘political influence’ and to allow officials and scientists to ‘communicate their personal scientific or policy views to the public, even when those views differ from official Agency opinions.'”

Will Congress Protect You From this Potentially Hazardous Food?

Fortunately, some congressional members are not sitting idly by, waiting for the devastation to take place. Alaska’s congressional delegation is united in its opposition against the approval of AquaBounty’s GE salmon,12 Senator Mark Begich calls the notion that GE salmon is safe for human consumption and our oceans “a joke,” and Senator Lisa Murkowski has stated:

“I am concerned with the recent news that FDA is moving forward with the approval of genetically modified fish. This is especially troubling as the agency is ignoring the opposition by salmon and fishing groups, as well as more than 300 environmental, consumer and health organizations.”

Of course, another major area of concern is, if the salmon is approved, whether you will be able to know when you’re buying it, since GE foods are still not required to be labeled. Consumer advocates are concerned about how large the no-labeling problem will grow, since genetically engineered beef, pork and other fish are next in line behind salmon for FDA consideration. For example, Science Nordic13 has announced its intentions to create a salmon with higher omega-3 content than regular salmon. In response to these growing concerns, Rep. Don Young recently announced a plan to introduce legislation that will, at minimum, require GE salmon to be labelled.14

Action Items to Stop Approval of GE Salmon

Without labeling, there’s no way for you to tell how the food you eat was grown, and while this is bad enough as it relates to GE corn, soy, sugar, and other common food ingredients, it’s an issue that will become increasingly important with the introduction of animal foods where the entire animal itself has been genetically altered.

I believe the old adage that “you are what you eat” is rooted in basic truth, and I for one do not think there’s any possible way to achieve the same health benefits from a genetically altered food source as from “the real deal” produced by nature. These are remarkable times, but it’s become quite clear that we must vigorously protect and defend natural foods of all kinds. We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best on this issue.
•The Center for Food Safety has created a petition asking the FDA not to approve GE salmon AND, if the Obama Administration insists on approving these genetically engineered fish, it should require the fish to be labeled. I urge you to sign it.
•The Food & Water Watch has also created a petition asking members of congress to stop the approval of GE salmon.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelWA.org:15

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

Vermont has also created a Right to Know Campaign.16

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, these are people’s initiatives, and they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•If you live in Vermont, please sign the VT Right to Know GMO’s petition.
•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington and Vermont initiatives.

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

With friends like these
Dear Reader,

As Will Rogers once said, “I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.”

And if those facts weren’t so infuriating, maybe they would be funny.

Consider the latest bad joke our own FDA is playing on us. They now consider a fruit eaten for millennia — cherries (yes, that’s cherries) — an “unapproved drug!”

Haven’t heard about the FDA’s courageous stand against the cherry, yet? Well, wait ’til you get a load of this one.

In 1999, a report in the Journal of Natural Products (published by the American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society) concluded that tart cherries may relieve pain better than aspirin and other anti-inflammatory drugs.

Gout sufferers have known about this for decades. Even the intense pain and inflammation of an acute gout attack usually disappears completely after consumption of one to three pints of concentrated cherry juice over the course of just a few days.

Cherries and concentrated cherry juice work for other pain, too, although both have a lot of carbs and calories so it’s better to use capsules of cherry concentrate for longer-term pain and inflammation relief. Capsules also have the advantage of reducing inflammation at just 1/10 the dosage of aspirin.

Cherries rival top-selling anti-inflammatory drugs

In the study mentioned above, the consumption of about 20 cherries reduced inflammation in a manner similar to that of aspirin or the “cox-2” inhibiting drugs, without the side effects of gastric bleeding or vitamin depletion associated with these drugs.

But when cherry growers began to cite this scientific research, the FDA sent warning letters to 29 companies that market cherries, threatening regulatory action if they didn’t remove the science regarding the anti-inflammatory properties of cherries from their websites.

Does it seem like the FDA is being irrational to anyone else? What’s worse is that irrational behavior combined with power can be very dangerous. But, unfortunately, this is nothing new.

For decades, the FDA has been a danger to you and your family’s health. Nearly 20 years ago, the government’s own General Accounting Office (GAO) wrote: “GAO found that of the 198 drugs approved by FDA between 1976 and 1985…102 (or 51.5%) had serious post-approval risks…the serious postapproval risks…[included] heart failure, myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, respiratory depression and arrest, seizures, kidney and liver failure, severe blood disorders, birth defects and fetal toxicity, and blindness.”

That terrible record continues into the 21st century (Vioxx is just one example that springs immediately to mind).

And to add insult to injury, while it has been busy approving all those potentially lethal patent medicines, the FDA has also been actively fighting against your right to keep yourself healthy with foods and food supplements! Picking on cherries is just one recent example. All the way back in 1949, former FDA commissioner Dr. George Larrick said: “The activities of…so-called health food lecturers have increasingly engaged our attention….[we are fighting] the good fight against dried vegetables, vitamins, and similar products.”

And in 2007, the FDA even released a report on its own incompetence, titled FDA Science and Mission at Risk. You can find it easily online by entering the title into Google.

Real FDA reform is long, long overdue. But you can help get the process started. Some key natural health organizations have joined in an effort to reform FDA. Please visit www.reformFDA.org to read much more about this effort, and please consider signing the petition! Your own health–and the health of all Americans–is at stake.

Yours in good health,

Christine O’Brien

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

BioInitiative Report: overwhelming scientific evidence of health risks from wireless devices and other forms of EMF

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038595_electropollution_wireless_devices_EMF.html#ixzz2HO0reSn3

A shocking new report by the BioInitiative Working Group 2012 says that evidence for risks to health from wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation) and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has substantially increased since 2007. Cell phone users, parents-to-be, young children and pregnant women are said to be at particular risk.

The study examines EMF exposures from wireless technologies including cell and cordless phones, cell towers, ‘smart meters’, WI-FI, wireless laptops, wireless routers, baby monitors, and similar electronic devices and from power lines, electrical wiring and other appliances.

How credible is the report?
The Report is the work of 29 independent scientists and health experts from 10 countries. The independent research group Powerwatch says of the Reports contributors “they hold 10 medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MSc, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency.” But this 2012 report is merely an update on the work done in 2007.

Five years previously in 2007 the BioInitiative Working Group published its first report reviewing 30 years of scientific studies documenting bio-effects and adverse health effects from EMF exposures. It was a group of 14 independent scientists, researchers, and public health policy makers that looked at more than 2,000 peer reviewed studies.

The 2007 BioInitiative Working Group concluded, “the clear consensus of the BioInitiative Working Group members is that the existing public safety limits are inadequate for both ELF [extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields] and RF [radio frequency radiation].”

The 2012 report is an update. Over twenty-one chapters the 2012 report assesses 1800 new research papers (from 2006 to 2011) regarding risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields.

What does the 2012 BioInitiative Report tell us?
One of the most worrying areas for concern is the link between cell phone radiation and brain tumors. Lennart Hardell, MD at Orebro University, Sweden, one of the Reports, authors explains “there is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma with use of mobile and cordless phones” he goes on to say “the existing FCC [Federal Communications Commission] /IEE [Institution of Electrical Engineering] and ICNIRP [Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection] public safety limits and reference levels are not adequate to protect public health.”

Another of the Reports contributors Martha Herbert, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School comments ” While we aggressively investigate the links between autism disorders and wireless technologies, we should minimize wireless and EMF exposures for people with autism disorders, children of all ages, people planning a baby, and during pregnancy.”

Are EMFs really as dangerous as the BioInitiative Working Group claims?
This report comes hard on the heels of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B possible carcinogenic. This ruling was based on a perceived increased risk for glioma associated with cell phone use.

According to David O. Carpenter, MD co-editor of the 2012 Report “there is now much more evidence of risks to health affecting billions of people world-wide. The status quo is not acceptable in light of the evidence for harm.”

The message of the report is clear. In the absence of adequate safety standards for protection against EMFs and wireless exposures people need to be pro-active and act now to protect themselves from these dangers.

Sources for this article include:

Home

http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess/report/docs/report.pdf
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20130106-bioinitiative.asp
http://www.avaate.org/article.php3?id_article=2343

About the author:
Lloyd Burrell is the author of “How To Beat Electrical Sensitivity”. He has spent the last 10 years researching the effects of electromagnetic fields on health since falling prey to a violent reaction to his cell phone in 2002. He offers practical advice on healthy living in our electromagnetic world. You can download his free EMF Health Report and subscribe to his newsletter by visiting his website www.ElectricSense.com. You can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038595_electropollution_wireless_devices_EMF.html#ixzz2HO0fQesE

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

Secret government documents reveal vaccines to be a total hoax

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038598_vaccines_medical_hoax_government_documents.html#ixzz2HNjvSsTu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JCVI was fully aware of MMR vaccine dangers as early as 1989, but covered them up
Beginning on page three of her report, Dr. Tomljenovic begins outlining the sordid details of meetings held as early as 1981 where the JCVI clearly engaged in fraud, cover-up, and lies about vaccines to protect the vaccine industry, not children, from harm. Minutes from these meetings reveal that the JCVI actively tried to cover up severe side effects associated with common vaccines like measles and whooping cough (pertussis), both of which were clearly linked at the time to causing severe brain damage in a substantial percentage of the children that received them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for this article include:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com

http://foodfreedomgroup.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038598_vaccines_medical_hoax_government_documents.html#ixzz2HNjUo9J6

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

Reverse Multiple Sclerosis by eating the Paleo Diet, increasing vitamin D, and avoiding artificial food additives

Multiple Sclerosis is a chronic, degenerative disease of the nerves in the brain and spine. The disease causes the body to attack an insulating substance around nerve cells called myelin. When the myelin is damaged, the function of the nerves deteriorate, resulting in muscle weakness, imbalance or loss of coordination, vision loss, and tremors. Research is now showing that the disease can be reversed by adopting a paleolithic diet (primarily meat, veggies, and nuts), optimizing vitamin D levels, and avoiding artificial ingredients, especially aspartame.

It is now understood that environmental factors, especially diet, play a large role in the development of this degenerative disease. The Paleo Diet, consisting of organic, whole foods from grass-fed meats, vegetables, fermented foods, and nuts, is packed with nutrients that protect the nervous and immune systems. The Paleo Diet is high in B vitamins, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids (animal based EPA and DHA) that support mitochondrial function and myelin growth and repair.

What to add
Another vital nutrient, vitamin D, is critical not only to prevent heart disease, cancer, and other lifestyle diseases, but also for MS prevention and care. New research has shown that the birth month of a baby as well as the mother’s vitamin D levels are involved in the future risk of MS in the child. The study demonstrates that those who were born after the winter months in April or May were significantly more likely to have MS than those born after the sunny, summer months in October or November.

This study, in conjunction with many other studies that confirm the risk of MS decreases the closer you live to the equator (and vice versa), demonstrate a link between vitamin D levels and the risk of developing Multiple Sclerosis. The mechanism behind vitamin D’s protective effects is related to its regulation of the chemical messengers, cytokines, which modulate the immune system and inflammation in the body.

What to remove
While supporting the body with all of these beneficial nutrients, it is equally important to remove artificial food additives, especially aspartame, from the diet. Aspartame is made up of aspartic acid and a phenylalanine molecule synthetically bonded with a methyl group. The methanol is what makes aspartame taste sweet. The bond holding the methyl group to phenylalanine breaks easily at temperatures higher than 85 degrees. Once separated, the methanol can travel inside any cell of the body. In some cells (like liver and heart cells), it can then broken down into formaldehyde, a toxin that can pass the blood-brain and placental barriers.

Alcohol dehydrogenase is an enzyme that converts methanol into formaldehyde in the cytoplasm of the cell. This can even happen next to the nucleus where the formaldehyde can easily damage DNA. Every animal has cell structures called peroxisomes that break down toxic molecules like formaldehyde, except for humans. In fact, only alcohol can prevent the metabolization of methanol, potentially being correlated with studies that demonstrate moderate alcohol consumption has beneficial health effects. Nonetheless, ingested aspartame results in toxic methanol and formaldehyde inside cells in the brain and throughout the body, causing destruction to the nervous system, brain tissue, and immune system.

All food additives, sweeteners, flavorings, preservatives, and colors have been linked with mental health and nervous system disorders like Multiple Sclerosis. Avoiding processed foods will help reduce your risk of disease. For those with MS, avoiding these toxic foods while eating paleolithic-type foods and getting extra vitamin D will help to prevent the development of the disease and allow the body to heal naturally.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121127154215.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667017
http://www.thelancet.com
http://www.foodconsumer.org

About the author:
Katherine Leonard is a Holistic Nutritionist with a passion for supporting people as they transform their lifestyles and focus on wellness. She has a BA in Psychology from the University of Chicago and an MS in Holistic Nutrition from Hawthorn University. She is a certified First Line Therapy Lifestyle Educator and helps her clients regain their health by adopting a nourishing lifestyle. Katherine is a member of the National Association of Nutrition Professionals and is in the process of becoming Board Certified (expected early 2013).

Katherine believes that optimal health is achieved through organic whole foods, a toxin-free environment, stress management, and physical activity. Her passion is to design personalized programs to help others live nourishing lifestyles.

For more information and to sign up for a complimentary 15-minute consultation,
visit www.holistic-nourishment.com.
Follow her on Facebook: facebook.com/HolisticNourishment
Follow her on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhytoNutrition

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038569_paleo_diet_multiple_sclerosis_healing.html#ixzz2HHjEEfXz

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