France Bans GM Corn Amid Mass US Protests against Monsanto

France Bans GM Corn Amid Mass US Protests against Monsanto by Rady Ananda

Amid mass US protests against Monsanto in mid-March, France imposed a temporary moratorium on the planting of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, MON810.

“Due to the proximity of the planting season,” said Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire along with Francois Fillon, Minister for Ecology and Sustainable Development, in a press release on Friday, authorities “decided to take a precautionary measure to temporarily prohibit the cultivation of maize MON810 on the national territory to protect the environment.”

­All prior plantings of MON810, trade name YieldGard, become illegal on March 20.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto announced in January that it would not sell genetically modified corn in France due to public opposition.

A growing list of human health and environmental hazards from GM crops has raised concern over bioengineered food and feed, including a literally explosive growth of a “new” microbe on pig manure:

Likely linked to GM feed served to most livestock in the US, methane-filled “foam” growing on pig manure has resulted in several pig farm explosions since 2001, killing thousands of animals.

“And there’s no stopping it,” reports the Daily Mail, “the foam has now started growing on one in four farms across the Midwest.”  Scientists believe a new type of bacteria may have developed.

This comports with plant pathologist Don Huber’s discovery last year of a new pathogen associated with spontaneous abortions in livestock, which has been linked to the use of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

Modified with a Bt protein to kill insects, MON810 is losing its efficacy in the US.  The Western rootworm beetle – one of the most serious threats to corn – has developed resistance to the bacterial toxin in eleven states.

In early March, a group of pro-biotech corn entomologists sent a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency warning that insect resistance to genetically modified corn can be halted by planting non-GMO seed.  The warning will likely go unheeded as the US Dept. of Agriculture announced plans to speed up the process of GM approval by 18 months.

Over the past eight months, the European Commission has approved 11 new transgenic crops.  However, EU nations can independently restrict or prohibit the sales of products under certain conditions.

Also on Friday in the US, GM opponents held a nationwide protest against Monsanto. Dressed in hazmat suits, they targeted Congress for its complicity in allowing the dangerous adulterant in the food and feed supply:

Protests continue today across the US, and include an action against WalMart for planning to sell Monsanto’s GM corn this year.

The move to label GMO foods in the US grew stronger last week when 55 Members of Congress sent a letter to the US Food and Drug Admin demanding the label.

In California, a statewide petition drive is underway to put the labeling initiative on the ballot this November. With six weeks remaining to collect one million registered voter signatures, the Label GMOs group got a welcome boost when Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds designed a special seed packet to be used for the campaign.

Occupy Vancouver: “We Beat Up On The Cops Now? Is That What The Story Is?”

Mar. 16, 2012: Occupy Vancouver: “We Beat Up On The Cops Now? Is That What The Story Is?” Alexander Higgins Blog

Vancouver police are calling for the shutdown of Occupy Vancouver claiming the protestors attacked the police, but video evidence shows otherwise.

Comment: I apologize this post is not dated properly. It was from November 11, 2011. I will try and keep a closer eye on that as these sources did not disclose the actual date, one must bypass and do a search to verify.

An Open Letter to Non-Occupiers

Mar. 9, 2012: An Open Letter to Non-Occupiers by Dennis Trainor, Jr.

While most debates about the next steps the Occupy movement should take naturally occur among those already engaged in the movement, one population that needs to be further engaged, if the May 1st national general strike (and other Occupy spring and summer related activities) are to succeed and this movement is to grow, is the population of those who are watching from the sidelines.

In other words, the individual members of the 99% who are potentially sympathetic but as yet unmoved to participate in the movement need another open invitation to the dance.

One such individual watching from the sidelines hit me up on facebook recently asking, essentially, what Occupy stands for.

Questions like this and other versions of the “what are your demands” question can sometimes make one go a little postal. What do we stand for?  Really? Are you kidding? However, this recent query was not a joke or a provocation. It came in good faith, unsolicited from one not yet aligned with occupy but seeming at least willing to consider participating in the future. The honest to goodness naiveté embedded in the question is evidence supporting the idea that we have more work to do in providing a more compelling narrative than the dominant corporately controlled media provides.

What does Occupy stand for? One narrative potentially more compelling for new recruits is this: The Occupy movement seeks to be an equalizing force for good in a world dominated by greed. And let’s just get this big elephant out of the way right up front: for some, but not all, that means smashing capitalism.
Smashing capitalism sounds crazy to some, because that makes us sound like a rag tag group of socialists. And socialism, goes the refrain oft repeated in one form or another by a corporate media bent on dredging up a red scare once or twice every century just to keep us in line, is Anti-American.

Without debating the merits of Capitalism versus Socialism, perhaps we can agree that the way capitalism operates right now in our global culture delivers poverty, misery, and is downright homicidal.

The Capitalism as homicidal force claim is one that can be made without hyperbole.

People do in fact die for lack of access to healthcare. Human consumption is, in fact, accelerating the destruction of our planet. People do, in fact, die in wars waged based on lies that profit a precious few. Over 5 million children globally each year do not reach a 5th birthday because they die of starvation. This is not because the system that puts man on the moon or can squeeze an entire library onto a computer chip the size of a thumbnail has failed to find a way to feed these children, rather our system is so competitive that it accepts these deaths as a natural component of a capitalist model that dominates world markets. In short, the system is driven by corporate greed, not human need.

And greed, to take back the popular phrase, is not good. Screw Gordon Gecko.

The film Wall Street, which made the “greed is good” ethos popular was written and directed by good old commie loving Oliver Stone. It was a tragically misunderstood satire. It’s as if angry old white dudes in the 70’s watching Archie Bunker in All in the Family missed that the joke was on them, upped the ante and joined the KKK.

The question some of us within the Occupy movement are trying to solve is this one: what would a world look like that had a culture and an economic system that places human need above corporate greed, and how do we bring that world into being?

Who cares what it is called. Call it Socialism, Real Democracy Now, or Chunky-Monkey-Cherry Garcia. The world needs to change radically, dramatically, and it needs to change fast.

The movement has resisted clearly defined answers to distill a singular message because it believes the following: No single individual among us has all of the answers. Rather, we believe that collectively we can come up with solutions to the problems that face us. Some within the movement are reformists, seeking little more than “getting money out of politics” so that our representative democracy can function without the corrosive influence of big corporate money. Others want to see the system replaced altogether.

All of us refuse to allow big money determine our future.

All of us think that we can, collectively, do better than the politicians that have been bought and paid for by corporations at solving the problems that face us.

Spring is coming, and we need you, the 99% that have been watching from the sidelines, to join us.
All of us need to put May 1st on our calendar. The city you live closest to may not have a 24-hour physical occupation any longer, but the movement continues to meet, to plan, to dream.

Some people work on Occupy full time, others participate when they can where they can.

You will find your place. Join us.

FDA Says Mercury in Cosmetics Is Dangerous, But Okay in Vaccines: Here’s Why

FDA Says Mercury in Cosmetics Is Dangerous, But Okay in Vaccines: Here’s Why - Gaia Health

The FDA is worried about mercury in skin cosmetics, but also says that it’s perfectly all right to inject massively greater amounts into infants!
 
While you mull that over, here’s the info about cosmetics:

The FDA is warning “not to use skin creams, beauty and antiseptic soaps, or lotions that might contain mercury”.  It’s in many products, including skin lighteners and products to remove age spots, freckles, blemishes, wrinkles, and even acne.  Though illegal, they’re often imported and are sold in many shops.
You can usually identify the existence of mercury in cosmetics by reading the label. It will usually be identified as mercurous chloride, calomel, mercuric, mercurio, or just plain mercury.

Charles Lee, Senior Medical Advisor at the FDA, states:

Exposure to mercury can have serious health consequences. It can damage the kidneys and the nervous system, and interfere with the development of the brain in unborn children and very young children. [Emphasis mine.]

Gaia Health has absolutely no argument with that statement. 

The FDA allows mercury to be no more than 1 part per million in cosmetics.

Gaia Health is in complete agreement with that limitation. Using these products is foolish. They are truly dangerous. Mercury is one of the most toxic elements on earth.

Notice the FDA’s grave concern for the welfare of children. They’re fully aware that mercury can adversely affect brain development, along with harming both the kidneys and nervous system. Mercury is nasty stuff.

So how does the FDA justify the use of mercury in vaccines? 

It is not true that mercury has been taken out of all vaccines given to children. Nearly all flu injections contain large doses of thimerosol, which is 49.6% mercury. That puts mercury at 50 parts per million in vaccines. And they are not placed on the skin, they are injected through the skin!

The FDA is suddenly all wound up about mercury in cosmetics, which is used mostly by adults. They’re concerned that it may exceed 1 part per million. They even warn that children may be harmed just by touching someone who’s used it.

But it’s okay to inject babies with mercury at 50 times that amount!

So, really, how does the FDA justify the use of mercury in vaccines?

If you care to try to wrap your mind around FDA-think, read their document on Thimerosal in Vaccines—if you have the stomach for it. What it amounts to is magical thinking:

• Ignore the fact that mercury is obviously extremely toxic, even at very low doses.
• Ignore the fact that the blood-brain barrier is largely nonexistent until a child reaches the age of 2 years.
• Cherry pick studies and data that seem to demonstrate little harm, while ignoring everything that clearly points to the opposite.
• Then, boldly state that mercury has been used in vaccines for decades without harm. “The autism epidemic? We don’t know what’s causing it, but we’re sure it isn’t mercury or vaccines. The neurological damage in so many children? Nope, can’t be caused by mercury or vaccines.”

The Reason for Banning Mercury in Cosmetics—But Not Vaccines

Obviously, this is criminal. But why does the FDA suddenly go after mercury in cosmetics, but continue to allow it in vaccines?

Do you believe that the FDA has just now discovered these mercury-containing cosmetic products? 

As you may have read on Gaia Health, more and more, what directs governmental actions is determined by treaties. National sovereignty has less and less meaning as nations, including the US, UK, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, China, and virtually every other nation on earth, with the singular exception of Russia. is signing them.

These treaties signify the rise of corporations as the true power. The purpose of these treaties is to make trade throughout the world operate under the same rules. If it’s legal in China, it will be legal in the US and France. If it’s illegal in Japan, it will be illegal in Mexico and Australia. If it’s beneficial for multinational corporations, it is being required everywhere.

Occasionally, a treaty is actually made for the benefit of people. Not often, but it still happens now and then. One such treaty is currently being negotiated on mercury. Agreements to ban its use in nearly everything are being reached, with one significant exception: vaccines.

As discussed in Mercury in Vaccines Will NOT Be Banned by UN or Treaty, the organization working towards the mercury treaty has done a little song and dance to give the impression that concerns about mercury in vaccines are being considered. But it’s nothing more than that. Big Pharma is simply too Big. The corporations in that industry may be the most powerful of all the world’s multinational corporations. They do not want mercury banned in vaccines, so it won’t be.

Most other mercury will be banned, and that includes its use in cosmetics. That’s why the FDA has just discovered mercury-containing cosmetics, but has no problem with mercury in vaccines. There’s logic behind it. It just isn’t the logic that values human lives or the welfare of babies. It’s the logic that values corporate profits over everything else.

That’s why the FDA is so worried about mercury in cosmetics while continuing to claim that there’s no problem injecting it into infants.

Sources:

• Mercury Poisoning Linked to Skin Products
• Thimerosal in Vaccines
• Thimerosal
• Thimerosal and 2011-2012 Seasonal Flu Vaccines
• Flu Vaccine Facts

Questions your doctor should ask before putting your kid on ADHD meds

© cchrint.org

Questions your doctor should ask before putting your kid on ADHD meds by Mike Bundrant

(NaturalNews) A woman came to see me years ago, very concerned because her 9-year-old her son, Bobby (name changed), was "severely disrespectful" in school. His teacher suggested that he was ADHD and asked the mother to please get it under control. Bobby routinely refused to follow instructions, couldn't sit still or follow lesson plans, and would often get up to wander aimlessly around the classroom in the middle of a lecture.

Of course, the thoughtful teacher referred mom to a nice doctor with a reputation for hooking up frustrated parents with drug fixes for their kids. Parents who didn't mind turning over their child's brain to big pharma flocked to him.

Not Bobby's mom. In spite of being at her wits end, she came to me to discuss other interventions that might be made before resorting to drugs. Within a month, my new nine-year-old friend had made such dramatic improvements that his teacher called me to ask what I did. "It wasn't very complicated," I replied. "They figured out what was troubling Bobby and addressed it."

Read more..

The Saga of the Backyard Chicken Movement

© digginfood.com

The Saga of the Backyard Chicken Movement by Michael McCarty

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It is a heady and perplexing question, to be sure. Like the classical philosophers of old, I do not have an acceptable answer, either. I’m not even going to try.

However, for more and more people across this land, a more appropriate and timely question has evolved.

They now ask themselves if perhaps they should acquire some chickens, which could provide some tasty eggs for their morning breakfast. People are now looking at their backyards with fresh eyes, searching for a handy and level spot to erect that new chicken coop.

Unfortunately, the next question becomes all to prominent and leaps to center stage: Is it legal? Now there’s a question! Again, it is also not so easy to answer in simple terms. This can of worms is large, and it holds more slithering things than your well-tended compost pile.

For lack of a better term, the backyard chicken movement is exploding across the country, much to the chagrin of local jurisdictions and the faceless bureaucratic machine. It is a suburban, and increasingly urban phenomena. Well-informed citizens are demanding high-quality, locally grown food. Imagine that! The local food movement continues to gain momentum, with more followers and practitioners every day. It’s a national issue now, and it is not going away anytime soon. But it starts on the local level, and chickens are a big part of it.

 For example, the city council of a small town near me recently voted to consider new draft code provisions relating to chickens within the city limits and residential neighborhoods. Apparently, it is currently illegal to keep a chicken. Who knew? Well, several of the residents who testified did not.

They had been keeping chickens for years, without issue. No one had bothered to discuss it with them. For some unexplained reason, it was time to come out of the chicken closet. They now wished to tend to their birds legally, with favor, and approval.

The city council was quick to state that it was a land use matter and, as such, falls within their purview. It’s all about zoning, you see, and it’s not about how you live, but where you live. It’s all about proper consideration and planning. It’s about rules and regulations, and lawful ordinance. It’s about monitoring and control, enforcement, and penalty. I don’t think the entire sordid show is about chickens at all.

Typically, an ordinance relating to keeping poultry will determine how many hens you can have, and where and how you must keep them. The birds must be contained and quiet, the coops must be secure. The installation of electric fencing can be required. One must mitigate for noxious odor, and control predators. The birds cannot be allowed to roam free and spread disease, or attract a wandering skunk. Above all, the noisy and offensive rooster is not allowed. They might disturb the neighbors, and it is simply too much for the controlling mind of the clerk. On and on it goes.

 I don’t fault our nearby chicken keepers for trying; in fact, I applaud them. It’s a noble and just cause, and they have done their best to work along the only route available to them. It is the manner in which we fight that disturbs me.

The documenting newspaper article talks of how the group promises to play by the rules. One person is quoted in saying, "I’m confident we will be 100 percent in compliance." Compliant, says she?

The article goes on discuss the good points of chicken raising; of how it can educate children as to where their food comes from, while having fun. It touts the economic benefit that could be brought to the revenue of the hardware supply and the gardening store. It balances these ideas against the potential downsides and complaints, and makes the case that perhaps it is not a foolish idea after all.

Foolish, indeed. Imagine the foolishness of someone with the audacity to supply their own food.

The residents of Denver, Colorado begged for their right to keep animals some time ago, and now they live under some of the most draconian laws imaginable. Their ordinances require a permit to keep poultry on property. A fee is demanded, and stipulations must be met and maintained. Once permitted, the property is subject to inspection and multiple visits by more than one controlling agency. They arrive when they wish, without appointment. The property must be properly posted, and the neighbors so notified. Permits are subject to renewal, at the government’s discretion, with annual fees. Violators will be prosecuted. Does this sound like some type of preposterous science fiction movie, or a town, or city, near you? We are talking chickens here, and not about some dangerous creature from outer space.

I want to know who gained the authority to decide that the chicken limit stops at four, five, or six. When did they decide that? Was I asked to voice my humble opinion? What made it so important to come up with such a law? Were the parameters based on some well thought out scientific study, funded with the public dollar, and performed by some chicken police think tank? Has anyone considered that roosters are an important piece of the poultry puzzle? If I am not mistaken, they are a vital and necessary component of procreation, and life. Is it new life that they despise?

The message they wish to send is clear. How dare you think of enjoying a private egg or two, for yourselves, in peace? You are a criminal of the worst kind, guilty as charged until proven innocent. Your fine, and punishment, is what we say it is. And oh, by the way, the chickens now belong to us.

It is a proverbial, in-your-face case of the foxes guarding not one, but all of the hen houses. I like foxes, and I would prefer to preserve their good name. The truth is, they are not foxes anyway, as that would be too tame a description. Bloody tongued wolves would be more like it, circling impatiently in the dark night, eager to blow your house down. The devil is always in the carefully crafted details of the hidden contract, and they administered and diverted our rights away many years ago.

 Yet, the wheels are wobbling on the fatally damaged, corporate-driven shopping cart. We are taking our chicken coops back, one backyard at a time. They know it, and they cannot allow it. They are desperate, and they grow more terrified every day. We know the truth, and can see the madness of their souls. They hold power over us because we empower them. We didn’t even show up for the fight.

My advice is uncomplicated. Don’t give it all up to them so easily. Refuse to grovel before the beast. Compliance is not an option, and the monster’s cravings are insatiable. Do not give them the satisfaction of obtaining what they seek, nor allow them the sustaining succor of our fear.

It is time to bypass the lowly denizens of the city council and their ilk. The time has come to dress down the petty and falsely officious policeman of your subdivisions, and expose the multitude of local tyrants and self-important snitches. It is time to ignore the directives from the “authorities” on high, or the blather of the party line. They do not have our best interests in mind. If they did, they would encourage and help, and not preclude or impede. It’s time to stop playing their dishonest game. Why should we? They don’t play fair, and they never have.

It is time to slip the chains of the oppressors, and throw them back at their flimsy facades. Take a stand, and stare the predator in the eye. Do something disobedient and bold, today. It’s been done before, many, many times. Our acts cannot be separated from the revolutionary history of the sleeping giant, the once-free people of our United States.

Let us rise from our knees and stop asking for their permission. It is not their permission to give. It’s that simple. Go out and get a chicken or two, and perhaps a rooster to go with it. It all starts with a chicken and an egg, on the home grounds of an independent, proud, and defiant people.

Michael Patrick McCarty earned a B.S. Degree in Wildlife Biology from Colorado State University. He has worked in both the public and private sectors in a variety of capacities relating to fisheries and wildlife biology, water and environmental quality, and outdoor recreation. Michael and his wife steward a small acreage they have named Peach Valley Heritage Farms. It’s a “work in progress” for sure, but a little piece of heaven in the Rockies, just the same. Their work can be found at The Backyard Provider.

Influenza-1918: Homeopathy to the Rescue

© Unknown

Influenza-1918: Homeopathy to the Rescue by Julian Winston

The following is an extract of the chapter on the influenza epidemic of 1918 from Julian Winston's upcoming history of homeopathy book-which does not yet have a title. Watch these pages for a review when it does come out.

From The New England Journal of Homeopathy, Spring/Summer 1998, Vol.7 No.1

It was called "the Great White Plague." It is hard to imagine the devastation caused by the Flu Epidemic of 1918-19. People who lived through it reported that some one who was up and well in the morning could be dead by evening.

Dr. H. A. Roberts was a physician on a troop ship at the time. Another boat pulled alongside to get any spare coffins- it's mortality rate was so high. On his return to port, the commander said to Roberts, "used all your coffins?" To which Roberts, who had been treating his ship with homeopathy, replied, "Yes, and lost not one man!"

The following is an extract from an article entitled "Homeopathy In Influenza- A Chorus Of Fifty In Harmony" by W. A. Dewey, MD that appeared in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy in 1920.

Dean W. A. Pearson of Philadelphia collected 26,795 cases of influenza treated by homeopathic physicians with a mortality of 1.05%, while the average old school mortality is 30%.

Thirty physicians in Connecticut responded to my request for data. They reported 6,602 cases with 55 deaths, which is less than 1%. In the transport service I had 81 cases on the way over. All recovered and were landed. Every man received homeopathic treatment.

One ship lost 31 on the way. H. A. Roberts, MD, Derby, Connecticut.

In a plant of 8,000 workers we had only one death. The patients were not drugged to death. Gelsemium was practically the only remedy used. We used no aspirin and no vaccines. -Frank Wieland, MD, Chicago.

I did not lose a single case of influenza; my death rate in the pneumonias was 2.1%. The salycilates, including aspirin and quinine, were almost the sole standbys of the old school and it was a common thing to hear them speaking of losing 60% of their pneumonias.-Dudley A. Williams, MD, Providence, Rhode Island.

Fifteen hundred cases were reported at the Homeopathic Medical Society of the District of Columbia with but fifteen deaths. Recoveries in the National Homeopathic Hospital were 100%.-E. F. Sappington, M. D., Philadelphia.

I have treated 1,000 cases of influenza. I have the records to show my work. I have no losses. Please give all credit to homeopathy and none to the Scotch-Irish-American! -T. A. McCann, MD, Dayton, Ohio.

One physician in a Pittsburgh hospital asked a nurse if she knew anything better than what he was doing, because he was losing many cases. "Yes, Doctor, stop aspirin and go down to a homeopathic pharmacy, and get homeopathic remedies." The Doctor replied: "But that is homeopathy." "I know it, but the homeopathic doctors for whom I have nursed have not lost a single case." -W. F. Edmundson, MD, Pittsburgh.

There is one drug which directly or indirectly was the cause of the loss of more lives than was influenza itself. You all know that drug. It claims to be salicylic acid. Aspirin's history has been printed. Today you don't know what the sedative action of salicylic acid is. It did harm in two ways. It's indirect action came through the fact that aspirin was taken until prostration resulted and the patient developed pneumonia. -Frank L. Newton, MD, Somerville, Massachusetts

Aspirin and the other coal tar products are condemned as causing great numbers of unnecessary deaths. The omnipresent aspirin is the most pernicious drug of all. It beguiles by its quick action of relief of pain, a relief which is but meretricious. In several cases aspirin weakened the heart, depressed the vital forces, increased the mortality in mild cases and made convalescence slower. In all cases it masks the symptoms and renders immeasurably more difficult the selection of the curative remedy. Apparently aspirin bears no curative relation to any disease and it ought to be prohibited. -Guy Beckly Stearns, MD, New York

Three hundred and fifty cases and lost one, a neglected pneumonia that came to me after she had taken one hundred grains of aspirin in twenty-four hours. -Cora Smith King, MD, Washington, DC

I had a package handed to me containing 1,000 aspirin tablets, which was 994 too many. I think I gave about a half dozen. I could find no place for it. My remedies were few. I almost invariably gave Gelsemium and Bryonia. I hardly ever lost a case if I got there first, unless the patient had been sent to a drug store and bought aspirin, in which event I was likely to have a case of pneumonia on my hands. -J. P. Huff, MD, Olive Branch, Kentucky.

In reading the accounts of the epidemic it seems that most of the deaths were caused by a virulent pneumonia that was especially devastating to those who depressed their system with analgesics-the most common being aspirin.

The Physician from whom I first learned homeopathy, Raymond Seidel, MD, HMD, said that he decided to be a homeopathic doctor during the flu epidemic when he was working as a delivery boy for a homeopath in New Jersey. Raymond Seidel told me that he decided to become a homeopathic doctor when he was a ten-year old delivery boy for a local homeopath. He said, "I saw that the people who were taking aspirin were dying, about half those who were drinking a lot were dying, and those that received homeopathic remedies were living."

Julian Winston lives in New Zealand where he maintains his renaissance man life in design work, playing pedal steel guitar and in continuing to guide homeopathy into the next millennia. He was the long time editor of the National Center of Homeopathy's, Homeopathy Today.

Comment: Having the luxury of growing herbs has amazing properties. Yesterday, I had some extra time and spent much of this trimming herbs, cutting herbs, and touching herbs, I have this great marjoram and Greek oregano that is just fantastic, and rosemary grows year round in Florida. Anyway, because if these interactions, I felt much better than before in relation to my usual hunger, in effect, these interactions served as a method of renewal and appetite suppression it seemed. With that in mind, homeopathy is a grand door that needs opening.

War Criminal Obama again threatens unlawful war with Iran: who will arrest him?

War Criminal Obama again threatens unlawful war with Iran: who will arrest him? - Washington Blog



President Obama criminally threatened to murder Iranians today with fellow War Criminal British PM Cameron. The language in their press conference included multiple lies and insults. Let’s consider the history of the US with Iran before we consider what Obama said:

The US waged unlawful war on Iran for 35 consecutive years with the overthrow of their democracy in 1953, and then supporting Iraq’s War of Aggression from 1980-1988 that war-murdered ~ one million Iranians.

US corporate media lies in omission of this history, they then lie in omission that US war threats are both criminal and ignore that all inspections find Iran’s treaty-guaranteed programs for nuclear energy and medical isotopes fully accountable. They lie in commission that Iran’s president threatened Israel when the crystal-clear content and context is stating Israel is wiping the Palestinians off the map.

US corporate media lie in omission that US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are in direct violation of war law and UN Security Council Resolutions, and that all “reasons” for those wars are disclosed by US government agency reports as known lies as they were told. This is immediate and vital history when considering the same actors rhetoric with a new war target.

These 1% political/corporate media lies are typical for US Wars of Aggression going back to stealing half of Mexico in 1846 (Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%’s crimes then and now (6-part series) and the briefer US war history in 2 minutes: arrest US War Criminals to stop war on Iran). Because analogies help bridge understanding when based on the facts: Analogy: US wars on Iraq, Iran as US criminal gangster “business”, an analogy if the US were the victim of empire, and the analogy of Star Wars as a false flag attack story.

So what lies and insults did Obama say today?

• He called the Iranian government a “regime” that “stalls”.
• Obama threatened a “shrinking” window to “solving this issue” or face military attack (what solution when there is no violation or evidence of such?)
• “Biting” Iran with similar sanctions that killed half a million children in Iraq (another media lie of omission to report this).
• Obama never says an Israel and/or US attack is a criminal War of Aggression that US military is sworn under Oath of Enlistment to refuse, with officers sworn to arrest those who issue them.
• Obama says he will “resolve this diplomatically” when there is no violation or crime to resolve, other than to arrest Obama and the War Criminals for threatening to expand current US War Crimes.
• He insulted Iran that they “protect terrorists” when it is the US that is the War Criminal terrorist nation; now actively terrorizing over 60 million Iranians with war-murder that includes official US policy of first-strike nuclear weapons use.

The objective fact is that the US is engaged in Wars of Aggression and threatens more on a nation that hasn’t attacked anyone since before the US became a nation in the 1700s. The US waged war on that nation for 35 consecutive years in our lifetimes.

Who will arrest Obama and the War Criminals?

Will each and every one of you, at the very least, call them War Criminals and demand their arrests?

USDA plans to keep feeding 'pink slime' to your kids

© n/a

USDA plans to keep feeding 'pink slime' to your kids by Ethan A. Huff 

(NaturalNews) After garnering nationwide attention for being secretly added to processed hamburgers and beef products, including those served in school lunchrooms, "lean finely textured beef," aka "pink slime," is reportedly on its way out from the menu offerings of McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Burger King. But according to Mother Jones, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans to keep ordering this imitation, ammonia-laced product for use in its National School Lunch Program (NSLP), a taxpayer-funded government food program that serves low-income students.

Pink slime gained much notoriety after being featured in the acclaimed 2008 documentary Food Inc.. Robert Kenner, the film's director, revealed an inside look into Beef Products International (BPI), a South Sioux City, Neb.-based processing plant that produces most of the nation's supply of pink slime. The product, which is composed of bovine connective tissue and random beef scraps doused in ammonia and formed into a paste, is commonly used as a beef filler because it is low-cost and supposedly less risky compared to conventional ground beef.

You can watch a disturbing clip from Food Inc. featuring footage from the BPI plant and commentary by BPI founder Eldon Roth at the following link:
http://youtu.be/RHQHPNoyO7c

FDA, USDA say ammonia-laced 'pink slime' is safe for children

Though BPI claims that pink slime is safer than conventional ground beef because of the ammonia treatment, tests conducted by NSLP between 2005 and 2009 have revealed that the meat-like matter routinely tests positive for salmonella at four times the rate of conventional beef. Ammonia is also a highly-corrosive poison that is known to cause respiratory illness and lung damage, liver problems, and cancer. The Chemical Encyclopedia says ammonia is "highly toxic" if swallowed (http://healthychild.org/issues/chemical-pop/ammonia/).

And yet both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA insist that pink slime is safe, even though there is absolutely no evidence to prove this. And now the USDA's NSLP is reportedly ordering seven million pounds of pink slime to serve to students, a shocking move that even the nation's most notoriously unhealthy fast-food chains are unwilling to make.

Reports indicate that top USDA officials have routinely ignored all data showing that pink slime is a "high risk product," and have instead continued to endorse the product as safe for human consumption. And the worst part about the situation is that, just like with genetically-modified (GM) products, pink slime is secretly added into raw ground beef without being properly labeled.

"They've taken a processed product (ammonia), without labeling it, and added it to raw ground beef," said microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein recently to The Daily. "Science is the truth, and pink slime at this point in time is a fraudulent lie" (http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/03/05/pink-slime-still-menu).

Sources for this article include:

http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/03/pink-slime-school-lunch

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/035241_pink_slime_beef_ammonia.html

Monsanto’s Roundup is Killing Human Kidney Cells

© naturalsociety.com

Monsanto’s Roundup is Killing Human Kidney Cells by Anthony Gucciardi

 Monsanto’s ‘biopesticide’ known as Bt is not only developing mutated insects and requiring excessive pesticide use, but new findings show that it is also killing human kidney cells — even in low doses. Amazingly, Monsanto’s superweed-breeding Roundup also has the same effect. Scientists have demonstrated in new research that the Bt pesticide, in addition to Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, exhibit direct toxicity to human cells. The findings add to the long list of hazardous effects presented by Monsanto’s genetically modified creations.

These dangerous Bt crops currently engulf 39% of globally cultivated GMO crops, and Monsanto does not seem to be slowing down on their campaign to expand usage. Led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a French scientist from the University of Caen, Séralini and his team are no strangers to the toxic effects of both Bt and glyphosate — the main component used in Roundup. Previously, Séralini and a group of other scientists found that Roundup is linked to infertility, killing testicular cells in rats. The report stated that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed.

At only 100 parts per million (ppm), Monsanto’s biopesticide lead to cell death. Furthermore, they found that Roundup at 57.2ppm  killed half of the cell population – 200 times below agricultural use.  This is concerning as researchers have previously detected Roundup in 41% of the 140 groundwater samples taken from Catalonia Spain that were actually above the limit of quantification. Even in very small doses, the research indicates that Roundup appears to be assaulting your biology.

It has also been divulged that Roundup is damaging other life outside of humans, shown to decrease the population of monarch butterflies by killing the very plants that the butterflies rely on for habitat and food. A 2011 study published in the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity found that increasing usage of genetically modified Roundup Ready corn and soybeans is significantly contributing to the decline in monarch butterfly populations within North America due to the destruction of milkweed.

The evidence that Monsanto’s biopesticide and Roundup alike are disrupting both nature and human safety is clear, yet little is being done about it. Even the EPA is being bombarded with calls to action, with 22 academic corn experts now warning the EPA that GMO crops are devastating the future of agricultural production. When will corporate giant Monsanto be held accountable for the devastation of their creations?

Smoking Does Not Cause Emphysema

© Mike Adkins

Smoking Does Not Cause Emphysema by Lauren A. Colby

 On July 13, 1994, an obituary in the Washington Post reported the death, at age 60, of Richard Joshua Reynolds, III, an heir to the founder of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company. The headline and an accompanying photograph showed the deceased smoking a cigarette and implied that Reynolds died from emphysema, caused by smoking. Reading the obituary in detail, however, it turned out that he had quit smoking eight years prior to his death; and that there was a family history of emphysema, the deceased's own father having died from the disease at the age of 58. Furthermore, the obituary disclosed that the deceased's own doctor was unable to state the "immediate cause" of his death.

Medical opinion concerning emphysema has had an interesting history. My 1973 edition of "Diagnosis and Treatment" (a standard medical textbook), states that emphysema is a disease which involves destruction of the alveolar (lung) tissue but that the cause is unknown, although "many doctors" think it is caused by "cigarette smoking". In 1973, Chronic Pulmonary Obstructive Disease (COPD) had not yet been invented. COPD, while now discussed at length in modern medical textbooks, did not exist in 1973.

Some time subsequent to 1973, a genetic cause of emphysema was discovered. In an article in the latest on-line edition of Grolier's Encyclopedia, Howard Buechner, M.D., explains that a significant number of the people with the disease lack a gene that controls the liver's production of a protein called alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT). This protein controls or degrades an enzyme called neutrophil elastase, produced by the white blood cells. When the enzyme is left unchecked, it destroys alveolar tissue.

Evidently, the Reynolds, father and son, had genetic cases of emphysema, which may or may not have killed the younger Reynolds, even thought he had not smoked for eight years prior to his death. But this raises the question: if there any proof that there is any cause of emphysema other than genetics?

The politically correct medical establishment dances around that question with all of the skill of a lawyer. In the Merck Manual, 14th Edition (1982), we are introduced to a new disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, or COPD, and, at page 629, we are shown a diagram, showing that the disease is combination of emphysema and bronchitis, and that some patients may have one disease and some the other, but many will have both. Smoking is said to "presumably" play a role in COPD. At page 630, we told about AAT deficiency, but this is described as a "rare condition"; it is not clear whether the authors mean that AAT is a "rare condition" that causes emphysema, or that emphysema is rarely caused by AAT deficiency. The language is, I think, deliberate vague.

By 1992, it becomes still more politically imperative to blame smoking for COPD and emphysema. In the 16th Edition of the Manual (1992), it is explained that, yes, emphysema is caused by destruction of lung tissue, caused by an unchecked enzyme. We are told, however, that smoking lowers the body's defenses to the enzyme. No evidence or authority is cited for that proposition.

Thus, we are left with confusing conclusions. We have a new disease, COPD, the exact cause of which is unknown (indeed, the definition of the disease is vague; it seems to be a case of "this patient has something wrong with his lungs, but we don't know exactly what"). Smoking is thought to play a role; yet the 16th Edition makes it clear that many cigarette smokers never develop the disease, and the authors do not know why. I submit that the reason is very simple: smoking does not cause emphysema.

Related:
 
Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (According to WHO/CDC Data)

Aspartame: GMO Bacteria Poop Causing Blindness!

Aspartame: GMO Bacteria Poop Causing Blindness! - Experimental Vaccines

Junk Science Inadvertently Proves That Agribusiness Is Killing Us

  Photo by Kevin Chang, cropped, filter &
words added, published under Creative
Commons License. See below article for
live link to Kevin's photo stream

Junk Science Inadvertently Proves That Agribusiness Is Killing Us - Gaia Health

Junk science keeps producing studies purporting to show that certain kinds of foods are bad for us. Within the last couple of days, two reports have come out claiming that red meat reduces lifespan and that saturated fats are causing significantly reduced sperm counts in men. But what they really demonstrate is something entirely different.

These studies prove only that Agribusiness is doing immense harm to our health. They’re pseudo science because they don’t consider the distinctions between real food and Agribusiness distortion of food, turning the primary sources of nutrition for most people into nothing more than junk food.

The Studies

Saturated Fats

A study published in the journal Human Reproduction examined the eating habits of men in a fertility clinic. 71% of the men were categorized as overweight or obese, which is a good indication that their diets consist largely of fast foods and prepared foods. Both of these are loaded with trans fats. Thus, the bulk of saturated fat eaten by these men is not naturally saturated, like butter, but is artificially produced.

Gaia Health has explained the difference between these two types of saturated fat in Why Hydrogenated Fat Is So Bad. Naturally saturated fats are quite healthy. In fact, they are a major part of body functions. If a study makes no distinction between naturally saturated fats and trans fats, also known as hydrogenated fats, then any claims of harm from saturated fats cannot be taken seriously.

This particular study, Dietary fat and semen quality among men attending a fertility clinic, claims that men in the top third of saturated fat intake had sperm counts that were 43% lower than men in the lowest third.

Nearly three-fourths (71%) of the men were overweight or obese. These men most likely obtain a significant portion of their diets from prepared foods supplied by Agribusiness. The study made no distinction between naturally saturated fats and trans fats. In light of these three points, the only rational conclusion is that the study has demonstrated that artificially saturated trans fats result in lowered sperm counts.

Now, let’s just use a bit of logic. Today, lowered sperm counts are becoming a serious issue. A hundred years ago, there was little concern about it. Families tended to be quite large. The ability to produce children wasn’t at issue. Back then, the diets of reasonably healthy people consisted of loads of naturally saturated fats, especially butter, meat, and eggs. Just look at the diet of the Amish people today, and you’ll see that’s true.

Not distinguishing between types of saturated fat is a fatal flaw. In the face of such an error, it makes no sense to suggest that the problem is saturated fat. The evidence from this study has shown that artificially saturated fats—trans fats—result in lowered sperm counts, not that saturated fats are harmful.

Red Meat

A study published in JAMA’s Archives of Internal Medicine claims to show that eating red meat is associated with an increase in mortality from heart disease, cancer, and all causes.

The study is, overall, rather well done. There is, however, one major—and fatal—flaw, effectively the same one that exists in the saturated fats study. No distinction was made between factory farmed meats and naturally grown ones.

Factory farmed, concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs) raise sick and miserable animals. They’re forced to eat unnatural diets, which produce constant gut misery. Most never see the sky and exist in extremely crowded circumstances. These animals are severely weakened, so they must receive massive doses of antibiotics to prevent diseases. They’re given other drugs designed to force rapid growth and weight gain. And all of that ends up in the meat. This is the kind of meat that most fast foods joints, most restaurants, and most supermarkets serve up.

Sick, miserable, and toxic animals produce sick and toxic meat. That’s what most people in the industrialized world now eat. It bears little resemblance to naturally raised meat.

If a study makes no distinguish between CAFO-raised meat and free range organically-produced meat, it cannot possibly be considered meaningful.

The study, Red Meat Consumption and Mortality, claims that “greater consumption of unprocessed and processed red meats is associated with higher mortality risk”. However, it has not shown that. It has, instead, demonstrated that the meat produced by Agribusiness is killing us.

Junk Science and Junk Food

Agribusiness produces junk food. Junk science ignores that fact when it doesn’t distinguish between such pseudo food and natural chemical-free, antibiotic-free, and GMO-free foods.

The only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from these two studies is that Agribusiness is killing us with its junk foods.

Kevin Chang’s Photo Stream

Sources:

• Dietary fat and semen quality among men attending a fertility clinic
• Sperm Quality Linked to Dietary Fat
• Red Meat Consumption and Mortality
• Red meat increases death, cancer and heart risk, says study
• Study points to possible health risks of red meat

Psychiatric ‘Bible’ Advisors Report Conflicts of Interest

Psychiatric ‘Bible’ Advisors Report Conflicts of Interest by Mike Barrett

 The psychiatric bible, known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is hailed by psychiatrists and psychiatry supporters alike. The 5th edition of the manual, scheduled for publication in May of 2013, is stirring up massive controversy.

Being the go-to text for diagnosing every mental disorder known to (and created by) man while ultimately leading to widespread medicating of the population, the 900-page bible is now being pegged for financial conflicts of interest.

In 1994, DSM-4, the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, was published. Shortly following the publication, the American Psychiatric Association implemented a new policy which would force expert advisors to divulge any ties with drug industries in order to cut down on potential conflicts of interests. Despite the newly instituted policy, an astonishing 70 percent of the panel members of the newest edition, DSM-5, reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. About 57 percent reported ties in the previous edition.

'Organizations like the APA have embraced transparency too quickly as the solution…Our data show that transparency has not changed the dynamic.' said Lisa Cosgrove, associate professor of clinical psychology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and lead author of the study.

 Ultimately leading to millions of people being labeled as ‘mentally ill’, the DSM-5 is also criticized greatly for the addition of new, quite startling diagnoses. With the new criteria, the following situations would cause someone to have a mental or psychiatric disorder.

• Grief following the loss of a loved one
• Mild memory loss in the elderly
• Frequent temper tantrums in kids

'They’re [the new diagnoses] at the boundary of normality…And these days, most diagnostic decisions are not made by psychiatrists trained to distinguish between the two. Most are made by primary care doctors who see a patient for about seven minutes and write a prescription…' said Frances, who is professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University. He also states that the new additions would ‘radically and recklessly’ expand psychiatric boundaries.

As decades pass, the number of diagnosable disorders has gone up by the hundreds. In the past, homosexuality was even battled for inclusion, describing people as having a “sociopathic personality disturbance.” Later, it was replaced with a disorder called “ego-dystonic homosexuality,” a problem specifically surfacing from a source of distress.

As the DSM editions continue to be released, the criteria for labeling a person for many disorders becomes much lower. Psychiatrists, the pharmaceutical industry and all of their ties love these changes, as medications are prescribed with even less effort on the medical establishment’s part — thus feeding the destructive disease machine severely impacting much of the population.

With a few simple strokes in this book, every single person in the country could soon be labeled as having a disorder, whether caught by medical “professionals” or not.

Global Activism is Taking Down the Toxic Corporate Food Industry

© naturalsociety.com

Global Activism is Taking Down the Toxic Corporate Food Industry by Anthony Gucciardi

 The foundation of the international food industry, monopolized by large corporations that hold zero regard for your health, is cracking. As more and more individuals begin to realize that they are eating their way to disease through the consumption of these products, they become outraged at the companies peddling their latest toxic food product. The result? Companies are now being forced to either answer to the consumer demands (removing the toxic substances from the food supply and adapting legitimate environmental manufacturing practices) , or lose their customers.

Increasingly, we see this happening on a larger scale. Major companies like Campbell’s have begun abandoning bisphenol A (BPA), the cancer-linked chemical found in can linings and plastic containers. The change comes after even the FDA was forced to re-evaluate the safety of BPA, potentially issuing a ban by the end of this month. Linked to cancer, diabetes, and much more, consumers have become fully aware of the dangers that BPA presents — and they aren’t handing over their hard-earned dollars to companies that refuse to remove BPA from their products.

On a larger scale, corporations are also being forced to remove high-fructose corn syrup. Well known for its health effects even throughout the general public, not only does high-fructose corn syrup breed obesity and cancer, but it is even known to contain mercury. Consumers are now refusing to eat anything that contains this ingredient, and for good reason. Even Michelle Obama has gone public in stating that she refuses to feed her own children products that contain high-fructose corn syrup. It is due to this that food titans like Sara Lee and Kraft have begun removing the ingredient from their products to avoid losing a large number of sales.

Activism and education is making legitimate changes in the way that the world eats and thinks.

While it is a major victory that these companies are phasing out these ingredients, it is only the beginning of the mass rejuvination of the food supply that needs to take place in order for consumers to experience optimum health. BPA and high-fructose corn syrup alone are creating biological devastation, but what about aspartame, MSG, genetically modified ingredients, trans fat, and other harmful additives? These harmful substances can be removed as well; it simply requires the same activism and education that is resulting in the removal of BPA and high-fructose corn syrup.

Spread the word. It will not only change the health of your close friends and family, but the entire globe. Removing just a few toxic ingredients can prevent countless unnecessary deaths as a result of disease development.

Nanoparticles Cause Disruptions in Nutrient Absorption, Could Impact Long-Term Health

© Nature Nanotechnology
This figure shows 50 nm
carboxylated polystyrene
nanoparticles (green)
interacting with a cell culture
model of the intestinal
epithelium (red). Oral
exposure to these particles
was shown to affect iron transport.

Nanoparticles Cause Disruptions in Nutrient Absorption, Could Impact Long-Term Health by Gail Glover and Ryan Yarosh

Binghamton, NY - Nanoparticles are everywhere. From cosmetics and clothes, to soda and snacks. But as versatile as they are, nanoparticles also have a downside, say researchers at Binghamton University and Cornell University in a recent paper published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology. These tiny particles, even in low doses, could have a big impact on our long-term health.

According to lead author of the article, Gretchen Mahler, assistant professor of bioengineering at Binghamton University, much of the existing research on the safety of nanoparticles has been on the direct health effects. But what Mahler, Michael L. Shuler of Cornell University and a team of researchers really wanted to know was what happens when someone gets constant exposure in small doses - the kind you'd get if you were taken a drug or supplement that included nanoparticles in some form.

"We thought that the best way to measure the more subtle effects of this kind of intake was to monitor the reaction of intestinal cells," said Mahler. "And we did this in two ways - in vitro, through human intestinal-lining cells that we had cultured in the lab; and in vivo, through the intestinal linings of live chickens. Both sets of results pointed to the same thing - that exposure to nanoparticles influences the absorption of nutrients into the bloodstream."

The uptake of iron, an essential nutrient, was of particular interest due to the way it is absorbed and processed through the intestines. The way Mahler and the team tested this was to use polystyrene nanoparticles because of its easily traceable fluorescent properties.

"What we found was that for brief exposures, iron absorption dropped by about 50 percent," said Mahler. "But when we extended that period of time, absorption actually increased by about 200 percent. It was very clear - nanoparticles definitely affects iron uptake and transport."

While acute oral exposure caused disruptions to intestinal iron transport, chronic exposure caused a remodeling of the intestinal villi - the tiny, finger-like projections that are vital to the intestine's ability to absorb nutrients - making them larger and broader, thus allowing iron to enter the bloodstream much faster.

"The intestinal cells are a gateway that ingested nanoparticles must go through to get to the body," said Mahler. "We monitored iron absorption both in vivo and in vitro and found that the polystyrene nanoparticles affected the absorption process and caused a physiological response."

The next step for Mahler and the team is to take a look at whether similar disruptions in nutrient absorption could be possible in other inorganic elements such as calcium, copper and zinc. Also on the research agenda is the reaction of other nutrients such as fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. And chickens and their intestines will definitely be part of this next phase of the study.

"The gastrointestinal tract of chickens have very similar features to that of humans," said Mahler. "We can learn a great deal from the way chicken tissue works which means we can make better predictions about how humans will react."

And humans certainly consume enough nanoparticles - about 100 trillion of them every day. Their ultra-small size and amazing qualities makes them increasingly common in food and pharmaceutical products. Although the impact of chronic exposure remains somewhat unknown, the ingestion of dietary particles is thought to promote a range of diseases, including Crohn's disease. With so many nanomaterials under development and with so much yet to be learned about nanoparticle toxicity and potential human tissue reactivity, Mahler and the team are hoping that their work, particularly the in vitro model, will provide an effective low-cost screening tool.

Drug Pushers Increase Deception in the Market

© technosyncratic.com

Here again is an excellent report associating the anarchist nature of interpretation that presides in the thoughts of FDA employees, and the insane idea that using linguistic trickery as a methodology of definition has anything to do with reality. They say there is a war on drugs but there is also the push to sell you drugs. Does anyone see the quagmire in this statement? In linguistics, the noun "drug," sneaks into the lexicon immediately prior to the rooted word "Druid." Notice the placement of the letter G and note that Druid comes from a root that defines "Truth." Before "drug," is the regional entry "drudge," insertion following the dross senses which formulate these definitions. In nature, there are chemicals which are not necessarily associated with these assertions. The use of the word "drug," is a metaphor making an implicit comparison to the truth as a form of ignorance. The senses for using this type of syntax is built out the word dream, followed by dredge which precedes dreg and all defining a basest of least desirability upon the living.

So when we think of the word "drug," this is the same meaning as anarchism which is both projected as a war on itself and a method of cloaking the truth which also serves well in stigmatization's which bear the resulting misinterpretation. If all foods from Earth are classified as drugs, this would be another form of ignorance simply to hide the truth which is financial terrorism.

© naturalsociety.com

FDA to Make Many Prescription Drugs ‘Over the Counter’ by Mike Barrett

 The same organization which deems walnuts to be illegal drugs is in the process of deciding whether or not to make some prescription medications more readily available to the public. The Food and Drug Administration may potentially move medicines for chronic conditions from prescription to non-prescription, or over the counter, while drugs for infection will receive a speedier approval process. This includes diabetes-linked statin drugs.

FDA to Make Many Prescription Drugs ‘Over the Counter’

Despite prescription drugs contributing to at least 3 million deaths in the last 27 years while vitamins have killed none, the FDA is eager to get drugs in patients’ hands even faster. The House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee will assist the FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and the Agency’s director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research by helping to accelerate approval processes. Drugs for high blood pressure, cholesterol, migraines, and asthma may all be re-classified by the FDA so that individuals can attain them without a prescription. Interestingly, cholesterol drugs, known as statins, have been linked to over 300 different adverse affects while asthma drugs have been shown to lead to more deaths than asthma itself.

The FDA is also very interested in allowing antibiotic makers to conduct tests for the drugs using smaller groups of patients. What’s more, lawmakers are proposing that the approval process for antibiotics also be hastened, while providing incentives to drug makers to develop new antibiotics – seemingly or allegedly to bypass bacterial resistance from the current antibiotic market. Unfortunately, even new antibiotics will only continue to perpetuate diseases scientists fear will be impossible to treat while contributing to numerous health conditions like mental illness by destroying gut health.

“This is obviously a time when there is a lot of discussion about different kinds of strategies and approaches and we want to participate in those discussions and provide the kind of expertise and perspective the team has to offer. Particularly, as the science is unfolding in new and exciting ways that will give us new tools, I think we are in a position to do things differently than we have historically,” says the FDA’s Commissioner Margaret Hamburg

Although mainstream medicine still has a primary handle on the majority of the population, it seems as if the FDA is developing growing concerns regarding the escalating awareness revolving around alternative and natural treatments. With more and more individuals turning to natural alternatives and even doctors and nurses often preferring alternative medicine themselves, it isn’t surprising to see the FDA make pharmaceutical drugs more readily available.

The FDA does not care about treating the population, as there is rampant conflict of interest between doctors and pharmaceutical companies, with thousands of doctors, researchers, and medical experts being paid handsomely by the pharmaceutical industry. If people were to be aided with natural solutions, profits would decrease, and 10′s of thousands of the mainstream medical employees would lose a large percentage of their pharma-backed payroll.

Unfortunately, drug makers want to keep you sick.

Are Vaccines a Gift From God?

© naturalsociety.com

Mar. 9, 2012: Are Vaccines a Gift From God? by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, MD

It’s fall in the northern hemisphere and more than one type of darkness has set in. Vaccines are being injected at lightning speed. New vaccines, untested vaccines, double-strength flu vaccines for the over 65 group; none of which have been shown to be effective at keeping anyone healthy. The naïve are lining up at clinics, shopping malls, and retail stores. They don’t know which kind of vaccine they will receive. Which manufacturer is it? Does it have mercury? What chemicals does it contain? Why should they care? Why would they not trust their doctor (or their local pharmacist)?

These healthcare professionals say it is a good idea to get a flu vaccine to stay healthy this winter, so they allow disease to be injected into their muscles. The people have been mesmerized, duped and frightened by a bogeyman illness called the flu. Ironically, the real bogeyman – the silent monster that can wreak unrecognized havoc – just slipped beneath their skin, completely unnoticed, and masquerading as something healthy, called a vaccine. Despite any logic or science behind the mass marketing of the flu and pneumonia jabs, these vaccines remain the most recommended solution to preventing disease by the uninformed, propaganda-parroting practitioners.

The people who are getting vaccinated and the practitioners who are pushing vaccines are parishioners of the largest church on earth. They can be very devout and unreasonable. They believe this medical religion, vaccination, has saved millions of lives. They’ve read the holy bible of Merck and believe the mantras of the CDC that vaccines have eradicated disease from the Earth. They must be a gift from some god, right? But what else have these indoctrinated persons in white coats read about vaccines? With few exceptions, precious little. Most who administer these slurries don’t even know what ingredients are in them.

No matter how obvious the true cause of so much human misery becomes – that people are actually being sickened and immunosuppressed by vaccines and drugs – the pharma-faithful can’t see the cause. Here’s why: Doctors are the modern day priests and priestesses, anointing their followers with prescriptions. The priests are infatuated with and addicted to the power endowed to them. They strut about, cock-sure that they were rightly taught the one and only true form of medicine, and they are fulfilling their service to humanity.

They have been successfully ordained into the Brotherhood. They have no intentions of doubting or abandoning their programming, even when they witness someone healing without drugs, or being healthy without vaccines. Where would they be if they realized that the earth would be better off without their temples and holy water? They are unintentionally dependent on their devotees’ illnesses and on the system that taught them to spar with disease rather than heal it. The temple of mirrors is filled with smoke, and creates illusions that will keep the sick coming back for more.

Vaccine reactions can look to those who do not consider a vaccine to be a potentially toxic drug, like bad luck or like a new problem that randomly materialized out of nowhere. No matter that the new symptom or illness arrived a few hours, days or weeks after a vaccine; the new problem is considered a random event. People with heart attacks, strokes, infections(namely pneumonia),organ failure, cancer, autoimmune diseases, arthritis, allergies, blood disorders, seizures, exacerbation of chronic diseases almost always have a past history of allopathic “treatment” and vaccinations that could have led up to today’s medical conditions rather than prevented them. Scientific safety studies and long term follow-up studies demonstrating the lack of association between vaccines and the above listed conditions do not exist. Whoever doubts this, please produce some evidence to the contrary since the burden of proof is not on me. I am just a doctor, bearing witness from the bedside.

To the average practitioner, if vaccine reactions don’t occur within hours of the injection and if they are not on a list of likely vaccine reactions, then the vaccines are removed from the suspect list by the medical priests. And those who question, or point out the connections, are summarily dismissed. The pharma-faithful priests will say, “This correlation cannot be proven; this is anecdotal. It could have been anything.” Anything…like what? A bad hamburger, bad luck, bad genes, cold air, too much cholesterol? Anything. Anything, that is, except their most beloved potion, the vaccine. Not the solution of lore. Not the greatest discovery of the past 200 years. Not the holy grail of pharma. No, no. It simply cannot be the vaccine for which they hold so much blind trust.

In the days and weeks that have passed since this fall’s vaccines, the sick and wounded have stumbled into emergency rooms and clinics. Or they have been wheeled in, obtunded, disoriented, dyspneic, coughing up blood, seizing. I have seen this first hand, from the emergency room to the intensive care units, and if they are lucky, to the wards. And if they were not lucky, they were noted in the obituaries. The hospital was mysteriously filled to capacity in mid-October. The search for the cause of so much illness was hunted down with millions of dollars of tests. The cause of this big wave of sick patients just might be right beneath the priests’ noses, yet they continue looking for something that makes sense to them within the bounds of their programming. You know what “they” say, “If you want to hide something, put it right out in the open”. In the case of vaccines, that tactic has been surprisingly successful.

Here’s the plan by the vaccine enthusiasts: Vaccinate everyone. Tell them it is necessary to prevent death and disease. Make it easy for them, and if necessary, make it free. Tell them it is irresponsible to refuse the shot. Threaten them and coerce them. Tell them they could lose their livelihood if they do not comply. If too many refuse, declare states of emergency, ramp up production, make the shot mandatory. If enough people are vaccinated, it will soon become impossible to discern regular illness from vaccine-induced disease. Everyone will simply appear to be sick and every human will become desperate enough to swallow at least two or three of pharma’s widgets (pills) every day for life. Disease will become the expectation from birth to death, and the time will shorten between the two.

Once in a while, a patient, doctor or nurse sees some truth through a half open eyelid. When that happens, s/he gets a glimpse of the unbelievable, the unimaginable. To everyone else, the fable of the germ theory lives on, as the shareholders bank their dividends. Few of us were born enlightened, and waking up is painful. The truth almost always sneaks in, unannounced. It startles the best of us, jogs our souls, riles our egos. And if righteous indignation doesn’t keep us imprisoned, the truth will liberate and cause the observer to seek a new path, a true vocation (translated literally to “calling”). In the world of conventional medicine, those who are comfortable need to be shaken, and the few who are shaken often need comforting.

The walls of deception- that vaccines are necessary, safe or effective- are cracking . Each week, fewer people are figuratively deaf, blind and less are simple-mindedly naïve. The masses are not lining up these days the way they did just a few years ago. Public trust is declining despite the propaganda of the media machine. Truth is indestructible and the web of lies around the value of vaccines is unraveling. The day will soon come when the weight of the lies will collapse on the heads of the priests, who have been recruited to maintain the distorted truths about vaccines.

In the meantime, many will be maimed and many will die. Sadly this will happen without anyone in the temple making the association between the vaccine and the death. German physician, Samuel Hahnemann MD, the founder of Homeopathy once said that if an allopathic doctor deepens an illness with their suppressive drugs long enough, the patient would become incurable. He knew the truth: when the damage is deep enough, short of a miracle, there is no returning to health. Vaccines shorten the time between mild illness and incurable disease, especially when they are given to persons who already have compromised health. When injuries are piled on top of illness, the only thing left to do is damage control- and pray for that miracle.

There is credible information readily available on each and every vaccine’s risk. There is a mountain of evidence that speaks differently than the vaccine mantras told by doctors and seen on television.* The chanting of vaccination necessity and safety is dissonant with logic and reason…and science. Maybe you shouldn’t trust your doctor-priest because s/he’s been fooled too. Many will profit on your disease, but only you will profit from your health. If a vaccine causes damage, there will be no man behind the curtain to give you a new life and no one to help you get back home. There will just be you, your sad family, and a doctor with a prescription pad. It’s time to wake up, while the choice is still yours.

*Link added by GreenMedInfo.com editors

Dr. Humphries is on the board of directors of the International Medical Council on Vaccination.   

Visit her website: drsuzanne.net

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.