The Mystery of Bee Colony Collapse

T.J. Gehling/Flickr

The Mystery of Bee Colony Collapse
July 31, 2013 | Mother Jones | Tom Philpott

What's tipping honeybee populations into huge annual die-offs? For years, a growing body of evidence has pointed to a group of insecticides called neonicotinoids, widely used on corn, soy, and other US crops, as a possible cause of what has become known as colony collapse disorder (CCD).

Rather than kill bees directly like, say, Raid kills cockroaches, these pesticides are suspected of having what scientists call "sub-lethal effects"—that is, they make bees more vulnerable to other stressors, like poor nutrition and pathogens. In response to these concerns, the European Union recently  suspended most use for two years; the US Environmental Protection Agency, by contrast, still allows them pending more study.

But according to a new peer-reviewed paper, neonicotinoids aren't the only pesticides that might be undermining bee health. The study, published in PLOS One and co-authored by a team including US Department of Agriculture bee scientist Jeff Pettis and University of Maryland entomologist Dennis vanEngelsdorp, found that a pair of widely used fungicides are showing up prominently in bee pollen—and appear to be making bees significantly more likely to succumb to a fungal pathogen, called Nosema ceranae, that has been closely linked to CCD. The finding is notable, the authors state, because fungicides have so far been "typically seen as fairly safe for honey bees."

To analyze what exactly bees are bringing into their habitats to feed their colonies under real-world conditions, the authors looked at bee hives that had been hired out to pollinate seven crops: almonds, apples, blueberries, cranberries, cucumbers, pumpkins, and watermelons. (It's common practice for large-scale growers to rent mobile honeybee hives from commercial beekeepers for pollination purposes.)

They took pollen samples from the hives and tested them for pesticides—a category that includes chemicals that target insects (insecticides), funguses (fungicides), and weeds (herbicides). The researchers found insecticides and fungicides in every hive, and herbicides in nearly a quarter. Putting aside the bees' health for a moment, one way to read the results is as a survey of what farmers are spraying on some of the main fruit and vegetable crops we eat. Looking at it that way, it's alarming that organophospates—an insecticide class known to be a powerful neurotoxin—were found in 63.2 percent of the hives. Another nasty pesticide class, pyrethroids, showed up in every sample.

But it was the fungicides that caused the most concern in the second part of the experiment. The researchers took disease-free bees, divided them into groups, and subjected them to three kinds of diets: two control diets free of insecticides traces, and one featuring samples of pollen collected from each of the field sites. Then they exposed them all to Nosema spores, and examined which bees became infected, and which managed to fight it off.

They then analyzed the data based on how much of each pesticide was in the pollen samples from the field. The result: The more fungicide in the pollen, the more likely the bees were to come down with Nosema. Overall, study co-author vanEngelsdorp told me in a phone interview, bees fed with fungicide-laced pollen were "two times more likely to come down with an infection" than control bees. One particular fungicide, pyraclostrobin, was found to make bees three times as susceptible to Nosema.

Why would fungicides do that? The mechanism remains unclear, vanEngelsdorp says—the study didn't look at causes. The chemicals could be hurting bees' digestive system, he said, causing "abrasions and allowing easier infection" or killing beneficial gut microbes and providing a niche for Nosema.

Interestingly, the other set of chemicals that had a similar effect were miticides—chemicals applied to hives by beekeepers in an attempt to control yet another threat, the Varroa mite. In waging chemical warfare on behalf of bees to control mites, beekeepers appear to be unwittingly helping another menace, Nosema, gain a foothold.

What about neonicotinoids, that common pesticide family? The study found it in pollen drawn from only one crop: apples. And they found a surprising result: Bees exposed to neonic-laced pollen showed a reduced tendency to come down with Nosema. The result doesn't exonerate neonicotinoids from the charge that it plays a role in CCD, because "we also know that apple pollen is really good for bees," vanEngelsdorp said, and "there was no way of separating the nutritional value of the pollen from the neonics" since they were in the same sample. He added that when "bees have access to really nutritious food sources, we know that's it's more likely that they're able to fight negative effects from pesticides." Moreover, the current study looked only at pesticides' interaction with Nosema. Neonicotinoids have been shown to have other effects on bees at very low levels—including, according to British researchers in a recent Nature paper, impeding their ability to forage.

The research group was surprised to find such little exposure to neonicotinoids compared to other chemicals. "Neonics get a lot of attention and lot of research dollars and no doubt play a role [in CCD], but our research shows we need to be looking more broadly at the pesticides bees are exposed to," vanEngelsdorp said. "There are a lot of other [chemical] exposures going on that may have just as much, if not more, real effects on colony health."

Meanwhile, use of fungicides on US farms is rising rapidly, according to a February report in the journal Environmental Health News. While the pesticide industry doesn't release use data, the market research firm Lucintel recently estimated that the global fungicide market will increase at an annual compounded rate of 6.7 percent over the next five years. "North America witnessed the highest growth during the last five years and is expected to lead the industry during 2012 to 2017," Lucintel added. The pesticide industry markets fungicides to farmers as cheap way to boost crop yields, but a 2011 study by researchers from Iowa State, Ohio State, and other Midwestern universities found those claims dubious in the case of corn, the nation's most-planted crop.

The Swiss chemical giant Syngenta, which has come under fire as a major supplier of neonicotinoid pesticides, is also one of the largest US suppliers of chlorothalonil, one of the two fungicides identified in the PLOS One study.

The other fungicide named in the study, pyraclostrobin, is marketed in the US by the German chemical titan BASF. Its marketing materials make impressive claims for a fungicide product called Headline, which contains the potentially bee-impeding chemical:

Headline fungicide helps growers control diseases and improve overall Plant Health. That means potentially higher yields, better ROI and, ultimately, better profits. And that means more than just money in the bank. It can help secure a family's future, fund a college education, finance an equipment upgrade, or maybe buy just a bit more of a vacation for the whole family. Perhaps that's why Headline is the nation's leading fungicide.

And now science suggests it may also mean something very bad for bees.

About the Author

Tom Philpott is the food and ag correspondent for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. To follow him on Twitter, click here. RSS | Twitter

UCLA Study Shows Radiation Treatment Makes Breast Cancer Worse, Natural Therapies Do Not

© Natural Society

UCLA Study Shows Radiation Treatment Makes Breast Cancer Worse, Natural Therapies Do Not
Aug 1, 2013 | Natural Society | Elizabeth Renter

Published in the well-respected Cancer journal, a recent study conducted at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center (UJCCC) describes how radiation treatments actually promote malignancy in cancer cells instead of eradication. More than 200,000 women a year develop breast cancer in the U.S. and at least 2000 men do as well. While Susan G. Komen and other breast cancer related non-profit organizations struggle to keep afloat, we can wonder why simple studies like this one.


A malignant disease is one which is virulent, invasive and uncontrollable. It can even become deadly. It is the opposite of curable. In contrast, there are a number of natural treatments coming to light in reference to breast cancers, specifically, which don’t’ require expensive radiation treatments and certainly do not cause cancer cells to go rogue and grow uncontrollably. Raw, vegan diets and herbal remedies like Turmeric and Black Cohosh are examples of simple solutions. None of these remedies cause your hair to fall out, skin problems, inflammation of the mouth, fatigue, anemia, the development of lymphedema, and extreme nausea.

The Study  

The UJCCC study found that radiation actually induced breast cancer cells to form more tumors and malignancy in radiation treated breast cells was likely to be 30 times more probable. While radiation treatments can temporarily regress tumors, this is only the false appearance of eradicating the disease, as the study points out. The treatment may seem to work for a short time, but the ratio of highly malignant cells to benign cells begins to spiral out of control very soon after. This can lead to a treatment-induced death – not from the original appearance of cancer, but from the radiation treatment itself.

“Researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center report that radiation treatment transforms cancer cells into treatment-resistant breast cancer stem cells, even as it kills half of all tumor cells.”

Even more alarming is the fact that radiation treatments can cause some cancer stem cells. They can behave like regular cells, but develop into tumor-forming cells. Scientists are not sure how this happens to date. Some doctors are looking to reduce the amount of radiation therapy given to patients in light of this evidence, but many more should consider natural therapies that do not create a ‘false’ healing which cause cancers to grow back with even greater force.

Yet another study in the journal Stem Cells found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed less malignant breast cancer cells into iBCSCs. Cancer stems cells are especially non-responsive to chemo and radiation treatments, and this is why these ‘medicines’ often do not work.

“Breast cancers are thought to be organized hierarchically with a small number of breast cancer stem cells (BCSCs) able to regrow a tumor while their progeny lack this ability. Recently, several groups reported enrichment for BCSCs when breast cancers were subjected to classic anticancer treatment. However, the underlying mechanisms leading to this enrichment are incompletely understood,” the study says.

Alternative Solutions for Breast Cancer (and Other Cancers) Treatment and Prevention 

Treating breast and other cancers with natural herbs might change the ability for stem cells to produce tumors altogether. The following herbs are also known cancer-preventatives:

• Astragalus – This Chinese and Ayurvedic herb is anti-cancerous. When used at MD Anderson with radiation treatments it greatly lowered the number metastasized cells.

• Blood Root has been known to kill cancerous cells. One of its constituents, sanguinarine, causes cancer cell apoptosis or cell death.

• Cat’s Claw has been shown to help reduce cancerous tumors.

• Butcher’s Broom has shown promising effects in treating breast cancer, especially for reducing swelling after surgery.

• Turmeric root can slow metastasizing cells in breast cancer sufferers. Beating cancer with nutrition is possible.

• Hemp oil is proving to be a great cancer preventative and tumor reducer.

Additional Sources:

Cancer.UCLA.edu

MD Anderson

Why Life in America Can Literally Drive You Insane

© Alternet.org

Why Life in America Can Literally Drive You Insane
July 31, 2013 | Alternet | Bruce E. Levine

It's not just Big Pharma.

In “The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?” (New York Review of Books, 2011), Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, discusses over-diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, pathologizing of normal behaviors, Big Pharma corruption of psychiatry, and the adverse effects of psychiatric medications. While diagnostic expansionism and Big Pharma certainly deserve a large share of the blame for this epidemic, there is another reason.

A June 2013 Gallup poll revealed that 70% of Americans hate their jobs or have “checked out” of them. Life may or may not suck any more than it did a generation ago, but our belief in “progress” has increased expectations that life should be more satisfying, resulting in mass disappointment. For many of us, society has become increasingly alienating, isolating and insane, and earning a buck means more degrees, compliance, ass-kissing, shit-eating, and inauthenticity. So, we want to rebel. However, many of us feel hopeless about the possibility of either our own escape from societal oppression or that political activism can create societal change. So, many of us, especially young Americans, rebel by what is commonly called mental illness.

While historically some Americans have consciously faked mental illness to rebel from oppressive societal demands (e.g., a young Malcolm X acted crazy to successfully avoid military service), today, the vast majority of Americans who are diagnosed and treated for mental illness are in no way proud malingerers in the fashion of Malcolm X. Many of us, sadly, are ashamed of our inefficiency and nonproductivity and desperately try to fit in. However, try as we might to pay attention, adapt, adjust, and comply with our alienating jobs, boring schools, and sterile society, our humanity gets in the way, and we become anxious, depressed and dysfunctional.

The Mental Illness Epidemic

Severe, disabling mental illness has dramatically increased in the Untied States. Marcia Angell, in her 2011 New York Review of Bookspiece, summarizes: “The tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007—from 1 in 184 Americans to 1 in 76. For children, the rise is even more startling—a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades.”

Angell also reports that a large survey of adults conducted between 2001 and 2003 sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health found that at some point in their lives, 46% of Americans met the criteria established by the American Psychiatric Association for at least one mental illness.

In 1998, Martin Seligman, then president of the American Psychological Association, spoke to the National Press Club about an American depression epidemic: “We discovered two astonishing things about the rate of depression across the century. The first was there is now between ten and twenty times as much of it as there was fifty years ago. And the second is that it has become a young person’s problem. When I first started working in depression thirty years ago. . . the average age of which the first onset of depression occurred was 29.5. . . .Now the average age is between 14 and 15.”

In 2011, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that antidepressant use in the United States has increased nearly 400% in the last two decades, making antidepressants the most frequently used class of medications by Americans ages 18-44 years. By 2008, 23% of women ages 40–59 years were taking antidepressants.

The CDC, on May 3, 2013, reported that the suicide rate among Americans ages 35–64 years increased 28.4% between 1999 and 2010 (from 13.7 suicides per 100,000 population in 1999 to 17.6 per 100,000 in 2010).

The New York Timesreported in 2007 that the number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder had increased 40-fold between 1994 and 2003. In May 2013, CDC reported in “Mental Health Surveillance Among Children—United States, 2005–2011,” the following: “A total of 13%–20% of children living in the United States experience a mental disorder in a given year, and surveillance during 1994–2011 has shown the prevalence of these conditions to be increasing.”

Over-Diagnosis, Pathologizing the Normal and Psychiatric Drug Adverse Effects

Even within mainstream psychiatry, few continue to argue that the increase in mental illness is due to previous under-diagnosis of mental disorders. The most common explanations for the mental illness epidemic include recent over-diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, diagnoses expansionism, and psychiatry’s pathologizing normal behavior.

The first DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), psychiatry’s diagnostic bible, was published by the American Psychiatric Association in 1952 and listed 106 disorders (initially called “reactions”). DSM-2 was published in 1968, and the number of disorders increased to 182. DSM-3 was published in 1980, and though homosexuality was dropped from it, diagnoses were expanded to 265, with several child disorders added that would soon become popular, including oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). DSM-4, published in 1994, contained 365 diagnoses.

DSM-5 was published in May, 2013. The journal PLOS Medicinereported in 2012, “69% of the DSM-5 task force members report having ties to the pharmaceutical industry.” DSM-5 did not add as many new diagnoses as had previous revisions. However, DSM-5 has been criticized even by some mainstream psychiatrists such as Allen Frances, the former chair of the DSM-4 taskforce, for creating more mental patients by making it easier to qualify for a mental illness, especially for depression. (See Frances’ “Last Plea To DSM-5: Save Grief From the Drug Companies.”)

In the last two decades, there have been a slew of books written by journalists and mental health professionals about the lack of science behind the DSM, the over-diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, and the pathologizing of normal behaviors. A sample of these books includes: Paula Caplan’s They Say You’re Crazy (1995), Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk’s Making Us Crazy (1997), Allan Horwitz and Jerome Wakefield’s The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder (2007), Christopher Lane’s Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness (2008), Stuart Kirk, Tomi Gomory, and David Cohen’s Mad Science: Psychiatric Coercion, Diagnosis, and Drugs (2013), Gary Greenberg’s The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry (2013), and Allen Frances’ Saving Normal (2013).

Even more remarkable than former chair of the DSM-4 taskforce, Allen Frances, jumping on the DSM-trashing bandwagon has been the harsh critique of DSM-5 by Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Insel recently announced that the DSM’s diagnostic categories lack validity, and that “NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” And psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, former chair of the DSM-3 task force, wrote the foreword to Horwitz and Wakefield’s The Loss of Sadness and is now critical of DSM’s inattention to context in which the symptoms occur which, he points out, can medicalize normal experiences.

So, in just two decades, pointing out the pseudoscience of the DSM has gone from being an “extremist slur of radical anti-psychiatrists” to a mainstream proposition from the former chairs of both the DSM-3 and DSM-4 taskforces and the director of NIMH.

Yet another explanation for the epidemic may also be evolving from radical to mainstream, thanks primarily to the efforts of investigative journalist Robert Whitaker and his book Anatomy of An Epidemic (2010). Whitaker argues that the adverse effects of psychiatric medications are the primary cause of the epidemic. He reports that these drugs, for many patients, cause episodic and moderate emotional and behavioral problems to become severe, chronic and disabling ones.

Examining the scientific literature that now extends over 50 years, Whitaker discovered that while some psychiatric medications for some people may be effective over the short term, these drugs increase the likelihood that a person will become chronically ill over the long term. Whitaker reports, “The scientific literature shows that many patients treated for a milder problem will worsen in response to a drug—say have a manic episode after taking an antidepressant—and that can lead to a new and more severe diagnosis like bipolar disorder.”

With respect to the dramatic increase of pediatric bipolar disorder, Whitaker points out that, “Once psychiatrists started putting ‘hyperactive’ children on Ritalin, they started to see prepubertal children with manic symptoms. Same thing happened when psychiatrists started prescribing antidepressants to children and teenagers. A significant percentage had manic or hypomanic reactions to the antidepressants.” And then these children and teenagers are put on heavier duty drugs, including drug cocktails, often do not respond favorably to treatment and deteriorate. And that, for Whitaker, is a major reason for the 35-fold increase between 1987 and 2007 of children classified as being disabled by mental disorders. (See my 2010 interview with him, “Are Prozac and Other Psychiatric Drugs Causing the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America?”)

Whitaker’s explanation for the epidemic has now, even within mainstream psychiatric institutions, entered into the debate; for example, Whitaker was invited by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) to speak at their 2013 annual convention that took place last June While Whitaker concludes that psychiatry’s drug-based paradigm of care is the primary cause of the epidemic, he does not rule out the possibility that various cultural factors may also be contributing to the increase in the number of mentally ill.

Mental Illness as Rebellion Against Society

"The most deadly criticism one could make of modern civilization is that apart from its man-made crises and catastrophes, is not humanly interesting. . . . In the end, such a civilization can produce only a mass man: incapable of spontaneous, self-directed activities: at best patient, docile, disciplined to monotonous work to an almost pathetic degree. . . . Ultimately such a society produces only two groups of men: the conditioners and the conditioned, the active and passive barbarians." —Lewis Mumford, 1951

Once it was routine for many respected social critics such as Lewis Mumford and Erich Fromm to express concern about the impact of modern civilization on our mental health. But today the idea that the mental illness epidemic is also being caused by a peculiar rebellion against a dehumanizing society has been, for the most part, removed from the mainstream map. When a societal problem grows to become all encompassing, we often no longer even notice it.

We are today disengaged from our jobs and our schooling. Young people are pressured to accrue increasingly large student-loan debt so as to acquire the credentials to get a job, often one which they will have little enthusiasm about. And increasing numbers of us are completely socially isolated, having nobody who cares about us.

Returning to that June 2013 Gallup survey, “The State of the American Workplace: Employee Engagement,” only 30% of workers “were engaged, or involved in, enthusiastic about, and committed to their workplace.” In contrast to this “actively engaged group,” 50% were “not engaged,” simply going through the motions to get a paycheck, while 20% were classified as “actively disengaged,” hating going to work and putting energy into undermining their workplace. Those with higher education levels reported more discontent with their workplace.

How engaged are we with our schooling? Another Gallup poll “The School Cliff: Student Engagement Drops With Each School Year” (released in January 2013), reported that the longer students stay in school, the less engaged they become. The poll surveyed nearly 500,000 students in 37 states in 2012, and found nearly 80% of elementary students reported being engaged with school, but by high school, only 40% reported being engaged. As the pollsters point out, “If we were doing right by our students and our future, these numbers would be the absolute opposite. For each year a student progresses in school, they should be more engaged, not less.”

Life clearly sucks more than it did a generation ago when it comes to student loan debt. According to American Student Assistance’s “Student Debt Loan Statistics,” approximately 37 million Americans have student loan debt. The majority of borrowers still paying back their loans are in their 30s or older. 

Approximately two-thirds of students graduate college with some education debt. Nearly 30% of college students who take out loans drop out of school, and students who drop out of college before earning a degree struggle most with student loans. As of October 2012, the average amount of student loan debt for the Class of 2011 was $26,600, a 5% increase from 2010. Only about 37% of federal student-loan borrowers between 2004 and 2009 managed to make timely payments without postponing payments or becoming delinquent.

In addition to the pain of jobs, school, and debt, there is increasingly more pain of social isolation. A major study reported in the American Sociological Review in 2006, “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks Over Two Decades,” examined Americans’ core network of confidants (those people in our lives we consider close enough to trust with personal information and whom we rely on as a sounding board). Authors reported that in 1985, 10% of Americans said that they had no confidants in their lives; but by 2004, 25% of Americans stated they had no confidants in their lives. This study confirmed the continuation of trends that came to public attention in sociologist Robert Putnam’s 2000 book Bowling Alone.

Underlying many of psychiatry's nearly 400 diagnoses is the experience of helplessness, hopelessness, passivity, boredom, fear, isolation, and dehumanization—culminating in a loss of autonomy and community-connectedness. Do our societal institutions promote:

• Enthusiasm—or passivity?
• Respectful personal relationships—or manipulative impersonal ones?
• Community, trust, and confidence—or isolation, fear and paranoia?
• Empowerment—or helplessness?
• Autonomy (self-direction)—or heteronomy (institutional-direction)?
• Participatory democracy—or authoritarian hierarchies?
• Diversity and stimulation—or homogeneity and boredom?

Research (that I documented in Commonsense Rebellion) shows that those labeled with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) do worst in environments that are boring, repetitive, and externally controlled; and that ADHD-labeled children are indistinguishable from “normals” when they have chosen their learning activities and are interested in them. Thus, the standard classroom could not be more imperfectly designed to meet the learning needs of young people who are labeled with ADHD.

As I discussed last year in AlterNet in “Would We Have Drugged Up Einstein? How Anti-Authoritarianism Is Deemed a Mental Health Problem,” there is a fundamental bias in mental health professionals for interpreting inattention and noncompliance as a mental disorder. Those with extended schooling have lived for many years in a world where all pay attention to much that is unstimulating. In this world, one routinely complies with the demands of authorities. Thus for many M.D.s and Ph.D.s, people who rebel against this attentional and behavioral compliance appear to be from another world—a diagnosable one.

The reality is that with enough helplessness, hopelessness, passivity, boredom, fear, isolation, and dehumanization, we rebel and refuse to comply. Some of us rebel by becoming inattentive. Others become aggressive. In large numbers we eat, drink and gamble too much. Still others become addicted to drugs, illicit and prescription. Millions work slavishly at dissatisfying jobs, become depressed and passive aggressive, while no small number of us can’t cut it and become homeless and appear crazy. Feeling misunderstood and uncared about, millions of us ultimately rebel against societal demands, however, given our wherewithal, our rebellions are often passive and disorganized, and routinely futile and self-destructive.

When we have hope, energy and friends, we can choose to rebel against societal oppression with, for example, a wildcat strike or a back-to-the-land commune. But when we lack hope, energy and friends, we routinely rebel without consciousness of rebellion and in a manner in which we today commonly call mental illness.

For some Americans, no doubt, the conscious goal is to get classified as mentally disabled so as to receive disability payments (averaging $700 to 1,400 per month). But isn’t that too a withdrawal of cooperation with society and a rebellion of sorts, based on the judgment that this is the best paying and least miserable financial option?

About the Author

 

Bruce E. Levine, a practicing clinical psychologist, writes and speaks about how society, culture, politics and psychology intersect. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite. His Web site is www.brucelevine.net

Even the “Safest” of RX Opioids Highly Addictive, Say Experts

© Natural Society

Even the “Safest” of RX Opioids Highly Addictive, Say Experts
July 31, 2013 | Natural Society | Elizabeth Renter

If you’ve ever had a serious injury and had to be treated in the emergency room or even by a general physician, you may have been given something known as co-codamol if the incident didn’t warrant something stronger. In the U.S. co-codamol is more commonly known by its brand name Tylenol-2. It is a combination of two drugs—paracetamol and codeine—and although it’s considered one of the safer (a term used loosely) prescription pain-killers, it’s also proving to be extremely addictive.

Over the past decade, prescriptions for co-codamol have doubled. Along with other popular and addictive prescription opiates, like Oxycodone, these drugs often start out as a basic pain-reliever but turn into something much more sinister.

“’Patients and doctors perceive  co-codamol as being the safest of all opioids, but in reality it doesn’t mean that it is safe,” says Glasgow-based doctor Des Spence to the Daily Mail. And as Spence notes, the addiction is hitting women at a higher rate than men.

For whatever reason, more women than men are addicted to opioids. Fortunately, they are also more likely to seek help for such addictions. One English agency says that 65% of addiction inquiries to their helpline are made by women.

Helpful: Pain Control – 5 Natural Pain Relievers

Women often begin their journey into opiate addiction quite innocently enough, believing the “medicine” given to them by their doctor will do nothing but make them feel better. But it’s this unnaturally good feeling that can be addictive.

“At first I would only take them when needed, then somehow I found myself taking them every four to five hours, even when I didn’t really have a headache—it was the relaxed warm feeling that they give me I needed a constant supply of,” said one woman battling a co-codamol addiction.

Remember, this isn’t Oxycodone or Fentanyl—two addictive prescriptions that have been rightfully vilified—no, this is the “safest” one, the one that doctors opt for when the pain is worse than what over-the-counter can handle but not bad enough to warrant something stronger.

While doctors and Big Pharma continue to create and feed addictions, what they should be reaching for is natural pain relief and anti-inflammatories. And as for those of us who are accident-prone or deal with chronic pain, managing that pain, though difficult, should be done with as little prescription interference as possible.

Additional Sources:

British Medical Journal

BBC

DIABLO - California's Last Nuke Standing

DIABLO - California's Last Nuke Standing
July 30, 2013 | eon3

Mothers for Peace Spokeswoman Linda Seeley explains the many risks posed to California by the continued operation of PG&E's two-unit Diablo Canyon nuclear plant near San Luis Obispo, and why, like San Onofre, it should be shutdown permanently - NOW.


This is another in the 'Preview Interview' series from the forthcoming EON documentary SHUTDOWN: The Case of San Onofre - "The Nuclear Free California Movement Rides Again."

Heavy cell phone use linked to oxidative stress

SOTT: Heavy cell phone use linked to oxidative stress
July 19, 2013 | Science Daily

Scientists have long been worried about the possible harmful effects of regular cellular phone use, but studies so far have been largely inconclusive. Currently, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those produced by cell phones, are classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). A new Tel Aviv University study, though, may bring bad news. 

© maron / Fotolia
A new study finds a strong link between
heavy cell phone users and higher oxidative
stress to all aspects of a human cell,
including DNA. Uniquely based on
examinations of the saliva of cell phone
users, the research provides evidence
of a connection between cell
phone use and cancer risk

To further explore the relationship between cancer rates and cell phone use, Dr. Yaniv Hamzany of Tel Aviv University's Sackler Faculty of Medicine and the Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Department at the Rabin Medical Center, looked for clues in the saliva of cell phone users. Since the cell phone is placed close to the salivary gland when in use, he and his fellow researchers, including departmental colleagues Profs. Raphael Feinmesser, Thomas Shpitzer and Dr. Gideon Bahar and Prof. Rafi Nagler and Dr. Moshe Gavish of the Technion in Haifa, hypothesized that salivary content could reveal whether there was a connection to developing cancer.

Comparing heavy mobile phone users to non-users, they found that the saliva of heavy users showed indications of higher oxidative stress -- a process that damages all aspects of a human cell, including DNA -- through the development of toxic peroxide and free radicals. More importantly, it is considered a major risk factor for cancer.

The findings have been reported in the journal Antioxidants and Redox Signaling.

Putting stress on tissues and glands

For the study, the researchers examined the saliva content of 20 heavy-user patients, defined as speaking on their phones for a minimum of eight hours a month. Most participants speak much more, Dr. Hamzany says, as much as 30 to 40 hours a month. Their salivary content was compared to that of a control group, which consisted of deaf patients who either do not use a cell phone, or use the device exclusively for sending text messages and other non-verbal functions.

Compared to the control group, the heavy cell phone users had a significant increase in all salivary oxidative stress measurements studied.

"This suggests that there is considerable oxidative stress on the tissue and glands which are close to the cell phone when in use," he says. The damage caused by oxidative stress is linked to cellular and genetic mutations which cause the development of tumors.

Making the connection

This field of research reflects longstanding concerns about the impact of cell phone use, specifically the effects of radiofrequency non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation on human tissue located close to the ear, say the researchers. And although these results don't uncover a conclusive "cause and effect" relationship between cellular phone use and cancer, they add to the building evidence that cell phone use may be harmful in the long term, and point to a new direction for further research.

One potential avenue of future research would be to analyze a person's saliva prior to exposure to a cell phone, and then again after several intense minutes of exposure. This will allow researchers to see if there is an immediate response, such as a rise in molecules that indicate oxidative stress, Dr. Hamzany says.

Pediatrician Says 5-in-1 Vaccine Pushed by Bill Gates’ GAVI, WHO Will Kill 3,125 Babies

© TruthStream Media

Pediatrician Says 5-in-1 Vaccine Pushed by Bill Gates’ GAVI, WHO Will Kill 3,125 Babies
July 30, 2013 | TruthStream Media | Melissa Melton | Aaron Dykes

If the whole purpose of vaccines is to ‘save children’, why give a shot that statistics indicate will HARM more kids than it will HELP? 

At least 70 infants across five developing nations have died shortly after receiving a World Health Organization- (WHO) and GAVI-backed pentavalent 5-in-1 vaccine that combines the Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus (or DPT) shot with the Hepatitis-B and H influenza-b (or Hib) vaccines.

According to a recently published editorial in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics by St. Stephens Hospital Head Pediatrician Dr. Jacob Puliyel, thousands more babies are expected to perish for what will be a negligible impact in the supposed campaign to stop disease.

The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice reported:

“In a hard hitting editorial, the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME) has accused the WHO of promoting Pentavalent vaccine ‘by stating falsely that no adverse event following immunization (AEFI) has ever been reported with the vaccine.’ The journal says this is contrary to facts.

The IJME editorial by Dr. Jacob Puliyel, head of pediatrics at St Stephens Hospital in New Delhi, is based on his detailed investigation into the deaths of children in Bhutan, Sri Lanka, India and Vietnam following use of Pentavalent vaccine.

The IJME editorial says that On 4 May 2013 the Ministry of Health of Viet Nam suspended Quinvaxem — the Pentavalent combination used in that country — after 12 deaths and 9 other non-fatal serious adverse events. According to local news reports, all the babies who died were in good health prior to vaccination and had serious trouble breathing before dying shortly afterwards.”

This vaccine — that IS NOT approved for use even by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (which seems to approve almost anything, let’s be honest) — is specifically being pushed only in developing countries. Infant deaths have been repeatedly linked to the pentavalent vaccine’s use. Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Vietnam have already banned the vaccine; Bhutan had banned it once after four babies died, but apparently reinstated it at the WHO’s urging, then banned it again after four more babies died.

Even though all the evidence points to the pentavalent vaccine being dangerous at the very least, the Bill Gates-founded GAVI (formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation) plans to shoot up even more kids with it:

“By the end of 2013, with GAVI support, pentavalent vaccine will have reached a projected 200 million children in 72 developing countries… By February 2013 this amounted to a total of 550 million doses shipped. Following its replenishment meeting in London June 2011 GAVI is now committed to immunising a further 224 million children with pentavalent vaccine by 2015.”

As Dr. Puliyel stated in his editorial asking India to protect the nation’s children from this vaccine, “Trivialising all these deaths as coincidental deaths, or deaths due to SIDS, amounts to obscuring the real picture.”

He also crunched the numbers and found that giving Indian children this vaccine doesn’t even make any logical sense from a health care standpoint because, “It is apparent that to save 350 lives from Hib disease, 3,125 children will die from the adverse effects of the vaccine.”

Dr. Puliyel previously studied the data from India’s National Polio Surveillance Project and blew the whistle on more than 47,500 cases on non-polio paralysis also linked to WHO and GAVI vaccination campaigns in the country. Although it has been pointed out that poliovirus rarely even causes symptoms in most people with a healthy immune system, Bill Gates believes vaccinating the world is, in his words, doing “God’s work“.

While neither the WHO nor GAVI (nor Gates for that matter) will likely ever admit the pentavalent vaccine is behind all these infant deaths, coincidence alone can’t explain why so many otherwise healthy babies across so many countries were given this particular type of vaccine, and subsequently, all got fevers, went into crying jags and convulsions, and died.

Related: Did Bill Gates KNOW His Polio Vaccination Push Would Paralyze Children?

Depleted Uranium Inside the Body -Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Power Plants

Depleted Uranium Inside the Body -Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Power Plants
July 29, 2013 | MsMilkytheclown1

Depleted Uranium in the Human Body: Sr Rosalie Bertell, PhD

Epidemiologist Rosalie Bertell (PhD, biometrics) explains the effects of the weaponized DU on the people of Iraq and the planet. In subsequent parts of this series, Dr. Bertell offers readily-accessible ways to detox some heavy metals and poisons from the body.



(part of a snowshoefilms series (2007) with Sister Bertell, a member of the Gray Nuns of the Sacred Heart. http://youtu.be/WgQ79-oDX2o

Videos: Dr Rosalie Bertell PhD - Chemtrails Earthquakes HAARP Depleted Uranium - Includes Many Other Videos On These Subjects http://tinyurl.com/664myu7
http://loveforlife.com.au/content/11/...

Depleted UF6 Guide
An introduction to uranium and its compounds, depleted uranium, and depleted uranium hexafluoride (depleted UF6). http://tinyurl.com/lqbthvy
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/...

Uranium is it a Country? The Origins of Nuclear Power - Documentary
http://youtu.be/2BfBoun5k2w

Please, I URGE YOU TO DOWNLOAD AND REUPLOAD THIS VIDEO BEFORE IT IS TAKEN DOWN AGAIN!

NOW AVAILABLE FULL LENGTH SO YOU CAN PUT IT ON YOUR CHANNEL TOO BY USING THE CREATIVE COMMONS REMIX BUTTON

Fallujah, Iraq, Europe, Depleted Uranium, Cancer Birth Defects, 2012
http://vimeo.com/38175279
http://youtu.be/Uify1FZ5Tic

Video: Chemtrails: Sr. Rosalie Bertell, PhD - 9 Minutes 11 Seconds - In May 2005, snowshoefilms interviewed epidemiologist Rosalie Bertell (Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart) in New York City. Questions covered a wide range of topics, including 'chemtrails.' The 7-part interview was posted on Archive, and subsequently posted by others on youtube. Here's a 2009 updated edit of that interview, with chemtrail footage from Sister Bertell's Mother House in Yardley, Pennsylvania (2007) and video from Chautauqua, N.Y. Note: Cliff Carnicom (LA, May 17 2008 Chemtrail Convergence) calls attention to 3 aspects of chemtrails: ionized metalic salts, organic fibers, and dessicated red blood cells. It is our view that these dessicated blood cells are used to disseminate mycoplasmas -- in particular, weaponized mycoplasmas such as fermentans incognitus. See snowshoefilms' video of microbiologist Garth Nicolson for an explanation of how mycoplasmas could be disseminated via aerosol spray for genetically targeted populations (most of us). Note also, Sr. Bertell references 'global warming' as if it might be human caused. Whether or not that is so (we doubt it), chemtrails have been officially advanced as a mechanism to combat 'global warming'. Most likely, they contribute to local warming.

Chemtrails: Sr. Rosalie Bertell, PhD
http://youtu.be/hh4iS_P5aBw

Chemtrail Forecast North America Evening -- Night http://tinyurl.com/n6hbhm8
http://www.theweatherspace.com/chemtr...

Depleted Uranium Released During Canadian Plane Crash
Little-Known Use of DU in Commercial Jets Exposed http://tinyurl.com/n5eahap
http://americanfreepress.net/html/dep...

OMG! A new way to test Chemtrails! Metal Detector
http://youtu.be/H2-_2BF2Q7E

source remix button video mamaknock
Depleted Uranium Inside The Body & Testing For Chemtrails
http://youtu.be/RcpOovEQUm4

The GMO Answer? BAN GMOs - URGENT Report on Monsanto, Dow and Biotech Firms Uniting to Launch Disinformation Site

GMO Re-Education: Monsanto, Dow and Biotech Firms Unite to Launch Disinformation Site
July 29, 2013 | Organic Prepper | Daisy Luther

If you had a question about how to protect yourself from a criminal known to break into houses in your neighborhood, would you ask him how to protect your home and then take his suggestions, or would you be suspicious he might be answering them in a way that would make your home even easier to encroach?

If you had a question about the honesty and integrity of a person in an authority position, would you ask that person to investigate himself and then accept his findings? (I mean, if you were a normal person, not if your name is Barack or Eric.)

If a company came out with a new medication that promised to cure your ills overnight, would you ask the company that produced it whether it was safe and trust them to be honest, or would you feel that their answer might be colored by their urge to make a buck?

So why on earth would anyone possibly believe that the likes of Monsanto, Dow, and DuPont would be spreading anything but sales-driven propaganda on their new website GMOAnswers?

Are they serious or is this some kind of big public relations joke being played out on a national platform? Are we being punked?

What kind of person would look up their answers on a website SPONSORED by the very people who are putting out the toxic garbage they’d like us to believe is food?

Welcome to the compendium of disinformation!

In the most outrageous, blatant case of the foxes being put in charge of the henhouse that I have ever seen, the big biotech companies got together and launched their propaganda site GMOAnswers today. It is run by the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and BASF. The site contains a heavily moderated question and answer forum and a complete compendium of disinformation in the section called “Explore GMOs”.

 They purport that the website is an acknowledgement that they need to change:

Genetically modified organisms — GMOs — are a major topic of discussion today. Across our society, media and the Internet, a growing number of people have shared a wide range of questions and emotions on the topic – ranging from excitement and optimism to skepticism and even fear. 

GMO Answers was created to do a better job answering your questions — no matter what they are — about GMOs. The biotech industry stands 100 percent behind the health and safety of the GM crops on the market today, but we acknowledge that we haven’t done the best job communicating about them – what they are, how they are made, what the safety data says. 

This website is the beginning of a new conversation among everyone who cares about how our food is grown. 

Join us. Ask tough questions. Be skeptical. Be open. We look forward to sharing answers. (source)

And they tout these 5 principles:

1. Respecting people around the world and their right to choose healthy food products that are best for themselves and their families;
2. Welcoming and answering questions on all GMO topics;
3. Making GMO information, research and data easy to access and evaluate and supporting safety testing of GM products; including allowing independent safety testing of our products through validated science-based methods;
4. Supporting farmers as they work to grow crops using precious resources more efficiently, with less impact on the environment and producing safe, nutritious food and feed products;
5. Respecting farmers’ rights to choose the seeds that are best for their farms, businesses and communities and providing seed choices that include non-GM seeds based on market demands.

The most notable things that I saw about the “discussions” there is that the “experts” are all pro-GMO. There is a very subtle bias against those with concerns, despite the fact that many of them are quoting real statistics and genuine peer-reviewed studies. How many “experts” that are anti-GMO are being moderated right out of the discussion using the “House Rules“?

This website, sadly, is nothing more than an indoctrination vehicle for furthering the myths that Monsanto wants you to believe.

Biotech is on the defensive now – they have been backed into a corner by activists who insist that the GMOs in our food supply, at the very least, be labeled, so that we can make an informed decision about what we feed our families. This false transparency is their last ditch effort to head off pro-labeling legislation and to keep their toxins hidden in our food supply.

What can we do?

I’ve created my own profile over there so that I can “join the discussion.” If you decide to join me, please follow the House Rules to the best of your ability and additionally, remember that you want to garner respect, not scorn, so:

• Be courteous – we are in the right and we should take the high road in conversations
• Don’t be threatening
• Don’t use foul language
• Don’t be abusive towards others, even when you disagree or when they are abusive towards you
• Use facts and cite sources
• If you are censored unfairly, take screen shots and let those tell your story

If other people who don’t know a lot about GMOs come to the forum and see anti-GMO activists scrapping it out in an uncivil fashion, it will close their eyes to the message we are trying to share. Don’t be afraid to be passionate, but please remember that you are representing all of us who say no to GMO.

Do you remember when Cheerios launched the Facebook App that allowed consumers to share what they really thought about the toxin-laden cereal? That was a PR move that backfired dramatically when users bombarded the company’s page with anti-GMO messages.

Biotech must have missed that, because they’ve invited us to “Be skeptical. Be open. We want to hear from you.”

Let’s give them what they asked for, shall we?

RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLE:
Monsanto Spreads Propaganda in Hawaii's Largest Newspaper

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, where this article first appeared, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca

Glyphosate, Brain Damaged Babies, and Yakima Valley – A River Runs Through It

Glyphosate, Brain Damaged Babies, and Yakima Valley – A River Runs Through It
July 28, 2013 | Farm Wars | Barbara H. Peterson

The state of Washington is in a quandary. Reportedly, “A high rate of birth defects has confounded Washington health officials, who have been unable to identify a cause.”

 A report released Tuesday by the Washington State Department of Health said that, since 2010, the neighboring counties of Yakima, Benton and Franklin have an unusually high number pregnancies affected by the birth defect anencephaly, which results in a newborns’ brains being severely underdeveloped.
 
In the U.S., there are approximately one or two expected cases of anencephaly for every 10,000 annual births. However, in the three named Washington counties, with a total population of approximately 515,000, the health department found that there was an abnormally high number of cases reported from January 2010 to January 2013 with approximately eight cases of anencephaly for every 10,000 births.

Anencephaly is a birth defect, almost always fatal, where the neural tubes in the fetus do not close properly. As a result, the forward part the fetus’ brain is not developed and the other part of the brain is exposed to amniotic fluid, causing further damage. Most fetuses that develop the defect are stillborn. Those who survive to birth usually die shortly after being born.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/washington-state-health-officials-stumped-high-rate-birth/story?id=19687592

The Yakima River

Interestingly enough, the Yakima river runs through Yakima and Benton counties, and ends at the “Tri-Cities Area” at Bateman Island, in a confluence of the Yakima, Snake, and Columbia rivers at the edge of Benton and Franklin counties. In other words, the same water runs through all three counties. And this water serves as the main irrigation source for the Yakima Valley.

The Yakima River and its tributaries have been heavily altered for the purpose of irrigated agriculture. There are numerous dams and irrigation canals. Irrigation runoff is in places returned to the river through canal drains

The Yakima River provides irrigation for the dry but fertile land in the valley, and irrigated agriculture is the economic base. Agricultural land totals 1,000 square miles (2,600 km²), including irrigated pastures, orchards, grapes, hops, and field crops. A significant portion of Washington apples and cherries are grown in the valley, as well as most (75%) of the United States’s hops. Since the late 20th century, the wine industry has grown rapidly in the area. It is the location of the Yakima Valley AVA, a designated American Viticultural Area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakima_River

Monsanto, Glyphosate and Weed Control

Enter the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (NWCB):

In the late 1960s, the state legislature established the state’s Noxious Weed Control Board, and authorized counties to establish County Weed Boards. Thirty-eight of Washington’s 39 counties have such boards. There are also a handful of Weed Districts that are contiguous with Irrigation Districts.
http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/ab_weedlaws.htm

Yes, the state of Washington is waging a war against what it determines are noxious weeds, and Glyphosate is its main weapon. In fact, it is the only chemical weapon that is allowed near irrigation outtakes.

Page 59: Glyphosate – a 5% solution of Glyphosate with a suitable surfactant provides fairly good control in some areas and is the only chemical option available for use near irrigation water outtakes.
http://agr.wa.gov/plantsinsects/weeds/npdespermits/docs/IPMFreshwaterEmergentNoxiousQuarantineListedWeeds.pdf

Glyphosate is also the main herbicide recommended for noxious weed eradication. Why? Because the FDA has declared that it is safe. And not only is the state of Washington using it on land and near irrigation outtakes, it is also entering the Yakima River through direct application because a lot of those pesky noxious weeds just love the water.

Water herbicides
The following herbicide active ingredients are allowed for use in Washington lakes and rivers under the Noxious Weed NPDES permit: 2,4-D: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, dimethylamine salt 2,4-D: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, butoxyethyl ester Fluridone: 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4(1H)-pyridinone Glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, isopropylamine salt Endothall: Dipotassium salt of 7-oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid Diquat: Dibromide 1,1′-ethylene-2,2′-bipyridyldiylium dibromide salt Triclopyr TEA ((3,5,6-tricholoro-2-pyridinyl) oxyacetic acid) Imazapyr (2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H- imidazol-2-yl]-3pyridinecarboxylic acid) Recommended Analysis Methods for Herbicide Residue Water Samples
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final_pesticide_permits/noxious/monitoring_data/lakesmonitoring_plan.html

Benton County Herbicide Treatments:

2010 – 100% of the plants were treated in the Yakima River by staff from the Benton County Noxious Weed Control Board (BCNWCB). BCNWB started with a 2% solution of glyphosate and a suitable surfactant and later switched to a 5% solution of glyphosate with a suitable surfactant. Treatments were conducted from mid – July to mid-August.
2011 –The BCNWCB treated plants from Benton City to the Columbia River with a 5% solution of glyphosate. This resulted in very little control, estimated at less than 50%. Fewer plants produced flowers than in 2010 however it should be noted that plants do not tend to flower annually anyway.

2012 –The BCNWCB plans to implement control measures behind all irrigation district diversion dams using a 5% solution of glyphosate starting in July when the water level in the river decreases

http://agr.wa.gov/plantsinsects/weeds/npdespermits/docs/IPMFreshwaterEmergentNoxiousQuarantineListedWeeds.pdf

So, with a directive from the state of Washington to eradicate noxious weeds with Glyphosate being the main herbicide recommended for that eradication both on land and in the water, one would think that the level of Glyphosate in the Yakima waterways would be monitored since this has been several years in the making. Think again.

The following reference refers to Glyphosate as a pesticide, although it is technically an herbicide – Regulatory Status: Glyphosate acid and its salts are moderately toxic compounds in EPA toxicity class II. Labels for products containing these compounds must bear the Signal Word WARNING. Glyphosate is a General Use Pesticide (GUP). This is also the most recent study that I could find:

Pesticide Occurrence and Distribution

An estimated 146 organic pesticides² were applied to crops in the Yakima River Basin during the 2000 growing season (table 3). Estimates were based on county-level agricultural statistics from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and were verified and corrected in interviews with private crop chemical consultants and agriculture-extension agents in Kittitas, Yakima, and Benton Counties. Data on right-of-way applications were obtained from State and local transportation departments and irrigation districts. Details of the pesticide compilation are provided by Ebbert and Embrey (2002). Seventy-five of the 146 applied pesticides (51 percent) were analyzed for this study, and of these 75 pesticides, 47 were detected (63 percent). Only glyphosate (Roundup^®, Rodeo^®) was applied in large amounts, but not analyzed in this study.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5180/section3.html

Anencephaly and Glyphosate

This is the smoking gun. Glyphosate has been linked to the same birth defect that the Washington State Department of Health reported to have found a high incidence of – anencephaly.

Rull et al. provided evidence of an association between maternal exposure to glyphosate herbicides and anencephaly, a type of neural tube defect, as well as with neural tube defects (NTDs) in general [71,72]–consistent with retinoic acid-linked teratogenicity.
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/Antoniou-Teratogenic-Effects-of-Glyphosate-Based-Herbicides.pdf

Connecting the Dots

Now let’s connect the dots, shall we? Three Washington counties – Yakima, Benton, and Franklin – experienced an unusually high number of birth defects at around the same time as Glyphosate was being used extensively for several years to eradicate noxious weeds on land and in the water. That birth defect is called anencephaly. Could there be a connection?

It appears that Yakima, Benton, and Franklin counties just happen to have three things in common – the Yakima River, a noxious weed eradication program using copious amounts of Glyphosate for years on both land and in the river, and an increase in anencephaly, which Glyphosate just happens to be suspected of causing.

Considering the government’s propensity to ignore any connection between Monsanto’s Glyphosate and health effects, and the fact that the EPA  just raised allowable Glyphosate levels, I think we can safely assumed that the correlation between increased usage and these brain damaged babies will not be adequately investigated.

©2013 Barbara H. Peterson

Alarming number of US citizens face poverty, 80% suffer joblessness - report

AFP Photo / Getty Images / Spencer Platt

Alarming number of US citizens face poverty, 80% suffer joblessness - report
July 29, 2013 |RT

Four out of five US adults come to grips with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least some parts of their lives. Over 41 percent of the nation's poor are whites, according to a new report.
In 2011, 46.2 million people in the US were living in poverty and the nation’s official poverty rate was 15 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009, according to the US Census Bureau. That figure appears to be the highest number seen in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been recorded.

Although poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are proportionately nearly three times higher, by absolute numbers the predominant face of the poor is white, the latest report shows. Economic insecurity among whites is said to be more common than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing over 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by Oxford University Press.

Pessimism has been steadily growing across the country, with 63 percent of whites describing the US economy as ‘poor’ in the most recent AP-GfK poll. It’s believed that he growing gap between rich and poor and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs are to blame.

"If you do try to go apply for a job, they're not hiring people, and they're not paying that much to even go to work," a Buchanan County resident, 52-year-old Irene Salyers said, adding that where she lives children have "nothing better to do than to get on drugs."

Almost one out of sixteen people in the USA are living in deep poverty. The risks of poverty have been growing in recent decades, especially among people aged 35-55. For instance, people aged 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during 1969-1989; the risk increased to 23 percent during the period 1989-2009.  

Over 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for over 41 percent of the US destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks, according to the survey data revealed by AP. By 2030 up to 85 percent of all working-age adults in the US will experience economic insecurity.

Job seekers wait in line to fill out applications for
employment during a job fair for San Francisco
(AFP Photo / Justin Sullivan)

Although by race, non-whites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest increases under the newer measure are among whites, with over 76 percent experiencing bouts of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.

The share of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods — those with poverty rates of 30 percent or more — has increased to one in 10, putting them at higher risk of teenage pregnancy or dropping out of school. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 17 percent of the child population in such neighborhoods, compared with 13 percent in 2000, even though the overall proportion of white children in the US has been declining.

The share of black children in high-poverty neighborhoods dropped from 43 percent to 37 percent, while the share of Latino children went from 38 percent to 39 percent.

According to the nation's leading domestic hunger-relief charity Feeding America, over 16 million children under the age of 18 (21 percent) were in poverty in 2011.

"It's time that America comes to understand that many of the nation's biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position," a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty William Julius Wilson told AP.

"There is the real possibility that white alienation will increase if steps are not taken to highlight and address inequality on a broad front," he warned.

EPA to Raise Allowable Glyphosate Pesticide Levels in Food Crops by 3,000%!

© TruthStream Media

EPA to Raise Allowable Glyphosate Pesticide Levels in Food Crops by 3,000%!
July 28, 2013 | TruthStream Media | Melissa Melton

Another win for biotech giant Monsanto equals another loss for humanity. 

Just days ago, RT.com reported that the U.S. Environmental “Protection” Agency is set to raise the allowable limits of Monsanto’s best-selling glyphosate pesticide Roundup in our nation’s food crops to ridiculously high levels:

“Through the EPA’s new standards, the amount of allowable glyphosate in oilseed crops such as flax, soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watch acknowledged is  over 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA is increasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food crops from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm.”

Supposedly they were able to do this because a two-month open comment period that began May 1st drew little public resistance.


This is in spite of a flurry of new studies coming out just this month demonstrating the detrimental effects of pesticide on the environment and all manner of things living in it:

• July 19, 2013: Scientific American’s “How Pesticides Can Cause Parkinson’s” explained how a new study found these chemicals “may prevent the brain from disposing of its own toxic waste”.
• July 21, 2013: It was reported a University of California dietary toxin study found 100% of the 364 children involved were above cancer benchmark levels for excessive arsenic, dioxin, and pesticide exposure.
• July 24, 2013: In “Bees exposed to high levels of pesticides suspected in colony collapse,” the LA Times reported on yet another study which showed bee pollen from bees that service our nation’s major food crops in five different states was tainted with 35 different types of pesticide (some at lethal levels). As we’ve reported before, this will likely continue considering Monsanto purchased one of the leading bee research firms first linking glyphosate to colony collapse disorder, a firm that just so happens to also be considered a “go-to” by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• July 26, 2013: The U.S. Geological Service put out a press release “Pesticide Accumulation in Sierra Nevada Frogs” which found “current-use pesticides, particularly fungicides, are accumulating in the bodies of Pacific chorus frogs in the Sierra Nevada” and noted “Pesticides continue to be a suspected factor in the decline of amphibian species across the U.S. and the world.”

It is ridiculous and goes against common sense to ignore the cumulative effects that all these chemicals in our food and environment are having on us. RT summed up the wide-ranging implications glyphosate exposure has on nearly every system in the human body:

“Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,” independent scientist Anthony Samsel and MIT’s Stephanie Seneff concluded in the April study.

“Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”

Yet, with a mountain of independent evidence staring the EPA right in the face, they are going to not only raise the allowable levels of this pesticide in our food, but they are going to allow a massive increase!
Why does it appear that our government is more interested in protecting the profits of mega corporations versus the safety of its people? Why are these despicable practices allowed to continue?

One clue might lie in the grand revolving door that is our government and these same corporations. Take William Ruckelshaus, for example, who was the first EPA head. He has also spent 12 years on the Monsanto Board of Directors. How about Linda J. Fisher who spent a decade working as Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances before she left to head up Monsanto’s Washington lobbying team as the company’s Vice President of Government and Public Affairs…before again returning to the EPA.

And don’t forget Margaret Miller, who worked on Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone and even wrote the scientific report the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required on it’s supposed safety before taking a job as a Deputy Director the Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation over at the FDA where she would be in charge of reviewing her own report!

Here are some more shining exemplars when it comes to Monsanto and our revolving door government. If you could look up ‘conflict of interest’ in a dictionary, you would no doubt find this diagram:

In every article that necessitates a reason to show this revolving door diagram of our government and Monsanto, I will show it.

Because the government/big agra door is revolving so hard and so fast it’s about to break off its hinges, rather than admit the hardcore widespread damage these pesticides are causing, our government is just going to continue to raise the allowable “safe” limit like that even means anything.

Just like when the Fukushima nuclear reactor melted down following the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in 2011, instead of admitting the dangers and trying to fix the actual cause of the problem, the government just up and raised the acceptable radiation levels (as if there even is such a thing).

So where does that leave the rest of us living in a country where — even though we spend double per person on healthcare than other industrialized nations at an annual pricetag of $2.7 trillion — our life expectancy still continually declines and lags behind many other countries? We were ranked 38th in the world in 2011.

Where does that leave all the disappearing animals? Mother nature?

While the government is busy ‘updating’ things, perhaps someone up there in Washington can step away from their lobbyists and put down those heavy bags of cash for two seconds and go ahead and change the name of the country while they’re at it, you know, to make it a little more accurate.

The United Corporations of America sounds about right.