Victory! Monsanto, Pioneer prohibited from marketing GE corn in Mexico

Some of the native maize varieties from Oaxaca, Mexico

Victory! Monsanto, Pioneer prohibited from marketing GE corn in Mexico
Oct 12, 2013 | Global Justice Ecology Project | Devon G. Peña

An October 10 press release with Mexico City byline announced the banning of genetically engineered corn in Mexico. According to the group that issued the press release, La Coperacha, a federal judge has ordered Mexico’s SAGARPA (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación), which is Mexico’s Secretary of Agriculture, and SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales), which is equivalent of the EPA, to immediately “suspend all activities involving the planting of transgenic corn in the country and end the granting of permission for experimental and pilot commercial plantings”.

 The unprecedented ban was granted by the Twelfth Federal District Court for Civil Matters of Mexico City. Judge Jaime Eduardo Verdugo J. wrote the opinion and cited “the risk of imminent harm to the environment” as the basis for the decision. The judge’s ruling also ruled that multinationals like Monsanto and Pioneer are banned from the release of transgenic maize in the Mexican countryside” as long as collective action lawsuits initiated by citizens, farmers, scientists, and civil society organizations are working their way through the judicial system.

The decision was explained during a press conference in Mexico City on the 10th by members of the community-based organizations that sued federal authorities and companies introducing transgenic maize into Mexico. The group, Acción Colectiva, is led by Father Miguel Concha of the Human Rights Center Fray Francisco de Vittoria; Victor Suarez of ANEC (National Association of Rural Commercialization Entertprises); Dr. Mercedes Lopéz of Vía Organica; and Adelita San Vicente, a teacher and member of Semillas de Vida, a national organization that has been involved in broad-based social action projects to protect Mexico’s extraordinary status as a major world center of food crop biodiversity.

According to the press release, Acción Colectiva [Collective Action] aims to achieve absolute federal declaration of the suspension of the introduction of transgenic maize in all its various forms – including experimental and pilot commercial plantings – in Mexico, “which is the birthplace of corn in the world”.
This ruling marks a milestone in the long struggle of citizen demands for a GMO-free country, acknowledged Rene Sanchez Galindo, legal counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, adding that the ruling has serious enforcement provisions and includes the possibility of “criminal charges for the authorities responsible for allowing the introduction of transgenic corn in our country”.

Father Miguel Concha said the judge’s decision reflects a commitment to respect the Precautionary Principle expressed in various international treaties and statements of human rights. Concha emphasized that the government is obliged to protect the human rights of Mexicans against the economic interests of big business.The lawsuit seeks to protect the “human right to save and use the agrobiodiversity of native landraces from the threats posed by GMO maize”, said the human rights advocate.

The class action lawsuit is supported by scientific evidence from studies that have – since 2001 – documented the contamination of Mexico’s native corn varieties by transgenes from GMO corn, principally the varieties introduced by Monsanto’s Roundup ready lines and the herbicide-resistant varieties marketed by Pioneer and Bayer CropScience. The collection of the growing body of scientific research on the introgression of transgenes into Mexico’s native corn genome has been a principal goal and activity of the national campaign, Sin Maíz, No Hay Paíz [Without Corn, There Is No Country].

Source: Environmental Food & Justice

People Who Score High On The Personality Trait Resilience Have The Highest Amount of Natural Painkiller Activation

People Who Score High On The Personality Trait Resilience Have The Highest Amount of Natural Painkiller Activation
Oct 11, 2013 | Prevent Disease | April McCarthy

A new study suggests that there’s more going on inside our brains when someone snubs us -- and that the brain may have its own way of easing social pain.

 The findings, recently published in Molecular Psychiatry by a University of Michigan Medical School team, show that the brain’s natural painkiller system responds to social rejection -- not just physical injury.

What’s more, people who score high on a personality trait called resilience -- the ability to adjust to environmental change -- had the highest amount of natural painkiller activation.

Psychological resilience is an individual's tendency to cope with stress and adversity. This coping may result in the individual "bouncing back" to a previous state of normal functioning, or simply not showing negative effects. A third, more controversial form of resilience is sometimes referred to as 'posttraumatic growth' or 'steeling effects' where in the experience adversity leads to better functioning (much like an inoculation gives one the capacity to cope well with future exposure to disease).

The team, based at U-M’s Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, used an innovative approach to make its findings. They combined advanced brain scanning that can track chemical release in the brain with a model of social rejection based on online dating. The work was funded by the U-M Depression Center, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the Phil F Jenkins Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

They focused on the mu-opioid receptor system in the brain -- the same system that the team has studied for years in relation to response to physical pain. Over more than a decade, U-M work has shown that when a person feels physical pain, their brains release chemicals called opioids into the space between neurons, dampening pain signals.

David T. Hsu, Ph.D., the lead author of the new paper, says the new research on social rejection grew out of recent studies by others, which suggests that the brain pathways that are activated during physical pain and social pain are similar.

“This is the first study to peer into the human brain to show that the opioid system is activated during social rejection,” says Hsu, a research assistant professor of psychiatry. “In general, opioids have been known to be released during social distress and isolation in animals, but where this occurs in the human brain has not been shown until now.”

The study involved 18 adults who were asked to view photos and fictitious personal profiles of hundreds of other adults. Each selected some who they might be most interested in romantically -- a setup similar to online dating.

But then, when the participants were lying in a brain imaging machine called a PET scanner, they were informed that the individuals they found attractive and interesting were not interested in them.

Brain scans made during these moments showed opioid release, measured by looking at the availability of mu-opioid receptors on brain cells. The effect was largest in the brain regions called the ventral striatum, amygdala, midline thalamus, and periaqueductal gray -- areas that are also known to be involved in physical pain.

The researchers had actually made sure the participants understood ahead of time that the “dating” profiles were not real, and neither was the “rejection.” But nonetheless, the simulated social rejection was enough to cause both an emotional and opioid response.

Suffering slings and arrows differently

Hsu notes that the underlying personality of the participants appeared to play a role in how much of a response their opioid systems made.

“Individuals who scored high for the resiliency trait on a personality questionnaire tended to be capable of more opioid release during social rejection, especially in the amygdala,” a region of the brain involved in emotional processing, Hsu says. “This suggests that opioid release in this structure during social rejection may be protective or adaptive.”

The more opioid release during social rejection in another brain area called the pregenual cingulate cortex, the less the participants reported being put in a bad mood by the news that they’d been snubbed.
The researchers also examined what happens when the participants were told that someone they’d expressed interest in had expressed interest in them -- social acceptance. In this case, some brain regions also had more opioid release. “The opioid system is known to play a role in both reducing pain and promoting pleasure, and our study shows that it also does this in the social environment,” says Hsu.

The new research holds more importance than just pure discovery, note the authors, who also include senior author Jon-Kar Zubieta, M.D., Ph.D., a longtime opioid researcher. Specifically, they are pursuing further research on how those who are vulnerable to, or currently suffering from depression or social anxiety have an abnormal opioid response to social rejection and/or acceptance. “It is possible that those with depression or social anxiety are less capable of releasing opioids during times of social distress, and therefore do not recover as quickly or fully from a negative social experience. Similarly, these individuals may also have less opioid release during positive social interactions, and therefore may not gain as much from social support,” Hsu theorizes.

Hsu also notes that perhaps new opioid medications without addictive potential may be an effective treatment for depression and social anxiety. Although such medications are not yet available, he adds, “increasing evidence for the neural overlap of physical and social pain suggests a significant opportunity to bridge research in the treatment of chronic pain with the treatment of psychiatric disorders.”

If nothing else, perhaps knowing that our response to a social snub isn’t “all in our heads” can help some people understand their responses and cope better, Hsu says. “The knowledge that there are chemicals in our brains working to help us feel better after being rejected is comforting.”

Source:

University of Michigan Health System


April McCarthy is a community journalist playing an active role reporting and analyzing world events to advance our health and eco-friendly initiatives.

Comment: With the monetary prison system in full swing, these studies primarily are focused on sales of drugs, and do not account for the onslaught of monetary influence which overrides social structure. They also leave out this dimension and attempt to add this dimension as a (problem-reaction = solution) to hide this fact. They also attempt to influence personality over essence and jumble the ray of creation into their own logistics knowing damn well that it is sacred and has an order. The solution is awareness and does not require medication, rather, mother earth and her knowledge which is natural in origin. The credibility of the pharmaceutical industry is in shambles, so by offering (MORE DRUGS), it seems the hope is (MORE PROFITS), in the drapery of illusion. Chemical warfare is also in full swing with motes and corporate chemicals rapidly invading our bodies, and this seems to leave a sense that these new violations must be accepted. With each unique case, a naturopathic doctor may be your only hope of finding a real solution. Better yet, you can become one yourself by researching and altering habits. The combination of psychiatry and pain may just be a ploy (thinking trap) to hide the fact that drugs have nothing to do with healing.

The Great Myth of the FDA as Protector of our Health

© Natural Society

The Great Myth of the FDA as Protector of our Health
Oct 11, 2013 | Natural Society | Christina Sarich

Just like we’ve been taught to bow to the white coats, we’ve also been conditioned to think that whatever the Food and Drug Administration approves must be safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. This organization is supposed to be a governmental watchdog over our food supply and public health, as well as an agency to keep medicines or other proposed ‘cures’ – both natural and pharmaceutical – from doing us harm. The FDA is supposed to block the interests of greedy corporations who want to make a fast buck, but its original intentions, if they were ever pure, have been tainted.

Political maneuvering, lobbying, racketeering, and outright corporate infiltration of the FDA has made the institution a complete waste of tax payer money, and worse, an absolute detriment to our overall food and medicine safety. Just because you see ‘FDA’ approved on something anymore, doesn’t mean it is safe. FDA drugs have been responsible for over 140,000 deaths in hospitals every year – some would call that an epidemic. Others go as far as to accuse the FDA of mass homicide of the American people.

Read: 500 Page Report Says FDA is Failing to Keep Food Safe

Consider this: just one FDA approved pain drug called Vioxx (rofecoxib) has been responsible for over 139,000 heart attacks and was only pulled off the shelves after tens of thousands of people died. Merck, it’s maker, raked in over $2.5 billion in sales. How about the thousands of women who had children who now suffer from reproductive cancers because they took FDA approved DES (diethylstilbestrol)? This isn’t even touching on FDA approved GMOs.

According to the book, Prescription Alternatives written by Earl L. Mindell, R.Ph., Ph.D., and Virginia Hopkins, M.A., the following are the most common prescription drug categories (yes, FDA approved) with adverse drug reactions that are completely preventable with natural healing therapies:

• Cardiovascular Medications: 24.5%

• Diuretics (for high blood pressure): 22.1%

• Nonopiod Analgesics (painkillers): 10.9%

• Hypoglucemics (Diabetes drugs): 10.9%

• Anticoagulants (for example, Coumadin): 10.2%

Many people who don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water say that you shouldn’t use a pharmaceutical drug unless its been on the market for over ten years – but you could also just ditch pharmaceuticals altogether. The dishonesty of this industry won’t be stopped by fines, after all, their pockets are too deep. A few million in lawsuit settlements or court fees, and another few million in fines, are a drop in the bucket to companies like Merck and Pfizer. Global Big Pharma has been fined more than $11 billion in the last three years for ‘nothing less than criminal wrongdoing,’ but this doesn’t stop them.

Greenpeace to FDA: Stop Misleading the Public About GMOs

We shouldn’t trust the FDA, nor its drug pushers – medical doctors. While there are some doctors who actually care about their patients’ health and act vigilantly to protect it, most of them are courted by pharmaceutical companies to prescribe or give as free samples, an entire cornucopia of meds. Some are given to treat health concerns, others to treat depression or ‘mental illness,’ with hardly a care for what would actually benefit the patient. Very simple solutions such as more rest, more exercise, less stress, or a simple herbal remedy that sells over the counter for a few dollars are often overlooked or dismissed.

Turning to natural treatments that have stood the test of time for thousands of years, not a few ‘clinical’ trials, is the way to take our health back. We can ignore the advice of the FDA, do our own research and use our collective intelligence and the ancient wisdom our ancestors have passed down to us to treat just about every conceivable health issue. We can no longer take our pills apathetically and stay silent. It is time to make a radical shift and be responsible for our own vitality.

Ronnie Cummins on Turning the Tide Against Monsanto!

Ronnie Cummins on Turning the Tide Against Monsanto!
Oct 10, 2013 | Mercola


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/cur... Ronnie Cummins, the National Director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), talks about Initiative 522 (I-522) as well as the reasons why you should support this GMO labeling campaign.

The images and music used within this video have been licensed through ThinkStock and Music Bakery.  WARNING: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE MUSIC OR IMAGES CONTAINED IN THIS PRODUCTION IS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

Martin O'Malley and the Poisoning of the Children of Baltimore

Martin O'Malley and the Poisoning of the Children of Baltimore
Oct 10, 2013 | DavidSwanson.org | David Swanson

Baltimore's poorer neighborhoods have been dealing with Martin O'Malley for years and years, as I can recall from when I worked in ACORN's national office and heard all about the trouble this man was from our Maryland chapter.  O'Malley, once mayor of Baltimore and now governor of Maryland, may run for president of the United States on a what's-left-of-the-left-wing-of-the-Democratic-Party kind of platform.  His current and former constituents will have the usual warnings about who the newly packaged candidate has really been.  Perhaps they'll be heard, although that's not usually how these things work.

One of many angles worth observing about O'Malley is his position toward the natural environment. He's been pushing for fracking and for a coal liquid natural gas terminal on the Chesapeake Bay at Cove Point (Obama just approved it!). My friend and Baltimorean Diane Wittner says she thinks O'Malley is after campaign money "at the expense of a livable bioregion."

One of O'Malley's destructive proposals is of particular interest because of the resistance to it organized by young people.  O'Malley wants to stick a giant incinerator into a poor neighborhood in Baltimore.  This monstrosity, called the Energy Answers Incinerator, would be the largest trash-burning incinerator in the nation, consuming 4,000 tons of trash a day including plastic, rubber, vinyl, metal, and household waste.  In violation of state law this worse-than-a-major-coal-plant pollution machine would be situated less than a mile from Benjamin Franklin High School and Curtis Bay Elementary School. The incinerator would flood the air with mercury, nitric oxide, lead, dioxins, and particulate matter, producing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, respiratory problems, and -- if all the stars align -- just possibly a single uncomfortable question in a presidential "debate."

The neighborhood to be victimized, Curtis Bay, already has the highest toxic air pollution in Maryland and among the worst in the nation. Here's a map I've just made because I think people who visit Baltimore's tourist area would appreciate knowing how close this less favored area is:

Now check out this great website where I've learned about this outrage:

Stop the Incinerator:

"For the health of our community and our children we are calling on Governor Martin O’Malley to stop the proposed trash burning incinerator from being built in Curtis Bay. If built the Energy Answers Incinerator would be the largest of its kind in the nation, producing more pollutants per hour of energy produced than the largest coal plants in Maryland. Worse still, the project is set to be built less than a mile from Benjamin Franklin High School and Curtis Bay Elementary School, in violation of Maryland state regulations. It is this kind of recklessness that has led Baltimore to be ranked number one in air pollution related deaths per capita.

"Energy Answers was required to begin construction in August. While the Maryland Department of Environment investigates if they failed to do so, we are calling on Governor O’Malley to intervene and protect our children’s health and the health of our community.
"Please contact Governor O’Malley if you want to stop the nations’ largest incinerator from being built less than a mile from schools.  Let him know that our community is not a dumping ground.  Let him know that the Energy Answers incinerator needs to be STOPPED."

Governor’s office phone # 410.974.3901 / 1.800.811.8336
Governor O’Malley’s contact page: http://www.governor.maryland.gov/mail/

Watch this terrific video:


Free Your Voice from Free Your Voice on Vimeo.

Propaganda Alert: British Newspaper Promoting Lowering IQs of Children with Fluoridated Milk Pus

image

Propaganda Alert: British Newspaper Promoting Lowering IQs of Children with Fluoridated Milk Pus
Oct 9, 2013 | Cryptogon

Editor's note: Our health conscious readers in Britain may want to put their foot on this nonsense speading around the schools as a methodology to make profits while lowering IQs of children with pasturized (radiation which destroys all that is healthy in milk; needed to rid infected cows and hide pus buildup) and fluoridated (rat poisoned) milk. What better way to rid oneself of toxic waste then to sell it and have the public drink it and then eject it into the environment which then makes them responsible for the horrible crime and too stupid to realize it. Actually, it is much easier to just say no while seeking out peer to peer farmers.
---

Britain: Blackpool Considering Adding Fluoride to Milk for School Children

Via: Blackpool Gazette:

Special plans to introduce fluoridised milk into Blackpool’s primary schools moved one step closer after the scheme was backed by health chiefs.

At a meeting of Blackpool Council’s Health and Wellbeing board yesterday it was resoundingly agreed to push forward plans to provide milk to 77 primary schools in the town.

Dr Arif Rajpura, Blackpool’s director of public health said: “Ideally we would like fluoridised water to be provided so that everyone has access to it, but that seems to be off the cards at the moment, with cost being an issue.

“The next best thing is milk fluoridisation.

“Fluoride is found in toothpaste and works to a degree on the teeth, but is soon washed off.

“But fluoride which is ingested can be continually secreted in the mouth through saliva.
“Some people have raised concerns about fluorosis, which leads to a mottling of the teeth, but the fluoridisation of milk is very safe.

“This is a no brainer from my perspective.

“We have an opportunity to give kids the best chance in life, through the free breakfasts, free milk and now fluoridised milk.”

Related: Ten Other Areas of the UK Have Already Introduced Fluoridated Milk to Its Students

Senior Scientist Blasts Industrial Chemicals in U.S. Foods: Report Reveals Toxicity of Food

© Natural Society

Senior Scientist Blasts Industrial Chemicals in U.S. Foods: Report Reveals Toxicity of Food
Oct 10, 2013 | Natural Society | Elizabeth Renter

Jennifer Sass is a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), overseeing the chemicals and pesticides in regulatory programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In other words, she knows a thing or two about industrial chemicals. Recently, Sass blasted the U.S. food system saying problems with the regulation of industrial chemicals by the Food and Drug Administration are worse than the problems she sees at the EPA—and that’s saying something. She also references a new report revealing how in danger our food is from a toxic-substances perspective.

Sass says a recent report that sheds light on the FDA’s oversight of food additives should have everyone concerned. About 1,000 food additives are in the U.S. food supply without FDA knowledge or approval. For those that the FDA knows about (10,000 different additives), fewer than 38% have a “published feeding study” or a study indicating its safety within the food supply. For direct food additives, she says, the number of those studied is even smaller—at only 21.6%.

“It appears the FDA and the food industry were often making safety decisions by comparing one chemical to another rather than doing an actual toxicology study. In making such decisions, they were building a house of cards based on assumptions and unsupported extrapolations instead of direct scientific evidence.”

There are several reasons that such a jumbled mess of industrial chemicals and food additives have made it into our food supplies. One of those—that many chemicals were grandfathered into the system before the 1950s. These have been around for decades and there was never any approved studies on their safety. As for those newer additives, the food industry itself decides what’s safe and what isn’t, and can voluntarily let the FDA know if any substance is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), not proving it to be so.

The report says:

“In practice, almost 80% of chemical additives directly—intentionally—added to food lack the relevant information needed to estimate the amount that consumers can safely eat in FDA’s own database and 93% lack reproductive or developmental toxicity data, although FDA requires feeding toxicology data for these chemicals.”

Not surprisingly, a recent study from Pew researchers indicated that 100% of panel members—experts who review those GRAS additives—have “financial relationships with companies that manufacture the food additives being reviewed.” In other words, they have a financial incentive to let these questionable additives make it into the food supply with as little interference as possible.

According to Sass:

“I’ve spent much of my career extensively reviewing EPA determinations of safety for hazardous chemicals. It is an outrage that FDA is not even looking at many of the chemicals added to food, and that the agency doesn’t even have mandatory notification when industrial chemicals come into our food supply.

I’ve also spent much of my career documenting the problem of chemical manufacturers testing the safety of their own products. It isn’t rocket science to think that a bias and a financial conflict may lead to a misrepresentation of the potential toxicity of a chemical."

 Additional Sources:

LiveScience

Factory Farms: Taxpayers pay, Politicians take, Agribusiness profits

© omnivoredilemmagrass.wordpress.com

Factory Farms: Taxpayers pay, Politicians take, Agribusiness profits
Oct 9, 2013 | Organic Index | Organic Consumers Association

The agribusiness giants would have us believe that our inherently unsustainable and morally reprehensible factory farming system is the only way to feed the world's burgeoning population. But the facts prove otherwise. Factory farming is all about maximizing profits for a handful of the world's largest corporations.

Agribusiness spent $751 million over the past 5 years on lobbying congress and another $480.5 million in direct campaign contributions over the past two decades. Since 1995, taxpayers have provided $292.5 billion in direct agricultural subsidies, another $96 billion in crop insurance subsidies, and over $100 billion in subsidies to promote the growth of genetically engineered corn and soy.

Feeding huge numbers of confined animals actually uses more food, in the form of grains that could feed humans, than it produces. For every 100 food calories of edible crops fed to livestock, we get back just 30 calories in the form of meat and dairy. That's a 70-percent loss. And recent research from the University of Minnesota shows that reallocating croplands away from fuels and animal feed could boost food available for people by 70 percent without clearing more land.

How did we end up with this cruel, unsustainable, unhealthy, environmentally destructive factory farm model? The numbers say it all.

The Bigger the Farm, the Larger the Taxpayer Subsidy

$292.5 billion: Total amount of taxpayer subsidies given to farms from 1995-2012.

Only $39 billion: Total amount in conservation payments paid to farms between 1995 and 2012.

10: Percentage of farms in the U.S. that collected 75 percent of farm subsidies from 1995-2012.

62: Percentage of farms in the U.S. that did not collect any subsidy payments.

$32,043: Average annual subsidies received by the largest 10 percednt of farms between 1995 and 2012.

$604: Average annual subsidy received by the smallest 80 percent of farms between 1995 and 2012.

Insuring Factory Farms at Taxpayer Expense

$15.8 billion: Cost to U.S. taxpayers in 2012 for providing crop insurance - an overwhelming majority of which went to the largest factory farms.

$96.4 billion: Cost to U.S. taxpayers for subsidizing the Crop Insurance Program from 1995-2012.

$90 billion: Cost of crop insurance to U.S. taxpayers over the next 10 years.

75: Percentage of 2012 crop insurance payouts shouldered by taxpayers.

$10.3 billion: Amount since 2001 that insurance companies have enjoyed in underwriting gains - while taxpayers have lost $276 million.

$1 million: Average amount the 26 largest factory farms collected apiece in crop insurance premium support in 2011.

$227,000: The amount the top 1 percent of policyholders received in crop insurance subsidies in 2011.

$5,000: The amount the bottom 80 percent of policyholders collected in crop insurance subsidies in 2011.

More than 10,000: Number of individual farming operations that received federal crop insurance premium subsidies ranging from $100,000 to more than $1 million apiece in 2011.

10: Percentage of farm businesses that received 54 percent of all insurance subsidies in 2011.

GMO animal feed subsidized by U.S. taxpayers

$84.4 billion: Amount in corn subsidies (88 percent of which is now genetically modified) provided in the U.S. from 1995-2012.

$27.8 billion: Amount in soy subsidies (94 percent of which is now genetically modified) provided in the U.S. from 1995-2012.

Legalized bribery: How American monopolies are built

$751 million: Amount in lobbying expenditures by the agribusiness lobby from 2008-2013.

$480.5 million: Amount the agribusiness sector has contributed to federal candidates during the past two decades, with two-thirds going to Republicans.

$43 million: Amount spent by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (world's largest biotech trade association) on lobbying from 2008 to 2013.

$33 million: Approximate amount spent by Monsanto (who has patents on 95% of the genetically modified seed market) on lobbying since 2008.

$7.2 million: Amount just 14 members of Congress and their spouses (net worth of up to $124.5 million) - each of them Republican - have received in farm subsidies since 1995. These Congress members all voted to continue farm subsidies from which they personally benefit, while allowing authorization for nutrition programs for low income individuals and families, including food stamps, to expire this year.

Sources

2013 Farm Subsidy Database, Environmental Working Group
Pork Barrel Politics, By Congressman George Miller, July 2013
Agribusiness, Open Secrets
Monsanto Co, Open Secrets
Biotechnology Industry Association, Open Secrets
Winning the Debate against Factory Farming

Article Source:

Listen to the informative SOTT Talk Radio interview with author of The Vegetarian Myth, Lierre Keith: Get the real scoop on 'how we end(ed) up with this cruel, unsustainable, unhealthy, environmentally destructive factory farm model'.

Vaccines Spread Disease: 91% Fully Vaccinated Involved in Pertussis Outbreak

Vaccines Spread Disease: 91% Fully Vaccinated Involved in Pertussis Outbreak
Oct 9, 2013 | ExperimentalVaccines

Editor's note: Here's a great factual piece on some of the propaganda from websites people still actually visit because they believe that no propaganda exist, yet anyone with eyeballs can witness their lies and promotion of the corporate killing machine.

Florida Farm Workers Allege Pesticide Exposure Is Giving Them Cancer

Florida Farm Workers Allege Pesticide Exposure Is Giving Them Cancer
Oct 8, 2013 | Cornucopia | Carmen Sesín

Marta Cruz left Michoacán, Mexico with her husband and 1-year-old son a decade and a half ago to work in the fields of Homestead, Florida, picking lemons and tomatoes as farm workers. A couple of years ago, she began suffering from headaches but figured it was from the long hours working under the sweltering sun or the stress of figuring out how to pay bills.

Two years ago she fell to the ground with convulsions and was rushed to a hospital, where she learned she had a cancerous brain tumor — it was later removed. One year later, her 17 year-old son was diagnosed with cancer. By the time he received medical attention, it had already spread to his stomach, chest and lungs.

According to Cruz, no one in her family has ever suffered from cancer. She believes she and her son may have developed the disease from exposure to pesticides while working at a Florida nursery.

“Like in many nurseries, the situation wasn’t the best,” said Cruz. “They would spray in the morning while we were arriving to work instead of spraying in the evenings.”


A representative for the nursery declined comment.

At the time, Cruz said she had no idea pesticides posed a health risk to workers. When her son was around nine, he started going to the fields to help his father work, which Cruz believes further exposed him to pesticides.

“Since the problem of cancer seems to be popping up a lot in the community, I believe it may be associated to pesticides,” Cruz explained. She knows at least six other farm workers who developed cancer recently – four have died.

She is not the only one who feels the amount of farm workers with cancer is growing. Elvira Carvajal, from The Farmworker Association of Florida, which focuses on training how to properly handle pesticides, took notice of the growing concern and began tracking cancer cases.

Carvajal said the five she has documented so far this year are former co-workers she visits and monitors but said she continues to hear of others in the community. Carvajal alleged these farm workers may be developing cancer from exposure to pesticides.

She said she speaks from experience. Before joining the organization, Carvajal worked in nurseries for over 20 years. Her job was to plant 700 orchids every 20 minutes along with five other women. Each bed of orchids they worked on would be sprayed as the workers were planting.

“I would feel the mist of the pesticide on me and thought it was refreshing from the intense heat…they would tell us the pesticides were harmless and wouldn’t affect us,” Carvajal said.

“They would tell us it was food for the plants. Since the flowers and leaves looked so beautiful and healthy, we really thought pesticides were harmless… we didn’t know any better,” she added.

Exposing a worker to pesticides is a violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It wasn’t until Carvajal attended a meeting of the FWAF that she realized exposure to pesticides is harmful and she needed to start protecting herself.

Carvajal recalled “there was a family of farm workers at that meeting and two members had just died of cancer. People were saying it was because of the pesticides. One of them would spray and not protect himself. I left feeling uncomfortable.”

According to the Florida Health Department, “in animal studies, some pesticides have been shown to be carcinogenic. Research among human populations have had mixed findings, but seem to suggest evidence of a relationship between certain pesticide exposures and certain cancers.”

The Health Department’s Agricultural Health Study, which focuses on the development of cancer in the farming community, has evaluated more than 20 pesticides to determine if there is an increased risk of developing cancer.

According to the study, “some of these results have shown that people exposed to certain pesticides have an increased risk of developing certain cancers, but further research is needed to confirm these findings…”

Ruben A. Mesa, chair of hematology and oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, agreed.

“Pesticides definitely can increase the risk of cancer,” he said. But he noted that “it is difficult to pull out whether one specific cancer is caused by natural chance or chemical exposure.”

Carvajal said she plans to file a report with the Health Department and blames the overexposure of pesticides on lack of knowledge among workers and weak government regulation.

Environmental Protection Agency regulations require “that a pesticide product undergo hundreds of studies that the agency uses to ensure any pesticide use is safe for human health and the environment.”

Under those regulations, “nurseries are required to post warning signs (in sprayed areas) required by the (Worker Protection Standard) in both Spanish and English.”

But Carvajal doesn’t think the regulations go far enough, or at least workers by and large have no idea they exist. So more awareness is necessary, she said.

The FWAF said the EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture are not doing enough to protect farm workers, activists like Carvajal say. They said the Worker Protection Standard, which is set by the EPA to reduce pesticide poisoning and injury, needs updating.

According to the EPA, there are already changes under consideration that would “improve protections to the human health of almost two million workers minority and low income workers.”

Another complaint is that the USDA only has 43 inspectors for over 20,000 nurseries in the state of Florida. In addition, inspectors call nurseries before inspection to let them know they are going, which gives managers ample time to make appropriate changes to meet regulations.

According to the USDA, “the department does schedule routine inspections, which require certain individuals to be on site. However, we do not notify them in advance for inspections related to complaints or concerns. These are unannounced.”

The agency conducts about 820 inspections annually and inspectors are available to respond immediately to any adverse pesticide related events.

Meanwhile, Cruz continues to wonder how she and her son could have developed cancer, if the cause was not pesticides. She can no longer work so she and her two children depend on her husband’s salary. They save three weekly checks to pay the rent and medical bills are mounting.

Despite all the setbacks, Cruz remains strong and upbeat.

“If it’s not pouring rain, it’s drizzling,” Cruz said with a smile.

Source: Fox News Latin

GMOs & Neurological Disease: ADHD, Autism, Alzheimer’s, Schizophrenia, Bipolar

The Human Nervous System

GMOs & Neurological Disease: ADHD, Autism, Alzheimer’s, Schizophrenia, Bipolar
Oct 7, 2013 |Farm Wars | N.L. Swanson

Acknowledgment: Jon Abrahamson helped with data mining for this article.

The endocrine disrupting properties of glyphosate can lead to neurological disorders (learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Those most susceptible are children and the elderly.

Glyphosate was first marketed in 1976 and its use has exploded since the advent of glyphosateresistant, genetically engineered (GE) crops in 1995. The herbicide-resistant GE crops absorb glyphosate through direct application and from the soil and it cannot be washed off. It is in the food. Glyphosate has also been found in rivers, streams, air and rain.

The thyroid is an endocrine organ that secretes the thyroid hormone. Thyroid dysfunction has been identified with mood disorders. Depression is frequently associated with low levels of thyroid hormone (hypothyroidism), while mood elevation is often associated with high levels of thyroid hormone (hyperthyroidism). An endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) can cause erratic behavior. Recent studies have shown links between food additives and neurotoxicity in cells and hyperactive behavior in children. Incidents have been reported of laboratory rats and farm animals exhibiting uncharacteristic aggressive and anti-social behavior on being fed a diet consisting of GMO soy or corn.

Many scientific studies have shown links between thyroid disruption and neurological diseases. “Thyroid hormones are critical for development of the fetal and neonatal brain, as well as for many other aspects of pregnancy and fetal growth. Hypothyroidism in either the mother or fetus frequently results in fetal disease; in humans, this includes a high incidence of mental retardation. … numerous studies with rats, sheep and humans have reinforced this concept…” According to de Cock et al, “Perinatal exposure to EDCs appears to be associated with the occurrence of ASD [autism spectrum disorder] as well as ADHD. Disruption of thyroid hormone function … may offer an explanation for the observed relations….” MacSweeney et al. report, “that the mothers of 104 schizophrenic patients had: (1) a significantly higher incidence of thyroid disease than a carefully matched control group; (2) significantly more abortions, still-births and greater infant mortality. The findings and possible relevance of thyroid disease to schizophrenia are discussed.” Strong correlation was shown between cancer of the thyroid and glyphosate use on corn and soy crops and that thyroid cancer affects women more than men. It seems that women are more sensitive to thyroid disruption.
The incidence and prevalence for neurological disorders have been skyrocketing. Data trends over time for neurological disorders are not readily available for two reasons: they are not as well-studied as other diseases (cancer, diabetes etc.), and the diagnostic methods keep changing. The experts argue over whether the increases are real, or a by-product of changes in diagnostics along with greater attention given to these disorders in recent times. For example, a former diagnosis of mental retardation might now result in a diagnosis of autism. Furthermore there is a large degree of overlap in symptoms. Typical manifestations of ADHD, such as distractibility or hyperactivity are also present in pediatric bipolar disorder, for example.

Children

ADHD

According to the New York Times, “an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 through 17 had received an A.D.H.D. diagnosis at some point in their lives, a 16 percent increase since 2007 and a 41 percent rise in the past decade.” From the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “rates of ADHD diagnosis increased an average of 3% per year from 1997 to 2006 and an average of 5.5% per year from 2003 to 2007. … It is not possible to tell whether this increase represents a change in the number of children who have ADHD, or a change in the number of children who were diagnosed.” It also makes a great deal of difference who is doing the reporting: parents or doctors. The disorder affects boys more than girls. Whatever the numbers, there seems to be an increasing behavioral problem with our youth. Our solution is to give them more chemicals in the form of mood-altering drugs.

Bipolar

According to a 2007 report by Moreno et al., “the annual number of office-based visits with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder was estimated to increase in youth from 25 (1994-1995) to 1003 (2002-2003) per 100,000 population, whereas in adults it increased from 905 (1994-1995) to 1679 (2002-2003) per 100,000 population. … most youth bipolar disorder visits were by males (66.5%), whereas most adult bipolar disorder visits were by females (67.6%).”

Autism

The number of autistic children has exploded during the last decade, and some are calling it an epidemic. There is great controversy over what is causing this and whether all of it is real. “But many researchers now say that at least part of the rise in autism is real and caused by something in the environment. Rather than quibbling over recounts they are focusing on finding the causes.”

It was shown in previous articles that there has been a huge increase in the amount of glyphosates applied to corn and soy crops grown in the U.S. corresponding to the rise in the percentage of corn and soy planted with genetically engineered (GE) varieties. Those data represent only a portion of the total GE crops and amount of glyphosates applied. The USDA only collects data on GE crops for corn, cotton and soy. Since most of the corn (88%) and soy (94%) planted now is GE, these data give a representation of the rising trends in both GE crops and herbicide use.

The amount of glyphosate applied to U.S. corn and soy crops is plotted against the prevalence of autism in the graph below. The prevalence of autism was difficult to find and the values shown on this graph came from many sources using different methods and different age groups. A better estimate was obtained from the U.S. Department of Education, which keeps track of school age children receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A second plot is shown using data from USDE for the number of autistic children receiving services. The correlation is quite strong which may indicate that glyphosate is a contributing factor in the rise of autism

Elderly

The elderly are susceptible because they may already have a great body burden of chemical exposure over their lifetime and because some of their body processes are shutting down and hormonal disruptions can have a much greater effect on them.

According to the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Alzheimer’s disease went from number 32 in 1990 to number nine in 2010 in the ranking of leading causes of death in the U.S. Senile Dementia and it’s care costs have also skyrocketed in the last two decades.

Prevalence and incidence data were sparse, but data on death rates were available from 1979. Graphs of the death rates for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and Senile Dementia have been plotted against glyphosate applications to U.S. corn and soy crops. Again, the correlations are quite strong. Deaths due to Alzheimer’s have been rising since 1980, but there is a sharp spike in 1999.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation and there are now a host of chemicals in our food and our environment. The huge increase in the amount of glyphosate applied to GE food and feed crops has significantly increased our exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. In a previous article, correlations were shown between glyphosate use, GMO crop increase and: thyroid cancer, liver cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, acute kidney injury, incidence and prevalence of diabetes and end stage renal disease. All of these diseases and disorders were carefully chosen based on:

1 Glyphosate is a known endocrine disruptor.

2. Endocrine disruptors can cause organ and neurological damage.

3. Roundup™ and GMOs have shown liver and kidney damage and abnormal behavior in rat studies.

4. Use of glyphosate on herbicide-resistant crops has skyrocketed since 1995.

5. Incidence, prevalence and deaths due to these diseases has also skyrocketed since 1995.

It seems improbable that the correlations in the nine graphs of glyphosates and organ disease, and the three presented here (for a total of 12), can all be coincidence. There has been a trend among the agricultural and food industries and their regulators to engage in practices that place the consumers at risk, emerging in the mid-1990s and growing. It involves not just GMOs but many other things as well and those factors may may be correlated with each other. That may make it impossible to separate out which one caused a particular effect. Much more research needs to be done. Our children are disturbed and our elders are dying horribly.

Notes:

In 2006 Irena Ermakova reported to the European Congress of Psychiatry that, “As in previous series the behavior of males from GM group was compared with the behavior of control rats. Obtained data showed a high level of anxiety and aggression in males, females and young pups from GM groups. Aggression was more expressed in females and rat pups: they attacked and bite each other and the worker.” 14th European Congress of Psychiatry, Nice, France, Sunday, March 5 2006, Poster #048.

Numerous anecdotal reports of animals on GMO diets behaving aggressively and anti-socially have been reported by farmers and veterinarians.

In 2010 Shelton et al. published a paper describing potential mechanisms linking pesticides and autism.

In 2006, Grandjean and Landrigan reported on developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. “Neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation, and cerebral palsy are common, costly, and can cause lifelong disability. … Exposure to these chemicals during early fetal development can cause brain injury at doses much lower than those affecting adult brain function.”

Data sources:

Alzheimer’s & Senile Dementia death data : CDC compressed mortality files

Autism prevalence: CDC: 1975* & 1995* from NAT U R E | VO L 4 7 9 | 3 NOV E M B E R 2 0 1 1

Autism IDEA data: 1992-1998

1999-2010 http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=64

U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001), Chapter 2.

Glyphosate: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)

Percent GE corn & soy data: 1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 2002

2000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

Study Finds Over 24,000 Chemicals In Bottled Water: Which Ones Are Harming You?

Study Finds Over 24,000 Chemicals In Bottled Water: Which Ones Are Harming You?
Oct 7, 2013 | Collective Evolution | Arjun Walia

German researchers have discovered endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), that could adversely affect development and reproduction, to be contained in 18 different bottled water products(1). Of the 24,520 suspect chemicals found to be present in bottled water, the one that showed consistent results and illustrated anti-androgenic and anti-estrogenic activity is di(2-ethylhexyl) fumarate (DEHF). Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system, they can cause cancerous tumors, birth defects, cardiovascular disorders, metabolic disorders and as mentioned earlier,  other developmental disorders(1).

This study comes from Martin Wagner and Jorg Oehlmann of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, and Michael Schlusener and Thomas Ternes of the German Federal Institute of Hydrology. They determined that bottled water could contain serious amounts of EDCs that should be a cause from concern.

Researchers used spectrometric simulation to narrow down their findings to DEHF as the only possible EDC giving rise to harmful activity. DEHF is also known as an anti-estrogenic compound, which means that another unidentified EDC must be present in the samples that showed anti-androgenic activity.

The authors employed a sensitive in vitro bioassay to characterize the total estrogenic burden leaching from plastics, including potential mixture effects and unidentified EDCs. Using a similar approach, a series of studies reported a widespread estrogenic contamination of commercially available bottled water.  Here, we combine biological and chemical analysis to identify putative steroid receptor antagonists in bottled water. Most of the products were potently antiestrogenic and antiandrogenic in the bioassays. Nontarget high-resolution mass spectrometry pointed towards maleate and fumarate isomers as promising candidates and subsequently enabled the identification of di(2-ethylhexyl) fumarate. Because its concentration is too low to explain the observed activity, other compounds must contribute. However, further maleate/fumarate isomers are not only biologically active but structurally highly similar to phthalates. Hence, we speculate these compounds might represent a novel, so far overlooked group of EDCs. An increasing number of in vitro studies reports the presence of EDCs in bottled water. With previous studies focusing on estrogenicity, the present work provides evidence for an additional contamination with steroid receptor antagonists. We detected antiestrogens and antiandrogens in the majority of analyzed bottled water products. Moreover, the antagonist activity was very potent. An equivalent of 3.75 ml bottled water inhibited estrogen and androgen receptor by up to 60 and 90 percent. Bottled water from six different countries has been found to contain estrogenic, antiestrogenic, as well as androgenic, progestagenic, and glucocorticoid-like chemicals. This demonstrates that a popular beverage is contaminated with diverse-acting EDCs(1).

What Can You Do?

The answer is simple, don’t drink bottled water! Apart from that, you can purchase water filters that take out the chlorine and fluoride from your water if you choose, they aren’t that hard to find and if you do your research you can find some fairly inexpensive ones. If you’re interested, shoot us an email and we can help you out in your search. 24,000 chemicals is a lot of chemicals to be putting into your body. I’m not saying all of them are harmful, but who would want to take that chance? It’s not uncommon for us to taste some of these chemicals within the water that come from the plastic, especially if you leave the bottle in the sun for a short period of time.


Here is a very informative video that shares a lot more of what needs to be known about bottled water:



Sources:

(1) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0072472

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/09/worrying-molecule-bottled-water-endocrine

http://www.naturalnews.com/042126_bottled_water_endocrine_disruptors_chemical_contamination.html#

http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.4521171.html?rid=5aec75ff-9e17-4845-9a3c-96673b5741a6

Gasp! CDC Finally Admits the Age of Antibiotics is Finished as Super-Bacteria Take Over

© Natural Society

Gasp! CDC Finally Admits the Age of Antibiotics is Finished as Super-Bacteria Take Over
Oct 6, 2013 | Natural Society | Christina Sarich

Many of us have come to mistrust government agencies like the FDA, and CDC, but in a startling moment of truth, the CDC now openly admits that antibiotic prescriptions have led to the death of more than 23,000 Americans every year and the calamitous emergence of super bugs that are impervious to our scientific ‘medicines.’ Even the 23,000 annual deaths is being called conservative by the CDC in a new Threat Report 2013 being issued by the agency.

Within these pages the true epidemic of antibiotic resistant  superbugs is outlined as well as a quantifiable look at the way antibiotics have been misused and over-prescribed in a Big Pharma-run world.

The report even goes so far as to admit that modern medicine has failed when it comes to managing infectious disease since Mother Nature always adapts to overcome isolated chemical weaponry concocted in some lab. Ever-newer strains of bacteria are developed to out-whit us. Super bugs are like expert hackers figuring out how to get past the best computer programmer’s firewall, as we still utilize medical programming that originated in the 1950s.

Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the CDC, said in the report, “If we are not careful, we will soon be in a post-antibiotic era” – this has huge ramifications for the current medical system. If doctors and hospitals can’t treat us with prescription drugs, what exactly is their use? We already know that things like cancer and heart disease can be resolved with natural medicine – now even a common infection will need to be treated alternatively.

The CDC says the following three superbugs are the major threat now:

• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae or CRE (9,000 annual infections, 600 annual deaths)

• Antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea (246,000 infections per year, now only one drug left to treat it)

• Clostridium difficile (250,000 infections per year, 14,000 deaths)

Fortunately, most herbal antibiotics are completely unaffected by super bugs and continue to work since they are integrated into Mother Nature’s overall plan, and have been for centuries. Many traditionally trained doctors have no idea how to prescribe herbal remedies, because they are taught from their first days in medical school to look at everything through the Big Pharma lense.

Many doctors have no clue that silver, copper, aloe vera gel, garlic, cruciferous vegetables, turmeric, lavender, astragalus, and a myriad other natural medicines from cultures around the world have been handling bacteria and viruses for millennia. Here is more information on just 5 natural antibiotics for antibiotic-resistant infections.

It may be an abject failure for the medical establishment, but it is an outright win for natural health. Finally, people will be forced to turn to other methods of dealing with chemical and environmental toxins, super bugs, and heavy metals that run rampant in our society.

The CDC’s Lame Excuse for a Solution 

Unfortunately, while the CDC admits the gross failure of antibiotics, their solution is to get more people vaccinated. Considering the vaccines make the immune system weaker, and have been known to cause everything from Autism to dementia, this is not a wise piece of advice – though it is expected. Vaccines also won’t prevent the spread of super bugs. It isn’t time to look for another chemical to treat the problem. Microbiological road blocks would surely rise the minute a new chemical is introduced – the same way that it has with the creation of super bugs. It is time to look at natural solutions.

As Einstein once said, you can’t solve a problem with the same mind that created it. Treating the world for disease won’t happen in a scientists lab, brewing up another concoction of chemicals that Big Pharma can patent and then promote, all while killing thousands of people every year. Its time for a natural revolution to deal with the CDC’s admittance that the current medical model has been less than successful.

Amazing Story: Cannabis Oil Cures Man’s Nose Cancer

Amazing Story: Cannabis Oil Cures Man’s Nose Cancer
Oct 6, 2013 | Green Med TV

A remarkable story of how cannabis extract oil cured David Triplett’s cancer.


Additional research on GreenMedInfo.com:

A Higher Level of Freedom: The Benefit of Cannabis To Health

Written by Sayer Ji, Founder

In a day and age where possession of an herb like cannabis – which grows freely on this Earth — is an offense sometimes punishable by incarceration, it is important for us to reflect on how we arrived at this dark point in time. Herbs, after all, were put there by God. If you prefer the word Nature, the point is the same, and it was put best by Bob Marley when he said: “you can’t tell God it [cannabis] is illegal.”

Why New Antidepressant Brintellix May Be a Killer

Why New Antidepressant Brintellix May Be a Killer
Oct 4, 2013 | Gaia Health Blog | Heidi Stevenson

Brintellix is being marketed with implications that it’s the best antidepressent yet and that it’s exceptionally safe. What is this based on? 

Close examination shows the usual smoke and mirrors, and an even closer look points out disturbing indications of potentially devastating and deadly effects—with no indication that it’s better than existing SSRIs, which are known killers.

One of the most devastating classes of drugs ever developed is antidepressant SSRIs, selective serotonin receptor inhibitors. Not only can they destroy your own life, but they can also turn you into a murderer. Now, the FDA has approved Brintellix, which may prove to be the worst of them all.

In a press release by pharmaceutical company Lundbeck, the developer of Brintellix^[1], it’s admitted that the cause of depression is unknown. Nonetheless, they cavalierly play with brain chemistry about which they know very little. Making this particular drug potentially even worse than any other SSRI is that it doesn’t limit itself to one or two pathways in the brain. It manipulates a total of 6 receptors!

Although Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Lundbeck, the US distributors, are expecting Brintellix to become a blockbuster drug, the hyped studies that appear to demonstrate both efficacy and safety are far from the full story. In fact, some studies have shown no benefit over placebo whatsoever.^[2] It’s apparent from their approval announcement that the FDA did not take studies with negative results into account. They referred to only 6 studies, which the agency states, “demonstrated that Brintellix is effective in treating depression”.^[3]

SSRIs

SSRIs do not work as claimed. They interfere with normal brain functioning. They don’t stop depression. Instead, they stop the ability to feel emotions. They result in emotional flatness. Some people may find that beneficial, something of a time-out. But it never resolves the problems that lead to depression, and even interferes with resolution. How can anyone resolve a problem when a drug interferes with their ability to even know that it’s there?

All SSRIs do the same thing. They prevent serotonin, also called 5-HT, from being reabsorbed, as their name, selective “serotonin reuptake inhibitors”, indicates. That hasn’t turned out well. These drugs are now known to cause previously nonsuicidal people to take their own lives without warning. They have also made many people violent and are associated with almost all school shootings.

There is little reason to believe that Brintellix will be more effective than other SSRI antidepressants. In fact, the more SSRIs manage to shut down serotonin production, the more harm they do. The brain works to counter the effect. As Dr. Peter Brennan notes, it can result in permanent brain damage.^[4]

In fact, the Los Angeles Time reported that Dr. Michael Thase, a Brintellix development consultant, stated:

It is different enough from the welter of SSRIs currently available that it’s not simply a ‘me too’ drug.^[5]

That’s likely true, but does that  make it better?

Brintellix May Be Even Worse

Inexplicable violence, turned both inward and outward, is the result of SSRIs causing a single change to brain function. Brintellix will cause several changes! These changes involve the handling of glutamate, which is a critical amino acid that’s required for brain function and cellular metabolism. Glutamate is necessary—at proper levels, in the right places, and at the right times—for learning, remembering, thinking, and emotions. It’s also involved in energy production throughout the body.

Glutamate excites neural function. Too much glutamate can burn nerves out and too little keeps them from functioning properly. Not only does Brintellix manipulate 5-HT (serotonin), like all other SSRIs, it also manipulates glutamate in several neural receptors:

• 5-HT1A: Agonist
• 5-HT1B: Partial Agonist
• 5-HT3: Antagonist
• 5-HT1D: Antagonist
• 5-HT7: Antagonist

Note: An agonist triggers a response from a cell. An antagonist does the opposite. It blocks a cell’s response.

Does anyone really know what the effects of this manipulation of neural transmission will be?

No. Here is what the manufacturer’s press release announcing Brintellix’s approval says about it:

The contribution of each of these activities to Brintellix’s antidepressant effect has not been established. It is considered to be the first and only compound with this combination of pharmacodynamic activity. The clinical relevance of this is unknown.

Let’s look at that again:

No one knows what relationship exists between any of these neural receptors and Brintellix’s effect.

No one knows what these manipulations of the brain will do to the body, intelligence, emotional state, sexuality, criminality, empathy, or anything else.

Nearly all the effects of Brintellix are unknown.

How Much Harm?

Like so many drugs, Brintellix is being rolled out as safe. Like others, that safety is based on a very slim thread: short term studies, which evade the risks. The existing studies produced by Lundbeck are short term, and many adverse effects take time to be seen. They’re also based on a small number of subjects. Most severe adverse effects don’t show up in such studies.

At this point, the list of adverse effects is both brief and appears to be fairly minor. Medscape^[6] reports the following adverse effects, followed by the percentage who suffered it:

• Nausea: 21-32%
• Diarrhea: 7-10%
• Dizziness: 6-9%
• Dry mouth: 6-8%
• Constipation: 3-6%
• Vomiting: 3-6%
• Flatulence: 1-3%
• Pruritus: 1-3%
• Abnormal Dreams: Less than 1-3%

These adverse effects are not as innocent as they first appear. Notice that as many as a third of the subjects suffered from nausea, and other gastrointestinal effects were not unusual. This is a red flag that there may be a dangerous adverse effect on the digestive tract that doesn’t show up quickly—not something to take lightly.

Dizziness and abnormal dreams are indicative of very serious harmful neurological effects. Pruritus is a neurologically-induced extreme urge to scratch an itch. This symptom is also indicative of neurological damage. Even at this early stage, the adverse effects point to the potential of severe and dangerous, potentially deadly, reactions.

The history of all other SSRIs, which interfere with only one specific function, has been dismal. Is there any reason to expect Brintellix to be different? The studies certainly aren’t more extensive than they’ve been with other SSRIs, so the reality is that, as usual, the people whose doctors prescribe it will be the guinea pigs.
If your doctor tries to prescribe Brintellix, perhaps the correct response should be, “Oink!”

Even Big Pharma’s faithful lapdog called the FDA has acknowledged some risk. They’re requiring a boxed warning that people younger than 24 years are at risk of developing suicidal thoughts. This, of course, is meaningless. All SSRIs carry that warning, and it certainly doesn’t seem to have reduced prescription levels!

SSRI = Killer

As the FDA admits, all SSRI drugs are known to be killers, and worse than most drugs, they can result in the deaths of people who don’t even take them! They are implicated in virtually all the school shootings. That’s a lot of carnage.

Brintellix is an SSRI. Is there any reason to believe that it will produce less harm than other SSRIs? In fact, there is every reason to suspect the opposite.

By its developer’s own admission, no one knows what effects are produced by 5 of the 6 functions Brintellix was designed to cause. But we do know that the 6^th function, serotonin/5-HT reuptake inhibition, is a killer. All of the other 5 functions interfere with normal brain activity—and the manufacturer admits that no one knows what those effects will be!

 What more do you need to know?

 

Sources:

 

1. Takeda and Lundbeck announce FDA approval of Brintellix™ (vortioxetine) for treatment of adults with major depressive disorder. Lundbeck’s Brintellix press release.
2. Antidepressant – vortioxetine. Manufacturer’s Chemist’s review of Brintellix.
3. FDA approves new drug to treat major depressive disorder. FDA’s Brintellix approval announcement.
4. Psychiatric drug-induced Chronic Brain Impairment (CBI): Implications for longterm treatment with psychiatric medication; International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine; DOI 10.3233/JRS-2011-0542.
5. FDA approves a new antidepressant: Brintellix; Los Angeles Times.
6. Vortioxetine Adverse Effects; Medscape Reference.
7. Vortioxetine (Lu AA21004) hydrobromide.
8. Glutamate.
9. Glutamate benefit and side effects, risk and danger.
10. Vortioxetine: A New Antidepressant Choice in the United States

Hidden Gluten: 7 Foods You May Not Know Contain Gluten

© Natural Society

Hidden Gluten: 7 Foods You May Not Know Contain Gluten
Oct 5, 2013 | Natural Society | Elizabeth Renter

The food industry is known for their ability to rename, reformulate, or simply hide ingredients in order to deceive consumers. Just when people began realizing how bad high fructose corn syrup is, the corn industry introduced “corn sugar” to placate the masses. MSG, one of the most damaging food additives out there, has dozens of other names by which food producers can list it. Now, gluten is on consumer radars, not necessarily because it’s harmful to everyone, but because some people have difficulty digesting it. Gluten-free has become the new en-vogue eating style and food makers know it.
 
Unlike MSG and HFCS, however, food makers are pretty forthcoming about gluten. They are quick to point out on their labels if something is “gluten-free” because they know they can charge more and hit consumers who currently feel limited by what they can buy while trying to avoid gluten. Or, maybe some companies are trying to help people.

While gluten certainly isn’t the number one culprit in today’s toxic substances department, people are still trying to avoid it. And while many products represent the ‘gluten-free’ label, there are some foods that contain gluten you might not know about.

Doctor Says Modern Wheat a ‘Perfect, Chronic Poison’

7 Foods (Potentially) Containing Gluten 

Here are 7 foods that may contain gluten that you might not know about.

• Soups - Canned soups in particular often contain gluten. (They also contain BPA). Make sure you look for labels that explicitly state the product is “gluten free”.

• Reduced-Fat Foods - When food makers take fat out of foods, they add other junk back in. Starches including gluten help foods gel better when there is no fat present.

• Soy Sauce - There are gluten-free soy sauce options out there and you should seek them if you are avoiding gluten. That’s because regular soy sauce is usually 40 to 60% wheat.

• Ice Cream - Most ice cream flavors are packed with extras like cookie dough, caramel ribbons, and more. These little additions can wreak havoc on a gluten-sensitive digestive system. Make sure you read the label before you indulge.

• Salad Dressings - Thickening agents used in salad dressings often contain gluten. “Modified food starch” is one of these agents—be on the look-out for this gluten ingredient.

• Veggie Burgers - You may be able to avoid meat with a veggie patty, but in place of the animal protein, food makers use grains in addition to their veggies. Be cautious of all faux-meat products.

• Licorice - This surprising candy often has wheat flour as one of the main ingredients and few people would think to even read the label of licorice. While there are notable licorice benefits, know that gluten-inclusion is a possibility.

In the ongoing hunt for gluten, it pays to know what you’re looking for. There is a lengthy list of food ingredients that ultimately contain gluten. Printing the list and carrying it with you to the grocery store could save you some extreme discomfort down the road.