Monday, March 31, 2014

4th Grade Common Core Math Problem Takes 108 Steps to Complete

Truthstream Media
by Melissa Melton

"If your child got the answer in two steps, he’d be counted wrong." (Melissa Melton via The Daily Sheeple)

 This would be kinda funny if it wasn’t so damn sad (or real life). 

Check out this video of mother-of-three Karen Lamoreaux, member of Arkansas Against Common Core, completely owning the ridiculous educational failure that is the Common Core State Standards in her testimony before the Arkansas Board of Education on Monday.

"After listening to what was said this morning, I have come to the conclusion that this board is clearly as uninformed as the parents were when these standards were adopted.”

Oooh burn.

Too bad the board cut Lamoreaux off after only four minutes. She didn’t even get a chance to mention the privacy and testing concerns she had. Then again, to list all the concerns she probably actually has about Common Core wouldn’t have taken a mere session; it might have easily taken all day (or week… or month… or…).

Dumbing kids down is absolutely right. Apparently if you just know how to do simple math because it’s, well… simple, under Common Core, your answer would still be counted wrong because you didn’t do it in some convoluted, idiotic way that basically renders doing the math entirely pointless by the time you’re finished anyway. A simple 4th grade division problem regarding 18 students counting off to 90 takes an absurd 108 steps to get “right” via Common Core?

These are the “rigorous” standards that will make our children “college-ready”? Wha…? Did the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland write these standards when he was smoking crack? Wooooow. No wonder New York principals are reporting deep concern over the fact that their elementary school students are becoming so upset during Common Core testing, they are literally throwing up and soiling themselves. That’d make me want to puke, too. And then there’s the fact that this generation will be running society pretty soon…

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Creativity and Non-Conformity Now listed as a Mental Illness by Psychiatrists

Ready Chimp
by Code Breaker

What happens to a society when thinking outside of the box or being righteously enraged about your government going in the wrong direction becomes an excuse to be sedated and re-educated? It seems we don’t have to go too far back in history to find out.

The Soviet Union used new mental illness for political repression. People who didn’t accept the beliefs of the Communist Party developed a new type of schizophrenia. They suffered from the delusion of believing communism was wrong. They were isolated, forcefully medicated, and put through repressive “therapy” to bring them back to sanity.

Now thanks to thought policing by the American Psychiatric Association the latest addition of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is setting up the dominoes for arbitrary diagnosis of any dissenting individuals.

listed as new mental illnesses are above-average creativity and cynicism. The manual goes on to identify a mental illness called “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD. Defined as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed. A Washington Post article observed that, if Mozart were born today, he would be diagnosed with ADD and “medicated into barren normality.” What used to be known as personality traits are now diseases, and of course there are treatments available.

When the last edition of the DSM-IV was published, identifying the symptoms of various illness in children, there was a jump in the medication for children. Some states even have laws that allow protectives agencies to forcibly medicate, and even make it a punishable crime to withhold a prescribed medication.

Beware people with a strong sense of individuality! Though the authors of the manual claim no ulterior motives, labeling freethinking and nonconformity as a mental illness has a lot of potential for abuse. As a weapon in the arsenal for a repressive state, it seems societal reality is morphing into a playbook for autocrats borrowed from a Phillip K. Dick novel.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Fukushima Nuclear Radiation in Grocery Store Seafood

by Michael Snyder

A Canadian high school student named Bronwyn Delacruz never imagined that her school science project would make headlines all over the world. But that is precisely what has happened. Using a $600 Geiger counter purchased by her father, Delacruz measured seafood bought at local grocery stores for radioactive contamination. What she discovered was absolutely stunning. Much of the seafood, particularly the products that were made in China, tested very high for radiation. So is this being caused by nuclear radiation from Fukushima? Is the seafood that we are eating going to give us cancer and other diseases? The American people deserve the truth, but as you will see below, the U.S. and Canadian governments are not even testing imported seafood for radiation. To say that this is deeply troubling would be a massive understatement.

In fact, what prompted Bronwyn Delacruz to conduct her science project was the fact that the Canadian government stopped testing imported seafood for radiation in 2012

Alberta high-school student Bronwyn Delacruz loves sushi, but became concerned last summer after learning how little food inspection actually takes place on some of its key ingredients.
The Grade 10 student from Grande Prairie said she was shocked to discover that, in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)stopped testing imported foods for radiation in 2012.

And what should be a major red flag for authorities is the fact that the seafood with the highest radiation is coming from China

Armed with a $600 Geiger counter bought by her dad, Delacruz studied a variety of seafoods – particularly seaweeds – as part of an award-winning science project that she will take to a national fair next month.
“Some of the kelp that I found was higher than what the International Atomic Energy Agency sets as radioactive contamination, which is 1,450 counts over a 10-minute period,” she said. “Some of my samples came up as 1,700 or 1,800.”
Delacruz said the samples that “lit up” the most were products from China that she bought in local grocery stores.

It is inexcusable that the Canadian government is not testing this seafood. It isn’t as if they don’t know that it is radioactive. Back in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada…

• 73 percent of the mackerel
• 91 percent of the halibut
• 92 percent of the sardines
• 93 percent of the tuna and eel
• 94 percent of the cod and anchovies
• 100 percent of the carp, seaweed, shark and monkfish

So why was radiation testing for seafood shut down in Canada in 2012?

Someone out there needs to answer some very hard questions.

Meanwhile, PBS reporter Miles O’Brien has pointed out the extreme negligence of the U.S. government when it comes to testing seafood for Fukushima radiation. The following comes from a recent EcoWatch article

O’Brien also introduces us to scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute who have been testing waters around the reactors—as well as around the Pacific Rim—to confirm the levels of Fukushima fallout, especially of cesium.
These scientists are dedicated and competent. But they are also being forced to do this investigation on their own, raising small amounts of money from independent sources. They were, explains lead scientist Ken Buesseler, turned down for even minimal federal support by five agencies key to our radiation protection. Thus, despite a deep and widespread demand for this information, no federal agency is conducting comprehensive, on-the-ground analyses of how much Fukushima radiation has made its way into our air and oceans.
In fact, very soon after Fukushima began to blow, President Obama assured the world that radiation coming to the U.S. would be minuscule and harmless. He had no scientific proofthat this would be the case. And as O’Brien’s eight-minute piece shows all too clearly, the “see no evil, pay no damages” ethos is at work here. The government is doing no monitoring of radiation levels in fish, and information on contamination of the ocean is almost entirely generated by underfunded researchers like Buesseler.

A video news report in which O’Brien discusses these issues is posted below…

It is the job of the authorities to keep us safe, and the Fukushima nuclear disaster was the worst nuclear disaster in human history.

So why aren’t they doing testing?

Why aren’t they checking to make sure that this radiation is not getting into our food chain?

The Japanese are doing testing off the coast of Japan, and one fish that was recently caught off the coast of the Fukushima prefecture was discovered to have 124 times the safe level of radioactive cesium.

So why are all the authorities in North America just assuming that the fish are going to be perfectly fine on this side of the Pacific?

One test that was conducted in California discovered that 15 out of 15 Bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from Fukushima.

So how can the authorities say “don’t worry, just eat the seafood”?

Everyone agrees that a plume of radioactive water has been moving from Fukushima toward the west coast of the United States.

According to researchers at the University of South Wales, that plume is going to hit our shores at some point during 2014

The first radioactive ocean plume released by the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster will finally be reaching the shores of the United States some time in 2014, according to a new study from the University of New South Wales — a full three or so years after the date of the disaster.

The following graphic comes from that study…

And multiple independent tests have already confirmed that levels of nuclear radiation are being detected on California beaches that are more than 10 times the normal level.

Clearly something is happening.

So why are the U.S. and Canadian governments willingly looking the other way?

Autism Increased 30% in Just Two Years: Now It’s 1 in 68

Daily Sheeple
by Melissa Melton

According to new government figures just released today, autism in the U.S. has increased by a whopping 30% in just two years. The new estimate is that one in every 68 kids in America falls somewhere on the autism spectrum now.

Health officials claim that this is not because more kids are autistic these days, but that it is recognized more even in kids with fewer symptoms:

Much of the increase is believed to be from a cultural and medical shift, with doctors diagnosing autism more frequently, especially in children with milder problems.

While that may account for the increase over the last two years, can that explanation really account for the overall autism increase trending over the last two decades?

The prevalence rate for autism before 1990 was only three children per 10,000. When the CDC began surveillance of the study population above in 2000, figures clocked in at one child in every 150. Since then, autism diagnoses have been steadily increasing each year.

One trend that has remained the same is the five times higher prevalence of autism in boys, at one in every 42, over girls, at one in every 189.

Some have pointed to a wealth of studies that show possible correlation and causation of the continued rise in autism to the continued increase in vaccines. The U.S. currently has the most aggressive vaccination schedule of any country on the planet. New vaccinations have been steadily added to the average American child’s vaccine schedule each decade for several decades now:

In the early 1950s, there were four vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and smallpox. Because three of these vaccines were combined into a single shot (DTP), children received five shots by the time they were 2 years old and not more than one shot at a single visit.
By the mid-1980s, there were seven vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella and polio. Because six of these vaccines were combined into two shots (DTP and MMR), and one, the polio vaccine, was given by mouth, children still received five shots by the time they were 2 years old and not more than one shot at a single visit.
Since the mid-1980s, many vaccines have been added to the schedule. Now, children could receive as many as 24 shots by 2 years of age and five shots in a single visit.

Vaccines contain a vast array of potentially dangerous ingredients, including antibiotics, formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate (MSG), bovine fetal tissue, polysorbate and heavy metals like aluminum and the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal. When these are shot into the bloodstream, they bypass the majority of the body’s natural immune system which resides in the gut.

A new study recently released by Scientists from the University of California has put forth evidence that autism actually begins in utero during pregnancy and it not the result of a child’s environmental and social factors (such as childhood vaccines):

“Building a baby’s brain during pregnancy involves creating a cortex that contains six layers,” said Eric Courchesne, neurosciences professor and director of the Autism Center of Excellence at UCSD, in a statement. “We discovered focal patches of disrupted development of these cortical layers in the majority of children with autism.”

While many media outlets are saying this proves conclusively that vaccinations aren’t causing autism (the story quoted above was titled, “Autism Awareness: Disorder Begins Before Brain Is Fully Developed, Making Risks From Vaccinations Impossible”), that’s more media spin than reality.

In fact, this particular story goes on to contradict its own title.

As the story itself says:

But these trends aren’t reflected in other parts of the world. Asia, Europe, and other parts of North America display far lower prevalence rates, sometimes as low as one percent, which presents U.S. researchers with a curious challenge. There are no blood tests to diagnose autism, and behavioral observation is by nature imperfect. Some say we over-diagnose, especially on the higher-functioning end. Some say America’s obsession with vaccinations is to blame. So the question remains: How do stop something if we don’t fully know what it is?

And then:

This doesn’t rule out maternal exposure during gestation or earlier, but it does go a long way toward quieting many of today’s critics. [emphasis added]

Did you catch that?

Pregnant mothers are consistently told they need to get all kinds of vaccines in the U.S., including flu shots, one of the vaccines known to still contain thimerosal. How can something be “impossible” if it hasn’t entirely been ruled out?

The debate, then, rages on.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Mayans Win Huge Battle to Ban GMO Soy Crops

Natural Society
by Christina Sarich

Mayans of the Campeche Region have just won a two-year legal battle to get rid of Monsanto and their GMO soybeans (suicide beans). Following the ban of GM maize in Mexico, this ancient and agriculturally savvy culture has won a major battle against biotech monopolies around the globe.

The Second District Court ruled in favor of three Mayan communities from the Hopelchén township who dared to take on the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food ( Sagarpa) and the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources ( SEMARNAT).

This means that Saragapa now must make a concerted effort to be sure that no GM soybeans are planted throughout Pachen and Cancabchen communities in Hopelchén. Just two years ago, the same agency allowed Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready GMO soybeans to be planted in the region – infecting more than 253,000 hectares with suicide seeds that cause human infertility and poison the environment.

Seven states were under Monsanto’s reign – free then to plant their GM seeds wherever they liked within those borders, including the municipalities of: Campeche, Hopelchén , Tenabo , Calkiní , Escárcega, Carmen and Palisade.

In just a few of these places, the authorities were angry that the government had given Monsanto authorization, and they decided to fight the ruling. Campeche beekeepers were especially upset since this would affect bee-keeping negatively in the region. They called Monsanto’s influence, ‘pollution of production,’ resulting in loss of income and closing of markets for many bee keepers with international contracts.

After two years of litigation, and arguing that the planting of GM soybeans was in direct opposition of traditional beekeeping practices, AND that it was in violation of their right to a healthy environment – pointing out that increased use of herbicides and deforestation were both outcomes of GM planting – the Mayans won their case. These small indigenous communities have taken on the multi-billion-dollar biotech and Big Ag companies and won. They are an example to us all.

Remembering Heidi Stevenson of Gaia Health

Activist Post/Natural Blaze
by Heather Callaghan

It is with great sorrow and a heavy heart to inform you that the world lost a dear and tenacious warrior for truth and freedom on March 12, 2014. If you didn’t know who she was, please take this time to get to know her, because all I can say is that the vast majority of us would be seriously lacking without her investigative articles exposing propaganda, lies and corruption.

If you are even a passing reader on this site or many others in non-corporate media, you can be sure that you have benefited from her intensely thorough research and her tireless work at the website she founded in 2009 - Gaia Health.

While she wrote at her own expense and time, her hundreds of articles were shared far and wide, benefiting other writers trying to piece the big puzzle together. She contributed to well-known natural health websites, most recently to Green Med Info. Many writers could refer back to her articles with confidence because they were solid and heavily resourced. She was also known for exposing statistical manipulation via her painstaking time taken to crunch the numbers herself. She inspired many of those writers to keep going in truth.

She was excited to finally appear on The Alex Jones Show in August and had hoped to be on again. In recent years, she was asked to do many interviews. Amazingly, she dedicated spare moments, even into the wee hours of the morning to answer people who wrote to her. If asked, she shared her wisdom but as though an equal and a friend.

She did not care for self-adulation or flattery. Truth and altruism was her driving force. She once called herself a “muckraker.” Although she did care about natural health, it’s the injustices of the world that compelled her to keep investigating subjects like vaccines, Big Pharma and the medical system. The narrowed down topics, however, are too many to list. She was indeed, “Allopathy’s Gadfly.”

Most people did not know about the kinds of obstacles Heidi faced to answer her calling; health problems being perhaps the biggest thorn. Iatrogenic illness (doctor-induced injury) nearly extinguished her life around 10 years ago, while in her fifties. To put it mildly, it came with a lot of physical pain. Before that she was an expert in computer science, research and writing. It was her husband Lane, whom she met during this time, who convinced her to try alternative healing methods like homeopathy which began a healing process that kept her going long after she was expected to pass. She then developed an expertise in homeopathy, too.

She spoke of being happily married to her husband and his singular kindness and support. She leaves behind other close family members and lots of good friends.

She cared deeply for her readers and fellow writers. She had a sharp wit. She also made room on her website for satire and would create her own poignant pictures for her articles, some of them laugh-inducing. She was just the type of friend a lot of people say they want in their lives. A dedicated, caring, loyal one who cares about you enough to tell the truth, and then makes sure you know they’ve been wondering how you have been. It is hard to believe that new writings from her will not be appearing on Gaia Health any longer.

Heidi – we honor and miss you. Our hearts go out to your family. There simply aren’t enough words to describe the trail you blazed and the impact you left.

Memorial Facebook page to keep the torch burning:
We Honor Heidi Stevenson of Gaia Health

Monday, March 24, 2014

10 Health Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be Real

Investment Watch Blog
by Michael Snyder

Do you believe in any “health conspiracy theories”? Do you believe that there are “natural cures” for diseases that the medical establishment is not telling you about? Do you believe that vaccines, cell phones or the fluoride in the water can have a harmful impact on the health of your family? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are not alone. According to one recent survey, approximately half of all Americans believe in at least one “medical conspiracy theory”. Thanks to the Internet, more people than ever are questioning the established dogma of the medical community. As a result, more people are starting to make their own health decisions, and this has resulted in quite a backlash from the medical establishment. They are spending a lot of time, effort and money to combat these “health conspiracy theories”, but as you will see below, quite a few of them have turned out to be real.

But before we get to that, I wanted to share with you some of the specific results of the survey that I mentioned above. The following comes from USA Today

The online survey of 1,351 adults found:
• 37% agree the Food and Drug Administration is keeping “natural cures for cancer and other diseases” away from the public because of “pressure from drug companies.”
• 20% believe health officials are hiding evidence that cellphones cause cancer.
• 20% believe doctors and health officials push child vaccines even though they “know these vaccines cause autism and other psychological disorders.” • Smaller numbers endorse theories involving fluoride, genetically modified foods and the deliberate infection of African Americans with HIV.
• 49% believe at least one of the theories and 18% believe at least three.

Oh my.

So there are actually Americans that believe that “natural cures” exist and that vaccines and fluoride might have some very harmful side effects?

Oh the horror!

Of course I am being facetious. The truth is that it is wonderful that people are starting to research these things for themselves.

The medical community has a huge incentive to protect their turf. If the U.S. health care system was a separate nation, it would be the 6th largest economy on the entire planet. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year are at stake, and so it is very important that they maintain control over what people believe about their health.

Fortunately, the truth is starting to get out there. The following are 10 health conspiracy theories that turned out to be real…

Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier Than Vaccinated Children

Evidence continues to mount that vaccines can have some very harmful side effects – especially for children.

For example, a study that was conducted in New Zealand discovered that unvaccinated children are generally much healthier than vaccinated children…

A study from the 1990s has come to light, proving that compared to unvaccinated children, vaccinated children were more likely to suffer from asthma, eczema, ear infections, hyperactivity and many other chronic conditions. Furthermore, the study identified that there was a ten-fold increase in the incidence of tonsillitis in the children who were vaccinated, and a total lack tonsillectomy operations among the children who were unvaccinated.

And a similar study that was conducted in Germany came up with similar results…

Asthma, hay fever and neurodermatitis are seen very frequently today. A recent German study with 17461 children between 0-17 years of age (KIGGS) showed that 4.7% of these children suffer from asthma, 10.7% of these children from hay fever and 13.2% from neurodermatitis. These numbers differ in western countries, i.e. the prevalence of asthma among children in the US is 6% whereas it is 14-16% in Australia (Australia’s Health 2004, AIHW).
The prevalence of asthma among unvaccinated children in our study is around 2.5%, hay fever, 3%, and neurodermatitis, 7%. According to the KIGGS study more than 40% of children between the ages of 3 and 17 years were sensitized against at least one allergen tested (20 common allergens were tested) and 22.9% had an allergic disease. Although we did not perform a blood test, around 10% stated that their children had an allergy.

Most parents don’t realize this, but when you allow vaccines to be injected into your children, they are getting all kinds of nasty things injected directly into their bloodstreams where there is no filter.

That is why so many people keep screaming about “the mercury in the vaccines”. The truth is that it can cause brain damage

“In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal, suffered brain damage years later. Studies on thimerosal poisoning also describe tubular necrosis and nervous system injury, including obtundation, coma and death. As a result of these findings, Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines in 1980. Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have also banned the preservative

So why is thimerosal still found in so many vaccines in the United States?

Today, in some areas of the nation more than 30 vaccines are being given to young children before the age of 3.

30 vaccines.

That is utter insanity.

The Use Of Antidepressants By Mothers Has Been Scientifically Linked To Autism In Their Babies

When women take things when they are pregnant, it can have a very serious impact on their unborn children.

For example, even CNN is now reporting on the link between taking antidepressants during pregnancy and autism…

Children whose mothers take Zoloft, Prozac, or similar antidepressants during pregnancy are twice as likely as other children to have a diagnosis of autism or a related disorder, according to a small new study, the first to examine the relationship between antidepressants and autism risk.
This class of antidepressants, known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), may be especially risky early on in a pregnancy, the study suggests. Children who were exposed to the drugs during the first trimester were nearly four times as likely to develop an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) compared with unexposed children, according to the study, which appears in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

The Fluoride In Our Water Is Really Bad For Us

It just isn’t “crazies on the Internet” that are warning about the fluoride in the water anymore.

These days, even Harvard is publishing studies about the harmful effects of fluoride…

A newly published study in Harvard’s The Lancet weighs in on the toxins causing autism and ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) say that along with these numerous environmental toxins, fluoridated water is adding to the higher incident of both cognitive and behavioral disorders.

But “cognitive and behavioral disorders” are far from the only things that we have to worry about when it comes to fluoride. Just consider the following

Even small amounts of fluoride consumed from tap water can damage your bones, teeth, brain, disrupt your thyroid function, lower IQ and/or cause cancer, according to evidence revealed in a groundbreaking 2006 National Research Council (NRC) fluoride report produced by a panel of experts who reviewed hundreds of published fluoride studies.

Do you want any of those things to happen to you?

If not, you might want to find out if there is fluoride in the water that you are drinking.

The Natural Health and Longevity Resource Center has published a list of 10 of the most significant health problems that scientific studies have discovered that fluoride causes…

1. Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea. 
2. Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood. 
3. Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2 ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1 ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents. 
4. Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body’s own tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals. 
5. Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood. 
6. Fluoride depresses thyroid activity. 
7. Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body. 
8. Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer. 
9. Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body. 
10. Fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrices in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health.

For even more on all of this, please check out the following article: “15 Facts Most People Don’t Know About Fluoride“.

Taking Vitamins And Supplements Can Help Cure Disease

Every few months, there is an article in the mainstream media that tries to convince us “that vitamins don’t work”.

But scientific study after scientific study has shown that they do work.

The following is an excerpt from an outstanding article by Dr. Lee Hieb

Folate supplementation reduces the risk of colorecral adenomas, the precursor lesion to colorectal cancer (“Public Health Nutrition”) 
Vitamin D intake reduces lung cancer in women (“American Journal of Clinical Nutrition”) 
500 mg of vitamin B12, 800 mcg of folic acid and 20 mg of B6 slowed shrinkage of the whole brain volume by 50 percent over two years. In a follow up in 2013, the gray matter area of the brain associated with Alzheimer’s had shrinkage reduced up to seven fold on the vitamin combination (“PNAS online”)
… but vitamins “don’t work. 
CoQ10 protects against beta-amyloid induced mitochondrial malfunction (“Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry”) 
L-Carnitine has been shown to prevent the damaging effects of statins on the mitochondria (“Frontiers in Physiology”) 
Calcium, vitamin D, inulin and soy isoflavones improves bone metabolism in post-menopausal women (“Aging Clinical and Experimental Research”) 
Higher serum folate levels were correlated with higher cognitive test scores in children (“Nutrition”) 
… but vitamins “don’t work.”

The Overprescription Of Antibiotics Is Causing The Rise Of Antibiotic-Resistant “Superbugs”

These days, doctors are prescribing antibiotics at the drop of a hat.

For a long time that worked, but now we are seeing the rise of a new generation of “superbugs” that are totally resistant to antibiotics.

The reason that this is a problem is that we don’t have anything that can fight these new superbugs.

It has become such a problem that now even the CDC is warning about it

The overuse of antibiotics for patients in U.S. hospitals is contributing to the rise of so-called superbugs, according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
“This is a real public threat,” said Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, associate director for health care-associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, who spoke to CNBC by phone. 
The dangers from overprescribing antibiotics in hospitals are twofold, Srinivasan explained. First, patients may not need them and could suffer side effects. More important, however, is the danger of creating drug-resistant bacteria, known as superbugs, that are becoming increasingly commonplace.

For much, much more on this, please see my previous article entitled “Scientists: We Can’t Do Anything About The Antibiotic-Resistant Superbugs That Will Soon Kill Millions Of Us“.

Hospitals Are Massively Overcharging Their Patients

For a long time, it has been an open secret that hospital bills contain absolutely outrageous overcharges.

But now even the mainstream media is admitting this. For example, the following is an excerpt from a recent article in the New York Times

Luckily for anyone who has ever needed an IV bag to replenish lost fluids or to receive medication, it is also one of the least expensive. The average manufacturer’s price, according to government data, has fluctuated in recent years from 44 cents to $1.
Yet there is nothing either cheap or simple about its ultimate cost, as I learned when I tried to trace the commercial path of IV bags from the factory to the veins of more than 100 patients struck by a May 2012 outbreak of food poisoning in upstate New York.
Some of the patients’ bills would later include markups of 100 to 200 times the manufacturer’s price, not counting separate charges for “IV administration.” And on other bills, a bundled charge for “IV therapy” was almost 1,000 times the official cost of the solution.

And below, I have posted a short excerpt from a Time Magazine article. One man that had been diagnosed with cancer accumulated nearly a million dollars in bills at one California hospital before he finally died…

By the time Steven D. died at his home in Northern California the following November, he had lived for an additional 11 months. And Alice had collected bills totaling $902,452. The family’s first bill — for $348,000 — which arrived when Steven got home from the Seton Medical Center in Daly City, Calif., was full of all the usual chargemaster profit grabs: $18 each for 88 diabetes-test strips that Amazon sells in boxes of 50 for $27.85; $24 each for 19 niacin pills that are sold in drugstores for about a nickel apiece. There were also four boxes of sterile gauze pads for $77 each. None of that was considered part of what was provided in return for Seton’s facility charge for the intensive-care unit for two days at $13,225 a day, 12 days in the critical unit at $7,315 a day and one day in a standard room (all of which totaled $120,116 over 15 days). There was also $20,886 for CT scans and $24,251 for lab work.

Thanks To The Big Pharmaceutical Companies, Americans Are The Most Drugged Up People On The Face Of The Earth

There is nobody on the planet that is more drugged up than the American people are.

And I am not talking about illegal drugs.

I am talking about legal drugs.

Just consider these statistics…

#1 An astounding 70 million Americans are taking legal mind-altering drugs right now.

#2 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, doctors wrote more than 250 million prescriptions for antidepressants during 2010.

#3 According to a study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, nearly 70 percent of all Americans are on at least one prescription drug. An astounding 20 percent of all Americans are on at least five prescription drugs.

#4 Americans spent more than 280 billion dollars on prescription drugs during 2013.

#5 According to the CDC, approximately 9 out of every 10 Americans that are at least 60 years old say that they have taken at least one prescription drug within the last month.

You can find the rest of this list in my previous article entitled “19 Statistics About The Drugging Of America That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe“.

And the truth is that all of this drug pushing is actually killing people. The following is a brief excerpt from a Vanity Fair article entitled “Deadly Medicine“…

Prescription drugs kill some 200,000 Americans every year. Will that number go up, now that most clinical trials are conducted overseas—on sick Russians, homeless Poles, and slum-dwelling Chinese—in places where regulation is virtually nonexistent, the F.D.A. doesn’t reach, and “mistakes” can end up in pauper’s graves?

Caffeine Addiction Is Real And It Can Be Incredibly Difficult To Break

If you have ever been addicted to coffee or soda, you probably know how hard it can be to try to give it up for even a few days.

It has been estimated that up to 90 percent of all Americans consume beverages that contain caffeine, and most people never stop to think about how it might affect them in the long run.

Well, experts are now openly acknowledging that we have a major caffeine addiction problem on our hands. The following is an excerpt from a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle

Cardiologists have told patients to cut back on coffee because they’re having heart palpitations, and psychologists have warned people that their caffeine habit may be adding to their anxiety problems. Yet some people have trouble letting go of the caffeine – or even cutting back – because it feels like a necessity.
Even sleep experts say patients will complain of insomnia but shudder at the idea of quitting caffeine.
“There are people who have chronic reflux, stomach acid pain, bleeding, hemorrhoids – all because of coffee. They’re suffering a lot,” said Keith Humphreys, a Stanford addiction expert. “But they try and they fail to stop.”

Eating Pork Is Really Bad For You

Americans have a love affair with pork. We consume massive amounts of bacon, ham, sausage, pepperoni, etc.

But is that actually healthy for us?

Most people have never stopped to consider this, but they should. The following is an excerpt from a paper entitled “The Adverse Influence Of Pork Consumption On Health” by Professor Hans-Heinrich Reckeweg…

The fact that pork causes stress and gives rise to poisoning is known. It is obvious that this does not only apply to preparations of fresh pork such as cold cuts, knuckles, feet, ribs and cutlets, etc., but also to cured meats (ham, bacon, etc.) and to smoked meats prepared for sausages.
Consumption of freshly killed pork products causes acute responses, such as inflammations of the appendix and gall bladder, biliary colics, acute intestinal catarrh, gastroenteritis with typhoid and paratyphoid symptoms, as well as acute eczema, carbuncles, sudoriparous abscesses, and others. These symptoms can be observed after consuming sausage meats (including salami which contains pieces of bacon in the form of fat).

And here are some more reasons why you should think twice about eating pork

A pig is a real garbage gut. It will eat anything including urine, excrement, dirt, decaying animal flesh, maggots, or decaying vegetables. They will even eat the cancerous growths off other pigs or animals.
The meat and fat of a pig absorbs toxins like a sponge. Their meat can be 30 times more toxic than beef or venison.
When eating beef or venison, it takes 8 to 9 hours to digest the meat so what little toxins are in the meat are slowly put into our system and can be filtered by the liver. But when pork is eaten, it takes only 4 hours to digest the meat. We thus get a much higher level of toxins within a shorter time.
Unlike other mammals, a pig does not sweat or perspire. Perspiration is a means by which toxins are removed from the body. Since a pig does not sweat, the toxins remain within its body and in the meat.
Pigs and swine are so poisonous that you can hardly kill them with strychnine or other poisons. Farmers will often pen up pigs within a rattlesnake nest because the pigs will eat the snakes, and if bitten they will not be harmed by the venom.
When a pig is butchered, worms and insects take to its flesh sooner and faster than to other animal’s flesh. In a few days the swine flesh is full of worms.
Swine and pigs have over a dozen parasites within them, such as tapeworms, flukes, worms, and trichinae. There is no safe temperature at which pork can be cooked to ensure that all these parasites, their cysts, and eggs will be killed.

Pig meat has twice as much fat as beef. A three-ounce T-bone steak contains 8.5 grams of fat; a three-ounce pork chop contains 18 grams of fat. A three-ounce beef rib has 11.1 grams of fat; a three-ounce pork spare rib has 23.2 grams of fat.

Cows have a complex digestive system, having four stomachs. It thus takes over 24 hours to digest their vegetarian diet causing its food to be purified of toxins. In contrast, the swine’s one stomach takes only about four hours to digest its foul diet, turning its toxic food into flesh.

The swine carries about 30 diseases which can be easily passed to humans. This is why God commanded that we are not even to touch their carcass. (Leviticus 11:8).

The trichinae worm of the swine is microscopically small, and once ingested can lodge itself in our intestines, muscles, spinal cord or the brain. This results in the disease trichinosis. The symptoms are sometimes lacking, but when present they are mistaken for other diseases, such as typhoid, arthritis, rheumatism, gastritis, MS, meningitis, gall bladder trouble, or acute alcoholism.

If You Are Eating Seafood Caught In The Pacific Ocean, There Is A Very Good Chance That It Is Polluted With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima

Are you sure that the fish, shrimp and other seafood that you are eating are safe?

Most people are aware that the destroyed nuclear facility at Fukushima is still releasing massive amounts of nuclear radiation into the Pacific Ocean, but most people don’t stop to think that it could be getting into their food.

One fish that was recently caught off the coast of the Fukushima prefecture was discovered to have 124 times the safe level of radioactive cesium.

But we don’t have to worry about that in North America, do we?

Actually, the evidence is starting to mount that we should be taking a closer look at our seafood. The following are just a few facts from one of my previous articles entitled “36 Signs The Media Is Lying To You About How Radiation From Fukushima Is Affecting The West Coast“…

-The population of sockeye salmon along the coastlines of Alaska is at a “historic low”.

-Something is causing Pacific herring to bleed from their gills, bellies and eyeballs.

-Experts have found very high levels of cesium-137 in plankton living in the waters of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and the west coast.

-One test in California found that 15 out of 15 Bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from Fukushima.

-Back in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada…

• 73 percent of the mackerel

• 91 percent of the halibut

• 92 percent of the sardines

• 93 percent of the tuna and eel

• 94 percent of the cod and anchovies

• 100 percent of the carp, seaweed, shark and monkfish

You can read the rest of that article right here.

When it comes to your health, it pays to do your own research and to do your own thinking.

Don’t blindly trust me, your doctor or anyone else. Look into these things for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

In the end, you will be very happy that you did.

GMOs could cause 'irreversible termination of life' on Earth, risk expert warns

Natural News
by Ethan A. Huff

When discussing the issues surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) -- that is, organisms bearing the genetic traits of other species or bacteria -- the focus is typically on how safe (or unsafe) these novel, food-like products are for humans. But distinguished risk engineer and two-time best-selling author Nassim Taleb thinks an even bigger problem with GMOs is their threat to the planet, and the statistical likelihood that they will eventually lead to the collapse of life on Earth.

In a new study, which is still in draft form, this professor of risk engineering from New York University uses statistical analysis to make the case that GMOs, by their very nature, will disrupt the ecosystems of this planet in ways that mankind is only just beginning to comprehend. Because they represent a systemic risk rather than a localized one -- GM traits are known to spread unconstrained throughout the environment -- GMOs will eventually breach the so-called "ecocide barrier," leading to catastrophic ecosystem failure.

"There are mathematical limitations to predictability in a complex system, 'in the wild,' which is why focusing on the difference between local (or isolated) and systemic threats is a central aspect of our warnings," Taleb is quoted as saying by, noting that it's essentially impossible to contain the inevitable spread of GMO traits far and wide.

"The [precautionary principle] is not there to make life comfortable, rather to avoid a certain class of what is called in probability and insurance 'ruin' problems," write Taleb and his colleagues in their paper. "For nature, the 'ruin' is ecocide: an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet."

GMOs are not 'scientific,' and nearly every argument used in their defense is flawed

Besides using math and risk-based analysis to show that GMOs simply cannot coexist with nature as is commonly claimed -- GMOs will eventually contaminate the natural world around them -- Taleb also deconstructs many of the "arguments" used by GMO advocates to defend the commercial use of untested transgenic materials, including the oft-repeated lie that GMOs are no different than natural organisms.

"Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs fall squarely under [the precautionary principle]... because of their systemic risk on the system," explains Taleb. "Top-down modifications to the system (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom up ones (regular farming, progressive tinkering with crops, etc.)."

"There is no comparison between the tinkering of selective breeding and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from an organism and putting it into another. Saying that such a product is natural misses the statistical process by which things become 'natural.'"

Taleb also draws attention to the deceitful strategies of biotechnology companies in trying to legitimize the continued use of GMOs through fear. Claiming that famine, starvation and widespread crop failures will occur if we all fail to adopt GMOs is no different than playing Russian roulette in order to get out of poverty, claims Taleb -- such an approach is hardly scientific or logically sound, and yet these and other tactics are the basis of the pro-GMO agenda.

"What people miss is that the modification of crops impacts everyone and exports the error from the local to the global," concludes Taleb and his colleagues. "I do not wish to pay -- or have my descendants pay -- for errors by executives of Monsanto. We should exert the precautionary principle there -- our non-naive version -- simply because we would only discover errors after considerable and irreversible environmental damage."

You can read their complete paper in draft form here.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Obamacare Individual Mandate Quietly Repealed for 2 Years

Activist Post

According to a technical bulletin released last week by the Department of Health and Human Services, the individual mandate for citizens to purchase healthcare through government-run exchanges or face a penalty appears to have been repealed for two years by way of new exemptions.

Additionally, individuals who had their healthcare cancelled due to the passing of the Affordable Care Act may now be exempt altogether.

The Wall Street Journal reported on how this repeal was buried and hidden from the public:

This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn't think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don't comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week.

That seven-page technical bulletin includes a paragraph and footnote that casually mention that a rule in a separate December 2013 bulletin would be extended for two more years, until 2016. Lo and behold, it turns out this second rule, which was supposed to last for only a year, allows Americans whose coverage was cancelled to opt out of the mandate altogether. 
In 2013, HHS decided that ObamaCare's wave of policy terminations qualified as a "hardship" that entitled people to a special type of coverage designed for people under age 30 or a mandate exemption. HHS originally defined and reserved hardship exemptions for the truly down and out such as battered women, the evicted and bankrupts.

The Wall Street Journal article speculates that the Obama Administration is attempting to "pre-empt the inevitable political blowback from the nasty 2015 tax surprise of fining the uninsured for being uninsured" and that keeping the mandate waiver secret is an attempt to keep Democratic voters in line while simultaneously continuing to sign up as many new ObamaCare users as possible.

Related:  ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Harvard Says Fluoridated Water is Causing Cognitive Disorders

Natural Society
by Christina Sarich

A newly published study in Harvard’s The Lancet weighs in on the toxins causing autism and ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) say that along with these numerous environmental toxins, fluoridated water is adding to the higher incident of both cognitive and behavioral disorders.

Harvard had already published a study in 2006 that pointed to fluoride as a ‘developmental neurotoxicant’, and this newer study looks to over 27 additional investigations into the matter via meta nalysis. In the previous study, it was already established that fluoride consumption lowered children’s IQ scores. The left-over from industry, passed off as ‘medicine,’ obstructs brain development, and can cause a full spectrum of serious health issues – from autism to dyslexia, ADHD, ADD, and more.

The study calls the effects from this chemical a ‘silent epidemic’ that mainstream media and many scientific papers have ignored.

Two of the main researchers involved in the study, Philippe Grandjean from HSPH and Philip Landrigan from ISMMS, say that incidences of chemical-related neurodevelopmental disorders have doubled over the past seven years from six to 12.

The study admits that there are numerous chemicals to blame – many of which are untested or ceremoniously approved by the FDA, USDA, and CDC without truly knowing their long term ramifications on human health – but that fluoride is a definite culprit.

“[S]ince 2006, the number of chemicals known to damage the human brain more generally, but that are not regulated to protect children’s health, had increased from 202 to 214,” writes Julia Medew for The Sydney Morning Herald. “The pair said this could be the tip of the iceberg because the vast majority of the more than 80,000 industrial chemicals widely used in the United States have never been tested for their toxic effects on the developing fetus or child.”

The fact is that fluoride, pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, radioactive isotopes, GMO foods, and weather warfare chemicals are creating a neurological-toxic mix that is unprecedented in human history.

Fluoride, like other toxins, accumulates in the blood stream and even makes it past the blood-brain barrier. Eventually, as the body tries to protect itself from these unwanted substances, the substances make it into the bones and the organs, causing cancer, cognitive abnormalities, and even birth defects in unborn children. Fluoride is known to pass into the placenta in pregnant women, yet regulatory agencies ignore its toxic legacy.

The chemicals lurking in our food supply, water supply, and in our air and soil are causing the neurological decline of both young and old.

RIP, psychiatry: the “chemical-imbalance” theory is dead

No More Fake News
by Jon Rappaport

This one is big.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”



The point is, for decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct an imbalance?

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.

Psychiatry is a pseudo-pseudo science.

So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.

For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.

“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.

Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.

So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.

Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.

And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, and the Naval Yard, the hype is expanding: “we must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drug prescriptions.

As Dr. Peter Breggin explains in his classic, Toxic Psychiatry, half a century ago the psychiatric profession and the drug companies began to shape a deal.

Psychiatry was dying out. Patients didn’t want to talk about their problems to MD shrinks.

So the deal was this: psychiatry would go along with and promote chemical-imbalance propaganda. In turn, the drug companies would turn out the pharmaceuticals, and they would bankroll psychiatry, sponsoring conferences, taking out massive numbers of ads in journals, offering grants to universities.

The deal paid off.

Psychiatry experienced a resurgence. “Talk therapy is useless. Mental problems are all about the brain, and the brain must be drugged.”

But now, the charade is exposed.

You can be sure major Pharma players are meeting behind closed doors with leaders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The mafia is making a house call.

They are reminding the APA that they have a deal. No cancellation allowed.

“You guys promoted the chemical-imbalance theory. That was the arrangement. So keep promoting it. We don’t care how many lies you have to tell. Don’t try to develop a conscience all of a sudden. This is business.”

The mafia doesn’t like it when people try to interrupt business.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Why Is Gut-Wrecking Carrageenan in So Many Organic Food Products?

Truthstream Media

“The common food additive carrageenan (CGN) predictably induces intestinal inflammation in animal models.” — Bhattacharyya S, et al., 2013

“During the past decade carrageenan has become much used experimentally mainly for its ability to induce an acute inflammation.” — Di Rosa M, 1972

“Carrageenan is readily taken up by macrophages and stored in lysosomes, which subsequently swell and rupture, apparently resulting in cell death.” — Catanzaro PJ, Schwartz HJ, & Graham RC, 1971

Carrageenan is a dangerous food additive that causes inflammation of the gut — it has no place in our food, but especially not in organic/natural products. The industry lobbied the USDA Organic Standards Board for its approval, so there it is. Alternatives like guar gum and carob bean gum do not have any of the same risks and side effects.

Dr. Joanne Tobacman has researched carrageenan extensively, and testified before the Organic Standards Board to argue against its approval for organic products, but was ignored. In just one of her many studies, Tobacman covered the risk of this food additive in her research paper Review of harmful gastrointestinal effects of carrageenan in animal experiments, arguing in the abstract:
In this article I review the association between exposure to carrageenan and the occurrence of colonic ulcerations and gastrointestinal neoplasms in animal models. Although the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 1982 identified sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of degraded carrageenan in animals to regard it as posing a carcinogenic risk to humans, carrageenan is still used widely as a thickener, stabilizer, and texturizer in a variety of processed foods prevalent in the Western diet. I reviewed experimental data pertaining to carrageenan’s effects with particular attention to the occurrence of ulcerations and neoplasms in association with exposure to carrageenan. In addition, I reviewed from established sources mechanisms for production of degraded carrageenan from undegraded or native carrageenan and data with regard to carrageenan intake. Review of these data demonstrated that exposure to undegraded as well as to degraded carrageenan was associated with the occurrence of intestinal ulcerations and neoplasms. This association may be attributed to contamination of undegraded carrageenan by components of low molecular weight, spontaneous metabolism of undegraded carrageenan by acid hydrolysis under conditions of normal digestion, or the interactions with intestinal bacteria. Although in 1972, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considered restricting dietary carrageenan to an average molecular weight > 100,000, this resolution did not prevail, and no subsequent regulation has restricted use. Because of the acknowledged carcinogenic properties of degraded carrageenan in animal models and the cancer-promoting effects of undegraded carrageenan in experimental models, the widespread use of carrageenan in the Western diet should be reconsidered.
In fact, an investigative reporter from the Chicago Tribune asked the FDA to turn over even one peer-reviewed independent study — that is, one study not funded by carrageenan manufacturers — which showed that this additive was indeed safe and the FDA did not do it. The carrageenan lobbies, not surprisingly, did not provide any either.

Tons of foods at Whole Foods include this ingredient. We have left the following comments at Whole Foods, including contact info, about this dangerous ingredient that shows up in all kinds of “organic” and “natural” foods – ranging from ice cream, to coconut milk and even meat! It’s even used in infant formula. So far, we have not heard back from anyone (but at least they take the comments).

Here’s the text of the handwritten comment:
Carrageenan! After years of seeing this seemingly benign ingredient on labels on mostly organic products, I finally learned it is connected with gastrointestinal issues and even cancer (high doses used to induce cancer in lab animals). Several days of research (via Cornucopia Institute, etc.) have revealed a backstory of corrupt politics with the USDA National Organic Standards Board — which Whole Foods sits on — regarding carrageenan. This is unappreciated. 
Bottom line, we shop here and buy organic elsewhere to avoid troublesome ingredients, switched eldest daughter to semi-Paleo diet and things like Coconut milk only to find that carrageenan may be making her GI/IBS disorders worse. Jury’s still out but after a week off carrageenan, she is improving. Please defund carrageenan and offer better/more alternatives. Some public awareness is also in order. Thanks. — Aaron Dykes Phone (XXX)
We call out Whole Foods specifically because they charge a premium for their products while riding on the idea of pure, unadulterated food. Why is carrageenan so widely used in foods — and especially in organic and “natural” foods that people pay more for in order to avoid unhealthy ingredients — despite the known risks from decades of scientific studies?

The Cornucopia Institute addressed the apparent corruption behind this issue, reporting that:
For the past two decades, food industry executives and lobbyists have managed to convince enough members of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)—the 15-member citizen panel of organic stakeholders that determines which non-organic ingredients can be used in organic foods—to give carrageenan its stamp of approval. Their tactics have become increasingly more manipulative and ethically questionable as it becomes clearer that scientific evidence is not on their side. 
The NOSB first approved carrageenan in the mid-1990s. As required by law, the USDA had hired three “independent” contractors to perform a thorough scientific and technical review of the additive. 
Their job was to provide an independent review, including any concerns about the additive’s effects on human health or the environment. In their official reports to the NOSB, the three contractors assured the NOSB that no effects on human health had been identified. [Editor's Note: the full Cornucopia Institute report describes the conflicts of interest held by these "independent" contractors] 
Carrageenan came up for periodic review at the May, 2012 meeting with the NOSB debating if it should be “relisted” on the National List of allowed synthetics and non-organics. Industry lobbyists presented misinformation about carrageenan’s safety and questioned the credibility of independent research commissioned by the National Institutes of Health. 
One of the NOSB members took an active role in assisting the carrageenan manufacturers. At one point, she read lengthy excerpts from a document written by the carrageenan manufacturers’ trade lobby group, Marinalg, defending the safety of carrageenan. But before reading these lengthy excerpts, the Board member misidentified the excerpts as “being from JECFA, a United Nations/FAO body” when in fact they were written by the industry’s lobby group. Pretty infuriating, right? How can research from a biased lobby group be mistaken for a United Nations/FAO study? 
The NOSB voted, by a slim one-vote margin, to re-approve the use of carrageenan in organic foods for another five-year period.
The Cornucopia Institute has been the leading advocate on the carrageenan issue, which I think is particularly important given the widespread prevalence of digestive disorders ranging from Irritable Bowel Syndrome to Crohn’s Disease, Celiac Disease, gluten intolerance, leaky gut, colitis, and more, as well as a dramatic increase in food allergies over the past several decades.
CDC: 50% Increase in Food Allergies Over the Last Decade   
Web MD: Food Allergies Have Doubled Among Black Children
ABC News: Food Allergies in Kids On the Rise 
National Center for Biotechnology Information: Time trends in allergic disorders in the UK
The Cornucopia Institute has provided this shopping guide as a resource to avoid carrageenan. Meanwhile, they also have a petition that you can send to the USDA to urge to removal of carrageenan from the list of approved organic ingredients.

While the entire food system in this country needs a complete overhaul, and there are countless dangerous ingredients that need to be reigned in lurking on our grocery store shelves, it is important that the organic label actually means something and provides a viable option for consumers to at least attempt to avoid the downright junk that is passed off as food today. The organic label is one of the last bastions of food safety in America.

As the Cornucopia Institute writes: “Organic foods should be a safe haven from harmful ingredients. In fact, the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, the law governing organic foods, requires that non-agricultural ingredients must be determined safe to human health and not deleterious to the environment before they can be added to organic foods. After all, if organic food isn’t safer than conventional food, what’s the point, right?”


We wrote an article up at Truthstream Media on the food additive Carrageenan an emulsifier extracted from seaweed and added to all kinds of foods on grocery store shelves despite the fact that independent studies show it is a powerful digestive inflammatory agent. This stuff was definitely making a child in our home seriously ill with stomach pains to the point she could barely eat; we had no idea it was in a ton of organic foods, too! We removed it from her diet and she almost instantly got better. We wanted to warn people what the science says about this stuff...well...

Apparently some food additives have dedicated people who go around to every post on the web warning about said additive to spread their company's propaganda as truth, as you'll see in this video.

Our favorite part is where the company says: 

"Q. Why the controversy?

A. Self-appointed consumer watchdogs have produced numerous web pages filled with words condemning carrageenan as an unsafe food additive for human consumption." 

We at Truthstream hope to God every single person becomes a "self-appointed consumer watchdog" and uses critical thinking skills to analyze what these megacorporations are passing off as food in the tyrannical, centralized food system we have in this country. 

PS - Yes, we filled a web page with "words". 
(What a box of fail.)

-Truthstream Media

Monday, March 3, 2014

FDA Wants To Monitor Social Media Chatter About Product Risks

by Joseph Marks

The Food and Drug Administration is looking for a contractor to monitor social media chatter about the drugs and other products it regulates and how that chatter shifts as a result of FDA risk warnings, solicitation documents show.

The agency is looking for a contractor that can provide historical information about the sorts of conversations consumers are having on blogs, message boards and social media sites about the product classes FDA regulates -- such as drugs, medical devices, food and tobacco -- and then track when the sentiment or volume of those conversations shifts, according to the sources sought notice posted on Tuesday.

FDA wants to track what makes those conversations spike, rise slowly or trend downward, the notice said, and to gather information about “about social media buzz volume over time, top sources of buzz, most popular forums of online discussion, most-cited news stories, major themes of discussion, sentiment analysis, word clouds and/or message maps, and a sample of verbatim consumer comments.”

A sources sought notice doesn’t obligate FDA to purchase any goods or services.

FDA has been at the forefront of agencies using Web monitoring to guide their work. In September, the agency contracted with a small company of former campaigners for President Obama to track the public response to FDA’s own social media outreach.

The agency is also using Web monitoring to find and shut down sellers of fake and knock off drugs and other products.

The General Services Administration has urged agencies to learn from social media to fine tune their services, noting that intelligence gathered from social media can help agencies deliver services more effectively and, ultimately, save money.

The White House issued guidance in July approving such social media mining programs to gain “situational awareness” so long as agencies level with the public about what information they’re collecting and why.

Mammograms: New 25-Year Study Questions Them

Natural Blaze
by Catherine J. Frompovich

For as long as I can remember women have been steered to yearly mammograms as screening tools for early detection of breast cancer. However, what most women don’t know is that if a lump or tumor shows up on a mammogram, it’s been there for quite a while. Mammograms cannot detect breast lumps until they are about the size of an eraser on the end of a pencil. That’s big already! Furthermore, “For women under 50 with dense breasts, mammograms may miss a small percentage of in situ breast cancers.” [8]

In the Resources section at the end of this blog I list the link to “The Secret History of Mammography,” which I think everyone interested in breast cancer issues ought to read.

Historically, mammograms did not have a very good track record. Why? Well, in the early years of mammography machines were not calibrated correctly, which caused excess radiation exposure, plus an increased risk of inducing breast cancers. Mammography actually lacked “quality control,” so … 1992, hearings held by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources found numerous quality issues in the field of mammography. [1]

Those hearings led to the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) on October 7, 1992, which became effective October 1, 1994, rather late in the field of mammography, I’d say.

The U.S. FDA was tasked with setting mammography quality standards. Interestingly, in the first year of the FDA’s oversight, 26 percent of mammography facilities had significant violations, which apparently jeopardized women’s breast health, in my opinion. Many facilities had to close as a result of MQSA and the FDA standards.

Wasn’t it rather outrageous that breast mammography procedures were promoted by physicians and technicians without proper safety measures in place and accurately calibrated X-ray equipment? But then many things can happen in medicine and pharmacology that actually may not be safely monitored. Currently, mammography facilities are accredited by the American College of Radiology, while three states (Arkansas, Iowa, and Texas) have state-level alternative accreditations.

In 2003 a Harvard Law School course work requirement paper was published on the Internet [2] that “…acknowledge[s] many of the current problems with mammography reflect deeply rooted historical problems with the delivery of health care and the regulation of medicine.” Also, “It acknowledges that the technological limitations of mammography techniques may be contributing to the physician interpretation problem.” [3] [CJF emphasis added]

Recognizing and trying to address some of the problems still plaguing mammography, Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT-3) introduced H.R.3404, the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act of 2013 on October 30, 2013 that

...amends the Public Health Service Act to require mammography facilities to include information regarding the patient’s individual measure of breast density in both the written report of the results of a mammography examination provided to the patient’s physician and the summary of that written report given to patients. Requires the summary to: (1) convey the patient’s risk of developing breast cancer associated with below, above, and average levels of breast density; and (2) include language communicating that individuals with more dense breasts may benefit from supplemental screening tests and should talk with their physicians about any questions or concerns regarding the summary.

Breast density apparently is problematic for mammography [8] and patients alike, since it determines exposure for readings. Here’s why, according to IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency:

To ensure the necessary image quality with the lowest possible dose, mammography should be performed by highly qualified radiographers with the ability to evaluate each patient’s breast and then select the optimum kV [tube voltage] and other exposure parameters. [4]

Furthermore, in the paper “Danger and Unreliability of Mammography,” published in the International Journal of Health Services [31(3):605-615, 2001], the authors say,

Mammography screening is a profit-driven technology posing risks compounded by unreliability. In striking contrast, annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health professional, together with monthly breast self-examination (BSE), is safe, at least as effective, and low in cost. International programs for training nurses how to perform CBE and teach BSE are critical and overdue. [5]

In the above paper, the authors discuss the dangers of mammography screening, which include:

Radiation and Cancer Risks from Breast Compression, something women are not aware of but should know.

As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle “cancerous breasts with care- for fear of accidentally disseminating cells” and spreading cancer (7). Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers (8). [CJF emphasis added]

During mammograms, breasts are squeezed between plates to make them flat with a pressure that some say is as much as 50 pounds or more. That pressure can cause a rupture, as pointed out above.

Knowing the above background information, let’s consider what a 25-year study published in theBritish Medical Journal in early 2014 [6] revealed about mammography. But first, allow me to share with readers that in my 2012 book, A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, I devote two entire chapters to discussing mammograms in great detail.

The BMJ study evaluated Canadian women ages 40 to 59 who: 1) had regular mammograms and breast exams by trained nurses, and 2) those who had breast exams alone. Surprisingly, the death rate from breast cancer was about the same in both groups. However, one in 424 women who had mammograms received unnecessary medical treatments, which included surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

Needless to say, the Canadian breast cancer study has become a polarizing event in the divide between those in medicine who believe mammograms save lives and researchers who claim there is no evidence to that effect and only leaves the issue muddled. Furthermore, in light of the Canadian study, the American Cancer Society says it is rethinking its position on mammography and will be issuing revised guidelines sometime later in 2014. The BMJ study authors concluded that

…our data show that annual mammography does not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality for women aged 40-59 beyond that of physical examination alone or usual care in the community. The data suggest that the value of mammography screening should be reassessed. [7]

Readers ought to know that men also can contract breast cancer, which I discuss in another chapter in A Cancer Answer [available on], and undergo the same diagnostic procedures and treatments as women, which may include mastectomy. I once had a male client who had a double mastectomy.

What conventional oncology overlooks and categorically does not utilize to diagnose breast cancer earlier than a mammogram can, is FDA-approved (1982) thermography, a non-invasive, radiation-free, infra-red photographic technique that photographs body heat, since cancer tissue gives off more heat than non-cancerous tissues. To help women make better informed choices about breast health issues, I devoted an extensive chapter in A Cancer Answer to thermography. Included in that chapter is an exceptional essay written by a Board Certified Thermologist medical doctor, who’s been a medical thermographer since 1982.

Breast cancer can be found much earlier than before a lump or tumor becomes the size of a pencil eraser. Wouldn’t you consider that very early breast cancer detection? However, thermography for breast cancer detection is not covered by healthcare insurance plans, which is due to the politics of healthcare and apparent effective lobbying tactics employed by mammography equipment makers directed at the FDA and Congress. Apparently, money talks. Even the American Cancer Society claims, “Mammography today is a lucrative, highly competitive business.”

Personally, if I were a young woman reading this article, I’d realize the importance of getting a baseline thermogram now of both breasts so I could ‘see’ what’s currently going on inside my breasts.

Additionally, I’d consider a thermogram a worthwhile investment in my health and future. It doesn’t hurt; it doesn’t place ionizing radiation into breasts that also can affect surrounding body tissue.

For the ultimate personal gift, consider surprising her with what could become a “gift for life,” a thermogram. As I say in A Cancer Answer, women ought to think of thermograms as posing for a center-spread photograph that really could save their lives.

[3] Ibid.
[7] Ibid. pg. 5