Eating Antibiotic-Fed Chicken Leading to Bladder Infection Spike

Natural Society
Lisa Garber

We shouldn’t need much more reason to avoid antibiotic-fed chicken than the abuse and neglect they suffer in cages and “free range” facilities. But in case anyone still has second thoughts, we can safely put them to rest now that conventionally-raised chickens have been linked to urinary tract infections in people. Eating the antibiotic-fed chicken can especially lead to a urinary tract infection in women.

Urinary Tract Infection in Women and Chickens in Slaughterhouses with E. Coli

A group of researchers—in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia—have found genetic similarities between E. coli from slaughterhouse animals, especially chickens, and the bacteria causing a urinary tract infection in women.

Journalist Maryn McKenna said on NPR that:

“The strains of E. coli that they have been tracking [in slaughtered chickens and turkeys] happen to be the kind that leave the gut to create infections elsewhere in the body. Specifically they are the strains responsible for urinary tract infections, which in the US, occur up to eight million times per year.”

The researchers’ findings coincide with a recorded change of a urinary tract infection in women resistant to standard treatment in the past decade.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found the evidence so compelling as to report on 12 July, “ExPEC [Extraintestinal Pathogenic E. coli] transmission from food animals could be responsible for human infections, and chickens are the most probable reservoir.”

Conflicts of Interest

Meanwhile, the National Chicken Council—a pro-poultry industry lobby—retorts that chickens fed antibiotics are not the source of E. coli and that antibiotics in their feed has no effect on people who eat them. (The conflict of interest here hardly needs to be pointed out.)

According to the Food and Drug Administration, 80 percent of antibiotics sold in the US is administered to livestock, not people. (Ask the financially invested Animal Health Institute, though, and you’ll get a mere 28 percent.) Meanwhile, the FDA—bending to industrial pressure—has done “shockingly little” to combat the widespread and abused implementation of antibiotics in animal feed. Judge Theodore H. Katz ordered the FDA back in June to get its act together rather than ignore scientific evidence and citizen petitions. The future of antibiotics in livestock—and the effects on omnivorous humans—remains hazy.

Children with Furry Pets Get Sick Less Often: A Lesson in Vaccine Futility

Gaia Health

Trying to escape from nature doesn’t work. Whether by attempting to sterilize our lives or by trying to simulate nature’s processes, we end up weaker, not stronger.

Babies in homes with dogs are significantly healthier than those without them, according to a new study published in the journal Pediatrics this month. The researchers suggested that the likeliest reason is earlier activation of the immune system.

This has implications for vaccinations. Vaccines overstimulate the immune system, causing it to focus on developing antibodies at the expense of innate immunity.

Vaccines inject antigens, now frequently multiple as in the DTaP vaccine, not to mention a host of other substances including preservatives, adjuvants, and contaminants from the production process. All of the intended and unintended substances present a burden to a young immune system, derailing it from normal development.

On top of that, introducing antigens through injections is not natural. It bypasses the natural barriers, such as nasal passages and the mouth. This artificial method of creating antibodies results in both temporary and less effective disease prevention, requiring ever more vaccinations in an attempt to produce disease immunity.

The failure of this approach can be seen in the now-prevalent concept of cocooning, which suggests that, if enough people get vaccinated, it will prevent diseases in those who are very young, elderly, or have compromised immune systems—which, by the way, are largely the direct result of autoimmune disorders caused by vaccines.

Obviously, any gains from vaccinations must be balanced against harms, which none of our health agencies have ever bothered to examine. As we can see in the fact that having furry pets is beneficial to babies’ immune systems, natural development results in healthier children. A recent study, State of health of unvaccinated children demonstrates that unvaccinated children are healthier.

The authors of the furry pet study, titled Respiratory Tract Illnesses During the First Year of Life: Effect of Dog and Cat Contacts, wrote:

If children had dog or cat contacts at home, they were significantly healthier during the study period. …


The most protective association was seen in children who had a dog inside at home for up to six hours a day, compared to children who did not have any dogs or who had dogs that were always outside.


We speculate that animal contacts could help to mature the immunologic system, leading to more composed immunologic response and shorter duration of infections.

The study examined children in their first year of life and documented that having furry pets is beneficial to the immune system by helping to mature it. In more straightforward terms, the study found that exposure to natural disease-producing substances gives the immune system a chance to do what it’s meant to do: protect against diseases.

Before this study, the only benefit in pets was believed to be psychological. It’s now clear that naturally triggering a baby’s immune system is beneficial. Understimulation of a baby’s immune system, that is, attempting to keep a child in a sterile environment, prevents it from learning how to protect health. Overstimulation deranges the immune system, making it overactive and creating autoimmune disorders.

Certainly, there are no sure ways to get babies through childhood. However, the more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that trying to circumvent nature virtually always results in far more harm than benefit. Trying to escape from nature doesn’t work. Whether by attempting to sterilize our lives or by trying to simulate nature’s processes, we end up weaker, not stronger.

Isn’t it time to stop medicalizing our lives? We need to stop trying to control and separate ourselves from nature if we want to have any semblance of a healthy existence.

Scientists Produce Genetically Modified Cows to Create ‘Human Breast Milk’

Natural Society
by Anthony Gucciardi

It appears genetically modified babies, lab monkeys, genetically modified mosquitoes, and even human-hybrids are not enough for some geneticists who continue to modify the very genetic coding of nature more and more each day. In the latest creation unleashed by scientists, human genes have successfully been inserted into genetically modified cows that now allow them to produce ‘human’ milk — milk that has the very same properties as human breast milk.

Genetically Modified Cows for Human Breast Milk?

This human-cow hybrid milk is now being lined up as an alternative milk formula for babies, with scientists envisioning ‘herds of genetically modified cows’ to ultimately provide the human breast milk needed to feed newborns. The announcement is reminiscent of Monsanto’s genetically modified bovine growth hormone known as rBGH. Now banned in over 27 countries (but still sold widely in the United States), the synthetic hormone is created using molecules and DNA sequences that are a result of molecular cloning. A large amount of peer-reviewed research has identified rBGH as a risk factor for both breast and gastrointestinal cancer, yet many US ‘officials’ and ‘scientists’ continue to claim it is safe. Remember, it is banned in over 27 other nations for legitimate health concerns.

According to the lead researcher Professor Ning Li, this modified human milk is set to hit the dinner table within 10 years or so:

“We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”

It sounds like a science fiction novel in which morality and reason is but a thing of the past – human milk from genetically modified cows – however, it is actually a daunting reality. You see in the past, after it came out that ‘underground’ labs were actually creating human-hybrid chimeras using the genetic imprint of humans to breed disturbing and horrific ‘creatures’, scientists began to speak out over the serious ethical and moral implications. There is also a great concern of preserving the ‘genetic integrity’ of not only human beings and living animals, but the environment as well.

As one spokesperson for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals notes, cloned animals have in the past demonstrated serious health conditions that have alarmed researchers. So why are these scientists ready to roll out this genetically modified ‘human breast milk’ into grocery stores nationwide? She said:

“Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern.”

An example of such a genetic threat can be examined with the introduction of genetically modified salmon. Pushed by the USDA and major biotech corporations, AquAdvantage salmon (the modified brand), was just moments away from approval when Congress blocked the FDA from approving the salmon for consumption due to serious health and environmental concerns.

The fact of the matter is that not only does research exist showing that consuming genetically modified food products is hazardous to your health, but they threaten nature as a whole. Both the genetically modified babies and salmon, if unleashed to the public, can effectively change the very genetic structure of future generations — changes that can cause serious long-term consequences that we do not even fully understand.

The question is how long will scientists continue to endanger public health and the welfare of all living creatures involved with rampant genetic modification of nature before the consequences present themselves in such a manner that invokes serious repercussions.

IQ Ratings Suffer from Car Pollution, Tobacco Exposure

Natural Society

We are all subject to the dangers of air pollution. Even if you live in the country, you are exposed to some level of pollution, from your own vehicle or tobacco if you smoke. But a study from the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health finds that high levels of pollution can affect the eventual intelligence of children, making for lower IQ ratings. Other studies link the same pollutants to depression, asthma, and many other health concerns.

Pollution From Cars, Tobacco Linked with Lower IQ Ratings

The study looked at prenatal exposure to air pollution, specifically polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). What they found was pregnant mothers exposed to high levels of these pollutants gave birth to children who would eventually have significantly lower IQ ratings based on intelligence tests at age 5.

These pollutants (PAHs) come from the burning of fossil fuels, used in vehicles and industry. They are also emitted in smaller amounts from the burning of organic materials like tobacco, according to UPI.com.

The study looked at 214 children born to healthy, non-smoking white Polish mothers between 2001 and 2006. During pregnancy the women wore air monitors in small backpacks to measure their exposure to pollutants. They also provided blood and cord samples at the time of delivery.

The children were then tested and monitored through the age of five. They were tested on reasoning and intelligence and were found to have lower IQ ratings as exposure to pollution increased.

A similar study in New York in 2009 found similar results with low IQ ratings among children born to nonsmoking African American and Dominican American women.

Frederica Perera, author of the New York study says these findings are significant because they show air pollution exposure could be “educationally meaningful in terms of school performance.” She also points out, however, that air pollution, in general, has declined somewhat over the past decade or so.

PAH exposure in the womb has also been linked to things like asthma, low birth weight, premature delivery, and heart malformation.

A more recent study from Environmental Health Perspectives found that prenatal exposure to pollutants is associated with a 24% higher score of anxiety and depression in young children. Children as young as six and seven are experiencing depression and anxiety because of toxins in our air.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health, we are exposed to PAHs in a number of ways:

Breathing: Most people are exposed to PAHs when they breathe in smoke, auto emissions or industrial exhausts. Most exhausts contain many different PAH compounds. People with the highest exposures are smokers, people who live or work with smokers, roofers, road builders and people who live near major highways or industrial sources.

Drinking/Eating: Charcoal-broiled foods, especially meats, are a source of some PAH exposure. Shellfish living in contaminated water may be another major source of exposure. PAHs may be in groundwater near disposal sites where construction wastes or ash are buried; people may be exposed by drinking this water. Vegetables do not absorb significant amounts of PAHs that are in soil.

Touching: PAHs can be absorbed through skin too. Exposure can come from handling contaminated soil or bathing in contaminated water. Low levels of these chemicals may be absorbed when a person uses medicated skin cream or shampoo containing PAHs.

Using skin care products containing PAHs, cooking with charcoal, and job choice can all impact our exposure.

Hormone-Mimicking Chemicals Cause Inter-Species Mating

Science Blog
BPA in rivers leads to breakdown of fish species barriers

Hormone-mimicking chemicals released into rivers have been found to impact the mating choices of fish, a new study has revealed. The controversial chemical BPA, which emits oestrogen-like properties, was found to alter an individual’s appearance and behavior, leading to inter-species breeding. The study, published in Evolutionary Applications, reveals the threat to biodiversity when the boundaries between species are blurred.

The research, led by Dr Jessica Ward from the University of Minnesota, focused on the impact of Bisphenol A (BPA) on Blacktail Shiner (Cyprinella venusta) and Red Shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) fish which are found in rivers across the United States. BPA is an organic compound used in the manufacture of polycarbonate and other plastics. It is currently banned from baby bottles and childrens’ cups in 11 U.S. states.

“Chemicals from household products and pharmaceuticals frequently end up in rivers and BPA is known to be present in aquatic ecosystems across the United States,” said Ward. “Until now studies have primarily focused on the impact to individual fish, but our study demonstrates the impact of BPA on a population level.”

The team collected individuals of both species from two streams in the state of Georgia. The species were kept separated for 14 days in tanks, some of which contained BPA. On the 15th day behavioral trials were undertaken as individuals from different tanks were introduced to each other.

The scientists monitored any physiological or signalling differences the individuals displayed, such as colour, as well as any behavioral differences during courtship, such as mate choice.

BPA disrupts an individual’s endocrine system, which controls the release of hormones. This impacts behavior and appearance, which in turn can lead an individual to mistake a newly introduced species as a potential mate.

This process poses long-term ecological consequences, especially in areas threatened by the introduction of invasive species. BPA and other hormone-mimicking chemicals can escalate the loss of native biodiversity by breaking down species barriers and promoting the invader.

“Our research shows how the presence of these manmade chemicals leads to a greater likelihood of hybridization between species,” concluded Ward. “This can have severe ecological and evolutionary consequences, including the potential for the decline of our native species.”

Related stories: Interspecies Sex: Evolution's Hidden Secret?

Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

The DC Social Reader

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.

Even if doctors do not quit their jobs over the ruling, America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.

By 2025 the shortage will balloon to over 130,000, Len Marquez, the director of government relations at the American Association of Medical Colleges, told The Daily Caller.

“One of our primary concerns is that you’ve got an aging physician workforce and you have these new beneficiaries — these newly insured people — coming through the system,” he said. “There will be strains and there will be physician shortages.”

The DPMA found that many doctors do not believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will lead to better access to medical care for the majority of Americans, co-founder of the DPMA Kathryn Serkes told TheDC.

“Doctors clearly understand what Washington does not — that a piece of paper that says you are ‘covered’ by insurance or ‘enrolled’ in Medicare or Medicaid does not translate to actual medical care when doctors can’t afford to see patients at the lowball payments, and patients have to jump through government and insurance company bureaucratic hoops,” she said.

The American Medical Association, which endorsed Obama’s health care overhaul, was not able to immediately offer comment on the survey. Spokesperson Heather Lasher Todd said it would take time to review the information in the survey.

Janelle Davis of the American Academy of Family Physicians said the AAFP could not provide thoughtful commentary without studying the survey’s findings and methodology.

FDA Claims Walnuts to be Illegal Drugs

Natural Society
by Mike Barrett

Well the Food and Drug Administration has really made a name for themselves this time. In response to claims by a company named Diamond Foods that walnuts possess health benefits, the FDA sent the company a letter informing them of their wrongdoing. What did Diamond Foods do wrong? According to the FDA, claims made by Diamond Foods that omega-3′s found in walnuts produce health benefits make their walnuts “drugs”. As far as the FDA is concerned, these “drugs” can not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved new drug application.

FDA Actions Portray Government Lunacy at its Best

It seems bureaucratic tyranny is really taking shape in America. Despite 35 peer-reviewed published papers showing that walnuts improve vascular health and promote heart function being held in the US National Library of Medicine database, the FDA refuses to allow Diamond Foods to make such claims. The evidence revolving around the benefits of walnuts evidently must be authorized by the FDA before those benefits can even be marketed. A letter sent to the company from the FDA states:

“We have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.”

The FDA goes on to say that the products are also “misbranded” because they “are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes.”

All the while, the FDA is more than happy to allow marketing of chemical-laden, diabetes-inducing foods such as Apple Jacks or Fruit Loops, often targeted at young children. Not only that, but they would much rather the population ‘treat’ their problems with harmful pharmaceuticals rather than with a healthy diet. The government’s actions against natural solutions are sickening to say the least, and saying that walnuts or pomegranates are drugs is an outright false claim. But why are they even making these crazy statements?

The truth is that the pharmaceutical industry, multi-national corporations, and government officials all have both indiscrete and blatant financial ties. Junk food manufacturers heavily lobby the federal government for favorable treatment in order to vacuum in greater profits. In response to the ingestion of massive amounts of junk foods, your body responds so negatively that various health-complications surface, causing you to search for a solution. It just so happens that the pharmaceutical industry has been pushing ‘solutions’ on you for years through mass advertising, making drug ingestion and medical devices the norm instead of healthy alternatives. As far as the government is concerned, there is absolutely no reason for you to live a healthy lifestyle, since many of the government officials would be losing out on a great sum of money.

The FDA simply does not have your best interest at heart. This kind of action truly reflects government lunacy at its best.