Radiation is Already Killing Babies

(NaturalNews) Newborn babies are the most vulnerable of all beings. Vulnerability says it all when it comes to a newborn infant. Children deserve the best medical treatment from the best form of medicine human intelligence can implement but what they get is governmental interference and neglect. Below we see the first information coming in that the radiation that the government is saying is safe and harmless and of very low concentration is already killing babies on the west coast of the United States where death rates are spiking. Who cares about the babies that die? Our government certainly doesn’t! It is outrageous and tragic that our government and many of our doctors don’t care. Certainly we will never see medical officials caring about the deaths of infants caused by vaccines on a regular basis. The government’s identity has grown to such beastly proportions these days that everyone who is not “them” is an enemy, even the babies. What do medical officials really care when a baby dies from vaccine complications? What do FDA officials do to block out the guilt and pain of knowing that they caused a lifetime of suffering for a young child when they allow dental mercury amalgam (toxic waste dumps) to be put right in their mouths? Do they care about peoples’ iodine deficiencies that leave them more vulnerable to the radioactive iodine from Fukushima? Do they care about the wreck and ruin in millions of peoples’ lives suffering from the toxicity of fluoride deliberately put in the public’s drinking water supplies? And do you honestly think they are going to care about babies dying and fetuses being underweight from the radiation exposure coming over the Pacific to the west coast of the United States and Canada? We know the radiation is there for it has been detected and reported on the inside pages of newspapers in small print that one would need a magnifying glass to read. There now exists a new rule-of-thumb regarding the media: the less the media says about something the more dangerous it is. The thing that tells us we are in serious danger is the almost complete absence of anything in the papers about the dangers coming from Fukushima. The news is so bad that they cannot and will not print anything about it. But now we have very disturbing reports about a 35% spike in infant mortality in Northwest cities since the meltdown in Fukushima. Dr. Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano wrote: “U.S. babies are dying at an increased rate. The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age: “4 weeks ending March 19, 2011: 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week) 10 weeks ending May 28, 2011: 125 deaths (avg. 12.50 per week)” “This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.” The Most Vulnerable Infants and pregnant women are most at risk. Doctors Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko say, “When children have the same menu as adults, they get up to five times higher (radiation) dose burdens from locally produced foodstuffs because of their lower weight and more active processes of metabolism.” “It is well known that women are more susceptible — approximately twice as susceptible, or worse — to radiation’s harmful effects than men who get the same dose. Young people are more susceptible than old. Young children are perhaps ten times as susceptible to radiation’s dangers as adults are, because their cells are dividing and establishing themselves. The cells of some organs will continue to divide; but cells such as neurons and heart muscle cells stop dividing at adulthood. Cancer can also get established at this early stage. Cancer usually requires a long sequence of cell changes to occur — often 10 or 12 or more changes in the cell DNA’s structure will have to occur, which can take many years,” writes Ace Hoffman. Hoffman continues saying, “Infants are even more susceptible than young children. Newborns, preemies… immune-challenged… even more so. Since Fukushima, our babies are dying at a significantly increased rate on the west coast of the United States (see article below). Across the country deaths are up as well, though not as much (ibid). Fetuses vary from “infinitely” more susceptible to radiation’s dangers, to thousands of times more when they are very small, to “merely” hundreds of times more as they grow, to whatever they are at birth — no one knows precisely.” You just imagine the masses wondering how any of this can be true. How can babies die from nuclear radiation that is supposedly the safe low-level stuff that the government and media say could not harm a fly. Well for those who are wondering, watch this most current video from Arnie Gundersen who said, ” In April, the average person in Seattle breathed in 10 hot particles a day .” Video: CNN’s John King interviews Arnie Gundersen about the Hot Particles discovered in Japan and the US. Dr. Sherman was probably not surprised about the increased birth deaths because she knows what happened at Chernobyl, having been the chief editor of the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature , written by Drs. A. V. Yablokov, V. B., Nesterenko and A. V. Nesterenko, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009. ” Data from Chernobyl , which exploded 25 years ago, clearly shows increased numbers of sick and weak newborns and increased numbers of deaths in the unborn and newborns, especially soon after the meltdown . These occurred in Europe as well as the former Soviet Union. Similar findings are also seen in wildlife living in areas with increased radioactive fallout levels.” Protect the Children, What Are You Waiting For? Should the public discover the true health costs of nuclear pollution, a cry would rise from all parts of the world and people would refuse to cooperate passively with their own death. Dr. Rosalie Bertell There are many alarming trends in pediatric care, not the least of which is increasing radiation exposure. It is now estimated that that the average child will get more than seven radiation scans by age 18 and this does not include dental X-rays. Most alarming is the increasing use of CT scans, which entail far more radiation and can raise the risk for cancer in children. X-rays of the chest, hands and feet are the most common. Forty-two percent of children had at least one radiation procedure and 25 percent had two or more during the three-year study period. Eight percent of the children got at least one CT scan, and more than three percent of children got two or more. What we can do to save our children after they have been exposed to radiation is the most important thing a parent can learn at this point in time. We must acquire this knowledge before we or our children have been exposed, but now it’s already too late for that for a great number of people in the northern hemisphere. Heavy Metal and Particle Vulnerability Children are more vulnerable to the dangers of toxic chemicals than are adults , according to Herbert L. Needleman, M.D. and Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., authors of Raising Children Toxic Free . According to a study released in October 2004, conducted by the University of North Carolina, 21 percent of women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their hair that exceeds federal health standards. That is up from eight percent in just four years using a recent CDC study as a reference point. Under United States guidelines, 79 percent of Inuvik women of childbearing age have unsafe levels of mercury. Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a directive warning women of childbearing age to eat no more than two meals or 12 ounces of seafood, including canned tuna, weekly. The life period with the highest adaptability and vulnerability to environmental factors: the period inside the womb. Dr. Sandra Steingraber describes the particular vulnerability of children when it comes to mercury poisoning: “The placenta, which works well to bar pathogens from entering the womb, does a terrible job of keeping methylmercury out. In fact, the placenta actively pumps mercury into the fetal capillaries as though it were a precious molecule of calcium or iodine. This is why levels of mercury in the blood of a newborn typically exceed those of its mother by 70 percent. When confronted with methylmercury, the placenta functions more like a magnifying glass than a barrier. Once inside the fetal blood supply, mercury is carried to the fetal brain where it interferes with brain cell migration. Just as a spider can lower itself from the ceiling by reeling out a single strand of silk, a fetal brain cell moves from the center of the brain to the surface by rappelling along its own fiber. This process of brain cell migration begins in earnest during month four of pregnancy and continues after birth at least through the age of two. Methylmercury paralyzes migrating brain cells and thus interferes with their movement from center to surface. Methylmercury also halts cell division in the fetal brain by binding directly to neural chromosomes. The cerebellum — center of balance and coordination — is a special target of methylmercury. Prenatal exposures to methylmercury have also been linked to deficits in memory, learning, and attention span that persist into adolescence and appear irreversible. In short, human fetuses are more vulnerable than adults to the brain-addling powers of mercury for two immutable reasons: They receive a comparatively bigger exposure (because of the placenta’s concentrating powers), and their brain cells need to move and multiply.” A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency biochemist, Kathryn Mahaffey, estimates that one in six pregnant women in the United States had high enough blood mercury to damage her child, for a total of 630,000 U.S. newborns at risk . This was the first study to calculate the numbers based on children’s blood levels, not the mother’s blood. The new formula showed that one in six pregnant women had mercury levels in their blood of at least 3.5 parts per billion, sufficient for levels in the fetus to reach or surpass the EPA safety threshold of 5.8 parts per billion. In 1999-2000, the last year for which government data is available, this meant that 630,000 children were at risk instead of the original estimate of 320,000. According to Dr. Sandra Steingraber, “The EPA has taken pains not to adopt the 630,000 figure as its official position. Calculated by EPA scientist Kathryn Mahaffey, these new estimates were published in Environmental Health Perspectives , April 2004. Children are more vulnerable than adults to oxidative stress due to their naturally low glutathione levels from conception through infancy. Erden-Inal 2003 More than 100 years ago Dr. Abraham Jacobi, the father of American pediatrics, recognized the importance of and need for age-appropriate pharmaceutical therapy when he wrote, “Pediatrics does not deal with miniature men and women with reduced doses and the same class of disease in smaller bodies, but… has its own independent range and horizon.” Modern pediatrics has abandoned this wisdom as demonstrated by the fact that vaccines are not adjusted down to the bodyweight of infants. For all the references, sources and more articles on radiation and chemical toxicity please visit Dr. Mark Sircus blog .

National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society skewered in new book by leading cancer expert

(NaturalNews) A new book by leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, skewers the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer. In the book, “National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest,” Epstein argues that the NCI and ACS have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars focusing on treatment to the exclusion of prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket, with the disease now affecting nearly one in two men and more than one in three women. Furthermore, the author claims that not only do numerous conflicts of interest exist within the NCI and ACS, but the NCI and ACS are also withholding a mass of information on avoidable causes of cancer. Epstein, who has served as a consultant for the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, is an internationally recognized authority on avoidable causes of cancer, particularly carcinogen exposure through conduits such as food, air, water, household products, cosmetics, prescription drugs or industrial carcinogens in the workplace. Epstein is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has published more than 270-peer reviewed articles and 20 books, including the prize-winning 1978 The Politics of Cancer , and has appeared on national media, including NPR, 60 Minutes, Face the Nation, Meet the Press, The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Good Morning America and The Today Show. He was a key expert in the banning of hazardous products including DDT, chlordane and aldrin. In his new book, he is now the leading critic of the cancer establishment for its indifference to prevention of the disease, which, for the ACS, he claims, borders on hostility. Cancer funding skyrockets along with cancer rates, followed by exaggerated claims of progress The cancer industry has made a series of misleading claims about the advances in the war against cancer over the past three decades, wrote Epstein. Some of the false claims, according to Epstein, include the industry’s 1984 announcement by the NCI that cancer mortality would be halved by 2000, the 1998 NCI and ACS Report Card announcement of a reversal in the almost twenty-year trend of increasing cancer incidence and death, and the 2003 pledge by NCI Director and former ACS president-elect Andrew von Eschenbach to “eliminate suffering and death from cancer by 2015.” The NCI, ACS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also claimed that “considerable progress has been made in reducing the [number of people with cancer] in the U.S. population” in its 2003 “Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2000.” The claim, however, is not consistent with NCI’s own data, Epstein said, which shows the overall number of people with cancer and incidence rates actually increased by 18 percent. The data also shows a dramatic increase in nonsmoking-related cancers, according to Epstein, including a 104 percent increase in liver cancer, an 88 percent increase in prostate cancer, a 54 percent increase in thyroid and testicular cancer, a 29 percent increase in breast cancer and a 14 percent increase in brain cancer. Epstein also notes the overall cancer mortality rates have remained unchanged and have increase by 6 percent for blacks. It seems that the more we spend on cancer, the more cancer we get, Epstein said, because while the number of people with cancer goes up, so does the NCI budget paid for by tax payers and charity. The NCI budget has increased 25-fold, from $220 million to $4.6 billion, between 1971 and 2000. Prevention is the key The fixation on “damage control” instead of prevention is the root cause of the booming cancer rates in the face of billions of dollars aimed at elimination of the disease, according to Epstein. He claims the NCI priorities are all wrong. The opening statement of the NCI’s 2001 Cancer Facts report says that “cancer prevention is a major component and current priority — to reduce suffering and death from cancer.” Meanwhile the report claimed that only 12 percent of the NCI’s then $3.75 billion budget was allocated to prevention. Epstein shows that the actual attention to prevention is probably even less, by citing an analysis of a 1992 NCI budget showing that less than 2.5 percent of its then $2 billion budget was spent on prevention. Epstein further crucifies NCI stating that prevention tactics defined by NCI only covered the value of avoiding smoking and a bad diet, while wholly ignoring the myriad of environmental and occupational carcinogens. NCI and ACS withholding a mass of cancer prevention information The NCI has failed to inform the public of published scientific information on a wide range of avoidable causes of multiple cancers, Epstein said. According to Epstein, there are three major categories of avoidable causes including: 1. Environmental contaminants in air, water, soil, the workplace, and food; 2. Carcinogenic ingredients in consumer products, particularly pesticides; 3. Carcinogenic prescription drugs and high-dose diagnostic radiation, particularly pediatric CAT scans. Epstein wrote, “NCI’s silence on cancer prevention is in flagrant violation of the 1971 National Cancer Act’s specific charge to disseminate cancer information to the public. This silence is in further violation of the 1988 Amendments to the National Cancer Program, which called for an expanded and intensified research program for the prevention of cancer caused by occupational or environmental exposure to carcinogens.” Epstein blamed this NCI failure to inform Congress and regulatory agencies of avoidable carcinogens for encouraging petrochemical and other industries to continue manufacturing products containing carcinogens and encouraging corporate polluters to continue polluting. NCI’s aversion to publicizing avoidable carcinogens has even gone as far as suppression and denial, Epstein said, quoting the following examples: “In 1983, the Department of Health and Human Services directed NCI to investigate the risks of thyroid cancer from I-131 radioactive fallout following atom bomb tests in Nevada in the late 1950s and early 1960s.” “NCI released its report in 1997, based on data which had been available for over fourteen years, predicting up to 210,000 thyroid cancers from radioactive fallout. These cancers, whose incidence has almost doubled since 1973, could have been readily prevented had the NCI warned the public in time and advised them to take thyroid medication.” “At a September 1999 hearing by the Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Affairs, former Senator John Glenn (D-OH) charged that the NCI investigation was plagued by lack of public participation and openness. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) charged that NCI’s conduct was a travesty.” [Just] as serious is NCI’s frank suppression of information. At a 1996 San Francisco Town Hall Meeting on breast cancer, chaired by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former NCI director Richard Klausner insisted that “low level diagnostic radiation does not demonstrate an increased risk.” However, this was contrary to long-term studies on patients with spinal curvature (scoliosis), which showed that such radiation was responsible for 70% excess breast cancer mortality. ACS has just as abysmal a track record on prevention as NCI, according to Epstein, and it has been and remains the target of periodic attacks by leading scientists and public interest groups. One attack in a 1994 press release by the Center for Science in the Public Interest stated, “A group of 24 scientists charged that the ACS was doing little to protect the public from cancer-causing chemicals in the environment and workplace. The scientists urged ACS to revamp its policies and to emphasize prevention in its lobbying and educational campaigns.” The scientists criticized ACS for requiring human evidence of carcinogenic effects before implementing regulation, saying that they had an unrealistically high action threshold. The scientists included: Harvard University Nobel Laureates Matthew Meselson and George Wald; former Occupational Safety and Health Director Eula Bingham; and past president of the Public Health Association, Anthony Robbins. One major instance of ACS ignoring the science, according to Epstein, was in 1993 when they came out in support of the pesticide industry just before the airing of the PBS Frontline special, “In Our Children’s Food.” ACS released a memorandum in which it trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancers, and reassured the public that pesticide residues were safe, even for infants. Possibly most shocking is the failure of the NCI and ACS to inform the public of the increasing incidence of childhood cancers, which has escalated to alarming rates, according to Epstein. The Cancer Prevention Coalition’s 2003 report said that childhood cancers have increased by 32 percent between 1975 and 2000 and that cancer is one of the leading causes of death in children, second only to accidents. Even more shocking, the NCI claims that “the causes of childhood cancer are largely unknown.” This is diametrically opposed to substantial scientific evidence, according to Epstein, which shows that children are exposed to numerous avoidable carcinogens, including everything from X-rays, prescription drugs, pesticides and contaminants in beauty products to petrochemical and industrial pollutants, radioactive pollutants in the air and drinking water, and pollutants from hazardous waste sites. In 2000, the industry publication Cancer Letter had a commentary on ACS’ behind-the-scenes creation of a legislative committee to gain major control of national cancer policy, according to Epstein. In the commentary, former executive president of the American Society of Clinical Oncologists Dr. John Durant shared his assessment of ACS behavior. “It has always seemed to me that was an issue of control by the ACS over the cancer agenda,” Durant said. “They are protecting their own fundraising capacity [from competition by survivor groups.]” Conflicts of Interest But emphasis on treatment looks likely to remain if, as Epstein shows, the ACS and NCI are in bed with those who profit from a treatment focus. Approximately half of the members of the ACS board are doctors and scientists with close ties to the NCI, Epstein said. Many of the board members and their colleagues obtain funding from both the ACS and NCI, he said. Frank conflicts of interest are evident in many ACS priorities, according to Epstein, including the two major examples of mammography and cancer drugs. “The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry,” Epstein writes. “Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films … In fact, if every woman followed the ACS and NCI mammography guidelines, the annual revenue to health care facilities would be a staggering $5 billion. ACS promotion continues to lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph of two women in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early detection results in a cure “nearly 100 percent of the time.” An ACS communications director responded …. “The ad isn’t based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point. Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business.” “The ACS exposes premenopausal women to radiation hazards from mammography with little or no evidence of benefits,” Epstein said. “The ACS also fails to tell them that their breasts will change so much over time that the ‘baseline’ images have little or no future relevance.” The cancer drug industry is even more lucrative than mammography with annual sales over $12 billion. The intimate association between ACS and the pharmaceutical industry is illustrated, Epstein said, by the unbridled aggression which ACS directs at its critics. “ACS maintains a Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, which periodically reviews unorthodox or alternative therapies,” Epstein wrote. “This committee is comprised of volunteer health care professionals, carefully selected proponents of orthodox, expensive, and usually toxic drugs patented by major pharmaceutical companies, and opponents of alternative or unproven therapies that are generally cheap, and minimally toxic.” Periodically, the committee updates its statements on unproven methods, which are then widely disseminated to clinicians, cheerleader science writers, and the public. Once a clinician or oncologist becomes associated with unproven methods, he or she is blackmailed by the cancer establishment. Funding for the accused quack becomes inaccessible, followed by systematic harassment. “The highly biased ACS witch-hunts against alternative practitioners are in striking contrast to its extravagant and uncritical endorsement of conventional toxic chemotherapy. This despite the absence of any objective evidence of improved survival rates or reduced mortality following chemotherapy for all but some relatively rare cancers.” The cancer industry’s favor of pharmaceutical products is evidenced, Epstein said, “by the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved approximately 40 patented drugs for cancer treatment, while it has yet to approve a single nonpatented alternative drug.” According to Epstein, “Dr. Samuel Broder, NCI director from 1989 to 1995, frankly admitted, in a 1998 Washington Post interview, that ‘the NCI has become what amounts to a government pharmaceutical company.’ Taxpayers have funded R and D and expensive clinical trials for over two-thirds of cancer drugs on the market. These drugs are given, with exclusive rights, to the industry, which sells them at inflated prices.” Epstein calls for change NCI reform is two decades overdue, Epstein wrote, based in part on “The Stop Cancer Before it Starts Campaign: How to win the Losing War against Cancer,” which is a 2003 report sponsored by eight leading cancer prevention experts and endorsed by over one hundred activists and citizen groups. Numerous NCI reforms were proposed in 1992 at a Cancer Prevention Coalition press conference, a group of 68 leading cancer prevention and public health experts, past directors of federal agencies, and citizen activists across the nation. But prophetically, the press release concluded, “There is no likelihood that such reforms will be implemented without legislative action.” And the ACS has done no better, according to Epstein. “The verdict is unassailable,” Epstein said. “The ACS bears a major decades-long responsibility for losing the winnable war against cancer. Reforming the ACS is, in principle, relatively easy and directly achievable. Boycott the ACS. Instead, give your charitable contributions to public interest and environmental groups involved in cancer prevention. Such a boycott is well overdue and will send the only message this charity can no longer ignore.”

Join massive dance protest this Saturday at Jefferson Memorial, Washington D.C.

(NaturalNews) Organized by Adam Kokesh, the host of Adam vs. the Man on RT America (www.RT.com/usa), a dance protest last Saturday attracted dozens of people who engaged in silent dancing inside the hall of the Jefferson Memorial. But even as they swayed in silence, the D.C. police viciously assaulted them, choking Adam Kokesh around the throat, then picking him up and violently slamming his body to the ground (http://rt.com/news/arrest-police-usa-kokesh/). This is the new standard of violent government oppression in America: The mere fact that your body is moving rhythmically is now enough to get you violently assaulted by law enforcement. That this is taking place inside the memorial of Thomas Jefferson is, all by itself, an insult to what the memorial itself stands for: Freedom. If anything, Jefferson would have welcomed the idea of people dancing, singing, speaking and even dissenting in the hall of his memorial. Thomas Jefferson, after all, was the most famous anti-government revolutionary in U.S. history. And it was he who warned about the rise of corporate fascism and runaway government power. I’ve posted the video of the D.C. police violence against the protestors at NaturalNews.TV: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=7A89D7EC8565C50E29B2901589E0D547 You’ll be arrested, but we won’t tell you why… Here are some of the words exchanged between police and the protestors, before the arrests began: D.C. Park Police: If you come out here and you demonstrate by dancing, you will be placed under arrest. Does everybody understand that? … and you will spend the weekend in jail. Citizen: But sir, that’s illegal. What would we be charged with? D.C. Park Police: You are too far away from the city to allow citation to reappear, therefore they lock you up and hold you. Citizen: What exactly would be the violation? D.C. Park Police: You’ll find out. Citizen: What law is that? D.C. Park Police: I’m just giving you the warnings right now. Citizen: You’re telling us you’ll arrest us, but you’re not telling us under what law or under what authority… D.C. Park Police: If you’re dancing in here, we’re gonna [unintelligible]… [walks away] After this exchange, the police begin violently assaulting the dancers, including place them in choke holds and body slamming them onto the concrete floor. [Heard in the background] “Dancing in a public area is now a crime!” Adam vs. the Man Adam Kokesh hosts a program on RT America, and his website is http://www.adamvstheman.com He’s sometimes described as a “left-leaning radical” but what I see in Adam is a person who isn’t afraid to assert his freedoms and challenge the status quo. That makes him more of a liberty-oriented individual in my book. I’m actually scheduled to be on his show in about two weeks, during which we will share the word about health freedom and the FDA war on nutrition and healing. If you’d like to help support my appearance on Adam’s show, simply go to this page and vote for “Mike Adams”: http://www.adamvstheman.com/suggestions Adam is making waves with his protests and his challenges to federal tyranny, and we intend to cover his upcoming events here on NaturalNews (see below). Join the massive dance protest this Saturday, June 4th, at the Jefferson Memorial NaturalNews urges its readers who are within driving distance to D.C. to join the massive dance protest that’s now forming up for Saturday, June 4th. In response to the violent arrest of dancers last Saturday, Adam Kokesh is organizing this repeat dance protest this Saturday, which aims to attract hundreds of people to come dance at the Jefferson Memorial. It’s called the Dance Party at TJ’s! The page describing this upcoming event is: http://www.adamvstheman.com/video-contest And the Facebook page is: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=150453268357946 Dancing commences at exactly twelve noon . Importantly, you do NOT have to risk being arrested if you don’t want to… just dance outside the memorial (on the steps) in a show of support. If you wish, you can dance inside the memorial and risk being arrested or even violently attacked by the vicious D.C. park police who somehow think they have the right to physically attack American citizens right inside the Jefferson memorial itself! Bring your video cameras to record the protest, and bring a backup camera in case they seize your first one! Who is Adam Kokesh? By the way, I don’t yet know Adam Kokesh in person, so I can’t say whether I agree with everything he advocates, but that’s not important right now. What I really admire about Adam is his courage to engage in a public display of civil disobedience much like we saw in the civil rights movement. By daring to dance at the Jefferson Memorial, he is giving the finger to the police state and engaging in precisely the kind of freedom of speech that we should all be exercising. That is no doubt why the D.C. park police choked him and body slammed him to the ground… to send a warning message. This is the way government thugs operate: Through the threat of violence. They have no respect for freedom, no respect for the Bill of Rights and no respect for individual citizens. They use fear, force and violence to protect their interests, usually at the expense of the very public they falsely claim to be serving. By dancing at the TJ memorial, Adam is exposing the existence of the police state in America . Think about it: If they can’t allow you to even silently move your body in rhythm , what chance do you think there is of them allowing you to speak your mind? The fact that they are arresting dancers at the Jefferson memorial perfectly parallels the reality that the TSA is reaching down your pants at the airports: It’s all a symptom of the rising police state that respects no freedom of expression and no law whatsoever. Join the dance protest this Saturday and bring your cameras! Get this footage on the record, because this will become part of the historical record of the American police state and its response to peaceful protest at the memorial of one of the most important anti-government revolutionaries in our nation’s history: Thomas Jefferson. Again, the website to learn more is: http://www.adamvstheman.com And be sure to vote for “Mike Adams” so we have more support to be on Adam’s show: http://www.adamvstheman.com/suggestions Watch for more breaking news about this protest on June 5th!

Folic acid during pregnancy may reduce baby’s cancer risk

(NaturalNews) The importance of maintaining high intake levels of folic acid during pregnancy has been established by numerous scientific studies, all of which verify that the vitamin directly affects the intelligence and physical health of the child later in life. And now a new study adds to this body of evidence, showing a 64 percent reduction in colon cancer rates among children whose mothers supplemented with folic acid during pregnancy. Published in the journal Gut , the new study exhibits positive benefits to taking folic acid, a B-vitamin which is found naturally in leafy-green vegetables, lentils, and beans. Besides helping to prevent birth defects, folate is known to make and help replicate DNA, as well as aid in the production of new blood cells. “It appears that giving folic acid during pregnancy and lactation reduces DNA damage and suppresses the proliferation of cells in the colon,” said Dr. Young-in Kim, gastroenterologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and author of the study. “It actually increases the stability of the DNA and this might be one of the mechanisms of how folic acid in utero may protect against colon cancer.” A 2010 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that folic acid supplementation during pregnancy aids in producing children with improved brain development and better motor skills (http://www.naturalnews.com/030843_folic_acid_motor_skills.html). And in 2006, a study published in the peer-reviewed journal CANCER found that folic acid helps to prevent and treat cancer in general (http://www.naturalnews.com/019986_cancer_folate_folic_acid.html). “Folic acid … is essential in DNA synthesis and in the way in which genes are expressed,” writes James Scala, PhD, in his book 20 Natural Ways to Reduce the Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Mind-Body Approach to Health and Well-Being . “Data … indicates folic acid shortfalls predispose people to cancer.” Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/tes-dmh052711.php

Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals – how drug companies exploit female sexual dysfunction for profit

(NaturalNews) In the last decade, many American women have begun to question their libidos. Even though just twenty years ago, women accepted the ebbs and flows of their sex drive, something has changed. Many now hope for something to help them keep up with their partners, in the bedroom. They see their desire as falling short of what it should be. Now, for some strange reason, there is a new standard that many women feel they are falling short of. Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals: How Drug Companies Plan to Profit from Female Sexual Dysfunction illuminates the answer, illustrating the ways in which multi-million dollar marketing and research campaigns have affected our expectations of intimacy. This must-read exposes the careful manipulation of data that pharmaceutical companies have cultivated for the last fifteen years, to create a disease that they plan to cure. Some may have heard of this disorder/dysfunction – Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) or Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD), which has made steady ground in the medical community. But even more have already been affected by other, more subversive attempts of the pharmaceutical industry to raise the bar for female sex drive, which pervade our entertainment and news sources. In their book, journalist Ray Moynihan and Dr. Barbara Mintzes investigate this newly classified phenomenon, the massive promotion campaign behind it, and the coincidental development of flibanserin, a drug that purports to be the artificial answer. Along the way, they unearth a chain of strong financial affiliations between some of the most respected medical journals and pharmacological businesses, as well as how easily hard data can be manipulated for potential gain. There have been articles published in respected medical journals that almost half of all women are affected by FSD or HSDD, and these publications alone would be enough to convince most people of their claims. However, Moynihan, in over ten years of investigations in the pharmaceutical industry, provides a critical case for doubt. Citing interviews with professionals in pharma who were intimately involved with the development of FSD or HSDD and tell the true story, the book undermines FSD, at the very least, as a gross inflation of a rare problem. The investigative reporting in this piece of investigative journalism is disturbingly healthy. One walks away with a clearer view of sexuality and of how business pervades contemporary medicine. Regarding the former, one feels empowered; regarding the latter, one chillingly becomes more mindful of the powerful influence the media can have over the most intimate areas of our lives. Moynihan is also the author of Ten Questions You Must Ask Your Doctor , and his most recent title, Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Drug Companies Are Turning Us All into Patients . Over the past ten years, Moynihan’s voice has become increasingly strong and compelling in the US and the globe. He has also published numerous articles, including a series on changing childhood obesity guidelines in the US, reviewed at http://www.naturalnews.com/020017_obesity_children_changes.html.. Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals: How Drug Companies Plan to Profit from Female Sexual Dysfunction is on the shelves now, online and in bookstores.

Physicist Stephen Hawking denounced for believing human beings are biological robots with no consciousness or free will

(NaturalNews) Behind every madman, there is a distorted philosophy that denies people their humanity, says Mike Adams, creator of the new mini-documentary “The God Within,” available now on NaturalNews.TV. This documentary deconstructs the core philosophies underpinning modern scientific thinking, unveiling the frightening fact that most modern scientists do not believe human beings have free will, a soul, or even anything resembling consciousness. The first 22 minutes of the mini-documentary are available for viewing right now at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E3B38227225F9FC62BAEA9CC81BE1D12 Hawking: Godless, mindless, soulless and hopeless In “The God Within,” Adams takes aim at famed physicist Stephen Hawking, author of the book “The Grand Design.” In that book, Hawking claims that human beings are merely “biological machines” with no consciousness, no souls, no spirit, no mind and nothing but a collection of organized chemicals that run physical brains in a deterministic machine-like way. This belief, says filmmaker Mike Adams, also the editor of NaturalNews.com, is a dangerous pretext for the “scientific” experimentation on human beings because it fails to recognize the value of life, free will or conscious experience. In the name of “medical science,” outrageous horrors have been committed against humanity. President Obama recently apologized to Guatemala for the U.S. government’s involvement in illegal and inhumane medical experiments conducted on psychiatric patients in that country. The true history of human medical experiments — all carried out in the name of “science” — is quite frightening and spans hundreds of years, involving the lives of tens of thousands of innocent victims of “scientific medicine.” Medical experiments on humans and animals are widely conducted under the assumption that both people and animals have no consciousness, thus their screams of pain are merely “biological reactions” that represent no actual suffering or “real” experience. This has been the core philosophy of science and medicine traced back through centuries — a kind of pathological detachment from reality. As Adams presents in The God Within, the idea that human beings are mere biological robots with no consciousness or free will is the perfect pretext for genocidal crimes carried out against innocent people in the name of science. “The fact that modern scientific thinking utterly fails to recognize the existence of consciousness, a mind or a soul helps explain why so much of today’s science is so destructive to life on our planet,” says Adams, who points to GMOs, chemical pesticides, and the psychiatric drugging of children as ready examples of how runaway science has failed to value life. Science has forgotten the all-important trait of empathy, Adams explains, and without empathy there is no mechanism by which scientists can recognize the suffering caused by their GMOs, pesticides, dangerous medications and toxic synthetic chemicals that pollute our world. When so-called “science” is carried out with the goal of increasing corporate profits rather than protecting and improving the experience of life on our planet, it becomes “an agent of destruction,” says Adams. Denounce the mindless, heartless and soulless scientists That’s why he calls for people to denounce the core philosophy of “mindlessness” from which much of modern science springs and, instead, embrace a more advanced understanding of our universe that makes consciousness the focal point of our existence. “If modern science believes that human beings are mere biological robots with no consciousness, then we must really question why we are listening to these scientists at all,” explains Adams, who believes that humans are a combination of mind, body and spirit that exists far beyond the current understanding of the physical sciences. “You are more than your physical brain and body,” Adams insists. “In failing to recognize this simple truth, modern science has failed the most basic test of suitability for furthering the knowledge and wisdom of the human race.” The video is available for viewing at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E3B38227225F9FC62BAEA9CC81BE1D12 Part two of the video is being released on May 31, 2011 at www.NaturalNews.TV with announcements posted on www.NaturalNews.com Mike Adams, also known as The Health Ranger, is a writer, researcher, music composer, technology innovator, philosopher, award-winning journalist and alternative media pioneer who reaches over two million readers each month with a message of healing and wisdom that values all life on planet Earth. He has been featured on the cover of the Wall Street Journal and received the Human Rights Award from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights for his outstanding contributions for working to protect life on our planet. Adams is also the volunteer executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (www.ConsumerWellness.org).

Health Ranger unveils The God Within documentary, exposes the false philosophical foundations of modern science

(NaturalNews) I have a timely and important message to share with you today. As explained in this important mini-documentary we’ve decided to release at this moment (link below), it is time that we tore away the false facade of “modern science” and exposed the core philosophical underpinnings that have enabled so much pain, suffering and destruction to be carried out in the name of “science.” The world of “science” has given us atomic weapons, GMOs, vaccines, toxic synthetic chemicals, pesticides and psychiatric drugs. It has used innocent people in deadly medical experiments (http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html) and unleashed widespread genetic pollution on our world through the careless proliferation of genetically modified organisms (http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=29315DF17DC44267949234EA7262ED2F). But the scientists insisted they were creating a better world. “Better living through chemistry,” they said two decades ago. And now, a generation later, we are dealing with a collapse of life on our planet so large and so disastrous that it is being called the sixth great extinction of life on our planet (http://www.naturalnews.com/031625_mass_extinction_life_on_Earth.html). How could science have paved the way for such destruction on the planet? Watch The God Within mini-documentary to find out. It’s available for viewing right now on NaturalNews.TV: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E3B38227225F9FC62BAEA9CC81BE1D12 We denounce the core philosophical delusions of science This new documentary, The God Within , seeks to answer the question of why science is so destructive and dangerous. It begins by denouncing the false philosophy fronted by famed physicist Stephen Hawking, who insists that human beings are biological robots with no consciousness, no free will, no minds and no spirit. In his own words, from his book The Grand Design : “It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” Like most conventional scientists, Hawking believes that human beings are not conscious beings . Thus, we are incapable of empathy; incapable of love, pain, suffering or making our own decisions based on free will. This utter lack of recognition of the value of consciousness in living beings is the core principle of evil upon which most of modern science is built. It is the lack of empathy itself that gives rise to great evil. Interestingly, this is precisely the conclusion of a member of the scientific community — Cambridge University psychology professor Simon Baron-Cohen, who has written a new book in which he concludes that evil originates with a failure of empathy (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-science-evil-idUSTRE7442Q620110505). He explains that psychopaths have “zero degrees of empathy,” meaning they do not recognize nor value the thoughts and feelings of others. This just happens to be the core principle of conventional science, which believes that feelings and thoughts are mere “biological ricochets” of brain chemistry, lacking any spirit, intention or consciousness. Thus, the core principle of conventional science as practiced today is psychopathic and delusional. This is why so many offshoots of so-called “scientific” thinking — the pursuit of GMOs, the mass-vaccination harming of innocent children, the widespread chemical poisoning of the natural world — are so blatantly psychopathic in nature. To unleash genetic contamination upon the world through the use of seeds containing “terminator” technology is a dangerous act from a psychopathic industry operating without any empathy toward living creatures. Modern science is psychopathic in its applications A psychopath is defined as “A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.” Yet this perfectly describes the behavior of many corporations operating under the label of “science.” The GMO seed companies, pesticide companies, fluoride chemical companies, psychiatric drug manufacturers, chemotherapy makers and vaccine manufacturers are, in effect, “psychopathic” in their behavior. They all claim to be operating as “scientific” entities, however, and they aggressively attack those who disagree with them as being “unscientific.” It is this perverted, criminal and amoral behavior — and a total lack of empathy for living beings — that qualifies much of today’s “scientific” corporate behavior as inescapably psychopathic. Drug companies are engaged in ongoing medical experiments involving the widespread suffering of animals. Vaccines are manufactured by harvesting the organs of diseased lab monkeys who are imprisoned in utterly inhumane living conditions. Vaccine manufacturers conduct medical experiments on children in developing nations. GMO companies run genetic crop experiments that harm the chain of life in our natural world. All of this is conducted under the umbrella of “science,” and yet all of it is psychopathic in nature and utterly lacking the core philosophy of recognizing consciousness or a soul. They teach disease and drugs in medical school, in other words, but they don’t teach doctors to value the life experience and consciousness of their patients. The idea that the patient even has a “spirit” or a “mind” is so alien to modern medicine that the entire conventional medical system utterly denies the existence of mind-body medicine … as if somehow the mind did not even exist. This denial of the existence of the mind (and its interaction with the body) is a kind of scientific insanity that has infected the minds of modern doctors and medical researchers. But it doesn’t stop at medicine, of course: This delusion also runs rampant through the physics community. Watch The God Within to learn more on these topics: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E3B38227225F9FC62BAEA9CC81BE1D12 We must not blindly follow science to our own destruction That our world’s top physicists such as Stephen Hawking fully embrace the frightening belief that human beings have no consciousness, no minds and no free will is a gigantic warning sign that the human race must not follow “science” blindly to its own self destruction. “Science” has led us down the path of nuclear catastrophe, the depletion of natural resources, the chemical saturation of our agricultural lands and the ongoing collapse of food pollinators such as honey bees and bats. “Science” has irradiated our bodies, drugged our children, polluted our spaces with electromagnetic cell phone broadcasts, contaminated our water supplies and impoverished our genetic future with the incessant burden of DNA-damaging chemical contamination. “Science” is leading humanity to its own destruction while promising progress. “Science” has become the modern-day justification for the advancement of evil — the destruction of life on our planet for the sole purpose of furthering a corporate or political agenda (at the expense of protecting life). Science has become evil , in other words. Through its lack of empathy and its failure to recognize the existence of the mind, it is carrying out agendas that go far beyond mere “crimes against humanity” and border on the demonic. In the name of “science,” life is being destroyed across our planet, and yet, astoundingly, those poison pushers who profit from it proclaim that they are the saviors of our world! “People will starve if we don’t grow genetically modified crops,” they cry. Yet at the same time they refuse to let a farmer in India save his own seeds from one generation to the next. They have refused him the natural right to plant his own crops, year after year, without paying royalties to the monopolistic evil corporation that has used scientific genetic engineering to cause seeds to self-terminate after one generation. This is a template of absolute evil, carried out in the name of science . And it is being conducted by truly evil human beings who are quite literally psychopathic in that they have no capacity to value the lives or experiences of others. They are the demons who roam our world, destroying everything in their path while attacking those who dare to protect life. These demons must either be transformed or destroyed if we hope to have a sustainable future of life on our planet. We must denounce the mindless, soulless “scientific” path It is time that we, the citizens of our planet, denounced the mindless, soulless philosophy of the scientific community and embraced a wiser, more advanced philosophy that recognizes the reality of consciousness … not merely human consciousness, by the way, but the consciousness of all living things: Animals, trees and plants. Only by embracing a new philosophy that celebrates the existence of consciousness, the mind, the soul and free will can we ever hope to achieve wisdom and peace as a species. Only by valuing life can we ever hope to sustain it. Only by recognizing the suffering in others can we ever hope to end it. Only by abandoning the empty mindless underpinning of modern science can we ever hope to halt the destruction it has unleashed upon our world. A philosophical shift is the next step in human advancement The real solutions to our world’s problems, you see, do not merely require banning GMOs or outlawing certain chemical pesticides. They require a wholesale philosophical upgrade that advances human understanding from the outmoded Newtonian era of understanding to the “quantum era” of human and animal consciousness. The next stage in our evolution, in other words, will not come from the realm of science at all but rather the realm of philosophy. Without such an advancement in understanding — and the subsequent core shifts in human values — we will never achieve sustainable life as a species. If we follow “science” as our great leader and teacher, we will only follow it to our own self destruction. Because science has no soul. It has no spirit. It has no mind. It is an empty shell of mathematics that lacks meaning. It has nothing more to offer our civilization until we attain a deeper appreciation of empathy, consciousness and free will. Because only from that place can we hope to properly understand and apply the sciences in a way that protects life rather than destroying it. Watch my mini-documentary, The God Within to see a more complete discussion of these ideas: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E3B38227225F9FC62BAEA9CC81BE1D12 What’s available now is Part One of the documentary (roughly 22 minutes). The next part of this documentary will be released on May 30th, 2011, at www.NaturalNews.TV and announced here on NaturalNews.com.

Betrayal of a Nation: Why U.S. health authorities are keeping you vitamin D deficient and who stands to gain

(NaturalNews) Dr. Anne Looker and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently made vitamin D legend, Professor Hector DeLuca of University of Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_DeLuca), and certain folks at big pharma very happy with her widely-reported analysis of the vitamin D status of Americans. Using definitions of deficiency straight from the November 2010 Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Vitamin D Report – definitions that no vitamin D scientist I know agrees with, except perhaps Professor DeLuca – Dr. Looker reassured Americans their vitamin D levels were sufficient. Instead of a lower limit of 40, 30, or even 20 ng/ml, Dr. Looker and her CDC colleagues actually said any American with vitamin D levels below 12 ng/ml were “at risk of vitamin D deficiency.” That’s right, she wouldn’t say “deficient” for a person less than 12 ng/ml, all she said is they are “at risk” of being deficient! Why? Dr. Looker falsely reassured Americans that everything is pretty much OK because around 80% of white Americans have levels higher than 20 ng/ml (although only 30% of African Americans do). I carefully read her entire paper; why didn’t I see a “CDC Action Plan for African Americans” for the 70% of Blacks with levels less than 20 ng/ml? Probably for the same reason I didn’t see any “FNB action plan for African Americans” in their recent vitamin D report. Where did Dr. Looker get the idea that 20 ng/ml was OK? From the FNB. Where did the FNB get that idea? Professor Hector DeLuca and the vitamin D analogue scientists, that’s where. What I am about to tell you is a failure of a system, not a person. The National Academy is responsible, as scientists to the USA, to see that the processes that occur in its name are fair, above the appearance of impropriety, and free from avoidable conflicts of interest. I have been to enough vitamin D conferences to know that about half of the scientists who attend these conferences are looking for the new patent that will secure or extend their financial fortune. They do not need America alarmed right now about the fact more than 80% of Americans are actually vitamin D deficient; no, the government might need to do something now, an action that would threaten the value of something that I have just learned about: an imminent river of new vitamin D knockoff commercial patents. Vitamin D knockoff scientists want the government to say that 20 ng/ml is fine, at least until all the phase 2 and phase 3 FDA trials are finished on their newly patented vitamin D “analogue” drugs. In a few years it won’t matter because dozens of knockoff analogues will have been approved for treating vitamin D deficiency, yes prescription-only vitamin D knockoff drugs to treat vitamin D deficiency, instead of vitamin D, I kid you not. After these scientists get their analogues past the FDA, I predict the same scientists will change their tune and start crying for 40 ng/ml as the desirable lower limit, ensuring a vast market for their knockoffs. The creation of vitamin D knockoff patent prescription-only drugs goes something like this: take the cholecalciferol or 25-hydroxy-cholecalciferol molecule, change its structure enough – without changing its actions – and Ola, you can patent it. It must be structurally different enough from natural cholecalciferol to be a unique drug but it must retain its vitamin D efficacy. Ergocalciferol (Drisdol) – the only prescription drug available to treat vitamin D deficiency in the USA – is an example of an analogue, although the path to its discovery and its patent was quite different. The patent on ergocalciferol made the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Chemistry the richest chemistry department in the world. In some countries, ergocalciferol is still the only vitamin D available. For a detailed discussion of how these patents put the National Academies in a very difficult position, read the following blog: Conflict of Interest at National Academy of Science? (http://pandemicsurvivor.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/conflict-of-interest-at-national-academy-of-science/) As I write this, I understand additional vitamin D patent applications are being prepared (I actually know of one application by a member of the recent FNB committee member). These analogue scientists need time; the nutrient, vitamin D, needs to take a back seat for a while. Vitamin D was getting too hot, too many good things being said about it, and too many press stories about too many Americans being deficient. The analogue scientists want a big market when they finish with the FDA. Anyway, after you have your new vitamin D molecule and your patent, you approach the FDA, who will require that you do randomized controlled trials, pitting your new vitamin D analogue drug against . . . what? Vitamin D, right? No: placebo. That’s right, placebo. As I understand the process, and I hope I am wrong, the vitamin D knockoffs only have to prove they are better than placebo, which, if they keep their efficacy, will be a cinch. I even know of a patent application for a drug to treat vitamin D deficiency by inhibiting the 24-hydroxylase (the enzyme that gets rid of vitamin D in the body). If you inhibit the 24-hydroxylase, you will raise 25(OH)D levels and thus treat vitamin D deficiency; this is what big pharma is up to (I kid you not). Can you imagine taking a drug that interferes with a natural enzyme that metabolizes vitamin D in order to increase the amount of vitamin D in your blood, instead of just taking vitamin D? Is this the best that American medicine can do? Very few people seem to know that the recent FNB committee had an unusual guest, an overseer, an official vitamin D advisor, Professor Hector DeLuca (http://host.madison.com/news/article_1b2e3719-0a5f-57d8-b87d-ba89b38d0c31.html), one of the true giants in the field of vitamin D, both academically and financially. Talk about mother-load analogue patents, he wrote the book. He has created so many activated vitamin D knockoffs that he named one after himself, “Hectorol.” Another fact often gets lost; Dr. DeLuca is the only member of the vitamin D community who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, an extremely difficult membership to achieve, a shadowy process requiring inside advocates and secret votes. I’m told, but could not confirm by calling the National Academies, that blackballing is still used; if so, one negative vote and, “I’m sorry Dr. Holick,” “I’m sorry Dr. Heaney,” and “I’m sorry Dr. Norman.” Anyway, Professor DeLuca and his Department of Chemistry at the University of Wisconsin are experts in making knockoff analogue vitamin D drugs. To be fair, his analogues of activated vitamin D have saved thousands of lives, mainly patients with kidney failure, although activated vitamin D itself works in kidney failure. If the new analogues of cholecalciferol and 25-hydroxy-vitamin D effectively treat vitamin D deficiency, they too will save millions of lives. However, there is just a much easier and cost effective way of treating vitamin D deficiency: plain old, cheap old, nutrient old, vitamin D. As far as the recent FNB report on vitamin D, can you visualize all the scientists on the FNB hard at work, under the watchful eye of their “Special Advisor,” National Academy of Sciences member, Professor Hector DeLuca. I would venture a guess that more than one member of the FNB vitamin D panel dreamt about being in the National Academy himself or herself one day. Then they pondered which lower limit to vote for, the 40 ng/ml opined by most vitamin D scientists or the 20 ng/ml opined by “Special Advisor” DeLuca. Let us see, what will get me into the National Academy of Sciences the quickest? I can’t really complain. First, this is America and I suspect the quickest way to treat the massive vitamin D deficiency pandemic is going to be through private industry, like it or not. Second, it is possible one of the vitamin D knockoff drugs will actually work better than vitamin D; “possible” I said. Third, I get royalties on my own brand of vitamin D so I have my own conflicts of interest. Fourth, before you get too high on your horse about Dr. DeLuca, ask yourself how many lives have you saved in your lifetime? He discovered activated vitamin D, trained dozens of the top vitamin D researchers, and saved thousands of lives. Also, I have no way of knowing how exceptional was the FNB’s decision to make secret the critiques of the 12 top vitamin D experts, experts who were asked to review the FNB’s work. Does the FNB invoke such secrecy frequently? When did it do so last? Did the final FNB report change, based on the opinions of the 12 vitamin D experts, or did the FNB Board (most who admit to not being vitamin D experts) simply comply with Professor DeLuca’s judgment? If the final FNB report did change, what did the report look like before the vitamin D experts’ opinions were weighed? I understand at least one vitamin D expert charged the FNB with racism for its failure to consider the vitamin D plight of African Americans. Is that true? Most members of the Vitamin D Council would like to read all 12 critiques by the 12 top vitamin D experts in the world but – unlike Professor DeLuca or the vitamin D-knockoff pharmaceutical companies – we don’t have the money to legally fight the FNB’s proclamation that the 12 expert critiques by the top vitamin D experts in the world are – and will remain – secret, beyond the reach of Federal Freedom of Information Laws. Sources for this article include: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db59.htm http://pandemicsurvivor.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/conflict-of-interest-at-national-academy-of-science/ http://host.madison.com/news/article_1b2e3719-0a5f-57d8-b87d-ba89b38d0c31.html

Extreme weather taking a huge toll on global food production

(NaturalNews) An increase in the prevalence of extreme weather events due to global warming will seriously affect global food production worldwide, climate and agriculture experts are increasingly warning. “Climate change threatens to make large areas of the planet unsuitable for human habitation and for an adequate level of food production,” writes Ervin Laszlo in the book Quantum Shift in the Global Brain . “Very few countries are still food self-sufficient — and the internationally available food reserves are shrinking.” In the past few months, a drought has devastated the Russian wheat harvest, floods have destroyed vast stretches of Pakistani farmland, and a heat wave led to the death of 2,000 cattle in Kansas. As greenhouse gas emissions continue and the planet keeps warming, climatologists are predicting “more and more hot extremes and worse unprecedented extremes and that’s what we’re seeing,” said Neville Nicholls of Monash University in Australia. The impact of such disasters has an implications far beyond the specific croplands affected. Russia’s decision to ban exports of its shrunken wheat crop, for example, has caused alarm in wheat importing countries such as Egypt. Analysts worry about a return to the food riots of 2007 and 2008, when rising prices led to supply crises in poor countries. “Over the whole globe all of these changes in climate … are going to cause some real ripples in our capabilities of producing food,” said Jerry Hatfield of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service. Crop failures are also expected to hit rice fields in the near future. “That could start showing up in the next decade or so, because we’re getting these heating peaks already,” said Peter Timmer of the nonprofit Center for Global Development. Beyond the next few years, researchers admit that they have no idea what our agricultural future will look like. “In the longer term, all bets are off which crops can and can’t grow,” said Jay Gulledge, the senior scientist at the Pew Center for Global Climate Change in Washington. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE67B3W320100812.

Seventy-five percent of prostate cancer cases treated with aggressive drugs and surgery — even when it’s useless to do so

(NaturalNews) More than 75 percent of men diagnosed with prostate cancer are treated aggressively, even though most prostate cancers are slow-growing and will never pose a risk to a man’s life, according to a study conducted by researchers from The Cancer Institute of New Jersey and UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine . “There’s no question there is a problem of overtreatment of prostate cancer,” said Matthew Cooperberg of the University of San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. Researchers examined data from 16 tumor registries covering roughly 26 percent of the U.S. population and found records from 124,000 men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2006. They found that even in men with low levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA), indicating a low-risk cancer, aggressive treatments were pursued more than 75 percent of the time. Part of the problem, experts say, is the lack of a reliable way to predict the progression of prostate cancer. “This article is saying that PSA when used alone as a screening tool will tend to uncover many cancers that are harmless and do not need to be treated,” said Stuart Holden of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, who was not involved in the study. “However, it will also discover some that do need to be treated.” In an accompanying commentary, two other scientists suggest a strategy of “active surveillance” rather than aggressive treatment, consisting of close monitoring of prostate tumors and only initiating treatment if the cancer worsens. All three major prostate cancer treatments — drugs, radiation and surgery — carry a serious risk of major side effects, including impotence and incontinence. For instance, in the book Bottom Line’s Health Breakthroughs 2007 Bottom Line Health addresses the risks and benefits of surgery: “The most common treatment for prostate cancer is removal of the prostate gland, but clinical studies show that the operation is of little benefit to men who have a life expectancy of 10 years or less because the cancer grows very slowly. This means that most men older than 75 have nothing to gain.” Sources for this story include: http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20100726/aggressive-treatment-for-prostate-cancer-is-the-norm.

« Previous Page — Next Page »