Formaldehyde now officially listed as cancer-causing chemical; here are the top sources of exposure

(NaturalNews) Formaldehyde is present in relatively benign quantities in nature; however its presence in manufactured goods is a major health concern because according to a significant body of research, it is a known carcinogenic substance. Recently the U.S Department of Health and Human Services released a report on newly designated carcinogens that included formaldehyde. The report went on to suggest that people in certain industries were especially vulnerable to the effects of exposure such as those workers who worked in nail salons, in the funeral industry, and in industries which use formaldehyde to produce common household items including home furnishings, cleansers and personal care products. People who are exposed to concentrated levels of formaldehyde are more likely to develop certain cancers such as nasopharyngeal cancer and myeloid leukemia. While some effort has been made to limit the quantities of formaldehyde used in manufacturing, such as restrictions recently placed by the US in The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, this toxic chemical remains a significant health risk especially in confined spaces for prolonged periods of time. Formaldehyde is classified as a volatile organic compound or VOA. This term is used to describe compounds that are under significant vapor pressure and are easily expelled into the air. Because formaldehyde is readily vaporized can be a serious indoor pollutant. Products which may contain formaldehyde include: * Wood composite furniture including; resins used for office furniture, couches, baby furniture, particle board, pressed board, plywood, and softwood. * Building materials such as acoustical ceilings, mineral wool, decking, composite core doors, industrial glues, foam insulation, paints and paint thinners. * Household cleansers such as floor polishes, scouring cleansers, disinfectants, liquid cleansers, laundry aids, air fresheners, carpet cleaners. * Household items such as wall hangings, carpets or throw rugs, coating on paper products, textiles, plastics, and upholstery. * Personal care products such as hair straightening products, hair rinses, and cosmetics such as nail polish and hair gel often contain formaldehyde. Baby products including shampoos, creams and bubble bath are frequently laced with formaldehyde. Toothpaste and body washes are also potential sources of this carcinogenic ingredient. * Clothing that is designated wrinkle free or preshrunk frequently contains formaldehyde. It has also been found in baby clothes and bedding. * Formaldehyde is also a key component in the familiar new car smell of recently purchased vehicles. * Car exhaust and cigarette smoke also contain formaldehyde. * Formaldehyde is used as a disinfectant in laboratory settings, and is also used in the embalming process. There are ways to reduce exposure to formaldehyde including buying products that are formaldehyde free. Another important way to reduce exposure is to be certain to properly ventilate the house. Here are some other suggests to reduce formaldehyde exposure: 1. Frequently air out the house. Formaldehyde concentrations in the home may also lead to allergic reactions may contribute to asthma attacks and contribute to other respiratory problems, rashes, irritation to mucus membranes, and fatigue. Children may be especially vulnerable. 2. Formaldehyde may be more readily released into the air in hot and humid spaces. Keep the area cool and dry in summer weather if possible. 3. Pressed wood products or composite wood frequently contains resins made with formaldehyde. Avoid purchasing these products or look for products that are listed as containing no formaldehyde or low formaldehyde. One example of a product labeled for reduced formaldehyde content would be a C.A.R.B phase 1 or 2 compliant product which is The California Air Resource Board endorsement. California has long recognized the carcinogenic properties of formaldehyde. 4. Wash all new clothing before wearing it. Clothing manufacturers in the U.S and some other countries are not required to label materials containing formaldehyde though many of their products do. 5. Do not allow smoking in the home. Smoke from cigarettes is a leading cause of formaldehyde exposure and indoor pollution. 6. When refinishing or sanding an old piece of furniture or woodwork wear a mask and use adequate ventilation. Sawdust from these items may contain high levels of formaldehyde. 7. Combinations of cleansers can be deadly so don’t mix them. Use proper ventilation when using ordinary household cleansers. Although many of them smell fresh and clean they are chemical cocktails that frequently contain formaldehyde. 8. Use low-VOC or no-VOC paints. 9. Buy only personal care and baby care items that are formaldehyde free. Be especially diligent with nail polishes, hair straightening products as both of these items may contain dangerous levels of formaldehyde. The recent addition of formaldehyde to the list of known cancer causing agents may lead to tougher laws regulating its use in consumer products and is a significant step to protecting the welfare of the public from this toxic substance. Until laws change however, it will be up to consumers to take steps to protect their home and families from formaldehyde.

FDA finally admits chicken meat contains cancer-causing arsenic (but keep eating it, yo!)

(NaturalNews) After years of sweeping the issue under the rug and hoping no one would notice, the FDA has now finally admitted that chicken meat sold in the USA contains arsenic , a cancer-causing toxic chemical that’s fatal in high doses. But the real story is where this arsenic comes from: It’s added to the chicken feed on purpose! Even worse, the FDA says its own research shows that the arsenic added to the chicken feed ends up in the chicken meat where it is consumed by humans. So for the last sixty years, American consumers who eat conventional chicken have been swallowing arsenic, a known cancer-causing chemical. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/fda-some-chicken-may-have-small-amount-of-arsenic/article_0ecc5758-91f7-11e0-a572-001a4bcf6878.html) Until this new study, both the poultry industry and the FDA denied that arsenic fed to chickens ended up in their meat. The fairytale excuse story we’ve all been fed for sixty years is that “the arsenic is excreted in the chicken feces.” There’s no scientific basis for making such a claim… it’s just what the poultry industry wanted everybody to believe. But now the evidence is so undeniable that the manufacturer of the chicken feed product known as Roxarsone has decided to pull the product off the shelves (http://www.grist.org/food-safety/2011-06-08-fda-admits-supermarket-chickens-test-positive-for-arsenic). And what’s the name of this manufacturer that has been putting arsenic in the chicken feed for all these years? Pfizer , of course — the very same company that makes vaccines containing chemical adjuvants that are injected into children. Technically, the company making the Roxarsone chicken feed is a subsidiary of Pfizer, called Alpharma LLC . Even though Alpharma now has agreed to pull this toxic feed chemical off the shelves in the United States, it says it won’t necessarily remove it from feed products in other countries unless it is forced by regulators to do so. As reported by AP: ” Scott Brown of Pfizer Animal Health’s Veterinary Medicine Research and Development division said the company also sells the ingredient in about a dozen other countries. He said Pfizer is reaching out to regulatory authorities in those countries and will decide whether to sell it on an individual basis. ” (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-06-08-fda-chicken-arsenic_n.htm) Arsenic? Eat more! But even as its arsenic-containing product is pulled off the shelves, the FDA continues its campaign of denial, claiming arsenic in chickens is at such a low level that it’s still safe to eat. This is even as the FDA says arsenic is a carcinogen, meaning it increases the risk of cancer. The National Chicken Council agrees with the FDA. In a statement issued in response to the news that Roxarsone would be pulled from feed store shelves, it stated, “Chicken is safe to eat” even while admitting arsenic was used in many flocks grown and sold as chicken meat in the United States. What’s astonishing about all this is that the FDA tells consumers it’s safe to eat cancer-causing arsenic but it’s dangerous to drink elderberry juice! The FDA recently conducted an armed raid in an elderberry juice manufacturer, accusing it of the “crime” of selling “unapproved drugs.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/032631_elderberry_juice_FDA_raid.html) Which drugs would those be? The elderberry juice, explains the FDA. You see, the elderberry juice magically becomes a “drug” if you tell people how it can help support good health. The FDA has also gone after dozens of other companies for selling natural herbal products or nutritional products that enhance and support health. Plus, it’s waging a war on raw milk which it says is dangerous. So now in America, we have a food and drug regulatory agency that says it’s okay to eat arsenic, but dangerous to drink elderberry juice or raw milk . Eat more poison, in other words, but don’t consume any healing foods. That’s the FDA, killing off Americans one meal at a time while protecting the profits of the very companies that are poisoning us with their deadly ingredients. Oh, by the way, here’s another sweet little disturbing fact you probably didn’t know about hamburgers and conventional beef: Chicken litter containing arsenic is fed to cows in factory beef operations . So the arsenic that’s pooped out by the chickens gets consumed and concentrated in the tissues of cows, which is then ground into hamburger to be consumed by the clueless masses who don’t even know they’re eating second-hand chicken sh*t. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027414_chicken_disease_cows.html)

Australia shuns GM canola in response to consumer demand for non-GMO products

(NaturalNews) The biotechnology industry and its lackeys in the US government may be getting away with pulling a fast one on the American people, but citizens across Europe and in Australia continue to resist the onslaught of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in their food supply. A recent report from Gene Ethics Media (GEM) explains that two of Australia’s largest grain traders are refusing to deal with any GM canola this year, citing intense and increasing consumer opposition to GM grains. Europeans import much of their canola from Australia, a country that for years had unilaterally held a non-GMO policy for canola. After all, virtually nobody from the countries to whom Australia exports its grains wants GM canola, and this has naturally created market conditions in which canola growers have voluntarily chosen to stick with non-GM and organic varieties. “This market is a bonanza for the majority of Australian grain growers who wisely stayed with non-GM canola varieties,” said Bob Phelps, Director of GEM. “Ninety-five percent of Western Australia’s canola sold to Europe last year and strong demand is expected to continue, but only for non-GM. European shoppers have zero tolerance for GM canola.” Most Australian states currently have a ban on GM canola, with the major exception of Western Australia (WA). Terry Redman, Agriculture Minister of WA, recently lifted the ban on GM canola, despite the fact that nearly all farmers and shoppers oppose the crop. Redman, of course, also tried to dilute organic standards in Australia after it was found out that a GM canola crop field had contaminated an organic crop field, which caused the organic farmer to lose his organic certification status (http://www.naturalnews.com/030851_Monsanto_GMOs.html). Phelps is urging all Australian states to maintain or retain their non-GMO statuses because there is no effective way to prevent non-GMO and organic crops from being contaminated by GMOs — they simply cannot coexist together. But states like WA will have to make that decision now, and completely block all future GM plantings. “GM canola segregation has failed everywhere it has been tried. After only one year of commercial GM canola in WA there is still time to become GM-free again,” said Phelps. “South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and Northern Territory have retained their GM-free policies and other states should again ban polluting GM canola, for marketing reasons. It’s insane to grow a GM crop that no one in their right mind wants to eat.” Sources for this story include: http://www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/13196-major-grain-traders-snub-gm-canola

Global food inflation hits hemp seed, coconut oil and other superfoods: Here’s why it’s happening

(NaturalNews) Food inflation is hitting the superfood industry right where it hurts — in the wallet. Thanks to several factors you’ll read about here, prices on hemp seeds, hemp oils, coconut oil and other superfoods are set to skyrocket beginning in just a few days. One of the largest superfood suppliers in the USA, Nutiva , has announced an 11% price increase coming May 27th, and that may be just the beginning of an accelerating trend in steady increases. In anticipation of this price increase, we’ve taken on a huge inventory of Nutiva’s Certified Organic Hemp Seed and Hemp Oil at the old prices , and we have a generous supply available to NaturalNews readers who want to beat the price increase (see below). Why hemp and coconut oil prices are heading into the stratosphere In a letter sent to us by Nutiva, founder John Roulac explains that the price of coconut oil has doubled in the last six months . While coconut oil suppliers are able to absorb some of this cost in the short term, they cannot do so on a permanent basis. This means that the prices consumers pay for coconut oil are headed sharply higher. Impacting hemp seeds and hemp oil, the price of crude oil (up 30% or more over the last few months) adds to the cost of transporting these foods. Remember, thanks to the completely idiotic and utterly anti-American stance of the DEA, President Obama and most of the U.S. Congress, it is illegal to grow hemp seeds in America , meaning all hemp seeds sold as nutritional foods in the USA must be imported from other countries. This policy is not only destroying opportunities for U.S. farmers; it also results in the wasteful expenditure of fossil fuels to transport hemp products to the USA from other countries. (Seriously, you have to wonder just how much Washington is really trying to destroy America these days with its continued ban on the growing of hemp oils, hemp seeds and hemp fibers. This is not a question of whether hemp products are good for America — we already know without question that they are, which is why so many hemp products are imported. This is a question of why the economic morons in Washington have declared war on U.S. farmers and continue to criminalize the growing of a superfood crop with a huge number of industrial and textile applications…) The fall of the dollar means a rise in the price of imported goods The third factor sharply increasing the cost of imported hemp products is the plummeting value of the U.S. dollar versus the Canadian dollar. Much of the hemp imported into the United States is grown in Canada (where it’s legal, see? So Canadian farmers reap the financial rewards while U.S. farmers face bankruptcy…), and as the U.S. dollar loses purchasing power, it’s going to make the domestic cost of imported items increasingly expensive. For those who enjoy following what’s really going on behind the scenes with international currencies, the truth is that the United States is constantly trying to weaken the dollar in order to bolster U.S. exports to other countries. A weaker dollar makes our goods cheaper for foreign buyers. But when combined with the utterly insane domestic policy of the prohibition of hemp farming , it becomes a shell game circus that only ends up hurting American farmers and consumers. The day our elected leaders actually demonstrate an intelligent grasp of the laws of international trade and economics is the day I gobble down an ear of GMO corn on live television… Food scarcity is causing food inflation All around the world, radical weather patterns and the day-by-day losses of topsoils are causing record crop losses. Areas that used to be rainforest have been clear-cut to grow soybeans, and now many of those areas have become deserts due to ecological destruction. Insane corn ethanol subsidies continue to send corn prices sky-high, too. This is yet another example of economic brilliance brought to you by the clowns in Washington. Global food prices have risen 36% over the past 12 months (http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/news/international/world_bank_food_prices/index.htm), and there’s no indication this trend is going to reverse. With world water supplies dwindling, the Fukushima disaster wiping out a large portion of Japan’s domestic food production, and the UG99 wheat rust devastating wheat crops in many regions, we are now looking at a new era of food prices where you get to choose between high and higher . The last of the cheap hemp seeds and hemp oil – ON SALE now at the NaturalNews Store Even in the face of these alarming increases in food prices and a shortage in the global food supply, the incredible team running the NaturalNews Store has managed to acquire a large quantity of USDA Certified Organic Hemp Seeds and Hemp Oil, and in an action that is truly a service to our readers, we are discounting this by 41% to help you acquire this superfood before the price increases ripple through the industry. Right now, a five-pound bag of Certified Organic Hemp Seed normally retails for $84.69 . Amazon.com currently sells this five-pound bag at a 30% discount, offering it for $59.52 (http://www.amazon.com/Nutiva-Organic-Shelled-Hempseed-5-Pound/dp/B000GAT6MM). But while supplies last at the NaturalNews Store, we are letting go of these five-pound bags of Certified Organic Hemp Seed at 41% off — just $49.95 — PLUS, we give you a 16 oz. bottle of Nutiva’s Certified Organic Hemp Oil at no extra charge . Click here to take advantage of this hemp seed offer, plus the free bottle of hemp oil, to beat the worldwide price increase. Again, this is a 5-lb. bag of Nutiva’s Certified Organic Hemp Seed, plus a FREE 16 oz. bottle containing Nutiva’s Certified Organic Hemp Oil (liquid) inside dark glass to protect the oils from light. This hemp oil normally retails for around $12.50 per bottle. That puts the total value of this combo at over $97 . You can get it today — and you will NOT see these prices again for years to come — for just $49.95 . Click here to get this organic hemp seed / hemp oil combo at this “last chance” discounted price. Global prices on foods and superfoods are rising quickly. The only way you’re going to see this kind of price on Organic Hemp Seed in the USA anytime soon is if Congress magically legalizes hemp farming across America. Of course, I strongly support such a move, and if someone like Ron Paul ever becomes President, we might actually see some movement toward food freedom and health freedom. But don’t hold your breath: The DEA, FDA and USDA all have vested interests in keeping hemp farming illegal in America, and they will fight its legalization with every (taxpayer) dollar they can muster. How will we afford our food? The simple truth is that we’re all facing far higher food and superfood prices in the years ahead. That’s disturbing information for a lot of folks who are barely scraping by right now, I know. It’s going to mean a lot more Americans end up on food stamps. Even right now, an astonishing one in seven Americans is living on food stamps (http://www.naturalnews.com/032312_food_stamps_Americans.html). It’s also going to mean that more people stop spending money on processed foods and low-nutrition “factory foods.” Instead, they need to shift to more food staples and high-nutrition foods that pack more nutrition per ounce. A whole lot of American consumers are simply going to have to learn how to intelligently shop for groceries for the first time in their lives. No, that Kraft Macaroni and Cheese is not a good investment of your food dollars… To the extent we can, NaturalNews will attempt to find incredible buys on high-nutrition food items (or superfoods) and make them available to our readers. This hemp seed / hemp oil offer is a fantastic deal, and we hope to be able to bring you a more such deals. These are obviously not done on a profit motive, because in the face of rising prices, a profit-minded retailer would always try to charge MORE, not LESS. These deals are being arranged to quite literally help get these superfoods into your hands at the best discounts possible so that NaturalNews readers beat the price increases headed our way. So far, the response of NaturalNews readers to specials like this has been extraordinary. And that huge response has helped us negotiate even better price discounts on very large purchase volumes with suppliers like Nutiva. It is your support of our store in the past, in other words, that has made today’s great deal possible in the first place. As long as you keep supporting our store, we will keep searching for ridiculously great deals that we can pass on to you for the items that matter most: Superfoods, high-nutrition food staples, and even necessary kitchen appliances such as blenders and juicers. Thank you for your support, and here’s our specials page if you want to see everything we have on sale right now: http://store.naturalnews.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=100370 Today, you can beat the coming price increase on hemp seeds and hemp oil. A five-pound bag is a generous supply of hemp seeds that you can use as a superfood supplement for several months. It’s great for smoothies and salads, and it’s a high natural source of plant-based omega-3s, among other nutritional benefits. This pricing is only good while our supply lasts, which may be as little as three days.

The Maryanne Godboldo question: When do parents have the right to shoot back against armed kidnappers?

(NaturalNews) The story of Maryanne Godboldo and how armed government agents broke down her door and attempted to kidnap her daughter because she wouldn’t feed her psychiatric drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/032089_antipsychotic_drugs_health_freedom.html) brings to light an important question: When is it justified to shoot back? I’ll explore both sides of this argument here and then share my own views. On the “shoot back” side of the argument, this woman had every right to defend herself against armed assailants who were engaged in acts of violence (breaking down her door) and who conspired to kidnap her daughter. In the legal world, the term “conspiracy” simply means more than one person was involved in planning the event. This was, without question, a conspiracy to kidnap a human being. Shooting back was the only reasonable solution remaining for Maryanne, who had already tried to verbally say no when Child Protective Services insisted they were going to take her daughter away. Notably, it was CPS that brought guns to the scene by calling the police. So the escalation of the event can only be blamed on CPS, not Godboldo. On the “don’t shoot back” site of the argument, the only argument I’ve really heard so far is from people who say “you should never shoot back against government agents.” In other words, the fact that the kidnappers and assailants are on the city payroll somehow gives them the right to violate your rights and freedom, to assault your person and your home, and to commit the felony act of kidnapping your teenage daughter. This seems a bizarre bit of logic. I suppose another argument against shooting back would be the philosophical argument that violence never solves anything. But it sure can be a deterrent to would-be thieves, rapists and kidnappers, which is exactly what Maryanne just proved. She was able to hold them off for 12 hours by allegedly firing a single round. Do you think they would have stayed away for 12 hours if she didn’t have a gun? Now, to use Obama’s current doublespeak, the truth is that Maryanne didn’t even fire a gun at all. She was only engaged in “kinetic action” in the protection of her child. That term — “kinetic action” — is what Obama uses to explain how the war in Libya is not a war. It’s just “kinetic action” (i.e. pieces of lead moving at very high velocities). I’m thinking of posting a sign on the front door of my own home that reads, “This house is protected by kinetic action.” Why Hitler loved a disarmed population But let’s get back to the issue of when it’s appropriate to shoot back. The “don’t shoot back” crowd seems to think that the government can do no wrong. If the government comes for you in the middle of the night to kidnap your children for no justifiable reason, you’re supposed to just surrender and do what you’re told. This is the entire argument of the “don’t shoot back” crowd. Hitler would have loved this idea, of course. In fact, he pursued it quite diligently. One of the most important elements of his plan to exterminate the Jews was to disarm them first . That’s why Hitler passed gun control laws before he started rounding up Jews and sending them off to the gas chambers. It’s always easier to round people up if they don’t shoot back, you see. An armed population is much more difficult to subject to genocide because they have the pesky problem of causing kinetic action to take place. This is the reasoning behind the non-profit group JPFO — Jews for the Preservations of Firearms Ownership (www.JPFO.org). Far from being a bunch of gun nuts, these folks are scholars of history who fully realize that if the Jews in the late 1930′s hadn’t given up their guns under Hitler’s gun control agenda, they would have been able to assemble a far more effective resistance against government tyranny. The French Resistance, of course, kept their guns. And their explosives. This is what made the French Resistance so effective at interdicting German supply lines (blowing up railroad tracks, ammo dumps, German vehicles and so on). The French Resistance is a significant factor of why we won the war against tyranny in World War II. We have to remember to thank the French for holding on to their rifles and bullets. Otherwise, Hitler might have succeeded in his world conquest. See, governments far too often become tyrannical, out-of-control police states that end up assaulting (and sometimes murdering) their own citizens. It happened in Germany. It happened in Russia. It happened in China and a dozen other countries around the world. And although America today certainly isn’t as bad as Nazi Germany in 1941, there are very clear signs that America is headed into precisely such a scenario, where innocent civilians are targeted by armed government thugs who commit felony crimes in the name of the government. The situation with Maryanne Godboldo is precisely such a sign. When a woman is threatened, coerced, and has her front door broken down by armed thugs conspiring to kidnap her daughter — merely because she refused to give her daughter a dangerous psychiatric drug — that is a sure sign that the medical police state has descended upon us and is operating in a bold, aggressive manner. Would I engage in kinetic action to protect my own children? Personally on all this, let me explain the context of the statement I’m about to make here. First off, I have many friends who are cops. I volunteered countless hours and dollars to help cops in Arizona, and I have great respect for the importance of local law enforcements. Local cops are, for the most part, really dedicated, professional people, and they are underpaid and almost universally unappreciated. That being said, if a group of them broke into my home to kidnap my child, I would regrettably and sadly engage them with kinetic action. As long as they stayed outside the front door, I would hold off and verbally warn them to go away, but the second they smash through the front door, they become justified targets of kinetic action. The fact that they collect their paychecks from the government makes absolutely no difference. It does not justify their criminal intent. If anything, the fact that they are committing such crimes (kidnapping is a felony) while wearing a badge makes their acts even more offensive than if a street thug did the same thing. Are my actions justified? Under the laws of our land — as well as in the scriptures of every major world religion — they most certainly are! While we all hopefully seek to avoid violence in every way possible, when violence is brought to our doorstep and into our home, we have little choice but to respond in our own defense . This is precisely the purpose of the Second Amendment, of course: Not to make guns available for hunting and sport shooting, but rather to give the People of America the power to protect themselves from exactly the kind of armed government tyranny we see being applied to Maryanne Godboldo. Again, I’m no gun nut, and I’m not a hunter. The idea of shooting a living creature or human being is extremely disturbing to me. But if driven to such circumstances by a tyrannical police state that seeks to force me to medicate my own children at gunpoint, I will do what is necessary to protect my family and my life. Maryanne Godboldo is a hero for her actions . CPS workers and the local police officers who raided her home are the real criminals here, and I can only hope and pray that when justice is finally served, Maryanne will be vindicated. And the medical police state will be completely disarmed so that these Big Pharma henchmen can no longer threaten the lives and liberties of innocent Americans who only seek to protect their children from the devastating side effects of psychiatric medications. Have no illusions: We the People are under siege by the Big Pharma-influenced medical police state. We are being threatened and assaulted by armed agents who are blatantly conspiring to carry out the wishes of the drug companies. We are being forced to medicate our children against our will and against our better judgment. CPS workers and law enforcement officers need to learn that when they threaten us with guns and violence, we will shoot back if driven to such actions . And I know quite a few places across America where, if CPS workers try to kidnap innocent children, they will not only be shot but hung from low-hanging branches of nearby trees along with a large piece of plywood spray-painted with the warning message: “WE SHOOT KIDNAPPERS.” Photo credit: Freep.com http://www.freep.com/article/20110406/NEWS01/110406038/Girl-whose-mother-accused-firing-police-during-standoff-will-remain-state-custody

With Obamacare ruled unconstitutional; states embrace limits on federal power

(NaturalNews) Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled this week that the “individual mandate” portion of Obama’s health care reform was unconstitutional, dealing a significant blow to the Obama administration’s desire to force government-run health insurance on the entire U.S. population. Department of Justice spokespeople reacted with a sense of twisted desperation, calling Judge Vinson’s decision “judicial activism” as if he were inventing new law. In reality, of course, Judge Vinson merely ruled to protect existing law as written in the United States Constitution. Three years ago, even President Obama would have agreed with Judge Vinson’s decision. In arguing against the idea of an individual mandate in government-run health insurance, President Obama said in 2008, “If a mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” Obama’s quote demonstrates the ludicrousness of the federal government requiring people to buy certain products or services in order to solve what the government perceives as a problem. If the government is allowed to dictate commercial behavior by forcing citizens to purchase things they don’t want to purchase, then it won’t be long before Washington starts forcing everybody to buy a U.S.-made automobile each year to support the auto industry… or pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and other products and services the government wants to push onto the people. Judge Vinson cited this same argument in his 78-page ruling, in fact, writing: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” In a demonstration of the ridiculousness of governments forcing citizens to buy things, five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require all residents of that state to buy a firearm to provide for their own self defense. (http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun) The bill is, of course, being put forth solely to make a point: That governments have no business forcing citizens to buy things they don’t personally want or even believe in. But if Obama can force you to buy health insurance, there’s no reason why someone else in Washington couldn’t force everybody to buy a firearm, or a pound of broccoli each week, or a water filter, or anything else the government says is “for your own good.” The federal government has no power to force Americans to buy stuff In light of the potential for runaway federal abuse of the Commerce Clause, Judge Roger Vinson correctly ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to engage in “market dictatorship” activities such as requiring people to buy health insurance. Such power was never granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution (no, not even in the Commerce Clause, which was written to prevent states from enacting tariffs, not to grant the federal government power over all commerce), and therefore the federal government has no legal basis from which to enforce such mandates. Congress, of course, rarely abides by the limitations on federal power as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. That’s why Congress passed Obamacare in the first place, even though the law blatantly violated the Constitution in requiring people to purchase a product many of them were ethically opposed to purchasing. (How many of us really want to be forced by Washington to send money to Big Pharma and the conventional medical industry?) Congress, it seems, wants the federal government to essentially be able to have absolute power over the American people; to tell them what to buy, how they’re supposed to react to tragedy (Giffords shooting), and even what they’re not allowed to read (health claims on nutritional products). And yet, the primary purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to place limits on federal power , and it is the proper role of federal judges to strike down laws when such laws clearly attempt to undermine the Constitution by engaging in unjustified expansions of federal power. On to the Supreme Court The ultimate legality of Obama’s health care law will, of course, be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it’s anyone’s guess how the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate (or the law in its entirety). Through American history, the U.S. Supreme Court has made some rather wild and seemingly-irrational decisions that supported federal government’s power grabs, such as the case of Wickard vs Filburn as we reported here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/030799_food_freedom_Wickard_vs_Filburn.html At other times, the U.S. Supreme Court has limited the power of the federal government in the context of the Commerce Clause. It seems that the high court’s decisions in these matters rest on whether it believes the federal government has “a compelling interest” in the matter which would, in the opinion of the Court, justify what is obviously the federal government’s attempt to establish vast overreaching powers that would intrude upon individual liberties. This case may not even be heard until 2012, and until that time, Obamacare rolls forward, causing steady increases in health insurance premiums and an ongoing loss of jobs as U.S. corporations move their operations to other countries where health care mandates don’t bankrupt them. In order to protect its favorite corporations and unions, of course, the Obama Administration has now granted over 700 waivers to various business organizations (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118570197329858.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). Recipients of the waivers include PepsiCo and various unions. This brings up the obvious question: Obamacare is so good that Americans have to be forced to buy it while PepsiCo — a company whose products actually contribute to health care costs in America through obesity and diabetes — is exempted from participating? How is it that powerful corporations are getting waivers from such a “great” health care system, but individuals get a knock on the door from the IRS if they try to opt out? This is how tyrannical governments work: They pass oppressive, overreaching mandates and then exempt their own buddies and corporate supporters from any such requirements. Everyday working people, meanwhile, are locked in and actually penalized by tax authorities if they try to avoid buying a health insurance product they never even wanted in the first place! Efforts under way to repeal Obamacare in the Senate So far, 26 states have filed suit against the federal government to halt Obamacare. They’re doing this because Obamacare threatens to bankrupt the states . These states are, in essence, fighting for their financial survival. Anticipating the devastating financial consequences on states if Obamacare remains law, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced yesterday that he plans to attach an Obamacare repeal effort to an upcoming funding bill that’s pending in the Senate. This effort reportedly has the support of all 47 Republican senators. Any such attempt to repeal Obamacare, of course, is almost certain to be vetoed by President Obama. The federal government is fighting hard to force the American people — and the states — to accept this Washington power grab that actually feeds right into the monopolistic (and health-harming) business practices of the conventional medical industry, Big Pharma, the vaccine industry and even the cancer industry. Obamacare care is, in effect, the law that guarantees a Big Pharma medical monopoly by forcing people to financially support it even if they would rather support natural medicine or the healing arts. Yet another reason for the states to distance themselves from Washington In the end, I believe this issue will provide yet more justification for states to consider distancing themselves from Washington’s runaway power grab efforts. When the federal government attempts to enact measures that will financially ruin the states, those states have little choice but to reject and nullify such federal mandates. That’s exactly what we’re seeing right now with the rapid growth of the Tenth Amendment Center (www.TenthAmendmentCenter.com) and its efforts to encourage states to protect themselves from the financially and ethically bankrupt policies of Washington. States have the power to simply say NO to Washington and refuse to implement unconstitutional laws, especially when those laws would cause financial devastation. In fact, it is not merely a state’s right to resist such tyrannical laws, but a state’s duty to resist. This is why the Tenth Amendment clearly spells out, in plain language, that those powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the People. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Nowhere in the Constitution was the federal government given the power to force the American people to buy health insurance, or automobiles, or vaccines, or pharmaceuticals for that matter. Washington’s attempt to force the American people to make purchases they do not wish to make is un-American at its core , and almost certainly illegal as well. Might does not make right. Even while Washington attempts to bully states into accepting this ill-considered law, those states are increasingly resisting it out of a sense of financial sanity if nothing else. Those states that wish to go along with every loony idea that comes out of Washington will, in due time, suffer the same fate as the federal government itself: Outright bankruptcy followed by serious political destabilization. Remember: You cannot force people to buy health insurance they don’t want and often don’t need. And you can’t stick a high-dollar IRS fine in someone’s face and tell them they’re free if they don’t “voluntarily” buy into the government’s health insurance scheme. Freedom means we have a choice, and the Obama administration doesn’t want Americans to have a choice on this matter. They want Americans to basically sit down, shut up, and do what they’re told. As even Egyptian dictator Mubarak is learning all of a sudden, ruling over a country is a whole lot easier when people don’t fight back. Sources for this story include: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/01/republicans-look-build-steam-repeal-judges-health-law-ruling/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116361022463224.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

GE salmon? Are you out of your minds?

(NaturalNews) Has the FDA gone completely mad? Why are they trying to open the flood gates to genetically engineered (GE) salmon — a move that will go down in history as one of the most asinine and dangerous ever made by our government? What’s it going to take for them to actually start protecting public health? The FDA is reviewing data submitted by AquaBounty, the company that spliced a growth hormone gene into Atlantic salmon, forcing it to grow up to five times faster and reach market size in about 18 months instead of 3 years. But according to the evidence, their buff salmon might have higher levels of a cancer promoting hormone IGF-1 (http://www.consumersunion.org/pdf/CU-comments-GE-salmon-0910.pdf), more antibiotics, and more of a potentially life-threatening allergen(s). The FDA failed to learn their lesson with their idiotic approval of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. It also has higher levels of IGF-1 and more antibiotics. Now it’s condemned by the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association, banned in most other countries, and has been banished by most US dairies. Even Wal-Mart won’t allow the stuff into their milk. The GE soy and corn on the market, which the FDA continues to pretend is just the same as the natural stuff, also has higher levels of allergens, and has been linked to numerous disorders. Now the American Academy of Environmental Medicine condemned genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and urged all physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets. “GMO-Free” is one of the fastest growing health claims among US brands for the past two years, and a tipping point of consumer rejection of all GE ingredients appears to be just over the horizon. Then there is the threat of Frankenfish escaping into the wild. Here too, the FDA ignores the lessons from GE crops which, in spite of early assurances to the contrary, have been contaminating non-GE crops and wild relatives all over the world for more than a decade. Their self-propagating genetic pollution is irreversible; it can outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. But somehow escaped GE salmon carry an even greater hazard. Frankenfish can wipe out natural salmon According to a Purdue University computer model that tracked the effects of releasing just 60 Frankenfish (not salmon) into a population of 60,000, there was a shocking complete extinction in just 40 fish generations. Apparently their bigger size, which attracted mates more easily, combined with a slight reduction in survival rates, was a killer combination. Canadian scientists engineered their own set of fast growing salmon and tested their behavior in tanks with other fish. When there was sufficient food, all was fine. When food stocks decreased, the Frankenfish freaked. They became cannibals, attacking and killing other fish — whether GE or natural. Their unexpected behavior resulted in population crashes or complete extinctions in the fish tanks. The study also suggested that if released, these ravenous aggressive salmon would pursue and consume other types of fish. I’m not sure which scenario is worse: The complete extinction of salmon, or gangs of voracious mutant freaks scouring the ocean, attacking anything that can feed their rapidly-expanding, always-hungry bodies. (Heck, let’s just give the fish automatic weapons.) Never mind that the GE AquAdvantage salmon are supposed to be grown in inland tanks and are supposed to be sterile. In reality, they won’t all be sterile; and there are numerous ways that these salmon, whose eggs will regularly be shipped from Prince Edward Island, Canada to growing tanks in Panama, can escape into the ocean. It only takes one! Corporate interests and politics run the FDA show US consumers have been clear for years that we don’t want Frankenfish (http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/release-FWW-Omnibus.pdf), Frankenpigs, Frankenmosquitoes, Frankenanything that walks, flies, slithers, or swims. And most Americans are now uneasy about the Frankencrops already growing in our fields. So who is clamoring for GE salmon? Who’s getting the FDA to push open the doors to GE animals against public opinion? Thank you Union of Concerned Scientists for the answer. Your September 12th survey of 1710 FDA employees (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/food-safety.html) explains who is really driving the bus at the agency. One staff member said, “Food safety has succumbed to the higher priority of global corporate profits.” In fact, 38 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “public health has been harmed by agency practices that defer to business interests.” Another employee points to political interference: “I have been here for 26 years and it still amazes me . . . how politics filter down to the lowest levels of government.” So its corporate profits and politics. Anyone surprised? About 1 in 4 surveyed admit that they had personally experienced, either frequently or occasionally, “situations where corporate interests [or members of Congress, or special interests] have forced the withdrawal or significant modification of [an agency] policy or action designed to protect consumers or public health.” If there is one face that best captures the FDA’s conflict-of-humanity’s-interest, it would be Michael Taylor. Taylor is the US Food Safety Czar. You’d think that if there were significant safety concerns about the GE salmon, our Czar would step in to preserve and protect. Don’t count on it. Back when the first Bush White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, the agency created a special position for Taylor to be in charge. He had been the outside attorney for biotech giant Monsanto, where he had dreamed up a regulatory facade that would allow GMOs to be brought to market with maximum speed and minimum oversight. Then he took a position with the FDA where he could apparently implement it himself. His GMO policy falsely claimed that the agency was unaware of information showing GM foods to be different. On that basis, no testing or labeling was required. Years later, 44,000 documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that the consensus among FDA’s own scientists was that GM foods were unsafe, and should be carefully tested for allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. Soon after leaving the FDA, Michael Taylor went to work as Monsanto’s vice president. So the person who lied about GMO safety to push them on the market now sits above the folks that are looking at GE Salmon. Not a comforting thought. Stacking the deck for approving salmon How else does corporate influence play out in the current FDA debacle? Consider Alison L. Van Eenennaam. She too used to work for Monsanto (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-20-why-is-the-fda-about-to-rubber-stamp-ge-salmon/), and now has been added as a temporary voting member on the committee that advises the FDA about the salmon. She also advises the USDA and promotes GE animals on Youtube. Kevin G. Wells was also added as a temporary voting member for salmon. He works at Revivicor, a company that genetically engineers pigs. Do you suppose there is any conflict of interest for him establishing an easy ride for GE animal approvals? Perhaps. Gregory Jaffe was also imported into the committee as their supposed consumer advocate. In reality, he is with the pro-GMO Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an organization that consistently ignores the mounting evidence of adverse health impacts from GE crops. Jaffe even filed a complaint (http://www.cspinet.org/biotech/enforce.html) to the FDA in 2001 complaining of companies that label their products as non-GMO. What further qualified Jaffe for his committee position was his published article Questions About Genetically Engineered Animals (http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/miamiheraldoped.pdf), where he touts the environmental benefits of AquAdvantage salmon. The engineered bias of the FDA advisory committee is made even more clear by who is absent. There are no experts on allergies or hormones who can address the possible health damaging effects of the fish, and no fish ecologists who can figure out whether our grandchildren will live in a world without wild salmon. Institutionalized stupidity But even before the committee was picked, the deck was stacked in favor of approvals. In 2008, the Bush administration rolled out a policy in which GE animals would be approved as if they were animal drugs. This latest square peg is part of a continuing effort to regulate GMOs without asking Congress to pass any new laws. So, since 1992, the government has been jerry-rigging inadequate pre-existing laws to handle the unique and complex safety and environmental considerations of genetically engineered organisms. Even if GE animals weren’t infinitely more complex than some drug compound, using the FDA drug approval process shouldn’t give us great confidence. Between 1976 and 1985, for example, more than half of their drug approvals turned out to have lethal or serious side effects, forcing withdrawal or added label warnings. Try conducting a recall of GE salmon from the ocean. Failing grades all around Even with stacked committee membership, an antiquated approval policy, and an agency that is officially mandated to promote biotechnology, the Frankenfish did not swim past the advisory committee on September 19 and 20. That’s because the committee agreed with safety experts like Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union (they publish Consumer Reports ) that the evidence presented by AquaBounty was abysmal and insufficient. Using a sample size of only 6 fish, employing insensitive detection methods that could easily miss cancer-promoting hormones or allergens, and testing fish that were raised in a completely different climate than what is planned, were among the sloppy science that the FDA had accepted. (See addendum below for examples.) In fact the only person on the committee who had any experience with fish, Gary Thorgaard, completely disagreed with the FDA’s conclusion that the Frankenfish didn’t threaten the environment. He called for a full Environmental Impact Statement. Hansen says, “The data and analysis of food safety risks from the AquAdvantage Salmon are so sloppy and inadequate that, if this were an undergraduate paper, it would get a failing grade. No self-respecting scientist could conclude that these data demonstrate that AquAdvantage salmon are safe to eat. ” [Emphasis added.] Thus, in spite of the fact that the company had been submitting data to the FDA for more than ten years, the advisory committee concluded that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that GE salmon was safe for the environment and for human health. They told AquaBounty to go back and to do more testing. I propose a different recommendation. This little exercise made it perfectly clear that AquaBounty is either completely incompetent to evaluate the safety of their own creation, or they’re intentionally hiding evidence. In either case, let’s not send the same folks back to do more research, hoping they’ll get it right. Instead, tell these jokers that they have proved to the world that they are never to be trusted with the future of salmon or the safety of the human food supply. And what about the FDA — the brain cell behind the Don’t-ask-don’t-tell food safety assessments? They have again demonstrated that they too are not competent to protect the public from the unique unpredictable dangers of genetically engineered foods. If you want to GE salmon stopped for good, now is the time to raise your voice. Since the FDA has been ignoring US citizens in favor of business interests and politics, please join me in inviting the food industry (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6236/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4264) and Congress (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6236/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4277) to stop in and stop this madness. Go to our action alert pages (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/stop-ge-salmon) to sign the petitions today. Addendum: How Not to Do A Food Safety Assessment The FDA’s evaluation of GE salmon is the first of its kind. Because it will set a precedent for all future GE animal approvals, the bar should be set very high. According to Dr. Michael Hansen, who testified at the FDA advisory committee meeting on behalf of Consumers Union, the FDA set the bar a foot off the ground. When AquaBounty looked for potentially dangerous growth hormones in the salmon, for example, they used a detection method so insensitive, it couldn’t find any hormones in any fish. The FDA therefore concluded that there was no relevant difference in hormone levels in GE salmon. Dr. Hansen told the committee, “This would be like the police using a radar gun that cannot detect speeds below 120 mph and concluding that there is no ‘relevant difference’ in the speed of cars versus bicycles.” Because the company also used an insensitive test to measure cancer-promoting insulin-like growth hormone factor one (IGF-1), levels were detected in only a few fish. Of these, the GE salmon was 40% higher. Again, insufficient data combined with faulty reasoning allowed the FDA to conclude that IGF-1 from GE salmon is not a problem. Even then, these test results were not from the type of GE salmon that the company plans to market. Instead, the tests were conducted on the GE salmon variety that will produce the fish eggs in Canada. The DNA of these “egg-layers” have the normal two sets of chromosomes (diploid). The GE salmon to be grown from their eggs in Panama, however, end up with three sets of chromosomes (triploid) — so that most will be sterile. It’s the Panama-grown triploid variety that will go onto our dinner table if the FDA has their way. So what was the response by the FDA and AquaBounty when asked for the IGF-1 levels of the actual fish (raised in the actual conditions) that people would actually eat? “Well…er….uhm…we’ll get back to you.” Genetically modified allergies The situation with allergies is worse. According to Hansen, the tests conducted by AquaBounty confirmed that “the act of genetic engineering did lead to an increase in allergenic potency.” In fact, when the flesh from egg-laying (diploid) fish was exposed to the blood (sera) of people who are allergic to salmon, there was a whopping 52% increase in reaction levels. Furthermore, the specific allergen that had increased in the Frankenfish was not supposed to be affected . It did not come from the inserted gene. Rather, the increase in this potentially life-threatening allergen was just one of the unpredictable side-effects that can result from the process of genetic engineering itself. The FDA decided this time to ignore this troublesome finding, since it was from the egg-laying diploids. The company did test the allergic reaction to the triploids (the ones we’ll eat), but used fish that were raised in Canada, not Panama. This should have disqualified the fish study, according to Hansen, since the composition of GE salmon can obviously be affected by water temperature, and growing conditions. Still, the Canadian raised Frankenfish elicited an allergic response level that was 20% higher than normal salmon . But the FDA dismissed this figure since it was not statistically significant and concluded that the GE salmon was safe to eat. But of course it wasn’t statistically significant. They used just six fish in the sample size! The easiest way to prevent statistical significance is by using a pathetically small number of subjects in your experiment. Hansen said: “To base a conclusion of no additional risk on exactly six engineered fish, when those data themselves suggest a possible problem, is not responsible science or responsible risk assessment. FDA owes it to the thousands of Americans who are allergic to finfish to demand more data on the allergenicity of these engineered salmon from AquaBounty.” Thank you Dr. Hansen for helping to protect us from the bungling Frankenfish promoters. Let’s hope they will listen. Take action! Sign the petition to the food industry (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6236/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4264) and to Congress (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6236/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4277). About the author: Jeffrey M. Smith is the leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices. His book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods , is the world’s #1 and bestselling book on the subject. His Genetic Roulette book documents the health risks of the GM foods already on our plates, and how industry and government assessments are not competent to protect the public. Mr. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology; their Campaign for Healthier Eating is designed to create a tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs — to force them out of the market. See www.ResponsibleTechology.org and www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com

Report predicts huge increase in osteoporotic fractures due to aging populations

Preliminary findings from an upcoming new report by the International Osteoporosis Foundation show alarming projections and reveal the poor state of post-fracture care in the Russian Federation and many other countries in the region.

Babies given pneumococcal vaccination risk infection with serious drug resistant respiratory disease

(NaturalNews) We’ve all heard the arguments, supposed solid evidence and near hysteria about the importance of vaccinating children to protect them from diseases. Unfortunately, not only are there sometimes serious side effects associated with many vaccinations (http://www.naturalnews.com/vaccines.html) but now it turns out that infants who receive vaccinations to protect them from ear infection and sinusitis are more likely to come down with what can be a dangerous form of an antibiotic-resistant infection. According to research just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), infants who received heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccination (PCV-7, brand name Prevnar ) at 2, 4, and 11 months were far more likely than unvaccinated babies to become infected with pneumococcal serotype 19A — a strain of bacteria that appears to be turning into a superbug because it is quickly developing resistance to multiple antibiotics. Specifically, the vaccinated children had an increased risk of this type of infection in their nasal passages and the upper part of the throat behind their noses. “A rapid increase in the presence of pneumococcal serotype 19A strains that are often multiresistant to antibiotics has been observed over the last decade. In the United States, serotype 19A is now the leading causative pneumococcal serotype of invasive and respiratory pneumococcal disease and the most frequently observed serotype in nasopharyngeal carriage,” the research team from the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands reported in their study. However, there has been debate over the cause of this increase in 19A infections. Was it somehow just spontaneous or is the widespread overuse of antibiotics involved — or could it be possible that the very vaccines given to stop infections are somehow spurring these potentially serious, antibiotic resistant infections to develop? “In the United States and other countries, the increase in serotype 19A disease was associated in time with the widespread implementation of PCV-7 in routine infant immunization programs,” the Dutch scientists noted in their research paper. So Elske J. M. van Gils, M.D., and colleagues decided to investigate the association between PCV-7 vaccination and nasopharyngeal infection with serotype 19A pneumococci in healthy newborns in the Netherlands (where antibiotic resistance rates are low). The children were studied until they were 2 years old. The research was carried out between July 2005 and February 2008, before the implementation of widespread PCV-7 vaccination in Dutch children. In all, 1,003 babies were randomly assigned into three groups: one group received 2 doses of PCV-7 at 2 and 4 months; another group received 2 doses plus one additional dose of PCV-7 at 2, 4, and 11 months; and the third control group received no vaccinations. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken from the infants at the age of 6 weeks and when they were 6, 12, 18, and 24 months old. The results? When the babies were 24 months old, the ones who had been vaccinated were almost two times more likely to have developed a bacterial infection of serotype 19A. . In all, 16.2 percent who had been given the vaccinations had infections while only 9.2 of infants who were not vaccinated had infections. In their JAMA study, the researchers noted their research has demonstrated, for the first time, that the PCV-7 vaccine can lead to infection with serotype 19A bacteria — pathogens which are well known to cause middle ear infections as well as potentially invasive pneumococcal respiratory disease that resists treatment with antibiotics. So are the scientists calling for a ban on the PCV-7 vaccine? Incredibly, the answer is no. Instead, they are calling for even more vaccines with “broader coverage”. They did add this warning: “However, we need to be aware that other serotypes with similar characteristics and disease potential may be the next in line to proliferate and therefore pneumococcal surveillance remains important after introduction of expanded pneumococcal conjugate vaccines.” In other words, they are admitting that after expanded new vaccines are given to babies, doctors and other should be on the lookout for yet more incidents of disease proliferation sparked by vaccinations. For more information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823436 http://www.naturalnews.com/superbug.html

Mesquite flour is a high-protein, low-glycemic superfood from desert trees

(NaturalNews) When I lived in the Sonoran desert in Arizona, I used to take long daily walks for exercise and adventure. I would go far off the beaten path and hike through dry washes, weaving my way through all the astonishing desert plants, many of which are highly medicinal, by the way. I also happened upon many creatures in the desert, including falcons, which have an amazing audible scream that just sends shivers down your spine when you hear it live and in person. But the most interesting creatures I saw were the desert Javelina . Sometimes incorrectly called “desert pigs,” these are wild pig-shaped creatures with thick spiny hair, and they’re not really related to pigs at all. They often travel in family packs of a half-dozen at a time, with three or four large adults and a few children javelina tagging along. I actually have pictures of these creatures right in my back yard in Tucson. They also love carrots, I quickly discovered one night after they rooted up my carrot beds. And they’re quite aggressive about going after any kind of food or garden plants you might have outside. Food from desert trees! In observing these creatures, I noticed that they also eat mesquite pods . These are the long, beige-colored seed pods from the mesquite tree (a type of legume tree) which is extremely common in the Sonoran desert. Seeing them eat this surprised me, because not being a person who grew up in the desert, I had no idea these seed pods were edible. But over time, I observed javelinas eating the seed pods, and I also found lots of examples of javelina poo which contained the rather obvious elements of digested seed pods. So I knew they were using them as a food source. (You can learn a lot about animals by studying their poo, by the way…) Curious to try these seed pods myself, I began harvesting them off the trees and chewing on them as a snack. Over time, I learned that indigenous American Indians relied quite heavily on mesquite pods as an important food source. I even went to the local Desert Museum where I saw demonstrations of how the native people of the area would grind mesquite pods into a high-protein flour using a large mortar and pestle tool. This was serious work requiring a high level of stamina, by the way. A real grind. Literally. To this day, there is a non-profit in Tucson, Arizona that runs around each year with a mesquite pod grinding machine, and they’ll grind your mesquite pods into flour which you can use in baking or cooking. It replaces regular white flour or whole wheat flour cup for cup. Why American Indians suffer from diabetes Over the years, the more I learned about the native diets of the indigenous people from the Southwest of the current United States, the more intrigued I became about mesquite flour. Diabetes was virtually unheard of before processed foods were introduced to American Indians, but once processed white flour began to replace the mesquite flour in their diets, American Indians soon became diabetic. (All the liquid sugars in soda certainly didn’t help either…) The same is true with people of Latino descent. White flour doesn’t go well with Latino genetics. In just one generation when people switch to processed food diets, they begin to suffer all the ravages of degenerative disease: cancer, heart disease, obesity, depression, you name it. Mesquite flour as a superfood Today, mesquite flour is a little-known specialty food used only by two groups that I know of: 1) People who live in the desert and whose ancestors used it as food, and 2) People in the raw food / vegan foods community who have popularized this amazing superfood. Vegans and vegetarians use mesquite flour in all sorts of ways in the kitchen. It’s like a low-glycemic flour that’s rich in protein and micronutrients. You can make healthy, low-glycemic breads, pancakes and tortillas out of it (as American Indians have done for as long as history has been recorded). It bakes and mixes just like wheat flour, but obviously without the wheat allergens. It’s also gluten free . Yep, no gluten in mesquite flour. Very cool. I’ve also heard of people using it in raw food recipes and even in smoothies. This is a highly versatile and very nutritious ingredient that very few people know about. And even among those who do know it, most have never eaten raw mesquite pods right off a tree. I consider myself privileged to have enjoyed that opportunity in the Sonoran desert (in fact, to this day, I still miss the Sonoran desert plants, as they are some of the most majestic and intelligent plants you’ll find anywhere on the planet). Where to get mesquite flour Today, most of the mesquite flour produced in the world comes from Peru . It’s grown quite successfully in the high desert areas of this fertile country. Then it’s ground, packaged and exported to the United States (and other countries) where it’s incorporated into a number of high-end health products. You can buy two types of mesquite flour: Organic and conventional. The conventional stuff is obviously sprayed with pesticide chemicals, and we don’t recommend eating that. I have no idea what pesticides are legal to use in Peru, but I bet it’s a nasty list of chemicals, so I avoid conventional products from that country (only organic is ok). On the organic side, we’ve acquired a medium-sized shipment of organic mesquite flour at a very considerate price that we’re passing on to NaturalNews readers. Normally, a 16-oz. bag of organic mesquite flour sells for $20 or so online. At our store, we would normally carry it at $14.99. But right now, while the inventory of this shipment lasts, we have a supply of organic mesquite flour from Peru available at just $9.95 per 16-oz. bag . This is the price you might typically pay for “conventional” mesquite flour, except ours is organic (which is usually twice the price). Once again, NaturalNews buying power has enabled us to make this available to you at an amazing discount. And it gets even better: When you buy three 16-oz. bags of our organic mesquite flour, the price drops to just $8.96 per bag ( a 40% savings over the regular price in our store). Click here to take advantage of these specials right now . This is probably the best price you’ll see anywhere on 16-oz. bags of organic mesquite flour, so if you’ve never tried this ingredient before, there’s no better time that right now to pick some up and see what it’s like. What does mesquite flour taste like? Mesquite flour has a sweet, nutty taste. It has a texture like wheat flour, but perhaps a bit more grainy. It’s about 17% protein, making it ideal for those who wish to avoid high-carbohydrate foods. It also has a significantly lower glycemic index than regular white flour… or even wheat flour, for that matter. Now I know it costs more than wheat flour. So the best way to use this is to stretch your supply by mixing it 50 / 50 with your traditional wheat flour. If you’re making recipes for kids (like pancakes in the morning), use even less mesquite powder at first: Maybe 20% in the recipe, until they get used to it. Then you can slowly increase the percentage over time. Mesquite flour actually tastes really good. I’ve been known to just chew on the seed pods for fun. People living on the Kohala Coast of the Big Island of Hawaii may also be familiar with mesquite pods because they grow there in large numbers (they were brought by ranchers to provide a high-protein food source for the cows!). The pods in Hawaii also taste really amazing (sweet!) because they’re often grown near ocean water. The increased mineralization, it turns out, makes the mesquite pods taste even sweeter, almost like a cake. Cool huh? Here’s a natural food, straight off a hardy desert tree, that can replace wheat and other processed grains in our diets. In fact, I have no doubt that if the Latinos and American Indians still living in the Southwest of the USA would go back to their traditional diets — which included mesquite flour — they would see a sharp drop in diabetes, a disease that is right now devastating the Latino and Native American communities. Mesquite flour alone isn’t a cure for diabetes (or any disease), but it can be part of a dietary strategy that emphasizes natural, unprocessed foods straight from nature while avoiding liquid sugars and other highly refined foods which we now know greatly increase the risk of type-2 diabetes. Try some yourself! I think you’ll really enjoy this. And you won’t find a better price than what we have right now with this limited supply. This price is only good while our inventory lasts: Organic Mesquite Flour 16 oz. bag for just $9.95 Click here to order from the NaturalNews Store . Enjoy!

« Previous Page — Next Page »