The truth about tanning beds: They boost vitamin D production

(NaturalNews) The FDA has the media and subsequently many Americans in a (perhaps unjustified) uproar about teens using tanning beds, and they are now pushing to ban tanning for people under 18. It is time to set some of this witch-hunting straight. The ruckus comes in the wake of a report that was released last year by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization. The report resulted in the IARC’s changing the status of tanning beds from ‘possibly carcinogenic’ to ‘carcinogenic.’ With the same argumentation and evidence, the sun itself would fall into that category. The media definitely talks about it as a danger, and it provides real-world stories about people who contracted melanoma after too much exposure to the sun. The problem is that often, the most extreme, rare and dramatic cases are cited, which serves to convince the American public that fear of the sun is justified. Just take a look at how many Americans behave – putting sunscreen on every morning, only walking to their car, then to their office building, etc., avoiding “overexposure” at every turn. What used to be a glorious, golden orb in the sky is now a menace to society. With all the jargon and evidence the FDA cites as dangers for humans, people are becoming increasingly afraid to venture out into the light of day. In fact, tanning beds are designed to synthesize the perfect conditions of a summer’s day, when the UV-rays are balanced to perfectly stimulate the maximum growth of melanin pigment, as well as vitamin D. It is because of these ideal conditions that people can absorb all the UVs and produce all the vitamin D they need in such a short period of time. And if you look at the evidence from an unbiased viewpoint, you will find that while some Americans are receiving too much UV rays, many more are receiving too few. Vitamin D is a crucial for the human body; even the FDA knows that. But with the media’s constant scapegoating of the sun and tanning beds as the cause of melanoma and cancer, many people are getting the wrong idea. Demonizing the sun is having a profoundly negative impact on our society. According to Dr. Michael Holick, author of The UV Advantage , 40% of Americans are suffering from a vitamin D deficiency, which causes depression, SAD, and has been linked to late development of Schizophrenia. See Natural News’ interview with Dr. Holick at (http://www.naturalnews.com/005546_Dr_Michael_Holick_vitamin_D_deficiency.html) for more details. While I am not advocating a consistent solar diet of 3-4 hours of exposure per day, the benefits of some exposure are substantiated. Clearly, there are some people who are tanning too much and contracting melanoma as a consequence. The evidence cited in the IARC study is not completely fallacious, but is likely provided in a biased context, which magnifies the negative implications of sun exposure. For instance, the study found that teens and 20-somethings who used tanning beds were 75% more at risk for melanoma. That is a significant number, but may be more indicative of how much pressure American teens are under to look tan and beautiful, than it is of the danger of tanning beds. If teens think that they will attract more attention if they are tan, then many will not stop at the tanning bed. Slapping a law into effect that bans the teens from tanning beds, would only send the vast majority of those kids out into the sun for their daily bronzing, which would not stop the problem. We should look a little harder at what the data actually means and how it should be interpreted. When the FDA wages war on tanning beds, they are waging a de facto war on the sun itself, which our bodies are genetically predisposed to need in order to remain healthy and happy. The FDA should be a little more careful about the effects their messages have on the people they are intended to advise. If the message is causing widespread depression, then it needs to change. Of course, depression feeds the pharmaceutical industry, so they may be achieving the impact they want, after all. Sources: (http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm186687.htm) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43302984/ns/health-skin_and_beauty/) (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-d/uvb-exposure-sunlight-and-indoor-tanning/)

Realms Of Joy – Time Of Light.

Check out these supplements products: Realms Of Joy – Time Of Light. How You Can Master Holographic Time To Gain Extreme Wealth And Peace. Realms Of Joy – Time Of Light. I Create Reality: Beyond Visualization. How To Materialize Your Hearts Desires With Holographic Creation. Learn To Use Your Holographic Mind Power. It Rocks! I [...]

UN considers establishing global internet police force to regulate the web

(NaturalNews) The internet truly is the last bastion of free speech that has yet to be taken over by corporate or political forces and censored, at least in the U.S. But the United Nations (UN) is now considering working towards establishing an international governing body to regulate internet content, which would eventually eliminate online freedom of speech. Brazilian representatives recently called on UN officials to create “global standards” for internet content, citing controversial web content like WikiLeaks that some consider a threat to national and global security. Backed by several other supporting nations including China and Saudi Arabia, the proposal would not constitute an internet takeover, says its authors. But this appears untrue as it would clearly hand over powers to international governing bodies to arbitrarily regulate internet content. Representatives from the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Canada and the U.K. all expressed concerns about the proposal, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Instead of pinning the idea as a tyrannical threat to free speech, the representatives expressed political concerns about how such proposals encourage the growing divide between governments and the people over whom they govern. Government takeover of the internet has already begun in the U.S., though, as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently began unlawfully seizing various websites that it deemed in violation of copyright laws (http://www.naturalnews.com/030542_censorship_internet.html). And the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now seeking to assert control over the internet as well, even though the agency does not legally have the power to do so (http://www.naturalnews.com/030647_Wikileaks_net_neutrality.html). Freedom of speech is what makes the internet a valuable source of information that would otherwise never see the light of day, in many cases. Without it, the free flow of information would be largely crippled and all that would be left is government-approved mainstream media outlets. Sources for this story include: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242051,un-mulls-internet-regulation-options.aspx

Artificial ‘nano-food’ could soon show up at a store near you

(NaturalNews) The scientific community has once again caught food-tampering fever. Recent reports indicate that food scientists are busy developing nanoparticle-modified (NM) food that could one day end up on your dinner plate — and you may never even know about it. By shifting around nanoparticles, food scientists say that fat-free foods can taste like full-fat foods, and they can be programmed to digest more slowly–two changes that some say may help reverse the obesity epidemic. But most of this research is going on in secret because of fears over how the public will respond. Like genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), nano-modifying food involves literally changing its molecular properties, which has never been proven safe. So naturally, consumers are likely to reject NM food if given the choice. “These particles could be hazardous and we need to know more about their effects both in the body and in the environment,” said Frans Kampers, coordinator of research on food nanotechnology at Wageningen and Research Center in the Netherlands. “Since these particles are very small, they can…enter cells or even the nucleus of a cell if they have the right characteristics.” The stated goal of nanotechnology research in food is to create foods that behave differently than real ones in terms of digestion, assimilation, taste and nutritional value. By altering the “nano-structure” of food, so to speak, NM food can be programmed to make people feel fuller faster, for instance. And nutrients in food can also be nano-encapsulated to release at timed intervals to specific parts of the body. Even though NM food has yet to see the light day, the European Union (EU) is already taking proactive steps to make sure that, if it does make it to consumers, NM food will at least be regulated and labeled. Thus, the EU has developed a research project called NanoLyse to address the “very limited knowledge [that is] available on the potential impact of engineered nanoparticles on consumers’ health.” Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68E24W20100915

Beta carotene may treat eye disease called retinitis pigmentosa

(NaturalNews) Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is a name for a large group of inherited vision disorders that cause progressive degeneration of the light sensitive membrane that coats the inside of the eye — the retina. For most people with RP, night blindness is the first symptom of the problem. Then side vision goes, resulting in tunnel vision and, eventually, central vision deteriorates. Complete blindness, though uncommon, can occur. Retinitis pigmentosa has long been declared an “incurable” disease by mainstream medicine, although several studies over the past two decades have shown that vitamin A may slow down RP’s progression. However, many doctors balk at prescribing high dose vitamin A because they fear it will result in liver problems. But a report just presented at the recent Scientific Program of the 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) and Middle East-Africa Council of Ophthalmology (MEACO) Joint Meeting held in Chicago has provided new hope for RP sufferers. Researchers have found that the nutrient beta carotene (found abundantly in yellow and orange foods such as carrots and sweet potatoes), which does not carry the liver risks associated with high doses of vitamin A, can improve vision in some people with supposedly incurable RP. Last year, Dr.Ygal Rotenstreich of the Sheba Medical Center’s Goldschleger Eye Research Institute in Tel Hashomer, Israel, published a study in the British Journal of Opthalmology showing that a specific form of the nutrient beta carotene, dubbed 9-cis, was effective in treating people with the eye disease retinal dystrophy which causes night blindness. Because RP usually usually begins in childhood with the first signs of night blindness, Dr. Rotenstreich and his research team decided to see if 9-cis could be helpful in retinitis pigmentosa, too. And it was. In their recent study, one third of the 29 participating RP patients showed marked improvement in visual function while taking the prescribed oral dose of the beta carotene for only 90 days. It will take more research to find out if longer treatment would provide even more effective therapy for RP. “We recommend repeating the study with patients with the genetic forms of RP that would be most likely to respond to oral beta carotene,” Dr. Rotenstreich said in a press statement. “We know its positive effect is associated with retinoid cycle defect, which is involved in some but not all forms of RP. Also, future research should look for the optimal beta carotene dosage.” For more information: http://bjo.bmj.com/content/early/2009/12/01/bjo.2009.167049 http://www.naturalnews.com/beta-carotene.html

Vitamin D proven far better than vaccines at preventing influenza infections

(NaturalNews) If scientists discovered something that worked better than vaccines at preventing influenza, you’d think they would jump all over it, right? After all, isn’t the point to protect children and adults from influenza? A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections in children . The trial appears in the March, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094) The results are from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. In other words, this was a “rigorous” scientific study meeting the gold standard of scientific evidence. In the study, while 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the four month duration of the study, only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This means vitamin D was responsible for an absolute reduction of nearly 8 percent . Flu vaccines, according to the latest scientific evidence, achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html). This means vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children. To further support this, what really needs to be done is a clinical trial directly comparing vitamin D supplements to influenza vaccines with four total groups: Group #1 receives a vitamin D placebo Group #2 receives real vitamin D (2,000 IUs per day) Group #3 receives an influenza vaccine injection Group #4 receives an inert injection Groups 1 and 2 should be randomized and double blind while groups 3 and 4 should also be randomized and double blind. The results would reveal the comparative effectiveness of vitamin D versus influenza vaccines. Unfortunately, such a trial will never be conducted because vaccine pushers already know this trial would show their vaccines to be all but useless. So they won’t subject vaccines to any real science that compares it to vitamin D. Vitamin D also significantly reduced asthma in children Getting back to the study, another fascinating result from the trial is that if you remove those children from the study who were already being given vitamin D by their parents, so that you are only looking at children who started out with no vitamin D supplementation before the trial began, the results look even better as vitamin D reduced relative infection risk by nearly two-thirds . More than six out of ten children who would have normally been infected with influenza, in other words, were protected by vitamin D supplementation. Also revealed in the study: vitamin D strongly suppressed symptoms of asthma . In children with a previous asthma diagnosis, 12 of those receiving no vitamin D experienced asthma attacks. But in the vitamin D group, only 2 children did. While this subset sample size is small, it does offer yet more evidence that vitamin D prevents asthma attacks in children, and this entirely consistent with the previous evidence on vitamin D which shows it to be a powerful nutrient for preventing asthma. Vaccine pushers aren’t followers of real science Now, given that vitamin D3 shows such a powerful effect in preventing influenza — with 800% increased efficacy over vaccines — shouldn’t CDC officials, doctors and health authorities be rushing to recommend vitamin D before flu season arrives? Of course they should. But they won’t. Because for them, it’s not about actually preventing influenza and it never has been. The vaccine pushing camp is primarily interested in using influenza as an excuse to vaccinate more people regardless of whether such vaccines are useful (or safe). Even if vitamin D offered 100% protection against all influenza infections, they still wouldn’t recommend it. Why? Because they flatly don’t believe in nutrition! It runs counter to their med school programming which says that nutrients are useless and only drugs, vaccines and surgery count as real medicine. The vaccine pushers, you see, aren’t followers of real science. You could publish a hundred studies proving how vitamin D is many times more effective than vaccines and they still would never recommend it. They are promoters of medical dogma rather than real solutions for patients. They promote vaccines because… well… that’s what they’ve always promoted, and that’s what their colleagues promote. And how could so many smart people be wrong, anyway? But that’s the history of science: A whole bunch of really smart people turn out to be wrong on a regular basis. That’s usually how science advances, by the way: A new idea challenges an old assumption, and after all the defenders of the old (wrong) idea die off, science manages to inch its way forward against the hoots and heckles of a determined dogmatic resistance. This attitude is blatantly reflected in a quote from Dr John Oxford, a professor of virology at Queen Mary School of Medicine in London, whose reaction to this study was: “This is a timely study. It will be noticed by scientists. It fits in with the seasonal pattern of flu. There is an increasing background of solid science that makes the vitamin D story credible. But this study needs to be replicated. If it is confirmed we might think of giving vitamin D at the same time as we vaccinate.” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7061778.ece) Did you notice his concluding remark? He wasn’t even considering the idea that vitamin D might replace vaccines. Rather, he’s assuming vitamin D only has value if given together with vaccines! You see this in the cancer industry, too, with anti-cancer herbs and nutrients. Any time an anti-cancer nutrient gains some press (which isn’t very often), the cancer doctor will say things like, “Well, this might be useful to give to a patient after chemotherapy…” but never as a replacement for chemo, you see. Many mainstream doctors and medical scientists are simply incapable of thinking outside the very limiting boxes into which their brains have been shoved through years of de-education in medical schools. When they see evidence contrary to what they’ve been taught, they foolishly dismiss it. “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell Medical journals as guardians of ignorance Medical journals largely function not as beacons of scientific truth but as defenders of pseudoscientific dogma . To have your paper published in most journals, your paper must meet the expectations and beliefs of that journal’s editor. Thus, the advancement of scientific knowledge reflected in each journal is limited to the current beliefs of just one person — the editor of that journal. Truly pioneering research that challenges the status quo is almost always rejected. Only papers that confirm the presently-held beliefs of the journal’s editorial staff are accepted for publication. This is one reason why medical science, in particular, advances so slowly. Studies that show vitamin D to be more effective than vaccines will rarely see the light of day in the scientific community. It is to the great credit of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in fact, that it accepted the publication of this paper by Mitsuyoshi Urashima. Most medical journals wouldn’t dare touch it because it questions status quo beliefs about vaccines and influenza. Medical journals, you see, are largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry. And Big Pharma doesn’t want to see any studies lending credibility to vitamins, regardless of their scientific merit. Even if vitamin D could save America billions of dollars in reduced health care costs (which it can, actually), they don’t want vitamin D to receive any scientific backing whatsoever because drug companies can’t patent vitamin D . It’s readily available to everyone for mere pennies a day. In time, it will be recognized as superior to vaccines for seasonal flu, but for now, we must all suffer under the foolish propaganda of an industry that has abandoned science and now worships a needle. Sources for this story include: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.29094v1

FDA censorship of nutritional science threatens health of all Americans

(NaturalNews) Concerned about breast cancer? There are three nutrients that virtually eliminate your risk of the disease, even if you carry “breast cancer genes.” Wondering how to cure arthritis? A combination of four different nutrients virtually eliminates arthritis symptoms. Afraid of diabetes? Five different nutrients, all available right now, can help prevent diabetes for mere pennies a day. And that’s just the beginning… Nutritional cures exist for nearly every major disease, but the FDA doesn’t want you to know about them. So it has censored truthful, scientifically-proven information about these substances in order to keep you ignorant about nutritional cures. Watch my short public service announcement to see more (38 seconds): http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=544BD1D89A151956D37B2A70A55F4BA1 When one U.S. company offering cherry concentrates began linking to government-funded studies that concluded cherries reduce the symptoms of arthritis, they received a threatening letter from the FDA, demanding they remove the links from their website or face “criminal prosecution.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html) Similarly, the FDA went on the attack to censor the truth about walnuts , claiming that “walnuts are unapproved drugs” when they are accompanied by truthful, scientific descriptions about their benefits for heart health (http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/FDA-Says-Walnuts-Are-Illegal-Drugs.htm). Diamond Foods, a distributor of walnuts, posted a collection of peer-reviewed scientific evidence on its website that described the health benefits of walnuts. In return, here’s part of the utterly illogical set of demands Diamond Foods received from the FDA which claim that “walnuts are drugs”… “Based on our review, we have concluded that your walnut products are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR). …Based on claims made on your firm’s website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. …Because of these intended uses, your walnut products are drugs within the meaning of section 201 (g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 321(g)(B)]. Your walnut products are also new drugs under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 321(p)] because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions. Therefore, under section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 355(a)], they may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.” In other words, telling the truth about walnuts turns you into a criminal according to the FDA. And if you tell the scientifically-validated truth about how walnuts can help reduce high cholesterol, that act magically transforms your walnuts into unapproved drugs. And much the same is true when you’re talking about green tea or pomegranates or superfoods . If you dare discuss the health benefits of any food or natural substance while you are selling such items, you will be branded a criminal by the FDA, threatened with criminal prosecution and potentially have your company raided by the FDA along with armed law enforcement agents with guns drawn. Only junk foods are good for you At the same time the FDA is attacking health foods, it openly allows ridiculous health claims on processed dead junk foods. Frito-Lay potato chips, for example, are allowed to carry claims that they are “heart healthy.” So while genuinely health foods like walnuts and pomegranates cannot make health claims, processed dead foods like potato chips may openly carry FDA-approved health claims! Are you following this yet? Real food is bad for you. But junk food is good for you. That’s what the FDA wants you to believe. The FDA, you see, doesn’t want you to learn the truth about healthy foods. This agency wants you to remain as ignorant as possible about the scientifically-validated health benefits of natural foods, supplements and superfoods while allowing you to be inundated with false and misleading health claims on processed dead junk foods like potato chips. And can you guess the point of all this? It’s fairly obvious, isn’t it? The point is to keep Americans in a never-ending state of chronic degenerative disease that will result in a windfall of profits for the drug companies the FDA actually serves. This is why natural food producers aren’t allowed to even link to scientific articles about their foods. The FDA, you see, is in the business of censoring nutritional science . See more in my short video: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=544BD1D89A151956D37B2A70A55F4BA1 Can’t tell the truth about green tea, either On August 30, 2010, the FDA sent warning letters to manufacturers of green tea beverages, warning them about making health claims about green tea. One such beverage made by Canada Dry carried a claim that the drink is “enhanced with 200 mg of antioxidants from green tea and vitamin C.” In its threatening warning letter, the FDA insisted that green tea and vitamin C “are not nutrients with recognized antioxidant activity.” (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPahcLPBLnbdWEyGVIiV9P4en0FQD9I38FIO0) Huh? Vitamin C isn’t an antioxidant? That’s funny, because outside the halls of the FDA offices, vitamin C has antioxidant activity and properties. The laws of chemistry, apparently, are suspended within the FDA’s jurisdiction. All the universal laws of physics cease to exist when the FDA is in charge, and they are instead replaced with the FDA’s distorted opinions of what those laws should actually be. Antioxidants don’t exist. Vitamins are inert substances. Foods contain no medicine. Only pharmaceuticals have biological effects within the human body. These are the far-fetched laws of the universe according to the FDA. In its never-ending march on nutritional science, the FDA also went after Lipton teas , whose website linked to four scientific studies concluding that green tea has a cholesterol-lowering effect. The FDA warned the Lipton company to remove the links, claiming that they were “misleading” and were effectively making claims that Lipton tea could treat a “disease.” But what if green tea really can help prevent a disease and the FDA just doesn’t want you to know about it? That’s actually the case with many plant-based nutrients that have powerful protective effects against disease. But according to the FDA’s official position, there is no such thing as a food, nutrient or supplement that can prevent or treat any disease . Vitamin C doesn’t prevent scurvy. Vitamin D doesn’t prevent rickets. Vitamin B3 doesn’t prevent pellagra, according to the FDA. Vitamins are biologically useless substances unless they’re patented by drug companies in which case they are magically transformed into “therapeutic chemicals” that may be sold to patients at monopoly prices. The FDA actually believes that fresh, unprocessed foods have no health benefits whatsoever. That’s why no health claims are allowed on such things. But dead processed foods like breakfast cereals can prevent disease, according to the FDA. That’s why the agency has allowed such products to carry a multitude of health claims. It’s all part of the FDA’s censorship of science about nutrients, foods and supplements. Rather than promoting real scientific knowledge, the FDA is censoring the science to keep the public as ignorant as possible. In this way, the FDA is an enemy of nutritional literacy because it aims to keep people in the dark about the health benefits of foods, supplements and nutrients. And because nutritional literacy is crucial to the long-term survival of America, the FDA, through its campaign of enforced nutritional illiteracy, is effectively an enemy of America . The agency has already accomplished incalculable harm to America’s population and her economy. And the FDA is just getting warmed up! Now it wants to “step up its enforcement” of so-called “false” food labeling. This is just a cover story to clamp down on truthful health claims the FDA wants to censor. It is through scientific censorship policies like those practiced at the FDA that America may fall to ignorance, disease and medical bankruptcy . The FDA is actually accelerating America’s downfall by isolating people from the nutritional knowledge that could prevent disease, reduce health care costs and save billions of dollars in unnecessary medical costs. For example, can you imagine the cost savings alone if we as a nation could prevent just one percent of all cancers? According to the National Institutes of Health, cancer costs the USA $228.1 billion in 2008. That’s nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars . Now imagine the savings if we could find a miracle nutrient that could reduce all cancers by three-quarters? That would save America $171 billion per year (not to mention saving human lives at the same time). And here’s the good news: Such a nutrient already exists! It’s cheap, safe and readily available. But the American Cancer Society won’t talk about it, the FDA won’t approve it and your doctor almost certainly won’t recommend it. Want to know what it is? Read this article if you don’t already know: http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html How to end the FDA’s reign of ignorance and censorship of nutritional science First off, I highly recommend reading Jonathan Emord’s outstanding book on this subject entitled Global Censorship of Health Information (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0982059531). This is a hugely important book on the subject from one of the industry’s intellectual giants: attorney Jonathan Emord. Secondly, if you’re in the USA, support the Free Speech about Science Act , a new effort to end FDA censorship over truthful, scientifically-validated health claims for vitamins, foods and nutritional supplements. Click the following link to learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_censorship_healing_foods.html Finally, recognize that we are beginning to defeat the FDA in court. In particular, the Alliance for Natural Health recently emerged victorious against the FDA in court over the agency’s effort to censor truthful information about how selenium can reduce your risk of cancer . (http://www.naturalnews.com/028929_FDA_health_claims.html) Now we need more companies to stand up to FDA tyranny and take this rogue agency to court in order to stop its campaign of censorship and oppression against the natural products industry. Just to be clear about what is a valid health claim Just to be clear, in no way am I advocating that natural products companies should be able to just think up whatever health claims they want and emblazon their product packages with such things. We need to insist that health claims be “scientifically validated.” For example, if a cherry company could cite five studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude cherries can help ease the symptoms of arthritis, then it should be perfectly acceptable for that company to place corresponding claims on its packaging: “Cherries have been shown to reduce the symptoms of arthritis.” (With an appropriate citation on its website that points to the qualifying scientific studies.) Almost everyone who believes in common sense would agree that this is a sensible approach to allowing health claims on foods and supplements. Yet the FDA’s position is that foods and supplements are not allowed to carry any health claims — even if such claims are scientifically validated and true! The FDA absurdly insists that no food, no herb, no vitamin and no supplement can possibly have any biological effect on the human body… and if it does, then that magically transforms it into a “drug” requiring $400 million in testing and clinical trials before it can be approved by the FDA. And even then, it would only be available by prescription. Do you see the catch-22 here? It’s sort of like the old “floating witch” test in the witch hunt days: If you float, you’re a witch and you get burned at the stake. If you sink, you die but you are declared innocent. The FDA pulls the same thing with nutritional supplements: If it doesn’t work, then it’s inert and will be tolerated. But if it actually works, then it’s now a “drug” and will be outlawed as an “unapproved drug.” I’m not making this up. This is precisely how the FDA operates at present. It’s a logic trap that I believe has been specifically designed to discredit the entire nutritional supplements industry while promoting the “benefits” of pharmaceuticals — most of which we now know were falsified through pure scientific fraud, by the way. Watch my short video to learn more about FDA censorship: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=544BD1D89A151956D37B2A70A55F4BA1 And share this video with others. Everyone deserves to know the truth about nutrition and health. The FDA cannot keep us all in the dark forever. With your help, we will shine the light of truth on this issue and end the era of nutritional illiteracy that has cost America trillions of dollars and destroyed millions of lives.

Eating well-done meat doubles your risk of developing bladder cancer

(NaturalNews) You may want to think twice about cooking that meat well-done, according to a new study out of the University of Texas. Researchers there have found that charring meat by frying, barbecuing or otherwise heavily cooking it can lead to the formation of cancer-causing chemicals in the meat. The study explains that people who eat well-done meat double their risk of developing bladder cancer when compared to people who eat meat on the rarer end of the spectrum. This is due primarily to the heterocyclic amines (HCAs) that form when meat is cooked at very high heat. Researchers found that three different HCA chemicals form during high-heat cooking that, collectively, raise a person’s cancer risk by more than 250 percent. And in people who are genetically predisposed to developing the disease from the meat, the risk jumps nearly 500 percent. The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified a total of 17 different HCAs that contribute to causing cancer, and prior research has already established that these char-induced chemicals increase pancreatic cancer risk. But now it appears that they contribute to bladder cancer as well. The study sheds further light on the direct correlation between the foods we eat and our overall level of health. “This research reinforces the relationship between diet and cancer,” explained Professor Xifeng Wu, lead author of the study, to the American Association for Cancer Research. The study team made very clear in its report that meat itself is not necessarily the culprit in increasing cancer risk, but rather the intense cooking methods by which it is prepared. And it is not just charred red meat – chicken, pork and even fish cooked heavily may also form cancer-causing HCAs. Researchers did point out, however, that eating red and processed meat can increase one’s risk of developing bowel cancer. But no distinction was made between grass-fed and grain-fed meat and whether or not animal husbandry methods play a role in the health factors of meat, so it is best to investigate this matter for yourself. According to the U.K. Food Standards Agency, keeping meat away from direct flames when barbecuing or grilling it will help to reduce the development of HCAs and lower one’s risk of developing cancer. Slow-cooking meat is another way to inhibit HCS formation. Sources for this story include: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8629358.stm

Avandia fraud explained: Why Big Pharma keeps lying about its drugs (opinion)

(NaturalNews) Sometimes the degree of fraud that takes place in the drug industry is so mind-boggling that it’s hard to determine whether drug regulators and the media are paying attention at all. For the past several months, drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been under scrutiny for tampering with clinical trial data for its diabetes drug, Avandia. Reports show that the company lied about Avandia’s safety in order to get the drug approved and keep it on the market. But despite numerous pieces of credible evidence and witness testimonies that have all come forward — all of which reveal GSK’s deception — an FDA advisory panel is still recommending that Avandia remain on the market. Back in February, a Senate Finance Committee report revealed that not only is Avandia dangerous, but GSK knows this and has deliberately tried to hide this crucial information from the public. The report even goes so far as to openly name the FDA as a culprit in conspiring with GSK (and other drug companies) to deceive the public. (You can read the article I wrote about this report at: http://www.naturalnews.com/028233_GlaxoSmithKline_Avandia.html) Right after this extensive report was released, an FDA advisory panel voted 22 – 1 in favor of keeping the drug on the market. And just a few days ago, another FDA panel did the same thing following official hearings that showed even further that GSK committed fraud in getting Avandia approved. (It has since been revealed that at least one expert on the FDA panel voting for Avandia’s approval was on the take, receiving “speaking fees” from GSK. But no one seems to care about this disturbing fact…) You can read the details of the report at the following link: http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=bcf5aef6-9bc5-45ca-9cab-aadf5df135fa The lies and manipulation of GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceutical companies are notorious for skewing the truth in order to get their next blockbuster drug approved for sale. These companies are vicious, money-hungry, multi-national corporate monsters that will stop at nothing to make an obscene profit, even if it means exposing their customers to harm. It’s one thing for a company that sells, say, televisions, to lie about the quality of its product. Nobody ultimately dies from false claims about a poor quality TV and, if found guilty, the company that produced the TV will likely be held liable for any crimes it committed through deceptive marketing. But when it comes to drug companies that peddle dangerous toxins as medicine, it’s a whole different story. Sadly, Big Pharma is one of the most protected industries on the planet. Big Pharma gets away with murder (literally), and nobody really seems to care. You and I would be hauled off to jail immediately for doing even a small fraction of what Big Pharma does, but when Big Pharma does it, the blinders go up because observers falsely believe that drugs are “science-based”, and that the wonderful drug companies would never do anything to harm us. Such thinking is pure foolishness, of course, especially when you examine the plain facts in the GSK case. Hiding the truth First of all, internal documents reveal that GSK knew about the dangers of Avandia since the early days of its development, but didn’t disclose any of this information to the public or to the FDA. And why would they? The FDA, according to the same reports, has been in collusion with GSK since the beginning to hide the truth, so GSK has had no reason to disclose anything. Think about it. GSK created a diabetes drug that, at its high point, was raking in more than $3 billion a year in profits. GSK spent millions of dollars for research and development of the drug, paid for the clinical trials, and purchased approval from the FDA for the several million dollars it costs to complete the FDA drug application. And GSK did all this knowing full well that the drug causes a substantial increase in the risk of heart attacks and death. With all of this in mind, do you really think that the company is now going to simply own up to the fact that it lied, and willingly agree to have the drug pulled from the market? Truth be told, drug companies like GSK practically never tell the truth. They don’t have to. Even when their racket gets exposed, it all gets glossed over and covered up by the bureaucrats in our government agencies. GSK’s flawed safety studies It’s amazing to me just how many people put their trust in the “safety studies” the drug companies conduct on their own drugs. That such studies are considered credible by anyone just goes to show you that critical thinking skills are severely lacking among both the public and members of the medical profession. Drug companies spend millions of dollars on studies and clinical trials that are designed to show that their drug is safe , and with enough manipulation, they usually get the results they’re looking for. These studies have little or nothing to do with actual science or unbiased inquiry; it’s all about using “pretend science” to produce a result that will allow them to achieve FDA approval. And this scenario is no different in GSK’s trials for Avandia which, according to reports, didn’t properly reflect the inherent dangers of the drug. When challenged about her concerns over the quality of GSK’s safety data for Avandia, Dr. Nancy Geller, a member of the FDA advisory committee and director of the Office of Biostatistics Research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, responded by explaining that clinical trial data is “not [reliable] if you report the wrong follow-up date and not if you withdraw someone from a trial just before their death.” In other words, drug companies change all sorts of things during a trial in order to achieve a desired result (which makes them anything but trustworthy). This includes removing people from the clinical trial right before they die in order to avoid having a death statistic show up in the final data. Oh look, is Mary about to expire? Hurry, kick her out of the testing group before she ruins the safety record of our drug! These are the types of things GSK was doing to hide the truth about Avandia. To call these clinical trials “scientific” is an affront to the entire science community. And yet, somehow, the scientists continue to go along with all this… According to a leaked internal GSK email, study results from a 1999 trial of Avandia that found the drug to be dangerous were intentionally kept “under the radar”. Dr. Martine Freed, a GSK company executive, explained in that same email that none of the data from that particular study should “see the light of day to anyone outside of GSK.” Bloomberg’s BusinessWeek has the full report on the FDA Panel’s evaluation prior to its Wednesday vote: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/641072.html FDA orders GSK to do another trial The funny thing about all this is that, in light of the concerns over GSK’s trial tampering, the FDA actually ordered the company to conduct another trial to reevaluate Avandia’s safety. How this was expected to accomplish anything productive is anyone’s guess, considering that GSK lied about the previous trials. What makes the FDA think that a new trial is going to be beneficial? (But remember, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, and the FDA isn’t anything if not insane…) But that’s the way the game is played between the FDA and Big Pharma. It’s a never-ending circus of so-called investigations and busywork designed to fabricate the results they’re looking for. Nobody asks the tough questions, and nobody ever states the obvious which, in this case, is that GSK committed fraud and must be held criminally responsible. The two entities work hand-in-hand to fulfill an agenda that’s based on greed and nothing more. Science is abandoned from the start. FDA panel refuses to support pulling Avandia from the market, let alone prosecute GSK So after witness testimonies (one of which you can read about here: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-10/ex-regulator-said-to-testify-glaxosmithkline-withheld-study.html ) and a pile of credible evidence presented as part of the mounting case against GSK, an FDA advisory panel voted last Wednesday to recommend that Avandia remain on the market, according to a Wall Street Journal report. Twenty of the 33 members ultimately voted against pulling Avandia from the market, and the FDA is expected to make its final decision about the drug soon, based on this recommendation. You can read the full Wall Street Journal article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100714-712728.html Members of the panel who voted against pulling Avandia from the market explained to reporters that they believe there isn’t strong enough clinical data to show that Avandia is dangerous. But how much more evidence do these panel members need to conclude that there’s a problem? If evidence of falsified study data and reports showing that Avandia is dangerous isn’t enough, it’s difficult to say whether any amount of evidence would ever be enough for these people. According to the BusinessWeek article, the FDA itself even posted official remarks on its website stating that GSK mishandled its earlier Avandia trials, but apparently even that isn’t enough for some of the FDA advisory panel members to put two and two together. It seems that even if GSK came right out tomorrow and admitted that Avandia is dangerous (which the company’s leaked internal emails basically reveal on their own), some members of the FDA advisory panel would argue with the company itself, saying that there’s not enough evidence and that the drug should stay on the market. And what about the potentially 100,000 heart attacks and deaths that may be linked to Avandia? Aw, just sweep that under the rug. Pretend it doesn’t exist. Dead people don’t talk, and they don’t sue corporations either, so that’s nothing to be concerned about. All diabetes drugs are dangerous, Avandia is just more dangerous Oddly enough, the primary issue with Avandia in this case isn’t just that it causes heart attacks or that the company lied about its research, but rather that Avandia trials show the drug appears to be more dangerous than competitor’s drugs like Actos. In fact, the main focus at the hearing was whether or not GSK had falsified study data to make it look as if Avandia isn’t any worse than Actos. In reality, both Actos and Avandia can cause heart failure. They both come from the thiazolidinediones family of diabetes drugs, and they’re both potentially dangerous. In fact, both drugs bear the FDA’s “black box” warning label, which is the agency’s most extreme warning label. So you’ve really got these two drug companies arguing over which of their drugs kills fewer people . And achieving that requires distorting a lot of clinical trials, burying other trials, spreading the money around to FDA panel experts and other similar criminal activities which now seem to typify Big Pharma. What’s now obvious to us all is that GSK lied about the safety of Avandia , and it has harmed untold numbers of people as a result. According to a statistical analysis in the Senate Finance Committee report, more than 83,000 heart attacks have been caused by Avandia. Several hundred people reportedly die every month because of Avandia. So removing Avandia from the market is only a very small part of the equation. True justice will be served when GSK is held criminally responsible for lying to the FDA and deceiving the public. GSK’s greed is harming and killing thousands of people every single year, and regulators are bickering over whether or not Avandia is a little more dangerous than Actos. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. I’ve mentioned this before in previous articles, but there actually is a cure for diabetes, and it doesn’t involve either Avandia or Actos. You won’t hear about it from the mainstream media or the medical industrial complex, but we’ve got some great resources here on NaturalNews that talk all about it, and you can find those at: http://naturalnews.com/diabetes.html The truth is no person needs to take Avandia or Actos . Both drugs are needless, irrelevant and entirely outmoded. Simple foods and nutrition can cure diabetes, especially when tied to small doses of regular physical exercise. Rather than pushing dangerous, deadly drugs onto patients, our nation’s doctors should be well versed in nutrition and exercise physiology. They should be recommending radical changes in the diets of diabetic patients to get them off all refined, dead foods and onto fresh, living foods and superfoods. This is the true answer to our nation’s diabetes pandemic. But of course teaching patients how to take care of their own health never made a dime for Big Pharma. And sending a patient home with the knowledge they need to stay well and avoid hospitals and doctor visits never made any money for the doctors. America’s health system isn’t designed to keep you well, or cure your disease, or even prevent disease. It’s designed to sucker you into a system of pharmaceutical dependency that’s fronted by drug-pushing physicians who for the most part believe that patients have virtually no role in their own health or disease — and only doctors know what they’re talking about. That might carry some weight if the doctors themselves weren’t dying of cancer, heart attacks and strokes — all at a rate much higher than the general public. There are a lot of sick, dying conventional MDs out there. They’re all on pharmaceuticals. They all believe in the “science” of Big Pharma. And they’re all paying for that foolish gullibility with their lives. Don’t you make the same mistake. And just for the record, there are also some really good MDs who don’t buy into Big Pharma’s lies and who actually follow a more holistic, natural lifestyle. If you can find one of those, stick with them! Additional sources for this story include: http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/fda-avandia-panel-member-conflict-uncovered-11568/

First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico as spill cover-up goes Orwellian

(NaturalNews) As CNN is now reporting, the U.S. government has issued a new rule that would make it a felony crime for any journalist, reporter, blogger or photographer to approach any oil cleanup operation, equipment or vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone caught is subject to arrest, a $40,000 fine and prosecution for a federal felony crime. CNN reporter Anderson Cooper says, “A new law passed today, and back by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, … will prevent reporters and photographers from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife just about any place we need to be. By now you’re probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they’re working for because they’re afraid of losing their jobs.” Watch the video clip yourself at NaturalNews.TV: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=203 The rule, of course, is designed to restrict the media’s access to cleanup operations in order to keep images of oil-covered seabirds off the nation’s televisions. With this, the Gulf Coast cleanup operation has now entered a weird Orwellian reality where the news is shaped, censored and controlled by the government in order to prevent the public from learning the truth about what’s really happening in the Gulf. The war is on to control your mind If all this sounds familiar, it’s because the U.S. government uses this same tactic during every war. The first casualty of war, as they say, is the truth. There are lots of war images the government doesn’t want you to see (like military helicopter pilots shooting up Reuters photographers while screaming “Yee-Haw!” over the comm radios), and there are other images they do want you to see (“surgical strike” explosions from “smart” bombs, which makes it seem like the military is doing something useful). So war reporting is carefully monopolized by the government to deliver precisely the images they want you to see while censoring everything else. Now the same Big Brother approach is being used in the Gulf of Mexico: Criminalize journalists, censor the story and try to keep the American people ignorant of what’s really happening. It’s just the latest tactic from a government that no longer even recognizes the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights. Because the very first right is Freedom of Speech , which absolutely includes the right to walk onto a public beach and take photographs of something happening out in the open, on public waters. It is one of the most basic rights of our citizens and our press. But now the Obama administration has stripped away those rights, transforming journalists into criminals. Now, we might expect something like this from Chavez, or Castro or even the communist leaders of China, but here in the United States, we’ve all been promised we lived in “the land of the free.” Obama apparently does not subscribe to that philosophy anymore (if he ever did). So how does criminalizing journalists equate to “land of the free?” It doesn’t, obviously. Forget freedom. (Your government already has.) This is about controlling your mind to make sure you don’t visually see the truth of what the oil industry has done to your oceans, your shorelines and your beaches. This is all about keeping you ignorant with a total media blackout of the real story of what’s happening in the Gulf. The real story, you see, is just too ugly. And the government has fracked up the cleanup effort to such a ridiculous extent that instead of the “transparency” they once promised, they’re now resorting to the threat of arrest for all journalists who try to get close enough to cover the story. Yes, this is happening right now in America. This isn’t a hoax. I know, it sounds more like something you might hear about in Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela or some other nation run by dictators. But now it’s happening right here in the USA. As Anderson Cooper reported on CNN: “Now the government is getting in on the act. Despite what Admiral Thad Allen promised about transparency just nearly a month ago. Thad Allen: “The media will have uninhibited access anywhere we’re doing operations…” Anderson Cooper: The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers, reporters and anyone else from coming with 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on an island surrounded by a boom, you can’t get close enough to take that picture. Shot of oil on beaches with booms? Stay 65 feet away. Pictures of oil-soaked booms uselessly laying in the water because they haven’t been collected like they should? You can’t get close enough to see that. Believe me, that is out there. But you only know that if you get close to it, and now you can’t without permission. Violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges.” See the video yourself at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=203 Welcome to the (censored) club All I can say to CNN is: Welcome to the club! This kind of censorship, intimidation and tyranny has been going on for decades in the field of health, where the Orwellian FDA has treated the entire U.S. public to a nationwide blackout on truthful health information about healing foods and nutritional supplements. CNN has never covered that story, by the way. Most of the mainstream media has, in fact, gone right along with censorship of truthful health information by the FDA and FTC. Now they’re suddenly crying wolf. But where was the media when the FDA was raiding nutritional supplement companies and arresting people who dared to sell healing foods with honest descriptions about how they might help protect your health? The media went right along with the cover-up and never bothered to even tell its viewers a cover-up was taking place. You see, even CNN is willing to tolerate some Orwellian censorship, as long as its advertisers are okay with it. The only reason they’re talking about censorship in the Gulf of Mexico right now is because oil companies don’t influence enough of their advertising budget to yank the story. Censorship is not okay in a free society I like the fact that CNN is finding the courage to speak up now about this censorship in the Gulf, but I wish they wouldn’t stay silent on the other media blackouts in which they have long participated. Media censorship is bad for any nation, and it should be challenged regardless of the topic at hand. When the media is not allowed to report the truth on a subject — any subject! — the nation suffers some loss as a result. Without the light of media scrutiny, corporations and government will get away with unimaginable crimes against both humanity and nature. That’s what’s happening right now in the Gulf of Mexico: A crime against nature . Obama doesn’t want you to see that crime. He’s covering it up to the benefit of BP. He’s keeping you in the dark by threatening reporters and photographers with arrest. How’s that for “total transparency?” The only thing transparent here is that President Barack Obama has violated his own oath of office by refusing to defend the Constitution. By any honest measure, in fact, these actions, which are endorsed by the White House, stand in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. And that means this new censorship rule in the Gulf, which suspends the First Amendment, is unconstitutional. It also means those who decided on this rule are enemies of freedom . They are the ones who should be arrested and hauled off to federal prison, not the CNN reporters who are trying to cover this story. The seeds of tyranny The loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t the only catastrophe taking place here, you see: Now we’re losing our freedoms while our government tries to intentionally blind us all from the truth of what’s happening on our own public beaches. When those who seek truth are branded criminals by the government, it is only a matter of time before that government expands its criminalization labeling to include anyone who disagrees with it. These are the seeds of tyranny , and Obama is planting them at your doorstep right now. What BP did to the Gulf Coast, Obama is now doing to your freedom.

« Previous Page — Next Page »