McDonald’s dumps McMuffin egg supplier after investigation reveals ‘significant’ and ‘serious’ health violations

(NaturalNews) Fast-food giant McDonald’s is once again in the media limelight after it was recently revealed that its West Coast egg supplier has been engaged in “significant and serious violations,” according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). McDonald’s officially ended its relationship with Minnesota-based Sparboe Farms after an undercover investigation exposed severe animal abuse and filthy conditions at the company’s Vincent, Iowa, facility. For years, Sparboe Farms, the fifth-largest factory egg producer in the US, had been the sole supplier of eggs for all McDonald’s restaurants west of the Mississippi River. But after undercover video captured by Mercy for Animals, a Chicago-based animal rights group, went viral, the fast-food chain officially dumped Sparboe as its supplier and issued a public statement about its decision that questioned “the management of Sparboe facilities.” Captured video footage shows factory workers aggressively grabbing chickens by their necks and slamming them in and out of cages, for instance, which is a serious abuse violation. It also shows seemingly endless rows of chicken “battery cages,” where chickens are packed densely in stacked rows of inhumane cages. Chickens that live in such conditions often wallow in their own feces, and some get caught in cage wiring which results in their death. You can watch some of this disturbing footage at the following link: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mcdonalds-dumps-mcmuffin-egg-factory-health-concerns/story?id=14976054 The FDA reportedly issued a company-wide warning letter to Sparboe Farms, which operates a number of other factory hen houses in the Midwest, decrying these and other violations. The agency also cited the company for at least 13 violations of its new federal egg rule, which was enacted following the massive egg recall saga from last year (http://www.naturalnews.com/029539_salmonella_eggs.html). Corporate retailer Target, which had also sold Sparboe Farms eggs at its Super Target stores, recently pulled all the company’s eggs from store shelves following the release of the damaging footage. Like McDonald’s, Target expressed surprise at the findings, and took the position that it was unaware of the “unacceptable conditions in the company’s egg laying facilities.” Neither McDonald’s nor Target has indicated who they will choose as their new egg suppliers. But because of the nature of their business models, both companies will likely just choose other factory egg suppliers that utilize many of the same inhumane and filthy chicken raising methods — in other words, consumers can expect more of the same. Sources for this article include: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mcdonalds-dumps-mcmuffin-egg-factory-health-concerns/story?id=14976054

Monsanto partners with USAID to push GM corn in Nepal

(NaturalNews) The southeast Asian country of Nepal is once again having to fight against foreign interests that are trying to take over its agricultural system. Biotechnology giant Monsanto apparently has its sights set on bringing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to this sliver of a country just north of India, and it is allegedly working with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a so-called humanitarian group, and officials in Nepal to make it happen. USAID issued a statement on Sept. 13, 2011, saying that it had partnered with Nepal’s Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoACs) and Monsanto to “promote hybrid maize (corn) seeds among 20,000 farmers of Chitwan, Nawalparasi and Kavre districts and provide training to them.” Media across Nepal quickly picked up on the story, and massive public outcry ensued. GMOs are not widely cultivated in Nepal, and the country has always taken a very cautious approach to adopting them. In fact, when it was discovered that some GMO ingredients had potentially already contaminated the nation’s food supply back in 2003, government officials quickly made precautionary recommendations at the time to require GMO labeling on all food items. But with multinational corporations and the US government working overtime to force GM corn on Nepali farmers, Nepal appears to be getting pushed to the brink of no return. Though Nepal still imports some of its corn from elsewhere, the country is having no problems with the conventional, organic, and heirloom varieties it currently cultivates, and has no need whatsoever for GM varieties. Since the controversy erupted, Nepali officials have reportedly backed off from the plan. Hari Dahal, joint secretary at MoACs, told reporters recently that his agency had “no idea why USAID issued the statements saying that the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives was partnering with Monsanto” because “no agreement had been signed.” USAID was a little more ambiguous about whether or not MoACs was specifically involved in the matter, but the agency did make it very clear that it is working with Monsanto to promote GMOs around the world, including in Nepal. And based on the way Monsanto continues to thrust GMOs on the people of India just to the south, there is no doubt that the biotech giant is doing the same thing to people of Nepal as we speak. Sources for this article include: http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2011/11/8/Nation/18676 http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90064942?Monsanto%20focus%20of%20controversy%20in%20Nepal%20over%20hybrid%20maize

Was Andy Rooney killed by his surgery?

(NaturalNews) The infamous media writer Andy Rooney died last week after undergoing surgery for an undisclosed, but reportedly minor, condition. Though he was 92 years old, Rooney was not known to be sick prior to this minor surgery — but somehow the medical procedure went awry, which resulted in the rapid demise of the often-controversial 60 Minutes commentator. Whether you loved him or hated him, it is undeniable that Andy Rooney had become a type of American media legend. And while many of those paying tribute to his life after his passing have a lot of good things to say about him, one glaring segment that is missing from such reports concerns the circumstances surrounding his mysterious death. Why did an otherwise healthy man suddenly die after being admitted to the hospital for a minor surgery? What were the “major complications” that arose following this minor surgery, and how were they able to progress so badly that they ended up killing him? Throughout the past several years, NaturalNews has covered the many celebrities and other prominent figures that have died from things like prescription drug overdoses and conventional treatments for serious conditions like cancer. In many of these cases, their cause of death could be traced back to the treatment rather than the disease. While nobody knows for sure why Andy Rooney went in for surgery, it is clear from media reports that the issue was minor and not life threatening. And even though nobody in the media seems all that concerned with investigating the incident further, it is also clear that something went terribly wrong during Rooney’s surgery that ended up killing him. Rooney was very private with his personal life and medical history, which is perhaps why the media is leaving the surgery issue alone. But it only seems right that the issue be addressed — after all, if there was some type of medical malpractice involved, does not the world deserve to know the truth? A 2010 study published in the British Journal of Surgery found that roughly 25 percent of patients end up in worse shape after surgery than they were before surgery (http://www.naturalnews.com/030839_surgery_patients.html). And another more recent study out of Harvard University found that many surgeries performed on seniors are unnecessary, and they often correspond with increased mortality (http://www.naturalnews.com/034013_hospital_profits_Medicare.html). Was Rooney the victim of a conventional medical procedure that was dangerous and unnecessary for a man of his age? Sources for this article include: http://news.yahoo.com/andy-rooney-wry-60-minutes-commentator-dies-133038061.html http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/26/entertainment/la-et-quick-20111026

Truth comes out: 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic ‘deaths’ of children were actually caused by MRSA

(NaturalNews) Remember two years ago when every news show featured hysterical reports about the so-called H1N1 pandemic and how the supposed killer flu was striking down healthy kids? True, many previously healthy children became critically ill, developing severe pneumonia and respiratory failure. And some tragically died after being diagnosed with H1N1. But was that really the accurate explanation of what caused their death? According to the largest nationwide investigation to date of the flu in children who became critically ill, scientists from Children’s Hospital Boston have found another reason to explain the severity of the youngsters illness. It turns out that it most likely wasn’t H1N1 alone that caused healthy children to become so ill many died. Instead, these kids were unknowingly infected with something else. That additional infection, the superbug known as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) , spiked the risk for flu-related deaths 8-fold in children who were otherwise believed to be totally healthy before they became ill. Almost all of these children who were found to be infected with the superbug were immediately treated with vancomycin, considered to be best treatment for MRSA. Yet they died despite being administered this powerful antibiotic and their deaths were blamed on the flu . But the new research suggests it was the MRSA that played a huge role in killing these children. “There’s more risk for MRSA to become invasive in the presence of flu or other viruses,” study leader Adrienne Randolph, MD, MsC, of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Children’s Hospital Boston. Said in a statement to the media. “These deaths in co-infected children are a warning sign.” He added this is especially alarming given the rising rates of MRSA infections being carried widely among children. “It is not common in the U.S. to lose a previously healthy child to pneumonia,” Randolph said. “Unfortunately, these children had necrotizing pneumonia eating away at their tissue and killing off whole areas of the lung. They looked like immunocompromised patients in the way MRSA went through their body. It’s not that flu alone can’t kill – it can – but in most cases children with flu alone survived.” MRSA risk continues to spread Sixty percent of the youngsters investigated for the new study already had sometimes serious health problems before contracting the flu. But of the 251 children (30 percent) previously healthy children included in the research, the only risk factor that was identified which likely contributed to their increased risk of dying was a diagnosis of a MRSA infection in the lung. The researchers expressed surprise that the antibiotic used to treat the MRSA-infected children didn’t work and suggested the drug couldn’t penetrate the lungs or the disease moved too rapidly. Recent studies have shown a worrisome rise in the number of youngsters who are carriers of MRSA. A 2010 study published in Pediatrics found that the number of children hospitalized for MRSA infections increased from 2 in 1,000 admissions in 1999 to 21 in 1,000 admissions by 2008. The cause appears to be the never-ending and growing use of antibiotics in people and animals. “The more antibiotics we take, the more we colonize ourselves with antibiotic-resistant organisms such as MRSA,” Randolph noted. Curiously, the researchers are not emphasizing going after the cause and spread of MRSA infections as much as they are using their findings to push for flu shots. Their study, just published in the journal Pediatrics , promotes flu vaccination among all children aged 6 months and older. Sources for this article include: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/current http://www.childrenshospital.org/newsroom/Site1339/mainpageS1339P1.html

How the medical monopoly hides inconvenient vaccine truths

(NaturalNews) Carl Bernstein, one of the journalists of Watergate fame, once cautioned that what isn’t printed in the news is as harmful as inaccurate reporting. Lately, much of the mainstream media has indulged in malicious omission. The lack of true vaccination reportage is worse now than before, but it goes back to the beginning of vaccinations. Vaccination news history “At present, intelligent people do not have their children vaccinated. The result is not, as the Jennerians claimed, the extermination of the human race by smallpox; on the contrary more people are now killed by vaccination than by smallpox.” George Bernard Shaw (August 9, 1944, Irish Times ) Has any contemporary write up of the famous playwright included this quote? Of course not. That could open up a can of public relation worms for the vaccine industry. Media control is highly valued by Big Pharma and other monopolistic cartels. Since the 1970s, centralized media ownership, CIA intervention, and federally sanctioned pharmaceutical advertising have made owning the media easier for Big Pharma. The first episode of ownership control to exclude vaccination horror stories was accomplished by the JP Morgan/Rockefeller syndicate circa 1900. They purchased Encyclopedia Britannica and had all negative vaccination reportage removed. Prior to that, there were four major health disasters from smallpox vaccinations during the late 1800s, ranging from large leprosy outbreaks to hundreds of deaths. The Rockefellers have been the major impetus for the monolithic monopoly of allopathic medicine and Big Pharma, starting with funding medical schools, the AMA, and replacing herbal remedies with petrochemical based pharmaceuticals. Muzzle and marginalize The most recent outrage of media slander to protect the vaccine industry concerned Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Two UK medical journals and the London Sunday Times were involved with that. All three publications had conflicts of financial interest with vaccine manufacturers. The Wakefield incident was carried out with the successful strategy of attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the science questioned. This influences the general public’s capacity for the comforting illusion of establishing authority and focus on gossip. While under attack, defending oneself just seems to make it worse if the media excludes the essential facts. And that is just where the media excels, excluding factual data. From 1900 to now, several reports have been buried that demonstrated vaccination dangers with little or no vaccine efficacy. (vactruth, source below) If the bearers of uncomfortable truth are MDs or dentists, first muzzle them with medical or dental board harassment and remove their licenses to practice. This puts them off limits as accessible media experts, and makes it easier to marginalize them now that they have been considered unqualified practitioners or quacks. Meanwhile, the truth suffers, and so do millions of vaccinated believers of medical authority. Another recent victim of muzzle and marginalize the messenger without taking up the issue presented, is Canadian medical scientist Andrew Moulden, PhD. Essentially, Moulden’s message is, even without toxic additives, vaccinations are dangerous, period. The intentionally created immune system’s overreaction from vaccinations result in normally imperceptible mini-strokes, which incur greater or lesser degrees of brain damage that accumulate as vaccinations are increased. According to Moulden, some adverse reactions are large and immediate. But long term gradual damage from vaccinations is inevitable unless intense natural remedies or life style changes are undertaken. What totally removed this author’s slight but nagging doubt of Moulden’s authenticity was the fact that he was posted as “Quack of the Day” on a site that had also included doctors Russell Blaylock, Sherry Tenpenny, and Andrew Wakefield. Thanks for removing all doubts, Quackbusters. You included Moulden in this author’s pedestal of praiseworthy MDs who dare speak out from within. Sources for this article include: http://vactruth.com/2011/10/25/20-vaccination-trivia-facts/ http://vactruth.com/2011/10/10/medical-ethics-vaccines-gone-awry/ http://www.vacfacts.info/www.tolerancelost.com http://www.vacfacts.info/MD_Vaccine_Warranty.html http://peopleforfreedom.com/new-world-order-news/vaccine-dangers/dr-andrew-moulden-interview-what-you-were-never-told-about-vaccines/ http://rawfed.com/vax/50things.html

Media pushes ‘success’ of experimental GSK malaria vaccine while ignoring deadly side effects

(NaturalNews) The mainstream media is abuzz with excitement over GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) latest offering, a malaria trial vaccine that the company claims can cut the risk of clinical and severe malaria in children by 56 percent and 47 percent, respectively. But what GSK and the media are failing to report are the deadly side effects that may accompany the vaccine. Unveiled at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s recent Malaria Forum conference in Seattle, Wash., the results of the Phase III African study on the malaria vaccine, known as RTS,S, suggest that children who receive three doses of it can derive additional protection against malaria when used in conjunction with other disease control methods. But the findings also show that vaccinated children are at a high risk of serious injury or death as well. A report by EarthTimes explains that the full gamut of long term side effects associated with RTS,S will not be known until at least the end of 2014. It also states that “serious adverse events (very serious side effects) for [RTS,S] are around the same level as in those who were given a control drug” (http://www.earthtimes.org/health/malaria-vaccine-closer-succesful-trial/1527/). But what exactly was the control drug, and what are these “same level” side effects? A quick look at the study results, which have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine , explain that children in the “control” group received a “non-malaria comparator vaccine” (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1102287). Those five to 17 months of age got a rabies vaccine (VeroRab, Sanofi-Pasteur), and younger children six to 12 weeks of age received a meningococcal serogroup C conjugate vaccine (Menjugate, Novartis). Both of these vaccines carry with them their own list of side effects, which means they really do not qualify as a legitimate study of “controls.” But hardly anyone is paying much attention to this because they are too busy lauding praise on GSK for developing the vaccine and allegedly expecting to make no profit from it. It all sounds so wonderful and humanitarian, but the fact of the matter is that nearly 18 percent of children in the older vaccinated group suffered serious adverse events from the vaccine, while more than 13 percent in the youngest group suffered the same. And more than 150 children from both groups died during the study (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1102287#t=articleResults). And since very little is known about how the vaccine affects fertility, neurological function, bodily organs, immunity, and many other aspects of health and well-being in the long term, it is hardly a time to be celebrating. Sources for this article include: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/18/malaria-vaccine-gsk-idUSL5E7LI4O020111018

Women endangered by high rate of false-positive mammograms

(NaturalNews) According to mainstream medicine, mammograms are the key to surviving breast cancer because they supposedly catch the disease early for quick treatment. What this advice invariably leaves out is evidence that exposure to the radiation used in the tests may actually cause breast cancer in some women. For example, a study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) concluded annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to the disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/027641_mammograms_breast_cancer.html#ixzz1arooKmoK). Now there’s another reason to be concerned about the push for women to have yearly mammograms. In a new study by University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) research shows that among women who receive a decade of annual mammograms, more than half of those women will be called and told the gut-wrenching news that their tests are positive when they are actually cancer-free. The victims of false-positive results — not a malignancy — are then subjected to more tests. In fact, one in twelve of these women will undergo invasive, potentially breast-scarring biopsy surgery. “This study provides accurate estimates of the risk of a false-positive mammography and breast biopsy for women undergoing repeat mammography in community practice, and so provides important information about the potential harms of undergoing regular mammography,” states Karla Kerlikowske, a professor of medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine. Karla is also the co-author of the study, which was just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine . False-positive mammogram results are rampant The research, led by Group Health Research Institute of Seattle for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, investigated false-positives in mammography by studying the records of approximately 170,000 women between the ages of 40 and 59 from seven regions around the United States. Almost 4,500 of these research subjects were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The study found that women who started having mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 were far more likely to have false-positive findings that resulted in more expensive and needless medical tests, including biopsies. Just by changing breast screening from every year to every other year, the researchers documented that a woman’s risk of having a false-positive finding dropped from 61 percent to 42 percent (about a third) over the course of ten years. What’s more, they found that if radiologists would simply review a patient’s previous mammograms it “may halve the odds of a false-positive recall.” The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines now recommend biennial mammograms starting at age 50 and continuing until age 74. However, many doctors still recommend annual mammograms, often beginning at age 40. The new study concluded that after a decade of yearly screening, a majority of women will receive at least one false-positive result. Out of these, 7 to 9 percent will face having a biopsy and the risks that involves — from anesthesia complications to scarring to infection — although these women are, in fact, cancer-free. And what about the argument that yearly mammograms are needed to catch cancer early enough to cure? The researchers found that women screened every two years were not significantly more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage cancer. “We conducted this study to help women know what to expect when they get regular mammograms over the course of many years,” study leader Rebecca Hubbard, PhD, an assistant investigator at Group Health Research Institute, explained in the media statement. “We hope that if women know what to expect with screening, they’ll feel less anxiety if – or when – they are called back for more testing. In the vast majority of cases, this does not mean they have cancer.” Sources for this article include: http://www.ucsf.edu/news http://www.annals.org/ http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html

Susan G. Komen for the Cure openly denies science by claiming BPA exposure has no connection to breast cancer, insists chemical is safe

(NaturalNews) The breast cancer research group Susan G. Komen for the Cure seems more interested in keeping its chemical industry donors happy than it is in actually finding a cure for breast cancer. A recent story in Mother Jones explains that, despite the more than 130 scientific studies that demonstrate a clear connection between bisphenol-A (BPA) exposure and breast cancer, the group continues to deny any link between the two, and insists that BPA is safe. Seemingly countless studies in recent years have shown that BPA, which is found in plastics, can liners, store receipts, and other consumer products, is linked to breast cancer and other diseases. The European Union (EU), Canada, and some localized areas of the US have all banned the chemical in baby products for this very reason. Even the US President’s Cancer Panel in its 2010 report explains that BPA exposure can cause breast cancer, cause breast cancer cells to proliferate, and even make healthy cells act like cancer cells (http://www.naturalnews.com/028765_environmental_chemicals_cancer.html) But Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which collectively receives millions of dollars every year from companies like the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, General Mills, and Georgia-Pacific, all of which use BPA in their product materials, claims that BPA is safe. The group even makes the absurd statement on its website in defense of BPA that “[l]inks between plastics and cancer are often reported by the media and in email hoaxes.” Such a ridiculous statement makes a little bit more sense, though, when considering that donor Georgia-Pacific’s parent company, Koch Industries, is a major manufacturer of BPA-laden epoxy resins. Manufacturing giant 3M, another major Komen for the Cure donor, is also a member of the American Chemistry Council, a trade association that claims BPA is safe as well. In a telephone interview with Mother Jones , University of Missouri biology professor and BPA export Dr. Frederick vom Saal reportedly told the magazine that Komen for the Cure’s statements concerning BPA demonstrate “significant ignorance.” That a foundation, whose stated goal is to find a cure for cancer, would make such a claim is “astounding,” he added. Komen for the Cure continues to lie to women about the nature of breast cancer Komen for the Cure is notorious for denying a link between any chemical exposure and breast cancer, fueling instead the myth that most cases of breast cancer are inherited. In reality, less than ten percent of breast cancer cases have a hereditary link, while the more than 90 percent of other cases have a definitive environmental link — but Komen for the Cure apparently could not care less about the truth. The sad reality is that the Komen Foundation, which is supported by millions of highly-driven individuals who believe the group is working in the best interests of women, continues to expose itself as nothing but a pseudo-scientific, fraudulent research group. The organization’s continual denial of sound science in favor of its own baseless opinion on the matter shows that another agenda is at work — and it is one that, by all appearances, has no basis in actually curing or preventing breast cancer. Sources for this article include: http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/09/breast-cancer-komen-bpa

BPA exposure before birth linked to breast cancer

(NaturalNews) To many people interested in healthy living, the term BPA is nothing new. It stands for bisphenol A, an industrial chemical used in many hard plastic bottles and metal-based food and beverage cans since the 1960s. A known hormone disruptor, BPA is hard to avoid. But once you learn about its dangers, you know why it’s worth the effort to look for BPA-free products. For example, NaturalNews has carried story after story about evidence that links BPA to all sorts of serious health problems from cancer, kidney and developmental problems to heart disease and diabetes (http://www.naturalnews.com/024207_BPA_health_plastics.html#ixzz1ZfCMqUyV). Now there’s breaking research news showing how BPA could be doing harm inside the bodies of babies even before they are born. Another modern day plague is also associated with prenatal BPA exposure — breast cancer. A recent study conducted by scientists at the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research found that exposure in the womb to the kinds of BPA doses that are widespread in the environment alters long-term hormone response in females. The study, which is set for publication in Molecular Endocrinology , a journal of the Endocrine Society, shows BPA can cause dangerous changes in breast development that increase the odds of developing cancer. The scientists pointed out in a media statement that although their BPA study used animals, it mimicked the exposure humans typically have to the compound as it leaches from BPA-containing plastics, such as beverage bottles, and the lining of tin cans. The research team added the chemical to the drinking water of breeding mice. Then, after weaning, the female mice from BPA-drinking parents were moved to a BPA-free environment and followed over time. The researchers analyzed changes in the mammary glands of female offspring exposed to BPA through their mothers both before birth and while being breast fed and discovered BPA exposed females showed an increased response to the hormone progesterone. This is a crucial point because lifetime exposure to progesterone is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. What’s more, the researchers found that adult females who had been exposed to BPA while in the womb and breast fed had a 1.5 fold increase in cell numbers in their milk ducts. They may not sound like such a big deal but consider this: it is comparable to what’s seen with similar exposure to diethyllbestrol (DES), another estrogenic compound. And DES, widely prescribed by mainstream doctors to millions of pregnant U.S. women for over 30 years as a “safe” treatment to prevent miscarriages, was eventually found to cause horrific health problems in later life to the children of those women. A lesson from the DES nightmare Although DES use was halted in l971, health problems continue to haunt, and sometimes kill, the children of the women who took the drug, including many who had no idea their mothers were given the dangerous “miscarriage treatment.” In general, women whose mothers took DES reached their young adulthood before problems started showing up — including the inability to have children due to a misshapen uterus and cancer. According to the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research scientists, DES in the human population has been shown to increase the relative risk of women developing breast cancer two-fold by the time they reach their fifties. BPA, unlike DES, is not a prescribed drug that can be taken off the market. It is already widespread and is now detected in body fluids of more than 90 percent of the human population — which means it could be putting far more people at risk for health problems than even the large numbers exposed to DES. Long known to have estrogen-like properties, many scientists have expressed concern exposure to BPA could have developmental effects on various hormone-responsive organs including the breasts. However, the FDA has continued to “study” the problem and do little to actually protect the public from BPA. In fact, the feds have been far more aggressive going after people selling unpasteurized milk than mega corporations manufacturing and selling BPA loaded products. The latest official statement from the US government this year noted that “On the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children. In cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research is carrying out in-depth studies to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties about the risks of BPA.” That’s right. The FDA only has “some” concern and they are waiting on the completion of other studies before taking a meaningful stand on the safety of BPA — as if there were not already multiple studies completed by numerous scientists providing evidence that BPA is a clear and present risk to the human population. “While we cannot extrapolate these results directly from mice to humans, the possibility that some of the increase in breast cancer incidence observed over the past decades may be attributed to exposure to BPA cannot be dismissed,” Cathrin Brisken, MD, of the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research and co-author of the study, said in a statement to the media. “Our study suggests that pregnant and breastfeeding mothers should avoid exposure to BPA as it may affect their daughters breast tissue.” [Editor's Note: NaturalNews is strongly against the use of all forms of animal testing. We fully support implementation of humane medical experimentation that promotes the health and wellbeing of all living creatures.] Sources for this article include: http://mend.endojournals.org/ http://www.endo-society.org/ http://www.naturalnews.com/BPA.html http://www.naturalnews.com/024207_BPA_health_plastics.html http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/DES

Occupy Wall Street, the American revolution that the mainstream media is ignoring

(NaturalNews) Right now in New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, and a growing number of other cities, tens of thousands of protestors of all stripes and political persuasions are marching in protest of the corporate corruption that has infiltrated and taken control of the US government — and the mainstream media (MSM), of course, has been virtually absent in covering this massive and escalating demonstration against the current state of US politics. The ongoing demonstrations, which are part of a new movement called Occupy Wall Street (OWS), have already resulted in numerous cases of violent police abuses, the shutting down of the Brooklyn Bridge, and even the voluntary arrival of members of the US armed forces who have reportedly come to help protest and protect protestors from attacks by local law enforcement. Most Americans still have no idea that the protests, which officially began on September 17, 2011, are even taking place, though, because the MSM has been too busy focusing on the next presidential election cycle and other safe, pre-planned news segments. But the events are getting so large and disruptive that the media will be unable to ignore them for too much longer. While not everybody involved in the OWS movement is necessarily fighting against totalitarian government and for true freedom and liberty — InfoWars explains that many protestors are actually demanding bigger government and higher taxes as a solution (http://www.infowars.com/occupy-wall-street-protesters-call-totalitarian-government-re-election-of-obama/) — some of the protestors do appear to understand that big government is the problem, and not the answer. But regardless of what the protestors believe as a whole, they still have every right to peacefully gather and protest without being abused by their own government. And unfortunately many protestors’ constitutional rights have been violated, as early reports and video clips that spread like wildfire on YouTube showed police pepper spraying protestors and aggressively arresting individuals for no apparent reason (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/sep/28/occupy-wall-street-anthony-bologna). Then on Saturday, a group of US Army and Marine troops reportedly traveled to New York to help support the movement and offer protection for protestors against police abuse. One Army serviceman by the name of Ward Reilly posted a message on Facebook on his way to the protests saying, “I didn’t fight for Wall St. I fought for America. Now it’s Congress’ turn,” a sentiment apparently shared by the other servicemen veterans traveling to protest locations (http://antinewworldorderparty.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/the-marines-are-coming-to-protect-the-protestors-of-occupy-wall-street/). Throughout the week, we will be covering the day-to-day happenings associated with OWS that the MSM is ignoring, so stay tuned for more updates. You can also watch a live feed of the OWS events in New York City at the following link: http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

« Previous Page — Next Page »