Is natural gas ‘fracking’ responsible for the recent earthquake swarms in strange locations?

(NaturalNews) The natural gas industry and its advocates claim that hydraulic fracturing, the modern technique for extracting natural gas, also known as “fracking,” is beneficial to the interests of American energy independence. However, a simple report recently issued by KARK 4 News in Little Rock, Ark., suggests that fracking operations, which involve pumping large amounts of water and chemicals deep underground, may be responsible for triggering the mysterious earthquakes that have been striking in unusual locations across the nation in recent months. One of at least 14 US states where fracking operations are currently active, Arkansas is not exactly the most seismically active region in the US. Though the state sits near the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), a fault that is considered to have the highest earthquake risk outside the West Coast, the area typically only experiences a few small shakes in an average month, with larger ones occurring on an even more sporadic basis. However, the area around Greenbrier, Ark., had experienced an unusually high frequency of small-to-mid sized earthquakes in recent months — that is, until several local fracking operations ceased operations. While fracking was still taking place in the area, it was common to experience hundreds of earthquakes in an average month. But now that all fracking wells have been closed, the earth surrounding them has calmed significantly. During one three-week period when fracking was still occurring in the Greenbrier area, for instance, the Arkansas Geological Survey (AGS) recorded an astounding 919 earthquakes. After the first two fracking fluid disposal wells were closed, earthquake frequency dropped to 312. And following the closure of all four wells, the number or earthquakes that occurred dropped to a mere nine, none of which clocked in above a 2.5 magnitude. Similarly, some have suggested that fracking operations in Pennsylvania may have been at least partially responsible for the recent 5.8 magnitude earthquake that struck near the unusual location of Mineral, Va., on August 23, 2011 (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Did-Fracking-Cause-the-Vir-by-Dr-Stuart-Jeanne-B-110823-993.html). There will, of course, always be natural earthquakes that occur without the help of man-made intervention. But in this case, it appears as though a modern technology that pumps millions of gallons of toxic fluids deep into the earth’s upper crust may be helping to jostle things a little bit more than usual. Sources for this story include: http://arkansasmatters.com/news-fulltext?nxd_id=461097 http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states http://www.opednews.com/articles/Did-Fracking-Cause-the-Vir-by-Dr-Stuart-Jeanne-B-110823-993.html

Heartworm drugs for pets; Big Pharma’s cash cow

(NaturalNews) In a seemingly diabolical plot, veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies have teamed up in a marketing campaign to frighten pet guardians into giving year-round heartworm preventatives to their cats, as well as dogs. These so-called experts say they’re doing this to improve protection for individual pets, but the facts say their motives may be less pure. With few exceptions, heartworms (Dirofilaria immitis) are a completely seasonal problem, so there is no reason to give heartworm medicine to ANY pet year-round-except to make money for those who make and sell it! Those financially-motivated folks say the number of cases will rise unless everybody gives the medications. They rationalize this by citing statistics on how most people don’t use the products, and proclaiming that the number of unprotected dogs will surely cause even more disease. However, despite years of many animals being given unnecessary drugs and many more who aren’t, the prevalance of heartworm has not really changed. In fact, a recent headline in a veterinary publication trumpeted, “Heartworm now found in all 50 states”–as if it was a triumph! While that statement may be technically true, the survey did not differentiate between all dogs testing positive for heartworm, and dogs testing positive for heartworm that came from somewhere else! The increase in positive-testing dogs may be attributable to the widespread dispersion of heartworm-infected dogs after Hurricane Katrina, rather than a true increase in the level of disease. Heartworms are transmitted by mosquitoes. Heartworm larvae, called microfilaria, live in the blood and are sucked up by the bug. Once inside the mosquito, they must further develop before they can infect another dog. For that to occur, outside temperatures must remain above 57 degrees F, day and night, for a certain period of time (but at least 8 days). The warmer the temperature, the faster the larvae will mature. If the temperature drops below the critical level, larval development will stop, but the larvae don’t die, development will re-start at the same point when the weather warms back up. Larvae reach their infective stage in 8 to 30 days (the latter being the insect’s entire lifespan-if the larvae haven’t matured by then, they will die along with the mosquito). It should be obvious that during seasons and in areas where there are no mosquitoes, there is no risk of heartworm. Evidently that little fact escaped the attention of the veterinarian who prescribed heartworm protection — in December-for a puppy living high in the Colorado mountains. At that altitude, temperatures are never warm enough for heartworms! On this map, heartworm risk is shown by the month when the use of heartworm preventatives should begin. In most states, protection should be continued through November or December. In the Michigan UP, preventatives are suggested from August through October. Within 150 miles of the Gulf Coast and other areas in pink, prevention is recommended from April through January. In the red areas of southern Texas and Florida, year-round preventatives may be needed. Local conditions may vary from year to year. Global warming, hurricanes/flooding, and other factors may increase the mosquito population and thus influence heartworm risk. (This map is a very loose approximation only, and is not intended to be used exclusively to determine risk.) http://www.naturalnews.com/images/US-Heartworm-Map-1.jpg When an infected mosquito bites a dog or cat, the microfilaria are deposited on the skin, where they then crawl into the bite wound and enter the bloodstream. Inside the body, they grow and progress through other larval forms. In dogs, the heartworm’s natural host, larvae migrate to the heart and eventually develop into adult worms. In cats, full-grown worms can develop (but not reproduce). A cat cannot transmit the disease. Adult heartworms are over a foot long when grown (in 6-8 months), but it takes only 1 or 2 to fill up a cat’s tiny heart and cause serious problems. However, in 80% of infections, the cat’s own immune system kills the larvae at an earlier stage, and clears the infection. However, heartworms don’t have to be full-grown to cause problems. In cats, a respiratory condition can develop. Not-quite-full-grown microfilaria can get stuck small blood vessels in the lungs, where they can cause significant inflammation and damage. This uniquely feline condition is called Heartworm Associated Respiratory Disease, or HARD. Symptoms are similar to asthma; and it’s possible that some “asthmatic” cats are misdiagnosed with an immune-mediated disease instead of a parasite. Even so, about half of infected cats never develop any signs of heartworm disease at all. And while the disease causes serious damage to the lungs, much of the damage may be reversible by the body’s normal healing processes. Chronic and sequential infections have not been studied. Indoor cats are, of course, less likely to be bitten by a mosquito, but anyone who’s ever been around them knows that the little buggers can be quite persistent, so it isn’t impossible. In one study, 25% of heartworm-positive cats were reported to be indoors-only. Outdoor cats are at higher risk not only for heartworm but also for feline leukemia, feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV or feline AIDS), and all the other parasites, injuries, and diseases common to outdoor cats. However, keeping all pets indoors during prime mosquito-feeding time (late afternoon an evening) will greatly reduce the risk of a bite. Heartworm preventative drugs do not kill adult heartworms, but they do kill microfilaria up to a certain stage of development. Currently it is believed that larvae under 6 weeks old are affected. This means that in order to prevent heartworms from reaching adulthood, the preventative can be given up to 6 weeks after the mosquito bite occurs, and still work. The recommendation is to give the drugs every 30 days, purportedly because once-a-month dosing is easier for most people to remember (and, coincidentally, it also sells more drugs!). The most common preventative drugs for heartworm are ivermectin (Heartgard) and selamectin (Revolution). While these drugs are generally considered “safe and effective” at the low doses used for heartworm prevention, there are always exceptions. Signs of toxicity associated with ivermectin include: depression, ataxia (balance problems or unsteady walk), and blindness. Selamectin is also used to treat ear mites and some intestinal worms; adverse reactions include hair loss at the site of application, diarrhea, vomiting, muscle tremors, anorexia, lethargy, salivation, rapid breathing, and contact allergy. Most veterinarians hand out heartworm preventatives like candy; but there is a serious and growing problem of resistance of heartworms to these drugs. This means that we are selecting for “superworms” that will be able to survive and grow even in animals on heartworm preventatives (despite Big Pet Pharma’s denials that this is happening). As with all cases of drug resistance, the correct response is to reduce use of the drug and reserve it only for when it is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, the veterinary profession and drug industries have decided to go for profits instead, and are continuing to call for all pets to be on medications all year round. This is bad science, and it is bad policy. The Big Pet Pharma folks are very protective of the income from heartworm drugs, and will apparently stop at nothing to increase profits. Merial, maker of the popular heartworm preventative Heartgard, was repeatedly warned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to stop exaggerating the effectiveness of the product (which has been declining for at least a decade). Moreover, a fired Merial executive filed suit against Merial, claiming that the company deliberately lied for years, not only about the product’s effectiveness, but also the true number and severity of adverse events. Pfizer’s Animal Health division alone, which makes the heartworm preventative Revolution as well as vaccines and other animal drugs, is valued at $10 billion to $16 billion (and may soon be sold to Merial or another competitor!). If you feel you must use heartworm prevention products, get them from your veterinarian. Surveys have found mislabeled, expired, imported, and counterfeit products being sold from other sources. Follow dosage instructions and do not over-treat. NEVER, EVER use a heartworm product made for dogs on a cat. The components are different between dog and cat products, and dog products can kill a cat in a matter of hours. Many cats have suffered and died this way.

Survey: Many women shoppers avoid OTC drugs, seek natural alternatives

(NaturalNews) A recent study conducted by The Hartman Group on behalf of Boiron, a global manufacturer of homeopathic medicines, has found that 82 percent of women shoppers ages 25-70 try to avoid buying traditional over-the-counter (OTC) medications that treat conditions like headaches and influenza. According to the survey, such women simply do not think such drugs are good for them or their families, and many would rather try natural, healthy alternatives like homeopathy. More than 1,400 women participated in the online survey, which found that 42 percent of women consider the purity and healthfulness of medicines highly important. Thirty-one percent of the women also said they pay close attention to both chemical and “irritant” content when choosing OTC medicines. Interestingly, only 15 percent of respondents indicated that they had actually ever used a homeopathic remedy. Fourteen percent said they had given homeopathic remedies to their children within the year prior to the survey, but he vast majority of participants said they simply did not know enough about homeopathy and had thus never considered it. But at least 33 percent, after being given a quick summary of the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy, said they would be interested in trying it. Though the survey was prompted by a company that sells homeopathic remedies, it offers an important insight into the purveyance of knowledge in the U.S. concerning illness treatments. Drug companies freely promote and market OTC medicines as if they are the only option available to address illness symptoms, also falsely purporting that such medicines are perfectly safe. Homeopathy, though virtually untouched by the mainstream media as being a safe and effective alternative to relieving various pain symptoms, is effective at treating a host of illnesses including ear infections, morning sickness, diarrhea, nausea, insomnia, insect stings, snake bites, allergies, influenza, colds, and many other conditions (http://www.naturalnews.com/homeopathic_remedies.html). Sources for this story include: http://www.multivu.com/players/English/45775-Boiron-Oscillococcinum/links/45775-UPDATED-Press-Release.pdf

Scientists say higher vitamin D intake will slash cancer, MS, and diabetes risk by half

(NaturalNews) In findings just published in the journal Anticancer Research , scientists at the University of California (UC) San Diego School of Medicine and Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha have reported that most people need a much higher intake of vitamin D. And that simple step added to your life could slash your risk of developing serious diseases — including cancer — by about 50 percent. The new study involved a survey of several thousand volunteers who took supplements containing 1000 to 10,000 IU per day. The researchers ran blood tests to measure the level of 25-vitamin D, which is the form of almost all vitamin D circulating in the bloodstream. “We found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4000 to 8000 IU are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of several diseases — breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis, and type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Cedric Garland, professor of family and preventive medicine at UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, said in a statement to media. He added that the amount of vitamin D needed for disease prevention is far higher than the minimal dosage of 400 IU per day that was originally prescribed in the 20th century to treat and prevent rickets. However, upping vitamin D intake into the 4000 IU daily range and higher appears to be safe, according to a December 2010 report from the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. “Most scientists who are actively working with vitamin D now believe that 40 to 60 ng/ml is the appropriate target concentration of 25-vitamin D in the blood for preventing the major vitamin D-deficiency related diseases, and have joined in a letter on this topic,” Dr. Garland stated. “Unfortunately, according to a recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, only 10 percent of the US population has levels in this range, mainly people who work outdoors.” Robert P. Heaney, MD, of Creighton University, a distinguished biomedical scientist, said he was not surprised by the new study’s results based on his decades of research into the health benefits of vitamin D. “Now is the time for virtually everyone to take more vitamin D to help prevent some major types of cancer, several other serious illnesses, and fractures,” Dr. Heaney said a statement to the press. For more information: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx http://www.naturalnews.com/vitamin_d.html

Monsanto voted Most Evil Corporation of the Year by NaturalNews readers

(NaturalNews) After taking nominations for the Most Evil Corporation of the Year survey from our readers, we hosted an online survey that allowed readers to vote on this question. Over 16,000 readers voted in our online survey from January 5 through 9, 2011. Astonishingly, fifty-one percent of all votes went to Monsanto as the Most Evil Corporation of the year. This means Monsanto wins the top prize by a huge margin. Taking second place was the Federal Reserve , with twenty percent of the votes. This is especially intriguing because it means that NaturalNews are well informed about the fact that the Federal Reserve is not a government entity but rather a corporate entity that serves the profit interests of the global banking cartel. The other corporations included in the survey (along with their vote results) are: British Petroleum 9% Halliburton 5% McDonalds 3% Pfizer 2% Merck 2% Wal-Mart 2% Nestle 1% Other 7% (Note: The total slightly exceeds 100% due to rounding on the part of the survey host.) Why is Monsanto considered so evil? The results of this survey beg the question: Why is Monsanto considered so evil, to the point where it garnered a full 51 percent of the vote? The first and most obvious answer to that question may be that people who dislike Monsanto tend to be NaturalNews readers. There is undoubtedly a self-selection trend in this survey. But even among those readers who are into natural health, green living, organic foods and the like, why would Monsanto stand out above British Petroleum, for example, which caused enormous damage to the Gulf Coast in 2010? The answer, I suspect, is that Monsanto behaves like an evil corporation that pretends to be angelic . The Monsanto website is an orgy of touchy-feely corporate spin that tries to position the company as the savior of life on planet Earth. For example, the Monsanto website hosts the “Monsanto pledge” which contains the following sickening claims: (http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/monsanto-pledge.aspx) Integrity Integrity is the foundation for all that we do. Integrity includes honesty, decency, consistency, and courage. Sharing We will share knowledge and technology to advance scientific understanding, to improve agriculture and the environment, to improve crops, and to help farmers in developing countries. To anyone who knows anything about Monsanto, these words must strike them as particularly nauseous. For a company that thrives on GMO seeds and is an aggressive opponent of open-pollinated seeds to talk about “sharing knowledge” and “helping farmers” is enough to make you quite literally vomit. (Try to avoid splattering your keyboard.) Monsanto’s pledge continues: Respect We will respect the religious, cultural, and ethical concerns of people throughout the world. The safety of our employees, the communities where we operate, our customers, consumers, and the environment will be our highest priority. Given that Monsanto’s GMO crops are now linked to roughly 200,000 suicides of farmers and farm workers in India (http://www.naturalnews.com/030913_Monsanto_suicides.html), you really have to wonder where this “respecting the cultural concerns of people” line could possibly come from. A corporate mental patient Touring the official Monsanto website, in fact, is a lot like walking through the mind of a madman whose self delusion has reached the point of complete psychosis. Monsanto runs around the world operating much like a mental patient, albeit a mental patient with a tremendous amount of political clout and economic power. And to oppose Monsanto is to put yourself at great risk. Just ask all the politicians in France and across Europe who found themselves being added to a “retaliatory target list” that was assembled by the United States ambassador to France, working in conspiracy with the leaders of the GMO industry (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html). A lot of corporations are greedy (Goldman Sachs). Many are downright criminal (Big Pharma). But only a few corporations rise to the title of being considered truly and irreversibly evil . That’s where Monsanto apparently takes the top prize. Oh, and by the way, this isn’t the first time Monsanto has received top honors. Forbes Magazine gave Monsanto its “Company of the Year Award” in 2009. And that tells you just about everything you need to know about the values of Forbes Magazine, too. Never let planetary health stand in the way of a quarterly profit! I wish to thank NaturalNews readers for participating in this survey. If you’d like to read more about Monsanto and GMOs, here are some additional resources: http://www.NaturalNews.com/Monsanto.html http://www.naturalnews.com/NoGMO.html http://ResponsibleTechnology.org http://GMwatch.org And check out these video interviews about Jeffrey Smith and GMOs: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1CEBCDBFDBCA99DC51D879432CE0A095 http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=6AA5B0B23388CC6BF58D015A58DDB15C http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=FB1D657147C997F4D505E9344E660F3C http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BD7C0101ACF38050E113D0A1A10C8C88

The most evil corporation of the year? Vote now on NaturalNews

(NaturalNews) Which corporation deserves to win the “Most Evil Corporation of the Year” award for 2010? NaturalNews readers can voice their views on this question by voting in our online survey (below). The candidates for the “Most Evil Corporation of the Year” award include Monsanto, Pfizer, the Federal Reserve, British Petroleum and more (see below). Only one vote is allowed per user. After you vote, you will immediately see the current survey results in real time. Here’s the survey: We will announce the winner here on NaturalNews. Thank you for your participation!

Sacred Chocolate bon-bon truffles are topped with rose petals, mango powder and even 24 carat gold

(NaturalNews) I don’t know where to begin with these Sacred Chocolate “Truth Truffles.” They’re made by the Sacred Chocolate company (www.SacredChocolate.com) which was founded by Sacred Steve — a guy with a lot of fans in the raw food and healthy living communities. He’s a super energetic, brilliant man with a truly out-of-this-world grasp of the artistry of making what are arguably the world’s finest chocolates (just check out the truly astonishing descriptions below if you don’t believe me… these read like fine French cuisine). When I received a sample of his Truth Truffle bon-bons, I couldn’t believe what I was seeing: This box of nine chocolate truffle bon-bons was priced at $38.00, or over four dollars for each truffle. The first thought that struck me was, “Who is going to pay four dollars for a chocolate truffle?” So I started asking around. The answers floored me and taught me a thing or two about peoples’ relationship with food… Fine chocolate that’s out of this world It turns out that fine chocolate is a lot like fine coffee or fine wine . Those who really appreciate the finest chocolates will give you an earful about how the subtleties of the cacao tastes fulfill their senses and deliver an extraordinary chocolate experience. And once you’ve had really, really good chocolate, you can never go back to plain chocolate. At least that’s what they tell me. I’m not a regular consumer of fine wines or fine chocolates, as I tend to focus more on nutritional density that taste subtleties. So I frankly didn’t know what to expect from these Sacred Chocolate Truth Truffle bon-bons. Nevertheless, I saved these for several weeks while asking people about their chocolate experiences, and I came to gain a deeper understanding of peoples’ relationship with chocolate — especially from women. Many women, it turns out, have an almost spiritual relationship with chocolate . This is no exaggeration, and it may help explain why the name of the active ingredient in cacao — theobromine — has the same Latin root as the word theology which means “the study of God.” Women prefer chocolate to sex? Lest you think I’m making this up, check out this survey from a food company (http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/love-sex/sorry-boys-most-women-prefer-chocolate-to-sex-2444716.html) which reveals that one-third of women dream about chocolate during the day while only 18 percent think about sex. For men, it’s the inverse: 60 percent of men think about sex during the day while only 11 percent think about chocolate. There’s something else: This same survey says that more than 20 percent of women would be willing to give up their sex lives rather than give up eating chocolate! Getting back to the Sacred Chocolate truffle bon-bons, I finally began to understand why people love them so much: If they really deliver this kind of satisfaction, many women would surely find them preferable to men . Plus, unlike a man, these chocolates stay put when you don’t need them, they don’t spend money on fast cars and heavy shop tools, and they’re always ready to go when you are. And when you want the best of the best in the world of fine chocolate, there’s truly nothing quite like Sacred Chocolate, which is why we now carry a nine-piece Truth Truffle bon-bon gift box for $38. One of the truffles is topped with 24-carat gold! (I didn’t know whether to eat it or toss it in a vault…) Click here to get this totally unique and RARE nine-piece gourmet chocolate gift box. (There are also several smaller, two-truffle gift packs available for nine dollars each.) This makes an amazing gift for anyone special in your life, and it contains what is certainly the most unique and complex chocolate flavors you’ve probably ever encountered. You get one of each of these luscious flavors: (seriously, this reads like the menu of a fine French restaurant…) Sacred Fire Dark – Chocolate ganache smoldering with ancho, morita, guajilo, pasillo, and chipotle chilies ignited by black pepper, cinnamon adorned with 24 carat gold. Yellow Tara – The Buddhist goddess of wealth, good fortune, and abundance inspired this bold, curry infused truffle. Covered with a heavy dusting of golden sun-ripened mango powder. Tangerina – A luscious citrus dark chocolate ganache infused with tangerine and orange oils, dusted with a stripe of Mineola tangola zest. A classic combination revisited. Purple Rose – The beautiful and fragrant roses of Kew Gardens and the wild purple sage of Marin County, California, inspired this very unique and royal truffle. Dark chocolate ganache infused with rose, purple sage. Adorned with a delicate pink rose petal. Cheeky Monkey – Dark chocolate ganache with caramelized banana, topped with crushed pecan and salt. Ajaya – The goddess of love entices by fusing dark chocolate ganache with lemon grass ginger, Balinese long pepper, and topped with lime zest. Lavendar Blue – Dark chocolate, wild blueberry and lavender ganache relaxes and refreshes. Adorned with fragrant lavender petals. Ixcacao (eesh-ka-cow) – Named in honor of the cacao goddess, Ixcacao infuses Peruvian Maca and Mesquite. Topped with Ocumare cacao nibs. Arctic Chi – The temperature plummets with dark chocolate ganache infused with peppermint, spearmint, wintergreen, tarragon. Topped with shavings of cacao butter. Jubilee Cherries – Bing and Rainier. Folded into dark chocolate ganache. Topped with sweet and plump sun dried cherry. Click here to get some at the NaturalNews Store. INGREDIENTS : Mylk Chocolate Shell: *Cacao Butter, *Cacao Nibs, *Maple Sugar, *Coconut Sugar, *Coconut, *Whole Cacao Beans with SKINS, *Vanilla Bean. *ORGANIC — WILDCRAFTED 100% Organic, *Organic, Wildcrafted • Dairy/Gluten/Soy FREE. • Certified Organic Ingredients by Weight: Truffle Certification in Process • Cacao Content of the shell: 83% • Produced in a Facility that also Processes Nuts. Produced below 115 Degrees Fahrenheit. Enjoy this chocolate! And share it with someone who’s really, really special!

Omega-3 fatty acids prevent and may reverse gum disease naturally

(NaturalNews) Periodontitis is an extremely common, and often painful, inflammatory disease of the gums. It causes tissue to separate from teeth, resulting in the accumulation of bacteria and potential bone and tooth loss. Mainstream medicine typically treats the chronic disease with strong antibiotics, vigorous mechanical scraping of the teeth and even surgically cutting away diseased gum tissue. But a new study just published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association shows there’s a natural way to not only prevent and also treat periodontitis — consume polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), especially the omega-3s found in cold water fish like salmon and certain nuts. Researchers from Harvard Medical School, the Harvard School of Public Health and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center pointed out that PUFAs such as those found in fish oil and some nuts are known to have anti-inflammatory properties and that could explain some of their power in fighting gum disease. Bottom line: the scientists discovered that the higher the intake of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly those known as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), the lower the incidence of periodontitis in the US population. “To date, the treatment of periodontitis has primarily involved mechanical cleaning and local antibiotic application. Thus, a dietary therapy, if effective, might be a less expensive and safer method for the prevention and treatment of periodontitis,” Asghar Z. Naqvi, MPH, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center’s Department of Medicine said in a press statement. “Given the evidence indicating a role for omega-3 fatty acids in other chronic inflammatory conditions, it is possible that treating periodontitis with omega-3 fatty acids could have the added benefit of preventing other chronic diseases associated with inflammation, including stroke as well.” Naqvi and his team studied data from over 9,000 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The research participants all received dental examinations between 1999 and 2004 and also kept track of their diets and use of supplements such as fish oil. The NHANES study collected extensive demographic, ethnic, educational and socioeconomic data, as well. That permitted the researchers to see if there were any other factors that might cloud the results. Overall, about 8.2 percent of the research subjects had periodontitis — but for those with the highest consumption of DHA, there was a 20 percent reduction in gum disease. Participants with a higher consumption of EPA had a slightly smaller reduction in gum disease. According to Elizabeth Krall Kaye, PhD, a professor in Boston University’s Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, who wrote an editorial which accompanied the periodontitis study, a major finding of the new research is the fact significantly reduced odds of periodontal disease were achieved in people who only consumed very modest amounts DHA and EPA. That raises the question of whether higher, optimal doses of omega-3s might have an even more dramatic protective and therapeutic effect. The new study backs up similar findings in animals. For example, earlier this year, University of Kentucky scientists also found that relatively low doses of omega-3s put the brakes on the growth of gum disease-causing bacteria in mice. That was the first study that clearly showed omega-3s appear to have a direct anti-bacterial effect on oral pathogens. For more information: http://www.naturalnews.com/fish_oils.html http://www.adajournal.org/

Poll: 96 percent of travelers changing plans due to new airport scanning, pat-down procedures

(NaturalNews) U.S. airports just got a whole lot more invasive with recent announcements by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that new “enhanced” pat-down procedures will become the norm for travelers who opt out of complying with full-body naked imaging scans. But a recent Reuters poll shows that, as of this writing, an astounding 96 percent of travelers plan to make alternate travel plans to avoid this gross invasion of privacy. Over 73,000 people have responded to the survey thus far, and although it is a simple internet poll, it speaks volumes about how people feel about the new procedures. And over the past several months, these procedures have gotten progressively worse, as the pat-downs have morphed into a form of full-blown sexual assault. When the naked body scanners first came on the scene earlier this year, NaturalNews covered the fact that these machines bombard the body with a heavy dose of ionizing radiation, which is extremely harmful to health. They also capture a completely nude X-ray scan of people’s bodies that can be stored on TSA computers or transferred to other devices at agents’ discretion (http://www.naturalnews.com/029378_full_body_scanners_images.html). But passengers who choose to opt out of the full-body scan must alternately undergo an invasive pat-down procedure, which has become more “thorough” in recent weeks. What began as a back-handed swipe has devolved into mandated hand and finger groping, with numerous reports of TSA agents literally groping and fondling travelers’ genitals, including those of small children (http://www.naturalnews.com/030351_TSA_airport_security.html). Many travelers are so fed up with this clear violation of their rights that they simply plan to avoid flying altogether. And many of those that are still flying are deliberately and visibly making a ruckus in security lines, threatening to sue TSA agents or have them arrested for assault (http://www.kvia.com/news/25832331/detail.html). Sources for this story include: http://blogs.reuters.com/ask/2010/11/12/are-new-security-screenings-affecting-your-decision-to-fly/

Votes opposing GMOs crash The Economist poll website

(NaturalNews) Last week we published a story urging our readers to vote NO on the GMO / biotech survey being hosted by The Economist (http://www.naturalnews.com/030370_GMO_biotech.html). Within two hours after our post went live and people started sharing it on Facebook and elsewhere, the Economist’s poll servers crashed hard and stayed offline for the entire weekend. Before this happened, we were winning the vote, of course. Word had spread among the natural health community, and we all began calling for people to vote. Right after we published our article, NO votes from readers all around the world started to flood in, and we saw the survey begin to shift even more strongly in our favor. Had The Economist’s servers actually been able to handle the voting, I have no doubt the final vote would have been 70% against GMOs and 30% in favor. But as it stood, with their servers offline, the voting was halted at 62% no and 38% yes. Still a victory against the idea of GMOs, of course, but nowhere near the numbers that should have been recorded. The Economist explains their server problem “We had a technical problem with our site,” explains Tom Standage, the Digital Editor for the magazine. “During the last few days of the debate the address of the staging server was circulated on a number of environmental mailing lists, and on Twitter. This caused a sudden flood of “no” votes on the staging server, causing the underlying database to collapse because it was not load-balanced. That’s why we’ve been unable to announce the vote in the usual way. Instead, we have taken the votes from both servers and have added them up to calculate the final tally: 38% yes, 62% no. …Now you know what happened and why the voting tallies appeared to be behaving so oddly. We apologise for the confusion.” (http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/11/economist_debates) When the masses revolt against biotech… The interesting part about this is found in the observation of what happens when the masses take action to protest their foods and seeds being poisoned by corporations . This mass online uprising took down The Economist’s servers in about two hours. (Most NaturalNews readers never even got a chance to vote.) And this was after many days of the so-called “science bloggers” trying desperately to win the vote even before we found out about it. If you think an online survey crashing from the sheer weight of opposition to GMOs is bad, just wait until there’s a global crop failure caused by the unintended consequences of GMOs and the people suffer mass starvation as a result. If that scenario unfolds, you might see a mass violent uprising that could very well involve people marching on Monsanto’s headquarters and quite literally burning it down out of anger and frustration. When you mess with nature and deprive people of their right to seeds, crops and food, you’d better be willing to face some rather serious consequences. When corporations like Monsanto are playing God with the food supply, they’re also playing God with people’s lives. And if something goes terribly wrong that leads to a collapse in one or more food crops, I have a feeling the public isn’t going to be very forgiving. I wouldn’t want to be a Monsanto executive in the aftermath of such a scenario, that’s for sure… The Economist Despite the glitches, it’s good to know the Economist wasn’t engaged in outright cheating on this survey. We’ve seen lots of cheating before. There were times in the past when NaturalNews readers were actually winning a survey, and the outfit running the survey would simply take it down, remove all the votes they didn’t like, and put it back online with wildly different numbers. (A lot of online surveys are rigged from the start, which is why we normally don’t even participate in them.) We’ve seen cases where the science bloggers actually tried to intentionally falsify votes in our favor in order to try to make it look like we were cheating, and then they would protest that we were cheating! Note to the desperate scientism flaks: We don’t need to cheat. We already represent the majority opinion on these matters, and we reach millions of people who oppose GMOs, who oppose water fluoridation, who oppose mandatory vaccines and who value truth and knowledge over corporate-sponsored ignorance and quackery. Today’s “scientism” followers (the cult worshippers who call themselves “science bloggers”) don’t value life, knowledge or truth. For some astonishing reason, they pick the most evil side of every issue . On the issue of GMOs, for example, they automatically side with Monsanto and DuPont, calling for more biotech Frankenseed interventions that threaten the very future of life on our planet. On the issue of Big Pharma and the mass-drugging of world citizens with patented synthetic chemicals, the science bloggers of course side with the drug companies! Big Pharma and the FDA can do no wrong in their eyes, and the solution to health is, they say, found in prescribing more chemicals to more people! If these people were living back in the 1950′s, they would no doubt side with Big Tobacco , because the “science” at that time said cigarettes were actually good for you! The Journal of the American Medical Association, by the way, actually used to run full-page advertisements for cigarettes. And they were endorsed by doctors and scientists, too. (http://www.naturalnews.com/index-Badvertising.html) Gee, no wonder they keep losing all the legitimate polls and surveys. Does anyone still believe that modern medicine is working? Does anyone really think that the answer to the problems facing human civilization is to be found in more chemicals, more genetic alterations, more playing God with nature and more corporate control over our food, medicine, genes and ideas? (The science bloggers, by the way, also support corporate ownership of human genes, 20% of which are right now patented by corporations and universities. This is an affront to natural law and a crime against humanity…) Science bloggers, by the way, do not actually represent science . They worship a cult called “scientism” that pushes a corporate agenda which seeks to concentrate power in the hands of the few while denying food, freedom and health to the people. This is the whole point about Monsanto being granted patents on seeds and even animals. It’s also the whole point behind Senate Bill 510, which seeks to outlaw seed saving so that even a backyard gardener who tries to save her own seeds from a tomato plant could be arrested and imprisoned for doing so. (If you want to control the world, just control the seeds. That’s what Monsanto is working towards, and the science bloggers are fully in support of this dark agenda…) With issues like these, the future of our world is at stake. Sooner or later, the People are going to rise up and defend their futures against corporate domination and the Cult of Scientism. Today’s poll results with The Economist are merely a small taste of things to come. If you think overloading and (inadvertently) crashing one website survey is bad, just wait until the masses figure out how badly they’ve really been screwed by the corporate agenda to own and control their food, their seeds, their medicine and their futures. When the public wakes up to that, don’t stand in their way.

Next Page »