25 February 2010



We are told that polio has been ‘beaten’ in most countries by a vaccine when all they have done is given the symptoms other names. Staggering, yes, but true

The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out On Sunday

All these scams and others caused the official figures for polio to fall dramatically and the credit was given to the vaccine when, in truth, cases of infantile paralysis were actually growing rapidly – doubling between 1957 and 1959.
Dr Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina, told a Congressional hearing in 1962 that infantile paralysis cases had increased after the introduction of the vaccine by 50 per cent from 1957 to 1958, and by 80 per cent from 1958 to 1959.
Infantile paralysis is today known as Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) and while America has been declared ‘polio free’ many thousands every year contract Acute Flaccid Paralysis – polio under another name.
Also there are thousands of cases a year in the United States of Guillian-Barré syndrome (re-designated polio) and the same with aseptic meningitis (re-designated polio). Then there are the thousands in America alone every year who contract a condition known as ‘West Nile Fever’ which can cause ‘a polio-like syndrome with paralysis and impaired breathing’.
The pre-1957 definition of polio would today be recording many more cases than were seen during the epidemics of the 1950s which were supposed to have been eradicated by a vaccine that doesn’t work, not least because polio is not caused by a virus – it is caused by pesticides and other toxins.

Same symptoms – different name.


Technorati Tags: ,,

Published in: on February 28, 2010 at 5:16 pm  Leave a Comment  

Find the Healthy Answer to Full Body Airport Scanners

February 27, 2010 by: Christopher Babayode , citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) While governments and aviation authorities the world over contrive to increase the dose of ionizing radiation travelers are exposed to by installing full body backscatter scanners, the real question we should concern ourselves with is how do we protect our health in the face of the inevitable.

Make no mistake about it, they will be installed and we will be subjected to these searches whether we like it or not. This imposition follows the precedent set after the terror attacks of 9/11. The infringement of civil liberties is nothing new in these times and shouldn’t come as a surprise especially as most nations have declared a war on terror.

Supporters of the scanners will probably tell you that this measure is taken with everyone’s safety in mind. They will also tell you that the doses of radiation used in the backscatter technology are within safe limits. What they won’t tell you is that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation. The effects of exposure to radiation are cumulative. Increased and repeated exposure accumulates in the body and continues to damage tissue and organs.

Safe dose theorists have been shown to be mistaken by the work of the late Dr John Gofman (the considered expert on radiation) who is quoted as saying "there is no dose of radiation below which the risk of malignancy is nil". This being the case you should make every effort to avoid additional exposure wherever you can. With the inevitable looming on the horizon what are reasonable steps you can take to minimize this health debilitating measure?

First and foremost get educated and grow an awareness of the potential sources of radiation you are exposed to in the manner by which you live your life. If you think you are at particular risk get professional help or at the very least get yourself a Geiger counter and minimize your exposure as best you can. Remember exposure is cumulative so all exposure adds up and affects your health.

Secondly get a nutrient dense eating plan in place. Ionizing radioactive particles are somewhat opportunistic. Some of them bear similar resemblances to regular nutrients found in our diets. If you are lacking these in your regular diet you increase the chance that your body will absorb the radioactive counterparts in their absence.

Supplement and cover all bases. Start an advised and considered supplementation program; make sure you get the vital nutrients YOU need. Your biochemical individuality is a key expression of the way you function to remain optimally balanced and healthy. Support your needs through understanding your unique requirements.

Supplement with Alginic acid. Alginate as it is otherwise called has the ability to draw radiation out of the body better than most other substances. Adding alginate to your diet is one of the best things you can do to protect yourself and continually remove absorbed radiation from your internal environment. The best source of alginate is raw seaweed; use it in salads and soups to maintain its health protective properties.

Radiation whether ionizing or non ionizing is a natural phenomenon and has been with us from the very beginning of time; what’s changed is our ability to withstand its negative effects on our physiology. All fliers are subject to increased doses of radiation exposure because the atmosphere lets in more ionizing radiation the further away you fly from the earth’s surface. The more you fly and the more you surround yourself with modern technology dependent on radiation, the more you should consider a comprehensive protection program to guard against radiation and jet lag.
Radiation & Human Health
– Dr John W. Gofman.
Fighting Radiation & Chemical Pollutants with Foods Herbs and Vitamins
– Dr Steve R. Schechter
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Radiation Basics Homepage http://www.epa.gov/radiation/unders…

Published in: on February 28, 2010 at 3:24 pm  Leave a Comment  

More doctors prefer the AK-Vaccine-47 rifle by Merck

February 20, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger


(NaturalNews) This parody cartoon grew out of the idea that vaccines are "shots" that are being increasingly forced upon children and teens. At times, these vaccines are enforced at gunpoint or with the presence of vicious guard dogs — as happened in Maryland two years ago when a court judge ordered thousands of parents to bring their children to court for vaccination or face gunpoint arrest and possible jail time. (http://www.naturalnews.com/022267.html)

Most modern vaccinations are, of course, a form of chemical violence against children. If they were all formulated without chemical preservatives (like thimerosal) and dangerous adjuvants (which can harm the nervous system), that might be a different story. But far too many of today’s vaccines are chemical concoctions that are entirely unnatural to the human body. To force them into the bodies of innocent children is an act of medical violence.

The method of introducing the vaccines is unnatural and highly interventionist: These chemicals and DNA / RNA fragments are injected directly into the tissues and blood, bypassing the skin (a normal protective defense) and bypassing the digestive system, too. An injected mandatory vaccine dumps foreign material directly into the bloodstream of children without the consent of either the child or the parents — that’s what qualifies mandatory vaccines as "chemical violence" against children…

Technorati Tags: ,,

Published in: on February 22, 2010 at 12:16 pm  Leave a Comment  

Why Does Mainstream Medicine Attack Colloidal Silver?

By Tony Isaacs on 02/19/2010

Prior to the advent of patentable and more profitable antibiotics, medicines containing silver were the most widely prescribed infection fighters by doctors and there were no fewer than 34 different approved prescription and over the counter medications which contained silver. Now, after the elimination of most large particle and silver nitrate products and after improved technology has made nano-sized particles that require far less parts per million, colloidal silver proponents claim that it is safer and more effective than ever. At the same time, however, it has become the subject of increasing attacks by mainstream medicine, which labels colloidal silver as a scam, as quackery and as a dangerous substance with no proven value.

     When it is pointed out that colloidal and nano-silver are used by NASA, Potters for Peace, the Hong Kong Subway System, Cure-Aid, and major hospital burn units, the detractors often concede that perhaps it works externally; however, they maintain that when it is taken internally it causes dangerous toxicity due to silver build-up. In a familiar refrain when it comes to silver and other alternatives to mainstream drugs, it is also claimed that colloidal silver taken internally has no "scientifically" proven benefits. One of the most widely publicized warnings is that colloidal silver causes people to turn blue due to a skin condition known as argyria.

     Yet, the EPA says that 90-95% of ingested silver particles are eliminated from the body within two days and 99% are gone within a week (1). Furthermore, the bluest of the blue people, "Papa Smurf" Paul Karason was given a clean bill of health at Mount Sinai Hospital. (2) Karason, like the Montana senator who has bluish skin, did not actually take colloidal silver. Instead, he took large quantities of home-made ionic silver made with tap water and contaminated with salt for a prolonged period of time.

     When it comes to scientific studies regarding the benefits of internal silver, last year it was reported that researchers in Hungary found specific silver receptors on human tissue – an indication that silver plays an important role in human health. (3) A joint study between the University of Texas and Mexico University published in the Journal of Nanotechnology showed that silver nano-particles of sizes 1-10nm attached to HIV-1 prevented the virus from bonding to host cells. (4)

     Another study, conducted by the Department of Microbiology at Kyungpook National University in Daegu, Korea, and published in the prestigious Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, found that nano-silver was comparable in effectiveness to Amphotericin B, one of the most powerful prescription antifungal drugs known to man, which is often used intravenously to cure serious systemic fungal infections. The same study also found that nan-silver was superior to the well-known anti-fungal drug fluconazole (popularly known as Diflucan). (5)

     In a recently completed study conducted by researchers from the Washington University School of Medicine and the University of Akron, Ohio, and presented at the 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society, researchers infected a group of mice with the bacteria Pseudomona aeroginosa. Psuedomona aeroginosa is a common cause of bacterial pneumonia in humans, especially those on ventilators, those with cystic fibrosis or those with compromised immune systems. Once infected, all the mice then inhaled aerosolized nano-particles once per day. In half of the mice, these particles contained antimicrobial particles known as silver carbene complexes (SCCs).

    Mice that inhaled the SCCs had significantly lower concentrations of bacteria in their lungs than mice inhaling placebo nano-particles. Most significantly, none of the mice in the SCC group died, while all the mice in the control group did. (6)

     Were all those doctors who prescribed silver products and the scientists who conducted the studies liars, scammers and/or quacks? Or could it be that mainstream medicine and its advocates are attacking colloidal silver because it really does represent a threat to the hundreds of billions in profits from patented drugs?

     Meanwhile millions of people around the world are taking colloidal silver and reporting cures of pneumonia, staph, candida, MRSA, Chrohns, Lyme, the H1N1 flu, and much more.

Sources Included:

1. The Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information Program (IRIS), Silver; CASRN 7440-22-4

2. www.flubreak.com/faq.html

3. The Crusador – interview with Dr. Eric Rentz, circa June 2008

4. www.physorg.com/news7264.html

5. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1875…

6. www.naturalnews.com/026952_nanop…

Published in: on February 19, 2010 at 4:06 pm  Leave a Comment  

Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck

February 18, 2010  by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) It’s being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.
Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as "proof" that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There’s only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!
Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.
It wasn’t the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.
As a result of Dr. Reuben’s faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 "scientific" papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.
After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.
He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years. (http://www.theday.com/article/20100…)

Business as usual in Big Pharma

What’s notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not the fact that so-called "scientific" medical journals published his fabricated studies. It’s not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.
The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.
Dr. Reuben’s actions really aren’t that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.
Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn’t operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.
Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben’s faked studies even though this journal claims to be a "scientific" medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn’t it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction.
Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on "good science." It’s all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being "woo woo" wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that’s based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption.
You just have to laugh, actually, when you hear pushers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals claim their medicine is "scientific" while natural medicine is "unproven." Sure it’s scientific — about as scientific as the storyline in a Scooby Doo cartoon, or as credible as the medical license of a six-year-old kid who just received a "let’s play doctor" gift set for Christmas. Many pharmaceutical researchers would have better careers as writers of fiction novels rather than scientific papers.
For all those people who ignorantly claim that modern pharmaceutical science is based on "scientific evidence," just give them these three words: Doctor Scott Reuben.

Drug companies support fraudulent research

Don’t forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben’s research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies.
The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben’s research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to "prove" that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). "Here’s another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink)."
And before long, Dr. Reuben would magically materialize a brand new study that just happened to "prove" exactly what the sponsoring drug company wanted to prove. Advocates of western medicine claim they don’t believe in magic, but when it comes to clinical trials, they actually do: All the results they wish to see just magically appear as long as the right researcher gets paid to materialize the results out of thin air, much like waving a magician’s wand and chanting, "Abra cadabra… let there be RESEARCH DATA!"
Shazam! The research data materializes just like that. It all gets written up into a "scientific" paper that also magically gets published in medical journals that fail to ask a single question that might exposed the research fraud.
I guess these people believe in magic after all, huh? Where science is lacking, a little "research magic" conveniently fills the void.
The whole system makes a mockery of real science. It is a system operated by criminals who fabricate whatever "scientific evidence" they need in order to get published in medical journals and win FDA approval for drugs that they fully realize are killing people.

What is "Evidence-Based Medicine?"

The fact that a researcher like Dr. Reuben could so successfully fabricate fraudulent study data, then get it published in peer-reviewed science journals, and get away with it for 13 years sheds all kinds of new light on what’s really behind "evidence-based medicine."
The recipe for evidence-based medicine is quite simple: Fabricate the evidence! Get it published in any mainstream medical journal. Then you can quote the fabricated evidence as "fact!"
When pushers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines resort to quoting "evidence-based medicine" as their defense, keep in mind that much of their so-called evidence has been entirely fabricated. When they claim their branch of toxic chemical medicine is based on "real science," what they really mean is that it’s based on fraudulent science but they’ve all secretly agreed to call it "real science." When they claim to have "scientific facts" supporting their position, what they really mean is that those "facts" were fabricated by criminal researchers being paid bribes by the drug companies.
"Evidence-based medicine," it turns out, hardly exists anymore. And even if it does, how do you know which studies are real vs. which ones were fabricated? If a trusted, well-paid researcher can get his falsified papers published for 13 years in top-notch science journals — without getting caught by his peers — then what does that say about the credibility of the entire peer-review science paper publishing process?
Here’s what is says: "Scientific medicine" is a total fraud.
And this fraud isn’t limited to Dr Scott Reuben, either. Remember: he engaged in routine research fraud for 13 years before being caught. There are probably thousands of other scientists engaged in similar research fraud right now who haven’t yet been caught in the act. Their fraudulent research papers have no doubt already been published in "scientific" medical journals. They’ve been quoted in the popular press. They’ve been relied on by FDA decision makers to approve drugs as "safe and effective" for widespread use.
And yet underneath all this, there’s nothing more than fraud and quackery. Sure, there may be some legitimate studies mixed in with all the fraud, but how can we tell the difference?
How are we to trust this system that claims to have a monopoly on scientific truth but in reality is a front for outright scientific fraud?

Keep up the great work, Dr Reuben

Thank you, Dr Scott Reuben, for showing us the truth about the pharmaceutical industry, the research quackery, the laughable "scientific" journals and the bribery and corruption that characterizes the pharmaceutical industry today. You have done more to shed light on the true nature of the drug industry than a thousand articles on NaturalNews.com ever could.
Keep up the good work. After paying your fine and serving a little jail time, I’m sure your services will be in high demand at all the top drug companies that need yet more "scientific" studies to be fabricated and submitted to the medical journals.
You may be a dishonest, disgusting human being to most of the world, but you’re a huge asset to the pharmaceutical industry and they need you back! There are more studies that need to be fabricated soon; more false papers that need to be published and more dangerous drugs that need to receive FDA approval. Hurry!
Because if there’s one place that extreme dishonesty is richly rewarded, it’s in the pharmaceutical industry, where poisons are approved as medicines and fiction is published as the truth.
Sources for this story include:

Technorati Tags: ,,

Published in: on February 18, 2010 at 2:55 pm  Leave a Comment  

Mumps outbreak spreads among people who got vaccinated against mumps

February 11, 2010  by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) To hear the vaccine pushers say it, all the recent outbreaks of mumps and measles are caused by too few people seeking out vaccinations. It’s all those "non-vaccinated people" who are a danger to society, they say, because they can spread disease.
Reality tells a different story, however: It is the vaccinated people who are causing these outbreaks and spreading disease!
Just this week, an outbreak of mumps among more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York has raised alarm among infectious disease authorities. The outbreak itself is not unusual, though. What’s unusual is that the health authorities slipped up and admitted that most of the people infected with mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.
In Ocean County, New Jersey, county spokeswoman Leslie Terjesen told CNN that 77 percent of those who caught mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.

77 percent of those infected had been vaccinated

Usually this information is censored out of the press. The vaccine industry wants the public to believe that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. So the media typically refrains from reporting what percentage of the infected people were already vaccinated against the infectious disease.
But in this case, the 77 percent figure slipped out. And now intelligent observers are increasingly seeing the truth about these vaccines:
• Infectious disease vaccines simply don’t work. If they did, then why did all these children who were already vaccinated still get mumps?
• Vaccines may actually increase your risk of disease. Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children?
• The people who administer vaccines never tell you that their vaccines don’t really work. They tell you that you’ll be "protected" with the vaccine, implying a near-100% level of protection (which is blatantly false).
• Even if you’re vaccinated against a disease, you may still catch that disease anyway! So what’s the point of the vaccine?


The lies of the CDC

The CDC claims the mumps vaccine is 76 to 95 percent effective, but they offer no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that claim. To date, there has never been a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published on the mumps vaccine in humans. The so-called "scientific" evidence supporting these vaccines is purely imaginary.
I still have a $10,000 reward offered for anyone who can provide a single scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of any H1N1 vaccine (http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H…). To date, not a single person has stepped forward to claim that $10,000. I might as well raise the reward to a million dollars, because I’ll never have to pay it: There is no scientific evidence proving the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines!

Does being vaccinated raise your risk of infection?

The CDC also says that 2009 was a bad year for mumps outbreaks. They blame all the people who refuse to be vaccinated for causing these outbreaks. Their theory, of course, is based on the imaginary idea that mumps vaccines halt mumps infections. But once again, it’s all imaginary! As we saw this week in New Jersey, most of the people who get infected in these outbreaks are the very people who were vaccinated!
If mumps vaccines actually worked, then what you should see instead is the mumps infection spreading among those who refused the vaccines, right? It’s only logical.
In fact, if vaccines really work, then why should the vaccinated people be bothered at all by those who don’t get vaccinated? After all, if their vaccines protect themselves from disease, then non-vaccinated people are no threat to them, right? So why are vaccinated people so pushy about forcing non-vaccinated people to get vaccinated?
The shocking truth about infectious disease and vaccines, however, is very different from what you’re told by the drug companies (and the health authorities who pander to their interests): Some vaccines may actually promote the very diseases they claim to prevent!
That may be why 77% of those who recently got mumps in New Jersey were, in fact, the very people who were vaccinated against mumps. The vaccine may, in fact, weaken your immune system against future infections, causing you to become more susceptible to future outbreaks.
Many thousands of Americans who died from H1N1 swine flu were the very people who got vaccinated against H1N1 (http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H…).


The great vaccine hoax exposed

Take a look at nearly every outbreak of infectious disease in recent years and you’ll find the same pattern. You’ll either see that most of those who got infected were already vaccinated, or you’ll see those statistics completely stripped out of all media reports.
It’s all part of the grand vaccine cover-up. Vaccines simply do not work as promised. Vaccines do not offer the level of protection against infectious disease that they promise. In fact, vaccines are far less effective than vitamin D in preventing infections!
Instead of shooting up our children with over 100 different vaccines (which is now standard practice, by the way), what we should be doing is boosting their immune function with vitamin D, zinc and immune-boosting nutrients from medicinal plants. That would protect them from all common infectious diseases at the same time, and it doesn’t require needles or the use of dangerous chemical preservatives like thimerosal, which is linked to autism.
Don’t believe the recent attacks on Dr. Wakefield. This was an organized smear campaign designed to discredit Dr. Wakefield before he could publish the results of his "14 monkeys" study that shows severe neurological harm caused by vaccines given to young primates (http://www.naturalnews.com/028109_A…).
There is a way to protect people from infectious disease: Give them the immune-boosting nutrients their immune systems need to defend themselves against disease. Outbreaks of infectious disease would plummet along with seasonal flu deaths.
Of course, so would sales of vaccines. And that’s the whole reason you never hear health authorities recommending vitamin D even though it’s far more effective than any vaccine at preventing infectious disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/027385_V…). The CDC, we now know, is little more than the marketing branch of Big Pharma’s vaccine operations. That’s why the former head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, is now suddenly the president of Merck’s worldwide vaccine division (http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_D…).
Vaccines make lots of money, but they don’t make people immune to disease. The fact that so many vaccinated people are being stricken with the very diseases they were vaccinated against is proof that vaccines fail to deliver what they promise.
Sources for this story include:

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Published in: on February 11, 2010 at 3:39 pm  Leave a Comment  


For anyone who wants to avoid aspartame, be aware AminoSweet® is the brand name of the low calorie sweetener aspartame produced by Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe.

Technorati Tags: ,,

Published in: on February 10, 2010 at 10:47 am  Leave a Comment  

Breast cancer virtually “eradicated” with higher levels of vitamin D

February 08, 2010  by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) In a gathering of vitamin D researchers recently held in Toronto, Dr. Cedric Garland delivered a blockbuster announcement: Breast cancer can be virtually "eradicated" by raising vitamin D levels.

Vitamin D is "the cure" for breast cancer that the cancer industry ridiculously claims to be searching for. The cure already exists! But the breast cancer industry simply refuses to acknowledge any "cure" that doesn’t involve mammography, chemotherapy or high-profit pharmaceuticals.
Vitamin D is finally gaining some of the recognition it deserves as a miraculous anti-cancer nutrient. It is the solution for cancer prevention. It could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the U.S. alone. Even Dr. Andrew Weil recently raised his recommendation of vitamin D to 2,000 IU per day.
This is the vitamin that could destroy the cancer industry and save millions of women from the degrading, harmful cancer "treatments" pushed by conventional medicine. No wonder they don’t want to talk about it! The cancer industry would prefer to keep women ignorant about this vitamin that could save their breasts and their lives.
Below I’m reprinting the full statement from Dr. Cedric Garland following the Vitamin D conference recently held in Toronto.

Statement from Dr. Cedric Garland

Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman’s risk of contracting the disease can be ‘virtually eradicated’ by elevating her vitamin D status to what vitamin D scientists consider to be natural blood levels.

That’s the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland delivered in Toronto Tuesday as part of the University of Toronto School of Medicine’s "Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency" conference – the largest gathering of vitamin D researchers in North America this year. More than 170 researchers, public health officials and health practitioners gathered at the UT Faculty club for the landmark event.
Garland’s presentation headlined a conference that reviewed many aspects of the emerging vitamin D research field – a booming discipline that has seen more than 3,000 academic papers this calendar year alone, conference organizers said. That makes vitamin D by far the most prolific topic in medicine this year, with work connecting it with risk reduction in two dozen forms of cancer, heart disease, multiple scleroses and many other disorders.
Dr. Reinhold Vieth, Associate Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at University of Toronto, and Director of the Bone and Mineral Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, organized the event in conjunction with Grassroots Health – an international vitamin D advocacy group founded by breast cancer survivor Carole Baggerly.
Baggerly implored the research group to take action and encourage Canadians to learn more about vitamin D and to raise their vitamin D levels.
An estimated 22,700 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, according to the Canadian Cancer Society’s latest figures.
As much as 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient at some point in the year, according to University of Calgary research – largely due to Canada’s northerly latitudes and weak sun exposure. Sunshine is by far the most abundant source of vitamin D – called ‘The Sunshine Vitamin’ – with salmon and fortified milk being other sources. Vitamin D supplementation helps raise levels for many as well.
Grassroots Health’s "D-action" panel – 30 of the world’s leading researchers on vitamin D and many other vitamin D supporters – recommend 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily and vitamin D blood levels of 100-150 nanomoles-per-liter as measured by a vitamin D blood test.
Vieth pointed out that natural vitamin D levels of mammals who live outdoors in sunny climates is higher than that – up to 200 nanomoles-per liter. And Garland, whose presentation was entitled "Breast Cancer as a Vitamin D Deficiency Disease" presented data showing that raising one’s vitamin D status near those levels decreased breast cancer risk more than 77 percent.
‘The Sunshine Vitamin’ was once thought of only for bone health, helping the body process calcium. But more recent work has shown that all cells in the body have "vitamin D receptors" which help control normal cell growth. Additionally, Garland presented new evidence that low vitamin D status compromises the integrity of calcium-based cellular bonding within tissues, which when eroded allow rogue cancer cells to spread more readily.
Grassroots Health is trying to raise vitamin D awareness among Canadians. Despite epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency in Canada, fewer than nine per cent of Canadians have ever had their vitamin D levels checked by a professional and most who have do not know their vitamin D blood level.

Technorati Tags: ,,

Published in: on February 9, 2010 at 3:42 pm  Leave a Comment  

‘Third-hand smoke’?

Health Supreme NewsGrabs 9 February 2010

BBC reports on a Berkeley study that introduces yet another level in the anti-smoking campaign: Not only is second hand smoke causing cancer, but now "third hand smoke" is bad for your health as well.

Wait a minute. What are those people trying to cover up? What about hundreds of thousands of deaths from pharmaceuticals, what about chemical toxins of all kinds we find in the environment and in our food, what about depleted uranium being liberally vaporized in "theaters of conflict", what about radioactivity from leaks in our power plants, what about microwave pollution from mobile phones and other communication equipment, and finally, what about those particles seeded in the atmosphere by airplanes deliberately painting our skies with clouds of barium, alluminium and other assorted gunk?

Are we to believe that smoking causes all the harm while those polluting activities can be safely overlooked? Is that what the anti-smoking campaign and now "third hand smoke" is all about?

Or is smoking merely a convenient scapegoat to cover up lucrative pollution that we should not be looking at?

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not promoting smoking and I am not smoking myself. But I do think we should not blindly accept anti-smoking propaganda without looking behind the scenes at what really makes us sick.

‘Third-hand smoke’?

Lingering residue from tobacco smoke which clings to upholstery, clothing and the skin releases cancer-causing agents, work in PNAS journal shows.

Berkeley scientists in the US ran lab tests and found "substantial levels" of toxins on smoke-exposed material.

They say while banishing smokers to outdoors cuts second-hand smoke, residues will follow them back inside and this "third-hand smoke" may harm.

Opponents called it a laughable term designed to frighten people unduly.

No, not laughable but, in my view, a deliberate attempt to mislead and cover up for things much worse…

Technorati Tags: ,,

Published in: on February 9, 2010 at 12:44 pm  Leave a Comment  

CSPI calling for outright censorship of “structure and function” claims for nutritional supplements

February 08, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has put together a 158-page report for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that contains detailed information about food manufacturers that it says are making false or misleading health claims about their products. The powerful lobbying group is urging a restructuring of the regulatory system that would likely damage the nutritional supplement industry and eliminate freedom of health speech.
On the surface, the CSPI report primarily targets "Big Food" manufacturers like Kellogg’s and Nestle which have been making embellished, deceptive health claims about products that are essentially junk foods with miniscule amounts of vitamins and minerals thrown in. But rather than address the need for the FDA to crack down on these illegitimate claims, CSPI is seeking to abolish the freedom to make health claims altogether.
The CSPI tactic is a popular one, identifying a legitimate problem while suggesting an illegitimate solution. While on the surface regulatory "reform" seems to have consumers’ best interests in mind, the kind of reform suggested by CSPI would actually eradicate free speech by muzzling all legitimate health claims made for natural products.

DSHEA and the freedom to make health claims
As it stands under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, health product manufacturers can legally make legitimate health claims about their products. The Act provides for structure/function claims, which are not reviewed and authorized by the FDA, and qualified health claims, which are typically supported by conclusive scientific evidence.
Both types of claims are regulated by the FDA using an "innocent until proven guilty" approach which allows product manufacturers to include information at their discretion. The FDA can challenge questionable claims if it perceives them to be false but it must provide conclusive evidence before requiring it to be removed. If the FDA is unable to prove that a statement is false, manufacturers are permitted to print the information as long as the mandatory dietary supplement disclaimer is included on the container explaining that the FDA has not evaluated the claims.
Supplement manufacturers legally use both types of claims to educate consumers about the health benefits of their products. However CSPI and other groups seem to believe that such a system should be disbanded. Many organizations mistakenly believe and perpetuate the false idea that dietary supplements are wholly unregulated and that the entire sector is a free-for-all. While there are some bad players, including Kellogg’s and Nestle, the majority of companies within the industry are making truthful, valid claims about their products.
Advocates worked very hard to pass DSHEA in 1994, the single most important piece of legislation in protecting freedom of health speech in the U.S. So why the push to eliminate it by the very groups and agencies that claim to support the public interest?

Food control by a few
It is important to understand that the players who stand to lose the most from increased restrictions and regulations are small- to medium-sized nutritional supplement companies, the true pioneers in the natural health world, not the large multi-national corporations operating supplement divisions. Small manufacturers make up the majority of the supplement industry.
In 2007, the FDA initiated its "current Good Manufacturing Practices" (cGMP) guidelines in accordance with DSHEA provisions that tasked the agency with ensuring that dietary supplements are manufactured safely and accurately. As worthy as it sounds, the FDA ended up designing cGMP with large manufacturers in mind, placing an immense new burden on small manufacturers.
The one-size-fits-all requirements for daily operations and record keeping are expensive and laborious, making it virtually impossible for small manufacturers to comply. The rules also mimic pharmaceutical requirements, many of which are pointless and unnecessary for supplements.
Hundreds of supplement manufacturers will likely be put out of business once the three year phase-in of cGMP is complete in June of 2010. The final installment on this date will force companies with fewer than 20 employees, which represent a large portion of the industry, into compliance. This final group is said to be hit the hardest by mandatory compliance.
Many dietary supplement trade groups are on board with the FDA’s agenda, including the Natural Products Association (NPA) and the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN). The CRN membership roll is filled with multi-national giants such as Archer Daniels Midland, Bayer, Cargill, and Dow Chemical Company, as well as pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer.

Copying the EU to bring about a world standard
According to Dr. Robert Verkerk, the executive and scientific director of the Alliance for Natural Health, the two primary sources of attack against natural health freedom are European Union (EU) regulations and Codex Alimentarius.
The EU’s Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (NHCR) is arguably the most restrictive health law yet to be passed anywhere in the world. Established in 2006, NHCR allows health claims to be made only if they have been preliminarily approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In opposition to the U.S. model where a health claim is supposed to be considered valid unless proven false, the EU now operates under the Napoleonic law structure where a health claim is false and restricted until declared valid by an unelected body of bureaucrats.
Under the NHCR restrictions, no unauthorized health claims can be made in either print or speech. This means that doctors are not allowed to recommend foods or supplements to their patients, nor can they offer any other type of health advice unless it has been rubber-stamped by the EFSA. Even if scientific studies prove that a nutrient or food is effective at treating a certain disease, a doctor is prohibited from speaking about it unless it is formally approved.
The consequences of such a draconion restriction on free speech is the decimation of the natural products industry, including everything from trade shows and educational seminars to naturopathic practices and health food stores. The restrictions on the free flow of health information also has the potential to eliminate over time all knowledge amongst the population about natural health, other than what is approved by the overlords.

Codex Alimentarius, the world food code
All of this ties into Codex Alimentarius, the world food code designed to integrate and harmonize the world’s food guidelines for the purpose of power and control. While Codex has not yet been fully implemented worldwide, the pieces are slowly being assembled as to eliminate all national sovereignty and bring all nations into unified, international compliance with its dictates.
In the United States, provisions in the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties helped to facilitate the harmonizing of U.S. law between North and South America, a precursor to late compliance with Codex. Similar to the NHCR in the EU, Codex will operate under the Napoleonic law system, permitting only what has been approved to be lawful.
Codex’s Vitamin and Mineral Guidelines are also being designed to dictate which vitamins will be permitted for use and in what doses. According to researchers, vitamin doses will be assessed using toxicity risk assessment, the method used in pharmaceuticals to determine the dose at which a drug becomes identifiably toxic. When applied to vitamins, this method will ensure that permitted doses remain below therapeutic levels, rendering them useless.
The CSPI recommendations are merely a stepping stone toward a much larger goal of global control over food, for which supplements are only a part. If successful, it could become illegal to even buy and sell unadulterated foods and supplements, let alone speak freely about their health benefits.
Sources for this story include: http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/anh… http://www.newswithviews.com/Richar… http://www.thenhf.com/press_release…

Technorati Tags: ,,,,

Published in: on February 8, 2010 at 2:41 pm  Leave a Comment