Birth of a New Earth

RE-GREENING THE DESERT

2012-02-27T19:06:00.003-10:00

This definitely put a smile on my face.

http://youtu.be/sohI6vnWZmk

Also posted here:
Re-greening the Desert
http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/permaculture/re-greening-the-desert.html

DOLPHINS DESERVE SAME RIGHTS AS HUMANS, SCIENTISTS SAY

2012-02-27T17:40:00.005-10:00

"Dolphins should be treated as non-human "persons", with their rights to life and liberty respected, scientists meeting in Canada have been told.

Experts in philosophy, conservation and animal behaviour want support for a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans.

They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans.

Recognising their rights would mean an end to whaling and their captivity, or their use in entertainment.

The move was made at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, Canada, the world's biggest science conference.

It is based on years of research that has shown dolphins and whales have large, complex brains and a human-like level of self-awareness.

This has led the experts to conclude that although non-human, dolphins and whales are "people" in a philosophical sense, which has far-reaching implications.

'Self-aware'

Ethics expert Prof Tom White, from Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, author of In Defence of Dolphins: The New Moral Frontier, said dolphins were "non-human persons".

"A person needs to be an individual. If individuals count, then the deliberate killing of individuals of this sort is ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being.

"We're saying the science has shown that individuality - consciousness, self-awareness - is no longer a unique human property. That poses all kinds of challenges."

The declaration, originally agreed in May 2010, contains the statements "every individual cetacean has the right to life", "no cetacean should be held in captivity or servitude, be subject to cruel treatment, or be removed from their natural environment", and "no cetacean is the property of any state, corporation, human group or individual".

It adds: "The rights, freedoms and norms set forth in this declaration should be protected under international and domestic law."

Psychologist Dr Lori Marino, from Emory University in Atlanta, told how scientific advances had changed the view of the cetacean brain.

She said: "We went from seeing the dolphin/whale brain as being a giant amorphous blob that doesn't carry a lot of intelligence and complexity to not only being an enormous brain but an enormous brain with an enormous amount of complexity, and a complexity that rivals our own."

Dolphins had a sense of self which could be tested by the way they recognise themselves in mirrors, she added.

"When you get up in the morning and look in the mirror and know that's you, you have a sense of 'you'," said Dr Marino.

"They have a similar sense. They can look in a mirror and say, 'Hey, that's me'."

Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17116882

Intelligent cetacean behaviour

A member of a group of orcas, or killer whales, in Patagonia had a damaged jaw and could not feed. The elderly whale was fed and kept alive by its companions.

Dolphins taking part in an experiment had to press one of two levers to distinguish between sounds, some of which were very similar. By pressing a third lever, they were able to tell the researchers they wanted to "pass" on a particular test because it was too hard. "When you place dolphins in a situation like that they respond in exactly the same way humans do," said Dr Lori Marino. "They are accessing their own minds and thinking their own thoughts."

A number of captive dolphins were rewarded with fish in return for tidying up their tank. One of them ripped up a large paper bag, hid away the pieces, and presented them one at a time to get multiple rewards.

In Iceland, killer whales and fishermen have been known to work together. The whales show the fishermen where to lay their nets, and in return are allowed to feed on part of the catch. Then they lead the fleet to the next fishing ground.

ESTEE LAUDER, AVON AND MARY KAY RESUME CRUEL TESTING ON ANIMALS

2012-02-27T17:30:00.007-10:00

Top cosmetic companies give in to greed and resume cruel animal testing, blame China
http://www.naturalnews.com/035078_cosmetic_companies_animal_testing_cruelty.html

"(NaturalNews) After 20 years of being cruelty-free, companies like Mary Kay, Avon and Estee Lauder are once again testing on animals. Their excuse is that the Chinese government requires animal testing on products sold in China. Doubtful that is comforting to the animals who are tortured with burning chemicals in their eyes and on their skin in the name of greed.

All about the money

Despite the thousands of ingredients already deemed safe for use in personal care products, cosmetic companies are always looking for new ways to manipulate customers. To get a leg up on the competition, these companies change their formulas to include previously unused and formerly untested ingredients just so they can market them as new and improved. Of course this doesn't mean that they actually work better, just that they are slightly different.

Not wanting to lose out on a major source of revenue, Avon has bowed to the inhumane requirements of the Chinese without a fight, reports People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). This from the company who announced to the world in June 1989 that it was permanently ending all animal testing, including testing performed in outside laboratories. However, since Avon created a loophole in their public promise that they "will conduct animal testing only when required by law" it is possible that they have been testing on animals for years, and without informing customers.

Estee Lauder has a similar loophole, using the law as an excuse for unnecessary cruelty. PETA reports that Estee Lauder also complied with the Chinese requirements without a fuss, and without telling customers who still think they are supporting a cruelty-free company. Of the major three, Mary Kay is the only one who is trying to convince China to change their policy, but is still using animal testing in the meantime.

Humane methods

Testing on animals is completely unnecessary. In addition to the thousands of ingredients that have already passed the testing phase for safety and efficacy, there are non-animal methods of testing that produce the same results. Companies such as the non-profit Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc. not only employs these cruelty-free in vitro methods, they also teach them. Through workshops and webinars, laboratory staff are able to learn how to determine an ingredient's safety without injecting, force-feeding or topically applying ingredients on or into helpless animals.

The Institute for In Vitro Sciences is currently forming a coalition of experts to hopefully instruct Chinese scientists on humane testing procedures, according to PETA. Over 1,000 companies already use compassionate methods and do not support animal testing, and not just when it is convenient.

Some companies that test on animals, or are owned by one that does

Colgate
Unilever
Dove
Johnson & Johnson
L'Oreal
Garnier
Lancome
PZ Cussons
Procter & Gamble
Herbal Essences

Companies that never test on animals nor hire others to do so

Nature's Gate
PureOlogy
Arbonne
Seventh Generation
Almay
Paul Mitchell Systems
Alba
Botanica
Natura Essential
Planet
Wet N Wild

Companies that do not keep their promise to consumers need to be told that compassion and public trust are more important than money and marketing."

Via Michele Lazarow
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3332832848500&set=oa.173501489429774&type=1&theater

Please take a minute to Google DRAIZE EYE IRRITANCY TEST. The Draize test involves placing a rabbit's head in a restraining device and then putting in one of their eyes a substance such as bleach, shampoo, nail polish, chemical cleaning substances, or weed killer. These experiments are extremely painful. Some rabbits snap their necks in their frantic attemps to escape. Vile companies like Estee Lauder, have blood on their hands, let them know what you think on their fb page. Be a compassionate shopper and avoid companies that test on animals.

VACCINES CAUSING CANCER IN CATS

2012-02-27T16:55:00.002-10:00

"(NaturalNews) Did you know that vaccinating your cat with the typical, recommended feline vaccination schedule may lead to your furry friend developing cancer? In a recent article published in The Ledger, Karri Miller, Central Florida's only full-time board certified veterinary oncologist, admits that inflammation caused by vaccines can cause some cats to develop cancer years down the road -- and yet she still recommends that people have their pets vaccinated.

A telling admission about the serious risks associated with vaccines, Miller's report highlights the fact that at least one out of every 10,000 cats develops "vaccine-associated sarcomas" as a result of getting vaccinated. Whether it is the mandatory rabies vaccine, or the host of other viral and bacterial vaccines commonly administered to felines, vaccinated cats admittedly have an increased risk of developing cancer in response to the injections.

Vaccine task force says keep injecting cats with cancer-causing vaccines, but do so in spots that will be easy to remove tumors later

The issue has become so serious, in fact, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) developed a "Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force" (VAFSTF) back in 1996 to keep track of the prevalence of the condition, and to investigate ways to help mitigate and prevent it. Besides simply not vaccinating cats at all, the only thing this task force has really come up with so far as a solution is to simply inject vaccines in different spots on cats' bodies so that, should a tumor end up developing there, it will be easy to treat it with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation (http://www.avma.org/vafstf/sitercmnd.asp).

In other words, vaccines will continue to cause cancer in cats, so the best way, in these experts' minds, to address the problem is to inject vaccines in areas that will be easier for surgeons to access in the event that they have to remove a tumor at the site. Never would these experts caution cat owners against getting the harmful vaccines in the first place, of course, or at the very least reduce the number of vaccines they choose to get for their cats.

In her article, for example, Miller actually suggests that cat owners continue to get their cats vaccinated with whatever vaccines their veterinarians recommend because "[t]he risk of developing a tumor from a vaccine may be much less than your cat catching a deadly virus that could have been prevented with a vaccine," in her opinion. And if your cat does get cancer, Miller, of course, recommends surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy as appropriate treatment.

However, according to Dr. Don Hamilton, a veterinary homeopath in New Mexico, most pet vaccines are largely useless anyway because they cause "at least as much illness as they have ever prevented." In many cases, he says, vaccines simply do not offer the protection their advocates claim they do, and they typically weaken pets' immune systems and create more chronic illness than if those pets were allowed to simply develop their own natural immunity through proper nutrition (http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html)."

Mainstream column admits vaccines cause cancer in pets
http://www.naturalnews.com/035080_vaccines_cancer_pets.html

COMBINATION WHOOPING COUGH AND TETANUS VACCINE LINKED TO SEIZURES IN BABIES

2012-02-27T16:51:00.004-10:00

"(NaturalNews) If you choose to have your baby vaccinated with the combination diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), polio and Haemophilus influenzae type 2 vaccine, a mega-jab collectively known as the DTap-IPV-Hib, your child may be at an increased risk of having a vaccine-induced seizure. A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association has identified a clear link between the vaccine and the onset of fever-related seizures, which the authors claim will not cause long-term damage.

Yuelian Sun from Aarhus University in Denmark and her colleagues evaluated data on roughly 380,000 babies born in Denmark between 2003 and 2008. Children in that country are recommended to get the vaccine at three different times -- once when they are three months old, again when they are five months old, and a third time on their first birthday. Upon analysis, the researchers determined that about 7,800 of these children, or just over two percent, had been diagnosed with a fever-related seizure by the time they reach one-and-a-half years old.

The risk of having a fever-related seizure appears to increase after each subsequent jab with the vaccine, and particularly on the same day that it is administered. And yet the study authors and others insist the DTap-IPV-Hib vaccine is safe because such seizures allegedly do not cause brain damage or other permanent harm. Dr. Eugene Shapiro, a pediatrics and infectious diseases researcher at Yale University, actually purports that these findings are "reassuring," and that parents should not be concerned.

Even more absurd was study author Sun's response to the findings, in which she suggested that perhaps injected babies who had a seizure in response to the vaccine were just genetically prone to seizures, and that the vaccine had nothing to do with it. This and other nonsensical responses to studies that identify health risks associated with vaccines are typical. It is always anything but the vaccine that is responsible for causing harm -- "Have you ever drunk raw milk at any time in your life? That must have been the cause of the seizure!"

DTap-IPV-Hib vaccine loaded with bacterial components, antibiotics, and toxic chemicals and additives

According to the Vaccine Awareness Network, the DTap-IPV-Hib vaccine contains diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, five components of the bordetella pertussis bacteria, filamentous haemagglutinin (the component of the bacteria which causes infection), pertactin (a highly immunogenic virulence factor), three types of inactivated polio virus, types 1, 2 and 3, a component of Haemophilus influenzae type B that has been attached to tetanus toxoid to make babies produce more antibodies, and three different types of antibiotics -- neomycin, streptomycin, and polymyxin B.

Besides this barrage of pathogens and pathogenic components, the vaccine also contains deadly preservatives and additives like formaldehyde (rat poison), 2-phenoxyethanol (a detergent that is the main ingredient in anti-freeze), aluminum, and polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier implicated in causing male infertility).

There are also more than 3,500 reports in the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) about serious adverse events associated with the DTap-IPV-Hib vaccine. These include, but are not limited to, Moraxella catarrhalis, streptococcus pneumonia, asthma, anaphylactic reactions, pancreatitis, gastrointestinal dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and meningitis."

Study: Combination tetanus, whooping cough vaccine linked to seizures in babies
http://www.naturalnews.com/035072_Dtap_vaccine_seizures_babies.html

TAKING ALUMINUM OUT OF THE DIET

2012-02-26T19:10:00.007-10:00

Aluminum is a neurotoxin that causes nervous system and brain damage. It can be found in large quantities in many vaccines (under the psuedo-name "thimerosal"). It can also be found in prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, cookware, canned foods, soda cans, aluminum foil wrap, shampoos, conditioners, soaps, lip conditioners, Arm & Hammer baking soda, and more. Aluminum in deodorant (under the pseudo-name "potassium alum") is now being linked to breast cancer.

If you would like to know how to protect yourself and your family from this dangerous neurotoxin, please read this great article about how to eliminate aluminum from your diet:

By: Joanne F. Struve

"Taking aluminum out of the diet is not difficult, but it can get somewhat complicated and quite frustrating. One’s attempt to follow the guidelines of Aluminum-Abstinence Therapy (AAT) could end in failure if one doesn’t have sufficient knowledge about the subject.Foods and products that contain aluminum are listed [in bold] in the next section, but before the lists are examined, please read the information below. It must be thoroughly understood before one begins AAT. Many patients appear to worsen from time to time, confusing those involved in their care; and sometimes those who use AAT for AD prevention find that it doesn’t help. There are many reasons for this, including the following:Abstaining from aluminum may not appear to be effective if one is taking drugs, breathing vapors or consuming toxic substances of any kind. The reason for this is because chronic drug use and/or toxic substance exposure may cause side-effects similar to the symptoms of aluminum toxicity.Millions of microscopic particles of various toxins are ingested daily by those who are exposed to outdoor smog, work in toxic environments and/or consume contaminated water. Although AAT will work to reduce the level of toxicity in the brain, it cannot perform miracles. Significant results may not be seen when overdoses of these and other toxins, including alcohol, over-the-counter medications and/or prescription drugs are ingested continuously. In other words, when the brain becomes overwhelmed, its performance is minimized until one’s intake of toxic substances is dramatically reduced.The following story will help illustrate this point. One Alzheimer’s patient became oppositional and uncooperative, even though he had been on AAT for over two years. His family believed that the therapy was not working and that the disease was progressing. One day, this man refused to eat or drink anything, including his prescription drugs. When the problem worsened, his family decided to follow his advanced directives allowing him to die.

But he didn’t die. Three days later, he surprised us when he got out of bed, dressed himself, and was cordial and cooperative to the point of helping others! What made the difference? His behavior improved because his brain was given the chance to excrete the offending drugs. In other words, because the drugs were stopped (inadvertently), the man’s brain was finally able to cleanse itself. After the man’s family had his medications appropriately adjusted, their father was cordial and co-operative from that point on.

This incident made it clear that continuous ingestion of drugs and other toxic substances can obscure or complicate the performance of Aluminum-Abstinence Therapy.

Other health conditions can hinder the brain’s ability to cleanse itself, as well. Many of these will be addressed on the Foundation website.

THE FOLLOWING LISTS INCLUDE FOODS AND HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS THAT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE CONSUME EVERY DAY, SOMETIMES MANY TIMES A DAY. IF ANY OF THESE CONTAIN ALUMINUM, IT MEANS THEY CONTAIN POISON. THE MORE ITEMS CONSUMED, THE MORE POISON IS INGESTED.

************WARNING************

THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTS MAY CONTAIN TOXIC AMOUNTS OF ALUMINUM:

Foods made with aluminized baking powder*, self-rising flour*, and salt. The following are some of these products:

Microwave popcorn
Salted snacks
Hot cocoa mixes
Coffee creamers
Pickles and relish
*Flour tortillas
*Pizza crust
*Muffins
*Doughnuts
*Cookies
*Pancakes
*Waffles
*Cupcakes
*Cakes
*Baking mixes
*Brownies
*Pastries
*Corn bread
*Banana bread
*Carrot bread
*Dipping batter for fried foods

WARNING: Aluminumized baking powder is now being used in many foods that were formerly prepared without baking powder, such as pizza crust, raised doughnuts, pie crusts, cookies, waffles, prepared meats, cheeses, and other products that were once aluminum-free.

IMPORTANT:

Do not confuse baking soda with baking powder. Soda is a pure product with no additives. Baking powder is a mixture of chemicals used as leavening in countless baking products. (Leavening is what makes a cake rise during the baking process.)

Many people believe that all breads are made with baking powder. This is not true. Most breads are made with yeast.

Don’t panic. Numerous aluminum-free baked goods are available in ordinary grocery stores, as well as health food stores and restaurants. Simply read labels to be safe.

OTHER PRODUCTS CONTAINING ALUMINUM:

Anti-perspirants
Many body lotions and cremes
Most cosmetics
Shampoos and conditioners
Soaps
Suntan lotions
Lip Balm
Etc.

DRUGS AND MEDICATIONS:

Over-the-counter medications and prescription drugs containing aluminum are too numerous to list. Read labels and consult your doctor and pharmacist.

If your doctor has prescribed drugs or medications containing aluminum, ask for alternative (aluminum-free) medications. If there is a problem, refer your doctor to this website. Informational brochures are also available to remind your doctor about the dangers of medications that are made with aluminum.

Doctors are required to encourage patient involvement in their own care, including the decision-making process. Because of this, your doctor will most likely co-operate.

WHEN PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ARE NECESSARY:

When prescription drugs are necessary, one’s first line of defense in preventing food and drug poisoning is to curtail the number of toxins consumed on a daily basis. They add up quickly. One breakfast waffle normally contains one “dose” of aluminum. (A dose is considered the amount required to cause an obvious effect, such as a change in behavior.) One muffin eaten for lunch adds another dose; and a dinner biscuit adds another. The day’s total of aluminum equals 3 doses. Remember, the more items eaten, the more aluminum is ingested. When prescription drugs are consumed as well, the amount of toxicity in the brain can rise to injurous levels, especially when over-the-counter drugs are taken at the same time.

Caffeine overdose can create even more problems. When the brain becomes dehydrated, behavior changes are commonplace. Indeed, when chocolate, caffeinated drinks, herbal diuretic teas, packaged diuretic herbs, body-building and diet supplements are eaten as well, negative behavioral episodes can easily occur. Even vitamins can become toxic when taken in excess.

When signs of toxicity appear, they should be taken very seriously. Call your doctor to discuss symptoms, disclosing all substances that could be at fault. Follow the doctor’s orders and begin abstinence immediately.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO PREVENT BRAIN TOXICITY:

1. Assume responsibility for safeguarding your own health. Do not expect that the Food and Drug Administration is protecting you. They are not. All the facts are not in. Scientific investigation is still in its infancy.

2. Learn how to read medication descriptions. Ask your doctor or pharmacist to explain what is difficult to understand.

3. Write to manufacturers. Ask for ingredient disclosures to be mailed to you. Most are willing to respond.

4. Learn to say no, even in social situations. If you suspect that party foods contain aluminum (refer to list above), choose items that are most likely aluminum-free. This habit may be difficult to cultivate at first, but as you observe how contaminated foods affect your mind, moods and emotions, abstinence will become easier and less troublesome as time goes on.

5. Ask restaurant managers to examine food and salt labels before ordering questionable items.

6. Examine all package labels before making a purchase.

THE IMPORTANCE OF READING LABELS

Reading labels is absolutely essential in remaining aluminum-free. The Food and Drug Administration mandated laws that require labeling of products for human consumption.

There are reasons for these laws:

1. Consumer rights: You have a right to know what you are ingesting.

2. Consumer protection: Prevention of allergic reactions.

3. Protection of manufacturers. Disclosures and warnings help prevent lawsuits. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE LAWS ARE FLAWED.

1. The law requires that chemicals used in baking powder be disclosed on labels, yet there are no such laws for the chemical ingredients of salt.

2. It is a scientific fact that aluminum used in baking powder and salt is poisonous, yet there are no warning labels to alert the consumer.

3. Product labels are not monitored adequately. Numerous labels state “baking powder”, yet do not disclose ingredients of the powder. When these chemicals are not listed, assume that aluminum is present. Many of these mislabeled products are sold in coffee shops, mini-markets, fast-food stores, restaurants and liquor stores.

4. Ingredients are frequently listed separately on over-the-counter drug packages. Active ingredients are sometimes located on one side of the box, and the inactive ingredients on the other side. This confusing labeling practice is potentially dangerous and should be outlawed.

5. Some listings are impossible to read without a magnifying glass. Avoid such products and choose alternatives.

6. Aluminum is sometimes listed in compound ingredients, such as silicoaluminate. This can be confusing to the uneducated consumer.

7. Some labels trick the consumer. Some deodorant labels state, “Contains No Aluminum Hydroxide” yet they list another form of aluminum on the package, deceiving consumers.

8. Some vendors of crystal deodorants (made with mineral salts and other ingredients) claim that “alum” is not aluminum. This is not true. The dictionary defines alum as “Aluminum sulphate”.

9. Manufacturers frequently change ingredients, but the law does not require package warnings. Thus, be sure to read every label. If time constraints prohibit this, check labels as often as you can in order to protect yourself.

10. Laws that do exist are not adequately enforced. This is true in many restaurants as well. The following is a list of familiar fast-food establishments. Most do not post ingredients on menus or anywhere else, including the Internet. Literature is available to consumers, however.

MISSION flour tortillas: Their Original tortillas are aluminum-free, but their fat-free and whole-wheat tortillas contain aluminum. To request that all their products become aluminum-free, write to: Mission Foods, 1159 Cottonwood Lane, Suite 200, Irving, Texas 75038 Call (800) 527-1197

CARNATION HOT COCOA MIX: Silicoaluminate is stated on the label. To request that this product become aluminum-free, write to: Nestle USA, Beverage Division, Inc., Glendale, CA 91203. Call (800) 637-8538

PILLSBURY PRODUCTS: Many of their products contain aluminum: cake mixes, biscuits, cookie dough and crescents. To request that all their products become aluminum-free, write to: The Pillsbury Co., 2866 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1464. (800)775-4777

CREAMORA Coffee Creamer: This product contains aluminate. To request that this product become aluminum-free, write to: Eagle Family Foods, Inc., Tarrytown, N.Y. 10591 (888) 656-3245

MC DONALD’S Hamburgers: The salt sprinkled on their foods contain aluminum. Individually-wrapped packages of salt contain aluminum. To request that all their products become aluminum-free, write to: McDonald’s Corporation, One Kroc Drive, Oak Brook, IL 60523 or call (630) 623-3000.

KFC Chicken: Their biscuits contain aluminum. To request that their products become aluminum-free, write to: Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc., 1441 Gardiner Lane, Louisville, KY 40213 or call 1 (800) 225-5532

TACO BELL: Their crispy corn tortillas are aluminum-free, but their soft tacos and flour tortillas contain aluminum. To request that all their products become aluminum-free, write to: Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc., 1441 Gardiner Lane, Louisville, KY 40213 or call 1 (800) 225-5532

PIZZA HUT: Their traditional crusts are aluminum-free, but their breadsticks contain aluminum. To request that all their products become aluminum-free, write to: Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc., 1441 Gardiner Lane, Louisville, KY 40213 or call 1 (800) 225-5532"

Taking Aluminum Out Of The Diet
http://ybertaud9.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/taking-aluminum-out-of-the-diets-2/

PROZAC CAUSED A TEENAGE BOY TO MURDER HIS FRIEND

2012-02-26T18:59:00.002-10:00

http://youtu.be/9S-7aNPf33A

By Dr. Mercola

"A Canadian judge has ruled that a teenage boy murdered his friend because of the effects of Prozac.

The ruling will not be appealed.

The decision has revived the debate regarding the widespread prescription of antidepressants to young people.

Justice Robert Heinrichs ruled that the 15-year-old boy was under the influence of the medication when he stabbed and killed a close friend.

He was sentenced to 10 months on top of the two years he had already spent in jail.

"Prozac is meant to curb the effects of depression, but Justice Heinrich concluded it set off a steady deterioration in the young murderer's behavior," CCHR1 reports.

"He had become irritable, restless, agitated, aggressive and unclear in his thinking," the judge said.

"It was while in that state he overreacted in an impulsive, explosive and violent way. Now that his body and mind are free and clear of any effects of Prozac, he is simply not the same youth in behavior or character."

Should Antidepressants Carry Black Box Warning for Homicidal Tendencies?

In 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided SSRI antidepressants must carry a black box warning that the drug can cause suicidal tendencies. But what about violence and homicidal tendencies? Despite mounting evidence that antidepressants and certain other drugs can induce violent behavior and has led to the tragic death of spouses, family members and friends, the FDA has done nothing to warn or curb the use of such drugs.

According to CCHR2:

"It is well documented that psychiatric drugs, particularly antidepressants, can cause a host of violent side effects including mania, psychosis, aggression, violence, and in the case of the antidepressant Effexor, homicidal ideation ... [P]eople with no prior history of violence (or suicide) became homicidal and suicidal under the influence of antidepressants. ... However, despite all the documented violence-inducing side effects of these drugs, the FDA has never issued black box warnings on antidepressants causing violence or homicide despite the fact that at least 11 recent school shootings were committed by kids documented to be on or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs."

The expert testimony in this case was supplied by Dr. Peter Breggin, an outspoken critic of psychiatric drugs. The featured article quotes him as saying:

"These drugs produce a stimulant or activation continuum... That continuum includes aggression, hostility, loss of impulse control … all of which are a prescription for violence."

Other still feel the link between antidepressants and homicide is thin, but I can't help but wonder if that's just because they're refusing to look at the evidence and give it the attention it deserves. The CCHR website includes a helpful search feature3, allowing you to search for all sorts of reports and research relating to psychiatric drugs and their side effects. It took 13 years before the FDA finally agreed SSRI's can cause suicidal thoughts and behavior. How many decades-worth of evidence will have to mount up before the apparent link to uncontrolled violence and homicide is addressed?

Your Genes May Predispose You to Homicidal Side Effects of Antidepressants

Interestingly, in related news, a 2011 study published in Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine4 has found that certain genes may predispose you to homicidal behavior following exposure to antidepressants. Both sudden withdrawal from antidepressants and continuing to take them was found to worsen the problem. According to the study's authors:

"... The results presented here concerning a sample of persons given antidepressants for psychosocial distress demonstrate the extent to which the psychopharmacology industry has expanded its influence beyond its ability to cure.

... [T]he Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (Star *D) study ... found that antidepressants were only marginally (2.7%) more efficacious compared with placebos. The same meta-analyses documented profound publication bias, inflating their apparent efficacy as well as bias in failing to report the negative results ... The authors argue for a reappraisal of the current recommended standard of care of depression." [Emphasis mine]

What they discovered is that many people being treated with antidepressants can't metabolize them due to common genetic mutations, which can cause severe drug interactions and akathisia (a movement disorder characterized by a feeling of inner restlessness). Some researchers and physicians believe that akathisia is the chief symptom that triggers impulsive violence in certain individuals who take antidepressant drugs. This is thought to be an extreme form of akathisia. Homicidal impulses and murderous behavior due to akathisia is now being called "homicidal akathisia."

Forensic psychiatrist and lead author of the study, Dr. Yolande Lucire, is now campaigning to introduce ways of minimizing over-prescription of antidepressants by taking genetics into account. Of 129 subjects, more than 120 of them were diagnosed with akathisia/serotonin toxicity caused by psychiatric medications. The authors further explain:

"They were tested for variant alleles in CYP450 genes, which play a major role in Phase 1 metabolism of all antidepressant and many other medications. Eight had committed homicide and many more became extremely violent while on antidepressants. ... All those described [in the paper] were able to stop taking antidepressants and return to their previously normal personalities."

Antidepressants Top List of Most Violence-Inducing Drugs

It's certainly worth paying heed to drug interactions such as violence and homicidal leanings, both as a patient and as a concerned parent, family member or friend. According to a 2010 study published in the journal PLoS One5, half of the top 10 drugs disproportionately linked with violent behavior are antidepressants:

Varenicline (Chantix): The number one violence-inducing drug on the list, this anti-smoking medication is 18 times more likely to be linked with violence when compared to other drugs

Fluoxetine (Prozac): This drug was the first well-known SSRI antidepressant

Paroxetine (Paxil): Another SSRI antidepressant, Paxil is also linked with severe withdrawal symptoms and a risk of birth defects

Amphetamines: (Various): Used to treat ADHD

Mefoquine (Lariam): A treatment for malaria which is often linked with reports of strange behavior

Atomoxetine (Strattera): An ADHD drug that affects the neurotransmitter noradrenaline

Triazolam (Halcion): This potentially addictive drug is used to treat insomnia

Fluvoxamine (Luvox): Another SSRI antidepressant

Venlafaxine (Effexor): An antidepressant also used to treat anxiety disorders

Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq): An antidepressant which affects both serotonin and noradrenaline

Is Usage of these Drugs Ever Appropriate?

Depression, or more accurately, un-repaired emotional short-circuiting, can absolutely devastate your health and life. However, using antidepressants as the primary (or only) treatment option is simply not advisable, especially if the one suffering from depression is a child or teenager. Whereas severe depression can indeed progress to suicide if left untreated, antidepressant drugs have been shown to CAUSE both suicidal and homicidal thoughts and behaviors. As mentioned in the featured report, at least 11 tragic school shootings were done by children who were either on antidepressants, or going through withdrawal...

I believe this is an enormous price to pay for what amounts to highly questionable benefits.

Studies have found that up to 75 percent of the benefits of antidepressants could be duplicated by a placebo. So not only do these drugs not work as advertised, but the evidence is quite clear that most of these drugs do in fact increase your risk of suicide and violence. Since depression can be a terminal illness, why take a drug that will actually increase your risk of killing yourself—or someone else?

Please understand that I am not seeking to diminish the impact of mental illness. It is massively pervasive and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every year and needless suffering in millions of others.

My clinical experience leads me to believe that the only appropriate use of these dangerous medications is as a last ditch effort when the patient is at a serious risk to themselves or others. (And, of course, they must be closely monitored for lethal side effects such as suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts and tendencies!) The drugs should be continued until the condition is under control and they are out of harm's way, and then carefully weaned. This is a very similar strategy to going to the ER and seeing an orthopedic surgeon for a cast when you've fractured a major bone.

You don't use that cast the rest of your life. You use it until your bone is healed.

The REAL tragedy is that most of the drug companies do NOT view antidepressants this way. There are enormous marketing efforts to classify normal behavior as aberrant or diseased, which then requires lifelong therapy with their drug solution.

How to Address the Root Cause of the Problem

I strongly believe that energy psychology is one of the most powerful tools for resolving emotional issues—specifically a technique called EFT—and I'll be talking more about that in a moment.

But diet and general lifestyle are clearly parts of the "root" that must be healed if you want to resolve mental health issues. For example, mounting evidence tells us that having a healthy gut is profoundly important for both physical and mental health, and the latter can be severely impacted by an imbalance of intestinal bacteria. I strongly recommend addressing the following lifestyle factors if you're suffering from depression or any other mental health problem.

Dramatically decrease your consumption of sugar (particularly fructose), grains, and processed foods. (In addition to being high in sugar and grains, processed foods also contain a variety of additives that can affect your brain function and mental state, especially MSG, and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame.) There's a great book on this subject, The Sugar Blues, written by William Dufty more than 30 years ago, that delves into the topic of sugar and mental health in great detail.

Increase consumption of probiotic foods, such as fermented vegetables and kefir, to promote healthy gut flora

Get adequate vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 deficiency can contribute to depression and affects one in four people.

Optimize your vitamin D levels, ideally through regular sun exposure. Vitamin D is very important for your mood. In one study, people with the lowest levels of vitamin D were found to be 11 times more prone to be depressed than those who had normal levels.6

The best way to get vitamin D is through safe exposure to SUNSHINE. Remember, SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) is a type of depression that we know is related to sunshine deficiency, so it would make sense that the perfect way to optimize your vitamin D is through sun exposure, or a safe tanning bed if you don't have regular access to the sun.

Get plenty of animal-based omega-3 fats. Many people don't realize that their brain is 60 percent fat, but not just any fat. It is DHA, an animal based omega-3 fat which, along with EPA, is crucial for good brain function and mental health7. Unfortunately, most people don't get enough from diet alone. Make sure you take a high-quality omega-3 fat, such as krill oil.

Dr. Stoll, a Harvard psychiatrist, was one of the early leaders in compiling the evidence supporting the use of animal based omega-3 fats for the treatment of depression. He wrote an excellent book that details his experience in this area called The Omega-3 Connection.

Evaluate your salt intake. Sodium deficiency actually creates symptoms that are very much like those of depression. Make sure you do NOT use processed salt (regular table salt), however. You'll want to use an all natural, unprocessed salt like Himalayan salt, which contains more than 80 different micronutrients.

Get adequate daily exercise, which is one of the best-kept secrets to preventing and overcoming depression.

Get adequate amounts of sleep. You can have the best diet and exercise program possible but if you aren't sleeping well you can easily become depressed. Sleep and depression are so intimately linked that a sleep disorder is actually part of the definition of the symptom complex that gives the label depression.

New Research Shines Light on the Benefits of EFT

Additionally, it's imperative to address any underlying emotional issues. I have been a fan of energy psychology for many years, having witnessed its effectiveness in my medical practice and in my own personal life. EFT, as opposed to drugs and supplements, hits at the root of the problem—even if you don't know exactly what that is. This is the beauty of energy medicine in general—and anyone can learn to apply EFT to themselves, even a young child.

In the following videos, Julie Schiffman, a licensed EFT practitioner at my Center for Natural Health in Chicago, guides you through how to tap for headaches and other pain. As you will see, by simply altering your statements you can use this tapping technique to address virtually any ailment you may be experiencing at any point in time.

Unfortunately, studies have been few and far in-between as science has been trying to "catch up" with clinical experience. But all of that is changing now!

Before I go any further, I want to stress the importance of getting professional help if you suffer from depression, and that includes seeing a qualified EFT therapist. Although you can learn how to do EFT in a few minutes it can take years to apply it effectively. The best therapists are typically those with conventional psychological training who have studied this in addition to conventional methods. There are times where hospital admission may be necessary to prevent a suicide attempt and untrained therapists will not be able to discern this danger.

If the first therapist can't help you, I recommend seeking out another. Getting a second opinion is pretty standard when it comes to medicine, and this is no different. The connection between you and your doctor or therapist can have a great influence on the success of your treatment or therapy.

As for the success rate of EFT, several studies have recently been published, demonstrating just how safe and effective EFT really is. For example, the following three studies show remarkable progress in a very short amount of time for people with a history of trauma:

A 2009 study of 16 institutionalized adolescent boys with histories of physical or psychological abuse showed substantially decreased intensity of traumatic memories after just ONE session of EFT.

An EFT study involving 30 moderately to severely depressed college students was conducted. The depressed students were given four 90-minute EFT sessions. Students who received EFT showed significantly less depression than the control group when evaluated three weeks later.

A study of 100 veterans with severe PTSD (Iraq Vets Stress Project) showed an astounding reduction of symptoms after just six one-hour EFT sessions. After completing six sessions, 90 percent of the veterans had such a reduction in symptoms that they no longer met the clinical criteria for PTSD. Sixty percent no longer met PTSD criteria after only three EFT sessions. At the three-month follow-up, the gains remained stable, suggesting lasting and potentially permanent resolution of the problem.

[The Iraq Stress Project is still recruiting veteran volunteers. If you are a veteran and interested in participating, you can get more information here.]

Operation Emotional Freedom

In a new documentary film entitled Operation: Emotional Freedom, directed by Eric Huurre, a number of Veterans and their families went through intensive therapy using EFT. The results were truly astounding. EFT developer Gary Craig, along with other EFT practitioners worked very closely with Veterans who recently returned home from war. They were all suffering from PTSD, depression, anxiety and a few were suicidal.

At the end of treatment, each one of them describes a new feeling of peace and hope that there is help and they were able to overcome emotional traumas experienced in combat.

This film is a close look at the current state of health care for combat veterans diagnosed with PTSD. The film is about examining the myths and misconceptions surrounding the medical/chemical approach to treating emotional conditions and why drugs are not "the answer" that pharmaceuticals promise. Instead, the story follows this group of volunteer Vets and their families on a journey from the hell of their post-war experiences through a newer vision of health and recovery for PTSD and trauma.

Visit the official website www.operation-emotionalfreedom.com to learn more about efforts to assist veterans and their families through energy psychology.

Clearly, energy psychology beats pharmaceuticals HANDS DOWN as a safer, more effective, longer-lasting treatment for stress and emotional problems. And there have been EFT successes with a wide range of other issues—both emotional and physical. EFT is easy to learn, no matter what your age—children included—so I encourage you to add it to your stress-busting tool kit.

In closing, please remember that your emotional health is intimately connected with your physical health, which is largely controlled by diet and lifestyle choices and your reactions to stress. These daily habits have enormous impact, whether you want to overcome depression or just continue enjoying great health. So please, actively investigate and consider the natural treatments I've suggested above, ideally with the support and guidance of a knowledgeable natural medicine friendly healthcare practitioner.

Important Concluding Thoughts...

I want to make something abundantly clear before I leave you. I know firsthand that depression is devastating. It takes a toll on the healthiest of families and can destroy lifelong friendships. Few things are harder in life than watching someone you love lose their sense of joy, hope, and purpose in life, and wonder if they will ever find it again. And to not have anything within your power that can change things for them. You wonder if you will ever have your loved one "back" again.

It's impossible to impart the will to live to somebody who no longer possesses it. No amount of logic, reasoning, or reminders about all they have to live for will put a smile back on the face of a loved one masked by the black cloud of depression.

Oftentimes you cannot change your circumstances. You can, however, change your response to them. I encourage you to be balanced in your life. Don't ignore your body's warning signs that something needs to change. Sometimes people are so busy taking care of everybody else that they lose sight of themselves.

There are times when a prescription drug may help restore balance to your body. But it's unclear whether it is the drug providing benefits, or the unbelievable power of your mind that is convinced it is going to work.

If you have been personally affected by depression, my heart goes out to you.

A broken body can be easier to fix than a broken mind. Depression is real. It is my hope that you don't feel judged here, but that you are encouraged and inspired by those who have been there."

He Murdered a Friend After Taking This Best-Selling Drug
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/25/legal-system-rules-antidepressants-cause-kids-to-kill.aspx?e_cid=20120225_DNL_art_1

'LEGAL' KIDNAPPING BY THE STATE TO COVER UP VACCINE INJURIES

2012-02-26T18:54:00.006-10:00

"In 1977 Professor Roy Meadow wrote a controversial paper on Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) for the Lancet, entitled ‘The Hinterland of Child Abuse’ (1) The paper was deemed problematic by many because the second case study used as evidence of MSBP type abuse described a child presenting with excessive sodium (salt) in the blood. During Meadow’s discussion he disclosed that this child was force-fed 20 g of sodium, with difficulty, by himself and his colleagues. Sadly the child died!

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) is a fanciful diagnosis based on the fictional character Baron Munchausen. Baron Munchausen is said to have enjoyed a series of supposed travels and fantastical experiences with his band of misfits. It seems fitting that Meadow used this particular fictional storybook character to name this new syndrome.

This diagnosis is now being attached to parents and care givers to describe aspects of their behavior which usually includes subjecting what appears to be a previously healthy child to unnecessary and often painful tests or medical interventions i.e. scans, x-rays and even surgical procedures to gain what Meadow describes as attention from the medical profession.
The Vaccine Cover Up Begins

I now believe that there is more to Meadow’s diagnosis than meets the eye. I say this because government papers have come to light proving that Meadow had ties to big pharma (2) and that he was attending government meetings discussing adverse reactions to vaccines from 1987-1991. In fact these documents prove that Meadow not only attended meetings on vaccinations but was advising committee members on the subjects of the yellow card reporting system, anaphylaxis, seizures and cot death and had even contributed to vaccination guidelines. (3) It was not long after these meetings that the largest vaccine cover up the world has ever seen began. Suddenly thousands of parents all over the world were accused of MSBP after their children had suffered a vaccine injury.

A make believe name had become a make believe disorder to enable professionals to pin the blame of vaccine induced injuries onto the shoulders of innocent parents.

One family caught up in the vaccine cover up was Mr. and Mrs. Peacher and their two children. Six years ago Mr. and Mrs. Peacher had their two children child A aged 6 and child B aged 7 snatched from them by social services after they claimed their children were vaccine injured. Without warning the couple was falsely accused of MSBP and as a direct consequence of this accusation had both children taken away by social services (CPS). The children were then separated and put in foster families 200 km apart. All parental contact was severed in the case of child A and limited to just twice a year in the case of child B.

What grounds did social services have to snatch the children? Very little it appears as the children were reported to be appropriately dressed, well groomed and clean. According to the background reports to this case the children were well fed, cheerful and seemingly happy children.

The family did have problems however and there is no getting away from this. Mrs. Peacher was reported to suffer from bouts of poor mental health, suffering from stress, a mild personality disorder and mild learning difficulties. Mr. Peacher also is said to have mild learning difficulties and is reported to be manipulative at times.

The family had also moved around a lot and had been said to have had twelve different moves in eight years. According to Mr. Peacher this was because the children were being severely bullied for being ‘different’ and because of his work.

Did these problems amount to child abuse or were their children stolen because Mr. and Mrs. Peacher dared to suggest that they were vaccine damaged?

Reading through the reports the children did have problems mixing and had an array of ‘unmet needs’. The reports stated that the children both exhibited the following behaviors:

Poor attention spans, poor self control e.g. fidgeting, unsettled; presented as socially unboundaried e.g. over familiar, loud, ask inappropriate questions; struggling with poor peer relationships; invite or instigate aggression and bullying; and hit out and kick each other and their parents.

Child B has a confirmed learning difficulty and severe constipation leading to continual soiling throughout the day.

Child A has less learning difficulties than her brother although it is felt that she may plateau and then begin to struggle later on. She also has been reported to suffer from spina bifida, urinary tract infections and like Aaron suffers from severe constipation and incontinence.
Were Mr. and Mrs. Peacher’s Children Abused Or Did They Suffer From Vaccine Induced Illness?

In 2000 Lisa Blakemore-Brown an independent applied psychologist, who specialized in ADHD, Asperger Syndrome and related disorders, wrote the book ‘Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry’. Her research focused on early intensive system intervention, and the increasing professional recognition of the overlapping features of ADHD and Asperger Syndrome. Her book has had worldwide recognition and is a must have for any parents with children suffering from ADHD, Autism and related disorders.

In the chapter Blakemore-Brown entitled ‘Definitions, Descriptions and Disorders’ (4) she describes disorders that Mr. Peacher feels are very similar to those his children were reported to have been suffering from. After reading her book which describes disorders such as autism and ADHD he told me that it was like reading descriptions written about his own children. Strangely however, he informed me that neither of the two children had ever been formally assessed by an expert.

What is even stranger is that Mr. Peacher swears that his children’s problems only began after they received routine vaccinations. His description ties in with what Lisa Blakemore-Brown has been saying for 17 years. In fact it is her belief that it was her outspokenness that led to a ‘witch hunt’ orchestrated by the minions to drive her out.

In 2005 Daniel Foggo writing for the Telegraph (5) wrote;

A former government adviser who has controversially linked infant vaccines to autism in children claims she is the victim of a disciplinary action “witch-hunt”.

The child psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown believes that her outspokenness has made her enemies in the pharmaceutical business and in the Government.

Ms Blakemore-Brown, 57, has expounded the theory that diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis inoculations routinely given to babies at two months could be linked to autism and a range of allergies. She is facing disciplinary charges after being officially accused by the British Psychological Society of being potentially unfit to practice and of being paranoid.

Blakemore-Brown believes that thousands of parents worldwide lose their children when parents complain that their children’s autism/ADHD only began after routine vaccinations.
Blakemore-Brown Is Not Alone In What She Believes

Blakemore-Brown is not alone in what she believes, another professional who believes that vaccines are causing vaccine induced illnesses including autism and ADHD and when parents complain they lose their children is Dr Rebecca Carley M.D. Carley has proved through a series of papers that autism is a non fatal version of SSPE (Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis). (6)

The myelin sheath is a fatty layer which insulates the nerves, just as does the plastic coating on an electrical cord. Demyelination is when the myelin breaks down causing interference with nerve conduction which leads to conditions like autism and ADHD. This was proven by scientists at UCLA. (8) What determines the resultant symptoms is the location and severity of the demyelination.

Carley documents that in the 10th edition of the book entitled Harrison’s Principals of Internal Medicine (9) it actually states that SSPE can be caused by the measles vaccination.

This is further evidenced by the fact that it has since been proven that professionals discussing the MMR vaccine during the ARVI meeting July 6th 1987 (10) (a meeting which Prof Meadow attended) actually referred to an SSPE like syndrome.

It is interesting that professionals were discussing SSPE in relation to the MMR vaccine especially as Dr Rebecca Carley M.D. has always firmly believed that SSPE is in fact non-fatal autism.

Dr Carley has documented that in the May 4, 2000 publication of the CDC (#99-6194) entitled “Vaccine Information Statements – What You Need to Know” on page 9 in the section “The Law (Recording Patient Information & Reporting Adverse Events) it states “A report under paragraph (1) regarding a vaccine shall include the time periods after the administration of such vaccine within which vaccine-related illnesses, disabilities, injuries, or…deaths occur, and the manufacturer and lot number of the vaccine.” The most important part of the scientific method is OBSERVATION; and observing you have a different child after a vaccine is administered has been transformed into a mental illness (MSBP) in the observer to cover up the epidemic of vaccine related disabilities and deaths. This is FRAUD of the highest order, leading to the breakup of families like the Peachers which causes further psychological trauma to the children & the parents.

Once a whisper of MSBP has been whispered all professionals then see the parents as child abusers and cannot think outside the MSBP box. Blakemore-Brown describes this as putting on the Munchausen’s lenses, which she says are put on by the ‘duped professional’ looking at a case involving a parent who is suspected of suffering from MSBP. She says:

“Once wearing the lenses (influenced by the phenomena) the duped professional is blinded to the truth and can’t see what is staring him in the face and what his training has taught him”

Charles Pragnell Dip. S.W. L.R.C.C Consultant / Director an independent social care management consultant with over thirty years of experience in working directly with children and young people as a social worker and as a senior manager of social services is of the same opinion.

Pragnell is also worried about the sudden over use of the MSBP diagnosis. He speaks of his concerns in his paper entitled ‘MUNCHAUSEN SYNROME BY PROXY – A MYTHICAL MALADY!’ (12)

He says that not only were Meadow’s original findings of questionable validity, but as far as is known, MSBP was never subjected to any trial period under clinical and scientific conditions by any national medical body in the United Kingdom prior to its introduction as a medical diagnosis, nor has there been any trial period under clinical and scientific testing conditions to monitor and review its implementation.

In another paper which I believe to be one of the most important papers ever written on the subject of false accusations of child abuse (13) Pragnell states:

Many parents in many places around the world have given personal testimony that following the administration of vaccines to their child, the child has become seriously ill within hours or days. Such illnesses have taken many forms but commonly they are febrile, listless, and some are reported to have experienced epileptic seizures.

Within days or a few short weeks, parents report that their child then takes on a totally different personality – they are distant, unable to make eye contact, they are constantly restless and hyperactive – “they have gone into their own little world” is an often stated assessment by the parents. The parent, quite naturally, becomes extremely anxious and fraught as they lose contact with their child. They want their child to be healthy and normal, as the child was in the first few weeks after birth. So what has happened they wonder?.

In the Britain, the parent will usually seek help and advice from the Health Visitor and perhaps their General Practitioner but this is when they are hit with the first of the `Double Whammies’.

The Health Visitor reports them to the Child Protection agencies as their child is “failing to thrive” and is not reaching its expected developmental milestones. They are seen as over-anxious and if they seek a second medical opinion, they are accused of `Doctor-shopping’.

Dr Viera Scheibner Phd and retired research scientist agrees and states the following in her paper entitled ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome – The Vaccination Link’ (14) She writes:

While the term MSBP may have some validity in describing this special form of child abuse in the documented cases of parents slowly poisoning their child or exposing it to unnecessary and often dangerous and invasive medical treatments, more recently it became a way for some doctors to camouflage the real observed side-effects of especially measles (M), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and measles-rubella (MR) vaccinations in the UK. Many thousands of British children (up to 15,000 in my considered opinion) developed signs of autism usually associated with bowel symptoms after being given the above vaccines in 1994.

Surely this evidence given by some of the top professionals in the world studying this subject is proof that Mr. and Mrs. Peacher are not child abusers but actually inexperienced parents trying to cope with undiagnosed and therefore untreated severely vaccine damaged children. What they required more than six years ago was not blame and ridicule because they were parents with learning difficulties but help and guidance to enable them to stay the family that they so desperately wanted to be.

However, like a growing number of cases around the world instead of the help and guidance that Mr. and Mrs. Peacher so desperately needed they were blamed and punished in the worst way possible. They have had their family torn apart, their children sent to live 200 km away from each other losing not only each other but their loving, caring parents as well. Is this what the government calls child protection or is it really a clever and devious way for the government to protect their own lies and corruption under the guise of child protection?"

‘Legal’ Kidnapping By The State To Cover Up Vaccine Injuries
vactruth.com/2012/02/26/legal-kidnapping-vaccine-injuries/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6f87dc0db1-09_05_2011_O'Shea&utm_medium=email

WHY STORING CORD BLOOD WAS NOT THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR THIS FAMILY

2012-02-26T18:36:00.005-10:00

Storing cord blood requires parents to allow the premature clamping and cutting of their baby's umbilical cord. When a baby's umbilical cord is clamped and/or cut before it has stopped pulsing (i.e., before all of the baby's blood has reached the baby), this prevents the baby from receiving all it's much-needed oxygen supply at birth, as well nutrients and antibodies intended to support the baby's immune system and the proper development of it's nervous system.

If you are concerned for your child's health, the best thing you can do is leave your baby's umbilical cord UNCLAMPED and UNCUT until well after the cord has stopped pulsing and has turned white. Your baby's cord blood belongs inside your baby's body -- not stored in a storage container and possibly used by mad scientists.

PLEASE PROTECT YOUR BABY!!! DO NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO TAKE YOUR BABY'S CORD BLOOD.

From http://GivingBirthNaturally.com

"After careful review of the research, we decided that donating or storing cord blood was not in the best interest of our family. Few people publish the reasons they choose not to bank their baby's cord blood. I have outlined the basis for our decision below so that others may see this issue from a different perspective. Although this option may seem like the ultimate altruistic act, giving your child's cord blood so that another may have life, we could not in good conscious select this option for both moral and ethical reasons.

Moral/Ethical Implications

The first reason is that if the sample size is inadequate for transplant, it will either be disposed of or sold for medical research. In fact, about 75% of donated cord blood samples will meet this fate. While this may not be an obstacle to some, for us, it was a deal-breaker. Not that it may be disposed of, but that it may be sold for research.

Once the sample is donated, your legal rights are terminated, nor can you have a voice in how it is used. As we are morally and ethically opposed to the use of our children's cord blood for the purposes of cloning, developing biological weapons, and other such research endeavors, we could not select donation as a viable option. Since we would have no say to what purpose the cord blood stem cells were put, we could not allow the possibility for it to be used in what to us are unconcinable acts.

Why We Didn't Choose Private Cord Blood Banking

We also could not in good faith choose the option of storing cord blood privately either. The reasons here are a bit more complex.

False Advertising

The chief sin of all private cord blood banks is false advertising. Any company that touts their service as "biological insurance", especially if they use the examples of treating future cancers, is seriously misleading the public. The primary reason this is false advertising is that, after storing cord blood, it could actually be used to treat a disease in the same child from which it was harvested is not guaranteed. This is because any genetic diseases or disorders the child later develops will also be present in the child's cord blood. It may in turn be used to treat a sibling, but not the original child. This fact is rarely specified to parents who are then given false hope once a diagnosis is determined. Their hopes are then stripped away as they find that the umbilical cord blood will be useless in helping save their child and that all the years of "health insurance" were nothing but an empty promise.

Often Incompatible with Evidence-Based Practice

The current buzz about cord blood donation and storing cord blood privately has led to a perception that this cord blood is not needed by the infant at birth and has become a contributing factor to the non-evidence based practice of early cord clamping. The research evidence supports that the newborn umbilical cord should not be clamped nor cut until pulsation has ceased, which can take between 5-20 minutes or more, depending upon whether the birth was natural or medicated. While in most instances enough cord blood can be collected after the cord has stopped pulsating, the vast majority of physicians don't adhere to this practice, telling parents that the cord must be early clamped to make donation possible. In other instances, cord blood banking companies' literature will specifically state that the collection must occur before the cord stops pulsating, leading in turn to early cord clamping.

The practice of early cord blood clamping results in documented harm to the infant, including increasing risks of complications shortly after birth, including hemorrhage and anemia. In truth, early cord clamping can rob the infant of half its total blood volume, which can take up to 6 months to regenerate. In a newborn, a bleed of only 1 ounce will cause a critical hemorrhage. A bleed of 2.3 ounces will kill the baby. As a newborn's total blood volume is about 10 ounces, this leaves little room for error. Please reference this article detailing the benefits of delayed cord clamping and restricted umbilical cord problems.

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated "if cord clamping is done too soon after birth, the infant may be deprived of a placental blood transfusion, resulting in lower blood volume and increased risk for anemia" and it supports the practice of delayed cord clamping.

Even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is usually woefully out of line with the research in some of its recommendations, also supports the practice of delayed cord clamping.

Unfortunately, this is an area of obstetric care where research and practice don't meet. Despite the overwhelming research and public policy support of delayed cord clamping, many physicians do not respect this recommendation. Many believe that the cord must be early clamped for storing cord blood.

Since we were not able to locate a provider in our area who was well-versed or receptive to this practice when storing cord blood, it was also a deal-breaker for us. We firmly believe that our efforts should focus on giving our children the best possible start in life by allowing them to have an optimal transfusion of cord blood at birth rather than sacrificing their immediate health for potential future complications of which we have no family history and/or predisposition, and for which other viable treatments options may be pursued.

The Research on Storing Cord Blood Privately

Overwhelmingly, there is little support for private cord blood banking. In fact, it is illegal in Italy and France. In addition, no major medical organization even endorses the practice of private cord blood banking.

The RCOG or Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK released a 2006 position which stated, "There is still insufficient evidence to recommend directed commercial cord blood collection and stem-cell storage in low-risk families."

The American Academy of Pediatrics 2007 statement was that "private storage of cord blood as 'biological insurance' is unwise" unless there is a family member with a current or potential need to undergo a stem cell transplantation.

The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT) also supports the position that cord blood donation may be beneficial as well as private banking if there is a family history of disease or if many risk factors are present.

Ownership After Storing Cord Blood Privately

After paying hefty fees for storing cord blood privately, it may seem a logical conclusion that the family then owns the exclusive legal rights to the banked cord blood. But this, in fact, may not be the case.

In 2007, the largest private cord blood banking facilities still do not explicitly state in their contracts that the umbilical cord blood belongs to the donor and/or family, including all the legal rights you would naturally expect with this type of arrangement. This "loophole" opens the door to open future unapproved uses which may include, but are not limited to: cloning, research and partial sale.

In addition, the standard contracts may also omit vital information on the donor's right to end their relationship with that company, especially with regard to the transfer, right to request destruction of the stored cord blood as well as to verify destruction. This also opens the door to other unapproved avenues of use in that if destruction or disposal is not defined, then release of the sample for medical research may be defined as "disposal", though not in an ethical manner.

Utlimately, it is a personal decision that you as a family must make on whether storing cord blood, either publically or privately, is the right choice for you. I hope that our reasoning sheds some light on the darker side of the cord blood banking industry so that you can make an informed decision as well."

Why Storing Cord Blood was Not the Right Choice for Our Family
http://www.givingbirthnaturally.com/storing-cord-blood.html

FANTASTICALLY GORGEOUS UNASSISTED BIRTH OUTDOORS

2012-02-26T18:26:00.000-10:00

http://youtu.be/a3ANtPxI3pE

SWITZERLAND DECIDES HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT IS EFFECTIVE AND COST-EFFECTIVE AND SHOULD BE COVERED BY SWISS NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM

2012-02-26T18:16:00.003-10:00

http://youtu.be/xedLd9djgyg

"The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.

In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland's national health insurance program.

The Swiss government's inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program.

It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government's health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland's national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government's constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

The Swiss Government's "Health Technology Assessment"

The Swiss government's "Health Technology Assessment" on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).

And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity"). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy... or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).

After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhöft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)

The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.

The authors of the Swiss government's report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only nine "high quality" conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Lüdtke, Rutten, 2008).

The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in "evidence based medicine," has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were "unscientific" or "unproven" because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.

In my view, for a treatment to be determined to be "effective" or "scientifically proven," a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn't is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government's report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.

The next article will discuss further evidence provided in this report from the Swiss government on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic care."

The Swiss Government's Remarkable Report on Homeopathy
http://www.kindredcommunity.com/articles/the-swiss-governments-remarkable-report-on-homeopathy/p/2302

10 TIPS FOR AVOIDING A FIRST-TIME CESAREAN

2012-02-26T18:10:00.002-10:00

Via Giving Birth with Confidence

By Jessica English, CD(DONA), LCCE

"More and more women in the United States (and around the world) are having cesarean births. A recent study from the Yale University of Medicine showed two main reasons for the rise: more c-sections in first-time moms and lower rates of VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean).

For your first baby, what can you do to reduce your chances of an unnecessary cesarean birth? We’ve identified 10 areas where you can be proactive and stack the deck in your favor.

1) Hire your provider wisely. This point is number one for a reason – it’s critical. In most practices, you could have any one of several doctors or midwives. You get whoever is on call when you go into labor. It’s helpful to know your practice’s cesarean rates. The labels “obstetrician,” “family doctor” and “midwife” don’t necessarily tell you what you need to know about your provider’s philosophy. Some doctors practice more like midwives, and some midwives practice more like a stereotypical doctor. Will they have a toolbox of natural techniques or only medical tool to help you if your labor is complex? If you’re not sure which doctor or midwife to choose, ask a doula. Doulas see all kinds of births with many different practices, and they will be happy to make a recommendation of a provider with a low cesarean rate and good bedside manner. If you find out that your provider is not supportive, it is never too late to switch, even if you are just a few weeks or even days before your due date.

2) Hire a doula. Simply put, doulas make birth better, and there’s research to prove it. A meta-analysis of studies shows that women who use a doula are 26 percent less likely to have a cesarean birth, among other dramatic benefits. Having continuous support from a friend of family member can be helpful too, but the best results come when women hire an outside doula, according to a recent Cochrane Review. What exactly is the doula magic? The research hasn’t pinpointed the magic, but I think the unique combination of physical, emotional and informational support, plus gentle advocacy makes a huge difference. Doulas help women feel safe and comfortable so the hormones of labor can work at optimal levels, positioning ideas and tricks can help babies work their way out, and evidence-based information and help communicating with the medical staff can help women have their best chance inside a system that doesn’t really promote natural birth.

3) Take an independent natural childbirth class. It’s not so much that you need to know a lot about giving birth, but many women (and men) need to undo what society has taught us about birth. Independent classes are usually longer and more in-depth, with more interaction and less lecture. A good instructor can help increase your confidence in your body and help you trust in the normal birth process. An independent Lamaze-certified instructor will base her class on the six Lamaze Healthy Birth Practices, a wonderful resource that lays the groundwork for the best possible birth. Another benefit of an independent class is that your teacher works for you. She can teach you how to advocate for yourself within the system, without having to worry about what doctors, administrators or anyone else might think.

4) Avoid induction unless there’s a serious medical problem. As a first-time mom, some studies show that simply walking in the door for an induction of labor doubles your risk of a cesarean. Doubles it. That’s huge! Avoiding induction is never more important than with a first baby. But if you must be induced for a medical reason, call on your natural childbirth instructor and your doula (remember them?) to help you with tips to keep it as normal and natural an experience as possible, even with the unexpected circumstances. If mom and baby are not in immediate danger, low-and-slow inductions can result in a better chance of a vaginal birth, but you’ll need great support on the journey.

5) If having your baby in the hospital, stay home at least until strong, active labor. Your independent childbirth instructor will teach you how to recognize active labor. If you follow the common hospital recommendation to “come in when contractions are five minutes apart, at least a minute long, for at least an hour,” most women having their first baby will be very early in labor. The intensity of contractions is a much better guide than the timing. The more hours you are at the hospital before your baby is born, the higher your risk of intervention (including a cesarean). In her book “Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care,” Jennifer Block tells the story of a hospital in Florida that lost power after a major hurricane. A generator kept the essentials running, but there was not enough power for air conditioning. They wanted to save resources and keep laboring women cool, so for a full week they turned away any woman who was not in full-blown, active labor. Their emergency cesarean rates during that week dropped dramatically.

6) Avoid an epidural, at least in early labor. Research is a bit mixed, and not all studies have been high quality. But still, the best evidence available does seem to show that epidurals, especially when women get them early in labor, do increase the cesarean rate in first-time mothers. Childbirth Connection is a great resource for information on the benefits and risks of epidurals. There are rare times, of course, when getting an epidural can actually help a woman have a vaginal birth, if she simply doesn’t have the strength to go on. Every labor is different. But an epidural also makes it harder for a baby in a bad position to move into a better one, it limits your ability to move, and it requires a lot of other interventions (IV, continuous monitoring, bladder catheter, etc.). Your doula and your independent childbirth class may give you enough natural tools so that you won’t even need the drugs. Most women don’t.

7) Read only the best childbirth books. Get these books, and read them cover-to-cover. Seriously, throw away “What to Expect When You’re Expecting,” and dive into these wonderful books instead.

• “The Official Lamaze Guide: Giving Birth with Confidence,” by Judith Lothian and Charlotte Devries (the book that inspired this blog!)

• “Ina May’s Guide to Childbirth,” by Ina May Gaskin

• “The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth,” by Henci Goer (Written in 1999, this book is due for a revision, but it’s still excellent information and routine procedures and hospital technology have not changed much since that time. Henci also runs a helpful Q&A forum on the Lamaze International web site, so you can ask the expert yourself.)

• “Your Best Birth: Know All Your Options, Discover the Natural Choices, and Take Back the Birth Experience,” by Ricki Lake and Abby Epstein (they also offer a great web site and community)

And while you’re at it, buy the DVDs “The Business of Being Born” and “Orgasmic Birth” – they’re even on Netflix. That’s right, I’m recommending “Orgasmic Birth.” Stretch yourself a little!

8) Get your partner on board. It’s hard to do this alone, you need support! Even with the best doula, your partner is still an integral part of your birth journey. Penny Simkin’s book “The Birth Partner: A Complete Guide to Childbirth for Dads, Doulas and All Other Labor Companions” is a great place to start. Be sure your partner attends that independent childbirth class with you – sometimes partners benefit even more than moms from that information and support.

9) Consider an out-of-hospital birth. It’s possible, with the right support, to have a great first birth in the hospital – even a vaginal birth without pain medication. As a doula I see them fairly often, and you should definitely choose the hospital if that’s where you feel safest and most comfortable. But the best research is pretty clear that your odds of a vaginal birth are better outside of the hospital: at home or in a birth center. In 2005 the British Medical Journal published a large study that looked at home births in the United States attended by Certified Professional Midwives. The women who gave birth at home had similar outcomes to low-risk women who had hospital births in terms of safety for moms and babies. But just 3.7 percent of the women who had their babies at home transferred to the hospital for a cesarean, while 19 percent of the low-risk women who had their babies in the hospital ended up with c-sections. The current cesarean rate in the United States is 32.9 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Many studies have shown similar results, which makes out-of-hospital birth at least worth considering.

10) Believe in your body! The cesarean rate for women who birth at The Farm in Tennessee is less than 2 percent. Many industrialized countries around the world have cesarean rates of 15 percent or less. Women have been doing this for millions of years! Your body works. Birth works, in all its complex and wonderful variations. Surround yourself with knowledgeable support, of course, in case you encounter any rare and unexpected complications. But truly… trust your body. Trust birth."

10 Tips for Avoiding a First-Time Cesarean
http://givingbirthwithconfidence.org/2011/07/10-tips-for-avoiding-a-first-time-cesarean/

CANCER KILLER - ONE CURE THE AMA ISN'T TELLING YOU ABOUT

2012-02-26T18:06:00.003-10:00

Via Collins Okello
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150633404774483&set=a.79119654482.73539.47893254482&type=3&theater

"CANCER KILLER – Natural Cancer Cell Killer 10,000 Times Stronger Than Chemo! I have received 100s of emails to repost this story:

The Sour Sop or the fruit from the graviola tree is a miraculous natural cancer cell killer 10,000 times stronger than Chemo.

Why are we not aware of this? Its because some big corporation want to make back their money spent on years of research by trying to make a synthetic version of it for sale.

So, since you know it now you can help a friend in need by letting him know or just drink some sour sop juice yourself as prevention from time to time. The taste is not bad after all. It’s completely natural and definitely has no side effects. If you have the space, plant one in your garden. The other parts of the tree are also useful.

The next time you have a fruit juice, ask for a sour sop.

How many people died in vain while this billion-dollar drug maker concealed the secret of the miraculous Graviola tree?

This tree is low and is called graviola in Brazil, guanabana in Spanish and has the uninspiring name “soursop” in English. The fruit is very large and the subacid sweet white pulp is eaten out of hand or, more commonly, used to make fruit drinks, sherbets and such.

The principal interest in this plant is because of its strong anti-cancer effects. Although it is effective for a number of medical conditions, it is its anti tumor effect that is of most interest. This plant is a proven cancer remedy for cancers of all types.

Besides being a cancer remedy, graviola is a broad spectrum antimicrobial agent for both bacterial and fungal infections, is effective against internal parasites and worms, lowers high blood pressure and is used for depression, stress and nervous disorders.

If there ever was a single example that makes it dramatically clear why the existence of Health Sciences Institute is so vital to Americans like you, it’s the incredible story behind the Graviola tree..

The truth is stunningly simple: Deep within the Amazon Rainforest grows a tree that could literally revolutionize what you, your doctor, and the rest of the world thinks about cancer treatment and chances of survival. The future has never looked more promising.

Research shows that with extracts from this miraculous tree it now may be possible to: * Attack cancer safely and effectively with an all-natural therapy that does not cause extreme nausea, weight loss and hair loss * Protect your immune system and avoid deadly infections * Feel stronger and healthier throughout the course of the treatment * Boost your energy and improve your outlook on life

The source of this information is just as stunning: It comes from one of America ‘s largest drug manufacturers, the fruit of over 20 laboratory tests conducted since the 1970′s! What those tests revealed was nothing short of mind numbing… Extracts from the tree were shown to:

* Effectively target and kill malignant cells in 12 types of cancer, including colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancer.. * The tree compounds proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells than Adriamycin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug! * What’s more, unlike chemotherapy, the compound extracted from the Graviola tree selectively hunts down and kills only cancer cells.. It does not harm healthy cells!

The amazing anti-cancer properties of the Graviola tree have been extensively researched–so why haven’t you heard anything about it? If Graviola extract is

One of America ‘s biggest billion-dollar drug makers began a search for a cancer cure and their research centered on Graviola, a legendary healing tree from the Amazon Rainforest.

Various parts of the Graviola tree–including the bark, leaves, roots, fruit and fruit-seeds–have been used for centuries by medicine men and native Indi! ans in S outh America to treat heart disease, asthma, liver problems and arthritis. Going on very little documented scientific evidence, the company poured money and resources into testing the tree’s anti-cancerous properties–and were shocked by the results. Graviola proved itself to be a cancer-killing dynamo. But that’s where the Graviola story nearly ended.

The company had one huge problem with the Graviola tree–it’s completely natural, and so, under federal law, not patentable. There’s no way to make serious profits from it.

It turns out the drug company invested nearly seven years trying to synthesize two of the Graviola tree’s most powerful anti-cancer ingredients. If they could isolate and produce man-made clones of what makes the Graviola so potent, they’d be able to patent it and make their money back. Alas, they hit a brick wall. The original simply could not be replicated. There was no way the company could protect its profits–or even make back the millions it poured into research.

As the dream of huge profits evaporated, their testing on Graviola came to a screeching halt. Even worse, the company shelved the entire project and chose not to publish the findings of its research!

Luckily, however, there was one scientist from the Graviola research team whose conscience wouldn’t let him see such atrocity committed. Risking his career, he contacted a company that’s dedicated to harvesting medical plants from the Amazon Rainforest and blew the whistle.

Miracle unleashed When researchers at the Health Sciences Institute were alerted to the news of Graviola,! they be gan tracking the research done on the cancer-killing tree. Evidence of the astounding effectiveness of Graviola–and its shocking cover-up–came in fast and furious….

….The National Cancer Institute performed the first scientific research in 1976. The results showed that Graviola’s “leaves and stems were found effective in attacking and destroying malignant cells.” Inexplicably, the results were published in an internal report and never released to the public…

….Since 1976, Graviola has proven to be an immensely potent cancer killer in 20 independent laboratory tests, yet no double-blind clinical trials–the typical benchmark mainstream doctors and journals use to judge a treatment’s value–were ever initiated….

….A study published in the Journal of Natural Products, following a recent study conducted at Catholic University of South Korea stated that one chemical in Graviola was found to selectively kill colon cancer cells at “10,000 times the potency of (the commonly used chemotherapy drug) Adriamycin…”

….The most significant part of the Catholic University of South Korea report is that Graviola was shown to selectively target the cancer cells, leaving healthy cells untouched. Unlike chemotherapy, which indiscriminately targets all actively reproducing cells (such as stomach and hair cells), causing the often devastating side effects of nausea and hair loss in cancer patients.

…A study at Purdue University recently found that leaves from the Graviola tree killed cancer cells among six human cell lines and were especially effective against prostate, pancreatic and lung cancers…. Seven years of silence broken–it’s finally here!"

NAMING NAMES -- WHO ARE THE "ILLUMINATI" AND THE WIZARDS BEHIND THE CURTAIN

2012-02-26T16:10:00.004-10:00

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm...

"...the [demon] brothers formed the first international bank and named it N.M. Rothschild & Sons. The Pope became their most famous customer. The Catholic Church, which had financed the wholesale slaughter, torture, and looting of hundreds of thousands of Muslims during the Christian crusades, were now doing business with the demon brothers. BY 1823, THE ROTHSCHILDS WERE GUARDIANS OF THE ENTIRE PAPAL TREASURY AND TOOK OVER THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH..."

Ring of Power ILLUMINATI Bloodlines - Part 13 of 31
http://youtu.be/pQu68t1aMlI

VICTORIOUS HOME BIRTH OF TWINS - ONE BREECH -- PAST 41 WEEKS!

2012-02-24T19:07:00.003-10:00

From Birth Without Fear Blog

"Travis & Harris were born on May 11, 2010 at home at 41 weeks and 3 days. It had been a wonderful pregnancy, but it was seriously time for birth. I had been having mild contractions off and on for about the last week, feeling my body right on the edge and knowing our boys were about ready to be born. Every morning, waking up pregnant again was starting to wear on me physically and emotionally– especially since all our friends and family were waiting so excitedly, and of course multiples so often come early or are induced. We had been thrilled to be past 36 weeks, which meant we were clear to go ahead with our plans to have the babies at home with our midwife. I always knew I was going to carry the boys full-term, but was surprised to see their due date come…and go.

We were feeling pressure to try induction to get things moving, especially after a nerve-wrecking appointment with our perinatologist. He had been telling me from the get-go that there was no way my uterus could handle much more than 10 pounds of baby and I would likely end up in the hospital with preemies, and that birthing my baby B vaginally in his breech position would be impossible without a manual breech extraction.

At that appointment the day before they were born, he ran through a host of frightening ‘risks’ and recommended we get to a hospital and get the babies out by whatever means necessary. I was grateful for the information about my sons that his practice provided through their ultrasound services, but I fully understood that his medical point of view was just that. As he had never attended a mother in natural labor and never witnessed a normal, unmanaged and unhindered birth. I had done thorough research throughout my pregnancy on every potential risk and method of response, looked to God and into my own heart. I only became more confident in the truth and in the practice of midwifery.

At 41 weeks and 2 days though……with him giving my husband intimidating ‘are you crazy???’ looks, it began to get stressful and brought my husband and I to a hard place. I wanted to wait at least until 42 weeks to the day, but agreed with my husband and midwife to go ahead and tentatively plan for induction at home by way of membrane sweeping, castor oil and herbal tinctures for 2 days out.

While I was more comfortable with that as opposed to going to the hospital for a bag of pitocin, it still felt so incredibly wrong to me. I knew that the best way to have my boys born safely, whole and healthy was to rely on my own body and mind and allow for a spontaneous natural labor to begin. Especially with twins and especially with my second baby breech, the risk of starting a false labor that could lead to a non-progressive labor that could put my second son’s life in danger was my biggest worry. These boys NEEDED to be born!

Our whole family turned to prayer, I interceded every way I knew how while my husband took a four-wheeler ride up to the top of our property and wrestled with his own emotions and worries, giving them up to God. He put the kids to bed that night and told me of the way our four-year-old daughter prayed for the boys to be born, asking Jesus to keep them and her mommy safe.

And the next day.at 4am I began to feel stronger and more regular contractions than I had been feeling for the past week, which had been erratic and mixed with sensationless Braxton Hicks. I waited a few hours until 6am when I was sure they were intensifying and getting closer together to call my midwife and my mom to excitedly tell them ‘I’m in labor!!’.

My mom started sending mass emails to everyone she had praying for us, and my in-laws did the same when my husband let them know things had started for sure. We got in the shower and hugged and kissed through the contractions – we were both SO excited and feeling so grateful that this day was finally here and we were about to meet our sons! He dressed in jeans and his ‘birth shirt’, the same white button-front he had worn at the births of our daughter and son, and his Opa’s old Rolex that he had timed their contractions by. I was feeling the same orange cotton bra I had worn the day before, and nothing else.

My midwife and her apprentice arrived at about 7:30, and the other midwives came shortly afterwards, making a team of five. The three Certified Nurse Midwives (Julia, GB, Kristie) and two apprentices (Nina & Kate) were busy setting out all their supplies and readying the room, while I worked through the labor that was getting really intense very quickly. Our nanny arrived around 8 to take care of our older children; we kissed them and said ‘your brothers will be born soon, better start working on their birthday cake!’ So Angie kept them busy baking and playing for the morning. Though I heard that MaryJane refused to leave the house to go outside, wanting to hear as much as she could, worried about some of the odd noises I was making. Her Daddy promised her I was fine, told her not to worry and she’d be meeting her first new brother soon.

home breech twin birth

I had planned on laboring in the tub and birthing the first baby in water, but we wanted to collect their cord blood to bank and with the second baby breech there was just a lot going on and my midwife felt more comfortable having more access to me, so she recommended setting up a birthing stool off the edge of our bed. I had never seen one before, but as soon as I laid eyes on it I wanted to sit on it and let this baby come! He had been descending quickly and I was ready with my husband to my right and Kristie to my left for support. It wasn’t long before my baby’s head appeared; I reached down to feel him and loved feeling his thick dark hair. Another contraction and Travis’ head was fully born, after that his whole 8 pound 8 ounce body shot out like a rocket at 8:41!

He was perfect, we were overjoyed and it felt so good to take him right into my arms. Things slowed down and relaxed as we kissed, talked, laughed and held him. I was so excited and happy to see that sweet face I had felt nuzzling the inside of my lower right belly for so long. It turned out that his face had actually been quite smashed against me and had flattened his nose, left ear and left eye but in my blissed-out state I only saw complete perfection in him.

We wanted to be patient to allow my body and second baby adjust to the new room inside, the midwives held me and massaged my belly a little to help. I watched Julia and Nina take Travis to wipe him down and swaddle him, while I felt the urge to lay down on the bed to rest. My husband laid with me, and it wasn’t long before I had Travis back in my arms and put him to my breast. He was a fabulous eater right away, and had quite a persuasive way with my uterus, which began to contract again, moving his brother down. We called in MaryJane and Van in to meet Travis, MJ especially was so excited and declared him ‘the cutest little baby ever’. It was really grounding to see them and see their sweet reaction to their new brother. MaryJane had picked out two rubber duckies as gifts for the boys, brought in the one for Travis and set it on my chest so he could see it as he nursed – so sweet! We told them that Harrison was on his way and we’d call them in again to meet him soon. Over the next two hours we continued to nurse off and on, and tried a few different positions as things ramped up again.

I had been so curious through my pregnancy as to what it would be like waiting for my second baby……how much time would pass between their births? I really hoped to have some good time with Travis, to nurse him and get to know him. Julia had talked about how useful he could be in getting labor going again so while it was part of the plan, experiencing it was a wonderful surprise. I was so proud of him to be playing such an important part in his little brother’s birth and the process of the three of us working together was confirmation of what I knew to be the truth about birth. That a mother’s body and her baby’s body are designed to work in perfect harmony, and yes even with multiples! Her body wants to birth and her babies want to be born. Un-medicated and unforced, as long as a mother is willing, intuitive and calm, her babies will be born well. Being birth-educated and supported by the right people (even if that is only your husband or yourself!) can only help.

I was so incredibly grateful to be attended by the group of intuitive women around me. The mood was so joyful and expectant. I was so happy and smiling at each of them so much, receiving their kind smiles back and getting enthusiastic encouragement of how well my babies and I were doing was exactly what I needed. They were so in tune all three of us, knowing just what I was feeling by how I was behaving, gently offering me sips of water, massage, and pillows for support before I even knew I needed them. It’s a great thing to see people who love their work. I appreciated how skillfully they worked around us, monitoring the baby still in my belly, the baby in my arms and myself while communicating with each other in soft whispers, allowing me peace to get totally into my primal state. Which I was – completely letting myself go and getting in it…in it to win it! During my last birth with my now two-year-old son I had breathed quite silently and deeply all through it and this time while birthing Travis I had learned that quick shallow panting sort of like a thirsty dog felt really good during the stage where the baby was moving down. His birth was a perfect warm-up for birthing Harrison, as it was all so fresh in my mind. Too bad I was panting straight into my handsome husband’s face and was told later I had forgotten to brush my teeth…oh well.

So things started getting really heavy, Kate took Travis so I could really concentrate on the pushing I was about to do. I was in sort of a standing position, with my butt on the edge of the bed, leaning back on my husband behind me with my feet propped up on the birthing stool. I have never forgotten a birth video my doula had shown me years ago when I was preparing for my first birth with my daughter. It showed a Brazilian woman who was birthing twin sons, and her second baby was breech. She stood there like a queen…supported only by her own two feet and silently brought her baby into the world feet-first with a smile on her face. At the time seeing one little baby leg slip out and hang down between her Amazonian legs completely bent my mind. I thought it was the most insane thing I’d ever seen. And now five years later that scene seemed completely normal, she had become my muse of the last few months and the moment was here…my time to shine and become her as best as I possibly could.

I relaxed and waited for a contraction, worked with it and was rewarded with excited gasps from everyone as one little foot emerged. Cameras flashed and Harrison thought twice and drew that foot back inside, which made everyone laugh again. Then he showed us both of his fat little feet.

Another contraction and he was born to the waist, another and his body was born and his little arms slipped out. He did so beautifully through his whole birth, his heart rate stayed steady as his body dangled from me, supported gently by Julia as his head remained inside.

So this was the one, the clock was now ticking and they were telling me I needed to work with this next contraction like I have never worked before and push my baby out. The semi-reclining standing position had worked well as my midwife had theorized to help his head ease under my pubic bone, but now that his head was there it wasn’t feeling right anymore and I wanted to be more upright and leaning a bit forward. They helped me into that position and I waited for that contraction and wasn’t feeling it. I could feel the tension in the room building, but I had read many birth stories and commentary from obstetricians and midwives in the UK where they do many successful ‘hands off’ breech births and knew they had a standard of up to 10 minutes to allow for cord compression. It had only been a few minutes for us and his heart tones were still steady so I was not fearful, and filled only with faith and expectation.

That contraction came and I dug as deep as I could, closed my eyes and envisioned graphically what was happening. I saw my body easily opening wide to expose a little chin then chubby cheeks and round sweet eyes like my daughters. And then my final prize…the very top of his perfect hairy head. That little head I had patted and massaged and watched poke up at me from the top of my belly for months. I imagined planting a big sweet kiss right on top and with that…he was born! All 8 pounds and 15 fat ounces of him at 10:50am.

Julia laid him on the floor and told me to get down on all fours on the floor too. While his heart was still beating and his cord still pulsing, he was not breathing on his own yet. Resuscitation is a skill midwives are used to using, more often for breech babies so it was something we were all expecting might be needed. Julia was giving him mouth to mouth and massaging his body roughly. I was calm and silent, watching quite stupidly until they began encouraging me to talk to my baby. I began calling him by his name, stroking him and telling him what a good strong boy he was and how proud I was of him. William was panicking a bit, saying ‘Breathe boy breathe!’ and I told him ‘Don’t worry babe, he’s fine, he’ll breathe!’ It seemed less than a minute before he was breathing gurgling breaths and was placed safely in my arms. Ecstatic joy from everyone and a few tears from my husband followed. We had both of our sons, live, healthy and perfect – the weight of the world was off his shoulders, and off my belly. The relief and gratitude we felt was overwhelming.

Two more births still lay ahead of me…which ended up being only one as the boys placentas were fused together and both came out with one contraction, which was nice. My midwife cleaned me up and began to check me over; I was thrilled to hear her say I needed no stitches! Minimizing the risk of injury during birth was really the reason I had initially become interested in active natural birth and I was so pleased to be walking away intact, with two perfectly intact and unharmed infants.

Harrison was having a harder time nursing due to his tougher arrival, so I continued to nurse Travis while the midwives helped Harrison get his reflexes going. By this time we were fairly cleaned up and our older kids were back with us, checking out their new brothers. I had gifts for them from the boys, Van seemed really happy about the twins but was REALLY excited about his new trains. MJ got a little doll that she loved but she was way more interested in the two real live dolls in front of her, fascinated by watching GB work her finger in Harrison’s mouth, finding his ‘sweet spot’.

Looking around at our family of six felt so dreamlike, experiencing the birth of our latest members all together in such a normal setting made it an extra precious event that I will be forever grateful for.

SO grateful for our beautiful new sons!

SO grateful I sought out and considered differing opinions, did my own research, made my own decisions, took responsibility and birthed in the way and place I knew was safest for us.

SO grateful I chose reason and faith over irrational worry and fear.

SO grateful I allowed our boys to grow so big and healthy, and be born when they and my body were truly ready.

SO grateful for those last frustrating days of waiting for them, each day something happened within our family to prepare us for the boys in ways we didn’t even know we needed.

SO grateful to the friends and family who encouraged and truly supported us.
You know who you are!

SO grateful for the strong decisive man I married……
who decided to trust and stand by his wife!

SO grateful to live in the blessed state of Texas, where midwife attended homebirth is legal for multiples and breech babies. YEE-HAW!!!

This pregnancy and birth was a spiritual lesson and experience for me, so most of all I am grateful to the Divine Intelligence of the Creator who made this body of mine so full of energy, elasticity, and strength to love. God is SO good, I am beyond grateful for His promises, protection and to walk in His grace."

“Can it be that the Creator intended to draw mothers nearest to Himself at the moment of love’s fulfillment?” – Grantly Dick-Read

Home Birth of Twins Born Past 41 Weeks, One Footling Breech
http://birthwithoutfearblog.com/2011/12/21/home-birth-of-twins-born-past-41-weeks-one-footling-breech/

THE SECRET COVENANT OF THE ILLUMINATI

2012-02-24T17:50:00.008-10:00

"An illusion... it will be so large, so vast, it will escape their perception. Those who will see it will be thought of as insane. We'll create separate fronts to prevent them from seeing the connection between us. We will behave as if we are not connected to keep the illusion alive. Our goal will be accomplished one drop at a time so as to never bring suspicion upon ourselves. This will also prevent them from seeing the changes as the occur. We will always stand above the relative field of their experience, for we know the secrets of the Absolute. We will work together always, and remain bound by blood and secrecy. Death will come to he who speaks. We will keep their lifespans short and their minds weak, while pretending to do the opposite. We will use our knowledge of science and technology in subtle ways, so they will never see what is happening. We will use soft metals, aging accelerators, and sedatives in food and water. Also in the air. They will be blanketed by poisons everywhere they turn. The soft metals will cause them to lose their minds. We will promise to find a cure for our many fronts, yet we will feed them more poison. The poisons will be absorbed through their skin and mouths. They will destroy their minds and reproductive systems. From all of this, their children will be born dead, and we will conceal this information. The poisons will be hidden in everything that surrounds them... in what they drink, eat, breath, and wear. We must be ingenious in dispensing the poisons for they can see far. We will teach them that poisons are good, with fun images and musical tones. Those they look up to will help. We will enlist them to push our poisons. They will see our products being used in film and grow accustomed to them and will never know their true effect. WHEN THEY GIVE BIRTH, WE WILL INJECT POISONS INTO THE BLOOD OF THEIR CHILDREN AND CONVINCE THEM IT'S FOR THEIR HEALTH. We will start early-on, when their minds are young, and we'll target their children with what children love most... sweet things. When their teeth decay, we will fill them with metals that will steal their mind and kill their future. When their ability to learn has been affected, we will create medicine that will make them sicker and cause other diseases for which we will create yet more medicine... They will grow depressed, slow, obese and when come to us for help, we will give them more poison."

To listen to the full text, please follow this link:

TALK ABOUT CHEMTRAILS HITS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

2012-02-24T17:14:00.001-10:00

CBS Atlanta is one of the only mainstream media stations to cover the topic of chemtrails. Please watch!

http://youtu.be/vHnghDr_TDA

LEAD IN LIPSTICK, ARSENIC IN EYELINER, CADMIUM IN MASCARA -- YOU DON'T SUPPOSE THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL US DO YOU?

2012-02-23T19:03:00.008-10:00

"There have long been suspicions over the levels of toxins in make-up, with numerous reports paying close attention, in particular, to lead levels in lipsticks.

But the practice of including harmful chemicals and heavy metals in make-up does not end with an alluring red pout.

According to eMaxHealth, eyeliner and concealers contain cadmium, powders and blushers are not nickel-free, beryllium is found in bronzes and eye-shadow and mascara and foundations even include arsenic.

What's in your make-up purse? A worrying amount of lead, cadmium, arsenic and other toxins are found in some L'Oreal, Clinique and Maybelline products

Consumers will not find the red-flagged ingredients labelled on packaging, however.

A 2011 report found that heavy metals are all-too common in some make-up. The Environmental Defence report, Heavy Metal Hazard: The Health Risks of Hidden Heavy Metals in Face Makeup, looked at 49 popular make-up products including Clinique foundation and and L'Oreal mascara.

The Ontario-based researchers analysed the products for the presence of arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, beryllium, nickel, selenium and thallium - the latter four of which are banned in cosmetics in Canada.

According to the health site, they found that all of the toxins but mercury was found in every tested product.

Ugly side of make-up: Maybelline Color Sensation contains lead and Clinique Stay True makeup contains arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, lead and thallium

On average, each product contained four of the toxins of concern. Never was a single one of the heavy metals labelled on packaging - because they are considered to be 'impurities', not added intentionally, but existing only as byproducts.

Specifically, Clinique Stay True makeup (Stay Ivory) contained arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, lead, and thallium while Cover Girl Perfect Point Plus eye liner contained beryllium, cadmium, nickel and lead, reports the site.

Popular mascara, L’Oreal Bare Naturale, was shown to include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, lead and thallium in its formula.

L¿Oreal Bare Naturale, was shown to include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, lead and thallium in its formula

L¿Oreal Bare Naturale, was shown to include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, lead and thallium in its formula

The effects of the toxins, which can be absorbed through the skin, is a worrying roll call of health problems, including hormone disruption, cancer, neurological problems, memory loss, mood swings, reproductive and developmental disorders, kidney problems, headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, lung damage, dermatitis and hair loss.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is calling for make-up giants to reformulate their products and make contents labelling clearer.

An additional recent report by the American Food and Drug Administration highlighted the lead contents of 400 lipstick brands. The results were eyebrow-raising surprising to say the least, with some of the more well-respected cosmetics companies, including Maybelline and L'Oreal, using the toxin in their formulas where better value brands, such as $1.99 Wet 'N' Wild Mega Mixers gloss, did not.
Wet 'N' Wild Mega Mixers Lip Balm

Maybelline Color Sensation had more than 275 times the lead content of the least toxic-heavy product.

In fact, that December 2011 report found that lipsticks contained more the double the amount of lead than previous studies had suggested.

eMaxHealth reports that the FDA's findings were promptly followed by a call from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pointing out that lead should never be exposed to children or to pregnant women.

Lead is a neurotoxin that is known to accumulate over time. It causes behavioural and learning problems and has been banned in certain industries, such as household paints, since the Seventies.

Lead in lipstick, arsenic in eyeliner and cadmium in mascara: The ugly secrets that the beauty industry isn’t telling you
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2104453/Cadmium-mascara-lead-lipstick-arsenic-eyeliner-The-ugly-secrets-beauty-industry-isn-t-telling-you.html

AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATE "BOUNCING BOILED EGGS" THAT MAKE MEN STERILE

2012-02-23T16:04:00.003-10:00

Authorities are investigating eggs that bounce after being boiled and may make men sterile, in the country's latest food safety scare.

‘PING PONG EGGS’: The eggs are too hard to eat, raising suspicion they are fake; however, the eggs' hardness could be a natural occurrence, caused by hens consuming large amounts of food enriched with a compound called gossypol, which binds to protein in egg yolks. (Photo: alex.shultz/flickr)

"BEIJING - Chinese authorities are investigating eggs which bounce after being boiled and may make men sterile, state media reported Friday, in the latest food safety scare to hit the country.

The eggs, being referred to in Chinese media and on the internet as "rubber eggs" or "ping pong eggs," are too hard to eat, raising suspicion they are fake, after appearing in "small numbers" in markets nationwide, Xinhua news agency said.

"The investigation is designed to appease consumers' concerns, after some suspected they bought artificial eggs made by unconscientious traders seeking profits," it reported.

However, the eggs' hardness could be a natural occurrence, caused by hens consuming large amounts of food enriched with a compound called gossypol, which binds to protein in egg yolks, Xinhua said.

"While gossypol normally exists in the residue of cotton seeds added to chicken feed as an extra protein source, large doses of the compound will suppress sperm activity as gossypol has been tested to be used in male contraceptive pills," it added.

Food safety worries are nothing new to China, where tales of fake cooking oil, tainted milk and watermelons which explode from being fed too much fertilizer regularly appear in the news.

In 2008, at least six children died and nearly 300,000 became ill from powdered milk laced with melamine, an industrial chemical added to low quality or diluted milk to fool inspectors by giving misleadingly high readings for protein levels."

China probes 'bouncing' boiled eggs
http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/china-probes-bouncing-boiled-eggs

McDONALDS SAYS NO TO SOW STALLS

2012-02-23T15:58:00.002-10:00

This is a big victory for the light.

"On Monday, McDonald’s announced that it will seek to have its pork suppliers phase out the use of gestational crates by May. Animal rights advocates have long opposed the use of “sow stalls,” which are barely over 2 feet by 7 feet in size. 60 to 70 percent of the more than 5 million breeding sows in the US are kept in such very close quarters; the crates can cause a number of health problems including urinary tract infections, weakened bone structures, overgrown hooves and mental health issues.

The New York Times’ Mark Bittman offers praise to McDonalds for “doing the right thing.” His description of gestational crates makes it all too clear why such an inhumane and unethical practice must end:

a gestation crate is an individual metal stall so small that the sow cannot turn around; most sows spend not only their pregnancies in crates, but most of their lives. For humans, this would qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment,” and even if you believe that pigs are somehow “inferior,” it’s hard to rationalize gestation crates once you see what they look like.

Needless to say, the pork industry is less than pleased.

McDonalds — the fourth-largest employer in the world – only buys one percent of the pork supply but the fast food giant’s decision to buy crate-free pork will have significant repercussions in how pigs are raised. In 1999, after McDonalds announced it would gives its caged hens 72 inches of space instead of 48, other fast-food chains were quick to do the same. Dr. Jodi Sterle, an expert on swine reproductive management at Iowa State University, is quoted by the New York Times as noting that there is “no easy alternative to sow stalls .. because feeding pigs is complicated by their hierarchical nature.” She points out that, when pigs are raised in groups, there is competition “for food, water and space, and especially for food”; with McDonalds’ decision to phase out crate-raised pork, the industry will have all the more reason to find ethical ways to raise the animals.

In Search of Sustainable Agricultural Practices For Fast Food Suppliers

Burger King was the first major fast-food company to reduce the amount of pork produced in gestational crates back in 2007, around the same time that it began to use cage-free eggs. The world’s largest produced of pork, Smithfield Foods, said that it would end the use of the creates by 2017, only to postpone such a change during the recession. It has now again said that it will cease to use gestational crates by 2017, following an undercover investigation. Cargill Foods says that it is 50 percent crate-free and Hormel Foods has recently said it will end the use of the crates in 2017, too.

Several states including California and Florida already have laws banning the use of crates in the meat and dairy industries. The Humane Society had recently increased its pressure on McDonalds.

While praising McDonalds, Bittman says, and rightly so, that we should in no way let the mega-company off the hook. Many other issues remain to be addressed such as the fast food chain’s actual food offerings, its relationship to the labor force and the marketing of its menu items to children via Happy Meals and splashy advertising.

Last summer, Krispy Kreme announced that it was switching to use cage-free eggs. We can keep up the pressure on big companies to practice sustainable agriculture and treat animals humanely and ethically. We are what we eat: Do we really want to eat a meal that was raised in a crate?"

Please follow this link and sign the petition at the bottom to put and end to this horror once and for all! Animals deserve our love. There is no reason to torture them.

McDonalds Says No To Sow Stalls
http://www.care2.com/causes/mcdonalds-says-no-to-sow-stalls-for-its-sausage.html

OB-GYN LEAVING FOR VACATION URGES INDUCTION - BABY IS DAMAGED FOR LIFE

2012-02-23T15:47:00.006-10:00

It is never a good idea to force a baby out of the womb before the baby is ready to come. Despite that absolute truth, almost one third of births today are artificially induced. Cytotec is often used (as it was in this case), which can not only cause uterine rupture, but also amniotic fluid embolism and immediate death of the mother, as well as extreme distress for the baby.

Technological birth, on every count, is a dangerous and highly traumatic nightmare. Avoid it if you can. Give birth at home.

"AN OBGYN OFFERED TO INDUCE LABOR at 39 weeks’ gestation for a couple’s first child because she was anticipating a vacation. In counseling, the ObGyn revealed no significant risks. The parents agreed and went to the hospital that afternoon.

Induction included cervical ripening with misoprostol followed by oxytocin, resulting in uterine tachysystole and an abnormal fetal heart-rate pattern. The child was born by cesarean delivery 25 hours after labor began.

The child suffered hypoxia, which caused hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, cerebral palsy, and spastic quadriparesis. He will always require 24-hour care.

PATIENT’S CLAIM Induction of labor was medically unnecessary. Informed consent was incomplete: induced labor increases the risks of hyperstimulation of labor, failure to progress, and cesarean delivery. The ObGyn was negligent: She had admitted several patients to labor and delivery that day, and delivered five babies in 19 hours, including three “unscheduled” cesarean deliveries. Because of the patient load, she was busy with other patients when a cesarean delivery became urgently needed for this baby. Hyperstimulation and fetal heart-rate abnormalities continued for several hours.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The suit was settled before trial.

VERDICT A $5.5 million Missouri settlement was reached against the ObGyn and hospital. The hospital was also required to implement new policies on induction, augmentation of labor, and informed consent."

ObGyn leaving for vacation urges induction
http://www.obgmanagement.com/article_pages.asp?AID=10198

AUTISM AND THE RABIES VACCINE - ONE FAMILY'S STORY

2012-02-23T15:18:00.003-10:00

"I’ve heard a lot of autism stories. Most of them sound pretty much the same.

Parent takes child to the pediatrician for a checkup. He or she is perfectly normal. Talks. Plays. Laughs. Gives Mommy and Daddy hugs and kisses. Looks at them. Responds to them. Normal.

Doctor says it’s time for a few shots. MMR. DTaP. Hep B. Hib. Polio. Pneumonia. Flu. Chicken pox. Am I forgetting any? Oh, I think there’s a Hep A shot now. Anyway, you get the idea.

That night, the child has a fever. Maybe even a seizure. The high-pitched screaming lasts for hours. Over the next few days and weeks, everything changes. Stops talking. Playing. Laughing. Giving Mommy and Daddy hugs and kisses. Looking at them. Responding to them. Not so “normal” anymore.

The child is eventually diagnosed with autism. Parent wonders about all those vaccines. Doctor says nah, it’s just a coincidence. Or the child had autism all along, and the parents just never noticed. Didn’t notice that he rarely slept, screamed for hours, had diarrhea day and night, banged his head against the wall. Doctor missed all the signs too. Completely. (Funny how when a child recovers from autism, the parents are often told that he never had autism in the first place.)

Seriously? Yeah. Right.

Now for my story.

It’s June 2006. My daughter Ann and grandson Jake, then 3½, live with me. One night we find a bat in Jake’s room. It tests positive for rabies, and we all get rabies shots. You can be bitten by a bat and not know it, and since rabies is almost always fatal, we don’t have a choice. Remember that word. Choice.

Shot number one and two are uneventful for Jake. Scary, though, because the hospital keeps him for a half hour to make sure he doesn’t go into anaphylactic shock. Shot number 3 ends in a trip to the emergency room that night. Fever of almost 102. Can’t wake him. Doctor says it’s an abnormal reaction to the vaccine and if it happens next time (with shot number 4), he shouldn’t get the last one. Well, I didn’t know a lot back then, but I knew enough to know that you don’t stop the rabies vaccines. Fortunately, Jake has no reaction—at least nothing we can see—to the remaining shots.

A couple weeks later, everything changes. Sound familiar? Jake stops talking. The kid who used to talk in paragraphs, never quiet, is silent. He stops playing—unless you call lining up his cars, meticulously, precisely, always the same, playing. Stops laughing. Stops giving Ann and me hugs and kisses. Stops looking at us. Or responding to us. He doesn’t seem to know we’re there. Stops feeding himself. Holding his own cup. Pottying. Now he’s walking on his toes. Flapping his arms. Looking to the side. His right eye is turning in. He’s floppy. Uncoordinated. Then the meltdowns start. Endless screaming and crying and trembling almost to the point of hyperventilating. He’s afraid of everything. Especially storms. And train whistles. And baths. Nobody can visit. We can’t go anywhere.

Jake has disappeared. Gone. Like someone came in the house and stole him from Ann and me.

September 7, we take him to a developmental pediatrician. He’s diagnosed with autism. Atypical autism, actually. PDD-NOS. Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. No mental retardation.

Unlike many families of children who developed “autistic-like symptoms” after a childhood vaccine, we didn’t hear the usual “It was always there, you just didn’t notice it” or “It’s just a coincidence.” One doctor, after telling us that a link between vaccines and autism had not been proven, did suggest that we report the event to the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, vaers.hhs.gov). Another doctor, when we took Jake in for a regular checkup, said, “You don’t want any vaccines today, do you?” And another said she had seen a lot of children develop autism—usually after the MMR or DTaP. Never after a rabies vaccine.

So here’s a different kind of vaccine. One that no rational person would say no to if bitten or possibly bitten by a rabid animal. After all, you don’t survive rabies. Since my book has been published, I have heard of two other cases. But it’s definitely not something you hear very often. Which is one reason I think Jake’s story lends credibility to the whole vaccine-autism link. Yes. There is a connection. Without a doubt.

Some of my friends and acquaintances think I’m not quite all there on the vaccine issue. They sing the praises of those four dozen by kindergarten childhood vaccines. But when I refer them to the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for adults (see the brand-new 2012 version at cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-schedule.pdf), they do a 180. Literally. They look at me like I’ve grown a third arm or something and say, “Hell no. I’m not getting all those shots.” But it’s okay to inject all that stuff into a baby? Sometimes I’ll ask a friend who I know is on some kind of medication—say, Zoloft—“How would you feel if you were watching the news one night and heard the words ‘Federal Zoloft Court’”? Now I have my friend’s attention. So I proceed to talk about our Federal Vaccine Court. The one that has paid out some $2 billion to families of children injured by vaccines (uscfc.uscourts.gov). Think about it. This is just basic common sense. Why have a vaccine court if there’s not a problem with the vaccines?

I’ve been called ignorant and even told I have blood on my hands. And I’m a member of a cult. You know which one I’m talking about. The group of people who want safe vaccines and want someone, anyone, to just entertain the possibility that vaccines can cause autism in some children. You’re probably a member too.

I have to admit I probably come across as crazy sometimes. The first words out of my mouth when I discover that a friend or relative is pregnant are, “Please, please, whatever you do, don’t vaccinate your baby.” That plea is often accompanied with a strong grip on the arm, which makes me appear even crazier. Or when I hear yet another story—and believe me, I hear one almost every day, sometimes more than one—of a perfectly normal child fading into autism following a vaccine, and the rage wells up in me until I see red and the tears come and suddenly I’m hugging a stranger and being hugged back. Crazy? Maybe.

But do you know what’s crazier? And just plain wrong? Our government and doctors ignoring what’s happening to our children and considering every possible cause for autism—from genes to the flame retardant in our kids’ pajamas—to the exclusion of vaccines. Our doctors discharging patients if their parents refuse to adhere to the “required” four dozen doses of vaccines in order to go into public kindergarten. To all you doctors out there. Hello. Wouldn’t you rather your patients get SOME vaccines at SOME point, versus none? Wouldn’t it make more sense for you to at least discuss vaccine choices with parents and maybe, just maybe, consider an alternate schedule that starts the shots later, breaks them up, and spreads them out? And check vaccine titers (keep reading) to avoid unnecessary vaccines? You might be surprised how much money you could make if you would open your own practice and advertise that you welcome parents who choose not to vaccinate or parents who prefer an alternate (safer) schedule.

Choice. There’s that word again. I am shocked by how many people don’t realize they have a choice when it comes to vaccines. Every state has some sort of exemption from vaccines. Might be religious, medical, philosophical, or all three. Check the National Vaccine Information Center (nvic.org) to find out what your state allows. Don’t count on your pediatrician to volunteer this information. Or the school. Won’t happen. Look it up. Educate yourself. You have to if you want to protect your children.

And here’s something else that’s crazy. More than crazy. Criminal. Giving a day-old baby a vaccine for Hepatitis B. I can’t even begin to improve on Dr. Sears’ stand on this one, so I’ll just quote him: “I skip the Hepatitis B vaccine in the hospital (unless the baby is sexually active or is going to share IV drug needles with another baby).” Also criminal: Doctors not routinely testing children’s vaccine titers. “Between 2% and 5% of people do not develop measles immunity after the first dose of vaccine. This occurs for a variety of reasons. The second dose is to provide another chance to develop measles immunity for people who did not respond to the first dose.” (immunize.org/askexperts/experts_mmr.asp) Let’s look at that another way. Between 95% and 98% of people DO develop measles immunity after the first dose of vaccine. Then, why isn’t it a law that children’s titers have to be tested before they are given the second dose?

Two years ago, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended reducing the five-dose regimen of rabies vac¬cines used as post-exposure prophylaxis to four doses. Why? Because four doses “elicited adequate immune responses and a fifth dose of vaccine did not contribute to more favorable outcomes.” The group went on to say that omitting the fifth vaccine could possibly result in “health benefits” as well as a potential cost savings to the United States healthcare systemhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif of $16 million (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5902a1.htm). Um, would someone please conduct a study like this on childhood vaccines? I won’t hold my breath here. I’m sure all those shots our kids are given are a lot more lucrative than rabies vaccines.

So here’s my question. If a relatively uncontroversial vaccine like the rabies vaccine can cause autism, isn’t it just possible that shooting tiny babies and young children full of vaccines—many at the same time when no one has ever conducted a study to prove that it’s safe to do so—could also cause autism? In some babies. In some children. In some combinations and under some circumstances. Just saying … for anyone who’s on the fence about vaccine safety.

To read Jake’s entire story—and for more of my cult-like, ignorant rants—check out my book, Unlocking Jake: The Story of a Rabies Vaccine, Autism & Recovery, at http://unlockingjake.com/"

Autism – and a Different Vaccine
http://vactruth.com/2012/02/22/autism-a-different-vaccine/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7e927748f7-09_05_2011_O%27Shea&utm_medium=email

LAPTOPS LINKED TO MALE INFERTIITY AND DANGEROUS EMF RADIATION FOR UNBORN CHILDREN

2012-02-23T15:10:00.002-10:00

"Recent research published in the journal Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health concluded that the "Laptop is paradoxically an improper site for the use of a LTC [laptop computer], which consequently should be renamed to not induce customers towards an improper use." [emphasis added]

What lead these reseachers to reach such a seemingly drastic conclusion?

In the study referenced above and titled "Exposure to electromagnetic fields from laptop use of "laptop" computers," researchers found that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by laptop computers likely induce currents within the adult body, and the bodies of developing fetuses exposed by proxy, to unsafe levels. They found that in the laptop computers analyzed EMF values were "considerably higher than the values recommended by 2 recent guidelines for computer monitors magnetic field emissions..."

Furthermore:

When close to the body, the laptop induces currents that are within 34.2% to 49.8% ICNIRP recommendations, but not negligible, to the adult's body and to the fetus (in pregnant women). On the contrary, the power supply induces strong intracorporal electric current densities in the fetus and in the adult subject, which are respectively 182-263% and 71-483% higher than ICNIRP 98 basic restriction recommended to prevent adverse health effects.
— Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, 2012 Jan; 67(1): 31-6

The fact that laptop computers may have adverse health effects was confirmed late last year (Nov. 2011) in the journal Fertility and Sterility, which we reported on in this article. In summary, researchers discovered that laptops connected to the internet through Wi-Fi decrease human sperm motility and increase sperm DNA fragmentation. This was the first human clinical study of its kind to establish that laptop-associated radiation can cause substantial harm to male fertility.

Laptop computers are far more convenient than desktops and difficult to avoid, especially if your livelihood is in any way connected to computer work and the internet. An effort should be made to use them cautiously and to avoid putting them directly on your lap. When circumstances make such exposures unavoidable it is possible that natural substances like turmeric, and propolis, along with other radioprotective substances, can reduce the adverse effects associated with exposure to harmful electromagnetic fields."

Why Laptops Should Be Renamed To Protect Consumers
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-laptops-should-be-renamed-protect-consumers?utm_source=www.GreenMedInfo.com&utm_campaign=9b05003caa-Greenmedinfo&utm_medium=email

CELL PHONES DURING PREGNANCY CAN LEAD TO NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN BABY

2012-02-23T14:47:00.002-10:00

By Dr. Mercola

Cell phones have been used widely for only about a decade, and unfortunately their use became commonplace before their true health effects were revealed.

As a result, we are only now beginning to see the potential repercussions, which include a number of potential health concerns for adults, including brain tumors, cognitive impairment, DNA damage, fertility risks and more.

Children, due to their thinner skulls, smaller brains, softer brain tissue and far more rapidly dividing cells, are even more susceptible to damage from cell phone use than adults, which suggests that babies in the womb, who are perhaps the most vulnerable population of all, may be at similar or greater at risk.

In fact, new research sheds light on the impacts of chronic cell phone use on the fetal brain in animals, and the effects are clearly detrimental.

Cell Phone Use During Pregnancy Shown to Cause "Certain Harm" to Fetal Rat Brains

A new study in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine by Jing et al sought to evaluate the intensity of oxidative stress and the levels of neurotransmitters in the brains of fetal rats chronically exposed to radiation from cell phones.

Four groups of pregnant rats were exposed to different intensities of cell phone microwave radiation -- one group that was left unexposed, and three groups that were irradiated three times daily for either 10, 30, or 60 minutes at a time.

After three weeks, the fetal rats were examined for changes in their brains.

All of the irradiated groups exhibited significant neurological differences, with researchers noting:

“Through this study, we concluded that receiving a certain period of microwave radiation from cellular phones during pregnancy has certain harm on fetal rat brains.”

Should Pregnant Women Avoid Cell Phones?

It will be a long time before these findings are thoroughly explored or publicized, but in the meantime there is reason to believe that cell phones could have a negative impact on a developing fetus, just as they may have a negative impact on you and your children. In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure to cell phones while in the womb, and also as children, was linked to more behavioral difficulties.i

Pregnant women using handsets just two or three times a day was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions and relationships by the time they reached school age -- and the risk became even greater if the children also used the phones themselves before age 7.

The 2008 study revealed that mothers who used mobile phones were in fact 54 percent more likely to have children with behavioral problems. When the children also later used the phones themselves, they were:

80 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties with behavior
25 percent more at risk from emotional problems
34 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers
35 percent more likely to be hyperactive
49 percent more prone to problems with conduct

Behavioral Problems in Children Exposed to Cell Phones in Utero Confirmed

In 2010, the researchers then looked at a larger group of children -- nearly 29,000 -- and also considered additional variables that could be swaying the results, and the association was found once again.ii

In that study, children whose mothers used cell phones while pregnant were 40 percent more likely to have behavioral problems, and this rose to 50 percent when the children also used cell phones themselves. The researchers even accounted for family history of behavioral problems, inattention of the mother, breastfeeding and time spent with the child -- and the association remained.

Autonomic nervous system expert Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt has noted this radiation may easily flip certain genes in the mitochondria. If this gene sequence is altered in a pregnant woman, she can pass her damaged mitochondria on to her child. The child can then develop a mitochondrial disorder, which can include muscular atrophy and severe developmental problems.

UK Experts Call for Health Warnings for Cell Phones and Children

In a report published by Mobilewise, a UK charity, medical experts and Mobilewise call on government and industry to provide warnings and advice on ways to reduce the risk of health damage when using mobile phones, especially in order to protect children.

The report, "Mobile Phone Health Risks: the case for action to protect children," warns that children’s health is being put at risk by the failure of government and phone companies to respond to the growing body of evidence linking mobile phone use with health hazards.iii It includes a chart of more than 200 peer-reviewed studies from numerous research institutions that link mobiles to serious health problems.

These include brain tumors and impact on fertility, genes, the blood-brain barrier and melatonin production, as well as other biological effects thought to have a role in the development of cancer. Endorsed by a number of prominent doctors and scientists, the Mobilewise report on the public health issue related to the impact on children highlights the body of evidence that has been "obscured in the debate over these risks," according to Vicky Fobel, director of Mobilewise.

I encourage you to read this report, and to print the list of studies with summaries and links to the cited research, and to share these with your communities.

" … develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves

" …ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools, as advocated by some regional authorities, medical associations and civil society organizations"

The European Parliament has also called for schools to be wireless free, in addition to hospitals, day care and retirement living facilities.iv

And most recently, Russian researchers led by Yury Grigoriev, PhD of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection have demonstrated significant cognitive impairment in children after four years of exposure to wireless devices.v Dr. Grigoriev says:

“The short-term and long-term potential consequences for society from exposing children to microwave radiation from cellular communication devices must be immediately acknowledged, globally, and responsibly addressed.”

My Top Tips for Cell Phone Safety

It's worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is much larger than the medical industrial complex, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They're also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to pedal their wares. This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies.

According to Camilla Rees, MBA of ElectromagneticHealth.org:

"We have seen a recent steep increase in disparagement of scientific research where the research demonstrates risks to public health from telecommunications technologies. It is very clear that in the name of "debate" certain parties are aggressively creating confusion and doubt about the biological and health risks, shamefully supporting the interests of the telecommunications industry."

There is already robust scientific evidence that cell phones and other wireless devices pose significant health risks to all of us, and especially to children and pregnant women. So while these findings are not being widely publicized as of yet, it makes sense to take action now to protect yourself and your children. You can help to minimize your exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices by heeding the following advice:

Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones.

Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you’re pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use may be especially important.

Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness. SKYPE offers a portable number via your computer that can plug into any Ethernet port while traveling.

Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them as often as you do. And most importantly, do not even consider having any electronic or wireless devices in the bedroom that will interfere with the quality of your sleep.

If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are not safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made.

Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.

Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call.

Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed.

You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.

Also Seek to Avoid Carrying Your Phone on Your Body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.

Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer Than Another: There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone.

Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.

Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.

If you are using the Pong case, which redirects the cell phone radiation away from the head and successfully lowers the SAR effect, realize that in redirecting the radiation away from your head this may be intensifying the radiation in another direction, perhaps toward the person next to you, or, if in your pocket, increasing radiation intensity toward your body. Caution is always advised in dealing with any radiation-emitting device. We recommend cell phones be kept ‘Off’ except for emergencies.

Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.

Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.

The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head."

Should Pregnant Women Avoid Using Cell Phones?
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/23/should-pregnant-women-avoid-using-cell-phones.aspx?e_cid=20120223_DNL_art_2

BOLIVAR MISSOURI SAYS NO TO FLOURIDATED WATER

2012-02-21T18:51:00.002-10:00

"(NaturalNews) Health freedom efforts have sealed yet another win, this time in Bolivar, Mo., where the Bolivar Board of Aldermen recently voted to stop fluoridating the city's water supply. The Bolivar Herald-Free Press reports that Mayor John Best cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of ending artificial water fluoridation, which has been setting the city back about $20,000 a year in added costs.

The decision comes not even five months after the Board voted to keep fluoridation intact (http://bolivarmonews.com), when mixed opinions on the matter prevented efforts to cut the city's budget in a practical way, as well as cease the forced medication of Bolivar's 10,000-or-so residents in the process.

"Instead of washing your mouth out with fluoride, how about brushing your teeth?" suggested Mayor Best at the recent meeting, pointing out all that drinking fluoride is far different from getting a topical fluoride treatment, which is how the chemical supposedly helps prevent tooth decay. "It's a topical treatment. It's not the ingestion of fluoride that works."

According to reports, four of the city's aldermen voted to discontinue fluoridation, three voted to keep it, and one abstained. Mayor Best later convinced the abstainer, however, to vote to keep fluoridation so that he could cast the tie-breaking vote. Either way, fluoridation is now a thing of the past in Bolivar, a relic of bad science that continues to poison millions across the country who still live in fluoridated towns and cities.

Commenting on suggestions made by some back in September that the Board should uphold fluoridation just because some health officials still believe it to be beneficial, Alderman Arleen Ferguson took a stand for critical thinking rather than blind adherence to tradition by suggesting to attendees at the meeting that fluoridation is more of a religious dogma than it is sound science. Alderman Ferguson, of course, voted to stop fluoridating Bolivar's water supply.

"I trust myself and what I read and I trust my ability to discern the different medical things that I have read," said Ferguson. "I think what [dentists are] presenting is what they have known and what they have had ... and I know things do change. I do trust their ability ... but I do trust myself and what I read and what I know as a person" (http://bolivarmonews.com).

To learn more about the dangers of fluoride, visit:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/"

Health freedom victory: Bolivar, Missouri ends water fluoridation
http://www.naturalnews.com/035005_fluoride_Missouri_water_supply.html

DOROTHY - PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT GMO BEHIND THE CURTAIN

2012-02-21T18:15:00.006-10:00

This is an EXCELLENT article about genetically modified foods - for those who really don't understand what's wrong with them.

"Last month after spending the day in an average supermarket doing product research on GMOs, I was so depressed that when it came time to write my GoodFood World article I just stared at the computer screen for an entire day and couldn’t write a word. I felt like an inconsequential drop in the ocean wanting to become part of a tsunami in order to right our corrupt, unhealthy and unjust food system.

Out of utter grief over the baby-food aisle because they included GMO formula and baby’s first GMO “treats,” I could approach the topic only one way – through the distance of satire. The article, It’s 2012, Welcome to your GMOcery, went viral and I felt buoyed for a few days.

But I’m left with the gnawing and imperative need to answer a question that a friend’s son asked his Mom after reading my article: ”What’s so bad about GMO’s?” It is the “PC” organic food party line to say “NO” to GMO’s, but I suspect like my friend’s (brilliant) son, there are many many people who don’t really know why GMO foods may be dangerous. Is it axiomatic that genetic advances are all harmful? So I’m writing this article for those who may not know the deeper 101 on GMO’s… with resources for further investigation. If you already know this information, I hope you’ll pass it along to others who’ll benefit.

I also think the GMO topic is the broadest reaching issue on our food table today because it intersects with EVERY other issue of our food system: small farmers vs. Big Ag; corporate bullying by the 1% Monsanto Monopoly who owns our country’s seeds; revolving door FDA appointments; politics of government farm subsidies and subsidized school lunches; food injustice; worker safety rights; increase in food allergy, cancer, and illness; animal health and welfare practices; increasing air pollution from greenhouse gases caused by cows eating grains instead of grass – with GMO corn being that grain; blatant obfuscation through FDA refusal to require labeling GMO ingredients present in the 70% of ALL PROCESSED PACKAGED FOODS ON SUPERMARKET SHELVES; FDA condoning industry testing of their own products – for example, by Monsanto – rather than REQUIRING neutral party testing; and the lowest world standards of any Western Country regarding GMO testing, safety, and labeling requirements on behalf of the public interest, their citizens.

WHAT IS A GMO FOOD?

According to the Institute for Responsible Technology, Genetically Modified Organisms are “the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal.” GM foods were first put on the market in 1996.

Now I’m all for being open to the possibility that maybe there’s a continuum of “GMO-ness,” that perhaps changing the DNA of a plant to have some new property may not be as bad as changing HOW a plant absorbs and survives poisons, becomes nutritionally deficient, messes up the animals eating those poisoned plants, and then effects the humans ingesting those plants and animals.

In this article, I am only referring to the transgenic plants corn, soy, canola and cotton, and their major creator and seller, Monsanto Corporation. Alfalfa, the most important crop eaten by the herbivore animals that we eat, is also a recently approved GMO crop but I’m leaving it out of this article for the sake of brevity! Sugar beets, the primary source of table sugar in the US is another GMO crop, but again, not the focus here.

Common to ALL the above mentioned crops, however, is the use of the ubiquitous pesticide today called Roundup made by Monsanto Corporation. Its active ingredient – glyphosate – (invented by Stoffer Chemical Company in 1964) is sprayed on the fields to kill weeds so more crops can be grown – at least that’s the sales pitch. GMO technology allows the glyphosate to kill the weeds but “not harm” the crops.

HOW?

Most pesticides and herbicides are metal chelators which means they combine with soil elements such as calcium, magnesium, copper and zinc, so that the plants can’t utilize them as necessary enzymes, thus killing the plants. Glyphosate is a “special,” highly potent chelator because it can combine with ANY positively charged metal (known as a cation). Unfortunately, healthy organisms and bacteria in the soil are also destroyed in the process.

GMO foods that are “Roundup Ready” (RR) have an additional gene “fired” into the seed giving the RR plant an alternative, though less effective, pathway to use the chelated minerals as enzymes. This allows the plant to survive with Roundup while killing the surrounding weeds. As glyphosate enters the soy or corn plant it becomes systemic within the plant hindering its natural growth.

Dr. Don M. Huber, Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology at Purdue University, has been a scientist studying plant diseases in the U.S. and around the world for 50 years. He has a 41-year military career as a retired Colonel, evaluating natural and man-made biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. (His CV is lengthy and outstanding; you can see for yourself!)

According to Dr. Huber:

“Glyphosate accumulates in the growth points, in the root tips, shoot tips, legume nodules, all the reproductive points… [and] remains in the plant doing its chelating job… The Glyphosate in that Roundup Ready plant is still having an impact on 25 or 26 other enzymes within that plant because it’s chelating or immobilizing those cations that are required as the keys to turn on the functions in the plant.”

SO WHAT?

This process disrupts the mechanism which allows the plant to take up and utilize all its nutrients from the soil. A half ounce of Roundup per acre can result in a 50-80% reduction in mineral nutrients. Because necessary soil micro organisms are also being killed by the Roundup, and nutrient uptake and utilization is significantly impaired, we’re also seeing an increase in 40 managed plant diseases.

Alarmingly, farm veterinarians around the country have reported various problems with animals raised on GMO feed. Remember, between 85-90% of all corn and soy grown in America today is RR, most of which is used to feed the animals which we eat and get our dairy from. The rest of the GMO corn and soy finds its way nefariously, UNLABELED, into processed foods, for example, high fructose corn syrup and soy isolates.

Glyphosate in the feed is killing the healthy intestinal flora – lactobacillus – inside the gut of animals, causing chronic botulism, which of course then gets treated with more antibiotics in the feed. Glyphosate moves through the animal into the manure and helps create even more toxic soil as the manure is then used as fertilizer.

Since RR soybeans have been introduced, there has been a marked increase in infertility in animals. Reproductive failures in cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and poultry have increased along with increasing miscarriages. Age acceleration is another “result.” Two year old cows can look like they are 8-10 years old!

No human studies on gut ecology and GMO consumption have yet been done, but healthy gut flora is essential to the proper absorption of nutrients and overall healthy constitution and immune system.

Interestingly enough, when asked which toxin he would prefer to use if he had to make a choice between two evils, Dr. Huber says, he’d “take DDT over glyphosate any day.”

FOOD ALLERGIES

Here’s another aspect of GMOs to keep in mind. Back in May 2011 I wrote an article called “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” where I provided a link to the TedX talk by Robyn O’Brien, author of The Unhealthy Truth. Here’s what Kenneth Bock, M.D., FAAP, FACN, CNS – author of Healing the New Childhood Epidemics: Autism, ADHD, Asthma and Allergies – wrote in the forward of her book:

“Robyn O’Brien’s compelling examination of the effects that recent changes in our food supply are having on our kids cannot be ignored. Genetically modified foods lead to the possibility of changing protein structures, whereby they are recognized as foreign to our immune systems. The immune system then attacks these foreign substances, but unfortunately may also overreact and attack the body’s own cells, violating its primary credo, which is differentiating between self and non-self. This attack on self, initiated by these “foreign proteins,” then leads to all types of autoimmune disorders and dysfunction.”

And as O’Brien wrote on page 2, “One out of every three U.S. kids currently suffers from allergies, asthma, ADHD, or autism, and the number of children with peanut allergies actually doubled between 1997 and 2002.”

It may turn out to be a coincidence, but remember, that the Fantastic Four GMO shapeshifters (corn, soy, canola and cotton) started infiltrating the average American processed food diet in 1996!

AND BY THE WAY…

It appears that RR crops are turning out to be no more productive than non-RR crops because the weeds are evolving to survive Roundup and the RR crops are becoming more diseased. Meanwhile, farmers are beholden to buy their seed from Monsanto every year because its patented, and Monsanto has been suing farmers who don’t want to use RR crops but whose fields have been contaminated by windblown GMO pollen from neighboring RR fields.

WHAT’S AT STAKE?

So when I read about the uproar over the possibility of Walmart selling Monsanto “direct-to-consumer” corn on the cob in the produce section, I am heartened on the one hand that there’s a backlash against them being GMOs, and fearful on the other because EVERYONE NEEDS TO REALIZE THAT THIS ONE ITEM REPRESENTS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG!

Monsanto may have to acquiesce to public outrage over eating whole corn on the cob that’s been genetically modified. But make no mistake about it… they’d be VERY happy to have you, Dorothy, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE GMOs BEHIND THE CURTAIN. And behind the curtain is where the truth and greatest dangers lie, because their span and depth are nearly omnipresent in our modern American standard diet.

For as long as we’ve been kept in the dark by Monsanto and our complicit government, we’ve been asleep. Our monstrous roar of outrage must be heard, seen and felt. It will take all the Ruby Slippers we can awaken to have our clicking heels bring us back to a home where America stands for truth and justice… for all.

“When future historians write about our time, they’re not going to write about the tons of chemical that we did or didn’t apply; when it comes to glyphosate they’re going to write about our willingness to sacrifice our children and jeopardize our ecosystems by threatening and jeopardizing the very basis of our existence in that sustainability of our agriculture.”"

Dorothy, pay no attention to that GMO behind the curtain.
http://www.goodfoodworld.com/2012/02/dorothy-pay-no-attention-to-that-gmo-behind-the-curtain/

SCIENCE OVERTURNS VIEW OF HUMANS AS NATURALLY 'NASTY'

2012-02-21T17:52:00.002-10:00

"Biological research increasingly debunks the view of humanity as competitive, aggressive and brutish, a leading specialist in primate behavior told a major science conference.

“Humans have a lot of pro-social tendencies,” Frans de Waal, a biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

New research on higher animals from primates and elephants to mice shows there is a biological basis for behavior such as cooperation, said de Waal, author of “The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society.”

Until just 12 years ago, the common view among scientists was that humans were “nasty” at the core but had developed a veneer of morality — albeit a thin one, de Waal told scientists and journalists from some 50 countries.

But human children — and most higher animals — are “moral” in a scientific sense, because they need to cooperate with each other to reproduce and pass on their genes, he said.

Research has disproved the view, dominant since the 19th century, typical of biologist Thomas Henry Huxley’s argument that morality is absent in nature and something created by humans, said de Waal.

And common assumptions that the harsh view was promoted by Charles Darwin, the so-called father of evolution, are also wrong, he said.

“Darwin was much smarter than most of his followers,” said de Waal, quoting from Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” that animals that developed “well-marked social instincts would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience.”

De Waal showed the audience videos from laboratories revealing the dramatic emotional distress of a monkey denied a treat that another monkey received; and of a rat giving up chocolate in order to help another rat escape from a trap.

Such research shows that animals naturally have pro-social tendencies for “reciprocity, fairness, empathy and consolation,” said de Waal, a Dutch biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

“Human morality is unthinkable without empathy.”

Asked if wide public acceptance of empathy as natural would change the intense competition on which capitalist economic and political systems are based, de Waal quipped, “I’m just a monkey watcher.”

But he told reporters that research also shows animals bestow their empathy on animals they are familiar with in their “in-group” — and that natural tendency is a challenge in a globalized human world.

“Morality” developed in humans in small communities, he said, adding: “It’s a challenge… it’s experimental for the human species to apply a system intended for (in-groups) to the whole world.”"

Science overturns view of humans as naturally ‘nasty’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/science-overturns-view-of-humans-as-naturally-nasty/#.T0PPL3ciHaU.facebook

DIRTY SECRETS OF THE FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY

2012-02-21T17:31:00.003-10:00

While I am not a big fan of the Weston Price Foundation - because they make claims about humans needing meat and benefiting from eating it, and they also say that humans have always eaten meat (totally and historically inaccurate) - I still think there are important points in this article so I wanted to share.

Also note, humans should only drink the milk of another species when and if the milk from their own mother or their own species is unavailable. No other mammal drinks the milk of another species -- unless the baby is orphaned. It is completely unnatural to drink cow milk or goat milk or milk from any other species.

Also note, there is no need for humans to spend hours everyday involved in the preparation of food. If we were living according to our pristine origins, we would see that there is food all around us and, should we feel the need to eat, we could just bend over a pick it off the tree or out of the ground.

Unfortunately, we are killing the world's food supply by plowing down fruit trees, paving over the Earth, and poisoning it with chemicals and pesticides.

Any time we are ready to take our planet back, we will find that everything we ever needed has been here, right from the start.

Written by Sally Fallon

"We have always processed our food; this is an activity that is uniquely human. We chop, soak, cook and ferment our food - as well as grind and dry - these are all types of processing.

Traditional processing has two functions: to make food more digestible and to preserve it for use during times when food isn’t readily available. Nutritious, long-lasing processed foods including pemmican, hard sausage and old-fashioned meat puddings and haggis, as well as grain products, dairy products, pickles—everything from wine and spirits to lacto-fermented condiments. Farmers and artisans—bread makers, cheese makers, distillers, millers and so forth—processed the raw ingredients into delicious foods that retained their nutritional content over many months or even years, and kept the profits on the farm and in the farming communities where they belonged.

Unfortunately, in modern times, we have substituted local artisanal processing with factory and industrial processing, which actually diminishes the quality of the food, rather than making it more nutritious and digestible. Industrial processing depends upon sugar, white flour, processed and hydrogenated oils, synthetic food additives and vitamins, heat treatment and the extrusion of grains.

BREAKFAST CEREALS

Let’s look at the processing involved in the typical American breakfast of cereal, skim milk and orange juice. Cold breakfast cereals are produced by a process called extrusion. Grains are mixed with water, processed into a slurry and placed in a machine called an extruder. The grains are forced out of a tiny hole at high temperature and pressure, which shapes them into little o’s or flakes or shreds. Individual grains passed through the extruder expand to produce puffed wheat, oats and rice. These products are then subjected to sprays that give a coating of oil and sugar to seal off the cereal from the ravages of milk and to give it crunch.

In his book Fighting the Food Giants, biochemist Paul Stitt describes the extrusion process, which treats the grains with very high heat and pressure, and notes that the processing destroys much of their nutrients. It denatures the fatty acids; it even destroys the synthetic vitamins that are added at the end of the process. The amino acid lysine, a crucial nutrient, is especially damaged by the extrusion process.

Even boxed cereals sold in health food stores are made using the extrusion process. They are made with the same kind of machines and mostly in the same factories. The only “advances” claimed in the extrusion process are those that will cut cost, regardless of how the process alters the nutrient content of the product.

With so many millions of boxes of cereal sold each year, one would expect to see published studies showing the effects of these cereals on animals and humans. But breakfast cereals are a multi-billion dollar industry that has created huge fortunes for a few people. A box of cereal containing a penny's worth of grain sells for four or five dollars in the grocery store--there is probably no other product on earth with such a large profit margin. These profits have paid for lobbying efforts and journal sponsorships that have effectively kept any research about extruded grains out of the scientific literature and convinced government officials that there is no difference between a natural grain of wheat and a grain that has been altered by the extrusion process.

THE RAT EXPERIMENTS

Unpublished research indicates that the extrusion process turns the proteins in grains into neurotoxins. Stitt describes an experiment, conducted in 1942 by a cereal company but locked away in the company's file cabinet, in which four sets of rats were given special diets. One group received plain whole wheat grains, water and synthetic vitamins and minerals. A second group received puffed wheat (an extruded cereal), water and the same nutrient solution. A third set was given water and white sugar. A fourth set was given nothing but water and synthetic nutrients. The rats that received the whole wheat lived over a year on this diet. The rats that got nothing but water and vitamins lived about two months. The animals on a white sugar and water diet lived about a month. The study showed that the rats given the vitamins, water and all the puffed wheat they wanted died within two weeks—even before the rats that got no food at all. These results suggest that there was something very toxic in the puffed wheat itself! Proteins are very similar to certain toxins in molecular structure, and the pressure of the puffing process may produce chemical changes that turn a nutritious grain into a poisonous substance.

Another unpublished experiment was carried out in 1960. Researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor were given eighteen laboratory rats. These were divided into three groups: one group received cornflakes and water; a second group was given the cardboard box that the cornflakes came in and water; the control group received rat chow and water. The rats in the control group remained in good health throughout the experiment. The rats eating the box became lethargic and eventually died of malnutrition. The rats receiving the cornflakes and water died before the rats that were eating the box! (The first box rat died the day the last cornflake rat died.) Furthermore, before death, the cornflakes-eating rats developed aberrant behavior, threw fits, bit each other and finally went into convulsions. Autopsy revealed dysfunction of the pancreas, liver and kidneys and degeneration of the nerves of the spine, all signs of insulin shock. The startling conclusion of this study was that there was more nourishment in the box than in the cornflakes. This experiment was designed as a joke, but the results were far from funny.

Most Americans eat boxed cereals today. Because these are fortified with synthetic nutrients, the USDA can claim that they are as healthy as the grains from which they are made. Many of these cereals contain at least 50 percent of calories as sugar. Those sold in health food stores may be made of whole grains and fewer sweeteners. However, these whole grain extruded cereals are probably more dangerous than their refined grain counterparts sold in the supermarkets, because they are higher in protein, and it is the proteins in these cereals that are rendered toxic by this type of processing.

THE EXTRUSION PROCESS

When we put cereals through an extruder, it alters the structure of the proteins. Zeins, which comprise the majority of proteins in corn, are located in spherical organelles called protein bodies. The scientific literature does contain one study on extruded grains, which investigated changes in protein body, shape and release of encapsulated alpha-zeins as a result of the extrusion processing. Researchers found that during extrusion, the protein bodies are completely disrupted and the alpha-zeins dispersed. The results suggest that the zeins in cornflakes are not confined to rigid protein bodies but can interact with each other and other components of the system, forming new compounds that are foreign to the human body. The extrusion process breaks down the organelles and disperses the proteins, which then become toxic. When the proteins are disrupted in this way, it can adversely affect the nervous system, as indicated by the cornflake experiment.

OLD FASHIONED PORRIDGE
There is only one way to put these companies out of business, and that is not to eat their food. So, what are you going to have for breakfast instead of cheerios and corn flakes? Eggs--any style--are always a good choice. As for grain, old-fashioned porridges made from non-extruded grains provide excellent nourishment at an economical price. Grains such as oats should be cut or rolled and then soaked overnight in a warm, acidic medium to neutralize the many anti-nutrients naturally occurring in grains, such as irritating tannins, digestion-blocking enzyme inhibitors and mineral-blocking phytic acid. This treatment can also gently break down complex proteins in grains. You soak the grains in warm water plus one tablespoon of something acidic, like whey, yoghurt, lemon juice or vinegar. The next morning, your grain will cook in just a few minutes. It’s best to eat your porridge with butter or cream, like our grandparents did. The nutrients in the dairy fats are needed in order for you to absorb the nutrients in the grains. Without the fat-soluble vitamins A, D and K2, you cannot absorb the minerals in your food. Furthermore, the fats in butter and cream slow down the release of glucose into the bloodstream, so that your blood sugar remains stable throughout the morning.

MILK

Milk is one of nature’s most perfect foods. Most of our milk comes from a sacred animal, the cow. Today, however, in the industrial system, we imprison cows indoors for their entire lives; we give them inappropriate feed such as soy, bakery waste, citrus peel cake and the swill from ethanol production, foods that cows are not designed to eat. The confinement environment and the inappropriate feed make these cows sick, so they need antibiotics and other drugs. We breed them to give huge amounts of milk, and give them hormones to increase milk production as well. These cows produce large quantities of watery milk with only half the amount of fat compared to milk produced by old-fashioned cows eating green grass. Then this milk is shipped to factories for processing.

Inside the plants, the milk is completely remade. As described by Emily Green in the Los Angeles Times, centrifuges separate the milk into fat, protein and various other solids and liquids. Once segregated, these are recombined at specific levels set for whole, lowfat and no-fat milks. Of the reconstituted milks, whole milk will most closely approximate original cow’s milk. What is left over will go into butter, cream, cheese, dried milk, and a host of other milk products. The dairy industry promotes lowfat milk and skim milk because they can make more money on the butterfat when used in ice cream. When they remove the fat to make reduced-fat milks, they replace it with powdered milk concentrate, which is formed by high temperature spray drying.

Then the milk is sent by tanker trucks (which are not refrigerated) to bottling plants. The milk is pasteurized at 161oF for fifteen seconds by rushing it past superheated stainless steel plates. If the temperature is 230oF (over the boiling point), the milk is considered ultrapasteurized. This ultrapasteurized milk will have a distinct cooked milk taste, but it is sterile and shelf stable. It may be sold in the refrigerated section of the supermarket so the consumer will think it is fresh, but it does not need to be. The milk is also homogenized by a pressure treatment that breaks down the fat globules so the milk won’t separate. Once processed, the milk will last for weeks, not just days.

Processing makes the milk difficult to digest and renders the proteins allergenic. Animals fed pasteurized milk exclusively develop nutrient deficiencies and become infertile after several generations.

Fortunately, Real Milk from pasture-fed cows, milk that is not pasteurized, processed or homogenized, is becoming more widely available. In fact, demand for Real Milk is growing rapidly. To find Real Milk in your area, visit realmilk.com

In order to make powdered milk, fluid is forced through a tiny hole at high pressure and then blown out into the air. This causes a lot of nitrates to form, and the cholesterol in the milk becomes oxidized. Contrary to popular opinion, cholesterol is not a demon but your best friend; you don’t have to worry about consuming foods containing cholesterol, except that you do not want to consume oxidized cholesterol. Evidence indicates that oxidized cholesterol can initiate the process of atherosclerosis.

Powdered milk is added to reduced-fat milks and milk products to give them body. So, when you consume reduced-fat milk or yoghurt, thinking that it will help you avoid heart disease, you are actually consuming oxidized cholesterol, which can initiate the process of heart disease.

ORANGE JUICE

Now, let's turn to the orange juice, part of our "healthy breakfast" of cereal, lowfat milk and juice. An article from Processed and Prepared Foods describes a “a new orange juice processing plant is completely automated and can process up to 1,800 tons of oranges per day to produce frozen concentrate, single strength juice, oil extracted from the peel and cattle feed.” The new method of producing juice puts the whole orange in the machine. Another abstract states: “Various acid sprays for improving fruit peel quality and increasing juice yield are added to these processed oranges.” These compounds are added to extract as much juice as possible, as well as the oil out of the skin. The conventional orange crop is sprayed heavily with pesticides called cholinesterase inhibitors, which are very toxic to the nervous system. When they put the whole oranges into the vats and squeeze them, all that pesticide goes into the juice. Then they add acids to get every single bit of juice out of these oranges. So commercial orange juice can be a very toxic soup. This may be one reason that consumption of fruit juice is associated with increased rates of dementia.

What about the peel used for cattle feed? The dried, left-over citrus peel from orange juice production is processed into cakes, which are still loaded with cholinesterase inhibitors. Mark Purdey, in England, has shown how this practice correlates with mad cow disease. The use of organophosphates either as a spray on the cows or as a component of their feed, causes degeneration of the brain and nervous system in the cow, and if it’s doing it to the cow, there’s a possibility it may be doing it to you also.

The U.S. government tries to give the impression that pasteurization of juice is necessary to ensure our safety. However, it might surprise you to learn that researchers have found fungus that is resistant to pressure and heat in processed juices. They found that seventeen percent of Nigerian packages of orange juice and twenty percent of mango and tomato juices contained these heat-resistant fungi. They also found E. coli in the orange juice; it was pressure resistant and had survived pasteurization. So there is plenty of danger from contamination in these pasteurized juices.

In one study, heat-treated and acid-hydrolyzed orange juice was tested for mutagenic activity. The authors found that the heating process produced intermediate products which, under test conditions, gave rise to mutagenicity and cytotoxicity. In other words, there were cancer-causing compounds in the orange juice. In another study, gel filtration and high performance liquid chromatography were used to obtain mutagenic fractions from heated orange juice.

So if you want juice with your breakfast, avoid commercial processed orange juice. Instead, squeeze yourself a couple of organic oranges or an organic grapefruit--in other words, process the juice yourself! Mix that fresh juice with sparkling water and a pinch of salt for a delicious spritzer.

NATURAL NOURISHING BROTHS

In the past, many traditional cultures made use of animal bones to make broth. They recognized the health-giving properties of bone broth as well as wonderful flavors broth gave to soups, sauces, gravies and stews. Modern science has shown us that homemade bone broths are indeed the healing wonders of the food pharmacopia; they provide minerals in abundance, strengthen bones and sinews, heal the gut and help us detoxify. The gelatin in homemade bone broth is a natural digestive aid.

INDUSTRIAL SOUPS

Most commercial soup bases and sauces contain artificial meat-like flavors that mimic those we used to get from natural, gelatin-rich broth. These kinds of short cuts mean that consumers are shortchanged. When the homemade stocks were pushed out by the cheap substitutes, an important source of minerals disappeared from the American diet. The thickening effects of gelatin could be mimicked with emulsifiers, but, of course, the health benefits were lost. Gelatin is a very healthy thing to have in your diet. It helps you digest proteins properly and is supportive of digestive health overall.

Research on gelatin and natural broths came to an end in the 1950s when food companies discovered how to induce maillard reactions--the process of creating flavor compounds by mixing reduced sugars and amino acids under increased temperatures--and produce meat-like flavors in the laboratory. In a General Foods Company report issued in 1947, chemists predicted that almost all natural flavors would soon be chemically synthesized. Following the Second World War, American food companies discovered monosodium glutamate, a food ingredient the Japanese had invented in 1908 to enhance food flavors, including meat-like flavors. Humans actually have receptors on the tongue for glutamate—it is the protein in food that the human body recognizes as meat--but the glutamate in MSG has a different configuration, which cannot be assimilated properly by the body. Any protein can be hydrolyzed (broken down into its component amino acids) to produce a base containing MSG. When the industry learned how to synthesize the flavor of meat in the laboratory, using inexpensive proteins from grains and legumes, the door was opened to a flood of new products, including boullion cubes, dehydrated soup mixes, sauce mixes, TV dinners, and condiments with a meaty taste.

The fast food industry could not exist without MSG and artificial meat flavors, which beguile the consumer into eating bland and tasteless food. The sauces in many commercially processed foods contain MSG, water, thickeners, emulsifiers and caramel coloring. Your tongue is tricked into thinking that you are consuming something nutritious, when in fact it is getting nothing at all except some very toxic substances. Even dressings, Worcestershire sauce, rice mixes, flavored tofu, and many meat products have MSG in them. Almost all canned soups and stews contain MSG, and the “hydrolyzed protein” bases often contain MSG in very large amounts.

So-called homemade soups in most restaurants are usually made by mixing water with a powdered soup base made of hydrolyzed protein and artificial flavors, and then adding chopped vegetables and other ingredients. Even things like lobster bisque and fish sauces in most seafood restaurants are prepared using these powdered bases full of artificial flavors.

The industry even thinks it is too costly to just use a little onion and garlic for flavoring--they use artificial garlic and onion flavors instead. It's all profit based with no thought for the health of the consumer.

Unfortunately, most of the processed vegetarian foods are loaded with these flavorings, as well. The list of ingredients in vegetarian hamburgers, hot dogs, bacon, baloney, etc., may include hydrolyzed protein and “natural” flavors, all sources of MSG. Soy foods are loaded with MSG.

Food manufacturers get around the labeling requirements by putting MSG in the spice mixes; if the mix is less than fifty percent MSG, they don’t have to indicate MSG on the label. You may have noticed that the phrase “No MSG” has actually disappeared. The industry doesn't use it anymore because they found out that there was MSG in all the spice mixes; even Bragg’s amino acids had to take “No MSG” off the label.

HEALTH PROBLEMS

While the industry was adding MSG to food in larger and larger amounts, in 1957 scientists found that mice became blind and obese when MSG was administered by feeding tube. In 1969, MSG-induced lesions were found in the hypothalamus region of the mouse brain. Subsequent studies pointed in the same direction. MSG is a neurotoxic substance that causes a wide range of reactions in humans, from temporary headaches to permanent brain damage. It is also associated with violent behavior. We have had a huge increase in Alzheimer’s, brain cancer, seizures, multiple sclerosis and diseases of the nervous system, and one of the chief culprits is the flavorings in our food.

Ninety-five percent of processed foods contain MSG, and, in the late 1950s, it was even added to baby food. Manufacturers say they have voluntarily taken it out of the baby food, but they didn’t really remove it; they just called it "hydrolyzed protein" instead.

An excellent book, Excitotoxins, by Russell Blaylock, describes how nerve cells either disintegrate or shrivel up in the presence of free glutamic acid if it gets past the blood-brain barrier. The glutamates in MSG are absorbed directly from the mouth to the brain. Some investigators believe that the great increase in violence in this country starting in 1960 is due to the increased use of MSG beginning in the late 1950s, particularly as it was added to baby foods.

INDUSTRIAL FATS AND OILS

The food processing empire is built on industrial fats and oils, extracted from corn, soybeans and other seeds. Crude vegetable oil--which is dark, sticky and smelly--is subjected to horrendous processing to produce clean-looking cooking oils, margarine, shortening and spreads. The steps involved in processing usually include degumming, bleaching, deodorizing, filtering and removing saturates to make the oils more liquid. In the process, the nutrients and antioxidants disappear--but not the pesticides. Most processors also add a hexane solvent in order to squeeze the very last drop of oil out of the seeds. Caustic refining, the most widely used process for oil refining, involves adding very alkaline, chemicals to the oil.

In order to make a solid fat out of liquid oil, manufacturers subject the oils to a process called partial hydrogenation. The oil is extracted under high temperature and pressure, and the remaining fraction of oil is removed with hexane solvents. Manufacturers then steam clean the oils, a process that removes all the vitamins and all the antioxidants—but, of course, the solvents and the pesticides remain. These oils are mixed with a nickel catalyst and then, under high temperature and pressure, they are flooded with hydrogen gas. What goes into the reactor is a liquid oil; what comes out of that reactor is a smelly mass resembling grey cottage cheese. Emulsifiers are mixed in to smooth out the lumps, and the oil is then steam cleaned once more, to get rid of the horrible smell. The next step is bleaching, to get rid of the grey color. At this point, the product can be called "pure vegetable shortening." To make margarines and spreads, artificial flavors and synthetic vitamins are added. But the government does not allow the industry to add synthetic color to margarine--they must add a natural color, such as annatto--a comforting thought. The margarine or spread is then packaged in blocks and tubs and advertised as a health food.

Saturated fat is the type of fat found in such foods as lard, butter and coconut oil. Saturated fat molecules are straight, so they pack together easily. That is why saturated fats are solid at room temperature. Unsaturated fats have a little bend at each double bond, with two hydrogen atoms sticking out on the same side. And when that molecule gets incorporated into your cells, the body wants those two hydrogen atoms to be on the same side of the carbon chain, forming an electron cloud; that is where controlled chemical interactions take place.

During the process of partial hydrogenation, one of those hydrogen atoms is moved to the other side, causing the molecule to straighten out so that it behaves chemically like a saturate—although biochemically it behaves very differently. The original, unsaturated molecule is called a “cis” fatty acid, because the two hydrogens are together, and then it becomes a trans fatty acid, because the two hydrogens are across from each other ("trans" means "across"). Your body doesn’t know that this new molecule is something that has never existed in nature before, and when you eat one of these trans fatty acids, it gets built into your cell membranes. Because of the chemical rearrangement, the reactions that should happen can’t take place. Enzymes and receptors don't work anymore. The more trans fatty acids that you eat, the more partially hydrogenated your cells become and the more chaos that you are going to have on the cellular level.

All of the margarines, shortenings and even low-trans-fat spreads are made with these harmful ingredients. They're used in chips and crackers, and most restaurants use them for cooking fries. Until the early 1980s, fast food outlets and restaurants cooked the fries in tallow, which is a very safe fat, but now they use partially hydrogenated soybean oil.

In the past, when you made desserts for your kids, at least the sugar they contained came with butter, eggs, cream and nuts—all good wholesome foods. Now manufacturers can imitate the butter, eggs, cream and nuts, so all you have is sugar, industrial oils and artificial ingredients in these instant puddings, pastries and other artificial desserts.

Many diseases have been associated with the consumption of trans fatty acids—heart disease, cancer, and degeneration of joints and tendons. The only reason that we are eating this stuff is because we have been told that the competing saturated fats and oils—butter, lard, coconut oil, palm oil, tallow and suet—are bad for us and cause heart disease. Such assertions are nothing but industry propaganda.

WESTON PRICE

Weston A. Price, DDS, discovered that as populations adopt processed foods, with each generation the facial structure becomes more and more narrow. Healthy faces should be broad. We are all designed to have perfectly straight teeth and not get cavities. When you are eating real, nutrient-dense foods, you get the complete and perfect expression of the genetic potential. We were given a perfect blueprint. Whether or not the body temple is built according to the blueprint depends, to a great extent, on our wisdom in food choices.

When primitive societies abandoned the traditional diet and began to eat processed foods, the next generation developed narrowed facial structure and many diseases. We know that if you continue this diet for three generations, reproduction ceases. This is the terrible price of the West, the Western Price. Civilization will die out unless we embrace the food ways of our ancestors. That means turning our backs on processed foods and getting back into the kitchen, to prepare real foods--containing healthy fats--for ourselves and our families.

OPTIMAL FOOD PREPARATION—MADE WITH LOVE

Food preparation is actually a sacred activity: According to esoteric lore, "If a woman could see the sparks of light going forth from her fingertips when she is cooking, and the energy that goes into the food she handles, she would realize how much of herself she imbues into the meals that she prepares for her family and friends. It is one of the most important and least understood activities of life that the feelings that go into the preparation of food affect everyone who partakes of it. This activity should be unhurried, peaceful and happy because the energy that flows into that food impacts the energy of the receiver.

"That is why the advanced spiritual teachers of the East never eat food prepared by anyone other than their own chelas (disciples). The person preparing the food may be the only one in the household who is spiritually advanced. An active charge of happiness, purity and peace will pour forth into the food from him, and this pours forth into the other members of the family and blesses them."

To be healthy, we need to prepare our own food, for ourselves and our families. This doesn’t mean you have to spend hours in the kitchen, but you do need to spend some time there, preparing food with wisdom and love. If no one in the family has time to prepare food, you need to sit down and rethink how you are spending your time, because this is the only way to get nourishing foods into your children. We can return to good eating practices one mouth at a time, one meal at a time, by preparing our own food and preparing it properly."

Dirty Secrets of the Food Processing Industry
http://foodmatters.tv/_webapp_516270/Dirty_Secrets_of_The_Food_Processing_Industry

A MOTHER IMPRISONED FOR REFUSING TO DRUG HER CHILD FIGHTS THE STATE AND WINS!

2012-02-21T17:13:00.002-10:00

This is an incredible story. Please watch!

http://youtu.be/qGbwnaCnHWs

DON'T BUY - DON'T COMPLY - WORLDWIDE ECONOMIC STRIKE ON TAX DAY - APRIL 14 & 15

2012-02-21T10:48:00.003-10:00

Message from Karen T at http://www.unitedwestrike.com/

"How much better would our world of today be, if the soldiers who marched Jesus to his death had not followed the "Immoral orders" to crucify a man who's only perceived stated crimes, were challenging tyranny and overturning the tables of the corrupt money changers?"

Isn't the true test of someone in uniform the ability to refuse an immoral order as stated in the Military Code of Conduct? And don't we, at this point in history, have overwhelming evidence of Immoral orders and treason at the very highest levels of every office in every part of the world? Isn't it also OUR duty, each and every one of us, to speak up when we find crime and expose it?

In Aberdeen, Scotland, April 7 & 8 Robert Green needs OUR help. He was jailed for exposing the political pedophile ring who continue to abuse and murder our children.
http://sovereignindependent.co.uk/2012/02/19/free-robert-green/

He was arrested by and is being held by men in uniform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-6wlgjI-4A

Global banking systems have paid lobbyists to bribe politicians to deregulate and privatize our world, while enacting and excluding themselves from the heinous laws they pass which include the sanction of torture; and protecting themselves from the ramifications of their tyranny through their use of the military and police; also paid through this global IMF system.

It is a true "Shock Doctrine" as Naomi Klein points out in her film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNzcJImX4Ew

Wars, murder, death, and never ending destruction, paid for by you and me, all of us forced to be accomplices through economic legal conquest and taxes...........while the money changers make billion dollar bonuses by taking everything we have following henry kissenger's quote "Military Men are just dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

Well not all soldiers stand by. Kudo's to the Honorable, Courageous American military & supporter's who participated in demonstrating against tyranny last weekend.

True Patriotism is Loving and Defending your country against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Isn't it time to ask Ourselves: "What kind of Soldier/Policeman/Politician am I?
Is my job/Uniform protecting tyranny? Or enforcing Justice?"

And isn't it also time to find the courage to return home to help enforce Justice, and bring real Freedom and Peace to Our Homes and Our People? If not now, when? If not YOU/ME, WHO???

"DON'T BUY, DON'T COMPLY, ASK WHY WEEKEND! APRIL 14th & 15th 2012 - http://www.taxfree15.com/

The weekend of April 14 & 15th ( in YOUR part of the world) UNITED WE STRIKE IS ASKING US ALL STAY HOME (http://www.unitedwestrike.com) & consider just how to deal with our lives and the corruption in our Local areas, while we hit them in their wallets all around the world, Striking in Solidarity on a weekend when most of us shop. We use the time to look within and make sure Our homes and Our futures are protected: research, share what you learn, watch reliable independent documentaries, garden, do something you've put off, make sure you're prepared for emergencies.

Imagine empty walmarts, airports, buses, etc. If you want to shop, Shop Mom & Pop! Rebuild from inside out

Don't Buy, Don't Comply, Ask Why Weekend! http://www.taxfree15.com/

And a question to consider while adding to your motivation:

"WHY are WE ALLOWING OUR world and OURSELVES to be sold off as collateral for IMF and global banking, who use our family members in uniforms as their private hit squads?"

Time to step back from the precipice of never ending war and debt slavery.

United We Strike Peace Train Archives & Stream: http://station.voscast.com/4d83ba844710e/"

ANIMAL TORTURE AND ABUSE - CRIMES AGAINST CREATION! PLEASE READ!

2012-02-20T16:04:00.097-10:00

It is time for the world to see and know the truth of what is actually happening in the meat industry. What you are about to see are crimes against creation. If you are one of the many people who choose to eat meat, it is extremely important for you to see these images. Your choice to eat eat is causing untold harm to billions of animals worldwide. The only reason people eat meat is because they are under a satanic spell which has caused mental confusion and illusion.

The imprisonment, torture, and slaughtering of animals must end. There is absolutely no reason to eat meat.

“Perhaps in the back of our minds we already understand, without all the science I've discussed, that something terribly wrong is happening. Our sustenance now comes from misery. We know that if someone offers to show us a film on how our meat is produced, it will be a horror film. We perhaps know more than we care to admit, keeping it down in the dark places of our memory-- disavowed. When we eat factory-farmed meat we live, literally, on tortured flesh. Increasingly, that tortured flesh is becoming our own.” ― Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals.

Thank you to CCTV For All Slaughterhouses for these photos: https://www.facebook.com/pages/CCTV-for-ALL-Slaughterhouses/113902138666401

This photograph was taken at a UK goat farm by Animal Aid. It shows a mother dead in the dirt with a bullet in her head. Her newborn kid huddled beside her body. Some goats – at farms supplying Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose – had grotesquely distended udders which left them unable to walk or stand properly, while young kids at a Welsh farm had recently undergone ‘disbudding’, a painful procedure acknowledged by one industry authority to be dangerous and life-threatening. Most male kids are killed at birth. Although this footage was from 2007, most UK goats are still zero grazed and spend their whole life in large sheds. Animal Aid's Kate Fowler said the following...

Our grandchildren will ask us one day: Where were you during the Holocaust of the animals? What did you do against these horrifying crimes? We won't be able to offer the same excuse for the second time, that we didn't know.
- Helmut Kaplan (jb)

Nose at straw that isn't there to make a nest she'll never have for another litter she'll never raise.
Matthew Scully

The only reason we need animal rights is to correct human wrongs. (jb)

In normal conditions, a new mother will tidy and make a nest. Here, she can't even turn around. ~ (db)

A gestation crate, also known as a sow stall, is a 7 ft by 2 ft metal enclosure used in intensive pig farming. Between 60 and 70 percent of sows are confined in these crates during pregnancy in the United States, each pregnancy lasting four months, with an average of 2.5 litters every year. Sows, which can weigh 600 lbs, spend most of their three or four years of adult life in crates, giving birth to between five and eight litters. As the sows grow larger, they no longer fit in the crates, and must sleep on their chests, unable to turn, until they are slaughtered. The crates are usually placed side by side in rows of 20 sows per row and 100 rows per shed, the floors of the crates slatted to allow excrement to fall into a pit below. ~ (db)

Cutting out meat and dairy does make a difference. For every year you are vegetarian you prevent about 95 animals being raised or caught for food, (this number includes fish). If you're vegan you save even more animals because you don't need dairy cows or egg laying hens. It's estimated that there are about 4 million vegetarians in the UK, and 600,000 to a million vegans.
If you do the maths on those figures it works out at roughly 475 million animals a year that are not being bred, caught and killed for food. (jb)

Ah yes - the satanic priests overseeing the sacrifices that will be fed to the unwitting masses in order to indoctrinate into a satanic-infested reality.

Numerous research studies conducted over the last 25 years have pointed to physical and psychological maladies experienced by sows in confinement. The unnatural flooring and lack of exercise causes obesity and crippling leg disorders, while the deprived environment produces neurotic coping behaviors such as repetitive bar biting and sham chewing (chewing nothing). ~ (db)
Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur/We Animals.

“Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and 'animals' is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.” ― Carl Sagan
Photo - Mercy for Animals.

“One time I took my knife – it’s sharp enough – and I sliced off the end of a hog’s nose, just like a piece of bologna. The hog went crazy for a few seconds. Then it just sat there looking kind of stupid. So I took a handful of salt brine and ground it into his nose. Now that hog really went nuts, pushing its nose all over the place. I still had a bunch of salt in my hand – I was wearing a rubber glove – and I stuck the salt right up the hog’s ass. The poor hog didn’t know whether to shit or go blind.” ~ Slaughterhouse Worker. (Slaughterhouse by Gail A. Eisnitz). (m)

Those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from the slaughterhouse or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy. If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it? ~ Peter Singer (m)

I'd estimate that about 10 to 12 hogs an hour go into the scalding tank conscious. These hogs get up to the scalding tank, hit the water, and just start screaming and kicking. Sometimes they thrash so much they kick water out of the tank. ~ Slaughterhouse worker. From the book Slaughterhouse by Gail A. Eisnitz (m)

"The most disgusting four letter word in the English language is 'cage'."
Philip Wollen
(1950 - ) Australian writer - Founder of The Winsome Constance Kindness Trust

The brute animals have all the same sensations of pain as human beings, and consequently endure as much pain when their body is hurt; but in their case the cruelty of torment is greater, because they have no mind to bear them up against their sufferings, and no hope to look forward to when enduring the last extreme pain. ~ Thomas Chalmers. (m)

Many animals are injured on the way to the slaughterhouse, some even die from cardiac arrest. They are very scared.

A barrage of antibiotics, hormones and other pharmaceuticals in the animals' feed will keep most of them alive until slaughter despite the conditions. These drugs are most needed to combat the respiratory problems that are ubiquitous on hog factory farms. The humid conditions of confinement, dense quantities of animals with stress-weakened immune systems, and the toxic gases from the accumulating shit and piss make these problems practically inescapable. Fully 30-70 percent of the pigs will have some sort of respiratory infection by the time of slaughter.
In a world of factory farming, expectations are turned upside down. Veterinarians don't work toward optimal health, but optimal profitability. Drugs are not for curing diseases, but substitutes for destroyed immune systems. Farmers do not aim to produce healthy animals. (From the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer) (jb)

Thousands of people who say they ‘love' animals sit down once or twice a day to enjoy the flesh of creatures who have been utterly deprived of everything that could make their lives worth living and who endured the awful suffering and the terror of the abattoirs. ~ Jane Goodall (m)

I became a vegan the day I watched a video of a calf being born on a factory farm. The baby was dragged away from his mother before he hit the ground. The helpless calf strained its head backwards to find his mother. The mother bolted after her son and exploded into a rage when the rancher slammed the gate on her. She wailed the saddest noise I’d ever heard an animal make, and then thrashed and dug into the ground, burying her face in the muddy placenta. I had no idea what was happening respecting brain chemistry, animal instinct, or whatever. I just knew that this was deeply wrong. I just knew that such suffering could never be worth the taste of milk and veal. I empathized with the cow and the calf and, in so doing, my life changed" ~ James McWilliams (m)

Because she is re-impregnated while still lactating from the previous pregnancy, a dairy cow spends seven months of every year simultaneously pregnant and producing large quantities of milk. Her average milk yield will be between 30-50 litres a day, 10 times more than a calf would drink, so her udder is forced to work unnaturally hard. In addition, a calf would normally feed five to six times a day so that the maximum amount of milk in her udder at any one time would be around two litres, but on modern dairy farms a cow is milked only twice a day, allowing milk to accumulate in the udder and forcing her to carry around 20 litres of milk or more. This greatly enlarged udder leads to lameness in her hind legs and predisposes her to mastitis (a painful infection of the udder which affects around a third of all UK dairy cows). The dairy cow’s physical problems are compounded by being kept indoors for six months of the year. The majority of dairy herds in the UK graze from April to October and spend the rest of the year housed indoors in cubicle units. There are even some dairy farms in Britain that have adopted the USA’s zero-grazing system where cows spend their entire lives indoors. Many cows simply do not fit in the cubicles and their hind legs protrude into the slurry passage behind them, while some find the cubicles so uncomfortable that they choose to lay in the slurry covered aisles instead. The social hierarchy within the herd can also contribute to problems in indoor housing units as lower ranking cows often choose not to lie in cubicles next to dominant cows and instead lie in the aisles or slurry passage. This link gives details of all sides of dairy farming, from hunger to embryo transfer and disease. http://milkmyths.org.uk/sites/default/files/dairy_report.pdf (photo vegan peace)(jb)

To close your eyes will not ease another's pain. ~ Chinese Proverb (m)

Veganism is not restrictive. A poor hen shoved into a 12" x 12" cage with 5 other hens is "restrictive" (and torture). A baby cow being tied by the neck to a "veal" crate for 6 weeks or more and unable to hardly move is "restrictive" (and torture). A female pig in a gestation crate that is barely bigger than her body is "restrictive" (and torture).
Veganism is liberation for them and oneself .
Danny VeganBatman Nichols. (v)

There are around ten million cattle in the UK. Cows naturally live for around
25 years, but those destined to become beef are slaughtered between one and two years old. Veal calves live only a few months. Dairy cows stop producing as much milk as the market demands when they are around five years old, and as a result they are killed. At the slaughterhouse, cows, bulls and calves are all stunned by a bolt to the brain then bled to death by having their throats slit. (db)

Cruel. Inhumane. A hideous atrocity. And people are eating this.
No wonder our species is so messed up.

What you eat should never
Require slavery
Require rape
Require violence
Require forced bereavement
Require an assassin (unwanted males murdered at birth)
Require mutilation (beaks/teeth clipped, testicles ripped out. debud etc)
Require torture (confinement, no natural behaviour allowed)
Require you to take a life of a sentient being against their will. (v)

"Free-Range" often conjures idyllic images of hens scratching about the farmyard. In reality, flocks of up to 16,000 birds, often debeaked, are housed in large, overcrowded sheds. Many hens don't ever venture outside and at the end of their year-long ordeal, they're slaughtered. (db)

This is often how organic and free-range egg-layers live - not the bucolic farm you might imagine. And keep in mind that all the male chicks are destroyed at the hatcheries that supply these places. The boys don't lay eggs and aren't profitable to raise for "meat type" birds. Please share - people have such illusions of what free-range looks like. (m)

Six million people died in concentration camps, but 6 billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses ~ The Washington Post (m)

Free Range: If so many shops and so many products contain 'free range eggs' ask yourself this, why dont we see hens in fields, why aren't we seeing acre upon acre of free range hens? Where are all these free range hens? It's a myth. Another tactic by the industry. They want you to feel better about your 'ethical' purchase. They want you to believe all is well. They want their profits. They don't care about you wanting to buy ethical products, or being conned, they dont care about hens, what they do care about is money. (m)

“May our daily choices be a reflection of our deepest values, and may we use our voices to speak for those who need us most, those who have no voice, those who have no choice.” ― Colleen Patrick-Goudreau

When most people think of a farm, images of the family farm pop up. Cows munching on grass in a field, chickens running all over happily pecking the ground, pigs eating from a trough. Happy animals, living a good life, respected by the farmers as living creatures and a livelihood. Unless you conciously seek out food from such farms, your food does not come from a place anything like this. If the above image is farm heaven, your food comes from farm hell. ~ (db)

In her renowned book Slaughterhouse, Gail Eisnitz explains: "Other industrialized nations require that chickens be rendered unconscious or killed prior to bleeding and scalding, so they won't have to go through those processes conscious. In the United States, however, poultry plants—exempt from the Humane Slaughter Act and still clinging to the industry myth that a dead animal won't bleed properly—keep the stunning current down to about one-tenth that needed to render a chicken unconscious." This means that chickens are still completely conscious when their throats are cut. (db)

Imagine a world in which farm animals have been so genetically modified for rapid muscling that billions suffer in chronic pain from skeletal disorders that impair their ability to even walk. A world in which chickens with such explosive growth they have to be starved lest they risk cardiac rupture. “Double-muscled” calves born into the beef industry so freakishly huge that they can only be extracted via Caesarian section. A hen laying so many eggs that she risks a prolapse—laying her own uterus. A cow capable of generating ten times more milk than a calf could ever suckle. Imagine a world in which turkeys are so top-heavy they are physically incapable of mating.
Unfortunately, this seemingly sci-fi world is already our reality. All of these abominations exist today. http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/10/genetic-engineering.html (jb)

Over 862 Million Broiler Chickens were slaughtered in the UK during 2010. Selectively bred to reach ‘slaughter size’ in just 41 days, today’s chickens are killed when their eyes are still blue and they ‘cheep’ – these are chicks in an obese adult body. By the time they are slaughtered most of them are crippled, their young bones unable to support their distorted body weight. Millions of chickens die from heart and lung problems brought on by their rapid growth. (m)

Almost all turkey slaughterhouses in Canada use electrified stun baths to “stun” the birds. However, it has been conclusively determined these baths do not render the birds unconscious, but rather simply immobilize them preventing excessive struggling. The use of electricity as a method of euthanasia at animal shelters has been made illegal in Canada, so again we must ask, why is it allowed for use on turkeys? The birds that manage to avoid the stun bath by raising their heads will not be paralyzed, and when sent through the spinning neck blades may miss them – some partially, some fully. These birds do not bleed out sufficiently before being thrown into the scald bath where they are scalded alive. Canadian Food Inspection Agency records indicate that over 250,000 birds die in this unfathomably cruel manner each year. The live-scalding of turkeys is not only a massive welfare concern but has become a major food safety issue as well. A study in 2000 to determine the cause of the extraordinarily high rate of Salmonella bacteria commonly found on poultry carcasses found that 75% of scald tank water samples tested were salmonella positive. The salmonella was found to have been introduced through the excreta of still-live birds thrown into the scald tank. (v)

Turkeys have been so genetically selected for high growth rate they are now only 3-4 months old when slaughtered. But because their bone structure has not been able to adapt to their massive bodies, painful and crippling leg disorders are common in the birds. On the day of slaughter, the turkeys are brutally loaded. The birds are grabbed by their legs and carried, two per hand then thrown into the crates. Many birds are injured in the process with fractures to the legs and pelvis, hip dislocation, tendon or ligament trauma, hemorrhaging, detached femurs, ruptured livers, crushed heads and dislocated necks. Given that these birds are already suffering some form of limb pain, their suffering is enormous.
At the slaughterhouse these crippled, injured and traumatized birds will be roughly live-hung, upside down by their feet. Many of the birds attempt to right themselves, but those that struggle are at greatest risk of further injuries, such as femur dislocation, which in a third of cases will be forced into the abdominal cavity. The live-suspension of poultry has been conclusively determined to be intensely painful but for birds as large as turkeys, some of which may weigh up to 60 lbs, the pain is severe. These birds may weigh 10-15 lbs more than lambs, yet it is illegal in Canada to live-suspend a conscious lamb. Why is it legal to do the same to a turkey, which is an even larger animal? Canadians for the Ethical Treatment of Food Animals. (v)

Just how destructive does a culinary preference have to be before we decide to eat something else? If contributing to the suffering of billions of animals that live miserable lives and (quite often) die in horrific ways isn't motivating, what would be? If being the number one contributor to the most serious threat facing the planet (global warming) isn't enough, what is? And if you are tempted to put off these questions of conscience, to say not now, then when? ~ Jonathan Safran Foer (m)

A white sheep with a blue brand on her side and black feet is let in. The door closes. She runs around the kill floor. The foreman comes over to tell me they don't want any of their faces in my pictures. The sheep waits, her hooves and legs are covered with the blood of other animals. The door opens again, and two more sheep are pushed in. The outside worker doesn't realize the killing has temporarily stopped. The sheep start to bleat, soft, terrible, piteous cries. Streaming water from the hoses runs the old blood down the drain. And the killing starts again; Sheep bleat even after their throats are cut. They writhe. Every part of my being says to stop it, save them, which is impossible.
- Sue Cook (witnessing slaughter for her book Dead Meat)

To produce foie gras birds have a metal pipe forced down their throats. An enormous amount of a corn-and-oil mixture is pumped by a machine directly into their gullets in just a few seconds – up to one-third of the birds' own body weight each day. Ducks and geese suffer tremendously during and after the force-feeding process. Within just two weeks, their livers have become diseased and have swollen up to ten times their normal size—a condition known as hepatic lipidosis. The birds can scarcely stand, walk, or even breathe, and have been observed panting and struggling to stand, using their wings to push themselves forward when their crippled legs can no longer support them. http://liberationbc.org/issues/foie_gras

Angora rabbits are farmed on a highly intensive ‘factory farm’ system.
They are bred in hutches with grid floors to keep them clean and not damage their coats. They live in excruciating pain, often with ulcerated feet, because their delicate foot pads don’t agree with the wire floors.
Angoras are shorn every three months or on the French type it is sometimes pulled. This pulling method offers the advantage that new hair grows after each pulling. This method can also cause the rabbit to suffer from shock.
Angoras object strongly to being strapped down and clipped. Because they struggle, most end up getting cut by the clippers.

When we think about animal abuse and environmental destruction on factory farms, we think about cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys, but we often don’t think about fish. However, fish are abused just as awfully as land animals and fishing is destroying our planet just as quickly as factory farms are. Aquacultures are essentially underwater factory farms. The fish are over-crowded into tanks fully of filthy water (pools full of of fish feces, hormone and antibiotic-laden fish feed, and diseased fish carcasses) and fed a diet that consists of corn, soy, antibiotics, and hormones. Because of the extremely cramped conditions, cannibalism is common. In the filthy tank water, sea lice thrive. These lice attack and feed on the fish, creating painful open wounds and sometimes even eating down to the bone on a fish’s face. This is so common that it has a name: “the death crown.” Salmon farms generates sea lice in numbers 30,000 times higher than naturally occur. http://www.powered-by-produce.com/2011/08/02/s-o-s-save-our-seas/ (jb)

WE ARE THE LIVING GRAVE OF MURDERED BEASTS
by George Bernard Shaw

We are the living graves of murdered beasts
Slaughtered to satisfy our appetites
We never pause to wonder at our feasts
If animals, like men, can possibly have rights
We pray on Sundays that we may have light
To guide our footsteps on the path we tread
We're sick of war We do not want to fight
The thought of it now fills our hearts with dread
And yet we gorge ourselves upon the dead
Like carrion crows we live and feed on meat
Regardless of the suffering and pain
We cause by doing so. If thus we treat
Defenseless animals for sport or gain
How can we hope in this world to attain
the PEACE we say we are so anxious for
We pray for it o'er hecatombs of slain
To God, while outraging the moral law
Thus cruelty begets its offspring: war.
(v)

PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS = CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST HUMANITY

2012-02-19T08:57:00.004-10:00

From Natural News
Psychiatric Drugs: Chemical Warfare on Humans - interview with Robert Whitaker
http://www.naturalnews.com/011353_bad_medicine_psychiatric_drug.html

"The following is a Street Spirit interview with Robert Whitaker, author of Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. It is reprinted here with permission from the Street Spirit in Oakland, California. The interview is conducted by Terry Messman, editor of Street Spirit.

Investigative reporter Robert Whitaker, author of the groundbreaking book Mad In America, is now pursuing a fascinating line of research into how the mammoth psychiatric drug industry is endangering the American public by covering up the untold cases of suffering, anguish and disease caused by the most widely prescribed antidepressants and antipsychotic medications.

Whitaker exposes the massive lies and cover-ups that have corrupted the Food and Drug Administration's drug review process, and co-opted research trials in order to spin the results of drug tests and conceal the serious hazards and even deadly side-effects of brand-name drugs like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil and Zyprexa.

The story becomes even more frightening when we look at the aggressive tactics these giant drug companies have used to silence prominent critics by defaming them in the press, and by using their money and power to have widely respected scientists and eminent medical researchers fired for daring to point out the hazards and risks of suicide and premature death caused by these drugs.

Whitaker starts by debunking the effectiveness of these massively hyped wonder drugs -- antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil, and the new atypical antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa. His research shows how they often are barely more effective than placebos in treating mental disorder and depression, despite the glowing adulation they have received in the mainstream media.

But he goes on to make the startling claim that these new psychiatric drugs have directly contributed to an alarming new epidemic of drug-induced mental illness. The very drugs prescribed by physicians to stabilize mental disorders in fact are inducing pathological changes in brain chemistry and triggering suicide, manic and psychotic episodes, convulsions, violence, diabetes, pancreatic failure, metabolic diseases, and premature death.

Whitaker originally was a highly regarded medical reporter at the Albany Times Union and also wrote off and on for the Boston Globe. A series he co-wrote for the Boston Globe on harmful psychiatric research was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. When he began his investigative research into psychiatric issues, Whitaker was still a believer in the story of progress that psychiatry has been telling the public for decades.

He said, "I absolutely believed the common wisdom that these antipsychotic drugs actually had improved things and that they had totally revolutionized how we treated schizophrenia. People used to be locked away forever, and now maybe things weren't great, but they were a lot better. It was a story of progress."

That story of progress was fraudulent, as Whitaker soon found out when he gained new insight from his research into torturous psychiatric practices such as electroshock, lobotomy, insulin coma, and neuroleptic drugs. Psychiatrists told the public that these techniques "cured" psychosis or balanced the chemistry of the brain.

But, in reality, the common thread in all these different treatments was the attempt to suppress "mental illness" by deliberately damaging the higher functions of the brain. The stunning truth is that, behind closed doors, the psychiatric establishment itself labeled these treatments as "brain-damaging therapeutics."

The first generation of antipsychotic drugs created a drug-induced brain pathology by blocking the neurotransmitter dopamine and essentially shutting down many higher brain functions. In fact, when antipsychotics such as Thorazine and Haldol were first introduced, psychiatrists themselves said that these neuroleptic drugs were virtually indistinguishable from a "chemical lobotomy."

In recent years, the media have heralded the arrival of so-called designer drugs like Prozac, Paxil and Zyprexa that are supposed to be superior and have fewer side effects than the old tricyclic antidepressants and the first antipsychotics. Millions of Americans have believed this story and have enriched drug companies like Eli Lilly by spending billions of dollars annually to purchase these new medications.

Whitaker's research into the tragic cases of disease, suffering and early deaths caused by these drugs shows that millions of consumers have been misled by a massive campaign of lies, distortions, and bought-and-paid-for drug trials. Eminent medical researchers who have tried to warn us of the perils of these drugs have been silenced, intimidated and defamed. In the process, the Food and Drug Administration has become the lapdog of the giant pharmaceutical industry, not its watchdog.

Street Spirit interviewed Robert Whitaker about this new "epidemic" of mental disorders, and how the giant drug companies have profited from selling drugs that make us sicker.

Street Spirit: Your new line of research indicates that there has been an enormous rise in the incidence of mental illness in the United States, despite the seeming advances in a new generation of psychiatric drugs. Why do you refer to this increase as an epidemic?

Robert Whitaker: Even people like the psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey wrote a book recently in which he said it looks like we're having an epidemic of mental illness. When the National Institute of Mental Health publishes its figures on the incidence of mental illness, you see these rising numbers of mentally ill people. Some recent reports even say that 20 percent of Americans now are mentally ill.

So what I wanted to do was two-fold. I wanted to look into exactly how dramatic is this increase in mental illness, and particularly severe mental illness. Part of this rise in the number of people said to be mentally ill is just definitional. We draw a big wide boundary today and we throw all sorts of people into that category of mentally ill. So children who are not sitting neatly enough in their school rooms are said to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and we created a new disorder called social anxiety disorder.

SS: So what used to be called simply shyness or anxiety in relating to people is now labeled a mental disorder and you supposedly need an antidepressant like Paxil for social anxiety disorder.

RW: Exactly. And you need a stimulant like Ritalin for ADHD.

SS: This increases psychiatry's clients, but doesn't it also increase the number of people that giant pharmaceutical companies can sell their psychiatric drugs to?

RW: Absolutely. So part of what we're seeing is nothing more than the creation of a larger market for drugs. If you think about it, as long as we draw as big a circle as possible, and expand the boundaries of mental illness, psychiatry can have more clients and sell more drugs. So there's a built-in economic incentive to define mental illness in as broad terms as possible, and to find ordinary, distressing emotions or behaviors that some people may not like and label them as mental illness.

SS: Your research also shows that there is a real increase in people who have a severe mental disorder. Now, this seems counterintuitive, but is it true that you believe much of this increase is caused by the overuse of some of the new generations of psychiatric drugs?

RW: Yes, exactly. I looked at the number of the so-called severely disabled mentally ill -- people who aren't working or who are somehow dysfunctional because of mental illness. So I wanted to chart through history the percentage of the population who are considered the disabled mentally ill.

Now, by 1903, we see that roughly 1 out of every 500 people in the United States is hospitalized for mental illness. By 1955, at the start of the modern era of psychiatric drugs, roughly one out of every 300 people was disabled by mental illness. Now, let's go to 1987, the end of the first generation of antipsychotic drugs; and from 1987 forward we get the modern psychiatric drugs. From 1955 to 1987, during this first era of psychiatric drugs -- the antipsychotic drugs Thorazine and Haldol and the tricyclic antidepressants (such as Elavil and Anafranil) -- we saw the number of disabled mentally ill increase four-fold, to the point where roughly one out of every 75 persons are deemed disabled mentally ill.

Now, there was a shift in how we cared for the disabled mentally ill between 1955 and 1987. In 1955, we were hospitalizing them. Then, by 1987, we had gone through social change, and we were now placing people in shelters, nursing homes, and some sort of community care, and gave them either SSI or SSDI payments for mental disability. In 1987, we started getting these supposedly better, second-generation psychiatric drugs like Prozac and the other selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants. Shortly after that, we get the new, atypical antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa (olanzapine), Clozaril and Risperdal.

What's happened since 1987? Well, the disability rate has continued to increase until it's now one in every 50 Americans. Think about that: One in every 50 Americans disabled by mental illness today. And it's still increasing. The number of mentally disabled people in the United States has been increasing at the rate of 150,000 people per year since 1987. That's an increase every day over the last 17 years of 410 people per day newly disabled by mental illness.

SS: So that leads to the obvious question. If psychiatry has introduced these so-called wonder drugs like Prozac and Zoloft and Zyprexa, why is the incidence of mental illness going up dramatically?

RW: That's exactly it. This is a scientific question. We have a form of care where we're using these drugs in an ever more expansive manner, and supposedly we have better drugs and they're the cornerstone of our care, so we should see decreasing disability rates. That's what your expectation would be.

Instead, from 1987 until the present, we saw an increase in the number of mentally disabled people from 3.3 million people to 5.7 million people in the United States. In that time, our spending on psychiatric drugs increased to an amazing degree. Combined spending on antipsychotic drugs and antidepressants jumped from around $500 million in 1986 to nearly $20 billion in 2004. So we raise the question: Is the use of these drugs somehow actually fueling this increase in the number of the disabled mentally ill?

When you look at the research literature, you find a clear pattern of outcomes with all these drugs -- you see it with the antipsychotics, the antidepressants, the anti-anxiety drugs and the stimulants like Ritalin used to treat ADHD. All these drugs may curb a target symptom slightly more effectively than a placebo does for a short period of time, say six weeks. An antidepressant may ameliorate the symptoms of depression better than a placebo over the short term.

What you find with every class of these psychiatric drugs is a worsening of the target symptom of depression or psychosis or anxiety over the long term, compared to placebo-treated patients. So even on the target symptoms, there's greater chronicity and greater severity of symptoms. And you see a fairly significant percentage of patients where new and more severe psychiatric symptoms are triggered by the drug itself.

SS: New psychiatric symptoms created by the very drugs people are told will help them recover?

RW: Absolutely. The most obvious case is with the antidepressants. A certain percentage of people placed on the SSRIs because they have some form of depression will suffer either a manic or psychotic attack -- drug-induced. This is well recognized. So now, instead of just dealing with depression, they're dealing with mania or psychotic symptoms. And once they have a drug-induced manic episode, what happens? They go to an emergency room, and at that point they're newly diagnosed. They're now said to be bipolar and they're given an antipsychotic to go along with the antidepressant; and, at that point, they're moving down the path to chronic disability.

SS: Modern psychiatry claims that these psychiatric drugs correct pathological brain chemistry. Is there any evidence to back up their claim that abnormal brain chemistry is the culprit in schizophrenia and depression?

RW: This is the key thing everyone needs to understand. It really is the answer that unlocks this mystery of why the drugs would have this long-term problematic effect. Start with schizophrenia. They hypothesize that these drugs work by correcting an imbalance of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain.

The theory was that people with schizophrenia had overactive dopamine systems; and these drugs, by blocking dopamine in the brain, fixed that chemical imbalance. Therefore, you get the metaphor that they're like insulin is for diabetes; they're fixing an abnormality. With the antidepressants, the theory was that people with depression had too low levels of serotonin; the drugs upped the levels of serotonin in the brain and therefore they're balancing the brain chemistry.

First of all, those theories never arose from investigations into what was actually happening to people. Rather, they would find out that antipsychotics blocked dopamine and so they theorized that people had overactive dopamine systems. Same with the antidepressants. They found that antidepressants upped the levels of serotonin; therefore, they theorized that people with depression must have low levels of serotonin.

But here is the thing that one wishes all of America would know and wishes psychiatry would come clean on: They've never been able to find that people with schizophrenia have overactive dopamine systems. They've never been able to find that people with depression have underactive serotonin systems. They've never found consistently that any of these disorders are associated with any chemical imbalance in the brain. The story that people with mental disorders have known chemical imbalances -- that's a lie. We don't know that at all. It's just something that they say to help sell the drugs and help sell the biological model of mental disorders.

But the kicker is this. We do know, in fact, that these drugs perturb how these chemical messengers work in the brain. The real paradigm is: People diagnosed with mental disorders have no known problem with their neurotransmitter systems; and these drugs perturb the normal function of neurotransmitters.

SS: So rather than fixing a chemical imbalance, these widely prescribed drugs distort the brain chemistry and make it pathological.

RW: Absolutely. Stephen Hyman, a well-known neuroscientist and the former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, wrote a paper in 1996 that looked at how psychiatric drugs affect the brain. He wrote that all these drugs create perturbations in neurotransmitter functions. And he notes that the brain, in response to this drug from the outside, alters its normal functions and goes through a series of compensatory adaptations.

In other words, it tries to adapt to the fact that an antipsychotic drug is blocking normal dopamine functions. Or in the case of antidepressants, it tries to compensate for the fact that you're blocking a normal reuptake of serotonin. The way it does this is to adapt in the opposite way. So, if you're blocking dopamine in the brain, the brain tries to put out more dopamine and it actually increases the number of dopamine receptors. So a person placed on antipsychotic drugs will end up with an abnormally high number of dopamine receptors in the brain.

If you give someone an antidepressant, and that tries to keep serotonin levels too high in the brain, it does exactly the opposite. It stops producing as much serotonin as it normally does and it reduces the number of serotonin receptors in the brain. So someone who is on an antidepressant, after a time ends up with an abnormally low level of serotonin receptors in the brain. And here's what Hyman concluded about this: After these changes happened, the patient's brain is functioning in a way that is "qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the normal state." So what Stephen Hyman, former head of the NIMH, has done is present a paradigm for how these drugs affect the brain that shows that they're inducing a pathological state.

SS: So the paradox is there's no evidence for modern psychiatry's claim that there is any pathological biochemical imbalance in the brain that causes mental illness, but if you treat people with these new wonder drugs, that is what creates a pathological imbalance?

RW: Yes, these drugs disrupt normal brain chemistry. That's the real paradox here. And the real tragedy is, that even as we peddle these drugs as chemical balancers, chemical fixers, in truth we're doing precisely the opposite. We're taking a brain that has no known abnormal brain chemistry, and by placing people on the drugs, we're perturbing that normal chemistry. Here's how Barry Jacobs, a Princeton neuroscientist, describes what happens to a person given an SSRI antidepressant. "These drugs," he said, "alter the level of synaptic transmission beyond the physiologic range achieved under normal environmental biological conditions. Thus, any behavioral or physiologic change produced under these conditions might more appropriately be considered pathologic rather than reflective of the normal biological role of serotonin."

SS: One of the SSRI antidepressants that's widely believed to be a wonder drug is Prozac. Yet your research found that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received more adverse reports about Prozac than any other drug. What sort of ill effects were people reporting?

RW: First of all, with Prozac and the SSRIs that followed, their level of efficacy was always of a very minor sort. In all the clinical trials of the antidepressants, roughly 41 percent of the patients got better in the short term versus 31 percent of the patients on placebo. Now just one other caveat on that. If you use an active placebo in these trials -- an active placebo causes a physiologic change with no benefit, like a dry mouth -- any difference in outcome between the antidepressant and placebo virtually disappears.

SS: Weren't the early drug tests of Prozac so unpromising that they had to manipulate test results to get FDA approval at all?

RW: What happened with Prozac is a fascinating story. Right from the beginning, they noticed only very marginal efficacy over placebo; and they noticed that they had some problems with suicide. There were increased suicidal responses compared to placebo. In other words, the drugs was agitating people and making people suicidal who hadn't been suicidal before. They were getting manic responses in people who hadn't been manic before. They were getting psychotic episodes in people who hadn't been psychotic before. So you were seeing these very problematic side effects even at the same time that you were seeing very modest efficacy, if any, over placebo in ameliorating depression.

Basically, what Eli Lilly (Prozac's manufacturer) had to do was cover up the psychosis, cover up the mania; and, in that manner, it was able to get these drugs approved. One FDA reviewer even warned that Prozac appeared to be a dangerous drug, but it was approved anyway. We're seemingly finding all this out only now: "Oh, Prozac can cause suicidal impulses and all these SSRIs may increase the risk of suicide." The point is, that wasn't anything new. That data was there from the very first trial. You had people in Germany saying, "I think this is a dangerous drug."

SS: Even back in the late 1980s, they already knew?

RW: Before the late 1980s -- in the early '80s, before Prozac gets approved. Basically what Eli Lilly had to do was cover up that risk of mania and psychosis, cover up that some people were becoming suicidal because they were getting this nervous agitation from Prozac. That's the only way it got approved.

There were various ways they did the cover-up. One was just to simply remove reports of psychosis from some of the data. They also went back and recoded some of the trial results. Let's say someone had a manic episode or a psychotic episode; instead of putting that down, they would just put down a return of depression, and that sort of thing. So there was a basic need to hide these risks right from the beginning, and that's what was done.

So Prozac gets approved in 1987, and it's launched in this amazing PR campaign. The pill itself is featured on the cover of several magazines! It's like the Pill of the Year [laughs]. And it's said to be so much safer: a wonder drug. We have doctors saying, "Oh, the real problem with this drug is that we can now create whatever personality we want. We're just so skilled with these drugs that if you want to be happy all the time, take your pill!"

That was complete nonsense. The drugs were barely better than placebo at alleviating depressive symptoms over the short term. You had all these problems; yet we were touting these drugs, saying, "Oh, the powers of psychiatry are such that we can give you the mind you want -- a designer personality!" It was absolutely obscene. Meanwhile, which drug, after being launched, quickly became the most complained about drug in America? Prozac!

SS: What were the level of complaints when Prozac hit the market?

RW: In this county, we have Medwatch, a reporting system in which we report adverse events about psychiatric drugs to the FDA. By the way, the FDA tries to keep these adverse reports from the public. So, instead of the FDA making these easily available to the public. so you can know about the dangers of the drugs, it's very hard to get these reports.

Within one decade, there were 39,000 adverse reports about Prozac that were sent to Medwatch. The number of adverse events sent to Medwatch is thought to represent only one percent of the actual number of such events. So, if we get 39,000 adverse event reports about Prozac, the number of people who have actually suffered such problems is estimated to be 100 times as many, or roughly four million people. This makes Prozac the most complained about drug in America, by far. There were more adverse event reports received about Prozac in its first two years on the market than had been reported on the leading tricyclic antidepressant in 20 years.

Remember, Prozac is pitched to the American public as this wonderfully safe drug, and yet what are people complaining about? Mania, psychotic depression, nervousness, anxiety, agitation, hostility, hallucinations, memory loss, tremors, impotence, convulsions, insomnia, nausea, suicidal impulses. It's a wide range of serious symptoms.

And here's the kicker. It wasn't just Prozac. Once we got the other SSRIs on the market, like Zoloft and Paxil, by 1994, four SSRI antidepressants were among the top 20 most complained about drugs on the FDA's Medwatch list. In other words, every one of these drugs brought to market started triggering this range of adverse events. And these were not minor things. When you talk about mania, hallucinations, psychotic depression, these are serious adverse events.

Prozac was pitched to the American public as a wonder drug. It was featured on the covers of magazines as so safe, and as a sign of our wonderful ability to effect the brain just as we want it. In truth, the reports were showing it could trigger a lot of dangerous events, including suicide and psychosis.

The FDA was being warned about this. They were getting a flood of adverse event reports, and the public was never told about this for the longest period of time. It took a decade for the FDA to begin to acknowledge the increased suicides and the violence it can trigger in some people. It just shows how the FDA betrayed the American people. This is a classic example. They betrayed their responsibility to act as a watchdog for the American people. Instead they acted as an agency that covered up harm and risk with these drugs.

SS: In light of the FDA's failure to warn us about Prozac, what about their recent negligence on the issue of the risk of suicide in children given antidepressants like Paxil? Weren't England's mental health officials far better than their American counterparts in the FDA in warning about the dangers of suicidal attempts when antidepressants are given to youth?

RW: Yes. The children's story is unbelievably tragic. It's also a really sordid story. Let's go back a little to see what happened to children and antidepressants. Prozac comes to market in 1987. By the early 1990s, the pharmaceutical companies making these drugs are saying, "How do we expand the market for antidepressants?" Because that's what drug companies do -- they want to get to an ever-larger number of people. They saw they had an untapped market in kids. So let's start peddling the drugs to kids. And they were successful. Since 1990, the use of antidepressants in kids went up something like seven-fold. They began prescribing them willy-nilly.

Now, whenever they did pediatric trials of antidepressants, they found that the drugs were no more effective on the target symptom of depression than placebo. This happened again and again in the pediatric drug trials of antidepressants. So, what that tells you is there is no real therapeutic rationale for the drugs because in this population of kids, the drugs don't even curb the target symptoms over the short term any better than placebo; and yet they were causing all sorts of adverse events.

For example, in one trial, 75 percent of youth treated with antidepressants suffered an adverse event of some kind. In one study by the University of Pittsburgh, 23 percent of children treated with an SSRI developed mania or manic-like symptoms; an additional 19 percent developed drug-induced hostility. The clinical results were telling you that you didn't get any benefit on depression; and you could cause all sorts of real problems in kids -- mania, hostility, psychosis, and you may even stir suicide. In other words, don't use these drugs, right? It was absolutely covered up.

SS: How was it covered up?

RW: We had psychiatrists -- some of those obviously getting money from the drug companies -- saying the kids are under-treated and they're at risk of suicide and how could we possibly treat kids without these pills and what a tragedy it would be if we couldn't use these antidepressants.

Finally, a prominent researcher in England, David Healy, started doing his own research on the ability of these drugs to stir suicide. He also managed to get access to some of the trial results and he blew the whistle. He first blew the whistle in England and he presented this data to the review authorities there. And they saw that it looks like these drugs are increasing the risk of suicide and there are really no signs of benefits on the target symptoms of depression. So they began to move there to warn doctors not to prescribe these drugs to youth.

What happens in the United States? Well, it's only after there's a lot of pressure put on the FDA that they even hold a hearing. The FDA sort of downplays the risk of these drugs. They're slow to even put black box warnings on them. Why? Aren't kids lives worth protecting? If we know that we have a scientifically shown risk that these drugs increase suicide, shouldn't you at least warn about it? But the FDA was even digging in its heels about putting that black box warning on the drugs.

SS: If Prozac is the nation's most complained about drug, if Paxil is shown to be a suicide risk for youth, how do these antidepressants continue to have a reputation as near-magic cures for depression? And why did the FDA failed to warn us about Paxil and Prozac for such a long time?

RW: There's a couple reasons for that. The FDA's funding changed in the 1990s. An act was passed in which a lot of the FDA's funding came from the drug industry: the PDUFA Act, or Prescription Drug User Fee Act. Basically, when drug companies applied for FDA approval they had to pay a fee. Those fees became what is funding a large portion of the FDA's review of drug applications.

So all of a sudden, the funding is coming from the drug industry; it's no longer coming from the people. As that act comes up for renewal, basically the drug lobbyists are telling the FDA that their job is no longer to be critically analyzing drugs, but to approve drugs quickly. And that was part of Newt Gingrich's thing: Your job is to get these drugs to market. Start partnering with the drug industry and facilitating drug development. We lost this idea that the FDA had a watchdog role.

Also, in a human way, a lot of people who work for the FDA leave there and end up going to work for the drug companies. The old joke is that the FDA is sort of like a showcase for a future job in the drug industry. You go there, you work awhile, then you go off into the drug industry. Well, if that's the progression that people make, in essence they're making good old boy network connections, so they're not going to be so harsh on the drug companies. So, that's what really happened in the 1990s. The FDA was given new marching orders. The orders were: "Facilitate getting drugs to market. Don't be too critical. And, in fact, if you want to keep your funding, which was coming now from the drug industry, make sure you take these lessons to heart."

SS: So the giant pharmaceutical companies have a vast amount of power to cook the results of drug tests and make researchers and even the FDA itself bow to their will?

RW: The FDA, in essence, was kneecapped in the early 1990s, and we really saw it with the psychiatric drugs. The FDA became a lapdog for the pharmaceutical industry, not a watchdog. It's only now that this has become common knowledge. We have Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, write a book in which she says that the FDA became a lapdog. It's basically now well recognized that you had this decline and fall. As the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, the most prestigious medical journal we have, Marcia Angell is someone who was at the very heart of American medicine, and she concluded that the FDA let down the American people. And she lost her job at the New England Journal of Medicine for starting to criticize pharmaceutical companies.

She was the editor of the journal in the late 1990s and there was a corresponding doctor named Thomas Bodenheimer who decided to write an article about how you couldn't even trust what was published in the medical journals anymore because of all the spinning of results. So they did an investigation about how the pharmaceutical companies are funding all the research and spinning the trial results, so you can no longer really trust what you read in scientific journals. They pointed out that when they tried to get an expert to review the scientific literature related to antidepressants, they basically couldn't find someone who hadn't taken money from the drug companies.

Now, the New England Journal of Medicine is published by the Massachusetts Medical Society which publishes a lot of other journals, and they get a lot of pharmaceutical advertising. So what happens after that article appears by Thomas Bodenheimer and an accompanying editorial by Marcia Angell about the sorry state of American medicine because of this? They both lose their jobs! She's gone and so is Thomas Bodenheimer. Think about this. We have the leading medical journal firing people, letting them go, because they dared to criticize the dishonest science and the dishonest process that was poisoning the scientific literature.

So we have the FDA that's acting as lapdogs. You can't trust the scientific literature. All this shows how the American public was betrayed and didn't know about all the problems with these drugs and why it was kept from them. It has to do with money, prestige and old boy networks.

SS: It also has to do with the silencing of critics. Eli Lilly uses the media to trumpet Prozac's benefits and gives perks to doctors to attend conferences to hear about its benefits, and buys off researchers. But don't they also use their power and money to silence their critics?

RW: An example is Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, a psychiatrist who also works for Harvard University Health Services, and who wrote a book called Prozac Backlash to warn about the dangers of Prozac. He's finding that the drugs are being overused and cause severe side effects. He even raises questions about long-term memory problems with the drugs and cognitive dysfunction. Well, Eli Lilly then mounted a public relations campaign to try to discredit him. They sent out notices to the media questioning his affiliation with Harvard Medical School, etc. It was all about silencing the critics.

If you sing the tune that the drug companies want, at the very top levels, you get paid a lot of money to fly around and give presentations about the wonders of the drugs. And those who come, and don't ask any embarrassing questions, get the lobster dinners and maybe they get a little honorarium for attending this educational meeting. So if you want to be part of this gravy train, you can. You sing the wonders of the drug, and you don't talk about their nasty side effects, and you can get a nice payment as one of their guest speakers, as one of their experts.

But if you're one of the ones saying, "What about the mania, what about the psychosis?" -- they do silence you. Look at what happened to David Healy. Healy is even the best example. David Healy has this sterling reputation in England. He's written several books on the history of psychopharmacology. He's like the former Secretary of the Psychopharmacology Association over there. He gets offered a job at the University of Toronto to head up their psychiatry department. So while he's waiting to assume that position at the University of Toronto, he goes to Toronto and delivers a talk on the elevated risk of suicide with Prozac and some of the other SSRIs. By the time he's back home, the job offer has been rescinded.

Now does Eli Lilly donate some money to the University of Toronto? Absolutely. So, to answer your question, yes, Eli Lilly silences dissenters as well.

SS: What is the story behind the secret settlement between Eli Lilly and the survivors who sued the company after Joseph Wesbecker shot 20 coworkers after being put on Prozac?

RW: During this trial in which Eli Lilly was being sued, the judge was going to allow some very damaging evidence showing wrongdoing by Eli Lilly in a previous instance. The judge said, "Go ahead and introduce this at the trial." But next thing you know, they don't introduce this; and in fact, all of a sudden, the plaintiffs no longer are presenting very damaging evidence to make their case. So the judge wonders why they are not presenting their best case anymore. He smells a rat. He suspects Eli Lilly has settled with the plaintiffs secretly and the deal is that, as part of this settlement, the plaintiffs will go ahead with a sham trial so that Eli Lilly will win the trial. Then Eli Lilly can claim, "See our drug doesn't cause people to become violent."

And, indeed, that's what happened. Eli Lilly felt it was going to lose this trial. They went to the plaintiffs and said they would give them a lot of money. They agreed to go ahead and settle the case, but had the plaintiffs go ahead with the trial. That way Eli Lilly can publicly claim that they won the trial and Prozac doesn't cause harm.

SS: How did this even come out into the light of day?

RW: We would never have known about this except for two things. One, believe it or not, the judge, in essence, appealed the decision in his own court. He said, "I smell a rat." And through that, he found out that there was this secret settlement and that it was a sham proceeding that continued on. He said it was one of the worst violations of the integrity of the legal process that he'd ever seen. And second, an English journalist named John Cornwell wrote a book called Power to Harm: Mind, Medicine, and Murder on Trial. He wrote about this case, and yet in the United States, we got almost no news about this secret settlement and this whole perversion of the legal process. It was an English journalist who was exposing this story.

My point here is this: They silence people like Marcia Angell. They pervert the scientific process. They pervert the legal process. They pervert the FDA drug review process. It's everywhere! And that's how we as a society end up believing in these psychiatric drugs. You asked the question a while back, "Why do we still believe in Prozac?" One of the reasons is that the story about Prozac is, in effect, maintained. It's publicly maintained because we do all this silencing along all these lines.

The other thing to remember is that some people on Prozac do feel better. That's true. That shows up, just in the same way that some people on placebos feel better. And those are the stories that get repeated: "Oh, I took Prozac and I'm feeling better." It's that select group that does better that becomes the story that is told out there, and the story that the public hears. So that's why we continued to believe in the story of these wonder drugs that are very safe in spite of all this messy stuff that gets covered up.

SS: Let's now move from the antidepressants like Prozac to consider another new group of supposed wonder drugs -- the new antipsychotic drugs. You write that long-term use of antipsychotic drugs -- both the original neuroleptic drugs like Thorazine and Haldol and the newer atypicals like Zyprexa and Risperdal -- cause pathological changes in the brain that can lead to a worsening of the symptoms of mental illness. What changes in brain chemistry result from the antipsychotics, and how can that lead to the most frightening prospect you describe -- chronic mental illness that is locked in by these drugs?

RW: This is a line of research that goes across 40 years. This problem of chronic illness shows up time and time again in the research literature. This biological mechanism is somewhat well understood now. The antipsychotics profoundly block dopamine receptors. They block 70-90 percent of the dopamine receptors in the brain. In return, the brain sprouts about 50 percent extra dopamine receptors. It tries to become extra sensitive.

So in essence you've created an imbalance in the dopamine system in the brain. It's almost like, on one hand, you've got the accelerator down -- that's the extra dopamine receptors. And the drug is the brake trying to block this. But if you release that brake, if you abruptly go off the drugs, you now do have a dopamine system that's overactive. You have too many dopamine receptors. And what happens? People that go abruptly off of the drug, do tend to have severe relapses.

SS: So people that have been treated with these antipsychotic drugs have a far greater tendency to relapse, and have new episodes of mental illness, as opposed to people who have had other kinds of non-drug therapies?

RW: Absolutely, and that was understood by 1979, that you were actually increasing the underlying biological vulnerability to the psychosis. And by the way, we sort of understood that if you muck with the dopamine system, that you could cause some symptoms of psychosis with amphetamines. So if you give someone amphetamines enough, they're at increased risk of psychosis. This is well known. And what do amphetamines do? They release dopamine. So there is a biological reason why, if you're mucking up the dopamine system, you're increasing the risk of psychosis. That's in essence what these antipsychotic drugs do, they muck up the dopamine system.

Here's just one real powerful study on this: Researchers with the University of Pittsburgh in the 1990s took people newly diagnosed with schizophrenia, and they started taking MRI pictures of the brains of these people. So we get a picture of their brains at the moment of diagnosis, and then we prepare pictures over the next 18 months to see how those brains change. Now during this 18 months, they are being prescribed antipsychotic medications, and what did the researchers report? They reported that, over this 18-month period, the drugs caused an enlargement of the basal ganglia, an area of the brain that uses dopamine. In other words, it creates a visible change in morphology, a change in the size of an area of the brain, and that's abnormal. That's number one. So we have an antipsychotic drug causing an abnormality in the brain.

Now here's the kicker. They found that as that enlargement occurred, it was associated with a worsening of the psychotic symptoms, a worsening of negative symptoms. So here you actually have, with modern technology, a very powerful study. By imaging the brain, we see how an outside agent comes in, disrupts normal chemistry, causes an abnormal enlargement of the basal ganglia, and that enlargement causes a worsening of the very symptoms it's supposed to treat. Now that's actually, in essence, a story of a disease process -- an outside agent causes abnormality, causes symptoms...

SS: But in this case, the outside agent that triggers the disease process is the supposed cure for the disease! The psychiatric drug is the disease-causing agent.

RW: That's exactly right. It's a stunning, damning finding. It's the sort of finding you would say, "Oh Christ, we should be doing something different." Do you know what those researchers got new grants for, after they reported that?

SS: No, what? You'd guess they got funding to carry out these same studies on other classes of psychiatric drugs.

RW: They got a grant to develop an implant, a brain implant, that would deliver drugs like Haldol on a continual basis! A grant to develop a drug delivery implant so you could implant this in the brains of people with schizophrenia and then they wouldn't even have a chance not to take the drugs!

SS: Unbelievable. Designing an implant to provide a constant dose of a drug that they had just discovered causes pathology in the brain chemistry.

RW: Right, they had just found that they're causing a worsening of symptoms! So why would you go on to a design a permanent implant? Because that's where the money was. And no one wanted to deal with this horrible finding of an enlargement of the basal ganglia caused by the drugs, and that is associated with the worsening of symptoms. No one wanted to deal with the fact that when you look at people medicated on antipsychotics, you start to see a shrinking of the frontal lobes. No one wants to talk about that either. They stopped that research.

SS: What other side effects are caused by prolonged use of these antipsychotic drugs?

RW: Oh, you get tardive dyskinesia, a permanent brain dysfunction; and akathisia, which is this incredible nervous agitation. You're just never comfortable. You want to sit but you can't sit. It's like you're crawling out of your own skin. And it's associated with violence, suicide and all sorts of horrible things.

SS: Those kinds of side-effects were notorious with the first generation of antipsychotic drugs, like Thorazine, Haldol and Stelazine. But, just as with Prozac, so many people are still touting the new generation of atypical antipsychotics -- Zyprexa, Clozaril and Risperdal -- as wonder drugs that control mental illness with far fewer side effects. Is that true? What have you found?

RW: No, it's just complete nonsense. In fact, I think the newer drugs will eventually be seen as more dangerous than the old drugs, if that's possible. As you know, the standard neuroleptics like Thorazine and Haldol have had quite a litany of harm with the tardive dyskinesia and all. So when we got the new atypical drugs, they were touted as so much safer. But with these new atypicals, you get all sorts of metabolic dysfunctions.

Let's talk about Zyprexa. It has a different profile. So it may not cause as much tardive dyskinesia. It may not cause as many Parkinsonian symptoms. But it causes a whole range of new symptoms. So, for example, it's more likely to cause diabetes. It's more likely to cause pancreatic disorders. It's more likely to cause obesity and appetite-disregulation disorders.

In fact, researchers in Ireland reported in 2003 that since the introduction of the atypical antipsychotics, the death rate among people with schizophrenia has doubled. They have done death rates of people treated with standard neuroleptics and then they compare that with death rates of people treated with atypical antipsychotics, and it doubles. It doubles! It didn't reduce harm. In fact, in their seven-year study, 25 of the 72 patients died.

SS: What were the causes of death?

RW: All sorts of physical illnesses, and that's part of the point. You're getting respiratory problems, you're getting people dying of incredibly high cholesterol counts, heart problems, diabetes. With olanzapine (Zyprexa), one of the problems is that you're really screwing up the core metabolic system. That's why you get these huge weight gains, and you get the diabetes. Zyprexa basically disrupts the machine that we are that processes food and extracts energy from that food. So this very fundamental thing that we humans do is disrupted, and at some point you just see all these pancreatic problems, faulty glucose regulation, diabetes, etc. That's really a sign that you're mucking with something very fundamental to life.

SS: There's supposedly an alarming increase in mental illness being diagnosed in children. Millions are diagnosed with depression, bipolar and psychotic symptoms, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and social anxiety disorder. Is this explosive new prevalence of mental illness among children a real increase, or is it a marketing campaign that enriches the psychiatric drug industry, a bonanza for the pharmaceutical corporations? RW: You're touching on something now that is a tragic scandal of monumental proportions. I talk sometimes to college classes, psychology classes. You cannot believe the percentage of youth who have been told they were mentally ill as kids, that something was wrong with them. It's absolutely phenomenal. It's absolutely cruel to be telling kids that they have these broken brains and mental illnesses.

There's two things that are happening here. One, of course, is that it's complete nonsense. As you remember as a kid, you have too much energy or you behave sometimes in not altogether appropriate ways, and you do have these extremes of emotions, especially during your teenage years. Both children and teenagers can be very emotional. So one thing that's going on is that they take childhood behaviors and start defining behaviors they don't like as pathological. They start defining emotions that are uncomfortable as pathological. So part of what we're doing is pathologizing childhood with straight-out definition stuff. We're pathologizing poverty among kids.

For example, if you're a foster kid, and maybe you drew a bad straw in the lottery of life and are born into a dysfunctional family and you get put into foster care, do you know what happens today? You pretty likely are going to get diagnosed with a mental disorder, and you're going to be placed on a psychiatric drug. In Massachusetts, it's something like 60 to 70 percent of kids in foster care are now on psychiatric drugs. These kids aren't mentally ill! They got a raw deal in life. They ended up in a foster home, which means they were in a bad family situation, and what does our society do? They say: "You have a defective brain." It's not that society was bad and you didn't get a fair deal. No, the kid has a defective brain and has to be put on this drug. It's absolutely criminal.

Let's talk about bipolar disorder among kids. As one doctor said, that used to be so rare as to be almost nonexistent. Now we're seeing it all over. Bipolar is exploding among kids. Well, partly you could say that we're just slapping that label on kids more often; but in fact, there is something real going on. Here's what's happening. You take kids and put them on an antidepressant -- which we never used to do -- or you put them on a stimulant like Ritalin. Stimulants can cause mania; stimulants can cause psychosis.

SS: And antidepressants can also cause mania, as you pointed out.

RW: Exactly, so the kid ends up with a drug-induced manic or psychotic episode. Once they have that, the doctor at the emergency room doesn't say, "Oh, he's suffering from a drug-induced episode." He says he's bipolar.

SS: Then they give him a whole new drug for the mental disorder caused by the first drug.

RW: Yeah, they give him an antipsychotic drug; and now he's on a cocktail of drugs, and he's on a path to becoming disabled for life. That's an example of how we're absolutely making kids sick.

SS: It's like society or their schools are trying to make them manageable and they end up putting them on a chemical roller coaster against their will.

RW: Absolutely.

SS: There's an astonishing number of kids being given Ritalin to cure hyperactivity. But what 10-year-old boy in a confined school setting isn't hyperactive? You write that the effect of Ritalin on the dopamine system is very similar to cocaine and amphetamines.

RW: Ritalin is methylphenidate. Now methylphenidate affects the brain in exactly the same way as cocaine. They both block a molecule that is involved in the reuptake of dopamine.

SS: So they both increase the dopamine levels in the brain?

RW: Exactly. And they do it with a similar degree of potency. So methylphenidate is very similar to cocaine. Now, one difference is whether you're snorting it or if it's in a pill. That partly changes how quickly it's metabolized. But still, it basically affects the brain in the same way. Now, methylphenidate was used in research studies to deliberately stir psychosis in schizophrenics. Because they knew that you could take a person with a tendency towards psychosis, give them methylphenidate, and cause psychosis. We also knew that amphetamines, like methylphenidate, could cause psychosis in people who had never been psychotic before.

So think about this. We're giving a drug to kids that is known to have the possibility of stirring psychosis. Now, the odd thing about methylphenidate and amphetamines is that, in kids, they sort of have a counterintuitive effect. What does speed do in adults? It makes them more jittery and hyperactive. For whatever reasons, in kids amphetamines will actually still their movements; it will actually keep them in their chairs and make them more focused. So you've got kids in boring schools. The boys are not paying attention and they're diagnosed with ADHD and put on a drug that is known to stir psychosis. The next thing you know, a fair number of them are not doing well by the time they're 15, 16, 17. Some of those kids talk about how when you're on these drugs for the long term, you start feeling like a zombie; you don't feel like yourself.

SS: Hollowed-out, blunted emotions. And this is being done to millions of kids.

RW: Millions of kids! Think about what we're doing. We're robbing kids of their right to be kids, their right to grow, their right to experience their full range of emotions, and their right to experience the world in its full hue of colors. That's what growing up is, that's what being alive is! And we're robbing kids of their right to be. It's so criminal. And we're talking about millions of kids who have been affected this way. There are some colleges where something like 40 to 50 percent of the kids arrive with a psychiatric prescription.

SS: It looks like a huge social-control mechanism. Society gives kids Ritalin and antidepressants to subdue them and make them conform. On the one hand, it's all about social control and conformity. But it also has a huge marketing payoff.

RW: You're right, it creates customers for the drugs, and hopefully lifelong customers. That's what they're told, aren't they? They're told they are going to be on these drugs for life. And next thing they know, they're on two or three or four drugs. It's brilliant from the capitalist point of view. It does serve some social-control function. But you take a kid, and you turn them into a customer, and hopefully a lifelong customer. It's brilliant.

We now spend more on antidepressants in this country than the Gross National Product of mid-sized countries like Jordan. It's just amazing amounts of money. The amount of money we spend on psychiatric drugs in this country is more than the Gross National Product of two-thirds of the world's countries. It's just this incredibly lucrative paradigm of the mind that you can fix chemical imbalances in the brain with these drugs. It works so well from a capitalistic point of view for Eli Lilly. When Prozac came to market, Eli Lilly's value on Wall Street, its capitalization, was around 2 billion dollars. By the year 2000, the time when Prozac was its number-one drug, its capitalization reached 80 billion dollars -- a forty-fold increase.

So that's what you really have to look at if you want to see why drug companies have pursued this vision with such determination. It brings billions of dollars in wealth in terms of increased stock prices to the owners and managers of those companies. It also benefits the psychiatric establishment that gets behind the drugs; they do well by this. There's a lot of money flowing in the direction of those that will embrace this form of care. There's advertisements that enrich the media. It's all a big gravy train.

Unfortunately, the cost is dishonesty in our scientific literature, the corruption of the FDA, and the absolute harm done to children in this country drawn into this system, and an increase of 150,000 newly disabled people every year in the United States for the last 17 years. That's an incredible record of harm done.

SS: Everyone gets rich -- the drug companies, the psychiatrists, the researchers, the advertising agencies -- and the clients get drugged out of their minds and damaged for life.

RW: And you know what's interesting? No one says that the mental health of the American people is getting better. Instead, everyone says we have this increasing problem They blame it on the stresses of modern life or something like that, and they don't want to look at the fact that we're creating mental illness"

CATS THAT EAT DRY FOOD-ONLY DIETS ARE IN DANGER OF SERIOUS HEALTH RISKS - ESPECIALLY MALE CATS

2012-02-18T13:09:00.002-10:00

By Dr. Becker

"More evidence has emerged linking dry food diets and feline lower urinary tract disease (FLUTD).

A study was conducted at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Koret School of Veterinary Medicine to evaluate urethral obstruction (UO), which is an extremely common, life-threatening condition in cats.

The urethra is a small tube through which urine flows from your cat's bladder to the outside of the body.

Urethral obstructions are usually mineral crystals or stones, or plugs of inflammatory material that form in the kidneys (a process known as urolithiasis), pass down into the bladder, and get stuck in the urethra, blocking the passage of urine from the body.

The urethra in male cats is longer and narrower than in females, so obstructions are more often seen in males.

Once a blockage develops in the urethra, the kidneys continue to produce urine and the urine starts building up in the bladder.

This is not only painful for the cat, it can also quickly interfere with kidney function.

The job of the kidneys is to flush waste from the body, and when they aren't working properly, toxins accumulate in the bloodstream.

Feline urethral obstructions, if not treated promptly, can result in death in a matter of days.

Risk Factors for Urethral Obstruction in Cats

According to many, no research to date has nailed down precisely the risk factors involved in the formation of urethral plugs in kitties.

Some reports indicate certain breeds are predisposed to stone formation, including Persians, Himalayans, Russian Blues Siamese, Birman and the Egyptian Mau.

It is also thought a cat's environment carries risk factors for diseases of the lower urinary tract, specifically stressful living conditions, living indoors only, obesity, a sedentary lifestyle, and spaying/neutering.

For some reason, a dry food-only diet isn't emphasized in most studies as a significant risk factor for development of feline lower urinary tract disease, including urethral obstruction. I find this absolutely mystifying, given what we know about the crucial role dietary moisture content plays in feline physiology.

The Jerusalem Study

The Jerusalem study, published last year in the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, took another look at risk factors for urethral obstruction, clinical signs, outcomes and recurrence rates in 82 cats with UO and 82 control cats.

The kitties diagnosed with urethral obstruction had some interesting things in common, including:

They were significantly younger than the control cats; 82 percent were between 1 and 7 years old.

They were significantly heavier.

More were indoor-only cats than in the control group.

And… most were fed dry food only (68 out of 82, or 83 percent)… 14 ate a combination of wet and dry food… and exactly none were fed a diet of wet food only.

In the control group of 82 cats without urethral obstruction, who also happened to be older and leaner than the sick cats, a little over half were fed dry food only, 42 percent ate both wet and dry food, and 3 out of 82 were fed only wet food.

An Earlier Enlightening Study

Another very interesting study1 was done several years ago to measure the effect of feeding a specific type of food (designed to increase the acidity of urine) to cats with feline idiopathic cystitis (FIC). (FIC is another of the diseases of the lower urinary tract.)

Some of the cats were fed a canned formulation of the food, and some were fed a dry formulation.

The result?

After 1 year on the canned food, only 11 percent of FIC cats had a recurrence of the condition.

Recurrence in the dry food group after a year was 39 percent.

This study was conducted by the Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition. Since Waltham is a pet food company2, it's safe to assume the primary intent of the study was to find a product that could be sold specifically for cats with lower urinary tract disease.

In my opinion, what was important in this outcome wasn't the urinary acidifying feature of Waltham's formula -- it was how much better the canned food-fed cats fared than the poor kitties fed the dry formulation of the same food.

Why Isn't Dry Cat Food Being Clearly Identified as a Risk Factor for FLUTD?

The Waltham study was published in 1999. The Jerusalem study was published just last year – a dozen years later. Several other studies on the subject of feline lower urinary tract disease have been conducted in the meantime.

And yet many in the traditional veterinary community seem unwilling to acknowledge the clear evidence that dietary moisture is incredibly important to urinary tract health in cats.

We know how felines are designed and how they live in the wild. And we have multiple studies showing cats with lower urinary tract disease, in particular, benefit from high moisture content diets.

It is absolutely baffling to me why more veterinarians aren't strongly encouraging all their cat-owning clients to transition their pets away from dry diets in the direction of food with a high moisture content.

For example, at a veterinary internal medicine symposium in 2011, an associate professor at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine presented a paper titled, Risk factors in feline lower urinary tract disease3. She cited both the Waltham and Jerusalem studies (and 19 others).

Here is an excerpt from her conclusion/recommendation:

"For both cats with urolithiasis and those with FIC, a diet high in moisture may be best, assuming the owner is willing to feed it and the cat is willing to eat it. A high moisture diet is recommended for cats with stones to decrease the urine concentration of mineral precursors and is the cornerstone of therapy for urolithiasis in human … and veterinary medicine. Increasing the water content for cats with FIC may help improve clinical signs by encouraging frequent voidings."

This isn't my idea of a ringing endorsement for the benefits of feeding FIC cats high moisture content diets.

But she does, at least, follow up with this suggestion:

"Increasing water content in the diet can be achieved most easily by feeding a canned diet; the canned food should be placed in a separate container next to the cat's regular diet. If the canned food is not consumed, water can be added to the dry kibble to achieve higher moisture content, although 85% moisture is difficult to attain using this method."

And I was also encouraged by this comment on the Jerusalem study by Dr. Indu Mani, Editor of Clinician's Brief:

"This study is very useful to the practicing clinician. Cats with UO are common in the clinical setting. Any interventional behaviors or techniques to potentially decrease UO prevalence are welcome in the clinical setting. Emphasis on optimal body weight and canned food intake as treatment recommendations is important in the management of many chronic feline diseases."

—Indu Mani, DVM, DSc

Why Your Cat's Food Should Be Loaded with Moisture

Water is essential for all life forms.

Your cat doesn't have a strong thirst drive compared to other species. Kitties are designed to get almost all the water they need from the food they eat.

Healthy cats don't lap up water like other animals do. Many kitties are obsessed with moving water, of course, but they're more interested in watching it or playing in it than drinking it.

With very few exceptions, only cats with underlying disease will drink a lot of water. Often the disease involves their lower urinary tract, especially if they are suffering from chronic, moderate dehydration thanks to a primarily dry food diet.

Cats in the wild hunt prey, and prey consists of about 75 percent water. Canned cat food contains at least that much moisture. Dry food, on the other hand, contains only about one tenth of that amount.

If you're feeding your kitty mostly dry food, he's probably drinking more water than he would if his diet was high in moisture content. But as a general rule, cats on dry food diets consume only about half the water cats on moisture-rich diets consume.

Now think for a minute about your cat's lower urinary tract – specifically the bladder and kidneys, which need to be flushed constantly with adequate quantities of urine.

It's easy to imagine the growing stress on those vital organs when your kitty's body is operating on half the amount of water it requires to function normally – day in and day out, for months, years, or a lifetime.

A Word about Other Risk Factors for FLUTD/UO

In addition to the key finding from the Jerusalem study that the majority of cats who developed urethral obstruction were fed dry food only, obesity and indoor living were also significant factors.

Living indoors doesn't have to be unhealthy for cats, and in fact, your kitty is much safer living inside. But housecats do need environmental enrichment to be optimally healthy.

The following articles offer some great tips on how to make your environment feline-friendly:

Your Cat's Life in Captivity -- How to Simulate Conditions of the Wild

Stress Busters for Kitties

Reasons for Sick-animal Behavior in Healthy Cats

Obesity in cats tends to go hand-in-hand with a sedentary lifestyle and a dry food diet, especially if your kitty enjoys an all-day all-he-can-eat buffet (also known as free-feeding).

If your cat is overweight, it's really important for his overall health and quality of life that you slim him down – but it must be done very, very gradually to avoid a life-threatening case of hepatic lipidosis. My Valuable Tips for Helping Your Heavy Cat video and article gives you all the information you need to diet your kitty safely."

Maybe NOW More Cat Parents Will Make the Switch from Dry Food
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2012/02/17/dry-food-wrong-for-cats.aspx

FETAL HEART MONITORS DURING LABOR LEAD TO INCREASED NUMBERS OF C-SECTIONS

2012-02-18T12:51:00.005-10:00

Fetal heart monitors may be convenient for the medical staff, but they are extremely harmful to mother and baby. Internal fetal heart monitors are the worst kind as they are literally screwed into the baby's head and cause extreme pain and sometimes injury to the newly born child.

"Upon admission to many hospitals, a laboring woman’s baby’s heart rate commonly is checked by listening with a fetal stethoscope or a hand-held Doppler ultrasound device, known as intermittent auscultation, or with an electronic fetal monitoring machine that provides a printout of the baby’s heart rate and mother’s contractions, known as cardiotocography (CTG).

The new review, published in The Cochrane Library, looked at how each type of monitoring affected women admitted to the hospital in labor with low-risk pregnancies and found there was no benefit of using the CTG at admission. However, women who had an admission CTG were about 20 percent more likely to have a caesarean section compared to those monitored by intermittent auscultation.

Researchers and clinicians thought the introduction of CTG would help to detect fetal distress and reduce the incidences of cerebral palsy or fetal and neonatal death. “The problem with the CTG is that its use in maternity care became widespread before any high-quality evaluations of the benefits and risks it might bring for women and their infants had been conducted,” said Declan Devane, professor of midwifery in the School of Nursing and Midwifery at National University of Ireland Galway and lead reviewer.

“By the time the evidence arrived, its use in many units in many parts of the world had become ingrained in practice.”

According to the review, about 79 percent of maternity wards in the United Kingdom, 96 percent in Ireland and all of the labor units in Sweden employ an admission CTG.

The review included four studies of more than 13,000 women randomized to receive either CTG or intermittent auscultation upon their admission with signs of labor.

“Our findings support recommendations from professional bodies in some countries that state the admission CTG not be used for low-risk women,” said Devane.

Lee Learman, M.D., chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Indiana University School of Medicine, said the findings of the review do not apply to obstetrical care settings at his hospital or others in the U.S.

“We do not perform an admission cardiotocograph for low-risk women and then switch to intermittent auscultation, as they did in the European studies,” he said. “Instead, we perform continuous monitoring for women of all risk groups when they are in labor.”

Learman added that investigators in the U.S. have come to the same conclusion regarding the risk of using continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring.

“We now know that this form of monitoring has not improved clinical outcomes,” he explained. “Instead, because of its inherent limitations, this form of monitoring leads to many ‘false alarms’ that are resolved by performing cesarean delivery.”"

Popular fetal monitoring method leads to more c-sections
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-02-popular-fetal-method-c-sections.html

CHEMTRAILS HIT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA - CBS ATLANTA COVERS THE ISSUE

2012-02-18T12:42:00.002-10:00

http://youtu.be/vHnghDr_TDA

"Congratulations chemtrail activists! The chemtrail photos that you sent to CBS Atlanta resulted in a follow-up broadcast, titled “Poisoned by Planes?”, that was a much better piece than the first one. The latest news broadcast (see the video below) starts out with the following words: “It’s a story that has thousands of people talking tonight. We never imagined the huge response that we would get when we aired a story about what some say is a sinister government conspiracy.“ Never mind that we are called “conspiracy theorists” in the broadcast. Never mind that the story cited several debunkers. Every time that there is news report on mainstream media covering chemtrails-geoengineering, it raises awareness. It causes more and more people to look up and question what they seeing in the sky. This is good progress!

At the end of the broadcast, CBS Atlanta asked us to send even more chemtrail photos. I urge you to do so. Be sure to include your name, location, and a brief description of your personal story. It’s very important for those of you whose health has been adversely affected to speak out and tell your story. Let us erase any doubts about whether people are getting sick from the toxins that are being sprayed on us. Send your photos and your information to the following (might as well include Fox News, Time Magazine, and Newsweek since we have their email addresses):

pics@cbsatlanta.com, newsmanager@foxnews.com, letters@time.com, letters@newsweek.com

In addition, now that we know that our efforts in contacting the media are fruitful, I urge you to continue to contact all of the other major TV news networks: ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. Click here for detailed, easy-to-follow, instructions. With your efforts, one of these networks will very soon break the story on national TV about the crimes against humanity that are being committed in the skies and around the world."

Emailing Chemtrail Photos to CBS Atlanta Had a Huge Impact
http://consciouslifenews.com/emailing-chemtrail-photos-cbs-atlanta-big-impact/115168/

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD TOXINS FOUND IN THE BLOOD OF 93% OF UNBORN BABIES

2012-02-18T12:30:00.004-10:00

"Toxins implanted into GM food crops to kill pests are reaching the bloodstreams of women and unborn babies, alarming research has revealed.

A landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of the chemicals.

Millions of acres in North and South America are planted with GM corn containing the toxins, which is fed in vast quantities to farm livestock around the world – including Britain.

However, it is now clear the toxins designed to kill crop pests are reaching humans and babies in the womb – apparently through food.

It is not known what, if any, harm this causes but there is speculation it could lead to allergies, miscarriage, abnormalities or even cancer.

To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of the body, thus causing no harm.

Food safety authorities in Britain and Europe have accepted these assurances on the basis that GM crops are effectively no different to those produced using conventional methods.

But the latest study appears to blow a hole in these claims and has triggered calls for a ban on imports and a total overhaul of the safety regime for GM crops and food.

Most of the global research which has been used to demonstrate the safety of GM crops has been funded by the industry itself.

The new study was carried out by independent doctors at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada.

They took blood samples from 30 pregnant women and 39 other women who were not having a baby.

They were looking for residues of the pesticides associated with the cultivation of GM food.

These include so-called Bt toxins, which are implanted using GM techniques into corn and some other crops.

Traces of Bt toxin were found in the blood of 93 per cent of the pregnant mothers – 28 out of 30. It was also found in 80 per cent of the umbilical cords – 24 out of 30.

In the non-pregnant group, traces were found in the blood of 69 per cent – 27 out of 39. It is thought the toxin is getting into the human body as a result of eating meat, milk and eggs from farm livestock fed GM corn.

The Canadian team told the scientific journal Reproductive Toxicology: ‘This is the first study to highlight the presence of pesticides associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, foetal and non-pregnant women’s blood.’

They said the Bt toxin was ‘clearly detectable and appears to cross the placenta to the foetus’.

Calling for action, the team said: ‘Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the foetus, more studies are needed.’

The director of GM Freeze, an umbrella group for community, consumer and environmental organisations opposed to GM farming, described the research as ‘very significant’.

Pete Riley said: ‘This research is a major surprise as it shows that the Bt proteins have survived the human digestive system and passed into the blood supply – something that regulators said could not happen.

‘Regulators need to urgently reassess their opinions, and the EU should use the safeguard clauses in the regulations to prevent any further GM Bt crops being cultivated or imported for animal feed or food until the potential health implications have been fully evaluated.’

The Agriculture Biotechnology Council, which speaks for the GM industry, questioned the reliability and value of the research.

Its chairman, Dr Julian Little, said: ‘The study is based on analysis that has been used in previous feeding studies and has been found to be unreliable.’

He said the toxins found are also used in other farming systems and gardening ‘with no harm to human health’.

Dr Little said: ‘Biotech crops are rigorously tested for safety prior to their use and over two trillion meals made with GM ingredients have been safely consumed around the world over the past 15 years without a single substantiated health issue.’"

GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-93-unborn-babies.html

BEYOND TREASON - THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONDUCTING BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AND CIVILIANS

2012-02-17T18:49:00.006-10:00

Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., George Bush Jr., Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell... Each and every one of these entities masquerading as human beings should be imprisoned for life and/or executed for crimes against humanity and our planet. These are some of the most evil men ever to walk this Earth, and we have given them power over our country and power over our lives.

It is beyond time to look square in the face of the evil that permeates the United States government.

Please watch.

"What you don't know about your government could kill you... Department of Defense documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act expose the horrific underworld of the disposable army mentality and the government funded experimentation upon US citizens conducted without their knowledge or consent. Is the United States knowingly using a dangerous battlefield weapon banned by the United Nations because of its long-term effects on the local inhabitants and the environment? Explore the illegal worldwide sale and use of one of the deadliest weapons ever invented. Beyond the disclosure of black-ops projects spanning the past 6 decades, Beyond Treason also addresses the complex subject of Gulf War Illness. It includes interviews with experts, both civilian and military, who say that the government is hiding the truth from the public and they can prove it. UNMASKING SECRET MILITARY PROJECTS: Chemical & Biological Exposures, Radioactive Poisoning, Mind Control Projects, Experimental Vaccines, Gulf War Illness and Depleted Uranium (DU)."

Beyond Treason: Depleted Uranium & Anthrax Vaccines
http://youtu.be/NDWTpp0jQo8

"...We must all join together to say enough is enough. You see, if they experiment upon the military, the citizens are next... We must accept the fact that it is our fault, that we have allowed this to take place in this country. We call ourselves Americans and this is freedom, yet our sons and daughters are dying. Those that are responsible for these acts should spend the rest of their natural lives in prison for what they have done. There is no question from the Presidents on down for the past 50 years, those that have been in charge of these experiments... there is no question that this is truly beyond treason."

PROFITTING FROM THE SATANIC-BASED, RITUAL SEXUAL TORTURE OF INFANTS

2012-02-16T19:19:00.005-10:00

From "A Voice For Men"

"Here is an infant. This newly formed human being is full of promise, and is a locus of joy and pride to parents, siblings, and an extended community. This tiny, miraculous bundle is the object of all of our adoration, even the flintiest of stoics are mesmerized by the ancient wired-in response to love and protect this infant.

Here is a sharpened steel instrument. A doctor will use this tool to partially flay this tiny baby – mutilating a sensory organ. This pseudo-medical procedure has, according to almost every major medical association in the world; no therapeutic value. In fact, it is a procure popularized by a breakfast cereal salesman and medical crackpot. John Kellog described it as a method of preventing sexual pleasure in boys in his 1877 book, “Plain facts for old and young”.

A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.

We’re living in a culture which sees this as normal, so I’ll provide a little comparison by telling you what Dr. Kellog said about girls 2 pages later in the same book he extolled the virtues of boy-mutilation.

“In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.”

In the modern context – promoters arguing for the continuation of infant mutilation claim it reduces the transmission incidence of aids.

The studies from which this claim are drawn are widely disputed, based on questionable methodology, but for the moment, lets assume transmission rates of communicable disease can are actually reduced by some percent in circumcised populations. Condoms are more effective, and don’t require cutting off part of a human’s body.

This argument is the equivalent of cutting out your eyeballs to prevent eye injury rather than wearing safety glasses. The claim of prevention of infection is asinine, but it continues to distract from a much more realistic reason for continuing the practice.

Women’s cosmetic make-up products, and some medical products utilize foreskin tissue harvested from circumcised infants. This provides a profit motive for advocacy research from “medical” companies profiting by the ongoing mutilation of baby boys.

One example of this is the company called Advanced Tissue Science (A.T.S.)[1]. This corporation is based in La Jolla, CA. They are the makers of a product sold under the brand name Dermagraft-TC, which is an artificial skin created from harvested foreskins from infant circumcision.

A.T.S. is also the makers of NouriCel, another product made from harvested foreskins, and one of the main ingredients of SkinMedica’s ( a cosmetics company ) TNS Recovery Complex product.

Infant mutilation is driven by women who want a better wrinkle-cream[2]. SkinMedica isn’t the only company selling beauty products made from mutilated children. Its merely a famous example, publicly endorsed by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters who bragged about the use of mutilated infant’s body parts before this turned out to be a bad public-relations move for each of them. Oprah’s web-site has subsequently removed the bragging claims of skin rejuvenation through harvested foreskin products. She has not yet aired a show or written a word about the ethicacy of the use of infant tissue in women’s beauty products.

The unnecessary mutilation of infant boys has another cost besides the the fact that circumcised men are denied a major sensory organ. The procedure is fatal to about 117 infants in the US every year[3]. Although the practice of sexually mutilating male infants is increasingly criticized, the procedure continues to be trivialized as a minor, harmless procedure in mainstream media. It would be impolite to tell women, the demographic controlling 65% of disposable income that their beauty products come at the cost of the sexual mutilation, and in some cases – the killing of infants.

Not yet, at least. In light of the recent public celebration by woman in the mommy-blogging community of adult male sexual mutilation such as the Catherine Becker case – a women’s make-up product openly flaunting damage to male infants might even outsell competing products which don’t publicize the source of harvested human flesh.

Then there’s the religious apologists.
In July of 2011, while California debated a ban on infant circumcision, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, leith Anderson said[4]:

“While evangelical denominations traditionally neither require nor forbid circumcision, we join Jews and Muslims in opposing this ban and standing together for religious freedom [...] Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake”.

Sexual mutilating an infant is, according to the the National Association of Evangelicals, an essential religious liberty. The right of a child to freedom from harm is apparently not.

Between the profits of corporations, the frivolous self interest of female consumers, and the fairy tails of stone age desert dwelling goat-herders, male children will likely continue to be mutilated and killed.

These reasons are all worthless.
An ethical human being does not abide the dismemberment of children.

Meanwhile, enjoy looking years younger, and don’t trouble your pretty head about the price payed."

Profiting from Pain
http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/profiting-from-pain/

USING THE PLACENTA TO CONTROL POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE

2012-02-16T18:30:00.004-10:00

Lessons from Kitty Birth: Using Placenta to Control Hemorrhage
by Jan Tritten
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ed_kittybirth.asp

"I went to a totally beautiful and undisturbed birth today. Five of them, actually! The mother had the most natural births as we looked on, not disturbing her but just being “with woman.” With woman—with kitty. Mamma cat is used to Adam because she belongs to him, and I am a good friend of hers, as well, and she didn’t mind our presence at all. We watched as she had each kitten, ate each placenta in a gulp or two, and then slurped the cords like strings of spaghetti.

She was busy for two hours birthing, nursing, eating placentas and cleaning babies. A kitten would emerge, she would clean it and eat the placenta, and soon another would come out. She would lick each kitten when it was part way out, pulling it gently from her. I noticed that cat birth smells like human birth. It must be the amniotic fluid and placentas mixed with membranes and a little blood. There wasn’t the lavender or ginger smell used for hot packs though! Afterwards she nursed her kittens and they all rested on an oxytocin high.

This was a great reminder of how simple and straightforward birth can be. As midwives, Adam and I had our worries about her pending birth, since she presented many “risk factors.” She is a young and very small Bombay cat. Her age and size worried us, as she was huge and seemed overdue. Unlike her, the father was gigantic, another risk factor. When she went into labor we heard barely a sound other than the mewing of kittens as they were born and began looking for nipples. We took turns sitting with her and watching quietly, but not knitting as Michel Odent would have us do—we don’t know how to knit!

As she ate the placentas I realized that I have never heard of a cat, goat or dog hemorrhaging to death or even suffering too much blood loss. Humans have been so foolish in not following God’s plan, and we have probably sacrificed millions of women to hemorrhage over the last century when the cure was and still is right there within her body. I asked how many midwives had used placenta for hemorrhage control and how it worked. Everyone who had tried it said it stopped the hemorrhage immediately. Generally they just used a small quarter- size piece in the mom’s cheek. For bleeding while the placenta is still in, Gail Hart recommended using a bit of membrane or having mom suck on the cord, and both apparently have more oxytocin and other hormones in them than the placenta. I came to consider that if we use the placenta, membranes and cord as anti-hemorrhage agents that would make “active management of the third stage of labor” obsolete (see my editorial on this subject: midwiferytoday.com/articles/imicm.asp). Placenta is a natural part of the birth process, and using it reduces the chance of exposing motherbaby to the dangers of drugs like Cytotec and Pitocin. Let’s get this concept out to the world because we may be able to save many mothers if we do!

All this reminded me of a story I heard from one of the traditional midwives who came to a Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA) conference. She told me that in her grandmother’s time, at least 100 years ago, women would have their babies with little fuss and usually in just a few hours. Her grandmother lived in Mexico, but this probably applied to women in many parts of the world. What have we done to birth? Good prenatal care should not be undermined by needless interventions. It is unfortunate to see so many aspects of birth as high risk when, as Sister MorningStar and I have said, the process is all about relationships. Most midwives I know believe that 90% of complications can be averted with good prenatal care. A woman deserves to be nurtured with love and care, but it is her birth, and you are an honored guest if she allows you to be there. We must change the paradigm of birth by accepting that every motherbaby has the right to loving care and respect in pregnancy, birth and beyond. Let’s show women the consideration we give mother cats and kittens. Believe me, momma cat received lots of love and attention in her pregnancy, and it showed in her beautiful births."

HIGH LEVELS OF ARSENIC FOUND IN BABY FORMULA

2012-02-16T13:03:00.002-10:00

"Baby formulas that use organic brown rice syrup as a sweetener, may be contaminated with high levels of arsenic. The majority of the arsenic that was detected was found to be the type that is a human carcinogen. The study was published in Consumer Reports today.

Researchers at Dartmouth College tested 17 infant formulas. Two of these formulas listed organic brown rice syrup as the primary ingredient. One of these formulas had an arsenic level that was six times the federal legal limit of arsenic allowed in bottled water or public drinking water. It is noted that these high levels are “particularly worrisome for babies because they are especially vulnerable to arsenic’s toxic effects due to their small size.“

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that occurs in rocks and soil. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), inorganic arsenic exposure can cause symptoms of vomiting, diarrhea and shock. Chronic exposure to inorganic arsenic has been associated with skin disorders, high blood pressure and cancer.

Currently the limit for arsenic in bottled water is 10 ppb (parts per billion.) There is no federal limit for arsenic in fruit juices and most foods. According to Consumer Reports, legislation was recently introduced to the House of Representatives asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish standards for arsenic in foods and juices.

More from Dr.Dana: Arsenic in apple juice

Because there is currently no regulation of arsenic levels in food, Dr. Jackson, the lead author of the Dartmouth study says: “I would certainly advise parents who are concerned about their children’s exposure to arsenic not to feed them formula where brown rice syrup is the main ingredient.”

According to Dr. Jackson, brown rice syrup can have high arsenic concentrations whether the rice is grown “organically or not.” The rice takes up the natural arsenic from the soil. High arsenic levels were also found in cereal bars that used brown rice syrup as a sweetener."

High levels of arsenic found in baby formula
http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stories/02162012high-levels-of-arsenic-found-in-baby-formula/

See also:

Organic Brown Rice Syrup: Hidden Arsenic Source
http://gma.yahoo.com/organic-brown-rice-syrup-hidden-arsenic-source-194615982--abc-news.html

Arsenic Found in Brown Rice Syrup, Organic Foods, Baby Formulas
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/arsenic-found-brown-rice-syrup-organic-foods-baby-185300194.html

YOU KISS YOUR BABY WITH THAT MOUTH? THERE'S LEAD IN THAT LIPSTICK!

2012-02-16T12:59:00.002-10:00

"The FDA recently analyzed 400 brands of lipstick and found lead in all of them. Some offenders are far worse than others: topping the charts are a couple shades from L’Oreal USA, with 7 parts per million in each tube of lipstick. The troubling part is that this isn’t a new problem: Care2 Causes brought attention to the FDA’s initial survey of 22 brands of lead-containing lipstick back in the summer of 2010, and we’ve run several petitions pleading for greater FDA oversight dating all the way back to 2008!

The FDA claims these small amounts of lead aren’t harmful – but lead poisoning isn’t something that happens all at once when exposed to the toxin in large amounts. More often, it’s a slow build-up of heavy metals in the body. If a woman is applying lipstick several times a day, and bits of it are ingested or absorbed through the skin, are these small amounts really “safe” once they accumulate in the body? The truth is, the research hasn’t been done, and no one really knows. How can the FDA say it’s “safe” when they haven’t bothered to actually study the potential harm?

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has been fighting with the FDA over this issue, literally for years, protesting that no amount of lead in makeup is a “safe” amount. The group has recently published a letter to the FDA questioning what appears to be a complete lack of any scientific research demonstrating the safety of trace amounts of lead in lipstick. You really should read the whole thing, but here’s a quick taste:

The CDC committee’s report identifies imported cosmetics as a risk factor for lead exposure in pregnant and lactating women. However, the FDA study on lead in lipstick indicates that lead is also a problem with cosmetics manufactured in the US. The new FDA analysis indicates that the lead in lipstick problem is more widespread than previously reported. Your new analysis found lead levels in lipstick more than twice as high as your previous report. As in previous studies, certain manufacturers consistently have higher lead levels than other brands. The most-contaminated brand, Maybelline Color Sensation made by L’Oreal USA, had lead levels more than 275 times the level found in the least contaminated brands, and more than seven times higher than the average found in all the lipsticks. Clearly, some manufacturers could be doing more to protect women from unnecessary lead exposure.

The letter also notes that after a year and a half, the FDA has yet to even respond to the Campaign’s concerns. It begs the question: how long is it going to take? How many people need to demand safe cosmetics before action is taken? You’ll have to forgive my skepticism, but I’m starting to genuinely wonder if the FDA cares about women’s health.

In the meantime, NPR’s Shots is recommending concerned women check out the list and opt for the brands with the least amount of lead. Considering the extent of the problem, maybe swearing off lipstick entirely is the best solution, at least until more research is done on the health effects."

There’s Still Lead in Lipstick – Does the FDA Care About Women’s Health?
http://www.care2.com/causes/theres-still-lead-in-lipstick-does-the-fda-care-about-womens-health.html

CHILDREN OF DEPRESSED FATHERS SHOW SIGNS OF BEHAVIORAL AND EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS

2012-02-16T12:49:00.003-10:00

Postpartum depression is almost as common in dads as it is in moms... which is not normal but a direct result of technological interventions in childbirth.

My suggestion: AVOID GIVING BIRTH IN HOSPITALS!!! Technological birth is harming our species.

By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Nov. 7 (HealthDay News) -- "Children of fathers who seem depressed are more likely to show signs of behavioral and emotional problems, although the nature of the link isn't clear, researchers report.

The study also suggests that kids whose parents both seem depressed are at particularly high risk.

"This opens the door to a vast array of answerable but currently unanswered questions about the health and development of children growing up in households with depressed fathers," said study author Dr. Michael Weitzman, a professor of pediatrics and environmental medicine at New York University School of Medicine.

Plenty of studies have examined how mental problems in mothers affect kids, especially in terms of postpartum depression, Weitzman said. Scientists have even found signs that fathers can get depressed after a child's birth. But there's been little research into how the mental state of fathers may affect kids, he said.

That reflects a larger gap, he said. "Fathers get left out of all sorts of policy and clinical deliberations about the well-being of children."

In the new study, researchers examined the results of surveys of nearly 22,000 U.S. children aged 5 to 17 and of their mothers and fathers. The surveys were completed from 2004 to 2008.

The study authors looked for signs of depression based on the answers, although none of the parents or children was diagnosed as part of the survey.

The researchers found that 7.5 percent of the kids showed signs of behavioral or emotional problems. Older kids (aged 12 to 17), males, whites and those who lived with smokers had higher levels of apparent depression.

Twenty percent of those with mothers who appeared depressed showed signs of depression themselves; the percentage was 16 percent for those whose fathers appeared depressed. The number jumped to 25 percent if both parents appeared depressed, Weitzman said.

The numbers don't indicate why symptoms of depression in parents and kids might be linked. It could have something to do with depression, Weitzman said, or depressed parents might make kids depressed. Another possibility is that depressed kids make parents depressed.

If the link is directly from parents to kids, some possible reasons could include the inability of depressed parents "to respond to a child's requests and needs in a consistently reliable and empathic manner," said Dr. Rahil Briggs, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "Depressed parents may also struggle to help their children regulate their own emotions, which may lead to poor social emotional development."

Dr. Christopher Bellonci, a psychiatrist and assistant professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, said the findings are "consciousness-raising" because they point to how depressed males don't necessarily suffer in isolation. "They remind us that when you're working with depressed adult males you have to remember to ask, 'Are they a parent? Who's watching out for the kids?'"

The study appears online and in the December issue of the journal Pediatrics."

When Dads Have Depression, Kids May Be at Risk, Too
http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=658613

MONSANTO, ROUND-UP, INFERTILITY, AND BIRTH DEFECTS

2012-02-16T11:34:00.003-10:00

Very important video about Monsanto, Round-Up, Infertility, Birth Defects, and more. Please watch.

http://youtu.be/055zPQud8SA

CESAREAN RATES BY STATE

2012-02-16T10:48:00.001-10:00

To see a much larger picture of this information, please follow this link:

http://www.cesareanrates.com/cesarean-rates-by-state

HOW TO GENTLY CLEANSE YOUR PET'S BODY OF TOXINS

2012-02-16T10:35:00.002-10:00

"Many chronic health problems in today's dogs and cats are due in part to the toxic load they carry around with them.

A 'toxic load' is the quantity of chemicals and other biologically foreign substances that accumulate in the body of an animal over weeks, months and years.

In many cases, the heavier the load, the sicker the animal.

Your pet's liver and kidneys are assigned the task of clearing toxins from the body, just as yours are.

When you consider the small size of your dog's or cat's organs compared to yours, it's easy to see that it wouldn't take exposure to too many foreign substances before your pet's toxic load became too heavy to manage.

The organs of the body begin to wear out when too much is demanded of them for too long.

When your pet's detoxifier organs can't keep up with the toxic load for whatever reason, his body will try to remove the waste by other means – like through the skin or mucous membranes.

Frequently a dog's or cat's itchy, flaky skin, runny eyes or nose, or mucous covered feces is the body's attempt to help the liver and kidneys eliminate toxins and other irritants.

Chronic conditions like skin itching and irritation, ear infections, and GI disturbances (typically intermittent vomiting, diarrhea or loose stools) are often signs of a build up of toxins your pet's body is no longer able to effectively deal with.

When all waste removal systems fail or are inadequate and your pet's body becomes overwhelmed with toxins, serious health conditions will begin to develop.

Factors That Contribute to Your Pet's Toxic Load

There are many sources of toxins with the potential to build up inside your pet. Three of the biggest offenders include:

Environmental toxins found inside and out, for example, polluted indoor air, chemical household cleaners, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

Vaccines and other drugs, also flea/tick and heartworm preventives.

Processed pet foods containing allergenic ingredients, including grains and other carbohydrates, preservatives and other chemicals; being fed a single source of protein day in and day out for an extended period of time.

One thing these toxins all have in common is that we, as pet parents, are almost entirely responsible for how much of them our precious companions are exposed to.

Your dog or cat lives low to the ground, so she's getting a whopping dose of whatever's under her feet, whether it's tile cleaner residue or a fresh application of weed killer.

If you've been taking your pet for re-vaccinations every year as so many traditional vets and other pet healthcare workers still insist on -- and perhaps you're also applying a chemical flea/tick preventive during the warmer months – chances are your dog or cat's system is heavily burdened with the toxic byproducts of these chemicals.

Many pet owners feed their dog or cat the same dry pet food day in and day out for years. Pets fed in this manner sooner or later develop sensitivities to both the single source of protein in most of these foods, as well as certain allergenic ingredients.

Recommendations for Lowering Your Pet's Toxic Load

Try to keep your pet away from outdoor areas known to be heavily laden with pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers. If you're not sure what your dog or cat might have been exposed to or you suspect something outdoors is causing a skin irritation, consider doing a simple foot soak when you bring your pet home. Regular foot soaks can get rid of chemicals and allergens picked up on paws.

Don't hesitate to bathe your dog regularly, especially if she has irritated skin. Bathing washes allergens away, along with any chemicals and other foreign molecules that might be riding around on her fur.

Improve your pet's indoor air environment by forbidding smoking in your home and office, and switching to non-toxic cleaning products. Also consider investing in an air purifier to control dust mites.

Provide clean, pure, high quality drinking water for your dog or cat. It shouldn't contain fluoride, heavy metals or other contaminants.

Don't subject your pet to yearly re-vaccinations or unnecessary drugs of any kind, including the two most over-prescribed in veterinary medicine, antibiotics and steroids.

Use chemical pest and parasite preventives only as absolutely necessary, and for the minimum time necessary to protect your pet. Very few areas of the U.S. have flea and tick or heartworm problems significant enough to require year-round chemical protection for pets. Don't be talked into giving preventives any more often than necessary to keep your dog or cat reasonably safe from pests.

Feed a balanced, species-appropriate diet, preferably raw, either homemade or commercial. Rotating the protein sources your pet eats is extremely important, and so is strictly limiting or eliminating grains.

Regular exercise provides your pet with countless benefits, including helping the body's detoxification efforts. Physical movement promotes regular elimination, which moves wastes from the body in urine and feces. Exercise also stimulates blood circulation and lymph fluid transit, so toxins are moved efficiently to the liver and kidneys for processing.

Use chemical pest and parasite preventives only as absolutely necessary, and for the minimum time necessary to protect your pet. Very few areas of the U.S. have flea and tick or heartworm problems significant enough to require year-round chemical protection for pets. Don't be talked into giving preventives any more often than necessary to keep your dog or cat reasonably safe from pests.

Feed a balanced, species-appropriate diet, preferably raw, either homemade or commercial. Rotating the protein sources your pet eats is extremely important, and so is strictly limiting or eliminating grains.

Regular exercise provides your pet with countless benefits, including helping the body's detoxification efforts. Physical movement promotes regular elimination, which moves wastes from the body in urine and feces. Exercise also stimulates blood circulation and lymph fluid transit, so toxins are moved efficiently to the liver and kidneys for processing.

Detoxifying Agents

The goal of natural detoxifying agents is to support and promote healthy functioning of your pet's toxin-removal organs, including the liver, kidneys, lymphatic system and immune system.

I recommend you talk with your holistic vet about what detoxifiers are appropriate for your pet's individual needs, and in what doses.

Herbs that assist liver function and cleanse the blood include burdock root, dandelion root, licorice, Oregon grape, yellow dock and milk thistle. Milk thistle not only helps detoxify the liver, it is proven to actually stimulate regeneration of liver cells.

Herbs that help support kidney function include cranberry, corn silk and marshmallow.

Red clover and cleavers help your pet's lymphatic system remove toxins from the tissues of the body.

Garlic, echinacea and astragalus help support immune system function.

Chlorella is a super green food that is excellent for detoxification.

Another vital liver nutrient and detoxifier is SAMe (S-adenosylmethionine).

In my practice I also use the homeopathic detox agent Thuja for all vaccines except rabies, and Lyssin for the rabies vaccine.

Again, I encourage you to talk to your holistic vet for guidance on the best way to select and administer detoxifying agents to your pet. You should also ask the vet what to expect as your dog's or cat's body undergoes the process of detoxification."

How to Gently Cleanse Your Pet's Body of Toxins
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2012/02/15/detox-for-pets.aspx

VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY AND INFERTILITY

2012-02-16T10:31:00.003-10:00

"Exposure to sunlight boosts fertility in both men and women by increasing their levels of vitamin D

Vitamin D impacts fertility on multiple levels, including boosting levels of progesterone and estrogen in women, which may help regulate menstrual cycles and improve your likelihood of conceiving naturally

In men, vitamin D is essential for the healthy development of the nucleus of the sperm cell, improves semen quality and sperm count, and is capable of supporting healthy testosterone levels

Vitamin D deficiency is currently at epidemic proportions in the United States and many other regions around the world, so if you’re struggling with infertility make sure you optimize your vitamin D levels"

To read the full article, follow this link:

The Vitamin that has Been Shown to Dramatically Improve Fertility
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/16/the-vitamin-that-has-been-shown-to-dramatically-improve-infertility.aspx?e_cid=20120216_DNL_art_2