Category: Health


By Raw Story
Saturday, September 18th, 2010 — 11:05 pm

That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won’t even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.

In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post‘s Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency “won’t let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.”

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

“This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting,” House Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) told the Post. Kucinich has repeatedly introduced bills in the House that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods.

David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, told the Post that “extra labeling only confuses the consumer. … It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”

“The public wants to know and the public has a right to know,” New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle told the Post.

Advertisements

Natural News
Thursday, September 9, 2010

(NaturalNews) Concerned about breast cancer? There are three nutrients that virtually eliminate your risk of the disease, even if you carry “breast cancer genes.” Wondering how to cure arthritis? A combination of four different nutrients virtually eliminates arthritis symptoms. Afraid of diabetes? Five different nutrients, all available right now, can help prevent diabetes for mere pennies a day.

And that’s just the beginning…

Nutritional cures exist for nearly every major disease, but the FDA doesn’t want you to know about them. So it has censored truthful, scientifically-proven information about these substances in order to keep you ignorant about nutritional cures.

When one U.S. company offering cherry concentrates began linking to government-funded studies that concluded cherries reduce the symptoms of arthritis, they received a threatening letter from the FDA, demanding they remove the links from their website or face “criminal prosecution.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

Similarly, the FDA went on the attack to censor the truth about walnuts, claiming that “walnuts are unapproved drugs” when they are accompanied by truthful, scientific descriptions about their benefits for heart health (http://www.lef.org/featured-article…).

Diamond Foods, a distributor of walnuts, posted a collection of peer-reviewed scientific evidence on its website that described the health benefits of walnuts. In return, here’s part of the utterly illogical set of demands Diamond Foods received from the FDA which claim that “walnuts are drugs”…

“Based on our review, we have concluded that your walnut products are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR). …Based on claims made on your firm’s website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. …Because of these intended uses, your walnut products are drugs within the meaning of section 201 (g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(B)]. Your walnut products are also new drugs under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(p)] because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions. Therefore, under section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)], they may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.”

In other words, telling the truth about walnuts turns you into a criminal according to the FDA. And if you tell the scientifically-validated truth about how walnuts can help reduce high cholesterol, that act magically transforms your walnuts into unapproved drugs.

And much the same is true when you’re talking about green tea or pomegranates or superfoods. If you dare discuss the health benefits of any food or natural substance while you are selling such items, you will be branded a criminal by the FDA, threatened with criminal prosecution and potentially have your company raided by the FDA along with armed law enforcement agents with guns drawn.

At the same time the FDA is attacking health foods, it openly allows ridiculous health claims on processed dead junk foods. Frito-Lay potato chips, for example, are allowed to carry claims that they are “heart healthy.”

So while genuinely health foods like walnuts and pomegranates cannot make health claims, processed dead foods like potato chips may openly carry FDA-approved health claims!

Are you following this yet? Real food is bad for you. But junk food is good for you. That’s what the FDA wants you to believe.

The FDA, you see, doesn’t want you to learn the truth about healthy foods. This agency wants you to remain as ignorant as possible about the scientifically-validated health benefits of natural foods, supplements and superfoods while allowing you to be inundated with false and misleading health claims on processed dead junk foods like potato chips.

check out the full story here


50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

Dr. Paul Connett
FluorideAlert.org
Monday, September 6, 2010

Abstract Water fluoridation is the practice of adding compounds containing fluoride to the water supply to produce a final concentration of fluoride of 1 part per million in an effort to prevent tooth decay. Trials first began in the US in 1945, but before any of these trials were complete, the practice was endorsed by the US Public Health Service in 1950. Since then fluoridation has been enthusiastically and universally promoted by US health officials as being a “safe and effective” for fighting tooth decay. However, even though most countries worldwide have not succumbed to America’s enthusiasm for this practice, their teeth are just as good, if not better, than those countries that have. The “50 Reasons” offered in this article for opposing fluoridation are based on a thorough review of the scientific literature as regards both the risks and benefits of being exposed to the fluoride ion. Documentation is offered which indicates that the benefits of ingested fluoride have been exaggerated, while the numerous risks have been downplayed or ignored.

Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded:

“The magnitude of [fluoridation’s] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance” (Locker 1999).

To read the full story “50 reasons to oppose Fluoridation” by: Dr. Paul Connett, click here

Natural News
Sunday, September 5, 2010

(NaturalNews) Nearly half of all Americans now use prescription drugs on a regular basis according to a CDC report that was just released (1). Nearly a third of Americans use two or more drugs, and more than one in ten use five or more prescription drugs regularly.

The report also revealed that one in five children are being regularly given prescription drugs, and nine out of ten seniors are on drugs.

All these drugs came at a cost of over $234 billion in 2008. The most commonly-used drugs were:

• Statin drugs for older people
• Asthma drugs for children
• Antidepressants for middle-aged people
• Amphetamine stimulants for children

America has become a nation of druggies. The seniors are being drugged for nearly every symptom a doctor can find, children are being doped up with (legalized) speed, and middle-aged soccer moms are popping suicide pills (antidepressants).

Prescription drug addictions are on the rise, too. Prescription drugs are so dangerous that now even the DEA is hosting “take back your pills” day allowing citizens to anonymously surrender their unused prescription painkillers to DEA agents. (http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news…)

And it’s only going to get worse…

The percentage of Americans taking prescription drugs is expected to rise even further as the health reform insurance regulations kick in. Much of the bill was specifically designed to favor pharmaceutical industry interests by putting even more people on medication. Expect to see more “screening” too — a thinly disguised drug recruitment method that primarily seeks to ensnare new patients in a high-profit drug regimen.

The mass medication of American citizens has reached a disturbing tipping point where the future of the nation itself is at risk. That’s because pharmaceuticals cause cognitive decline, and once you get to the point where over 50 percent of the voters can’t think straight, you’re trapped in a crumbling Democracy.

And that doesn’t even take into consideration the financial cost of America’s addiction to drugs: With nearly one out of every five dollars out of the entire U.S. economy now being spent on sickness and disease, America finds herself stuck in a cycle of high-cost drug treatments that cure no one.

That’s right: No one gets healthier from taking prescription drugs. They don’t cure anyone and they don’t prevent disease. They only maintain patients in a kind of “pre-death stasis” where they’re alive just enough to keep buying more medication. Drug companies don’t want you dead because that would cut off their profits. But they don’t want you healthy, either, because then they wouldn’t have you as a customer. So their drugs are actually designed to keep you in a state of ongoing disease without curing your condition but also without killing you outright.

Do pharmaceuticals work?

If pharmaceuticals really worked to make people healthy, then the half of America currently taking pharmaceuticals would be the healthiest half, and the people who don’t take pharmaceuticals would be unhealthy, right?

But in fact it’s the other way around: People who take pharmaceuticals remain unhealthy and really never get cured of anything. Meanwhile, those who avoid taking pharmaceuticals are, by and large, far healthier individuals.

If America were running a grand experiment to determine whether pharmaceuticals really work — and trust me, the country really is running precisely that experiment — any reasonable observer would have to conclude that pharmaceuticals really don’t improve the health of those who take them. The more pharmaceuticals you take, in fact, the sicker you will become. That’s because drugs cause an imbalance in the body that soon leads to the emergence of other side effects.

At the same time, many of the drugs people take actually cause the very things they claim to prevent. Osteoporosis drugs cause hip fractures. Cancer drugs cause cancer. Antidepressants cause suicidal thoughts. The list goes on and on.

The people who are really, truly healthy in America are those who avoid pharmaceuticals. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028789_p…) They take care of their own health through regular exercise, time in nature, sensible sunshine exposure and healthy eating. They distrust the pharmaceutical industry and they don’t let television advertising hypnotize them into making poor decisions like getting a flu shot (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…).

Why are Drug Companies Targeting Your Children as Customers?

Dr. Mercola-

Few trends highlight the fatal flaws in the U.S. medical system more than our ruthless drugging of children. Not only are kids coming down with chronic diseases once only seen in adults (heart disease, type 2 diabetes, depression), but they are being medicated with strong, toxic drugs rather than being taught how to get healthy, naturally.

In a couple of decades, these kids will find out that the medications they’ve been given have done nothing to heal their bodies, and if no changes are made they may suffer an early death as a result.

Reuters reports-

Wed May 19, 2010 1:44pm EDT

* 1-in-4 children took drugs for chronic conditions in ’09

* Juvenile use of diabetes drugs, antipsychotics on rise

* Medco medical director calls child data a “shocker”

* Medco sees overall pharma spend up 18 pct through 2012 (Adds comment from Medco medical director, disease category details, byline)

By Bill Berkrot

NEW YORK, May 19 (Reuters) – Children were the leading growth demographic for the pharmaceutical industry in 2009, with the increase of prescription drug use among youngsters nearly four times higher than in the overall population, according to a report by Medco Health Solutions Inc (MHS.N).

More than one in four insured children in the United States and nearly 30 percent of adolescents aged 10 to 19 took at least one prescription medicine to treat a chronic condition in 2009, according to an analysis of pediatric medication use conducted as part of Medco’s drug trend study issued on Wednesday.

Medco is forecasting overall pharmaceutical spending to rise up to 18 percent through 2012, driven by diabetes, cancer and rheumatology treatments. Spending is expected to rise 3 percent to 5 percent this year, and 4 percent to 6 percent the next two years.

Overall increases will be somewhat held down by some $46 billion in branded drug sales that will succumb to competition from cheap generic versions by the end of 2012.

But the increases in prescription drug use by children for chronic conditions could fuel significantly higher health care costs as those young patients enter adulthood, Medco said.

“Looking at children was the real shocker for us,” Dr Robert Epstein, Medco’s chief medical officer, said on a conference call from Medco’s drug trend symposium in Orlando, Florida.

Over the past nine years, the most substantial increases in the medicating of children were seen in drugs for conditions not typically associated with them, such as for type 2 diabetes and antipsychotics, Medco said.

Some long-standing childhood maladies also saw large increases, such as asthma.

OBESITY LINK

“What’s surprising is the type of drugs these kids are taking. All these adult drugs are popping up in children, which is really disturbing,” Epstein said.

“The obesity problem is contributing not just to diabetes but to a lot of other problems,” he said, noting a 50 percent increase since 2001 in use of cholesterol lowering drugs among those aged 10 to 19, a 24 percent increase in use of blood pressure medicines, and a whopping 147 percent jump in adolescents taking heart burn and acid reflux drugs.

Medco and other pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, administer prescription drug benefits for employers and health plans and also run large mail-order pharmacies. Data for the study was collected from Medco’s top 200 clients, representing more than 40 million people.

Childhood use of medications for type 2 diabetes, a disease once referred to as adult onset diabetes, rose 5.3 percent in 2009 and is up more than 150 percent since 2001, the study found. Girls between the ages of 10 and 19 showed the greatest jump at nearly 200 percent over nine years.

“We’ve got to get our arms around some very fast lifestyle modification or we’re going to have a real problem, having these adult illnesses show up in children who will have a changing life expectancy if they’re going to be sick from a very young age,” Epstein cautioned.

ANTIPSYCHOTICS

Among the trends was the rise in children taking antipsychotics — powerful drugs traditionally used to treat schizophrenia, but increasingly prescribed for other conditions, such as depression and anxiety.

Use of such drugs has doubled since 2001 and more than doubled for girls, according to Medco’s nine-year analysis.

Use of some antipsychotics has also been associated with significant weight gain and increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, potentially compounding health problems.

There was a 23 percent drop since 2004 in use of antidepressants by youngsters. That decline followed U.S. Food and Drug Administration warnings of the increased risk of suicidal thoughts by children using those drugs.

Rates of childhood asthma are also on the rise, Medco found. Respiratory drug use grew 5 percent among children in 2009 and is up 42 percent since 2001.

Use of drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), often cited in reports on the over-medication of children, is also on the rise. But surprisingly, the increase was more pronounced among young adults.

Overall ADHD drug use was up 9.1 percent last year, leading to a 23.8 percent rise in spending growth. But the utilization increase was 21.2 percent among those aged 20 to 34. (Reporting by Bill Berkrot; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Fluoride Truth on Australian TV

5% of the world is current fluoridated. Of the 5% that is fluoridated, 50% of them reside in the United States. Other countries have rejected fluoridation due to a wide variety of health concerns, with one primary factor being thyroid damage.

WASHINGTON—Pancreatic tumour cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

Tumour cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.

They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

“These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation,” Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA’s Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.

“They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth.”

Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a range of other foods.

Politicians, regulators, health experts and the industry have debated whether high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients have been helping make Americans fatter and less healthy.

Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Healthzone.ca

Vitamin B-17

In 1996 more Americans died of cancer than in the battle’s of World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam combined, with 550,000 Americans dying of cancer. In 2006 559,888 people died of cancer and in 2009 562,340 people.

In the early 1900’s, there was very little cancer. Today there is an abundance of cancer. What has changed? Can this be reversed? It used to be that children rarely got cancer. Today cancer is striking children at ever younger ages and now cancer is the leading disease cause of death for children.

Apricot kernels are known to prevent and cure cancer, even though the medical establishment has worked night and day and even lied to suppress it. Vitamin B17 is found in most all fruit seeds such as the apple, peach, cherry, orange, nectarine and apricot. It is found in some beans and many grasses such as wheat grass. The hard wooden pit in the middle of the peach is not supposed to be thrown away. In fact, the wooden shell is strong armor protecting one of the most important foods known to man, the seed.

The diet of man and most fruit-eating animals was very rich in nitrilosides. They regularly ate the seeds (and kernels) of all fruits, since these seeds are rich in protein, polyunsaturated fats, and other nutrients. Seeds also contain as much as 2 per cent or more nitriloside. There are scores of other major foods naturally, or normally, very rich in nitriloside.

One of the most common nitrilosides is amygdalin. This nitriloside occurs in the kernels of seeds of practically all fruits. The seeds of apples, apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, nectarines, and the like carry this factor; often in the extraordinary concentration of 2 to 3 per cent.

It was even more strongly claimed that when one eats about 7 apricot seeds per day they can never develop cancer, just as one can never get scurvy if they have an orange every day, or pellagra if they have some B vitamins every day.

The pharmaceuticals companies together with the medical establishment pushed the FDA into making it illegal to sell “raw” apricot seeds or vitamin B17 with information about its effects on cancer. Even to this day, you can’t get raw apricot seeds in your health food store, only the sun dried ones which have all the important enzymes killed off.

The Theory taken from: The Cancer Tutor

When the laetrile compound molecule comes across a cancer cell, it is broken down into 2 molecules of glucose, 1 molecule of hydrogen cyanide and 1 molecule of benzaldehyde. In the early days of laetrile research it was assumed that the hydrogen cyanide molecule was the major cancer cell killing molecule, but now it is known that it is the benzaldehyde molecule that is by far the major reason the cancer cell is killed.

The reason laetrile therapy takes so long to work, in spite of the marvelous design of the laetrile molecule, is because if the laetrile molecule happens to chemically react with the enzyme of a non-cancerous cell (i.e. rhodanese), before it reacts with the enzyme of a cancerous cell (beta-glucosidase), the rhodanese will break apart the laetrile molecule in such a way that it can no longer kill a cancer cell. Thus you have to take enough laetrile molecules, over a long enough time, that enough laetrile molecules coincidently (as far as we know) hits all of the cancer cells first.

The second way that laetrile therapy works is because of the laetrile diet. Like the metabolic diet, it is designed to build up the trypsin and chymotrypsin in the body, and let them work on the cancer cells. What they do is break down the enzymes surrounding the cancer cell so the white blood cells can kill the cancer cell. More will be said about the cancer diet below.

One of the good side-effects of laetrile therapy is that more Vitamin B12 is made in the body. With this in mind, make sure you supplement laetrile therapy with Vitamin C. Vitamin C and Vitamin B12 are, by themselves, a treatment for cancer.

Suppliers of kernels include:

websites:

http://www.healthgenesis.com/

http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/

http://www.cancure.org/sources_of_information.htm

http://www.apricotpower.com/



PSFK
Friday, June 4, 2010

A new study done by Russian scientists suggests that Genetically Modified Food may cause long term sterility, that is, sterility in second and third generations. The scientists used hamsters for this research and divided them into groups. One group of hamsters was fed a normal diet without any soy products, a second group was fed non-GMO (genetically modified organism) soy, the third ate GM soy and the fourth group was fed an even higher amount of GM soy than the third.

Each group produced about seven to eight litters of baby hamsters each without any problems. But when the researchers selected new breeding pairs from the offspring, the second generation had a slower growth rate and reached their sexual maturity later than normal. They also had a mortality rate, five times higher than the hamsters who didn’t eat soy. Even more shocking was the fact that nearly all of the third generation GM soy eating hamsters were sterile and also experienced hair growing inside their mouths.

Genetically modified food has received much criticism earlier too, with studies linking them to problems with birth weight and infant mortality.