Posts from the ‘Health and Wellness’ Category

The Truth About Bottled Water ………….

Latest Update about this issue: http://www.crestonnewsadvertiser.com/… – 2/11/11 article

**UPDATE: the label on Aquafina will soon be changed to spell out that it is just expensive tap water.

The craze of bottled water is a national obsession but tap water is usually safer for you, and often better tasting too. Using a hidden camera, Penn & Teller will take a look at the obsession.

.

E. coli bacteria easily killed with spices like garlic, clove, cinnamon, oregano and sage

Posted by PC  Sunday, June 5th, 2011

A recent outbreak of a virulent strain of E. coli has killed 19 people in Europe and infected more than 2,000 in at least 12 countries.  The source of the outbreak hasn’t been pinpointed but the World Health Organization and the CDC are focusing on fresh naturally grown foods like tomatoes, lettuce and cucumbers which were packaged in Germany.

Entire suspect crops are ordered destroyed by the WHO and the CDC every year when an E. coli outbreak is declared.  Why does the WHO and the CDC order crops destroyed?  In recent years there appears to be a concerted effort by the WHO and the CDC to target only the foods that are essential for a healthy diet and life for millions of people.  Foods which helps prevent disease, illnesses and viral infections.

Every year the WHO and the CDC issues E. coli outbreak bulletins and they always accuse anti-cancer, anti heart disease and anti-microbial foods like lettuce, tomatoes, cabbage, spinach, peas and beans.  No E. coli alert have been made against processed foods that make up the entire menu at fast food outlets.  Fast processed foods are linked to heart disease, cancer, obesity, viral infections and a host of other ailments and illnesses.  The intent of the WHO and the CDC is to destroy only the healthy natural food groups.  Yes the death of 19 people is a good argument in favor of destroying a crop linked to an E. coli outbreak but the destruction of the entire crops affects millions.  Without these healthy food crops thousands, even millions  will become inflicted with disease, illnesses and viral infections and die.

Did you know that E. coli illnesses and deaths can be eliminated entirely with spices?  Spices like cinnamon has a long history both as a spice and as a medicine. Cinnamon’s essential oils is an “anti-microbial” food, and the spice has been studied for its ability to help stop the growth of bacteria as well as fungi. Cinnamon’s antimicrobial properties are so effective that research demonstrates this spice can be used as an alternative to traditional food preservatives.

Researchers at Kansas State University have found that spices is effective in eliminating E. coli bacteria.  An outbreak of E. coli in 1996 was allegedly traced to unpasteurized apple juice that killed one child and sickened many others.  After that E. coli outbreak the US government ordered all apple juice and other fruit juices to be pasteurized – henceforth killing all nutritional benefits of the natural fruit juices.  Another E. coli outbreak years before destroyed all nutritional benefits of another essential food – milk.  Pasteurization of milk destroys it life giving and anti-disease nutrients – including natural Vitamin D and essential natural probiotic bacteria.  Any trace of E. coli in milk is eliminated naturally with raw unpasteurized milk’s probiotic bacteria.

Daniel Y.C. Fung, a Kansas State food microbiologist, and Erdogan Ceylan, a research assistant, studied the antagonistic effect different doses of cinnamon alone and in combination with preservatives would have on E. coli bacteria in apple juice. Ceylan added 1 million E. coli bacteria cells to one milliliter of pasteurized apple juice. The number of bacteria cells added to the juice was higher than the amount of bacteria cells that would be found in consumer food products and was done for experimental purposes only. After adding approximately 0.3 percent of cinnamon – roughly over one teaspoon of the spice to a 64-ounce bottle – about 99 percent of the E. coli was killed.  Fung’s research found that several spices, including garlic, clove, cinnamon, oregano and sage killed 99 percent of E. coli bacteria.

There is absolutely no need to  pasteurize, destroy or add harmful chemicals to our natural food supply when preparing and cooking our food with natural spices like garlic, clove, cinnamon, oregano and sage kills E. coli bacteria.  More people will die as a result of pasteurization, crop destruction and adding harmful chemicals than from any E.coli outbreak.

.

If You Find Problems with Genetically Modified Foods: Watch Out!

http://www.sott.net

Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:17 CST
Print

Jeffrey M. Smith
Natural Food List

No GMO

© Unknown
Arpad Pusztai

Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field. But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years. The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.

Within just 10 days, the animals developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover, the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market, which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on humans.

With permission from his director, Pusztai was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a hero at his institute – for two days. Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO prime minister’s office to the institute’s director. The next morning, Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation.

Eventually, an invitation to speak before Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM foods eaten every day by Americans.

Irina Ermakova

Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She repeated her experiment three times with similar results.

Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem.”

Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it, we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not unique to her one bag of GM flour. In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It had skyrocketed to over 55%.

It’s been four years since these findings were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars.

Andrés Carrasco

Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup, the herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops. Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on GM soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects. Tragically, his research had been inspired by the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”

Argentina’s Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup, and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.

Judy Carman

Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to investigate outbreaks of disease for a state government in Australia. She knows that health problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track or take decades to discover. Moreover, the superficial, short-term animal feeding studies usually do not evaluate “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function” and are too short to test for cancer or reproductive or child health. Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO approval process on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia and speaks openly about her concerns. As a result, she is repeatedly attacked. Pro-GM scientists threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor, and circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials.

Carman was awarded a grant by the Western Australia government to conduct some of the few long-term animal feeding studies on GMOs. Apparently concerned about what she might find, GMO advocates wrote letters to the government demanding that the grant be withdrawn. One scientist tried to convince the Western Australia Agriculture minister that sufficient safety research had been conducted and he should therefore cancel the grant. As his evidence, however, he presented a report summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies – an infinitesimal amount of research to justify exposing the entire population to GM foods.

A closer investigation, however, revealed that most of the 60 were not safety studies at all. They were production studies, measuring, for example, the animals’ carcass weight. Only 9 contained data applicable to human health. And 6 of the 9 showed adverse effects in animals that ate GM feed! Furthermore, there were several other studies with adverse findings that were mysteriously missing from the compilation. Carman points out that the report “does not support claims that GM crops are safe to eat. On the contrary, it provides evidence that GM crops may be harmful to health.”

When the Western Government refused to withdraw the grant, opponents successfully interfered with Carman’s relationship with the university where she was to do the research.

Terje Traavik

Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:

1. Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;

2. Genetic material inserted into GM crops transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and

3. Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.

The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik. Their excuse? – he presented unpublished work. But presenting preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.

Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of abuse.”

Companies Prevent Studies on Their GM Crops

When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes. After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide samples. Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American, “Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers. . . . Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

A group of 24 corn insect scientists protested this restriction in a letter submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. They warned that the inability to access GM seeds from biotech companies means there can be no truly independent research on the critical questions. The scientists, of course, withheld their identities for fear of reprisals from the companies.

Restricted access is not limited to the US. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies. Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk – so she faxed it out.

GMO Contamination: Don’t Ask and Definitely Don’t Tell

In 2005, a scientist had gathered seed samples from all over Turkey to evaluate the extent of contamination by GM varieties. According to the Turkish Daily News, just before her testing was complete, she was reassigned to another department and access to her lab was denied.

The unexpected transfer may have saved this Turkish scientist from an even worse fate, had she discovered and reported contamination. Ask Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist from UC Berkeley. In 2001, he discovered that the indigenous corn varieties in Mexico – the source of the world’s genetic diversity for corn – had become contaminated through cross pollination with GM varieties. The government had a ban against GM corn to prevent just this possibility, but apparently US corn imported for food had been planted nonetheless.

Dr. Chapela submitted the finding to Nature, and as a courtesy that he later regretted, informed the Mexican government about the pending publication. He was called in to meet with a furious Director of the Commission of Biosafety and GMOs. Chapela’s confirmation of contamination would hinder introduction of GM corn. Therefore the government’s top biotech man demanded that he withdraw his article. According to Chapela, the official intimidated and threatened him, even implying, “We know where your children go to school.”

When a traumatized Chapela still did not back down, the Underminister for Agriculture later sent him a fax claiming that because of his scientific paper, Chapela would be held personally responsible for all damages caused to agriculture and to the economy in general.

The day Chapela’s paper was published, Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting messages to a biotechnology listserve called AgBioWorld, distributed to more than 3,000 scientists. They falsely claimed that Chapela was biased, that his paper had not been peer-reviewed, that Chapela was “first and foremost an activist,” and his research was published in collusion with environmentalists. Soon, hundreds of other messages appeared, repeating or embellishing the accusations. The listserve launched a petition and besieged Nature with a worldwide campaign demanding retraction.

UC Berkeley also received letters from all over the world trying to convince them not to grant Chapela tenure. He had overwhelming support by his college and department, but the international biotech lobby was too much. Chapela’s tenure was denied. After he filed a lawsuit, the university eventually reversed its decision.

When investigators later analyzed the email characteristics sent by agitators Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, the two turned out not to be the average citizens they claimed. According to the Guardian, both were fabricated names used by a public relations firm that worked for Monsanto. Some of Smetacek’s emails also had the internet protocol address of gatekeeper2.monsanto.com – the server owned by Monsanto.

Science and Debate is Silenced

The attacks on scientists have taken its toll. According to Dr. Chapela, there is a de facto ban on scientists “asking certain questions and finding certain results.” He says, “It’s very hard for us to publish in this field. People are scared.” He told Nature that young people “are not going into this field precisely because they are discouraged by what they see.”

New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place . . . and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly, . . . or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”

University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of the products that they are creating and I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”

Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices. His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat every day.

Reader Note

To help you choose healthier, non-GMO brands, download the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology.

To keep up with breaking news about food safety visit www.responsibletechnology.org, and to learn what actions others are taking go to the IRT’s Fan Page at www.facebook.com/responsibletechnology.

.
.

Mexico rejects Monsanto’s GMO corn

found on : http://dprogram.net

(NaturalNews) – Mexican officials seem to have more common sense than American officials, with their continued denouncement of Monsanto’s genetically-modified (GM) corn. Mexico has kept in effect a moratorium on Monsanto’s GM corn since 2005, citing a lack of safety studies and evidence showing the “Frankencorn” is safe, and that it will not cross-contaminate non-GM crops. The Mexican government recently denied Monsanto’s request to expand a pilot program for its crops in Northern Mexico as well.

In 2009, Mexico decided to allow Monsanto to plant small GM corn test sites on the condition that the company could both prove that its crops were resistant to pests and pesticides, and that they could provide economic benefits to Mexico. Monsanto has yet to show that the crops actually benefit people rather than its own pocketbook, and of course the multinational biotechnology company has yet to submit a single legitimate safety study for its crops.

The Mexican govenment seems to have had enough of the games, it seems, having recently denied any further expansions of the Monsanto test sites. With its many varieties of heritage corn, Mexico has a lot to lose if its corn stocks become contaminated with Monsanto’s patented corn varieties. So it is pressing for more safety studies before any further plantings take place.

To date, there has never been a single, verifiable safety study proving that any GMO is safe for people or for the environment. GMO residues, however, are known to travel to nearby fields and contaminate conventional and organic crop varieties. In fact, most of North Dakota is now blanketed in GMO canola, as the mutant crop now infests fields and meadows, and grows by roadside all across the midwestern plain state (http://www.naturalnews.com/030810_G…).

GMOs are linked to a host of animal and human health problems as well, including rapid aging, organ dysfunction, infertility, autoimmune disorders, gastrointestinal problems, and altered insulin regulation, among other conditions. In fact, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called for a moratorium onGMOsback in 2009, and warned the public to avoid them (http://www.naturalnews.com/026426_G…).

Sources for this story include:

http://www.mexico.vg/businesses/mex…

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma…

http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2011/01/2…

Source: Natural News

.

Dr. Halvorsen on Wakefield, Witch Hunts and Vaccine Safety

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:43 CST
Anne Dachel

Age of Autism

Richard Halvorsen

© Age of Autism

Several months ago, I interviewed British doctor Richard Halvorsen concerning the heated vaccine-autism controversy. Dr. Halvorsen had gained a fair amount of attention in the British press. I contacted him recently to get his views on the allegations of fraud against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. He minced no words.

“The latest allegations against Dr Andrew Wakefield are quite extraordinary. It seems that certain factions of the medical establishment are intent on hounding him to the grave.

The accusations of journalist Brian Deer make no sense at all. They appear to centre around the fact that elements of the hospital medical records, as reported in the Lancet 1998 paper, are at odds with other aspects of the children’s medical records, mainly those of the children’s General Practitioners (GPs). This is hardly surprising as the hospital doctors who recorded the children’s medical history (which was not, in any case, done by Dr Wakefield) would not have had access to the GPs’ medical notes. Medical histories, taken at different times by different healthcare professionals will inevitably have some inconsistencies.

What is so disturbing is that the editor of the BMJ, who should have known better, appears to have fallen for Deer’s spurious arguments hook, line and sinker.

We have to take a step back and wonder what is really going on here. To go to such extreme – and desperate lengths – to annihilate Dr Wakefield (the person, note, not the science) some people must be very afraid. Afraid, presumably, that parents might actually believe something that is blatantly obvious: that is that all vaccines can cause serious adverse reactions, including autism. By denying what is not only obvious but also supported by a wealth of scientific evidence these obsessive vaccine protagonists risk losing the trust of all parents and destroying the whole vaccine programme, the very thing that they are trying to prevent happening.”

Dr. Halvorsen has been telling the truth, fearlessly, for quite some time.

In October, 2009, the Telegraph in the UK ran the story, “I’m not opposed to jabs but there are serious worries” by Dr. Halvorsen. (HERE) He talked about the pressure put on parents not to question vaccines and the harsh tactics employed by the government. Furthermore, he said, “This climate of fear is ruthlessly exploited by the big pharmaceutical companies, which see vast profits in exaggerated health concerns.”

Halvorsen cited the sudden death of a young schoolgirl after receiving the cervical cancer vaccine as an example of a vaccine program gone wrong. While he said he’s not opposed to vaccinations, he does believe that vaccine efficacy claims are overdone and side effects are not being recognized. He referred to the plan to mass vaccinate for the swine flu as “madness.”

“As a doctor, I have been concerned for some time about this issue. I should stress that I am not in any way opposed to vaccinations.

“Indeed I run an immunisation clinic which offers a wide range of vaccines as a protection against various diseases. But I am increasingly disturbed by the lack of any debate either about long-term vaccine safety or about the excessive influence of commercial interests.

“Contrary to what Government officials and pharmaceutical giants pretend, the health of future generations could be compromised if we are not allowed to question this official fixation with mass vaccination.

“In the research for my recent book on this subject, I discovered that not only are inoculations being introduced with less and less research on their safety, but, just as worryingly, they are being promoted for diseases which do not represent a widespread danger to the public.”

Back in July, 2009, Halvorsen had a piece in the UK Times (HERE) where he also called the H1N1 vaccination plan “madness.”

He didn’t think the outbreak of H1N1 was a major health threat and he worried that the vaccine wasn’t properly tested for side effects. He also questioned its effectiveness.

“Perhaps the biggest concern is the speed at which the vaccine is being rushed out. Research for my book, The Truth about Vaccines, taught me how vaccines are increasingly being released on to the market with little testing of either safety or effectiveness, against infections that are rarely the threat that the Department of Health or pharmaceutical companies (who are finding the vaccine business an increasingly lucrative market) claim.”

As to the safety of the MMR, Dr. Halvorsen shares many of the same concerns as Andrew Wakefield. This is what was said in a 2007 story in the Daily Mail (HERE) in Britain, The truth about MMR.

“[Far from there being solid evidence of the vaccine’s safety, Dr Halvorsen found that the safety trials on MMR followed up children for only three weeks so could not possibly detect side effects that appeared later.

“Crucially, the MMR was the first ever vaccination to use three live viruses.

“Experts including Dr Halvorsen believe that in children with an impaired immune system (which may not be apparent), this could cause an abnormal immune reaction, damaging the gut and allowing harmful chemicals to penetrate the gut wall into the bloodstream.

“From there, they may attack the brain. Giving the vaccines singly, with a significant time period between (Dr Halvorsen recommends six months) is thought to reduce the risk in these susceptible children.

“So there is no evidence of harm, but neither is there evidence of safety. Both Dr Wakefield and Dr Halvorsen are among a group of doctors who, for several years, have called in vain for a large-scale prospective trial over several years, following similar groups of children, who have been immunised either with the triple vaccine or with single vaccines.

“Last year, Dr Peter Fletcher, formerly Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, accused the government of ‘utterly inexplicable complacency’ over MMR. (HERE) “As an expert witness for parents who believe their children were vaccine-damaged, Dr Fletcher studied thousands of documents.

“He has seen ‘a steady accumulation of evidence’ from scientists worldwide that the triple jab is causing brain damage in certain children.

“Questioning the government’s stance has become ‘heretical’, according to Dr Halvorsen.”

All of this makes it clear that Richard Halvorsen shares many of the same concerns that Dr. Wakefield has when it comes to vaccine safety, specifically the safety of the MMR.

Halvorsen talked about his book, The Truth about Vaccines, and especially about the subtitle, How we are being used as guinea pigs without our consent.(HERE) “[It] is admittedly rather controversial and was chosen by my publisher. Nevertheless, it accurately describes how vaccines are, with increasing frequency, being introduced on a mass scale with insufficient testing to ensure their safety. The introduction of the meningitis C vaccine into the UK in 1999 comes particularly to mind. This vaccine was introduced in a great rush with appallingly little safety testing and no proof whatsoever that it actually worked. The lack of research meant that a booster dose soon had to be added when it became clear that the effectiveness of three doses given in infancy wore off within a year. The MMR was also introduced with totally insufficient safety testing as described in Andrew Wakefield’s and Scott Montgomery’s paper Through a Glass Darkly.”

When I interviewed him last summer, he described the reaction of the British medical establishment and the Dept of Health to his book as “antagonistic.” He did say, “I regularly come across doctors and other health professionals who share my concerns and are supportive of my stance. Indeed, I regularly see doctors and other health professionals with their babies in my children’s immunisation clinic, BabyJabs.” (www.babyjabs.com)

Dr. Halvorsen himself runs a different kind of private practice in Britain. He described it to me.

“This service is unique in the UK and possibly unique in the world. It offers parents an informed choice of which vaccines they wish to give their child and how they wish them to be given; that is, whether they wish the vaccines to be started later, given with more space between them, less at any one time or even omitting some vaccines altogether. This service is very popular with parents but, because of the cost of importing many of the vaccines we offer, is unfortunately prohibitively expensive for many parents. This service is not offered by other doctors because it challenges the government’s vaccine policy which is to give all children exactly the same vaccines at exactly the same ages, irrespective of the child’s personal health or any family history of immune related or allergic diseases. Also you have to bear in mind that the vast majority of doctors in the UK work for the publicly funded National Health Service and are bound to follow government directives.

“I hear time and time again stories from parents, often intelligent and knowledgeable, who have been patronised and sometimes bullied by doctors over their concerns about vaccinating their child in the manner recommended. Though vaccination is ostensibly voluntary in the UK, a great deal of pressure is put on parents by health professionals in order to persuade them to comply with the NHS immunisation schedule. It is often argued that all that is needed is for these parents to be given the correct information and that they would then understand the need to immunise their children in the way suggested. However I find it most interesting that research repeatedly shows that those parents who have most concerns about vaccination schedules are those who are higher educated and in higher professional jobs, including working as health professionals. This evidence flies in the face of those who argue that they only need to get their message across for vaccination uptake to improve.

“Vaccines are being added to immunisation schedules around the world at an increasingly fast rate and it is likely that more will be introduced to the already congested childhood schedules in the near future.”

As to a link between vaccines and autism, Halvorsen said, “I am in little doubt that one of those environmental causes is immunisation; indeed that has been confirmed by the Hannah Poling ruling in the USA. It is this link between vaccines and autism that has so concerned public health doctors, because if this is ever officially accepted then they fear that vaccination rates will plummet. I suspect that it is in an attempt to avoid this link between vaccines and autism that is contributing to governments’ unwillingness to acknowledge the scale of the autism problem. However, the sheer numbers of children affected will mean that governments will have to acknowledge the problem before long, but they will do their very best to ensure that the words autism and vaccines never occur in the same sentence.”

Halvorsen agrees with Wakefield. “The advice I give about the MMR vaccine is largely based on the research undertaken by Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues and the advice he gave as a result of his research.”

“I left the NHS last year and am now able to devote more of my time to my dedicated children’s immunisation service, BabyJabs, which offers parents an informed choice on whether or how to immunise their child. I do believe that vaccines offer benefits; however I am aware that these benefits are often exaggerated. I am only too well aware that vaccines can have side effects which can occasionally be serious and that these side effects are downplayed by those promoting vaccination. I am also aware that the seriousness of the illnesses that vaccines are designed to protect are sometimes exaggerated in order to encourage parents to vaccinate their child. I believe that this deceit is fundamentally dishonest and in contradiction to the ethical principle of informed consent. At BabyJabs, and by writing my book, I try to remedy this by offering information, gleaned after much research, that I believe to be honest and truthful. I am of course attacked for being biased and having conflicts of interests which is inevitable when I challenge the established view. Perhaps the most extraordinary accusation leveled against me is that I am ‘anti-vaccine’ a ridiculous assertion when I run an immunisation clinic!”

After learning all this about him, the burning question I had for Dr. Halvorsen was, Why Wakefield and not him? For merely asking for more research on a link between vaccines and possible side effects, Wakefield has been attacked and demonized. Every kind of allegation has been made against him. How did Richard Halvorsen not merit the same treatment? This is his explanation:

“I have been lucky not to have been attacked by the establishment in the same way that Andrew Wakefield has. However there are other factors apart from luck: Andrew Wakefield worked in a hospital department that received a large amount of research grants from vaccine manufacturing pharmaceutical companies. The hospital he worked in realised that his outspoken views could jeopardise their future source of funding. Andrew Wakefield was also a direct employee at his hospital whereas, as a GP, I have always been self-employed and therefore had the privilege of a certain amount of extra freedom.”

Anne Dachel is Media Editor of Age of Autism
.
.

Food “Safety” Bill Empowers Monsanto To Control Food Industry

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:55 CST
Print

Stephanie Spinelli
TruthSquad.TV

Monsanto to enforce food regulation.

Under the guise of protecting Americans from food-borne illnesses, Congress has passed the S510 Food Safety Act, granting unlimited power to the FDA to oversee the processing of food from farm to table. The FDA has led the public to believe over a number of years that we desperately need government protection from food-borne illnesses. As a result of this manipulation, the S510 Food Safety has been passed without opposition. Ironically, the regulatory actions made possible by this bill will only promote the type of farming that produces food borne illnesses.

The S510 Food Safety Act will regulate the entire process of food production from every source in the United States. Farms must submit to government inspections and have safety documentation on record for 2 years. This documentation must be made promptly available upon oral or written request by an FDA agent. Farms are responsible for the fees associated with their own inspections. The FDA will also oversee food transportation within the United States; food imported from other countries will not be regulated but must simply carry a guarantee of safety by the exporting country. This imbalance in addition to the bill-related costs imposed on farmers will cause prices of locally produced food to increase exponentially.

Starting with the enactment of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) measures by President Bill Clinton in the 90’s, the biotech/agribusiness industry has been making the necessary moves to arrive at this point; while HACCP is focused on prevention, the S510 Food Safety is focused on inspection. Combined, these laws will enable the FDA to completely control the process of food production. As if controlling our food weren’t enough, the agribusiness industry is voraciously seeking to have vitamins and supplements be redefined as drugs, so that the FDA can limit the amount that can be legally purchased. Once we can no longer take the proper amounts of nutrients for prevention of disease, we will be forced to turn to the pharmaceutical industry for medication.

As the bill is written, the FDA must consult with “farmer representatives” to publish guides for good practice. The farmer representatives will no doubt include Monsanto, the biotech company standing behind the bill that stands to benefit from it the most. The FDA is intimately linked with Monsanto – Michael Taylor, a lawyer who volleys between an appointed post at the FDA and employment by Monsanto, pushed through the concept of “substantial equivalence“, which opened the doors for Monsanto to flood the market with unlabeled Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). In July 2009, the Obama Administration appointed Taylor “Food & Drug Czar” as head of the FDA. This move ensures Monsanto’s influence of its own regulation. The fox now has the keys to the hen house.

S510 grants the FDA and in turn, Monsanto, unbridled power to make all of their own rules for governing food going forward:

‘No Limit on Secretarial Authority- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of the Secretary to review and act upon information from food testing, including determining the sufficiency of such information and testing.’

The FDA will determine if, when, and what types of food safety testing are necessary. “In the interest of national security“, the FDA will decide what information will be made available to the public. In keeping with their trend of raiding farms and markets that sell raw milk, the bill also provides for the organizing, training and equipping of animal, plant, and food emergency response teams.

Police raid organic market with guns drawn.

Police raid organic market with guns drawn.
The L.A. Times reported that in June of 2010, four officers raided Rawesome Foods, an organic food co-op in Venice California, with their guns drawn. The officers were in search of raw, unpasteurized milk. Cartons of raw goat’s and cow’s milk as well as blocks of unpasteurized goat cheese were among the groceries seized by federal, state and local authorities. If raw milk could produce such an excessive show of force when there were no laws being broken, what will happen now that there is a law in place?

Interestingly, the bill includes a provision requiring parents to provide documentation to their children’s school regarding any food allergies their children have. On the surface, giving the school administration advance notice of an allergy seems like a good thing; however, as Truth Squad has previously reported, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “Fusion Centers” across the country are consolidating and standardizing the databases of local and federal agencies in an attempt to fight foreign and domestic terrorism. These “fusion centers” violate the 4th & 5th Constitutional Amendments and set up frightening Stasi-like government lists, with no judge, no jury, no due process. Do you want your child in the DHS database?

Since the bill was first introduced in March of 2009, articles written about it have done their best to squelch any fears consumers might have of losing their favorite local farmers’ markets by supposing they would not be included. This created false hope: Within the US, “very small businesses” are to be regulated, including farmers markets, farm stands and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA’s). In fact, the only exclusion is food grown for personal consumption. In other words, our only hope is to each learn how to grow our own food, because the day is coming when that will be the only food safe to eat.

“If you control the food, you can control the people.” – Henry Kissinger


.

Non GMO Month: An Interview with Jeffery Smith

Sun, 03 Oct 2010 15:53 CDT

Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, is leading the movement to eliminate genetically modified foods in the United States.

Here, Smith offers an update on this important mission to protect your health, and that of your children and grand-children.

Sources:

Video Transcript [PDF]

Dr. Mercola’s Comments

Together we CAN get GMOs banned from the US. Europe was able to do it over a decade ago without any government assistance. All they did was educate the consumers, and that was enough pressure on the food industry to drop their ploys.

If we band together as an effective army we will be able to do this. Please understand that the VAST majority of people in the US do not want GM foods, so this is an EASY battle to win. All we have to do is a bit of organizational work.

So let me tell you how we are going to achieve the removal of GMOs in the US.

October is Non-GMO Month, and you’ve been receiving a lot of important information about genetically engineered foods this week.

October 10th (10/10/10) is Non-GMO Day, so I’m pleased to bring back Jeffrey Smith, the real leader behind this movement to eliminate GM foods from the US market, for another interview.

This month, Jeffrey’s organization, Institute for Responsible Technology, is launching a plan to bring their message to the necessary numbers of people to create a tipping point that can effectively drive GM foods off the market. Nearly 400 retail stores selling natural products around the country are already actively promoting the information about choosing healthier non-GMO products.

I’m thrilled to be part of this movement, and I strongly urge you join us.

The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) has created a variety of tools that will make it easier for you to choose non-GM foods, and this is the way to eradicate GMO’s from your local store. If no one wants to buy them, stores can’t sell them, and will simply stop ordering them. Food manufacturers will have to adjust and quickly change their ingredients or risk losing their business.

It’s really that simple!

Remember, you as a consumer is still at the top of the food chain.

The Tipping Point is Near – The Time to Join is NOW!

In this interview, Jeffrey shares some of the history of his organization and what they’ve gone through over the last 15 years to get to this point, and why it’s so important that we all act now.

“In [the beginning of] 1999, the biotech industry… was still anticipating that they could replace 95 percent of all commercial seeds with genetically engineered seeds within five years… But a single high profile GMO food safety scandal erupted in middle of February 1999.

Dr. Arpad Pusztai… has been gagged and told that if he talked about what he knew, he would be sued. Well, by an order of parliament, his gag order was lifted and he could finally talk about how he discovered that genetically engineered foods were inherently unsafe and could create all sorts of damage – just from the process itself, irrespective of what gene you put in.

Seven hundred and fifty articles were written within a month, and within 10 weeks virtually every major food company committed to stop using GM ingredients in Europe because it had become a marketing liability.

They weren’t instructed to do that by the government. They were instructed to do that by consumers at the top of the food chain.”

How many Americans do we need to convince to avoid eating genetically modified foods to achieve the same victory in the US?

We believe it’s only about FIVE PERCENT of US shoppers!

So, changing the shopping habits of about 5.6 million households may be sufficient to eliminate GMOs in the US.

That is our goal!

We already have these numbers on our side. About 28 million Americans buy organic on a regular basis. Eighty-seven million Americans think GMOs are seriously unsafe. A hundred and fifty nine million Americans, the majority, say they would avoid GMOs if labeled!

Unfortunately, no labeling is required, making your commitment to avoid GM foods all that more complicated. But that’s where we come in.

How You Can Help Others to Avoid GMO Foods

Most people want to avoid GMO foods but it is virtually impossible to do so, since the government prevents GMO labeling.

However, Jeffery Smith has compiled a resource for you to avoid the government block of information. It is the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide. We realize that with the challenging economy it is very difficult for many to donate money to help this cause, so we are merely asking for your time and connections with your family and friends.

You can really help by making this message go viral. So if you are convinced that GMO foods should not be in the US, please send this information to everyone you know; post it on Facebook and Twitter…

You can also print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and give it to your friends and family.

If you feel more ambitious you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.

Who Will You Share this Information With?

We have the tools right now to make a national movement quicker and more complete than any time in history. One important part of this message is that buying organic whenever you can is not enough to actually ban GM foods…

Instead, what is needed is the consensus that “I buy organic whenever I can, but if I don’t buy organic, I buy non-GMO.”

Remember, this also includes dairy from cows treated with rBGH, as it is a genetically engineered growth hormone, and the artificial sweetener aspartame, which is derived from GM microorganisms.

If those of you who already buy organic whenever possible also always avoid GM foods when you can’t get organic, then we can reach the tipping point.

You can help nurture this consumer mindset by bringing information to your local natural food store owner, so that she can share it will all of her customers as well. IRT has created a complete Retailer Campaign Kit for this purpose.

You can also share information with your child’s school, your health care providers, and food manufacturers. The IRT has created information kits for all of them, available here:

  • Heath care provider kit
  • Parents and Schools educational material
  • Manufacturers information kit

Please remember to share this with your friends and family, but do so lovingly. You don’t want to make yourself a pest and risk your relationship with them. But believe me, this is a MUCH easier sell than getting them to stop smoking or eating less sugar since most do not want GMOs anyway, and it doesn’t involve giving anything up.

You may even want to share this information with your church or religious leaders. As Jeffrey says,

“There are certain religious groups that think the genetic engineering process itself violates God’s laws. So ‘GMO’ for them really means, ‘God Move Over’ and not ‘Genetically Modified Organism.'”

The Non-GMO Project

“Now the good thing about the natural products industry today is the Non-GMO Project movement,” Jeffrey says. “A couple of years ago, the leaders of the natural food industry got together and backed a new standard for making non-GMO claims, and they called it the Non-GMO Project.

Now there are thousands of products enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, and you’re going to start to see a little seal on packages, just like the organic seal.

You’re also going to see something called Non-GMO Project Verified, meaning that the claim that something is non-GMO is now backed by a third party verified system.

In the past, if an owner of a natural products store had a lot of things that contained GMOs and a lot of things that didn’t, they may be quite hesitant to start ringing the bell that GMOs were unhealthy. But now stores are becoming populated more and more and in some cases, completely, with products that are non-GMO verified.

Now you have store owners and managers and staff who are happy to shout from the rafters, our products are non-GMO and here is why.”

For example, Whole Foods has now entered all of their store brand labels, the 365 brand and anything else that has the Whole Foods name, into the Non-GMO Project. They are also participating in non-GMO month. They’ve taken a strong leadership position to try and push the non-GMO message.

Must-See Movies to Share!

The IRT has created a film called Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals, which is a powerful way for parents to get an initiation into the health dangers. It’s only 28 minutes long, which is ideal for local access TV.

You can simply bring the film to your local access TV station, and sometimes they’ll play it 10, 20, or even 30 times because they’re always looking for material and are open to support from the community.

There’s also a video called Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!, which exposes the dangers of GM bovine growth hormones. Any parent still feeding their child milk from cows injected with rBGH needs to see this film! They’ll never make the same mistake again…

Another powerful video you can share with your friends and family is Jeffrey’s Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods lecture.

Your Action Plan

I’ve already mentioned a number of different ways for you to get actively involved during Non-GMO Month. To recap, and add a few more suggestions, here is a list of Action Item for you to pick and choose from:

  1. Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
  2. Download the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure and keep it with you whenever you shop, or download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk and give it to your family and friends.
  3. Urge food manufacturers to join the Non-GMO Project and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the only way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there’s no GM-labeling system.
  4. Urge your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project’s Supporting Retailer Program.
  5. If your budget allows support this urgent mission by generously donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology.
  6. Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child’s school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators.
  7. Share Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!, and Jeffrey’s lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family.
  8. Join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Together, We Control the Future of Our Food

Please join us in this important campaign. Do as much or as little as you can. Maybe you can’t make a donation to IRT, but you can distribute 20 Non-GMO shopping guides to your closest family and friends.

Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of our food supply.

Together, we can protect the health of future generations and help accelerate the progress toward more sustainable agriculture in the United States.

Let’s do it!

.

%d bloggers like this: