Evidence shows that anti-depressants likely do more harm than good, researchers find

Commonly prescribed anti-depressants appear to be doing patients more harm than good, say researchers who have published a paper examining the impact of the medications on the entire body.

"We need to be much more cautious about the widespread use of these drugs," says Paul Andrews, an evolutionary biologist at McMaster University and lead author of the article, published today in the online journal Frontiers in Psychology.

"It's important because millions of people are prescribed anti-depressants each year, and the conventional wisdom about these drugs is that they're safe and effective."

Andrews and his colleagues examined previous patient studies into the effects of anti-depressants and determined that the benefits of most anti-depressants, even taken at their best, compare poorly to the risks, which include premature death in elderly patients.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-evidence-anti-depressants-good.html

What Eating Too Much Sugar Does to Your Brain

Overeating, poor memory formation, learning disorders, depression -- all have been linked in recent research to the over-consumption of sugar. And these linkages point to a problem that is only beginning to be better understood: what our chronic intake of added sugar is doing to our brains.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average American consumes 156 pounds of added sugar per year. That's five grocery store shelves loaded with 30 or so one pound bags of sugar each. If you find that hard to believe, that's probably because sugar is so ubiquitous in our diets that most of us have no idea how much we're consuming. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) puts the amount at 27.5 teaspoons of sugar a day per capita, which translates to 440 calories -- nearly one quarter of a typical 2000 calorie a day diet.
The key word in all of the stats is "added." While a healthy diet would contain a significant amount of naturally occurring sugar (in fruits and grains, for example), the problem is that we're chronically consuming much more added sugar in processed foods, generally in the rapidly absorbed form of fructose.
That's an important clarification because our brains need sugar every day to function. Brain cells require two times the energy needed by all the other cells in the body; roughly 10% of our total daily energy requirements. This energy is derived from glucose (blood sugar), the gasoline of our brains. Sugar is not the brain's enemy -- added sugar is.
Research indicates that a diet high in added sugar reduces the production of a brain chemical known as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). Without BDNF, our brains can't form new memories and we can't learn (or remember) much of anything. Levels of BDNF are particularly low in people with an impaired glucose metabolism--diabetics and pre-diabetics--and as the amount of BDNF decreases, sugar metabolism worsens.
In other words, chronically eating added sugar reduces BDNF, and then the lowered levels of the brain chemical begin contributing to insulin resistance, which leads to type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome, which eventually leads to a host of other health problems. Once that happens, your brain and body are in a destructive cycle that's difficult if not impossible to reverse.
Research has also linked low BDNF levels to depression and dementia. It's possible that low BDNF may turn out to be the smoking gun in these and other diseases, like Alzheimer's, that tend to appear in clusters in epidemiological studies. More research is being conducted on this subject, but what seems clear in any case is that a reduced level of BDNF is bad news for our brains, and chronic sugar consumption is one of the worst inhibitory culprits.
Other studies have focused on sugar’s role in over-eating. We intuitively know that sugar and obesity are linked, but the exact reason why hasn’t been well understood until recently. Research has shown that chronic consumption of added sugar dulls the brain’s mechanism for telling you to stop eating. It does so by reducing activity in the brain’s anorexigenic oxytocin system, which is responsible for throwing up the red “full” flag that prevents you from gorging. When oxytocin cells in the brain are blunted by over-consumption of sugar, the flag doesn’t work correctly and you start asking for seconds and thirds, and seeking out snacks at midnight.
What these and other studies strongly suggest is that most of us are seriously damaging ourselves with processed foods high in added sugar, and the damage begins with our brains. Seen in this light, chronic added-sugar consumption is no less a problem than smoking or alcoholism. And the hard truth is that we may have only begun to see the effects of what the endless sugar avalanche is doing to us.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/neuronarrative/201204/what-eating-too-much-sugar-does-your-brain

Doctors Change Names of Diseases When Vaccines Do Not Work

Doctors around the world are being faced with children catching the diseases they have been vaccinated against. Rather than diagnosing these children correctly, professionals have discovered that the doctors are giving the diseases new names. This suggests a cover up is going on and the vaccinations we are all being told are safe and effective are in fact completely useless.
Vaccinations are now being given to children to keep them safe from every disease known to man. There appears to be a vaccination for everything from polio to a broken finger nail. However, many professionals now believe that the vaccinations are actually causing the diseases they are supposed to prevent.
It appears that they could be right because news has just been released that 47,500 children became paralyzed after polio vaccinations in India in 2011. According to Dr Jacob a member of the national technical advisory group on immunization and of the working group on the food and drug regulation in 2011 after receiving the polio vaccination, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralyzed, over and above the standard rate of 2 children per 100,000 non-polio AFP (acute flaccid paralysis) cases. (1)
Dr Viera Scheibner is a professional who would not be at all surprised at the above figures. She has firmly believed for many years that contrary to the belief that vaccinations prevent children from becoming ill, they are causing children to catch the diseases that they are being vaccinated against. She best explains this in her extremely well written letter published recently in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). (2) Her letter on the subject of polio vaccinations contains outstanding research and opens a gigantic can of worms that will be difficult for the pharmaceutical industries to ignore. In answer to an article titled ‘Polio eradication: a complex end game – Polio Eradication by Vaccination,’ she wrote:

“Polio eradication by vaccination?

Let me quote some original seminal medical research.

Anderson et al. (1951) in his article “Poliomyelitis occurring after antigen injections” (Pediatrics; 7(6): 741-759) wrote “During the last year several investigators have reported the occurrence of poliomyelitis after  a few weeks after injection of some antigen. Martin in England noted 25 cases in which paralysis of a single limb occurred within 28 days of injection of antigen into that limb, and two cases following penicillin injections.”

She continued:

“Geffen, studying the 1949 poliomyelitis cases in London, observed 30 patients who had received an antigen within four weeks, noting also that the paralysis involved especially the extremity into which the injection had been given.

Dr Scheibner provided many examples of researched evidence proving that vaccinations have been causing cases of paralysis and polio for many years.
Continued here....

PMS and Candida Overgrowth: The Dangers of Estrogen Dominance

Each year, millions of women seek out help for hormonal issues that are commonly identified as PMS (premenstrual syndrome).

PMS can present itself in variety of ways, ranging from emotional symptoms like depression to physical symptoms like fatigue and bloating.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 85% of women have a minimum of one PMS symptom each month. Targeting Candida overgrowth will deal with the root cause of chronic PMS to provide long-term relief and balance hormone levels.

Once PMS or another hormonal imbalance is diagnosed, most physicians will prescribe some kind of hormone replacement therapy or an oral contraceptive, also known as birth control or “the pill.” This is done in order to regulate hormonal rhythms. Typically, birth control only alleviates the physical symptoms of PMS.

Much of conventional therapy focuses on treating the symptoms of PMS. This is only partially effective - if effective at all.

NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) like aspirin or ibuprofen are widely available, and they are a frequent go-to for pain relief.

If the emotional symptoms related to PMS are severe enough, a woman may be placed on an anti-depressant.

Candida and Your Hormones

For those who suffer from PMS, it is important to understand that research shows estrogen supports the growth of Candida. (1)(2)

Research also shows that a common cause of Candida overgrowth is the use of oral contraceptives. (3)(4)(5)

Once Candida becomes a full-blown fungal infection, things have a tendency to spiral out of control.

The nature of candidiasis is a vicious cycle. For example, Candida can overwhelm the tissue in the digestive tract and generate inflammation, which will further the growth and spread of yeast.

Candida also produces a waste product that, in the human body, mimics estrogen. (6)

This means that a Candida infection will send out a chemical message that your body is producing more estrogen than it really is. 

The affect of Candida overgrowth on a woman’s hormonal system is rarely acknowledged.

http://bodyecology.com/articles/pms-and-candida-overgrowth-the-dangers-of-estrogen-dominance

Stress Hormones Found To Make Cancer Resistant To Treatment

26th April 2012

By Sayer Ji - Wake Up World

There are many things that drive cancer. Poor diet, chemical and radiation exposures, and certain infections, figure prominently in the process.  Stress, however, is a major contributing factor that is often completely overlooked.

New research, however, sheds light on just how critically important the physiological consequences of stress are on cancer cell progression.

Adrenaline Increases Cancer Malignancy

Published this month in the journal Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics and entitled “Adrenaline induces chemoresistance in HT-29 colon adenocarcinoma cells,” researchers found that the stress hormone adrenaline induces multidrug resistance in colon cancer cells.¹

Adrenaline is released during times of stress and participates in what is known as the fight-or-flight response of the sympathetic nervous system.  The study investigated the cellular consequences of adrenergic activation (adrenaline activation), which included a dose-dependent increase in the expression of the cancer-associated gene (oncogene) known as ABCB1 gene and its gene product, P-glycoprotein, which is known to protect cancer cells from anticancer compounds.

When adrenaline-induced P-glycoprotein levels increase within cancer cells, they become more effective at excreting drugs that may do them harm, e.g. chemotherapy. P-glycoprotein is used to transport xenobiotics out through what are known as ATP-dependent efflux pumps. These are highly expressed in the epithelial cells of the gastrointestinal tract, kidney, liver, and capillaries of the brain, testes, and ovaries, and normally defend healthy cells against toxicants in the environment.  In cancer, however, a wide range of oncogenes are unregulated and tumor suppressor genes downregulated, resulting in assemblages of cells (tumors) that can do great harm to the body as a whole.

http://wakeup-world.com/2012/04/26/stress-hormones-found-to-make-cancer-resistant-to-treatment/

Marijuana Causes Cancer-Suicide *MUST-WATCH!*

Chocolate Gives Statins A $29 Billion Run For Their Money

20th April 2012

By Sayer Ji - Wake Up World

With the blockbuster cholesterol-lowering class of drugs known as statins being widely promoted for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, despite their having over 300 documented adverse health effects (including heart failure!), how does chocolate sound as a viable, heart-friendly alternative?

We already connect amorously with chocolate (to the tune of 6 billion lbs of cocoa consumed annually worldwide), revealing in heart-felt expressions like “I love it,” and “this is to die for!” how comfortable we are with publicly declaring our affection. But did you know that while it makes our emotional hearts sing, it may actually keep our physical hearts happy, alive and ticking longer, as well?

Indeed, back in 2006, researchers found that for elderly men, eating cocoa intake was inversely associated with blood pressure and 15-year cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. When compared with the lowest tertile (lowest 33%) of cocoa intake, the adjusted relative risk for men in the highest tertile was .50 for cardiovascular mortality, or a 50% reduction, and .53 for all-cause mortality, or a 47% reduction. Not bad considering the median cocoa intake among users was 2.11 grams per day, or just one half an ounce a week.

http://wakeup-world.com/2012/04/20/chocolate-gives-statins-a-29-billion-run-for-their-money/

The 5 best natural antibiotics and anti-virals that destroy superbugs and just about everything else

(NaturalNews) Sir Alexander Fleming discovered the antibacterial power of the mold Penicillium notatum in 1928. Even though it was a natural healing agent effective in destroying Staphylococcus aureus and other noxious bacteria, the pharmaceutical industry got hold of nature's bounty and it became -- along with multiple other Big Pharma inventions -- the nightmare of modern antibiotics, causing as many problems for mankind as they were supposed to help. Because of the overuse of antibiotics, super-bugs have developed that are resistant to all but the most powerful drugs, whose side effects are often dangerous.

In nature's infinite wisdom, several other highly effective substances exist with antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral properties, all able to protect the human body safely and with deep healing powers. You don't have to go much farther than the refrigerator or your pantry cupboard to find safe, delicious foods and herbs to eradicate the most virulent bacteria and viruses.



Here is that list of 5

Ten Best Foods to Eat Frequently for a Terrific Health Kick...

By Dr. Mercola

If optimal health is your goal, there's no getting around your diet. Your physical health is a direct reflection of what you put into your body, and how you live your life in general. Pre-packaged processed foods may be convenient, but cooking from scratch using fresh unprocessed ingredients is an absolute must if you want to improve your health.

The term "superfood" has become something of a marketing buzzword in recent years, and many processed food products will boast such ingredients. But don't be fooled. Processing tends to denature nutrients, so what you end up with is typically a far inferior version compared to the real thing.

Your best bet is to simply stick with the originals, meaning whole organic foods.

Below is a list of my top 10 best superfoods—whole foods that offer a wide range of essential nutrients that can easily be integrated into a balanced diet. Aim to incorporate as many of these foods into your diet on a daily or weekly basis, and you'll be off to a great start. Keep in mind that all of the foods on this list should be organic or wild.
Here is the list of those 10 foods

True Cause of Heart Disease Not Cholesterol

Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated

(NaturalNews) For several years, NaturalNews has maintained that many vaccines actually cause the very infectious diseases they claim to prevent. Measles vaccines, for example, actually cause measles. And flu shot vaccines actually increase susceptibility to the flu. (See sources below.)

Now we have an open admission of precisely this point.

New research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

As Reuters reports: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832...)

In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough -- the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease. "We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That's what started catching our attention."

This same article also admits that these vaccines have never been tested for long-term effectiveness:

"GSK has never studied the duration of the vaccine's protection after the shot given to four- to six-year-olds, the spokesperson said. Dr. Joel Ward at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute said it's still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn't provide lasting protection from whooping cough."

Huh? So let me get this straight:

• Whooping cough infections are MORE common among children already vaccinated against whooping cough than unvaccinated children.

• The whooping cough vaccines have NEVER been tested for long-term efficacy.

• Doctors openly admit the vaccine "doesn't provide lasting protection" against the disease.

• But doctors and government authorities mindlessly push the vaccine anyway?!

That's essentially like saying, "We know these vaccines don't really work, but everybody should get vaccinated anyway."
http://www.naturalnews.com/035466_whooping_cough_vaccines_outbreaks.html

“Bad” LDL Cholesterol May Protect Us Against Cancer

LDL cholesterol is demonized, but we’ve told you the other side of the story. Now a new discovery adds to the growing list of health benefits.

There may be a link between low levels of “bad” low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol—that is, not enough of it—and increased cancer risk, according to new research. Scientists at Tufts University looked at 201 cancer patients and 402 cancer-free patients. They found that cancer patients who never took cholesterol-lowering drugs on average had lower LDL cholesterol levels for an average of about 19 years prior to their cancer diagnosis. In other words, they were “healthier” according to the LDL demonizers in today’s medicine.

Previous studies, which looked at patients who did take cholesterol-lowering drugs, also suggested a strong link between low LDL cholesterol levels and higher cancer risk.

This finding underscores what we have said before. The “HDL cholesterol is good and LDL is bad” message being perpetrated by mainstream medicine is at the very least an oversimplification. LDL is needed by the body to build new muscle, which is important as we age. LDL can protect the brain as we age, and low levels of it can escalate problems such as dementia and memory loss. As Dr. Joseph A. Mercola points out, cholesterol is neither “good” nor “bad,” and attempts to artificially lower your cholesterol can be quite dangerous, in part because of serious side effects such as muscle damage.

So why does mainstream medicine demonize LDL cholesterol? Could it be because it benefits the billion-dollar cholesterol drug industry? Statin drugs are taken by one in four Americans over age of 45, and if patients stopped buying cholesterol drugs, Big Pharma would be in a serious financial crisis. In fact, as soon as the study’s cancer findings were published, a heart “expert” immediately warned that “statins used for LDL reduction shouldn’t be stopped if there is an appropriate use to lower heart disease risk.”

So mainstream medicine’s advice is to hang onto these “miracle drugs” even though they have been linked to nerve damage, muscle damage, liver enzyme derangement, tendon problems, anemia, acidosis, cataracts, sexual dysfunction, an increase in type 2 diabetes, and now cancer.

In the long run, statins are going to be a bonanza, but for the trial lawyers, not the drug companies. But by then it will be too late for those taking them now.

http://www.anh-usa.org/ldl-cholesterol-may-protect-us-against-cancer/ 

Why is this Organic Food Stuffed With Toxic Solvents?

Story at-a-glance

• Biotech company Martek is under fire for nondisclosure of non-organic manufacturing processes of their infant formula additives, DHA and ARA, which have made their way into numerous infant formulas, including some bearing the USDA Organic Seal
• Martek’s DHA and ARA products are synthetic attempts at omega-3 fats, chemically extracted from algae and fungi that have never before been part of the human diet
• These infant formula additives, never USDA approved, have been heavily processed and chemically treated with solvents like hexane, and modified with the use of recombinant DNA techniques, all of which are supposed to be disallowed in organic products
• There are hundreds of adverse reaction reports filed with the FDA about infants suffering severe gastrointestinal distress, vomiting, and diarrhea after consuming formula with these additives
• Political shenanigans and powerful corporate lobbyists threaten the quality and safety of your products, including a recent increase in the tolerated level of pesticides in American products
• http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/01/gmo-infant-formula.aspx?e_cid=20120401_SNL_Art_1 

I TOOK MY MOM TO A QUACK!

Bedrock of vaccination theory crumbles as science reveals antibodies not necessary to fight viruses

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer 

(NaturalNews) While the medical, pharmaceutical, and vaccine industries are busy pushing new vaccines for practically every condition under the sun, a new study published in the journal Immunity completely deconstructs the entire vaccination theory. It turns out that the body's natural immune systems, comprised of both innate and adaptive components, work together to ward off disease without the need for antibody-producing vaccines.
The theory behind vaccines is that they mimic infection by spurring B cells, one of the two major types of white blood cells in the immune system, to produce antibodies as part of the adaptive immune system. It is widely believed that these vaccine-induced antibodies, which are part of the more specific adaptive immune system, teach the immune system how to directly respond to an infection before the body becomes exposed to it.
But the new research highlights the fact that innate immunity plays a significant role in fighting infections, and is perhaps more important than adaptive immunity at preventing or fighting infections. In tests, adaptive immune system antibodies were shown unable to fight infection by themselves, which in essence debunks the theory that vaccine-induced antibodies serve any legitimate function in preventing or fighting off infection.
"Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus), and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity," said Dr. Uldrich H. von Andrian from Harvard Medical School. "It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis."
As explained by Dr. Russell Blaylock in a recent interview with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, vaccines not only do not work as advertised, but they actually damage the body's innate immunity. Rather than teach the body how to respond to infections, vaccines actually inhibit the immune system's ability to produce TH2-type cytokines, and suppress cellular immunity, which is how the body protects itself against deadly viruses and bacteria.
So once again, the myth that vaccinations serve any sort of legitimate medical purpose has been deconstructed by breakthrough science. Regardless of whether or not the mainstream medical community wants to admit it, pro-vaccine ideology is increasingly finding itself in the dustheap of outmoded pseudoscience.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035371_vaccine_theory_antibodies_viruses.html
Sources for this article include:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/242403.php
http://www.niaid.nih.gov
http://www.naturalnews.com/035335_vaccines_Dr_Blaylock_children.html

Antibiotics Disturb Normal Gut Bacteria, Increase Severity Of Allergic Asthma

Widely used antibiotics may increase incidence and severity of allergic asthma in early life, according to a University of British Columbia study.

The study, published in the journal EMBO reports, shows that certain antibiotics that affect intestinal bacteria also had a profound impact on allergic asthma.

"It has long been suspected that kids exposed to more antibiotics - like those in developed countries - are more prone to allergic asthma," says the study's author, UBC microbiologist Brett Finlay. "Our study is the first experimental proof that shows how."

Finlay's team at UBC's Dept. of Microbiology and Immunology and Michael Smith Laboratories examined how two widely used antibiotics - streptomycin and vancomycin - affected the bacterial "ecosystem" in the gut. They found that vancomycin profoundly alters the bacterial communities in the intestine and increases severity of asthma in mouse models.

The same antibiotics do not impact adult mice's susceptibility to asthma, indicating that early life is a critical period of establishing a healthy immune system.

Allergic asthma affects more than 100 million people worldwide and its prevalence is increasing on average by 50 per cent every decade, particularly among children in industrialized countries. According to the Asthma Society of Canada, asthma affects at least 12 per cent of Canadian children.

The human gut is colonized by approximately 100 trillion bacteria, and contains upwards of 1,000 bacterial species. While not fully understood, these micro-organisms, known as "gut flora," perform a host of useful functions, says Finlay.

"Modern societal practices, such as improved sanitation methods and widespread antibiotic use, are causing the disappearance of ancestral species of bacteria in our gut that may be critical to a healthy immune system," says Finlay.

"Our study shows this is the case with certain antibiotics and allergic asthma, and the gut-lung connection is also consistent with observations that incidence of asthma has not increased significantly in developing countries where antibiotic use is less prevalent - and in turn, the gut flora is permitted to fully develop."

The study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) through the Canadian Microbiome Initiative, in partnership with Genome BC and the Allergy, Genes and Environment Network (AllerGen NCE).

Marc Ouellette, Scientific Director of CIHR's Institute of Infection and Immunity, noted the importance of the team's results: "It has been recognized that microbes play an important role in human health - and we are discovering that a disruption of these bugs is associated with a number of chronic health conditions. The important results from Prof. Finlay's team confirm that giving antibiotics to young children, which disturb their normal bacterial flora, should not be taken lightly."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/243047.php

70 Percent of Ground Beef at Supermarkets Contains ‘Pink Slime’

Gerald Zirnstein grinds his own hamburger these days. Why? Because this former United States Department of Agriculture scientist and, now, whistleblower, knows that 70 percent of the ground beef we buy at the supermarket contains something he calls “pink slime.”
“Pink slime” is beef trimmings. Once only used in dog food and cooking oil, the trimmings are now sprayed with ammonia so they are safe to eat and added to most ground beef as a cheaper filler.
It was Zirnstein who, in an USDA memo, first coined the term “pink slime” and is now coming forward to say he won’t buy it.
“It’s economic fraud,” he told ABC News. “It’s not fresh ground beef. … It’s a cheap substitute being added in.”
Zirnstein and his fellow USDA scientist, Carl Custer, both warned against using what the industry calls “lean finely textured beef,” widely known now as “pink slime,” but their government bosses overruled them.
If you have questions about “pink slime,” email us at ABC.WorldNews@abc.com.
According to Custer, the product is not really beef, but “a salvage product … fat that had been heated at a low temperature and the excess fat spun out.”
The “pink slime” is made by gathering waste trimmings, simmering them at low heat so the fat separates easily from the muscle, and spinning the trimmings using a centrifuge to complete the separation. Next, the mixture is sent through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. The process is completed by packaging the meat into bricks. Then, it is frozen and shipped to grocery stores and meat packers, where it is added to most ground beef.
The “pink slime” does not have to appear on the label because, over objections of its own scientists, USDA officials with links to the beef industry labeled it meat.
“The under secretary said, ‘it’s pink, therefore it’s meat,’” Custer told ABC News.
ABC News has learned the woman who made the decision to OK the mix is a former undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. It was a call that led to hundred of millions of dollars for Beef Products Inc., the makers of pink slime.
When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.
Smith did not return ABC News’ calls for comment and BPI said it had nothing to do with her appointment. The USDA said while her appointment was legal at the time, under current ethics rules Smith could not have immediately joined the board.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/70-percent-of-ground-beef-at-supermarkets-contains-pink-slime/

World Renown Heart Surgeon Speaks Out On What Really Causes Heart Disease

We physicians with all our training, knowledge and authority often acquire a rather large ego that tends to make it difficult to admit we are wrong. So, here it is. I freely admit to being wrong.. As a heart surgeon with 25 years experience, having performed over 5,000 open-heart surgeries,today is my day to right the wrong with medical and scientific fact.


I trained for many years with other prominent physicians labelled “opinion makers.”  Bombarded with scientific literature, continually attending education seminars, we opinion makers insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol.

The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice.


It Is Not Working!

These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible. The discovery a few years ago that inflammation in the artery wall is the real cause of heart disease is slowly leading to a paradigm shift in how heart disease and other chronic ailments will be treated.

The long-established dietary recommendations have created epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the consequences of which dwarf any historical plague in terms of mortality, human suffering and dire economic consequences.

Despite the fact that 25% of the population takes expensive statin medications and despite the fact we have reduced the fat content of our diets, more Americans will die this year of heart disease than ever before.

Statistics from the American Heart Association show that 75 million Americans currently suffer from heart disease, 20 million have diabetes and 57 million have pre-diabetes. These disorders are affecting younger and younger people in greater numbers every year.

Simply stated, without inflammation being present in the body, there is no way that cholesterol would accumulate in the wall of the blood vessel and cause heart disease and strokes. Without inflammation, cholesterol would move freely throughout the body as nature intended. It is inflammation that causes cholesterol to become trapped.

Inflammation is not complicated -- it is quite simply your body's natural defence to a foreign invader such as a bacteria, toxin or virus. The cycle of inflammation is perfect in how it protects your body from these bacterial and viral invaders. However, if we chronically expose the body to injury by toxins or foods the human body was never designed to process,a condition occurs called chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation is just as harmful as acute inflammation is beneficial.

What thoughtful person would willfully expose himself repeatedly to foods or other substances that are known to cause injury to the body?  Well,smokers perhaps, but at least they made that choice willfully.

The rest of us have simply followed the recommended mainstream dietthat is low in fat and high in polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates, not knowing we were causing repeated injury to our blood vessels. Thisrepeated injury creates chronic inflammation leading to heart disease,stroke, diabetes and obesity. 

Let me repeat that: The injury and inflammation in our blood vessels is caused by the low fat diet recommended for years by mainstream medicine.
http://preventdisease.com/news/12/030112_World-Renown-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.shtml

Study says insecticide used with GM corn highly toxic to bees

Sierra Club, US bee and honey groups urge EPA to ban clothianidin

An insecticide used as a seed treatment on genetically modified corn and other crops has been found to be highly toxic to honey bees, according to a study published recently in the journal PLoS ONE.

The study may be a key to solving the mystery of Colony Collapse Disorder that has decimated bee populations over the last five years, causing losses of 30% and more of honey bee colonies every year since 2006, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Found at levels 700,000 times a bee’s lethal dosage

Scientists at Purdue University documented major adverse impacts from the insecticide clothianidin (product name “Poncho”) on honey bee health. The study found that bees are exposed to clothianidin and other pesticides throughout the foraging period. Researchers found extremely high levels of clothianidin—as high as 700,000 times a bee’s lethal dosage—in seed planter exhaust material. It was found in foraging areas long after treated seed had been planted and in dead bees near hives in Indiana. It was also found in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive. The study raises questions about the long-term survival of this major pollinator.

“This research should nail the coffin lid shut on clothianidin,” says Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club’s chairwoman of the Genetic Engineering Action Team. “Despite numerous attempts by the beekeeping industry and conservation organizations to persuade the EPA to ban clothianidin, the EPA has failed to protect the food supply for the American people.”

“Clothianidin is among those most toxic to bees”

Clothianidin, which is manufactured by German agricultural company Bayer Crop Science, is of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides. Clothianidin is taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen and nectar from which bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids are of particular concern because they have cumulative, sublethal effects on insect pollinators that correspond to Colony Collapse Disorder symptoms—namely, neurobehavioral and immune system disruptions.

According to James Frazier, Ph.D., professor of entomology at Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, “Among the neonicotinoids, clothianidin is among those most toxic for honey bees; and this combined with its systemic movement in plants has produced a troubling mix of scientific results pointing to its potential risk for honey bees through current agricultural practices.”

Clothianidin has been widely used as a seed treatment on many of the country’s major crops, particularly GM corn, since 2003. Back then, the Environmental Protection Agency granted it a “conditional registration,” while EPA waited for Bayer to conduct a field study assessing the insecticide’s threat to bee colony health.

“Continued use is in violation of the law”

Bayer submitted its study to the EPA in 2007, two years after it was due. A memo written by EPA scientists and leaked in 2010 said that Bayer’s study was flawed, stating that “deficiencies were identified that render the study supplemental.”

The memo was found by Tom Theobald, a founding member of the Boulder County Beekeeper’s Association. “The document reveals that the agency has been allowing the widespread use of this bee-toxic pesticide, against evidence that it’s highly toxic to bees. Clothianidin has failed to meet the requirements for registration. Its continued use is in violation of the law,” Theobald says.

Upon learning of the EPA’s failures, the National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and the American Honey Producer’s Association urged the agency in a December 2010 letter to cancel the registration of this pesticide. Yet despite the fact that clothianidin had failed a critical life cycle study which was required for registration, the agency responded in a February 2011 letter stating that it wasn’t “aware of any data that reasonably demonstrates that bee colonies are subject to elevated losses due to chronic exposure to this pesticide” and “does not intend to initiate suspension or cancellation actions against the registered uses of clothianidin.”

“Time for EPA to cancel this bee-killing pesticide”

Now with the published study documenting harm to bees from clothianidin, beekeepers, honey producers, and environmental groups are calling on the EPA again to ban it.

“EPA said we don’t have the science (to ban clothianidin). Now we have the science,” Theobald says.

Neil Carman, Ph.D., scientific advisor to Sierra Club, says: “A huge shoe has dropped. US researchers have documented major adverse impacts from clothianidin seed treatments in corn on honey bee health.” Carman further explains “Because of the vital role played by honey bees in crop pollination, honey bee demise threatens the production of crops that produce one-third of American diets, including nearly 100 fruits and vegetables. The value of crops pollinated by bees exceeds $15 billion in the US alone.”

Hopwood exclaims, “The time is now for EPA to quit dodging the illusion of oversight and instead, cancel this bee-killing pesticide.  If we travel too far down our current path, we could create conditions in our food system much like those that brought down the financial system.”

© Copyright The Organic & Non-GMO Report, February 2012

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/february2012/insecticideforGMcorntoxicbees.php

Neotame the next aspartame? FDA doesn't require labeling of latest chemical sweetener from Monsanto

(NaturalNews) It could be lurking in the foods you eat every single day, including U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified organic foods, and you would never even know it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that one of Monsanto's latest creations, a synthetic sweetener chemical known as neotame, does not have to be labeled in food products, including even in organic food products.

A modified version of aspartame with even more added toxicity, neotame received quiet and unassuming FDA approval back in 2002, even though no safety studies have ever been conducted on the chemical (http://www.neotame.com/pdf/neotame_fda_US.pdf). In fact, an investigation conducted by Feingold.org found only four studies relating to neotame in the MEDLINE database.

Two of these "studies" were not studies at all, and the other two were actually one duplicate study conducted by NutraSweet, the company that produces and sells neotame.

So just like with aspartame, the FDA has once again approved for use a dangerous sweetener chemical that metabolizes into formaldehyde when consumed. Except this time, the chemical contains added 3-dimethylbutyl, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed as one of the most hazardous known chemicals, and it does not have to be labeled on any of the products to which it is added.

"Neotame has similar structure to aspartame -- except that, from it's structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame," writes HolisticMed.com on its page about neotame. "Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid" (http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html).

http://www.naturalnews.com/034915_neotame_Monsanto_sweeteners.html