Month: June 2010

The most ambitious attempt to catalogue the health risks of cell phones to date is the industry-funded Interphone study, carried out by researchers from 13 different countries (not including the United States). Although the study has been criticized for selecting data in a way designed to play down the risks of cell phone use, it continues to turn up alarming findings nonetheless. Among the findings so far are a 40 percent increase in brain tumor risk among adults who use a cell phone for 10 years (especially on the side of the head where the phone is held); a 300 percent increased risk of acoustic nerve tumors; and an increased risk of tumors of the parotid gland. The risk of a brain tumor increases by 400 percent in people who start using a cell phone before the age of 20.

Other studies, mostly out of Europe, have linked mobile phone and personal digital assistant (PDA) use to DNA damage, sperm death, and brain damage including early-onset dementia. These findings regularly make big news in the international press, but are by and large played down in U.S. media.

The United States has a long history of hostility toward the claim that the microwave radiation used by microwave ovens, cell phones, cell phone towers and wireless internet (Wi-Fi) can be harmful to human health. U.S. law prohibits challenging the placement of cell phone towers on health grounds, and an industry group (the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) is highly influential in setting exposure standards.

The first research on the risks of microwave radiation was actually uncovered by a U.S. researcher, Allan Frey, in the 1960s. Frey discovered that "nonionizing" electromagnetic radiation — previously thought to be harmless — could still produce biological effects. For example, radar waves can produce "sound" even in the absence of actual sound waves by interfering with the brain's own electromagnetic signals. Frey found that microwaves could damage the organs of lab animals, even stopping their hearts completely.

Yet when Frey published a paper showing that microwave radiation could disrupt the functioning of the blood-brain barrier, the Office of Naval Research ordered him to conceal the work or lose funding. Pentagon-funded scientists claimed they had refuted his work, but refused to share any information on their data or methods.

Frey found that while the primary (or "carrier") wave of microwave radiation can cause health problems, the secondary wave that carries the actual data — whether sound, text, pictures or other information transmitted via cell phones or Wi-Fi connections — is far more dangerous. The more data streams carried, the higher the danger.

Modern research supports these early findings, with 75 percent of independently funded studies showing health risks from cell phone radiation (in contrast with only 25 percent of industry funded studies). Researchers have also documented dramatic rises in the rate of numerous health problems immediately following the introduction of widespread Wi-Fi and cell phone networks across Europe.

Such concerns have led European governments to consider banning Wi-Fi in government facilities, and to the Austrian Medical Association's call for a ban on Wi-Fi in schools. The national library of France has already removed all Wi-Fi connections due to health concerns.

In certain segments of the U.S. population, awareness is also growing. According to an anonymous investment banker speaking to a GQ reporter, rates of brain tumors among financial executives are shockingly high, a fact more and more people are attributing to constant cell phone use.

"I knew four or five people just at my firm who got tumors," the banker said. "Each time, people ask the question. I hear it in the hallways."

(NaturalNews) What's clear about the BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is that the independent journalists are doing a better job of asking the really tough questions than the mainstream media. Sure, CNN, Fox and others are bringing some attention to the matter, and they've done some solid reporting on it, but they haven't yet found a way to ask the deeper questions like why the U.S. government seems to be colluding with BP to cover up the truth about the spill.

Here are the 16 questions:

#1) Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of more than 17,000 National Guard members along the Gulf coast to be used "as needed" by state governors. So what are all of these National Guard troops going to be doing exactly? Are the troops going to be used to stop the oil or to control the public?

Mike's comment: Good question. Much of the response activity to the spill seems to be about controlling the public's perception and limiting media access to the spill site rather than actually cleaning up the mess.

#2) Barack Obama has also announced the creation of a "Gulf recovery czar" who will be in charge of overseeing the restoration of the Gulf of Mexico region following the oil spill. So is appointing a "czar" Obama's idea of taking charge of a situation?

#3) Because it is so incredibly toxic, the UK's Marine Management Organization has completely banned Corexit 9500, so if there was a major oil spill in the UK's North Sea, BP would not be able to use it. So why is BP being allowed to use Corexit 9500 in the Gulf of Mexico?

Mike's answer: Because Corexit kills sea animals and makes them sink and disappear rather than allowing them to wash up on shore where the emotional outcry would be even worse than it is already.

#4) It is being reported that 2.61 parts per million of Corexit 9500 (mixed with oil at a ratio of 1:1o) is lethal to 50% of fish exposed to it within 96 hours. That means that 1 gallon of Corexit 9500/oil mixture is capable of rendering 383,141 gallons of water highly toxic to fish. So why was BP allowed to dump 1,021,000 gallons of Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 into the Gulf of Mexico, and why aren't they being stopped from dumping another 805,000 gallons of these dispersants that they have on order into the Gulf?

Mike's answer: Sadly, BP is running the show in the Gulf, not the government! The U.S. government has sold out to private corporations who now think they own the gulf and can run operations there however they see fit.

#5) If these dispersants are so incredibly toxic to fish, what are they going to do to crops? What are they going to do to people?

Mike's answer: They're obviously going to poison the entire Gulf Coast region if hurricanes whip up these chemicals and deposit them on land. We could be looking at a complete wipeout of the Florida citrus industry, for example, if all the worst conditions converge.

#6) If the smell of the oil on some Gulf beaches is already so strong that it burns your nostrils, then what in the world is this oil doing to wildlife that encounter it?

#7) Is it a bad sign that birds from the Gulf region are flocking north by the thousands?

Mike answer: Remember the Tsunami in the Indian ocean a few years back? The animals fled first, while the clueless people stayed behind and got clobbered by the deadly wave. I think a similar thing could be happening in the Gulf. All it takes is one hurricane to turn the entire region into a toxic stew of chemical poison.

#8) Why is BP being allowed to use private security contractors to keep the American people away from the oil cleanup sites?

Mike's answer: Yes, this is the real question. BP is running security in the Gulf the same way Halliburton runs security in the Middle East. The corporate contractors are now the police force in the area, and they're running the Gulf as if they owned it! This is a clear indication that the corporations have taken over our government.

#9) Why is BP openly attempting to manipulate the search results on sites like Google and Yahoo?

#10) Why has the FAA shut down the airspace above the Gulf of Mexico oil spill? What don't they want the American people to see?

Mike's answer: There are lots of answer to this one: The feds probably don't want people in small airplanes taking aerial photos and posting them online (because the Obama administration is working overtime to cover up the truth here, much like the Bush administration did with the flag-draped coffins coming home from war in the Middle East). It could also be that they are planning something really crazy like a deep ocean nuke to collapse the well, and they don't want civilians falling out of the sky when the mushroom cloud appears.

#11) Senator Bill Nelson of Florida says there are reports that there are additional ruptures in the sea floor from which oil is leaking. If there are quite a few of these additional ruptures, then how in the world does BP expect to completely stop this oil leak?

Mike's answer: BP actually doesn't expect to stop this leak anytime soon. They are clearly in full-on spin mode, just trying to deny the truth and spin the words to buy themselves more time to offload stock shares before the whole thing comes tumbling down.

#12) Why are scientists finding concentrations of methane at up to 10,000 times normal background levels in Gulf waters?

Mike's answer: Because BP broke the ocean floor, and now huge volumes of gas hydrates (which contain methane) are bubbling up from places that were previously trapped safely underground.

#13) At some testing stations in the Gulf of Mexico, levels of benzene have been detected at over 3000 parts per billion, and levels of hydrogen sulfide have been detected as high as 1192 parts per billion. Considering that these levels would be highly toxic to humans, why hasn't the general public been warned?

#14) Why are so many Gulf oil spill disaster workers showing up at local hospitals complaining of a "mysterious illness"?

Mike's answer: This is going to be the Gulf War Syndrome of the Gulf Coast. Or the 9/11 asbestos question affecting firefighters. There will be a wave of toxic side effects from the use of chemicals in the Gulf, and both BP and the federal government will predictably deny any link between the chemicals and the health effects for years to come.

#15) If "70% or 80%" of the protective booms are doing absolutely nothing at all to stop the oil, then what is going to stop the millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf from eventually reaching shore?

Mike's answer: Nothing, of course. The oil is going to reach the shore, and there's nothing BP or the feds can do to stop in. In fact, it seems as if they are trying to interfere with the cleanup by halting the barges that were supposed to be vacuuming oil just off the beaches.

#16) It is being reported that the deep sea oil plumes are creating huge "dead zones" where all creatures are dying as they are deprived of oxygen. If this oil spill continues to grow could the vast majority of the Gulf of Mexico become one gigantic "dead zone"?

Mike's answer: Indeed, that is precisely what looks likely to happen. The Gulf of Mexico could become a massive dead zone, adding to the long list of humanity's crimes against the planet. See my related CounterThink cartoon at: http://www.naturalnews.com/029015_a…

I've also added one more question of my own:

#17) Why is our government colluding with BP to cover up the truth about the spill?

Remember the BP press conferences on cable news? A U.S. Coast Guard representative was standing right there beside the BP spokesperson, almost as if she were a subordinate of BP. This is insane! If anything, the US Coast Guard should be telling BP what to do, not the other way around.

And why is the US Coast Guard restricting reporters' access to the spill areas, threatening them with arrest if they "trespass." Trespass into PUBLIC waters? Doesn't anybody realize that BP does not own the Gulf of Mexico and if we want to take our boats out into the Gulf to get some video of what's really happening there, that's our right! But the U.S. government is now working for BP, it seems, and they're trying to protect BP's image by restricting the freedoms of ordinary Americans.

Sound familiar? That's why I think this Gulf of Mexico disaster is another 9/11 reactionary freedom squasher in the works. Just wait… you'll see what kind of freedom-destroying ideas are put forth by our lawmakers in response to this catastrophe. When it's all said and done, it won't only be British Petroleum that loses; it will be all of us.

The Corporatocracy and government collusion
What we're really witnessing here with the BP disaster is our own government colluding with the powerful corporatocracy to cover up the truth all while making it worse by interfering with legitimate cleanup efforts.

It's almost as if the federal government were actively working to worsen the problem and expand the impact of the disaster. But that brings up the question: Why?

Why would our own government worsen a catastrophe? The answer, of course, is right in front of you. Just visit ground zero in New York City and remind yourself of all the various ways the U.S. government expanded its power following the collapse of the twin towers. "Never waste a good crisis" is the mantra of Big Government today, and the easiest way to steal even more power away from the people is to turn a small disaster into a big disaster, then leap in with a "government solution" that enacts some large, oppressive new act that never would have been possible before the disaster.

So what kind of oppressive new laws does the Obama administration want to put in place in response to this disaster? Perhaps government control over all oceans, or government control over all seafood. Maybe they want to outlaw oil over the next 25 years and force everybody to transition to some other form of energy (which may not actually be a bad idea from an ecological perspective, but at what price to freedom?).

There are a thousand other conspiracy theories that try to guess at what the government's true agenda might be in this moment. While it's hard to say which of them (if any) might be true, one thing is crystal clear: The government does not seem interested in solving the problem in the Gulf of Mexico. It is covering up the truth, threatening mainstream journalists who try to photograph the region, restricting air travel over the well site, restricting boat travel anywhere near the spill, and basically lying to the public on a daily basis about what's really happening there.

That alone should make any thinking person suspicious. If the situation were really under control, why would they have to lie about it?

US government poisons its own citizens
There is precedent for believing that the U.S. government might try to poison its own citizens in order to achieve a political goal. During Prohibition, the U.S. government actually released poisoned alcohol in order to harm (or kill) those who were defying the law and drinking liquor.

In response, the administration of President Calvin Coolidge ordered industry to add higher levels of more difficult-to-remove poisons to their alcohol, including acetone, benzene, cadmium, camphor, carbolic acid, chloroform, ether, formaldehyde, gasoline, iodine, kerosene, methyl alcohol, mercury salts, nicotine, quinine and zinc. Shortly after the institution of this campaign, 31 people were poisoned to death over the course of the Christmas holiday in New York City alone. Historians estimate that a total of 10,000 people were killed by the program before Prohibition ended in 1933.

The poisoning program was no secret, as the government hoped that knowledge of it would deter people from drinking — although consumption of alcohol was not itself illegal.

"The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol," said New York City medical examiner Charles Norris. "[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes."

Lavender is the most popular of plants for its healing properties. It is a natural analgesic, anti depressant and anti inflammatory agent. Lavender originated in the Mediterranean basin but because of its fragrance and medicinal benefits, it has moved with migrating people and is now found worldwide. Lavender oil is the most important medical component of the plant and contains several distinct chemicals with healing properties that complement one another. It is one of the few essential oils that can be applied directly to the skin undiluted but should never be taken internally.

The most common way in which essential oils enter the body is through the nose and the skin. Oils absorbed through skin pores and hair follicles enter the bloodstream and circulate throughout the body. Because you smell the fragrances as the oil is rubbed on your skin, you can often benefit from both inhalation and the topical administration.

Smells are very important in our lives – they so often trigger memories of events in the past that we had almost forgotten. In addition, smells can initiate different physiological responses that can go so far as to affect our entire body and mental outlook and those healing properties in essential oils include the different smells produced.

The cost of making essentials oils is high, so most commercial product fragrances do not use the genuine article but rather those that are chemically synthesized. They might smell like the real thing but they will not have the healing properties – quite the reverse as many of the chemicals used may even be harmful by causing an allergic reaction.

Two treatment therapies that use essential oils for their healing properties are:

– Psycho Aromatherapy where essential oils are used to either stimulate or relax the brain. Some oils can have calming and tranquilizing effects while others are energizing. These oils can relieve depression, stress and anxiety and promote a general feeling of well being.

– Therapeutic Aromatherapy where essential oils treat medical conditions.

Whatever condition you might be suffering from, there may well be a healing natural oil product to treat it. These products are made from essential oils with all the healing properties that they bring. Such products are specially formulated to target a specific condition so there is no hit and miss. Essential oils are highly complex mixtures of often hundreds of individual aroma compounds so research, knowledge and experience are needed to get the perfect mix.

Importantly, the healing properties of essential oils have tremendous potential to reduce our reliance on pharmaceuticals with their synthetic ingredients and adverse side effects.

Lyme Disease Origin and Symptoms

Lyme disease is caused by an infecting spirochete bacteria. The label refers to their shape and wiggly tendency. The specific spirochete for Lyme Disease is Borrelia burgdorferi. In Europe, another bacterium, Borrelia afzelii causes Lyme disease. These bacteria are carried in the stomachs of ticks. People are infected by the carrier ticks' bites, but Lyme disease is not infectious among humans. Whether an infected animal's bite can cause problems is currently unknown.

A different spirochete is the source of syphilis, which also directly infects the brain to create dementia or the neurological damage similar to symptoms many Lyme disease victims exhibit. Those symptoms often mimic multiple sclerosis (MS), Alzheimer's, Parkinson's Disease, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Lupus, Anxiety, Depression, and more.

And not everyone who is infected exhibits the same symptoms at the same time. Its manifestations are layered. This does make it complicated for mainstream medicine, to the point where many doctors consider it a psychiatric problem.

Mainstream Medicine's Attitude

The AMA considers the best approach for curing Lyme Disease to be early and with antibiotics. Many doctors consider any lack of response within a month of antibiotic treatment to be an indication the Lyme Disease never even existed in the patient! Pretty arrogant. So an it's-all-in-your-head syndrome is cast on the victims. Many insurance carriers won't cover chronic Lyme medical claims.

Some doctors don't mind administering a lifetime of antibiotics and other drugs. That's usually a downhill slope to worsening health complications from the side effects, including the virtual extinction of vitally essential friendly flora in the gut. Many experts consider 60 to 80 percent of our immune system to be in the gastrointestinal or GI tract because of the friendly bacteria, which antibiotics indiscriminately kill along with the bad guys.

Dr. Ronald D. Whitmont, an MD and homeopath has written: "Antibiotics do not cure infections. This is a common misconception, even among physicians." Actually, antibiotics reduce the load of pathogenic bacteria to a level that allows the host's immune system to overcome the invasion. Dr. Whitmont continues, "Neither the antibiotic nor the host's immune response is sufficient to break the [Lyme] cycle. The continued use of stronger and broader spectrum [antibiotic] agents only weakens the immune system further and allows the infection to slip deeper into organs … ."

So, continued use of antibiotics for Lyme Disease is counter productive, even dangerous. With early detection and immune system support, there have been some successes for Lyme with short term antibiotic use. Though for the wrong reasons, the Medical Mafia's refusal to continue with long term antibiotic therapy and little or no immune system support is a blessing in disguise for Lyme sufferers!

The real tragedy is that the documentary didn't probe into alternative solutions, condemning victims to the prospect of a life on antibiotics, if only the mainstream medical profession would provide it and insurers would cover it. This life long antibiotic dependency would likely guarantee a life of worsening health.

Part II will disclose actual alternative solutions to Lyme disease that the documentary ignored.

Probably because of such cooperation at work and at home, the study achieved an unprecedented result in the adherence rates. The first year achieved 95 percent adherence; after the second 85 percent stayed with the diet.

All three diets, which featured an increase in vegetables and the omission of trans-fats and processed foods, combined with calorie reduction, led to weight loss. In most diets, the dieters lose weight at first and start re-gaining after six months. This regimen showed that there might be some weight gained back, but a long-term change to one of these diet strategies can reduce carotid atherosclerosis. This is most true for those who are mildly obese and experience a decrease of more than ten pounds in weight and more than seven mmHg in systolic blood pressure.

The main diet changes call for reducing the amount of red meat, eating more fruits and veggies and eliminating as many sugars as possible, including alcohol and fruit juices.

The five most critical foods to avoid are doughnuts, chips, fried non-fish seafood, soda and French fries. If these items could gradually be replaced by dark green and cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, collard greens, kale, mustard greens, turnip greens, Brussel sprouts), spinach and Swiss chard, over time, weight will come off and arteries will become less clogged.

The scientists measured changes in carotid artery vessel thickening caused by plaque. At the end of the two years, there was a five percent decrease in average carotid vessel-wall volume and a one percent decrease in carotid artery thickness. Dr. Shai was especially interested in the finding that the changes to the vessel wall volume, caused solely by diet changes, could actually be seen and measured in the arteries.

Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets were the most effective for inducing weight loss. More favorable effects on lipids were obtained with the low-carbohydrate diet, while glycemic control (fasting glucose levels) among the study`s diabetics improved with the Mediterranean diet. The weight loss itself is what brought about the changes in blood pressure and plaque.

A major factor in the study was the cooperation of the workplace. It clearly can be seen that such health-improving changes as artery wall thinning and lowering of blood pressure, along with weight control, involve the cooperation of both the subject`s home and work environment.

The importance of the study is not only in regard to the ramifications for weight loss, but also in the fact that atherosclerosis and blood pressure are direct risk factors for strokes and heart attacks. Even though atherosclerosis increases with age, there are tools which can reverse the process.

For example, antidepressants may be effective when used by those who are severely depressed. But the drugs may be much less useful for someone moderately depressed because the side effects outweigh the benefits. The patient takes the antidepressant and absorbs whatever risks taking the drug involves without receiving an equal benefit in terms of the alleviation of his/her depression.

Among mammograms, both older and younger women may have breast cancer risks. But the risk of dying is lower among younger women than older ones. Therefore, the benefit of a mammogram in relation to the risks involved in the procedure is lower among older women. Adverse effects of a mammogram include false positives, biopsies, anxiety, over-diagnosis and treatment of latent cancers which might not ever have become malignant.

When tests or procedures are repeated needlessly, harm is done if those procedures involve, for example, tomographic scanning to 'follow' renal stones or some other feature considered indicative of possible cancerous development; the radiation used in tracking could induce the feared cancer.
A study that examined regional differences in Medicare spending on patients hospitalized between the years 1993-1995 for conditions such as hip fracture, colon cancer, or heart disease concluded that enrollees in higher-spending regions received 60 % more care but did not enjoy better outcomes or greater satisfaction than persons in lower-spending regions. Another study came to the same conclusion but observed that in some cases preventive care was actually worse when more care was available.

Another study examined the use of high-tech devices and found that medical technology elevates health costs without a corresponding increase in health benefits. For example, implanted cardioverter-defibrillators, a battery-powered device implanted in the chest, were first used on people who had survived cardiac arrest. Later, their use was extended to those who had not experienced cardiac arrest.

However, in 90% of cases, the wearer is exposed to the risk of infection and possible shocks, without realizing any life-saving benefit. The devices cost $30,000, making them cost-effective only for those at risk of cardiac failure.

Similar findings were made in the use of CT and MRI scans. There is no evidence that CTs or MRIs improve or prolong life, or that their use is cost-effective. Yet this technology is used to screen patients.

In "Failing the Acid Test: Benefits of Proton Pump Inhibitors May Not Justify the Risks for Many Users" Michael H. Katz, MD, warns that proton pump inhibitors are overprescribed by 53 to 69 percent. Used for erosive and ulcerative esophagitis, Barrett esophagus, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, gastroesophageal reflux disease as well as short-term treatment of ulcer disease, the drugs are also prescribed for 'inappropriate indications.' Risk factors include community-acquired pneumonia and changes in bone mineral density.

Reasons for over-prescription are fear of malpractice suits and the perception that less medical care means worse medical care.