Month: June 2010

Critics note that the ACS condemnation of the toxins report is far from the first time the Society has taken a stance that benefits those it has ties to while disputing expert reports and studies. Indeed, the ACS dispute of the report is merely the latest in a long line of controversial stances that appear to be self-serving and against the public interest.

Another example is the ACS's continued support of mammograms. Concerns over the safety and efficacy of mammograms have been widely reported dating all the way back to 1977, including several notable studies supporting such concerns. In spite of those studies and concerns, the ACS has remained a staunch supporter of mammograms. Notably, the ACS has strong ties to the mammography industry.

Last year the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that mammograms increased "the burden of low-risk cancers without significantly reducing the burden of more aggressively growing cancers and therefore not resulting in the anticipated reduction in cancer mortality". After the JAMA paper, it was initially reported that the ACS would finally change their stance on mammograms – as they once did with tobacco after years of stonewalling. However, the pro-mammogram interests in the ACS apparently won out and such reports were later denied.

As Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society stated: "We are not redoing or rethinking our guidelines at this time, nor are we going to restate our guidelines to emphasize the inadequacies of screening."

Although the ACS annually pleads poverty, it actually takes in more money than any other US charity and has huge cash reserves, property and other assets. Further, despite public promises to do everything to "wipe out cancer in your lifetime," the ACS has failed to make its voice heard in Congress and regulatory agencies. Instead, the ACS has repeatedly rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congressional committees and other agencies and groups to provide scientific testimony critical to legislate and regulate a wide range of occupational and environmental carcinogens.

The scope of the ACS failure to act is illustrated by increases in a wide range of cancers, including:

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has increased 76 percent mostly due to phenoxy herbicides and phenylenediamine hair dyes.

Testicular cancer has increased by 49 percent due to pesticides, harmful ingredients in personal care products and estrogen residues in meat.

Malignant melanoma has increased by 168 percent due to the use of toxic sunscreen products that fail to block long wave ultraviolet light.

Thyroid cancer has increased by 124 percent due in large part to ionizing radiation.

Childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent due to ionizing radiation, domestic pesticides, nitrite preservatives in meats and parental exposures to occupational carcinogens.

Ovarian cancer (mortality) for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due largely to genital use of talc powder.

Breast cancer has increased 17 percent due to a wide range of factors including birth control pills, estrogen replacement therapy, ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products, and mammogram and other diagnostic radiation.

"The question is no longer whether overdiagnosis occurs, but how should we react to it," said H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, author of an accompanying editorial. "It's not an imperative to be screened; in fact, it's a close call."

Overdiagnosis refers to the detection of a non-life threatening cancer. In general, breast cancers come in three types: aggressive cancers that spread before they can be detected, cancers that spread slowly enough to be detected and treated early, and cancers that spread so slowly they pose no threat. Unfortunately, mammograms are best at detecting cancers in the latter category and not in the first two, and there is no way to distinguish the cancers from each other without watching them progress.

In the new study, researchers examined breast cancer rates in parts of Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom both before and after national screening programs begin. If mammograms are actually saving lives, then there should have been an increase in the number of aggressive breast cancer cases being diagnosed. Yet while the rate of cancer diagnosis did increase, there was no increase in diagnosis of the dangerous kind.

The researchers estimated that for 2,000 women who receive mammograms regularly over a 10-year period, one life will be saved and 10 women will be needlessly treated for cancer — including chemotherapy, radiation and even breast removal.

"For too long, we've taken a brain-dead approach that says the best test is the one that finds the most cancers — but that's wrong," Welch said. "The best test is the one that finds the right cancers and nothing else."

by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Five health care facilities have signed an agreement with the New York Attorney General's Office to settle charges that they polluted the state's watersheds by dumping pharmaceutical products down sinks and toilets.

In 2008, and Associated Press investigation revealed that the drinking water consumed by more than one-sixth of the U.S. population is contaminated with trace (but potentially biologically active) amounts of over-the-counter and prescription drugs. While some of these chemicals enter sewage systems after being excreted by people taking the drugs, many of them were traced back to a common practice in hospitals and other health-care facilities: disposing of unused pharmaceuticals by flushing them down sinks or toilets.

After state tests of New York watersheds revealed widespread pharmaceutical contamination, the Attorney General's Office launched an investigation. Eventually, five facilities — Putnam Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Holmes in Putnam County, and O'Connor Hospital, Countryside Care Center, Margaretville Memorial Hospital and Mountainside Residential Care Center in Delaware County — were charged with numerous federal and state violations, including failure to properly track, label, store and dispose of drugs. The hospitals and nursing homes were found to have improperly dumped antibiotics, antidepressants, hormones, painkillers and other pharmaceutical products directly into the state water supply.

The watersheds contaminated supply water to New York City's eight million residents, as well as another one million people in several counties to the north.

Each facility will pay a fine of between $3,500 and $12,500. Although state law does not prohibit the dumping of all pharmaceuticals down the drain — only some — the facilities have agreed to end the practice completely.

Ten other health care facilities in the state are also being investigated for watershed pollution through drug dumping. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo called the practice "an emerging threat."

The Environmental Protection Agency has classified pharmaceutical products as "contaminants of growing concern."

"Events are revealing that many of the things we take for granted, like bank accounts, fuel and food, are vulnerable," he writes. "If we value civilization, the litmus test for economic success should not be short-term profitability, but resilience in the face of climatic extremes and resource shortages."

Simms notes that the assumptions of the free market have led to an economic system focused on producing the greatest cost savings rather than the greatest sustainability. This has led many First World countries to turn away from producing food domestically in favor of cheaper (and more profitable) imports.

"The result is easily disrupted just-in-time supermarket food supply lines, and a risky assumption that anything we need can easily be bought on global markets," he writes.

Yet recent worldwide food shortages — such as the 2008 food crisis that affected at least 37 countries and produced riots around the globe — have shown that when faced with a crisis, countries prioritize feeding their own populations over exporting food to other nations. Some First World governments and corporations have responded by trying to seize control of up to 20 million hectares (50 million acres) of arable land in poor countries.

Anger over such practices led to the toppling of Madascar's government.

Simms notes that Britain has no food reserves to speak of and that its domestic food production continues to decline. Similar patterns are at play for other essentials, such as fuel. Meanwhile, declining worldwide fuel reserves and global climate destabilization are increasing the odds of a new food crisis.

"This year is the 10th anniversary of the fuel protests, when supermarket bosses sat with ministers and civil servants in Whitehall warning that there were just three days of food left," Simms writes. "We were, in effect, nine meals from anarchy. Civilization's veneer may be much thinner than we like to think."

Several key advisors who urged WHO to declare a pandemic received direct financial compensation from the very same vaccine manufacturers who received a windfall of profits from the pandemic announcement. During all this, WHO refused to disclose any conflicts of interests between its top advisors and the drug companies who would financially benefit from its decisions.

All the kickbacks, in other words, were swept under the table and kept silent, and WHO somehow didn't think it was important to let the world know that it was receiving policy advice from individuals who stood to make millions of dollars when a pandemic was declared.

WHO credibility destroyed
The report was authored by Deborah Cohen (BMJ features editor), and Philip Carter, a journalist who works for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London. In their report, Cohen states, "…our investigation has revealed damaging issues. If these are not addressed, H1N1 may yet claim its biggest victim — the credibility of the WHO and the trust in the global public health system."

In response to the report, WHO secretary-general Dr Margaret Chan defended the secrecy, saying that WHO intentionally kept the financial ties a secret in order to "…protect the integrity and independence of the members while doing this critical work… [and] also to ensure transparency."

Dr Chan apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "transparency." Then again, WHO has always twisted reality in order to serve its corporate masters, the pharmaceutical giants who profit from disease. To say that they are keeping the financial ties a secret in order to "protect the integrity" of the members is like saying we're all serving alcohol at tonight's AA meeting in order to keep everybody off the bottle.

It just flat out makes no sense.

But since when did making sense have anything to do with WHO's decision process anyway?

Even Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, had harsh words for the WHO, saying, "…its credibility has been badly damaged. WHO must act now to restore its credibility."

Yet more criticism for WHO
The BMJ isn't the only medical publication criticizing WHO for its poor handling of conflicts of interest. Another report from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly also criticized WHO, saying: "Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level." It went on to explain that WHO's actions led to "a waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large."

The funny thing is, NaturalNews and other natural health advocates told you all the same thing a year ago, and we didn't have to spend millions of dollars on a study to arrive at this conclusion. It was obvious to anyone who knows just how corrupt the sick-care industry really is. They'll do practically anything to make more money, including bribing WHO scientific advisors and paying them kickbacks once the vaccine sales surge.

The vaccine industry and all its drug pushers are, of course, criticizing this investigative report. They say WHO "had no choice" but to declare a pandemic and recommend vaccines, since vaccines are the only treatment option for influenza. That's a lie, of course: Vitamin D has been scientifically proven to be five times more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections, but WHO never recommended vitamin D to anyone.

The entire focus was on pushing more high-profit vaccines, not recommending the things that would actually help people the most. And now we know why: The more vulnerable people were to the pandemic, the more would be killed by H1N1, thereby "proving" the importance of vaccination programs.

People were kept ignorant of natural remedies, in other words, to make sure more people died and a more urgent call for mass vaccination programs could be carried out. (A few lives never gets in the way of Big Pharma profits, does it?)

How the scam really worked
Here's a summary of how the WHO vaccine scam worked:

Step 1) Exaggerate the risk: WHO hypes up the pandemic risk by declaring a phase 6 pandemic even when the mortality rate of the virus was so low that it could be halted with simple vitamin D supplements.

Step 2) Urge countries to stockpile: WHO urged nations around the world to stockpile H1N1 vaccines, calling it a "public health emergency."

Step 3) Collect the cash: Countries spend billions of dollars buying and stockpiling H1N1 vaccines while Big Pharma pockets the cash.

Step 4) Get your kickbacks: WHO advisors, meanwhile, collected their kickbacks from the vaccine manufacturers. Those kickbacks were intentionally kept secret.

Step 5) Keep people afraid: In order to keep demand for the vaccines as high as possible, WHO continued to flame the fears by warning that H1N1 was extremely dangerous and everybody should continue to get vaccinated. (The CDC echoed the same message in the USA.)

This is how WHO pulled off one of the greatest vaccine pandemic scams in the last century, and it worked like gangbusters. WHO advisors walked away with loads of cash, the drug companies stockpiled huge profits, and the taxpayers of nations around the world were left saddled with useless vaccines rotting on the shelves that will soon have to be destroyed (at additional taxpayer cost, no doubt) or dumped down the drain (where they will contaminate the waterways).

Meanwhile, nobody dared tell the public the truth about vitamin D, thereby ensuring that the next pandemic will give them another opportunity to repeat the exact same scam (for yet more profit).

The criminality of the vaccine industry
The bottom line is all this is a frightening picture of just how pathetic the vaccine industry has become and how corrupt the WHO and the CDC really are. What took place here is called corruption and bribery, folks. Kickbacks were paid, lies were told and governments were swindled out of billions of dollars. These are felony crimes being committed by our global health leaders.

The real question is: Why do governments continue to allow public health organizations to be so easily corrupted by the vaccine industry? And who will stand up to this profit conspiracy that exploits members of the public as if they were profit-generating guinea pigs?

The next time you hear the WHO say anything, just remember: Their advisors are on the take from the drug companies, and just about anything you're likely to hear from the World Health Organization originates with a profit motive rather than a commitment to public health.

Oh, and by the way… for the record, there has never been a single scientific study ever published showing that H1N1 vaccines worked. Not only was the H1N1 pandemic a fraud to begin with, but the medicine they claimed treated it was also based on fraud. And now we know the rest of the story of why it was all done: Kickbacks from Big Pharma, paid to advisors who told WHO to declare a pandemic.

"The idea of deliberately manipulating Earth's energy balance to offset human-driven climate change strikes many as dangerous hubris," wrote David Keith of the University of Calgary, Canada, Edward Parson of the University of Michigan and Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University.

"Many scientists have argued against research on solar radiation management, saying that developing the capability to perform such tasks will reduce the political will to lower greenhouse gas emissions. We think that the risks of not doing research outweigh the risks of doing it."

The practice of "geoengineering" consists of finding ways to limit the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, thus slowing the rate of planetary warming. Suggested methods include simulating a massive volcanic eruption by generating sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere, or spraying tiny seawater droplets to create low clouds over the ocean. Although the subject was considered fringe only a few years ago, scientific interest in geoengineering is on the rise.

The article's authors noted that geoengineering cannot be a substitute for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, but could stave off catastrophic warming until emissions reductions can take effect.

Suggested drawbacks of geoengineering include altering weather patterns and a failure to address increasing acidity of oceans caused by increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

The scientists said that the time to study the benefits and drawbacks of geoengineering is now, before countries are driven by desperation to initiate projects on their own, without international consensus.

"It is plausible that, after exhausting other avenues to limit climate risks, such a nation might decide to begin a gradual, well-monitored program of deployment, even without any international agreement on its regulation," they warned. "In this case, one nation — which need not be a large and rich industrialized country — could seize the initiative on global climate, making it extremely difficult for other powers to restrain it."

by: Ethan A. Huff

(NaturalNews) Many people are already aware of the fact that vitamin E helps to rid the body of free radicals and protect it from cancer, cardiovascular disease, heart disease and other serious illness. However there are two forms of vitamin E that each serve a unique purpose: tocopherols and tocotrienols. While tocopherols are the most common form of vitamin E available on the market, tocotrienols are just now beginning to emerge in the Western world as a superior addition to the vitamin E family, particularly in the form of palm fruit oil where they are most richly found.

Utopia Naturals Soap

Most available vitamin E supplements contain only mixed tocopherols, or alpha, beta, delta and gamma tocopherols. These four tocopherols represent only half of the vitamin E family, and research is now revealing that alpha, beta, delta and gamma tocotrienols are also necessary to provide the full range of antioxidant power contained in vitamin E. Together, these eight compounds offer complete antioxidant protection.

Tocotrienols are roughly 50 times more potent than tocopherols when it comes to antioxidant power. Recent studies have shown that tocotrienols distribute themselves more evenly than tocopherols do in the fatty layers of cell membranes. They are effective at preventing and treating serious degenerative diseases like cancer, stroke-induced injuries, diabetes, osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. In one study, tocotrienols increased the lifespan of laboratory rats by 20 percent.

So why are tocopherols, rather than tocotrienols, the most prevalent form of vitamin E on the market? Many foods and oils are rich in tocopherols, but few contain significant levels of tocotrienols. In fact, most of the popular oils used in food preparation – olive, soybean, safflower, sunflower, corn, cotton and peanut – contain only tocopherols. The only oil that contains significant levels of all four types of tocotrienols is palm fruit oil.

Although tocopherols are generally sufficient for meeting minimum vitamin E levels and maintaining an average level of good health, there is far more to be gained from getting the full range of both tocopherols and tocotrienols. Rice bran oil, wheat germ, barley, oats, coconut oil and palm kernel oil all contain one or more types of tocotrienols as well, however none besides palm fruit oil contain all four types.

Palm fruit oil is composed of 30 percent tocopherols and 70 percent tocotrienols. The oil is extracted from the fleshy mesocarp of the palm fruit, and is useful in a myriad of food preparations. It is said to be the most widely used oil in the world, perhaps because it is more heat stable than other vegetable oils and provides superior taste and texture qualities.

Aside from preventing and treating the serious illnesses mentioned above, palm oil improves blood circulation and prevents clotting, boosts immunity, improves general nutrient absorption, supports healthy lung and liver function, strengthens bones and teeth, reinforces eye health and supports brain function. Studies have shown that virgin red palm oil is the variety that offers the most medicinal benefit, but all varieties seem to be beneficial.

Contrails or Chemtrails?

The difference is obvious to the naked eye. Contrails appear only at high altitudes, are thinner or more narrow than chemtrails, and dissipate very quickly. They are never longer than a few aircraft lengths, and they don't linger at all. Contrails are nothing more than exhaust vapors that have crystallized in the upper altitude's cold air, and those small ice crystals melt or evaporate quickly.

Chemtrails are much wider and thicker. They are long enough to cover the sky from horizon to horizon. As they linger, they get even wider, and they tend to drift toward the ground or space out into artificially created cloud patterns. What separates these patterns from contrails further is that they are not normal aircraft traffic patterns.

These differences are not from atmospheric conditions. You can see chemtrails and contrails in the same sky at the same time.

Chemtrails have been observed and photographed with tic-tac-toe patterns or huge Xs in the sky. Aircraft are often seen making U-turns to spray another trail. And unlike contrails, they can be shut off and on again.

The Toxins

Analyzed residues from chemtrails always show high levels of barium, aluminum oxide, strontium, and titanium, all heavy metals that we breathe in every time they spray. If they are apparently sprayed from or close to the engines, then traces of an extremely toxic banned jet fuel element, EDB or dibromoethane, are found in collected specimens.

These are in small enough particulate forms to breath in and contaminate soils and waters. Barium salts have been aerosol sprayed as chemical warfare agents. Barium can be more toxic than lead. Chronic aluminum exposure can cause all sorts of neurological damage and dementia. EDB is a carcinogenic nerve gas agent that causes severe neurological damage.

Even if you are not feeling immediate effects from these toxins, your immune system is compromised by constantly fighting them off. One needs be almost constantly detoxing!

How Come?

The exact hows and whys are unknown. That's due to information being mostly squelched, ignored or marginalized by the mainstream media, and by government agencies at all levels. It's like a vaccine injury cover up deja vu.

Recently, the City Council of the remote and pristine Mt. Shasta, California, dismissed factual reports of wildlife dieing off from these very toxins gathered from streams, rivers, and mountain top snow. The local paper made the chemtrail activists look like conspiracy kooks.

A retired conservative couple in rural Canada became concerned with the chemtrail activity over their homestead a few years ago. They took their years of acquired information, including photos and specimens, to a regional health agency, and they were dismissed as cranks.

When occasionally cornered with a large public outcry, the higher level agencies claim that chemtrails are part of a military exercise for radar jamming using metal particulates, or that they are geoengineering with aerosol sprayed metal particulates to create an atmospheric shield for global warming prevention.

So ultimately they're not denying the existence of chemtrails. They are leaving that denial up to all those who won't look up or even accept their existence as other than contrails when it's directly pointed out to them in the sky.