Month: May 2011

Categories
Featured Articles

Experts Agree – Sugar Is A Health Destroyer

by: Anthony Gucciardi

(NaturalNews) With many sugar-related stories recently leaking into the mainstream media, the negative effects of sugar have been a subject of intense debate. Adding proverbial fuel to the biological fire, a video lecture by a prominent California doctor entitled "Sugar: The Bitter Truth," has been generating over 50,000 views per month. As the sugar debate garners even more media attention, prominent health experts are voicing their opposition to excess sugar consumption. It seems that the information regarding sugar that was at one time considered exclusive to the alternative health community may soon become common knowledge.

Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, is one of the leading experts on sugar and how it is broken down by the body. In addition to being the lecturer responsible for the viral video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth," Dr. Lustig is also a leading expert on childhood obesity. In his lecture, Dr. Lustig asserts that sugar is a toxic substance that wreaks havoc on the body. Since fructose is the number one source of calories in the U.S., this assertion should not be taken lightly. In fact, the average U.S. citizen consumes around 150 grams of sugar each day; whereas, some experts believe that an acceptable amount of daily sugar may be as low as 25 grams per day.

The impact of sugar on the body does not stop at obesity. Fructose has been found to raise uric acid levels, leading to decreased nitric oxide levels, elevated angiotensin levels, and smooth muscle cell contractions that lead to higher blood pressure and potential kidney damage. Higher uric acid levels have also been linked to low-level inflammation, which can lead to a large number of diseases. As a testament to the deteriorating health of the U.S. since the introduction of sugar into the primary diet of most citizens, uric acid levels among Americans have risen dramatically since the early half of the 20th century. In 1920, average uric acid levels were around 3.5 ml/dl. In sharp contrast, average uric acid levels in 1980 shot up to around 6.0 to 6.5 ml/dl. Uric acid levels above 5.5 mg per dl indicate an increased risk of developing hypertension, kidney disease, insulin resistance, fatty liver, obesity, diabetes, and a host of other conditions.

Another scary relationship is the connection between sugar and cancer. Insulin resistance, a response to prolonged and excessive sugar intake, has been fingered as a primary factor in many cancers. Lewis Cantley is the director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School. According to Cantley, as much as 80 percent of all cancers are "driven by either mutations or environmental factors that work to enhance or mimic the effect of insulin on the incipient tumor cells." This link between chronic sugar consumption and 80 percent of cancers is one that challenges the mainstream ideology of how nutrition affects the body. In addition, it is a link that must not be taken lightly.

Sugar is currently a staple of most American diets. With the primary source of calories in the U.S. coming from fructose, it may be time to rethink the way that sugar is consumed around the world. With numerous studies coming out tying sugar to a multitude of diseases, even mainstream health outlets are starting to question sugar's impact on our bodies. Perhaps it is time to put down the processed junk, and revolutionize the nation's health.

Categories
Featured Articles

Deal With Dandruff Naturally

by: Shona Botes

(NaturalNews) Dandruff is a common ailment that many people deal with on a daily basis. It is characterised by white flakes, along with an itchy and often irritated scalp. It is thought to be caused by a yeast-like fungus known as malassezia or pityrosporum. This fungus normally exists on the scalp without causing problems, but it can sometimes grow unchecked due to stress or hormone imbalances. This causes mild inflammation which produces dead skin cells. These dead cells mix with the oil on the scalp and then appear as white flakes in the hair. Many people resort to using chemical-based shampoos to treat it, but there are many natural remedies which can be used instead.

 
Tea tree oil has been used for many years as an antiseptic as well as an antifungal treatment. Many people have reported that this oil helps to reduce the symptoms and appearance of dandruff. It also helps to balance the pH levels and unclog the hair follicles. Another home remedy which is effective is apple cider vinegar. Mix a quarter cup of apple cider vinegar with a quarter cup of water. This can then be placed into a spray bottle and sprayed directly onto the hair and scalp. This solution is then left on for approximately 15 minutes while the hair is wrapped in a towel. Once the towel is removed, the hair can then be washed normally. This treatment can be done once or twice each week.

Unrefined coconut oil is one of the best dandruff treatments available. By warming it up and massaging it gently into the scalp, it will help to reduce itchiness and normalise the scalp. This is best left on the scalp for a few hours at a time before washing it off.

Jojoba oil is also an excellent treatment for dandruff as it helps to moisturize and nourish the hair and scalp. Because it is a natural moisturising agent, there will not be any oily build up on the hair after using it.

Biotin is a water-soluble form of Vitamin B that helps to break down carbohydrates, fats and proteins. This nutrient helps to strengthen the hair substantially. It can be taken in supplement form or naturally. It is found in many foods such as organic egg yolk, royal jelly, brewer`s yeast, Organic Raw Certified milk and organic liver. Biotin is also produced naturally by bacteria within the intestines.

By using natural remedies, you will not have to resort to using chemical-based shampoos and treatments, which can often cause even more scalp irritation.

Categories
Featured Articles

Nations With High Vaccine Rates Tend To Have High Infant Mortality Rates

(NaturalNews) A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology (http://het.sagepub.com/content/earl…), a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, found that nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates tend to give their infants more vaccine doses. For example, the United States requires infants to receive 26 vaccines — the most in the world — yet more than six U.S. infants die per every 1000 live births. In contrast, Sweden and Japan administer 12 vaccines to infants, the least amount, and report less than three deaths per 1000 live births.

Vaccine Protocol

The authors of the study, Neil Z. Miller and Dr. Gary Goldman, conducted a literature review to determine the immunization schedules for the United States and all 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States. The total number of vaccine doses specified for infants aged less than one year was then determined for each country. The 34 nations were then organized into data pairs consisting of total number of vaccine doses specified for their infants and infant mortality rates. A scatter plot of the data pairs provided evidence of a positive correlation: infant mortality rates and vaccine doses tend to increase together.

Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges. The mean infant mortality rates of all nations within each group were then calculated. Analysis showed "a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates."

It is instructive to note that many developing nations require their infants to receive multiple vaccine doses and have national vaccine coverage rates (a percentage of the target population that has been vaccinated) of 90% or better, yet their infant mortality rates are poor. Infant mortality rates will remain high in nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care.

Nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates give their infants, on average, more vaccine doses. This positive correlation, derived from the data, elicits an important inquiry: Are some infant deaths associated with over-vaccination? Is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health?

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS):

There is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months — the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT "may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits." It appears as though some infant deaths attributed to SIDS may be vaccine related, perhaps associated with biochemical or synergistic toxicity due to over-vaccination.

All nations have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.

You may download the complete study at: http://het.sagepub.com/content/earl…

Funding Acknowledgment: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Open Access: The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) donated $2500 and Michael Belkin donated $500 (in memory of his daughter, Lyla) for open access to the journal article (making it freely available to all researchers). NVIC is dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education.

About the author:
Neil Z. Miller is an independent researcher. He has devoted the last 25 years to educating parents and health practitioners about vaccines, encouraging informed consent and non-mandatory laws. Mr. Miller gives talks on vaccines both locally and nationally. Past organizations that he has lectured for include the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association, the International College of Integrative Medicine, Autism One/Generation Rescue, the Hahnemann Academy of North America, and the University of Virginia. In June 2011, Mr. Miller will be giving a vaccine seminar at Dr. Gabriel Cousens' Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center. Mr. Miller has a degree in psychology and is a member of Mensa. 

Categories
Featured Articles

Plastics Chemical In Packaged Foods Linked To Asthma In Babies

by: Kaitlyn Moore

(NaturalNews) BPA, also known as bisphenol-A, is a chemical compound often used in the production of a large variety of plastics. The widespread use of BPA has come under public scrutiny due to known connection to a host of health problems, including heart complications, cancer, neurological issues, diabetes and fertility and sexual issues.

The chemical can be found in water bottles, dental fillings, plastic containers, canned food linings, paper receipts, CD/DVD packaging, and more. Numerous studies have found that BPA acts as an endocrine system disrupter, negatively affecting our bodies' hormone production. Exposure is almost a certainty -a 2004 study by the CDC found BPA in 93% of the over 2000 urine samples tested.

So, it shouldn't surprise you that new information has surfaced linking BPA to breathing issues in babies. An article in Mail Online, discussed the results of a recent study by Penn State College of Medicine. The results found that pregnant mothers with high levels of BPA in their blood during the 16th week of pregnancy are "twice as likely to have infants with wheezing problems in the first six months of life." What is really scary is that 99% of all the mothers in this study had various levels of bisphenol-A in their systems.

There is no question that the use of bisphenol-A use in food and drinking containers should be banned. Even though no country has yet to go that far, Denmark  was the first country in the EU to ban the chemical in containers that target children under 3; and the entire EU has banned it from use in the production of baby bottles. Northern America has been a bit slower on the uptake but Canada and some states in the United States have begun taking steps to control the use of bisphenol- A in consumer products. Six baby bottle manufacturers removed the chemical from their U.S. bottle production after widespread public outcry.

Of course, the plastics industry prefers to spend money to procure studies… that cast doubt on the dangers of BPA, rather than implanting BPA safe alternatives. So again, consumers must take steps to protect themselves. Expectant mothers and women planning to conceive should be diligent in avoidance of bisphenol-A contaminated products- it is imperative for the well being of themselves and their infants.

Categories
Featured Articles

Does Eating Lots Of Salt Really Affect Blood Pressure?

by: Ethan A. Huff

(NaturalNews) A new European study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association defies conventional wisdom concerning salt intake and heart health, suggesting that high salt consumption does not always lead to high blood pressure and heart disease.

Himalayan Salt

Researchers from the University of Leuven in Belgium analyzed data on 3,700 Europeans that contributed urine samples at the beginning of the study, none of whom had heart disease, and two-thirds of whom had normal blood pressure. All participants were assigned to either low-salt, moderate-salt, or high-salt diets, and were then evaluated over the course of eight years.

At the conclusion of the study, the research team observed that heart and blood vessel disease rates did not differ among the salt intake groups. However, four percent of those in the low-salt group died from heart disease, while only one percent died in the high-salt group, indicating that low-salt diets may actually be more of a health risk than high-salt diets.

Additionally, roughly 25 percent of all participants, no matter what group they were assigned to, ended up with high blood pressure during or at the completion of the study. Overall, there were no significant differences observed between salt intake groups, other than a slight increase in systolic blood pressure among those in the high-salt groups. But researchers say the increase was so small that it is likely inconsequential.

"It's clear that one should be very careful in advocating generalized reduction in sodium intake in the population at large," stated Dr. Jan Staessen, author of the study. "There might be some benefits, but there might also be some adverse effects."

It is unclear precisely what type of sodium was used in the study. Highly processed, synthetic salts, and other artificial salt additives, are highly toxic to the body. Natural, unrefined, full-spectrum sea and mineral salts, on the other hand, provide the body with necessary trace minerals, as well as beneficial sodium that helps keep the body properly hydrated

Categories
Ask Utopia Silver

CS for Hair Growth?

Q:
Utopia,
Has anyone ever used CS for hair growth?  My hair has periods when it falls out, and I just wondered if CS could help.

Carol in North CarolinaA:
Hi Carol,
I have heard that claim made, but I’m not personally convinced.

I do know what your problem may be. Unlike men, most women who loose hair have a thyroid issue. This can usually be corrected by rebuilding the thyroid gland with Iodine and a product like Thytrophin.

Ben in Utopia.

Categories
Uncategorized

Natural Health: Feeling Well With Candida Involves Diet Change

By Catherine Stack Niagara GazetteNIAGARA FALLS — A significant number of people suffer from systemic Candida or, more commonly, yeast.  Candida has a chameleon-like ability to change from non-invasive, sugar-fermenting yeast to a fungal form that has long root-like structures that can penetrate the intestinal mucosa.

 

This condition is commonly referred to as leaky gut syndrome, which is responsible for releasing toxins into the blood stream.  This in turn leads to a wide range of problems from bloating, constipation and gas, to food sensitivities and allergies.  Slow wound healing is also common with Candida overgrowth.When people take antibiotics to cure infection or illness they fail to recognize that the good, health-protecting bacteria are also destroyed, leaving yeast (Candida) to flourish and take over.  It is the beneficial bacteria that keeps Candida at bay in a healthy body.  The over use of antibiotics is partially responsible for the large numbers of people who suffer from systemic Candida. Even antibiotic residues in commercial meat contribute to setting the stage for overgrowth. Other common medications that contribute to yeast overgrowth are birth control pills and steroids.

Many physicians are not familiar treating Candida overgrowth as the symptoms can present non-specific and vague.  In women, the diagnosis of yeast infection is simple to make and treat.  But for those who suffer from an occasional vaginal yeast infection, are likely loaded and should consider systemic treatment. The problem with using with topical and oral preparations such as Monistat and Diflucan is that it will potentially lead to resistant Candida issues.  These medications work well initially but because the underlying cause is rarely addressed, results are usually temporary and overgrowth will most likely strike again. If diet and supplementation are not addressed the medicinal action is only likely to suppress, not eradicate the problem.

Sugar, which is Candida’s favorite food, along with a diet full of refined carbohydrates (breads, crackers, etc), makes the battle almost impossible to win.  A strict Candida diet must be followed for at least 1 month or more.  This diet eliminates most dairy, all sugar, most fruits, alcohol and bread products.  This leaves you with what nature intended you to eat anyway.  Fish, vegetables, meat, lots of pure water, herbal teas (especially Pau d’Arco) and some whole grains such as quinoa would make you feel great in a very short period of time. Emphasis should be placed on foods known to have anti-fungal properties such as garlic, onions, broccoli, cabbage, kale, collards, Brussels sprouts, olive and flax oils, cinnamon and cloves.

The downside of getting rid of systemic yeast is usually short lived, but the symptoms can feel almost flu-like for a few days.  The sugar cravings will be pretty intense as well — the yeast want to be fed.

Diet modifications, as discussed above, are going to make or break your success when it comes to eradicating yeast. Nutritional supplements such as probiotic’s, colloidal silver, Vitamin C, herbal or homeopathic combination formulas are extremely helpful when it comes to killing yeast.  Alternative therapies such as colon hydrotherapy and FIR Infrared heat therapy will help to remove yeast die-off quicker than your body will do it on its own.

One of the most important things you can do to prevent systemic yeast overgrowth is to supplement with probiotics on a regular basis but especially when finishing a course of antibiotics.  So if you suffer from bloating, sugar cravings, sensitivity to smells, bad breath or body odor, joint pain or hard to diagnose skin rashes, be very suspicious of a yeast invasion.

Catherine Stack is a doctor of naturopathy and certified nurse midwife. Her practice is located at Journey II Health in Niagara Falls. She can be reached at 298-8603 or at her website at journeyiihealth.com.

Categories
Featured Articles

The Gullible Mind Explained

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) In light of the string of the blatant falsehoods being announced by the U.S. government these days (FDA, DHS, White House, etc.) it's interesting that so many people still believe whatever they are told by "official" sources. It brings up the question of the functioning of their brains: How could a person swallow official information so gullibly and so completely without even asking commonsense questions about the reliability or factual basis of that information?

These people, it turns out, are operating from what I called The Gullible Mind. It is a psychological processing malfunction that filters out information based on its source rather than its integrity. People who operate from The Gullible Mind tend to have misplaced trust in governments, institutions, mainstream news networks, doctors, scientists or anyone who wears the garb of apparent authority.

Whereas a normal, intelligent person would raise commonsense questions about information they receive from all sources, the Gullible Mind wholly accepts virtually any information from sources that occupy the role of apparent authority in society.

Governments never lie
But how does this work inside their heads? It's an interesting process. Gullible Mind people do believe it is possible for a government (or institution) to lie; but they believe that governments, institutions and doctors choose NOT to lie even when it would serve their own self interests to do so.

Follow this carefully, because this is the fascinating part. These Gullible Mind people effectively believe that even though a government official could lie about something, they would never actually do so. And why wouldn't they? Because, ultimately, the Gullible Mind crowd believes that governments, institutions and mainstream media outlets operate from a sort of honor code. So even if it were in the interests of our own government to lie to us, it would never happen because that would violate this imaginary honor code.

Where does this honor code exist? Where is it written down? Nowhere, of course. It is imaginary. But to The Gullible Mind, it seems real. Interestingly, even though this "honor code" only exists in the imagination of The Gullible Mind person, they project this honor code onto sources of authority, imagining that they abide by it.

Extreme gullibility
This is how The Gullible Mind person believes that network news always reports the truth. The news networks have a sense of "honor," they believe, and this sense of honor requires them to always report the truth and never manipulate the news for any nefarious purposes. So news networks never "shape" the news and they only report what is factually true without any consideration whatsoever of politics or advertiser profits.

This view of the world is, of course, laughably naive. And yet it is the core belief system of at least half the population — the Gullible Mind half that believes everything it is told by its own government, media or authority figures.

Interestingly, the Gullible Mind is also inwardly gullible because it does not recognize its own gullibility. Instead, it believes it is operating as a Rational Mind. This false Rational Mind believes it functions as a critical filter of incoming information, but even this is self deception. In truth, this false Rational Mind is on "auto filter" so that it filters out any information that conflicts with the information it is receiving from official sources.

This is the key to understanding the Gullible Mind — it isn't the quality of the information itself that matters; it is the confirmation of the story from official sources that "makes it real" in the Gullible Mind.

The Easter Bunny killed Bin Laden!
For example, let's say a Gullible Mind person comes across an announcement that says the Easter Bunny has killed Osama Bin Laden. The report claims that colored eggs were found near Bin Laden's body, and there was evidence of feathers being left at the scene, which proves the Easter Bunny was there.

Now, an intelligent, rational mind would have a lot of questions about this. For starters, rabbits don't have feathers. And the Easter Bunny is a piece of fiction, too. On top of that, how could the Easter Bunny kill Osama Bin Laden? An intelligent person would, upon reviewing the holes in the story, be forced to conclude the story is fiction. The only logical conclusion from that is that the government is lying to them.

A Gullible Mind person, however, would not ask whether rabbits have feathers, or whether the Easter Bunny is capable of conducting a military raid. Instead, the Gullible Mind person would first look to other confirming news sources in order to determine the reliability of the story. They would turn on the TV or surf the internet, looking for the news to be repeated through "official" sources.

Once they found CNN, or Fox News, or some other "official" source reporting that the Easter Bunny killed Osama Bin Laden, then that news report would instantly become "real" in their minds. Suddenly it has shifted from their mental processing queue to the "absolutely truth" part of their brain, and from that point forward, no one can question that reality in their heads.

Don't bother arguing with a Gullible Mind – they are immune to facts
At this point, their rational mind is completely shut off on the topic. No accumulation of facts can, at that point, rattle their "reality." For example, a person who believes the government's story of 9/11 has already embraced the Easter Bunny version of terrorists flying airplanes into the World Trade Center towers. So how did this act cause the WTC 7 building to collapse in a demolition-style free-fall a few hours later, when WTC 7 was never struck by airplanes? How can a steel and concrete building suddenly and magically collapse in perfect structural synchronicity merely from being on fire?

The answers don't matter to The Gullible Mind, you see. There is no room for facts inside their heads, because all the space has been taken up with what is essentially a cult-like belief in institutions of authority.

We saw this in the Heaven's Gate cult in California a few years back. The leader of that cult, a man named Applegate, positioned himself as the one and only source of authoritative information among the cult followers. So HE became the authoritative source whose information was wholly accepted without questioning or skepticism of any kind. At that point, he was able to quite easily convince his followers that an alien race was going to land a UFO on the far side of a comet, and that if they killed themselves, they would be transported onto the alien ship (or something like that).

The belief in such a story may seem silly… until you realize that the governments of the world use the exact same cult-like tactics to get their own "followers" to believe everything they say, without question. So if President Obama announced that an alien race was going to land a mother ship on the White House lawn, and that people who voted for him would have their consciousness transferred to an immortal alien body, the remarkable truth is that millions of people would believe that. Perhaps tens of millions. They would even worship him as an interstellar saint.

Remember Orson Welles' radio program that announced aliens had invaded the Earth and were destroying our cities? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wa…) Huge numbers of people believed it was really happening… and not because it made any sense, but because the information came from the source they trusted. To those people, the alien invasion was just as real back then as Bin Laden's official death is to government followers today.

Throughout history, many conspiracy theories have turned out to be true
Government lying, of course, has been going on for as long as governments have existed. Not all conspiracies theories are true, of course, but so many of them turn out to be true that the idea of "not believing" in conspiracies makes no rational sense.

To not believe in conspiracies means you don't believe two people have ever sat down and plotted to take advantage of others in some unethical and deceptive way. Well gee, that describes virtually every board meeting of every large corporation in the world! Conspiracies are not just commonplace; they're practically synonymous with modern-day capitalism! Even right now, Apple is being accused of a conspiracy to keep employee wages artificially low: http://www.appleinsider.com/article…

I wonder: Do the Gullible Mind people also not believe in that conspiracy theory? Are all conspiracy theories automatically tossed out merely because of the word "conspiracy?"

For those who don't know their history, here's a list of 33 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true: http://www.newworldorderreport.com/…

The Manhattan Project, of course, was a secret government conspiracy. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiments on African Americans was a secret medical conspiracy. Operation Northwoods was a conspiracy plot to create support for a war on Castro by staging terrorism events in U.S. cities.

These are all historical facts. They are indisputable. But to The Gullible Mind, none of this history exists. What's real is only what they are being told right now by the White House. When George Bush occupied the White House, the daily fibs were things like, "The Iraqis want us to occupy their land with military personnel because we are setting them free!" Oh yeah, that's a bit of twisted logic, for sure. But it's no different from Obama's version of the war fairytales, which includes such gems as, "We're only dropping humanitarian bombs on Libya." Or, "It's not actually war. It's only kinetic military action."

But you see, it makes no difference whether anything they say is actually true… at least not to The Gullible Mind, which believes there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory. There is no such thing as a nefarious government, either. Heck, when Columbus landed in the New World, his entire crew shared food and wine with the Native American Indians, we're told. There was no raping, no murder, no genocide. That's why we continue to celebrate Columbus Day every year! Because the Gullible Mind wants a reason to get off work for a day, even if it requires a complete revision of actual historical facts.

The most popular issues of Gullible Mind people
Vaccines are good for you – Vaccines are "safe and effective" merely because doctors and the CDC say they are, not because of any reliable scientific evidence.

The economy is in great shape – Gullible Mind people are easily influenced to stop thinking about the $14 trillion national debt that's growing by the day and simply go along with whatever economic fictions are being woven in Washington.

Governments and corporations are looking out for your best interests – The drug companies only want to find cures and make everybody healthy. The government is here to help. We should all stop asking questions and just do what we're told.

Nothing will ever run out – There's no such thing as Peak Oil. Our world can continue its throwaway economy without end, they believe. We'll never run out of gas, water, soil or natural resources. Keep using stuff up and throwing it all away!

Food additives are good for you – Otherwise, the FDA wouldn't have approved them, would they?

There's no such thing as a cure for cancer – The ultimate pessimists, the Gullible Mind crowd believes cancer has never been cured! And if a cancer cure did exist, we would know about it by now, right? (Because our scientists already know everything that's worth knowing, you see…)

There are no other non-terrestrial civilizations or beings in our universe – Amazingly, we are the only intelligent forms of life that have ever existed, they believe. Any talk of non-Earth intelligence is just a bunch of "fringe" nonsense. There was never any life on Mars, either.

Herbs and plants have no medicinal value – That's right, only conventional medicine can "treat" you, because that's what the doctors say. Herbs and plants have zero biological value beyond their calories alone, they insist.

… and on it goes, one delusion after another. A Gullible Mind, it seems, will believe almost anything if it comes from a "trusted" source. But that same Gullible Mind will discount straight-up facts if they don't come from those same trusted sources.

How to stop being a Gullible Mind
Interestingly, most of the people who are intelligent, skeptical thinkers today used to be Gullible Mind people at one time or another. There was a point where they simply "awakened" and began to consciously question the world around them.

Intelligent, informed skeptics are the people asking questions like:

• Why do twenty different mainstream news sources all report the exact same news, using the exact same words, on the exact same day? (http://www.naturalnews.com/032022_m…) If they were all investigating and writing their own news, wouldn't their news be different?

• Why did Wall Street get a multi-trillion-dollar bailout from Washington while the American people are still required to pay taxes that involve sending money to Washington? If Washington can just magically create a trillion dollars overnight, why do we pay taxes, then?

• Why does the USDA now actively conspire with GMO seed companies to keep approving genetically modified seeds even without any scientific evidence of their long-term safety?

• If mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to modern science, why is it still being deliberately placed into the mouths of children in the form of "silver" fillings? And why are they called "silver" when they actually contain more mercury than silver?

• Where does the fluoride used to fluoridate the public water supplies really come from? (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=42652…) And if fluoride is so good for people, then why is it so hazardous to handle, and why is it considered a hazardous chemical by the EPA?

• What really happened on 9/11? How did WTC 7 collapse if it was never hit by any airplanes? Why did they sweep away the rubble before a proper forensic analysis could be performed?

• Are vaccines really safe? Where's the study comparing vaccinated children with non-vaccinated children? Why won't the vaccine industry allow such studies to be conducted?

• Why does the cancer industry seem a lot more interested in treating cancer and recruiting cancer patients than actually curing cancer and ending the epidemic? Why does the industry refuse to talk about cancer-causing chemicals or the anti-cancer effects of vitamin D?

• Why are toxic food additives still allowed in the food supply? What's the real story on aspartame and the FDA? Why did the FDA oppress stevia for so many decades?

• Why is the medical police state now using guns to force parents to medicate their children? In what kind of medical system is it necessary to use the threat of violence to force compliance?

• Why did Clinton bomb the Sudan in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky crisis? Why did Obama suddenly announce the death of Bin Laden in the middle of his "birther" crisis?

• Why do we still have the DEA's "War on Drugs," especially since there is ample evidence that the war is a total failure that only increases the prison population while actually enriching the drug gangs with higher street prices?

• Why is the TSA still reaching down our pants at the airports if Bin Laden is now dead? Wasn't he the whole reason we created the TSA and hired on those 60,000 security agents in the first place? (http://www.naturalnews.com/032267_B…)

An intelligent, skeptical thinker would ask these questions (and many more) as a natural course of basic human curiosity. But a Gullible Mind, attacks the questioner for even daring to ask such questions.

Who are some of the awakened people?
That's why the Gullible Mind is more than merely gullible: It is a cowardly mind. It is afraid to ask questions on its own, and it simultaneously attacks those who have the courage to stand up and actually ask those questions (like Jesse Ventura).

Most members of the conventional press are, of course, cowardly minds. They almost universally buy the corporate spin (or the White House spin) and never ask any tough questions anymore. Some of the REAL heroes — the people who are asking intelligent questions about our world — include:

Alex Jones
Jeff Rense
Charlotte Gerson
Jonathan Landsman
David Icke
Jesse Ventura
Gerald Celente
Ron Paul
Robert Scott Bell
Dr. Andrew Wakefield
Suzanne Somers
Dr. James Forsythe
George Noorey

Do you see a pattern here? Each one of these individuals has been marginalized or viciously attacked and slandered simply because they chose to ask intelligent questions about the world around them. Now, I don't agree with every single thing said by each one of these people, but I admire each of them for having the courage to ask the questions that need to be asked if we are to move forward as a society (and civilization).

These kind of people represent the complete opposite of The Gullible Mind. They are, instead, the "true skeptics" of the world. The reason they are viciously attacked is because our world is so steeped in deceit and conspiracy that only Gullible Minds are tolerated. Those who question the status quo are not merely annoying to the powers that be, but actually dangerous because the most dangerous activity in which you can engage today is helping others awaken to what's really happening around them.

It is that "awakening" that is so utterly despised by the web of corporations, governments and media lackeys that they will do everything in their power to prevent any sort of awakening from taking place at all. The functioning of the Matrix, after all, depends on people believing in the illusion.

And it is so much easier to govern, of course, if people just believe whatever you tell them. Gullible Minds make great voters and willing slaves. But lousy company.

Categories
Featured Articles

FDA Approved Big Pharma Drugs Without Effectiveness Data

by: S. L. Baker

(NaturalNews) Consumers constantly are told how complicated it is to get a new drug on the market. After all, researchers have to jump through all sorts of hoops to assure safety before new therapies are approved for the public, right?

It turns out they may be missing some of those hoops or not jumping through some of the most important ones.

In fact, huge red flags are being raised about how drugs are tested and approved in two new studies, including one just published in the May 4th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

A case in point: it turns out that only about half of the new prescription medications pushed onto the market over the last decade had the proper data together for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – yet the FDA approved them anyhow.

The information in question is known specifically as comparative effectiveness data. And it is – or should be – a very big deal when it comes to deciding whether a drug should be approved and sold to the public.

According to the Institute of Medicine, comparative effectiveness data is defined as the "generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care."

In other words, how does a new drug stack up against other treatments – is it more beneficial, safer, or does it have more potential dangers?

Comparative effectiveness information on drugs is especially important when doctors are making decisions about whether to prescribe a med, and to whom, soon after a drug is approved. That's because when Big Pharma medications first hit the market, physicians are relying on what drug companies and the FDA tell them about a medication. It takes a while for real life reports to come in as people report reactions, side effects (including deaths related to a drug) to become clearer.

Also, there are usually not data from large head-to-head trials comparing multiple treatments available when a medication first hits the marketplace. "Comparative effectiveness is taking on an increasingly important role in U.S. health care, yet little is known about the availability of comparative efficacy data for drugs at the time of their approval in the United States," according to background information in the new JAMA study.

It's not like there's not money to come up with this information, either. In 2009, Congress allocated $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money to comparative effectiveness research.

For the JAMA study, researcher Nikolas H. Goldberg and colleagues from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, investigated the proportion of recently approved drugs that had comparative efficacy data available at the time they were authorized by the FDA to be sold in the U.S. They also examined the availability of this information over time and by therapeutic indication by checking out approval packages publicly available through the online database of drug products (dubbed new molecular entities, NMEs, for short) approved by FDA between 2000 and 2010.

The researchers found that only about half of 197 eligible approved NMEs between 2000 and 2010 had comparative efficacy data available at the time they were approved to be marketed.

Meanwhile, another recent study throws needed light on the limited data behind the safety and effectiveness of some Big Pharma drugs.

Research led jointly by Alexander Tsai of Harvard University and Nicholas Rosenlicht of the University of California San Francisco just published in PLoS Medicine zeroed in on the medication aripiprazole, which is prescribed treating bipolar disorder.

How was this powerful drug deemed safe and effective? Amazingly, the research team found the only evidence for the use of this medication came from a single trial. And, as they described in their paper, the scientists found key limitations of the drug study that clearly skewed the findings so they appear to support the use of aripiprazole for bipolar disorder.

Did this stop the FDA from approving the drug? No way. And neither did the fact that this single, poorly designed trial was sponsored by the drug manufacturer who produces aripiprazole.

Categories
Featured Articles

Scientists Say Forget Osteoporosis Drugs

by: Sherry Baker

(NaturalNews) (NaturalNews) For countless years, natural health advocates, who suggested caution at the near hysterical and highly advertised push to put women on anti-osteoporosis prescription drugs, were looked at as unscientific health "nuts". But now some mainstream scientists are in total agreement and are even sounding the alarm about those medications. Instead of popping side effect loaded pills, say University of Illinois (U of I) researchers, an effective first course of action to keep bones strong should be to simply increase calcium in your diet and vitamin D or take calcium and vitamin D supplements.

But, you may say, you just had a bone density scan and your doctor claims your score shows you are at high risk for the bone-robbing condition known as osteoporosis. Shouldn't you follow your physician's dictate to start taking a widely advertised bone-building prescription medication?

"Not so fast!" stated the U of I scientists in a media statement.

"For many people, prescription bone-building medicines should be a last resort," said Karen Chapman-Novakofski, a U of I professor of nutrition and co-author of a literature review published in a recent issue of the journal Nutrients.

The researchers also pointed out that bone density scans are anything but accurate measures of bones. Bone density tests only measure quantity, not quality, of bone. "Although the test reports that you're fine or doing better, you may still be at risk for a fracture," said Dr. Chapman-Novakofski.

Lead author Karen Plawecki, director of the U of I's dietetics program, and Dr. Chapman-Novakofski investigated the impact of dietary, supplemental, and educational interventions over the last 10 years and reached their conclusions after reviewing 219 articles in scientific journals.

So what should you do to protect and build healthy bones? The study concluded that adults who increase their intake of calcium and vitamin D usually increase bone mineral density and reduce the risk for hip fracture dramatically. While these results can be accomplished through supplements, the researchers also found that food is a good source of these nutrients, Dr. Chapman-Novakofski stated.

The scientists also warned that prescription bone-building medications not only are expensive but they are also loaded with potentially serious side effects including, ironically, an increase in hip fractures and jaw necrosis (dead bone tissue).

"Bisphosphonates, for instance, disrupt normal bone remodeling by shutting down the osteoclasts – the cells that break down old bone to make new bone. When that happens, new bone is built on top of old bone. Yes, your bone density is higher, but the bone's not always structurally sound," Dr. Chapman-Novakofski said.

As NaturalNews has previous reported, bisphosphonates have also been linked to dangerous heart rhythm problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/026027_r…).

The researchers noted that a low-sodium diet seems to have a positive effect on bone density and, in particular, they advised staying away from smoked or processed meats, bacon, lunch meat, processed foods and many cheeses because they all contain a lot of sodium and could sabotage bone health. In addition to making sure you take in extra calcium and vitamin D for bone health, the U of I scientists urge eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, too. They stated that consuming adequate protein, less sodium, and more magnesium and potassium is a great way to protect bone health.

Another way to avoid osteoporosis naturally is physical activity, specifically a combination of aerobic, strength, balance, and flexibility exercises. Weight bearing exercises help build strong bones, and fit muscles can keep you flexible and prevent falls as you age, too.