Month: June 2011

The medical data suggests that the vaccine has changed in its efficacy against the disease. Last year, there were 136 cases of infected youth, and 107 of these had been administered multiple polio vaccinations. These figures are the largest the Polio Global Eradication Initiative has seen since 2006, despite heavy treatment in the most affected areas, South Punjab and the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA).

Even the more peaceful provinces have suffered. As reported by the Pakistan Daily times, there were 10 cases of polio in Sindh province in the first four months of the year. The article morbidly notes each of the cases, citing the children's names and the number of vaccinations they had received before the onset of polio virus: "Mohammad Asif, aged 40 months with all his limbs affected… was administered oral anti polio vaccine (OPV) four times… The three and a half years old Ameera… had one of her arms and legs paralyzed… Ameera was first of the confirmed cases of polio during the current year."

As one might imagine, Pakistani citizens are beginning to suspect foul play. Dr. Mazhar Khamisani, a manager of the health department in Sindh has noted that he has seen Pakistani parents begin to refuse treatment and do so on repeated occasions. And how could we, when confronted with the facts, ask them to do otherwise?

The type of polio vaccine administered may be a significant cause of the problem. There are two main types of polio vaccine, Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) and Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV). The first of these uses dead cells of poliomyelitis. IPV was developed by Jonas Salk before being disseminated throughout the US in the 1950s, to quell the outbreak that was then infecting roughly 22,000 American children each year. Within 20 years, polio was all but forgotten in America.

However, The Polio Global Eradication Initiative chooses to use the second type, Oral Polio Vaccine. OPV was developed by Albert Sabin and runs the virus through a number of animals in order to weaken the strain rather than kill it. The weakened strain is then injected into children, whose immune systems are strong enough to defeat the infection. It is easy to see how treatment could backfire, in cases when the strain has not been weakened enough for human contact.

Despite the fact that it was not widely disseminated in the US, possibly because of the dangers associated with its use, OPV is the vaccine of choice in countries like Pakistan because, soon after vaccination, weakened virus can be found in children's fecal matter. Immunity can then spread to communal water sources and increase immunity for greater portions of the population. So even if parents refuse OPV treatment, their children may still receive it indirectly through the drinking water.

Historically, there have been cases of outbreak when a weakened strain becomes strong enough to infect rather than immunize. In these cases, OPV is typically replaced by IPV because it is no longer considered safe. But OPV is still the vaccine of choice in Pakistan, even as it continues to prove its potency to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative. Why?
One explanation is that researchers have not collected enough data yet to say with certainty whether the vaccine is causing the outbreak. But how much longer will this go on?

It is equally plausible that the vaccine is not being handled properly. If the requisite temperature is not maintained, the vaccine can be rendered completely ineffectual. In remote areas, where power can be disrupted for hours and even days, the OPV treatments may have exceeded their temperature requirements and consequently lost their usefulness from temperature fluctuations. But surely, medical practitioners would know if their vaccine had potentially been compromised.

Unfortunately, both of these possibilities point to some kind of negligence. Either the doctors administering treatment are aware that their vaccine may not have the capacity to immunize their patients, or the people in charge are disseminating harmful vaccinations, then playing the victim to the 'inconclusiveness of the data' when it is clear that something has gone awry.

The Polio Global Eradication Initiative receives the majority of its funding through UNICEF and the US, both of which are beginning to look at Pakistan as an enemy, rather than a friend. Are political relations trickling down to the medical practitioners who are supposedly fighting a disease, not a country?

In a study just published in the journal Gastroenterology, researchers at McMaster University found that bacteria residing in the gut influence brain chemistry and behavior. The research is important because several common types of gastrointestinal disease are frequently associated with anxiety or depression. In addition there has been speculation that some psychiatric disorders, such as late onset autism, may be associated with an abnormal bacterial content in the gut.

"The exciting results provide stimulus for further investigating a microbial component to the causation of behavioral illnesses," said Stephen Collins, professor of medicine and associate dean of research at McMaster's Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine. Collins and Premysl Bercik, assistant professor of medicine, conducted the research in the Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute.

Working with healthy adult mice, the researchers found that disrupting the normal bacterial content of the gut with antibiotics produced changes in behavior; the mice became less cautious or anxious. This change was accompanied by an increase in brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which has been linked to depression and anxiety.

When oral antibiotics were discontinued, bacteria in the gut returned to normal and Collins reported that there was "restoration of normal behavior and brain chemistry."

To confirm that bacteria can influence behavior, the researchers colonized germ-free mice with bacteria taken from mice with a different behavioral pattern. They found that when germ-free mice with a genetic background associated with passive behavior and were colonized with bacteria from mice with higher exploratory behavior, they became more active and daring. Similarly, normally active mice became more passive after receiving bacteria from mice whose genetic background is associated with passive behavior.

Collins said that his team's research indicates that while many factors determine behavior, the nature and stability of bacteria in the gut appear to influence behavior and disruptions from antibiotics or infections might produce changes in behavior. Bercik said that these results lay the foundation for investigating the therapeutic use of probiotic bacteria in the treatment of behavioral disorders, particularly those associated with gastrointestinal conditions.

The gut is home to about 1,000 trillion bacteria. The gut also contains around 100 million nerve cells (neurons), more than in either the spinal cord or the peripheral nervous system. This multitude of neurons in the enteric nervous system enables us to "feel" the inner world of our gut and its contents.
Neurons in the gut also use serotonin to signal back to the brain – and 95% of all serotonin in the body is in the gut. About 90 percent of the fibers in the primary visceral nerve, the vagus, carry information from the gut to the brain.

Generally when people think of "gut feelings," they are thinking about instinctive-like reactions such as the "butterflies" or "hollow feelings" one may get due to fear, bad news or an upcoming daunting task. Now it is apparent that other serious conditions may originate at least partially in the gut. Maintaining a healthy digestive system, including a healthy intestinal flora mix, could be a key in helping to prevent and control such conditions.

Note: Neither Natural News nor this author approve of the inhumane use of animals for laboratory experiments.

The CDC and the vaccine industry are fronting a similar bit of contradictory logic. "Our vaccines work so well that they offer almost total immunity from the flu," they claim. And yet somehow they also work so poorly that they "wear off" after a year and require you to be re-vaccinated annually.

This is The Great Big Lie of the vaccine industry: The lie that says you have be re-vaccinated each and every year, often with the exact same strains you were vaccinated with the previous year. The coming winter flu vaccines for 2011, for example, are being manufactured with the same strains as the 2010 flu vaccines.

But if vaccines work so amazingly well as the CDC and the vaccine industry (fraudulently) suggests, then why do you need the same shot year after year?

Well, according to the CDC, "Vaccines wear off."

Vaccines wear off, they say
Yep, that's their cover story. The vaccines "wear off."

But hold on a minute. There's something fishy about this. Because human antibodies normally last a lifetime, remember? That's why you don't get the chicken pox over and over again; because the first time you got the chicken pox as a kid, your body created chicken pox antibodies and those antibodies last a lifetime.

Thus, your immune system offers you lifetime immunity from the chicken pox.

The vaccine industry false tries to claim its vaccines work exactly the same way: They cause the body to produce antibodies against a certain viral strain. But there's something you're not being told about vaccines: They don't really produce the same quality and strength of antibodies that your own body would produce from a natural infection and recovery. That's why the vaccines "wear off" and leave you with zero protection from the very strains they inoculate you against.

In other words, vaccines don't work as advertised. And that's why the vaccine industry has to keep pushing the same vaccine strains year after year. Because, think about it: If vaccines actually worked as intended, they would give you lifetime immunity against whatever strains you were injected with, right? And yet the CDC now openly admits vaccines don't offer that at all:

"This year's flu shot will be a duplicate of last year's because the same flu strains are still circulating," reports the Associated Press in an article about the CDC. "Government health officials are urging nearly everyone to get this fall's flu shot. They say a vaccine's protection can fade significantly after several months." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110527…)

Vaccine protection fades after a few months? Well then, vaccines must not actually cause the body to react with producing its own antibodies, because those antibodies, we're told, offer lifetime immunity.

Another way you can confirm this yourself is by remembering your history. Remember when the Europeans came to America centuries ago and killed off masses of American Indians by accidentally giving them smallpox? Well, if the Indians died of smallpox, why didn't the Europeans die of smallpox? (There were no vaccines in the 1600's and 1700's.) The answer is because the Europeans had already been exposed and built up lifetime immunity to the disease.

Thus, the reason the European invaders of North America did not die from smallpox wasn't because they were vaccinated; it was because they had already been exposed to the disease and had built up active immunity against it (by producing their own antibodies which last a lifetime). Thus, the Europeans could be exposed to smallpox over and over again with no symptoms of infection. They were effectively "immune" to smallpox, in exactly the same way a human being living today becomes immune to a winter flu strain by first being exposed to the full strength strain (in the wild) and then building up their own antibodies in an automatic adaptive response.

But don't expect the vaccine industry to educate anyone on how infectious disease and antibodies really work. They're too busy selling annual flu shots to bother with scientific facts.

The flu vaccine manufacturing machine is on high output
"Five vaccine manufacturers announced plans to make between 166 million and 173 million doses for the coming season," says the same article mentioned above. That's the highest vaccine manufacturing output for the USA in the history of vaccines.

With all these 170 million (or so) vaccines sitting around by the time the winter rolls around, the CDC is obviously going to have to kick its propaganda and fear mongering into high gear to convince people to buy all these vaccines. This is going to be doubly difficult considering the inconvenient fact that all the people who got vaccinated last year already received vaccines against these same viral strains!

So, in other words, the CDC must now convince 170 million people that last year's vaccine was such a complete failure that they need the exact same vaccines this year — and somehow this year's vaccine will work better even though it's exactly the same as last year's vaccine. How will they accomplish this?

It's simple: They won't talk much about the fact that this year's flu vaccine is identical to last year's flu vaccine. They'll just repeat their blatant lies about vaccines offering near-100 percent protection against the flu — an insinuation so blatantly false that the FTC should actually charge the vaccine manufacturers with false advertising.

And the great unknowing masses will, of course, line up to be injected yet again with the same cocktail of viral strains and vaccine preservatives that didn't work for them last year! Because the hilarious truth about flu vaccines is that most of the people who get sick from the flu each year are the same people who were vaccinated against the flu!

Yep, it's the devastating secret of the vaccine industry: Most of the flu victims each year are precisely the same people who took the flu shots. And now you know why that is so — because the flu vaccine shots simply don't work. Even if you do believe they work at first, even the CDC openly admits — on the record — that "flu vaccines stop working after several months."

They fade out like a set of old batteries, in other words. And that right there is proof that flu vaccines don't produce a true antibody response.

The great vaccine marketing con: Annual vaccine shots
The CDC is now engaged in the marketing of annual vaccination of the entire population. That's the game, you see: Convince people they need an annual flu shot just to stay healthy. It's a complete marketing con, of course, but it's necessary to keep the flu vaccine profit machine humming along each winter.

In doing this, the CDC is now running a criminal marketing racket to falsely push vaccines as the solution even though flu vaccines simply don't work. For every 100 people vaccinated against the winter flu, by the way, 99 of them will experience no difference whatsoever in their flu outcomes. Even using the industry's own best evidence, flu vaccines are no more than one percent effective at actually preventing the flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…) — and that's only during the first few months before they "fade out."

One of the CDC's own vaccine scientists — a man who received millions of dollars in grant money from the CDC — was recently indicted by a federal grand jury for money laundering and fraud (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_T…). Check out the NaturalNews diagram called Poul Thorsen's Alleged Web of Fraud to see the complete web of deceit under which the key players of the vaccine fraud industry operate: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/We…

The truth is that the CDC abandoned real science long ago and is now engaged almost entirely in infectious disease fear mongering and the wholesale prostitution of itself to the vaccine industry. The CDC has become to the vaccine industry what infomercial guru Tony Little is to exercise equipment. This is an agency that now functions as little more than the marketing branch of the vaccine giants.

As part of that total prostitution of itself to the vaccine makers, last year the CDC even announced that virtually everyone should get annual flu vaccine shots, including pregnant women!

You can immunize yourself against the winter flu
But here's the other dirty little secret the CDC absolutely does not want you to know: If you skip the vaccine, boost your vitamin D intake, and encounter the flu naturally, you will build your own lifetime antibodies against the infection.

Got that? So the best way to immunize yourself against a particular strain of the winter flu is to dose up on vitamin D, boost your nutritional intake, get healthy and then just go out into the world and stop worrying about exposing yourself to the flu. You'll pick it up somewhere, and if your immune system is functioning well with high levels of vitamin D (that's the vitamin that "activates" your immune response to flu infections), your body will build its own antibodies, and you won't even know it! You will have what's called a "symptomless infection" and won't even know your body successfully fought off the viral invader.

Better yet, because you were exposed to the real viral strain in the wild (and not some weakened strain in a flu vaccine shot), your body will maintain lifetime immunity to that viral strain. And isn't that the goal of immunization in the first place?

Immunizing yourself, you see, works far better than relying on the vaccine industry to immunize you through some artificial means (an injection). Their immunization, it turns out, simply doesn't work reliably. And that's why the sad sellouts and prostitutes of the vaccine industry have to keep pushing their same lame flu shots year after year, with no improvements and virtually zero effectiveness.

And the same ignorant consumers line up year after year to get the same failed flu shots year after year… then they wonder why they still get sick year after year.

Do the math, folks. This is not rocket science. If flu shots worked as well as your own immune response to a natural infection, then you would only need one shot in your entire life for any given viral flu strain. But that, of course, would be bad for vaccine profits. They need suckers to believe in annual flu shots so they can keep raking in the big bucks year after year.

As much as 75 percent of the human body is water. Maintaining levels requires one to three liters of water daily. But even those who are sedentary need water because our bodies lose moisture continually – through urination, elimination of waste and toxins, sweating and even breathing. Many believe that chronic, low-grade dehydration is common place. Lack of sufficient fresh, clean water not only results in a long list of symptoms, but it also can be fatal.

Urine color is a good indicator of hydration. Ideally, urine should be colorless. Bright yellow to orange urine indicates too little water in the body. The only exception to this is that certain water-soluble vitamins, including C and B complex, may temporarily turn urine a bright yellow.

Other factors contributing to dehydration is dry mouth, hunger, fatigue, muscle cramps, brain fog, depression, anxiety, rapid heartbeat, nausea or vomiting and pain. So many people opt for super drinks, pain relievers and other ineffective remedies instead of reaching for a glass of water. Eating processed food, drinking a sugary beverage or taking a pain remedy when your body needs water only makes the dehydration worse, creating a vicious cycle.

The Standard American Diet (SAD) is high in a type of refined salt called sodium chloride, or common table salt. Unlike unrefined salt, which is a vitally important nutrient, sodium chloride is actually a toxin. Eating the processed foods found in the typical American diet translates into a whopping 4,000 to 6,000 mg of sodium chloride a day. That`s a very heavy toxic load for the body to deal with. Thus, the body wastes enormous amounts of water to counteract the toxic effects. So water that should be going to the cells and body`s organs is being diverted to cleaning up the sodium chloride. Kidney and gall stones, bloating from water retention, painful joints and other health issues are a direct result of sodium chloride consumption.

Many try to quench their thirst at the nearest vending machine, juice bar or coffee shop. It might seem like these other liquids would be just as hydrating as water, but that`s not the case. Guzzling soda, beer, coffee, tea or juice acts as a diuretic, removing water from the body faster than it normally would be eliminated.

To hydrate invest in a water ionizer/filtration system with a choice of pH levels or purchase a simple water filter to make sure the water you`re drinking is as clean and fresh as possible. Glass containers or stainless steel bottles are healthier than ordinary plastic water bottles. Drink 16 oz of water between breakfast and lunch and another 16 oz between lunch and dinner.

Pay attention to (signs). Symptoms like hunger, headaches, muscle cramps, heartburn and fatigue are frequently signs of thirst. Drink a glass of water, and then wait ten minutes to see if you feel better.

Stop consuming processed foods in order to reduce sodium chloride intake. Use as little unrefined salt as possible while cooking.

Enhance hydration by eating water producing vegetables and fruits.

Enjoy a cup of coffee or tea, cocktail or glass of wine with a glass of pure water to offset the diuretic effects of the alcohol or caffeine.

If water seems bland then try adding a touch of flavor. Wedges of watermelon, a slice of lemon or lime and a chunk of cucumber are all tasty additions to water with none of the side effects of sodas.

The companies being targeted — MedaVir, Herpaflor, Viruxo Anti-Viral Support, C-Cure, and Never an Outbreak — all made the mistake of telling their customers about the health benefits of their products without going through the laborious, multi-million dollar FDA drug approval process. As a result, the FDA has accused them all of selling unapproved drugs, and ordered them to withdraw the statements or face further regulatory action.

What is worse, though, is the fact that the FDA has decreed that any food or dietary supplement that provides any sort of health benefit is automatically a "drug." Ordinary foods like almonds, cherries, or walnuts literally become recategorized as drugs when accompanied by claims that they cure, heal, or prevent disease — and this is currently the law of the land in the US.

"While some of the companies market these products as dietary supplements, these products are all drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as they are offered for the treatment of disease," stated the FDA in a press release about the STD supplements. "These drug products, which are offered for the treatment of STDs, may not be introduced into interstate commerce without an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA)."

In other words, no food or supplement product can bear health claim labels without first gaining the FDA rubber stamp of approval, and being recategorized as a drug. It does not matter if scientific studies have verified that an herb, substance or food has health-promoting properties — if the FDA has not first been paid to approve it, then there is no place for it in the medicinal realm.

This is why groups like the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) are urging those in the natural health community to support the Free Speech about Science Act , which will end the censorship of legitimate science and restore freedom of speech to natural health.

Experts have known the dangers of CFL light bulbs for quite some time, but new research has led to even the mainstream media now reporting on the dangers of CFL light bulbs. In an experiment carried out at the Berlin's Alab Laboratory, it was found that the bulbs should not be left on for long periods of time — particularly near one's head. This is due to the poisonous materials emitted from the so-called "eco-safe" bulbs when switched on. The researchers found that some of the carcinogens emitted from the bulbs included phenol, naphthalene, and styrene. While all of these chemicals are considerably dangerous to the body, it is worth mentioning that phenol was used as a means of execution by the Nazis in the second world war. Phenol, along with the other harmful chemicals, are substances that do not belong in any household or workplace.

Peter Braun, who performed the light bulb tests at the Berlin's Alab Laboratory, said: "For such carcinogenic substances it is important they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment."

CFL bulbs are already widely used both in the European Union and in the United States. Thanks to a call by the EU government to phase out incandescent bulbs by the end of 2011, many households have converted to carcinogen-producing CFL's under the guise of saving the planet with the "environmentally-friendly" bulbs. The health consequences of such widespread use are currently unknown, as the results will only come with time. With an excess of cancer-causing chemicals being pumped into the average household, an explosion in already-skyrocketing cancer rates may be the result. Despite the research coming out over the negative health effects of the bulbs, The Department for the Environment still insists that they are perfectly safe.

On The Department for the Environment website it states: "Energy efficient light bulbs are not a danger to the public."

Thanks to alternative news pushing the dangers of CFL's into the mainstream, and this vital new research, a growing number of people are recognizing the dangers associated with using them. This leads the population to look for alternatives, as with any product that consumers do not want to purchase. The problem is, however, that government regulations threaten the consumer's ability to purchase traditional incandescent bulbs that do not leak carcinogens into the air. Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts of light meet certain standards, which conventional light bulbs do not. The law goes into full effect by 2012, with California already banning stores from restocking on 100-watt incandescent bulbs. It seems that the other option — besides hoarding incandescents before they are banned — is to purchase a new brand of LED bulbs. The bulbs will cost $50 each, and they will escape the federal ban due to being energy-efficient by the standards of the new law.

These LED bulbs may be more efficient and do not contain harmful substances, but they simply are not affordable for the majority of consumers worldwide. Government regulations have driven consumers to begin purchasing light bulbs that will endanger their health and quite possibly give them cancer, as the alternatives may not be economically viable. While it may not be a simple issue to remedy, one thing is for sure: the health of the nation should not suffer due to poorly designed light bulbs that contain known carcinogens.

Symptoms of a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)

Common symptoms of a urinary tract infection include:

– urge to urinate more often
– decreased quantity of urine passed
– pain during and after urination ( usually a burning or stinging sensation)

Symptoms of a serious urinary tract infection include nausea, fever, vomiting and constant pain in the abdominal region. If you experience these serious symptoms, please consult a health professional.

Natural Home Remedies for a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)

Cranberry. Perhaps the most well known UTI remedy, cranberries have long been prized for their ability to clear a urinary tract infection. One 2002 study showed that cranberry juice or cranberry tablets relieved UTI symptoms better than a placebo. Pure cranberry juice is recommended, as juice blends may not contain a high enough concentrate of cranberry to be effective.

Blueberry. Although not as well known as cranberries for treating a UTI, blueberries have also been shown to be an effective remedy for a urinary tract infection. You can eat fresh organic blueberries, make a smoothie from frozen berries or even blend pure blueberry juice with pure cranberry juice to harness the healing power of both of these berries.

Pineapple. Rich in vitamin C and bromelain, pineapple can help you fight off infection while also reducing inflammation. Bromelain has been shown to help resolve urinary tract infections, while vitamin C is a known immunity booster.

Uva Ursi. This herb is known for its ability to cleanse the kidneys and urinary system. It has antiseptic properties that can help reduce pathogenic bacteria causing the infection. A tincture or tea made with uva ursi is recommended at least once per day during a UTI.

Water. It`s the standard remedy for almost any illness, but drinking plenty of fluids is extremely important in the case of urinary tract infections. It allows the body to flush bacteria out of the urinary tract. You may be tempted to drink less since urination can be painful with a UTI, but if you keep up your fluid intake you will mostly likely notice a reduction in pain more quickly than if you did not.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration as well as phone companies state that cell towers do not pose a health risk to those living around them. Cell phones and their accompanying towers have not been around long enough to judge what long term effects they will have on the human body over time. Martin Cooper invented the first cell phone in 1973. It weighed two pounds and since there was such an expense they were only used by the military and some businesses. In the 1980s they became smaller and less expensive, but they didn`t really become mainstream until much later. It was about 2002 for the US that over 50% of the population were cell phone subscribers. Today that number is up to 91%. In 2009, more than half the world`s population, an estimated 4.1 billion people, owned a mobile phone, according to the United Nations.

Researchers have tried to create comparisons so an educated guess can be made as to whether there is a risk in living near a cell tower. A 2006 report from the World Health Organization noted that after some fifty years of human exposure to Radio Frequency signals from FM radio and television, which are similar to cell phone towers, there are no known negative effects on health. As reassuring as this seems, some studies have shown otherwise. An Australian study found that children living near TV and FM broadcast towers in Sydney had more than twice the rate of leukemia than children living over seven miles away. Dr. Neil Cherry, a biophysicist at Lincoln University in New Zealand, stresses: "Public health surveys of people living in the vicinity of cell base stations should be carried out now, and continue progressively over the next two decades. This is because prompt effects such as miscarriage, cardiac disruption, sleep disturbance and chronic fatigue could well be indicators of the adverse effects. Symptoms of reduced immune system competence, cardiac problems, especially of the arrhythmic type, and cancers, especially brain tumor and leukemia, are probable."

Without a clear answer as to the effects of cell towers it is surprising that they are popping up everywhere. Churches low on cash or in need of repairs may find having a tower on their property beneficial. Phone companies pay rent for their placement and this can be up to $2000 a month. The company benefits greatly in this exchange; because even if a wise community has rejected a new tower, church property is often exempt from local zoning, land use laws and regulations pertaining to cell towers. Many of these churches are also home to daycare centers, and because of the way these new towers are hidden, people living around them or attending church inside may have no idea they are that close to a cell tower.

The International Association of Fire Fighters in 2004 came out against the use of firehouses for cell antennas. They decided to ere on the side of caution "until a study with the highest scientific merit" can prove they are safe. While none of us can be certain about the long term effects of cell towers, many choose to at least be informed. www.antennasearch.com offers a free service to check the location and type of towers and antennas in your area.

by: Ethan A. Huff

(NaturalNews) Chlorine, fluoride, and the various other chemical poisons already added to the nation's drinking water supplies are apparently not enough for the self-appointed experts whose insatiable lust to force-medicate the world is never satisfied. A recent report in The Daily offers credence to the insane notion that adding lithium, a drug currently used to treat mental disorders, to drinking water will be beneficial in helping to reduce suicide and violent crime rates.

Much like fluoride, lithium alters the brain's normal production of serotonin and norepinephrine, which in turn artificially alters the way an individual thinks and how he or she feels about a given situation. Lithium is literally a mind-altering, antidepressant chemical substance that those promoting it openly admit modifies brain function. And yet they purport that forcibly inducing these chemical changes on the unwitting populations of the world is a good and acceptable idea.

"Lithium certainly dampens impulsivity, which would explain how it reduces suicide rates," said Dr. Allan Young, a psychiatry professor at Imperial College London and big time promoter of lithium-laced water, to The Daily. "When you change these resilience factors in the brain, you see other changes too. People are less timid and shy, for example."

And in the same conversation with that reporter, Young humorously wonders with seemingly insidious arrogance why he has received slews of angry letters from the concerned public about his proposal to mass-medicate the world with this new type of drug. Could it be, Dr. Young, that people would rather think for themselves without having self-appointed "experts" like yourself superciliously play the role of God by deciding for others what they should and should not consume of their own free will?

In his push to begin poisoning water supplies with lithium, Young also cites Americans having been easily swayed to accept genetically-modified (GM) foods as a reason why the US is a "likely candidate for early implementation" of lithium-laced water. He and others are openly pushing to get lithium in the water as soon as possible in order to, as The Daily puts it, "cultivate a more serene social order."

WNS derives its name from the whitish fungus which typically appears on the nose and/or wings of infected bats. However, not all infected bats display these visual symptoms. The disease causes bats to engage in atypical behaviors such as flying during periods when their prey is unavailable, such as sub-zero temperatures in daylight hours. Infected bats will also cluster around the entrances to their hibernacula (caves and other dark places in which they can safely spend the winter months). Once the disease attacks a colony of bats, it spreads quickly and typically wipes out 90% of those sharing a hibernation dwelling.

The highly respected journal Science published a study in August of 2010 in which researched predicted that WNS would result in local extinction of some bat species within two decades. Since bats play a vital role in ecosystems, both as pollinators and through their consumption of insects harmful to crops, this could have a devastating effect on the economy. The April 2011 issue of Science included an article reporting on another study looking at the financial impact of potential bat extinction. Researchers estimated that the loss of bat populations could cost the US agriculture system more than $3.7 billion per year.

Some scientists predict the bat die-off may require more extensive use of pesticides to compensate for fact that insects destructive to crops will no longer be subject to predation by the night-flying mammals. This is ironic because many environmental experts point to pesticides, along with GMO crops, as a possible culprit contributing to the epidemic threatening the continuation of the bat species. At the same time that one arm of the federal government, US Fish and Wildlife Management, works to contain the disease, other branches continue to rubberstamp their approval of an increasing number of pesticides and genetically modified Frankenfoods whose safety has not been verified.

Bats are one of the species serving as canaries in the coal mine of the toxic chemical stew in our environment. Their unique combination of long lifespan (up to three decades) and small size (a little brown bat weighs about 8 grams) makes them especially vulnerable. Boston University bat researcher and PhD candidate Marianne Moore notes, "That's a lot of time to accumulate pesticides and contaminants. We know they are exposed to and accumulate organochlorines, mercury, arsenic, lead, dioxins but we don't understand the effects." Independent research, free of corporate influence, is needed to investigate the link between WNS and pesticides.