Every day, thousands of Americans are operated on because they eat processed, dead and poisonous food and want their doctor and surgeon to “fix them” and extend their life, while most people keep right on eating and drinking in the same chronic way that perpetuates health detriment.

Every day, thousands and thousands of Americans go under the knife, where doctors, surgeons, radiologists and oncologists gather around the bright lights and keep you from bleeding to death, while they remove organs that process food and filter toxins, and yet still offer NO ADVICE to combat and fix the root of the problem. Even breast cancer is mainly a result of consuming toxins. Consider for a moment the function of many of the body parts that Western Medicine doesn’t hesitate to remove, and the Big Pharma pockets get bigger and fatter all the while.

Colon and bladder removal often unnecessary

The colon is the final part of the digestive system. The colon reabsorbs fluids and then processes and prepares waste products for elimination. The bladder is about the size of a pear, and it collects urine excreted by the kidneys, preparing it for disposal. If you eat pesticides regularly (that’s most conventional food and all GMO), drink fluoridated tap water (industrial toxins), and you use cheap corporate products on your skin, then your colon and bladder are the “last stop” for those toxins in the body, burning your soft tissue, creating digestive chaos and trapping bad bacteria in divots full of toxic gluten. Your bladder is the “last stop” for alcohol, pesticide, bleach, fluoride, aspartame, Roundup* herbicide and dangerous petroleum byproducts used by 90% of corporate America’s cosmetic industry.

Here’s a thought: Instead of removing the human colon or bladder in a superbug-laden hospital for no good reason, simply remove the CHEMICALS from your daily intake, and watch those filtration organ problems simply dissipate and disappear.

Liver transplant

The liver produces bile to help break down fats and carry away waste. The liver also produces proteins for blood plasma. Oxygenated and nutrient-rich blood must flow into the liver so it can perform its vital functions, but hundreds of agricultural chemicals make this difficult — destroying nutrition in soil and food before it ever enters a mouth. Toxic preservatives in foods, like sodium benzoate, suffocate mitochondria (cells), and other toxins cause programmed cell death. Meanwhile, the liver is trying to process GMOs, genetically MUTATED food that contains bug killer and weed killer which no person should ever eat at any concentration or quantity. The liver gets suffocated and severely under-nourished (it’s like starving and choking at the same time). Then, US surgeons operate to transplant someone else’s “donation,” and why? — So that person can go on eating and drinking chemicals, taxing the “new” liver until failure, again?

Breast removal (one or both)

Nearly all breast cancer tumors can be found in the upper-quadrant closest to the armpit, including breast cancer for men. And why is that? Chemicals in antiperspirants and chemicals in deodorants. You didn’t know? From aluminum to parabens and phthalates, there’s a laundry list of carcinogens in those products that go virtually unregulated in America. Still, there are walks “for the cure” that feature buckets of hydrogenated fried chicken and drinks with artificial sweeteners as their sponsors. People have it all “bass ackwards.”

Most women in America, thanks to MDs and oncologists, after having one or both breasts removed, will go on using the same toxic antiperspirants and deodorants, the same toxic makeup, and eating the same toxic artificial sweeteners, because those doctors can’t and don’t speak a word about organic food or organic personal care products. It leads to more cancer, which is addressed in the USA with chemotherapy, which is more toxins that cause new cancers. People butt their heads against the same hard walls, over and over again.

Most surgery to remove organs or body parts is a huge waste of time and money, and is dangerous to the patient (victim in this case). Removing kidneys, kidney stones, gall stones, the gall bladder, the appendix and the spleen can be detrimental, especially to someone who still doesn’t understand nutrition, and so can liposuction. Even tonsils shouldn’t be removed, because their main function is to trap germs like bacteria or viruses that you might otherwise breathe in. That’s why antibodies are produced by the immune cells in the tonsils. Still, doctors are quick to take them out if the parents agree with the “diagnosis” given. And then there are vaccines and flu shots to destroy what immunity IS LEFT, but that’s another article entirely.

Unnecessary surgery on dying seniors

FYI: Several colleagues from the Harvard School of Public Health recently reported that 1.8 million Medicare beneficiaries age 65 or older died in 2008, and over 34% were operated on during their last year, 25% in their last month, and 10% in their last week of life. There’s no question about it — you don’t want Big Pharma removing your immunity-building and cleansing organs. That’s just asking for Big Pharma-style problems, and you certainly don’t want any part of those! Research how to detoxify your body of these food toxins and abstain from eating Monsanto’s Roundup* or GMOs, so you can avoid UNNECESSARY SURGERY. And remember, whatever you do… Don’t Eat Cancer!

*Sign the petition at Change.org to remove Roundup from Home Depot and Lowe’s stores. Just click the links below!

Home Depot:
Change.org

Lowe’s:
Change.org

Sources:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

Originally posted 2016-01-16 11:32:56.

Touted by American progressives as a gold standard of care that the U.S. should utilize and that Obamacare sought to mimic in many ways, the top physician for Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) has claimed it is “not fit for the future,” and without major changes, the system may have to abandon it’s primary feature — free care for all.

As reported by Britain’s Daily Mail, Prof. Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of NHS England, says that the healthcare system has to become far less reliant on hospitals and overall needs a “complete transformation” in the way it operates.

In an interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper, Keogh sounded the alarm.

“If the NHS continues to function as it does now, it’s going to really struggle to cope because the model of delivery and service that we have at the moment is not fit for the future,” he said.

For one, he noted, general practitioner offices have to be provided more resources in order to deal with added pressures of demand and tightening budgets.

The nation’s top physician went on to say that, in order for the healthcare system to remain viable, additional services would need to be consolidated under the same roof, such as diagnostic testing and a wider range of treatments at the offices of general practitioners.

“If not,” he said, “we will get to a place where the NHS becomes unaffordable and we will have to make some very difficult decisions which will get to the very heart of the principle of the NHS and its values.”

“They get pushed from pillar to post

Continuing, he said, “This will open up a whole series of discussions about whether the NHS is fit for purpose, whether it’s affordable, and whether the compact with the citizen of free healthcare for all is sustainable in the longer term.

“Too many patients find the NHS fragmented (and) confusing. They find that they get pushed from pillar to post; they feel like a ball in a pinball machine at times,” said Keogh.

The NHS chief went on to deny allegations that ambulance services, emergency rooms and general practitioner offices were struggling to cope with dwindling resources, even though wait times for some of those services are the longest they’ve been in a decade. In fact, the Daily Mail noted, three of 10 ambulance services in England have been forced to declare a critical alert during the past few months.

Still, Keogh said there was no “crisis.”

“Everybody that’s working out there in the NHS knows that they’re under a lot of pressure at the moment,” he said. “They don’t like the term ‘crisis’ being applied willy-nilly.

“It’s an evocative term which is also provocative and is used too freely for the wrong reasons,” he added. “It’s a period of unprecedented pressure, of undue pressure. But the NHS is facing very difficult times, yes. The word ‘crisis’ implies that you can’t deal with it.”

He stated further, though, that frontline services were currently “going through a critical phase” but said they would eventually recover.

A spokesman for the Department of Health, who was not named by the Mail, said things were under control.

More needs, fewer resources, more cuts – Obamacare?

“In common with healthcare systems around the world, the NHS is facing unprecedented demand, but undermining the principle of services being free at the point of use is not the answer,” said the spokesman. “Instead, we are backing the NHS’s plan for the future and have provided an extra £2bn in funding next year to transform out-of-hospital care and meet the needs of an ageing population.”

In an interview with The Guardian, Andrew Gwynne, the acting health minister, said, “We have long warned that the collapse of community services would drag down the NHS and that is what we can see now that hospitals have record numbers of older people who can’t be discharged. Labour agrees with Prof Sir Bruce Keogh that a key part of the way to make the NHS affordable and sustainable in this century is to give patients more care where they want it.”

As Natural News reported in September 2012, Britain’s healthcare system has been struggling for some time, and could be a precursor for the U.S. medical system, now in the clutches of Obamacare: NaturalNews.com.

Sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

http://www.theguardian.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

Originally posted 2016-01-02 11:30:19.

Walking corpse syndrome is a very rare neurological disease, formerly known as Cotard’s Syndrome or Cotard’s Delusion, named after the French neurologist Jules Cotard. Cotard’s observations with his patient, Mademoiselle X, earned him the right to have the disease to be named after him, but his patient’s case, circa 1888, was not the first ever recorded.

In 1788, Dr. Charles Bonnet treated an elderly woman with “the powder of precious stones and opium” after insisting she was dead and in another place. She had demanded she be placed in a coffin and mourned after recovering from a short spell of paralysis and loss of sensation or feeling. The treatment worked for her, but she would have occasional relapses afterward.

This syndrome or delusion has nothing to do with “Zombie Apocalypse”, as covered by Health Ranger Mike Adams during some very strange episodes in 2012 in Miami and other spots in that region.

Those were delusional flesh eating Zombie episodes, where a few physically healthy and well fed individuals were compelled to eat live animal or human flesh. You can read that here (http://www.naturalnews.com/035990_zombie_apocalypse_miami_police.html).

How Cotard’s Syndrome differs from zombie delusions or compulsions

Extremely rare Cotard Syndrome is the opposite of any zombie delusions. Victims are convinced they are dead or their organs are dead, including their brain in some cases. But they usually don’t want to eat. After all, they’re dead, so why bother?

Besides, there’s no pleasure in eating anymore. Some victims even die of starvation. A loss of feeling and sensation is at the core of this delusion.

Social disconnects are also basic to this delusion. Human interaction is avoided. There’s just no interest. At 14 years of age, Alabama teen Haley Smith had suffered emotionally during her parents divorce. One day in her English class, she had a feeling she couldn’t shake that she was dead. The school nurse couldn’t detect anything.

Haley’s eating disorder was different than most other cases of Cotard’s Syndrome. She decided that she could eat how much of whatever she wanted to eat since she was dead and wouldn’t gain weight or suffer other health consequences. She had a brief spontaneous recovery, but soon after that totally numb feeling returned.

“I’d fantasize about having picnics in graveyards and I’d spend a lot of time watching horror films because seeing the zombies made me feel relaxed, like I was with family,” Haley explained. She spent a lot of time in bed and often missed school, until one day she attempted to reconnect with one of her friends.

Surprised and emboldened by his understanding her experience, she disclosed her condition with her dad. He urged her to see a psychiatrist. But it took Haley another two years to actually do it. Then she was diagnosed with Cotard’s Syndrome (CS). With that handle, she went online to discover others who felt out of touch with their bodies and wanted to visit graveyards. Now she knew she wasn’t alone.

Talk therapy helped her pull through as well as her relationship with her boyfriend, now fiance’ Jeremy, and Disney movies. She had started to watch and enjoy them, getting “warm fuzzy feelings”. That made her begin to realize she wasn’t dead. Now she’s set on advising others who suffer from CS.

Haley was lucky she didn’t succumb to psychiatry’s other solutions: Anti-depressant and anti-psychotic pharmaceuticals with unpredictability and serious side effects, or ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). Yes, good ole’ shock therapy! Those are the go-to standard of care interventions of conventional psychiatry.

Her solution was through talk therapy, a boyfriend, and Disney. You might consider time for her to heal from the trauma of her parents divorce as another aspect of Haley’s healing.

Sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

http://mentalfloss.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695744/

http://www.newscientist.com

Originally posted 2015-12-30 11:30:20.

For over a year, California’s capital city had been poisoning the public water supply – in secret – with chemicals that are known carcinogens, and that have never been approved for use in the water treatment process. This was the disturbing finding of a recent investigation by local Sacramento news affiliate ABC10 News, which revealed that Sacramento residents were treated as human guinea pigs in a heinous government scandal involving massive human rights abuses.

Between 2013 and 2014, the City of Sacramento began quietly adding a chemical known as aluminum chlorohydrate, or ACH, to the public water supply in a supposed effort to save money on water purification. ACH was introduced as a replacement for ALUM – another chemical that had previously been used to remove larger particulates – because it is said to be cheaper than ALUM.

ACH was never properly safety tested, and in fact was known at the time to cause cancer, miscarriages and birth defects when ingested or inhaled. But city officials decided to add it anyway, which resulted in many local residents developing these and other health problems. Some residents even developed cancer as a result of consuming the contaminated water throughout the course of the year.

It was quickly discovered, however, that ACH isn’t even an effective water treatment method. But rather than remove the chemical altogether, the City of Sacramento took things a step further by adding excess amounts of chlorine in an effort to boost the efficacy of ACH – a move that would later prove to create an even more toxic substance.

“An astonishing failure, the combination of excess chlorine and aluminum chlorohydrate ended up yielding carcinogenic toxins known as ‘DBPs’ — disinfection byproducts,” explains The AntiMedia. “Specifically, these are in the class of chemicals known as THMs, or Trihalomethanes.

Hey, Sacramento: Why don’t you stop poisoning public water with fluoride and save money that way?

If you’re at all familiar with THMs, you may already know that these chemicals are highly toxic and represent a major risk factor for cancer, especially at the levels used in Sacramento water. Even so, city officials continued to use them, harming countless individuals by flooding their bodies and lungs with cancer-causing poisons.

“This community was basically looked at as a laboratory guinea pig, in that they were exposed to violation level trihalomethanes for up to one year without any proper notification whatsoever,” stated Bob Bowcock, a local Sacramento resident who grew up working in the water treatment industry, to ABC10.

Local resident Anna Marie Tomlinson, of Rio Linda, is one such individual who now suffers from a debilitating health condition as a result of consuming Sacramento’s intentionally poisoned water.

“I know [the water] gave me cancer,” she lamented to the media, noting that at least three other people on her block also developed cancer during the same year. “I drank it every day.”

If the City of Sacramento is really concerned about saving money on water purification, a better option would be to immediately cease adding toxic fluoride chemicals to the water supply. Not only are these synthetic and highly corrosive chemicals expensive – costing upwards of several hundreds of thousands of dollars annually – but they’re also a toxic and unnecessary addition to public water.

“How do we allow officials to blindly add chemicals to our water supply?” asks Cassius Methyl of The AntiMedia. “Unfortunately, most of us probably weren’t even aware the first chemical, ALUM, had been added to our drinking water — much less the insane chemical soup that resulted as a byproduct of this reckless experiment.”

Sources for this article include:

TheAntiMedia.org

Originally posted 2015-12-28 11:31:12.

It’s happening all around the world, and emerging research suggests that the environmental impact of its use is absolutely devastating: geoengineering, a man-made climate control scheme marked by criss-crossing air sweeps that leave behind streams of shimmering “chemtrail” debris across our skies, is now being linked to widespread drought and famine throughout the world, not to mention the complete breakdown of Earth’s agricultural systems.

Geoengineering expert Dane Wigington of GeoengineeringWatch.org says chemtrail operations represent the “greatest single source of damage on many fronts,” and he might just be right. In some areas of the world, persistent drought conditions brought about by artificial weather manipulation have led to massive reductions in crop output and ever-dwindling fresh water supplies.

In Mongolia, for example, an astounding 80 percent reduction in crop yields is the direct result of persistent drought conditions, suggests Wigington. Similarly, in Thailand, farmers are struggling to produce enough food as water supplies dry up. In some areas, military soldiers are having to protect what little water remains at gunpoint.

A little closer to home, California and many areas of the Pacific Northwest continue to hobble through epic drought conditions that have left many formerly flourishing crop fields completely bone dry. California farmers are reportedly pulling in higher revenues for the crops they’re able to procure, but this is likely due to the fact that supplies continue to dwindle, which, economically speaking, drives food prices higher.

For a more thorough explanation as to how geoengineering and “chemtrails” are affecting precipitation patterns, refer to our earlier piece citing evidence of artificial weather manipulation as a driving factor in the California drought crisis.

Geoengineering isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s conspiracy FACT

If you’re still of the mindset that geoengineering is some kind of loony conspiracy theory, then you’re not keeping up with the latest science. The United Nations’ (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) openly referred to geoengineering in a 2013 report, noting that stratospheric aerosols are used to produce artificial “clouds” designed to alter weather patterns.

A more recent paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters examines how geoengineering programs — they’re stated matter-of-factly because it’s now general knowledge that they’re taking place to combat “climate change” — are affecting crop yields. The paper talks about a geoengineering method known as “marine cloud brightening” that was offered up as a solution to climate change nearly 25 years ago.

The paper erroneously concludes that such methods will improve crop yields, but the latest science suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, the paper admits that geoengineering, cloud “brightening,” and other weather manipulation tactics are real. Those of us watching these developments are here to say that they don’t work and are actually making the problem worse.

“A primary stated goal of the geoengineering programs is to provide a ‘solar shield’ to slow ‘runaway climate change’ by spraying tens of millions of tons of highly toxic metal nano particulates (a nanometer is 1/1,000,000,000 of a meter) into the atmosphere from jet aircraft,” reports Wigington.

“The ‘hydrological cycle’ of the planet is being completely disrupted by the geoengineering aerosol saturation of the atmosphere,” he says.

Wigington has been researching the damaging effects of man-made geoengineering programs for years, noting that much of Northern California and the Pacific Northwest is now polluted with particulates of aluminum, barium, and other toxic metals as a direct result of chemtrail spraying throughout the region. These chemicals are not only damaging soils by acidifying them, but they’re also affecting the quality of water, food and air.

Sources for this article include:

GeoengineeringWatch.org

MBTMag.com

NaturalNews.com

ScientificAmerican.com

IOPScience.IOP.org

Originally posted 2015-10-01 10:21:47.

Setting the record straight on a controversial toxicity study that links Monsanto’s transgenic corn and glyphosate herbicide (Roundup) to liver and kidney toxicity in mice, a new paper published in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe exposes the criminal science cartel that actively censors research into genetically-modified organisms and biotechnology that goes against the status quo.

Doctors John Fagan, Terje Traavik, and Thomas Bohn want the world to know that Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini’s famous study on GM maize NK603 and Roundup is a toxicity study that just so happened to uncover carcinogenic effects from NK603 and Roundup, both in combination and individually. The findings of this important study are indeed valid, they reiterate, and serve as a legitimate baseline for further research into this controversial segment of industrial agriculture.

Their peer-reviewed paper entitled “The Seralini affair: degeneration of Science to Re-Science?” warns that retracting studies simply because they don’t fit the official narrative for a particular subject is the antithesis of what true science is supposed to entail. They emphasize that the normal scientific process involves investigating new ideas and publishing the results, which then encourages others to do the same in either support or rejection of the earlier findings.

Prof. Seralini’s toxicology study into NK603 and Roundup lays groundwork for further inquiry into GMO and herbicide safety

Prof. Seralini’s study, in case you missed it, was retracted from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology after a swarm of “skeptics” and other anti-science fanatics demanded that it be pulled for primarily political reasons. It basically boils down to the fact that these control freaks didn’t like what Prof. Seralini discovered concerning the carcinogenic nature of Monsanto GMO corn and Roundup, so they pressured and bullied the editors of the journal who published his paper to retract it.

Their reasoning and criticisms were quickly exposed as invalid, as revealed in this comprehensive rebuttal, but little was done to vindicate Prof. Seralini and his study and make things right. That’s where this latest paper comes into play, challenging the corruption within scientific circles that stifles honest inquiry into controversial subjects, including GMO safety.

Dr. Fagan and his colleagues say the growing trend towards pulling papers from journals simply because some people don’t like their findings — Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his famous Lancet paper represent another textbook example of this — overshadows the normal scientific process “in which peer-reviewed publication stimulates new research, generating new empirical evidence that drives the evolution of scientific understanding.”

NK603 and Roundup are toxic and might cause cancer, researchers affirm

After thoroughly examining Prof. Seralini’s original findings and research methods, Dr. Fagan, Dr. Traavick, and Dr. Bohn determined that NK603 and Roundup are not only toxic to the kidneys and liver below current regulatory thresholds, but they might also cause cancer in mammals. They say that these preliminary discoveries warrant further inquiry by regulatory authorities and the scientific community at large rather than animosity towards those who made these discoveries.

“Follow-up long-term carcinogenicity studies, using test animal strains and numbers of animals that assure robust conclusions, are required to confirm/refute this preliminary evidence,” they write. “The inherent tension between the scientific process and commercial interests of product developers necessitates implementation of safeguards that protect the scientific process and prevent degeneration of Science to Re-Science (typified by retraction and republication disputes).”

For more on Prof. Seralini’s study, what it revealed, and where critics went wrong in condemning it as “invalid,” visit GMOSeralini.org.

Sources for this article include:

GMOSeralini.org

ENVEurope.com

GMOSeralini.org

GMWatch.org

Originally posted 2015-09-27 10:21:24.

So many young girls are experiencing horrific health breakdowns following vaccination with the Gardasil shot for human papillomavirus (HPV) that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has announced plans to conduct a thorough safety review of the controversial vaccine.

Following the recent airing of a documentary in Denmark pointing out the wave of health effects associated with Gardasil, European authorities are apparently rethinking the administration of this jab, which appears to cause permanent health damage in many of those who receive it.

As reported by Denmark’s The Local, the EMA is pursuing additional review of Gardasil to “further clarify aspects of [the vaccine’s] safety profile.” This was prompted by the Danish Health and Medicines Authority (Sundhedsstyrelsen), which has been tracking girls who’ve been injured following administration of Gardasil.

According to the EMA, some 72 million young women have been vaccinated with Gardasil since it was first introduced in Europe in 2006. Many of these young women have reported side effects ranging from seizures and fainting to heart problems and chronic fatigue.

So far, more than 100 Danish girls have applied for financial compensation for injuries resulting from Gardasil. Three of them, according to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, have already collected the U.S. equivalent of about $593,000. Another 800 Danish girls have reported side effects in conjunction with the vaccine, but these have not yet applied for compensation.

“Both the [European] side effects committee and the Danish Health and Medicines Authority here at home assess that the advantages of the vaccine against cervical cancer are greater than the disadvantages and continue to recommend that young girls get vaccinated,” stated Danish health minister Sophie Lohde to the media.

“But it is important for me that we react when there continues to be new reports of side effects and there is also concern among many girls and their families. We should take that seriously.”

Governments need to stop messing around and just admit that HPV vaccines are deadly

Gardasil isn’t the only vaccine for HPV being reviewed – all three HPV vaccines currently on the market, including Gardasil (Merck & Co.), Gardasil 9, and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) are under safety review by the EMA.

Among the conditions being investigated are many reports of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS, an affliction that involves abnormal heart rate between when a sufferer is sitting or standing. The condition can lead to dizziness, fainting, headache, weakness, and chest pains.

Other conditions include complex regional pain syndrome, or CRPS, which affects the normal use of one’s limbs. Many girls who’ve reported side effects post-jab with HPV vaccines say their muscles are weak, and they can no longer engage in physical activities like they use to prior to the jab.

The purpose of the EMA’s review is to determine whether or not there’s a legitimate causal link between HPV vaccines and these conditions. The agency contends that these and other symptoms can occur “in non-vaccinated individuals,” or at least this is the official story.

But those who’ve experienced injuries know that the vaccine was the cause, and they’re not going to rest until the truth gets out. Despite what health authorities might claim about HPV vaccines being “very safe,” those who’ve suffered adverse effects know the truth.

“After Gardasil was licensed and three doses recommended for 11-12 year old girls and young women, there were thousands of reports of sudden collapse with unconsciousness within 24 hours,” reports the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).

Other adverse effects include “Seizures; muscle pain and weakness; disabling fatigue, Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS); facial paralysis, brain inflammation, rheumatoid arthritis; lupus; blood clots; optic neuritis; multiple sclerosis; strokes; heart and other serious health problems, including death, following receipt of Gardasil vaccine.”

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.thelocal.dk

http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/hpv.aspx

Originally posted 2015-09-25 08:46:31.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention once had a rather good reputation among Americans and the world, but that reputation continues to take hits as more information becomes available about how the agency functions and its ties to industry.

Once touted as an “independent” institution, a recent investigative report published in The BMJ (British Medical Journal) by associate editor Jeanne Lenzer calls into question the CDC’s integrity. Notably, the report demonstrates how the agency has been less than honest in its publication of disclaimers in its own studies when stating that “they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.”

While the news does not come as a shocker to those of us in alternative media, the information is nevertheless noteworthy in that it was published in one of the premier medical science journals. Lenzer, in her report, described the significance of the report and the platform in which it was published:

The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.

She then went on to quote Marcia Angell, the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine:

The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with biopharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.

“Authorised to accept Big Pharma funding

Lenzer then provides documentation in her report about how the CDC has gotten millions of dollars in “industry gifts and funding” at least since 1983 (the agency was founded in 1946).

“Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking,” she wrote.

In 1983, Lenzer says, the CDC was “authorised” to accept funding from Big Pharma companies, and that in 1995 Congress approved legislation – signed into law by President Bill Clinton – “to encourage relationships between industry and the CDC.”

The report goes on to give a number of examples of how Big Pharma funding has likely affected the outcomes of research that was used to promote questionable medications.

As Natural News has previously reported, the CDC is actually a for-profit corporation, as they are generally defined, much like the rest of the federal government, which has been sold off to the highest corporate bidder.

In that report, we revealed that the CDC was listed in a Dunn & Bradstreet database as a for-profit entity, even though it is supposed to be a public, not-for-profit entity (as Lenzer noted, U.S. taxpayers funded the CDC to the tune of about $6.6 billion last year).

We also tied the CDC to the pharmaceutical industry, which seeks to profit by essentially keeping us sick and dependent on medications.

Compromised by graft and greed

But perhaps none of this should surprise us, considering government agencies of all stripes have no problem lying to the very citizens who pay for their existence.

As Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, noted recently regarding the NSA “head fake,” in which mainstream media reported that the nation’s premier spy agency really was ending its mass surveillance of Americans when provisions of the USA Patriot Act expired May 31:

There are days I just shake my head in bewilderment at the astonishing, almost incomprehensible gullibility of mainstream Americans and the media that claims to be practicing intelligent journalism. When I see the Associated Press report things like, “The NSA had stopped gathering the records from phone companies hours before the deadline,” I’m almost paralyzed with disbelief.

The CDC is not the independent entity that Americans, and the world, have been led to believe it is. Like most other government bureaucracies, it, too, has been compromised by graft – and greed.

Originally posted 2015-06-25 09:07:05.

Dr. Diane McKay of the Jean Mayer USDA Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University Boston, MA, reported to the American Heart Association in 2008 the results of her study on the use of hibiscus tea to lower high blood pressure. This was a randomized, double blind placebo controlled trial.

Participants consumed 3 cups of hibiscus tea daily for 6 weeks versus a group that consumed a placebo beverage. The trial included 65 men and women aged 30 to 70 whose blood pressure ranged from 120-150 systolic and less than 95 diastolic. See my earlier post for an explanation of systolic and diastolic measurements.

None of the subjects were on high blood pressure medications. The blood pressure reduction achieved is listed in the following table.

Blood Pressure Reduction

The following were the results:

 Systolic  Diastolic
Hibiscus Tea (3 8oz. cups daily)  7-13 points  3 points
Placebo Group  1 point  0.5 points
Avg. Blood Pressure Medication  5-9 points  3-5 points

The average systolic blood pressure reduction was 7 points; however, in those with systolic blood pressures over 129, the average systolic blood pressure reduction was slightly more than 13 points. This exceeds the average reduction achieved by a blood pressure medication of 5-9 points systolic.

A Possible Explanation

Dr. McKay said that the presence of anthocyanins as well as other phytonutrients in the hibiscus tea could have contributed to the significant outcome. The placebo beverage contained no anthocyanins. These substances act in a manner similar to a class of high blood pressure medications called ACE inhibitors.

In another study comparing hibiscus tea against Captopril (a widely used ACE inhibitor), hibiscus tea proved to be equally as effective as the medication in lowering high blood pressure.

More Dramatic Blood Pressure Reduction

The Journal of Human Hypertension (August 2008) published a study in which hibiscus tea was compared to black tea in a group of diabetic patients. This group included 60 diabetic patients (Type 2 Diabetes). None of the group were on high blood pressure medications. For a period of one month, one group drank 2 cups of hibiscus tea while the other drank 2 cups of black tea.

The hibiscus tea group went from a systolic blood pressure of 134 to a systolic blood pressure of 112. There was no statistically significant difference in diastolic blood pressure. The authors conclude that their study confirms what other studies have found: hibiscus tea has an antihypertensive impact.

Questions and Cautions

There have been some questions raised regarding drinking hibiscus tea while pregnant. Dr. McKay indicated that in Nigeria, parts of the population consume the equivalent of 25 cups of hibiscus tea per day with no reported side effects. As always, if you are taking medication or considering a change in diet, consult with a licensed health practitioner.

Enjoy your hibiscus tea, and tell us your favorite natural snack that goes with it!

Originally posted 2015-05-19 10:17:40.

The use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs could double your risk of developing diabetes, suggests a study conducted by researchers from the VA North Texas Health System and the University of Texas Southwestern that was published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine on April 28.

Previous studies have shown a link between statin use and increased diabetes rates, but the new study is the first to show that statins seem to increase diabetes risk even in otherwise healthy people who are not predisposed to the disease.

“In our study, statin use was associated with a significantly higher risk of new-onset diabetes, even in a very healthy population,” lead author Ishak Mansi said. “The risk of diabetes with statins has been known, but up until now it was thought that this might be due to the fact that people who were prescribed statins had greater medical risks to begin with.”

Diabetes complications also more likely

The researchers examined the medical records of approximately 26,000 people who were enrolled in the military health system Tricare between October 2003 and March 2012. They used a particularly robust method of data analysis known as propensity score matching, in which 3,351 statin users were matched with an equal number of non-users who were very similar to them in 42 separate health and demographic variables. This is considered a particularly effective way of ruling out potential confounding factors.

The analysis showed that people taking statins had an 87 percent higher risk of developing diabetes. The diabetes that they developed was also more likely to be serious; statin users were 250 percent more likely to develop diabetes with complications than non-users.

The study is the first to show a connection between statins and diabetes complications. Confirming prior results, the analysis also showed that statin users were 14 percent more likely to become overweight.

The researchers also performed a more conventional analysis, directly comparing the roughly 4,000 statin users in the sample with the 22,000 non-users while controlling for certain known risk factors. This analysis found that statin users were more than 100 percent more likely to develop diabetes than non-users.

Both methods of analysis showed that the higher the dose of statins a person was taking, the higher their risk of obesity, diabetes and diabetes complications.

Lifestyle changes safer, more effective

The study suggests that the short-term trials used to secure drug approval might not “fully describe the risks and benefits of long-term statin use,” Mansi said.

Patients should be made aware of the full risks of the drugs doctors prescribe, he added.

“Knowing the risks may motivate a patient to quit smoking, rather than swallow a tablet, or to lose weight and exercise,” Mansi said. “Ideally, it is better to make those lifestyle changes and avoid taking statins if possible.”

An emerging body of research is suggesting that statins are not only dangerous, but that they do not even reduce rates of heart disease or death. Indeed, some studies suggest that statins might actually raise the risk of cardiovascular disease. This is because although statins are great at lowering cholesterol, new findings suggest that blood cholesterol is simply a marker of heart disease risk and not a cause of the disease.

A recent analysis published in the Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology concluded that the benefits of statins have been consistently exaggerated while their risks have been downplayed. The analysis showed that statins reduced cardiovascular disease by only a paltry 1 percent. Greater benefits claimed by drug advocates are “statistical deception,” they said.

“The adverse effects suffered by people taking statins are more common than reported in the media and at medical conferences,” the researchers wrote. “Increased rates of cancer, cataracts, diabetes, cognitive impairments and musculoskeletal disorders more than offset the modest cardiovascular benefits of statin treatment.”

Originally posted 2015-05-19 10:15:52.

Post Navigation