There is good news making its way slowly, slowly into the medical world: little by little allopathic medicine is finally noticing how effective nutrients are in diseases and clinical conditions. Too slowly for most of us, but, still, there are creeping changes.
Instead of antibiotics, for example, pediatricians have noticed that pediatric diarrhea responds to zinc. Why? Because immune systems need zinc to do their job. So give the child zinc and it can fix the problem by itself without dangerous, expensive drugs. Well, well!
And even better, infection yields to silver. Well, of course it does. Burn centers have know that for decades and so has every natural doctor and naturopath for the last how many decades? But the derision and scorn heaped on us when we tried to talk about these and a thousand other ways of treating people when they come to us for cheap, simple, effective and safe means of getting well or staying that way is profound.
It is, however, the derision and anger born of fear.
Laibow’s First Law of Human Psychology is “Anger Drives Out Fear, Or At Least It’s Supposed To!” And conventional medicine is very, very afraid of the natural competitors to its expensive, dangerous and very limited drugs.
Oh, yes, one more thing: Codex Alimentarius makes the international trade of supplements very difficult since supplements may only be sold at doses so low that they have no clinical impact. Codex copmpliance in Europe through the European Food Supplements Directive is, in fact, stripping the shelves of stores of the nutrients previously avaialbe which might have allowed people to use the information in this article. Just ask any one you know, for example, in the UK, what is happening to their supplements: they are vanishing like the morning mist. Poof! Just like that.
If you don’t want the same thing to happen to you, it is imperative that you take action now, join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s distribution list for the free and secure Health Freedom eAlerts and take the action steps therein. I can assure you that legislators are not going to protect your health freedom without an effective outcry from us, the consumers who make our own choices about our own health paths.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
Changes in Folate and Homocysteine Linked to Incident Dementia
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/579216?sssdmh=dm1.378114&src=nldne
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Aug 18 – Onset of dementia is associated with decreasing folate and increasing vitamin B12 and homocysteine, results of a study published in the August issue of the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry indicate.
“Several cross-sectional studies have found significant associations of lower folate and hyperhomocysteinemia with dementia or cognitive impairment, but the direction of cause and effect is not known,” Dr. Jin-Sang Yoon, of University Medical School, Kwangiu, Republic of Korea, and colleagues write. “Results from prospective studies have been controversial.”
In their study, the researchers examined both baseline levels and changes in folate, vitamin B12, and homocysteine as predictors of incident dementia in 625 elderly patients free of dementia at baseline; 518 (83%) were followed over 2.4 years.
Incident dementia occurred in 45 of the 518 (8.7%). The only baseline factor that predicted incident dementia was lower folate concentrations
However, “The onset of dementia was significantly associated with an exaggerated decline in folate, a weaker increase in vitamin B12 concentrations and an exaggerated increase in homocysteine concentrations over the follow-up period,” the team reports.
After adjustment for weight change, these associations were reduced.
“Further research is required to clarify these complex longitudinal interrelationships,” Dr. Yoon and colleagues conclude. “In the meantime, attention needs to be paid to the nutritional status of people with dementia from the time of diagnosis onwards, regardless of whether this is a cause or effect of their condition.”
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008;79:864-868.Silver-Coated Endotracheal Tube Reduces Risk for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia CME
News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
CME Author: Penny Murata, MD
Disclosures
Release Date: August 19, 2008; Valid for credit through August 19, 2009
Credits Available
Physicians – maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)â„¢ for physicians;
Family Physicians – up to 0.25 AAFP Prescribed credit(s) for physicians
To participate in this internet activity: (1) review the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures; (2) study the education content; (3) take the post-test and/or complete the evaluation; (4) view/print certificate View details.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:
1. Compare the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients intubated for at least 24 hours with a silver-coated endotracheal tube vs an uncoated endotracheal tube.
2. Report whether use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube affects duration of intubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, mortality rates, and adverse events.
Authors and Disclosures
Laurie Barclay, MD
Disclosure: Laurie Barclay, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Penny Murata, MD
Disclosure: Penny Murata, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Brande Nicole Martin
Disclosure: Brande Nicole Martin has disclosed no relevant financial information.
August 19, 2008 — Use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube significantly reduces the incidence of microbiologically confirmed ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), according to the results of a large, randomized, multicenter study reported in the August 20 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“VAP causes substantial morbidity,” write Marin H. Kollef, MD, from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and colleagues from the North American Silver-Coated Endotracheal Tube Investigation Group. “A silver-coated endotracheal tube has been designed to reduce VAP incidence by preventing bacterial colonization and biofilm formation.”
The goal of this prospective, single-blind study conducted in 54 centers in North America was to evaluate whether use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube would reduce the incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP.
Of 9417 adult patients aged 18 years or older who were screened between 2002 and 2006, a total of 2003 patients who were expected to need mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours were randomly assigned to undergo intubation with 1 of 2 high-volume, low-pressure endotracheal tubes. These tubes were similar except that the experimental tube had a silver coating.
The main endpoint was incidence of VAP, diagnosed from quantitative bronchoalveolar lavage fluid culture with at least 104 colony-forming units/mL in patients intubated for at least 24 hours. Secondary endpoints were VAP incidence in all intubated patients, time to VAP onset, length of intubation and duration of intensive care unit and hospital stay, mortality rates, and adverse events.
Rates of microbiologically confirmed VAP in patients intubated for at least 24 hours were 4.8% (37/766 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4% – 6.6%) in the group receiving the silver-coated tube and 7.5% (56/743; 95% CI, 5.7% – 9.7%; P = .03) in the group receiving the uncoated tube (relative risk reduction, 35.9%; 95% CI, 3.6% – 69.0%).
Rates of microbiologically confirmed VAP in all intubated patients were 3.8% (37/968; 95% CI, 2.7% – 5.2%) in the experimental group and 5.8% (56/964; 95% CI, 4.4% – 7.5%; P = .04) in the control group (relative risk reduction, 34.2%; 95% CI, 1.2% – 67.9%).
Use of the silver-coated endotracheal tube was associated with delayed occurrence of VAP (P = .005), but there were no statistically significant between-group differences in durations of intubation, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay. Mortality rates and frequency and severity of adverse events were also similar in both groups.
“Patients receiving a silver-coated endotracheal tube had a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of VAP and delayed time to VAP occurrence compared with those receiving a similar, uncoated tube,” the study authors write. “The silver-coated endotracheal tube appears to offer a unique approach because it is the first intervention that becomes user-independent after intubation, requiring no further action by the clinician.”
Limitations of this study include single blinding rather than double blinding; use of a small, fixed block size stratified by center; other factors possibly contributing to between-group differences in VAP rates; study protocol not standardizing prevention strategies; and a protective effect of higher severity-of-illness scores against development of VAP.
In an accompanying editorial, Jean Chastre, MD, from Institut de Cardiologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpê trière in Paris, France, discusses the study limitations.
“Important uncertainties exist regarding the exact benefit of silver-coated endotracheal tubes,” Dr. Chastre writes. “Consequently, silver coated tubes should not be viewed as the definitive answer for VAP prevention, and, until additional data confirm the clinical effectiveness and cost benefit of these devices, their use should be restricted to high-risk patients treated in ICUs [intensive care units] with benchmark value-based infection rates that remain above institutional goals despite implementation of a comprehensive strategy of usual preventive measures to prevent VAP.”
CR Bard Inc supported this study and provided grant support to all of the study authors. Some of the study authors have disclosed various financial relationships with Kimberly Clark, Elan, Merck, Pfizer, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, KCI, sanofi-aventis, Johnson & Johnson, Easi, Hospira, Nomir Medical Technologies, Arpida, Cubist, Elan, Ortho-McNeil, Sanofi Pasteur, Wyeth, Bayer-Nektar, Nestle Clinical Nutrition, Lilly, Corbett Accel Healthcare, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, and/or Maquet. Dr. Chastre has received consulting and lecture fees from Pfizer, Brahms, Wyeth, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer-Nektar, and Arpida.
JAMA. 2008.300:805-813, 842-844.
Clinical Context
Rello and colleagues reported in the December 2002 issue of Chest that VAP is linked with increased morbidity rates and generally occurs in the first 10 days after endotracheal intubation. Probable causes of VAP include colonization with pathogenic bacteria and aspiration, as noted by Kollef in the June 2005 issue of Respiratory Care. In the November 2006 issue of Critical Care Medicine, Rello and colleagues found that a silver-coated endotracheal tube decreased bacterial colonization of the airway. The silver ions in a polymer on the inner and outer lumen migrate to the surface of the tube to potentially reduce bacterial adhesion, impede biofilm formation, and promote antimicrobial activity.
This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blind study assesses the efficacy of a silver-coated endotracheal tube in reducing the incidence of VAP in patients needing mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours.
Study Highlights
* 2003 adults aged at least 18 years and expected to need at least 24 hours of mechanical ventilation were randomly assigned to use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube vs an uncoated endotracheal tube.
* Exclusion criteria were enrollment in a conflicting study, bronchiectasis, severe hemoptysis, cystic fibrosis, pregnancy, silver sensitivity, and more than 12 hours of endotracheal intubation in the previous 30 days.
* 1932 subjects were intubated: 968 in the silver-coated tube group and 964 in the uncoated tube group.
* 1509 subjects were intubated for at least 24 hours: 766 in the silver-coated tube group and 743 in the uncoated tube group.
* Baseline characteristics for both groups were similar for age (mean age, 60.9 – 62.2 years; range, 18 – 102 years), sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, immunocompetency, enteral nutrition use, and endotracheal tube size.
* Both groups had similar VAP risk factors, except chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was less common in the silver-coated tube group vs the uncoated tube group (24-hour intubation subjects, 11.6% vs 16.4%; P = .007; all intubated subjects, 9.2% vs 12.7%; P = .02).
* The primary outcome measure was VAP incidence, defined by at least 104 colony-forming units/mL in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid culture, in patients intubated for at least 24 hours.
* VAP incidence in patients intubated for at least 24 hours was lower in the silver-coated tube group vs the uncoated tube group (4.8% [37/766 patients] vs 7.5% [56/743 patients]; P = .03; relative risk reduction, 35.9%).
* VAP incidence in all intubated patients was lower in the silver-coated tube group vs the uncoated tube group (3.8% vs 5.8%; P = .04; relative risk reduction, 34.2%).
* Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid culture was also obtained in those with suspected VAP or with new radiographic infiltrate and at least 2 qualifying signs (fever or hypothermia, leukocytosis or leukopenia, or purulent tracheal aspirate).
* Of 220 patients who underwent bronchoalveolar lavage for suspected VAP, the most common pathogens for the silver-coated tube group vs the uncoated tube group were Staphylococcus aureus (9 vs 16), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8 vs 11), Enterobacteriaceae (10 vs 5), and polymicrobial infections (7 vs 13).
* VAP incidence within 10 days of intubation in patients intubated for at least 24 hours was less common in the silver-coated tube group (relative risk reduction, 47.6%; 95% CI, 14.6% – 81.9%; P = .005).
* Delayed occurrence of VAP was linked to silver-coated tube use (P = .005).
* There was no difference between groups in median duration of intubation, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, and mortality rates.
* Regression analysis showed that silver-coated tube use was associated with decreased risk for VAP at any time, VAP within 10 days of intubation, and delayed time to occurrence.
* Adverse events occurred with similar frequency and severity for both groups.
* 59 endotracheal tube–related adverse events occurred: 21 in the silver-coated tube group vs 38 in the uncoated tube group.
* 74 intubation procedure–related adverse events occurred: 39 in the silver-coated tube group vs 35 in the uncoated tube group.
* Post hoc analysis showed that VAP in patients intubated for at least 24 hours was linked with longer duration of intubation and longer length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital but not with mortality rate.
* Limitations of the study included lower than expected VAP incidence in the uncoated tube group, more subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the uncoated tube group, and lack of blinding of investigators.
Pearls for Practice
* The incidence of VAP in patients intubated for at least 24 hours is reduced and delayed with use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube vs an uncoated endotracheal tube.
* Use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube does not affect duration of intubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, mortality rates, or adverse events.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/579239?sssdmh=dm1.378114&src=nldne
Oral zinc for treating diarrhoea in children.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; (3):CD005436 (ISSN: 1469-493X)
Lazzerini M; Ronfani L
Unit of Research on Health Services and International Health, WHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Via dei Burlo 1,34123, Trieste, Italy.
BACKGROUND: Diarrhoea causes around two million child deaths annually. Zinc supplementation could help reduce the duration and severity of diarrhoea, and is recommended by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate oral zinc supplementation for treating children with acute or persistent diarrhoea. SEARCH STRATEGY: In November 2007, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, mRCT, and reference lists. We also contacted researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing oral zinc supplementation (>/= 5 mg/day for any duration) with placebo in children aged one month to five years with acute or persistent diarrhoea, including dysentery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality, extracted and analysed data, and drafted the review. Diarrhoea duration and severity were the primary outcomes. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses (using the fixed- or random-effects model) and assessed heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen trials enrolling 6165 participants met our inclusion criteria. In acute diarrhoea, zinc resulted in a shorter diarrhoea duration (MD -12.27 h, 95% CI -23.02 to -1.52 h; 2741 children, 9 trials), and less diarrhoea at day three (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; 1073 children, 2 trials), day five (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.95; 346 children, 2 trials), and day seven (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; 4087 children, 7 trials). The four trials (1458 children) that reported on diarrhoea severity used different units and time points, and the effect of zinc was less clear. Subgroup analyses by age (trials with only children aged less than six months) showed no benefit with zinc. Subgroup analyses by nutritional status, geographical region, background zinc deficiency, zinc type, and study setting did not affect the results’ significance. Zinc also reduced the duration of persistent diarrhoea (MD -15.84 h, 95% CI -25.43 to -6.24 h; 529 children, 5 trials). Few trials reported on severity, and results were inconsistent. No trial reported serious adverse events, but vomiting was more common in zinc-treated children with acute diarrhoea (RR 1.71, 95% 1.27 to 2.30; 4727 children, 8 trials). AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: In areas where diarrhoea is an important cause of child mortality, research evidence shows zinc is clearly of benefit in children aged six months or more.
Subject Headings
Major Subject Heading(s) Minor Subject Heading(s)
* PreMedline Identifier: 18646129
Irradiated food is really bad stuff. Of course, it is not radioactive, but it is filled with disease-causing free radicals caused by the process of bombarding it with high energy radiation, the contents of dead organisms killed by the radiation, inactivated, worthless enzymes, and the bits and pieces of what is known in the legal trade as “filth”: insect parts, rat excrement, hairs, dead vermin, etc., which careful handling would eliminate or minimize.
Food that is going to be irradiated, however, does not receive careful handling typically since it will be “sterilized” by the irradiation. If your food is not only irradiated, but genetically modified and stuffed with toxic chemicals, in other words, meets FDA, USDA and Codex standards, now THAT’s as bad as it gets. That’s fully weaponized, “loaded and locked” food. Don’t go near the stuff.
UGH!
Consumers do not want irradiated food. So the ever corporate-friendly agencies of the government, and of course, Codex Alimentarius, take the crafty step of not telling us whether food is irradiated or not if they can get away without doing so. Once food is processed, it does not have to have the familiar “radura”, the radiation symbol, which the law previously required.
Now that fresh lettuce, spinach and other greens are defined as a “health hazard” by a berserk FDA, they, too, will be irradiated before we can eat them. All of them, unless consumed locally or grown by you or your friends.
What does that tell you? Eat locally. Grow your own food.
Print bumper stickers that say “Grow or Glow” and tell people what that means. Get good at “4 foot square” gardening, or growing on your patio or balcony. Organize window box growing for your community or community gardens. You ARE in control of what goes into your body. If you are not, get yourself organized and get into that position. Meet with your neighbors to make this happen for all of you. You and your neighbors are something else besides neighbors: you are CONSUMERS.
Consumers are very powerful when they take the time and effort to be. Since your food is being weaponized against you and your family (!) GET organized.
Email Kathy Greene, kathy.greene@usa.net, the Community Organization Coordinator of the Natural Solutions Foundation and let us help you get your neighbors motivated and activated. We have an excellent eBook on Community Organizing that we will send you if you ask. Just put “Organizing” in the subject line.
Consumer organizations perform valuable services. Not only can they be watchdogs and whistleblowers, they can provide significant information to other consumers, government officials and agencies, university decision makers and the people who attend and shape policy at national and international meetings. According to our West African sources, in that part of the world, consumers organizations who become upset about an issue can literally bring down a government.
Of course, what that takes is a strong sense of ownership: this is MY body, this is MY environment, this is MY child, this is MY body. And the people living right next store to me, and across town, and across the country care about what happens to me, and to themselves, too.
If companies and governments are lying to me, or poisoning me or corrupting my food, or my field or my child’s body, or keeping deadly secrets of putting me in harm’s way for your own good, we, the Consumers, should, can, will, say “NO!” to what is bad and “YES!” to what is good for us.
Up with consumers and consumerism, I say.
The diametrical opposite to consumerism, of course, is “corporatism”. What is good for corporations, which is generally what governments decide is good for them since so much money is involved, is very often exactly NOT what is good for people, for consumers, for you, for me. And, oh, by the way, it may not be at all good for the environment. In fact, when their decisions and actions are good for the consumer or the environment, that is the cause for press releases and hoopla.
It’s up to us.
The Organic Consumers organization has published a very useful compendium called “WHAT’S WRONG WITH FOOD IRRADIATION, http://www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact.cfm. Although food irradiation is presented by government and industry, and, of course, by the ever corporate-friendly FDA and USDA, as benign and helpful, it is neither. Read below and see why irradiation, sometimes misleadingly called “Cold Sterilization” or “Cold Pasturization” is neither.
And then start eating and growing organic!
Check it out and take control of your health by taking control of what you eat!
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
What’s Wrong With Irradiated Food?
Irradiation damages the quality of food.
· Irradiation damages food by breaking up molecules and creating free radicals. The free radicals kill some bacteria, but they also bounce around in the food, damage vitamins and enzymes, and combine with existing chemicals (like pesticides) in the food to form new chemicals, called unique radiolytic products (URPs).
· Some of these URPs are known toxins (benzene, formaldehyde, lipid peroxides) and some are unique to irradiated foods. Scientists have not studied the long-term effect of these new chemicals in our diet. Therefore, we cannot assume they are safe.
· Irradiated foods can lose 5%-80% of many vitamins (A, C, E, K and B complex). The amount of loss depends on the dose of irradiation and the length of storage time.
· Most of the food in the American diet is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for irradiation: beef, pork, lamb, poultry, wheat, wheat flour, vegetables, fruits, shell eggs, seeds for sprouting, spices, herb teas. (Dairy is already pasteurized). A food industry petition currently before the FDA asks for approval for luncheon meats, salad bar items, sprouts, fresh juices and frozen foods. Another petition before the USDA asks for approval for imported fruits and vegetables.
· Irradiation damages the natural digestive enzymes found in raw foods. This means the body has to work harder to digest them.
· If unlabeled, raw foods that have been irradiated look like fresh foods, but nutritionally they are like cooked foods, with decreased vitamins and enzymes. The FDA allows these foods to be labeled “fresh.”
· Irradiated fats tend to become rancid.
· When high-energy electron beams are used, trace amounts of radioactivity may be created in the food.
Science has not proved that a long-term diet of irradiated foods is safe for human health
· The longest human feeding study was 15 weeks. No one knows the long-term effects of a life-long diet that includes foods which will be frequently irradiated, such as meat, chicken, vegetables, fruits, salads, sprouts and juices.
· There are no studies on the effects of feeding babies or children diets containing irradiated foods, except a very small and controversial study from India that showed health effects.
· Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Some possible causes are: irradiation-induced vitamin deficiencies, the inactivity of enzymes in the food, DNA damage, and toxic radiolytic products in the food.
· The FDA based its approval of irradiation for poultry on only 5 of 441 animal-feeding studies. Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., the toxicologist who chaired the FDA committee that approved irradiation, later said, “These studies reviewed in the 1982 literature from the FDA were not adequate by 1982 standards, and are even less accurate by 1993 standards to evaluate the safety of any product, especially a food product such as irradiated food.” The 5 studies are not a good basis for approval of irradiation for humans, because they showed health effects on the animals or were conducted using irradiation at lower energies than those the FDA eventually approved.
· The FDA based its approval of irradiation for fruits and vegetables on a theoretical calculation of the amount of URPs in the diet from one 7.5 oz. serving/day of irradiated food. Considering the different kinds of foods approved for irradiation, this quantity is too small and the calculation is irrelevant.
· Even with current labeling requirements, people cannot avoid eating irradiated food. That means there is no control group, and epidemiologists will never be able to determine if irradiated food has any health effects.
· Science is always changing. The science of today is not the science of tomorrow. The science we have today is not adequate to prove the long-term safety of food irradiation.
Irradiation covers up problems that the meat and poultry industry should solve
· Irradiation covers up the increased fecal contamination that results from speeded up slaughter and decreased federal inspection, both of which allow meat and poultry to be produced more cheaply. Prodded by the industry, the USDA has allowed a transfer of inspection to company inspectors. Where government inspectors remain, they are not allowed to condemn meat and poultry now that they condemned 20 years ago.
· Because of this deregulation (continued under President Clinton, a protégé of Tyson Foods), the meat and poultry industry has recently lost money and suffered bad publicity from food-poisoning lawsuits and expensive product recalls. Irradiation is a “magic bullet” that will enable them to say that the product was “clean” when it left the packing plant. (Irradiation, however, does not sterilize food, and any bacteria that remain can grow to toxic proportions if the food is not properly stored and handled.)
· In 2000, seven meat industry associations submitted a petition to USDA to redefine key regulations relating to contamination. If accepted by USDA, this petition would permit unlimited fecal contamination during production, as long as irradiation was used afterward.
Labeling is necessary to inform people so they can choose to avoid irradiated foods
· Because irradiated foods have not been proven safe for human health in the long term, prominent, conspicuous and truthful labels are necessary for all irradiated foods. Consumers should be able to easily determine if their food has been irradiated. Labels should also be required for irradiated ingredients of compound foods, and for restaurant and institutional foods.
· Because irradiation can deplete vitamins, labels should state the amount of vitamin loss after irradiation, especially for fresh foods that are usually eaten fresh. Consumers have the right to know if they are buying nutritionally impaired foods.
· Current US labels are not sufficient to enable consumers to avoid irradiated food. Foods are labeled only to the first purchaser. Irradiated spices, herb teas and supplement ingredients, foods that are served in restaurants, schools, etc., or receive further processing, do not bear consumer labels. Consumer labels are required only for foods sold whole (like a piece of fruit) or irradiated in the package (like chicken breasts). The text with the declaration of irradiation can be as small as the type face on the ingredient label. The US Department of Agriculture requirements have one difference: irradiated meat or poultry that is part of another food (like a tv dinner) must be disclosed on the label.
· The US Food and Drug Administration is currently rewriting the regulation for minimum labeling, and will release it for public comment by early 2002 [now long past – REL]. They may eliminate all required text labels. If they do retain the labels, Congress has told them to use a “friendly” euphemism instead of “irradiation.” [Hence “cold sterilization” or “cold Pasteurization” and similar inaccurate terms on foods which must be labeled, a small minority of foods which are consumed after irradiation -REL]
Electron-beam irradiation today means nuclear irradiation tomorrow
· The source of the irradiation is not listed on the label.
· The original sponsor of food irradiation in the US was the Department of Energy, which wanted to create a favorable image of nuclear power as well as dispose of radioactive waste. These goals have not changed. Cobalt-60, which is used for irradiation, must be manufactured in a nuclear reactor.
· Many foods cannot be irradiated using electron beams. E-beams only penetrate 1-1.5 inches on each side, and are suitable only for flat, evenly sized foods like patties. Large fruits, foods in boxes, and irregularly shaped foods must be irradiated using x-rays or gamma rays from nuclear materials.
· Countries that lack a cheap and reliable source of electricity for e-beams use nuclear materials. Opening U.S. markets to irradiated food encourages the spread of nuclear irradiation worldwide.
[Codex Alimentarius supports the universal irradiation of all foods moving through international trade except those which have been fully processed to an end product like roasted coffee. The USDA requires all fruits and vegetables (with very few limited exceptions) to be irradiated before they are imported into the United States. -REL]
Irradiation using radioactive materials is an environmental hazard
· The more nuclear irradiators, the more likelihood of a serious accident in transport, operation or disposal of the nuclear materials.
· Food irradiation facilities have already contaminated the environment. For example, in the state of Georgia in 1988, radioactive water escaped from an irradiation facility. The taxpayers were stuck with $47 million in cleanup costs. Radioactivity was tracked into cars and homes. In Hawaii in 1967 and New Jersey in 1982, radioactive water was flushed into the public sewer system.
· Numerous worker exposures have occurred in food irradiation facilities worldwide.
Irradiation doesn’t provide clean food
· Because irradiation doesn’t kill all the bacteria in a food, the ones that survive are by definition radiation-resistant. These bacteria will multiply and eventually work their way back to the ‘animal factories’. Soon thereafter, the bacteria that contaminate the meat will no longer be killed by currently approved doses of irradiation. The technology will no longer be usable, while stronger bacteria contaminate our food supply.
· People may become more careless about sanitation if irradiation is widely used. Irradiation doesn’t kill all the bacteria in a food. In a few hours at room temperature, the bacteria remaining in meat or poultry after irradiation can multiply to the level existing before irradiation.
· Some bacteria, like the one that causes botulism, as well as viruses and prions (which are believed to cause Mad Cow Disease) are not killed by current doses of irradiation.
· Irradiation encourages food producers to cut corners on sanitation, because they can ‘clean up’ the food just before it is shipped.
Irradiation does nothing to change the way food is grown and produced
· Irradiated foods can have longer shelf lives than nonirradiated foods, which means they can be shipped further while appearing ‘fresh.’ Food grown by giant farms far away may last longer than non-irradiated, locally grown food, even if it is inferior in nutrition and taste. Thus, irradiation encourages centralization and hurts small farmers.
· The use of pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and other agri-chemicals, as well as pollution and energy use, are not affected. Irradiation is applied by the packer after harvest or slaughter.
· Some so-called Free-market economists say irradiation is ‘efficient’: it provides the cheapest possible food for the least possible risk. But these economists are not concerned about the impaired nutritional quality of the food. They are not considering the environmental effects of large-scale corporate farming, the social costs of centralization of agriculture and loss of family farms, the replacement of unionized, impartial government inspectors with company inspectors , the potential long-term damage to human health, and the possibility of irradiation-resistant super-bacteria. All of these developments should be (but are not) considered when regulators and public health officials evaluate the benefits of food irradiation.
In a truly free market, consumers would have access to truthful and not misleading information about all their food choices and could decide for themselves what risks to take. Honest companies would be free to truthfully tell that their products are organic, non-GMO, non-toxic, non-irradiated. Free people are free to choose risks… or to reject them. Slaves, of course, have to take whatever sh-t is dolled out to them.
Which are you?
August 21, 2008
Codex Alimentarius is a friend to Genetically Modified (GM) foods since it allows the US to replicate its devastatingly dangerous lack of labeling for GM foods. Here in the US, such labeling is forbidden since, in 1992, George H. W. Bush, then President, issued an Executive Order granting, as if by the magic of lobbying, equality to natural foods and those produced by biotechnology. Once equivalent, the GM foods not only did not have to be labeled, they MAY not be labeled, according to the ever corporate-friendly FDA — “GM Free” labels are not lawful, according to the FDA.
Not only that, but, playing the heavy at Codex, the US has managed to overcome the resistance of nearly all African countries, the EU and a host of other nations with grave reservations about both the safety of these “foods” and the ethical nature of denying consumers information they overwhelmingly say that they want to have — whether their food has been genetically tampered with or not.
A New York Times – CBS Poll earlier this summer indicated that 87% of Americans want GM labeling; over half would not buy GM food if it were so labeled: http://ecopreneurist.com/2008/05/23/half-of-all-americans-wouldnt-buy-frankenfoodsif-they-could-tell-the-difference/
Prince Charles, Heir Apparent to the throne of England, Wales and Scotland, however, got it right and did so in the face of the Press. Read what the Prince had to say below.
Natural Solutions Foundation commends Prince Charles for his stand on Genetically Modified foods and crops. The prince has long been an advocate of natural food production and a champion of organic farming. He notes, as does the Natural Solutions Foundation, that the industrialization of food production leads not only to inferior food, but drives the subsistence or peasant farmers off their lands creating social devastation along with the devastation of the environment and health for which GM foods are responsible.
The Prince warned that the bio tech corporations are taking us all towards a grim environmental disaster of unprecedented magnitude.
Whatever else the Royal Family of the UK may be engaged in, on this particular battle, they are on the right side and must be welcomed to the Natural Solutions Foundation Hall of Fame.
Congratulations, Prince Charles!
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.YouTube.com/NaturalSolutions
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
Charles in GM ‘disaster’ warning
BBC News August 13, 2008
Prince Charles has his own organic farm at his Gloucestershire estate
Companies developing genetically modified crops risk creating the biggest environmental disaster “of all time”, Prince Charles has warned.
GM crops were damaging Earth’s soil and were an experiment “gone seriously wrong”, he told the Daily Telegraph.
A future reliance on corporations to mass-produce food would drive millions of farmers off their land, he said.
The government said it welcomed all voices in the “important” debate over the future potential role of GM crops.
However, Dr Julian Little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, said he was “disappointed” by the Prince’s comments because “they do not seem to be based on any solid evidence”. *
“Our experience from over 10 years of GM cultivation shows that GM technology has been [sic] found to deliver real environmental and economic benefits,” he said. *
Mr Little added: “At a time when demand for food and fuel is rising and in the face of growing environmental challenges, we need to find ways to feed an ever-increasing global population.”
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the Prince’s “robust” comments were “likely to rankle with the government”, which has given the go-ahead to a number of GM crop trials in the UK since 2000.
“Even for a prince who’s a long-established champion of organic farming and critic of GM crops, these are comments which verge on the extreme,” our correspondent said.
Prince Charles told the newspaper that huge multi-national corporations involved in developing GM foods were conducting a “gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong”.
Relying on “gigantic corporations” for food would end in “absolute disaster”, he warned.
“That would be the absolute destruction of everything… and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future.”
What should be being debated was “food security not food production”, he said.
He said GM developers might think they would be successful by having “one form of clever genetic engineering after another”, but he believed “that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time”.
Prince Charles, who has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire, said relying on big corporations for the mass production of food would not only threaten future food supplies but also force smaller producers out of business.
“If they think this is the way to go, we will end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness,” he said.
The prince also told the Telegraph he hoped to see more family-run co-operative farms, with producers working with nature and not against it.
The Prince’s comments come at a time of rising world food prices and food shortages.
The biotech industry says that GM technology can help combat world hunger and poverty by delivering higher yields from crops and also reduce the use of pesticides.
‘Untenable’
In June, Environment Minister Phil Woolas said the government was ready to argue for a greater role for the technology.
But green groups and aid agencies have doubts about GM technology’s effectiveness in tackling world hunger and have concerns about the long-term environmental impact.
Responding to the prince’s comments, a spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Safety will always be our top priority on this issue.” …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7557644.stm
——————————–
* In the opinion of the Natural Solutions Foundation, the statements made by Dr. Little are disingenuous at the least. We know of no conclusive evidence that GM products are safe; certainly no long-term studies have been undertaken. Further, there are many suggestive developments, such as the upsurge in Morgellon’s-like syndrome, the reported devastation of the bee population, and similar instances that suggest the long term safety of GM products is not proven. Under the usual Precautionary Principal GM products cannot be deemed safe.
Health Freedom eAlert
May 31, 2008
IMPORTANT HEALTH FREEDOM INFORMATION.
PLEASE FORWARD VERY WIDELY
NOT GETTING YOUR OWN COPY?
SIGN UP HERE -TO JOIN THE HEALTH FREEDOM eALERT DISTRIBUTION LIST
https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187
“If you think you’re too small to make a difference, you’ve never been in bed with a mosquito.”
In this issue:
Connecting the Deadly Dots
– Deadly Vaccines
– Deadly Spraying
– Deadly Drugs
– Deadly GMOs
– Deadly Foods
– Deadly Codex
– Deadly ChemTrails
– Deadly “cancer treatments”
— Connecting the Dots
– What you can do
– eAlert List
– Support Natural Solutions Foundation
– Use Natural Solutions
– Strategic Health Freedom Alliance
HOW DO YOU CONNECT DEADLY DOTS?
AND THEN WHAT DO YOU DO?
It sometimes seems almost impossible to keep up with the onslaught of serious threats to our health and health freedom. The Natural Solutions Foundation is unique because our focus is wide and comprehensive. Like you, we do not limit our focus to one or two areas of concern. Because we share your deep understanding that freedom, like health, is an indivisible whole which is far, far more than the sum of its parts, we choose the harder path, rather than the easier one: we keep you informed on what is actually happening, not what would lull you into complacency. And we give you meaningful action steps to change what needs to be changed. After all, you “can take it” or you would not be on our distribution list. Besides, the Media of Mass Deception (and fluoride…) does quite enough lulling without our help! This Health Freedom eAlert will take a look at some of the biggest of the dangerous and deadly dots and then tell you:
A. How we think these dots are connected
B. What we are doing about it and
C. What you can do about it.
A word of warning, though: before you get to the end of the bad stuff (and it is, I am afraid, really very bad) you may become discouraged and want to click off to something lighter. Please don’t. There is hope, and a good deal of it, at the end of this trail of deadly dots, but we need to be clear on what the problems are before we can solve them! It’s odd, you know: sometimes when we talk about all these issues, people, feeling overwhelmed, say things like, “I don’t want to hear anything negative! I only want to focus on the positive.” Natural Solutions Foundation knows that the solutions are positive, no matter how bad the problems seem.
SO these two girl ostriches are walking down the beach and two boy ostriches see them and decide to catch up with them. The girl ostriches are not very pleased and see that the boys are going to catch up in a very short time. They look at one another and immediately stick their heads in the sand. The boy ostriches come to a screeching, skidding halt, look at each other and say, “Where’d they go?”
Sticking our heads in the sand is not going to get us out of the spot we are in now.
Understanding, connecting and then dealing with the underlying cause of the dots, however, may save us.
DOT: DEADLY VACCINES
A psychiatrist might say that vaccination is pretty close to a cultural obsession. Anyone daring to even question it is, automatically unpatriotic, irrational, part of the lunatic fringe, a bad parent or a hippie. However, asking these questions is actually logical, wise and prudent. The questions we should be asking include, “How is it that thimerisol, which killed all the patients receiving it in its very first tests, and has been known for its horrific biological impact has been so valiantly defended by the supposed “health watchdogs” in and out of government? These failed guardians include, for example, the American Pediatric Association, the AMA, the FDA, the FTC and the EPA.” and “Why are ineffective and extraordinarily contaminated vaccines permitted at all? Why are cancer causing and other stealth viruses, aluminum hydroxide, monosodium gultamate, and dozens of other dangerous chemicals injected into us at all?” and “Why is the government covering up what they already know about vaccines?” Beyond greed, are we systematically being exposed to dangers we may not suspect, but the government and drug companies know very clearly? Why?
The well-established connection between mercury and autism needs no repetition, although the financial Pretorian Guard of the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, continues to defend this archaic and misguided practice as “safe and effective”. Click here (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/?p=689) to learn how BARDA, the FDA’s secretive Vaccine Police is poised to compel mandatory vaccination for whatever they declare has become “a Pandemic” using whatever they decide to inject. That’s not OK with us and I know it’s not OK with you, either. Click here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join) to join the vigorous on-line No-Forced-Vaccination Forum to learn and share more about your rights and freedom from forced vaccination. The
Natural Solutions Foundation has filed a highly innovative legal action, in the form of a Citizens Petition, with the Federal Trade Commission to compel it to hold hearings on whether the advertising and information put out by vaccine makers saying that vaccines are both safe and effective is truthful. We know it is not and so do you. We are also urging the FTC to ban such advertising and information until it is proven to be truthful. The FTC has “lost” and denied our petition unlawfully several times. Clearly, we have hit a nerve, and we did not use a syringe to get there. Stay tuned on this action: we’ll need your vigorous support as soon as the FTC gets around to fulfilling its legal obligation to formalize our ability to send comments in, under the issued FTC document number! Meanwhile, remember to take each of the actions in the side bar to protect your health and freedom. Congress needs to hear from millions of us on this issue. That’s why it is so important to get your contacts active, too. Forward this email and ask them to sign up for the Health Freedom eAlerts (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187) and take all the action steps. And ask them to forward it again to THEIR contacts when they have finished the Action Steps.
By the way, the long-awaited Vaccine Exemption eBook is nearing completion. Those of you who donated during our funding campaign for this book will receive your eBooks shortly. The book has grown and expanded into an even more impressive document with the help of experts and advisors. Thanks for your patience! We believe the Vaccine Exemption eBook will prove to be a major resource and well worth the wait!
DOT: INSANE SPRAYING
The State of California and the EPA have decided to spray cancer-inducing, environmentally destructive chemicals over the entire San Francisco Bay area (including waterways, wetlands, homes, playing fields, cities, farms and towns) to “control” a “pest” which has not even been confirmed to exist there and certainly does not present a hazard to any crop or plant species. Eradicating the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) is apparently such a high priority that, should the Governor of California decide to prohibit the spraying of Checkmate (R), a nano-plastic delivery system bonded to an insect pheromone, the EPA will step in and take over jurisdiction to make sure that the spraying takes place EVERY 30 DAYS FOR 5 TO 10 YEARS.
The nano-particle plastic breaks down in the environment in about 70 days. How long does it take to break down in your lungs and what happens when it does? Who knows. Why is San Francisco being punished — or experimented upon? Or is it slated for extermination? Under the US Biological Agents Act such experimentation is terrifyingly legal. See https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=449 Did we also mention that no one knows the impact of the nano particles to which the moth hormone is bonded when they lodge deep in the lungs of people who have no choice but to breath them? And did we also mention that while severe physical problems accompany the spraying of this compound on human populations, there is no credible evidence that the LBAM actually presents any threat to anything at all?
The Natural Solutions Foundation has been watching this situation since Santa Clara and Monterey were sprayed last year resulting in serious and prolonged mass illness. In fact, you can click here (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php) to see what General Stubblebine and I had to say at a meeting a few months ago in California about this genocidal program. And don’t miss the chance to click here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QTLhpc8fEIs) to see a music video with General Stubblebine!
Our collaborators, the Ecological Options Network, www.eon3.net, suspended work on our Health Freedom Documentary collaboration and the Health Freedom Video Library because of the emergency presented by the LBAM spraying so that they could document and support the community organization against this atrocious program which threatens the environment and the residents of Northern California and, we believe, the rest of the country, too.Your continued support in funding the Health Freedom Video is very important. Click here (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189)to make a donation to help fund the film. Donors of $100 or more will be thanked personally in the final version of the documentary. We are concerned that the Bay Area may a “belle weather” or early indicator experiment for the spraying which can be imposed on the rest of the US for reasons as far fetched and fatuous, and as potentially deadly, as those used in California.
It is imperative for us to be informed about this program because although the target is California now, there is no reason to believe that it will be limited there. Make-believe “pests” can be imagined anywhere and massive spraying programs called ChemTrails already exist. The EPA is willing to seize jurisdiction if California refuses to spray. Could this happen in your community? Click on these links to learn more:
Public Service Announcement http://www.fastphilanthropy.org/
Ecological Options Network’s YouTube.com page http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=eon3
Ecological Options Network’s 2 volume DVD sets, STOP THEM BEFORE THEY SPRAY AGAIN, is available now The 2-volume, 3-disk set is $33.00 (Volume 2 is a 2-disk set.)
http://www.eon3.net/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ES&Product_Code=STBTSA2V3S
Why would such dangerous, untested and patently absurd spraying, and sprays, be poured on us and on the environment every 30 days for 10 years without any pest to kill or safety studies to rely upon?
DOT: DEADLY DRUGS
It is no secret that properly used prescription drugs rank at the very top of causes of death in the US. It’s also no secret that drugs, which work by poisoning enzyme systems, lead to side effects which are frequently treated by more drugs which lead to side effects which are frequently treated by more drugs…. An untested and potentially deadly soup of drugs interacting with each other in unpredictable ways means patients getting worse, not better, or dying from their medical “care”. We all know the results and they are not pretty. It is also no secret that psychiatric drugs cause permanent changes in the brain and that they can stimulate deadly consequences in those who take them or those who are around those who take them. It is also no secret that the profits in these, and all other drugs, including chemotherapy drugs, are astonishingly high. The more we take of them, the richer the drug companies become.
Therefore, we are urged, through every possible channel, to take more and more drugs. I have speculated before in this forum, and will repeat my speculation, that the deadly consequences of these drugs, prescription and otherwise, and the vigorous propaganda war against the inexpensive, safe and effective alternative to these high cost toxins, are no accident.
There are too many smart scientists and doctors involved in drug research, and too many documented instances of industry and government colluding to suppress information about dangerous compounds which are approved for sale despite their known dangers for me to believe that this is an accidental state of affairs. Why would such dangerous drugs be allowed on our shelves and in our bodies?
DOT: GMOs, LABELED OR UNLABELED
The biotech industry may have done something good for humanity and the planet. If so, I am unaware of it. Some people hold out the idea that GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are safe or good for the economy and the environment. They are, in my opinion, simply wrong. Dead wrong. Here (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/?p=690) is a briefing on that topic which I prepared for the people I am talking to in Panama right now, including folks in the Ministry of Agriculture.
Biotech does nothing to inspire or impress me.
In fact, it scares me silly. I am unimpressed by dangerous drugs produced through recombinant DNA techniques, foods that can destroy the environment and have unintended health consequences in the near term or a score of years from now but which cannot be traced because the US will not allow labeling of these experimental foods. I am underwhelmed by hormones given to animals and people which have been made by shooting high energy “bullets” into DNA to make it serve commercial purposes which make the recipients sick.
I am not impressed by seeds which produce poisons and tolerate wildly dangerous chemicals in high concentrations so that they become vectors for environmental illnesses when their crops come to harvest. I find nothing to be joyous about in food and feed and super weeds that transfer their DNA into my cells (and my fetus’s) where that DNA and its promoter partners induce my DNA to produce proteins which have never existed before on the face of the earth and which have totally unknown consequences. Or, perhaps those consequences are not totally unknown to the purveyors of these Franken-foods, Franken-feed, Franken-Crops and Franken-animals.
And the more I learn what the Biotech firms like Monsanto are up to, the less I like the fact that they are taking over our food supply. Click here to spend some time learning about The World According to Monsanto (http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-world-according-to-monsanto-a-documentary-that-americans-wont-ever-see-full-video/). This remarkable film, originally made in French, was available on the internet and then disappeared. It is archived here. Please watch and share it. And when you do share it, please ask your contacts to join the Health Freedom eAlerts distribution list at https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187.
One of the Codex activities which has been occupying a good deal of our time here at the Natural Solutions Foundation is making sure that our African, Caribbean, South Pacific and other health-friendly allies are so well informed, and so upset, by the US policy at Codex of totally unlabeled GMOs that they take action. And they have begun to do exactly that. But looking at the dots, why would an industry which despoils the planet, sickens and kills people and animals, be permitted, at least in the US, a totally free hand to market its products in the total absence of safety testing and precautions to protect people and the planet?
DOT: POISONED FOOD
Pesticides and herbicides, fungicides, artificial colors, flavors and preservatives, Splenda (c), Aspartame (c), hydrogenated fat, high fructose corn syrup, high saturated fat, “food” deconstructed from genetically modified corn and soy and rebuilt from the vat up, so to speak, are killing us.
There is not much new in that. But why? Why are our shelves filled with stuff with which we are killing ourselves, mouthful by mouthful?
. Why are we buying it and why, from a regulatory point of view, is it on our shelves to buy?
. Why are supplements filled with synthetic “nutrients”, including those derived from genetically modified plants, bacteria, yeast and animals on our shelves?
. Why are our water, toothpaste and medicines filled with fluoride, a carcinogenic, diabetogenic, endocrine poison and neurological poison that mining companies find too expensive to dispose of legally and sell to food and water companies?
. Why is this known neurotoxin which creates complacency in those who are exposed to it (discovered first by Stalin’s prison camp wardens) allowed in increasing amounts in our food and drink and sprayed at incredible concentrations on our food?
. Why are our children bombarded with advertisements for things to eat that will kill them? Profit for the “food” makers, surely, but are there other reasons?
Perhaps social strategies are in place which do not favor strong, clear thinking, active and informed citizens. Perhaps those strategies are working hand in glove with the policies which allow deadly fake foods to stand in for the nutritious foods we need will support and sustain us. And perhaps those strategies and policies are consistent with Henry Kissinger’s now public 1972 secret assessment for President Nixon that the first consideration of America’s foreign policy needs to be depopulation.
Dot, dot, dot . . .
DOT: CODEX
Codex is the wagon of the multinational corporations and its driver is the United States. True, each sector influencing Codex decisions wants more money. True, Big Pharma founded Codex in order to make sure that the food supply was sufficiently contaminated to make sure that people sickened from preventable diseases of under nutrition from which it could then make a lot of money.
(Watch Nutricide, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634, and read The Killing Camps of Codex, https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/?p=322, for more detail on this process.
But if you need consumers, more consumers, yet more consumers, why would you feed them food that is inevitably going to kill them? By the way, the next major Codex meeting is coming up in Geneva from June 30 to July 4, 2008. If you value our attendance there and want to have your usual ring-side seat as we participate in organizing the pro-health forces there and give you blow-by-blow reporting on who is doing what to whom and how it impacts your health and life, it is time to donate (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to send us there. The only way we can attend these meetings is through your generous tax deductible donations (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189). It is very helpful to us if you can make a recurring donation (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) so that we can count on the income and make our plans accordingly. Thanks for your support!
DOT: CHEMTRAILS
ChemTrails have been denied since they first started appearing in the late 1970s. Recently the US General Accounting Office (GAO) admitted that there were, indeed, fluffy white ChemTrails being laid down in the skies. While the GOA tried to make it seem as if these innocent-looking white, red or black trails left as planes fly through the sky were of not particular consequence, there is a huge body of information that draws very different inferences from this world-wide activity. See, for example, http://educate-yourself.org/ct/ for a wide-ranging look at many points of view on ChemTrails.
Take a look at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=GvioxJUL6C0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ohkV_i_0LWo&feature=related and the following 8 segments of this interview with a noted ChemTrail researcher by Alex Jones.
So my question here is, what is this program for? Who is responsible and what possible goal could be served by showering us with desiccated red blood cells and pathogens which are, in many cases, not previously identified? The government says there is nothing there.
As Chico Marx said in Duck Soup, “Who are you going to believe? Me or your eyes?” …And your lungs and the increased number of emergency room visits and deaths when ChemTrails are in your skies?
DOT: FORBIDDEN CANCER TREATMENTS
And then there is cancer, the single most economically productive disease ever encountered by humankind. Tragic, disastrous, largely preventable and oh-so-profitable. Big Pharma is big, in large measure, because of big cancer.
The World Health Organization includes cancer in its list of “non communicable preventive diseases of under-nutrition.” Within your lifetime and mine, cancer has gone from being a rare disease to one so common that anywhere from
* 1 child in 2 born after 2000 and
* 1 adult in 3
will develop cancer in the US ( the figure was 1 person in 5 in 1989!) The rest of the world is, sadly, playing catch-up with us.
Cancers are primarily environmentally caused: pesticides, fungicides, injected viruses like the MKV 40 virus in Polio and other vaccines, synthetic additives, mold contamination, industrial toxins, synthetic hormones in food or as medicine, heavy metals, etc., etc., etc. Now what if cancer were an easy to cure, easy to control and easy to prevent disease.? The consequences would be, quite simply, disastrous for the industries which profiteer from this dread and largely preventable scourge. For example, in 2007, cancer patient Jeanne Sather wrote,
“Every three weeks, always on a Thursday afternoon, I amble on over to the cancer center for my IV treatment.(I also take Cytoxan, a chemo drug that comes in pill form, every day, plus a handful of other pills to help deal with the side effects and fringe benefits of being in cancer treatment-anxiety, high blood pressure, occasional depression, insomnia.)The total bill for each treatment session at the cancer center is something north of $20,000. The annual cost of my cancer care is more than $300,000. That’s three hundred thousand dollars a year.Almost $30,000 a month to keep me alive.”
http://www.assertivepatient.com/2007/02/the_high_cost_o.html
Jeanne switched cancer treatment centers and, later that year, noted,
“… I was left to wonder why one cancer center charges $9,496.47 for one dose of Avastin and another cancer center in the same city charges $22,739.31. [for one afternoon’s treatment]… the same thing for the Herceptin. SCCA [a cancer treatment center – REL] charged me $6,254.95 for one dose of Herceptin, and Swedish [another cancer treatment center – REL] charged me $9,599.10.”
http://www.assertivepatient.com/2007/02/the_high_cost_o_1.html
Before you do a little intuitive math and come up with numbers so staggering that they take your breath away, here’s a little chart from 2006 compiled from manufacturer’s information. Today’s prices, of course, would be significantly higher:
Avastin Genentec $4,400
Erbitux ImClone/Bristol-Myers $10,000
Gleevec Novartis $2,600
Herceptin Genentech $3,000
Nexavar Bayer Pharmaceuticals $4,300
Revlimid Celgene $4,500
Rituxan Genentech $4,200-$13,000
Sutent Pfizer $4,000
Tarceva Genentech/OSI Pharma. $2,400 to $2,700
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-10-cancer-drugs_x.htm
The same article notes, “many of the new drugs work only when combined with chemo, he says. Adding drugs such as Erbitux and Avastin to older therapies increases costs as well as side effects. Patients today still don’t live very long on most of the new medications.” which leads manufacturers to justify their costs this way, “Officials from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., which sells Erbitux, note that patents offer companies a limited amount of time to recoup their investments.” [Emphasis ours]
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/22/17/3524
The US National Cancer Institutes 2007 Updates notes, “Cancer treatment accounted for an estimated $72.1 billion in 2004-just under 5 percent of U.S. spending for all medical treatment. Between 1995 and 2004, the overall costs of treating cancer increased by 75 percent. In the near future it is expected that cancer costs may increase at a faster rate than overall medical expenditures.”
http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=75&coid=726&mid
By comparison, today all forms of supplements constitute a mere $24 billion in sales ($20 billion in 2004). IF all supplements were used as nutritional therapy for cancer (which they are not), then the total savings in 2004 for cancer treatment would have been $52.1 billion! Of course, the fact that, in my experience and that of many other health professionals, that people with cancer who use natural therapies fare better and live longer, is not represented in these numbers. Nor is the vastly increased quality of life for naturally helped patients reflected in these numbers.
There is no room here for a full discussion of the fraud known as “Cancer treatment” nor the complex dishonesty by which dangerous, ineffective, but highly profitable cancer treatments continue to rob cancer sufferers of their immune capacity, their chance at survival and their money. For a typical, information-rich examination of these issues, read the now slightly outdated, but very informative article at http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/cancer_business.htm
DOT to DOT
Here is how the dots look to me: I see level upon level of complexity.
At the bottom, simplest level of the problem, I believe that major companies and their executives are often driven by pure, unadulterated, mindless, heartless and soulless greed in the same way that ethics-free researchers are driven by mindless, heartless curiosity in a corporate ‘science for hire’ environment. There are no limits to what they will do because they know no ethical constraints.
These “Captains of Industry and Science” are so far removed from their hearts and values that they rationalize what they do as somehow good for themselves and their families without any concern whatsoever (unless they stumble upon a good death bed experience) about their extended families: that is, the rest of us, and our universal mother, the earth. They are the pride of the dominance system. They believe they can own land, lives, food, and other commodities and, having acquired ownership, they can do with them exactly as they like since, for them, social contracts do not exist, only a legal ones. Knowing no limitations for their greed and need to dominate, they corrupt and control governments as if they were their natural sandboxes filled with their toys. What happens next is of no concern to them. Power does corrupt
Next, there are the “Shapers”. These are people like Henry Kissinger and his ilk who believe that it is their right to make life and death (heavy on the death, here) decisions about who lives and who dies, who is worthy and who is not. Like my patient, the Head of State, they see people as either useful to them (e.g., themselves, their minions and their technicians) or of no value — “useless eaters” to be disposed of when their plans have ripened to the point where they can “clean the earth” of these encumbrances.
They have decided that population reduction is good through any means, however hidden or cruel, because it serves their purposes. They have brought to its highest level the split between “I” and “Thou” since the “I” sees no mutual, holistic existence of the other, the “Thou”, and can do away with the other person (or populations) at his own whim or economic impulse. These people see no relationship between themselves and anyone who does not serve them. They plan things like population reduction in order to achieve a “sustainable” planet for themselves AFTER 90% of the world’s population has been conveniently exterminated.
Schemes like ChemTrails and depleted uranium and Codex make horrifying sense to them and then they implement these schemes for their own purposes, hidden behind their minions like Monsanto and the US FDA operatives, and their useful Big Industry Captains (see above).
And then, if I am correct, there is the third level: the “uber-masters”, the shadowy levels of puppeteers, the behind-the-scenes controllers. Their shadowy existence is only guessed at through hints and suggestions, but the information pointing to their manipulative existence is persistent and, to me, appears compelling. As the levels go up, so does the power and the hidden nature of their control.
But all of them, from the scientists who experiment on people as if they had no meaning or worth to the agents of the corporations to the “Policy Makers” and on up to the Shapers and the uber-masters, all of them have one Achilles heel, just one. Their plans whither like poisonous mushrooms in the glare of information and the light of truth. That is what they fear and that is what destroys them at the same time that it liberates us! Truly, it is YOU who are the light of the world.
CONNECT THE DOTS AND YOU SEE A PICTURE OF HOPE: THE LIGHT OF TRUTH!
You are a light bearer if you choose to be. Tell your friends, neighbors and associates how important it is for them to be involved in the health freedom struggle.
1. Set yourself a goal and get, say, 10 new people signed up for this Health Freedom eAlert dissemination list. Send them this link, https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187 and ask them to sign up or ask if you can sign them up instead. The list is safe, secure and never, never shared or sold. We promise.
2. And don’t forget that health freedom costs money. We have no corporate sponsorship so we depend totally on our supporters to make the campaign for health and freedom possible.
Your tax-deductible donations are essential to us. Recurring gifts, big or small, allow us to continue our work. Click here (https://staging.drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to make your generous donation now. There is not much time before we have to set off for Geneva for the next Codex meeting at the end of June. We need your help to be there.
3. Visit www.Organics4U.org, our wonderful virtual store featuring clean, wholesome, organic supplements and products. Every purchase supports your health and your health freedom at the same time!
4. A few eAlerts ago, I mentioned the Strategic Health Freedom Alliance that we and the Institute for Health Research were urging Nutrient, Natural Remedies and Advanced Health Care Practitioners to form. That “C4” organization will be able to directly lobby legislators, while our “C3” NGOs can only educate and demonstrate. The announcement email to leaders in the industry is on its way now. If you are involved in a company and may be able to help with a grant that can be expensed as a business cost, please contact Ralph Fucetola JD, who is coordinating this effort. You can reach him at ralph.fucetola@usa.net – please put “Strategic Alliance” in the subject line and he will send you the special email announcement about this important initiative. Be sure to let Ralph know the name of the company you represent and the best time to contact you.
So times are grim and there, apparently, a concerted effort to use us badly, or terminally. That is not our agenda. We want to prosper and thrive. We want to make our choices for ourselves about how we live, how we pursue health and how we age.
We want our path to be illuminated by the bright light of truth and we want to be able to shed that light for others. What can we do? WE can be the light!
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
* SHARE!
Tell Your Friends About HealthFreedomUSA.org
* ORGANIZE!
Join us in the fight to protect health freedom
* SIGN CITIZEN’S PETITION
Ask the U.S. government to change its policy on Codex Alimentarius
* CONTRIBUTE!
Make a contribution and help raise funds for the health freedom fight
* VOTE!
Register to vote in the US
ACTION STEPS
Send NSF to NextCodex Meeting
http://tinyurl.com/2bgxuk
Watch No Spray Videos
http://tinyurl.com/yrp9e3
Help Fund Health Freedom Video Now
http://tinyurl.com/ysyjau
Join ‘Say NO! To GMO’ Forum
http://tinyurl.com/3ja45r
Join ‘No Forced Vaccine’ Forum
http://tinyurl.com/272qvv
Sign Tiburon No Forced Vaccination/Medication Declaration: Help End Compulsory Vaccination
http://tinyurl.com/ywdsne
Tell Legislators to Protect US From Compulsory Vaccination
http://tinyurl.com/2nwmss
Compulsory Annual Flu Shots for All Kids: First NJ, then the Whole US: Say “NO”
http://tinyurl.com/2mknl3
Join “NSF-Panama’ Forum and Become Part of International Decade of Nutrition
http://tinyurl.com/549dw5
Keep Schools from Mandating Drugs: Support Child Medication Safety Act
http://tinyurl.com/3clh6a
Support Truthful Health Claims
http://tinyurl.com/yvm8tr
Donate Now: Freedom Isn’t Free!
http://tinyurl.com/sw9xf
Don’t Have the Updated “Nutricide: the DVD” Yet? Order it Now
http://tinyurl.com/2ewxzz
How About the “Codex Two Step Process”? Order Codex eBook
http://tinyurl.com/3yy5zq
Sign FDA Citizens Petition
http://tinyurl.com/2tvs4c
SHOP OUR ONLINE STORE Support Your Health and Health Freedom
www.Organics4U.org
SIGN UP FOR HEALTH FREEDOM E-ALERT LIST!
http://tinyurl.com/29qb49
—————-
READ ABOUT OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
http://tinyurl.com/4dcn4c
To unsubscribe from this Health Freedom Action Alert, click on the link below and enter your email address: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/healthfreedomusa/unsubscribe.jsp
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.Organics4U.org
The following is a briefing on the facts and myths of GMOs which I prepared for members of the Panamanian Government and interested citizens concerning the dangers of genetically modified or, as they are known in Panama, transgenic foods.
The briefing notes the Panamanian legal situation. In Panama, as in the US, GMOs are permitted in the food chain without any labeling at all. This is an ecological, medical and consumer’s rights disaster.
Only strong consumer advocacy, and market pressure against anything which might have GMOs in it (that means avoiding anything which is not labeled “organic” or “GM Free”) will change US policy. But once the environment, or your body, is contaminated with foreign DNA, there is no know way to reverse that process.
Codex, like the US, is totally untroubled by GMOs.
Here is the Myth and Fact Summary
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
Summary of Myths and Facts RE: Transgenic Foods
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
May 25, 2008
The provisions of Panamanian Law No. 48 of August 8, 2002 that created the National Commission of Biosecurity for GMOs, in Article 7 – Section 8 – that the Commission “Promote the permanent update of the registries, national and international, of organisms genetically modified based on the precautionary principal.†This principal requires the utmost caution in allowing transgenic products.
The Natural Solutions Foundation urges the Government of Panama to implement this provision of law by imposing an
immediate moratorium on any additional GMO approvals without strict risk analysis and competent scientific proof of
lack of risk.
Myth:
Transgenic crops increase yield, reduce cost and reduce pesticide use. In fact, experience and analysis of the impact of GM crops have shown that none of these commercially useful, but unfounded, assertions is accurate.
Fact:
– Roundup © Ready crops require increasing use of Roundup © since super weeds become resistant to the herbicide
– Additional herbicides and pesticides become necessary to maintain adequate crop status
– Crop yield is often disappointing, in part because Roundup © can cause sudden crop death
– Transgenic crops are more sensitive to drought, an increasing problem in a warming environment
– Studies since 1999 consistently show that economic, social and environmental degradation follow use of transgenic crops
– Pollinator and predator species are seriously impacted by transgenic crops, including both habitat destruction (Roundup ©) and Bt production
Myth:
Panama has no transgenic crops
Fact:
Panama had registered coffee (arabica), yucca, yam, banana, banana tree, sugar cane, taro root, several varieties of rice, maize, pumpkin, kidney bean, sorghum, and strawberry with UPOV, the International organization, as of 2006 and is releasing a long grain transgenic rice in a few days.
Myth:
Transgenic crops are carefully regulated before release in prepared foods or as crops
Fact:
In the US, where virtually all transgenic crops originate, the FDA and USDA operate under a 1992 Executive Order which says that modified and unmodified foods are equivalent. Hence, no safety or other testing is required and both FDA and USDA refuse to require or examine safety testing. Only a patent is necessary to release a food into the food chain and environment. No environmental impact studies or statements are required.
Myth:
Transgenic foods are safe
Fact:
Transgenic foods have unintended and rapidly changing biological impact since the inserted genes, the promoter organisms and the marker organisms are foreign to the genome of the plant and are unstable in it.
– FDA and other US government scientists have issued strong warnings about the dangers of transgenic organisms which have either been suppressed or ignored.
– US Center for Disease Control found that food-related illness increased up to 10 fold since the commercialization of transgenic food
– The only published human feeding study verified that genetic material in transgenic soy transfers into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continues to function
o Glyphosate (Roundup ©) resistant DNA has been shown to revert and become a glyphosate producer in the gut and in digestive bacteria. Glyphosate is a highly toxic compound associated with infertility, cancer, auto immune diseases and other serious consequences upon ingestion or other exposure
– Every commercialized transgenic organism released into the food supply has already undergone extensive genetic revision and change
– Early understanding of the genome held that its function was fixed and rigid.
– Today we understand that the genome is a fluid and dynamic system.
o Foreign DNA changes the proteins coded for in unpredictable ways with unintended consequences which
may take years to manifest or be identified
o DNA remains active and viable long after the death of the cell or organism
o Transgenic DNA may not be broken down by the digestive tract
o Transgenic DNA transfers to living cells and inserts itself into the genome of plants, bacteria, humans and other
animals through horizontal transfers coding for unknown proteins and leading to antibodies, allergenicity,
– Allergenicity cannot be predicted in advance but all corn, maize and soy tested for allergenicity according to WHO standards have failed because they have allergenicity characteristics
– GM foods which may or may not be allergenic in themselves can confer allergenicity to other foods and tissues
– Transgenic genes are inserted by the same process used by researchers to provide models of unstable DNA and are
inherently unstable
o Safety and quality are impossible to control with unstable genetic material
o Unintended horizontal transfer is impossible to control
o Expression of transgenic genes can change from generation to generation
– Promoter viruses mutate within the genome and have been linked to serious communicable and non communicable diseases:
o Multiple Drug Resistant Tuberculosis
o Cancer (including leukemia)
o Slow viruses
o Auto immune diseases
o Immune suppression
o Morgellon’s Disease
o Allergens
– Soy allergies rose by 50% in the UK soon after transgenic soy was introduced.
– Transgenic soy creates multiple problems in animal studies:
o Cooking increases soy allergens by as much as 700%
o Digestive enzymes are reduced
o Livers show toxic injury which is reversible after switching to natural soy
– Rats fed transgenic canola had livers which were 12-16% heavier
– Bt crops produce huge amounts of Bt which are
o Often insufficient to kill pests
o Sufficiently poisonous to harm beneficial insects
o Provoke strong, sometimes lethal, allergic reactions
– Synthetic genes do not function identically to natural ones with serious/lethal consequences for animals consuming them
– Antibiotic resistant marker organisms are known to have transferred their resistance to other bacteria and somatic cells conferring resistance to formerly clinically useful antibiotics through horizontal transfer
– GM labeling is forbidden in the US. Lack of species specific or
any other identification of GM food makes impossible
o Epidemiology
o Traceability
o Liability
– Bt toxins are significant toxins in themselves. While natural levels of Bt are safe for humans, transgenic Bt crops produce levels up to 10,000 greater and are documented serious
allergens
– Human and animal reproductive failure and sterility are common
consequences of exposure to
o Roundup ©
o GM soy
o GM corn (including an organism patented by Epicyte in 2001 to cause permanent male sterility – organism now
owned by DuPont and Monsanto)
– GM food consumed by animals causes the animals to become transgenic in unknown ways
– When consumed, these otherwise non-transgenic animals provide an unknown, and unregulated source of foreign DNA which then enters the human genome with unpredictable and unintended consequences
– Animal studies show when fed GM chow or feed
o Huge increases in
o Fetal death
o Low birth weight
o Failure to thrive after birth
o Sterility among offspring mated to each other
o Grazing animals die in large numbers
o Animal infertility when out-mated
Myth:
Transgenic crops can be contained in the area where they are planted
Fact:
Transgenic crops contaminate both same-species and other-species plants.
– Monsanto sues about 500 farmers per year for intellectual property rights through “volunteer†seeds trespassing on the farmers’ land via pollen drift and pollinator contamination
– Organic and conventional plants are irreversibly contaminated by
transgenic plants
o Although the US allows 10% GM contamination in certified organic foods (1), compared with most countries’ limits of 0.9% or 1.0%, organic foods sources are still in short supply in the US because of gross contamination of organic crops
o Conventional crops quickly become contaminated
o Louisiana rice crop contaminated with pharmaceutical rice grown by Bayer – many farmers now growing corn instead to avoid contamination
o Pharmaceutical rice by Bayer Cropscience was shipped as human food to at least 30 countries
o All South African corn now contaminated with Monsanto’s MON810 which has not been approved for human consumption and is considered unsafe in Europe
o New Zealand contaminated by 3 years of mislabeled shipment of maize by US
o All Mexican corn now contaminated by US corn
o Super weeds and super pests are prevalent wherever transgenic crops exist