Tag: Mercola

US: Unconscionable Police Raid on Family’s Home and Organic Food Co-Op

Mercola.com

Watch the video here.

On the morning of December 1, 2008, law enforcement officers forcefully entered the Stowers’ residence without first announcing they were police or stating the purpose of the visit. With guns drawn, they swiftly and immediately moved to the upstairs of the home, where ten children were in the middle of a home-schooling lesson. Officers then moved Jacqueline Stowers and her children to their living room, where they were held for more than six hours.

There has never been a complaint filed against Manna Storehouse or the Stowers related to the quality or healthfulness of the food distributed through the co-op.

For more go here.

Artwork by Brocke Lever

foodasweapon

MSG: Is This Silent Killer Lurking in Your Kitchen Cabinets?

by Dr. Mercola

A widespread and silent killer that’s worse for your health than alcohol, nicotine and many drugs is likely lurking in your kitchen cabinets right now.[1] “It” is monosodium glutamate (MSG), a flavor enhancer that’s known widely as an addition to Chinese food, but that’s actually added to thousands of the foods you and your family regularly eat, especially if you are like most Americans and eat the majority of your food as processed foods or in restaurants.

For the rest of the article, go here.

Artwork by Brocke Lever

foodasweapon

6 Sure-Fire Tips to Prevent Glaucoma Naturally

by Dr. Mercolathumbnailserver2

Glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness in the world, and belongs to a group of eye diseases that damage your optic nerve, leading to vision loss. In its early stages, glaucoma may produce no symptoms at all, and it’s estimated that half of the more than 4 million Americans with glaucoma do not even realize they have it.[1]

Because the vision loss caused by glaucoma comes on so gradually, it is sometimes called the “silent thief of sight.” Often, it’s not until the disease is at an advanced stage that the related vision loss becomes apparent, and by then your sight may suffer permanent damage.

This is why it’s so important to take steps now to help protect your vision, even if your eyesight is normal. I’ll be discussing exactly what you can do to help prevent and treat glaucoma later in the article, but first here’s a bit of background on this common eye problem.

What Causes Glaucoma?

The underlying causes of glaucoma are not completely understood, but typically the damage it does to your optic nerve is related to increased pressure in your eye. The pressure typically comes from a buildup of pressure from the aqueous humor, the watery fluid that is naturally present in your eyeball.

In a healthy eye, the fluid is regularly drained, however in those with glaucoma the drainage system doesn’t work properly, so the fluid gradually builds up in your eye, causing increased pressure. Over time, the increased pressure causes nerve fibers that are essential to vision to die.

Though less common, glaucoma can also occur when eye pressure is normal. It appears some people’s optic nerves may be sensitive to normal levels of eye pressure, or the glaucoma may be related to problems with blood flow to your eye, which may be caused by atherosclerosis — the accumulation of plaques in your arteries — or another circulation problem.

In the most common type of glaucoma, open-angle (chronic) glaucoma, side (peripheral) vision is usually affected first. In the later stages, glaucoma can lead to “tunnel vision,” where you can only see straight ahead, and can eventually lead to blindness. The symptoms are gradual and come on very slowly, so you may not realize your vision is being impacted until much later stages.

About 10 percent of those with glaucoma have what’s called angle-closure (acute) glaucoma, and in these cases a sudden rise in eye pressure can cause:

  • Severe eye pain
  • Blurred vision
  • Sudden visual disturbances
  • Halos around lights
  • Reddening of the eye
  • Nausea and vomiting

This latter form usually requires immediate treatment.

Who is at Risk?

Anyone can get glaucoma, but there are factors that increase your risk:

  • Certain ethnicities: Glaucoma is six to eight times more common in African-Americans than in Caucasians.[2] Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans and Japanese-Americans are also at an increased risk.
  • Over 60 years old: The risk of glaucoma increases once you are over 60.
  • Chronic diseases: Diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and hypothyroidism all increase your risk.
  • Family history: If someone in your family has glaucoma, it may increase your risk.
  • Eye injury and nearsightedness: Eye injuries such as retinal detachment, eye tumors, eye inflammations and eye surgery, as well as nearsightedness, increase your risk.
  • Use of corticosteroids: A prolonged use of these drugs appears to increase your risk, especially corticosteroid eye drops.

Making Sure Glaucoma is Diagnosed Correctly

Ophthalmologists typically rely on a simple “air puff” test to check for high pressure inside your eye. However, if you are getting screened for this disease, please make sure you also have your corneal thickness measured using a relatively newer test called pachmyetry.

Pachymetry, which measures corneal thickness, may be a more reliable indicator of the pressure inside your eye because the thickness of your cornea can significantly influence the readings on the air puff test.

If you have thin corneas, the instrument may give falsely low readings and may miss the diagnosis of glaucoma. If you have thick corneas the air puff test can actually misdiagnosis you as having glaucoma despite the fact that you have normal eye pressures.

Conventional Ways Lower Your Eye Pressure

Conventional medicine’s solution to glaucoma is typically drugs or surgery, or a combination of them. Often eye drops are given to glaucoma patients to use for life in an attempt to lower pressure inside of their eyes, but they come with a laundry list of side effects including:

  • Blurred vision
  • Respiratory problems
  • Forgetfulness
  • Lowered heart rate
  • Burning or stinging in the eyes

Surgery also carries with it serious risks, among them an increased risk of cataracts.

Natural Ways to Lower Your Eye Pressure

You do have another option, though, as surprising as it may sound the same lifestyle changes that lower blood pressure typically also work to lower your eye pressure, thereby helping to prevent and even treat glaucoma without a risk of side effects.

The top two steps are:

  1. Lower your insulin levels: As your insulin levels rise, it causes your blood pressure, and possibly also your eye pressure, to increase. In time this can cause your body to become insulin resistant, and studies show insulin resistance — which is common in people with diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure — is linked to elevated eye pressure.[3]

The solution is to avoid sugar and grains, the two “food groups” that will inevitably cause surges in your insulin levels. Even whole, organic grains will rapidly break down to sugars, so they too should be avoided. So in addition to avoiding sugar, if you have glaucoma or are concerned about it, you’ll want to avoid foods like:

    • Breads
    • Pasta
    • Rice
    • Cereal
    • Potatoes
  1. Exercise regularly: One of the most effective ways to lower your insulin levels is through exercise. A regular, effective exercise program consisting of aerobics, sprint-burst type exercises, and strength training can go a long way toward reducing your insulin levels and protecting your vision.

Other Tips to Keep Your Vision Healthy

As part of your overall program to keep your eyesight clear and problem-free, even as you age, make sure you are doing the following:

  • Taking an animal-based omega-3 fat supplement. A type of omega-3 fat called docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) may help protect and promote healthy retinal function. DHA is concentrated in your eye’s retina and has been found to be particularly useful in preventing macular degeneration, the leading cause of blindness.

Omega-3 fat, including DHA, is found in fish, but I don’t recommend eating fish due to the concerns of mercury and other toxins that have been found in fish from oceans, lakes and streams and farm-raised fish. Instead, my most highly recommended source for omega-3 fat is krill oil.

  • Getting loads of lutein and zeaxanthin. Many have never heard of these two vision powerhouses, but they are incredibly important for your eyesight. Lutein, which is a carotenoid found in particularly large quantities in green, leafy vegetables, acts as an antioxidant, protecting cells from free radical damage.

Some excellent sources include kale, collard greens, spinach, broccoli, brussels sprouts and egg yolks, particularly raw egg yolks. Egg yolks also have zeaxanthin, another carotenoid, in an equal amount to lutein. Zeaxanthin is likely to be equally as effective as lutein in protecting eyesight.

It is important to note that lutein is an oil-soluble nutrient, and if you merely consume the above vegetables without some oil or butter you can’t absorb the lutein. So make sure you’re eating some healthy fat along with your veggies,

Eggs yolks are also loaded with these nutrients but once the egg is cooked they tend to be damaged and non useful. So you can consume them raw by whipping them up in a shake or cooking them minimally as in sunny side or poach them with runny yolks.

  • Avoiding trans fats: Trans fat may interfere with omega-3 fats in your body, which are extremely important for your eye health. A diet high in trans fat also appears to contribute to macular degeneration. Trans fat is found in many processed foods and baked goods, including margarine, shortening, fried foods like French fries, fried chicken and doughnuts, cookies, pastries and crackers.

  • Eating dark-colored berries. The European blueberry, bilberry, is known to prevent and even reverse macular degeneration, and bioflavonoids from other dark-colored berries including blueberries, cranberries and others will also be beneficial. They work by strengthening the capillaries that carry nutrients to eye muscles and nerves.

However, because berries contain natural sugar they should be eaten in moderation to avoid upsetting your insulin levels.

Following the healthy lifestyle tips I’ve described above will go a long way toward protecting your vision, whether you’ve been diagnosed with glaucoma or simply want to keep your eyesight in top condition. If you have glaucoma, however, it’s especially important to eliminate those grains and sugars, get exercising, and consume animal-based omega-3 fat regularly in order to keep the disease from progressing.


Related Links:

Be Careful If You Are Diagnosed With Glaucoma

Aspartame, aka Artificial Sweetener 951: A History of Fraud and Deception

Mercola.com thumbnailserver2

Today we have “Nutra-Sweet”, which is widely used in a plethora of consumables, despite a demonstrated neurological reaction in some people. In February 1996, it was decided to also use the product name “Benevia”. It is estimated that as many as 20,000,000 people cannot metabolize phenylalimine, and this inability is genetically inherited by children. The inability to metabolize phenylalinine can lead to mental retardation in children. This means a risk of retardation for millions of children. A multi-billion dollar enterprise, this substance is said to be “refined” from “natural” substances. Like other “refined” substances, it represents a health threat to the general public. No long term studies have been performed to evaluate the physiological effects of this substance, yet the public is lead to believe it is absolutely safe. Technically, the chemical is called aspartame, and it was once on a Pentagon list of biowarfare chemicals submitted to Congress. [1] Aspartame is in over 4,000 products worldwide and is consumed by over 200 million people in the United States alone. What follows is a skeletal examination of the chronology related to aspartame. A more detailed chronology is given later in this chapter based on information provided to us by the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network.

Aspartame is produced by G.D. Searle Company, founded in 1888 and located in Skokie, Illinois. Searle is now owned by others. It is about 200 times sweeter than the refined sugar that it is meant to replace, and it is known to erode intelligence and affect short-term memory. It is essentially a chemical weapon designed to impact populations en masse. It is an rDNA derivative made from two amino acids, L-phenylalanine, L-aspartic acid and methanol. Originally discovered during a search for an ulcer drug in 1966, it was “approved” by the FDA in 1974 as a “food additive”.

Approval was followed by a retraction based on demonstrated public concern over the fact that the substance produced brain tumors in rats. According to the 1974 FDA task force set up to examine aspartame and G.D.Searle, “we have uncovered serious deficiencies in Searles operations and practices, which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’s integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine the toxic potential of its products.” The task force report concluded with the recommendation that G.D. Searle should face a Grand Jury “to identify more particularly the nature of the violations, and to identify all those responsible.” [2]

In 1976, an FDA “task force” brought into question all of G.D. Searle’s aspartame testing procedures conducted between 1967 and 1975. The final FDA report noted faulty and fraudulent product testing, knowingly misrepresented product testing, knowingly misrepresented findings, and instances of irrelevant animal research. In other word, illegal criminal activity. Understandably scared, Searle officials sought to suppress the FDA findings and obstruct justice. They turned to Nixon and Ford administration operative Donald Rumsfeld and elected him “chairman of the Searle organization.” In 1977, the Wall Street Journal detailed the fact that Rumsfeld made efforts to “mend fences” by asking “what Searle could do” in the face of the changes. Also in 1977, Dr. Adrian Gross, a pathologist working for the FDA, uncovered evidence that G.D.Searle might have committed criminal fraud in withholding adverse data on aspartame. [3]

The FDA requested that U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner be hired to investigate Searle’s aspartame testing procedures in January 1977. Samuel Skinner was the federal prosecutor responsible for convincing the Grand Jury to investigate whether Searle willfully and criminally withheld data that cast doubt on the safety of aspartame. In February 1977, Skinner met with Searle attorneys at the Chicago law firm of Sidney & Austin. Suddenly, newly elected President Carter announced that Skinner would not remain in office, and Skinner thereafter announced that he would be hired by Sidney & Austin. Obviously, Skinner then had to recuse himself from the Searle prosecution. The case was taken over by US Attorney William Conlon, who essentially sat on the case, despite complaints from the Justice Department, which was urging that a grand jury be convened to prosecute Searle Company for falsifying Nutra-Sweet test data. Failing to perform his duty, Conlon also joined Searle’s law firm in January 1979.

Skinner’s defection from the FDA might have been prompted by the results of the review of the Searle studies. David Hattan, deputy director of the FDA Division of Toxicological Review and Evaluation, concedes that anyone reading the original FDA investigation reports is likely to be “shocked” by what they reveal. He says that the ensuing review of the Searle studies, in which he was involved from the time of his arrival in 1978, was one of the most thorough in the agency’s history. It included an unprecedented hearing before a public board of inquiry composed of experts from outside the agency. Arthur Hayes, Jr., then Commissioner of the FDA appointed by Reagan, agreed with Searle and the FDA’s Bureau of Foods (now the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) that “an appropriate analysis of the data showed no significant increases in tumor incidence in rats exposed to aspartame or DKP, one of the breakdown products of aspartame. The board of inquiry rejected concerns that aspartame’s components could cause neurological damage.[4]

In 1981, under pressure from the soft drink lobby, FDA Commissioner Hayes approved the initial use of aspartame in dry foods and as a tabletop sweetener, discounting public complaints as anecdotal and ignoring three FDA scientists.[5] who voiced the fact that there were serious questions concerning brain tumor tests after having done an in-house study. Hayes was widely profiled as a man who believed that approval for new drugs and additives was “too slow” because “the FDA demanded too much information.” Hayes also ignored the fact that the biased scientific studies paid for by Searle were faulty.[6] After leaving the FDA, Hayes took the post of senior medical consultant for the public relations firm retained by Searle..[7] A subsequent inquiry “found no impropriety”.

In July 1983 it was approved for use in soft drinks in the United States, followed three months later by approval in Britain by the Ministry of Agriculture. All this was done despite the fact that the Department of Defense knew that aspartame was neurotoxic and harmful to human health. These facts were deliberately suppressed by the government. It is also interesting that in 1981 FDA scientist Dr. Robert Condon, in an internal government document, said “I do not concur that aspartame has been shown to be safe with respect to the induction of brain tumors.” All safety was thrown aside because of pressure from Searle. Considering the connections the drug companies have to the medical and intelligence community, it would not be surprising that there were other factors involved in the pressure to adopt aspartame into the diet of the population.

In 1984, the Arizona Department of Health began testing soft drinks to ascertain the level of toxic deterioration by-products in soft drinks. It was determined that soft drinks stored in elevated temperatures promoted more rapid deterioration of aspartame into poisonous methyl alcohol (methanol). The FDA decided to ignore these results. Public complaints about the effects of aspartame began to come in. People complained of headaches, dizziness, vomiting, nausea, blurred vision, seizures, convulsions and a host of other reactions to aspartame.

Also in 1984, the Centers for Disease Control made the fraudulent announcement that “no serious, widespread” side effects of aspartame had been found. It was an outright lie, and this announcement was quickly followed by another from PepsiCo that it was dropping saccharin and adopting aspartame as the sweetener it all its diet drinks. Others followed suit, despite the January 1984 broadcast on CBS Nightly News where the chief scientist for the FDA task force investigating Searle publicly stated that Searle company officials made “deliberate decisions” to cloak aspartame’s toxic effects.

When a human consumes “Nutra-Sweet”, it breaks down above 85° not only into its constituent amino acids, but into methanol, which further breaks down into formaldehyde, which is carcinogenic[8] and very toxic, as well as formic acid and a brain tumor agent called diketopiperazine (DKP). In a meek attempt to ward off further public inquiry, the FDA in 1984 announced that “no evidence has been found to establish that aspartame’s methanol by-product reaches toxic levels”. This was a direct lie, since Medical World News reported in 1978, six years earlier, than the methanol content of aspartame is 1,000 times greater than most foods under FDA control. Furthermore, the methanol in aspartame is “free methanol”, which is never found in nature. Methanol in nature is always accompanied by ethanol and other compounds which mitigate the methanol when introduced into the body.

In 1985, Searle Company was bought by Monsanto, the maker of other insidious substances that manage to find their way into human food, including Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). Senator Metzenbaum, commenting on the FDA relative to the aspartame issue in 1985 said, “the FDA is content to have Searle conduct all safety tests on aspartame. That’s absurd.”

Supreme Court Collusion in Aspartame Coverup Clarence Thomas Former Monsanto Lawyer

In 1986, the Washington Post reported that the Supreme Court refused to consider arguments that the FDA had not followed proper procedures in approving aspartame, despite arguments that the product “may cause brain damage.” (Supreme Court obstructing Justice). Since Bush-nominated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
is a former attorney for Monsanto [9],it is unlikely that hundreds of millions of people will find redress. There are also indications of ties between Monsanto and elements in the CIA.

University of Illinois Fraudulent Study on Aspartame

In August of 1987, the University of Illinois, a recipient of funding from Monsanto, issued a study “exonerating aspartame of causing seizures in laboratory animals.” The fact that they were paid by Monsanto automatically invalidates the results. US Senate hearings in 1987 showed that G.D.Searle used “psychological strategy” to get regulators at the FDA “into a yes-saying habit” to “bring them into a subconscious spirit of participation.” .[10] More than half of 69 medical researchers polled by the FDA in 1987 said they were concerned about aspartame’s safety.[11]

FDA Ignores Complaints of Neurological Symptoms

In 1989, the FDA received over 4,000 complaints from people who described adverse reactions. Because the FDA conveniently lists aspartame as a “food additive”, it removes the legal requirement for adverse effect reporting to any Federal agency and the necessity for safety monitoring processes. Research also indicates that aspartame, when combined with glutamine products (such as MSG, widely used in foods) increase the likelihood of brain damage occurring in children.[12]

Aspartame Affecting Airline Pilots

Some of the more interesting developments in 1989 surfaced in the Palm Beach Post on October 14th, where an article by Dr. H.J. Robert described several recent aircraft accidents involving confusion and aberrant pilot behavior caused by ingestion of products containing aspartame.[13] Soft drink makers were notified of this problem in 1991. It is interesting to note that after Samuel Skinner left Sidney & Austin, Searle’s law firm, he was appointed Secretary of Transportation. Hence, he was in charge of the FAA, just in time to head off complaints from pilots affected by aspartame. His wife was employed by Sidney & Austin. Later as George Bush’s Chief of Staff in 1991, during the Gulf War, he was in a position to head off all inquiries relative to aspartame, no matter where they were directed – to the FDA, FAA or Department of Defense. This constitutes criminal negligence and racketeering. George Bush, of course, was an ex-director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

British News: “Nutrasweet Tests Faked”

On July 20, 1990, an article in the national British newspaper The Guardian, entitled “NutraSweet test results ‘faked’”, revealed that the British government had finally been persuaded to review the safety of aspartame after “receiving a dossier of evidence highlighting its potential dangers.” According to The Guardian, the dossier alleged that laboratory tests were falsified, tumors were removed from laboratory animals and animals were ‘restored to life’ in laboratory records.[14] The dossier against NutraSweet was compiled by Erik Millstone, a lecturer at the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University and author of two books on food additives. It was based on thousands of pages of evidence, much of which was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The COT, Committee on Toxicity, was at the time looking into consumption of artificial sweeteners and did not possess the key documents covering alleged mishandling of the safety tests which Millstone was asked to provide.

The British Ministry of Agriculture and Department of Health have never revealed the evidence upon which approval was given in England for the distribution of aspartame, maintaining that “these are matters of commercial confidence.” The British government does not testing of its own but relies on safety tests provided by the manufacturer, which of course constitutes a conflict of interest. The 1990 article quoted the British Department of Health as saying “NutraSweet is not a health hazard on the available evidence, but people do suffer ‘ideosyncratic reactions’ to food additives.” Interestingly, it was pointed out that three out of 14 members of the Committee on Toxicity have direct or indirect links with the artificial sweetener industry, according to David Clark, the Labour Party Agriculture spokeman, who requested a Parliamentary Answer to address questions of conflict of interest. Aspartame is also sold in England under the product name “Canderel.” In 1990, the market for aspartame in England was estimated at £800 million.

Dosing of the Military in the Gulf War

During the 1991 Gulf War, all military personnel were provided free supplies of aspartame-laced soft drinks together with experimental vaccines, nerve gas antidotes and personal insecticides. They were also treated to direct biochemical warfare compounds. The result is Gulf War Syndrome, which is communicable and deadly, and 50,000 military personnel and their dependents are wasting away before our eyes. Criminal negligence? Of course. Criminal conspiracy? Yes. Genocide? Probably – we’re waiting to see.

Aspartame Alters Brain Chemicals That Affect Behavior

Independent tests on animals have shown that aspartame alters brain chemicals that also affect behavior. The chemical nature of aspartame was also shown to defeat its own alleged “purpose” as a “diet aid”, since high doses instill a craving for calorie-laden carbohydrates. Then, the aspartame-carbohydrate combination further increases the effect of aspartame on the brain.[15]

Fraudulent Claims of Aspartame as a “Diet Aid”

Interestingly, even the American Cancer Society confirmed that users of artificial sweeteners gained more weight than those who didn’t use the products, further undermining the supposed “purpose” for the existence of aspartame in the food.[16] Haven’t we heard this kind of criminal fraud before?

The major selling point of aspartame is as a diet aid, and it has been demonstrated that the use of this product actually causes people to consume more food. Normally, when a significant quantity of carbohydrate are consumed, serotonin levels rise in the brain. This is manifested as a relaxed feeling after a meal. When aspartame is ingested with carbohydrates, such as having a sandwich with a diet drink, aspartame causes the brain to cease production of serotonin, meaning that the feeling of having had enough never materializes. You then eat more foods, many containing aspartame, and the cycle continues. Monsanto’s profit from its NutraSweet Division was $993 million in 1990.

Governments Continue Suppression and Coverup on Aspartame

In 1991, the National Institutes of Health.[17] listed 167 symptoms and reasons to avoid the use of aspartame , but today it is a multi-million dollar business that contributes to the degeneration of the human population, as well as the deliberate suppression of overall intelligence, short-term memory[18] and the added contribution as a carcinogenic environmental co-factor. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control continue to receive a stream of complaints from the population about aspartame It is the only chemical warfare weapon available in mass quantities (should keep the cone-heads happy) on the grocery shelf and promoted in the media. It has also been indicated that women with an intolerance for phenylalinine, one of the components of aspartame, may give birth to infants with as much as a 15% drop in intelligence level if they habitually consume products containing this dangerous substance.[19]

FAA Collusion in Suppression of Facts on Aspartame

The March 1995 issue of The Pacific Flyer published a pro-aspartame article in which it stated, “the Federal Aviation Administration conducted its own cognitive research and, according to experts, found no contraindications that would prevent pilots, or anyone, from ingesting aspartame.” This flies in the face of consistent reports from pilots who maintain they have suffered severe and dangerous repercussions in the air after drinking soft drinks containing aspartame. Virtually every time, symptoms disappeared when aspartame-laced drinks were discontinued.[20] Over 600 pilots have reported this problem.

FDA “Findings” on Aspartame Remain Based on Faked Tests

So, the faked Searle tests remain. The FDA bases its findings on the faked Searle tests, and the Journal of the American Medical Association, examining the FDA findings, based on the faked Searle tests, announced “the consumption of aspartame poses no health risk for most people.” Searle officials argue that the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener “has been officially approved not only by the FDA, but by foreign regulatory agencies and the World Health Organization” – based on Searle-sponsored aspartame research, not independently conducted tests.

Symptoms of Aspartame Intoxication: Minimal to Severe

The symptoms of aspartame intoxication include severe headaches, nausea, vertigo, insomina, loss of control of limbs, blurred vision, blindness, memory loss, slurred speech, mild to severe depression often reaching suicidal levels, hyperactivity, gastrointestinal disorders, seizures, skin lesions, rashes, anxiety attacks, muscle and joint pain, numbness, mood changes, loss of energy, menstrual cramps out of cycle, hearing loss or ringing in the ears, loss or change of taste, and symptoms similar to those in a heart attack. In addition, aspartic acid chelates (combines) with chromium – which is a necessary element for proper operation of the thyroid gland. People who consume large quantities of aspartame may end up with a false diagnosis of Graves disease and suffer allopathic irradiation of their thyroid gland for no reason. Complaints about aspartame represent 80-85% of all food complaints registered with the FDA. More than 6,000 complaints have been made concerning the effects of aspartame. Thirty independent doctors and scientists have conducted research on the adverse effects of aspartame or have compiled supporting data against its use.The use of NutraSweet® or Equal® should be seriously curtailed or stopped.

Aspartame Use Part of Planetary Biomedical Genocide

The fact that tons of aspartame is pumped into the world population each year, knowingly and deliberately, especially with the historical and documented record of fraud and misrepresentation, constitutes a conspiracy of the highest order, as well as criminal negligence. The rewards of continued use are increased profits for the medical and pharmaceutical industries and chemical companies who produce aspartame and treat people suffering from the effect of it. Aspartame is the only biochemical warfare product on grocery shelves. And, the band plays on ….

foodasweaponhttp://www.dorway.com/badnews.html

Cellular Phones Linked to Cellular DNA Damage

Mercola.comthumbnailserver2
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/01/08/cellular-phones.aspx

Over 1.5 billion people around the world use a cellular phone; however, chances are most of these users are unaware of the damage they may be doing to their bodies.

According to a four-year research project focused on studying the effect of radiation on human and animal cells, researchers found that the radio waves emitted from a cellular phone may harm body cells and damage DNA in laboratory conditions. Although the study did not prove that mobile phones are a risk to one’s health, it did indicate that cells exposed to electromagnetic fields, similar to those of mobile phones, showed a significant increase in single and double-strand DNA breaks.

This damage could be permanent, not to mention that remaining damage could set the stage for future degeneration of cells.

Additional research could take another four or five years. In the meantime, researchers recommend against using a mobile phone when a fixed line phone is available, as well as using a headset connected to a cell phone whenever possible.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

You may recall a study I posted on the risks of using cellular phones for more than a decade, specifically, growing acoustic neuromas — benign tumors on the auditory nerve — near the ear that is used most often. It is due to studies like these (and the one above) that the use of cellular phones and the issue of electromagnetic fields (EMF) has become such a controversial topic.

According to the World Health Organization, some harmful effects EMFs can have on your body include:
Headache
Fatigue
Stress
Sleep disturbances
Skin symptoms like prickling, burning sensations and rashes
Muscle pains and aches

While I once discouraged the use of cell phones because of these EMF concerns, new technological innovations, such as the headset, have all but eliminated my worries.

You see, I am in no way opposed to cell phones. In fact, I have one myself. However, it is important to understand that cell phones have the potential to cause your great harm and as such you should use them as little as possible.

Fortunately, the radiation decreases quite dramatically (exponentially) the further the phone is from your body. When you use a headset, make sure the ENTIRE PHONE is away from your body, as wearing the phone on your belt will cause the radiation to go into your abdomen.

While radiating your abdominal organs is far safer than radiating your brain, ideally they should both be spared the potential damage.

Also, it is incredibly dangerous to use a cell phone while driving, as it will increase your chances of getting into a car accident by up to 400 percent — if you are young and healthy this may be your highest risk of death. Even though your eyes may be on the road while you are on the phone, your full concentration level isn’t there, so be safe and don’t use cell phones while you’re driving!

The Truth Behind the Vaccine Coverup By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

From the excellent Mercola.com website:

I was asked to write a paper on some of the newer mechanisms of vaccine damage to the nervous system, but, in the interim, I came across an incredible document that should blow the lid off the coverup being engineered by the pharmaceutical companies in conjunction with powerful governmental agencies.

It all started when a friend of mine sent me a copy of a letter from Congressman David Weldon (R-Fla.), M.D. to the director of the CDC, Dr Julie L. Gerberding, in which he alludes to a study by a Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, then representing the CDC, on the connection between infant exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental injury.

In this shocking letter, Weldon refers to Dr. Verstraeten‘s study which looked at the data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink and found a significant correlation between thimerosal exposure via vaccines and several neurodevelopmental disorders including tics, speech and language delays and possibly to ADD.

Weldon questioned the CDC director as to why, following this meeting, Dr. Verstraeten published his results, almost four years later, in the journal Pediatrics to show just the opposite. That is, there was no correlation to any neurodevelopmental problems related to thimerosal exposure in infants. In his letter, Weldon refers to a report of the minutes of this meeting held in Georgia, which exposes some incredible statements by the “experts” making up this study group.

The group‘s purpose was to evaluate and discuss Dr. Verstraeten‘s results and data and make recommendation that would eventually lead to possible alterations in the existing vaccine policy.

Pulling Teeth

I contacted Weldon‘s legislative assistant and he kindly sent me a complete copy of this report. Now, as usual in these cases, the government did not give up this report willingly. It required a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to pry it loose. Having read the report twice and carefully analyzing it, I can see why they did not want any outsiders to look at it. It is a bombshell, as you shall see.

In this analysis, I will not only describe and discuss this report, but also will frequently quote their words directly and supply the exact page number so others can see for themselves.

The official title of the meeting was the “Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information.” This conference, held on June 7-8, 2000 at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Ga., assembled 51 scientists and physicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers (Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur).

During this conference, these scientists focused on the study of the Datalink material, whose main author was Dr. Thomas Verstraesten who identified himself as working at the National Immunization Program of the CDC.

(It was discovered by Congressman Weldon that Dr. Verstraeten left the CDC shortly after this conference to work for GlaxoSmithKline in Belgium which manufacturers vaccines, a recurring pattern that has been given the name a “revolving door.” It is also interesting to note that GlaxoSmithKline was involved in several lawsuits over complications secondary to their vaccines.)

To start off the meeting Dr. Roger Bernier, Associate Director for Science in the National Immunization Program (CDC), related some pertinent history. He stated that congressional action in 1977 required that the FDA review mercury being used in drugs and biologics (vaccines). In meeting this order, the FDA called for information from the manufacturers of vaccines and drugs. He notes that a group of European regulators and manufacturers met on April 1999 and noted the situation but made no recommendations of changes.

In other words, it was all for show.

The Lid Blown Off

At this point, Dr. Bernier made an incredible statement (page 12). He said, “In the United States, there was a growing recognition that cumulative exposure may exceed some of the guidelines.” By guidelines, he is referring to those for mercury exposure safety levels set by several regulatory agencies. The three guidelines were set by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), FDA and EPA. The most consistently violated safety guideline was that set by EPA. He further explains that he is referring to children being exposed to thimerosal in vaccines.

Based on this realization that they were violating safety guidelines he says, this then “resulted in a joint statement of the Public Health Service (PHS) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in July of last year (1999), which stated that as a long term goal, it was desirable to remove mercury from vaccines because it was a potentially preventable source of exposure.” (Page 12)

As an aside, one has to wonder, where was the Public Health Service and American Academy of Pediatrics during all the years of mercury use in vaccines and why didn‘t they know that:

  • They were exceeding regulatory safety levels.
  • Why weren‘t they aware of the extensive literature showing deleterious effects on the developing nervous system of babies?

As we shall see even these “experts” seem to be cloudy on the mercury literature.

An Earlier Meeting

Dr. Bernier notes that in August 1999, a public workshop was held in Bethesda, Md., at the Lister Auditorium by the National Vaccine Advisory Group and the Interagency Working Group on Vaccines to consider thimerosal risk in vaccine use. And based on what was discussed in that conference, thimerosal was removed from the hepatitis B vaccine (HepB).

It is interesting to note that the media took very little interest in what was learned at that meeting and it may have been a secret meeting as well. As we shall see, there is a reason why they struggle to keep the contents of all these meetings secret from the public.

Bernier then notes, on page 13, that in October 1999, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) “looked this situation over again and did not express a preference for any of the vaccines that were thimerosal free.” In this discussion, he further notes the ACIP concluded that the thimerosal-containing vaccines could be used but the “long-term goal is to try to remove thimerosal as soon as possible.”

Now, we need to stop and think about what has transpired here. We have an important group here — the ACIP — that essentially plays a role in vaccine policy that affects tens of millions of children every year. And, we have evidence from the thimerosal meeting in 1999 that the potential for serious injury to the infant‘s brain is so serious that a recommendation for removal becomes policy.

In addition, they are all fully aware that tiny babies are receiving mercury doses that exceed even EPA safety limits, yet all they can say is that we must “try to remove thimerosal as soon as possible?” Do they not worry about the tens of millions of babies that will continue receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines until they can get around to stopping the use of thimerosal?

The Obvious Solution

It should also be noted that it is a misnomer to say “removal of thimerosal” since they are not removing anything. They just plan to stop adding it to future vaccines once they use up existing stocks, which entails millions of doses. And, incredibly, the government allows them to do it.

Even more incredibly, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice similarly endorse this insane policy. In fact, they specifically state that children should continue to receive the thimerosal-containing vaccines until new thimerosal-free vaccines can be manufactured at the will of the manufacturers. Are they afraid that there will be a sudden diphtheria epidemic in America or tetanus epidemic?

The most obvious solution was to use only single-dose vials, which requires no preservative. So why don‘t they use them?

Oh, they exclaim, it would add to the cost of the vaccine. Of course, we are only talking about a few dollars per vaccine at most, certainly worth the health of your child‘s brain and future. They could use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars they waste on vaccine promotion every year to cover these costs for the poor. Then, that would cut into some “fat cat‘s” budget and we can‘t have that.

It was disclosed that thimerosal was in all influenza vaccines, DPT (and most DtaP) vaccines and all HepB vaccines.

As they begin to concentrate on the problem at hand we first begin to learn that the greatest problem with the meeting is that, they know virtually nothing about what they are doing. On page 15, for example, they admit that there is very little pharmacokinetic data on ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal. In fact, they say there is no data on excretion and the data on toxicity is sparse. Yet it is recognized to cause hypersensitivity, neurological problems and even death, and it is known to easily pass the blood-brain and placental barriers.

For the rest of the article, go here:

Discover What You Should Know About Hazardous Cookware

Go here for the story: Mercola.comthumbnailserver2

For years, I’ve been working tirelessly to get the message out to you about all the dangers lurking about in your common, everyday cookware.

From the toxic chemicals present in non-stick Teflon coated pans, to the leaching of dangerous heavy metals into your food from a variety of other types of metal cookware — I want you to know.

I’ve talked about it, written about it, done videos about it — and tried every way I can think of, short of screaming from the rooftops — to warn you of the terrible hazards to your health from most cookware out on the market today.

simg_t_t20036834852003683485jpg110

For those of you who might still be skeptical of the presence of these dangerous toxins making their way into your food — and most assuredly into your body — I finally have the proof.