Seven's version of Someone Like You

*The 26-year-old male vomited blood after eating traditional mala soup
*Doctors at hospital in Wuhan decided soup had burned through stomach
*Man had no history of ulcers or other gastrointestinal disorders

Doctors in China were left dumbfounded when they discovered a hole in a man's stomach wall after he ate a notoriously spicy bowl of soup.

The 26-year-old unnamed male had consumed a mala soup, meaning 'numbing hot', a traditional Chinese dish.

After choosing the spiciest version of the dish from the menu, the man soon experienced a piercing pain in his stomach.



The unlucky customer soon found himself vomiting blood before being rushed to a local hospital in Wuhan.

Despite having no medical history of ulcers or other gastrointestinal disorders, doctors concluded that the spicy soup had burned a hole through his stomach wall.

According to a report on Japanese site Rocket News 24, 15 per cent of incidents involving stomachs at the hospital are related to hot pot dishes.

The traditional Chinese dish is prepared using Sichuan pepper, a local spice, and chilli pepper/

The combination is known to cause a numbing sensation when consumed.

Most restaurants serving the dish offer it with varying degrees of spiciness.

According to local reports, many Chinese restaurants have begun to replace the natural, more expensive ingredients in hot pot dishes for cheaper, synthetic additives that replicate the spiciness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...restaurant.html

Our Lives Are Not Our Own...

Our Lives Are Not Our Own from ricstc on Vimeo.

New study: Infants receiving the most vaccines are the most likely to be hospitalized and die

Monday, December 24, 2012 by: Neil Z. Miller

A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, analyzed more than 38,000 reports of infant hospitalizations and deaths following vaccinations.[1] Researchers found statistically significant correlations between the number of vaccine doses administered to infants and infant hospitalization and mortality rates: babies who receive the most vaccines tend to have higher (worse) hospitalization and death rates.

Infants who received 2 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 3 or more vaccines at the same time. Infants who received 3 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 4 or more vaccines at the same time. Babies who received 6, 7, or 8 vaccines during a single pediatric well-baby visit were the most likely to be hospitalized following their injections. In fact, the hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for infants receiving 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for infants receiving 8 vaccine doses.

The authors of the study, Dr. Gary Goldman and Neil Z. Miller, also discovered that younger infants were significantly more likely to be hospitalized after receiving vaccinations than older infants. In addition, infants who received 5-8 vaccines simultaneously were significantly more likely to die following their shots than infants who received 1-4 vaccines simultaneously.

Several factors could contribute to whether an infant will have an adverse reaction to vaccines, including a genetic predisposition, illness (which may be a contraindication to vaccine administration), quality of vaccines (which can vary by manufacturing methods), and sensitivity to one or more vaccine components. Some infants might be more likely to experience an adverse reaction due to biochemical or synergistic toxicity associated with concurrent administration of multiple vaccines.

In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life. By 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio, 3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines.

The CDC's Childhood Immunization Schedule Was Not Tested for Safety, Lacks Scientific Veracity:

While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit -- even though this combination of 8 vaccines was never tested in clinical trials.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038457_vaccine_injuries_infant_deaths_scientific_study.html#ixzz2G1i8fivB

Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated

Parents say vaccines cause autism and autoimmune diseases and many other acute or chronic disease. The question is: is there any truth to this? How many kids have avoidable chronic illness as a result of vaccines?

One way to find out would be to compare vaccinated children with unvaccinated children. The pro-vaccine say of such a study, “it can’t be done,” for various spurious reasons. But is the bottom line that such a study could possibly bring the whole childhood vaccine schedule into question? If unvaccinated children were shown to be healthier, might vaccination rates fall?

Should a comparative study show that that the rate of autism in unvaccinated is significantly less than the rate among vaccinated children, might the Government have to pay a couple of billion to provide these injured people the compensation they deserve?

Those of us who have only been able to provide lip service can now support it, and help to make it happen. The study will look at several potential health differences, and if it is properly done and statistically sound, with results that show vaccinated children suffer the same mental and physical illness that the unvaccinated do, I will concede the argument.

If we all chip in to raise the million US dollars it will take to hire the personnel, do the distribution of questionnaires, analyze the data, and everything in between, the study can be completed.

The lead investigator and the creators of the questionnaire are highly qualified to conduct the study. The lead investigator is a visiting professor in the School of Health Sciences at Jackson State University, has MPH and DrPH degrees in epidemiology from Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine and an MA in sociology from the University of Essex (UK).

The study already has ethics approval and is ready to roll.

Here is a short radio clip discussing the lack of such a study thus far, and some other information on the childhood vaccination program.

All it needs is funding.

As you can imagine, there are no pharmaceutical or government agencies rushing to donate to the cause of answering some of the very questions now being asked in congress today. We need answers, and those answers will only arrive by doing this study.

Some of the bigger organizations who question vaccines are not donating, so it’s up to us. If you long to know the answer as much as I do, please donate something, even five dollars, to help make it happen.

If you don’t donate anything then please don’t whine about how your kid has no way out of the vaccine schedule, about how there is vaccine after vaccine added every few years, about how nobody listens and the medical profession says there is no proof that numerous medical conditions correlate with the number of vaccines given in a lifetime.

If you don’t get on board then consider that you have just capitulated to, and joined the Paul Offits of the world.

The study is called, “Vaccination Status and Health Outcomes among Homeschool Children.” Research is being done by epidemiologists at Jackson State University.The pilot study involved four states. That data has not been fully analyzed. The upcoming study will be nationwide in the USA.

The proposal for the study states: “This study concerns a major current health question: namely, whether vaccination is linked in any way to children’s long-term health. Vaccination is one of the greatest discoveries in medicine, yet little is known about its long-term impact. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of vaccination by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in terms of a number of major health outcomes, including asthma, autism, diabetes, and learning disability.

The study involves a partnership between Jackson State University (JSU), Jackson, MS and the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), Salem, OR, which has long been involved in research on homeschool education…This study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Jackson State University.”

Read More

3 Things I Learn for Life - Video - Must See

The Single Deadliest Ingredient in Your Pantry?

Is salt the same as sodium?

Sodium content varies with the type of salt you use and most people are not getting their sodium from a salt shaker.  It's estimated that 77% of the sodium in our diets comes from restaurant and packaged foods.
According to Paul Pitchford in his book "Healing with Whole Foods," typical refined table salt that you buy in the supermarket is about 99.5% sodium chloride and the balance is composed of chemicals to prevent caking, as well as potassium iodide to prevent goiters and sometimes sugar to stabilize the iodine.
In a teaspoon of that salt, there are about 6,200 mg of sodium chloride and of that amount, 2,400 mg are sodium. That is about the maximum recommended daily amount of sodium for a healthy adult according to the CDC and well in excess of the 1,500 mg limit recommended for 70% of the population.
Pitchford estimates that the average American takes in 17,000 mg of salt per day or about 3 ½ teaspoons of highly refined table salt.

Is sodium or salt essential for good health?

Sodium is essential to maintain the balance of fluids in your body, transmit nerve impulses and stimulate the contraction and relaxation of muscles. Too little sodium can lead to dehydration and symptoms of weakness and nausea as well as muscle cramps.
Refined table salt has no benefits independent of its sodium content and its iodine content, if iodized. However, pure unrefined salt is another matter.

Unprocessed whole sea salt can have 40 to 57% less sodium than processed table salt. In addition, it contains up to 60 trace minerals which, according to Pitchford, give it a profile most similar to that of our own blood. Those minerals are important for the formation of vitamins, enzymes and proteins in the body.

Keep in mind that salt is not the only source of sodium.  Pitchford lists the major alternate dietary sources of sodium as eggs, seafood, meats, kelp, seaweed, beets, turnips, Swiss chard, spinach and parsley.
What does this mean for you?  Although the link between blood pressure and sodium has been challenged, there is still no benefit to eating high sodium processed foods.  Instead, try to increase the amount of whole natural sodium rich foods in your diet.

The most important thing to do is replace that table salt with a high quality unbleached natural sea salt.  Unrefined sea salt will have some color to it – grey, pink, yellow, brown, etc. – depending on its source and its mineral content.  Good choices to try are Celtic Sea Salt or Himalayan Pink Sea Salt.

Posted on: Saturday, December 1st 2012 Margie King is a holistic health coach and graduate of the Institute for Integrative Nutrition®. www.NourishingMenopause.com.

Diabetes is running at record levels worldwide, and half the people estimated to have the disease are, as yet, un-diagnosed

Nov 14 — Diabetes is running at record levels worldwide, and half the people estimated to have the disease are, as yet, undiagnosed, according to a report today.

The number of people living with diabetes is now put at 371 million, up from 366 million a year ago, with numbers expected to reach 552 million by 2030, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) said.

Diabetes is often viewed as a Western problem, since the vast majority of people have type 2 disease, which is linked to obesity and lack of exercise.

But the disease is also spreading rapidly in poorer countries, alongside urbanisation, and four out of five diabetics now live in low and middle-income countries, opening up new opportunities and challenges for the drug industry.

China alone has 92.3 million people with diabetes, more than any other nation in the world, and the hidden burden is also enormous in sub-Saharan Africa, where limited healthcare means less than a fifth of cases get diagnosed.

The IDF estimates that, globally, 187 million people do not yet know they are suffering from the condition.

Diabetics have inadequate blood sugar control, which can lead to serious complications, including nerve and kidney damage and blindness. Worldwide deaths from the disease are running at 4.8 million a year.

The disease is one of a number of chronic conditions — along with cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases — that healthcare campaigners want included in the next set of global development goals, which will replace the outgoing Millennium Developments Goals in 2015.

For the international drugmakers, diabetes offers riches, with global sales of diabetes medicines expected to reach US$48-53 billion (RM147-162.3 billion) by 2016, up from US$39.2 billion in 2011, according to research firm IMS Health.

Twin-track approach

Tapping into the potential of increased demand in emerging markets, however, requires a twin-track approach from drug companies, which have traditionally focused on pricey new therapies for rich-world markets.

These days, there is a lot more focus on high-volume but lower-margin business in developing economies, many of which are predicted to show high double-digit percentage sales growth for diabetes medicines for years to come.

The shift is already yielding results.

China, for example, is now the second-largest market behind the United States for the world’s biggest maker of insulin — Danish group Novo Nordisk. It is also a major focus for rivals such as Eli Lilly, Merck & Co, and Sanofi.

Poorer countries are more difficult, especially when it comes to insulin, which must be kept cool if it is not to deteriorate. While most patients start on cheap generic diabetes pills, such as metformin, many need insulin as their disease progresses.

Still, Novo Nordisk thinks it has cracked part of the problem in Kenya, where a project using churches and other local groups has reduced the number of middlemen in the supply chain and cut the cost of a month’s supply of insulin to around 500 Kenyan shillings (RM18).

So far, the project only covers around 1,000 Kenyans but Jesper Hoiland, Novo’s head of international operations, is confident his company’s low-price model will become profitable as it increases in scale. “It will take three to five years to get to breakeven,” he said in an interview.

In the meantime, similar pilot schemes are being tested in rural India and Nigeria.

Other major drugmakers such as Sanofi, which has a significant presence in Africa, are also adopting “tiered” or differential pricing to open up developing-world markets. — Reuters

Antibiotics: Killing Off Beneficial Bacteria … for Good?

It’s an accepted concept by now that taking antibiotics in order to quell an infection disrupts the personal microbiome, the population of microorganisms that we all carry around in our guts, and which vastly outnumbers the cells that make up our bodies. That recognition supports our understanding of Clostridium difficile disease — killing the beneficial bacteria allows C. diff room to surge and produce an overload of toxins — as well as the intense interest in establishing a research program that could demonstrate experimentally whether the vast industry producing probiotic products is doing what it purports to do.

But implicit in that concept is the expectation that, after a while — after a course of antibiotics ends — the gut flora repopulate and their natural balance returns.

What if that expectation were wrong?

In a provocative editorial published this week in Nature, Martin Blaser of New York University’s Langone Medical Center argues that antibiotics’ impact on gut bacteria is permanent — and so serious in its long-term consequences that medicine should consider whether to restrict antibiotic prescribing to pregnant women and young children.

Early evidence from my lab and others hints that, sometimes, our friendly flora never fully recover. These long-term changes to the beneficial bacteria within people’s bodies may even increase our susceptibility to infections and disease. Overuse of antibiotics could be fuelling the dramatic increase in conditions such as obesity, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies and asthma, which have more than doubled in many populations.

Among the findings he cites in support: The population-level observation that the incidence of infection withH. pylori, the bacterial cause of gastric ulcers, has declined over decades just as the incidence of esophageal cancer has risen. In addition, he offers his own research group’s observation that children who don’t acquire H. pylori are at greater risk of developing allergy and asthma, and their findings that eradicating H. pylori affects the production of the two hormones, ghrelin and leptin, that play a role in weight gain.

Are antibiotics to blame for the decline in H.pylori? Blaser points out that the organism is vulnerable to the same antibiotics that are prescribed to children for ear infections and colds — and that children routinely receive up to 20 courses of antibiotics before they reach adulthood. In addition, he says, one-third to one-half of women in the industrialized world receive antibiotics during pregnancy. Couple that with the increasingly large percentage of children born by Caesarean section — who by skipping their trip through the birth canal miss their first exposure to friendly bacteria — and the result, he says, is that “each generation… could be beginning life with a smaller endowment of ancient microbes than the last.”

• By Maryn McKennaEmail Author
• August 26, 2011 

Full Report here

Cancer mum denied chance to say goodbye

The family of a 35-year-old mother who died under NHS respite care have accused doctors of making no attempt to save her life because they assumed she was dying anyway.

Andrea West was suffering from cancer but had been told she could live for a further two years.

But the mother of six died within days of being admitted to a palliative care centre last month with what her family thought was a routine infection.

The day before her death last month, she had been looking forward to going home, chatting with her children, eating crackers and drinking cola, her family claim.

But when her husband Chris visited her the following day he found her heavily sedated.

When he urged unit staff to send her to hospital for treatment, they refused – saying she would only die in the ambulance.

Mr West had already become concerned about his wife’s treatment after finding she had been labelled with a ‘do not resuscitate’ notice.

The notice, which meant she would not be revived if she suffered a medical crisis, went against the wishes of Mrs West and her family, who were desperate to prolong her life so she could spend precious months with her children, aged between one and 17.

Yet Mr West said he and his wife had to ask five times to have the notice removed.

After her death, Mr West claims he was told by a nurse and his GP that despite being expected to live for at least 18 months, his wife had been put on the Liverpool Care Pathway, the controversial system designed to ease the suffering of the dying in their final hours.

Last night the clinic denied that Mrs West had been placed on the LCP.

But the case will reignite debate over the treatment of those who are believed to be dying.

Thousands of patients are placed on the LCP every year, which some medics say leads to the premature deaths of more than 100,000. Mr West said: ‘Andrea had a lot of things she wanted to do for the children. She didn’t get a chance to say goodbye to them.’

The Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust, which runs the unit where Mrs West died, declined to give further information on the case before Mrs West’s inquest. The LCP was devised in the 1990s and involves the heavy sedation of a patient and the removal of tubes providing food and fluid.

However its use was criticised in the summer by a senior consultant, Professor Patrick Pullicino, who told a medical conference that nearly a third of NHS deaths now involve patients on the pathway.

He said a decision to put a patient on the LCP has become ‘a self-fulfilling prophecy’, adding that ‘factors like pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients cannot be excluded’.

Mrs West, who had two children from a previous marriage and four – aged seven, four, three and one – with her husband, was diagnosed with cervical cancer in January last year which later spread to her lymph nodes.

Her husband said she had been given between 18 months and two years to live. Mr West, a former care worker who now looks after his children full-time, said a nurse had advised him last month that his wife should be admitted to Priscilla Bacon Lodge in Norwich for palliative care.

‘I believed she had an infection,’ he said. ‘She had had the same symptoms in the past with infections. I didn’t think it was serious at all.’

Mr West and the children visited Mrs West on September 19. ‘She was active, cheerful and looking forward to going home,’ Mr West said. ‘She spoke to her children, she was eating cheese and crackers, and she was drinking Coke with lemon.’

However, he said, his wife was concerned because she had been told doctors had placed a ‘do not resuscitate’ notice in her notes. Mr West said his wife told him: ‘I have fought this far. Why would I want to die now?’

However, he said, it took five requests from himself and his wife before medics removed the DNR notice. The following day, at 6.30am, Mr West was phoned by nurses to be told his wife had been bleeding and vomiting. He was, he said, told she was likely to die that day.

‘I couldn’t understand it at all,’ he said. ‘I couldn’t understand why they assumed she was going to die so quickly.’ On arriving at the unit he said he found that his wife had been heavily sedated and no tubes for artificial hydration or nutrition had been connected.

He said he was later told she had been placed on the LCP. ‘I asked a nurse and she said, “We are treating her on the Liverpool Care Pathway. The papers have been prepared by the doctor and she is being treated as a dying lady on the LCP”.’

He said he ‘argued with’ doctors to provide his wife with intravenous fluid and this was done. As her condition worsened he threatened to call an ambulance to take her to hospital.

‘They said I shouldn’t do that,’ he said. ‘They said it would disturb her dignity and she would die in the ambulance.’ His wife died at 8.30pm that evening.

‘Her death was sudden and very unexpected,’ he said. ‘She would have been shocked at the idea that she was dying. We all thought she had a year, probably a year and a half. She wanted to make boxes for the children, with pictures and other things to remember her by.’

He added: ‘One day she was eating and drinking. The next she was dead. It makes no sense to me.’

A spokesman for the Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust said: ‘We can confirm this patient was not on the Liverpool Care Pathway. However, we have been advised by the coroner that it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time as it may be subject to a coroner’s inquest.’

-dailymail.co.uk

Cancer: the Forbidden Cures (MUST WATCH Videos)

Anna Hunt, Contributing Writer

Waking Times

Cancer is a growing worldwide epidemic, with staggering statistics: 20,000 people dying of cancer every day; 1 person out of 3 will be faced with cancer at one point in their life; and 1 million Americans are diagnosed with cancer every year. The standard treatment for cancer has been the same for many decades and is comprised of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, the latter two being toxic to healthy cells in the human body. These treatments, as well as the research surrounding cancer, generate millions of dollars each year for the medical industry, with a typical cancer patient spending on-average $50,000 to treat the disease.

Sadly, there is clearly a lack of desire in the mainstream medical establishment to research alternative, natural medicines and treatments for cancer. One of the primary reasons for this that it is difficult to patent a natural treatment, thus limiting the revenue potential of natural and homeopathic medicines. Therefore, there is little interest from the pharmaceutical companies to put natural remedies through the expensive and arduous FDA approval processes. Another reason is believed to be that the pharmaceutical industry, through its control over the education system, drug-testing process and the FDA, as well as through its influence over the American Medical Association and medical publications, is not interested in a cure unless there is significant revenue potential as well as an opportunity for lucrative patents.

Over the last century, several natural cancer treatments have been developed and used to treat patients (even cure them) in the US and in other developed countries. One example is a natural concoction of herbs called Essiac, created by nurse Rene Caisse in Canada in the 1920′s. Another is an herbal cure created by Harry Hoxsey, who funded clinics in 17 states before they were all closed down by the FDA in the late 1950’s. And yet another is the Gerson Therapy, created by German doctor Maximilian Gerson, who was one of the first to suggest a nutritional approach to treating chronic disease in the 1940’s.

Full Report and Full Vimeo Video Documentary HERE

One can of Red Bull, could raise the risk of heart attack or stroke, even in young people

LONDON, Oct 11 — For many university students, staying up all night to cram for a final exam is the de facto standard, but health experts say that frequent sleep deprivation over the course of your four-year studies can unleash some serious health problems.

Reported in The Guardian in the UK on Tuesday, Susan Redline, a professor of sleep medicine in Boston, has found a link between sleep deprivation and the onset of disorders such as anxiety and bipolar depression. But that’s not all: regularly forcing your body to stay awake can affect your blood pressure and inflammation levels, resulting in an increased risk of heart disease and cancer. Also sleep deprivation has been linked to enhanced risks for obesity and diabetes.

What about the short-term effects? The article also cites recent research at Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley that links all-nighters with a temporary euphoria driven by the chemical dopamine. Yet, the temporary boost in sex drive and positivity is soon met with an increased risk of addiction and impulsive behavior.

Plus with all those late nights, students are likely relying on heavy caffeine consumption to burn the midnight oil. A 2008 study found that just one can of Red Bull, for example, could raise the risk of heart attack or stroke, even in young people.

All-night studying won’t likely help your grades either, since researchers say the information won’t sink in, because memories form during deep sleep. According to the American Psychological Association, your best bet is to study throughout the semester, since studies have shown that students recall a greater percentage of information when they study at different points in time, rather than in one uninterrupted bout. — AFP/Relaxnews

Aspartame: Safety Approved in 90 Nations, but Damages the Brain

By Dr. Mercola

More than 90 countries have given the artificial sweetener aspartame the green light to be used in thousands of food and beverage products.¹

Two hundred times sweeter than sugar, aspartame allows food manufacturers to produce sweet foods they can market as “low calorie,” “diet,” or sugar-free,” appealing to hundreds of millions of consumers looking to cut sugar from their diets.

No doubt about it, the less sugar you include in your diet, the better. But replacing sugar with aspartame is not the solution, and in fact is likely to be even worse for your health.

Despite assurances from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other public health agencies that aspartame is safe, the research says otherwise…

So What the Heck is Aspartame Made Of?

Virtually all of the marketing material emphasizes the fact that aspartame is natural and made of two amino acids, the building blocks of protein. But, like many deceptions, this is only partially true. While there are two amino acids that comprise 90% of aspartame, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, they are held together in a methyl ester bond that comprises 10% of the molecule.

The methanol is released from the aspartame within hours of consumption after hydrolysis of the methyl group of the dipeptide by chymotrypsin in the small intestine. Once this methyl ester bond is broken it liberates free methyl alcohol or methanol, which is commonly called wood alcohol. The problem with methanol is that it passes into your blood-brain barrier and is converted into formaldehyde, which causes the damage. You may recognize formaldehyde as embalming fluid.

Interestingly, methanol is only toxic in humans. All other animals are able to detoxify it before it causes damage.

Methanol is a toxin that destroys the myelin tissue in your body, which is the insulating material around your nerves that allows nerve signals to travel properly. Once injured, one can have what are called demyelinating symptoms that are commonly seen in diseases like MS and also migraines that can include bizarre and inconsistent visual field disruptions.

My sister that helped me start my practice in 1985 is actually one of the people that develops these symptoms when exposed to aspartame. In the late ‘80s I helped to diagnose her with this sensitivity and she has avoided it for over 25 years.

Why is Methanol So Toxic?

Full Report (click)

Valium’s Contribution to Our New Normal

By ROBIN MARANTZ HENIG

Published: September 29, 2012

IT wasn’t funny, really, but everybody laughed at the scene in the 1979 film “Starting Over” when Burt Reynolds’s character had a panic attack in the furniture department of Bloomingdale’s (something to do with terror at the prospect of buying a couch). “Does anyone have a Valium?” his brother called out as Burt hyperventilated. The punch line: Every woman in the store reached into her purse and pulled out a little vial of pills.

Nor was it surprising that all those Bloomie’s shoppers could be so helpful, since by that time Valium, which had been introduced in 1963, was the best-selling prescription drug in America, with billions of blue or yellow or white pills, each stamped with a trademark V, sold every year.

Valium was, significantly, one of the first psychoactive drugs to be used on a large scale on people who were basically fine. It has since been surpassed by other drugs, like the popular tranquilizer Xanax. But with the pharmaceutical giant Roche announcing that it will soon close the Nutley, N.J., plant where Valium and its predecessor, Librium, were developed, it’s a good time to remember how revolutionary these “minor tranquilizers” were half a century ago. These were the drugs that gave us a new way to slay our inner demons, medicating our way to a happier life.

How did Roche convince physicians that it was O.K. to offer their patients a bottled form of serenity? How did the physicians persuade their patients? And how did the company’s success in this venture shape our collective attitudes toward normal versus abnormal, stoic versus foolhardy, and the various ways available to cope with the ups and downs of daily life?

Marketing, essentially — which was first put into action with Librium, one of those evocative drug names that pharmaceutical companies invent. Librium was introduced in 1960 and promptly outsold its predecessors, the barbiturates, because it had fewer side effects. (Barbiturates were serious downers, making people sleepy and zombielike, and they were habit-forming; Marilyn Monroe died from an overdose.)

“A Whole New World ... of Anxiety” read one of the early Roche ads for Librium, featuring a young woman with a pageboy hairdo holding an armload of books, wearing a short stadium coat and heading off to college. The copy made it sound as though every step in this “whole new world” called out for a tranquilizer. “The new college student may be afflicted by a sense of lost identity in a strange environment ... Her newly stimulated intellectual curiosity may make her more sensitive to and apprehensive about unstable national and world conditions.”

Full Story

Vaccinated Children Develop the Disease Vaccinated Against

Paul Fassa
Activist Post This is not alternative health conspiratorial conjecture.

This has been officially recorded but barely reported. So here is a sampling of recorded disease breakouts among children who were vaccinated for that disease.

Enforcing or increasing vaccine schedules does not really prevent disease; it only increases the chances of worse health or gravely critical adverse reactions, ranging from autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) to decreased immunity and increased poor health. 

Some Known Outbreaks of Vaccinated Kids The most recent outbreak occurred in California. The disease was whooping cough, or pertussis. The vaccination that has become a regularly scheduled pediatric ritual is a combination of three vaccines known as DTaP or DTP, which stands for Diptheria – Tetenus – acellular Pertussis.

This three-in-one vaccine cocktail is supposed to prevent diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, or whooping cough. The pediatric vaccination schedule calls for administering this cocktail at two, four, six, and 15-18 months of age.

Four vaccinations of three vaccines each administered to children before one and one-half years of age. Dr. David Witt initiated a study after an unusually large number of whooping cough cases were admitted to Kaiser Permanente Hospital in San Rafael, California during 2010.

After examining the records of those stricken with pertussis over an eight month period, Dr. Witt and his team were surprised to learn that the vast majority, 81 percent, of the whooping cough kids had received their full four shot battery of DTaPs or pertussis vaccines alone. Eleven percent of the pertussis victims received some less than four pertusssis vaccinations, while the remaining eight percent were never vaccinated for whooping cough at all.

Please pause and reflect. There’s something obviously wrong with this. Other recent pertussis outbreaks were blindly blamed on unvaccinated kids contaminating vaccinated children, without any investigation.

That, even if true, which Dr. Witt’s survey indicates is not, is something to think about. Vaccinations are supposed to confer immunity, right? This study implies that vaccinated children are infecting the unvaccinated.

The New York Times also reported on this overall trend with their headline “Vaccination Is Steady but Pertussis Is Surging.”

It wasn’t long ago that the New York and New Jersey area had a mumps outbreak. Eighty percent of those kids had been fully vaccinated with the MMR series (measles, mumps, rubella). (Natural News, source below)

In Canada, four studies conducted in 2009 suggested a link with the seasonal flu vaccines’ increasing swine flu or H1H1 infection by up to 250 percent. (Science Daily, source below)

Hiding the Vaccine Dirt Under the Media Rug

Realize that vaccines are inexpensive to produce and do not undergo long term testing. They are being promoted and enforced by state legislators and school districts at the behest of pharmaceutical lobbies. Sometimes money changes hands from Big Pharma to politicians.

But much social enforcement occurs by guilt from the media and medical profession. The mantra of avoiding vaccinations furthers epidemics because “herd immunity” is only granted by vaccinating at least 90 percent of a population -- is nonsense.

Meanwhile, the vaccine manufacturers are protected from liability by the government’s federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) established after a rash of lawsuits from extreme neurological side effects caused by 1980s swine flu vaccines.

This “Vaccine Court” compensates the vaccine injured directly with federal funds and small taxes collected from vaccine manufacturers. It also hides actual cases by not releasing press releases to the lamestream media.

VAERS (vaccine adverse effect reporting system) is another bad joke. It’s estimated that less than five percent of vaccine adverse events get reported, and very few of those hit the MSM. This one did once, years ago - CBS 60 Minutes Documentary.

Must Watch - Documentary - Greater Good - A Vaccine Story

Study Confirms Flu Shot Makes You Sicker

Catherine J. Frompovich, Contributor

An interesting article appeared in a Canadian newspaper, The Vancouver Sun, about research that found the flu vaccine actually was linked to H1N1 illnesses, the pandemic flu that never materialized in 2008-09, if you remember.

Vancouver researcher Dr. Danuta Skowronski led a team of researchers questioning certain flu virus events that seemed to impact people who received the 2008-09 flu vaccine. Dr. Skowronski, incidentally, is an influenza expert with the B.C. Center for Disease Control.

What captivated Dr. Skowronski’s interest was the fact that those who were vaccinated with the H1N1 pandemic flu virus were the ones who were infected with it rather than people who did not receive the H1N1 flu vaccine. Initially that phenomenon was called the “Canadian problem” since research outside of Canada did not come up with similar findings.

The real ‘kicker’ was that five studies performed in several Canadian provinces found the same results: H1N1 vaccination correlated with pandemic flu virus infection.

Apparently there were some doubts about ‘anecdotal’ findings, so Skowronski’s research team did a study with ferrets. That study’s results were presented at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

What researchers found after working with 32 ferrets was the vaccinated group became significantly sicker than the controls. Eventually, all ferrets recovered. The study was blinded, i.e., researchers didn’t know which ferrets received the 2008 flu shot. Half the ferrets received the flu shot and the balance were given a placebo injection.

Then all ferrets were infected with the H1N1 virus. Those ferrets that were vaccinated became sicker than the non-vaccinated ferrets. Dr. Skowronski said, “The findings are consistent with the increased risk that we saw in the human studies.”

Full report http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/study-confirms-flu-shot-makes-you-sicker.html

The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's GMO corn

The top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's GM corn

Which cereals contain no GMOs? Nature's Path There is only one brand of breakfast cereal I know of that's 100% non-GMO and 100% organic across their entire product line. That company is Nature's Path: If you buy breakfast cereal, and you don't want to eat Monsanto's GM corn, always choose cereals from Nature's Path. This is my No. 1 most highly trusted cereal company. Many "natural" brands that appear to be healthful and natural are actually not organic or GMO-free. For example, "Barbara's Bakery" cereals are not organic. Although they are positioned in store shelves alongside other organic cereals, they are actually made with conventional crops grown with pesticides which may include Monsanto's Roundup. You may also notice that most of the cereals most likely to contain GM corn are children's cereals. It is the children in America who are being fed the most GMOs. This represents a highly unethical food experiment being conducted on an entire generation, and the long-term effects of human consumption of GMOs are simply not known. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037315_Monsanto_GM_corn_breakfast_cereals.html#ixzz27Z1slG9o

Critical Thinking

Grandfather, 78, beat 'incurable' cancer by changing his diet

Extraordinary story of the man who got 'all-clear' after swapping red meat and dairy products for 10 fruit and veg a day 

A grandfather, who was told by doctors that his cancer was 'incurable', has been given the all-clear less than four months later - after trying a different diet.

Allan Taylor could have been forgiven for fearing the worst when doctors told him they could do nothing to treat his condition.

But the 78-year-old would not give up, and instead searched the internet for an alternative method to fight his cancer.

After studying websites, he decided to radically change his diet - and found his condition improved dramatically.

Mr Taylor, a retired oil rig engineer from Middlesbrough, replaced red meat and dairy products with 10 portions of raw fruit and veg each day.

His diet included powdered grass, curry spices, apricot seeds and selenium tablets.

Mr Taylor made the changes after he received a letter on April 30, telling them were was no point having any more chemotherapy as it would not cure him and neither would an operation. 

'They said if they cut out the cancer it would just pop up somewhere else,' he told the Sunday Mirror.

'But I was determined to stay positive and decided to find my own cure.

'I was determined to stay positive and decided to find my own cure'

'On August 6 I got a letter from North Tees hospital to say a scan had shown my cancer had gone and "the abnormality is no longer visible". I’m all clear.'

Mr Taylor's ordeal began in February last year when he noticed a two-inch lump in his abdomen. He was sent for a scan and told he had colon cancer.

Last September he underwent an operation, during which a surgeon removed a nine-inch section of his colon, and he began a three-month course of chemotherapy.

But in April this year he was told the cancer had spread to small intestine.

Mr Taylor responded by tapping the words 'colon cancer cures' into an internet search engine.

He used the information, together with advice from his local health food store, to devise his new diet.

He believes that having a teaspoon of powdered barley grass in hot water every morning and night was particularly crucial.

'There is no question in my mind that my diet saved my life,' he said. 'And all it cost was £30 a week.'

Mr Taylor learned he had the all-clear in a letter sent from North Tees hospital

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2204080/Grandfather-incurable-cancer-given-clear-swapping-red-meat-dairy-products-10-fruit-veg-day.html#ixzz26ldVg2hj

By ROB PREECE

PUBLISHED: 14:30 GMT, 16 September 2012 | UPDATED: 08:26 GMT, 17 September 2012

Spot the difference

Aspartame: Safety Approved In 90 Nations, But Damages Brain

Posted on: 

Tuesday, September 11th 2012 at 12:00 pm

Written by: 

Sayer Ji, founder

--

A new study on aspartame has the potential to reignite the decades-old controversy behind this artificial sweetener's safety, or lack thereof.  As far back as 1996, folks were writing about the potential link between aspartame and increasing brain tumor rates.[i] Indeed, its intrinsicneurotoxicity and carcinogenicity has been confirmed in the biomedical literature. And yet, aspartame has been approved for use in thousands of consumer products in over 90 countries, [ii]and is still being consumed by millions worldwide on a daily basis – despite the fact that over 40adverse health effects of aspartame have been documented.  

The new study, published in the September edition of the Journal of Bioscience and titled, "Effect of chronic exposure to aspartame on oxidative stress in the brain of albino rats," aimed to test the hypothesis that chronic consumption of aspartame may be causing neurological damage in exposed populations.  

They found that chronic (90 day) administration of aspartame to rats, at ranges only 50% above what the FDA considers safe for human consumption, resulted in blood and brain tissue changes consistent with brain damage.  

Aspartame is metabolized into three distinct components: aspartic acid, methanol and phenylalanine. While aspartic acid is a well-known excitotoxin, phenylalanine only presents a serious health concern to those with a genetic disorder known as phenyletonuria. Methanol, on the other hand, is far more problematic, as it is not naturally found in significant quantities in the human diet.

According to a recent review

Until 200 years ago, methanol was an extremely rare component of the human diet and is still rarely consumed in contemporary hunter and gatherer cultures. With the invention of canning in the 1800s, canned and bottled fruits and vegetables, whose methanol content greatly exceeds that of their fresh counterparts, became far more prevalent. The recent dietary introduction of aspartame, an artificial sweetener 11% methanol by weight, has also greatly increased methanol consumption.[iii]

Moreover, the aspartame metabolite methanol (also known as wood alcohol) is highly toxic and is metabolized into the known human carcinogen formaldehyde and formic acid,[iv] which is known to be highly toxic to the central nervous system. Considering the fact that the normal human body temperature is approximately 98.6 degrees Farenheit, and that aspartame will convert to its toxic metabolites at temperatures as low as 86 degrees Farenheit, the finding that aspartame is neurotoxic to animals is not a surprise. The authors of the new study surmised that the observed adverse brain changes were due to the generation of oxidative stress in brain regions.

Aspartame, of course, is a proprietary synthetic chemical not found in nature, and exists primarily because plants like stevia, which have significant, clinically-substantiated healing properties, can be grown in your back yard for free and are therefore not profitable commodities that can be produced and controlled only by a few.

But, aspartame is not the only toxic sweetener on the market. A growing body of research now shows that sucralose, known by the brand-name Splenda, is also capable of suppressing the immune system, causing inflammatory bowel conditions such as Crohn's and ulcerative colitis, migraine headaches, and DNA damage.[v]

The trick is to stick with naturally occurring compounds, whose sweetness is not associated with adverse health effects. Below is a list of natural alternatives, along with the number of potential health benefits associated with each, as indexed on our website.

Compounds whose sweetness is not associated with adverse health effects

• Honey (69)
• Xylitol (21)
• Erythritol (2)
• Stevia (16)

---

[i] J W Olney, N B Farber, E Spitznagel, L N Robins. Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame? J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1996 Nov;55(11):1115-23. PMID: 8939194

[ii] "Aspartame". Sugar Substitutes. Health Canada. Archived from the original on October 09 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-08.

[iii] Woodrow C Monte. Methanol: a chemical Trojan horse as the root of the inscrutable U. Med Hypotheses. 2010 Mar;74(3):493-6. Epub 2009 Nov 5. PMID: 19896282

[iv] Harris, Gardiner (10 June 2011). "Government Says 2 Common Materials Pose Risk of Cancer". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-06-11.

[v] GreenMedInfo.com, Sucralose Toxicity Research