When Hispanics Immigrate to the U.S., Their Cancer Rates Begin to Soar

(NaturalNews)

Cancer rates among Hispanics rise following migration to the United States, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Miami.

“This study is [reminiscent] of studies from the late 1960s that looked at immigrants from China and Japan to the United States,” said Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society. “They raise risk of cancer by immigrating and raise rates for second generation Americans even more so.”

The researchers used data from the Florida cancer registry, International Agency for Research on Cancer, and 2000 U.S. census to compare the rates of various cancers among Hispanics of different national origins both in the United States and in their home countries, as well as rates among non-Hispanics in the United States, between 1999 and 2001. They found that cancer rates among Hispanics living in the United States are approximately 40 percent higher than rates in Latin America, although the specifics vary by national origin and cancer type. For example, rates of colorectal cancer practically double among Puerto Ricans moving to the mainland, while roughly tripling among Mexican and Cuban migrants.

Mexican immigrants had the lowest cancer rates overall, although rates of cancers associated with minorities, such as cervical, stomach and liver cancer, were high. “New Latinos,” which includes Hispanics from Central or South America, the Dominican Republic or Spain, also had high rates of “minority” cancers, as well as high rates of thyroid cancer and low rates of lung cancer.

The researchers attributed the rise in cancer rates among immigrants to the adoption of unhealthy lifestyle patterns prevalent in the United States, particularly dietary changes including a higher consumption of red meat. Lower levels of physical activity and higher tobacco and alcohol consumption are also likely culprits.

“For Hispanic populations, there are beneficial lifestyles associated with their origin that probably should be kept,” said lead author Paulo Pinheiro. “There are lifestyles that may be more prevalent in the United States that probably should be avoided.”

Sources for this story include: abcnews.go.com.

Breast cancer virtually “eradicated” with higher levels of vitamin D

(NaturalNews)

In a gathering of vitamin D researchers recently held in Toronto, Dr. Cedric Garland delivered a blockbuster announcement: Breast cancer can be virtually “eradicated” by raising vitamin D levels.

Vitamin D is “the cure” for breast cancer that the cancer industry ridiculously claims to be searching for. The cure already exists! But the breast cancer industry simply refuses to acknowledge any “cure” that doesn’t involve mammography, chemotherapy or high-profit pharmaceuticals.

Vitamin D is finally gaining some of the recognition it deserves as a miraculous anti-cancer nutrient. It is the solution for cancer prevention. It could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the U.S. alone. Even Dr. Andrew Weil recently raised his recommendation of vitamin D to 2,000 IU per day.

This is the vitamin that could destroy the cancer industry and save millions of women from the degrading, harmful cancer “treatments” pushed by conventional medicine. No wonder they don’t want to talk about it! The cancer industry would prefer to keep women ignorant about this vitamin that could save their breasts and their lives.

Below I’m reprinting the full statement from Dr. Cedric Garland following the Vitamin D conference recently held in Toronto.

Statement from Dr. Cedric Garland

Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman’s risk of contracting the disease can be ‘virtually eradicated’ by elevating her vitamin D status to what vitamin D scientists consider to be natural blood levels.

That’s the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland delivered in Toronto Tuesday as part of the University of Toronto School of Medicine’s “Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency” conference – the largest gathering of vitamin D researchers in North America this year. More than 170 researchers, public health officials and health practitioners gathered at the UT Faculty club for the landmark event.

Garland’s presentation headlined a conference that reviewed many aspects of the emerging vitamin D research field – a booming discipline that has seen more than 3,000 academic papers this calendar year alone, conference organizers said. That makes vitamin D by far the most prolific topic in medicine this year, with work connecting it with risk reduction in two dozen forms of cancer, heart disease, multiple scleroses and many other disorders.

Dr. Reinhold Vieth, Associate Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at University of Toronto, and Director of the Bone and Mineral Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, organized the event in conjunction with Grassroots Health – an international vitamin D advocacy group founded by breast cancer survivor Carole Baggerly.

Baggerly implored the research group to take action and encourage Canadians to learn more about vitamin D and to raise their vitamin D levels.

An estimated 22,700 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, according to the Canadian Cancer Society’s latest figures.

As much as 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient at some point in the year, according to University of Calgary research – largely due to Canada’s northerly latitudes and weak sun exposure. Sunshine is by far the most abundant source of vitamin D – called ‘The Sunshine Vitamin’ – with salmon and fortified milk being other sources. Vitamin D supplementation helps raise levels for many as well.

Grassroots Health’s “D-action” panel – 30 of the world’s leading researchers on vitamin D and many other vitamin D supporters – recommend 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily and vitamin D blood levels of 100-150 nanomoles-per-liter as measured by a vitamin D blood test.

Vieth pointed out that natural vitamin D levels of mammals who live outdoors in sunny climates is higher than that – up to 200 nanomoles-per liter. And Garland, whose presentation was entitled “Breast Cancer as a Vitamin D Deficiency Disease” presented data showing that raising one’s vitamin D status near those levels decreased breast cancer risk more than 77 percent.

‘The Sunshine Vitamin’ was once thought of only for bone health, helping the body process calcium. But more recent work has shown that all cells in the body have “vitamin D receptors” which help control normal cell growth. Additionally, Garland presented new evidence that low vitamin D status compromises the integrity of calcium-based cellular bonding within tissues, which when eroded allow rogue cancer cells to spread more readily.

Grassroots Health is trying to raise vitamin D awareness among Canadians. Despite epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency in Canada, fewer than nine per cent of Canadians have ever had their vitamin D levels checked by a professional and most who have do not know their vitamin D blood level.

Judge Andrew Napolitano on The Alex Jones Show: False Flag Event To Save Obama’s Presidency

The Lancet retraction of vaccine autism paper condemned as Big Pharma conspiracy to discredit Dr. Wakefield

(NaturalNews)

When I saw The Lancet’s recent retraction of Dr. Wakefield’s famous paper linking vaccines to autism, I couldn’t help thinking back to 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons were widely attacked and discredit over their demonstration of cold fusion technology. These two brilliant physicists had accomplished the seemingly impossible: They had caused fusion to take place at low temperatures, producing both excess heat energy as well as the helium artifacts proving that low-energy nuclear reactions had taken place.

The conventional physics community went berserk. They attacked Fleischmann and Pons relentlessly, attempting to destroy their character and any scientific credibility they might have held. They paraded a gang of “hot fusion” scientists through the mainstream media, telling everyone it was “impossible” to create nuclear fusion at tabletop temperatures. Through a repetition of lies, they convinced the world that Fleischmann and Pons were frauds.

Hot fusion, you see, is big business. Big money. Billions of dollars have been thrown at hot fusion, and the careers and livelihoods of tens of thousands of people depend on it. By demonstrating that cold fusion really worked, Fleischmann and Pons were threatening an entire industry. That industry had no choice but to do everything possible to destroy the scientists. Truth be damned… this was all about politics and profits!

Fast forward 20 years and guess what? Cold fusion is being replicated in laboratories all around the world. Even the U.S. Navy is now deeply engaged in the research (http://www.naturalnews.com/025925_c…), and it is recreating cold fusion experiments on a routine basis.

Cold fusion, it turns out, is indeed quite real. Fleischmann and Pons were right. The conventional scientific community was wrong. And yet they got away with destroying the reputations of these scientists because the media bought their lies hook, line and sinker. To this day, supposed “intelligent” scientists and doctors still stupidly believe that cold fusion was a hoax.

Big Pharma destroys Dr. Wakefield

Today, the same tactics of disinformation and truth destruction are now being leveled against Dr. Wakefield, the courageous scientist who was the first to prove that vaccines were linked to autism. For the last twelve years, his research provided ammunition for opponents of mandatory vaccinations — people who were concerned about the safety of injecting synthetic chemicals and methyl mercury into the bodies of infants.

The truth was getting out and vaccine skeptics were winning the information war. The H1N1 vaccination campaign was a complete failure — 80% of Americans rejected the recent H1N1 vaccine, for example. Drug companies needed to shut down the opposition as quickly as possible and put a lid on any resistance to mass vaccinations. The whole future of profits for Big Pharma, after all, depends on the public accepting more and more vaccines for “preventive” medicine. This means you get vaccinated for all sorts of things that you don’t have and may never get. The vaccines are sold to people as a kind of chemical-based health insurance program.

To ensure the profitability of that future, Big Pharma needed to destroy Dr. Wakefield’s credibility. So they paraded a long list of pro-vaccine doctors and drug pushers in front of the media to accomplish essentially the same thing that was accomplished against Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 — the obliteration of their credibility in order to suppress the truth.

The truth is dangerous to Big Pharma

The truth is a dangerous thing. Especially when profits are at stake. The truth about vaccines would destroy an entire industry. That’s why the truth must not be allowed to appear in newspapers, magazines or medical journals. That’s why the truth is meticulously redacted from these publications and replaced by pro-pharma lies as a matter of course.

It all comes back to George Orwell’s 1984 novel, where the day job of the main character Winston Smith is to literally rewrite history by replacing offensive stories in news archives with a “rewritten history” that’s more acceptable to the politicians currently in charge.

The Lancet is doing exactly what George Orwell described in 1984 — rewriting history by obliterating scientific truth and removing it from their archives.

And this is just the beginning. Watch for more medical journals to retract scientific papers that oppose the Big Pharma agenda. Any “science” that doesn’t agree with the vaccine / pharmaceutical agenda will simply be purged from the archives of human knowledge, leaving only whatever fraudulent science supports Big Pharma’s dark agenda.

The very credibility of modern medical science is dissolving right before our eyes. When even the medical journals themselves are deeply engaged in the censorship of scientific knowledge and the promotion of a corporate agenda, you know there’s not much credibility left in the industry.

Dr. Len Horowitz sent me this important announcement today (see below). It contains some rather disturbing information about the links between Reuters, The Lancet and Big Pharma. I’m reprinting it here in its entirety because I think it’s information that simply must be distributed.

Forward this article to everyone you know — especially if you know new moms or expectant mothers who may be facing the vaccine decision soon. They need to know what’s really happening behind the veil of secrecy.

And let me state without hesitation that injecting babies with chemicals is BAD for their health. Vaccines are a potential danger to human health. What people need — even in third world countries — is nutrition, not chemicals. If they had better nutrition and sanitation, infectious disease would largely disappear even without vaccines! (But the drug industry doesn’t believe in nutrition… vitamins are a threat to their vaccine profits.)

Here’s the statement from Dr. Horowitz:

Statement from Dr. Len Horowitz

The editors of Medical Veritas journal (www.MedicalVeritas.org) have condemned The Lancet’s retraction (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/…) of the controversial study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, charging editor Richard Horton with pandering to special interests in a conspiracy to defraud the public about the risks of vaccinations.

In 1998, The Lancet published the contested study linking autism and intestinal problems to the risky MMR triple virus vaccine. Yesterday, following the British General Medical Council’s decision that Dr. Wakefield had been “dishonest,” The Lancet’s editor retracted the article saying the Council’s report made it “utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false.”

In a letter to the Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boo…), Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical director of the pro-vaccine industry American Council on Science and Health, wrote, “The retraction . . . comes far too late. Even now, Horton fails to accept responsibility for the human toll he engendered by publishing the Wakefield ’study.’. . .”

“On the contrary,” wrote Dr. Leonard Horowitz, Editor-in-Chief of Medical Veritas. “Dr. Horton’s delay is best explained by his aversion to self incrimination and conspiring to cover-up iatrogenocide — the medical mass murder of innocent people for profit.”

The Winter, 2010 issue of Medical Veritas evidenced gross conflicting interests undermining the The Lancet’s integrity. Following the publication of Dr. Wakefield’s controversial study, Reed-Elsevier-ChoicePoint mergers occurred. The mega-company formed has nearly monopolized the medical scientific publishing industry. Previous to this, The Lancet editors protested the “damaging” of medicine and health science by pharmaceutical companies.

“Now it is obvious Dr. Horton’s company has been grossly contaminated by special interests as biased as Dr. Ross’s ‘PharmaCouncil’,” Dr. Horowitz said.

Reed-Elsevier-ChoicePoint, it turns out, is directed by Chief Executive Officer, Sir Crispin Davis, according to a Reuter’s News Service promotion for GlaxoSmithKline recently published (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stoc…). According to Forbes, Sir Davis was knighted by the Queen of England for his “service to the information industry.” (http://people.forbes.com/profile/cr…) He has served as a Non-Executive Independent Director of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC since 2003. Sir Davis spent his early career with Procter & Gamble.

Reuter’s News Service, key to the British “information industry,” is directed by Editor-in-Chief, Thomas H. Glocer, who serves on the Board of Directors of Merck & Co., which admittedly paid Reed-Elsevier to publish pseudo-scientific articles and fraudulent medical journals, including the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austra…)

According to court records, and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/b…), the Merck-sponsored publication for doctors in Australia came to light during litigation over Vioxx (http://naturalnews.com/vioxx.html) — a pain medication that caused, conservatively, more than 27,785 deaths according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Lancet editor blamed the FDA (http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/…) for faulty oversight for the VIOXX killings, but failed to cite his own parent company’s complicity in the iatrogenocide. Dr. Horton wrote, “Without more vigilant drug regulation in the future, doctors will continue to be misled and patients’ lives will continue to be endangered. “

So with zero confidence in The Lancet, Dr. Horton, those paying his salary, and those criticizing him for his actions, Medical Veritas editors are inviting Dr. Wakefield to re-publish his controversial paper in their next issue.

Outright slander against medical truth

“Many of our editors have experienced slander and demeaning remarks by mainstream healthcare authorities and the media, Dr. Gary S. Goldman, the Associate Editor of Medical Veritas, wrote to Dr. Wakefield. “Your numerous peer-reviewed journal articles testify to your valuable contribution to the medical and health fields, and your stand against the opponents to scientific reason and common sense is heroic.”

Medical Veritas, wherein Dr. Wakefield published a 2006 follow-up study to his 1998 report in The Lancet, is “one of the few remaining journals that places emphasis on the health interests of individuals rather than [the pursuit of] profits.”

Vaccinations linked to spontaneous abortions

“The current climate of vaccine science is very controversial,” said Eileen Dannemann. In recent months, the Director of the National Coalition of Organized Women (http://www.progressiveconvergence.com) collected and analyzed data of spontaneous abortions following injections of H1N1 vaccines into pregnant women.

“The information that people are given by vaccine authorities, and through the media,” Dannemann insists, “is inconsistent with the safety studies conducted that lack placebo controls and long-term surveillance of adverse reactions to these vaccinations.”
Contrary to the PharmaMedia’s propaganda character-assassinating Dr. Wakefield, he is not the only scientist concerned about vaccinations causing deadly side effects. In recent days, a new study from The Center for Modeling Optimal Outcomes in New Jersey published, “If it hadn’t been for so many parents insisting that vaccines were responsible for the condition [of autism], we might never have found the fact that the stabilizer in MMR, and a few other vaccines, is hydrolyzed gelatin — a substance that is approximately 21% glycine. It appears that, based on readily verifiable science, the use of that form of glycine triggers an imbalance between the amino acid neurotransmitters responsible for the absorption rate of certain classes of cells throughout the body. It is that wide-spread disruption that apparently results in the systemic problems that encompass the mind and the body characterized in today’s ‘classic’ autism.” (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele…)

Special note to journalists

There is a courtesy copy of Medical Veritas, available free for online review for only 2 more weeks (http://web.mac.com/len15/PHARMAGAND…) — including Dr. Horowitz’s commentary and links to “PHARMAGANDA: A Study of Conflicting Interests.”

After February 15, 2010, there will be a $35 charge for accessing the Medical Veritasjournal via PDF downloads, with individual articles in this issue available for separate purchase at $15 per download, including Dr. Harold Buttram’s important article on the future of human DNA corrupted by the mutagenic viral injections accompanying childhood vaccinations.

Please help alert medical doctors about this report, and this free limited time access. Medical doctors and patients must be informed that their intelligence has been tainted by pharmaceutical special interests. This publication contains urgent life-saving knowledge.

Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys; A statement by Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey

(NaturalNews)

When it comes to vaccines, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey get it. They see how the pharma industry is engineering a campaign to silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield in order to suppress the publication of startling new evidence linking vaccines to severe neurological damage.

At great risk to their professional careers, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have found the courage to dare to tell the truth about vaccines and autism. Despite the vicious attacks by the pro-vaccine zealots who will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who challenges conventional vaccine mythology, McCarthy and Carrey have issued a powerful, inspired statement that reveals the truth behind the Big Pharma smear campaign that is intent on destroying the reputation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield before he can publish the final results of this important new study.

NaturalNews reprints that statement here, unedited:

A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.

It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.

Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield’s original paper (http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf…) regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet’s retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.

Dr. Wakefield is one of the world’s most respected and well-published gastroenterologists. He has published dozens of papers (http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/publ…) since 1998 in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals all over the world. His work documenting the bowel disease of children with autism and his exploration of novel ways to treat bowel disease has helped relieve the pain and suffering of thousands of children with autism.

For the past decade, parents in our community have been clamoring for a relatively simple scientific study that could settle the debate over the possible role of vaccines in the autism epidemic once and for all: compare children who have been vaccinated with children who have never received any vaccines and see if the rate of autism is different or the same.

Few people are aware that this extremely important work has not only begun, but that a study using an animal model has already been completed exploring this topic in great detail.

Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.

The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself here (http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/prim…), were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.

Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.

There is no question that the publication of the monkey study will lend substantial credibility to the theory that over-vaccination of young children is leading to neurological damage, including autism. The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it’s no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.

Behind the scenes, the pressure to keep the work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues from being published is immense, and growing every day. Medical journals take extreme risk of backlash in publishing any studies that question the safety of the vaccination program, no matter how well-designed and thorough the research might be. Neurotoxicology, a highly-respected medical journal, deserves great credit for courageously publishing the first phase of this vaccinated monkey study.

The press has been deeply misled in the way The Lancet retraction, and Dr. Wakefield’s mock trial, have been characterized. Led by the pharmaceutical companies and their well-compensated spokespeople, Dr. Wakefield is being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign designed to prevent this important new work from seeing the light of day.

What medical journal would want to step in front of this freight train? Moreover, why now, after 12 years of inaction, did The Lancet and GMC suddenly act? Is it coincidence that the monkey study is currently being submitted to medical journals for review and publication?

We urge the media to take a close look at the first phase of the monkey study discussed above and to start asking a very simple question: What was the final outcome of the 14 primates that were vaccinated using the U.S. vaccine schedule and how did that compare to the unvaccinated controls?

The U.S. vaccine schedule has grown from 10 vaccines given to our children in the 1980s to 36 today, perfectly matching the dramatic rise in autism. The work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues deserves to be shared with the world to further, rather than censor, scientific progress.

Original source for this statement:
http://www.generationrescue.org/wak…

The Dairy Disaster: Milk Does Not Do Your Body Good

(NaturalNews)

From celebrities sporting milk mustaches to former horror queens touting the benefits of yogurt, the dairy industry spends billions of dollars on advertising in attempt to brainwash the public into believing that “milk does a body good.” The truth is that too much dairy can cause obesity, cancer, heart disease, allergies, diabetes, and even osteoporosis.

Calcium is essential to good health and can be found in a plethora of plant sources such as broccoli, cabbage and spinach. The dairy industry has led us to believe that we can only get the calcium we need from their dairy products. “There`s no best source of calcium,” says Robert Heaney, Professor of Medicine at the Osteoporosis Research Center at Creighton University School of Medicine. “The sheer quantity of calcium in dairy products certainly makes them attractive sources, but they have no monopoly on calcium. There`s no reason in the world why you couldn`t get an adequate intake from a vegetable source.”

Casein, a protein present in milk, causes minor to severe allergies in many people resulting in hives, stomach pains, bronchitis, bloating, and even asthma. In actress Alicia Silverstone`s recent book The Kind Diet, Silverstone recalls growing up with bronchitis three or four times a year; she was on regular allergy medication and relied on an inhaler for her asthma. It wasn’t until she gave up dairy that her allergies went away. “Very soon after becoming vegan, I stopped experiencing allergies or any asthma-type symptoms,” says Silverstone. “They just disappeared.”

No other species drinks the milk of another species. Drinking the milk of another mammal may even cause osteoporosis- the very disease it is touted to prevent. “When we have babies, we breastfeed them, and then at a certain point, we stop,” explain Skinny Bitch authors Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin. “It is exactly the same for cows and every other mammal on the planet. They produce milk when they give birth, they feed their young, and then they stop. We are the only species on the planet that drinks the milk of another species. We are the only species on the planet that drinks milk as adults. Why? Because the multi-million dollar dairy industry has convinced us that we need milk for healthy bones. However, Yale researchers found that countries with the highest dairy and meat intakes also suffer the highest osteoporosis rates.”

Milk is pasteurized in order to remove unhealthy bacteria, but this process also removes the nutritional value of the milk. Milk pasteurization destroys digestive enzymes and even doubles the amount of harmful bacteria. During pasteurization, enzymes like lactase, galactase, and phosphatase are destroyed. Without these enzymes, milk is especially difficult to process in our bodies, especially since the human pancreas cannot always create these enzymes on its own. When the pancreas is overtaxed diabetes and other diseases may occur.

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone is a genetically engineered hormone that is given to cows in order to increase their milk production, thus increasing the profits of the dairy industry. Bovine growth hormone (rBGH) accelerates the development of IGF-1, a hormone that is not eliminated in pasteurization or digestion. IGF-1 and rBGH increase cell division which can lead to breast, prostate, or colon cancer. When we drink milk we are increasing our risk of cancer. Think of it this way, if a cow`s life is shortened by 20 years when injected with BGH, what could that do to your life?

Freedman, Rory & Barnouin, Kim. Skinny Bitch. Old Saybrook: Tantor Media, 2007

Silverstone, Alicia. The Kind Diet. Philadelphia: Rodale Press, 2010.

www.all-creatures.org, “How Milk and Dairy Products Will Destroy Your Health and Cause Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Allergies, Osteoporosis, and Infection`” http://www.all-creatures.org/health…

CSPI calling for outright censorship of “structure and function” claims for nutritional supplements

(NaturalNews)

 The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has put together a 158-page report for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that contains detailed information about food manufacturers that it says are making false or misleading health claims about their products. The powerful lobbying group is urging a restructuring of the regulatory system that would likely damage the nutritional supplement industry and eliminate freedom of health speech.

On the surface, the CSPI report primarily targets “Big Food” manufacturers like Kellogg’s and Nestle which have been making embellished, deceptive health claims about products that are essentially junk foods with miniscule amounts of vitamins and minerals thrown in. But rather than address the need for the FDA to crack down on these illegitimate claims, CSPI is seeking to abolish the freedom to make health claims altogether.

The CSPI tactic is a popular one, identifying a legitimate problem while suggesting an illegitimate solution. While on the surface regulatory “reform” seems to have consumers’ best interests in mind, the kind of reform suggested by CSPI would actually eradicate free speech by muzzling all legitimate health claims made for natural products.

DSHEA and the freedom to make health claims
As it stands under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, health product manufacturers can legally make legitimate health claims about their products. The Act provides for structure/function claims, which are not reviewed and authorized by the FDA, and qualified health claims, which are typically supported by conclusive scientific evidence.

Both types of claims are regulated by the FDA using an “innocent until proven guilty” approach which allows product manufacturers to include information at their discretion. The FDA can challenge questionable claims if it perceives them to be false but it must provide conclusive evidence before requiring it to be removed. If the FDA is unable to prove that a statement is false, manufacturers are permitted to print the information as long as the mandatory dietary supplement disclaimer is included on the container explaining that the FDA has not evaluated the claims.

Supplement manufacturers legally use both types of claims to educate consumers about the health benefits of their products. However CSPI and other groups seem to believe that such a system should be disbanded. Many organizations mistakenly believe and perpetuate the false idea that dietary supplements are wholly unregulated and that the entire sector is a free-for-all. While there are some bad players, including Kellogg’s and Nestle, the majority of companies within the industry are making truthful, valid claims about their products.

Advocates worked very hard to pass DSHEA in 1994, the single most important piece of legislation in protecting freedom of health speech in the U.S. So why the push to eliminate it by the very groups and agencies that claim to support the public interest?

Food control by a few
It is important to understand that the players who stand to lose the most from increased restrictions and regulations are small- to medium-sized nutritional supplement companies, the true pioneers in the natural health world, not the large multi-national corporations operating supplement divisions. Small manufacturers make up the majority of the supplement industry.

In 2007, the FDA initiated its “current Good Manufacturing Practices” (cGMP) guidelines in accordance with DSHEA provisions that tasked the agency with ensuring that dietary supplements are manufactured safely and accurately. As worthy as it sounds, the FDA ended up designing cGMP with large manufacturers in mind, placing an immense new burden on small manufacturers.

The one-size-fits-all requirements for daily operations and record keeping are expensive and laborious, making it virtually impossible for small manufacturers to comply. The rules also mimic pharmaceutical requirements, many of which are pointless and unnecessary for supplements.

Hundreds of supplement manufacturers will likely be put out of business once the three year phase-in of cGMP is complete in June of 2010. The final installment on this date will force companies with fewer than 20 employees, which represent a large portion of the industry, into compliance. This final group is said to be hit the hardest by mandatory compliance.

Many dietary supplement trade groups are on board with the FDA’s agenda, including the Natural Products Association (NPA) and the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN). The CRN membership roll is filled with multi-national giants such as Archer Daniels Midland, Bayer, Cargill, and Dow Chemical Company, as well as pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer.

Copying the EU to bring about a world standard
According to Dr. Robert Verkerk, the executive and scientific director of the Alliance for Natural Health, the two primary sources of attack against natural health freedom are European Union (EU) regulations and Codex Alimentarius.

The EU’s Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (NHCR) is arguably the most restrictive health law yet to be passed anywhere in the world. Established in 2006, NHCR allows health claims to be made only if they have been preliminarily approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In opposition to the U.S. model where a health claim is supposed to be considered valid unless proven false, the EU now operates under the Napoleonic law structure where a health claim is false and restricted until declared valid by an unelected body of bureaucrats.

Under the NHCR restrictions, no unauthorized health claims can be made in either print or speech. This means that doctors are not allowed to recommend foods or supplements to their patients, nor can they offer any other type of health advice unless it has been rubber-stamped by the EFSA. Even if scientific studies prove that a nutrient or food is effective at treating a certain disease, a doctor is prohibited from speaking about it unless it is formally approved.

The consequences of such a draconion restriction on free speech is the decimation of the natural products industry, including everything from trade shows and educational seminars to naturopathic practices and health food stores. The restrictions on the free flow of health information also has the potential to eliminate over time all knowledge amongst the population about natural health, other than what is approved by the overlords.

Codex Alimentarius, the world food code
All of this ties into Codex Alimentarius, the world food code designed to integrate and harmonize the world’s food guidelines for the purpose of power and control. While Codex has not yet been fully implemented worldwide, the pieces are slowly being assembled as to eliminate all national sovereignty and bring all nations into unified, international compliance with its dictates.

In the United States, provisions in the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties helped to facilitate the harmonizing of U.S. law between North and South America, a precursor to late compliance with Codex. Similar to the NHCR in the EU, Codex will operate under the Napoleonic law system, permitting only what has been approved to be lawful.

Codex’s Vitamin and Mineral Guidelines are also being designed to dictate which vitamins will be permitted for use and in what doses. According to researchers, vitamin doses will be assessed using toxicity risk assessment, the method used in pharmaceuticals to determine the dose at which a drug becomes identifiably toxic. When applied to vitamins, this method will ensure that permitted doses remain below therapeutic levels, rendering them useless.

The CSPI recommendations are merely a stepping stone toward a much larger goal of global control over food, for which supplements are only a part. If successful, it could become illegal to even buy and sell unadulterated foods and supplements, let alone speak freely about their health benefits.

Sources for this story include: http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/anh… http://www.newswithviews.com/Richar… http://www.thenhf.com/press_release…

Ed Miliband declares war on climate change skeptics

Juliette Jowit
The Guardian

The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, last night warned of the danger of a public backlash against the science of global warming in the face of continuing claims that experts have manipulated data.

In an exclusive interview with the Observer, Miliband spoke out for the first time about last month’s revelations that climate scientists had withheld and covered up information and the apology made by the influential UN climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which admitted it had exaggerated claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

The perceived failure of global talks on combating climate change in Copenhagen last month has also been blamed for undermining public support. But in the government’s first high-level recognition of the growing pressure on public opinion, Miliband declared a “battle” against the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real or caused by humans, or that there was a need to cut carbon emissions to tackle it.

“It’s right that there’s rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it’s somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that’s there,” he said.

“We know there’s a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that’s a question of physics; we know CO₂ concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years; we know there are observed increases in temperatures; and we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That’s what the vast majority of scientists tell us.”

Mistakes and attempts to hide contradictory data had to be seen in the light of the thousands of pages of evidence in the IPCC’s four-volume report in 2007, said Miliband. The most recent accusation about the panel’s work is that its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, may have known before the Copenhagen summit that its assessment report had seriously exaggerated the rate of melting of the Himalayan glaciers.

However, Miliband was adamant that the IPCC was on the right track. “It’s worth saying that no doubt when the next report comes out it will suggest there have been areas where things have been happening more dramatically than the 2007 report implied,” he said.

The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households, and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines, said Miliband, who is also energy secretary.

If the UK did not invest in renewable, clean energy, it would lose jobs and investment to other countries, have less energy security because of the dependence on oil and gas imports and contribute to damaging temperature rises for future generations. “There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous,” he said. “Every­thing we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk.”

The Copenhagen conference in December ended with no formal agreement to make deep cuts in global emissions, or even set a timetable, but Miliband warned activists against “despair”.

The UN conference was a “disappointment”, he said, but there were important achievements, including the agreement by countries responsible for 80% of emissions to set domestic carbon targets by today. “There’s a message for people who take these things seriously: don’t mourn, organise,” said Miliband, who has previously called for a Make Poverty History-style mass public campaign to pressure politicians into cutting emissions.

Lord Smith, the Environment Agency chairman, said: “The [Himalayan] glaciers may not melt by 2035, but they are melting and there’s a serious problem that’s going to affect substantial parts of Asia over the course of the next 100 or more years.”

Frightening Taste Of Internet Censorship As Major Free Speech Websites Blocked

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com

With influential proponents recently calling for a newly regulated world wide web, we got a preview of how that might look this past weekend after both Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com were completely blocked to many Internet users in New Zealand.

The block was only removed early this morning following a raft of complaints after both websites were unavailable on many ISP’s since Friday.

As the New Zealand based InfoNews website reported yesterday, both of Alex Jones’ flagship websites were blocked by ISPs using Asia Netcom for their international internet traffic.

It is important to stress that we receive emails on a weekly basis informing us that our websites have been blocked as “hate speech” or “offensive material” at Internet cafes, libraries, transport hubs, workplaces, and numerous other buildings not only in the United States but across the world. The censorship is being done at the ISP level, so whereas some people in a particular country will still have access, others will be blocked.

As we reported in 2008, London’s St. Pancras International, which millions of people traveling across mainland Europe pass through every year, completely blocks Prison Planet, Infowars and even more mainstream political websites as a matter of course.

In 2007, MySpace admitted their policy to censor and filter out posts containing links to the Prison Planet.com website, adding that the MySpace server automatically blocks such information. The social networking giant, as well as others such as Facebook, periodically block links to Alex Jones material and only revoke such filters when people complain.

In 2005, Time Warner subscribers from New York to California reported that their access to Infowars and Prison Planet had been blocked due to “hate speech,” before their access was restored.

UK ISP Tiscali also blocked the websites following the 7/7 London bombings in 2005.

Infowars’ social network was also blocked by libraries in the U.S. in 2008 using Safesquid and Google filtering software.

We receive numerous reports every single week of Alex Jones’ websites being blocked by ISPs and by filtering software in public buildings.

“An avid fan of Infowars.com and a 9/11 truth activist, Jeff Mitchell, reported on Saturday that he contacted his ISP, Orcon, to establish what was causing the block, and was advised by a computer technician who did a trace route, that the break in traffic to the two websites was found to be occurring at Asia Netcom’s router in Sydney,” stated the report.

The websites were blocked on every ISP that relied on Asia Netcom as its upstream provider, including Woosh, Telecom, Slingshot and Orcon.

According to Duncan Blair, Head of Brand and Communications at Orcon, access to content hosted on the Limelight content distribution network, including Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com, was blocked as a result of a “technical issue”.

“I’m the person who half-made this story possible by calling my ISP,” wrote Jeff Mitchell in a comment on Prison Planet. “Just want to report that infowars.com is now working for me, even though it was down all weekend! We complained to ISPs and they were “very concerned” about censorship; that, combined with this article on prisonplanet could very well have been the reason for us regaining access.”

Whether the problem was down to technical issues or deliberate censorship, the fact that ISP’s can selectively block certain websites at the flick of a switch gives us a frightening preview of what a Chinese-style government regulated Internet would look like, which is exactly what influential insiders are calling for.

The move to impose centralized government control and regulation of the free Internet has accelerated over the past 12 months.

Last week, Time Magazine enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon to back Microsoft executive Craig Mundie’s call for Internet licensing, as authorities push for a system even more stifling than in Communist China, where only people with government permission would be allowed to express free speech.

During a recent conference at the Davos Economic Forum, Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, told fellow globalists at the summit that the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses – in other words government permission to use the web.

Internet censorship bills currently working their way into law in the UK, Australia and the U.S. legislate for government powers to restrict and filter any website that it deems to be undesirable for public consumption. In Italy, new rules to be imposed by government decree force anyone who wishes to upload a video to the web to get permission from the government’s Communications Ministry.

Power brokers in the White House have openly declared war on free speech and targeted Internet “conspiracy theorists” as the main threat to their agenda.

In a 2008 white paper, Obama’s Regulation Czar Cass Sunstein called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved.

On page 14 of  Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay.

1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.

2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

The ominous spectacle of major free speech websites going dark in supposedly democratic countries is a shocking portend of what the establishment wants to impose on a widespread basis. Only by screaming bloody murder in defense of the last true outpost of free speech – the Internet – and threatening boycotts and aggressive public relations campaigns can we counter the insidious move to silence the only remaining open forum of lawful dissent.

Study – Regular soda drinkers had 87 percent higher risk of pancreas cancer

Reuters

* Regular soda drinkers had 87 percent higher risk

* Theory is that sugar fuels tumors

WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) – People who drink two or more sweetened soft drinks a week have a much higher risk of pancreatic cancer, an unusual but deadly cancer, researchers reported on Monday.

People who drank mostly fruit juice instead of sodas did not have the same risk, the study of 60,000 people in Singapore found.

Sugar may be to blame but people who drink sweetened sodas regularly often have other poor health habits, said Mark Pereira of the University of Minnesota, who led the study.

“The high levels of sugar in soft drinks may be increasing the level of insulin in the body, which we think contributes to pancreatic cancer cell growth,” Pereira said in a statement.

Insulin, which helps the body metabolize sugar, is made in the pancreas.

Writing in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, Pereira and colleagues said they followed 60,524 men and women in the Singapore Chinese Health Study for 14 years.

Over that time, 140 of the volunteers developed pancreatic cancer. Those who drank two or more soft drinks a week had an 87 percent higher risk of being among those who got pancreatic cancer.

Pereira said he believed the findings would apply elsewhere.

“Singapore is a wealthy country with excellent healthcare. Favorite pastimes are eating and shopping, so the findings should apply to other western countries,” he said.

But Susan Mayne of the Yale Cancer Center at Yale University in Connecticut was cautious.

“Although this study found a risk, the finding was based on a relatively small number of cases and it remains unclear whether it is a causal association or not,” said Mayne, who serves on the board of the journal, which is published by the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Soft drink consumption in Singapore was associated with several other adverse health behaviors such as smoking and red meat intake, which we can’t accurately control for.”

Other studies have linked pancreatic cancer to red meat, especially burned or charred meat.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer, with 230,000 cases globally. In the United States, 37,680 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in a year and 34,290 die of it.

The American Cancer Society says the five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer patients is about 5 percent.

Some researchers believe high sugar intake may fuel some forms of cancer, although the evidence has been contradictory. Tumor cells use more glucose than other cells.

One 12-ounce (355 ml) can of non-diet soda contains about 130 calories, almost all of them from sugar.