George Carlin: Religion

Iceland declares independence from international banks

By Bill Wilson

Netright Daily

Iceland is free. And it will remain so, so long as her people wish to remain autonomous of the foreign domination of her would-be masters — in this case, international bankers.

On April 9, the fiercely independent people of island-nation defeated a referendum that would have bailed out the UK and the Netherlands who had covered the deposits of British and Dutch investors who had lost funds in Icesave bank in 2008.

At the time of the bank’s failure, Iceland refused to cover the losses. But the UK and Netherlands nonetheless have demanded that Iceland repay them for the “loan” as a condition for admission into the European Union.

In response, the Icelandic people have told Europe to go pound sand. The final vote was 103,207 to 69,462, or 58.9 percent to 39.7 percent. “Taxpayers should not be responsible for paying the debts of a private institution,” said Sigriur Andersen, a spokeswoman for the Advice group that opposed the bailout.

A similar referendum in 2009 on the issue, although with harsher terms, found 93.2 percent of the Icelandic electorate rejecting a proposal to guarantee the deposits of foreign investors who had funds in the Icelandic bank. The referendum was invoked when President Olafur Ragnur Grimmson vetoed legislation the Althingi, Iceland’s parliament, had passed to pay back the British and Dutch.

Under the terms of the agreement, Iceland would have had to pay £2.35 billion to the UK, and €1.32 billion to the Netherlands by 2046 at a 3 percent interest rate. Its rejection for the second time by Iceland is a testament to its people, who feel they should bear no responsibility for the losses of foreigners endured in the financial crisis.

That opposition to bailouts led to Iceland’s decision to allow the bank to fail in 2008. Not that the taxpayers there could have afforded to. As noted by Bloomberg News, at the time the crisis hit in 2008, “the banks had debts equal to 10 times Iceland’s $12 billion GDP.”

“These were private banks and we didn’t pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state did not shoulder the responsibility of the failed private banks,” Iceland President Olafur Grimsson told Bloomberg Television.

The voters’ rejection came despite threats to isolate Iceland from funding in international financial institutions. Iceland’s national debt has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies, and now those same agencies have promised to do so once again as punishment for defying the will of international bankers.

This is just the latest in the long drama since 2008 of global institutions refusing to take losses in the financial crisis. Threats of a global economic depression and claims of being “too big to fail” have equated to a loaded gun to the heads of representative governments in the U.S. and Europe. Iceland is of particular interest because it did not bail out its banks like Ireland did, or foreign ones like the U.S. did.

If that fervor catches on amongst taxpayers worldwide, as it has in Iceland and with the tea party movement in America, the banks would have something to fear; that is, the inability to draw from limitless amounts of funding from gullible government officials and central banks. It appears that the root cause is government guarantees, whether explicit or implicit, on risk-taking by the banks.

Ultimately, such guarantees are not necessary to maintain full employment or even prop up an economy with growth, they are simply designed to allow these international institutions to overleverage and increase their profit margins in good times — and to avoid catastrophic losses in bad times.

The lesson here is instructive across the pond, but it is a chilling one. If the U.S. — or any sovereign for that matter — attempts to restructure their debts, or to force private investors to take a haircut on their own foolish gambles, these international institutions have promised the equivalent of economic war in response. However, the alternative is for representative governments to sacrifice their independence to a cadre of faceless bankers who share no allegiance to any nation.

It is the conflict that has already defined the beginning of the 21st Century. The question is whether free peoples will choose to remain free, as Iceland has, or to submit.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government. You can follow Bill on Twitter at @BillWilsonALG.

Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2011/04/iceland-declares-independence-from-international-banks/#ixzz1KvxDDZZS

How big pharma buys guidelines

By WC Douglass M.D

It's the easiest billion dollars in the world: First, you invent a drug no one needs.

Then, you buy off a panel of "experts" to convince the world that EVERYONE needs your drug.

And no, this isn't some wild conspiracy theory. A recent study from the Archives of Internal Medicine proves (once again) that Big Pharma buys guideline panels the same way that the mafia buys juries.

Researchers looked at 17 major guidelines created by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology between 2003 and 2008.

These are guidelines used by docs, insurance companies, and even the government. But don't expect them to be fair and balanced. As it turns out, 56 percent of the 498 doctors and experts who wrote those guidelines had financial conflicts of interest.

And if you think that's bad, wait until you see this: They also found that 81 percent of the leaders of the guideline-writing panels had a personal financial stake in the companies that would be impacted by those guidelines.

It's an absolute disgrace, but it's not exactly news -- I've told you about this little scam for years.

When it mattered most, the mainstream was silent... and now that all the major guidelines have already been signed, sealed and delivered, they're finally speaking up.

Talk about too little, too late!

And speaking of little and late, both the AHA and ACC are engaged in shoddy after-the-fact window-dressing: They say they've changed the rules, and that panel leaders must now be conflict-free, along with a majority of each panel.

C'mon, this isn't rocket science -- there's one simple way to ensure conflict-free guidelines: Just don't let anyone with a conflict on the panel, period.

There. Was that so hard?

Then, commission these conflict-free panels to start from scratch and rewrite all the guidelines.

But neither the AHA or ACC will consider that, and I'll bet it has something to do with their own conflicts: Both organizations rake in millions of dollars a year from Big Pharma.

No matter how you look at it, the deck is stacked -- and you're on the losing side.

Bribes and recalls

Johnson & Johnson has the perfect nickname: Two crooked letters, J&J.

Even the "&" is crooked -- and I can't think of anything more fitting, since the company has just settled charges that its executives used bribes and kickbacks to win overseas contracts.

The feds say J&J's in-house crooks used those bribes to sell implants in Greece and prescriptions in Romania, and to win contracts in Poland.

The feds also say the company paid kickbacks to win 19 contracts in Iraq under the United Nations' infamous "oil for food" scheme.

Naturally, the penalty doesn't come close to matching the crime: The company will pay $70 million, which is probably chump change compared to what those bribes and kickbacks earned.

Of course, this isn't the only problem facing J&J -- and it's not even the biggest one. I've told you about the horrendous and inexcusable recalls, from faulty hip implants to children's meds manufactured in the filthiest stinkhole you've ever seen.

As I told you last year, it took the feds 17 pages to list all the problems (including bacterial contamination) in the raw materials at the Pennsylvania plant where those drugs were made. (Read the full story here.)

Serious problems at a J&J plant in Puerto Rico also led to a series of recalls of adult meds, including Benadryl and Tylenol. And as I write this, the company is issuing yet another recall -- this time for Topamax, an epilepsy med made at the Puerto Rico plant.

It's so bad that the FDA has actually sent in its own supervisors to oversee operations at the plants... but don't take any comfort in that. If there's a group with as bad a track record as Johnson & Johnson, it's the gang that couldn't shoot straight over at the FDA.

If I were you, I'd just avoid everything from J&J -- from Tylenol right on down to Band-Aids.

Sticking it to the Band-Aid bandits,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

The glyphosate research the GM soy lobby does not want you to read

By Claire Robinson

The Ecologist

Andres Carrasco's research linking a controversial herbicide with birth defects highlighted the potential health dangers posed by GM crop-spraying in Argentina – and led to violence and intimidation for those behind the study.

In August 2010, community activists and residents gathered in La Leonesa, an agricultural town in Argentina, to hear a talk by Professor Andres Carrasco, lead embryologist at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council. 

Carrasco was due to speak about his research, which found that glyphosate, an agrochemical used on genetically modified soy and rice in Argentina, causes birth defects in animal embryos at levels far below those frequently used in agricultural spraying. A delegation of public officials and residents from the nearby community of Resistencia also came to La Leonesa to hear the talk.

But the talk never took place. As the delegation headed for the school where it was to be held, it was attacked by a violent mob of approximately 100 people. Three people were seriously injured. Carrasco and a colleague shut themselves in a car and were surrounded by people beating the vehicle for two hours. Witnesses believe that a local rice producer and officials had organised the attack to protect agribusiness interests. As the police seemed reluctant to intervene, Amnesty International subsequently called for an independent investigation.

A political hot potato

Carrasco’s research was never destined to gather dust on a library shelf. It has become a political hot potato: scientific confirmation of a human rights tragedy that is unfolding on a massive scale in Argentina. Over the past decade, doctors and residents have reported escalating rates of birth defects, as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages and cancers in areas where glyphosate is sprayed on genetically modified (GM) soy. Because GM soy is engineered to tolerate glyphosate, the herbicide can be sprayed liberally, killing weeds but allowing the crop to survive. Spraying is often carried out from the air, causing problems of drift.

Carrasco and his team discovered that Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate caused malformations in frog and chicken embryos that were similar to human birth defects found in GM soy-producing areas. In particular, the researchers found malformations of the head and cyclopia (where a single eye is present in the centre of the forehead). Carrasco said people should be worried by these findings as humans share with the experimental animals the same mechanisms of development. The researchers also pointed out that women living in soy-producing areas of South America have high rates of repeated miscarriage – often the result of a malformed foetus. 

After Carrasco announced his findings ahead of publication – the study was later published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology – a group of environmental lawyers petitioned the supreme court of Argentina to implement a national ban on the use of glyphosate. But such is Argentina’s dependence on GM soy that Guillermo Cal, executive director of the crop-protection trade association CASAFE, said a ban would mean ‘we couldn’t do agriculture in Argentina’. Much of Argentina’s GM soy is imported into Europe as livestock feed.

Unprecedented ruling

No national ban on glyphosate has yet been implemented, but in a revolutionary ruling in March 2010, a regional court in Santa Fe province banned the spraying of glyphosate and other agrochemicals near populated areas. While the ruling is limited to the area around San Jorge, other courts are expected to follow suit. 

Just a month after the court ruling, another bombshell dropped in Argentina’s GM soy republic. The provincial government of Chaco province issued a report on health statistics from La Leonesa, the town where Carrasco was due to give his talk. The report said that from 2000 to 2009 the childhood cancer rate tripled in La Leonesa and the rate of birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province. The report said that these staggering increases in disease coincided with the expansion of GM soy and rice crops in the region and the corresponding rise in agrochemical use.

Argentina is a unique experiment in the GM soy-farming model. In the 1990s the country rebuilt its collapsed economy around growing GM soy for export, becoming the world’s largest exporter of soybean meal and oil. In 2009 the crop covered 19 million hectares – more than half the country’s cultivated land area – which were sprayed with more than 200 million litres of glyphosate.

The Argentine government has come to depend on tariffs of more than 30 per cent levied on soy exports and is protective of the industry. Critics of the soy model have complained of harassment and persecution. Carrasco said after he went public with his findings, four people from CASAFE were sent to try to search his laboratory, and he was 'seriously told-off' by Argentina’s science and technology minister.

Serious health impacts

Carrasco’s study was not the first to show that glyphosate is not as safe as is made out. A report released in September 2010 and co-authored by nine international scientists, including Carrasco, called GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? gathered a series of studies showing links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells. The roster more than justifies Carrasco’s verdict: ‘I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low ... in some cases this can be a powerful poison.’

Resistance against the GM soy with glyphosate model is growing. On 9th November, forest engineer and activist Claudio Lowy began a hunger strike in the doorway of the Ombudsman’s office in Buenos Aires. In Argentina, the Ombudsman is called la Defensoria del Pueblo de la Nación – the Defender of the Nation’s People. 

In Lowy’s view, the Ombudsman wasn’t living up to his romantic title. Almost a year earlier, Lowy had signed a 2,700-strong petition to the Ombudsman requesting him to ask the government to change the way it classifies the toxicity of agrochemicals. When Lowy arrived on the Ombudsman’s doorstep, the new GM soy-planting season was beginning, once again putting 12 million people in the path of the spray planes – and the petitioners still hadn’t received a reply.

Long-term effects

Three days later, Lowy called off his hunger strike when the Ombudsman put in a formal request to the ministry of agriculture to reassess the toxicity of agrochemicals according to their entire range of health effects. The Ombudsman asked the ministry to consider sublethal and chronic effects involving low doses over long periods, as happens with people exposed to spraying of fields, rather than just short-term (acute) and lethal effects, as is the case now. 

The Ombudsman also advised that the toxicity of agrochemicals should be assessed based on independent scientific studies, not data provided by agribusiness companies. The Ombudsman’s request will be sent to the ministry with a dossier of scientific research on the ill-health effects of agrochemicals, reports on sprayed residents and submissions from civil society organisations, scientists and health professionals. 

Real science takes longer and costs more than rubber-stamping a company’s data on its own chemicals. Often, the time and money needed to carry out proper studies becomes an excuse for inaction on the part of regulators. But that escape route has been closed off by the Ombudsman’s final recommendation – that any chemicals that have not yet been evaluated for chronic and sublethal effects should be placed in the highest category of toxicity until they are proven safer. That would mean that they could not be sprayed near schools and residential neighbourhoods. Glyphosate is expected to be among them. 

If the Ombudsman’s recommendations are written into law, they will set an important precedent for science-based regulation of agrochemicals worldwide. Will it happen? A reply from an activist sounded familiar. Variations on it have been voiced by several Argentine people caught up in the fight against agrochemical poisoning – from the anonymous authors of the Chaco report to Carrasco himself: ‘We don’t know. There are powerful interests at stake.’

Claire Robinson is an editor at GMWatch

George Carlin: The modern man

The wedding that costs 48 million for the British taxpayer

How to get rid of BPA for good

By WC Douglass, M.D.

Wish you could just flush all the BPA right out of your body?

Too bad -- this hormone-like chemical is in you, right now, and there's not much you can do about it: A new study finds you can completely cut out all foods from BPA-laced containers and STILL have plenty of this junk left over days later.

Thank your local chemicals industry lobbyist for that.

Researchers recruited five families from the San Francisco Bay Area that regularly ate and drank processed and canned foods, frozen dinners, and meals microwaved in plastic containers -- all top sources of BPA exposure.

Each family had two adults (male and female -- an important distinction in the Bay Area) and two children between the ages of 3 and 11.

Then, researchers took urine samples for two days as the families went about their normal business... and for three more days as the families switched to prepared organic meals made from fresh ingredients and stored in glass and BPA-free stainless steel.

By the end of those three days, BPA levels in urine fell by an average of 60 percent, according to the study in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Now, the researchers say this shows how "easy" it is to get rid of BPA -- just switch to fresh food, and your levels will plummet.

But I'm not going to celebrate the fact that 40 percent of this stuff was still floating around in the body days later -- not to mention however much of this stuff remains locked in the body's fat and isn't released in urine anyway.

And once that BPA is inside you, it's free to go to town on your endocrine system, where it tricks your body into thinking you've been given an estrogen boost.

BPA exposure has been linked to diabetes, heart disease, and sex problems -- including sperm so slow and lazy that it's a wonder we manage to make babies anymore.

As the new study shows, getting this stuff out of your body isn't easy -- but if you care about your health even a little bit, get started on your own fresh-food diet now.

Just plan on sticking to it for good instead of three days... or don't even bother at all.

George Carlin: The owners of America

Non-toxic alternative cancer therapies

Interview with Dr Nicholas Gonzalez



To read more and for comments, please click here.

Food allergies

By Modern Alternative Mama

**This post has been entered in Monday Mania at The Healthy Home Economist!**

Food allergies are becoming increasingly common in our society – both the life-threatening anaphylaxis reactions that are commonly recognized as allergies, and the “food sensitivities” that result in children who can’t eat certain foods (behavior problems, digestive distress, etc.). There are various reasons for it, including increasingly processed food, hybrized and GMO food, and over-reliance on certain foods. Over the last 10 – 20 years, these problems have exploded.

Common Food Allergies

There are 8 common food allergies, referred to as the “top 8.” These must now be labeled on any processed food. They are:

• Milk
• Soy
• Wheat
• Seafood
• Eggs
• Shell fish
• Peanuts/tree nuts

These 8 foods are responsible for the majority of – but not all – food allergies. Many doctors will recommend going “top 8 free” if a child is struggling with distressing symptoms that are thought to be food-related.

It’s interesting to note that these are among the most commonly-consumed foods. Babies are typically fed formulas that are based on milk or soy; kids are frequently given snacks and foods that are largely wheat-based. Eggs, meat, soy, and wheat are also industrially produced with chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, etc. Soy is usually GMO. (New reports say Monsanto is now working on GMO wheat, too, but they don’t expect it to be marketable for almost another decade.)

It should also be noted that although it’s not among the “top 8,” corn is also another major allergy, which will probably be considered as one of the top allergies in the next few years. Many, many children are now allergic to corn. Grain allergies in general are on the rise.

Discovering Food Allergies

Twenty years ago, when food allergies were less common, only the most severe forms tended to be recognized. This means the IgE or IgG reactions that cause anaphylaxis and which will show up on a blood test. This is the standard “scratch test,” or an actual blood draw. These days, most children with “allergy” will not show positively on either of these tests (unless they have the life-threatening symptoms). Life-threatening allergies are growing, too, but not as sharply as other forms.

Many babies are born with allergies, or develop them soon after birth. Parents may notice the following symptoms:

• Constant crying, especially during/after feedings
• Acting as if their stomach hurts (squirming, twisting, back arching)
• Diarrhea, especially if green or bloody
• Frequent gas
• Poor weight gain, or no weight gain
• “Colic”
• Vomiting
• Frequent night waking
• Red, itchy palms
• Eczema
• Reflux
• Behavior problems (lack of concentration, tantrums, excessive anger, ADHD)
• Bedwetting/bathroom accidents

Only some of these symptoms may be present, and they may come and go. If a mom is breastfeeding and baby is allergic to something she consumes only on occasion, then baby’s reactions may be infrequent. These same symptoms can be seen in older children (who are on solids) if they have allergies, although they may be able to tell you when their stomach hurts, for example.

If you note these symptoms, try to figure out if there is a pattern to them. Is it after every feeding? After you/the child eat(s) certain foods? It can sometimes be hard to tell, because while some foods cause an immediate reaction (within minutes), others can cause a delayed reaction (up to 2 weeks). Even if reactions seem minor, continuing to consume allergens is causing gut damage, which can cause more allergies and other health problems.

An elimination diet is the best way to diagnose food allergies. An elimination diet removes a particular food(s) from a person’s diet for at least 2 weeks, but ideally for at least two months. It can take the body this long to clear an allergen. Two weeks is really the minimum amount of time before a true difference will be noted; but 2 – 4 months is when the body can begin to actually feel better because it has completely cleared the allergen.

Elimination diets aren’t easy, because not only do all obvious sources of an allergen have to be eliminated; all hiddensources do, too. Soy and wheat are in almost all processed foods. It does no good to say “we don’t eat soy,” but eat processed foods containing tiny amounts of soy lecithin almost daily! The best solution is, of course, to eat whole, unprocessed foods that you’ve made at home, so that you know exactly what is in them.

(We’ve dealt extensively with food allergies; you can read Rebekah’s Story, and Rebekah’s Update to learn more. It was shocking at times to me that at home we could eat anything without fear, but when we were out there was very little we could safely consume.)

Treating Food Allergies

Once you’ve discovered allergies, you have to decide what to do about them. The current mainstream thinking is that there is no cure; you just have to avoid those foods forever. I don’t buy that at all. Of course, the mainstream still has no idea what causes these food allergies or sensitivities, so obviously they have no idea how to treat them. Do not believe them when they say “There’s nothing you can do.” (Yes, I feel strongly about this…but given our experience, how could I not?)

Acute reactions

Treating acute reactions isn’t easy. There are a few remedies you can try:

• Gripe water (to calm upset tummies)
• Hypericum (homeopathic for allergies)
• Coconut oil, calendula (applied to skin inflammation)
• Activated charcoal (to bind to the substances and remove them quickly from the body; can also stop vomiting)
• Digestive clay (similar to activated charcoal; some think it is more effective)
• Epsom salt baths (can calm itchy skin, and help detox the body)

Sometimes, waiting it out is the only solution, though. 12 – 18 hours is usually enough to clear the worst of the reaction, especially if the exposure was accidental and not chronic.

Chronic Reactions/Cures

Can you cure food allergies? Yes. To cure food allergies, you have to address the underlying cause: gut damage. Gut damage is caused by basically everything in our modern environment: c-sections, not breastfeeding, eating processed foods, eating too much sugar, not eating fermented foods, eating GMO foods, using anti-bacterial products, consuming foods treated withantibiotics and pesticides, frequent antibiotic or other drug use, and so on. No “one factor” can permanently damage your gut, but these all add up over time to cause serious gut damage.

Gut damage is also passed along from mother to child. If a mother’s gut isn’t healthy, she doesn’t build a healthy baby, and she can’t pass along good gut flora to her newborn, whose gut is sterile until birth. Babies are meant to get their first dose of gut flora as they pass through the birth canal, then by breastfeeding for a minimum of 18 weeks. As they age, they transition from breastfeeding (ideally for at least 2 years) to an adult diet that is absent of excess sugar and processed foods and rich in fermented foods. This produces ideal gut health, can help to produce very good gut health even if a mother isn’t quite as healthy as she should be.

When an unhealthy mother breastfeeds, undigested proteins get into her bloodstream and then into her milk, which get passed to her baby, causing allergic reactions. Formula-fed babies, especially those on standard commercial formulas, don’t get the protection of the IgA that is found in breastmilk (which coats the open digestive system, protecting from undigested proteins getting into their bloodstream – assuming they’re not already present from an ill mother), meaning that the milk or soy can go right into their bodies and cause allergies.

In the future we’ll talk about how to handle babies who don’t or can’t breastfeed for whatever reason. There are options besides commercial formula, which can help prevent some gut damage. (It’s worth noting that a lot of people who cannot handle pasteurized cow’s milk can handle raw milk just fine, including my own family – unprocessed is always better!) We’ll also talk further about introducing babies to solidsin the best way to prevent sensitization and allergy problems.

Since this is all rooted in the gut – a so-called “leaky gut,” which is what it is called when the undigested proteins go through open spots in the gut wall (open from immature guts or from poor/non-existent gut flora) – the goal is to close and heal the gut and repopulate with good bacteria.

The GAPS diet was designed to do exactly this.

GAPS eliminates all grains and disaccharides (sugars) from the diet, which are hard for the gut to digest. Instead, the diet focuses heavily on animal foods, which are easy to digest. Consuming homemade bone broths is also key, because the natural gelatin in the stock helps to heal and seal the gut lining. Then, the body is hit with a number of probiotic foods and supplements in order to repopulate the gut. There are many, many success stories of families using the GAPS diet to completely eliminate food allergies. (For some, it can eliminate environmental allergies, too, because it calms the system and stops the hyper-sensitivity.)

The diet isn’t easy, and those with serious food allergies will need to commit to the diet for about two years, sometimes longer. Even after the diet, they’ll never be able to go back to eating SAD (Standard American Diet); they’ll still have to eat a healthy, animal-rich, unprocessed diet. Most families also end up going back on GAPS for a few months every year or two in order to boost gut health further. (We’ve done GAPS twice; we’re currently on hiatus due to the arsenic detox but will have to go back to it in a month or so.)

After GAPS, many families can successfully re-introduce previously allergenic foods without reactions. We were, at one point, unable to eat any grains, legumes, nuts, dairy, and certain fruits. Now almost all of these foods are okay. Unsoaked grains and peanuts still do not go well, but anything else is okay. Legumes, soaked nuts, raw dairy, and all fruits/vegetables are completely fine. (Peanut butter and any commercial whole-grain product is really all we have to avoid; white flour is fine in a pinch. It’s not a big deal anymore at all.)

We also noted that food dyes and unfiltered water are not very safe; my daughter had terrible behavior (screaming, whining, crying, out of control; she seemed also unable to concentrate or pay attention) as well as her first accidents in months after consuming some food dye over the weekend. After 18 hours, when it was out of her system she was back to normal. If she ate SAD, she’d definitely be diagnosed with “ADHD.”

If you're looking for some help with doing GAPS, check out Against the Grain: Delicious Recipes for the Whole Food and Grain-Free Diet, which contains grain and dairy-free recipes, most of which are suitable for the GAPS diet.

If your family suffers from food allergies, or potential allergies, consider an elimination diet and the GAPS diet if problems are confirmed. It’s worth it to be able to eat foods without poor reactions!

Remarks:
I would definitely add constipation to the symptoms and candida/yeast overgrowth as a cause that also results in damaged gut and nutritional deficiencies and a lot more... (Rosie)

Leading docs say NO to full- body scanners

By WC Douglass M.D

It's not often I'm on the same page as the American Cancer Society -- but their chief medical officer is taking a page out of my book, and I couldn't be happier about it.

Dr. Otis Brawley told CNN he refuses the TSA's radioactive full-body airport scanners because he has "little confidence" in how the machines are calibrated, maintained, and inspected.

And his deputy agrees -- saying he'll do whatever he can to skip the scans.

These are two of the leading mainstream voices on cancer issues -- and they've been wrong more times than I can count, especially on issues like mammograms and cancer treatments.

Heck, they push radiation on cancer patients every single day... but when their own lives are on the line, they change their tune -- and fast.

"This is a total body scan -- not a dental or chest X-ray," Brawley's deputy, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, told CNN. "Total body radiation is not something I find very comforting based on my medical knowledge."

And you know what? He's absolutely right -- because every time you get zapped, your total lifetime exposure levels shoot right up... along with your overall cancer risk.

Eventually, something that's supposed to be a remote and theoretical risk becomes a very real battle for your life... all because the feds decided they needed a picture of your scrotum.

Of course, the only alternative to the full-body scanner is the "freedom fondle" -- a top-to-bottom groping by a TSA worker that'll leave you feeling like a hooker in a gas station bathroom.

And they're not just rubbing their gloved fingers over your privates -- they're even fondling children, as this video on YouTube shows.

Want to know what's really shocking about this footage? This girl's parents didn't refuse the scan. They actually sent her through -- but the feds called the six-year-old girl over for an "extra" screening anyway, giving her the worst of both worlds: radiation AND a fondling.

And as you can see, they didn't miss an inch of this little potential terrorist's body.

It's just plain sick.

Software programmer says US elections can be rigged

Biomedical treatment to heal autism

Autism now: Robert MacNeil shares grandson' s story

PBS Newshour
with transcript and comments

Happy Easter!

Pat Condell's channel, here.

Message from Colonel Mu’ummar Qaddafi – Unplugged and Uncensored

In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful…

For 40 years, or was it longer, I can’t remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals, schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter, he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child. Then I helped my brothers and sisters from Africa with money for the African Union.

I did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people’s committees ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more. They told Americans and other visitors, that they needed “democracy” and “freedom” never realizing it was a cut throat system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.

No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we’ve had since Salah-al-Deen, when he claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination – from thieves who would steal from us.

Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called “capitalism,” but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer. So, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following His path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jamahiriya.

I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it.

Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light. When others were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah-al-Deen, our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself…

In the West, some have called me “mad”, “crazy”, but they know the truth yet continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free, may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.

c: Col. Mu’ummar Qaddafi, 2011/05/04

Translated by Professor Sam Hamod, Ph.D.

article by Lisa Karpova

Food is our future - Keep Ireland GM free

Energy saving light bulbs contain cancer causing chemicals

By Victoria Ward

The Telegraph

Fears have been reignited about the safety of energy saving light bulbs after a group of scientists warned that they contain cancer causing chemicals.

Their report advises that the bulbs should not be left on for extended periods, particularly near someone’s head, as they emit poisonous materials when switched on.

Peter Braun, who carried out the tests at the Berlin's Alab Laboratory, said: “For such carcinogenic substances it is important they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment.”

The bulbs are already widely used in the UK following EU direction to phase out traditional incandescent lighting by the end of this year.

But the German scientists claimed that several carcinogenic chemicals and toxins were released when the environmentally-friendly compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) were switched on, including phenol, naphthalene and styrene.

Andreas Kirchner, of the Federation of German Engineers, said: “Electrical smog develops around these lamps.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Energy saving light bulbs 'could trigger breast cancer' 
  31 Jan 2011
• Night lights 'could cause depression' 
  18 Nov 2010
• EU light bulbs offer dim future 
  29 Aug 2009
• Inquiry into artificial light's link to cancer 
  17 Dec 2007
• 'Green' light bulbs could damage the environment if dumped in landfill 
  03 Apr 2010

“I, therefore, use them only very economically. They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.”

British experts insisted that more research was needed and urged consumers not to panic.

Dr Michelle Bloor, senior lecturer in Environmental Science at Portsmouth University, told the Daily Express: “Further independent studies would need to be undertaken to back up the presented German research.”

The Department for the Environment insists the bulbs are safe, despite the fact that they contain small amounts of mercury which would leak out if the glass was broken.

Advice on its website states: “Energy efficient light bulbs are not a danger to the public.

“Although they contain mercury, limited at 5mg per lamp, it cannot escape from a lamp that is intact.

“In any case, the very small amount contained in an energy efficient bulb is unlikely to cause harm even if the lamp should be broken.”

The latest report follows claims by Abraham Haim, a professor of biology at Haifa University in Israel, that the bulbs could result in higher breast cancer rates if used late at night.

He said that the bluer light that CFLs emitted closely mimicked daylight, disrupting the body's production of the hormone melatonin more than older-style filament bulbs, which cast a yellower light.

The Migraine Action Association has warned that they could trigger migraines and skin care specialists have claimed that their intense light could exacerbate a range of existing skin problems.