Archive for the ‘Eugenics’ Category

Washington’s Blog
February 10, 2014

The Harvard School for Public Health reports:

In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.

Image: Toothpaste (Wikimedia Commons).

The study [click for abstract] was published online in Environmental Health Perspectiveson July 20, 2012.

Environmental Health Perspectives is a publication of the United States National Institutes of Health’sNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Harvard’s announcement continues:

The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.   Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

Indeed, the following video interviewing National Research Council scientists, a Nobel laureate in medicine, a professor of dentistry and other professionals summarizes the evidence fairly succinctly … and makes the case that our understanding of the damage fluoride can cause to our brains is like our growing understanding in the 1970s of the dangers of lead:

(We started the video at 18 minutes in; but the whole video is worth watching.)

 

Numerous other government reports have shown fluoride’s adverse impacts on intelligence:

[A] 2006 National Academy of Science [report ] reviews the scientific studies which have been performed on fluoride, and concludes:

It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. (bottom of page 222).

The NAS report also notes that fluoride may actually impair intelligence, and that more testing should be done in this regard.

Indeed, studies from around the world continue to find that exposure to sodium fluoride – especially in the very young – lowers IQ. See this and this. The same is true for rats exposed to fluoride. See this and this. And see the studies listed here.

Dr. Vyvyan Howard – a PhD fetal pathologist, who is a professor of developmental toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool and University of Ulster, president of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment and former president of the Royal Microscopical Society and the International Society for Stereology, and general editor of the Journal of Microscopy – said in a 2008 Canadian television interview (short, worthwhile video at the link) that studies done in several countries show that children’s IQ are likely to be lower in high natural water fluoride areas.

He said that these studies are plausible because fluoride is known to affect the thyroid hormone which affects intelligence and fluoride is also a known neurotoxicant. Such studies have not been conducted in countries that artificially fluoridate the water such as the US, UK and Canada, but should be, he said.

And as the International Business Times noted last month on the newest Chinese study on fluoride:

Exposure to fluoride may lower children’s intelligence, says a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Fluoride is added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies.

***

About 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scored as bright, normal or higher intelligence compared to only 8 percent in the “high” fluoride area of Wamaio.

In the high-fluoride city, 15 percent had scores indicating mental retardation and only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city. The authors of the study eliminated both lead exposure and iodine deficiency as possible causes for the lowered IQs.

One scientist – Jennifer Luke – alleged in a 2001 scientific article that fluoride accumulates in the brain (specifically, in the structure of the pineal gland) more than it accumulates in our bones. In other words, she implies that fluoride may accumulate more in the brain than in the teeth, doing more harm than good (here’s Luke’s 1997 PhD dissertation on the topic.)

The 2006 National Academy of Sciences report corroborates some of Luke’s allegations:

As with other calcifying tissues, the pineal gland can accumulate fluoride (Luke 1997, 2001). Fluoride has been shown to be present in the pineal glands of older people (14-875 mg of fluoride per kg of gland in persons aged 72-100 years), with the fluoride concentrations being positively related to the calcium concentrations in the pineal gland, but not to the bone fluoride, suggesting that pineal fluoride is not necessarily a function of cumulative fluoride exposure of the individual (Luke 1997, 2001). Fluoride has not been measured in the pineal glands of children or young adults, nor has there been any investigation of the relationship between pineal fluoride concentrations and either recent or cumulative fluoride intakes.

Donald Miller – cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington – alleges:

Fluoride … inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase in the brain, which is involved in transmitting signals along nerve cells.

***

Fluoride also damages the brain, both directly and indirectly. Rats given fluoridated water at a dose of 4 ppm develop symptoms resembling attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. High concentrations of fluoride accumulate in the pineal gland, which produces serotonin and melatonin.

***

People with Alzheimer’s disease have high levels of aluminum in their brains. Fluoride combines with aluminum in drinking water and takes it through the blood-brain barrier into the brain. Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, a neurosurgeon, spells out in chilling detail the danger fluoride poses to one’s brain and health in general in his book Health and Nutrition Secrets that can Save Your Life (2002).

Time Magazine notes:

What has also changed is how much toxicologists know about the harmful effects of fluoride compounds. Ingested in high doses, fluoride is indisputably toxic; it was once commonly used in rat poison. Hydrogen fluoride is regulated as a hazardous pollutant in emissions from chemical plants and has been linked to respiratory illness. Even in toothpaste, sodium fluoride is a health concern. In 1997 the Food and Drug Administration toughened the warning on every tube to read, “If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison-control center right away.”

ABC News from Raleigh-Durham reports:

Study after study dating back to the 80s from respected academic and scientific institutions that connect fluoride to health dangers. Some of the studies were funded by the government. They  suggest fluoride can be linked to brain, blood and bone deficiencies in humans.

***

“EPA’s drinking water standards are supposed to protect all persons against anticipated adverse health effects of the contaminant in question,” explained Kathleen Thiessen – one of the scientists who worked on the 400-page study. “And we concluded after three years worth of work that the drinking water standard for fluoride was not protected and cannot be assumed to be safe for humans.”

Thiessen  said the EPA was warned about potential fluoride health dangers by one of its own chemists more than a decade ago. Dr. William Hirzy testified before a Senate subcommittee in 2000.  He was representing the views of EPA scientists and staff who analyze hazards in the environment.

“In 1997, we voted to oppose fluoridation, and our opposition has grown stronger as more adverse data on the practice has come in,” said Hirzy.

“The CDC and others say whatever beneficial effect there is from fluoride is from topical use. It’s not from swallowing it. It never has been from swallowing it,” said Thiessen.

The I-Team discovered most western countries do not fluoridate their water. Dental records kept by the World Health Organization show tooth decay in those countries has declined at the same rate as here in the United States – where we do fluoridate our water.

Indeed, an overwhelming number of scientific studies conclude that cavity levels are falling worldwide … even in countries which don’t fluoridate water.  Specifically, the scientific literature shows that – when fluoridation of water supplies is stopped – cavities do not increase (but may in some cases actually decrease).  See thisthisthisthisthis and this.

World Health Organization Data (2004) – 
Tooth Decay Trends (12 year olds) in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries: 

who dmft An Overwhelming Number of Scientific Studies Conclude That Cavity Levels are Falling Worldwide ... Even In Countries Which Dont Fluoridate Water

No wonder more and more countries are stopping fluoridation.

In fact, many prominent leaders of the pro-water fluoridation movement have recently admitted publicly that they were wrong. That includes:

 

  • John Colquhoun, DDS, Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand and chair of that country’s Fluoridation Promotion Committee, reviewed New Zealand’s dental statistics in an effort to convince skeptics that fluoridation was beneficial and found that tooth decay rates were the same in fluoridated and nonfluoridated places, which prompted him to re-examine the classic fluoridation studies. He withdrew his support for it in “Why I Changed my Mind About Water Fluoridation” (Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1997;41:29—44).

 

  • Richard G. Foulkes, MD, a health care administrator and former assistant professor in the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at the University of British Columbia also switched from pro to anti-water fluoridation after studying the issue.

 

 

This article was posted: Monday, February 10, 2014 at 5:48 am

Advertisements
Sunday, January 19, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews) The mainstream media has utterly abandoned science in the push for more flu shot propaganda, entirely failing to mention any of the risks associated with vaccines. According to nearly every story published in the mainstream media, flu shot vaccines offer almost certain protection against the flu while carrying absolute zero risk (risk is never mentioned).

Such a position is utterly anti-scientific. All medical interventions carry inherent risk, and this is especially so when vaccines admittedly contain mercury, MSG, formaldehyde and aluminum, all potent neurotoxic chemicals or heavy metals.

This is why vaccines routinely cause seizures in children, fevers, vomiting, comas and even death. The risk of this becoming known to the public is so great that a private, unconstitutional court called the “vaccine court” was established in order to pay off parents of vaccine-damaged children while requiring them to sign non-disclosure agreements to force them into silence. (Click here to see the astonishing video revealing this.)

Media stories that don’t mention flu shot risks are irresponsible and may cause harm to the public

Any media source that publishes an article pushing flu shots without offering a reasonable discussion of the inherent risk from doing so is acting in a highly irresponsible manner, potentially putting millions of children in harm’s way. Yet mainstream media journalists routinely fail to discuss any risks whatsoever of vaccines, almost as if such risks did not exist.

These journalists are either scientifically illiterate and not aware of such risks, or they are actively deciding to censor such discussions from their stories, thereby conspiring with the vaccine industry to keep the public ignorant of a medical intervention which may cause them serious harm or death. Such actions are highly unethical and smack of a complete lack of journalistic professionalism.

Watch the new Health Ranger video explanation

To learn more about flu shot propaganda, media lies and the abandonment of real science by the vaccine industry, watch this new screencast video I just posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IR4_0nK7gA

The Fix / By Allison McCabe

http://www.alternet.org/

January 15, 2014  |  
   

This article  first appeared in The Fix, which features coverage on addiction and recovery, straight up. 

On March 29, 2009, Robert Stewart, 45,  stormed into the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina and opened fire, killing eight people and wounding two. Stewart’s apparent target was his estranged wife, who worked as a nurse in the home. She hid in a bathroom and was unharmed. Stewart was charged with eight counts of first-degree murder; if convicted, he could face the death penalty. Even though there was evidence that Stewart’s actions were premeditated (he allegedly had a target), Stewart’s defense team successfully argued that since he was under the influence of Ambien, a sleep aid, at the time of the shooting, he was not in control of his actions. Instead of the charges sought by the prosecutors, Stewart was  convicted on eight counts of second-degree murder. He received 142 – 179 years in prison.

Ambien, a member of the class of medications known as hypnotics, was approved by the FDA in 1992. It was designed for short term use to combat insomnia and was a welcome change from the prevailing sleep aid at the time, Halcion, which had been  implicated in psychosis, suicide, and addiction and had been banned in half a dozen countries. Ambien works by activating the neurotransmitter  GABA and binding it to the GABA receptors in the same  location as the benzodiazepines such as Xanax and Valium. The extra GABA activity triggered by the drug inhibits the neuron activity that is associated with insomnia. In other words, it slows down the brain. Ambien is extremely effective at initiating sleep, usually working within 20 minutes. It does not, however, have an effect on sustaining sleep unless it is taken in the controlled release form.

Although the Ambien prescribing information warned, in small print, that medications in the hypnotic class had occasional side effects including sleep walking, “abnormal thinking,” and “strange behavior,” these behaviors were listed as extremely rare, and any anecdotal evidence of “sleep driving,” “sleep eating,” or “sleep shopping”—all behaviors now associated with Ambien blackouts—were characterized as unusual quirks, or attributed to mixing the medication with alcohol. It wasn’t until Patrick Kennedy’s 2006 middle-of-the-night car accident and subsequent explanation to arriving officers that he was running late for a vote that the bizarre side effects of Ambien began to receive national attention. Kennedy claimed that he had taken the sleep aid and had no recollection of the events that night. After its approval, Ambien quickly  rose to dominance in the sleep aid market. Travelers swore by it to combat jet lag, and women, who suffer more insomnia than men, bought it in droves. Sanofi, Ambien’s French manufacturer, made $2 billion in sales at its peak. In 2007 the generic version of Ambien was released, Zolpidem, and at less than $2 per pill, it still remains one of the most prescribed drugs in America, outselling popular painkillers like Percocet and prescription strength ibuprofen.

Shortly after the Kennedy incident, Ambien users sued Sanofi because of bizarre sleep-eating behaviors while on the drugs. According to Chana Lask, attorney for the class action suit, people were eating things like buttered cigarettes and eggs, complete with the shells, while under the influence of Ambien. Lask called people in this state “Ambien zombies.” As a result of the lawsuit, and of increasing reports coming in about “sleep driving,” the FDA ordered all hypnotics to issue stronger warnings on their labels.

In addition to giving consumers extra information so they could take the medication more carefully, the warning labels also gave legitimacy to the Ambien (or Zombie) defense. In March of 2011, Lindsey Schweigert took one Ambien before getting into bed at 6pm. Hours later, she woke up in custody with no idea how she’d gotten there. In the following weeks, Schweigert pieced together the events of that night. She’d gotten out of bed, drawn a bath, and left the house with her dog. She started driving to a local restaurant but crashed into another car soon after leaving her house. Police described her as swaying and glassy-eyed. She failed a sobriety test and was charged with DWI and running a stoplight.

keep reading here.

….catapulted into the news by pharma interests

Mike Adams
Natural News
December 17, 2013

Today the mainstream media is gleefully reporting findings they mistakenly believe show all multivitamins to be worthless at preventing disease. “Case Closed: Multivitamins Should Not Be Used,” declares Forbes. “New studies dispel multivitamin myths,” reports NBC News. And CBS News shouts, “case is closed” after studies find no health benefits.”

Image: Vitamins (Wikimedia Commons).

The problem with all these headlines is they’re based on an editorial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a pro-pharma publication almost entirely funded by pharmaceuticals which compete with multivitamins. When I visited the study publication page on Annals.org, I was immediately greeted with a pop-up advertisement trying to hawk a pharmaceutical drug.

It’s almost as if the pharma-funded publication is saying, “Here, while we trash the reputation of vitamins, why don’t you buy some drugs from our sponsors?”

Why pharmaceuticals are never subjected to the same scrutiny as multivitamins

What the media doesn’t report, of course, is that if pharmaceuticals were subjected to the same basic questions covered in this study — do multivitamins enhance cognitive function? Do they prevent heart disease? — pharmaceuticals would prove to be disastrous. They not only don’t work; they also might kill you in the process of not working.

So why isn’t the media reporting that the “case is closed” on how drugs and medications fail to prevent chronic degenerative disease?

The answer is because this scrutiny is reserved solely for nutritional supplements. In today’s distorted system of quack medicine, junk science and pro-pharma propaganda, medications never have to be proven effective to be promoted and hyped. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever, for example, that chemotherapy prevents the progression of cancer (chemo actually causes more cancer), or that statin drugs enhance lifespan. There is no evidence whatsoever that ADHD drugs create healthy children or that antidepressants cure depression. Yet all these drugs are heavily hyped by medical journal (i.e. “drug journals”) and the mainstream media without regard for their disastrous lack of efficacy and safety.

So there’s a dangerous double standard in all this. Nobody asks whether drugs actually create health, but multivitamins are routinely subjected to intense scrutiny on this very question.

Studies were contrived through the use of synthetic vitamins

To make sure these multivitamin studies fail to produce positive results, these studies are universally structured so that they are based on cheap, low-grade, synthetic vitamins and inorganic minerals. Not coincidentally, these brands of low-grade multivitamins are actually manufactured by companies owned by pharmaceutical interests. They really do have a financial incentive to make multivitamins look bad, and so their multivitamin formulations are intentionally designed to fail.

The vitamin E studied in this science review, for example, was synthetic, isolated vitamin E which already has a long history of being toxic for human consumption. Note carefully that these researchers never looked at full-spectrum vitamin E, including the tocopherols, nor did they bother to study a food concentrate form of vitamin E (because it would have been amazingly beneficial to heart health).

If I wanted to make all cars look dangerous, I could buy a dozen old Ford Pinto cars, line them up bumper to bumper, fill them with gasoline and ram them together in a mock road accident that caused them all to explode. From that, I could declare, “All cars are unsafe!” even though I only tested the Pinto. That’s the same as what’s happening with these multivitamin studies. They intentionally choose the most toxic forms of synthetic nutrients, then they use the negative results to declare that all multivitamins are dangerous.

Beta carotene, too, was studied as a synthetic chemical in isolation, not as a food-sourced nutrient like you might find in carrots or squash. So what these studies really prove is only that synthetic chemical vitamins are toxic to human health.

Guess who makes all these synthetic chemical vitamins? Companies like Bayer and BASF, the same companies that also manufacture raw materials for pharmaceutical manufacturing.

How the media uses “nutritional misdirection” to trick the public into thinking nutrition is bad

The mainstream media, of course, is all too happy to use journalist tricks of misdirection and false implication to misinform the public about nutrition. In claiming that “multivitamins are worthless,” they are utterly failing to differentiate between cheap, pharma-manufactured synthetic multivitamins versus high-quality food-based multivitamins that really do work to enhance human health and prevent disease.

You won’t find these scientists testing high-quality supplements from Life Extension, for example. Those supplements would produce positive results, and that’s not what the pro-pharma scientists running these contrived studies want to show.

You also won’t find them studying superfood powders, whole food concentrates or food-based supplements like the ones produced by MegaFood. Those supplements contain food-based nutrients and organic minerals — the kind of nutrients the human body expects to see in food intake. Those supplements produce phenomenal results for enhanced human health. Researchers who publish in pharma-funded science journals will never study high-end multivitamins and nutritional supplements for the simple reason that the results would be too positive!

Synthetic drugs are even more harmful to human health than synthetic vitamins

The bigger question in all this, however, is just how harmful synthetic drugs are to human health. If synthetic vitamins produce negative health outcomes, then synthetic drugs produce truly disastrous results. Many drugs can simply kill you outright.

Synthetic drugs — including PPIs, blood pressure medications, diabetes drugs, statin drugs, Alzheimer’s drugs, osteoporosis drugs and so on — are specifically designed to interfere with human physiology. Their entire intent is to “block” some chemical process in the body and thereby attempt to control symptoms of disease (without actually addressing the root cause of disease).

High-quality supplements and superfoods, on the other hand, are designed to prevent the causes of disease before they ever become symptomatic. They treat the root causes, in other words, rather than the mere symptoms.

This is why high-end food-based supplements, superfoods, medicinal herbs and other food concentrates are so effective at preventing disease. Conversely, this is also why isolated chemical drugs are so terrible at the same thing. No drug actually reverses any disease. They merely mask symptoms while allowing the underlying causes of disease to worsen. This is easily demonstrated: if a person taking blood pressure medications stops taking those medications, their blood pressure suddenly rises. The medication never addressed the cause of high blood pressure; it merely artificially interfered with physiology in a way that created a contrived, temporary lowering of measurable blood pressure.

These drug-pushing scientists and science journals want you to take pharmaceuticals, not nutrition

Let’s get down to the real motivation in all this, however. The Annals of Internal Medicine and the scientists behind this extremely deceptive junk science all share the same intention: they want you to trust in drugs, not multivitamins.

Their job is to discredit multivitamins while simultaneously brainwashing consumers into believing that drugs are somehow “vital nutrients” that they need to survive. That’s the foundation of modern medicine, after all: you are an incomplete human being unless and until you undergo medical intervention with a vaccine, a psychiatric drug, a cancer treatment or some other chemical that thereby makes you “whole.”

Modern reductionist medical science wants to push drugs as the new multivitamins, but to do that, they first have to discredit multivitamins. Once multivitamins have been destroyed, they can convince the public (with yet more quack science) that everybody needs a statin pill every day. Everyone needs to drink toxic fluoride to have healthy teeth. Everyone needs to be injected with mercury, aluminum and MSG in order to be immune to the flu.

That’s the real con in all this: The attack on multivitamins sets the stage for the unveiling of a new wave of “daily drug vitamins” the industry will push on everyone: adults, children, senior citizens and even unborn babies.

The population, you see, is never sufficiently medicated (from the point of view of Big Pharma). Drug companies must find new ways to convince people they need more drugs even when they aren’t sick! The way to accomplish this is to position medications as essential nutrients. That’s what you are seeing unfold right now.

Remember, too, that these scientists also insist that food can’t prevent disease. All food is worthless for medical purposes, they insist. Only patented pharmaceuticals can treat, cure or prevent any disease, they ridiculously claim.

That’s their worldview: Nutrition is bad, organic food is bad and herbs are bad. What’s good? Vaccines, GMOs, medications and chemotherapy. To these science quacks, everyone in America should stop consuming good nutrition and start popping more medications and lining up for vaccine injections. That’s the pathway to good health, didn’t you know?

Take the Health Ranger’s advice

Want some real advice on all this? Here’s my take:

• Avoid cheap, synthetic multivitamins and supplements. Don’t swallow pills made by pharma companies. Avoid cheap minerals like calcium carbonate or magnesium oxide.

• EAT REAL FOOD. Whole food. Organic, non-GMO food. Your No. 1 best source of nutrition should always be food. Grow your own sprouts or garden and eat those foods. Buy foods from CSAs or local farmers’ markets. Eating real food should always be your foundation for nutritional health.

• If you want to take supplements, invest in high-end, quality supplements based on food concentrates or food extracts. Nutrients derived from real food tend to be far healthier than synthetic nutrients.

• Consume superfoods daily for full-spectrum high-density nutrition. Each morning, I drink a blend of superfood powders with avocado, coconut water and hemp protein.

• Don’t believe anything the mainstream media reports about nutrition. Mainstream media reporters are, by and large, outrageously ignorant about nutrition, isolated nutrients, whole foods, the games Big Pharma plays, the corruption of the science journals and so on. If you want to listen to someone who really knows nutrition, you need to find people who specialize in it (and who haven’t sold out to the failed medical institutions of modern society).

And keep reading Natural News, of course! :-)

 

This article was posted: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 at 6:30 am

 

Posted on: 5:21 pm, December 10, 2013, by , updated on: 07:57am, December 11, 2013

http://kdvr.com/

DENVER — Soon it may not be as easy to get vaccination exemptions for your child.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment released a new report with recommendations on improving immunization rates among children Tuesday.

Educators, health officials and parent groups met for six months to come up with the recommendations.

The rate of parents claiming “personal belief exemptions” to get out of school and daycare immunizations requirements triggered the report.

It’s an issue with two clearly distinct sides.

11-month-old Emma Radatti is vaccinated against diseases like whooping cough and measles.

Her mom, a nurse, never questioned the medicines’ safety.

“Being in the hospital setting really makes me absolutely, 100 percent to want to vaccinate my children,” says Tara Radatti.

But 5-month-old Laila Ring is not vaccinated.

Her mom did question the safety.

“We are still on the fence about what to do long-term. We’ll make decisions based on research we read, based on what’s best for our baby,” Kristina Ring, a chiropractor says.

They are two moms, with two different views on vaccinations.

But one view motivated the state’s public health department to request this report—Colorado’s Personal Belief Exemption Policy for Immunizations: Stakeholder Engagement Process–which recommends how to improve the state’s immunization rates among children.

“About two years ago, Colorado was identified as having the second-highest exemption rate in the country. And that was concerning to a number of individuals,” says Dr. Rachel Herlihy, Deputy Director for the Division of Disease Control for the state’s health department.

That meant 3,000 kindergarteners last year were not immunized.

Ninety-three percent for personal beliefs—not religious or medical.

The state says the exemptions can put other children at risk, like Leena Bristol.

She was just six weeks old—and too young to be vaccinated—when she nearly died from whooping cough.

“By not choosing to vaccinate your own child, you are also choosing to expose other parents’ children to a potentially deadly disease,” says her mom, Dr. Lisa Farkouh.

Today’s recommendations include:
– Requiring education or counseling before an exemption is granted
– Requiring parents renew the exemption every year instead of just a one-time signature
– Publishing school and care center immunization and exemption rates

The state understands it must strike a balance between individual rights and protecting public health.

It’ll study the recommendations over the next couple of months and then decide which ones to pursue.

Most require action by state legislators.

You can check out the full report here.

Natural News
August 30, 2013

Two detailed studies shine light on the devastating side effects that antipsychotic medications have on children and adolescents. One study, recently published in JAMA Psychiatry, reports that children on anti-psychotic medications are three times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. The other study delves further into the dark side of the medications, showing suicide rate increases 20 times greater when antipsychotic medication is used as treatment.

Antipsychotic drugs are one of the biggest hoaxes of modern day medicine

Photo: Chicagos~Finest via Flickr.

Photo: Chicagos~Finest via Flickr.

Antipsychotic drugs, which have been mass produced in the last decade and prescribed like candy, are looked to as the mood “cure all.” What researchers are realizing, though, is that these medicines are actually more like science experiments on the brain, created by chemists and peddled by drug dealing giants who have no clue how each individual’s mind may react to the mind altering effects their drugs impose. Most times, these drugs provide reverse outcomes and devastating side effects. The blind trust in these brain altering drugs is fooling many into believing in a chemical crutch instead of dealing with life’s realities. Instead of adjusting thought patterns, diet habits and correcting nutritional deficiencies, many run to the doctor looking for a pill to cure their “anxiety.”

These pills are not dealing with the root of emotional stress and mental instability. The pills do not let the person properly heal with time. Rather, they change the chemical structure of the brain in a way that destroys a natural healing process, a person’s inner strength and adaptation, their ability to understand gratitude, determination, responsibility and strength.

Children “three times more likely” to develop diabetes

The diabetes study, conducted by researchers from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, TN, between 1996 and 2007, focused on children and young adults between ages 6 and 24 who were enrolled in Tennessee’s Medicaid program.

During that time, a staggering 28,858 young recipients were put on antipsychotic drugs. Another 14,429 control patients were prescribed alternative medication.

During the first year follow-up period, 106 incident cases of type-2 diabetes cropped up among all studied participants. The rate of those placed on anti psychotic drugs was three times higher within the first year. Also, the average age for drug-induced diabetes occurrence was 16.7 years.
(Article continues on next page.)

 

Read More: 1 2

 

Series2-90forlife-hsp

freedomoutpost.com
August 29, 2013

liesThe following is a contribution from Dan from Squirrel Hill. The original title of the article is “Obama supporters will go hysterical over this well sourced list of 252 examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc.” it’s lengthy, but is a ‘one-stop shop’ for all the dirty details on the Obama presidency.

Every President, every politician, and every human being tells lies and engages in acts of hypocrisy. But Barack Obama does these things to a far greater degree than anyone else that I have ever known of. His campaign promises were so much better sounding than anyone else’s – no lobbyists in his administration, waiting five days before signing all non-emergency bills so people would have time to read them, putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN, reading every bill line by line to make sure money isn’t being wasted, prosecution of Wall St. criminals, ending raids against medical marijuana in states where it’s legal, high levels of transparency. Obama’s promises of these wonderful things sounded inspiring and sincere. They sounded so much better than the promises of any other President. So when Obama broke these promises, it felt so much worse than when other Presidents broke their promises.

In the 2008 United States election, I wrote in Ron Paul for President. In the 2012 election, I voted for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Those who are of a more leftist persuasion than myself might want to consider voting for the Green Party in future elections.

Some of the things on this list are major events that should scare the daylights out of any true liberal who cares about civil liberties.

Other things on this list are medium things that some Obama supporters may dislike, but would be willing to overlook in light of the things that Obama has done which they like.

And some of the things on this list may seem trivial, but I still think they are an interesting reflection of the kinds of policies that Obama supports.

Every claim that I make in this list is sourced. Click on the blue text to see the sources. I have cited a wide variety of sources, from right wing, to left wing, to middle of the road.

I welcome any comments and criticisms that you may have. If you say my list is wrong, please back up your claim by citing specific examples.

And now, on with the list:

1) Carried out military interventionism in Libya without Congressional approval

In June 2011, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that Obama had violated the Constitution when he launched military operations in Libya without Congressional approval.

2) Gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton – just like Bush did

In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011, just hours after the Justice Department had said it would pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of using kickbacks to get foreign contracts.

3) Has an administration full of lobbyists, after promising he wouldn’t have any

While running for President, Obama had promised that, unlike Bush, he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.

4) Has close ties to Wall St., but pretends to support Occupy Wall St.

Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, the truth is that he has raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In early 2012, Obama held a fundraiser where Wall St. investment bankers and hedge fund managers each paid $35,800 to attend. In October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry.

5) Broke his promise to close Guantanamo Bay

Obama broke his promise to close Guantanamo Bay.

6) Supported the $700 billion TARP corporate-welfare bailout just like Bush

While Senator, Obama voted for the $700 billion TARP bank bailout bill. The bailout rewarded irresponsible and illegal behavior. It redirected resources from more productive uses to less productive uses. It punished the hard working taxpayers who had played by the rules and obeyed the law. It created horrible incentives, and sent the wrong message. The bailout was evil because it rewarded the bad people and punished the good people. No society that does this can expect to remain free or prosperous. Instead of bailing out these corrupt corporations, we should have let them cease to exist, like we did with Enron.

7) Waged the biggest war against medical marijuana of any president, which was the opposite of what he had promised

In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it’s legal. Also in 2008, Obama said that he supported the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs” and that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.”

However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal. In July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California. Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California. Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal. In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California, and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal. In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California.

In February 2012, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Obama’s war against medical marijuana went “far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush.” In April 2012, Mother Jones magazine wrote: “The president campaigned on the promise that he’d stop federal raids on medical marijuana operations that were in compliance with state laws, a vow that Attorney General Eric Holder repeated after the election. But then the Obama administration raided more than 100 dispensaries in its first three years and is now poised to outpace the Bush administration’s crackdown record.” In May 2012, the Washington Post wrote: “Obama has become more hostile to medical marijuana patients than any president in U.S. history.” In May 2012, U.S. Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said she had “strong concerns” about Obama’s forced closure of five medical marijuana facilities in Pelosi’s congressional district. In April 2012, commenting on Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said, “I’m very disappointed… They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”

In July 2012, federal prosecutors filed civil forfeiture actions against Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland, CA, which claims to be the world’s largest, and which claims to serve more than 100,000 medical marijuana patients. In April 2012, federal agents raided Oaksterdam University, an educational institution in Oakland, CA, which teaches people about medical marijuana. In April 2012, federal agents raided a medical marijuana facility which had been serving 1,500 patients near Lake Elsinore, CA. In June 2012, the Obama administration filed asset-forfeiture lawsuits against two landlords who rented their buildings to medical marijuana stores in Santa Fe Springs, CA. The Obama administration also sent warning letters which threatened similar legal action to dozens of other, nearby landlords. During the first seven months of 2012, the DEA shut down40 medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, all of which had been operating in compliance with state and local law.

In July 2013, the DEA conducted multiple medical marijuana raids in Washington state, including the cities of Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle.

In May 2012, ABC News reported that during Obama’s youth, he often smoked large quantities of recreational marijuana. Obama’s marijuana smoking wasn’t even medical – it was recreational. And yet now, he is taking large scale, widespread action to prevent people with AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and other illnesses, who have prescriptions from their doctors, from using their prescription medicine – how cold hearted can a person be?

8) Nominated a six-time tax cheater to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws

Obama nominated Timothy Geithner, a repeat tax cheater, to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws.

Prior to his nomination, Geithner had:

1) Illegally failed to pay more than $34,000 in social security and Medicare taxes

2) Illegally declared the cost of his children’s summer camp as a form of day care.

3) Illegally failed to pay the early withdrawal penalty when he took money out of his retirement plan

4) Illegally declared non-eligible items as a charitable deduction

5) Illegally declared something which was ineligible as a small business deduction

6) Illegally declared utility expenses which had actually been for his personal use

9) Gave tax dollars to AIG executives, then pretended to be outraged about it

Obama signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives. Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, “when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” However, after reading “line by line” and signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses, and said, “Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay… How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” and also said that he would “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses.”

10) Expanded Bush’s unconstitutional government faith based programs

Obama expanded the federal government’s faith based programs which had been started by President George W. Bush.

11) Supported Bush’s unconstitutional Patriot Act

In May 2011, Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act.

12) Increased the national debt more in one term than Bush did in two

The national debt increased more during Obama’s first three years and two months than it did during all eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

13) Agrees with Bush’s support of unconstitutional, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without filing any charges

In December 2011, ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero criticized Obama for signing a bill that gave the U.S. government the power toindefinitely detain U.S. citizens without any charges being filed or any trial taking place.

14) Agrees with Bush’s support of unconstitutional, warrantless wiretapping

President Obama has defended warrantless wiretapping.

15) Avoided prosecution of Wall. St criminals

Although Obama had promised to prosecute Wall St. criminals, during his entire first term, his administration did not file any criminal charges against any of the top financial executives.

16) Had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process

Obama had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process.

The ACLU accused Obama of violating the U.S. Constitution for doing this.

U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) said that Obama’s actions might be an impeachable offense.

17) Ordered private company to fire 1,000 employees

In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union.

18) Stole money from retired teachers and police officers

During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors. Some of these secured creditors were retired teachers and police officers from Indiana. Richard A. Epstein, a law professor at New York University School of Law, wrote, “Upsetting this fixed hierarchy among creditors is just an illegal taking of property from one group of creditors for the benefit of another, which should be struck down on both statutory and constitutional grounds.” Todd Zywicki, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, wrote that Obama’s treatment of secured creditors was “dangerous to the rule of law.” The Economist wrote that Obama’s actions could “establish a terrible precedent. Bankruptcy exists to sort legal claims on assets. If it becomes a tool of social policy, who will then lend to struggling firms in which the government has a political interest?” Francis Cianfrocca, the CEO of Bayshore Networks, wrote that Obama’s actions were “an astonishingly reckless abrogation of contract law that will introduce a new level of uncertainty into business transactions at all levels, and make wealth generation more difficult going forward… An extraordinary uncertainty has been created when the most powerful man in the world can rewrite contracts and choose winners and losers in private negotiations as he sees fit. Since this is an unquantifiable uncertainty, and not a quantifiable risk, its effect on business and investor confidence will be large and unpredictable. As in the 1930s, a time when government also cavalierly rewrote private contracts, the prudent approach for business will be to invest minimally and wait for another administration.”

19) Supported release of convicted mass murderer

In 2010, Obama supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (who had been convicted of murdering 270 people) from prison.

20) Illegally put thousands of guns into hands of criminals

In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.

21) Fired Inspector General for discovering that Obama’s friend had embezzled government funds

In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was “confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.” A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here.

22) Lied about putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN

Although Obama had made a campaign promise to have all of the health care reform negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN, he broke that promise after he was elected.

The secrecy of these negotiations was so strong that U.S. Congresswoman and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

23) Lied about letting people keep their health insurance

Before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people… If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Also before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:

“Here is a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance.”

However, after Obamacare was passed, the Congressional Budget Office said that the law would cause seven million people to lose their employer provided insurance.

After Obamacare was passed, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated

“… new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26… meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Also, after Obamacare was passed, the Franciscan University of Steubenville dropped its coverage in response to the law.

Universal Orlando dropped its coverage for part time employees in response to Obamacare.

In addition, after Obamacare was passed, Forbes reported

“The House Ways and Means Committee has released a new report that sheds light onto how Obamacare incentivizes companies to dump their workers onto the new law’s subsidized exchanges.”

Also after Obamacare was passed, MSN reported

“The Affordable Care Act mandate most commonly known as Obamacare has some tight stipulations that, CNN says, are forcing health care companies to rip up most of their current plans and draft new ones that comply. According to a University of Chicago study, just about half of the individual health care plans currently on the market won’t cut it once key provisions of the Affordable Care Act kick in next year.”

Furthermore, it was reported that Obamacare would cause 58,000 Aetna and UnitedHealth Group customers in California to lose their insurance.

In response to Obamacare, some employers have dropped coverage for their employees’ spouses.

The chain of Wegmans supermarkets cancelled the policies of its part time employees in response to Obamacare.

In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare

“will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits… these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable… we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans”

24) Lied about the cost of Obamacare

Before Obamacare was passed, Obama promised

“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.”

However, after Obama signed it, the Washington Post reported that it would add more than $340 billion to the budget deficit over the next decade.

In March 2012, the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, Obamacare would cost twice as much as what Obama had promised.

In May 2013, it was reported that Obamacare’s program for high risk patients was more expensive than what Obama had promised.

25) Gave tax dollars to campaign contributors and lobbyists, and falsely claimed the money was for “green energy”

In 2009 the Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company’s shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money onlobbying, and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.

It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra’s financial troubles. For example, according to the company’s security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product for less than the cost of production. In 2010, Obama visited the Solyndra factory and cited it as a role model for his stimulus program, saying “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” The Washington Post wrote of this, “Administration officials and outside advisers warned that President Obama should consider dropping plans to visit a solar startup company in 2010 because its mounting financial problems might ultimately embarrass the White House.” Solyndra was a private company, but had been planning to use its government loans as a means of going public – so when Obama knowingly overstated the company’s condition in order to help his friends at Solyndra, he broke the same law that Martha Stewart had been sent to prison for breaking.

In September 2011, federal agents visited the homes of Brian Harrison, the company’s CEO, and Chris Gronet, the company’s founder, to examine computer files and documents. Also in September 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department launched an investigation.

On September 13, 2011, the Washington Post reported on emails which showed that the Obama administration had tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory. The company was a hallmark of President Obama’s plan to support clean energy technologies.

The New York Times reported that government auditors and industry analysts had faulted the Obama administration for failing to properly evaluate the company’s business proposals, as well as for failing to take note of troubling signs which were already evident. In addition, Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, had found that the preliminary loan approval had been granted before officials had completed the legally mandated evaluations of the company.

The New York Times quoted Shyam Mehta, a senior analyst at GTM Research, as saying “There was just too much misplaced zeal at the Department of Energy for this company.” Among 143 companies that had expressed an interest in getting a loan guarantee, Solyndra was the first one to get approval. During the period when Solyndra’s loan guarantee was under review, the company had spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying. Tim Harris, the CEO of Solopower, a different solar panel company which had obtained a $197 million loan guarantee, told the New York Times that his company had never considered spending any money on lobbying, and that “It was made clear to us early in the process that that was clearly verboten… We were told that it was not only not helpful but it was not acceptable.”

The Washington Post reported that Solyndra had used some of the loan money to purchase new equipment which it never used, and then sold that new equipment, still in its plastic wrap, for pennies on the dollar. Former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn told the Washington Post, “After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right… Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy.”

On September 29, 2011, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had continued to allow Solyndra to receive taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan.

On October 7, 2011, The Washington Post reported that newly revealed emails showed that Energy Department officials had been warned that their plan to help Solyndra by restructuring the loan might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first. However, Energy Department officials moved ahead with the restructuring anyway, with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company were to default. The emails showed concerns within the Obama administration about the legality of the Energy Department’s actions. In addition, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, had pushed for the loan, despite having recused himself because his wife’s law firm had done work for the company.

In January 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had thrown millions of dollars’ worth of brand new glass tubes into garbage dumpsters, where they ended up being shattered. Solyndra told CBS that it had conducted an exhaustive search for buyers of the glass tubes, and that no one had wanted them. However, CBS discovered that Solyndra had not offered the glass tubes for sale at either one of its two asset auctions that took place in 2011. In addition, David Lucky, a buyer and seller of such equipment, told CBS that he would have bought the tubes if he had had a chance to do so. Greg Smestad, a solar scientist who had consulted for the Department of Energy, also agreed that the tubes had value, and had asked Solyndra to donate any unwanted tubes to Santa Clara University. Smestad stated, “That really makes me sad… Those tubes represent intellectual investment. These could have had a better value to do public good. I think they owed the U.S. taxpayer that.”

In April 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had left a substantial amount of toxic waste at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, California.

Solyndra was not the only “green energy” company involved in this type of fraud. After Obama gave Raser Technologies $33 million to build a power plant, the company declared bankruptcy, and owed $1.5 million in back taxes. After Obama gave Abound Solar, Inc. a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories, the company halted production and laid off 180 employees. After Obama gave Beacon Power a $43 million loan guarantee to build green energy storage, the company filed for bankruptcy. After Obama approved $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for Solar Trust of America so it could build solar power plants, the company filed for bankruptcy.

Although Obama stated that all of the “green energy” companies that received taxpayer money were chosen “based solely on their merits,” the truth is that 71% of these grants and loans went to Obama donors and fundraisers, who raised $457,834 for his campaign, and were later approved for grants and loans totaling more than $11 billion. By November 2011, the Energy Department’s inspector general had begun more than 100 criminal investigations related to Obama’s stimulus. Although an “independent” review said that Obama had not done anything wrong, it was later reported that Herbert M. Allison Jr., the person who had conducted this “independent” review, donated $52,500 to Obama’s campaign.

keep reading here.

 

 

pollen-burst-berry-burst