Natural Cancer Cure? Man Cures Himself Then Thrown In Jail (YOU CAN'T CALL IT A CURE)

Video:  Natural Cancer Cure? Man Cures Himself Then Thrown In Jail ( YOU CAN'T CALL IT A CURE )

Beating the Odds - Part One

Nevada Law Would Make 'Pot for Pets' Legal

^{Medical marijuana is dispensed at the Takoma Wellness Center, Oct. 10, 2014, in Takoma Park, DC.}

 

^{Evelyn Hockstein/The Washington Post/Getty Images}

^{ABC Health News  - Mar 18, 2015, 1:54 PM ET  -  By LIZ NEPORENT – Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet (JOMP)  and True Health Is True Wealth (THITW)}

A new bill introduced in the Nevada state legislature earlier this week would allow owners to give their ailing pets medical marijuana. Many owners across the country said it’s about time, and that “pot for pets” should be legal everywhere.

^{Becky Flowers, a California ranch owner, said she gave her mare Phoenix regular doses of medical marijuana for several years to help ease the pain of a degenerative joint condition. The horse could barely walk due to extreme swelling in her front legs that traditional and herbal medications didn’t seem to help, Flowers said.}

^{“She would lay there for days and she wouldn’t eat or drink,” Flowers told ABC News.}

^{Flowers said she considered having the animal euthanized but decided as a last ditch effort to give her some of marijuana legally prescribed to her husband who is a paraplegic. In less than an hour, the horse was up and moving, Flowers said.}  

^{PHOTO: Becky Flowers gave her horse Phoenix, right, medical marijuana to help ease the pain of a chronic joint condition.}

^{Flowers began giving Phoenix about a tablespoon of medical marijuana in oil every day, she said, noting that the horse lived largely pain-free for two more years before dying in her late twenties. Since then, Flowers has given marijuana to some of her other horses and has recommended it to other horse owners as well.}

^{Medical marijuana does show some promise for easing the pain and suffering in animals, but veterinarians and owners should proceed with caution, said Dr. Robert Silver, president of the veterinary botanical medical association.}

^{“There needs to be a lot more research and education taking place before we introduce this to pets,” Silver said, who is a veterinarian in Colorado, a state where both medical and recreational marijuana are legal for people.}

^{Studies show that dogs in particular react differently than humans to THC, one of marijuana’s active ingredients, Silver said. Because they have a high concentration of THC receptors in the back of their brains, they are susceptible to severe neurologic effects and toxic reactions, he added. States where medical or recreational use is legal have seen an increase in canine emergency room admissions associated with the drug, Silver said.}

^{The American Veterinary Medical Association does not have an official stance on the use of medical marijuana with pets but suggests that vets make treatment decisions based on sound clinical judgment that stay in compliance with the law. They note that even in states where medical marijuana is legal, it is still a Class I narcotic under federal law which means vets are not legally allowed to prescribe it to their patients.}

^{If passed, the Nevada law would allow animal owners to get marijuana for their pet if a veterinarian certifies the animal has an illness that might be helped by the drug. The proposal is in its earliest stages and faces numerous legislative hurdles before it could become law. It’s part of a larger bill that would refine the state’s existing medical marijuana law by clarifying penalties for drivers under the influence and allowing the resale of marijuana dispensaries.}

**My question is how about Hemp CBD Oil, verses THC oils or marijuana. CBD Hemp Oil (HCHO) is obtained from select strains of CBD rich hemp grown legally worldwide. But always consult your veterinarian. 

Interestingly, cannabis smoking is associated with a 45% reduced risk of bladder cancer in humans and a 47-62% reduced rate of head and neck cancer, regardless of whether or not they had been infected with HPV.  And using hemp oils increases the survival success rate of treatments like chemotherapy and radiation by 25%. JOMP~

Veterinarian Administers Medical Marijuana To Dogs, Says It Works Wonders

More Dogs (and Cats) Getting High, Sick and Fat In States Where Marijuana Is Legal

Canada marijuana growers use wild bears to guard pot

Medical marijuana and the positive effects of hemp oil are a great breakthrough, help and blessing for many… humans and animals with a large variety of illnesses, including Cancer.  But widespread legal recreational marijuana use, perhaps not so much…

George Soros’ Latest Crusade: Legalizing Marijuana in the U.S.

THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA

Doctors Are Easily Offended…

By Marion Algier – THITW/AskMarion

I saw this in our local paper and laughed out loud while simultaneously feeling a twinge inside.  I just asked my gynecological oncologist a few questions about what I thought was a scary ‘next phase’ of treatment for my Cancer. And after having missed by ‘big” next step appointment because of an emergency, she has not called, emailed or rescheduled my appointment.  She had her NP respond to approximately 15 questions I had posed via email, since she missed my appointment, and her response was:

It does not matter why your lymph nodes are swollen.

If the goal is a cure then you need to have the proposed radiation treatment plan.

And perhaps you should get a second opinion, which might help you in your discussion with the (her) hospital radiation oncologist teammate.

Saturday 3/14/2015 Pearls Before Swine Comic Strip

America’s Drug Story and the Rockefeller Empire

 “We Are Living Too Short and Dying Too Long”.

…Dr. Myron Wentz, founder, chairman, and CEO of USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: USNA) and Sanoviv Medical Center, honored with the Albert Einstein Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Life Sciences.

 

By Marion Algier – AskMarion/THITW

The Drug Story

"The truth about cures without drugs is suppressed, unless it suits the purpose of the censor to garble it. Whether these cures are effected by chiropractors, Naturopaths, Naprapaths, Osteopaths, Faith Healers, Spiritualists, Herbalists, Christian Scientists, or MDs who use the brains they have, you never read about it in the big newspapers."  ...Morris A. Bealle

In the 30's, Morris A. Bealle, a former city editor of the old Washington Times and Herald, was running a county seat newspaper, in which the local power company bought a large advertisement every week. This account took quite a lot of worry off Bealle' s shoulders when the bills came due. But according to Bealle's own story, one day the paper took up the cudgels for some of its readers that were being given poor service from the power company, and Morris Bealle received the dressing down of his life from the advertising agency which handled the power company' s account. They told him that any more such 'stepping out of line' would result in the immediate cancellation not only of the advertising contract, but also of the gas company and the telephone company.

That' s when Bealle' s eyes were opened to the meaning of a 'free press', and he decided to get out of the newspaper business. He could afford to do that because he belonged to the landed gentry of Maryland, but not all newspaper editors are that lucky.

Bealle used his professional experience to do some deep digging into the freedom-of-the-press situation and came up with two shattering exposes - The Drug Story, and The House of Rockefeller. The fact that in spite of his familiarity with the editorial world and many important personal contacts he couldn't get his revelations into print until he founded his own company, The Columbia Publishing House, Washington D.C., in 1949, was just a prime example of the silent but adamant censorship in force in 'the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave'. Although The Drug Story is one of the most important books on health and politics ever to appear in the USA, it has never been admitted to a major bookstore nor reviewed by any establishment paper, and was sold exclusively by mail until the 1970s,  when we first got to read it. But nevertheless, it was already in its 33rd printing, under a different label - Biworld Publishers, Orem, Utah.

As Bealle pointed out, a business which makes 6% on its invested capital is considered a sound money maker. Sterling Drug, Inc., the main cog and largest holding company in the Rockefeller Drug Empire and its 68 subsidiaries, showed operating profits in 1961 of $23,463,719 after taxes, on net assets of $43,108,106 - a 54% profit. Squibb, another Rockefeller controlled company, in 1945 made not 6% but 576% on the actual value of its property.

That was during the luscious war years when the Army Surgeon General's Office and the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery were not only acting as promoters for the Drug Trust, but were actually forcing drug trust poisons into the blood streams of American soldiers, sailors and marines, to the tune of over 200 million 'shots'. Is it any wonder, asked Bealle, that the Rockefellers, and their stooges in the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Public Health Service, the Federal Trade Commission, the Better Business Bureau, the Army Medical Corps, the Navy Bureau of Medicine, and thousands of health officers all over the country, should combine to put out of business all forms of therapy that discourage the use of drugs.

'The last annual report of the Rockefeller Foundation', reported Bealle (in the early 1970’s), 'itemizes the gifts [grants] it has made to colleges and public agencies in the past 44 years, and they total somewhat over half a billion dollars. These colleges, of course, teach their students all the drug lore the Rockefeller pharmaceutical houses want taught. Otherwise there would be no more gifts, just as there are no gifts to any of the 30 odd colleges in the United States that don't use therapies based on drugs.

'Harvard, with its well publicized medical school, has received $8,764,433 of Rockefeller's Drug Trust money, Yale got $7 ,927,800, Johns Hopkins $10,418,531, Washington University in St. Louis $2,842,132, New York's Columbia University $5,424,371, Cornell University $1,709,072, ete., etc.'

And while 'giving away' those huge sums to drug propagandizing colleges, the Rockefeller interests were growing to a world-wide web that no one could entirely explore. Already well over 30 years ago it was large enough for Bealle to demonstrate that the Rockefeller interests had created, built up and developed the most far reaching industrial empire ever conceived in the mind of man. Standard Oil was of course the foundation upon which all of the other Rockefeller industries have been built. The story of Old John D., as ruthless an industrial pirate as ever came down the pike, is well known, but is being today conveniently ignored. The keystone of this mammoth industrial empire was the Chase NationaI Bank, now renamed the Chase Manhattan Bank.

Not the least of its holdings are in the drug business. The Rockefellers own the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world, and use all of their other interests to bring pressure to increase the sale of drugs. The fact that most of the 12,000 separate drug items on the market are harmful is of no concern to the Drug Trust...

The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund. An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to supplement the General Education Fund, was formed in 1910 and through long finagling and lots of Rockefeller money got the New York legislature to issue a charter on May 14, 1913.

It is therefore not surprising that the House of Rockefeller has had its own 'nominees' planted in all Federal agencies that have to do with health. So the stage was set for the 'education' of the American public, with a view to turning it into a population of drug and medico dependents, with the early help of the parents and the schools, then with direct advertising and, last but not least, the influence the advertising revenues had on the media makers.

A compilation of the magazine Advertising Age showed that as far back as 1948 the larger companies in America spent for advertising the sum total of $1,104,224,374, when the dollar was still worth a dollar and not half a zloty. Of this staggering sum the interlocking Rockefeller-Morgan interests (gone over entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan' s death) controlled about 80 percent, and utilized it to manipulate public information on health and drug matters - then and even more recklessly now.

'Even the most independent newspapers are dependent on their press associations for their national news,' Bealle pointed out, 'and there is no reason for a news editor to suspect that a story coming over the wires of the Associated Press, the United Press or the International News Service is censored when it concerns health matters. Yet this is what happens constantly.'

In fact in the '50s the Drug Trust had one of its directors on the directorate of the Associated Press. He was no less than Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and as such one of the most powerful Associated Press directors.

It was thus easy for the Rockefeller Trust to persuade the Associated Press Science Editor to adopt a policy which would not permit any medical news to clear that is not approved by the Drug Trust 'expert', and this censor is not going to approve any item that can in any way hurt the sale of drugs.

This accounts to this day for the many fake stories of serums and medical cures and just-around-the-corner breakthrough victories over cancer, AIDS, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, which go out brazenly over the wires to all daily newspapers in America and abroad.

Emanuel M. Josephson, M.D., whom the Drug Trust has been unable to intimidate despite many attempts, pointed out that the National Association of Science Writers was 'persuaded' to adopt as part of its code of ethics the following chestnut: 'Science editors are incapable of judging the facts of phenomena involved in medical and scientific discovery. Therefore, they only report 'discoveries' approved by medical authorities, or those presented before a body of scientific peers.'

This explains why Bantam Books, America's biggest publisher, made a colossal mistake in its initial enthusiasm and optimism sending review copies of  SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT to the 3,500 'science writers' on its list, instead of addressing them to the literary book reviewers who are not  subject to medical censorship. One single censor decreed NO and SLAUGHTER OF  THE INNOCENT sank in silence.

Thus newspapers continue to be fed with propaganda about drugs and their alleged value, although according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1.5 million people landed in hospitals in 1978 because of medication side effects in the U.S. alone, and despite recurrent statements by intelligent and courageous medical men that most pharmaceutical items on sale are useless at best, but more often harmful or deadly in the long run.

The truth about cures without drugs is suppressed, unless it suits the purpose of the censor to garble it. Whether these cures are effected by Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Naprapaths, Osteopaths, Faith Healers, Spiritualists, Herbalists, Christian Scientists, or MDs who use the brains they have, you never read about it in the big newspapers.

To teach the Rockefeller drug ideology, it is necessary to teach that Nature didn't know what she was doing when she made the human body. But statistics issued by the Children's Bureau of the Federal Security Agency show that since the all-out drive of the Drug Trust for drugging, vaccinating and serumizing the human system, the health of the American nation has sharply declined, especially among children. Children are now given 'shots' for this and 'shots' for that, when the only safeguard known to science is a pure bloodstream, which can be obtained only with clean air and wholesome food. Meaning by natural and inexpensive means. Just what the Drug Trust most objects to.

When the FDA, whose officials have to be acceptable to Rockefeller Center before they are appointed, has to put an independent operator out of business, it goes all out to execute those orders. But the orders do not come directly from Standard Oil or a drug house director. As Morris Bealle pointed out, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the front for the Drug Trust, and furnishes the quack doctors to testify that even when they know nothing of the product involved, it is their considered opinion that it has no therapeutic value.

Wrote Bealle:

'Financed by the taxpayers, these Drug Trust persecutions leave no stone unturned to destroy the victim. If he is a small operator, the resulting attorney's fees and court costs put him out of business. In one case, a Dr. Adolphus Hohensee of Scranton, Pa., who had stated that vitamins (he used natural ones) were vital to good health, was taken to court for 'misbranding' his product. The American Medical Association furnished ten medicos who reversed all known medical theories by testifying that 'vitamins are not necessary to the human body'. Confronted with government bulletins to the contrary, the medicos wiggled out of that one by declaring that these standard publications were outdated!'

In addition to the FDA, Bealle listed the following agencies having to do with 'health' - i.e., with the health of the Drug Trust to the detriment of the citizens - as being dependent on Rockefeller: U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Veterans Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Surgeon General of the Air Force, Army Surgeon General' s Office, Navy Bureau of Medicine & Surgery, National Health Research Institute, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Sciences in Washington is considered the all wise body which investigates everything under the sun, especially in the field of health, and gives to a palpitating public the last word in that science. To the important post at the head of this agency, the Drug Trust had one of their own appointed. He was none other than Alfred N. Richards, one of the directors and largest stockholders of Merck & Company, which was making huge profits from its drug traffic.

When Bealle revealed this fact, Richards resigned forthwith, and the Rockefellers appointed in his place the President of their own Rockefeller Institution, Detlev W. Bronk.

The medico drug cartel was summed up by J.W Hodge, M.D., of Niagara Falls,  N.Y., in these words:   'The medical monopoly or medical trust, euphemistically called the American Medical Association, is not merely the meanest monopoly ever organized, but the most arrogant, dangerous and despotic organization which ever managed a free people in this or any other age. Any and all methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders of the AMA doctors' trust as fakes, frauds and humbugs.  Every practitioner of the healing art who does not ally himself with the medical trust is denounced as a 'dangerous quack' and impostor by the predatory trust doctors. Every sanitarium who attempts to restore the sick to a state of health by natural means without resort to the knife or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and persecuted to the fullest extent.'

The Lincoln Chiropractic College in Indianapolis requires 4,496 hours, the Palmer Institute Chiropractic in Davenport a minimum of 4,000 60 minute classroom hours, the University of Natural Healing Arts in Denver five years of 1,000 hours each to qualify for a degree. The National College of Naprapathy in Chicago requires 4,326 classroom hours for graduation. Yet the medico drug cartel spreads the propaganda that the practitioners of these three 'heretic' sciences are poorly trained or not trained at all - the real reason being that they cure their patients without the use of drugs. In 1958, one of those 'ill trained' doctors, Nicholas P. Grimaldi, who had just graduated from the Lincoln Chiropractic College, took the basic science examination of the Connecticut State Board along with 63 medics and osteopaths. He made the highest mark (91.6) ever made by a doctor taking the Connecticut State Board examination.

Rockefeller' s various 'educational' activities had proved so profitable in the U S. that in 1927 the International Educational Board was launched, as Junior' s own, personal charity, and endowed with $21,000,000 for a starter, to be lavished on foreign universities and politicos, with all the usual strings attached. This Board undertook to export the 'new' Rockefeller image as a benefactor of mankind, as well as his business practices. Nobody informed the beneficiaries that every penny the Rockefellers seemed to be throwing out the window would come back, bearing substantial interest, through the front door.

Rockefeller had always had a particular interest in China, where Standard Oil was almost the sole supplier of kerosene and oil 'for the lamps of China'. So he put up money to establish the China Medical Board and to build the Peking Union Medical College, playing the role of the Great White Father who has come to dispense knowledge on his lowly children. The Rockefeller Foundation invested up to $45,000,000 into 'westernizing' (read corrupting) Chinese medicine.

Medical colleges were instructed that if they wished to benefit from the Rockefeller largesse they had better convince 500 million Chinese to throw into the ashcan the safe and useful but inexpensive herbal remedies of their barefoot doctors, which had withstood the test of centuries, in favor of the expensive carcinogenic and teratogenic 'miracle' drugs Made in USA, which had to be replaced constantly with new ones, when the fatal side effects could no longer be concealed; and if they couldn't 'demonstrate' through large-scale animal experiments the effectiveness of their ancient  acupuncture, this could not be recognized as having any 'scientific value'. Its millenarian effectiveness proven on human beings was of no concern to the Western wizards.

But when the Communists came to power in China and it was no longer possible to trade, the Rockefellers suddenly lost interest in the health of the Chinese people and shifted their attention increasingly to Japan, India and Latin America.

'No candid study of his career can lead to other conclusion than that he is victim of perhaps the ugliest of all passions, that for money, money as an end. It is not a pleasant picture.... this money maniac secretly, patiently, eternally plotting how he may add to his wealth.... He has turned commerce to war, and honey-combed it with cruel and corrupt practices.... And he calls his great organization a benefaction, and points to his church-going and charities as proof of his righteousness. This is supreme wrong-doing cloaked by religion. There is but one name for it - hypocrisy. '

This was the description Ida Tarbell made of John D. Rockefeller in her 'History of the Standard Oil Company', serialized in 1905 in the widely circulated McClure's Magazine. And that was several years before the 'Ludlow Massacre', so JDR was as yet far from having reached the apex of his  disrepute. But after World War II it would have been hard to read, in America or abroad, a single criticism of JDR, nor of Junior, who had followed in his father' s footsteps, nor of Junior' s four sons who all endeavored to emulate their illustrious forbears. Today's various encyclopedias extant in public libraries of the Western world have nothing but praise for the Family. How was this achieved?

Ironically, the two apparently most NEGATIVE events in the career of JDR brought about a huge POSITIVE change in his favor, to a degree that he himself could not foresee. To wit:

In the year when according to the current Encyclopedia Britanica (long become a Rockefeller property and transferred from Oxford to Chicago), Rockefeller had 'retired from active business', namely in 1911, he had been convicted by a U.S. court of illegal practices and ordered to dissolve the Standard Oil Trust, which comprised 40 corporations. This imposed dissolution was to provide his Empire with added might, to a degree that was unprecedented in the history of modem business. Until then, the Trust had existed for all to see - an exposed target. After that, it went underground, and thereby its power was cloaked in security, and could keep expanding unseen and therefore unopposed.

The Ludlow Massacre

The second apparently negative experience was a certain 1914 event that persuaded JDR, until then utterly contemptuous of public opinion, to gloss over his own image.

The United Mine Workers had asked for higher wages and better living conditions for the miners of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, one of the many Rockefeller owned companies.

The miners - mostly immigrants from Europe's poorest countries - lived in shacks provided by the company at exorbitant rent. Their low wages ($1.68 a day) were paid in script redeemable only at company stores charging high prices. The churches they attended were the pastorates of company-hired ministers; their children were taught in company-controlled schools; the company libraries excluded books that the Bible-thumping Rockefellers deemed 'subversive', such as 'Darwin's Origin of the Species.' The company maintained a force of detectives, mine guards, and spies whose job it was to keep the camp quarantined from the danger of unionization.

When the miners struck, JDR, Jr., then officially in command of the company, and his father's hatchet man, the Baptist Reverend Frederick T. Gates, who was a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, refused even to negotiate. They evicted the strikers from the company-owned shacks, hired a thousand strike-breakers from the Baldwin-Felts detective agency, and persuaded Governor Ammons to call out the National Guard to help break the strike.

Open warfare resulted. Guardsmen, miners, their women and children, who since their eviction were camping in tents, were ruthlessly killed, until the frightened Governor wired President Wilson for Federal Troops, who eventually crushed the strike, The New York Times, which then already could never be accused of being unfriendly to the Rockefeller interests, reported on April 21, 1914.

'A 14 hour battle between striking coal miners and members of the Colorado National Guard in the Ludlow district today culminated in the killing of Louis Tikas, leader of the Greek strikers, and the destruction of the Ludlow tent colony by fire.'

  And the following day.

'Forty five dead (32 of them women and children), a score missing and more than a score wounded is the known result of the 14 hour battle which raged between state troops and coal miners in the Ludlow district, on the property of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, the Rockefeller holding. The Ludlow is a mass of charred debris, and buried beneath it is a story of horror unparalleled in the history of industrial warfare. In the holes that had been dug for their protection against rifle fire, the women and children died like trapped rats as the flames swept over them. One pit uncovered this afternoon disclosed the bodies of ten children and two women.'

The worldwide revulsion that followed was such that JDR decided to hire the most talented press agent in the country, Ivy Lee, who got the tough assignment of whitewashing the tycoon' s bloodied image.

When Lee learned that the newly organized Rockefeller Foundation had $100 million lying around for promotional purposes without knowing what to do with it, he came with a plan to donate large sums - none less than a million- to well known colleges, hospitals, churches and benevolent organizations. The plan was accepted. So were the millions. And they made headlines all over the world, for in the days of the gold standard and the five cent cigar there was a maxim in every newspaper office that a million dollars was always news.

That was the beginning of the cleverly worded medical reports on new 'miracle' drugs and 'just-around-the-corner breakthroughs' planted in the leading news offices and press associations that continue to this day, and the flighty public soon forgot, or forgave, the massacre of foreign immigrants for the dazzling display of generosity and philanthropy financed by the ballooning Rockefeller fortune and going out, with thunderous press fanfare, to various 'worthy' institutions.

In the following years, not only newsmen, but whole newspapers were bought, financed or founded with Rockefeller money. So Time Magazine, which Henry Luce started in 1923, had been taken over by J.P. Morgan when the magazine got into financial difficulties. When Morgan died and his financial empire crumbled, the House of Rockefeller wasted no time in taking over this lush editorial plum also, together with its sisters Fortune and Life, and built for them an expensive 14 story home of their own in Rockefeller Center - the Time & Life Building.

Rockefeller was also co-owner of Time's 'rival' magazine, Newsweek, which had been established in the early days of the New Deal with money put up by Rockefeller, Vincent Astor, the Harrimann family and other members and allies of the House.

For all his innate cynicism, JDR must have been himself surprised to discover how easily the so-called intellectuals could be bought. Indeed, they turned out to be among his best investments.

By founding and lavishly endowing his Education Boards at home and abroad, Rockefeller won control not only of the governments and politicos but also of the intellectual and scientific community, starting with the Medical Power - the organization that forms those priests of the New Religion that are the modern medicine men. No Pulitzer or Nobel or any similar prize endowed with money and prestige has ever been awarded to a declared foe of the Rockefeller system.

Henry Luce, officially founder and editor of Time Magazine, but constantly dependent on House advertising, also distinguished himself in his adulation of his sponsors. JDR's son had been responsible for the Ludlow massacre, and an obedient partner in his father' s most unsavory actions. Nonetheless, in 1956 Henry Luce put Junior on the cover of Time, and the feature story, soberly titled 'The Good Man', included hyperbole like this:

'It is because John D. Rockefeller Junior's is a life of constructive social giving that he ranks as an authentic American hero, just as certainly as any general who ever won a victory for an American army or any statesman who triumphed in behalf of U.S. diplomacy.'

Clearly, Time's editorial board wasn't given the choice to change its tune even after the passing of Junior and Henry Luce, since it remained just as dependent on House of Rockefeller advertising. Thus, when in 1979 one of Junior's sons, Nelson A. Rockefeller died - who had been one of the loudest hawks in the Vietnam and other American wars, and was personally responsible for the massacre of prisoners and hostages at Attica prison - Time said of him in it obituary, without laughing:    'He was driven by a mission to serve, improve and uplift his country.'

Perhaps it was all this that Prof. Peter Singer had in mind when telling the judges in Italy that the Rockefeller Foundation was a humanitarian enterprise bent on doing good works. One of their best works seems to be sponsoring Prof. Peter Singer, the world's greatest animal friend and protector who claims that vivisection is indispensable for medical progress and for more than 20 years refuses to mention that legions of medical doctors are of the opposite view.

Another interesting revelation in the article of Time was that many years ago already Singer 'was pleasantly surprised when Britanica approached him to distill in about 30,000 words the discipline that is, at its heart, the systematic study of what we ought to do.' So now we touch the subject of sponsorship and patronage. They don't always mean immediate cash but, more important, long-term profits.

Many decades ago the Encyclopedia Britannica moved from Oxford to Chicago because Rockefeller had bought it to add much needed luster to the University of Chicago and its medical school, the first one he had founded. Peter Singer, 'the world's greatest animal defender' who keeps a door permanently open to vivisection and the lucrative medical swindle, gets millions of dollars free publicity thanks to the worldwide engagement of the Rockefeller Foundation and the media makers who are in no position to oppose it.

From the article in Time we also learned that Singer' s mother had been a medical doctor in the old country, which could mean that little Peter started assimilating all the Rockefeller superstition on vivisection with his mother's milk.

Taken from the CIVIS Foundation Report number 15, Fall-Winter 1993

CIVIS: POB 152, Via Motta 51-CH 6900, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland

Originally web posted at: http://www.eurosolve.com/charity/bava/story.htm

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG EMPIRE (Overview)

(Part II)

The Drug Story: By Hans Ruesch, although an older publication is definitely worth a read if you haven’t read it or don’t know the history!)

Also, please beware that the Insurance Companies, the Drug Companies and the Progressives in our Government are all Behind ObamaCare!!  Ask yourself why you (average Americans) should not be running the other way?!? Whenever the Federal Government and members of the Progressive movement are involved individuals and freedom lose!!

As Bealle pointed out, in his piece ‘The Drug Story’ (above), a business which makes 6% on its invested capital is considered a sound money maker. Sterling Drug, Inc., the main cog and largest holding company in the Rockefeller Drug Empire and its 68 subsidiaries, showed operating profits in 1961 of $23,463,719 after taxes, on net assets of $43,108,106 - a 54% profit. Squibb, another Rockefeller-controlled company, in 1945 made not 6% but 576% on the actual value of its property.

That was during the luscious war years when the Army Surgeon General's Office and the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery were not only acting as promoters for the Drug Trust, but were actually forcing drug trust poisons into the blood streams of American soldiers, sailors and marines, to the tune of over 200 million 'shots'. Is it any wonder, asked Bealle, that the Rockefellers, and their stooges in the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S.

Public Health Service, the Federal Trade Commission, the Better Business Bureau, the Army Medical Corps, the Navy Bureau of Medicine, and thousands of health officers all over the country, should combine to put out of business all forms of therapy that discourage the use of drugs.

"The last annual report of the Rockefeller Foundation", reported Bealle, "itemizes the gifts it has made to colleges and public agencies in the past 44 years, and they total somewhat over half a billion dollars. These colleges, of course, teach their students all the drug lore the Rockefeller pharmaceutical houses want taught. Otherwise there would be no more gifts, just as there are no gifts to any of the 30 odd colleges in the United States that don't use therapies based on drugs.

"Harvard, with its well-publicized medical school, has received $8,764,433 of Rockefeller's Drug Trust money, Yale got $7 ,927,800, Johns Hopkins $10,418,531, Washington University in St. Louis $2,842,132, New York's Columbia University $5,424,371, Cornell University $1,709,072, etc., etc."

And while "giving away" those huge sums to drug-propagandizing colleges, the Rockefeller interests were growing to a world-wide web that no one could entirely explore. Already well over 30 years ago it was large enough for Bealle to demonstrate that the Rockefeller interests had created, built up and developed the most far reaching industrial empire ever conceived in the mind of man. Standard Oil was of course the foundation upon which all of the other Rockefeller industries have been built. The story of Old John D., as ruthless an industrial pirate as ever came down the pike, is well known, but is being today conveniently ignored. The keystone of this mammoth industrial empire was the Chase National Bank, now renamed the Chase Manhattan Bank.

Not the least of its holdings are in the drug business. The Rockefellers own the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world, and use all of their other interests to bring pressure to increase the sale of drugs. The fact that most of the 12,000 separate drug items on the market are harmful is of no concern to the Drug Trust...

The Rockefeller Foundation

The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund. An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to supplement the General Education Fund, was formed in 1910 and through long finagling and lots of Rockefeller money got the New York legislature to issue a charter on May 14, 1913.

It is therefore not surprising that the House of Rockefeller has had its own "nominees" planted in all Federal agencies that have to do with health. So the stage was set for the "education" of the American public, with a view to turning it into a population of drug and medico dependents, with the early help of the parents and the schools, then with direct advertising and, last but not least, the influence the advertising revenues had on the media-makers.

A compilation of the magazine Advertising Age showed that as far back as 1948 the larger companies in America spent for advertising the sum total of $1,104,224,374, when the dollar was still worth a dollar and not half a zloty. Of this staggering sum the interlocking Rockefeller-Morgan interests (gone over entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan's death) controlled about 80 percent, and utilized it to manipulate public information on health and drug matters - then and even more recklessly now.

Censorship

"Even the most independent newspapers are dependent on their press associations for their national news," Bealle pointed out, "and there is no reason for a news editor to suspect that a story coming over the wires of the Associated Press, the United Press or the International News Service is censored when it concerns health matters. Yet this is what happens constantly."

In fact in the 50s the Drug Trust had one of its directors on the directorate of the Associated Press. He was no less than Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and as such one of the most powerful Associated Press directors.

It was thus easy for the Rockefeller Trust to persuade the Associated Press Science Editor to adopt a policy which would not permit any medical news to clear that is not approved by the Drug Trust "expert", and this censor is not going to approve any item that can in any way hurt the sale of drugs.

This accounts to this day for the many fake stories of serums and medical cures and just-around-the-corner breakthrough victories over cancer, AIDS, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, which go out brazenly over the wires to all daily newspapers in America and abroad.

Emanuel M. Josephson, M.D., whom the Drug Trust has been unable to intimidate despite many attempts, pointed out that the National Association of Science Writers was "persuaded" to adopt as part of its code of ethics the following chestnut: "Science editors are incapable of judging the facts of phenomena involved in medical and scientific discovery. Therefore, they only report 'discoveries' approved by medical authorities, or those presented before a body of scientific peers."

This explains why Bantam Books, America's biggest publisher, made a colossal mistake in its initial enthusiasm and optimism sending review copies of SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT to the 3,500 "science writers" on its list, instead of addressing them to the literary book reviewers who are not subject to medical censorship. One single censor decreed NO and SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT sank in silence.

Thus newspapers continue to be fed with propaganda about drugs and their alleged value, although according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1.5 million people landed in hospitals in 1978 because of medication side effects in the U.S. alone, and despite recurrent statements by intelligent and courageous medical men that most pharmaceutical items on sale are useless at best, but more often harmful or deadly in the long run.

The truth about cures without drugs is suppressed, unless it suits the purpose of the censor to garble it. Whether these cures are effected by Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Naprapaths, Osteopaths, Faith Healers, Spiritualists, Herbalists, Christian Scientists, or MDs who use the brains they have, you never read about it in the big newspapers.

To teach the Rockefeller drug ideology, it is necessary to teach that Nature didn't know what she was doing when she made the human body. But statistics issued by the Children's Bureau of the Federal Security Agency show that since the all-out drive of the Drug Trust for drugging, vaccinating and serumizing the human system, the health of the American nation has sharply declined, especially among children. Children are now given "shots" for this and "shots" for that, when the only safeguard known to science is a pure bloodstream, which can be obtained only with clean air and wholesome food. Meaning by natural and inexpensive means. Just what the Drug Trust most objects to.

When the FDA, whose officials have to be acceptable to Rockefeller Center before they are appointed, has to put an independent operator out of business, it goes all out to execute those orders. But the orders do not come directly from Standard Oil or a drug house director. As Morris Bealle pointed out, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the front for the Drug Trust, and furnishes the quack doctors to testify that even when they know nothing of the product involved, it is their considered opinion that it has no therapeutic value.

Persecution

Wrote Bealle:

"Financed by the taxpayers, these Drug Trust persecutions leave no stone unturned to destroy the victim. If he is a small operator, the resulting attorney's fees and court costs put him out of business. In one case, a Dr. Adolphus Hohensee of Scranton, Pa., who had stated that vitamins (he used natural ones) were vital to good health, was taken to court for 'misbranding' his product. The American Medical Association furnished ten medicos who reversed all known medical theories by testifying that 'vitamins are not necessary to the human body'. Confronted with government bulletins to the contrary, the medicos wiggled out of that one by declaring that these standard publications were outdated!"

In addition to the FDA, Bealle listed the following agencies having to do with "health" - i.e., with the health of the Drug Trust to the detriment of the citizens - as being dependent on Rockefeller: U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Veterans Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Surgeon General of the Air Force, Army Surgeon General's Office, Navy Bureau of Medicine & Surgery, National Health Research Institute, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Sciences in Washington is considered the all-wise body which investigates everything under the sun, especially in the field of health, and gives to a palpitating public the last word in that science. To the important post at the head of this agency, the Drug Trust had one of their own appointed. He was none other than Alfred N. Richards, one of the directors and largest stockholders of Merck & Company, which was making huge profits from its drug traffic.

When Bealle revealed this fact, Richards resigned forthwith, and the Rockefellers appointed in his place the President of their own Rockefeller Institution, Detlev W. Bronk.

America's Medico-Drug Cartel

The medico-drug cartel was summed up by J.W Hodge, M.D., of Niagara Falls, N.Y., in these words:

"The medical monopoly or medical trust, euphemistically called the American Medical Association, is not merely the meanest monopoly ever organized, but the most arrogant, dangerous and despotic organization which ever managed a free people in this or any other age. Any and all methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders of the AMA doctors' trust as fakes, frauds and humbugs.

Every practitioner of the healing art who does not ally himself with the medical trust is denounced as a 'dangerous quack' and impostor by the predatory trust doctors. Every sanitarian who attempts to restore the sick to a state of health by natural means without resort to the knife or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and persecuted to the fullest extent."

The Lincoln Chiropractic College in Indianapolis requires 4,496 hours, the Palmer Institute Chiropractic in Davenport a minimum of 4,000 60-minute classroom hours, the University of Natural Healing Arts in Denver five years of 1,000 hours each to qualify for a degree. The National College of Nephropathy in Chicago requires 4,326 classroom hours for graduation. Yet the medico-drug cartel spreads the propaganda that the practitioners of these three "heretic" sciences are poorly trained or not trained at all - the real reason being that they cure their patients without the use of drugs. In 1958, one of those "ill-trained" doctors, Nicholas P. Grimaldi, who had just graduated from the Lincoln Chiropractic College, took the basic science examination of the Connecticut State Board along with 63 medics and osteopaths. He made the highest mark (91.6) ever made by a doctor taking the Connecticut State Board examination.

Colonization

Rockefeller's various "educational" activities had proved so profitable in the U S. that in 1927 the International Educational Board was launched, as Junior's own, personal charity, and endowed with $21,000,000 for a starter, to be lavished on foreign universities and politicos, with all the usual strings attached. This Board undertook to export the "new" Rockefeller image as a benefactor of mankind, as well as his business practices. Nobody informed the beneficiaries that every penny the Rockefellers seemed to be throwing out the window would come back, bearing substantial interest, through the front door.

Rockefeller had always had a particular interest in China, where Standard Oil was almost the sole supplier of kerosene and oil "for the lamps of China". So he put up money to establish the China Medical Board and to build the Peking Union Medical College, playing the role of the Great White Father who has come to dispense knowledge on his lowly children. The Rockefeller Foundation invested up to $45,000,000 into "westernizing" (read corrupting) Chinese medicine.

Medical colleges were instructed that if they wished to benefit from the Rockefeller largesse they had better convince 500 million Chinese to throw into the ashcan the safe and useful but inexpensive herbal remedies of their barefoot doctors, which had withstood the test of centuries, in favor of the expensive carcinogenic and teratogenic "miracle" drugs Made in USA, which had to be replaced constantly with new ones, when the fatal side-effects could no longer be concealed; and if they couldn't "demonstrate" through large- scale animal experiments the effectiveness of their ancient acupuncture, this could not be recognized as having any "scientific value". Its millenarian effectiveness proven on human beings was of no concern to the Western wizards.

But when the Communists came to power in China and it was no longer possible to trade, the Rockefellers suddenly lost interest in the health of the Chinese people and shifted their attention increasingly to Japan, India and Latin America.

The Image

"No candid study of his career can lead to other conclusion than that he is victim of perhaps the ugliest of all passions, that for money, money as an end. It is not a pleasant picture.... this money-maniac secretly, patiently, eternally plotting how he may add to his wealth.... He has turned commerce to war, and honey-combed it with cruel and corrupt practices.... And he calls his great organization a benefaction, and points to his church-going and charities as proof of his righteousness. This is supreme wrong-doing cloaked by religion. There is but one name for it - hypocrisy."

This was the description Ida Tarbell made of John D. Rockefeller in her "History of the Standard Oil Company", serialized in 1905 in the widely circulated McClure's Magazine. And that was several years before the "Ludlow Massacre", so JDR was as yet far from having reached the apex of his disrepute. But after World War II it would have been hard to read, in America or abroad, a single criticism of JDR, nor of Junior, who had followed in his father's footsteps, nor of Junior's four sons who all endeavored to emulate their illustrious forbears. Today's various encyclopedias extant in public libraries of the Western world have nothing but praise for the Family. How was this achieved?

Ironically, the two apparently most NEGATIVE events in the career of JDR brought about a huge POSITIVE change in his favor, to a degree that he himself could not foresee. To wit:

In the year when according to the current Encyclopedia Britannica (long become a Rockefeller property and transferred from Oxford to Chicago), Rockefeller had "retired from active business", namely in 1911, he had been convicted by a U.S. court of illegal practices and ordered to dissolve the Standard Oil Trust, which comprised 40 corporations. This imposed dissolution was to provide his Empire with added might, to a degree that was unprecedented in the history of modem business. Until then, the Trust had existed for all to see - an exposed target. After that, it went underground, and thereby its power was cloaked in security, and could keep expanding unseen and therefore unopposed.

The second apparently negative experience was a certain 1914 event that persuaded JDR, until then utterly contemptuous of public opinion, to gloss over his own image.

"The Ludlow Massacre"

The United Mine Workers had asked for higher wages and better living conditions for the miners of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, one of the many Rockefeller-owned companies.
The miners - mostly immigrants from Europe's poorest countries - lived in shacks provided by the company at exorbitant rent. Their low wages ($1,68 a day) were paid in script redeemable only at company stores charging high prices. The churches they attended were the pastorates of company-hired ministers; their children were taught in company-controlled schools; the company libraries excluded books that the Bible-thumping Rockefellers deemed "subversive", such as "Darwin's Origin of the Species." The company maintained a force of detectives, mine guards, and spies whose job it was to keep the camp quarantined from the danger of unionization.

When the miners struck, JDR, Jr., then officially in command of the company, and his father's hatchet man, the Baptist Reverend Frederick T. Gates, who was a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, refused even to negotiate. They evicted the strikers from the company-owned shacks, hired a thousand strike-breakers from the Baldwin-Felts detective agency, and persuaded Governor Ammons to call out the National Guard to help break the strike.

Open warfare resulted. Guardsmen, miners, their women and children, who since their eviction were camping in tents, were ruthlessly killed, until the frightened Governor wired President Wilson for Federal Troops, who eventually crushed the strike, The New York Times, which then already could never be accused of being unfriendly to the Rockefeller interests, reported on April 21, 1914.
"A 14-hour battle between striking coal miners and members of the Colorado National Guard in the Ludlow district today culminated in the killing of Louis Tikas, leader of the Greek strikers, and the destruction of the Ludlow tent colony by fire."

And the following day:

"Forty-five dead (32 of them women and children), a score missing and more than a score wounded is the known result of the 14- hour battle which raged between state troops and coal miners in the Ludlow district, on the property of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, the Rockefeller holding. The Ludlow is a mass of charred debris, and buried beneath it is a story of horror unparalleled in the history of industrial warfare. In the holes that had been dug for their protection against rifle fire, the women and children died like trapped rats as the flames swept over them. One pit uncovered this afternoon disclosed the bodies of ten children and two women."

Thorough Facelift

The worldwide revulsion that followed was such that JDR decided to hire the most talented press agent in the country, Ivy Lee, who got the tough assignment of whitewashing the tycoon's bloodied image.

When Lee learned that the newly organized Rockefeller Foundation had $100 million lying around for promotional purposes without knowing what to do with it, he came with a plan to donate large sums - none less than a million - to well-known colleges, hospitals, churches and benevolent organizations. The plan was accepted. So were the millions. And they made headlines all over the world, for in the days of the gold standard and the five cent cigar there was a maxim in every newspaper office that a million dollars was always news.

That was the beginning of the cleverly worded medical reports on new "miracle" drugs and "just-around-the-corner breakthroughs" planted in the leading news offices and press associations that continue to this day, and the flighty public soon forgot, or forgave, the massacre of foreign immigrants for the dazzling display of generosity and philanthropy financed by the ballooning Rockefeller fortune and going out, with thunderous press fanfare, to various "worthy" institutions.

The Purchase of Public Opinion

In the following years, not only newsmen, but whole newspapers were bought, financed or founded with Rockefeller money. So Time Magazine, which Henry Luce started in 1923, had been taken over by J.P. Morgan when the magazine got into financial difficulties. When Morgan died and his financial empire crumbled, the House of Rockefeller wasted no time in taking over this lush editorial plum also, together with its sisters Fortune and Life, and built for them an expensive 14-story home of their own in Rockefeller Center - the Time & Life Building.

Rockefeller was also co-owner of Time's "rival" magazine, Newsweek, which had been established in the early days of the New Deal with money put up by Rockefeller, Vincent Astor, the Harrimann family and other members and allies of the House.

The Intellectuals - A Bargain

For all his innate cynicism, JDR must have been himself surprised to discover how easily the so-called intellectuals could be bought. Indeed, they turned out to be among his best investments.
By founding and lavishly endowing his Education Boards at home and abroad, Rockefeller won control not only of the governments and politicos but also of the intellectual and scientific community, starting with the Medical Power - the organization that forms those priests of the New Religion that are the modern medicine men. No Pulitzer or Nobel or any similar prize endowed with money and prestige has ever been awarded to a declared foe of the Rockefeller system.

Henry Luce, officially founder and editor of Time Magazine, but constantly dependent on House advertising, also distinguished himself in his adulation of his sponsors. JDR's son had been responsible for the Ludlow massacre, and an obedient partner in his father's most unsavory actions. Nonetheless, in 1956 Henry Luce put Junior on the cover of Time, and the feature story, soberly titled "The Good Man", included hyperboles like this:

"It is because John D. Rockefeller Junior's is a life of constructive social giving that he ranks as an authentic American hero, just as certainly as any general who ever won a victory for an American army or any statesman who triumphed in behalf of U.S. diplomacy."

Clearly, Time's editorial board wasn't given the choice to change its tune even after the passing of Junior and Henry Luce, since it remained just as dependent on House of Rockefeller advertising. Thus, when in 1979 one of Junior's sons, Nelson A. Rockefeller died - who had been one of the loudest hawks in the Vietnam and other American wars, and was personally responsible for the massacre of prisoners and hostages at Atticia prison - Time said of him in it obituary, without laughing:

"He was driven by a mission to serve, improve and uplift his country."

Perhaps it was all this that Prof. Peter Singer had in mind when telling the judges in Italy that the Rockefeller Foundation was a humanitarian enterprise bent on doing good works. One of their best works seems to be sponsoring Prof. Peter Singer, the world's greatest animal friend and protector who claims that vivisection is indispensable for medical progress and for more than 20 years refuses to mention that legions of medical doctors are of the opposite view.

Compare Animal-based toxicity testing of drugs and other chemicals and animal experimentation in cancer research: flawed science costing human lives?

Millions of Dollars Free Publicity

Another interesting revelation in the article of Time was that many years ago already Singer "was pleasantly surprised when Britannica approached him to distill in about 30,000 words the discipline that is, at its heart, the systematic study of what we ought to do." So now we touch the subject of sponsorisation and patronage. They don't always mean immediate cash but, more important, long-term profits.

Many decades ago the Encyclopedia Britannica moved from Oxford to Chicago because Rockefeller had bought it to add much needed luster to the University of Chicago and its medical school, the first one he had founded. Peter Singer, "the world's greatest animal defender" who keeps a door permanently open to vivisection and the lucrative medical swindle, gets millions of dollars free publicity thanks to the worldwide engagement of the Rockefeller Foundation and the media-makers who are in no position to oppose it.

From the article in Time we also learned that Singer's mother had been a medical doctor in the old country, which could mean that little Peter started assimilating all the Rockefeller superstition on vivisection with his mother's milk.

Taken from the CIVIS Foundation Report number 15, Fall-Winter 1993
CIVIS: POB 152, Via Motta 51-CH 6900, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland

Related Articles:

• For The Record: Rockefeller Soft Kill Depopulation Plans Exposed
• Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
• Breakthrough! Have The Israelis Developed A Cure For Cancer?
• Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice
• Dr Mercola: Bill Gates: One of the World’s Most Destructive Do-Gooders? (Plus: Monsanto and GMO Foods)

New WHO guidelines advise lowering sugar intake

By Sally Robertson, BSc  -  Medical News

New World Health Organization guidelines recommend that people reduce their daily free sugar intake to less than 10% of their total calorie intake, with a reduction to 5% representing a further target.

“Making policy changes to support this will be key if countries are to live up to their commitments to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases,” says Dr Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development.

Gayvoronskaya_Yana / Shutterstock.com

Free sugars are the monosaccharides and disaccharides added to food and drink by manufacturers, cooks or consumers, as well as the sugars that occur naturally in fruit juice or honey, for example. The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars found in fresh fruit and vegetables or milk, as no evidence exists to suggest that those sugars adversely affect our health.

Alison Tedstone, Director of the Diet and Obesity team, Public Health England, says surveys show that the average current daily free sugar intake among adults in the UK accounts for 11.6% of the total calorie intake, while among children it accounts for 15.2%.

The recommendation of less than 10% is based on a review of scientific evidence showing that a lower sugar intake among adults is associated with lower body weight and, among children, it is associated with a reduced likelihood of overweight and obesity. Furthermore, the evidence supports that an intake higher than 10% is associated with increased rates of tooth decay.

Dr Branca says:

We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay

The quality of the evidence reviewed means that WHO can rank the recommendation as “strong” and therefore suitable for implementation as policy in most situations. The plans will now be subjected to public consultation, with firm recommendations expected to be put in place this summer and translated into food-based dietary guidelines and public health interventions to reduce sugar intake. Examples of such interventions include a reduction in the marketing of sugary food to children and the introduction of nutrition labeling for food products.

However, due to obesity rates rising worldwide, many experts believe that a goal of less than 10% is still too high and campaign group “Action for Sugar” is pressing for 5% to become the new target. Although the WHO now acknowledge that further health benefits can be achieved if the 5% goal is implemented, only three nationwide studies have demonstrated those health benefits. The WHO can therefore only make a “conditional” rather than “strong” recommendation for issuing this 5% goal for implementation.

A conditional recommendation refers to one that would probably be beneficial if adhered to but where the associated trade-offs between the desirable and undesirable effects still need to be clarified before the recommendation can be adopted as policy.

UK campaigners say it is a "tragedy" that it has taken 10 years for the WHO to think about changing its advice on sugar intake.

“We should aim for 5% if we can,” says Branca.

The update to the WHO guideline is part of the organization’s efforts to improve current dietary guidelines about preventing non-communicable diseases such as diabetes. The guidelines on sugar intake should be used in combination with other nutrition recommendations and goals, particularly those related to the intake of fats and fatty acids such as trans-fat and saturated fat.

Sources:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26449497
• http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

Related:

• The 76 Dangers of Sugar
• Agave: A Triumph of Marketing over Truth

FULL BODY TRANSPLANT Dr Sergio Canavero Claims He Can Perform FULL Body Transplant In 2 Years

Video:  FULL BODY TRANSPLANT Dr Sergio Canavero Claims He Can Perform FULL Body Transplant In 2 Years

Ella institute for melanoma - Dr. Gal Markel

Video:  Ella institute for melanoma - Dr. Gal Markel

Over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA”

By Ilya Somin January 17, 2015 - Washington Post:

A recent survey by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics finds that over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA,” about the same number as support mandatory labeling of GMO foods “produced with genetic engineering.” Oklahoma State economist Jayson Lusk has some additional details on the survey. If the government does impose mandatory labeling on foods containing DNA, perhaps the label might look something like this:

WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children.

The Oklahoma State survey result is probably an example of the intersection between scientific ignorance and political ignorance, both of which are widespread.The most obvious explanation for the data is that most of these people don’t really understand what DNA is, and don’t realize that it is contained in almost all food. When they read that a strange substance called “DNA” might be included in their food, they might suspect that this is some dangerous chemical inserted by greedy corporations for their own nefarious purposes.

Polls repeatedly show that much of the public is often ignorant of both basic scientific facts, and basic facts about government and public policy. Just before the 2014 elections, which determined control of Congress, only 38 percent realized that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives before the election, and the same number knew that the Democrats control the Senate. The public’s scientific knowledge isn’t much better. A 2012 National Science Foundation survey even found that about 25% of Americans don’t know that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. Issues like food labeling bring together political and scientific knowledge, and it is not surprising that public opinion on these subjects is very poorly informed.

It would be a mistake to assume that widespread political and scientific ignorance are the result of “the stupidity of the American voter,” as Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber put it. Political ignorance is not primarily the result of stupidity. For most people, it is a rational reaction to the enormous size and complexity of government and the reality that the chance that their vote will have an impact on electoral outcomes is extremely low. The same is true of much scientific ignorance. For many people, there is little benefit to understanding much about genetics or DNA. Most Americans can even go about their daily business perfectly well without knowing that the Earth revolves around the sun. Even the smartest people are inevitably ignorant of the vast majority of information out there. We all have to focus our time and energy on learning that information which is most likely to be instrumentally useful, or at least provide entertainment value. For large numbers of people, much basic political and scientific information doesn’t make the cut.

Unfortunately, this is a case where individually rational behavior leads to potentially dangerous collective outcomes. While it doesn’t much matter whether any individual voter is ignorant about science or public policy, when a majority (or even a large minority) of the electorate is ignorant in these ways, it can lead to the adoption of dangerous and counterproductive government policies. In this case, excessive and unnecessary warning labels on food products could confuse consumers, and divert their limited attention from real dangers.

Although Jonathan Gruber was wrong to believe that American voters are necessarily stupid, he was right about the pervasiveness of public ignorance, and the dangers it poses.

UPDATE: In the initial version of this post, I forgot to include a link to economist Jayson Lusk’s post on the Oklahoma State survey. I apologize for the oversight, which has now been corrected.

How GMO Farming and Food Is Making Our Gut Flora UNFRIENDLY

Boycott PepsiCo… Here Is Why and Why You Should Be Concerned For More Than One Reason!

Beating the Odds - Part One

By Marion Algier  -  Ask Marion  -  Cross-Posted at THITW

1600+ Americans die every day of Cancer.  At the turn of the 20th Century 1 in 200 Americans developed Cancer… today (2015) 1 out of 3 Americans will have Cancer during their lifetime.

I have been blessed to have been amazingly healthy all my life.  I was days short of turning 62-years-old, had never been in a hospital for anything related to myself and had probably only ever been to see a doctor 20 times in my entire life when I was diagnosed with Uterine Cancer. And although my father, who had been just as healthy all his life as I’ve been until he was stricken with Colon Cancer at age 62… and died at age 63, it never really occurred to me that I would ever have Cancer.  After our dad died, the doctor told us that chances were very high that one of us 3 kids would develop Colon Cancer and it was something we should watch out for and be tested for.  My brother died at age 21 so my sister and I jokingly said more than once, “Well, since Rick is no longer with us, let us hope that it would have been him that was destined to come down with the Cancer.”

After closing our business as a result of the tough economy, my husband and I had moved in with his 80 plus year old parents to get back on our feet and to help take care of them. His father was in late stage Alzheimer’s and his then 82-year-old mother was overwhelmed, suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis, had failing hearing, and as I call them, suffered from senior related conditions and ailments.  And after inheriting a substantial amount of money from their parents and a couple aunts, they made a number of unwise purchases and unguaranteed loans and then got scammed by a Jamaican ring that prays on the elderly and uninformed.  Before anyone realized it, they not only bankrupted themselves but scavenged their grandchildren’s college funds as well as opened a reverse mortgage that they overdrew once the housing bubble burst, so their house was essentially gone too!  I have been an unpaid caregiver for over two years in a stressful environment, and still am, and my architect husband an unpaid handyman and part-time caregiver while applying for and trying countless part-time and commission jobs that went nowhere and sometimes cost us money.  Then he got a lead and went to truck driving school which gave us medical coverage after 3-months.

I had known for several months that  something was wrong; I was sick.  But even though insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions, they can charge you high premiums because of them. So I waited to go to the doctor until I knew we had coverage and could go without having costly pre-existing conditions.  As it was we had had 12k family co-pay.

On October 1st, a week before my 62nd birthday, I was diagnosed with stage 3 inoperable (because of the location of the tumor and the outlying ribbons from the tumor) Uterine Cancer.  And from the looks in their eyes and little innuendoes, I could see that nobody other than my husband and our new GP thought I was going beat the disease.

At some point you start feeling alone unless you make contact with other Cancer patients or Cancer survivors because nobody understands what the disease or the treatments are like unless they have gone through it.  And even with a support group of family, friends and Cancer survivors, get used to feeling both lonely and alone.  For me it was probably worse because my husband got a job where he was gone weeks, sometimes nearly two months without coming home for usually 4 or 5 days.  He gave up being home for any of the major holidays including Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years and even his birthday in order to be there for my chemo treatments.  At first that seemed like a fair trade but after the first couple of treatments, the company stopped making the effort to get him home.

Video:  How the American Cancer Society spins survival data

Natural Society:  Recently, the results of a study claiming that most Cancers are caused by “bad luck” have been floating around in the mainstream media. This sounds like we should all just give up and accept our likely fates of cancer, chemo, and death, right? However, there is a mountain of evidence showing that cancer is in fact preventable, partly because tumor development is a bit too complex to be bad luck.

Most Cancers are “Beyond Your Control’ Due to Mutations

For many years, the “Mutational Theory” has been the dominant explanation for cancer’s origin. The story goes like this: accumulated mutation in all the right places lead to the affected cell going “crazy,” and instead of destroying itself after this damage, it grows out of control until vital processes are obstructed. Then, the heroic oncologists attempt to wage war against this monster with one or more of the standard trio of chemo, radiation, and surgery…with often disappointing results.

One 2004 study of thousands of patients found that chemo is less than 10% effective at saving lives, contributing only 2.1-2.3% of the 5 year survival rate. This was deemed to be the upper limit of effectiveness.

More recently, it was reported that out of 54 cancer drugs released since 2004, three quarters of them did not extend life. Unfortunately, chemotherapy is often forced on young people who refuse it, such as in a recent case involving a Connecticut teenager, meaning it could be considered as a tool or form of oppression. Therefore, it’s wonderful that in actuality, cancer is not the result of chance or luck, as well as being unlikely; and the theories behind the development of cancer drugs are most likely incorrect.

Read: 4 Cancer-Fighting Foods

What is the nature of a tumor? Tumors express organized behaviors including building their own blood supply; silencing some genes and activating others; secreting corrosive enzymes; altering their metabolism for low oxygen and high sugar, acidic environments; as well as removing surface proteins to escape the immune system.

A new theory, however, states that cancer is actually a highly efficient, pre-programmed stress response. According to the author’s research, cancer is an evolutionary throwback from a genetic “tool kit” over a billion years old that is normally buried dormant deep within the genome, called Metazoa 1.0.

Cells with the genetics of Metazoa 1.0 would have favored traits that enable them to survive a much harsher environment with features such as extremely low oxygen. The trait of incessant proliferation was the default state of these primitive cells, when simply not dying was the first priority of individual cells.

There was no tissue specialization that organisms could use to protect themselves, so genes providing extreme resilience against assault and creating a highly “selfish” form of behavior was necessary. While the mutation theory is partially true, genetic damage is responsible for unmasking a primitive set of genes instead of being solely responsible for tumor development.

Additionally, an analysis of gene expression patterns has indicated that when the level of oxygen decreases, the rate of glycolysis (a pathway of cellular energy production that does not require oxygen) increases, and this leads to a vicious cycle of accelerated tumor growth and further reductions in oxygen. The production of new blood vessels to ensure a supply of glucose only gives temporary breaks from this cycle.

The current understanding of this is that glycolysis is not only faster at generating energy when glucose is abundant, but also that glycolysis provides some of the raw materials needed for rapid cell proliferation. A key driver of this process was found to be reduced energy efficiency caused by factors such as hypoxia, which triggers a dramatically increased glucose uptake and a switch to glycolysis. This can also allow the tumor to select “positive” mutations such as those that upregulate Cancer promoting genes and silence or delete suppressor genes, no random mutations required.

Read: Little Known Chinese Herb and Iron Kill Crazy Amount of Cancer Cells

When seven cancer types were tested, expression of genes turned on only during replication increased as oxygen levels dropped. Therefore, cancer is not a time bomb or a result of bad luck, but instead caused by an ancient survival response to a toxic environment, unnatural diet and compromised immunity.

So what can we do to prevent Cancer, besides reducing excessive dietary sugar?

6 Tips for Preventing Cancer

• 1. Regular coffee consumption can reduce the incidence of some Cancers, but watch the acidity levels of your body. Book: The Acid-Alkaline Food Guide - Second Edition: A Quick Reference to Foods & Their Efffect on pH Levels

• 2. A review from 2012 found that sun exposure may also lower the risk of Cancers such as breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer, because of vitamin D synthesis (getting burnt will remove the benefits), and prolonged or excessive sun exposure can cause skin Cancer.

• 3. A study of almost 24,000 participants showed that those taking antioxidant supplements from the beginning had a 48% reduced risk of cancer. This can mean that increased antioxidant intake from food or supplements can reduce cancer incidence, as many other studies show that certain foods high in antioxidants and other nutrients have the ability to protect against Cancer.

• 4. Quit smoking. Cigarette smoking, which depletes antioxidants, is responsible for a third of all Cancer deaths in many countries.

• 5. Reduce or eliminate, if possible, the use of pharmaceutical drugs. Statins, the contraceptive pill and many others are associated with a higher risk of Cancer.

• 6. Interestingly, cannabis smoking is associated with a 45% reduced risk of bladder cancer and a 47-62% reduced rate of head and neck cancer, regardless of whether or not they had been infected with HPV.  And using hemp oils increases the survival success rate of treatments like chemo and radiation by 25%.

Despite what the mainstream media tries to make people believe, Cancer is indeed preventable and not caused by “bad luck.” This is good news, because not only are Cancer and its conventional treatments very debilitating and distressing, but they hinder control over one’s life – which is a natural psychological need, as described by self-determination theory.

So what can you do if you are diagnosed with Cancer?

After you are diagnosed:

• Take control of your destiny. 
• Do your homework.
• Question the treatments the doctors suggest.
• Look for alternatives. 
• Add natural cures and aids to the traditional western medical treatments even if you decide to go that route. 
• Have a back-up plan. 
• Keep up your attitude. 
• Cut your stress.
• Pray.
• Be positive.
• Stay out of the doldrums and away from pity parties as much as possible. 
• Surround yourself with things that make you happy… pets, photos, music, etc. 

• Limit your exposure and dealings (as much as you can) to negative people and situations.
• Make plans for the future.

Because my husband was gone regularly through my entire treatment time, and my father-in-law was in the late stages of Alzheimer’s at home and died during the first four months of my treatment, I had no choice but to rely on myself for my attitude, research and to be prepared for any and all side affects from the treatments.

I think I did a pretty good job through the chemo process and with each check-up my oncologist was shocked at my progress. 

• I never questioned that I would beat my Cancer
• I prayed and talked to God daily, throughout the day, in a positive manner; thanking Him for curing me and making me completely Cancer free.
• I moved 600 photos that made me happy onto my phone and kept adding to it.
• Our four furkids, a Chihuahua and three Chiweenies, never left my side.
• I visualized my tumor and the outlying ribbons shrinking and being gone daily.
• I only ever allowed myself one 10-minute pity party.
• I drank a teaspoon of baking soda in water every morning, sometimes twice a day.
• I ingested 4 squirts of food grade hydrogen peroxide daily.
• I used the oxygen machine provided by hospice for my father-in-law every evening for 5 to 10 minutes and inhaled the pure oxygen.
• I got a vitamin B Complex shot weekly.
• I took vitamins, iron, probiotics, krill oil and phytoplankton daily.
• I researched every option from hemp oils and  immunotherapy to alternative health centers like Sanoviv.
• I added things like raw sauerkraut fermented with whey, extra protein and more organic veggies, fruit and meat to my diet. 

Sources:

Time

Experimental treatment uses immune system to fight Cancer – Immunotherpy coming to US in 2015

Breakthrough! Have The Israelis Developed A Cure For Cancer?

A Natural Herb That Fights Cancer, or Chemotherapy for Your Sick Pet… Which Would You Choose?

This New Drug Appears to Cause Cancer Cells to Self-Destruct

How to Stave the Cancer Out of Your Body

Beat Prostate Cancer Naturally

America’s Drug Story and the Rockefeller Empire 

Ella institute for melanoma - Dr. Gal Markel

Books

The Ultimate Anti-Cancer Cookbook: A Cookbook and Eating Plan Developed by a Late-Stage Cancer Survivor with 225 Delicious Recipes for Everyday Meals, Using Everyday Foods

 The Acid-Alkaline Food Guide - Second Edition: A Quick Reference to Foods & Their Efffect on pH Levels