Did Pam Bondi really defend RomneyCare? I Don’t Think So….

There is some bluster going around the internets about Pam Bondi’s interview with Greta last night, suggesting that she not only defended RomneyCare, but that she will also help Romney institute it when/if he becomes president. But I’ve listened to the interview and I believe this is NOT TRUE.

I’m not a Romney supporter and I am not going to bat for him here. I just hate when misinformation gets thrown out there and people latch on to it as if it were true.

If you listen to the interview below, you’ll first hear Rush talking about the similarities between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. Greta then asks Pam Bondi, who is currently fighting ObamaCare in court, what she thinks about what Rush had just said. But for some reason, instead of commenting on what Rush said about RomneyCare, she does a switcheroo and compares what Rush said to Romney’s current plan on health care that he would implement as president. You’ll notice she uses the word “would” a lot in her answer. She’s obviously looking in the future and not in the past, which is weird, because she was asked specifically about RomneyCare.

Bondi said Romney “has the vision and experience necessary to turn our economy around and restore prosperity to our nation.”

You can speculate as to why she did that – perhaps she didn’t want to sit there and defend RomneyCare. But the way she answered the question has led people to believe she was talking about RomneyCare, and, because she said she’s been offered a job in the Romney administration helping implement his health care plan, after ObamaCare has been overturned and removed…

So  people now believe she’s going to help Romney implement RomneyCare. I didn’t hear it that way.

You can listen and decide for yourself, but that’s my take HERE. <--

**Romney has pledged over and over again that he will immediately after his inauguration give every state a waiver from ObamaCare.  He has also explained over and over the differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare; about the things in RomneyCare that he tried to veto or were added since he left the Governorship and has explained that Massachusetts saw the option of Romneycare as a state’s right.**

‘We Will Not Comply’: Catholic Leaders Distribute Letter Slamming Obama Admin Contraceptive Mandate

We’ve covered the Catholic Church’s ongoing battle with the Obama administration over contraception health care mandates for quite some time. Over the weekend, though, the stand-off took an unusual turn, as Catholic churches across America read a letter to congregants that perfectly encapsulated the church’s stance against the impending federal requirements.

The Church’s vocal arguments against the Obama administration are centered upon a Health and Human Services Department requirement that employers must include contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in health-care coverage. While this requirement doesn’t apply to houses of worship, it will force Catholic colleges, hospitals and other Christian groups to provide these drugs despite their faith-based opposition to them.

Many of these organizations, despite not being, themselves, churches, are intrinsically rooted in religious belief systems that stand firmly opposed to medications and procedures that would terminate the life of an unborn child. These deeply-rooted moral codes, which drive the groups’ work, will be impeded, Catholic leaders say, should the Obama administration continue with its planned mandate.

Recently, the federal government made one small concession surrounding the requirement, as officials decided to give church-affiliated hospitals and organizations another year before they will be forced to comply with the coverage restrictions.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan (AP)

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, recently said.

Over the weekend, the Catholic Church’s letter went beyond simply issuing oppositional rhetoric to media. Instead, priests read an open note to congregations across the country, dubbing the administration‘s take on women’s health and religious violations as an attack on their faith. In the letter, Bishops highlighted what they called “an alarming and serious matter,“ as their words contended that the federal government has ”dealt a heavy blow” to the Catholic population.

Free Birth Control Under New Health Guidelines by NewsyVideos

In it, Catholic leaders went on to say that the Church “cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law,” as it violates the Catholic conscience. Additionally, the church says that it is faced with a difficult decision — either comply and violate its faith or drop coverage for employees and suffer the consequences. The letter urges congregants to take action and to call Congress in an attempt to overturn the regulation.

While there were some variations in the letter, as it was personalized by each Bishop, here’s the text that was sent out by the Bishop of Marquette (Michigan):

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers,
including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture,
only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette

This is the latest development in the spat between the federal government and the Catholic Church. While contraception is a major problem dividing the two parties, other developments have added to the relational deterioration. Among the developments, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to end funding to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last year.

Pope Benedict XVI (AP)

Rather than continuing to allocate money to a special program the bishops group oversaw to assist victims of modern-day slavery (i.e. human trafficking), the administration, instead, chose to give the funds to three non-Catholic groups. The bishops conference had refused to refer trafficking victims to receive contraceptives or abortions, so the American Civil Liberties Union sued and HHS decided to provide funds to groups that would refer women for these services.

Then there’s gay marriage — another contentious issue. The administration’s stance of not defending traditional marriage also contradicts Catholic teaching.

As for the health care regulation — a tenet that abortion-rights groups heralded when it was introduced last summer — there’s no telling how the situation will end, as the Church seems adamant about its refusal to comply.

In September, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the regulation “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.” In November, The Catholic Advocate PAC launched an attack campaign against the Obama administration as well. To these responses, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said late last year that the Church’s “conscience thing” puts woman at risk (yes, she’s a Catholic).

In the end, there will be dire results, it seems, should the administration proceed as planned.

Source:  The Blaze

Shock Article: Bioethicists Suggest Killing Someone With ‘No Autonomy Left’ Is Not Morally Wrong

What has Glenn Beck so fired up that he said on his radio show “If this doesn’t wake your a** up this morning, then nothing will?” How about this quote from prominent bioethicists comparing killing a human being to pulling weeds from a garden.

Two bioethicists — one from Duke University, the other from the National Institute of Health — bring up the question “What makes killing wrong?” in the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Using their definition of killing, the authors conclude if the person is “universally and irreversibly disabled” and has “no abilities to lose” then killing them to take organs for donation in order to save the lives of others should not be considered morally wrong.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Duke University (Photo: Duke University)

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a professor of practical ethics from Duke, and Franklin Miller, a senior faculty member in the NIH Department of Bioethics, state in their abstract ”What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities.“ They argue that if no abilities remain then the ”dead donor rule,” which is the ethical practice that a person must be declared dead before removing vital organs, should apply to patients whose hearts have stopped and are being removed from a respirator.

This discussion has been ongoing for several years and continues with this article. BioEdge, a publication discussing bioethical news, brings a few segments from the subscription-only journal in which Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller publish their opinion. BioEdge reports that the authors are seeking to make a case for organ donation after cardiac death when a person is taken off of a respirator. Once off the respirator, the person’s organs would be immediately harvested, but even at this point, BioEdge states, Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller believe the person is not yet dead because there is the possibility that his or her heart could start beating again.

Miller has written on this topic before for the New England Journal of Medicine. Here’s some of what was written in his co-authored piece from 2008 “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation:”

Over the past few years, our reliance on the dead donor rule has again been challenged, this time by the emergence of donation after cardiac death as a pathway for organ donation. Under protocols for this type of donation, patients who are not brain-dead but who are undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support are monitored for the onset of cardiac arrest. In typical protocols, patients are pronounced dead 2 to 5 minutes after the onset of asystole (on the basis of cardiac criteria), and their organs are expeditiously removed for transplantation. Although everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an interval of 2 to 5 minutes, advocates of this approach to donation say that these patients can be regarded as dead because a decision has been made not to attempt resuscitation.

In the more recent Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller article, BioEdge reports the authors as stating that “these patients are not known to be dead at the time of organ procurement.”

Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller argue that the dead donor rule is already being violated in many cases and that recognizing this violation and stopping organ donation in these conditions would drastically reduce an already limited number of donor organs for those in need. They suggest sidestepping this issue by rethinking the “norm of killing.” BioEdge has more from the authors:

“[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.”

[...]

“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

BioEdge clarifies that the authors seeks to better define just what is considered killing. It adds that the authors suggest killing someone with “no autonomy left” cannot be considered “unfair” or disrespectful because it “if it does her no harm.”

Franklin Miller of the National Institute of Health. (Photo: NIH Department of Bioethics)

While Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller make this argument, BioEdge reports in a separate article that several doctors have called for a moratorium on donated organs in the event of cardiac death until the issue is resolved from an ethical standpoint. The doctors state this opinion in the journal Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine.

In the abstract, these doctors calling for a moratorium write:

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been “worked out” and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule.

[...]

Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are “straw-man arguments,” such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate.

The issue, however, isn’t an isolated incident. The Blaze has recently published articles about a disabled man in the U.K. who is seeking the “right” to die and a 3-year-old whose parents were told she couldn’t have kidney transplant because she was “mentally retarded.” And last year, we posted the disturbing video of a British advice columnist who said if a child were disabled a loving mother would “put a pillow over its face” to smother it. Watch that clip:

Related:

Eugenics in Action

United Nations Preparing to Manage Global Mental Health

Brandon Turbeville  -  Activist Post

In a world where national sovereignty is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, announcements that the United Nations will be taking the lead on any variety of topics is no longer shocking. Indeed, there is a real push across the world to view the United Nations as the ultimate authority on virtually every issue, from human rights to nutritional content in food.

Through decades of propagandizing, the United Nations has developed an undeserved reputation for humanitarianism and democracy. As a result, the vast majority see the United Nations as a benevolent organization which they can call on to defend human rights in their home countries. Unfortunately, national sovereignty rarely enters into the equation anymore, as the average citizen tends to look straight to the United Nations to address their concerns, bypassing their own governments.

As case in point, a recent report by AFP, entitled, “Experts urge U.N. to address mental health,” discusses how a recent article in PLoS Medicine, a reputable medical journal, has called for the United Nations General Assembly to develop a plan to tackle mental, neurological, and substance-abuse disorders (MNS).

The article was authored by Vikram Patel of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Judith Bass from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in the United States, among other contributors. They write, “The time has come for recognition at the highest levels of global development, namely the U.N. General Assembly, of the urgent need for a global strategy to address the global burden of MNS disorders.”

They also state that investment is needed in three different, but key, areas – “expanding knowledge about mental health disorders, better access to evidence-based programs of care and treatment, and protection of human rights.”

Although the further understanding of mental health disorders and their treatment is a laudable goal, it is also one in which both the Psychiatric/Psychological complex and the United Nations have a horrible track record.

Indeed, even within individual national boundaries, the Psychiatric/Psychological complex has vastly more authority that it needs or deserves. When one multiplies that oppressive authority with the global jurisdiction of the United Nations, as well as the U.N’s tendency to introduce tyrannical guidelines in its own right, we can see a clear recipe for disaster.

In an excellent breakdown of the situation, the Daily Bell writes,

The ultimate element of this charade (and probably the reason for it) will be a People’s Charter for Mental Health that will provide the opportunity for the elites to create yet more command-and-control bureaucracies.

To begin with these bureaucracies may seem innocent and even innovative. But over time it will become apparent that the UN is setting up some sort of worldwide mental health apparatus to evaluate people’s emotional and intellectual stability.

Worst case – if it gets that far – the UN will try to provide itself not only with the authority to evaluate people’s mental competence but also the authority to send people to mental institutions and re-education camps if they are not sufficiently docile and open to the appropriate level of mind control.

Although this analysis may appear extreme to some, the fact is that it is not nearly as extreme as it may sound at first. Considering the level of control that the Psychiatric/Psychological complex currently wields over our lives, the transition of this undeserved authority from a national level to that of an international body is not at all far-fetched.

Indeed, an authoritarian standard-setting UN-based organization in the areas of mental health would no doubt be an issue for all to be concerned with. The UN has, on virtually every occasion, shown its aptitude toward oppressive legislation, lack of concern for human dignity and individual rights, as well as forcing its guidelines upon the rest of the world by stealth and economic sanctions.

For instance, the standard-setting organization for food, Codex Alimentarius, has consistently forced its guidelines on national governments by virtue of the WTO trade dispute settlement mechanisms. Codex Alimentarius guidelines involve reducing the level of nutrition available in vitamin and mineral supplements, allowing for the increased proliferation of genetically modified food, and unlimited irradiation of food products. (See my book Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom)

U.N.-related organizations like the IMF (International Monetary Fund) are also highly successful at implementing austerity programs on debt-ridden countries like Greece as a pre-condition for more loans, which are themselves nothing more than an increase of irrational debt by virtue of the sacrifice of living standards and tangible physical wealth.

Even the WTO (World Trade Organization), another U.N.-related agency is famous for dismantling any protectionist tariffs or subsidies imposed by nation states upon cheap products being dumped into their economies. It is also well-known for punishing any nation that even slightly steps away from the agenda of globalism.

A U.N.-controlled bureaucracy overseeing the treatment and diagnosis of mental health disorders, addiction, or anything else that would so greatly involve the individual, is without a doubt a recipe for disaster.

The Psychiatric/Psychological complex already wields entirely too much authority over the lives of supposedly free human beings. This authority, as it currently exists, must be taken away.

We cannot afford to give this industry any more control over our lives, much less give international authority to the detriment of national sovereignty.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies and Five Sense Solutions. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost@gmail.com.

Food Fights and Class Warfare

There was a time when full tables signified prosperity and thick waistlines were considered attractive. The ability to eat one's fill was what separated the gentry from the peasant making do with a few crusts and salted leftovers. Fat was in because it represented leisure and wealth. Thin meant you were on the road to the poorhouse or to consumption, which meant your body was being consumed, not that you were the one doing the consuming.

Then feudalism went the way of the dodo, agriculture was revolutionized and starvation went extinct in the West. Between the widespread availability of cheap food and social welfare programs covering everything from soup kitchens to food stamps, it became hard to starve. Not only was the availability of food no longer associated with prosperity, but even the poor had begun to eat so well that fat began to carry working class and lower class associations.

Fat was no longer wealth, instead conscientious fitness became a mark of prosperity. The laden table made way for micro portions and exotic but barely edible foods. Thin was in on the plate and the waistline.

In Third World countries where feudalism never ended and the agriculture revolution never mattered, the values often never flipped. Instead of anorexia, teenage girls suffer from being force fed to make them more marriageable. The wealthy are fat and the feasts at the top never end.

In the West, weight stands in for class, at a time when explicit classism has become politically incorrect. When Europeans sneer at how fat Americans are, and American coastal elites sneer at the rest of the country for being fat, it's a class putdown that dressed up longstanding contempt in the colors of the welfare state.

Just because the left and its class warfare worldview, which pretends to be concerned about the plight of the underclass, dominates Western societies does not mean that it is not classist. The left is elitist and its underclass protectionism creates a new wave feudalism with a vast government funded upper and middle class dedicated to caring for the underclass, subsidizing it, caring for it and taxing it to pay for all those services.

The obesity concern trolling is a combination of classism and nanny statism that brings to mind the days when their ideological forebears thought that the way to deal with the poor was to sterilize those who seemed less capable than the rest to improve the breed. There is something equally Darwinian in the sneers aimed at Paula Deen. The breed being culled while the elites try to teach their less evolved cousins to survive by eating their arugula.

The nanny state is built on a technocratic confidence in the ability to create one size fits all solutions, overlaying that on a map of the current medical wisdom leads to the creation of single standards, which often have less to do with health than they do with the status symbols of the leisure class. 19th century popularized medicine created so many of these fads that some of them are still around today. The 20th century created even more.

Death though is not only inevitable, but it cannot be dodged with a one size fits all standard. Fitness guru Jim Fixx who helped kickstart the running craze died in his early fifties of a heart attack. Fixx had quit smoking and lost weight, and still died at an early age. Jackie Gleason who spent his life looking like a walking health attack, smoking and drinking, outlived him by nearly twenty years.

Medicine is individual and the collectivization of medicine is a technocratic solution that leads nowhere except to few doctors and ranks of unionized medical personnel nudging patients into following the script handed down to them by professors who have never actually practiced medicine a day in their life. This is the outcome of a nanny state outlook that sees individuals as dispensable, that is concerned only with group outcomes.

This view requires seeing all people as endowed with certain problems that require broad stroke solutions, like adding calories to menus and other rats in a maze tactics designed to modify human behavior on a national level. The targeting of fast food restaurants, public school meals and food stamps reeks of the same elitist arrogance that drives the nanny state.

The politicization of food by the elites of the left always comes down to class, no matter how it may be disguised in liberal colors. From exotic to locally grown, the trajectory of food politics follows the upselling of food prices The only difference is that the dominance of the left has wrapped the added cost with no added value in their own politics. The more affordable food becomes, the more the left finds ways to add cost to food, without adding value.

But the politicization of food goes beyond the fair trade and locally grown fetishes of the politically correct elites, the more politics ends up on your plate, the more the elites are driven to involve everyone else in their food fights. What begins as a way of raising prices while diminishing value to assert wealth and privilege becomes imposed on everyone in the name of their political morality. Once everyone else is paying more and getting less, then the classist left demands new ways to set its superior moral eating habits apart. Instead of everyone ending up with more food, everyone ends up with less.

The cultural ascendance of the left has meant that instead of conspicuous consumption, the consumption has to be disguised with conspicuous political pieties. The food may cost twice as much, but it's locally grown on a farm run by handicapped union workers who visit Cuba to receive free health care or by the indigenous peoples of Tuba-Tuba with the proceeds going to a complete sonic library of their chants and ceremonies. The entire thing is meaningfully meaningless, but it disguises the consumption in a hairshirt, which is the entire point.

Conspicuous consumption is now for the poor while conspicuous conservation is for liberal elites. Al Gore may live in a mansion but he still has the carbon footprint of a mouse. The problem is the truck driver whose vehicle emissions are killing the planet. Whole Foods is just fine, but we need to do something about McDonald's.

Conspicuous conservationism has made America a poorer country, destroyed millions of jobs and outsourced them overseas. Now it's beginning to make America a hungrier country. In a moment of horrifying tone deafness that makes Marie Antoinette seem enlightened, the left is cheering that fewer Americans are eating meat, without seeming to understand that it's because fewer Americans are able to afford it because of their economic policies.
What the left's food police can't accomplish with nudges and shaming, they can finish off with policies and regulations that end up raising the price of food or by making it too difficult to sell. As the left tries and fails to sell the general public on conservation as a status symbol, it moves in the heavy bureaucratic artillery.

It isn't unusual for elites to use the legal system to enforce their own values on the general public, though it was the kind of thing that the universal franchise was supposed to put a leash on, but there is something grim about their growing preoccupation with the habits and mortality of the population. It's the kind of concern that has a habit of ending in eugenics and the more medicine is universalized, the easier it is to start cutting off access to medical treatment for those who haven't been nudged far enough in the right direction.

Social medicine politicizes food consumption and a globalized economy politicizes food production. And the politicized American plate has less on it and at a higher price. While the left obsessively pursues its mission of destroying fast food in the name of lowering social medicine costs and being fairer to farmers, what they are truly accomplishing is to take affordable and filling food off the shelves, as they have done with countless other products that they have targeted.

By the time the left was done with Russia, it had gone from a wheat producer to a wheat importer and many basic food staples were hard to come by even in a country filled with collective farms. Finding modern day examples of that isn't hard. We only have to look as far south as Venezuela to see empty store shelves under the weight of government food policies. But one day that may be the local grocery store if the left gets its way.

By Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish

Aluminum + Fluoride = Alzheimer’s and Dementia

(Chart taken from CDC National Vital Statistics 2000 report page 9)

Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Chemtrails contain “the oxides of metals,” according to this geo-engineering patent. These substances are supposedly sprayed into our atmosphere for “beneficial” climate manipulation, or geo-engineering, and residue tests indicate excess aluminum oxide in water and soil after heavy chemtrailing. Fluoride is put in our water to “prevent tooth decay.” Both of these actions, geo-engineering and fluoridation, on the surface, appear to be beneficial, with only good intentions behind their implementation. Really!

Aluminum is implicated in Alzheimer’s disease:

Certain aluminum compounds have been found to be an important component of the neurological damage characteristics of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). Much research over the last decade has focused on the role of aluminum in the development of this disease. At this point, its role is still not clearly defined. Since AD is a chronic disease which may take a long time to develop, long-term exposure is the most important measure of intake. Long-term exposure is easiest to estimate for drinking water exposures. http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/alzheimers.htm

“Subacute to chronic toxicity: Aluminum may be implicated in Alzheimers disease.” (Material Safety Data Sheet)

…and dementia:

Dementia develops when the parts of the brain that are involved with learning, memory, decision-making, and language are affected by one or more of a variety of infections or diseases. The most common cause of dementia is Alzheimer’s disease, but there are as many as 50 other known causes. Most of these causes are very rare.

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/alzheimers-dementia

Fluoride “enhances the bio-availability of aluminum,” allowing it to cross the blood-brain barrier easier, thus making it more toxic. The following study is from 1998:

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AND DEMENTIA – IMPORTANT NEW STUDY SHOWS GRAVE IMPLICATIONS FROM INTERACTION OF ALUMINUM AND LOW DOSE FLUORIDE

The latest edition of the peer-reviewed medical journal, Brain Research, (vol.784:l998), reveals that aluminum-induced neural degeneration in rats is greatly enhanced when the animals were fed low doses of fluoride. The presence of fluoride enhanced the bio-availability of aluminum (Al) causing more aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier and become deposited in the brain. The aluminum level in the brains of the fluoride-treated group was double that of the controls.

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html

So why are we fluoridating our water supply? Considering that the secret is out about the effectiveness or lack thereof of fluoride to prevent tooth decay as referenced by the following report, how exactly is it that this potentially deadly combination has gone relatively unnoticed by the medical establishment? And probably the most important question of all is, why are we standing by and blindly accepting our poison without so much as a whimper?

Fluoride, Dentists “Magic Bullet” is Shooting Blanks

SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

Poor Not Helped; Money Wasted; Kids in Dental Pain; Viable Alternatives Shunned

New York – January 20, 2012 — Despite decades of water fluoridation in New York State, the Journal of the American Dental Association reports that emergency treatment for NYS toddlers’ severe tooth decay has grown substantially in numbers and costs, many require general anesthesia, (1)reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

Fluoridation is touted as an effective cavity preventive that will save money. But this study and others proves it’s doing neither.

In 72% fluoridated NYS, 25,622 children, under six-years-old, made cavity-related emergency dental visits from 2004 though 2008. Visits grew from 4,361 in 2004 to 5,683 in 2008. Seventy-five percent required general anesthesia, up from 35% in 2004. Total costs: $121 Million ($18.5 million in 2004 increased to $31.3 million in 2008), most borne by taxpayers.

“There is a limited number of dentists willing to treat patients younger than 6 and/or accept Medicaid” write the NYS researchers.

More Statistics Show Fluoridation Fails New York State

NYS Department of Health statistics reveal that, even when water is fluoridated, cavity-rates are extremely high in low-income third-graders. (2)For example:

• 85% of low-income third graders have tooth decay in WayneCounty(74% fluoridated)
• 83% in OntarioCounty(61% fluoridated)
• 82% in CayugaCounty(not fluoridated)
• 82% in AlleghenyCounty(14% fluoridated)
• 81% in LivingstonCounty(55% fluoridated)
• 67% in SchuylerCounty(not fluoridated)
• 58% in NassauCounty(not fluoridated)

Fluoridation not only fails New YorkStatebut nationally children, the elderly and poor lack dental care.The General Accounting Office estimates that 6.5 million children aged 2 through 18 in Medicaid had untreated tooth decay in 2005.(3)

Oral health complications may be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.

Annually, 164 million work hours and 51 million school hours are lost due to dental problems, according to the Instituteof Medicine. (4)Also, a 2008 study of the armed forces reveals 52% of new recruits had oral health problems needing urgent attention, reports the Pew Charitable Trust.

“The American economy is hurt by dentists’ refusal to treat low-income Americans and by organized dentistry’s lobbying to outlaw cheaper dental care by viable dental professionals, such as dental therapists,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. “Fluoridation is a false concept that must be abandoned.”

Past Studies Show that when fluoridation ceases so do cavities (5 )

• Cavity rates decreased six years after fluoridation was stopped in Kupio, Finland.
• Seven years after fluoridation ended in LaSalud, Cuba, cavity-free children increased dramatically
• Following the cessation of water fluoridation in the East German cities, Chemnitzand Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed.
• After fluoridation ended in the East German cities, Spremberg and Zittau, cavities in 12-year-olds significantly decreased
• During an 11-month fluoridation break in Durham, NC,cavity rates remained stable but dental fluorosis declined in children born during that period
• In British Columbia, Canada, “the prevalence of caries decreased
  over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged
  in the fluoridated community.”
• In 1973, the Dutch town of Tielstopped fluoridation. Decayed, missing and filled surfaces dipped in 15-year-olds. Never-fluoridated Culemborg’s 15-year-olds had 72% less cavities over the same period.

Beeber says, “The multi-billion dollar Pew Charitable Trust continues to waste its resources promoting fluoridation in Iowa, Arkansas, Austin and elsewhere with misinformation. However, we agree with their findings that ‘Support for CWF (Community Water Fluoridation) is soft, especially among the following groups…Those who report being more knowledgeable of Community Water fluoridation.’”

Contact: Paul Beeber, Esq, 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com

http://www.Fluoridation.Webs.com

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

Research shows that fluoridation does not reduce cavities but quite possibly increases them, yet we fluoridate our water, then spray aluminum from the sky to pollute that water, the soil, and air. We unwittingly ingest this aluminum, take a nice cool drink of fluoridated water, and end up a few years down the road wondering where we misplaced our minds and health. This is a two-part mix that leads to a crippling disease.

Our brains and nervous systems are under attack, and we end up paying dearly for the privilege of being poisoned to death. Insane? Yes. But very real. Whether you believe we are being subjected to an intentional depopulation agenda or simply hapless victims of reckless corporate greed, it’s happening! You can’t refute the facts. Aluminum + Fluoride = Alzheimer’s and Dementia. The combination is deadly. They know it, I know it, and now you know it.

© 2012 Barbara H. Peterson

Notes:

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/alzheimers-dementia

http://www.nanomaterialstore.com/alo_alpha_msds.php

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html

Source: Farm Wars

Eugenics In Action: 3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant ...

Eugenics In Action: 3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant Because She Is “Mentally Retarded”

You are about to read about a 3 year old girl named Amelia that was denied a kidney transplant because she is considered to be "mentally retarded". The doctor that made this decision felt as though Amelia would not have a good enough "quality of life" to justify the procedure. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of eugenics in action and this is the kind of thing that starts happening when human life becomes cheap. When a society decides that life is not precious, all sorts of nightmarish things begin to occur. Women start aborting babies that are discovered to be less than "perfect". Life support systems are terminated for those that are considered to be "vegetables". Medical procedures are denied to elderly patients because they would be a "waste of resources". Terminally ill children are regarded as "not worth saving". We often look back in horror on the human sacrifices of past civilizations, but many of the things that we do today are extremely barbaric as well. And as the population control agenda of the global elite continues to be promoted in the classrooms of thousands of colleges and universities around the globe, the value placed on human life is going to continue to decline.

The following comes from an account by Amelia's mother of what it was like to hear a doctor tell her that her daughter was being denied a kidney transplant because she is considered to be "mentally retarded". You can read the full account right here. After dropping this bomb on Amelia's mother, the doctor and the social worker that were talking with her just got up and left the room. Unfortunately, scenes like this play out all over America every single day....

I am beginning to realize I want this over with so I can move onto the next person who will help me with the transplant. So I say the words and ask the questions I have been avoiding.

“So you mean to tell me that as a doctor, you are not recommending the transplant, and when her kidneys fail in six months to a year, you want me to let her die because she is mentally retarded? There is no other medical reason for her not to have this transplant other than she is MENTALLY RETARDED!”

“Yes. This is hard for me, you know.”

My eyes burn through his soul as if I could set him on fire right there. “Ok, so now what? This is not acceptable to me. Who do I talk to next?”

“I will take this back to the team. We meet once a month. I will tell them I do not recommend Amelia for a transplant because she is mentally retarded and we will vote.”

“And then who do I see?”

“Well, you can then take it the ethics committee but as a team we have the final say. Feel free to go somewhere else. But it won’t be done here.”

They both get up and leave the room.

Fortunately, there has been a great outcry over this story and this decision is being reconsidered. But the eugenics agenda has been promoted so hard for so long in this country that there are a lot of voices out there that are actually supporting the decision to deny the kidney transplant to Amelia.

For example, the following is from a Huffington Post editorial that supports denying a kidney transplant to this little girl because it would be "a waste of an organ".....

The stark reality then, is that a kidney that goes to one patient means it does not go to another. Giving a kidney to Amelia means that someone, whose name you will probably never know, but who will be loved just as fiercely as Amelia is, won't get one in time.

Which is why there are rules -- unemotional, clinical, detached rules -- for a situation that is none of those things. And it is why there are forms like the ones placed in front of Amelia's parents. Amelia is not being denied a donor transplant because she is, as her mother writes, "mentally retarded." She is being denied a donor transplant because she has a cascading syndrome that will shorten and limit her life, meaning that kidney will not "save" her in the way that it might someone who starts out healthier. In cold clinical terms this means that everything it takes to undergo a transplant -- the medications, the repeated biopsy procedures afterwards, the constant monitoring and machinery -- are difficult and sometimes impossible compared with a child who is less impaired. The less mobile a patient is, the far greater the likelihood that she will develop an infection, or pneumonia, or a host of other complications that make it probable that the transplant will eventually fail. Which, in those same cold clinical terms, would make it a waste of an organ.

If you feel like losing your lunch after reading that, it is perfectly understandable.

Somehow, millions upon millions of Americans have been convinced that just because a child is sick or disabled that they are not going to have a good enough "quality of life" to be worth saving.

In other instances, decisions about medical care come down to money.

The goal of health insurance companies is to make as much money as possible. When they can get away with refusing to pay for expensive treatments and procedures that increases their profits.

Anyone that has ever had a claim denied by a health insurance company knows what I am talking about. They will gladly take your money, but when the time comes that you really need them many of them will do whatever they can to wiggle out of paying.

Many health insurance companies even treat our injured veterans very badly. The following example comes from CBS News....

John Woodson, a 51-year-old contractor from Oklahoma who was featured on ABC's 20/20 in 2009, lost an eye and a leg when the truck he was driving hit a roadside bomb in Iraq. He is covered by an AIG government benefits program for employees of U.S. contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan. But AIG refused to provide him with the new plastic leg his doctor had ordered, and even fought against paying for a wheelchair and glasses for his remaining eye. (He has only 30 percent vision in his remaining eye.) The insurance company eventually provided him with a better artificial limb made of replacement parts, but not the one his doctor ordered, according to ABC.

Can you believe that?

But at least that solider did not end up dead.

Other "health insurance victims" are not so fortunate.

This next example comes from a Huffington Post article....

Hilda and Krikor Sarkisyan went to CIGNA's Philadelphia headquarters, along with supporters from the California Nurses Association, to confront the CEO Edward Hanway over the death of her 17-year-old child.

In 2007, Nataline Sarkisyan was denied a liver transplant by the company, on the grounds that the operation was "too experimental" to be covered. Nine days later it changed its mind, in response to protests outside its office. It was too late: Nataline died hours later.

"CIGNA killed my daughter," Nataline's mother Hilda told security. "I want an apology." Sarkisyan was not able to speak to Hanway; a communications specialist talked to her instead. After their conversation, employees heckled the group from a balcony; one man gave them the finger. CIGNA called the police and had the family and their friends escorted from the building.

The health insurance system in America is completely and totally broken. At some health insurance companies, employee bonuses have actually been based on who can deny the most claims.

Hopefully you are with an ethical health insurance company. If not, you may not have the coverage that you think that you have. If there is the smallest thing wrong on your health insurance application, they will find it. And when they find it they will use it as justification to deny your claim.

We live in a very cold-hearted society.

Even the government is cold-hearted.

If something has gone wrong with your health insurance and you are slowly dying at home, the government is not going to save you.

But the government is very concerned about making sure that your kids get pumped full of toxic vaccines.

After all, they have to do what they can to increase the profits of the pharmaceutical companies, right?

Recently, the CDC has been ramping up efforts to put even more pressure on parents across the United States to vaccinate their children.

Unfortunately, that is probably going to mean that we are going to see even more healthy children become disabled or die. The following example comes from VacTruth.com....

It has been reported a fit and healthy 7-year-old girl died unexpectedly before Christmas after a flu vaccine. Kaylynne died in her mother’s arms four days after she was given a flu vaccine by her doctor at her annual check up.

Officials are now investigating Kaylynne’s death and an autopsy report is due in a couple of week’s time. Kaylynne’s mother is positive the vaccine killed her daughter and told reporters, “We’re just waiting for an answer,” “but we believe in our hearts that it was the flu shot.”

State officials however, are not convinced that the flu vaccine was the cause of the girl’s death.

What is even worse is when pregnant mothers get injected with vaccines. The immune systems of their babies are simply not developed enough to be able to handle the toxic vaccines and many of them die.

For dozens and dozens of stories of miscarriages that were caused by vaccines, please see this article and the comments that follow.

So why isn't the government doing more to protect us?

Well, that becomes easy to understand when you realize that most of the people in our government and most of those that make up the "global elite" actually believe that the world is massively overpopulated.

That is why they spend so much money promoting "family planning" programs around the globe. They are obsessed with finding ways to get us to have less children.

In fact, the global elite promote their population control agenda all over the world in dozens of different ways. If you are interested in learning more, please see the following articles....

#1 From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite

#2 Al Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control

#3 Governments Around The World Are Eagerly Adopting The Strict Population Control Agenda Of The United Nations

#4 Yes, They Really Do Want To Reduce The Population – 22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch

#5 The Dangerous Myth Of Overpopulation

#6 One Less Child? Environmental Extremists Warn That Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change And Will Ultimately Destroy The Earth

#7 Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

#8 New U.N. Report: We Must Reduce The Population To Fight Climate Change

#9 The Population Control Agenda Behind The Global Warming Movement: For The Environmental Extremists At Copenhagen Population Reduction Is The “Cheapest” Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions

#10 To The Global Elite The Math Is Simple: Human Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change So The Solution To Climate Change Is Population Control

If we do not stand up for what is morally right now, in the future it will become "normal" to routinely deny kidney transplants to "mentally retarded" children because their lives will be considered "not worth living".

We look back in horror at the eugenics programs of the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, but most Americans don't realize that the Nazis got most of their ideas about eugenics from America.

Now many of those same concepts are being repackaged for a new generation.

If we do not value human life, our society will fail.

It is as simple as that.

Throughout human history, whenever the value placed on human life in a society declines dramatically, mass death has usually never been far behind.

And with ObamaCare this will only get worse! We have embarrassed abortion for so long that this is the natural next step… rationing for special needs patients, then will come the the rationing or death panels for seniors… and then?

So what do all of you think about the 3 year old girl that was denied a kidney transplant because she was considered to be "mentally retarded"? Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below....

Source: The American Dream – h/t to AJ

Related Read: The Nazi Connection

Related:

New Year’s Tax to Help Ration ObamaCare

Uproar Over ObamaCare’s ‘Rationing Panels’ Intensifies

Big Pharma’s Eugenics Past

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Anyone Recall Jane Bergermeister and the Letha Vaccinations???  It’s Back!

 ObamaCare… HIts, Misses and Perhaps a Look into the Future

The Aspartame Trap: You May Be Unknowingly Ingesting this Toxic Sweetener

Andre Evans  -  Activist Post

The risk of artificial sweeteners is still very real. Aspartame is used as a substitute sweetener in thousands of products. Most diet sodas, processed foods and candies contain this ‘alternative’ to sugar.

If you aren’t careful, you’ll easily run into it somewhere in your food.

Aspartame is marketed not by its real name, but through products like Equal and NutraSweet. This is because aspartame itself has a bad reputation as a dangerous excitotoxin. An excitotoxin is named for its ability to ‘excite’ the cells of the body into overproducing a particular chemical, thus burning them out prematurely. Aspartame in particular has been found to affect brain cells, by mimicking the response to sweetness and producing an artificial form of it.

One study actually found that 67% of female rats exposed to aspartame developed tumors roughly the size of golf balls or larger.

When you consume an aspartame-sweetened product, its effect can translate into a number of neurological symptoms like headaches, fatigue, vision problems, and anxiety. These will continue to manifest until the user eliminates it from their diet completely.

However, if aspartame usage is continued, a physical addiction to the substance occurs. Most people know at least one person who can’t seem to kick their diet drinks, and when they try to, they end up with a number of these symptoms. Aspartame is considered addictive, and a chemical dependency begins to form when aspartame is consumed regularly, and is hard to break.

Aspartame Linked to Cancer, Contains Genetically Modified Bacteria

Due to the neurological effect aspartame has, its continued use can be expected to lead to many forms of neurological diseases as well as cancer. Aspartame has been suggested as a prominent cause for certain forms of brain cancer as well. It is also interesting to note that aspartame is also created using Monsanto’s genetically modified bacteria, raising further cause for alarm.

But who is most at risk for unknowingly consuming aspartame?

Older people and diabetics are more likely to consume aspartame due to their desire to replace sugar with a ‘healthy’ alternative. Of course aspartame is far from a healthy alternative. Its effects can easily accelerate or compound health concerns that these individuals may already have. Similarly, children are more likely to consume aspartame due to its prominent usage in all forms of candy, snacks, and soft drinks. This would easily serve to compromise their ability to achieve optimum health, as they are still in their formative stages, and therefore aspartame can cause irrevocable damage.

Avoid this addictive drug-like substance at any cost, and replace it with a real healthy alternative like stevia. Furthermore, it will benefit you to reconsider your stance on sugar consumption in general.

Rather than look for what seems to be a shortcut or alternative, consider that simply consuming less sugar is healthier.

The Governments" philosophy has become "Delay, Deny - Until You Die."

Stand up and Occupy Your Food ...
Official US registry for Dow's petition for GMO "Agent Orange" approval. WE HAVE UNTIL FEBRUARY 27, 2012. can you please leave you comment on this link Thank you   -  h/t to AJ

Splenda – Safer Than Aspartame But Is It Really Safe?

Your Are What You Eat: 7 Food Additives That Are Secretly Making Us FAT

The 76 Dangers of Sugar

Obesity in a Lo-Cal Can

MILLER: Simple entitlement reform

Small change in Social Security/Medicare retirement age saves billions

Illustration: Entitlements by A. HUNTER for The Washington Times.

Rick Perry’s exit from the presidential race Thursday left the field with one less reformer willing to take on the single most important budgetary issue: entitlements. Social Security and Medicare’s growing liabilities are driving this nation toward a Greek-style debt crisis. Politicians know the current system is unsustainable and that raising the retirement age is a necessary reform. Few are brave enough to risk doing the right thing.

Democrats have tried to scare seniors into thinking the slightest adjustment to these programs will send them over the proverbial cliff - even though nobody is suggesting changes that would affect anyone currently over the age of 55. The reality is Social Security and Medicare are outdated and must adapt to the baby-boom generation’s longer life spans and increased health care costs. The full retirement age for Social Security is 66 years, just one year more than it was when FDR set up this Ponzi scheme.

As Mr. Perry pointed out during the campaign, Social Security was not created with the idea that Americans would live 15 or more years beyond retirement. In the 1940s, life expectancy was 61 years for men and 65 for women. Now, it’s 76 for men and 80 for women. While we’re all happy to see our parents and grandparents live much longer lives, each senior in retirement is being supported by only three younger workers. That’s why we have to borrow so much money to keep the government checks in the mail.

Republican front-runner Mitt Romney understands the problem. “I’d also add a year to two to the retirement age under Social Security,” the former Massachusetts governor said in the Fox debate on Monday. He would adjust how benefits are indexed for inflation and wealthier Americans. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum would do the same. Texas Rep. Ron Paul wants to shuttle the whole program after paying out to current retirees.

Medicare’s eligibility age of 65 years has not changed at all since the program began in 1966. Mr. Romney supports “a slightly higher retirement age” and shifting the program to the premium-support optional plan that was recently crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. Unless something is done, Medicare’s own trustees say it will go belly-up in only eight years.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said last week that raising the Social Security retirement age gradually to 70 would reduce outlays 13 percent. Raising Medicare’s age gradually to 67 would reduce costs by 5 percent. Small changes in age mean billions in savings. As a side benefit, raising the retirement age means people would stay in the work force longer, increasing the output of the economy. In turn, that would also lead to more tax revenue in Washington to help balance the budget.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. The only alternatives to raising the eligibility are reducing benefits and hiking taxes on younger workers. Our next president needs to be someone who realizes those aren’t acceptable options.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

A SCOTUS Ordered End To Health Insurance Mandates Means Big Trouble For GOP Presidential Candidate

Forbes ^ | 1/16/12 | R Ungar  -  Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:26:26 AM · by Recovering_Democrat · 4 replies

A SCOTUS Ordered End To Health Insurance Mandates Means Big Trouble For GOP Presidential Candidate

Image via Wikipedia

Despite the bravado exhibited by the GOP presidential candidates—each angling to outdo the other when promising to enter the White House with guns ablazin’ for the Affordable Care Act—their rhetoric is fraught with some very real dangers to their party—not to mention the nation—when it comes to actually pulling the trigger.

While it may be de rigueur for conservatives to proclaim their hatred of Obamacare in its entirety, there is no getting around the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans very much like certain elements of the law – parts that Republicans would find themselves struggling to save should the Supreme Court strike down insurance mandates and the GOP succeed in taking control of both the legislative and executive branches of government.

Certainly, I acknowledge that a large number of Americans suffer from anxiety attacks when it comes to the costs of expanding Medicaid and the imposition of taxes on benefit-packed Cadillac insurance policies, just as I understand that many are highly allergic to the very mention of government telling us that we must buy a health insurance policy.

But I also know that when it comes to keeping our kids on our health insurance policies until they are 26 or finally being permitted to purchase health insurance on a community rated, guaranteed issue basis even if we suffer a pre-existing health problem, people feel very differently. Americans like these parts of Obamacare—and we aren’t going to be happy if we are required to give these benefits back.

Indeed, agreement on this topic is coming from some very surprising and unlikely places, beginning with the mega-conservative American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) health care policy expert —and devout Obamacare opponent—Joseph Antos.

I can’t see a Republican getting rid of guaranteed issue,” Antos said, referring to the provision that requires insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their medical history. “Certainly no Republican is going to change the provision that says children under 26 can sign on to their parents’ plans.” Via Politico

Joe’s statement provides me with the very rare opportunity to agree with an opinion emanating from the AEI —because he is absolutely right.

Americans are most assuredly not going to happily accept the idea of a GOP dominated government snatching away the availability of health insurance at a community rated price and a return to denying coverage to those who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. Yet, that is precisely what must happen should the Supreme Court strike down the individual mandate requirements of the ACA.

You simply cannot require an insurance company to sell policies to people with pre-existing conditions if there is no mandate requiring millions of healthy Americans to buy in as, to do so, would completely destabilize the insurance pools. As a rule of thumb, a functioning insurance model requires 80 percent of the pool to be healthy to support the cost of the 20 percent who get sick. Thus, requiring an insurer to sell policies to people more likely to get sick, without the requirement that healthy people participate, will necessarily cause the insurance pools to fail, leaving health insurance companies to flee the business even faster than their inevitable exit due to their business model no longer being viable.

While the public has been slow to grasp the inescapable connection between the private insurance mandates and making coverage available to all, including those who have had illness in their past, the inability or unwillingness to grasp this truth does not diminish the reality that you simply cannot have one without the other —unless you are prepared to replace our current model with a universal, single-payer health care system.

Like it or not, those are the choices —and the only choices.

Thus, while Republican candidates may bask in the political opportunity presented by the vilification of Obamacare as they wave their pom-poms in support of SCOTUS’ opportunity to rid the land of this blight, should the Supreme Court answer their prayers, a Republican president with a Republican controlled legislative branch wll instantly find himself in some very hot water with the people who sent them to Washington to destroy Obamacare.

Oh…the irony.

So here is a thought — if you are one of the many Americans who favors the idea of guaranteed issue at fair prices yet despise the government’s requiring you to buy the insurance coverage that is necessary to make it all possible, consider asking your friendly, local GOP presidential candidate how he can support the death of the insurance mandates and still deliver on giving Americans those parts of Obamacare that they like.

I know I’ll be anxiously awaiting the answer – and so should you as you are likely to discover that you should be much more careful with what you wish for.

Supreme Court Allows New Plaintiffs in Health Care Law Challenge

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:39:08 PM · by maddog55 · 2 replies

Fox News ^ | January 17, 2012 | Shannon Bream

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the addition of two new business owners to a suit challenging the health care law that was in question because one of the original business owners attached to the case has gone bankrupt. Supporters of President Obama’s health care law argued that her bankruptcy made Mary Brown ineligible to continue on as a plaintiff, suggesting the entire case could fall apart because of a lack of standing. Other business owners were attached to the case, but the Justice Department would not stipulate that they met the standards for establishing standing in this case.

h/t to MJ

Healthy 7 Year Old Girl Dies in Mother’s Arms After Flu Shot

It has been reported a fit and healthy 7-year-old girl died unexpectedly before Christmas after a flu vaccine. Kaylynne died in her mother’s arms four days after she was given a flu vaccine by her doctor at her annual check up.

Officials are now investigating Kaylynne’s death and an autopsy report is due in a couple of week’s time. Kaylynne’s mother is positive the vaccine killed her daughter and told reporters, “We’re just waiting for an answer,” “but we believe in our hearts that it was the flu shot.”

State officials however, are not convinced that the flu vaccine was the cause of the girl’s death.

Healthy 7 Year Old Girl Dies in Mother’s Arms After Flu Shot

A family in Vermont is mourning the loss of their child.

It has been reported a fit and healthy 7-year-old girl died unexpectedly before Christmas after a flu vaccine. Kaylynne died in her mother’s arms four days after she was given a flu vaccine by her doctor at her annual check up.

Officials are now investigating Kaylynne’s death and an autopsy report is due in a couple of week’s time. Kaylynne’s mother is positive the vaccine killed her daughter and told reporters, “We’re just waiting for an answer,” “but we believe in our hearts that it was the flu shot.”

State officials however, are not convinced that the flu vaccine was the cause of the girl’s death.

A report on Seven Days, Vermont’s Independent News, (1) stated Vermont Health Commissioner, Dr. Harry Chen made it clear that in his opinion it was extremely unlikely that Kaylynne’s death was related to the vaccine and he is worried that scaremongering will deter parents from vaccinating their children.

Chen said deaths after a vaccine are very rare and that a death after the flu shot has never before been reported in Vermont.

News reporter Ken Picard wrote:

Chen and other state health officials are more worried about the effects of news reports prematurely linking the Barton girl’s death to the flu shot: specifically, that more parents will opt out of immunizing their children, or themselves, against seasonal influenza.

A 7yr child dies just days before Christmas after receiving a ‘so called safe vaccine’ and all state officials are worried about are the effects her death will have on vaccination statistics! His behavior in my opinion was disgusting and highlights the inhumane way officials treat grieving parents to further their own ends.

So are deaths after flu vaccines as rare as Chen has stated and are the vaccines as safe as we are led to believe?

From the research that I have found neither the flu vaccine nor the Swine flu vaccine has been found to be particularly safe. In November last year an article highlighted two deaths occurring just hours after the Swine flu or H1N1 vaccine in China. (A point to remember here is that the H1N1 vaccine is included in this years flu shot.) (2)

The Ministry of Health in China reported that two people had died after receiving swine flu shots. They were clear to point out however, that death after immunization does not necessarily mean that the death was caused by the vaccine. (3)

Nurses Boycott Flu Vaccine

UK Nurses are also saying that the flu shots are unsafe and have been reluctant to have the vaccines. A report on the website Nursing Times.net (4) states that unvaccinated nurses taking part in a survey said that they did not have the flu vaccine because of safety concerns. The report states:

When asked why they had not had the vaccine, the majority of unvaccinated respondents highlighted concerns about vaccine side effects.

The Nursing Times stated that researchers had found that concerns about side effects and efficacy were the two most frequent reasons for nurses refusing the flu vaccine.

If nurses are not having the vaccine through fears that they are unsafe, then surely this must indicate that these vaccines are unsafe? Could the reason for this be, that they are seeing a higher than average number of adverse reactions coming into the hospitals?

Senior Flu Shots Are Proving To Be Exceptionally Dangerous

If you still feel that the vaccines are safe then I suggest you take a look at an article written by Dr Mercola which was highlighted this week. Dr Mercola (5) stated that the new flu vaccine being give to seniors is proving exceptionally dangerous. He says that according to the CDC there are more frequent reports of side effects after the High Dose Fluzone vaccine.This is the vaccine which is being given to seniors. Mercola wrote:

“The safety profile of Fluzone High-Dose vaccine is similar to that of regular flu vaccines, although adverse events (which are also reported after regular flu vaccines) were reported more frequently after vaccination with Fluzone High-Dose.

The most common adverse events experienced during clinical studies were mild and temporary and included pain, redness and swelling at the injection site and headache, muscle aches, fever and malaise.”

Mercola continued:

A total of 6.1 percent of seniors injected with the regular Fluzone vaccine experienced a serious adverse event, compared to 7.4 percent of those receiving the newer high-dose version. According to the package insert the SAE’s reported during the post-approval use of the vaccine include:

• Thrombocytopenia (abnormally low platelet count, which can result in abnormal bleeding)
• Guillain-Barre syndrome
• Myelitis (spinal cord inflammation)
• Optic neuritis (inflammation of the optic nerve)
• Lymphadenopathy (enlarged lymph nodes)
• Facial palsy (Bell’s palsy)
• Paresthesia (numbness/tingling of the skin)
• Itchy skin
• Anaphylaxis (life-threatening whole-body allergic reaction)
• Stevens-Johnson syndrome
• Vasculitis (inflammatory destruction of blood vessels)
• Difficulty breathing, shortness of breath
• Chest pain
• Brachial neuritis (excruciating unilateral shoulder pain, followed by paralysis of shoulder)
• Pharyngitis and rhinitis (inflammation of the throat or pharynx, and the nose, respectively)
• Convulsions, fainting, dizziness

I feel that if doctors and nurses are avoiding these vaccinations they are doing so for a reason and if the vaccine manufacturers are writing lists this long on their information leaflet, then they are writing it to cover themselves should anyone have an adverse reaction. Let’s fact it how many pensioners would actually ask to read this leaflet before they have the vaccine?

I have decided that given the evidence stating that flu vaccines are proving unsafe. I will take my chances and not have either of the flu vaccines; one thing is for sure if I do get the flu I have a better chance of recovery than I would from the side effects mentioned in the list above.

References
1. Seven Days – Vermont’s Independent News http://www.7dvt.com/2012flu-shot-or-not-state-health-officials-warn-against-alarmist-reaction-young-girls-death
2. Flu Vaccine NHS website http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Flu-jab/Pages/Introduction.aspx
3. Two People Died After Getting Swine Flu shots – Hometesting blog http://hometestingblog.testcountry.com/?p=5005
4. Nursing Times – Vaccine side effects top of nurses’ concerns about flu jab http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/immunology/vaccine-side-effects-top-of-nurses-concerns-about-flu-jab/5039337.article
5. Mercola http://www.care2.com/greenliving/dangerous-new-flu-vaccine-for-seniors.html

Source: VacTruth.com  - h/t to MJ

Related:

Alternatives to Flu Shots

Anyone Recall Jane Bergermeister and the Lethal Vaccines???

Research Firm Blows Hole in Big Pharma Vaccination Lie

Experts Admit Swine Flu Jab ‘May Cause’ Deadly Nerve Disease  and Here

Sterilization of Our Children Has Begun With H1N1 Vaccine

Drug Companies Shift Emphasis to Vaccines

Athlete Crippled by Flu Shot

How to Starve Cancer Out of Your Body - Avoid These Top 4 Cancer-Feeding Foods

Video: Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Christine Horner

Download Interview Transcript

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Story at-a-glance

• Dr. Christine Horner, a board certified general- and plastic surgeon, shares her extensive knowledge about breast cancer—its causes and its cures, and the pro’s and con’s of various screening methods
• There are many all-natural cancer-prevention strategies, and research shows that most of them can cut your risk in half. Consequently, by implementing multiple strategies, you can virtually eliminate your risk of cancer as well as other chronic disease
• Your diet is the one of the best ways to either feed or prevent cancer. Processed foods, soft drinks, red meat from CAFO-raised animals, trans fats, all forms of sugar, and any food containing or contaminated with xenoestrogens promote cancer growth. Plant foods, particularly cruciferous vegetables and flax seed, as well as many herbs and spices are cancer-preventive
• Healthy fats of particular importance for cancer prevention are omega-3 and omega-9, which effectively slow down tumor growth in estrogen-sensitive cancers such as breast-, prostate- and colon cancers

By Dr. Mercola

Dr. Christine Horner began her career as a board certified general- and plastic surgeon, performing breast reconstructive surgeries on women who'd had full mastectomies due to breast cancer.

In this interview, she shares her extensive knowledge about breast cancer—its causes and its cures, and the pro's and con's of various screening methods.

Her interest in breast cancer began while she was still in college, when her mother developed the disease.

Thirteen years later, when her mother's cancer returned, Dr. Horner became very active with the American Cancer Society.

For a time, she was a vice-president and the Kentucky state spokesperson for the American Cancer Society on breast cancer issues.

"We were trained to say that we don't know what causes breast cancer and we have no known cures; the best things that women can do are breast exams and mammograms," she says.

"… In my practice, I was watching women get younger and younger when I was doing breast reconstruction on them.

Finally, I was doing women in their 20s. I thought something is way wrong with this picture." I thought why don't we just look through the medical literature and see if there's anything that research shows that women can do, that's within our control that will lower our risks. I had no idea what I was going to find… But when I looked, I instantly found thousands of studies that show exactly why we have a cancer epidemic…"

What's Causing the Cancer Epidemic?

What Dr. Horner discovered was that there are a number of habits we've stopped doing in our modern culture that are highly protective. We've dramatically altered our diets—shunning our native, whole-foods cuisine for highly processed fare—and engage in very little physical activity, for example.

"We're telling women that all they can do is mammogram [screening], and it's extremely disempowering," Dr. Horner says. "You feel like you have no control over it. But if you look at epidemiological studies… we know that people that live in Asia have a very low incidence of breast cancer or prostate cancer… [W]e have the studies showing that if an Asian woman moves to the United States and adopts our American diet and lifestyle, within one generation her risk will match that of an American woman's. It's like "Hello? What are we doing or not doing that they're doing or not doing that's making such a big difference? "

Dr. Horner was eventually introduced to the system of Ayurvedic medicine, and the more she learned about it, the more she felt there were answers therein that needed to be shared with people on a wider scale.

'[T]here are so many really simple things people can do that can have a dramatic effect on their health," she says. "Basically, the more you learn about natural medicine, the more you'll realize that we're just telling our patients lies– not on purpose, but from what we have been taught from the pharmaceutical companies and so forth."

She pitched the idea to television stations in Cincinnati to let her talk about complementary and alternative medicine, and ended up being the first syndicated segment on the news related to complementary and alternative medicine, which ran from 1999 through 2002. At that point, she decided to quit her surgery practice to focus on teaching people how to become and stay healthy naturally, and wrote the book: Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer, which contains all-natural approaches for protecting against and treating breast cancer. Dr. Horner's book won the IPPY award in 2006 for "Best book in health medicine and nutrition."

"[W]e have the answers to the breast cancer epidemic," she says. "We truly do– and it's very simple. If you have a terrible diet and lifestyle and you do just one thing, you cut your risk in half. You do more than one thing and they will multiply up together. They don't add up together. They multiply up together, so it becomes extremely easy to dramatically lower your risk of breast cancer."

It's worth mentioning that the same strategies apply for other types of cancer as well. Prostate and colon cancer tumors, for example, are similar to breast cancer tumors, as certain hormones cause them all to grow. Hence, protective strategies that are effective against breast cancer also work on these other types of cancer. Cancer prevention strategies will also virtually eliminate most other chronic disorders.

The Problem with Conventional Cancer Screenings

While diagnostic screenings have their place, some cancer screens are just about worthless… The wisdom of using the PSA test, for example, which checks for prostate cancer, has recently been questioned. Ditto for mammograms.

"Looking at the diagnostic tests that are currently available, none of them are perfect," Dr. Horner says. "Everything has its pros and cons… [M]ammography produces radiation, which has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer. It's like, "Why are you doing the test to look at a disease when it's actually causing the disease, too?" … It does pick things up at earlier stages, but the problem is that it's not very specific. So when it looks and it sees something… that looks suspicious, it is wrong 80 percent of the time. In the United States, there's roughly a million breast biopsies done per year, and 800,000 of them are unnecessary."

One of the best cancer screening methods is self-examination. But you need to make sure you're doing it correctly. For more information about how to do a breast self exam, please see this previous article.

MRI's, which do not use ionizing radiation, are not a practical tool as they are very expensive, and, like mammograms, MRI scans are not very specific. Ultrasound is another technique used in Western medicine. The traditional ultrasound can see whether a mass is cystic or solid. But while a solid mass is generally considered to be something that might be of concern, this is not 100 percent certain either, as cancer tumors can sometimes have cysts in them.

"Now there's a relatively new ultrasound that uses a color mode," Dr. Horner says. "It's called elastography. But there aren't very many centers in the United States that use it. I go to the Center of the Hoxsey Clinic, to Dr. Arturo Rodriguez at Tijuana. It has a color scale that measures the elasticity of the cell membranes. Cancer cells are very stiff, whereas normal cells have more fluidity to them. It'll show up as red if it has a lot of stiffness to it, as a cancer cell, or blue if it has elasticity… It's a very good tool."

On Thermography

Another form of cancer screen, which is still considered controversial in conventional medicine, is thermography, which gives you an infrared image of your body. By looking at heat and blood vessel patterns you can determine whether there are areas of concern.

"[B]efore you even get a tumor formation, the very first thing that happens is new blood vessels start to grow into the area where the tumor may form. Those blood vessels grow abnormally. They grow an abnormal amount of patterns and they produce an abnormal amount of heat. That's what thermography is checking for," Dr. Horner explains.

As with most new technologies, thermography hit some snags in its earlier stages, and fell out of favor in the early 70s. However, the technology has gotten a lot more sophisticated over the years, and is now computerized; eliminating the need for highly trained technicians to evaluate the results.

"The problem we still have today with thermography is that we don't have standardization," Dr. Horner explains. "We don't have a uniform way that people are tested and trained with uniform equipment, and so forth… But there's definitely a movement… to do standardization, and to get that technology available for women, because this is a technology that has no health detriments associated with it. It does not use radiation or anything harmful to your body."

Unfortunately, the advocates of mammography perceive thermography as a threat to their business model. So there's tremendous pressure against it, including from the federal regulatory agencies.

"It's unfortunate," Dr. Horner says, "but our country is run by big business. It's just is, so anytime we want to shift anything culturally like that, and we're going against established business, we have trouble because it's all about money."

For example, many of the presidents of the American Cancer Society were members of the Radiological Association, which is the industry supporting the mammography component. The entire medical field is littered with massive conflicts of interest.

'We can see that everywhere. You look in the FDA—there are people from Monsanto that work in the FDA. Unfortunately, people think, "the United States is not very corrupt." But actually, it's extremely corrupt," she says.

Still, there are many good reasons for considering thermography. To ensure you're getting the highest standard of care, Dr. Horner recommends using a practitioner certified by the International Academy of Clinical Thermography, an independent non-profit organization that provides objective, third-party certifications. Their website lists qualified thermography centers across the US, Canada, and some other countries, such as France, Trinidad, and Zambia.

Most Natural Prevention Strategies Can Reduce Your Cancer Risk by Half...

Through her research, Dr. Horner has gathered a large number of cancer-prevention strategies—about 50 in all! Even more astounding is the rate of effectiveness of many of these strategies.

"[I]f you look at the studies, virtually every single thing that has an influence [causes] almost a 50 percent reduction in cancer risk… and if you combine them, like I said, you'll get these synergistic results where they'll multiply up as far as their effect is concerned.

I'd say the most important thing is what you do or do not put in your mouth… because you can have huge influences by the foods you consume– the spices, the herbs, and so forth. And, the things that you avoid, that's going to give you the biggest results. … Vitamin D cuts your risks in half. Turmeric and anti-inflammatories cut your risk in half. I could go through each thing—and I'm telling you the research shows that there's about 40 to 50 percent reduction [in risk]—so… to say that one is necessarily better than anything else, that's a really hard thing to claim."

The Top Four Cancer-Promoting Foods

Dr. Horner brings up an excellent point, and that is that in order to be effective, you must first STOP doing that which is promoting cancer growth (or poor health in general), and then all the other preventive strategies have the chance to really have an impact. Addressing your diet should be at the top of your list, and rather than adding certain foods, you'll want to eliminate the most dangerous culprits first.

Naturally, processed foods and soft drinks do not belong in a cancer-preventive diet...

Dr. Horner, believes red meat from animals reared in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO's) is also a MAJOR contributor to cancer. These animals are given antibiotics, growth hormones and other veterinary drugs that get stored in their tissues. Additionally, cooking the meat over high heat creates heterocyclic amines, which further add to its carcinogenic effect.

While I do recommend eating meat, I agree that there is absolutely NO benefit to eating CAFO beef. The ONLY type of meat I recommend is organically-raised, grass-fed meats. It's hard for a lot of people to grasp the difference between CAFO and organic meat, but truly, they are like two different species in terms of their nutritional content. One is health harming while the other is beneficial.

So when we're talking about the detrimental impact of red meat on your health, especially in terms of feeding cancer, please understand that we're talking specifically about CAFO beef, aka "factory farmed" meat. Next on the list of cancer-promoters is sugar (this includes ALL forms of sugar, including fructose and grains).

"To me, sugar has no redeeming value at all, because they found that the more we consume it, the more we're fuelling every single chronic disease," Dr. Horner says. "In fact, there was a study done about a year ago… and the conclusion was that sugar is a universal mechanism for chronic disease. It kicks up inflammation. It kicks up oxygen free radicals. Those are the two main processes we see that underlie any single chronic disorder, including cancers. It fuels the growth of breast cancers, because glucose is cancer's favorite food. The more you consume, the faster it grows."

Next is the type of fats that you consume. It's important to remember that every cell membrane is made out of fat, as is your brain. According to Dr. Horner, bad-fats in the diet are a major contributor to ill health and cancer. On the list of fats to eliminate are:

• Animal fats from CAFO-raised animals
• Trans fats
• Partially hydrogenated or hydrogenated fats

Healthy fats of particular importance for cancer prevention are omega-3 and omega-9. According to Dr. Horner, omega-3 in particular serve to effectively slow down tumor growth in estrogen-sensitive cancers such as breast-, prostate- and colon cancers. Fourth on the list of cancer promoters is ANY item that contains xenoestrogens (chemicals that mimic estrogen). This can become a rather long list once you start including any food contaminated with such estrogen-mimicking chemicals, such as BPA, found in the linings of canned goods and in plastics. The list gets truly unwieldy when you include personal care products that contain such chemicals as well…

"There are case reports of five- and six-year-olds going through secondary sex characteristics because of the shampoo that they were using... There are all sorts of different sources where we're exposed to these chemicals from our foods and from the products that we use.

What we're seeing is younger and younger puberty. Around the world, the average age is about 16 years old. In the United States, it's 10 years old now, and sometimes even younger. The problem is that with each menstrual period there is a surge of estradiol, which is the strongest, most abundant form of estrogen, and the one that's most associated with breast cancer. If you start your period very young, you'll have more periods in your lifetime than what a person would have, obviously, if they started at an older age.

In addition to that, when a girl goes through puberty, her breast cells become really sensitive to environmental toxins, radiation, and so forth. They're considered immature. They haven't differentiated– as a more scientific term for it– so there's a longer period of time that they're exposed to these toxins where they have a greater sensitivity."

Dr. Horner reviews a number of other important factors that influence your cancer risk, so for more details, please listen to the interview in its entirety, or read through the transcript.

Eating for Cancer Prevention

According to Dr. Horner, the research clearly shows that the one food that is the most important for optimal health is plant foods.

"Plants are packed full of nutrients, vitamins, and minerals that are crucial for our health. They also have hundreds of phytochemicals in them. These don't have any nutritional or caloric value, but they are like natural medicines, and some of them behave exactly like chemotherapy," she says.

"Every plant has some anti-cancer properties to them. There are some that are standouts. Cruciferous vegetables are something that I really recommend. They're a family of vegetables that include broccoli, cauliflower, kale, collards, and Brussels sprouts…

All of them have several different chemicals in common. They've got indole-3-carbinol, Calcium D-glucarate, and sulforaphane. They have big anti-cancer properties to them, and they inhibit the growth of breast, prostate, colon cancer and a variety of other ones. Of all the families of vegetables to consume, [cruciferous vegetables] are the ones to be aware of, so you can make sure you're including that in your diet frequently."

Naturally, you'll want to make sure the vegetables are fresh, and ideally locally grown and organic. Besides cruciferous veggies, another standout plant for cancer-prevention is flax seed. The lignans in flax seed inhibit the growth of cancer in about a dozen different ways, including the exact same mechanism as the anti-cancer drug Tamoxifen and Arimidex, which shut down an enzyme in fat cells called aromatase that converts androgens into estrogens.

"I hear from patients, "Oh! My oncologist told me not to take flaxseeds, because they're estrogenic,"" Dr. Horner says."They don't understand how plant estrogens or "phytoestrogens" work.

There are all sorts of different strengths to estrogens. Let's say estradiol, which is the strongest, most abundant form– if it hooks on to the estrogen receptor, it may cause a thousand cell divisions. But if a plant estrogen hooks on, it may cause one. When you flood your system with these plant estrogens, I'd say it's kind of like a game of musical chairs. There are only certain numbers of receptors, and whoever gets their first, gets it. They're blocking the strong estrogens from getting on, so that's why it has an inhibitory effect."

Other Lifestyle Factors that Influence Your Cancer Risk

Other lifestyle factors that have been found to have an impact on chronic disease and cancer include:

• Vitamin D—There's overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. As mentioned earlier, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial. The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated. In terms of protecting against cancer, vitamin D has been found to offer protection in a number of ways, including:
  • Regulating genetic expression
  • Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
  • Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
  • Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
  • Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
  To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.
• Getting proper sleep: both in terms of getting enough sleep, and sleeping between certain hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal hours for sleep are between 10 pm and 6 am. Modern research has confirmed the value of this recommendation as certain hormonal fluctuations occur throughout the day and night, and if you engage in the appropriate activities during those times, you're 'riding the wave' so to speak, and are able to get the optimal levels. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should ideally be sleeping or vice versa, interferes with these hormonal fluctuations. According to Dr. Horner:

  "If we, for instance, go to bed by 10, we have higher levels of our sleep hormone melatonin; there's a spike that occurs between midnight and 1am, which you don't want to miss because the consequences are absolutely spectacular. Melatonin is not only our sleep hormone, but it also is a very powerful antioxidant. It decreases the amount of estrogen our body produces. It also boosts your immune system… And it interacts with the other hormones.
  So, if you go to bed after 10… it significantly increases your risk of breast cancer."

• Effectively addressing your stress: The research shows that if you experience a traumatic or highly stressful event, such as a death in the family, your risk of breast cancer is 12 times higher in the ensuing five years.
• Exercise—If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn't immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer.
  One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells. Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Your immune system is your first line of defense against everything from minor illnesses like a cold right up to devastating, life-threatening diseases like cancer.
  The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. This is why it is helpful to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.
  Additionally it is likely that integrating exercise with intermittent fasting will greatly catalyze the potential of exercise to reduce your risk of cancer and stimulate widespread healing and rejuvenation.

More Information

For more information, please see Dr. Horner's book, Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer. You can also learn more about Dr. Horner on her website, www.DrChristineHorner.com.

 

Source: Video Transcript  -  Dr. Mercola  - h/t to MJ

Related Links:

Cancer Will Kill 13.2 Million a Year by 2030

The Cancer Treatment So Successful - Traditional Doctors SHUT it Down

Dramatically Effective New Natural Way to Starve Cancer and Obesity

Related: 

How to Donate to Kanzius Cancer Research Foundation

Check out Sanoviv Medical Center

Knockout