New Organization VaxTruth Fights Vaccine Damages

A.M. Freyed - Infowars.com August 7, 2012 – h/t to Claudia Johnson and MJ

New Organization VaxTruth Fights Vaccine Damages

A new national organization called VaxTruth is dedicated to telling people about their rights to legally refuse vaccines for themselves and their children.

As an article by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. posted at the alternative health website Mercola.com points out that in the early 1980s, autism presented itself in 1 of 10,000 births. By 2005, that was 1 in 250 births, and as of 2008, it was 1 in 150 births and still rising.

While the medical establishment refuses to consider it as a cause, the biggest change during this time had to do with a radical rise in vaccines being given at a very early age. It is this rise that an increasing amount of parents with autistic children hold responsible.

In fact, the problem may be considerably larger than autism. There is apparently virtual worldwide genocide going on thanks to vaccines. In the US it’s been noticed because of the startlingly high rates of autism … but commentators such as Guylaine Lanctot, M.D. have noted that vaccines may have wiped out whole populations in Africa where vaccines are provided aggressively.

While naturopaths and some others hold that vaccines’ efficacy is entirely the result of elitist propaganda, a less radical view that circulates within the alternative media accepts that vaccines are utile but that they are over-used and under-analyzed.

It is quite likely, according to this view, that a proportion of children are either sensitive to vaccines or become prone to injury because of the amount of vaccines they are receiving. Children in the US for instance are now scheduled for nearly 20 vaccines, and the number keeps rising.

It is likely that a portion of the population has an increasingly attenuated immune response because of vaccines and this makes them susceptible to conditions such as AIDS (whatever it actually is).

The pharmaceutical industry serves at the pleasure of globalists who have long made population reduction their goal. As part of their secretive goal to formally run the world, they use famine, war and vaccine injury to injure and ultimately reduce human populations.

Thanks mainly to the Internet, both the elite agenda and problems with vaccines have been uncovered and shared worldwide. As with many issues pertaining to elite neo-authoritarianism, the United States has led the way because of a cultural exceptionalism that encourages citizen activism.

VaxTruth is a good example of this sort of citizen activism. The vaccine information group has placed billboards in four states over the last year: Indiana, Texas, Colorado and California. The billboards proclaim: “No Shots, No School… NOT TRUE!!” Austin, Texas and Kansas are scheduled to receive such billboards next.

The group has received attention via articles on vaccine-education websites such as Age of Autism. It is run in part by Marcella Piper-Terry who explains on the website VaxTruth.com that she finally decided she’d “had enough of the one-sided reporting” regarding parents’ legal rights to accept or reject vaccine regimes for themselves and, especially, their children. Piper-Terry writes that she has a child injured by vaccines.

Her bio also notes that she has a master’s degree in psychology and has worked as a therapist and as a neuropsychological evaluator of children and adults. She founded VaxTruth with two others, Megan and Spencer Pond in the fall of 2011.

Piper-Terry who lives in Southwestern Indiana, acted after the Evansville Courier and Press newspaper printed a front page story telling parents their kids couldn’t go to school unless their vaccines were “up-to-date.” She asked for a retraction and was told it would not take place.

She quotes the Metro Editor as saying he would not “print anything that would cause parents to question the safety of vaccines.” Piper-Terry then decided to act on her own to inform people of their rights. “That’s how VaxTruth and the Billboard Campaign came into existence,” she explains.

VaxTruth encourages fundraisers that can generate cash to buy billboards. Most states have various kinds of exemptions that allow concerned parents to remove their children from vaccine programs if they are concerned with the ramifications.

To make the point about the importance of vaccine non-compliance, VaxTruth publishes and republishes articles about parents’ interactions with the medical community. One article recently posted to the website is a first person account by Alisha Lynn Ramsey on a “a horrible experience with a doctor” within the context of vaccine demands.

She writes that she took her son Adam in for his two year “well visit” and that during the check up, it became apparent to both the senior doctor (pediatrician) and the student doctor that she was “selectively” vaccinating. The article continues as follows:

We wait 30 minutes and the student doctor and the pediatrician finally walk in the exam room and the pediatrician doesn’t even look at me or speak to me. Instead they go to his chart and are talking back and forth and the student doctor is nodding and writing things down. That’s when the pediatrician turns to me and asks “Has he had any vaccinations at all?” I respond, “He’s had a few at birth but none since.” He turns back to the student and tells him something and he writes it down. Then the student doctor tries to take my son from my arms, and as he is reaching for him the pediatrician tells me “Your son will be receiving 14 vaccinations today, Mrs. Ramsey.”

… I instinctively pull my son back to me and tell him, “No. We do not want any vaccines.” The pediatrician goes on to tell me that everything I’ve read online about autism isn’t true. I respond, telling him that’s not why we aren’t vaccinating. He says to me, “You are going to kill your son. You don’t want to be responsible for killing this little boy, do you Mrs. Ramsey?”

Before I could respond he nods to the student doctor, who steps forward to try to take Adam out of my arms AGAIN. I pull back and am backed literally into a corner at this point and I’m shaking. The pediatrician goes on about how I am not thinking of the best interest of my child and how I’m going to kill him and that he WILL be getting the vaccines today and more every month until he is up-to-date in full.

His voice is beginning to raise by now and the look on his face stern. “This is for the best, Mrs. Ramsey so be compliant.” As he says this to me, for a 3rd time the student doctor tries to take Adam from my arms; this time a little more assertively. The student doctor looked as white as a sheet but also looked like he was doing what he HAD to do because of what his boss was telling him. He looked young enough to be wet behind the ears.

I’m standing in a corner, in a room the size of a box with these 2 men trying to take my child and vaccinate him against my will. I hold onto Adam as the student doctor is trying to take him from my arms and Adam begins to cry and cling to me. I’m shaking; I’m afraid and Adam can sense this. I put both arms around Adam and bring his head towards my bosom to protect him and I pull bravery from somewhere.

“He will NOT be vaccinated. You will NOT be putting poison in my son.” I stammered, shaking like a leaf but I held strong.

The pediatrician GLARED at me. “Well,” he says clearly irritated.” If you aren’t going to comply, then you leave me no choice. Not only will you not be allowed back at this clinic but I will be reporting you to Child Protective Services. You are endangering your child.”

I didn’t wait for him to say anything more, I pushed past them and walked out. As I’m walking down the hall as fast as possible, with Adam screaming scared to death and me shaking like mad, he hollers after me, “You’re going to be sorry for letting Google be your doctor!”

I walked faster and got out of there as fast as I could.

The website is www.VaxTruth.org

For additional links see www.AmericanFreed.com

Related:

Vaccination rights attorney Patricia Finn threatened with criminal charges; New York State demands she surrender names of all clients

Stolen Freedoms Regained in Stunning Blow to State Lawmakers

More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

83 percent of brain injury vaccine compensation payouts were for autism caused by vaccines

Autism Spectrum Disorder has Risen to New Heights

Autism Epidemic

Italian Court Says MMR VACCINE CAUSES AUTISM!!!

Myth Busted: Vaccinations Are Not Immunizations

Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys develop autism after routine CDC vaccinations

California Bans Unvaccinated Children from Class

Video: NEW VACCINATION Program - MUST SEE  – Lots of related links

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Tells Truth About Government Coverup of Vaccine Dangers

Vaccinate the World: Gates, Rockefeller Seek Global Population Reduction

Review: The New World of ObamaCare

People of Hawaii Pass Resolution Against Forced Vaccination

U.S. Government & Whistleblowers Sue Merck About Falsely Certified Mumps Vaccine

Why doctors are more dangerous than guns

Popping the Vaccine Bubble

Side Note:

Flu Pan[dem]ic Time Again?
This note from Dr. Rima:

[4:41:02 PM] DR. Rima E. Laibow  M.D. (on the road to Chile:

Lead story: The CDC, two days ago started "warning" about a new swine flu strain¹. Well, nobody died from the swine flu last time, so let's have another massive vaccination campaign to protecct us from another disease.

Healthy 7-Year-Old Girl Dies in Her Mother's Arms After Flu Shot

Why You Should NOT Vaccinate Your Children Against the Flu This Season

Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed

Nobody is dying from tetanus, so we just have to have a massive campaign to protect us from it - and this particular vax is one that is used to induce infertility - proven. They've been touting a "shortage" of the toxin. Such "warnings" are always a "Red Flag" for future scare campaigns.²

Technorati Tags: autism,childhood vaccines,vaccines,drugs,swine flu,flu shots,immunizations,watch the other hand,Dr,Mercola,mandatory vaccinations,parental rights,ObamaCare,vaccine dangers,VaxTruth,MMRII vaccine,MMR,Dr. Russell Blaylock,Big Pharma

Why doctors are more dangerous than guns

Info Wars – h/t to Natural News/About Pharma and Doctors & to MJ

Chemical Massacre

According to U.S. government statistics, you are 6200% more likely to be killed by your doctor than by a homicidal shooter.

Video:  Why doctors are more dangerous than guns - Health Ranger investigation

This investigation by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, reveals why you are 6200% more likely to be killed by your doctor than by a homicidal shooter. This is based on U.S. government statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, combined with doctor-caused deaths published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

These data show that FDA-approved prescription drugs kill 290 Americans every single day, meaning that for mass shootings to approach that number, you'd have to see a Colorado Batman movie massacre take place EVERY HOUR of every day, 365 days a year.

That's how dangerous doctors and FDA-approved prescription medications really are. Read more at:
http://www.naturalnews.com

Related:

Taking These Common Pills? You're Playing "Russian Roulette" With Your Heart

Stevie Nicks Confesses: Common Remedy Turned My Hair Gray and Molted My Skin...

Creating a Generation of Drugged Children

Dumbing Down Society Part I: Foods, Beverages and Meds

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG EMPIRE

The Drug Story

Video: NEW VACCINATION Program – A MUST SEE – Lots of related links

Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40, AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines

Vaccinate the World: Gates, Rockefeller Seek Global Population Reduction

More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

Technorati Tags: Big Pharma,Big Business,Big Government,FDA,Merck,Rockefellers,ROCKEFELLER DRUG EMPIRE,drugs,vaccines,Colorado Massacre,gusns vs prescription drugs,Centers for Disease Control,FDA-approved prescription medications

Abortionist sees aborting ‘ugly black babies’ as a service to the taxpayers, apparently – God Help Us!

Video: Abortionist sees aborting ‘ugly black babies’ as a service to the taxpayers, apparently

Related:

Obama caught on tape arguing against giving medical attention to aborted babies

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate

Fallen… House Rejects Sex-Selection Abortion Ban – White House Agrees and Media is Silent

China: Angry Protests Follow Brutal Seven-Month Forced Abortion

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

The Fluke Thickens… Are Sanger and Fluke Related and Was Rush Right Afterall?

Franciscan University of Steubenville drops student health plan over HHS mandate

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

Technorati Tags: abortion,Sandra Fluke,abortion procedure,Planned Parenthood,Margaret Sanger,eugenics,Fabians,Catholics sue,Christianity under attack,life,partial birth abortions,late term abortions,babies,God,ObamaCare

World Wide Obesity Epidemic

Global Research, March 19, 2012

Washington's Blog

World Wide Obesity Epidemic

Some 68% of all Americans are overweight, and obesity has almost doubled in the last couple of decades worldwide. As International Business Tribune reports:

Studies conducted jointly by researchers at Imperial College London and Harvard University, published in the medical journal The Lancet, show that obesity worldwide almost doubled in the decades between 1980 and 2008.

***

68 per cent of Americans were found to be overweight while close to 34 percent were obese.

Sure, people are eating too much and exercising too little (this post is not meant as an excuse for lack of discipline and poor choices). The processed foods and refined flours and sugars don’t help. And additives like high fructose corn syrup – which are added to many processed foods – are stuffing us with empty calories.

But given that there is an epidemic of obesity even in 6 month old infants (see below), there is clearly something else going on as well.

Are Toxic Chemicals Making Us Fat?

The toxins all around us might be making us fat.

As the Washington Post reported in 2007:

Several recent animal studies suggest that environmental exposure to widely used chemicals may also help make people fat.

The evidence is preliminary, but a number of researchers are pursuing indications that the chemicals, which have been shown to cause abnormal changes in animals’ sexual development, can also trigger fat-cell activity — a process scientists call adipogenesis.

The chemicals under scrutiny are used in products from marine paints and pesticides to food and beverage containers. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found one chemical, bisphenol A, in 95 percent of the people tested, at levels at or above those that affected development in animals.

These findings were presented at last month’s annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A spokesman for the chemical industry later dismissed the concerns, but Jerry Heindel, a top official of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), who chaired the AAAS session, said the suspected link between obesity and exposure to “endocrine disrupters,” as the chemicals are called because of their hormone-like effects, is “plausible and possible.”

Bruce Blumberg, a developmental and cell biologist at the University of California at Irvine, one of those presenting research at the meeting, called them “obesogens” — chemicals that promote obesity.

***

Exposed mice became obese adults and remained obese even on reduced calorie and increased exercise regimes. Like tributyltin, DES [which for decades was added to animal feed and routinely given to pregnant women] appeared to permanently disrupt the hormonal mechanisms regulating body weight.

“Once these genetic changes happen in utero, they are irreversible and with the individual for life,” Newbold said.

***

“Exposure to bisphenol A is continuous,” said Frederick vom Saal, professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Bisphenol A is an ingredient in polycarbonate plastics used in many products, including refillable water containers and baby bottles, and in epoxy resins that line the inside of food cans and are used as dental sealants. [It is also added to store receipts.] In 2003, U.S. industry consumed about 2 billion pounds of bisphenol A.

Researchers have studied bisphenol A’s effects on estrogen function for more than a decade. Vom Saal’s research indicates that developmental exposure to low doses of bisphenol A activates genetic mechanisms that promote fat-cell activity. “These in-utero effects are lifetime effects, and they occur at phenomenally small levels” of exposure, vom Saal said.

***

Research into the impact of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on obesity has been done only in laboratory animals, but the genetic receptors that control fat cell activity are functionally identical across species. “They work virtually the same way in fish as they do in rodents and humans,” Blumberg said. “Fat cells are an endocrine organ.”

Ongoing studies are monitoring human levels of bisphenol A, but none have been done of tributyltin, which has been used since the 1960s and is persistent in the marine food web. “Tributyltin is the only endocrine disrupting chemical that has been shown without substantial argument to have an effect at levels at which it’s found in the environment,” Blumberg said.

Concern over tributyltin’s reproductive effects on marine animals has resulted in an international agreement discontinuing its use in anti-fouling paints used on ships. The EPA has said it plans next year to assess its other applications, including as an antimicrobial agent in livestock operations, fish hatcheries and hospitals.

Bisphenol A is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in consumer products, and the agency says the amount of bisphenol A or tributyltin that might leach from products is too low to be of concern. But the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, is reviewing bisphenol A, and concerns about its estrogenic effects prompted California legislators to propose banning it from certain products sold in-state, a move industry has fought vigorously.

Similarly, the Daily Beast noted in 2010:

[Bad habits] cannot explain the ballooning of one particular segment of the population, a segment that doesn’t go to movies, can’t chew, and was never that much into exercise: babies. In 2006 scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health reported that the prevalence of obesity in infants under 6 months had risen 73 percent since 1980. “This epidemic of obese 6-month-olds,” as endocrinologist Robert Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco, calls it, poses a problem for conventional explanations of the fattening of America. “Since they’re eating only formula or breast milk, and never exactly got a lot of exercise, the obvious explanations for obesity don’t work for babies,” he points out. “You have to look beyond the obvious.”

The search for the non-obvious has led to a familiar villain: early-life exposure to traces of chemicals in the environment. Evidence has been steadily accumulating that certain hormone-mimicking pollutants, ubiquitous in the food chain, have two previously unsuspected effects. They act on genes in the developing fetus and newborn to turn more precursor cells into fat cells, which stay with you for life. And they may alter metabolic rate, so that the body hoards calories rather than burning them, like a physiological Scrooge. “The evidence now emerging says that being overweight is not just the result of personal choices about what you eat, combined with inactivity,” says Retha Newbold of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in North Carolina, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “Exposure to environmental chemicals during development may be contributing to the obesity epidemic.” They are not the cause of extra pounds in every person who is overweight—for older adults, who were less likely to be exposed to so many of the compounds before birth, the standard explanations of genetics and lifestyle probably suffice—but environmental chemicals may well account for a good part of the current epidemic, especially in those under 50. And at the individual level, exposure to the compounds during a critical period of development may explain one of the most frustrating aspects of weight gain: you eat no more than your slim friends, and exercise no less, yet are still unable to shed pounds.

***

Newbold gave low doses (equivalent to what people are exposed to in the environment) of hormone-mimicking compounds to newborn mice. In six months, the mice were 20 percent heavier and had 36 percent more body fat than unexposed mice. Strangely, these results seemed to contradict the first law of thermodynamics, which implies that weight gain equals calories consumed minus calories burned. “What was so odd was that the overweight mice were not eating more or moving less than the normal mice,” Newbold says. “We measured that very carefully, and there was no statistical difference.”

***

`Programming the fetus to make more fat cells leaves an enduring physiological legacy. “The more [fat cells], the fatter you are,” says UCSF’s Lustig. But [fat cells] are more than passive storage sites. They also fine-tune appetite, producing hormones that act on the brain to make us feel hungry or sated. With more [fat cells], an animal is doubly cursed: it is hungrier more often, and the extra food it eats has more places to go—and remain.

***

In 2005 scientists in Spain reported that the more pesticides children were exposed to as fetuses, the greater their risk of being overweight as toddlers. And last January scientists in Belgium found that children exposed to higher levels of PCBs and DDE (the breakdown product of the pesticide DDT) before birth were fatter than those exposed to lower levels. Neither study proves causation, but they “support the findings in experimental animals,” says Newbold. They “show a link between exposure to environmental chemicals … and the development of obesity.” [See this for more information on the potential link between pesticides and obesity.]

***

This fall, scientists from NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and academia will discuss obesogens at the largest-ever government-sponsored meeting on the topic. “The main message is that obesogens are a factor that we hadn’t thought about at all before this,” says Blumberg. But they’re one that could clear up at least some of the mystery of why so many of us put on pounds that refuse to come off.

Consumption of the widely used food additive monosodium glutamate (MSG) has been linked to obesity.

Pthalates – commonly used in many plastics – have been linked to obesity. See this and this. So has a chemical used to make Teflon, stain-resistant carpets and other products.

Most of the meat we eat these days contains estrogen, antibiotics and powerful chemicals which change hormone levels. Modern corn-fed beef also contains much higher levels of saturated fat than grass-fed beef. So the meat we are eating is also making us fat.

Arsenic may also be linked with obesity, via it’s effect on the thyroid gland. Arsenic is often fed to chickens and pigs to fatten them up, and we end up ingesting it on our dinner plate. It’s ending up in other foods as well.

A lot of endocrine-disrupting pharmaceuticals and medications are also ending up in tap water.

Moreover, the National Research Council has found:

The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.

Some hypothesize that too much fluoride affects the thyroid gland, which may in turn lead to weight gain.

Antibiotics also used to be handed out like candy by doctors. However, ingesting too many antibiotics has also been linked to obesity, as it kills helpful intestinal bacteria. See this and this.

Moreover, many crops in the U.S. are now genetically modified. For example, 93 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered, as are:

• 86% of all corn
• 93% of canola
• 93% of cottonseed oil
• Between 2008 and 2009, 95% of all sugarbeets planted were genetically engineered to be able to tolerate high doses of the pesticide Roundup

Some allege that Roundup kills healthy gut bacteria, and that genetically modified crops cause other health problems.

And Cornell University’s newspaper – the Cornell Sun – reports that our intestinal bacteria also substantially affect our ability to eliminate toxins instead of letting them make us fat:

Cornell scientists researching the effects of environmental toxins to the onset of obesity and Type II Diabetes, discovered that—unlike other factors such as eating too many unhealthy foods—the extent of damage caused by pollutants depends not on what a person puts into her mouth, but on what is already living within her gut.

Prof. Suzanne Snedeker, food science, and Prof. Anthony Hay, microbiology, researched the contribution that microorganisms in the gut and environmental toxins known as “obesogens” have on ever rising obesity levels. Their work, which was published last October in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, reported a link between composition of gut microbiota, exposure to environmental chemicals and the development of obesity and diabetes. The review, “Do Interactions Between Gut Ecology and Environmental Chemicals Contribute to Obesity and Diabetes?” combined three main ideas: predisposed gut microbe composition can increase an individual’s risk of obesity and Type II Diabetes, gut microbe activity can determine an individual’s metabolic reaction to persistent pollutants such as DDT and PCB and certain pharmaceuticals can also be metabolized differently depending on the community of microbes in the gut.

The microbe community influences many metabolic pathways within the gut, Snedeker said. Our bodies metabolize chemicals, but how they are metabolized, and how much fat is stored, depends on gut ecology. Microbes are responsible not only for collecting usable energy from digested food, but also for monitoring insulin levels, storage of fat and appetite. Gut microbes also play an integral role in dealing with any chemicals that enter the body. According to Snedeker, differences in gut microbiota can cause drugs like acetaminophen to act as a toxin in some people while providing no problems for others. While pharmaceutical and microbe interactions are well understood, there is little information in the area of microbe response to environmental toxins.

She said, there are more than three dozen chemicals called obesogenic compounds, that can cause weight gain by altering the body’s normal metabolic responses and lipid production.

“It seems probable that gut microbes are affecting how our bodies handle these environmental chemicals,” Snedeker said. According to Snedeker, enzymes that are influenced by interactions of gut microbes break down approximately two-thirds of the known environmental toxins. Therefore, differences in the gut microbe community strongly affect our bodies’ ability to get rid of environmental pollutants. Obesogens can alter normal metabolic behavior by changing the levels of fat that our bodies store. Snedeker and Hay suggested that the microbes in the gut of humans determine the way in which these chemicals are metabolized and thus could contribute to obesity.

Snedeker and Hay concluded that although high levels of obesogenic chemicals are bound to cause some kind of disruption in the gut microbe community responsible for breaking these chemicals down, the degree of the disturbance is dependent upon gut microbial composition. In other words, the amount of weight an individual is likely to gain when exposed to environmental toxins, or her risk of acquiring Type II Diabetes, could depend on the microorganism community in their gut.

No, Everything Won‘t Kill You

In response to information about toxic chemicals in our food, water and air, many people change the subject by saying “well, everything will kill you”. In other words, they try to change the topic by assuming that we would have to go back to the stone age to avoid exposure to toxic chemicals.

But this is missing the point entirely. In fact, companies add nasty chemicals to their products and use fattening food-producing strategies to cut corners and make more money.

In the same way that the financial crisis, BP oil spill and Fukushima nuclear disaster were caused by fraud and greed, we are daily exposed to obesity-causing chemicals because companies make an extra buck by lying about what is in their product, cutting every corner in the book, and escaping any consequences for their health-damaging actions.

In fattening their bottom line, the fat cats are creating an epidemic of obesity for the little guy.

What Can We Do To Fight Back?

Eating grass-fed meat instead of industrially-produced corn fed beef will reduce your exposure to obesity-causing chemicals.

Use glass instead of plastic whenever you can, to reduce exposure to pthalates and other hormone-altering plastics.

Try to avoid canned food, or at least look for cans that are free of bisphenol A. (For example, the Eden company sells food in bpa-free cans.) Buy and store food in glass jars whenever possible. And wash your hands after handling store receipts (they still contain bpa).

Eat yogurt or other food containing good bacteria to help restore your healthy intestinal flora. If you don’t like yogurt, you can take “probiotic” (i.e. good bacteria) supplements from your local health food store.

And don’t forget to tell your grocery store that you demand real food that doesn’t contain bpa, pthalates, hormones, antibiotics or other junk. If we vote with our pocketbooks, the big food companies will get the message.

Washington's Blog is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Washington's Blog

Related:

Global Elite Using Obesity Vaccines to Alter Minds and Curb Consumption

More Fruit, Fewer Fries: Michelle Obama Might Have Taken the ‘Happy’ Out of McDonald’s Happy Meals

The 76 Dangers of Sugar

Technorati Tags: grass-fed meat,organic foods,home grown produce,non-GMO foods,obesity,obesity epidemic,obesity epidemic lies,obesity study,fructose corn syrup,bisphenol A,bpa,hormone-altering plastics,use glass

ObamaCare Home Sales Tax

The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, -- before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?

Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill, -- and it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn't come to light until after the 2012 elections? So, this is "change you can believe in?"
Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax. Now you tell me, what does real estate tax have to do with your healthcare?

If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to hit the retiring generation, -- who often downsize their homes.

Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important?

Oh, you weren't aware that this was in the ObamaCare bill? Guess what; you aren't alone! There are more than a few members of Congress that weren't aware of it either.

You can check this out for yourself at: http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

Related:

Settling the Question of a Real Estate Tax in ObamaCare

KISSING OBAMACARE GOODBYE - Part 2: The State Battlefield

GAO Report: White House Intentionally Delayed Obamacare’s Cuts To Medicaid Until After 2012 Election…

Did You Get Your ObamaCare Letter Yet?

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,repeal and replace ObamaCare,ObamaCare surprises,ObamaCare Home Sales Tax,National Association of Realtors,taxes,Home Sales Tax

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

Story at-a-glance

• An experimental cancer drug called DCA (dichloroacetate) shows promise in the fight against cancer by altering cancer cell metabolism and inducing apoptosis (cellular suicide); DCA appears to exert anti-tumor effects against several forms of cancer, including brain, endometrial, cervical, prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers
• DCA forces cancer cells to shift from their preferred method of generating energy (glycolysis) to the method normal cells prefer (glucose oxidation) and “reawakens” cancer cells’ mitochondria
• There are serious side effects reported by some adults self-administering DCA, including peripheral neuropathy and encephalopathy, so more research is needed before DCA can be considered safe
• Optimizing your vitamin D level is one of the most important steps you can take to protect yourself from cancer
• Certain foods mimic the actions of DCA without ANY side effects, such as broccoli and the spice turmeric

The Cancer Answer Video: DCA Cancer Cure Discovered

By Dr. Mercola

According to the American Cancer Society, the odds you'll develop cancer in your lifetime are one in two, if you're a man, and one in three, if you're a woman.¹ But an experimental cancer drug shown to shrink tumors by correcting metabolic oddities in cancer cells shows promise in the fight against this deadly disease. The synthetic drug DCA (dichloroacetate) DOES indeed kill cancer cells, both in the lab and in human beings. However, whether it can reverse tumor growth without harming you in other ways remains to be seen.

The first clinical trial, although small, involving patients with brain cancer (glioblastoma) was encouraging, and the results were published in Science of Translational Medicine in 2010² . However, there is still a great deal more work to be done before DCA can be pronounced a safe and effective cancer treatment.

An interesting aspect of DCA is that it's an inexpensive, non-patentable molecule, which makes it of minimal value to pharmaceutical companies that profit by patenting expensive new drugs. Therefore, clinical trials are slow to get going due to lack of funding by Big Pharma. Researchers must await sufficient money to trickle in from government sources and public donations before moving forward.

In the paragraphs below, my aim is to give you information from both sides of the story—the potential benefits as well as the possible risks.

Rats Fed DCA Showed Dramatic Tumor Regression

The impetus behind most of the DCA research has been cardiologist Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. In 2007, Michelakis and his colleagues sparked a firestorm of interest when they announced rats fed DCA showed rapid tumor regression without any apparent side effects. Michelakis has been the first to say these results are preliminary and cautions cancer patients to refrain from running out and buying the drug, prior to clinical trials.

Yet, many desperate cancer patients with few remaining options are doing just that, and side effects ARE being reported.

There are currently three clinical trials involving use of DCA to treat cancer that are currently recruiting participants³. Some of these studies plan to combine DCA with other chemotherapy drugs and radiation, all known to have damaging effects in your body. However, if you have cancer and are tempted to participate, there are some things you should know in order to make an informed decision about the risk versus the benefits of this experimental treatment.

Cancer Cells and Healthy Cells Have Different Metabolic Processes

In order to understand how DCA kills cancer cells, it is necessary to understand a bit about how the cellular metabolism of cancer cells differs from that of your normal, healthy cells. Cancer cells have very different metabolic processes than normal cells, in terms of how they derive their energy.⁴ It's a rather complicated distinction, so please bear with me as I try to explain it in the simplest terms possible.

There are two major pathways your cells use to covert sugar into energy: glucose oxidation and glycolysis:

1. Glucose oxidationis the primary energy metabolism in normal cells and takes place in your mitochondria, which are the little "power plants" inside your cell; it requires the presence of oxygen, as its name suggests. This is why you breathe and your heart beats to circulate oxygen throughout your body. Glucose oxidation is sometimes referred to as cellular respiration.
2. Glycolysis takes place in your cell's cytoplasm. It can occur without the presence of oxygen. Glycolysis is less efficient for normal cells, but it is a cancer cell's preferred means of energy metabolism, and it depends on the availability of sugar.

So, when your cells are oxygen-starved they have a backup plan. They can extract energy from sugar without the presence of oxygen, by glycolysis.

Pyruvate is required for glucose oxidation. There is an enzyme (pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase, or PDK) that acts as gatekeeper to regulate the flow of pyruvate into the mitochondria. If PDK is active, it suppresses the transport of pyruvate into the mitochondria, and your cell is forced to rely on glycolysis, even if oxygen is available. If PDK is inactive, pyruvate is shuttled into the mitochondria, even if oxygen is low.

Unlike normal cells, cancer cells are masterful at deriving energy from glycolysis—they have very active PDK. The way to make a cancer cell unhappy is by suppressing PDK, forcing the cell to use glucose oxidation, instead of glycolysis. This is called the Warburg theory of cancer, or the Warburg hypothesis⁵.

This is where DCA comes in.

DCA Instigates Mass Suicide among Cancer Cells

DCA suppresses PDK (the mitochondrial gatekeeper), and this fires up the cell's mitochondria. Not only does this force the cancer cell to abandon its preferred metabolic process, but it flips the cell's "suicide switch" as well. This happens because mitochondria are the primary regulators of apoptosis, or cellular suicide—they are loaded with sensors that react to abnormalities by pushing the cell's self-destruct button.

When a cancer cell's mitochondria realize it's a cancer cell, it spontaneously kills itself. This is the reason chemotherapy and radiation result in such terrible side effects—your healthy cells actually die much more easily because of this self-destruct button.

The reason cancer is so fast growing is that the mitochondria have been deactivated, so the cells evade apoptosis, as well as being able to grow in the absence of oxygen (glycolysis)⁶. DCA reverses this.In effect, DCA directly causes cancer cell apoptosis and works synergistically other cancer therapies, such as radiation, gene therapy, and viral therapy. A number of scientific studies have been performed to date, and most are encouraging.

DCA--Cancer Research Review

Most of the studies thus far have been done on cell cultures in the lab (in vitro), as opposed to on cancer patients themselves (in vivo). Yet the results are impressively consistent across the board, suggesting DCA is effective against a wide variety of cancer types. The DCA Site⁷ has a good list of all clinical studies through 2011.

The study that sparked the DCA excitement appeared in Cancer Cell in January 2007⁸ According to an article in the Edmonton Journal⁹ in the 2007 rat study, DCA killed lung, breast, and brain cancer cells but left healthy cells alone. The rats' tumors decreased by up to 70 percent in three weeks of DCA treatment, without negative side effects.

This announcement led to a cyclone of excitement from cancer patients everywhere who scrambled to get their hands on the new "cancer cure," in spite of warnings from Michelakis himself (and others) against prematurely self-medicating with the compound.

Several more studies soon followed, including the first clinical trial2 involving brain cancer patients. In that trial, the research team selected five glioblastoma patients with a particularly aggressive form of brain cancer. They treated them with oral DCA for 15 months.

Tumor tissue was compared before and after DCA treatment in three of the five patients. In all three, there were signs that the tumor growth had slowed, and more cancer cells were undergoing programmed cell death after the treatment with DCA. Unfortunately, one of the five patients died. Another had "debulking" surgery before completing the full course of DCA treatment.Below are some of the other DCA cancer studies, all within the past five years. (Note that none of these involved human subjects.)

• Endometrial Cancer: DCA causes apoptosis in endometrial cancer cells.¹⁰
• Prostate Cancer: DCA produces significant cytotoxic effects in prostate cancer cells¹¹
• Breast Cancer: DCA has anti-proliferative properties against breast cancer cells and caused apoptosis of those cells¹²
• Colorectal Cancer: DCA reduced colon cancer tumors by 20 to 40 percent¹³
• Cervical Cancer: Researchers concluded DCA is a quick and effective cure for advanced cervical carcinoma¹⁴

For comprehensive information about DCA's method of action, history, and related scientific research, refers to The DCA Site7, and to this 2011 article in the International Journal of Cancer¹⁵. It should be noted that caffeine may radically increases the effects of DCA¹⁶. In fact, this effect is so pronounced that some researchers are working on developing a "DCA-caffeine" cancer treatment protocol.

Now that you're aware of DCA's cancer-fighting effects, let's take a look at the adverse effects identified thus far.

DCA's Side Effects Can Be Daunting

DCA is not a natural agent—it's a chemical produced in the water chlorination process. It's a small molecule, which accounts for one of its major advantages: DCA is easily absorbed by your body and can reach areas other drugs can't, such as your brain, which is why it's of particular interest for treating brain cancers. This, however, can be a two-edged sword, because any compound that easily permeates your brain can exert all sorts of unexpected and worrisome neurological effects.

DCA is a byproduct of another chemical called trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound believed to cause cancer. TCE is used mainly as a solvent to remove grease from metal parts, but is also used in adhesives, paint removers, and typewriter correction fluids. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reports TCE is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" and may cause birth defects. They state TCE may also cause the following¹⁷:

• Skin rashes
• Nerve, kidney, and liver damage
• Impaired heart and immune function
• Unconsciousness
• Death

When DCA is added to the drinking water of laboratory mice, it causes liver cancer. While DCA may offer hope and a novel approach to treating cancer, it is far from a "miracle cure." Of course, chemotherapy drugs are quite toxic as well!

DCA has been used successfully in children with metabolic disorders, with no signs of toxic poisoning. But adults appear to suffer more adverse effects—especially peripheral neuropathy and encephalopathy, such as the case described in a letter to the editor of the Journal of Neurology¹⁸. According to a survey performed by The DCA Site¹⁹, there are a fair number of serious side effects reported by those taking DCA, many of them neurological. Research suggests the side effects are at least somewhat dose-dependent, but safe dosing guidelines have not yet been established.

In the online survey, the side effects reported by DCA users include:

Tingling and numbness in the fingers, toes and lips; peripheral neuropathy
Leg weakness
Hand tremors
Ankle swelling
Increased urination

Mild nausea
Anxiety and depression
Dizziness
Sleepiness
Breathing "heavier" than usual

In some studies, under some circumstances, DCA seems to actually make cancer cells stronger. For example, an in-vitro animal study²⁰ published in May 2010 revealed that some types of colon cancer cells are actually protected by DCA when grown under anoxic conditions or as xenografts in mice (xenografts are tissues transplanted into one species from a dissimilar species). And when DCA is combined with frontline drugs, it sometimes interferes with their effectiveness. The neurological side effects are compounded when DCA is used with other anti-cancer drugs, which are also neurotoxic.

So, if you're already using a cancer medication, DCA's effects are going to be unpredictable and potentially dangerous. This underscores the importance of fully understanding the mechanisms of action of an agent before it enters clinical trials.

A Safer Alternative: FOODS that Cause Cancer Cells to Self-Destruct

What if there were natural agents that induced cancer cell suicide, without the side effects of DCA? As it turns out, these agents DO exist—and you may already have some in your kitchen pantry or supplement cabinet. Here are a few²¹:

• Co-Q10/Ubiquinol
• Curcumin (the active agent in the spice turmeric)
• Capsaicin (the compound that makes hot peppers hot)
• Se-methylselenocysteine aka methylselenocysteine (found in garlic and broccoli)
• Ellagic acid (from pomegranates and other fruits)

There are many all-natural cancer-prevention strategies, and research shows they may cut your risk in half. Consequently, by implementing multiple strategies, you can radically lower your risk of cancer as well as other chronic diseases.

Lifestyle Factors that Influence Your Cancer Risk

A healthful lifestyle encourages proper gene expression, as the science of epigenetics has shown. We now know you are in control of your genes, instead of being controlled by them. You actually have tremendous power to shape and direct your health! Your thoughts, your environmental exposures, and your food choices all directly affect your gene expression.

The best "cancer cure" is to prevent it from taking hold in the first place. Cancer cells are circulating in everyone, all the time. The stronger your immune system is, the less likely your cellular function will run amok. Your diet is extremely important in keeping your immune system strong. One of the primary cancer-promoters is sugar. Cancer cells love sugar and use it to fuel their rapid proliferation (by glycolysis, as discussed earlier). This includes ALL forms of sugar, including fructose and grains. The higher your blood glucose level, the more prolific the cancer cells will be.

According to breast cancer expert, author, and board certified surgeon Dr. Christine Horner:

"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."

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, and any food containing or contaminated with xenoestrogens promote cancer growth. Plant foods, particularly cruciferous vegetables and flax seeds, as well as many herbs and spices are cancer-preventive. Beneficial 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 those of the breast, prostate and colon.

Generally speaking, your diet should focus on fresh, whole, unprocessed foods (vegetables, meats, raw dairy, nuts, and so forth) that come from healthy, sustainable, local sources, such as small organic farms. For the highest nutrient content, you will want to make raw food a significant portion of your diet.

Personally, I aim to eat about 80 to 85 percent of my food raw, including raw eggs and humanely raised organic animal products that have not been raised on a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation).

For more information about which foods to eat and which to avoid, please consult my comprehensive nutrition plan.

Vitamin D May Cut Your Cancer Risk in Half

There's overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a roll in cancer development. If there were something close to a silver bullet for cancer, vitamin D would be it.

If you currently have cancer, evidence shows that higher blood levels of vitamin D—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—are beneficial. If natural sun exposure is not practical, then a safe tanning bed or oral supplement are the next best things. Just keep in mind that it's BEST to get your vitamin D from natural sun exposure. It appears vitamin D may play an important role in sulfur metabolism, and taking it orally may not provide the same benefit as deriving it from the sun. To learn the details about how to optimize your vitamin D, including dosage and blood testing, please review our comprehensive vitamin D article.

Vitamin D has been found to offer protection from cancer by several mechanisms, including:

• Regulating genetic expression
• Increasing apoptosis of defective, mutant cells thereby reducing cancer cell replication
• Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
• Choking off the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous

Exercise Can Also Slash Your Cancer Risk

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 cancer risk. One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment—and remember, cancer cells LOVE sugar! Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Consider integrating exercise with intermittent fasting to greatly catalyze your healing and rejuvenation.

Restore Your Sleep

Getting proper sleep is critical, both in terms of getting enough sleep and sleeping during the right hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal sleeping hours 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'll "ride the wave," so to speak. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should be sleeping, or vice versa, interferes with these natural hormone rhythms.

Manage Your Stress

Research tells us that if you experience a traumatic or highly stressful event, such as a death in the family or loss of a job, your risk of breast cancer is 12 times higher in the five years that follows. It is imperative to your health and longevity that you address your emotional well-being. Stress has a direct impact on inflammation, and inflammation drives many of the chronic diseases that kill people prematurely every day.

Meditation, prayer, yoga, and EFT (an energy psychology tool) are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional/psychological equilibrium. I'm sure you can think of others—the bottom line is, find what works best to de-stress yourself and practice it daily.

Avoid as Many Chemicals, Toxins, and Pollutants as Possible

Just as stress is toxic to your emotional health, chemical overload is toxic to your physical health, and both can weaken your immune system. Get rid of as much toxic junk as you can. This includes harsh chemical household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides, insecticides and the rest. Replace them all with green, non-toxic alternatives.

For more suggestions about how to prevent and heal from cancer, please refer to the cancer section of our website, which contains a wealth of free, research-based information. 12

Related:

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

The Common Mistake Women Make Which Can Turn Them into Cancer Patients

Black Listed Cancer Treatment(s) Could Save Your Life… Hidden, Stolen and Blocked…

Scientists Cure Cancer, But No One Takes Notice

HEAL: The pink-ribbon campaign's dirty little secret - Dr. Wm Campbell Douglass, II, M.D.

The 20 Cancer Symptoms Women Are Most Likely to Ignore

Am I At Risk for Endometrial Cancer?

Beat Prostate Cancer Naturally

Simple Blood Test for Colon Cancer

In "The Land of the Free", is Natural Medicine One of Your Freedoms?

The Big Idea That Might Beat Cancer and Cut Health-Care Costs by 80 Percent

Johns Hopkins - The Latest Findings On Cancer

Can Dogs Smell Cancer?

CAR AIRCONDITIONING AND CANCER - VERY IMPORTANT!

New Insights into Links Between Immune Function and Sleep

Suzanne Somers says Patrick Swayze should not have used chemotherapy

5 Amazing Foods That Cause Cancer Cells to Kill Themselves

The Drug Story

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: Knowledge is Power When It Comes to Your Health

Western Medicine - Forbidden Cures

Technorati Tags: Cancer,Cancer cures,natural cures,Big Pharma,DCA,Dr. Mercola,Glenn Beck,alternative healthcare,Big Brother,dichloroacetate,vitamin D,Big Business,turmeric,healing foods

Dr. Gosar Condemns Abortion Genocide: Disgusted at Congress’ Failure to Protect the Unborn and Ban Pain Capable Abortions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 31, 2012

CONTACT: Apryl Marie Fogel - AprylMarie.Fogel@mail.house.gov

Dr. Gosar Condemns Abortion Genocide: Disgusted at Congress’ Failure to Protect the Unborn and Ban Pain Capable Abortions

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Dr. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) released the following statement after the House failed to pass the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, (H.R. 3803), legislation that would ban abortion in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of gestation. Currently, the nation’s capital makes the procedure legal for any reason during any stage of pregnancy.

“I am deeply saddened and disgusted that this simple, humane and moral bill failed to pass the House today. I find it deplorable that our nation’s capital allows the genocide of its unborn children,” said Dr. Gosar. “These procedures undeniably rob the world of a human life in a most cruel fashion – and can often cause severe complications and health risks for the child’s mother. It is worth noting that these procedures are more lucrative to the abortion industry, however. The right thing to do is to ban these procedures.”

“Just yesterday, a federal judge upheld Arizona state law to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, unless the mother’s life is at risk. As a father and a health care provider, I applaud Arizona in protecting the unborn from ending their short precious lives in excruciating pain. I hope that those in Congress who supported the District of Columbia’s genocide can one day join me and other pro-life members of Congress in banning these gruesome and inhumane procedures, which have no place in a civil society.”

The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is backed by extensive evidence that unborn children can feel pain by 20 weeks of pregnancy. A common method of performing an abortion on a child at this stage is draining amniotic fluid from the mother’s uterus and using a metal clamp to dismember the child limb by limb – severing the head last. The Arizona federal court upheld the prohibition of abortions after this time frame based chiefly on new scientific evidence showing that in fact, children at this fetal stage were “pain capable.” Arizona now joins six other states in limiting or banning late term abortions based on fetal pain.

Congressman Gosar has served as a dentist and health care provider for over 25 years. As a pro-life member of Congress, Gosar believes in protecting the unborn and upholding the sanctity of life.

###

Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Protecting the unborn from the pain of abortion

Even those who believe that abortion in most cases is morally permissible should agree that we must not inflict needless suffering on other living things. To do so is cruel and inhumane. We do not consider treating animals in the barbaric way that abortion treats pain-capable unborn human beings. People on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the gratuitous suffering of the human fetus is incompatible with a decent and humane society.

"Without question, [abortion at 20 weeks] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."
— Dr. Robert J. White Neurosurgeon, Case Western Reserve University

The evidence

A wealth of anatomical, behavioral and physiological evidence shows that the developing unborn child (i.e., the human fetus) is capable of experiencing tremendous pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization.

Anatomical: Pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child’s entire body by no later than 16 weeks after fertilization, and nerves link these receptors to the brain’s thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks. For unborn children, says Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, 20 weeks is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.” As a result, unborn babies at this age probably feel pain more intensely than adults.

Behavioral: By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human—for example, by recoiling. Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. In addition, ultrasound technology shows that unborn babies at 20 weeks and earlier react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch.

Physiological: The application of painful stimuli is associated with significant increases in the unborn child’s stress hormones. During fetal surgery, anesthesia is routinely administered to the unborn baby and is associated with a decrease in stress hormones compared to their level when painful stimuli is applied without such anesthesia. More evidence and complete documentation of fetal pain is available at www.doctorsonfetalpain.com.

The pain of abortion

The most common abortion procedure used after the first trimester of pregnancy, including at 20 weeks, is dilation and evacuation (D & E). This method involves dismembering the unborn child. The U.S. Supreme Court (in its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision) describes the D & E procedure as follows: “The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed.”

"The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies."  — Dr. Steven Calvin, Perinatologist, Chair of the Program in Human Rights and Medicine, University of Minnesota

Fetal pain acknowledged in Minnesota law

Woman's Right to Know requires women considering abortion to be informed that "some experts have concluded that the unborn child feels physical pain after 20 weeks gestation."

requires women considering abortion after 20 weeks gestation to be informed "whether or not an anesthetic or analgesic would eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child caused by the particular method of abortion to be employed."

Legislation is necessary

The fact of fetal pain is already established in Minnesota law, but pain-sensitive unborn children remain unprotected.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks from fertilization in order to protect pain-capable unborn children from excruciating deaths. (There are exceptions when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother or to avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.)

Similar legislation was passed and signed into law in the state of Nebraska in 2010. To date, the Nebraska law has not been challenged in court.

Join MCCL in defending human dignity by working to pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Read more at:  Stand True

“A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members – the last, the least, the littlest.” Abortion,... We will be judged as individuals by what  we did and did not do!

Technorati Tags: The Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act,Washington DC,the unborn,pain,abortion,God,godless,pro-life,human dignity,babies,children,barbaric,late term abortions,partial birth abortions,abortion clinics,Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,God's gifts,H.R. 3803,fetus

The Common Mistake Women Make Which Can Turn Them into Cancer Patients

Mammograms Have 'Limited or No Effect' on Breast Cancer Deaths: Study

Story at-a-glance

• New research showed mammograms have little or no influence on the number of women who die from breast cancer
• Past research also found the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening
• Due to false positives, leading to unnecessary and harmful invasive procedures like biopsy, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, mammograms often cause more harm than good

By Dr. Mercola

With only a few weeks to go before the annual October rush promoting mammograms begins, a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is raising some doubts on mammography’s purported merits.

The findings showed mammograms have little or no influence on reducing the number of women who die from breast cancer … and considering there are serious health risks involved, too, what, then, is the point?

Mammograms Again Shown to Have Little to No Value

Breast cancer mortality rates in Sweden have been declining since 1972. Even though this was before mammography was introduced, the reductions have continued and many have attributed it to mammography screening.

The researchers that authored the current study also expected to see a reduction in breast cancer deaths associated with mammograms, but the results showed otherwise:¹

“County-specific mortality statistics in Sweden are consistent with studies that have reported limited or no impact of screening on mortality from breast cancer among women aged 40-69.”

In light of these findings, the study’s lead researcher Dr. Philippe Autier, at the International Prevention Research Institute in Lyon, France, noted:²

"Information to women on mammography screening should better reflect uncertainty on the effectiveness of that test, and underline the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment."

And this is not the first time the effectiveness of mammograms has been called into question. In 2010, another study concluded that the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening.³

Mammograms May Cause More Harm Than Good

Many women are under the impression that a mammogram is simply an innocuous test that might or might not help you detect breast cancer sooner. But research shows this screening may end up harming more women than it helps.

Earlier this year, the Nordic Cochrane Center issued a leaflet explaining the potential benefits and potential harms of mammography, stating that, based on the available research, it no longer seems reasonable for women to attend breast cancer screening. After systematically reviewing the randomized trials of mammography, they concluded that:⁴

"If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, one will benefit from screening, as she will avoid dying from breast cancer because the screening detected the cancer earlier.

Since these trials were undertaken, treatment of breast cancer has improved considerably. Women today also seek medical advice much earlier than previously, if they have noted anything unusual in their breasts...

Because of these improvements, screening is less effective today and newer studies suggest that mammography screening is no longer effective in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer.

... Since it is not possible to tell the difference between the dangerous and the harmless cell changes and cancers, all of them are treated.

Therefore, screening results in treatment of many women for a cancer disease they do not have, and that they will not get. Based on the randomized trials, it appears that:

If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, 10 healthy women will be turned into cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. These women will have either a part of their breast or the whole breast removed, and they will often receive radiotherapy, and sometimes chemotherapy.

Treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying, e.g. from heart disease and cancer."

So, to recap, in order for mammographic breast screening to save ONE woman's life:

• 2,000 women must be screened for 10 years
• 200 women will get false positives
• 10 will receive surgery and/or chemotherapy even though they do not actually have cancer

Yet another study, this one published in The Lancet Oncology late last year,⁵ described the natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening program between 1986 to 1990, involving 650,000 women. Since breast lesions and tumors are typically aggressively treated and/or removed before they can be determined with any certainty to be a clear and present threat to health, there has been little to no research on what happens when they are left alone.

This study however, demonstrated for the first time that women who received the most breast screenings had a higher cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer over the following six years than the control group who received far less screenings! The study concluded that:

"Because the cumulative incidence among controls did not reach that of the screened group, we believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."

FDA Secretly Monitored Mammogram Whistleblowers’ Emails

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) secretly monitored the personal e-mail of nine whistleblowers—its own scientists and doctors—over the course of two years. The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.

Six of the monitored scientists and doctors recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA, charging that the agency violated their constitutional rights to privacy by monitoring lawful activity in personal email accounts, and using that information to harass and ultimately relieve some of them of their positions.

According to the Washington Post⁶:

"All had worked in an office responsible for reviewing devices for cancer screening and other purposes. Copies of the e-mails show that, starting in January 2009, the FDA intercepted communications with congressional staffers and draft versions of whistleblower complaints complete with editing notes in the margins. The agency also took electronic snapshots of the computer desktops of the FDA employees and reviewed documents they saved on the hard drives of their government computers."

The FDA has declined to comment on the allegations, stating it does not comment on cases involved with litigation. However, according to internal FDA documents obtained by the plaintiffs under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency had asked the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) inspector general to conduct an investigation back in May 2010, stating suspicions that the plaintiffs had improperly disclosed confidential business information about the devices.

The HHS inspector general's office found no evidence of criminal conduct, stating the doctors and scientists had legal right to share their concerns with Congress and journalists. Hence no investigation was launched. But the FDA was not satisfied.

On June 28 that same year, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health wrote that, "We have obtained new information confirming the existence of information disclosures that undermine the integrity and mission of the FDA and, we believe, may be prohibited by law," and again requested action be taken against the employees in question. After consulting with general prosecutors, the inspector general declined the second request for an investigation as well. Now the question is whether the agency monitored their employees within legal limits, and whether the purpose of the extensive monitoring was reasonable. Senator Charles Grassley doesn't seem to think so, stating that:

"The FDA has a huge responsibility to protect public health and safety. It's hard to see how managers apparently thought it was a good use of time to shadow agency scientists and monitor their e-mail accounts for legally protected communications with Congress."

Why Getting a Mammogram Can be a Risky Decision

The long-held conventional medical advice has been for women to get an annual mammogram once they hit 40. A couple of years ago, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force decided to alter their mammogram recommendation, advising women under the age of 50 to avoid mammograms, and limit them to every other year after the age of 50. The revision caused outrage among many cancer organizations. What was overlooked, however, was the reasoning behind the Task Force's decision to change their recommendation.

The prior advice was given in 2002, before a host of new research came out showing the problems of overdiagnosis, including false positives.

If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in a woman's breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves removing a small amount of tissue from the breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. However, early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S., can be very hard to diagnose, and pathologists have a wide range of experience and expertise. There are actually NO universally agreed upon diagnostic standards for D.C.I.S., and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise...

Many conventional physicians view DCIS as "pre-cancerous" and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated it should be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer; however the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, with the weight of evidence suggesting it is significantly less than 50 percent -- perhaps as low as 2-4 percent.

This suggests that watchful waiting may be the more sensible approach, but most women are not informed of this option and instead go through invasive breast cancer treatments like surgery, radiation and toxic chemotherapy that often turns out to be unnecessary. As discussed above, it's really hard to justify harming 10 women with surgery and toxic chemotherapy treatment in order to save the life of one woman ...

Mammography and its subsequent tests, such as MRIs and stereotactic (x-ray guided) biopsies, likely contribute to cancer because of the cumulative radiation exposure that occurs over a lifetime and the particularly radiation-sensitive nature of breast cells, e.g. BRCA1/2 genes confer greater risk for breast cancer, in part, because they interfere with the repair of radiation-induced DNA damage. Even the National Cancer Institute states that “repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer.”⁷

And finally, although receiving a false positive is the major danger of mammograms, false negatives also occur. Mammograms are especially inaccurate for women with dense breasts; New York and Virginia recently passed laws requiring women with dense breasts to be informed they may need to seek alternative screening methods. It’s estimated that up to 75 percent of women in their 40s, and up to 50 percent of all women, have dense breasts, which increases the likelihood that a mammogram will be ineffective and inaccurate.⁸

Thermography: Breast Health Monitoring That’s as Safe as Taking Your Photograph

Download Interview Transcript

I recently interviewed Gaea Powell about the use of thermography as a safe way to monitor your risk of breast cancer over the long term. Thermographic breast screening is as safe as having your photograph taken and measures the infrared heat emitted by your body, translating this information into thermal images. Thermography does not require mechanical compression or ionizing radiation, and can detect signs of physiological changes due to inflammation and/or increased tumor related blood flow approximately 8-10 years before mammography or a physical exam can detect a mass.

So, if your thermogram shows areas of high inflammation, it doesn't mean you have cancer, but it lets you know you need to address that inflammation to avoid deterioration, and in some cases that the area needs further evaluation.

A New Breast Health Assessment Paradigm - Thermography, BSE/CBE, Ultrasound, then MRI

Although scientific evidence supports elimination of mammography as a screening tool, it is currently considered the standard of care. Replacing it with a new breast health assessment paradigm is warranted and inevitable. The new paradigm begins with thermography, a non-invasive physiological screening that can only serve to enhance all anatomical screenings that may follow, such as BSE/CBE, ultrasound and/or MRI. Please understand though that because this paradigm is not yet accepted as the standard of care, most insurance companies will not cover a thermogram, nor an ultrasound or MRI without a "positive" mammogram. However, when choosing an MRI as an elective procedure, one can typically shop around and find a facility that will perform one without insurance for under $1,000.

New Study Shows This Vitamin Prevents Breast Cancer …

There are a number of lifestyle changes that can help prevent breast cancer from ever becoming a reality for you. For starters, we cannot discuss breast cancer without mentioning the importance of vitamin D. Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, is easily one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in nearly every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain. Your liver, kidney and other tissues can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D.

New research published in the journal Steroids has found that calcitriol inhibits the growth of cancer cells, including breast cancer cells, through the following mechanisms:⁹

• Cell cycle arrest
• Promotion of apoptosis (cancer cell death)
• Inhibition of invasion, metastasis and angiogenesis

Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis or programmed cell death. When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days!¹⁰

It is my professional opinion that for those who are diagnosed with cancer it is criminal malpractice not to recommend vitamin D and aggressively monitor a cancer patient's vitamin D level to get it between 70 and 100 ng/ml.

So please do watch my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to find out what your optimal vitamin D levels should be for prevention and treatment … and how to get them there. This is one of the most important steps you can take to protect yourself from cancer.

Eight More Breast Cancer Prevention Tips

Prevention truly is worth a pound of cure when it comes to cancer, and the following healthy lifestyle strategies can help you avoid ever becoming a cancer statistic.

• Radically reduce your sugar/fructose intake. Normalizing your insulin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. Fructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds up cancer growth.
• Optimize your vitamin D level, as mentioned. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 70-100 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation as a last resort if no other option is available.
• Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating whole foods like those in my nutrition plan and exercising using high-intensity burst-type activities, which are part of my Peak Fitness program. It's important to lose excess weight because excess estrogen is produced in fat tissue, which can contribute to cancer risk.
• Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
• Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
• Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.
• Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
• Avoid xenoestrogens. Xenoestrogens are synthetic chemicals that mimic natural estrogens. They have been linked to a wide range of human health effects, including reduced sperm counts in men and increased risk of breast cancer in women. There are a large number of xenoestrogens, such as bovine growth hormones in commercial dairy, plastics like bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates and parabens in personal care products, and chemicals used in non-stick materials, just to name a few.

Technorati Tags: mammograms,mammogram studies,Cancer,Dr. Mercola,MRI's,Breast Cancer,women's health,cancer causing,FDA,Thermography. BSE?CBE,ultrasound