Sunday, May 29, 2011

Memorial Day Weekend Safety Tips

For many families, picnics and backyard barbecues top the list for planned activities on Memorial Day weekend. While enjoying your outdoor festivities here are some tips:

Practice safe grilling habits by keeping charcoal lighter fluid out of young children's reach, as swallowing lighter fluid can lead to serious poisoning for toddlers. When finished using lighter fluid, immediately return it to a storage space that is up high, out of sight and out of reach – preferably in a locked cabinet. If a child swallows lighter fluid, immediately wipe off any fluid on the exposed skin. Do not make the child vomit. Ipecac syrup should never be used for this type of poisoning emergency. Immediately call the Poison Control Center. Charcoal lighter fluid can cause serious or potentially life-threatening chemical pneumonia. The substance can enter the lungs when the child tries to swallow or vomit. If an adult or child has difficulty breathing after swallowing any poison, especially charcoal lighter fluid, call 911 immediately.

While picnicking, keep such perishable foods as ham, potato or macaroni salad, hamburgers, hot dogs, lunch meat, cooked beef or chicken, deviled eggs, and custard or cream pies in an ice chest. Put leftovers back in the ice chest as soon as you finish eating. When possible, store the ice chest in the passenger area of the car during the trip, as it stays cooler than when in the trunk.

When hiking or camping, be aware of your surroundings; many areas have poisonous snakes and spiders. Most snake bites occur when people handle snakes or when they stick their hands down holes or under logs and unknowingly touch a snake.

If you are in an isolated area when bitten by a snake, proceed slowly to a vehicle. Moving slowly will keep the heart rate low and help prevent the venom from spreading. Drive to the nearest hospital. If you are alone and unable to drive, call 911 or have someone else call 911 and let that person drive you to the hospital. If bitten by a spider, call the Poison Control Center right away.

Using insect repellents can help deal with such uninvited guests as mosquitoes and ticks. However, it is very important to follow the label's directions. Repellents containing a 10 to 30 percent concentration of DEET are safe for use on children 3 months of age and older. Spray the repellent on your hands and then apply it to the exposed areas on your child. Be careful not to apply the repellent around the eyes or mouth.

For bee stings, remove the bee's stinger by scraping it out with the edge of a plastic card or blunt instrument. Do not squeeze the stung area; it can cause the stinger to release more venom. Wash the area with soap and water. Immediately apply ice wrapped in a cloth for 10 to 15 minutes. Remember that ice applied directly to skin can cause damage to sensitive tissue. If a person is having difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, wheezing, swelling or itching eyes, or other symptoms of an allergic reaction, call 911 immediately.

If taking pets, also be aware of added stress on animals on busy and holiday types of weekends.  See: Holiday Weekend Pet Safety.

Have a safe Memorial Day Weekend~

Monday, May 23, 2011

The Leafy Green That's Great for Breasts

Here's a peppery green that may do big favors for breast health: watercress.

A favorite addition to afternoon tea sandwiches, watercress should make an appearance in your salads and soups, too, because a recent study suggests that compounds in watercress may help thwart breast cancer.

Why Watercress?

The compounds in question? Isothiocyanates. They're present in all sorts of cruciferous vegetables, like broccoli, kale, and brussels sprouts. And studies suggest that these compounds help remove cancer-causing substances from the body and help suppress tumor growth by tamping down the cancer's blood supply. Now a new study suggests that one particular kind of isothiocyanate found in watercress may help amp up women's defenses against breast cancer. What's more, in a small study of healthy middle-aged breast cancer survivors, those who consumed just over 2 cups of watercress daily experienced a significant increase in circulating blood levels of isothiocyanates.

Count on Cruciferous

Larger scale studies are needed to see whether there's any connection between watercress consumption and a lower risk of developing breast cancer. But for now, we do know that eating lots of leafy greens is a boon to health in general. And a cup of watercress supplies not only isothiocyanates but also calcium, potassium, vitamin C, vitamin A, and lutein -- all for just 32 calories. There are hundreds of tasty ways to eat it up.

h/t tip to RealAge

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Documents Show Elena Kagan's Conflict of Interest on ObamaCare

Supreme Control… an exploration of the New “Activist” Court

Documents Show Elena Kagan's Conflict of Interest on ObamaCare | Western Journalism.com

by Ben Johnson

clip_image001[4]

Laugh now… Because you will not be able to vote on the ObamaCare decision when it goes before the Supreme Court!!  You must recuse yourself!

Documents uncovered by a legal watchdog group prove Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was involved in the Obama administration’s legal defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “ObamaCare.”

Judicial Watch has released a number of administration communiqu├ęs that show Kagan, who was then Solicitor General, presided over the president’s response to lawsuits asserting the government health care bill is unconstitutional.

On January 8, 2010, Brian Hauck, Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, wrote to Kagan’s deputy, Neal Katyal, asking for the office’s assistance in “how to defend against the inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.” Three minutes later, Katyal replied, “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them. I’ll speak with Elena and designate someone.” After Katyal volunteered, Kagan responded, “You should do it.”[1]

A few hours later, Katyal updated Hauck, writing, “Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG [the Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues.” Katyal added,”I will handle this myself, along with an Assistant from my office, (Name RedactedBJ), and we will bring Elena in as needed.”(Emphasis added.)

The Justice Department continues to withhold a series of e-mails that would disclose Kagan’s exact role in the negotiations. However, it has turned over the Vaughn index, which describes the items being stonewalled in general terms. These include seven e-mails written from March 17-21, 2010. Kagan was copied on three e-mails that discuss “what categories of legal arguments may arise and should be prepared in the anticipated lawsuit.” Another four dealt with “expected litigation” against the health care law; Elena Kagan wrote one of the four being withheld.

In the same week, Perrelli announced a White House meeting “to help us prepare for litigation.” Katyal wrote Kagan, “I think you should go, no?” Kagan ended the paper trail cold, responding, “What’s your phone number?”

This White House and its allies have a history of producing documents that airbrush high-level attendees out of controversial meetings. The Center for Public Integrity has declared the White House visitor logs are “riddled with holes.”

Once Kagan had been nominated for the High Court, Katyal decided Kagan had never been involved in the proceedings in the least.

One year ago yesterday, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler wrote an e-mail acknowledging Katyal was “point” (of reference) on defending ObamaCare, but asking him, “Has Elena been involved in any of that to the extent SG office was consulted?” Katyal responded, “No, she has never been involved in any of it. I’ve run it for the Office, and have never discussed the issue with her one bit.” (Does anyone innocent speak that way?) Katyal later insisted Kagan had been “walled off from Day One.”

After Katyal alerted Elena to the inquiry, a jittery Kagan jumped in, instructing Schmaler, “This needs to be coordinated. Tracy, you should not say anything about this before talking to me.”

This author noted in February that Barack Obama refused to produce documents revealing Elena Kagan’s role in defending ObamaCare. (Obama has long engaged in selectively enforcing the law on FOIA requests.) The reason is simple: without her vote, the signature bill of his presidency is likely to be found unconstitutional.

The justices will soon hear two legal challenges from the states of Virginia and Florida, which already cleared lower courts.

Federal statute 28 U.S.C. 455 demands that a judge must step aside “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or in which he (or she) “participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

By telling Katyal he “should do it,” Kagan appointed the point person who defended ObamaCare. Further e-mails from March 24 reveal Kagan was copied

on the administration’s plan to coordinate with U.S. attorneys in fighting state lawsuits against ObamaCare. And she may have attended the administration’s meeting mentioned in the e-mail.

Frankly, it strains credulity to believe the president’s most important legal adviser provided no legal advice on this issue.

Obama knows the Constitution is “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He considers the Constitution“the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” To complete his revolution, he has packed the Supreme Court with justices sure to rule his way.

At present, the court is relatively evenly split between constitutionalists Antonin Scalia, , Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts versus progressive revisionists Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer. (Anthony Kennedy, the “swing vote,” regularly cites foreign law in place of the U.S. Constitution.)

Kagan is regarded as politically savvy. While clerking for ultra-liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan urged Thurgood not to allow the Supreme Court to hear cases if she believed the court would rule against her, creating Originalist precedent. For example, she advised Marshall to refuse the case of a female prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her abortion. Kagan worried the court would rule against the woman, writing, “This case is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners’ rights.” At Harvard and elsewhere, Kagan has been known for her smooth handling of competing groups, working them around to her way of thinking.

Without Kagan, Obama loses at least one, and perhaps two, pivotal votes, and ObamaCare goes the way of the National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

At a minimum, Kagan’s actions constitute “the appearance of impropriety.” Elena Kagan must recuse herself when the state challenges reach the High Court.

If she violates this federal statute, she should be impeached and removed from her seat.

Then again, one can hardly expect this from the same people who did not have the guts to keep her from being confirmed in the first place.

ENDNOTES:

1. Thomas Perrelli appears to have played a role in dropping the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. Katyal is currently acting as Kagan’s replacement.

Source:  Floyd Reports

Video: The Agenda Project: Supreme Control

Thursday, May 19, 2011

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

Prescription DrugsIn the article linked below, Fleetwood Mac star Stevie Nicks discusses the biggest mistake she says she ever made -- giving in to her friends and going to see a psychiatrist. He put her on the drug Klonopin, and the next eight years of her life were destroyed.

According to Nicks, if she didn't take it, her hands started to shake. She gained weight and felt as if she had a neurological disease.

As reported in the Daily Beast, Nicks said:

"Finally, in 1993, I'd had enough. I said, 'Take me to a hospital.' I went in for 47 days, and it made Betty Ford look like a cakewalk. My hair turned gray and my skin molted. I could hardly walk. You can detox off heroin in 12 days. Coke is just a mental detox. But tranquilizers -- they are dangerous. I was terrified to leave, and I came away knowing that that would never happen to me again."

Sources:

Fox News May 4, 2011

Benzo.org.uk

Like many of you I am sure, I enjoyed listening to Fleetwood Mac in the 70s and it was quite a surprise to read Stevie Nick's story.

It's been repeatedly demonstrated that prescription drugs can, and frequently do, pose SERIOUS risks to your health. In this case, Fleetwood Mac star Stevie Nicks ended up battling the devastating side effects of a drug she probably didn't need in the first place, and it swallowed eight years of her life.

Although many fail to realize this, prescription drugs can be just as addictive as illegal drugs. In fact, in many cases there's no difference between a street drug and a prescription drug. For example, hydrocodone, a prescription opiate, is synthetic heroin. It's indistinguishable from any other heroine as far as your brain and body is concerned. So, if you're hooked on hydrocodone, you are in fact a good-old-fashioned heroin addict.

Unfortunately, not a lot of attention is paid to prescription drug abuse. Still, nearly 20 percent of Americans admit to having used prescription drugs for nonmedical reasons, and three quarters of those may be abusing prescription drugs.

Insane Drug Use Statistics and the Danger of Polypharmacy

There's no doubt that the US has been manipulated into a nation of drug users. In just a ten-year span, from 1992 to 2002, the number of prescriptions written increased by a whopping 61 percent. And in that same period, the number of prescriptions written for opiates increased by almost 400 percent.

According to the latest statistics from the Kaiser Health Foundation, the average American, aged 19 to 64, now takes more than 11 prescription drugs!

This brings up yet another problem, which is the exponentially increased health risk of mixing multiple drugs. The word 'polypharmacy' means "many drugs," and essentially refers to instances where an individual is taking too many drugs--either because more drugs are prescribed than clinically indicated, or when the sheer number of pills simply becomes a burden for the patient.
This situation used to be primarily a concern for the elderly, who generally take more medicines than younger folk—in the US, theaverage senior fills more than 31 prescriptions per year. But over the past several years, even children as young as three are increasingly being prescribed four or more drugs!
This is a significant problem, as the more drugs you mix together, the greater the chances of serious side effects. People (of all ages) taking psychiatric drugs appear to be particularly prone to polypharmacy, which is particularly disturbing since each and every one of these drugs are quite potent and potentially dangerous when taken all by itself.

The Incredible Cost of Polypharmacy

Prescription drug abuse and overuse not only wreak havoc on the health, well-being, and longevity of the American population, it also has a major impact on our health care system, and it's NOT a beneficial one.

In fact, drug use accounts for tens of billions of dollars per year in health care costs. Let me explain—that's tens of billions of dollars to treat the side effects of drug use, IN ADDITION TO the close to one TRILLION dollars those same drugs cost our health care system in the first place!

So the idea that "more and better drugs" are the answer to our nation's failing health is "misguided" to say the least...

When the Treatment is Worse than the Original Problem

Sadly, there are literally millions of people who, like Stevie Nicks, suffer the ravaging side effects of drugs they didn't need in the first place—drugs that were supposed to "help" them in some way, but in reality cause problems far worse than the original concern.

For example, knowing how hard it can be to quit drugs like heroin, it's shocking to hear Nicks' description of her ordeal in detoxing from Klonopin; an anti-anxiety medication:

"I went in for 47 days, and it made Betty Ford look like a cakewalk. My hair turned gray and my skin molted. I could hardly walk. You can detox off heroin in 12 days. Coke is just a mental detox. But tranquilizers—they are dangerous. I was terrified to leave, and I came away knowing that that would never happen to me again."

It's time to wake up from our collective slumber and cease to fall prey to this predatory type of "health care."

You are Responsible for Your Health

It's unfortunate, but you, as a patient, carry the greatest burden when it comes to changing the current drug paradigm. I don't think we'll see doctors changing their prescribing ways anytime soon—it's what they're trained to do. In many cases, it's ALL they do! So as a patient, you have to take responsibility for your health, and question the drugs prescribed to you.

  • Do you really need that drug?
  • Is it prescribed appropriately, or is it being prescribed for an off-label use?
  • What are the side effects?
  • Is it addictive?

These are but a few of the most common-sense questions you need to ask before you swallow any pill.

In the case of Stevie Nicks, the health problems she experienced were par the course for that drug. Klonopin (Clonazepam) is an anti-seizure, anti-anxiety medication that works by decreasing electrical activity in your brain. It's in the same family of drugs as valium and xanax—well-known tranquilizers. (Ironically, it's also used to treat acute catatonic states, when a person does not speak or move at all.)

Side effects include:

Drowsiness
Dizziness, unsteadiness, and problems with coordination
Difficulty thinking or remembering

Muscle or joint pain
Blurred vision
Changes in sex drive, reduced sexual function

Addiction
Fetal harm; birth defects
Changes in mental health, including thoughts of suicide

Withdrawal symptoms include new or worsening seizures, hallucinations, uncontrollable shaking and changes in behavior.

Prescription Drugs Cause More Deaths than Illegal Drugs

In addition to exorbitant health care costs for drugs and their subsequent side effects, the cost in terms of lives has also skyrocketed.

Opioid painkillers alone — opium-like drugs that include morphine and codeine — now claim more than 13,800 lives each year. This means prescription painkillers have surpassed both heroin and cocaine as the leading cause of fatal overdoses, despite the fact that the FDA increased the restrictions for consumer drug ads in 2005, especially for COX-2 painkillers like Celebrex and Bextra.

Additionally, more than 700,000 people visit U.S. emergency rooms each year as a result of adverse drug reactions. And, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), adverse drug reactions from drugs that are properly prescribed and properly administered cause about 106,000 deaths per year, making prescription drugs the fourth-leading cause of death in the U.S.

When you compare these statistics to the death toll from illegal drugs -- which is about 10,000 per year -- you can begin to see the magnitude of the problem the pharmaceutical industry is propagating.

A Very Real Side Effect: a 25 Percent Chance of Premature Death

Three years ago, an analysis of federal data by the nonprofit Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) offered up some truly shocking information. In the first quarter of 2008, fatalities from adverse drug reactions accounted for 23 percent of all adverse reaction reports!

If that's not a wakeup call, I don't know what is.

Naturally, some drugs are far riskier than others. Chantix, for example, accounts for more adverse reaction reports, including deaths, than the ten best-selling brand name drugs combined! It even out-harms the addictive troublemaker oxycodone, a potent pain medication.

The greatest travesty here though is that Chantix is actually intended for use in healthy people to help them quit smoking! If that's not insane, I don't know what is...

There are NO Absolutely Safe Drugs

A clear majority of people have been successfully brainwashed into thinking that FDA-approved drugs can safely and effectively treat every possible ailment under the sun. This is a tragedy of epic proportions. But it's not too late to turn this madness around.

First and foremost, you must understand that even under the BEST circumstances -- such as with a drug that has gone through unbiased, stringent, long-term testing --anything can happen when a drug is released into the uncontrolled environment of your individual body. It may interact badly with another drug you're taking, or perhaps a food you eat causes an unforeseen reaction, or maybe your genetic makeup, metabolism or the state of your immune system will cause it to have an unpredictable impact.

Unfortunately, studies are frequently biased, results are skewed, and drugs are put on a fast-track to be approved long before anyone knows whether they're safe. In essence, it's all a gamble, and there are NO 100 percent safe drugs.

Should You Medicate or Not?

Ultimately, it's your body, and the decision to medicate yourself for an ailment is yours alone.

However, I urge you to research any drug your doctor prescribes before you take it. Do not just take your doctor's word for its safety. Most physicians have little information to offer you aside from what they've been told by their drug reps.
Make sure you are aware of the potential side effects of the drug, read the package insert, and remember that even if it lists a side effect as rare, it can still happen to you.

Then decide whether the potential benefits truly outweigh the potential risks.

Also remember that a large number of drugs are vastly over-prescribed and unnecessary. They're frequently referred to as "blockbuster drugs." If several people you know are on it, it's a dead giveaway that it's probably being over-prescribed, which means you should be even more cautious—not less!

Redefine the Word "Health"

What does "health" mean to you? Does your idea of being healthy include taking a dozen medications or more?

I certainly hope not...

If you make drugs a last option instead of a first choice, you will have taken a major step in the right direction.

"Health" does NOT equate to "suppressing symptoms of disease." Rather, true health means having a body that actually functions as it should... And the only way to get there is by addressing the root causes of any symptoms of disease you may have—not covering them up with a drug.

The "problem" with this mindset, however, is that the medical- and pharmaceutical industries can't make any money  through this strategy. If you get rid of the underlying cause of a disease, you effectively cure it and all symptoms go away. If you have no symptoms, there's no reason to take medications to suppress those symptoms.

This may sound obvious to some, but believe me, many people still don't "get" this.

They take drugs in the belief that they're doing something beneficial to their health when in fact there's not a single drug on the market that is designed to cure anything. The only thing a drug can do is address a particular symptom or set of symptoms. And, if you don't address the root cause, your problem never goes away!

This is how you get stuck in the mindless never ending loop of polypharmacy.

Basic Health Strategies that Can Address a Large Number of Health Problems

There are many health conditions that can be prevented or effectively treated with lifestyle changes alone, yet if you go to a typical doctor, you'll walk out with one or more prescriptions. Examples of health problems that typically don't require drug intervention include:

I realize it may require a massive shift in thinking to realize that your body can heal itself, and that drugs typically only hinder the process. But I can't stress enough the importance of this most basic principle:

Disease can only be resolved by addressing its root cause.

What many people fail to realize is that it is possible to maintain optimal health by simply avoiding unnecessary drugs and by understanding the fundamentals of good nutrition and exercise.

Remember you can Take Control of Your Health by:

Related Links:

The Silent Epidemic -- Legal Prescription Drug Abuse

They Cause 40,000 Deaths a Year - But They're Handed Out Like Candy

More Drugs Do Not Mean Better Care

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

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

(NaturalNews) The federal government has been publicly denying any link between autism and vaccines for over two decades, while it has quietly been paying out damages for vaccine injury to children with autism, a study released May 10th shows. The study underscores the need for Congressional hearings and independent scientific research into the connection between autism and vaccines (http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...).

The federal government's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created in 1989 to act as a "no fault" taxpayer-funded alternative for those seeking compensation for proven vaccine injury. The new peer-reviewed study, published May 10th in the Pace Environmental Law Review, looked at cases of vaccine injury that have been monetarily compensated by the VICP. The study looked at 1300 cases of children with brain injury resulting from vaccines where the court's records referenced autism, symptoms of autism or  disorders commonly associated with autism -- twenty-one cases outright stated "autism or autism-like symptoms" in the court records. The researchers then identified and contacted 150 of the families that were compensated to find out whether the children had autism. 62 of the families they contacted (greater than 40 percent of their sample) reported children with autism, for a total of 83 cases of autism. (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...).

"What we did is we looked at the people who the government said are clearly vaccine injuries and awarded them compensation," said Lou Conte, the vaccine compensation recipient who helped coordinate the study.

"We asked the next question and that question was: Do some of these people also have autism?" said Conte. "We found that in 83 of the cases we were able to locate, the families report that their children have autism and symptoms of autism." (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/n...)

Government and conventional medicine maintain denial

The CDC has since released a statement supporting their previous statements that no link between vaccines and autism exists. (http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/morn...)

Some medical experts agree. While the stories are heartbreaking, said Dr. David Nelson chair of the Department of Pediatrics at Georgetown University Hospital, there is no connection between vaccinations and autism.

"There are absolutely no data that show autism is linked to vaccinations," said Nelson. (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/n...)

The Health Resources and Services Administration, the Federal agency responsible for improving access to health care services for people who are uninsured, isolated or medically vulnerable, also put out a statement in response to the new study stating:

"The government has not compensated any case based on a determination that autism, in the absence of acute neurological illness, was actually caused by vaccines. Furthermore, there is no reliable scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism even in cases where an acute encephalopathy following vaccination has occurred." (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/n...)

Critics argue for further investigation

The Huffington Post asked Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy, whose board members authored the study, why anyone should care about the legal proceedings of some obscure court when so much published science says otherwise.

The EBCALA argued that the government officials in Health and human Services or the VICP who decided that the children in this study suffered vaccine injury did so based on science.
"We uncovered that these children also have autism. How can the government then continue to assert that there is no link between vaccines and autism?" said EBCALA directors, "If in fact there is no link, why would there be even one case of vaccine-associated autism, let alone 83?"

Authors of the study called their preliminary findings "the tip of the iceberg," during a press conference in Washington May 11th.
Hundreds of autism cases have been settled quietly by the government, they say, while thousands more were probably never filed, according to News Medical. There are currently over 5,000 court cases pending that claim autism as a result of vaccine injury. (http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...).

"The [VICP] appears to favor cases without any reference to autism," said National Autism Association President Wendy Fournier. "The message is clear, if you want to receive financial support for the long-term medical care of your loved one injured by vaccines, submit a claim for brain damage, or residual seizure disorder- but leave autism out of it."

NAA believes the findings of the new study call into serious question the continued assertion from federal health agencies that vaccines do not cause autism.

"As this study shows, vaccines can and do cause brain damage and subsequent autism in certain children," said Fournier. "The government has been settling these cases for over twenty years, yet has failed to conduct research into why these children were susceptible to vaccine injury. This neglect will continue to needlessly and senselessly result in adverse reactions and autism in other children."

Call for congressional hearings

"Congress needs to find out whether there was a cover-up," said lead author and managing director of EBCALA Mary Holland. "It doesn't look good."

SafeMinds says the government has asserted that it "does not track" autism among the vaccine-injured. SafeMinds is a nonprofit that aims to raise awareness, support research and focus attention on the growing evidence of a link between mercury and neurological disorders such as autism, attention deficit disorder and learning difficulties.

Not looking is the easiest way not to find something, said SafeMinds, so the organization is calling for immediate federal research into the mechanisms of injury in these children in an effort to protect other children from harm and Congressional action to reform the VICP.
"This study dramatically shifts the debate on autism and vaccines," said SafeMinds' Executive Director, Lyn Redwood. "The question is no longer, Can vaccines cause autism? The answer is clear. Now, we have to ask, How many cases of autism have vaccines caused and how do we prevent new injuries from occurring?" (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...)


Sources for this article include:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/morn...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/n...
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032423_vaccine_compensation_program_brain_injury.html#ixzz1MgahOf6g

Articles Related to This Article:

The great thimerosal cover-up: Mercury, vaccines, autism and your child's health
Vaccines cause autism: Supporting evidence
Soaring Autism Rates Linked to Environmental Causes
CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme
American Academy of Pediatrics Unleashes Hysterical Attack on Fictional Television Show about Vaccine / Autism Link
Battle Autism with Bentonite Clay

Related:

Hawaii (Obama’s Home State) passes Resolution Against Forced Vaccination

Surviving Holidays With Autism

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

Monday, May 16, 2011

Administration approves 200 more new Obamacare waivers

ObamaCare

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372.

The waivers are temporary and only apply to one provision of the law, which requires health plans to offer at least $750,000 worth of annual medical benefits before leaving patients to fend for themselves. Still, Republicans have assailed the waivers as a sign of both favoritism and of major problems with the law.

"The fact that over 1,000 waivers have been granted is a tacit admission that the healthcare law is fundamentally flawed," Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in March. Upton is one of three House committee chairmen who has used new oversight powers to investigate the annual limit waivers. 

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process.

Source: thehill.com

My question is have you received your waiver and do you think you’ll ever qualify for one?

Related: 

Dirty Little Secret:  Rationing is at Heart of ObamaCare

Rino Gingrich is Done Before He Started - Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate

Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.

Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:

“I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

Gregory asked Gingrich if he would criticize GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" health program enacted during his time as Governor in Massachusetts mandated that all uninsured purchase health insurance.

Gingrich replied he would not make it an issue in the campaign and said he agreed with key aspects of Romneycare.

"I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care," Gingrich said, adding, "I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..."

Gingrich also admitted that his proposal is a "variation" of the individual mandate, a key component of the Obamacare legislation President Obama signed into law in 2010.

The position staked out by Gingrich appears to be at odds with leading conservative critics of Obamacare, who argue that the law requiring citizens to purchase a private insurance policy is not constitutional.

The Obama administration is currently facing three lawsuits arguing that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, including one filed by a coalition of 26 states.

The issue is on track for a Supreme Court decision in the summer of 2012, which would make it a likely hot-button topic heading into the elections.

Conservative GOP critics like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli say the mandate is unconstitutional because although Congress can regulate commerce, it can’t require people to engage in a particular “economic activity” just because they live in the U.S.

Conservative judicial experts have also taken exception to the claim made by Gingrich and supporters of the Obamacare law that mandating health insurance is the same as the government requirement to purchase car insurance, noting that driving a car is a privilege provided by states and not a constitutional right.

Cucinelli says that "buying auto insurance is voluntary, since you are only required to purchase it if you choose to drive on public roads. But buying health insurance under the new federal law is not voluntary, as you are required to buy it just by virtue of the fact that you are breathing. The federal government has never before in history exercised its regulatory power to require someone to buy a product or service as a condition of residence in the United States."
Gingrich, though, seemed to disagree with that notion on Sunday, though he was quick to point out the differences between his plan and the federal health law.

“In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system,” Gingrich told NBC’s David Gregory. “I believe all of us--and this is going to be a big debate--I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare …"
Romney has not come under fire for not disowning his health care plan, which has caused private health care insurance rates to skyrocket as patient services have declined in Massachusetts.

Gingrich's position quickly came under fire from several conservative blogs on Sunday.

“He tried to distinguish his mandate from the Obama mandate, but with little success,” the American Federalist Journal wrote on Sunday.
“Sandbagging your fellow Republicans in Congress and offering tacit support for a key (unconstitutional) component of Obamacare is a very strange way to begin a run in a Republican primary. Not a strong start.”

The Wall Street Journal called Gingrich’s description of an ideal healthcare plan with mandates a “pretty good description of what the Democratic Congress passed into law last year."

The Journal continued: "Beginning in 2014, most Americans who don't have insurance will be required to pay a fee, with many, depending on income, getting subsidies to help buy coverage through state-based exchanges.”

The conservative website Red State said Gingrich “won’t exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP.”

Source: Newsmax

Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Dirty Little Secret: Rationing is at Heart of ObamaCare

There is a dirty secret about health care that President Obama hopes will escape the headlines. In his newly released plan to “reform” Medicare as part of overall deficit reduction, Obama has punted actual cost-cutting and instead proposed a panel – the Independent Payment Advisory Board – to recommend savings for the financially doomed program. Translation: Welcome to the world of rationing.

The board, which was an original part of Obamacare (remember the death panel debate?), consists of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will have unchecked, binding power in the interest of supposedly greater efficiency and lower costs. That means that instead of you or your doctor making decisions about your care, a group of Washington micromanagers will do it for you.

Oh, and the rationing panel will be immune to lawsuits. According to The New York Times, “In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations.”

The panel is one of the scariest policy moves made by this administration and is the epitome of government interference in our lives at the most personal of levels. If you’re not eligible for Medicare, you will be one day, which is why everyone should be very afraid of what’s to come when the panel starts its work in 2014 with a report to the President. Though defenders claim that Obamacare bars rationing, the panel will do just that.  (Full Story Below)

The fate of the elderly, the sick and the disabled depends on the findings of President Obama's proposed panel that will recommend savings for financially doomed Medicare.

There is a dirty secret about health care that President Obama hopes will escape the headlines. In his newly released plan to “reform” Medicare as part of overall deficit reduction, Obama has punted actual cost-cutting and instead proposed a panel – the Independent Payment Advisory Board  – to recommend savings for the financially doomed program. Translation: Welcome to the world of rationing.

The board, which was an original part of Obamacare (remember the death panel debate?), consists of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will have unchecked, binding power in the interest of supposedly greater efficiency and lower costs. That means that instead of you or your doctor making decisions about your care, a group of Washington micromanagers will do it for you.

They will do this by cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and restricting patients from costly end-of-life care by enforcing caps on how much a patient can spend to stay alive. Most at risk will be the disabled, who require special and often expensive care. Cancer patients will be at risk, as well, since chemotherapy and other oncological treatments are some of the priciest.

In fact, there is very little Congress will be able to do to stop the panel. It will only be able to block its rulings with a two-thirds vote to override an expected presidential veto.

In the past, Obama has hinted that we'll need a way to address these patients. "The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out here," he said shortly after taking office. "There is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place."

But there was no real conversation. Democrats inserted the rationing panel into the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare), and when the opposition tried to draw attention to the risks involved by invoking rationing, they were branded by the left and the mainstream media as crazies.

But this is far from fantasy. In fact, it's already reality across the pond.

In many ways, Obama and congressional Democrats copied the British, who have a similar model called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. According to The Wall Street Journal, the acronym is quite the oxymoron when one looks at what passes for standard practice: "NICE has rejected a number of pricey drugs for cancer and other diseases in the past. . . . Sometimes NICE rejects drugs for all patients with the disease, and sometimes just for patients with a specific form of the disease, where the efficacy doesn't appear to justify the price. NICE's decisions often anger patients, their families and drug companies."

Most recently, NICE made the decision to deny the use of several new drugs to treat chronic leukemia patients. This showcases how deficit savings will be achieved under Obama's plan.

First, it's baffling to me that with countless government health officials on the federal payroll, nobody has been able to definitively figure out how to save Medicare from fiscal ruin. But somehow, these 15 Independent Payment Advisory Board pencil pushers will do the trick? Unless Superman, Wonder Woman and the Flash are entering the world of public service, there is no reason to believe that the same bureaucrats who got us into this mess will be able to solve the problem simply because they've joined a newly created panel.
It does, however, give Washington air cover. Just like in England, when the panel makes a controversial decision, lawmakers will be cleared of any direct involvement, claiming they aren't responsible for cutting your mother's cancer treatments.

In fact, there is very little Congress will be able to do to stop the panel. It will only be able to block its rulings with a two-thirds vote to override an expected presidential veto.

Oh, and the rationing panel will be immune to lawsuits. According to The New York Times, "In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board's recommendations."

So, to break it down: Democrats are against limits on private-sector lawsuits but are in favor of preventing patients from suing government bureaucrats. But if this rationing panel has been designed to be so efficient and good at its job, as the President and his administration claim, then why do Democrats fear litigation in the first place?

Even some on the left are unsettled about Obama's solution to lowering the deficit through a medical panel with frighteningly unchecked powers. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a notorious liberal, said this of Independent Payment Advisory Board-style rationing: "In its effort to limit the growth of Medicare spending, the board is likely to set inadequate payment rates for health care providers, which could endanger patient care."

It could also lead to a doctor shortage. If the panel cuts reimbursements to physicians, they will simply stop treating Medicare patients, thus forcing patients to purchase their own health care. Already, "Obamacare's passage has led as many as two-thirds of physicians to drop out of government-run health programs," reports the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

The panel is one of the scariest policy moves made by this administration and is the epitome of government interference in our lives at the most personal of levels. If you're not eligible for Medicare, you will be one day, which is why everyone should be very afraid of what's to come when the panel starts its work in 2014 with a report to the President. Though defenders claim that Obamacare bars rationing, the panel will do just that.

Donald Berwick, the President's controversial Medicare administrator, already stated that "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

Although Obama and many congressional Democrats are hoping the complexity of the Independent Payment Advisory Board will keep people from paying attention, our eyes must be open, too. The fate of the elderly, the sick and the disabled depends on it.
andrea@andreatantaros.com

Andrea Tantaros, whose column appears on Thursdays on NYDailyNews.com and often in the print edition of the newspaper, is a political commentator as well as a corporate communications executive. She previously served as a senior adviser on a number of political campaigns and as communications director for former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-N.Y.) and on Capitol Hill as press secretary for Republican leadership. Tantaros lives in New York City.

By ANDREA TANTAROS

The Dems, the White House and the media are trying to scare seniors about the Ryan Plan.  It is another diversion.  The real issue is the rationing or death panel headed by Donald Berwick that Sarah Palin and a few others warned us about and then were demonized by the same people who are hiding true facts of ObamaCare from you, until it is too late! Take it from someone who read as much of every version as possible during the ObamaCare battle… the panel and rationing are in there along with many other scary provisions.  And a vote to re-elect Obama is a final vote to destroy America’s healthcare as well as freedom!

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Obamacare Suffers Devastating Rebuke… Even With Rigging and Delaying to Hear Healthcare Case

Obamacare Suffers Devastating Rebuke

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, AP Graphics

President Barack Obama's main idea for getting quality health care at less cost was in jeopardy Wednesday after key medical providers called his administration's initial blueprint so complex it's unworkable.

Just over a month ago, the administration released long-awaited draft regulations for "accountable care organizations," networks of doctors and hospitals that would collaborate to keep Medicare patients healthier and share in the savings with taxpayers. Obama's health care overhaul law envisioned quickly setting up hundreds of such networks around the county to lead a bottom-up reform of America's bloated health care system.

But in an unusual rebuke, an umbrella group representing premier organizations such as the Mayo Clinic wrote the administration Wednesday saying that more than 90 percent of its members would not participate, because the rules as written are so onerous it would be nearly impossible for them to succeed.

"It's not just a simple tweak, it's a significant change that needs to be made," said Donald Fisher, president of the American Medical Group Association, which represents nearly 400 large medical groups around the country providing care for roughly 1 in 3 Americans. Its members, including the Cleveland Clinic, Intermountain Healthcare in Utah, and Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, had been seen as the vanguard for accountable care.

The medical groups say they are worried they will be left holding the bag for losses, that the government has designed things so there is no easy way to tell which patients are part of the program, and that there's no reliable way to adjust for patients who are sicker and require closer follow-up and more expensive treatments.

The deadline for public comments on the proposed regulations is still weeks away, but Fisher said "we needed to get their attention early on, so (the administration) could be thinking about how major changes are needed to make these regulations viable."

Medicare spokesman Brian Cook said the agency is doing extensive outreach to explain and take feedback on the regulations and hat "we will carefully consider this input."

"We are confident that providers' decisions on whether to participate in the program will be made on the basis of the final rule, which will reflect the feedback we receive," added Cook.

Many in the health care industry were silent partners backing Obama's overhaul law, but disappointment over the accountable care rules has put a chill into the relationship. During the congressional debate, Obama extolled Mayo and Geisinger, holding them up as a model of what he wanted to achieve for the nation. Industry criticism of his administration's proposal has been building up for weeks in online forums.

"This has all the hallmarks of a party that nobody comes to, unless there is a serious rethinking," said former Medicare administrator Gail Wilensky, who ran the agency under President George H.W. Bush.

Wilensky said the idea of coordinating care isn't the problem, but "it sounds like (the administration) really overshot the mark."

The regulations are "overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome, and the incentives are too difficult to achieve to make this voluntary program attractive," the medical group association said in its letter. One of the major problems seems to be that medical groups have little experience in managing insurance risk, and the administration blueprint rapidly exposes them to potential financial losses.

Without major changes, "we fear that very few providers will enroll ... and that (Medicare) and the provider community will miss the best opportunity to inject value and accountability into the delivery system."

Private insurers are also experimenting with versions of the accountable care idea, but successful adoption by Medicare is seen as the key to spreading it across the country. The Obama administration had estimated as much as $960 million in savings from the first three years of the program, and bigger amounts thereafter.

Fisher, the medical association head, said he does not think the administration will easily back off its approach, because on paper it saves the government money.

Source:  Fox Nation

One Clinton and Two Obama Appointed Judges to Hear Healthcare BIll Lawsuit

Instead of the full 9 member court there will only be 3 justices hearing the healthcare bill lawsuit. One of these was appointed by Clinton and the other 2 by Obama. This is no different than bribing a jury and we need to stand up and put an end to this kind of abuse of power and criminal behavior and that is what rigging a court is.

We the people have the power to petition our representatives for the impeachment of theses activist justices who fail to uphold the Constitution. They take an oath of office to uphold and protect the U S Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Domestic includes justices that would rewrite the Constitution to suit their personal agenda. We are at a crossroads, we can either put up or shut up! We are the ones who for years have allowed these courts to overstep their Constitutional powers. Now if we petition our representatives for impeachment they are forced to take it to the floor for action and even if they vote against us it will get into the media and send a strong message to these justices that we will no longer sit silent and let them do as they please, constitutional or not. The Constitution can only be changed by amendments voted on by 2/3 majority of our elected representatives, not by the political agenda of partisan justices. So like I said we either sit back and allow these justices to run amuck or we stand up and say enough. You can in fact write your own petition at the link here and get it moving among all the people or groups you are with.

http://www.repetitionr.com/ 

Mitt Romney:  My First Act As President Is Undoing Obamacare

Friday, May 13, 2011

CREEPY CRAWLERS: BEDBUGS FOUND CARRYING ‘SUPERBUG’ GERMS

ATLANTA (AP) — Hate insects? Afraid of germs? Researchers are reporting an alarming combination: bedbugs carrying “superbug” germs.

Canadian scientists detected drug-resistant MRSA bacteria in bedbugs from three hospital patients from a downtrodden Vancouver neighborhood.

Bedbugs have not been known to spread disease, and there’s no clear evidence that the five bedbugs found on the patients or their belongings had spread MRSA or a second less dangerous drug-resistant germ.

However, bedbugs can cause itching that can lead to excessive scratching. That can cause breaks in the skin that make people more susceptible to these bacteria, noted Dr. Marc Romney, one of the study’s authors.

The study is small and very preliminary, “But it’s an intriguing finding” that needs to be further researched, said Romney, medical microbiologist at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

The hospital is the closest one to the poor Downtown Eastside neighborhood near the city’s waterfront. Romney said he and his colleagues did the research after seeing a simultaneous boom in bedbugs and MRSA cases from the neighborhood.

Five bedbugs were crushed and analyzed. MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, was found on three bugs. MRSA is resistant to several types of common antibiotics and can become deadly if it gets through the skin and into the bloodstream.

Two bugs had VRE, or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus Faecium, a less dangerous form of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Both germs are often seen in hospitals, and experts have been far more worried about nurses and other health-care workers spreading the bacteria than insects.

It’s not clear if the bacteria originated with the bedbugs or if the bugs picked it up from already infected people, Romney added.

The study was released Wednesday by Emerging Infectious Diseases, a publication of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Source:  The Blaze

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

BEDBUGS FOUND CARRYING ‘SUPERBUG’ GERMS

ATLANTA (AP) — Hate insects? Afraid of germs? Researchers are reporting an alarming combination: bedbugs carrying “superbug” germs.

Canadian scientists detected drug-resistant MRSA bacteria in bedbugs from three hospital patients from a downtrodden Vancouver neighborhood.

Bedbugs have not been known to spread disease, and there’s no clear evidence that the five bedbugs found on the patients or their belongings had spread MRSA or a second less dangerous drug-resistant germ.

However, bedbugs can cause itching that can lead to excessive scratching. That can cause breaks in the skin that make people more susceptible to these bacteria, noted Dr. Marc Romney, one of the study’s authors.

The study is small and very preliminary, “But it’s an intriguing finding” that needs to be further researched, said Romney, medical microbiologist at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

The hospital is the closest one to the poor Downtown Eastside neighborhood near the city’s waterfront. Romney said he and his colleagues did the research after seeing a simultaneous boom in bedbugs and MRSA cases from the neighborhood.

Five bedbugs were crushed and analyzed. MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, was found on three bugs. MRSA is resistant to several types of common antibiotics and can become deadly if it gets through the skin and into the bloodstream.

Two bugs had VRE, or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus Faecium, a less dangerous form of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Both germs are often seen in hospitals, and experts have been far more worried about nurses and other health-care workers spreading the bacteria than insects.

It’s not clear if the bacteria originated with the bedbugs or if the bugs picked it up from already infected people, Romney added.

The study was released Wednesday by Emerging Infectious Diseases, a publication of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple Signs Obamacare Nullification Bill

Written by: TAC Daily Updates  -  from Rob Port at the SayAnything blog:

Apparently deciding that the risk of angering his constituents over a failure to act against Obamacare was worse than angering his Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem, who holds that the state cannot pass laws contradicting federal law, Governor Jack Dalrymple signed SB2309. (click here to read about the health care nullification act in N.D.)

The bill affirms that North Dakotans have the right to buy, or not buy, whatever health insurance they want. This law is statute. A previous bill that would have amended the constitution with similar language was defeated with a gang of 29 House Republicans voting with Democrats at the behest of Stenehjem to kill it.

This bill was discussed on Fox News recently by state nullification proponent Tom Woods and Judge Andrew Napolitano. “The new state law, if signed by Dalrymple, says the federal health insurance law can’t interfere with North Dakotans’ decision to buy health insurance or not buy health insurance,” wrote the editorial board of the Minot Daily News though the paper went on to say that the law “won’t make a difference” because state law “can’t override a federal law.”

This, of course, isn’t true. The states are under no obligation to abide by federal laws that are unconstitutional. And since that is the State of North Dakota’s official position on Obamacare in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the law, this law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor is appropriate.

Kudos to Dalrymple for having the courage many other political leaders in this state do not.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Recently, Idaho’s Governor Otter signed an order refusing state compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). With this signature, North Dakota is now the first state in the country to pass into law the Health Care Nullification Act.

The Tenth Amendment Center has released the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, which directly nullifies the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” on a state level. Click here to learn more about the bill. CLICK HERE to track the Nullification Act in states around the country.

Keep Praying!

Today's hearing of our lawsuit against ObamaCare is making national headlines. Many news organizations are reporting on the great significance of my oral argument and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's presentation that will be heard back-to-back by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

These lawsuits - one on behalf of private parties and one on behalf of a sovereign state - are the first lawsuits against ObamaCare to reach the appeals court level.

Because the three judges who will hear our case are selected from among the 14 sitting judges in the Fourth Circuit - four of whom are Obama appointees and three of whom are Clinton appointees - preparation for this case has been highly challenging. We cannot know who will be chosen to hear our case tomorrow, so we had to make sure we are very broadly prepared.

How important is our challenge to the constitutionality of ObamaCare? The panel of judges we will face is just one level below the United States Supreme Court. As you may recall, two lower court judges have already declared ObamaCare to be unconstitutional, while certain liberal judges have sided with the so-called healthcare "reform" act.

We are well prepared and calling for continual prayer!

As I wrote on Friday, I'm excitedly anticipating just how powerful the prayers of tens of thousands of Believers will actually be!

I know each of the 76,593 patriotic men and women who signed our Amici Book want our nation to be delivered from the devastation of ObamaCare before it is too late.

Above all, I know God is hearing these prayers and that He Is answering!

I am emphatically asking that you pray for my entire team and me in the remaining hours before I stand before the panel of federal judges to defend the liberties of all Americans against this outrageous law.

Your prayers mean a great deal to me and our Liberty Counsel Litigation Team and they are also crucially important to all Americans who recognize this blatant socialist takeover of our medical industry for exactly what it is!

Please pray! God bless you!

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman

Liberty Counsel

Http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=41367&CID=310&RID=23710767

A Grain of Advice on Salt

You might think of “salt” as a dirty word – the stuff that spikes your blood pressure and increases your risk of heart disease.

But your heart, adrenals, liver and kidneys need salt to function, and you can’t digest food without it. What’s more, salt:

• Carries nutrients across cell membranes into your cell;
• Keeps calcium and other minerals soluble in your blood;
• Maintains your body’s balance of fluids;
• Regulates blood pressure.

In my 20 years as an alternative-health physician, I’ve found that most of my patients don’t need less salt. What they need is the right kind of salt, and more potassium. That’s because potassium helps to keep sodium levels in check and optimize blood pressure.

A study published in Kidney International found that potassium deficiencies increase blood pressure and induce salt sensitivity.1

Another study published in the Journal of Hypertension examined 150 Chinese men and women who ate diets high in salt and low in potassium. Half took a placebo, and the other half took a potassium supplement. After 12 weeks, the systolic blood pressure of the potassium group significantly decreased.2

But most Americans eat too much processed salt and don’t get nearly enough potassium. In fact, the FDA estimates that about 75 percent of our salt intake comes from processed foods and from table salt added to food.3

How does that affect you?

Table salt is processed at temperatures over 1,000 degrees. This processing changes its chemical structure and strips it of its natural nutrients. In addition, salt producers add anti-caking ingredients and bleach it.

By the time it gets to your dinner table, it’s mostly sodium and additives – no nutrients whatsoever.

A healthier kind of salt is sea salt. It’s formed by the evaporation of sea water in sunlight. As a result, it retains up to 82 vital trace minerals, including potassium, magnesium and calcium.

You can lower your blood pressure and improve your health by consuming the right kind of salt and boosting your potassium. Here’s a three-step plan you can use to help you get healthy salts and more potassium:

1. Know how much salt is in your food. Each teaspoon of salt is equal to 2,325 mg of sodium. Does that sound like a lot? Well the truth is, most processed foods have many times that amount. One packet of dry onion soup mix contains over 3,000 mg of sodium.

Even sweet foods which may seem like they would have no salt are packed with it. A homemade pie crust can have over 1,300 milligrams. Two small restaurant pancakes have more than 1,100 milligrams.

When you’re at the store buying food, you can go beyond reading the sodium content on the label. Processors have dozens of names they use instead of salt. Luckily, most of them do have sodium in the name so you’ll know what to avoid. But also look for ingredients like metabisulfite, erythorbate, propionate and guanylate.

2. Replace table salt with sea salt. A lot of the sea salt you find at grocery stores is really just processed table salt. Generally, if salt is white and pours easily, it’s probably processed. Natural sea salt is darker in color – because it’s dried in white and brown layers (and the brown layer has most of the nutrients).

Your safest bet is to buy sea salt from a health-food store. There are many kinds such as Mediterranean, Himalayan and Pacific and they all have slightly different tastes.

3. Boost your levels of potassium. The best food sources are orange-colored fruits and vegetables like apricots, cantaloupe, oranges, nectarines, peaches, sweet potatoes, and butternut and acorn squash. Other good sources are black and kidney beans, spinach, Swiss chard, artichokes, bananas, kiwi, fish, meat, poultry and milk.

These are just some of the excellent and unconventional high-blood-pressure remedies mentioned in a new report by Craig Anderson, The High Blood Pressure Remedy Report. It reveals the truth behind high blood pressure. It also shows you how to stop high blood pressure and cut your risk of heart attack and stroke – without worry, drugs, pain or wasted money.

Lower your blood pressure naturally today.

To Your Good Health,

Al
Sears, MD signature

Al Sears, MD

Thursday, May 5, 2011

How DNA Proved It Was bin Laden's Body

Wednesday, 04 May 2011 11:38 PM  --  By Newsmax Wires

President Barack Obama has decided not to release what to many people might be the best proof of Osama bin Laden’s death – the grisly photo said to show a bullet wound to his eye with much of his skull missing.

That leaves the DNA test – based on hard science completely familiar only to the best-trained specialists – as a guarantee to the public that the 9/11 mastermind is truly dead.

But how did the administration pull off a complex test on the scene that normally takes days if not weeks for forensic scientists to verify in normal investigations?

"Now, we can say with 99.9 percent confidence that this was bin Laden," John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, said Monday.

So why not 100 percent?

The answer is complicated, and it involved a painstaking process years in the making that involved tracking down bin Laden’s relatives and getting tissue samples, ultimately from a cancer-ridden relative who died in the United States last year, according to reports.
First the science: the process of extracting and purifying the DNA can be done in as little as a half-hour with right equipment; then experts require a few hours to amplify, analyze and match it. In order to do that you need a piece of equipment called a genetic analyzer, a desk-size apparatus that weighs a couple hundred pounds. That likely explains why bin Laden's body had to be transported back to Afghanistan for identification, according to one specialist writing in Popular Mechanics magazine.

Dan Krane, a professor of genetics and a DNA expert at Wright State University in Ohio, told Popular Mechanics that rapid DNA tests can look at short tandem repeat sequences in the DNA. Tests that analyze these are indeed incredibly accurate, he says. The more closely related two people are, the more repeated patterns they will share.

But Krane and others — such as William Thompson, a criminology professor at the University of California, Irvine who is an expert in DNA forensics — say that the 99.9 percent confidence number, which the U.S. government reportedly arrived at by comparing the DNA to that of bin Laden's half-sister, is slightly misleading.
That’s because the results speak to the probability of a relationship between the two people, not the actual identity of the dead man.

"If the DNA test compared the profile of the man shot in Pakistan with bin Laden's family members," Thompson says, "the results could properly be presented only as a likelihood ratio, stating the relative likelihood of observing the particular markers found in the dead man if he were, say, the father or brother of a known bin Laden family member, than if he were a randomly chosen individual."

Kane notes that the more appropriate (though perhaps less dramatic) way to explain the results would be as such: It is about 1000 times more likely the dead man's DNA came from a sibling of bin Laden's sister than from a random person. "That phrasing is more consistent with how paternity and sibling tests are typically described," he tells PM.

But here’s where a complicated story gets even more confusing: bin Laden had no full siblings. It's been widely reported that the federal government collected DNA from bin Laden's half-sister when she died in a Massachusetts hospital, and that DNA from other bin Laden relatives may also have been accrued and used in the identification (though the government isn't providing all the details at this time).

It’s all part of a top-secret Pentagon operation that collects the DNA samples of suspected and known terrorists and their family members. A 2007 Defense Science Board report revealed Black Helix, an initiative—apparently dating back to early 2001, before the 9/11 attacks—that provides a "secure repository and interactive database, which will focus on archiving, retrieving, and interpreting biomolecular data for the identification and tracking of terrorist suspects."

"In the case of half-siblings, it is harder to state that there is a match because all one can do is state that it is likely the two people shared a common ancestor (you would not be able to say they are half-brother and -sister any more than you could say they are cousins)," Steven Laken, the CEO of DNA analysis firm Cephos, told Popular Mechanics in an email. "In the case of the bin Ladens, there may have been consanguineous marriages (marriages between related people), and this makes it trickier."

But do such databases make high-profile identifications a done deal? Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists tells Popular Mechanics that it’s not foolproof. No matter how careful or thorough one is, genetic testing always presents the possibility of errors, ranging from contamination to simple lab mixups.

"I'm not suggesting that was the case with the bin Laden DNA," he adds. "But life is complicated."

Typical lab-based DNA matching tests like this can take up to 14 days. They need to be repeated several times to ensure the sample's not contaminated from any other DNA sources. But in 2010, a University of Arizona team presented research on a machine that can do the analysis in just two hours in a largely automated way.

It's possible that knowing they were engaged on a mission to capture bin Laden, U.S. forces arranged for access to a machine like this to be on quick alert - probably for flying blood, cheek cells, and other samples taken from the body to the lab for expedited analysis, Time magazine reports.

Newsmax: How DNA Proved It Was bin Laden's Body