Big Pharma and the WHO not your friend

I am writing to you in my official capacity as the President of the Natural Solutions Foundation.  However, the basis of the information that I am about to share with you comes from decades of experience engaged in real-world, real-time intelligence collection and analysis.  In this environment, the work involves piecing together divergent “bits” of information from divergent sources into a coherent picture of past events/situations from which you can reliably predict future events/situations.

Having the “picture” (from connecting the “Dots” or the  “Bits” of information) provides the base from which counter actions, plans and solutions develop.
That is the simplistic process.  Now let me show you some of the “Dots” as they exist today. You do the connecting.   You paint the picture that comes to your mind. I think after you do, you will see why it is so urgently important that we create the Push Back needed to protect our health, our rights and our freedom at this time.

DATA SET 1

1.  An “informal” [e.g., illegal] clinical trial of the Avian Flu vaccine on about 200 Polish vagrants resulted in 11 immediate deaths and an additional set of 20 later deaths (approximately 15% of the test population).  The doctors and nurses involved were charged with murder. (Fact. 2008)

2.  Approximately 3500 Chinese children died in an Avian Flu vaccine experiment. (Rumor, 2008)

3.  The Philippine High Court convicted WHO (The World Health Organization) of involuntarily sterilizing over 3 million Philippina women through the use of vaccines. (Fact)

4.  The WHO in 1985 documented that one of its’ primary goals for the use of a sterility vaccine disguised as a smallpox vaccine was to “eliminate 150 million excess Sub Saharan Africans”. (Fact, 1985-ongoing)

5.  The WHO 5-shot vaccine programs for tetanus in third world countries in South and Central America caused the involuntary sterilization of millions of women. (Fact, ongoing)

6.  Monsanto’s MON 810 corn causes sterility according to studies published by the Austrian Government. (Fact, 2009)

7.  Monsanto’s MON 810 corn contains the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus which, when ingested, lowers the bodies CD 4 cells to a point which, on immune tests, indicate that a person has HIV/AIDS.  The lowered CD 4 cells results from eating GMO corn, the staple of the diet in many parts of Black Africa. MON 810 is grown in Europe for animal feed and in many places, including the US, around the world for human food. (Fact, ongoing)

8.  Merck’s Gardasil vaccine causes death, collapse and chronic illness in young woman and girls, including a new, never-before described “disease” called Juvenile ALS, a fatal condition in which the nervous system is slowly destroyed while consciousness remains unimpaired.  This vaccine increases cervical cancer by 44.7% in women and girls who already have Human Papilloma Virus.  Cervical Cancer is easily detected and cured in early stages and is not a major killer of women.  Gardasil contains substances which may cause sterility in women receiving it and any protection lasts only a few years, so 9 year olds will probably not be sexually active by the time this protection has worn off. (Fact, ongoing)

9.  Baxter International Inc. was in the process of applying for a contract to provide Avian Flu vaccines to European countries in the event of an Avian Flu epidemic.  Its Austrian laboratory shipped Seasonal Flu vaccines to 18 countries in Europe.  A laboratory technician tested the Baxter Seasonal Flu vaccines sent to the Czech Republic and discovered that they were contaminated with a highly pathogenic version of the Avian Flu, 72 Kilograms of it, although Level 3 precautions were in place and such contamination “could not have happened accidentally” according to experts in the field. No documentation of the destruction of this highly infective material has been provided although the Austrian Health Ministry insists that the deadly viral material was destroyed. (Fact, 2008, 2009)

10.  A WHO investigation into the Baxter contaminated vaccine issue resulted in NO findings and in NO disciplinary actions.  An Austrian investigation into the same events yielded the same results. (Fact, 2009)

11.  Baxter has been rewarded with a lead role in developing, producing and disseminating the Swine Flu vaccine for the upcoming pandemic. (Fact, 2009)

12.  Swine Flu was first identified to the public as a serious problem in April/May 2009 when 168 persons in Mexico were confirmed by CDC and WHO to have died from the Swine Flu.  This number was later revised downward to only 16 deaths. (Fact, 2009)

13.  It normally takes a minimum of 12 to 18 months to create a vaccine after a specific virus has been identified. (Fact)

14.  The US Government has spent more than a billion dollars to develop and to make available the Swine flu vaccine for a disease which poses no significant health threat.  (Fact, 2009)

15.  The “Seed Culture” for the Swine Flu virus was provided to vaccine companies in May, 2009.  Baxter International Inc. announced in June, 2009 that they would have their vaccine ready in July, 2009 . (Fact, 2009)

16.  A WHO container of Swine Flu virus from Mexico City exploded on a passenger train in Luzon, Switzerland.  All of the current Swiss cases of Swine Flu are from the area where the explosion took place.  It is illegal to ship pathogenic viruses in this way. (Fact, 2009)

17.  A significant number of virologists and other scientists are on record stating that the Swine Flu was created in a laboratory and could not evolve naturally. (Fact, 2009)

DATA SET 2

1.  Canada, Sweden, Norway, France and other countries have announced intentions to vaccinate every man, woman and child.  To do so, they are ordering 2 shots per person of untested, unsafe and unnecessary Swine Flu Vaccines from a variety of manufacturers. The US Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services both stated in early 2009 that they would do so “beginning with those who want it”. (Fact, 2009)

2.  President Obama announced to the public shortly after his inauguration that every man, woman and child should receive the Avian Flu vaccine this fall along with seasonal flu shots this coming Fall.  President Obama is on record saying that he believes that vaccinations should be mandatory. (Fact, 2009)

3. The United States has spent $714 Million GPS mapping every front door of every house and apartment in the country and listing who lives in each house or apartment under the direction of the White House. (Fact, 2009)

4.  Many people have reported that they have received calls at home or at work from agencies of the US Government inquiring about the “number of unvaccinated children in the household”. (Fact, 2009)

5.  The United States, Norway, Sweden, Austria and other countries have announced that in case of a Swine Flu pandemic all health and security authority shall revert to teams and command centers run by the WHO. (Fact, 2009)

6.  Every recent major event like 9/11, the Madrid bombings or the London bombings has been accompanied by a materially identical “training exercise” simulating the actual event involving, confusing and distracting the legitimate responders. (Fact, 2001-ongoing)

7.  A major set of FEMA training exercises is scheduled for 27 July, 2009. (Fact, 2009)

Draw your own conclusions about what is afoot. And if you, like the officers and trustees of the Natural Solutions Foundation, are deeply concerned by what you see, intuit and conclude from these facts, you WILL take action by clicking on the two Action Steps that follow.  And you WILL enlist everyone you know and can reach to do the same and activate their contacts and circles of influence.

Click HERE to tell your legislators and your Governor that you demand your right to Self-Shield, instead of taking the dangerous vaccine OR being incarcerated:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275

Click HERE to urge your national and state legislators to protect food and farming (you’ll find more information below):
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714

Yours in health and freedom,
Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III
(US Army, Ret.)
President
Natural Solutions Foundation
.

Pa. company works to make fireworks greener | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/04/2009

 

Pa. company works to make fireworks greener

By Karen Knee

Inquirer Staff Writer

Tonight, the fireworks arcing over the Ben Franklin Parkway will be a little bit greener.

The colors in the display will be as bright and varied as ever, but with less environmental impact. That’s because Zambelli Fireworks Internationale, the company staging the show, is working to reduce – and eventually eliminate – the pollutant perchlorate from its fireworks.

Zambelli Fireworks, based in New Castle, Pa., is one of the largest pyrotechnics companies in the country. This year alone, it is staging more than 800 Independence Day shows, including one atop Mount Rushmore.

But the company’s chairman, George R. Zambelli Jr., said, "Being the largest isn’t the main point. We want to be the safest, the most creative, the most innovative, and on the cutting edge."

One way to keep on that edge is to cut out perchlorate. This oxidizing chemical releases oxygen and speeds combusion in fireworks and flares. But the smoke it produces can irritate lungs, and toxic residues can linger in water long after the Fourth of July’s colorful sparkles have faded from the sky.

Smoke and ashes from spent fireworks shower perchlorate on surrounding land and water. Also, chemicals from "duds" can leach into groundwater.

Most commercial and professional fireworks contain perchlorate. If people ingest it – by, say, drinking contaminated water – it can prevent the thyroid from absorbing iodine, a necessary nutrient.

In one Oklahoma lake, perchlorate increased to 1,000 times background levels after a fireworks display, and took 10 weeks to return to normal. And after a Fourth of July show in Long Island, concentrations in rain spiked to 18 times their previous level.

Only recently have governments begun to look at perchlorate in fireworks as an environmental concern. The Pennsylvania and New Jersey Departments of Environmental Protection do not regulate fireworks. Zambelli said his company had never been required to comply with specific air or water quality regulations to get a permit in any state.

Nonetheless, for the last three years, the Zambelli company has been working with its manufacturers in China to make cleaner fireworks, reducing the amount of perchlorate in many conventional fireworks by up to 50 percent. The company has also developed a line of perchlorate-free shells, some of which will be featured in the Philadelphia show.

It turns out that silver and gold are the new green.

When the Zambelli company began experimenting with perchlorate-free pyrotechnic recipes, these colors were relatively easy to get right.

"When we switched to a different oxidizer, we didn’t get those intense blues, reds, and greens. It’s going to take some more development," Zambelli said.

Pa. company works to make fireworks greener | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/04/2009

Red, white and blue — also green – baltimoresun.com

 

Replacing perchlorate in fireworks makes them safer for environment

By Meredith Cohn | meredith.cohn@baltsun.com

July 4, 2009

As millions of Americans head out for their annual Fourth of July fireworks, they might not realize the chemical that makes the shows so bright also poses an environmental threat. But researchers are developing new, greener pyrotechnics that already are being used at Disneyland and some indoor concerts.

The new fireworks use alternatives to perchlorate, a salt that provides oxygen to the combustible elements in fireworks so they can burn.
The chemical is considered particularly harmful to pregnant women and small children because of its ability to block absorption of iodine in the thyroid, a gland that controls metabolism and growth. The threat isn’t considered sufficient for the government to ban the mostly Chinese-made pyrotechnics that use it, but the Environmental Protection Agency is studying the impact and plans to develop regulatory standards.

"It’s definitely a problem," said John Conkling, an adjunct professor of chemistry at Washington College in Chestertown and an industry consultant. "How big a problem, no one can say. We need some more good science."
In the past five years, researchers have discovered that perchlorate can concentrate not only in the ground and water where fireworks are made, but also where they are launched. Duds can pose a particular problem, Conkling said, because properly working fireworks burn much of their perchlorate.
One recent study published in the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science & Technology found after fireworks displays from 2004 to 2006 on a lake in Oklahoma that perchlorate was found in the lake, fish and groundwater. It only dissipated in surface water, and only after several weeks.

Rest of the story>>> Red, white and blue — also green – baltimoresun.com

Sugar and Cancer

 

Originally printed by The Alternative Research Foundation

It puzzles me why the simple concept "sugar feeds cancer" can be so dramatically overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment plan.

Of the 4 million cancer patients being treated in America today, hardly any are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy beyond being told to "just eat good foods." Most patients I work with arrive with a complete lack of nutritional advice.

I believe many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their outcome if they controlled the supply of cancer’s preferred fuel, glucose.

By slowing the cancer’s growth, patients allow their immune systems and medical debulking therapies — chemotherapy, radiation and surgery to reduce the bulk of the tumor mass — to catch up to the disease.

Controlling one’s blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements, exercise, meditation and prescription drugs when necessary can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer recovery program. The sound bite — sugar feeds cancer — is simple. The explanation is a little more complex.

The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells.

The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in anaerobic glycolysis — a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic byproduct — compared to normal tissues.

The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid buildup. Thus, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic pH.

This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared to 38 moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose.

By extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the available energy in the food supply and the body’s calorie stores, the cancer is "wasting" energy, and the patient becomes tired and undernourished. This vicious cycle increases body wasting.

It is one reason why 40 percent of cancer patients die from malnutrition, or cachexia. Hence, cancer therapies should encompass regulating blood-glucose levels via diet, supplements, non-oral solutions for cachectic patients who lose their appetite, medication, exercise, gradual weight loss and stress reduction. Professional guidance and patient self-discipline are crucial at this point in the cancer process. The quest is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates from the diet but rather to control blood glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer and bolster immune function.

The glycemic index is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the digestion and absorption process, which provides a healthier, more gradual infusion of sugars into the bloodstream.

Conversely, a high rating means blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. This rapid fluctuation of blood-sugar levels is unhealthy because of the stress it places on the body

Sugar in the Body and Diet

Sugar is a generic term used to identify simple carbohydrates, which includes monosaccharides such as fructose, glucose and galactose; and disaccharides such as maltose and sucrose (white table sugar). Think of these sugars as different-shaped bricks in a wall.

When fructose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index registers as healthier, since this simple sugar is slowly absorbed in the gut, then converted to glucose in the liver. This makes for "time-release foods," which offer a more gradual rise and fall in blood-glucose levels.

If glucose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index will be higher and less healthy for the individual. As the brick wall is torn apart in digestion, the glucose is pumped across the intestinal wall directly into the bloodstream, rapidly raising blood-glucose levels.

In other words, there is a "window of efficacy" for glucose in the blood: levels too low make one feel lethargic and can create clinical hypoglycemia; levels too high start creating the rippling effect of diabetic health problems.

The 1997 American Diabetes Association blood-glucose standards consider 126 mg glucose/dL blood or greater to be diabetic; 111 to 125 mg/dL is impaired glucose tolerance and less than 110 mg/dL is considered normal.

Meanwhile, the Paleolithic diet of our ancestors, which consisted of lean meats, vegetables and small amounts of whole grains, nuts, seeds and fruits, is estimated to have generated blood glucose levels between 60 and 90 mg/dL.

Obviously, today’s high-sugar diets are having unhealthy effects as far as blood-sugar is concerned. Excess blood glucose may initiate yeast overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, heart disease and other health conditions.

Understanding and using the glycemic index is an important aspect of diet modification for cancer patients. However, there is also evidence that sugars may feed cancer more efficiently than starches (comprised of long chains of simple sugars), making the index slightly misleading. A study of rats fed diets with equal calories from sugars and starches, for example, found the animals on the high-sugar diet developed more cases of breast cancer.

The glycemic index is a useful tool in guiding the cancer patient toward a healthier diet, but it is not infallible. By using the glycemic index alone, one could be led to thinking a cup of white sugar is healthier than a baked potato.

This is because the glycemic index rating of a sugary food may be lower than that of a starchy food. To be safe, I recommend less fruit, more vegetables, and little to no refined sugars in the diet of cancer patients.

What the Literature Says

A mouse model of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are sensitive to blood-glucose levels. Sixty-eight mice were injected with an aggressive strain of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce either high blood-sugar (hyperglycemia), normoglycemia or low blood-sugar (hypoglycemia).

There was a dose-dependent response in which the lower the blood glucose, the greater the survival rate. After 70 days, 8 of 24 hyperglycemic mice survived compared to 16 of 24 normoglycemic and 19 of 20 hypoglycemic.

This suggests that regulating sugar intake is key to slowing breast tumor growth.

In a human study, 10 healthy people were assessed for fasting blood-glucose levels and the phagocytic index of neutrophils, which measures immune-cell ability to envelop and destroy invaders such as cancer. Eating 100 g carbohydrates from glucose, sucrose, honey and orange juice all significantly decreased the capacity of neutrophils to engulf bacteria. Starch did not have this effect.

A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients.

Furthermore, an epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.

Limiting sugar consumption may not be the only line of defense. In fact, an interesting botanical extract from the avocado plant (Persea americana) is showing promise as a new cancer adjunct.

When a purified avocado extract called mannoheptulose was added to a number of tumor cell lines tested in vitro by researchers in the Department of Biochemistry at Oxford University in Britain, they found it inhibited tumor cell glucose uptake by 25 to 75 percent, and it inhibited the enzyme glucokinase responsible for glycolysis. It also inhibited the growth rate of the cultured tumor cell lines.

The same researchers gave lab animals a 1.7 mg/g body weight dose of mannoheptulose for five days; it reduced tumors by 65 to 79 percent. Based on these studies, there is good reason to believe that avocado extract could help cancer patients by limiting glucose to the tumor cells.

Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Cancer Research Institute and former U.S. Air Force research physician, surmised that a chemical called hydrazine sulfate, used in rocket fuel, could inhibit the excessive gluconeogenesis (making sugar from amino acids) that occurs in cachectic cancer patients.

Gold’s work demonstrated hydrazine sulfate’s ability to slow and reverse cachexia in advanced cancer patients. A placebo-controlled trial followed 101 cancer patients taking either 6 mg hydrazine sulfate three times/day or placebo. After one month, 83 percent of hydrazine sulfate patients increased their weight, compared to 53 percent on placebo.

A similar study by the same principal researchers, partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., followed 65 patients. Those who took hydrazine sulfate and were in good physical condition before the study began lived an average of 17 weeks longer.

The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and its role in tumorigenesis. Consider the million-dollar positive emission tomography device, or PET scan, regarded as one of the ultimate cancer-detection tools. PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. PET scans are used to plot the progress of cancer patients and to assess whether present protocols are effective.

In Europe, the "sugar feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that oncologists, or cancer doctors, use the Systemic Cancer Multistep Therapy (SCMT) protocol. Conceived by Manfred von Ardenne in Germany in 1965, SCMT entails injecting patients with glucose to increase blood-glucose concentrations.

This lowers pH values in cancer tissues via lactic acid formation. In turn, this intensifies the thermal sensitivity of the malignant tumors and also induces rapid growth of the cancer. Patients are then given whole-body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature) to further stress the cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or radiation.

SCMT was tested on 103 patients with metastasized cancer or recurrent primary tumors in a clinical phase-I study at the Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany. Five-year survival rates in SCMT-treated patients increased by 25 to 50 percent, and the complete rate of tumor regression increased by 30 to 50 percent.

The protocol induces rapid growth of the cancer, then treats the tumor with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in outcome.

The irrefutable role of glucose in the growth and metastasis of cancer cells can enhance many therapies. Some of these include diets designed with the glycemic index in mind to regulate increases in blood glucose, hence selectively starving the cancer cells; low-glucose TPN solutions; avocado extract to inhibit glucose uptake in cancer cells; hydrazine sulfate to inhibit gluconeogenesis in cancer cells; and SCMT.

A female patient in her 50s, with lung cancer, came to our clinic, having been given a death sentence by her Florida oncologist. She was cooperative and understood the connection between nutrition and cancer. She changed her diet considerably, leaving out 90 percent of the sugar she used to eat.

She found that wheat bread and oat cereal now had their own wild sweetness, even without added sugar.

With appropriately restrained medical therapy — including high-dose radiation targeted to tumor sites and fractionated chemotherapy, a technique that distributes the normal one large weekly chemo dose into a 60-hour infusion lasting days — a good attitude and an optimal nutrition program which included Sam’s formula nine times/day, she beat her terminal lung cancer.

I saw her last month, five years later and still disease-free, probably looking better than the doctor who told her there was no hope.

Are Doctors Causing Infant Brain Damage by Clamping the Umbilical Cord Premature

Newborn lungs exist in a “compacted state” suitable for the womb. When the infant is born, the placenta and cord pulse for up to 20 minutes, delivering a burst of blood volume to the infant’s system. This blood burst is just what is needed for the lungs of the newborn to expand.

Unfortunately, many hospitals and doctors don’t understand the mechanics of this and are engaging in early umbilical cord clamping — often within one minute of birth.

Without the burst of blood from the placenta, the infant suffers a drop in blood pressure as its lungs fail to open as they should, creating a chain reaction of effects that can include brain damage and lung damage. Immediate cord clamping can cause hypotension, hypovolemia and infant anemia, resulting in cognitive deficits. Some have even theorized that the rise in autism could be linked at least in part to early cord clamping.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

When a baby is born, one of the first procedures performed is the clamping and cutting of the umbilical cord. In hospitals, this task is often done before 30 seconds have elapsed because it’s believed it will reduce the mother’s risk of excess bleeding and the baby’s risk of jaundice.

Very often cords are clamped early also to collect cord blood and cord stem cells to be used for various medical and commercial purposes.

However, research is increasingly revealing that clamping the umbilical cord prematurely, before two or even three full minutes have elapsed, robs your baby of much-needed blood and oxygen.

Today there is absolutely no consensus about the optimal time to clamp the umbilical cord after birth, yet over 200 years ago in 1801, Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin’s grandfather) shared some wise words on the topic that have been largely overlooked:

“Another thing very injurious to the child, is the tying and cutting of the navel string too soon; which should always be left till the child has not only repeatedly breathed but till all pulsation in the cord ceases.

As otherwise the child is much weaker than it ought to be, a portion of the blood being left in the placenta, which ought to have been in the child.”

Suffocating Baby at Birth?

One of the primary arguments for delaying cord clamping has to do with the way a baby breathes just before and after being born.

Before birth, the baby’s lungs are filled with fluid and very little blood flows through them; the child receives oxygen from its mother through the placenta and cord. This placental oxygen supply continues after the child is born until the lungs are working and supplying oxygen — that is, when they are filled with air and all the blood from the right side of the heart is flowing through them.

After birth, when the child is crying and pink, the cord vessels clamp themselves. During this interval between birth and natural clamping, blood is transfused from the placenta to establish blood flow through the baby’s lungs. The natural process protects the baby’s brain by providing a continuous oxygen supply from two sources until the second source is functioning well.

However, according to George M. Morley, M.B., Ch. B., FACOG of Cordclamping.com, immediate cord clamping at birth instantly cuts off the placental oxygen supply and the baby remains asphyxiated until the lungs function. Blood, which normally would have been transfused to establish the child’s lung circulation, remains clamped in the placenta, and the child diverts blood from all other organs to fill the lung blood vessels.

While most full-term babies have enough blood to establish lung function and prevent brain damage, the process often leaves them pale and weak. For premature babies, the process can be even more devastating. And no matter what, immediate cord clamping will cause some degree of asphyxia and loss of blood volume because it:

1. Completely cuts off the infant brain’s oxygen supply from the placenta before lungs begin to function.

2. Stops placental transfusion — the transfer of a large volume of blood (up to 50% increase in total blood volume) that is used mainly to establish circulation through the baby’s lungs to start them functioning.

Injuries Related to Immediate Cord Clamping

Keeping valuable oxygen and blood from an infant by clamping the umbilical cord prematurely increases the baby’s risk of brain hemorrhage and breathing problems. It has also been implicated as a contributing factor to:
• Autism
• Cerebral Palsy
• Anemia
• Learning disorders and mental deficiency
• Behavioral disorders
• Respiratory distress

Immediate cord clamping has even been identified as causing brain injuries that lead to death, according to Morley.

Are You Seeking Natural Childbirth Options?

Given the overwhelming research about the potential harms of early cord clamping, both the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) have dropped the practice from their guidelines.

But it is still widely done in the United States and other developed countries, especially if you give birth in a hospital with an obstetrician (specially trained surgeons). This is one of many reasons why you may want to consider having a midwife deliver your baby instead.

There is not a single report in the scientific literature that shows obstetricians to be safer than midwives for low risk or normal pregnancy and birth. So if you are among the more than 75 percent of all women with a normal pregnancy, the safest birth attendant for you and your baby is in fact not a doctor but a midwife or doula.

A midwife will be more accommodating to your wishes, such as waiting for two to three minutes, or until the umbilical cord has stopped pulsating, before it is cut. Caesarean rates and use of other drug and surgical interventions also tend to be lower when you use a midwife.

One study in the British Medical Journal even found that a woman’s risk of death during delivery is three to five times higher during caesarean than a natural delivery, her risk of hysterectomy four times higher, and her risk of being admitted to intensive care is two times higher.

Fortunately, there are many excellent resources out there for anyone who is planning a natural childbirth, including delayed cord clamping, and here are some to get you started.

more here

Iodine Supplementation Presentation

For some reason wordpress won’t let me embed this presentation but it is an interesting overview

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1959949/IODINE-Solution-to-Healthproblems

Some Baby Foods are Worse Than Junk Food

Some baby foods contain as much sugar and saturated fats as chocolate cookies or cheeseburgers.

A survey of more than 100 foods for babies and toddlers found examples that were 29 percent sugar, and others that contained trans fats, which have been linked to heart disease.

The Children’s Food Campaign, part of food and farming campaign group Sustain, examined the nutritional content of 107 baby and toddler foods. Only half the products were low in saturated fat, salt and sugar.
So, what about organic baby food — is it your safest choice?
Maybe not…

Katharine Wroth of Grist was curious about her organic baby food options, so she took a look at several types of baby food.

She found that, among other results, Earth’s Best had an extensive selection, but also had high sodium levels. Gerber Organic was easy to find, but came in plastic containers. Organic Baby was from a good company, but was sometimes hard to find.

Plum Organics had BPA-free packaging, but a high price and limited flavor options. Happy Baby had the same advantages and the same problems. Little Lettice comes from a company that uses local ingredients and doesn’t ship outside the region, but that means it is only available in Massachusetts.

In the final analysis, the frozen baby foods tasted better than the jarred ones, but they would be prohibitively expensive if they were all you bought. However, they also noted that there is one option that is affordable, tasty, and healthy: making your own.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

As shocking as these findings are, I’m still not surprised. As the food industry is notorious for flooding the market with unhealthy foods – why should you believe the baby food sector is that much different?

Just What Are You Feeding Your Baby?

The results of a survey of more than 100 foods for babies and toddlers found that one brand of dry biscuits contained a staggering 29 percent sugar!

Other weaning biscuits were found to contain unlabeled trans fat, which is known to increase LDL, also known as “bad” cholesterol, while lowering levels of HDL, or “good” cholesterol. It can also cause clogging of arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems, and can increase the risk of heart disease.

Many food companies use trans fat instead of oil because it reduces cost, extends storage life of products and can improve flavor and texture.

None of these reasons have anything to do with benefitting the health of your child.

Yet despite all the science available on the dangers of trans fats, when a researcher from the Children’s Food Campaign (CFC) spoke to one of the baby food manufacturers, asking about the trans fats in their products, he was told that they were “pretty sure” that there were no trans fats in their baby biscuits, but that they would check with a nutritionist.

They called back two days later and admitted that their biscuits do contain trans fats, but assured the CFC researcher that “trans fats aren’t any worse than saturated fats and that it is the whole diet that matters.”

The CFC researcher was also told that tiny amounts of trans fats “do not pose a health risk, and that if there was any concrete evidence that trans fats were dangerous, they wouldn’t be allowed.”

That’s the kind of ignorant nonsense you have to contend with from many sources within the food industry, but rest assured, they are completely wrong.

As far back as 2002, the Institute of Medicine concluded there is no safe level of trans fat.

Said Christine Haigh, joint-coordinator of the Children’s Food Campaign,

“The results of this survey are staggering. Many foods marketed for babies and young children are often advertised as “healthy”.
In reality, in terms of sugar and saturated fat content, some are worse than junk food. In particular, failing to correctly label products that contain dangerous trans fats is outrageous.”

Infant Formulas and Processed Baby Food Do Not Equal Healthy Babies

Hopefully, you already know that the absolute healthiest food for your baby is breast milk. Unfortunately, many mothers and their infants are paying a hefty price for advertising promoting powdered baby formulas over breastfeeding. The United Nations even blames the manufacturers of formulas and their deceptive marketing practices for the drastic decline in breastfeeding across the world, which is negatively impacting the health of millions of babies.

Nestle continues to be one of the main culprits in dissuading mothers from breastfeeding. Campaigners first called for a boycott of Nestle back in 1977 to try to limit their dirty marketing techniques in some of the poorest of countries. Thirty years later, it is crystal clear that it has done nothing to stop them, even though they are still one of the most boycotted brands in the world.

Unfortunately, infant formulas are still a popular choice here in the United States as well.

I strongly advocate breastfeeding if at all possible. If for some reason you’re unable to breastfeed, however, please read my previous article, Healthy Alternative to Conventional Infant Formula, for advice on how to make homemade baby formula and infant “starter foods.”

And while on the subject of formula, please avoid soy infant formulas at all costs!

What are some of the problems associated with soy formula?

Well, for starters it can:

• Adversely affect hormone levels, and has been associated with reduced testosterone levels
• Impair thyroid function through isoflavones present in the formula
• Increase the risk of behavioral problems
• Expose your child to up to 2,000 times higher estrogen content

Soy formula can also contain potentially high concentrations of aluminum and manganese.

It is generally given to infants who aren’t breastfeeding and have trouble taking regular cow-milk-based infant formulas. While I am no fan of these formulas either, they tend to be safer than soy formula.

However, the cow-milk-based formulas are derived from pasteurized milk, and if you haven’t heard by now, pasteurized milk is not good for you or your baby. Fortunately, you can use raw milk to produce a terrific infant formula, but, again, remember that breast milk is ALWAYS best.

Is Organic Baby Food as Good as Homemade?

Just as organic food in general has become more popular, the demand for organic baby food has increased as well. In 2007, parents were spending $116 million on organics for their babies, a 21.6 percent increase from the previous year alone. But that’s still a tiny slice of the $3.6 billion baby food industry as a whole.

But are organic baby foods the ideal choice?

One mother’s independent evaluation shows you may still end up feeding your child ingredients he or she does not need at that tender young age, such as excessive amounts of salt.

Now, whereas an adequate intake of sodium is required for optimal growth of fat, bone and muscle tissues, you will not get these health benefits from regular processed salt, but from natural unprocessed salts – which you can bet your bottom dollar is NOT what’s used in most processed baby food, organic or not.

You may also expose your infant to toxic contaminants like BPA from plastic containers, even if the content itself is agreeable.

When you make homemade baby food however, you have complete control over the ingredients; no unresolved questions about potential additives, preservatives, mysterious “natural flavors,” etcetera.

Yes, it may require a little more time—but in the end, it’s up to you to decide what the health of your family is worth to you.

Simply cooking a squash or sweet potato, mashing it up and putting it into an ice cube tray is an easy way to have ready-made multiple servings available for the rest of the week.

Egg yolk is another healthy food that requires little preparation. According to the Weston A. Price Foundation, egg yolk should be your baby’s first solid food, starting at 4 months, whether your baby is breastfed or formula-fed. Egg yolks from free-range hens will contain the special long-chain fatty acids so critical for the optimal development of your child’s brain and nervous system.

However, the egg whites may cause an allergic reaction so they’re best avoided until your child is at least one year old.

Here’s a simple, healthy recipe you may want to try:

• 1 organic egg from a pasture-fed (free-range) hen
• 1/2 teaspoon grated raw, frozen organic liver (optional)
• pinch natural unprocessed salt

Boil the egg for 3 1/2 minutes. Place in a bowl and peel off the shell. Remove the egg white and discard. The yolk should be soft and warm, not hot, with its enzyme content intact. Sprinkle with a small amount of natural salt.

If you wish to add liver, grate it on the small holes of a grater while frozen. Allow to warm up and stir into the egg yolk.

found here

Link between vitamin D insufficiency and asthma severity

New research provides evidence for a link between vitamin D insufficiency and asthma severity. Serum vitamin D levels in more than 600 children were inversely linked to several indicators of allergy and asthma severity.

While previous studies have suggested that vitamin D may affect how airway cells respond to treatment with inhaled steroids, this is the first study of vitamin D and disease severity in children with asthma.

Children with lower vitamin D levels were significantly more likely to have been hospitalized for asthma in the previous year, tended to have airways with increased hyperreactivity, and were likely to have used more inhaled corticosteroids — all signifying higher asthma severity. These children were also significantly more likely to have several markers of allergy, including dust-mite sensitivity.
Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

The incidence of asthma cases has increased by more than 300 percent over the last two decades and now affects an estimated 20 million Americans.
Asthma is an inflammatory condition, typically of your upper airways. Common symptoms include:
Chest tightness
Shortness of breath
Wheezing
Coughing

Since asthma is caused by inflammation, the fact that vitamin D deficiency can aggravate the condition makes perfect sense in light of what we now know about vitamin D. As Dr. Robert Heaney explains in this Inner Circle Expert Interview, vitamin D can be a very powerful immune modulator.

And although this study may be the first to demonstrate an inverse association between circulating levels of vitamin D and markers of asthma severity, it’s not the first study to show that vitamin D can benefit asthmatics.
In 2006, Australian researchers discovered that exposure to sunlight significantly reduced the development of asthma symptoms in mice.

Is Vitamin D Deficiency to Blame for Asthma Epidemic?

In this latest study, 28 percent of the children with asthma had vitamin D levels of less than 30 ng/ml, which is clearly a deficiency state.

They discovered that lower vitamin D levels were associated with increased IgE and eosinophils, which are allergy markers.

This may also offer an explanation for why it’s so important to make sure your vitamin D levels are optimized during pregnancy, as infants whose mothers are vitamin D deficient have a higher risk of developing asthma.

One 2007 study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, states:

“Vitamin D has been linked to immune system and lung development in utero, and our epidemiologic studies show that higher vitamin D intake by pregnant mothers reduces asthma risk by as much as 40 percent in children 3 to 5 years old.

… Providing adequate vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy may lead to significant decreases in asthma incidence in young children.”

And, said Dr. Celedón in the article above:

“This study also provides epidemiological support for a growing body of in vitro evidence that vitamin D insufficiency may worsen asthma severity, and we suspect that giving vitamin D supplements to asthma patients who are deficient may help with their asthma control.”

So not only can your vitamin D status during pregnancy influence the development of asthma in your child in the first place, but if your child is deficient as well, it may aggravate his or her asthma symptoms.

In fact, the children with higher vitamin D levels had a lower risk of being hospitalized for any cause, and needed fewer anti-inflammatory medications. This too correlates to another recent meta-analysis that showed higher vitamin D levels significantly reduce mortality from all causes.

Optimize Your Vitamin D Levels to Treat Asthma

It’s important to realize that although the medical community is beginning to embrace the importance of raising your vitamin D levels to protect against a large number of diseases and health conditions, the conventional dosing recommendations have not caught up.

Currently, the recommended daily allowance is a mere 400 units a day, which is about ten times lower than most people need for optimal health. You really need to make sure you’re getting therapeutic levels, which I list in this previous article – along with all the other facts you need to know about getting your vitamin D levels checked and optimized.

Ideally, you’ll want to obtain your vitamin D from exposing a significant amount of your skin — not just your hands and face — to appropriate amounts of sunlight outside.  Exposing your skin to sun behind a window, whether in your home, office, or car will actually lower your vitamin D, as the UVB is filtered out and the UVA will lower your vitamin D.

You can tell you’ve had enough, from either the sun or a safe tanning bed, when your skin turns the very lightest shade of pink.

Once you reach that shade of pink, your body is not going to produce any more vitamin D. In fact, you’re only going to cause damage to your skin if you continue your exposure past that point.

You can actually produce up to 20,000 units of vitamin D per day through this kind of exposure. However, you don’t need to be concerned with how much you’re producing, as your skin has a feedback loop that will shut down the production of vitamin D past a certain point. (I explained some of the mechanics of this in my recent article Shocking Update — Sunshine Can Actually Decrease Your Vitamin D Levels.)

Bear in mind that when you take an oral vitamin D supplement however, this feedback loop does not exist so you need to be far more careful, as overdosing can be just as bad as being severely deficient.

Last year I realized that oral supplements of vitamin D are necessary for just about everyone.  I even take them myself on cloudy days where I am unable to get a few hours of sun exposure. But if you take oral supplements, make sure you monitor your blood with an accurate test . In the U.S., I recommend using Labcorp. They use the gold standard Diasorin test for checking vitamin D levels. Due to information published by the New York Times, I no longer recommend using them.

If you get your levels to about 60 ng/ml, there’s a strong likelihood you may not experience the symptoms of asthma anymore.

I personally monitor my own blood level every few weeks.  The BIG inside story is that we will be able to offer the same test I do for myself at Labcorp, to everyone in the US at a really amazing price – far lower than is typically available, hopefully by the end of summer. Keep on reading the newsletter for the announcement.

More here

Mexican Swine Flu; An Advanced Biowar Event

 

The Earl of Stirling
http://www.rense.com
April 25, 2009

On 23 rd April 2009 the world began to become aware of a very strange new version of swine flu H1N1 in Mexico with limited cases in Texas and California. By the morning of the 24th of April, we began to hear that there were hundreds of sick and 20 or so dead. By late in the day, we have learned that over 1,000 are now reported ill and over 60 are reported dead. There are solid reasons to suspect that this new Mexican Swine Flu is NOT a naturally occurring event but instead is an Advanced Biological Warfare recombination DNA genetically engineered virus.

Here is what we know of the virus so far. This virus has already gone international having crossed the border from Mexico to America. All schools in Mexico City have been canceled, millions of students told to stay home due to Mexican Swine Flu. Sick victims of this strange new virus are currently reported in California and Texas. Over 60 deaths reported in Mexico (could be substantially higher considering the state of Mexican health care and reporting).

 

Young healthy adults seem to be the most at risk. This is similar to the deadest killer flu in history, Spanish Flu in 1918. Most if not all nations with advanced biological warfare programs have been interested in recreating the Spanish Flu DNA sequence and several are reported to have done so.

The new Mexican Swine Flu has elements of DNA from the following: avian flu, human flu Type A, human flu Type B, Asian swine flu, and European swine flu. A strange combination never seen before and having less than 1/10% chance of being a natural event. Human and animal viruses from four or more continents suddenly recombine in a new flu during a non-flu season that spreads from human-to-human with a 10% fatality rating.

 

Over 1,000 reported infected in Mexico; true rate may be much higher. Mexico City seems to be the epicenter of the new virus. Mexico City has 20 million citizens, most terribly poor. Mexico City is notorious for its poor sanitation and public health. “Don’t drink the water” has been the byword in Mexico City for decades. It is the perfect breading ground for an explosive growth of this new killer virus. Mexico City has closed all schools, public gatherings, public buildings. People are wearing medical masks on the streets. The government has announced a massive new emergency swine flu vaccination program that will be, at best, either totally non-effective or of very limited effect, and could be, at worst, a deadly option for patients. It is thought that the authorities are trying to contain public panic by announcing the vaccination program.

 

Both the World Health Organization and the US CDC (Center for Disease Control) have announced, today/24th April, that they are ‘very concerned’ about a global pandemic developing out of this new disease. Based on advanced biowargaming projections, it is already too late to stop the global spread of this new killer disease. Based on the three waves of Spanish Flu, the latter ones being more lethal, fatality rates may range from approximately 10% to 40% or so in later waves. More people could die in America, Mexico, Canada, Europe, and globally from Mexican Swine Flu than died in World War II.

 

This new flu is a lab created advanced biological warfare DNA genetically engineered virus that either: (1) Escaped accidentally from a lab; or (2) was deliberately released by a nation or non-state organization or a well-trained individual.

 

If there is a positive side to this coming global disaster, it may force governments to quickly come to grips with containing advanced biowar attacks. This is of considerable short term importance as Israel is apt to attack Iran by no later than mid-July 2009. The Iranians, having hired a large number of key ex-Soviet advanced biowar scientists 18 years ago and having spent billions on their asymmetrical MAD (mutually assured destruction) counter-force, are expected to respond to any significant attack on Iran with a biowar attack on Israel, North America, and Europe using in-place agents and dozens of genetically engineered viruses, many with very high projected kill rates.

This event is an advanced biological warfare event. It is far more important than 9/11 and, by itself, could bring deaths in such magnitudes as to exceed the number of deaths from all causes in the Second World War.

 

Stirling

#

Link to original article posting here.

Actor Jim Carrey: The Judgment on Vaccines Is In?

 

Jim Carrey
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
April 25, 2009

Huffington Post
Thursday, April 23, 2009

Recently, I was amazed to hear a commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown on the controversial vaccine issue. After a ruling by the ’special vaccine court’ saying the Measles, Mumps, Rubella shot wasn’t found to be responsible for the plaintiffs’ autism, she and others in the media began making assertions that the judgment was in, and vaccines had been proven safe. No one would be more relieved than Jenny and I if that were true. But with all due respect to Ms. Brown, a ruling against causation in three cases out of more than 5000 hardly proves that other children won’t be adversely affected by the MMR, let alone that all vaccines are safe. This is a huge leap of logic by anyone’s standards. Not everyone gets cancer from smoking, but cigarettes do cause cancer. After 100 years and many rulings in favor of the tobacco companies, we finally figured that out.

The truth is that no one without a vested interest in the profitability of vaccines has studied all 36 of them in depth. There are more than 100 vaccines in development, and no tests for cumulative effect or vaccine interaction of all 36 vaccines in the current schedule have ever been done. If I’m mistaken, I challenge those who are making such grand pronouncements about vaccine safety to produce those studies.

If we are to believe that the ruling of the ‘vaccine court’ in these cases mean that all vaccines are safe, then we must also consider the rulings of that same court in the Hannah Polling and Bailey Banks cases, which ruled vaccines were the cause of autism and therefore assume that all vaccines are unsafe. Clearly both are irresponsible assumptions, and neither option is prudent.

In this growing crisis, we cannot afford to blindly trumpet the agenda of the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) or vaccine makers. Now more than ever, we must resist the urge to close this book before it’s been written. The anecdotal evidence of millions of parents who’ve seen their totally normal kids regress into sickness and mental isolation after a trip to the pediatrician’s office must be seriously considered. The legitimate concern they and many in the scientific community have that environmental toxins, including those found in vaccines, may be causing autism and other disorders (Aspergers, ADD, ADHD), cannot be dissuaded by a show of sympathy and a friendly invitation to look for the ‘real’ cause of autism anywhere but within the lucrative vaccine program.

With vaccines being the fastest growing division of the pharmaceutical industry, isn’t it possible that profits may play a part in the decision-making? That the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit engine than a means of prevention? In a world left reeling from the catastrophic effects of greed, mismanagement and corporate insensitivity, is it so absurd for us to wonder why American children are being given twice as many vaccines on average, compared to the top 30 first world countries?

Paul Offit, the vaccine advocate and profiteer, who helped invent a Rotavirus vaccine is said to have paved the way for his own multi-million dollar windfall while serving on the very council that eventually voted his Rotavirus vaccine onto our children’s schedule. On August 21, 2000 a congressional investigation’s report titled, “Conflicts in Vaccine Policy,” stated:

It has become clear over the course of this investigation that the VRBPAC and the ACIP [the two main advisory boards that determine the vaccine schedule] are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the vaccine producers. This was never the intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that a diversity of views be represented on advisory committees.

Isn’t that enough to raise questions about the process of choosing the vaccine schedule?

With many states like Minnesota now reporting the number at 1 in 80 children affected with autism, can we afford to trust those who serve two masters or their logic that tells us “one size fits all” when it comes to vaccines? Can we afford to ignore vaccines as a possible cause of these rising numbers when they are one of the fastest growing elements in our children’s environment? With all the doubt that’s left hanging on this topic, how can anyone in the media or medical profession, boldly demand that all parents march out and give their kids 36 of these shots, six at a time in dosage levels equal to that given a 200 pound man? This is a bias of the most dangerous kind.

I’ve also heard it said that no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism has ever been found. That statement is only true for the CDC, the AAP and the vaccine makers who’ve been ignoring mountains of scientific information and testimony. There’s no evidence of the Lincoln Memorial if you look the other way and refuse to turn around. But if you care to look, it’s really quite impressive. For a sample of vaccine injury evidence go to www.generationrescue.org/lincolnmemorial.html.

We have never argued that people shouldn’t be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio, but surely there’s a limit as to how many viruses and toxins can be introduced into the body of a small child. Veterinarians found out years ago that in many cases they were over-immunizing our pets, a syndrome they call Vaccinosis. It overwhelmed the immune system of the animals, causing myriad physical and neurological disorders. Sound familiar? If you can over-immunize a dog, is it so far out to assume that you can over-immunize a child? These forward thinking vets also decided to remove thimerosal from animal vaccines in 1992, and yet this substance, which is 49% mercury, is still in human vaccines. Don’t our children deserve as much consideration as our pets?

I think I’d rather listen to the more sensible voice of Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institute of Health, who says:

Listen to the patients and the patients will teach…I think there is an inexcusable issue, and that’s the lack of research that’s been done here…A parent can legitimately question giving a one-day old baby, or a two-day old baby [the] Hepatitis B vaccine that has no risk for it [and] the mother has no risk for it. That’s a heavy-duty vaccine given on day two [of life]. I think those are legitimate questions.

Dr. Healy is also calling for a long overdue study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Dr. Frank Engly, a researcher and microbiologist who served on the boards of the CDC, FDA and EPA during the 70s and 80s, warned:

The CDC cannot afford to admit thimerosal is toxic because they have been promoting it for several years…If they would have followed through with our 1982 report, vaccines would have been freed of thimerosal and all this autism as they tell me would not have occurred. But as it is, it all occurred.

In all likelihood the truth about vaccines is that they are both good and bad. While ingredients like aluminum, mercury, ether, formaldehyde and anti-freeze may help preserve and enhance vaccines, they can be toxic as well. The assortment of viruses delivered by multiple immunizations may also be a hazard. I agree with the growing number of voices within the medical and scientific community who believe that vaccines, like every other drug, have risks as well as benefits and that for the sake of profit, American children are being given too many, too soon. One thing is certain. We don’t know enough to announce that all vaccines are safe!

If the CDC, the AAP and Ms. Brown insist that our children take twice as many shots as the rest of the western world, we need more independent vaccine research not done by the drug companies selling the vaccines or by organizations under their influence. Studies that cannot be internally suppressed. Answers parents can trust. Perhaps this is what Campbell Brown should be demanding and how the power of the press could better serve the public in the future.

– Jim Carrey

Actor Jim Carrey: The Judgment on Vaccines Is In?