Look for this seal on your food

Look for this seal on your food
Live Chemical Free or Die Toxic

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Feds raid Amish dairy and threaten action over raw milk sales | maxine waters

(www.Borganic.org) The U.S. government gestapo is at it again in its crusade against raw milk. Recently, the jackboots swarmed a Pennsylvania Amish man's private dairy farm for the second time, falsely accusing him of violating the ridiculous prohibition on selling raw milk across state lines.

Farmer Dan Allgyer's farm was raided by the same agents who paid him a visit back in February, telling him both times that they were there for an "inspection". Just like last time, the agents drove flagrantly past "No Trespassing" and "Private Property", this time arriving around 4:30 a.m. when Allgyer's family was still asleep and as he was preparing to milk his cows.

The group began to interrogate Allgyer, and served him a warrant claiming they had "credible evidence" that he was involved in interstate commerce involving raw milk. According to Allgyer's personal account, upon being questioned as to why the agents were at the farm so early when the warrant clearly stated that it was valid only at "reasonable times during ordinary business hours", one of them retorted that "ordinary business hours for agriculture start at 5 a.m."

After scouring farm equipment and taking a bunch of pictures, the agents eventually left. But the next morning, Allgyer received an overnight, urgent letter from officials about "regulatory action" that would be taken if he failed to take "corrective action".

Some people might not know this, but according to the precedent set by the Wickard v. Filburn case, practically everything can now be considered to affect "interstate commerce" and thus fall under federal jurisdiction. In the little-known case, then President Franklin Roosevelt coerced the Supreme Court into supporting certain New Deal proposals that revolutionized the definition of "interstate commerce".

Wickard v. Filburn had to do with a farmer who was growing too much wheat during a time when there were wheat quotas. To make a long story short, the courts established that even growing your own wheat and feeding it to your cattle falls under the banner of "interstate commerce" because there is the potential to affect interstate commerce.

It is under this faulty premise that federal and state agents are challenging Farmer Allgyer and others who may be selling raw milk products directly to consumers. Though Allgyer is running a private farm, federal agents are operating on illegitimate precedent by accusing him of being involved in interstate commerce.

For more information about the case and to help fight federal government tyranny against food freedom, please visit the following link:

http://www.nicfa.com

Sources for this story include:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAG...

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Wickar...

By Ethan A. Huff
Read full article here

News from www.Borganic.org

Friday, July 30, 2010

Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit GMO

(www.Borganic.org) At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. First, his team asked Monsanto executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson consultants then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.

This was a bold new direction for Monsanto, which needed a big change to distance them from a controversial past. As a chemical company, they had polluted the landscape with some of the most poisonous substances ever produced, contaminated virtually every human and animal on earth, and got fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. According to a former Monsanto vice president, "We were despised by our customers."

So they redefined themselves as a "life sciences" company, and then proceeded to pollute the landscape with toxic herbicide, contaminate the gene pool for all future generations with genetically modified plants, and get fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. Monsanto's chief European spokesman admitted in 1999, "Everybody over here hates us." Now the rest of the world is catching on.

"Saving the world," and other lies

Monsanto's public relations story about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are largely based on five concepts.

1. GMOs are needed to feed the world.
2. GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.
3. GMOs increase yield.
4. GMOs reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.
5. GMOs can be contained, and therefore coexist with non-GM crops.

All five are pure myths -- blatant falsehoods about the nature and benefit of this infant technology. The experience of former Monsanto employee Kirk Azevedo helps expose the first two lies, and provides some insight into the nature of the people working at the company.

In 1996, Monsanto recruited young Kirk Azevedo to sell their genetically engineered cotton. Azevedo accepted their offer not because of the pay increase, but due to the writings of Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro. Shapiro had painted a picture of feeding the world and cleaning up the environment with his company's new technology. When he visited Monsanto's St. Louis headquarters for new employee training, Azevedo shared his enthusiasm for Shapiro's vision during a meeting. When the session ended, a company vice president pulled him aside and set him straight. "Wait a second," he told Azevedo. "What Robert Shapiro says is one thing. But what we do is something else. We are here to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. We don't even understand what he is saying." Azevedo realized he was working for "just another profit-oriented company," and all the glowing words about helping the planet were just a front.

A few months later he got another shock. A company scientist told him that Roundup Ready cotton plants contained new, unintended proteins that had resulted from the gene insertion process. No safety studies had been conducted on the proteins, none were planned, and the cotton plants, which were part of field trials near his home, were being fed to cattle. Azevedo "was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic."

He asked the PhD in charge of the test plot to destroy the cotton rather than feed it to cattle, arguing that until the protein had been evaluated, the cows' milk or meat could be harmful. The scientist refused. Azevedo approached everyone on his team at Monsanto to raise concerns about the unknown protein, but no one was interested. "I was somewhat ostracized," he said. "Once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. . . . Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside." Azevedo decided to leave Monsanto. He said, "I'm not going to be part of this disaster."

Monsanto's toxic past

Azevedo got a small taste of Monsanto's character. A verdict in a lawsuit a few years later made it more explicit. On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found guilty for poisoning the town of Anniston, Alabama with their PCB factory and covering it up for decades. They were convicted of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. According to Alabama law, to be guilty of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."(1)

The $700 million fine imposed on Monsanto was on behalf of the Anniston residents, whose blood levels of Monsanto's toxic PCBs were hundreds or thousands of times the average. This disease-producing chemical, used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years, are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company "knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors." One Monsanto memo explains their justification: "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business." Welcome to the world of Monsanto.

Infiltrating the minds and offices of the government

To get their genetically modified products approved, Monsanto has coerced, infiltrated, and paid off government officials around the globe. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton accepted.(2) In 1998, six Canadian government scientists testified before the Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH, that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office, and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to pass the drug without further tests. In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.(3) And Monsanto seems to have planted their own people in key government positions in India, Brazil, Europe, and worldwide.

Monsanto's GM seeds were also illegally smuggled into countries like Brazil and Paraguay, before GMOs were approved. Roberto Franco, Paraguay's Deputy Agriculture Ministry, tactfully admits, "It is possible that [Monsanto], let's say, promoted its varieties and its seeds" before they were approved. "We had to authorize GMO seeds because they had already entered our country in an, let's say, unorthodox way."

In the US, Monsanto's people regularly infiltrate upper echelons of government, and the company offers prominent positions to officials when they leave public service. This revolving door has included key people in the White House, regulatory agencies, even the Supreme Court. Monsanto also had George Bush Senior on their side, as evidenced by footage of Vice President Bush at Monsanto's facility offering help to get their products through government bureaucracy. He says, "Call me. We're in the 'de-reg' business. Maybe we can help."

Monsanto's influence continued into the Clinton administration. Dan Glickman, then Secretary of Agriculture, says, "there was a general feeling in agro-business and inside our government in the US that if you weren't marching lock-step forward in favor of rapid approvals of biotech products, rapid approvals of GMO crops, then somehow, you were anti-science and anti-progress." Glickman summarized the mindset in the government as follows:

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever 'they' were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn't have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches."(4)

He admits, "when I opened my mouth in the Clinton Administration [about the lax regulations on GMOs], I got slapped around a little bit."

Hijacking the FDA to promote GMOs

In the US, new food additives must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.(5) There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.

Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto's legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, "What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing." According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, "In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do."

The person who oversaw the development of the FDA's GMO policy was their Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto's vice president. He's now back at the FDA, as the US food safety czar.

Covering up health dangers

The policy Taylor oversaw in 1992 needed to create the impression that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue. Otherwise their GRAS status would be undermined. But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential problems. They had urged superiors to require long-term safety studies.(6) In spite of the warnings, according to public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA's internal files, "References to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists)."(7)

FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote about the policy, "What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, 'What do I have to do to avoid trouble'-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."(8)

The FDA scientists' concerns were not only ignored, their very existence was denied. Consider the private memo summarizing opinions at the FDA, which stated, "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."(9) Contrast that with the official policy statement issued by Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."(10) On the basis of this false statement, the FDA does not require GM food safety testing.

Fake safety assessments

Monsanto participates in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA that is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise. Monsanto submits whatever information it chooses, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of its own. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, says the FDA consultation process "misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat."(11)

But that is not the point of the exercise. The FDA doesn't actually approve the crops or declare them safe. That is Monsanto's job! At the end of the consultation, the FDA issues a letter stating:

"Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . As you are aware, it is Monsanto's responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements."(12)

The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London(13) describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said, "It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health."(14)

One obvious reason for the inflexibility of the FDA is that they are officially charged with both regulating biotech products and promoting them -- a clear conflict. That is also why the FDA does not require mandatory labeling of GM foods. They ignore the desires of 90 percent of American citizens in order to support the economic interests of Monsanto and the four other GM food companies.

Monsanto's studies are secret, inadequate, and flawed

The unpublished industry studies submitted to regulators are typically kept secret based on the claim that it is "confidential business information." The Royal Society of Canada is one of many organizations that condemn this practice. Their Expert Panel called for "completely transparent" submissions, "open to full review by scientific peers" They wrote, "Peer review and independent corroboration of research findings are axioms of the scientific method, and part of the very meaning of the objectivity and neutrality of science."(15)

Whenever Monsanto's private submissions are made public through lawsuits or Freedom of Information Act Requests, it becomes clear why they benefit from secrecy. The quality of their research is often miserable, and would never stand up to peer-review. In December 2009, for example, a team of independent researchers published a study analyzing the raw data from three Monsanto rat studies. When they used proper statistical methods, they found that the three varieties of GM corn caused toxicity in the liver and kidneys, as well as significant changes in other organs.(16) Monsanto's studies, of course, had claimed that the research showed no problems. The regulators had believed Monsanto, and the corn is already in our food supply.

Monsanto rigs research to miss dangers

(17)
Monsanto has plenty of experience cooking the books of their research and hiding the hazards. They manufactured the infamous Agent Orange, for example, the cancer and birth-defect causing defoliant sprayed over Vietnam. It contaminated more than three million civilians and servicemen. But according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste Division of the Environmental Protection Agency, "thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits" because "Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [the main ingredient in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen." But his EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had allegedly falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, "If they were done correctly, [the studies] would have reached just the opposite result."

Here are examples of tinkering with the truth about Monsanto's GM products:

• When dairy farmers inject cows with genetically modified bovine growth hormone (rbGH), more bovine growth hormone ends up in the milk. To allay fears, the FDA claimed that pasteurization destroys 90 percent of the hormone. In reality, the researchers of this drug (then owned by Monsanto) pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal. But they only destroyed 19 percent. So they spiked the milk with a huge amount of extra growth hormone and then repeated the long pasteurization. Only under these artificial conditions were they able to destroy 90 percent.

• To demonstrate that rbGH injections didn't interfere with cows' fertility, Monsanto appears to have secretly added cows to their study that were pregnant BEFORE injection.

• FDA Veterinarian Richard Burroughs said that Monsanto researchers dropped sick cows from studies, to make the drug appear safer.

• Richard Burroughs ordered more tests on rbGH than the industry wanted and was told by superiors he was slowing down the approval. He was fired and his tests canceled. The remaining whistle-blowers in the FDA had to write an anonymous letter to Congress, complaining of fraud and conflict of interest in the agency. They complained of one FDA scientist who arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold, in order to facilitate the approval of rbGH. She had just become the head of an FDA department that was evaluating the research that she had recently done while an employee of Monsanto.

• Another former Monsanto scientist said that after company scientists conducted safety studies on bovine growth hormone, all three refused to drink any more milk, unless it was organic and therefore not treated with the drug. They feared the substantial increase of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the drugged milk. IGF-1 is a significant risk factor for cancer.

• When independent researchers published a study in July 1999 showing that Monsanto's GM soy contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens, Monsanto responded with its own study, concluding that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers failed to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an obsolete method of detection -- one that had been prone to highly variable results.

• To prove that GM protein breaks down quickly during simulated digestion, Monsanto uses thousands of times the amount of digestive enzymes and a much stronger acid than what the World Health Organization recommends.

• Monsanto told government regulators that the GM protein produced in their high-lysine GM corn was safe for humans, because it is also found in soil. They claimed that since people consume small residues of soil on fruits and vegetables, the protein has a safe history as part of the human diet. The actual amount of the GM corn protein an average US citizen would consume, however, if all their corn were Monsanto's variety, would be "about 30 billion to four trillion times" the amount normally consumed in soil residues. For equivalent exposure, people would have to eat as much as 22,000 pounds of soil every second of every day.

• Monsanto's high-lysine corn also had unusual levels of several nutritional components, such as protein and fiber. Instead of comparing it to normal corn, which would have revealed this significant disparity, Monsanto compared their GM corn to obscure corn varieties that were also far outside the normal range on precisely these values. On this basis, Monsanto could claim that there were no statistically significant differences in their GM corn content.

Methods used by Monsanto to hide problems are varied and plentiful. For example, researchers:

• Use animals with varied starting weights, to hinder the detection of food-related changes;
• Keep feeding studies short, to miss long-term impacts;
• Test Roundup Ready soybeans that have never been sprayed with Roundup -- as they always are in real world conditions;
• Avoid feeding animals the GM crop, but instead give them a single dose of GM protein produced from GM bacteria;
• Use too few subjects to obtain statistical significance;
• Use poor or inappropriate statistical methods, or fail to even mention statistical methods, or include essential data; and
• Employ insensitive detection techniques -- doomed to fail.

Monsanto's 1996 Journal of Nutrition study, which was their cornerstone article for "proving" that GM soy was safe, provides plenty of examples of masterfully rigged methods.

• Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not the more sensitive young ones. GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says the older animals "would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."

• Organs were never weighed.

• The GM soy was diluted up to 12 times which, according to an expert review, "would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur."

• The amount of protein in the feed was "artificially too high," which would mask negative impacts of the soy.

• Samples were pooled from different locations and conditions, making it nearly impossible for compositional differences to be statistically significant.

• Data from the only side-by-side comparison was removed from the study and never published. When it was later recovered, it revealed that Monsanto's GM soy had significantly lower levels of important constituents (e.g. protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid) and that toasted GM soy meal had nearly twice the amount of a lectin -- which interferes with the body's ability to assimilate nutrients. Moreover, the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a known soy allergen, was as much as seven times higher in cooked GM soy compared to a cooked non-GM control. Monsanto named their study, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans."

A paper published in Nutrition and Health analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods as of 2003. It came as no surprise that Monsanto's Journal of Nutrition study, along with the other four peer-reviewed animal feeding studies that were "performed more or less in collaboration with private companies," reported no negative effects of the GM diet. "On the other hand," they wrote, "adverse effects were reported (but not explained) in [the five] independent studies." They added, "It is remarkable that these effects have all been observed after feeding for only 10 to 14 days."(18)

A former Monsanto scientist recalls how colleagues were trying to rewrite a GM animal feeding study, to hide the ill-effects. But sometimes when study results are unmistakably damaging, Monsanto just plain lies. Monsanto's study on Roundup, for example, showed that 28 days after application, only 2 percent of their herbicide had broken down. They nonetheless advertised the weed killer as "biodegradable," "leaves the soil clean," and "respects the environment." These statements were declared false and illegal by judges in both the US and France. The company was forced to remove "biodegradable" from the label and pay a fine.

Monsanto attacks labeling, local democracy, and news coverage

• On July 3, 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst dairy because their labels stated, "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." Oakhurst eventually settled with Monsanto, agreeing to include a sentence on their cartons saying that according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-treated and non-rbGH-treated cows. The statement is not true. FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of IGF-1, bovine growth hormone, antibiotics, and pus, in milk from treated cows. Nonetheless, the misleading sentence had been written years earlier by the FDA's deputy commissioner of policy, Michael Taylor, the one who was formerly Monsanto's outside attorney and later their vice president.

• Monsanto's public relations firm created a group called the Dairy Coalition, which pressured editors of the USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times and others, to limit negative coverage of rbGH.

• A Monsanto attorney wrote a letter to Fox TV, promising dire consequences if the station aired a four-part exposé on rbGH. The show was ultimately canceled.

• A book critical of Monsanto's GM foods was three days away from being published. A threatening letter from Monsanto's attorney forced the small publisher to cancel publication.

• 14,000 copies of Ecologist magazine dedicated to exposing Monsanto were shredded by the printer due to fears of a lawsuit.

• After a ballot initiative in California established Mendocino County as a GM-free zone -- where planting GMOs is illegal, Monsanto and others organized to push through laws in 14 states that make it illegal for cities and counties to declare similar zones.

Monsanto's promises of riches come up short

Biotech advocates have wooed politicians, claiming that their new technology is the path to riches for their city, state, or nation. "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable," said Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a report on the subject. "This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials."(19) Indeed, The Wall Street Journal observed, "Not only has the biotech industry yielded negative financial returns for decades, it generally digs its hole deeper every year."(20) The Associated Press says it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."(21)

Nowhere in the biotech world is the bad-idea virus more toxic than in its application to GM plants. Not only does the technology under-deliver, it consistently burdens governments and entire sectors with losses and problems.

Under the first Bush administration, for example, the White House's elite Council on Competitiveness chose to fast track GM food in hopes that it would strengthen the economy and make American products more competitive overseas. The opposite ensued. US corn exports to Europe were virtually eliminated, down by 99.4 percent. The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) calculated that the introduction of GM corn caused a drop in corn prices by 13 to 20 percent.(22) Their CEO said, "The ACGA believes an explanation is owed to the thousands of American farmers who were told to trust this technology, yet now see their prices fall to historically low levels while other countries exploit US vulnerability and pick off our export customers one by one."(23) US soy sales also plummeted due to GM content.

According to Charles Benbrook, PhD, former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Agriculture, the closed markets and slashed prices forced the federal government to pay an additional $3 to $5 billion every year.(24) He says growers have only been kept afloat by the huge jump in subsidies.(25)

Instead of withdrawing support for failed GM crops, the US government has been convinced by Monsanto and others that the key to success is to force open foreign markets to GMOs. But many nations are also reeling under the false promise of GMOs.

Canola crashes on GM

When Canada became the only major producer to adopt GM canola in 1996, it led to a disaster. The premium-paying EU market, which took about one-third of Canada's canola exports in 1994 and one-fourth in 1995, stopped all imports from Canada by 1998. The GM canola was diverted to the low-priced Chinese market. Not only did Canadian canola prices fall to a record low,(26) Canada even lost their EU honey exports due to the GM pollen contamination.

Australia benefited significantly from Canada's folly. By 2006, the EU was buying 38 percent of Australia's canola exports.(27) Nonetheless, Monsanto's people in Australia claimed that GM canola was the way to get more competitive. They told farmers that Roundup Ready canola would yield up to 30 percent more. But when an investigator looked at the best trial yields on Monsanto's web site, it was 17 percent below the national average canola yield. When that was publicized, the figures quickly disappeared from the Monsanto's site. Two Aussie states did allow GM canola and sure enough, they are suffering from loss of foreign markets.

In Australia and elsewhere, the non-GMO farmers also suffer. Market prices drop, and farmers spend more to set up segregation systems, GMO testing, buffer zones, and separate storage and shipping channels to try to hold onto non-GMO markets. Even then, they risk contamination and lost premiums.

GM farmers don't earn or produce more

Monsanto has been quite successful in convincing farmers that GM crops are the ticket to greater yields and higher profits. You still hear that rhetoric at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). But a 2006 USDA report "could not find positive financial impacts in either the field-level nor the whole-farm analysis" for adoption of Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans. They said, "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of [GM] crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."(28)

Similarly, the Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) flatly states, "The claim that GM seeds make our farms more profitable is false."(29) Net farm incomes in Canada plummeted since the introduction of GM canola, with the last five years being the worst in Canada's history.

In spite of numerous advertising claims that GM crops increase yield, the average GM crop from Monsanto reduces yield. This was confirmed by the most comprehensive evaluation on the subject, conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2009. Called Failure to Yield, the report demonstrated that in spite of years of trying, GM crops return fewer bushels than their non-GM counterparts. Even the 2006 USDA report stated that "currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. . . . In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars."(30)

US farmers had expected higher yields with Roundup Ready soybeans, but independent studies confirm a yield loss of 4 to 11percent.(31) Brazilian soybean yields are also down since Roundup Ready varieties were introduced.(32) In Canada, a study showed a 7.5 percent lower yield with Roundup Ready canola.(33)

The Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) observed, "Corporate and government managers have spent millions trying to convince farmers and other citizens of the benefits of genetically-modified (GM) crops. But this huge public relations effort has failed to obscure the truth: GM crops do not deliver the promised benefits; they create numerous problems, costs, and risks. . . . It would be too generous even to call GM crops a solution in search of a problem: These crops have failed to provide significant solutions."(34)

Herbicide use rising due to GMOs

Monsanto bragged that their Roundup Ready technology would reduce herbicide, but at the same time they were building new Roundup factories to meet their anticipated increase in demand. They got it. According to USDA data, the amount of herbicide used in the US increased by 382.6 million pounds over 13 years. Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans accounted for 92 percent of the total increase. Due to the proliferation of Roundup resistant weeds, herbicide use is accelerating rapidly. From 2007 to 2008, herbicide used on GM herbicide tolerant crops skyrocketed by 31.4 percent.(35) Furthermore, as weeds fail to respond to Roundup, farmers also rely on more toxic pesticides such as the highly poisonous 2,4-D.

Contamination happens

In spite of Monsanto's assurances that it wouldn't be a problem, contamination has been a consistent and often overwhelming hardship for seed dealers, farmers, manufacturers, even entire food sectors. The biotech industry recommends buffer zones between fields, but these have not been competent to protect non-GM, organic, or wild plants from GMOs. A UK study showed canola cross-pollination occurring as far as 26 km away.(36)

But pollination is just one of several ways that contamination happens. There is also seed movement by weather and insects, crop mixing during harvest, transport, and storage, and very often, human error. The contamination is North America is so great, it is difficult for farmers to secure pure non-GM seed. In Canada, a study found 32 of 33 certified non-GM canola seeds were contaminated.(37) Most of the non-GM soy, corn, and canola seeds tested in the US also contained GMOs.(38)

Contamination can be very expensive. StarLink corn -- unapproved for human consumption -- ended up the US food supply in 2000 and resulted in an estimated price tag of $1 billion. The final cost of GM rice contamination in the US in 2006 could be even higher.

Deadly deception in India

Monsanto ran a poster series called, "TRUE STORIES OF FARMERS WHO HAVE SOWN BT COTTON." One featured a farmer who claimed great benefits, but when investigators tracked him down, he turned out to be a cigarette salesman, not a farmer. Another poster claimed yields by the pictured farmer that were four times what he actually achieved. One poster showed a farmer standing next to a tractor, suggesting that sales of Bt cotton allowed him to buy it. But the farmer was never told what the photo was to be used for, and said that with the yields from Bt, "I would not be able to buy even two tractor tires."

In addition to posters, Monsanto's cotton marketers used dancing girls, famous Bollywood actors, even religious leaders to pitch their products. Some newspaper ads looked like a news stories and featured relatives of seed salesmen claiming to be happy with Bt. Sometimes free pesticides were given away with the seeds, and some farmers who helped with publicity got free seeds.

Scientists published a study claiming that Monsanto's cotton increased yields in India by 70 to 80 percent. But they used only field trial data provided to them by Monsanto. Actual yields turn out to be quite different:

India News(39) reported studies showing a loss of about 18 percent.

• An independent study in Andhra Pradesh "done on [a] season-long basis continuously for three years in 87 villages" showed that growing Bt cotton cost 12 percent more, yielded 8.3 percent less, and the returns over three years were 60 percent less.(40)

• Another report identified a yield loss in the Warangal district of 30 to 60 percent. The official report, however, was tampered with. The local Deputy Director of Agriculture confirmed on Feb. 1, 2005 that the yield figures had been secretly increased to 2.7 times higher than what farms reported. Once the state of Andhra Pradesh tallied all the actual yields, they demanded approximately $10 million USD from Monsanto to compensate farmers for losses. Monsanto refused.

In sharp contrast to the independent research done by agronomists, Monsanto commissioned studies to be done by market research agencies. One, for example, claimed four times the actual reduction in pesticide use, 12 times the actual yield, and 100 times the actual profit.(41)

In Andhra Pradesh, where 71 percent of farmers who used Bt cotton ended up with financial losses, farmers attacked the seed dealer's office and even "tied up Mahyco Monsanto representatives in their villages," until the police rescued them.(42)

In spite of great losses and unreliable yields, Monsanto has skillfully eliminated the availability of non-GM cotton seeds in many regions throughout India, forcing farmers to buy their varieties.

Farmers borrow heavily and at high interest rates to pay four times the price for the GM varieties, along with the chemicals needed to grow them. When Bt cotton performs poorly and can't even pay back the debt, desperate farmers resort to suicide, often drinking unused pesticides. In one region, more than three Bt cotton farmers take their own lives each day. The UK Daily Mail estimates that the total number of Bt cotton-related suicides in India is a staggering 125,000.

Doctors orders: no genetically modified food

A greater tragedy may be the harm from the dangerous GM foods produced by Monsanto. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has called on all physicians to prescribe diets without GM foods to all patients.(43) They called for a moratorium on GMOs, long-term independent studies, and labeling. They stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…"

Former AAEM President Dr. Jennifer Armstrong says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions." Renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava believes that GMOs are a major contributor to the deteriorating health in America.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

GM foods are particularly dangerous for pregnant moms and children. After GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died -- compared to 10 percent deaths among controls fed natural soy.(44) GM-fed babies were smaller, and possibly infertile.(45)

Testicles of rats fed GM soy changed from the normal pink to dark blue.(46) Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.(47) Embryos of GM soy-fed parent mice had changed DNA.(48) And mice fed GM corn had fewer, and smaller, babies.(49)

In Haryana, India, most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, and infertility; many calves died. About two dozen US farmers said thousands of pigs became sterile from certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile.(50)

In the US, incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food that produces poison

Monsanto's GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce a built-in pesticide called Bt-toxin -- produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. When bugs bite the plant, poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Organic farmers and others use natural Bt bacteria spray for insect control, so Monsanto claims that Bt-toxin must be safe.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,(51) has properties of an allergen, and cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural spray can be harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in Washington and Vancouver, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms.(52)(53) The same symptoms are now reported by farm workers from handling Bt cotton throughout India.(54)

GMOs provoke immune reactions

GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says changes in immune status are "a consistent feature of all the [animal] studies."(55) From Monsanto's own research to government funded trials, rodents fed Bt corn had significant immune reactions.(56)(57)

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."

GM soy and corn contain new proteins with allergenic properties,(58) and GM soy has up to seven times more of a known soy allergen.(59) Perhaps the US epidemic of food llergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin."(60) In one small study, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died; those fed natural plants remained healthy.

In an Andhra Pradesh village, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On Jan. 3, 2008, 13 buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All died within three days.(61) Monsanto's Bt corn is also implicated in the deaths horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.(62)

Lab studies of GM crops by other companies also show mortalities. Twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; seven of 40 rats fed a GM tomato died within two weeks.(63) And a farmer in Germany says his cows died after exclusively eating Syngenta's GM corn.

GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed that even after we stop eating GMOs, harmful GM proteins may be produced continuously inside of us; genes inserted into Monsanto's GM soy transfer into bacteria inside our intestines and continue to function.(64) If Bt genes also transfer, eating corn chips might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

Hidden dangers

Biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute says, "If there are problems [with GMOs], we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop." In the nine years after GM crops were introduced in 1996, Americans with three or more chronic diseases jumped from 7 percent to 13 percent.(65) But without any human clinical trials or post marketing surveillance, we may never know if GMOs are a contributor.

Un-recallable contamination

In spite of the enormous health dangers, the environmental impacts may be worse still. That is because we don't have a technology to fully clean up the contaminated gene pool. The self-propagating genetic pollution released into the environment from Monsanto's crops can outlast the effects of climate change and nuclear waste.

Replacing nature: "Nothing shall be eaten that we don't own"

As Monsanto has moved forward with its master plan to replace nature, they have led the charge in buying up seed businesses and are now the world's largest. At least 200 independent seed companies have disappeared over 13 years, non-GMO seed availability is dwindling, and Monsanto is jacking up their seed prices dramatically. Corn is up more than 30 percent and soy nearly 25 percent, over 2008 prices.(66)

An Associated Press exposé (67) reveals how Monsanto's onerous contracts allowed them to manipulate, then dominate, the seed industry using unprecedented legal restrictions. One contract provision, for example, "prevented bidding wars" and "likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits 'shall be destroyed immediately.'"

With that restriction in place, the seed companies couldn't even think of selling to a company other than Monsanto. According to attorney David Boies, who represents DuPont -- owner of Pioneer Seeds: "If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said. "It requires them to destroy things -- destroy things they paid for -- if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw." Boies was a prosecutor on the antitrust case against Microsoft. He is now working with DuPont in their civil antitrust lawsuit against Monsanto.

Monsanto also has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated:

"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable,' said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades."

Monsanto also controls and manipulates farmers through onerous contracts. Troy Roush, for example, is one of hundreds accused by Monsanto of illegally saving their seeds. The company requires farmers to sign a contract that they will not save and replant GM seeds from their harvest. That way Monsanto can sell its seeds -- at a premium -- each season.

Although Roush maintains his innocence, he was forced to settle with Monsanto after two and a half years of court battles. He says his "family was just destroyed [from] the stress involved." Many farmers are afraid, according to Roush, because Monsanto has "created a little industry that serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers' lives." Monsanto has collected an estimated $200 million from farmers thus far.

Roush says, "They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world."

Our food security lies in diversity -- both biodiversity, and diversity of owners and interests. Any single company that consolidates ownership of seeds, and therefore power over the food supply, is a dangerous threat. Of all the corporations in the world, however, the one we should trust the least is Monsanto. With them at the helm, the impact could be cataclysmic.

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

By Jeffrey M. Smith
Read full article here
News from www.borganic.org

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Forget the drugs, treat depression naturally with organic foods

(www.Borganic.org) Many people try to treat their depression by taking drugs and burrowing away by themselves, says Dr. Steve Ilardi, a clinical psychologist. But he believes this is the wrong approach. Ilardi suggests that people ditch the drugs and change their lifestyles, instead.

According to the U.K. Guardian, roughly 20 percent of the British population suffers from depression. In the U.S., that number is around ten percent. But rather than remain in isolation until it "goes away", which is what most people with depression naturally try to do, Illardi recommends that people get more human contact and engage in more physical and mental activity.

Illardi has a six-step approach to treating depression that involves engaging in meaningful activity, exercising regularly, eating foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids, getting plenty of sunlight and getting good quality sleep. If people follow these steps, they will lead much happier and more productive lives than if they take anti-depression drugs and remain in solitude, he says.

His plan also intentionally eliminates anti-depression drugs because, according to him, they do not work.

"Meds have only around a 50 percent success rate. Moreover, of the people who do improve, half experience a relapse. This lowers the recovery rate to only 25 percent. To make matters worse, the side effects often include emotional numbing, sexual dysfunction and weight gain," he explains.

A clinical trial of Illardi's program currently taking place at the University of Kansas is already confirming that Illardi's lifestyle plan does, indeed, work as he claims. And since there are no drugs involved, there are no negative side effects. A person's overall health can only improve by making these changes.

"For clinical depression, all you need to do is get outstanding nutrition by avoiding processed foods, get plenty of phytonutrients in your body, consume healthy oils on a regular basis and get lots of sunlight," explains Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, in his book The Seven Laws of Nutrition.

Illardi also believes that a primary cause of depression is actually not doing many of the things in his program to begin with. People just do not get enough exercise, they do not eat right and they do not engage enough with other people. He believes these are some of the reasons why the depression rate has doubled in the U.K. over the past 30 years.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst...

http://www.naturalpedia.com/depress...

By Jonathan Benson
Read full article here

News from www.Borganic.org

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Organic Vitamin D prevents heart disease

(www.Borganic.org) An increase in blood levels of vitamin D can significantly reduce a person's risk of heart disease, according to a study conducted by researchers from Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City and presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Atlanta.

Researchers reviewed the health records of more than 9,000 people who had been diagnosed with vitamin D insufficiency and who had also undergone vitamin D testing at a later date. They found that approximately 50 percent of all patients had achieved healthy vitamin D levels of at least 30 nanograms per milliliter by the second test. Rates of heart disease were significantly lower in this group than among patients who were still deficient in the vitamin.

Prior studies have shown a correlation between low levels of vitamin D and a higher risk of heart disease. Yet researchers have been unable to determine whether there is any direct connection between the two factors, since low vitamin D levels might also correlate with a number of other cardiovascular risk factors such as general poor health, poor diet or lack of exercise.

The only way to firmly establish a connection would be to conduct an experiment where only half a group of vitamin D-deficient participants is supplemented while the rest receive a placebo. Because vitamin D deficiency has been proven to increase the risk of other diseases, such a study would not be ethical and cannot be conducted.

"What we did was observational and not definitive, but we think it adds significantly to the story," said lead author J. Brent Muhlestein. "It's at least a reasonable piece of evidence to add to the hypothesis that low vitamin D is causative of cardiovascular risk and treatment can reduce cardiovascular disease risk."

The body synthesizes vitamin D naturally upon exposure to sunlight. Low levels of the vitamin have been linked to weakened bones and higher risks of infection, cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.latimes.com/features/hea....

By David Gutierrez
Read full article here

News from www.Borganic.org

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Detoxify in the Wake of the BP Oil Disaster with Calcium Bentonite Clay

(www.Borganic.org) For the past two months, millions of gallons of crude oil have been billowing into the Gulf of Mexico daily due to the BP deep sea oil well disaster. This noxious oil, along with the toxic dispersants that have been used in an attempt to break it up, are making their way through the Gulf, onto the southern shores, and into the air. These pollutants will push farther inland with coming rains. It's vital to protect yourself as much as possible from this coming chemical onslaught. Calcium Bentonite Clay can be used to detoxify your body and your environment from this barrage.

Calcium Bentonite Clay has a uniquely strong negative ionic charge. When hydrated, it attracts anything with a positive ionic charge, such as toxins, metals and parasites. This clay has the ability to both adsorb (stick to the surface) and absorb (draw inside) these undesirables. The toxins are then permanently bound to the clay and are removed when the clay is removed.

People who are in the direct vicinity of the Gulf Coast should be taking Calcium Bentonite Clay internally. Perry A~, author of Living Clay, Nature's Own Miracle Cure, was recently interviewed on the topic and suggested the following protocol: Take 1 ounce of liquid clay and add it to a bottle of water. Sip on it constantly through the day, with at least 3 bottles of clay water daily. Also take 3 clay baths per week with 1 cup of Calcium Bentonite Clay added to the bath water.

Calcium Bentonite Clay can also be added to your pets' food to keep them detoxed and parasite free. Mix 1 to 2 tablespoons of hydrated clay with their food. Clay baths are great for pets as well, and will help remove any pesticides or chemicals they are exposed to when outdoors.

Another good suggestion is to get a new yard sprayer (one that hasn't been exposed to chemicals) and spray your grass and garden at least 3 times a week with clay water. This will help to bind and remove any toxins delivered by the chemically tainted wind and rain. This is especially important if you're growing your own vegetables, or if you, your children, or your pets are spending time on your lawn.

The fallout from this BP disaster isn't going to be limited to the Gulf Coast. It will be extremely widespread. It is an invisible long term exposure threat to the health of those exposed to it on a regular basis. Using a high quality, natural Calcium Bentonite Clay can help you and your family stay healthy.

All clays are not created equal, so it's important to know what to look for when you're choosing your clay. First and foremost, look for a company that has an established quality control program and makes reports available to their customers. Any company that either doesn't do periodic testing or doesn't want to make reports available to the public should be an automatic big red flag. Also, look for a company that provides contact information with easy access to a knowledgeable staff. For internal use, look for a non-gritty, 325 screen mesh, and a pH of 9.0 or higher to balance and alkalize the body. Now get some Calcium Bentonite Clay and protect your health.

Resources:

Perry Arledge, Living Clay: Nature's Own Miracle Cure, 2006, Perry Productions

Janet Raloff, "Feds probe Gulf spill health risks," Science News, June 17, 2010

Ran Knishinsky, The Clay Cure, 1998, Healing Arts Press

By Cheryl McCoy
Read full article here

News from www.Borganic.org

Monday, July 26, 2010

Big Natural Chinese Herbs will Overcome Death Squad Drugs (Opinion)

(www.Borganic.org) Although the western pharma/medical system certainly will fight this statement with all their might, Chinese Herbal Medicine and other natural medicine is, by far, the best thing in the world to overcome common health concerns. There is just no other logical conclusion anyone with half a brain could come to, especially when you look at the nightmare of early deaths caused by the alternative. (And yes, pharmaceuticals are the alternative medicine now. It is time we all realize this and address it as such so that natural medicine can truly re-emerge.)

Many people (Author included) do not address this evil death squad as "Big Pharma" anymore for two reasons: Firstly because there is nothing wrong with any form of big business as long as it is not evil (though God knows many of them are). Secondly, why give them an edge as far as showing any respect? They must now realize they can be downsized by the people. "Big" is only relative. The natural medicine suppliers should be known as "Big Natural" with clearly no negative attached to the word "big" because "natural" represents God's creation and if that isn't big what is?

But getting back to the facts: Chinese medicine can address serious disease beautifully including life threatening infections like malaria, pneumonia, diphtheria, septic angina, typhoid fever, lime disease and all the others.
(http://www.naturalnews.com/028216_l...)

However it seems that the "common" health concerns these days (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arrhythmias etc.) are the biggest target of this extremely evil death squad known also as the pharmaceutical industry.

Out of the many (approximately 10,000) medicinal plants in the Chinese system only about 100 are classified as "Superior Tonic Herbs".(http://www.naturalnews.com/023021_t...) These are the herbs that can be taken safely by almost anyone without any ailments other than (strangely enough) the one's mentioned in the paragraph above. In other words, the safest of all herbs are used to correct what the death squad uses the most dangerous of all poisons for.

This is absolutely ludicrous when a simple 5:1 whole herb extract known as Dan Shen (Salvia miltiorrhiza) can put an end to most heart disorders that would otherwise be "treated" with any number of death sentence drugs. (http://www.naturalnews.com/025028_D... )

Even longevity itself can be addressed with what many consider the most useful of all tonic herbs known as He Shou Wu. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026786_H...)

Also a combination of heat clearing herbs, listed here (http://www.naturalnews.com/023322_h...), can replace any number of anti viral and antibacterial drugs and do a much faster and better job with absolutely no harmful effects.

Doesn't anyone ever question what (besides the love of money) is behind this evil killing of innocent people in the name of "healthcare"? If the names Rockefeller, Rothschild and organizations such as the New World Order and the Illuminati come to mind you are with out a doubt on the right track. (http://fedupwithbs.com/illuminati.html)

The next few years will be most interesting as all this comes to a head. There is by far too much knowledge of "Big Natural" for the death squad to go on much longer without people getting up in arms. It is long overdue.

Source: Based on the author's own knowledge of Chinese Herbal Medicine and of the pharmaceutical industry.

By Christopher Gussa
Read full article here

News from www.borganic.org

Friday, July 23, 2010

Organic sulfur crystals are a miracle food that provides amazing health benefits

(www.Borganic.org) In order to achieve and maintain truly vibrant health, the cells in your body need plenty of oxygen. But most of the foods people eat lack the basic nutritional elements that not only provide this oxygen, but that facilitate its movement throughout the body and amongst the cells. This is where sulfur comes in. Sulfur is a nutrient compound found in all living organisms that is absolutely vital for proper health, but most of us fail to get enough of it, even when trying to eat healthy.

Prior to the days of petro-chemical fertilizers, farmers applied animal manure to crops, which enriched soil naturally with high levels of sulfur. But today, the industrialized farming methods employed by the large agri-giants that grow most of our food have virtually eliminated necessary sulfur from not only the soil, but from food itself. And what little sulfur is left in food gets eliminated through processing, refrigeration, dehydration and cooking.

Some NaturalNews readers are probably already familiar with methylsulfonylmethane (MSM), the chemical name for sulfur, and some may already take this supplement, but did you know that many powdered supplement versions of MSM have lost most of their potency due to processing? When sulfur crystals are converted into powdered form, as most are, they lose about 85 percent of their effectiveness. And they become even less effective when synthetic anti-caking agents are added.

Hesh Goldstein, nutritionist and moderator of the radio show "Health Talk Hawaii", has introduced a potent, crystallized form of organic sulfur crystals that far surpasses most other MSM products on the market. Goldstein's crystals are made from the lignans of pine trees, which according to Goldstein, is the most effective form. These organic sulfur crystals are highly at preventing, and treating, a whole host of diseases and illnesses.

Some of the many benefits of organic sulfur crystals include:

-Increasing enzyme production within bodily glands and improving resistance to illness
-Increasing flexibility in muscle tissue
-Increasing blood circulation
-Reducing muscle inflammation and promoting muscle healing
-Promoting the healthy growth of hair and fingernails
-Discouraging the growth of cancer cells through oxygenation
-Reversing osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease
-Promoting healthy skin production and reducing wrinkles
-Regulating insulin production
-Improving colon function and eliminating colonic parasites

Twelve years ago, researchers began the Cellular Matrix Study, the purpose of which is to evaluate the effects of sulfur on cell regeneration. Patrick McGean, director of the study, had successfully used organic sulfur crystals to cure his son's terminal germ cell testicular cancer.

Since it started, the study has found that people from around the world have experienced similar incredible results from taking organic sulfur crystals. Diabetics have significantly lowered or even eliminated the need for taking insulin, people with high blood pressure no longer need medication, and people with osteoporosis have reversed their bone loss.

You can learn more about Hesh Goldstein's organic sulfur crystals at his website:
http://www.healthtalkhawaii.com/Hea...

By Ethan A. Huff
Read full article here

News from www.Borganic.org

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Newsweek publishes major story exposing fraud of antidepressant drugs

(www.Borganic.org) Newsweek has published a feature article exposing what many psychology researchers refer to as "the dirty little secret": that antidepressant drugs do not work any better than placebo pills.

Author Sharon Begley notes that while antidepressants do in fact cause improvement in 75 percent of patients, so do placebo pills. In a landmark 1998 study, researchers Irving Kirsch and Guy Sapirstein found that a full 75 percent of antidepressants' effectiveness could be attributed to the placebo effect.

Upon facing criticism for not including every study in their analysis, Kirsch and Sapirstein used the Freedom of Information Act to acquire data from all corporate-funded antidepressant studies submitted to the FDA. Two interesting facts emerged. First, the researchers found that 40 percent of studies conducted had gone unpublished, significantly higher than the 22 percent for other drugs.

"By and large, the unpublished studies were those that failed to show a significant benefit," Kirsch said.

Second, when all studies were included, the drugs came out less effective, with placebo accounting for 82 percent of their effectiveness. The non-placebo improvement was only 1.8 points on the 54-point depression diagnostic scale. Sleeping better counts for six points.

The Newsweek article further notes that even those extra 1.8 points can be attributed to placebos: people in drug studies who experience side effects realize they are taking a real drug, which makes their placebo reaction stronger. The placebo effect also explains the increased effectiveness of higher drug doses, and why sometimes a second or third drug is effective when the first failed. It all comes down to belief.

These findings have serious implications for the entire premise on which antidepressant drugs rest: the chemical theory of depression. Other than the presumed effectiveness of antidepressants -- a presumption called into question yet again by a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association -- there is literally no evidence to support this theory.

"Direct evidence doesn't exist," Begley writes. "Lowering people's serotonin levels does not change their mood."

Sources for this story include: www.newsweek.com/id/232781.

By David Gutierrez
Read full article here

News from www.Borganic.org

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Know the Importance of Taking Enough Magnesium with Your Vitamin D

(www.Borganic.org) As more people begin to realize the amazing health benefits that Vitamin D has to offer, more people are naturally beginning to get more vitamin D, either through supplements or sunshine. The downside of this increased intake, however, is that more people are having adverse reactions from Vitamin D. What most people are not aware of, though, is that most of these so-called 'Vitamin D Side Effects' are not problems with taking the vitamin itself, but are actually problems with not getting enough magnesium.

Vitamin D, just like all other nutrients, works in harmony with several other nutrients to perform its many functions. Most importantly, vitamin D requires and 'uses up' magnesium to convert from supplements or sun into its active form in the blood. As such, it is a big mistake to simply take large doses of Vitamin D without taking the need for magnesium into consideration. Yet this is exactly what is happening in most cases and it is causing a lot of people to have problems that they believe are due to side effects of Vitamin D- or even worse they believe they are experiencing an overdose. Such a huge number of people have subtle magnesium deficiency that some researchers and doctors are calling magnesium deficiency an epidemic, and anyone with even a mild or 'subclinical' magnesium deficiency will have this deficiency amplified when Vitamin D is taken. This is creating some uncomfortable 'Side Effects of Vitamin D' that are actually symptoms of an induced magnesium deficiency! Some of the magnesium deficiency symptoms being attributed to Vitamin D are:

Headaches
Insomnia
Jitteriness
Muscle Cramps
Anxiety
Heart Palpitations
Constipation

While there are always going to be those who simply can't tolerate taking Vitamin D supplements for one reason or another, the good news is that the vast majority of these problems can be prevented and even reversed by getting clinically significant amounts of magnesium - while you are getting your Vitamin D from pills or from the sun.

Vitamin D Absorption Problems

Conversely, it's also true that taking Vitamin D may not raise blood levels in those who are magnesium deficient. In many cases, both the Vitamin D deficient person and their doctor believe that they are having 'absorption' problems. This lack of knowledge about the need for magnesium ends up causing serious issues such as:

1) A lot of fear being generated that an underlying serious medical problem exists
2)Unnecessarily high dosages of Vitamin D that further worsen the magnesium deficiency
3)Thousands, and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, being spent on unnecessary medical testing to find the 'absorption' problem
4)The underlying magnesium deficiency not being found because testing for magnesium levels is not useful in determining need for the nutrient

This leaves many people still low in Vitamin D and believing that they are toxic or allergic to Vitamin D. This belief is being encouraged by practitioners and websites that are unaware of this intimate connection between these two nutrients and who don't have a solution for those who are suffering. Unlike drugs, nutrients are interconnected with one another and rarely does someone have only One nutrient deficiency completely in isolation. But as Vitamin D testing is becoming more common, people are being treated with large and sometimes massive doses of Vitamin D without taking into consideration their need for other nutrients. In particular, the need for sufficient magnesium is critical to avoid some of the uncomfortable problems that are often falsely attributed to being Vitamin D side effects or overdoses.

Resources

http://www.springerlink.com/content...
http://www.easy-immune-health.com/v...
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/29/...

By Kerri Knox
Read full article here


News from www.Borganic.org

Haitian Farmers Reject Monsanto Earthquake Relief Donation and Burn GMO Seeds

(www.Borganic.org) In an attempt to backdoor GMO seeds into a new market, Monsanto has taken the opportunity to donate hundreds of tons of GMO seeds to Haiti and is calling it an effort to help the people in Haiti with earthquake relief. However, Monsanto's "generosity" is being met with skepticism and outright rejection.

Recently, a large group of small farmers burned a symbolic quantity of Monsanto's donated hybrid corn seed in the central square of the agricultural town of Hinche. A 200,000-member national coalition is encouraging Haiti farmers to burn all Monsanto seeds that have already been distributed, and has called on the government to reject additional shipments.

Peasant leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste told IPS News: Farmers want to preserve their traditional "organic agriculture that respects the environment and fights against its degradation. We defend native seeds and the rights of peasants on their land." Jean-Batiste also said "Fighting hybrid and GMO seeds is critical to save our diversity and our agriculture" and maintained that a "county has a right to define it own agricultural policies, to grow first for the family and then for local market, to grow healthy food in a way which respects the environment and Mother Earth."

Another peasant farmer stated, "We have a problem today with Monsanto and all the multinationals who sell seeds. Seeds and water are the common patrimony of humanity."

Monsanto has already donated the first round of what Global Research has referred to as a "new earthquake" and "deadly gift": 475 tons of genetically modified seeds, along with the accompanying fertilizer and pesticides, whose demand usually increases in proportion to the use of GMO seeds.

The multinational seed giant is known around the world for its aggressive GMO policies. It is also known for intimidating and suing farmers and small agricultural companies it claims have violated its contracts and patents, including farmers whose fields have been contaminated by pollen from someone else's genetically engineered crop or who have had voluntary seed sprout from a previous year's crop. By 2007 Monsanto had already collected over $21.5 million in judgments in the U.S. alone.

In addition, Monsanto is infamously known for the deaths and health problems that have resulted from its highly toxic herbicide products, most notable of which is Agent Orange. A large number of U.S. Veterans got cancer as a result of exposure to the company's Agent Orange. The Vietnamese government claims that 400,000 of their citizens died or were disabled and 500,000 children were born with birth defects as a result of Agent Orange.

The corn seed product Monsanto donated to Haiti has been treated with the fungicide Maxim XO, while the calypso tomato seeds were treated with thiram. Thiram is a highly toxic chemical which the EPA examined and deemed to be so dangerous that agricultural workers are now mandated to wear protective clothing when handling them.

While Monsanto is calling the seeds a donation, it isn't hard to see how the company will benefit by getting farmers hooked on a need that only it can supply, as it has done elsewhere around the world - most notably in the U.S. and Canada.

Seed company giants Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and Bayer control more than half of the world's seed patents. Monsanto has almost 650 seed patents, most of which are for cotton, corn, and soy. The company also owns almost 30 percent of the share of all the world's biotechnology research and development.

The world's largest confederation of farmers, Via Campesina, has called Monsanto one of the "principal enemies of peasant sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty for all peoples."

Sources included:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/...
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/fo...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bever...

By Tony Isaacs
Read full article here


News from www.borganic.org

Monday, July 19, 2010

Antidepressant drug linked to increase in breast cancer deaths

(www.Borganic.org) Women who take the antidepressant Paxil (paroxetine) while undergoing some breast cancer treatments are significantly more likely to die than women who do not take the antidepressant, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto, and published in the British Medical Journal.

"These results highlight a drug interaction that is extremely common, widely underappreciated and potentially life-threatening, yet uniformly avoidable," researcher David Juurlink said.

The researchers analyzed the medical records of 2,430 women over the age of 65 who had been treated for breast cancer with the drug tamoxifen between 1993 and 2005. Approximately 30 percent of these women took at least one antidepressant during the course of their cancer treatment.

The risk of death from breast cancer was significantly higher among women who took Paxil at the same time as tamoxifen. The risk increased by 25 percent in women with a 25 percent overlap in Paxil and tamoxifen treatment, and by 91 percent in women with a 75 percent overlap in treatment.

"In contrast, no such risk was seen with other antidepressants," the researchers wrote.

Although the researchers could not say exactly why Paxil caused this effect, they believe that the antidepressant interferes directly with the action of tamoxifen. For the breast cancer drug to function, the body must first process it with an enzyme known as CYP2D6. Yet selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Paxil can inhibit the action of CYP2D6.

"Paxil is a fairly potent inhibitor of that enzyme," Juurlink said.

Although Prozac (fluoxetine) also significantly inhibits CYP2D6, few women in the study were taking that drug.

The researchers emphasized that even women undergoing cancer treatment should not stop antidepressant treatment without the supervision of a doctor, because the withdrawal symptoms of such drugs can be dangerous.

Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6180....

By David Gutierrez
Read full article here

News from www.Borganic.org

Friday, July 16, 2010

Foods and drinks sweetened with fructose linked to high blood pressure

(www.Borganic.org) Fruits and vegetables contain relatively small amounts of the form of sugar known as fructose. But the typical American diet is now loaded with unnaturally high amounts of refined versions of this sweetener, primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). HFCS is found in everything from soft drinks and juice drinks to bakery products and other processed foods and it has been linked to a host of health woes ranging from obesity to the pre-diabetic condition known as metabolic syndrome. Now researchers have found that consuming foods sweetened with fructose raises the risk of developing one of the top killers in the U.S. -- high blood pressure, also known as hypertension.

According to the Institute of Medicine, one in three Americans has hypertension and many don't know their blood pressure is elevated, putting them at risk for several deadly diseases. For example, hypertension is blamed for more than one-third of heart attacks. It's also a leading cause of strokes and kidney failure, plays a role in blindness and can contribute to dementia, too.

Scientists have searched for environmental factors that might play a role in the development of high blood pressure -- and it appears a big connection to diet has been found. Diana Jalal, MD, of the University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center, and her colleagues have come up with evidence that the rise in the rate of hypertension over the past hundred years is directly related to the increase in the consumption of fructose.

Dr. Jalal and her research team analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey collected from 2003 to 2006. Their study involved 4,528 US adults 18 years of age or older with no prior history of hypertension. The research subjects answered questions about their consumption of foods and beverages such as fruit juices, soft drinks, bakery products, and candy sweetened with fructose (primarily HFCS).

The results, just published in the Journal of the American Society Nephrology (JASN), showed that people whose diet contained 74 grams or more per day of fructose -- the equivalent of drinking about 2 and a half soft drinks daily -- had a greatly increased risk of high blood pressure. A normal blood pressure reading is below 120/80 mmHg. But for research participants consuming fructose regularly, the risk of a high blood pressure level of 134/85 went up 26 percent and the risk of having a blood pressure reading of 140/90 climbed by 30 percent. However, the risk of very high blood pressure -- 160/100 -- was 77 percent higher in those consuming fructose sweetened foods and drinks on a daily basis.

According to the scientists, their findings suggest that cutting back on foods and beverages containing a lot of fructose might decrease the risk of developing hypertension. "Our study identifies a potentially modifiable risk factor for high blood pressure," Dr. Jalal said in a statement to the media. "However, well-planned prospective randomized clinical studies need to be completed to see if low fructose diets will prevent the development of hypertension and its complications."

For more information:
http://www.asn-online.org/press/pdf...
http://www.naturalnews.com/fructose...

By S. L. Baker
Read full article here

News from www.borganic.org

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Big Pharma nanotechnology encodes pills with tracking data that you swallow

(www.Borganic.org) The emerging field of nanotechnology is currently gaining a lot of attention across many industries. Nanotechnology allows scientists to manipulate individual atoms and molecules to create unique materials and even micro-scale devices, and this is leading to a wide range of applications in clothing, textiles, electronics and even food and medicine.

Sounds great, right? Except for the fact that, like genetic modification of food crops, nanotechnology tampers with Mother Nature in a way that's largely untested for safety. And here's something really bizarre: The pharmaceutical industry may soon begin using nanotechnology to encode drug tablets and capsules with brand and tracking data that you swallow as part of the pill.

To really explain how this works, let me simplify how nanotechnology works so you'll see why this is so bizarre (and potentially dangerous). Instead of using materials and elements as they're found in nature to build and construct things, nanotechnologists are deconstructing the basic building blocks of these materials and elements to make completely new ones. In other words, nanoscientists are reconstructing the molecular building blocks of our world without yet knowing what it will do to humans and to the environment.

The long-term consequences of nanotechnology are still largely unknown because not a single formidable study has ever been conducted on this emerging science that proves it to be safe. In fact, most of the studies that have been conducted on nanotechnology show that it's actually detrimental to health and to the environment (which I'll cover further, below).

But that hasn't stopped Big Pharma from potentially adopting it for use in a new tracking and identification system that could be integrated into the very drug pills and capsules that millions of people swallow every day.

By the way, I've also posted a video explaining all this. Check it out here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=93626...

Nano-encrypted barcode in every dose

Now don't get me wrong. Big Pharma isn't the only industry using nanotechnology despite a complete lack of safety evidence. "Nanoparticles" are present in sunscreens, fabric protectors, plastic food liners, and other products. But what's different about the nanoparticles soon to be found in a pill near you is that they are capable of storing data about where the drug was made, when it was made, and where it has traveled.

It's a lot like the barcodes used on parcels to track them along their shipping journeys, except that in the drugs, it's a molecular barcode that people will be swallowing. During digestion of the pill, the nano data bits will be distributed throughout your body and can become lodged in your body's tissues.

NanoGuardian, the company that's introducing this system for pharmaceuticals, says it this way on its website:

"In the NanoEncryption process, NanoCodes are incorporated directly onto tablets, capsules and vial caps. These codes may be associated with an unlimited amount of manufacturer-determined data, including product information (strength and expiration date), manufacturing information (location date, batch and lot number) and distribution information (country, distributor, wholesaler and chain)."

So if you take these drugs, you'll be swallowing nano "hard drives" that can store data -- data that will be distributed throughout your body and can be read by medical technicians who could then track what drugs you took in the past. And what's the rationale for this? According to the company, it's to "defen[d] against pharmaceutical counterfeiting and illegal diversion".

It sounds like a good idea, right? Unfortunately, there's a whole lot more to this technology than meets the eye.

The dangers of nanotechnology

Though you'll rarely hear about it in the mainstream media, little is known about what nanoparticles really do to people's bodies and to the environment in the long term. Studies continue to show that nanoparticles tend to easily build up in the body where they can potentially cause damage. They also behave differently than the materials from which they are derived and constructed, posing unknown hazards.

Researchers from the University of Rochester discovered back in 2006 that nanoparticles are easily absorbed throughout the body via inhalation. According to the report, nanoparticles travel from the nasal cavity directly to brain tissue where they deposit themselves and cause brain inflammation. In other words, nanoparticles very easily cross the blood-brain barrier, which is the mechanism by which the brain normally protects itself from foreign materials.

The same study, which is part of a five-year, $5.5 million investigation into the safety of nanoparticles, also determined that this artificial micro-matter makes its way to the lungs when inhaled.

Nanoparticles are different from their parent particles

Nanoparticle use is on the rise based on the flawed assumption that if the elements and compounds from which they are derived are considered safe, then the nanoparticles themselves must also be safe. But research reveals that this simply isn't the case.

A study from 2004 found that low levels of fullerenes, a type of carbon nanoparticle used in electronics and other materials, changed the entire physiology of fish that were exposed to it. Exposure to just 0.5 parts per million (ppm) over the course of two days literally caused significant brain damage in these fish.

"Given the rapid onset of brain damage, it is important to further test and assess the risks and benefits of this new technology (nanotechnology) before use becomes even more widespread," emphasized Dr. Eva Oberdorster, author of the study, back in 2004.

Again in 2007, scientists from the University of California, San Diego, discovered that iron nanoparticles are toxic to nerve cells and nerve function. Even though iron is a necessary mineral that benefits the body in its natural form, its nanoparticle is quite dangerous, it turns out.

According to Sungho Jin, senior author of the study which was published in the journal Biomaterials, nanoparticles in general "may not be as safe as we had once thought."

But none of the nation's regulatory bodies seem to be paying any attention to these studies, or to the many others I didn't mention that also highlight the toxicity of nanoparticles. Instead, they've allowed nanoparticles to invade our society without so much as a single piece of credible evidence showing that they're safe.

Based on all the research, we know that nanoparticles cross through the skin, lungs, and blood-brain barrier, where they lodge themselves in body tissues. We also know that their compositional differences cause them to be highly reactive with other chemicals, particularly in the body where they create damaging free radicals. But there's more to this story... it gets even worse.

Nanoparticles are safe in food?

It's amazing to me that altered molecules with no scientific backing of safety are now being deliberately allowed in the food supply. It would seem unacceptable to allow their use in food manufacturing equipment because of the potential for residue contamination, but that's exactly where they are being used right now.

According to a DiscoveryNews report from 2009, nanoparticles are everywhere in the food supply. Externally, they're used in the packaging, containers, films, and other storage materials to kill bacteria and increase shelf life. Internally, they're used to enhance or alter the flavors and textures of food.

Nanoparticles are even being used in some vitamins, supplements and other "nutraceuticals" to allegedly improve nutrient assimilation and delivery.

The report actually encourages the use of nanotechnology in food, citing all the potential benefits (but remaining silent on all the dangers). One section even hawks nanotechnology as a "green" technology.

But the real truth is that using nanoparticles in food is a grant experiment with an unknown outcome. When it comes to nanotechnology in food, there's a lot of speculation and pseudo-science being peddled as scientific fact, but there's truly no scientific backing to support the safe use of man-made nanoparticles in things we consume.

Do the people actually benefit from nanotechnology?

It's quite common for big industry to persuade the public into accepting new technologies based on promises that they will make their lives better and safer. And that's exactly what's happening with nanotechnology: We're all being sold a bill of goods on something that's entirely unproven.

And getting back to the issue of embedding nanoparticles in drugs, the whole argument for why this is necessary stems from the notion that there's a lot of drug fraud occurring, and that it could be stopped if only drugs contained proprietary nanocode data that could be read from your body tissues. But does this benefit the consumer in any way? Who really stands to benefit from this?

Protecting their monopolies

Most NaturalNews readers already know this, but when a pharmaceutical company creates a new drug, it patents it so that no other company can sell it until the patent expires. After acquiring FDA approval for the drug, the company then sells it for thousands of times more than what it costs to produce it. This is the FDA-enforced monopoly known as the modern pharmaceutical industry.

How does this tie into NanoGuardian? Since drugs are exclusively owned and protected by 20-year patents here in the U.S., which allows drug companies to charge whatever they want for them with no competition, Big Pharma stands to benefit tremendously from a technology that ensures no one else can "counterfeit" its patented drugs.

Because right now, all those counterfeit imitations (which are actually the same chemicals without the brand name) are sold for far less than the brand name drugs, and some people are buying them because they can't afford the real thing. By integrating nanotechnology into each and every drug pill, it will be easier for Big Pharma to verify and control the drugs people are taking.

NanoGuardian pills can be scanned by a detection device that will verify their authenticity and trace them back to the factories where they were manufactured, the warehouses where they were distributed, the pharmacies where they were stocked and sold, and so on. But here's the part where this all turns Big Brother: The same scanning technology can theoretically be used to scan your body tissues and determine which drugs you've been taking, who sold them, where you bought them, where they were made and possibly even how long you've been taking them.

By swallowing these NanoGuardian pills, you are essentially turning your body into a walking Big Pharma hard drive that's storing all kinds of data on your particular drug habits. This data could be read by law enforcement or even used against you in a court of law. It's sort of like swallowing RFID technology that tracks your medication use.

Take your approved meds, or else

A few years ago, a friend of mine showed me a clever device that uses a laser to detect antioxidant levels in the body. It basically takes a reading based on the molecular signature of antioxidants in your skin. It uses a blue laser to produce a number revealing your antioxidant level. (Mine was very high, something like 90,000 on this machine.)

Theoretically, a similar detection device could be used to scan patients for nano particles to see whether or not they've taken their meds for the day, for the week, or even for the year. You could be scanned by a laser that you don't even see, and the government or anyone else could "read" your entire history of medication use. This information could be used against you in many ways:

• To deny you employment.
• To deny you health insurance coverage.
• To serve as evidence against you in a court of law.
• To take away your children by labeling you mentally unstable.
• To force you to take vaccines that you've been avoiding.

... and so on. This is a "drug enforcement" technology that makes all your private medication habits easily and instantly available to Big Brother and health industry drug enforcers who want you to "take all your meds."

As such, this technology could further destroy health freedom. The federal government would no doubt attempt to use this technology to control your medication and vaccination intake while enforcing your compliance with random scanning of your hand or other tissues.

Imagine this scenario. Your government-approved doctor says you have a mental disorder because you prefer healthy foods (See my recent article on "orthorexia" if you don't know what I'm talking about), and he prescribes you a brand name drug to treat it. You decide that eating healthy is normal and you refuse to take the drug. The next time you go in for a checkup, your doctor scans you to check your nanoparticle count and discovers that you haven't been taking your meds. Since he ordered you to take them and you didn't, he assesses you a fine and tells you begin taking them or else face potential arrest and prison time.

This scenario is entirely fictitious at the moment, but with the way things are going with Big Brother and Big Pharma, it's a very real possibility in the near future. Technologies like NanoGuardian can be used in precisely this way to enforce compliance with things like drug prescriptions and treatment mandates. Big Brother will have access to your medical records because they'll have been implanted into your body tissues through nanotechnology, sort of like radio-frequency identification (RFID) for pharmaceuticals.

It's a way for the drug industry to turn a human body into a compliant profit machine. And it's being marketed right now. Check out the website yourself: www.nanoguardian.net

Real questions that need to be answered about nanotechnology

It's not my intention to sound alarmist about nanotechnology, but rather to ask some obvious questions that have yet to be answered. Why has nanotechnology essentially been approved for practically any and every use with absolutely no credible backing showing that it's safe? Why have most of the studies showing its dangers been ignored by most mainstream scientists? Why are nano particles about to start showing up in our pharmaceuticals?

In theory, nanotechnology may sound like a great thing, but as I've mentioned in previous articles I've written on the subject, we should be wary of its seductive promises. Not only are nanoparticles potentially dangerous, but many of its uses are completely unnecessary.

Back in 2004, I wrote a piece about the top ten technologies that were around at the time, and nanotechnology wasn't one of them. My reasoning for this was that nanotechnology, particularly in the field of medicine where it was being promoted the most, was entirely unnecessary because our bodies contain their own built-in "nanoparticles", so to speak, that cause the body to heal itself naturally. The best nanotechnology in the world already exists inside you -- it's called your immune system.

But science has decided instead to try to engineer its own imitation of the immune system by constructing artificial nanoparticle "robots" to do the job instead. It's an example of Man's arrogance over nature. Instead of supporting the human body's innate immune system technology, arrogant scientists want to overthrow it with their own micro-mechanical robots that attempt to serve the same role.

And now, with NanoGuardian, Big Pharma could be embedding your body's tissues with nanoparticle data that turns you into a compliant, monopoly-priced drug consumer whose medication habits can now be scanned right off your skin. That's what Big Pharma wants, of course: Total control over your body. Combined with targeted lobbying of corrupt Washington lawmakers and bureaucrats, Big Pharma could achieve a "mandatory medication requirement" across the entire country, where every citizen is required to dose themselves with psychiatric drugs, statin drugs or vaccines. Your compliance will be verified with a nanotech scan that reads the nanodata right off your skin, and if you're found to be non-compliant, you could be arrested and forcibly medicated on the spot.

Don't think this is possible? Much of this has already come true with forced vaccinations of children. See the article I wrote in 2007, Children herded like cattle into Maryland courthouse for forced vaccinations as armed police and attack dogs stand guard (http://www.naturalnews.com/022267.html).

The conspiracy between Big Government and Big Pharma will always try to find a way to make you take more meds (whether you need them or not). This NanoGuardian technology could play right into their hands, providing an enforcement and tracking technology that would turn your body into a walking Big Pharma storage device.

It's just one more reason to avoid taking pharmaceuticals in the first place (as if there weren't enough already!).

If you want to see more about this, watch the video I've posted about Big Brother monitoring your medication: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=93626...

By Mike Adams Read full article here

News from www.borganic.org
Share/Bookmark

Health Tips

Antidepressant Herbs | St. John's wort, Ginkgo, Lavender

Ginger | Dispel stagnancy and congestion.




Juice of the week Recipe

Immune system body booster Juice Recipes

Food And Flowers Without Chemicals!

News you will never hear.

In the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus | Hippocrates The father of western medicine said "Let your food be your medicine and let your medicine be your food"

Expose the globalist depopulation plan