We have long recommended that everyone switch their cooking oil over to coconut oil and/or olive oil. But did you know that 75 to 80 percent of the oil sold in the US does not meet the legal grades for extra-virgin oil?
Antibiotics are one of the most prescribed (and abused) medications in the world. They are often incorrectly, incompetently prescribed, particularly to children, for ailments that aren’t even resolved by taking the medications. They are so heavily prescribed that superbugs have risen from a condition known as “antibiotic resistance.”
Antibiotics are often taken for granted but can do serious damage to the body. Take Levaquin, for example, it now has a black box warning on it for the damages it has caused people. And yet, it remains a commonly prescribed form of antibiotics.
The gut is what incurs the most damage from antibiotics. The gut’s good bacteria, which is the bacteria that feeds from prebiotics (indigestible carbohydrates), that’s under attack from antibiotics. The antibiotics kill off this good bacteria. The good gut bacteria contributes to our overall mental and physical health. Disruptions in gut bacteria have often been linked to depression.
Now, things are getting worse…
A new Monash University study which was published in the Journal of Leukocyte Biology has found that antibiotics do indeed impede the growth and development of normal gut bacteria. And this means a worse immune system for kids. The immune system function is primarily located in the gut. Now, the study was performed on mice, but there is great confidence that the researchers at Monash got it right.
The study treated female mice with a slew of antibiotics while the mice were pregnant. Next, they treated the mice’s babies with the same antibiotic regimen during the first three weeks of their lives. Another group was tested without the antibiotics present.
When the mice grew to eight weeks old, it was (unsurprisingly) found that CD4 T cells (these are immune system cells) were overly active.
“Our intestinal bacteria are now understood to have a major role in shaping immune health and disease, but the details of this process remain poorly understood,” said John Wherry, Ph.D., deputy editor of the journal in a press release. “These new studies provide an important clue as to how the early signals from our gut bacteria shape key immune cells and how these neonatal events can shape disease potential later in life.”
CD4 T cells are the basis for responding to inflammation. When they become overactive, it can lead to lupus, Crohn’s, and other autoimmune diseases.
These findings also further enforce the concept that creating a healthy gut environment in humans could be one of the cures for many of our ailments. It certainly tells us that overuse of antibiotics is a real, defined problem in our society.
Author Gregg Baden claims that the cure for cancer might be found in our collective ambition to cure it. He claims that our minds hold a tremendous amount of power when it comes to saving our lives from the wrath of cancer. According to Baden, our minds can affect our DNA, which in turn, can stave off cancer. He even cites prayer as one way to accomplish this, though he also makes clear that one doesn’t need to be religious.
Baden believes that collective thoughts can create energy. Some are calling Baden’s ideas “psycho-oncology.”
Change your feelings, alter your DNA and save your life?
In the video you can see how cancer with a size of 3×2.5 cm gets eliminated in about three minutes (allegedly). The event is displayed on an ultrasound screen.
Today, saying that soda is bad for kids is a relatively acceptable statement. Most people, in general, understand that soda drinks simply aren’t good for us. Soda producers know this as well seeing they’ve reacted creating “diet” versions of their core products which typically end up as worse, more dangerous, versions of their original counterparts. Coca-Cola is notorious for their advertisement campaigns that paint a completely opposite story, typically a world uniting narrative featuring the thin and healthy.
Unfortunately, soda is making everyone fat. And now Coca-Cola, in desperation, is trying to change the persona of their prized sodas.
A new write up by investigative journalist, Paul Thacker, alleges that Coca-Cola paid off journalist in order to influence them. Essentially, Coca-Cola was hoping to downplay the sugar and obesity connection. The documents were obtained under Freedom of Information laws. Thacker even claims Coca-Cola paid off journalism conferences. 4
Industry money was used to covertly influence journalists with the message that exercise is a bigger problem than sugar consumption in the obesity epidemic, documents obtained under freedom of information laws show. The documents detail how Coca-Cola funded journalism conferences at a US university in an attempt to create favourable press coverage of sugar sweetened drinks. When challenged about funding of the series of conferences, the academics involved weren’t forthcoming about industry involvement.
Thacker goes on to note that products such as Coca-Cola notoriously relate their sugar-laden drinks to a sport so that they can make it seem that it is OK to drink their sodas so long as people exercise.
As Yoni Freedhoff, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa, told The BMJ, “For Coca-Cola the ‘energy balance’ message has been a crucial one to cultivate, as its underlying inference is that, even for soda drinkers, obesity is more a consequence of inactivity than it is of regularly drinking liquid candy.”
Making the connection to paid off journalist following through with their good press coverage…
The six figure bill for funding these journalism conferences was more than repaid in favourable press coverage, say critics. Documented evidence of the industry’s covert influence on the media is rare. In 2004, researchers examined secret documents made public during tobacco litigation. Attempting to derail the effect of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 1993 report on secondhand smoke, the tobacco industry successfully placed stories in major print publications about the report’s “scientific weakness” to help “build considerable reasonable doubt . . . particularly among consumers,” the researchers wrote.1 They concluded that even journalists can fall victim to well orchestrated public relations efforts, regardless of the quality of the science used in these PR exercises.
The article goes on to cite a number of examples. Coca-Cola “donated $1m to the University of Colorado, home institution of the Global Energy Balance Network’s president, James Hill, a professor of pediatrics.” Another baffling example was CNN. “A CNN reporter attended the 2014 journalism conference and later contributed to a story that argued that obesity’s cause could be a lack of exercise, not the consumption of sugary soft drinks.”
“Critics told The BMJ that Coca-Cola’s $37,000 support for that particular conference and the resulting story was a better bargain than an advertisement placed on CNN’s website.”
Some months after the event, Hill emailed a Coca-Cola executive and described the conference as a “home run,” adding, “The journalists told us this was an amazing event and they generated a lot of stories.” Hill continued, “You basically supported the meeting this year . . . I think we can get many more sponsors involved next year.”
Journalist Kristin Jones called the entire scam out, but was told it was no big deal. The Foundations President, Bob Meyers, essentially fired off Jones’ complaints to professors at the University of Colorado.
“The funding for this came from our general educational grant resources.” Months later, Peters emailed Coca-Cola executives a report on the 2014 journalism conference, thanking them for the “educational grant that supported this work.”
“I feel like I was lied to,” Jones told The BMJ. Jones no longer works as a journalist but said that she would not have attended the conference had she known of Coca-Cola’s funding.
Spinach is one of the most well-known superfoods in the world. The leafy green vegetable is a staple of a healthy diet for many. Well now it seems, spinach is even more powerful than we thought. Scientists have now figured out a way to use spinach to build a human heart.
A study, published this month by the journal Biomaterials, shows us that spinach can be used to build a vascular system. Essentially, tissue engineering has long been the obstacle when it comes to building an organ such as a human heart. Now it seems spinach has helped to clear that obstacle. And that could be huge for medical science.
“The main limiting factor for tissue engineering … is the lack of a vascular network,” says study co-author Joshua Gershlak, a graduate student at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) in Massachusetts, in a video (below) describing the study. “Without that vascular network, you get a lot of tissue death.”
“Cellulose is biocompatible [and] has been used in a wide variety of regenerative medicine applications, such as cartilage tissue engineering, bone tissue engineering, and wound healing,” the authors write in their paper.
Eventually, people who have had heart attacks may well be able to get their tissues replaced using this science. Following heart attacks, tissues are usually damaged and this creates problems for returning the person to health.
“We have a lot more work to do, but so far this is very promising,” study co-author Glenn Gaudette, also of WPI, says in a press statement. “Adapting abundant plants that farmers have been cultivating for thousands of years for use in tissue engineering could solve a host of problems limiting the field.”
If you have children, one of the first memories you likely have of your baby is the nurses taking the infant away to “wash” or “bathe” them. Washing children immediately after they’ve entered the world is almost a hospital tradition at this point. And for many parents, the visual of a baby with a waxy, frothy coating, justifies the act.
Our new beautiful baby is, well, dirty. Right?
“It’s important to remember that babies aren’t born dirty,” explains Dr. Ira Jaffe to Woman’s Day, a board certified maternal fetal medicine OBGYN doctor in NYC. “The way they’re designed to come out is how they should come out.”
What’s covering our babies isn’t a filthy slime, rather, a substance called vernix caseosa and its a healthy idea to leave it on for a day.
A 2004 study by ACOG’s Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology shows that vernix caseosa is really just another layer of protective skin. It’s largely a part of the baby’s new and evolving immune system. It guards against bacteria and fungus. Pneumonia and meningitis are two illnesses that the coating protects against. We go to great lengths to vaccinate babies, but for decades we’ve been stripping them of their greatest natural immune component.
In the absence of chorioamnionitis, vernix and amniotic fluid contain an organized pool of antimicrobial peptides with a defined spectrum of bioactivity against common bacterial and fungal pathogens.
Women who give birth are exhausted, stressed and ripe to be influenced by hospital mantra. But now people are advocating for changes in hospital procedures as a way to clean up the process (pun intended).
“Nothing is better for a baby than laying against a mother’s skin,” said Dr. Jaffe.
All too often, this isn’t the case; instead, the baby is whisked away for baths and immediate umbilical cord cuttings and Vitamin K shots. The mothers are often reduced to laying alone in recovery beds while fathers watch their baby get a shot and a bath through a small window frame. A mother’s chest contributes to keeping her baby’s body temperature a healthy warm. Mom’s chest can even cool the baby down when needed. In other words, the mother is the baby’s temperature regulator immediately following birth.
The Department of Health has even changed its tune over the matter.
The Department of Health in conjunction with the World Health Association has set-forth a protocol for newborns, and in the section regarding thorough immediate drying of thebaby (0-3 minutes after birth), it says “Do not wipe off vernix,” and “Do not bathe the newborn.”
But yet, hospitals around the country continue to act without logic and reason.
Monsanto, of course, is appealing….
SACRAMENTO – Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® and many other weed killers, is being added to California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced today.
The effective date of the listing will depend on the outcome of a request for a stay in the Fresno County Superior Court case Monsanto v OEHHA. The lawsuit challenged OEHHA’s ability to list the chemical. The trial court ruled in OEHHA’s favor, but Monsanto is appealing the decision and asking the Court of Appeal to issue a stay that would block the listing while the appeal is pending. OEHHA is opposing Monsanto’s request.
Proposition 65 is a right-to-know law that California voters approved in 1986. It requires the state to maintain a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Proposition 65 does not ban or restrict the use of listed chemicals. Instead, it requires businesses to provide warnings prior to causing a significant exposure to a listed chemical. It also prohibits discharges of the chemical into sources of drinking water.
The requirement to provide warnings takes effect one year after a chemical is added to the list. Warnings must be clear and reasonable and can be provided in a variety of ways, including on product labels or on signs near where the exposure can occur.
OEHHA is also proposing a regulatory “safe-harbor” level for glyphosate of 1100 micrograms per day, which means that exposures below that level are not considered a significant risk and would not require a warning. The proposal begins a 45-day public comment period that will end on May 22.
The safe-harbor level helps businesses determine when a warning is required. Once the warning requirement takes effect, businesses with 10 or more employees who cause exposures above the safe harbor level may need to provide warnings. It is not known at this time which products and exposures would exceed the safe-harbor level and require warnings.
Glyphosate is being added to the list because it was identified by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as causing cancer in animals. Proposition 65 requires that certain chemicals identified as carcinogens by IARC under the California Labor Code must be added to the list.
OEHHA is the lead agency for implementation of Proposition 65 and has established a website that provides information for Californians about their exposures to toxic chemicals from the products they buy and the places they go. The website – www.p65warnings.ca.gov (link is external) – is a central part of OEHHA’s efforts to update and improve the implementation of Proposition 65. The office also maintains and updates the Proposition 65 list of chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive effects.
In addition, OEHHA is the primary state entity for the assessment of risks posed by chemical contaminants in the environment. Its mission is to protect and enhance public health and the environment by scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances.
Contact: Sam Delson
(916) 324-0955 (O)
(916) 764-0955 (C)
Monsanto is embroiled in a bitter lawsuit with farmers, among many, who claim that their exposure to Roundup’s glyphosate chemical caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. During a court proceeding, it came to light that Monsanto potentially authored their own studies and simply had scientists sign the studies. The studies were centered around whether or not to include glyphosate as a carcinogen. According to Monsanto ghostwriters, glyphosate should not be considered a cause of cancer.
Essentially, a PR piece was accepted by the EPA as a standard, reliable study. No joke.
According to Yahoo!
Among the documents unsealed Tuesday was a February 2015 internal e-mail exchange at the company about how to contain costs for a research paper. The plaintiff lawyers cited it to support their claim that the EPA report is unreliable, unlike a report by an international agency that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
Monsanto Loses Bid to Keep Glyphosate Off List of Carcinogens
“A less expensive/more palatable approach” is to rely on experts only for some areas of contention, while “we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections,” one Monsanto employee wrote to another. “…but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” according to the e-mail, which goes to on say that’s how Monsanto handled the 2000 study.
The case is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2741, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). According to Monsanto writers, their company is doing great and everyone adores them. Not really, but maybe so….