The Difference Between A Cold And Flu – Try Nature’s Flu Shot

By Dave Mihalovic

There is no question that the cold virus is more stable in cold temperature, so it survives and lingers airborne much longer due to the dry, cold conditions. There is a difference between symptoms related to the cold virus and flu virus, but possibly the number one reason the human body is susceptible to the cold virus in the winter is its virulence.

Cold, low humidity air dries out the nasal passages and makes virus transmission more likely. Researchers have found that in winter, even the flu virus wears a coat, and it’s a coat that helps the virus spread through the air.

The symptoms we get during a viral illness are often the body’s attempt to get rid of the virus and to minimize damage. Sneezing ejects the virus from the nose, cough from the lungs and throat, vomiting from the stomach, and diarrhea from the intestines.

What most people don’t realize is that the flu is not very common at all. The symptoms of influenza infection can be hard to distinguish from those caused by other viruses that trigger the common cold. Chances are that if you’re 30 or over, it may be a cold. That’s the message from research showing that people aged 30 or more can expect just two bouts of flu per decade for the rest of their lives. Since the two illnesses share some similar symptoms, and both come during “cold and flu season,” the two often run together in people’s minds, but they are not the same.

 

With more than 200 viruses known to cause influenza-like illness (ILI), a person can get a flu shot and still become sick with what is described as “the flu”. According to CDC data, almost 90% of all influenza-type illnesses are NOT caused by the influenza virus, thus influenza viruses are ONLY active 14% of the time.

The symptoms we get during a viral illness are often the body’s attempt to get rid of the virus and to minimize damage. Sneezing ejects the virus from the nose, cough from the lungs and throat, vomiting from the stomach, and diarrhea from the intestines. Fever makes it difficult for the virus to reproduce. The topic of viral illnesses will always remain somewhat confusing, since the body has a relatively small number of symptoms with which to respond to an ever-changing, wide variety of viruses. While colds and flus may overlap, the differences between them are important.

The common cold is centered in the nose.

Over 200 different types of viruses can cause a cold. Rhinoviruses, which means “nose viruses”, are the most common cause. Respiratory syncitial viruses (RSV) and a host of others can produce colds. Of note, influenza viruses occasionally cause illnesses with symptoms of the common cold.

The three most frequent symptoms of a cold are nasal stuffiness, sneezing, and runny nose. Throat irritation is often involved (but not with a red throat). Adults and older children with colds generally have minimal or no fever. Infants and toddlers often run a fever in the 100 to 102 degree range.

Depending on which virus is the culprit, the virus might also produce a headache, cough, postnasal drip, burning eyes, muscle aches, or a decreased appetite, but in a cold, the most prominent symptoms are in the nose. (By the way, forcing a child to eat with a decreased appetite due to a cold is both unnecessary and unhelpful, but do encourage drinking plenty).

If anything, using the term “common” with cold is an understatement. Colds are the most prevalent infectious disease. Children average 3 to 8 colds per year (younger children and boys are on the higher end of the range). Colds occur mostly in the winter (even in areas with mild winters). In areas where there is no winter, colds are most common in the rainy season. Parents get about half as many colds as their children do. Moms tend to get at least one more cold per year than Dads.

When someone has a cold, the nasal secretions are teeming with cold viruses. Coughing, drooling, and talking are all unlikely ways to pass a cold. But sneezing, nose-blowing, and nose-wiping are the means by which the virus spreads. You can catch a cold by inhaling the virus if you are sitting close to a sneeze, or by touching your nose, eyes, or mouth after you have touched something contaminated by infected nasal secretions.

Once you have “caught” a cold, the symptoms begin in 1 to 5 days. Usually irritation in the nose or a scratchy feeling in the throat is the first sign, followed within hours by sneezing and a watery nasal discharge.

Within one to three days, the nasal secretions usually become thicker and perhaps yellow or green — this is a normal part of the common cold and not a reason for antibiotics. During this period, children’s eardrums are usually congested, and there may well be fluid behind the ears — whether or not the child will end up with a true bacterial infection. Yes, antibiotics are too frequently prescribed for this as well.

The entire cold is usually over all by itself in about 7 days, with perhaps a few lingering symptoms (cough) for another week. If it lasts longer, consider another problem, such as a sinus infection or allergies.

While it lasts, the common cold is primarily a head cold. While you may feel tired or have aches, the illness is centered in the nose, and most of the symptoms are above the neck.

With the flu, you are sick all over.

The flu can be a much more serious illness. The most deadly recent worldwide outbreak was the flu epidemic at the beginning of this century and killed more than 20 million people. Even today, more than 36,000 people in the United States die from the flu each year — primarily those who are weak from advanced age or a major illness.

A single family of viruses — the influenza viruses — causes the flu. Most people get the flu once every year or two or three, and the illness is unpleasant but not usually dangerous. Unlike the common cold, both adults and children with the flu generally have a fever.

The flu can take many forms, but here we will describe the most typical:

Classically, the flu begins abruptly, with a fever in the 102 to 106 degree range (with adults on the lower end of the spectrum), a flushed face, body aches, and marked lack of energy. Some people have other systemic symptoms such as dizziness or vomiting. The fever usually lasts for a day or two, but can last five days.

Somewhere between day 2 and day 4 of the illness, the “whole body” symptoms begin to subside, and respiratory symptoms begin to increase. The virus can settle anywhere in the respiratory tract, producing symptoms of a cold, croup, sore throat, bronchiolitis, ear infection, and/or pneumonia.

The most prominent of the respiratory symptoms is usually a dry, hacking cough. Most people also develop a sore (red) throat and a headache. Nasal discharge and sneezing are not uncommon. These symptoms (except the cough) usually disappear within 4 to 7 days. Sometimes there is a second wave of fever at this time. The cough and tiredness usually lasts for weeks after the rest of the illness is over.

Inhaling droplets from coughs or sneezes is the most common way to catch the flu. Symptoms appear 1 to 7 days later (usually 2-3 days). The flu is airborne and quite contagious, and with its short incubation period it often slams into a community all at once, creating a noticeable cluster of school and work absences. The flu usually arrives in the winter months. Within 2 or 3 weeks of its arrival, most of the classroom has had it.

The other major difference between the common cold and the flu is that the flu is preventable. In any given year, two or three different strains of influenza virus cause most of the flu around the world.

9 Ways To Keep Your Immune System Strong Against The Cold Virus

1) USE NATURE’S FLU SHOT

Recipe:
8 Fresh Lemons
2 Fresh Oranges
2 Cups Pineapple Juice
2 Tbsp. Ground Ginger
1 Tbsp. Apple Cider Vinegar
1/2 tsp. Ground Tumeric
1/2 tsp. Cayenne Pepper
2 Tbsp. Raw Honey
1 bulb Garlic (can increase to 2 if tolerated)

Blend all ingredients and store in a glass jar. This recipe works exceptionally well if you start taking it just as you start to feel symptoms. At that point, take 1 cup 3 times per day until symptoms resolve.

2) LIVE IN A WARMER CLIMATE

Unfortunately, this is the number one and best preventive defense against the cold virus, but not much consolation to those living far from equator. Sorry Minnesota.

3) TAKE THE SUNSHINE VITAMIN

Vitamin D is shown to reduce the risk of flu to a third of what it would otherwise be. The correct daily dose of vitamin D3 for adults is approximately 5,000 IU/day, not the 200 to 600 IU recommended by the Institute of Medicine, the National Institutes of Medicine and the FDA. You may even be shocked to know that there are many physicians in both Canada and the United States who prescribe as much as 50,000 IU of vitamin D daily as a treatment for a long list of chronic diseases.

4) TAKE PROBIOTICS

Probiotics are live bacteria and yeasts that are good for your health, especially your digestive system. High potency Probiotic supplements such Laktokhan contain the exact ratio needed of live microorganisms that contribute to a natural healthy gut flora, which benefits health. Laktokhan helps to manage acute infectious diarrhea, and it reduces the risk of, and helps manage, antibiotic-associated diarrhea.

5) STAY AWAY FROM SUCROSE

Its ability to impair and depress the immune system is unparalleled.

6) STAY AWAY FROM ALL VACCINES, ESPECIALLY THE FLU SHOT

Flu vaccines still contain mercury and only work to depress the immune system. Regardless of what statistics your government has released, the actual chances of a flu vaccine preventing the flu are less than 4 percent

7) USE VIRUS-FIGHTING HERBS

Some of the best immune stimulants are anti-viral herbs. Virus-fighting herbs include purple coneflower, pot marigold and black elder. Other important antiviral herbs include yarrow herb (Achillea millefolium), hyssop herb (Hyssopus officinalis), lemon balm herb (Melissa officinalis), St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) marjoram herb (Origanum majorana), oregano herb (Origanum vulgare), heal-all herb (Prunella vulgaris), rosemary herb (Rosmarinus officinalis) and blue vervain herb (Verbena hastata). It is important to begin taking the herbs as soon as you think you are getting sick. Take your formulation four to six times per day until you are better.

8) DETOX

Probably nothing else you do will make a greater difference in your overall health than a detox. The liver is so important to our well-being that many healers maintain that most diseases cannot develop in the body with a clean liver, so a liver detox is essential at times. Supplementing for liver health is vital but there are plenty of foods that can also detox the entire body.

9) DEEP ACTING IMMUNE TONICS

Another group of herbs that help to improve and optimize immune function are the immune tonics. These herbs are deeper acting than immune stimulants, but take longer to work. They include North American ginseng root (Panax quinquefolius), lacquered polypore or reishi mushroom (Ganoderma lucidum), artist’s conk (Ganoderma applanatum), Chinese milkvetch root (Astragalus membranaceus) and Siberian ginseng root (Eleutherococcus senticosus). Combine two or three immune tonics and take them three to four times per day for two to three months. Immune tonics are not suitable for treating infections in progress. They are used for preventive purposes or to optimize immune function and work best after first doing several cycles of immune stimulants.

There are also many other important antioxidant nutrients that support immune functioning. These include the carotenes, flavonoids and other polyphenols such as those found in green tea, grape seed, pine bark and various berry extracts. The best food sources of immune-enhancing nutrients are fresh fruits, vegetables, and mushrooms.

Sources:
plos.org
sciencedaily.com
cdc.gov

Also Read: The Top 12 Best Foods and Antioxidants While You Are Sick With A Cold or Flu

Dave Mihalovic writes for PreventDisease.com, where this article first appeared.




University Study Laments “Just The Facts” Aren’t Enough To Convince Women Of GMO Safety

gmosBy Brandon Turbeville

A recent series of focus groups conducted by researchers at the University of Adelaide is now demonstrating two things clearly: first, that Big Ag is growing increasingly desperate in its attempts to convince average consumers to continue purchasing their toxic products and remain unaware of any potential dangers. Second, that the unhealthy obsession with academia under the misapplied name of science is more akin to a religion than anything involving critical thought.

The results of the focus groups conducted by Dr. Heather Bray and Professor Rachel Ankeny was published in the journal New Genetics and Society and essentially acts as a brainstorming effort as to how big corporations through their minions at the university level can be more effective at convincing most people to trust GMOs.

The academics were primarily focused on women because as they state, previous studies have shown women as tending to be more opposed to GMOs than men. Like any good marketing strategist, the professors sought out the reason why.

“GM foods are an important issue for the community, and with women still playing greater roles in the provision of home care and food preparation, we need to better understand how women are thinking and what their values are in relation to these issues,”  Professor Rachel Ankeny said.

 

The results presented as represented in a press release by University of Adelaide called  “GM foods: Why presenting ‘just the facts’ won’t work” are as follows:

“All of the women with science backgrounds used evidence to support their stance, but the way they did so came as a surprise to us,” says co-author Dr Heather Bray, also from the University’s School of Humanities and Senior Research Associate in the Food Values Research Group.

“Women who had backgrounds in plant science said the lack of evidence of harm meant that GM food was safe to eat. But the women in health sciences said it was a lack of evidence of safety that made them cautious about consuming GM food. These perceptions are based on two very different concepts of risk, despite both groups being highly educated in science.

“For women without science backgrounds, GM food presented ‘unknown’ risks, and hence was to be avoided. There was a range of other issues apart from the science that arose in our study, a major one being a general lack of trust of science,” Dr Bray says.

Notice, however, that Bray attributes concerns of women without “science backgrounds” to a “general lack of trust of science.” Clearly, Bray, PhD that she is, is so wrapped up in the false appeal to authority that much of her career field rests upon, that she seems incapable of acknowledging the fact that women without science degrees might have legitimate concerns.

For Bray, an “uneducated woman” who distrusts GMOs is an uneducated woman who distrusts science. Obviously for Bray, GMOs equals science.

And this is at the crux of the recent and massive volley of propaganda regarding questions of health and safety, the environment and even culture. The debate, not about what has the most evidence, but what is presented as “science” or anti-science. What is considered “science” by most academics is not science at all. Likewise this is the case regarding the “science” presented in the mainstream media, government and corporations.

Burn belly fat by avoiding this one food (Ad)

Science, for the managing class does not mean the practice of rigorous study and experimentation – it means a politicial philosophy and a common idealogy held throughout these fields and industries. Thus, in the same way that religions tend to vary far away from what their original stories and figureheads represented, many science fetishists are not scientists or fans of science at all. They are fanatical adherents to an idealogy they scarcely understand. In 2017, the white lab coat is replacing the frock as a code of dress representing control of the mind. This is why we have individuals describing nature and science as the main driver for the existence of our world (earth, planetary system, ecosystem, etc.) while missing the fact that science is the study of those forces and not the force itself. For those who may decry religion, such a statement is eerily close to saying God created the world, but I digress…

What is even more telling about this specific study, however, is the fact that the researchers are so frightened of facts.

“It’s important for scientists to realise that science has economic, social, and cultural impacts, and if people are presented with ‘just the facts’, the discussion leaves out critical topics and values,” Professor Ankeny says.

“People — including people highly educated in science — come to these issues with their own ideas, experiences, and values, and they are not necessarily going to endorse particular scientific theories or applications based simply on facts being provided to them.”

In other words, Ankeny and presumably her patrons (or more accurately, the university’s patrons) are worried that the facts might not convince the average consumer. They conclude that the consumer may need a little nudging and that, admitted by the researchers themselves, is the entire purpose of the study. As for the patrons, we should mention in passing that the University of Adelaide is conducting so many studies on GMOs such as the one discussed in this article by virtue of funding by Big Ag corporations like DuPont who have a financial interest in ensuring that consumers aren’t frightened by the facts and continue to consume their products.

Indeed, in 2013 alone University of Adelaide took in $5.4 million dollars for industry linked research. It’s nice work if you can get it, even if you do have to live from grant to grant.

While this might seem like a conflict-of-interest to anyone who has interest in actual science, or the wellbeing of the public or the environment, that certainly won’t stop academics and their tiny community of colleagues from screaming heretic! and assembling the stakes no matter the fact that their “science” is grossly tainted with a conflict-of-interest, something that at one time would have prevented the study from being taken seriously.

But that was an older time where science was not as well developed. Concerns over conflict-of-interest are so passe. Just think about it. Scientists of that bygone era were busy concerning themselves with evidence and results when they could have been greasing their pockets, promoting products and lowering the standards of education to the point that a college degree is not so much a sign of education but a sign of someone who can successfully regurgitate dogma about racism, sexism, homophobia and a litany of questions about theories surrounding gender.

Science? Who needs it? Let’s let the industry do the hard work while the scientists sit back in their modern day temples and accept the first fruits of young college loans as a sacrifice of the people.

But before you think that I am using hyperbole, this study is not just about GMOs, the authors actually say that the information that they have gathered from these focus groups can be applied to other areas such as climate change, vaccines and water fluoridation. Even nuclear energy can benefit from understanding why some women just don’t buy the bullshit.

As Bray says, “shared values are an important foundation for science communication, and we hope that our work cancontribute to the development of better engagement strategies for both scientists and the public.”

Of course, by shared values, Bray means simply uniform indoctrination. In this case, “shared value” would be the worship of “experts” and the ability to scream science! in the face of anyone who dares question the status quo and to have that person sit silently mulling over their guilt and their inherent failure to be part of the “system of shared values.”

While it is not surprising that industry science would be investigating why consumers, especially women, (first you get the women, then you’ve got the children, so follow the men) it is a sign of confidence on the part of industry and a sign of shame on the general public that such statements would be uttered openly.

Yet the movement is at hand and the new religion is gathering more converts by the day. Not because it has better evidence or better reasoning but because it has “shared values” and many magnetic personalities behind it.

But this coordinated campaign is a much bigger agenda than this study or conflict-of-interest, Big Ag, academia and government. For that reason we certainly don’t want to put too much blame on the researchers of this study. After all, everyone has to eat, even if their food is genetically modified.


Image modified by Natural Blaze via thedailyenglishshow – CC BY, Clipartkid

Get a nifty FREE eBook – Like at Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Brandon Turbevillearticle archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies,Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria,and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 950 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Originally posted: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/02/study-laments-just-the-facts-convince-women-gmos-safety.html




Zero waste: German supermarket sells only salvaged food

foodA new kind of supermarket opened in Cologne Germany this year. The supermarket, The Good Food, is different because they only sell salvaged food that would have been thrown away or left to rot. There are now three stores like this one in the European Union.  The Good Food is unique because shoppers get to choose how much they pay for the products. There are no fixed prices.

A new way to shop for groceries

Owner Nicole Klaski goes out ambitiously into the fields after the crops have been harvested. She gathers a variety of vegetables that have been left behind, deemed misshapen or declared too ugly to sell.  She brings back different kinds of organic produce and sells it for a fraction of the cost. Klaski also offers out-of-date, overstocked non-perishable products that manufacturers and stores would typically throw away. She puts these products on shelves labeled “past the date but delicious.”

Producers and distributors gladly give her crates of products they can’t sell. Customers are urged to test the out-of-date products by observing their color and smell. “The expiry dates on products are only a suggestion for the consumer,” Klaski said, speaking with DW. “Most of the products last much longer.” She’s also aware that problems may arise with outdated food. “Of course, if something happens we will have to take the responsibility,” she said. “But we are even willing to do that; it is worth trying.”

The store isn’t solely interested in making a profit. The Good Food focuses on raising awareness on the issues of food waste and over-consumption. All the furniture in the store is recycled and reused, too. The hope is to encourage more people to practice sustainable living.

(RELATED: For more information on sustainable living, visit homesteading.news)

Combating food waste to reach the most disadvantaged

It is estimated that 1.1 billion people live on less than one dollar a day. This directly impacts what they can afford to eat. For instance, the poorest families in Guatemala often live in one room huts and struggle to put beans and rice on their dinner table each night. These ambitious, caring people are often forced to decide whether to send their kids to school or to feed their families.

The richest countries, on the other hand, throw away millions of tons of fresh food each year because that food doesn’t look desirable or meet consumer preferences. Tons of good food is left in fields to rot because it doesn’t fit industry standards. It might be “misshapen,” bruised, too big, or too small. Right now 1.3 billion tons of food is wasted around the world each year. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 900 million hungry people could be taken care of if the food system could prevent just twenty five percent of the current food waste.

Thankfully, entire countries and businesses are beginning to tackle the problem of food waste, to help change consumers’ perspective on their consumption habits. The problem of food waste is pervasive, but it’s great to see people like Nicole Klaski taking a stand and doing something about it. Her supermarket, The Good Food,  is a true act of thanksgiving and appreciation.

Sources include:

DW.com

DW.com

YouTube.com

Originally Posted: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-08-zero-waste-german-supermarket-sells-only-salvaged-food.html
Author: 

 



Do you know whats in your milk?

Milk“Drink your milk” was a phrase often heard growing up. Milk was touted as the best source for calcium and vitamin D. It was considered a very healthy drink and offered in many households at every meal.

With the commercialization of dairy farming, we have strayed pretty far from wholesome and natural when it comes to how dairy cows are raised and fed. This has a direct impact on the milk they produce and in turn on the humans who drink it.

Dairy cows raised in confinement are fed grains that are treated with chemicals. Those chemicals go through the cows’ system and are still viable in the milk itself. 

Cows are often fed antibiotics as well as growth hormones such as rBGH which is genetically engineered to increase the milk production.

At first, this may sound ok… Antibiotics keep away infections and increased milk production helps keep dairy farmers in business, right?

While the answer is yes to both of those, there are side effects. Hormone treated milk differs from natural milk in that it contains boosted levels of the IGF-1 hormone. This has been linked to cancerous tumors. IGF-1 has been cited as a major cause of colon, prostate, and breast cancer in humans. Additionally, milk produced artificially in the cow’s “negative energy phase” tends to have increased levels of pus, making the milk turn sour far faster for a shorter shelf life.

When it comes to rBGH, it reduces the casein protein in milk due to an increased thyroid hormone enzyme. 

Organic is a better choice but still, has been pasteurized which compromises the nutritional content. The process destroys part of the Vitamin C in milk and encourages the growth of potentially harmful bacteria. Pasteurization also makes the majority of the calcium insoluble and iodine contained reduced. 

The best option if you want to drink milk is grass-fed RAW Milk. It is not easy to find these days. Check with your local health food store for possible local farming sources. Food and Thought here in Naples does occasionally carry it. 

When you get right down to it, humans were not designed to drink cow’s milk at all. That was intended for baby calfs. Better choices are other milks like coconut, almond, and rice. Calcium can be obtained by eating a diet high in leafy green vegetables, beans, fish, nuts, seeds, even oatmeal, and oranges.

To learn more about your health and nutrition peruse our site or come in for a personalized appointment. www.chiropractorbonitasprings.com  (239) 947-1177

Originally Posted: http://chiropractorbonitasprings.com/blog/b_77295_do_you_know_whats_in_your_milk.html




Glyphosate (RoundUp) found to cause liver disease… how much are you eating at every meal?

GlyphosateCould a Roundup recall be in our future? One can only hope. Monsanto’s leading weedkiller has been the subject of controversy for a while now — and the evidence against the toxic chemical continues to pile up. New research that was published in early January by Scientific Reports reveals that the toxic herbicide’s primary ingredient, glyphosate, is extremely damaging to one of the human body’s most vital organs.

A research team from King’s College London have uncovered a grim truth about the ever-popular Roundup herbicide: it causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

What is NAFLD?

The liver, as you may know, is the second largest organ in the body. It performs a variety of important bodily functions, including removing harmful substances from your blood. It is normal for the liver to contain some fat cells, but when more than 5 to 10 percent of the organ’s mass is made up of fat, it is diagnosed as a fatty liver.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease refers to an overabundance of fat cells that have accumulated in the liver, due to causes not related to alcohol. NAFLD most commonly develops in people who are overweight or obese, diabetic, or have poor blood lipid profiles. Poor eating habits and abrupt weight loss can also contribute to the disease. It has been seen in people who do not meet any of these risk factors, like marathon runner Nick Giordano.

NAFLD may lead to inflammation of the liver, tissue scarring that contributes to the onset of cirrhosis, and may also lead to liver cancer or liver failure.

Glyphosate causes NAFLD

To conduct their two-year study, the research team from London exposed rats to levels of glyphosate on par with doses that are currently approved by regulators. Their results were the first to show a direct causal link between glyphosate consumption at an extremely low dose and the onset of a disease. (Keep up with the latest headlines about Roundup at Glyphosate.news)

In their conclusion, the study authors,  who were led by Dr. Michael Antoniou, declared, “Overall, metabolome and proteome disturbances showed a substantial overlap with biomarkers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its progression to steatohepatosis and thus confirm liver functional dysfunction resulting from chronic ultra-low dose glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) exposure.”

Toxicity studies in rats are generally accepted by regulators as good indicators of what ill effects a substance may have on human health — so it is clear that this study demonstrates the very real threat that glyphosate poses for humans. (RELATED: See more news about chemical pesticides at Pesticides.news)

Roundup is presently the most ubiquitous herbicide used across the country; it has permeated our food supply indefinitely. Traces of this toxic substance have even been been found in rainwater and air samples. It’s in our food, our tap water, and glyphosate residues have even been seen in breast milk and baby food.  The FDA has admitted to finding shocking amounts of glyphosate in popular foods. (Related: Learn more about contaminates in our food and water here.

“New testing conducted by an FDA-registered food safety lab found alarming levels of the chemical glyphosate (known as Monsanto’s Roundup weed-killer) in several very common foods. This independent research reveals that many popular foods have over 1000 times the glyphosate levels that have been established to be harmful,” reports the Waking Times. (Related: Stay current on FDA issues, policies and research at FDA.news)

And yet, this study shows that doses of glyphosate that are far below the currently approved amount here in the United States can cause NAFLD. The researchers exposed the rats to amounts of glyphosate equivalent to 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day — an amount well below the EU’s mandated 0.3mg per kilogram of body weight per day — and it still caused major health problems. Imagine what kind of damage the US’s allotted 1.75 mg per kilogram of body weight can do!

The research team noted, “The results showed that Roundup caused an increased incidence in signs of anatomical pathologies, as well as changes in urine and blood biochemical parameters suggestive of liver and kidney functional insufficiency.”

Dr. Antoniou added, “Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Sources:

WakingTimes.com

Nature.com

LiverFoundation.org

Source: http://naturalnews.com/2017-01-26-glyphosate-roundup-found-to-cause-liver-disease-how-much-are-you-eating-at-every-meal.html




Federal lawsuit against Monsanto filed by Portland, Oregon

monsantoMonsanto. Just the name itself inspires terrifying images of organically mutated super vegetables with a potential for causing sickness and even death. It has been a hotbed of discussion and debates for at least the past decade, despite continued federal government support from various agencies. It seemed as though the giant was unstoppable, at least on a national level, until recently. Unfortunately, it isn’t the company’s genetically modified farming that is drawing judicial backlash, although the foundation could be laid for larger future accountability.

This month the city of Portland, Oregon has filed a federal lawsuit against Monsanto over waterways being contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are tasteless, odorless, lab-created chemicals which contain chlorine, carbon and hydrogen atoms. While the manufacture of PCBs has been banned since 1979, it was produced in mass quantity for at least 50 years prior. (RELATED: Read more news about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals at Enviro.news)

PCBs have a broad range of consistencies, from light colored liquids to dark waxy solids. The initial benefits of PCBs include their electrical insulating properties, chemical stability and being non-flammable. Due to these capabilities, PCBs were used in a broad spectrum of industrial and commercial instances prior to 1979, such as: pigments and dyes, plasticizers in paint and rubber products, and electrical and heat transfer equipment.

Because these chemicals do not easily break down easily, they can remain for years and even decades circulating through the environment. Because of this, PCB materials can still be found present in many products and materials that were manufactured prior to the 1979 ban.  Many common items, often found in homes or businesses, could possibly contain PCBs.  Some of these items include caulking, cable insulation, floor finish, transformers and capacitors, plastics and even fluorescent light ballasts. This list represents just a portion of possible places that PCB contamination can still be found in modern daily life.

The Portland lawsuit alleges that Monsanto produced more than 1 billion pounds of PCBs and then knowingly discharged them into Portland area waterways and landfills. City attorney Tracy Reeve made the following statement regarding the issue: “Portland’s elected officials are committed to holding Monsanto accountable for its apparent decision to favor profits over ecological and human health…Monsanto profited from selling PCBs for decades and needs to take responsibility for cleaning up after the mess it created.”

The agricultural giant fired back, continuing their stance that they had stopped producing PCBs in any capacity following the 1979 ban. This is in stark contrast to released documents stating that Monsanto actually had knowledge that PCBs were contaminating fish, oysters and birds a decade prior in 1969 and that global contamination would endanger human health. The city of Portland is taking this one step further, contending that Monsanto had full knowledge as far back in time as 1937 that the products they were manufacturing would contribute to the degradation of a human being’s health.

Monsanto also released a statement that PCBs had not been produced in the United States for four decades and that Portland’s lawsuit against them was experimental with previously unheard of grounds. The response from Portland’s Port Deputy Director, Curtis Robinhold, is a reminder that the company did in fact generate incredible amounts of revenue and profit from products manufactured with PCBs and should therefore be held accountable for the cleanup of their contaminants.

Should Portland win this lawsuit, it will be an uphill battle as Monsanto has proven time and again that their influence in the government is strong and unwavering. It could also be the first domino to fall against the corporate giants as six other West Coast cities have also taken to holding Monsanto accountable through federal lawsuits. Should Portland, Seattle, Spokane, Berkeley, San Diego, San Jose and Oakland win their lawsuits, it would be the first steps toward victory over a company that has consistently bought its way out of regulations. (See also MonsantoMafia.com)

 

Sources:

NaturalBlaze.com

EcoWatch.com

Originally Posted: http://naturalnews.com/2017-01-16-federal-lawsuit-against-monsanto-filed-by-portland.html




First Human Injected with Controversial Genetically Modified Genes

dna-genes-science-medical-735-270For the first time in history, a human has been injected with genes edited using the CRISPR-Cas9 method. [1]

The experiment took place on 28 October 2016, when a team of Chinese scientists, led by oncologist Lu You at Sichuan University in Chengdu, delivered the genetically modified (GM) cells into a patient with aggressive lung cancer as part of a clinical trial at the West China Hospital in Chengdu. [2]

To protect the patient’s privacy, the details of the trial have not been released; but Lu said the trial “went smoothly.”

 

CRISPR is a tool that allows scientists to edit genomes “with unprecedented precision, efficiency, and flexibility,” according to Gizmodo. Dr. Marco Herold, laboratory head of the CRISPR facility at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia, explains it this way:

“The CRISPR technology relies on two components — an enzyme and a guide molecule. The guide molecule takes its enzyme to a gene which you want to modify, the enzyme cuts the gene, and then it can be repaired in many different ways. You can either change the function of the gene, take away the gene completely, or make the gene more active.”

Mad Science

The method is highly controversial. While CRISPR holds potential for new developments in medicine, agriculture, and other fields, there are deep concerns over the ethics of altering the human genome. For the Chinese trial, researchers had to gain approval from an ethics board at the West China Hospital. [1]

The cells involved in this particular trial are considered less of an ethical gray area because they won’t be passed down to offspring. But eventually, CRISPR could be used to edit embryo and sperm cells, which would usher in the age of “designer babies.” [3]

Source: Metro News

British researcher Kathy Niakin was given approval in February to edit human embryos, but only for basic research. The embryos will not be implanted, and must be destroyed after 14 days.

The Chinese experiment involved modifying the patient’s own immune cells to make them more effective at combating cancer cells, and then injecting them back into the patient.

The patient will receive a second injection; and the team plans to treat a total of 10 people, who will receive either 2, 3, or 4 injections. The primary purpose of the trial was to test the safety of the procedure. All the participants will be monitored for six months to determine whether the injections are causing serious adverse effects. The team will also be watching beyond the six-month mark to see whether the patients are benefiting from the treatment.

However, Naiyer Rizvi of Columbia University Medical Center in New York City doesn’t have much confidence that the trial will be successful in attacking the participants’ cancer. He said the process of extracting, genetically modifying, and multiplying cells is “a huge undertaking and not very scalable.” He added:

“Unless it shows a large gain in efficacy, it will be hard to justify moving forward.”

“Biomedical Sputnik”

Nature reports that the breakthrough could be a “biomedical sputnik,” referring to the Soviet Sputnik satellite that is believed to have sparked the space race between the Soviet Union and the United States. [4]

Back in June, the first U.S. human trial involving CRISPR-Cas9 was approved by a federal biosafety and ethics panel. The gene-editing method will be used to alter immune cells to attack three types of cancer. [3]

 

The first U.S. CRISPR trial was supposed to be conducted by Editas Medicine to try to treat a rare form of blindness called Leber congenital amaurosis. The condition affects only a few hundred people in the United States. The fact that the trial will occur in cancer patients instead suggests that CRISPR might be used against common diseases sooner than originally thought.

News of the Chinese trial could signal the beginning of an international race to implement CRISPR gene-editing techniques in clinics around the world. Carl June, who specializes in immunotherapy at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said:

“I think this is going to trigger ‘Sputnik 2.0′, a biomedical duel on progress between China and the United States, which is important since competition usually improves the end product.” [4]

June is the scientific adviser for the impending U.S. trial, which is expected to take place in early 2017.

In March 2017, a group at Peking University in Beijing hopes to launch three clinical trials using CRISPR against bladder, prostate, and renal-cell cancers. However, those trials currently lack approval and funding.

Sources:

[1] CNBC

[2] ABC

[3] PBS

[4] Nature

Metro News

Originally Published: http://naturalsociety.com/first-human-patient-injected-genetically-altered-genes-6264/
Author: Julie Fidler




Obama’s new policy registration may very well have ended all non-GMO agriculture in the US

gmobamaPresident Obama’s pen has stayed so busy signing executive orders (EO) that it’s surprising it hasn’t yet run dry, and as his days in the Oval Office wind down, he has added another one to his lengthy list of such orders. The recent “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats” EO is particularly significant in that it may have put a halt to all non-GMO agriculture in the United States.

Key points of the EO

Section 1 of the EO includes some disturbing points:

“As articulated in the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats and implemented in Presidential Policy Directive 2 (PPD-2), promoting global health security is a core tenet of our national strategy for countering biological threats. No single nation can be prepared if other nations remain unprepared to counter biological threats; therefore, it is the policy of the United States to advance the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), which is a multi-faceted, multi-country initiative intended to accelerate partner countries’ measurable capabilities to achieve specific targets to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats (GHSA targets), whether naturally occurring, deliberate, or accidental.” [Emphasis added]

Coordinated effort with military backup

Section 2 of the EO states that the “Council” will include personnel from a multitude of federal government agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Department of Defense (DOD) may “facilitate implementation and coordination of Department of Defense programs to further the GHSA, as well as provide technical expertise to measure and evaluate progress in countries the United States has made a commitment to assist.” In other words, the military will enforce this EO if deemed necessary.

Connection to GMOs

How does this tie in with GMOs? The government claims that farm animals are supposedly infected (but typically are not) and must be slaughtered to make way for their “vastly upgraded” counterparts, which are genetically engineered and thus patented and owned by global organizations. The public receives a fear-based agenda riddled with hysteria over disease threats, and they respond to that by willingly going along with the GMO agenda. It’s a convenient agenda for the powers that be, as it allows them to maintain tight control of the food supply while attempting to obliterate small and organic farms.

Unrealistic aims and better alternatives

The EO is titled “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats,” but achieving a world like that is unrealistic.  Infectious disease threats have always existed on this planet. The title implies a fear of infections, which is portrayed in the popular music video Vaccine Zombie by Mike Adams. As the lyrics say, “I’m afraid of invisible germs … .” Rather than promoting GMOs and toxic initiatives to address infectious disease concerns, a more effective approach involves educating people to lead healthy lifestyles through nutrition and other immune system-fortifying natural strategies.

Action steps

Don’t be fooled by the impressive- and altruistic-sounding title of this EO. Spread the word about GMO dangers by working to inform family and friends through intelligent conversations and the sharing of relevant online content. We can take back our food supply and end the danger of GMOs for ourselves and future generations. Stay tuned as the GMO issue continues to unfold, and be grateful that Obama’s days of signing his name to oppressive executive orders are rapidly winding down as the January inauguration approaches.

Sources:

NaturalBlaze

WhiteHouse

NaturalNews

Originally Posted:
Author: 




Hundreds of GMO Studies BUSTED By Discovery of Major Conflicts of Interest

conflict_of_interest_1200x600By Brandon Turbeville

Researchers affiliated with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research recently announced the results of their study regarding potential conflicts of interest and published studies on GM crops.

The study was published by the journal PLOS One and determined that a large portion of studies on genetically modified crops were rife with conflicts of interest.

Most of these studies were tainted because someone working on the study was also an employee of a GM-producing company either as an author or having received funds directly from the company.

Explore: Scientist Group Slams GMO-Pushing Nobel Laureates In Damning Letter

Out of 579 published studies that were analyzed, around 40% showed a conflict of interest. “We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40% of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest,” said the authors of the study.

 

The researchers also noted that studies with conflict of interest had a much higher likelihood of presenting a favorable outcome for GMOs when compared to those without.

The authors stated,

In particular, we found that, compared to the absence of COI (conflict of interest), the presence of a COI was associated with a 50% higher frequency of outcomes favorable to the interests of the GM crop company.

The majority of these studies were American – 404 in total – and 83 Chinese.

“The most important point was how we also showed there is a statistical link between the presence of conflicts of interest and a study that comes to a favorable conclusion for GMO crops,” said Thomas Guillemaud, Director of Research at Francis National Institute for Agricultural Research. “We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many.”

See: GMO Propagandist Who Said ‘Trust Science’ Got Funds From Monsanto

It should also be noted that the study itself was limited because it only investigated direct financial conflict of interest. It did not include conflicts of interest such as authors being members of advisory boards, co-holders of patents, or consultants to GM companies.

This study, thus, shows the incredible level of corruption, politicization, and deceit now present in the scientific community, particularly in the Western world. If academics and scientists want to know why more and more people distrust their claims, this is a perfect example.


This article (Hundreds of GMO Studies BUSTED By Discovery of Major Conflicts of Interest) can be republished under a Creative Commons license with  attribution to Brandon Turbeville, source and Natural Blaze.com, keeping links and bio intact. Image: GM Watch

Get a nifty FREE eBook – Like at Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Brandon Turbevillearticle archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies,Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria,and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 600 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Originally Posted: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/12/gmo-studies-conflicts-of-interest.html




Common insecticides found to be far more dangerous to health than previously believed

Neonicotinoidssunset-farm-crops-field-e1471505264490, a class of pesticides in wide use, may be more destabilizing to agriculture than previously presumed, according to a new study from Penn State.

“The team’s research challenges the previously held belief that neonicotinoid seed coatings have little to no effect on predatory insect populations,” ScienceDaily summarized.

The findings suggest that more work needs to be done to “work the bugs out,” as it were.

As Natural News has outlined, seeds are coated with neonicotinoids before planting instead of being sprayed on growing crops. Thus, a plant absorbs the entire insecticide component.

The seven different chemicals that make up the neonicotinoid family are reportedly known to be extremely toxic to the environment despite being promoted as a safer alternative to traditional pyrethroid pesticides.

The “dysfunctional” family includes acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam.

Resembling nicotine, neonicotinoids exert an impact on the central nervous systems of insects and are sometimes called neonics for short. They are commonly deployed for crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton.

In 2013, the European Union imposed a temporary, multi-year ban on neonicotinoids out of concerns for the harm to the bee population through nectar and pollen. Earlier this year, Maryland became the first state to ban neonicotinoids, as of  January 1, 2018, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched a review project that is due to report its findings in 2018.

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on an incremental basis ended its use of neonicotinoids because of concerns over the global decline in pollinators such as bees and butterflies.

In the newly published Penn State study, researchers performed a statistical meta-analysis of about 1000 observations from 20 field studies in North America and Europe that evaluated the effect of neonicotinoids on predatory insects.

The results suggest that neonicotinoids may have a disruptive effect ecosystem, explained co-author Margaret R. Douglas. “Predatory insects contribute billions of dollars a year to agriculture through the elimination of crop pest insects. We have found that neonicotinoid seed coatings reduce populations of these natural enemies 10 to 20 percent.”

“This result suggests that neonicotinoids are reducing populations of natural enemies at least partly through their toxic effects rather than simply by reducing the availability of their crop pest foods,” she added.

As published in the PeerJ journal, the researchers wrote that “Our finding that insects were more strongly affected by seed-applied neonicotinoids than were non-insect groups (mainly spiders and mites) suggests that toxin exposure is at least partly responsible for the overall negative effect we observed, and raises the question of how insect natural enemies are being exposed to these seed-applied toxins.”

The study seemed to suggest that neonicotinoids and pyrethroids had about the same effect on native predators, but that more research is necessary in this area.

Co-author John F. Tooker proposed that farmers adopt an integrated pest management strategy that takes a combination of techniques into consideration, with insecticides possibly included as an option, depending on the circumstances.

“The researchers note that their results may help farmers and pest management professionals better weigh the costs and benefits of neonicotinoid seed treatments versus alternatives,” Science Daily explained.

IPM “is the best chance we have of conserving beneficial insect species while maintaining productivity in our agricultural systems,” the professor noted.

In a prior study published in 2014, the same researchers similarly concluded that neonicotinoids may reduce crop yields by wiping out native predators of crop pests.

Some 800 scientific studies previously reached the conclusion that neonicotinoids pose an ominous DDT-like threat to wildlife and the ecosystem. Plants treated with neonicotinoids have also been shown to poison birds and fish in addition to insects.

Sources:

ScienceDaily.com

PeerJ.com

Originally Published: http://naturalnews.com/2016-12-21-common-insectidies-found-to-be-far-more-dangerous-to-health-than-previously-believed.html
Author: