FDA Cover’s Up Deaths in Drug Trials

FDA

FDA

Does the habitual use of antidepressants do more harm than good to many patients? Absolutely, says one expert in a new British Medical Journal report. Moreover, he says that the federal Food and Drug Administration might even be hiding the truth about antidepressant lethality.

In his portion of the report, Peter C. Gotzsche, a professor at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark, said that nearly all psychotropic drug use could be ended today without deleterious effects, adding that such “drugs are responsible for the deaths of more than half a million people aged 65 and older each year in the Western world.”

Gotzsche, author of the 2013 book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, further notes in the BMJ that “randomized trials that have been conducted do not properly evaluate the drugs’ effects.” He adds, “Almost all of them are biased because they included patients already taking another psychiatric drug.”

Hiding or fabricating data about harmful side effects

The FDA’s data is incomplete at best and intentionally skewed at worst, he insisted:

Under-reporting of deaths in industry funded trials is another major flaw. Based on some of the randomised trials that were included in a meta-analysis of 100,000 patients by the US Food and Drug Administration, I have estimated that there are likely to have been 15 times more suicides among people taking antidepressants than reported by the FDA – for example, there were 14 suicides in 9,956 patients in trials with fluoxetine and paroxetine, whereas the FDA had only five suicides in 52,960 patients, partly because the FDA only included events up to 24 hours after patients stopped taking the drug.

He said that he was most concerned about three classes of drugs: antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants, saying they are responsible for 3,693 deaths a year in Denmark alone. When scaling up that figure in relation to the U.S. and European Union together, he estimated that 539,000 people die every year because of the medications.

“Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm – by dropping all antidepressants, ADHD drugs, and dementia drugs (as the small effects are probably the result of unblinding bias) and using only a fraction of the antipsychotics and benzodiazepines we currently use,” Gotzsche wrote.

“This would lead to healthier and more long lived populations. Because psychotropic drugs are immensely harmful when used long-term, they should almost exclusively be used in acute situations and always with a firm plan for tapering off, which can be difficult for many patients,” he added.

Gotzsche’s views were disputed in the same BMJ piece by Allan Young, professor of mood disorders at King’s College London, and psychiatric patient John Crace.

“More than a fifth of all health-related disability is caused by mental ill health, studies suggest, and people with poor mental health often have poor physical health and poorer (long-term) outcomes in both aspects of health,” they wrote.

They also insisted that psychiatric drugs are “rigorously examined for efficacy and safety, before and after regulatory approval.”

 

Source:  globalresearch.ca

Chronic abuse of Coca-Cola

 

 

Why is Coca-Cola bad for YOu?

Coca-Cola kills

Coca-Cola kills

 

A recent study showed how drinking too much diet soda for a long period of time can end up hurting your teeth as much as chronic abuse of methamphetamines or crack cocaine.

The acids in each substance eat away at tooth enamel, the hard outer surface of the tooth that protects your pearly whites from cavities, cracks, and discoloration.

Soda doesn’t just rot your teeth. Either sugar-free or sweetened soft drinks have at one point been linked to obesity, depression, and diabetes.

We’ve gathered the scariest findings from recent soda studies:

  • Soda increases your risk of heart attack. Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, published March 2012 in the journal Circulation, found that drinking just one sugary beverage a day was associated with a 20 percent increase in a man’s risk of having a heart attack over a 22-year period.
  • Lots of sugar drinks change your metabolism. A researcher at Bangor University in England kept track of 11 healthy men and women as they drank a Super Gulp’s worth of sugary drink (about 140 grams of sugar) every day for four weeks. In the study, published in the European Journal of Nutrition in June of 2012, researchers found that their metabolism changed after the four weeks, making it more difficult for them to burn fat and lose weight.
  • Soda has possible carcinogens. An independent study commissioned by the Center for Science in the Public Interest in 2012 uncovered 4-methylimidazole, or 4-MI, in Coke, Diet Coke, Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. The compound is used in the brown coloring in these sodas, and has been shown to sicken animals. The study found levels of this compound were higher than the maximum limit allowed (without a warning label) in food in California.
  • Even diet soda can be bad. Researchers at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine found a link between older adults who drank diet soda daily and a 44 percent higher chance of heart attack and stroke.
  • Soda could make you lose your mind. Scientists discovered BVO, a preservative and flame-retardant for plastic, in citrus sodas like Mountain Dew. The substance can cause nerve disorders and memory loss. A case report from 1997 explained a case of poisoning, possibly from drinking 2 to 4 liters of cola containing BVO a day.
  • Soda is linked to asthma. In a study published in Respirology in January 2012, researchers in Australia studied 16,907 people aged 16 and over in South Australia for two years. They found an association between a heightened risk for asthma and other breathing conditions and drinking more than half a liter soda every day.
  • Soda builds fat deposits all over your body. A Danish study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in February of 2012 followed a group of obese and overweight people for six months, as they either drank a liter per day of soda, or instead drank milk containing the same amount of calories, water or diet cola. They found that the group consuming sugary drinks ended up with a higher amount of fat in the liver and muscles than other groups. This kind of fat is bad because it can lead to heart disease later.
  • Soda consumption is associated with teen violence. In a 2011 study of Boston high school kids, published in the journal Injury Prevention, researchers saw that the more soft drinks teens drank, the more likely they were to be involved in violent acts, like pushing, shoving and getting into fights, according to a Harvard study, even when other factors like home and family life were removed.
  • Soda makes you gain a ton of weight. In 2011, researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center announced results at the American Diabetes Association meeting, from a study of older adults across 10 years. They saw that any diet soda intake (compared to those with no diet soda intake) was linked to a 70 percent waistline increase over a decade; those who drank two diet sodas a day were linked to even larger weight gain — a 500 percent waist expansion.
  • Soda could shorten your lifespan. The high levels of phosphorus in dark cola have some researchers concerned it could shorten lifespan. In one study, published in the FASEB Journal in 2010, the mice with high phosphorus levels in their blood had shortened lifespans by an about a quarter.
  • Most soda cans contain BPA. The epoxy resin called BPA used to keep the acids in soda from reacting with the metal in cans. The substance is found in tons of plastic and metal containers and researchers are worried that it can interfere with human hormones. In studies, it has been linked to infertility, obesity and some cancers.
Coca-Cola kills

Coca-Cola kills

Coca-Cola ‘Addiction’ kills children

Coca Cola kills:

Coca Cola kills

Coca Cola kills

 

There is no health in Coca-Cola beverages regarding human rights, the environment or your health! Coca-Cola remains under fire for producing unhealthy products that are fueling the obesity and diabetes epidemic throughout the world because of the high sugar and caloric content.

Phosphoric Acid in Coca-Cola and Diet Coke has been shown to destroy bones by contributing to osteoporosis and destroying teeth. Aspartame, now known as AminoSweet, has been linked to numerous diseases and health problems. In addition, there are food dyes and other chemical additives in Coke products that are known carcinogens. Due to the mass marketing and consumption of Coke products, millions are addicted to these products due to the caffeine, sugar and aspartame.

Coke is also guilty of marketing some products as “healthy” such as VitaminWater and Evigna. Experts consider these claims as false advertising and there are current lawsuits against Coke because of their VitaminWater advertising.

In the United States, because of public pressure, Coca-Cola has had to less aggressively market their products to children. However, around the world, the company continues to push their products to addict children where that pressure does not exist. To Coke executives and board members, profits take precedence over morality, ethics and the well-being of children.

Like the cigarette companies, Coke circumvents attempts to protect young people whose health is jeopardized by these products. Perhaps there should be a warning similar to the one on cigarette packages: “Coke Products May Be Hazardous To Your Health.”

“Monsanto Protection Act,” Provison snuck into Law

“Monsanto Protection Act,” and How Did It Sneak Into Law? A provison that protects the biotech giant from litigation passed Congress without many members knowing about it:

"MON 810", a variety of genetically modified maize (corn) developed by Monsanto Company is pictured January 23, 2012. The agricultural giant posted a large increase in quarterly earnings on strong results in corn seed sales in the US and Latin America

“MON 810”, a variety of genetically modified maize (corn) developed by Monsanto Company.

“MON 810”, a variety of genetically modified maize (corn) developed by Monsanto Company. The agricultural giant posted a large increase in quarterly earnings on strong results in corn seed sales in the US and Latin America. Slipped into the Agricultural Appropriations Bill, which passed through Congress last week, was a small provision that’s a big deal for Monsanto and its opponents. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks and has thus been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by activists who oppose the biotech giant. President Barack Obama signed the spending bill, including the provision, into law on Tuesday.

Since the act’s passing, more than a quarter million people have signed a petition opposing the provision and a rally, consisting largely of farmers organized by the Food Democracy Now network, protested outside the White House Wednesday. Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act’s content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed — little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings.

The Food Democracy Now and the Center for Food are directing blame at the Senate Appropriations Committee and its chairman, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. According to reports, many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the “Monsanto Protection Act” even existed within the spending bill, HR 933; they voted in order to avert a government shutdown.

“It sets a terrible precedent,” the International Business Times. “Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.”

Big Pharma criminal: Bribery, fraud, price fixing now public record

Big Pharma criminality no longer a conspiracy:

Big Pharma criminality no longer a conspiracy theory: Bribery, fraud, price fixing now a matter of public record

Big Pharma criminality no longer a conspiracy theory: Bribery, fraud, price fixing now a matter of public record

Those of us who have long been describing the pharmaceutical industry as a “criminal racket” over the last few years have been wholly vindicated by recent news. Drug and vaccine manufacturer Merck was caught red-handed by two of its own scientists faking vaccine efficacy data by spiking blood samples with animal antibodies. GlaxoSmithKline has just been fined a whopping $3 billion for bribing doctors, lying to the FDA, hiding clinical trial data and fraudulent marketing. Pfizer, meanwhile has been sued by the nation’s pharmacy retailers for what is alleged as an “overarching anticompetitive scheme” to keep generic cholesterol drugs off the market and thereby boost its own profits. The picture that’s emerging is one of a criminal drug industry that has turned to mafia tactics in the absence of any real science that would prove their products to be safe or effective. The emergence of this extraordinary evidence of bribery, scientific fraud, lying to regulators and monopolistic practices that harm consumers is also making all those doctors and “skeptics” who defended Big Pharma and vaccines eat their words. To defend Big Pharma today is to defend a cabal of criminal corporations that have proven they will do anything — absolutely anything — to keep their profits rolling in. It makes no difference who they have to bribe, what studies they have to falsify, or who has to be threatened into silence. They will stop at nothing to expand their profit base, even if it means harming (or killing) countless innocents. Let’s take a look at recent revelations. GlaxoSmithKline pleads guilty to bribery, fraud and other crimes. It what is now the largest criminal fraud settlement ever to come out of the pharmaceutical industry, GlaxoSmithKline has pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $1 billion in criminal fines and $2 billion in civil fines following a nine-year federal investigation into its activities. According to U.S. federal investigators, GlaxoSmithKline:

• Routinely bribed doctors with luxury vacations and paid speaking gigs
• Fabricated drug safety data and lied to the FDA
• Defrauded Medicare and Medicaid out of billions
• Deceived regulators about the effectiveness of its drugs
• Relied on its deceptive practices to earn billions of dollars selling potentially dangerous drugs to unsuspecting consumers and medical patients.

And this is just the part they got caught doing. GSK doesn’t even deny any of this. The company simply paid the $3 billion fine, apologized to its customers, and continued conducting business as usual. By the way, in addition to bribing physicians, GSK has plenty of money to spread around bribing celebrities and others who pimps its products. The company reportedly paid $275,000 to the celebrity doctor known as “Dr. Drew,” who promoted Glaxo’s mind-altering antidepressant drug Wellbutrin. As the Wall Street Journal reports: In June 1999, popular radio personality Dr. Drew Pinsky used the airwaves to extol the virtues of GlaxoSmithKline PLC’s antidepressant Wellbutrin, telling listeners he prescribes it and other medications to depressed patients because it “may enhance or at least not suppress sexual arousal” as much as other antidepressants do. But one thing listeners didn’t know was that, two months before the program aired, Dr. Pinsky — who gained fame as “Dr. Drew” during years co-hosting a popular radio sex-advice show “Loveline” — received the second of two payments from Glaxo totaling $275,000 for “services for Wellbutrin.” Merck falsified vaccine data, spiked blood samples and more, say former employees. According to former Merck virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, the company:

• “Falsified test data to fabricate a vaccine efficacy rate of 95 percent or higher.”

• Spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies.

• Pressured the two virologists to “participate in the fraud and subsequent cover-up.”

• Used the falsified trial results to swindle the U.S. government out of “hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization.”

• Intimidated the scientists, threatening them with going to jail unless they stayed silent.

Millions of children put at risk by Merck. In that document the two virologists say they, “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings.” They also claim that because of the faked vaccine results, “the United States has over the last decade paid Merck hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization… The United States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck’s fraud.” They go on to point out that children are the real victims, however: “But the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with an adequate level of protection. …The failure in Merck’s vaccine has allowed this disease to linger with significant outbreaks continuing to occur.” Merck’s mumps viral strain is 45 years old! According to the complaint, Merck has been using the same mumps strain — weakened from generations of being “passaged” — for the last 45 years! The complaint reads:

“For more than thirty years, Merck has had an exclusive license from the FDA to manufacture and sell a mumps vaccine in the U.S. The FDA first approved the vaccine in 1967. It was developed by Dr. Maurice Hilleman, at Merck’s West Point research facility, from the mumps virus that infected his five year-old daughter Jeryl Lynn. Merck continues to use this ‘Jeryl Lynn’ strain of the virus for its vaccine today.”

A complete medical farce. This information appears to show Merck’s mumps vaccine to be a complete medical farce. Those who blindly backed Merck’s vaccines — the science bloggers, “skeptics,” doctors, CDC and even the FDA — have been shown to be utter fools who have now destroyed their reputations by siding with an industry now known to be dominated by scientific fraud and unbounded criminality. That’s the really hilarious part in all this: After decades of doctors, scientists and government authorities blindly and brainlessly repeating the mantra of “95% effectiveness,” it all turns out to be total quackery hogwash. Utterly fabricated. Quackety-quack quack. And all those hundreds of millions of Americans who lined up to be injected with MMR vaccines were all repeatedly and utterly conned into potentially harming themselves while receiving no medical benefit. Intelligent, informed NaturalNews readers, home school parents, and “awakened” people who said “No!” to vaccines are now emerging as the victors in all this. By refusing to be injected with Merck’s vaccines, they avoided being assaulted with a fraudulent cocktail of adjuvant chemicals and all-but-useless mumps strains over four decades old. They protected their time, money and health. Those who refuse to be physically violated by vaccines are, once again, turning out to be the smartest people in society. No wonder they also tend to be healthier than the clueless fools who line up to get vaccinated every year. Merck fraudulently misrepresented the efficacy of its vaccine and contributed to the spread of infectious disease, says lawsuit. The faked vaccine efficacy numbers aren’t the only troubles Merck is now facing. Shortly after the above False Claims Act was made public, Chatom Primary Care filed suit against Merck. It alleges that: [Merck engaged in] …a decade-long scheme to falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine. Merck fraudulently represented and continues to falsely represent in its labeling and elsewhere that its Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 95 percent of higher. Merck knows and has taken affirmative steps to conceal — by using improper testing techniques and falsifying test data — that its Mumps Vaccine is, and has been since at least 1999, far less than 95 percent effective.  Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck’s desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study’s findings.  Merck also engaged in “incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results… destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator… threatened a virologist in Merck’s vaccine division with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA.”  “Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck’s desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study’s findings. [Then] Merck designed even more scientifically flawed methodology, this time incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results, but it too failed to achieve Merck’s fabricated efficacy rate. Confronted with two failed methodologies, Merck then falsified the test data to guarantee the results it desired. Having achieved the desired, albeit falsified, efficacy threshold, Merck submitted these fraudulent results to the FDA and European Medicines Agency.” “Merck took steps to cover up the tracks of its fraudulent testing by destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator… Merck also attempted to buy the silence and cooperation of its staff by offering them financial incentives to follow the direction of Merck personnel overseeing the fraudulent testing process. Merck also threatened… Stephen Krahling, a virologist in Merck’s vaccine division from 1999 to 2001, with jail if he reported fraud to the FDA.”  “Merck continued to conceal what it knew about the diminished efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine even after significant mumps outbreaks in 2006 and 2009.” Obama administration has zero interest in actual justice. Another interesting note in all this is that under President Obama, the U.S. Dept. of Justice showed no interest whatsoever in investigating Merck over the False Claims Act filed by two of its former virologists. Despite the convincing evidence of fraud described in detail by insider whistleblowers, the Obama Department of Justice, led by gun-running Attorney General Eric Holder who is already facing serious questions over Operation Fast and Furious, simply chose to ignore the False Claims Act complaint. When evidence of criminal fraud was brought before the U.S. Department of Justice, in other words, the DoJ looked the other way with a wink and a nod to the medical crimes taking place right under their noses. Who cares if tens of millions of children are being injected year after year with a fraudulent mumps vaccine? There’s money to be made, after all, and exploiting the bodies of little children for profit is just business as usual in a fascist nation dominated by corporate interests. Pfizer sued by retailers over anticompetitive scheme. Adding to all this, Pfizer has now been sued by five U.S. retailers (pharmacies) who accuse the company of monopolistic market practices. According to the lawsuit, Pfizer conspired to prevent generic versions of its blockbuster cholesterol drug Lipitor from entering the market. This was done to protect billions in profits while making sure patients did not have access to more affordable cholesterol drugs. Pfizer sells nearly $10 billion worth of Lipitor each year. According to the Reuters report on this lawsuit, Pfizer is being accused of :

• Obtaining a fraudulent patent
• Engaging in sham litigation
• Entering a price-fixing agreement to delay cheaper generics
• Entering arrangements with pharmacy benefit managers to force retailers to buy more Lipitor (chemical name is atorvastatin calcium)

No arrests or prosecution of Big Pharma executives. One of the most astonishing realizations in all this is that given all the criminal fraud, bribery, misrepresentation, lying to the FDA, price fixing and other crimes that are going on in the pharmaceutical industry, you’d think somebody somewhere might be arrested and charged with a crime, right? Nope. To date, not a single pharmaceutical CEO, marketing employee or drug rep has been charged with anything related to all this fraud. In America, drug company employees are “above the law” just like top mafia bosses of a bygone era. How insane is this, exactly? Imagine if YOU, an individual, went around town bribing doctors, falsifying data, selling a fraudulent product to the government, lying to regulators, engaging in anti-trade price-fixing and threatening your employees into silence. What would happen to you? You’d probably wind up rotting in prison, the subject of an FBI investigation and a DoJ prosecution. So why is it okay for a multi-billion-dollar corporation to carry out these same crimes and get away with it? Why are the CEOs of top drug companies given a free pass to commit felony crimes and endless fraud? I’ll tell you why, and you’re not gonna like the answer: Because America has become a nation run by crooks for the benefit of crooks. It’s one big country club, and as comedian George Carlin used to say, “YOU ain’t in it!” If Big Pharma would falsify data on vaccines, what else would the industry do? I hope you’re getting the bigger picture in all this, friends. If these drug companies routinely bribe doctors, falsify data, defraud the government and commit felony crimes without remorse, what else would they be willing to do for profit? Would they:

• Falsify efficacy data on other prescription drugs?
• Exploit children for deadly vaccine trials?
• Invent fictitious diseases to sell more drugs?
• Unleash bioweapons to cause a profitable pandemic?
• Conspire with the CDC to spread fear to promote vaccinations?
• Silence whistleblowers who try to go public with the truth?
• Give people cancer via stealth viruses in vaccines?
• Destroy the careers of medical scientists who question Big Pharma?
• Force a medical monopoly on the entire U.S. population via socialist health care legislation?

But of course they would. In fact, the industry is doing all those things right now. And if you don’t believe me, just remember that five years ago, no one believed me when I said drug companies were engaged in criminal conspiraciesto defraud the nation — something that has now been proven over a nine-year investigation.

FDA Admits Chicken Meat Contains Arsenic

FDA Finally Admits Chicken Meat Contains Cancer-Causing Arsenic:

 FDA Finally Admits Chicken Meat Contains Cancer-Causing Arsenic


FDA Finally Admits Chicken Meat Contains Cancer-Causing Arsenic

After years of sweeping the issue under the rug and hoping no one would notice, the FDA has now finally admitted thatchicken meat sold in the USA contains arsenic, a cancer-causing toxic chemical that’s fatal in high doses. But the real story is where this arsenic comes from: It’s added to the chicken feed on purpose! Even worse, the FDA says its own research shows that the arsenic added to the chicken feed ends up in the chicken meat where it is consumed by humans. So for the last sixty years, American consumers who eat conventional chicken have been swallowing arsenic, a known cancer-causing chemical. Until this new study, both the poultry industry and the FDA denied that arsenic fed to chickens ended up in their meat. The fairytale excuse story we’ve all been fed for sixty years is that “the arsenic is excreted in the chicken feces.” There’s no scientific basis for making such a claim… it’s just what the poultry industry wanted everybody to believe. But now the evidence is so undeniable that the manufacturer of the chicken feed product known as Roxarsone has decided to pull the product off the shelves. And what’s the name of this manufacturer that has been putting arsenic in the chicken feed for all these years? Pfizer, of course — the very same company that makes vaccines containing chemical adjuvants that are injected into children. Technically, the company making the Roxarsone chicken feed is a subsidiary of Pfizer, called Alpharma LLC. Even though Alpharma now has agreed to pull this toxic feed chemical off the shelves in the United States, it says it won’t necessarily remove it from feed products in other countries unless it is forced by regulators to do so. As reported by AP: “Scott Brown of Pfizer Animal Health’s Veterinary Medicine Research and Development division said the company also sells the ingredient in about a dozen other countries. He said Pfizer is reaching out to regulatory authorities in those countries and will decide whether to sell it on an individual basis.” Arsenic? Eat more! But even as its arsenic-containing product is pulled off the shelves, the FDA continues its campaign of denial, claiming arsenic in chickens is at such a low level that it’s still safe to eat. This is even as the FDA says arsenic is a carcinogen, meaning it increases the risk of cancer. The National Chicken Council agrees with the FDA. In a statement issued in response to the news that Roxarsone would be pulled from feed store shelves, it stated, “Chicken is safe to eat” even while admitting arsenic was used in many flocks grown and sold as chicken meat in the United States. What’s astonishing about all this is that the FDA tells consumers it’s safe to eat cancer-causing arsenic but it’s dangerous to drink elderberry juice! The FDA recently conducted an armed raid in an elderberry juice manufacturer, accusing it of the “crime” of selling “unapproved drugs.”  Which drugs would those be? The elderberry juice, explains the FDA. You see, the elderberry juice magically becomes a “drug” if you tell people how it can help support good health. The FDA has also gone after dozens of other companies for selling natural herbal products or nutritional products that enhance and support health. Plus, it’s waging a war on raw milk which it says is dangerous. So now in America, we have a food and drug regulatory agency that saysit’s okay to eat arsenic, but dangerous to drink elderberry juice or raw milk. Eat more poison, in other words, but don’t consume any healing foods. That’s the FDA, killing off Americans one meal at a time while protecting the profits of the very companies that are poisoning us with their deadly ingredients. Oh, by the way, here’s another sweet little disturbing fact you probably didn’t know about hamburgers and conventional beef: Chicken litter containing arsenic is fed to cows in factory beef operations.  So the arsenic that’s pooped out by the chickens gets consumed and concentrated in the tissues of cows, which is then ground into hamburger to be consumed by the clueless masses who don’t even know they’re eating second-hand chicken shit.

FDA says you have No Rights

 

The FDA Says You Have No Right To Freedom Of Food:

The FDA Says You Have No Right To Freedom Of Food

The FDA Says You Have No Right To Freedom Of Food

You thought you had the right to choose what you eat? The FDA says you don’t. They claim that there is no fundamental right to choose your food or freedom to contract for it. Responding to a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund lawsuit, the FDA clearly states that you do not have the right to freedom of choice in your diet. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) Lawsuit Against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FTCLDF is a 501(c)(4) organization, which means that it exists to promote the social welfare of its members and community. They define their reason for being in one sentence:

Sustainable farming and direct farm-to-consumer transactions further the common good and general welfare of all Americans.

Their Mission Statement says, in whole:

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is a 501 (c) (4) non-profit organization made up of farmers and consumers joining together and pooling resources to:

  • Protect the constitutional right of the nation’s family farms to provide processed and unprocessed farm foods directly to consumers through any legal means.
  • Protect the constitutional right of consumers to obtain unprocessed and processed farm foods directly from family farms.
  • Protect the nation’s family farms from harassment by federal, state, and local government interference with food production and on-farm food processing.

On behalf of its members and for all family farms in the US, the FTCLDF filed a lawsuit against the FDA, claiming “that the federal regulations (21 CFR 1240.61 and 21 CFR 131.110) banning raw milk for human consumption in interstate commerce are unconstitutional and outside of FDA’s statutory authority as applied to FTCLDF’s members and the named individual plaintiffs in the suit.” The FDA responded by claiming a number of things, including the absurd idea that the FTCLDF has no standing to file the case! That is, they’re claiming that the organization that represents the people who have been harmed by the FDA’s actions does not actually represent them. They claim that no harm has been shown, in spite of the fact that the FDA’s actions have prevented farmers from producing and selling raw milk and their customers have lost the ability to obtain it. The FDA’s Response and Claims. The FDA makes several statements in response to the lawsuit. The implications for personal freedoms are frightening. No Fundamental Right to Raw Milk. The FDA claims that “…plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law.” This implies that no rights exist unless they have been specifically granted. This concept runs completely counter to the basic concepts of the nation. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

A basic notion in the founding of the nation is that rights do not have to be delineated. The rights identified in the Declaration of Independence clearly stated that they are merely “among” the obvious rights of people. How could anyone suggest that obtaining one’s food of choice is not an inherent right? FDA Has the Right to Set the Rules for How They May Be Controlled. The FDA claims that, before filing a lawsuit, the FTCLDF should have filed a petition with the FDA. In other words, they’re claiming that they have the right to set the rules by which they may be accessed and controlled. If the FDA has such a right, then it is unaccountable to the people. No Historical Tradition of Access to Food of Choice. The FDA states that “there is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to food of all kinds.” This implies that one does not have the right to a vegetable garden containing one’s choice of foods, or that choosing organic over petroleum-based fertilizer is not a right, or that one has no right to choose to eat a vegetarian diet. “There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health.” This title quotes the title of a section of the FDA’s response to the lawsuit. If that doesn’t terrify you, then nothing can. The FDA is, literally, claiming that they have the right to take a person’s health if it suits them. The section uses specious logic, claiming that there is no right to bodily and physical health because, according to them, there is no right to food choice, which is a claim that only the FDA could make. It’s interesting that the FDA is implicitly acknowledging that there is a connection between food and health, though they deny that one has a right to either freedom of food or pursuance of bodily and physical health. “There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract.” Another section of the FDA’s response is the above title claiming that individuals do not have the right to engage in contracts as they choose. This flies in the face of the basic right implied in the Constitution and strengthened by the 5th and 14th amendments. Limitations have been placed when contractual rights conflict with personal rights. However, the inherent right to freedom of contract has not been abrogated, in spite of the FDA’s claims. Their reference to it as “anachronistic” says more about the FDA’s attitude towards the people than it does about the intent of the law. “FDA’s Regulations Rationally Advance the Agency’s Public Health Mission.” This statement by the FDA—again, the title of a section of its response—is made without a shred of documentation in support. It is nothing more than a self-congratulatory statement of opinion, one that a large section of the American public does not accept. Indeed, the illogic and arrogance of the FDA’s entire response to the FTCLDF lawsuit tends to deny their claim to rationality. The logic the FDA is using seems to be: If it isn’t specifically named in the Constitution, then there is no such right. The absurdity of that logic is revealed by suggesting that you don’t have the right to breathe because it wasn’t specifically granted by the Constitution. What could be more basic to life and the right to live than the right to eat as we wish and obtain the food we wish to eat? We have the right to free speech and assembly. In light of that, how can the FDA claim that we don’t, by definition, have the right to eat what we choose? Could the Founding Fathers have possibly envisioned a government that would infringe on an individual’s right to choice in food? Nonetheless, we need to understand that, in one sense, the FDA is right. Unless we act to stop their intrusions into our rights, then their claims will, effectively, become law. They’ve almost accomplished it now. Consider that the FDA’s claim that you have no right to choose what you eat isn’t front page news. The battle is almost lost already. It’s time…no, it’s past time to take action. “But I Don’t Believe in Raw Milk” Some readers may believe that pasteurized milk is better. That’s your right. However, does that give the FDA the right to enforce pasteurized milk on everyone? At what point will the FDA be infringing on your rights to food and health? Many people have found that switching to raw milk has improved, and even cured, serious health problems. In light of the fact that the FDA has stated that you have no right to health, at what point will something you require be made illegal or difficult to obtain? Do you find that taking Vitamin C helps prevent colds? Are you aware that the FDA is planning to infringe on your right to take it? What about Vitamin D? Many people are finding that it improves their health, yet the FDA disagrees and wants to regulate it. Do you want the right to eat organic food? That may be abridged, too, as the FDA is grabbing the right to define what organic means. What about genetically modified foods? Studies are showing that they cause tremendous harm, yet the FDA doesn’t even want you to know when foods have been created through GM processes. The list can go on. If you’ve found that a certain food provides a particular health benefit, but someone has made a health claim for it, did you know that you can be denied access to it—simply because of that health claim? This is not about raw milk. This is about your right to pursue health and the food of your choice. Please, don’t ignore this plea. Whatever your views on any particular food, it should be self-evident that each person should have the right to obtain it. The FDA’s intrusions on our lives are egregious, fundamentally evil, and outrageous.

 

Bilderberg Gold Treaty funds Extraterrestrial Projects

Trillion dollar lawsuit exposes secret Bilderberg Gold Treaty & funding of extraterrestrial projects:

Trillion dollar lawsuit exposes secret Bilderberg Gold Treaty & funding of extraterrestrial projects

Trillion dollar lawsuit exposes secret Bilderberg Gold Treaty & funding of extraterrestrial projects

A mysterious trillion dollar lawsuit filed on November 23, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that 145.5 billion dollars worth of gold was secretly given to the U.S. government in the mid-1930s by the then Nationalist government of China for safekeeping.  The lawsuit claims that 1934 U.S. Federal Reserve notes were issued to the Chinese government, and the gold transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank.  It is claimed that a total sum of almost one trillion dollars representing both the principal and accumulated interest of the 1934 Federal Reserve notes was fraudulently taken from the plaintiff, Neil Keenan, an agent for the owners, a mysterious Asian entity called “The Dragon Family.” What makes the lawsuit worth paying attention to is that involves the unresolved June 2009 “Chiasso incident” where two Japanese citizens were caught on a train in Italy near the Swiss border town of Chiasso, while traveling with 134.5 billion dollars in US Federal Reserve notes, bonds and other financial instruments.  The “Chiasso incident” involves a separate but complementary set of high denomination US Federal Reserve notes that have a similar origin, history and ownership. The U.S. District Court lawsuit supports claims by David Guyatt, author of The Secret Gold Treaty, that missing World War II era national gold reserves have been intentionally kept out of public circulation (“black gold”). Furthermore, the lawsuit reveals a coordinated international effort to launder, trade and defraud owners or investors of bonds and other financial instruments issued against the “black gold”. At the heart of this internationally coordinated effort, according to Guyatt, is the Bilderberg Group – which in 1954 played a key role in the passage of a Secret Gold Treaty. What this paper will show is that what lies behind the Bilderberg Group’s involvement with “black gold” is to provide long-term funding for a globally coordinated ‘second’ Manhattan Project. The ultimate goal of this globally coordinated project is to comprehensively deal with a subject so vast and complex as to dwarf the resources of any one nation – extraterrestrial life and technology.

China’s heavy-handed censorship accelerate rumors

Rumor, Lies, and Weibo: How Social Media is Changing the Nature of Truth in China:

chinese

chinese

 

When the message appeared on the Weibo account of Xinhua, China’s official news agency on April 10, announcing charges against the family of high-profile party leader Bo Xilai, it ended many days of public speculation on China’s largest political crisis in decades. But it also left Chinese web users even more deeply confused about the distinction between political truth and rumor, one that has always been hazy in China but is now blurred even more by social media.  Chinese web users began speculating, following Bo’s firing as Chongqing party chief in March, about the Bo family’s possible role in the mysterious death of Neil Heywood, a British businessman with close ties to the family. China’s Internet censors muzzled the online discussions. The government spokesmen stonewalled inquiries from the British government and told curious Chinese that Heywood died of “excessive drinking,” admonishing them “not to spread groundless rumor.”  On the morning of April 11, Chinese web users woke up to find that the reports that had previously filled their Weibo pages — in coded words adopted to evade the censors — now featured the front page of every official newspaper. The rumor, repressed by censors and dodged by government spokesmen, had become a state-approved fact overnight.  “What was treated as attacks spread by ‘international reactionary forces’ has now become truth. Then what other ‘truths’ exposed by foreign media should we believe?…God knows!” wrote Weibo user Jieyigongjiang. “How did it all become truth? Was I being fooled?” user Zousifanye asked. This hall-of-mirrors system can be confusing even for the officials who run it.  For China’s new generation of tech-savvy youth, who compose the bulk of the nation’s estimated 300 million Weibo users, the downfall of Bo Xilai is the largest political crisis they have witnessed. The sudden volatility of the official versions of truth on the story has left many of them deeply confused. Some see this as a victory for Weibo, which is moderated by censors but often too free-wheeling and fast-moving for them to maintain total control, over more traditional media, which is openly run by the state. “In this political drama that took place in Yuzhou [alternative name for Chongqing], all the media outlets were following Weibo. The power of social media is manifested here,” user Tujiayefu wrote. User Kangjialin agreed: ” ‘Rumor’ is the proof that mainstream media is now falling behind Weibo.”  The government controls all forms of media in China, including Weibo. But on occasions censorship of Weibo is known to relax, allowing windows of free speech, particularly in the cases of breaking news. Chinese distrust of the country’s traditional media, which regularly covers up food scandals and human rights violations, is leading many people to turn to Weibo for information and news. The Twitter-like service has helped expose incidents of mafia intimidation and money laundering. Weibo-based stories like that of Guo Meimei, the 20-year-old “senior official” at the state-run Red Cross Society who posted photos of her new Lamborghini and Maserati online, ignited firestorms of discussions on weightier, more sensitive, and sometimes forbidden subjects such as corruption within state-run social organizations.  In the West, social media is treated skeptically for the exact same reason that it is so embraced in China: it is rife with rumors. Its break-neck speed allows little time for fact-checking or editorial supervision, which also means it can move too quickly for censors. Its noisy, open-source discussion — anyone can say anything and watch it spread — makes it tougher for Western users to trust, but easier for Chinese users, who know that censors can pressure official news organizations but not a hundred million anonymous citizen-bloggers. That anonymity is slowly receding, but this hasn’t done much damage to the service’s popularity or power.  In the Bo Xilai saga, many Weibo users had at first dismissed the dramatic speculations over the Communist Party’s divisive infighting as sensationalized rumors. Now that the rumors have turned out to be true, they’re re-examining the established beliefs that led them to reject the stories and to take the officials at their word. “The result of rumor turning truth is that from now on all rumors will become more trustworthy,” concluded Potomac Xiaowu.  The government is fighting back, reminding Chinese web users that Weibo is also a hot bed of invented rumors, and that believing and spreading them can bring real consequences. Less than a month ago, whispers circulated on Weibo of troop movements near the leadership’s Zhongnanhai compound in central Beijing. Those whispers soon grew into a full-blown account of a coup being staged by Bo’s Party allies in Beijing. Tanks purportedly rolled in and gunshots were fired, a story with terrifying echoes of the 1989 protest on Tiananmen Square. The rumors quickly made it into Western media. Just as it became clear that these stories weren’t true, the government ordered the shutdown of 16 websites and detention of six people over the rumors, which it clearly considered threats to public order. The two massive Weibo sites, Sina and Tencent, were forced to shut down their comment function for three days in order to “carry out a concentrated cleanup.”  China’s heavy-handed censorship may now actually accelerate the spread of rumors, which could be seen as more plausible precisely because they are censored. Chinese web users trying to figure out the most likely truth must speculate not only about the rumors themselves, but also about every move the government makes in response. Did the state order censors to crack down on a particular story because they want quell a false and potentially destabilizing rumor or because they want to prevent an uncomfortable truth from spreading? If censors clamp down on a growing rumor later than expected or not at all, is this because they’re simply slow or because government wants to build up public attention for its own purposes? In the days immediately after Bo’s removal from his Chongqing office, for example, Internet rumors about his misdeeds circulated freely, in what many suspect was a state effort to build public knowledge of his corruption and turn people against him. For Chinese netizens trying to parse out truth from rumors, every story and its government response are a new mystery, and the guessing game never really ends.  This hall-of-mirrors system can be confusing even for the officials who run it, and social media consumers are not the only people in China who can confuse truth and rumor. Last February, as protest movements stormed the Middle East, starting with the “Jasmine revolution” in Tunisia, a crowd gathered quietly in central Beijing after anonymous calls for their own Jasmine protests. The small crowd was outnumbered by skittish police, not to mention a number of Western reporters. Both groups had also caught the rumor and responded swiftly.  The movement was ended before it had really started, but it continued to ripple through the life of common Chinese citizens in ways its initiators had probably not expected. In the next months, although few or no protesters actually gathered and there seemed to be little momentum for an Arab Spring-style movement, the government seemed to take the social media mumblings far more seriously than the actual activists. Streets were blocked and plainclothes police were stationed at shopping malls and movie theaters every few hundred of feet. Security officials detained dozens of leading activists, including artist Ai Weiwei, in apparent fear of their stirring further unrest, and threatened foreign journalists for reporting on the incident. When Chinese people realized the word “jasmine” was blocked from the Internet and from text messages, though euphemisms for the word were now well-known, and the flower was banned at Beijing botanic markets, the news of the pseudo-revolution had reached a wide public. The government, in its effort to quell the rumor, had ballooned it into an alternate version of truth. Their over-reaction had communicated the rumors of a revolution far more powerfully than had the actual rumors or its proponents.  The tug-of-war between the government and the people over truth and rumor happens every day in today’s China. The rise of social media has made the struggle harder and the stakes higher. The night the government announced the charges against Bo Xilai, a crowd of thousands gathered in Chongqing and clashed with local police. The government vigorously denied any connection between the incident and Bo’s expulsion, meanwhile moving to delete relevant messages and photos from Weibo. The Chinese web users reveling in the role of social networking sites in revealing the Bo scandals once again fell into debates, while others have been reflecting on larger questions. “Why does the U.S. not censor rumors?” asked one Weibo user last November. “No matter how wild they are, nobody bans them, and the creators of rumors do not worry about getting arrested. Perhaps for places where truth persists, rumors have no harm. Only places that lack truth are fearful of rumors.”  Had the censors tried to look for the original writer of this message, they would not have found him or her. The name is lost amid millions of others, who forward the message after each round of rumor-clearing seizes Weibo in a state-run information purge that can never quite keep up.

Fluoridation is killing you

New Scientific Data Forces Government to Reverse Its Stance on Fluoride in the Water Supply:

Fluoride kills you

Fluoride kills you

Why are some states simply ignoring the latest studies, and passing new laws that will hurt your teeth and harm your health? Action Alert!  Water fluoridation was introduced to the United States in the 1940s as a way to use waste products from the manufacture of aluminum, a waste product that was expensive to dispose of and which was harming cattle and farmland. Since then, the federal government has taken the stance that the fluoridation of drinking water, which conveniently disposed of the waste, is vitally important to help prevent tooth decay; the CDC called it one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. But the latest scientific studies have finally made the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) change their tune on how much fluoride is safe.  The data indicate that dental fluorosis—damage to the teeth from fluoride, ranging from lacy white markings or spots on the enamel to staining and pitting of the tooth surface—happens when fluoride levels are too high. Water is only one of several sources of fluoride. Other common sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, fluoride applied by dental professionals, and exposure through our food, which is often sprayed with fluoride-based pesticides.  Today the fluoride in your water mostly comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry—but it’s still toxic waste, containing other byproducts such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. And two studies show that fluoride increases the accumulation of lead in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich tissues, transporting heavy metals into areas of your body they normally would not be able to go—like your brain.  Another study revealed that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures, and crippling bone abnormalities. Longtime readers may recall our 2008 article on the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones (harming kidney patients worst of all); we also noted that fluoride is a known neurotoxin, and can have detrimental effects on the thyroid, which could affect intelligence.  Moreover, fluoride can combine with other chemicals in the water to make them even more harmful. For example, when chloramines combine with the fluoride in water, they work together to extract lead from old plumbing systems, which leads to the accumulation of lead in the water supply.  EPA and HHS now recommend the level of fluoride in drinking water to be set “at the lowest end of the current optimal range” —that is, no more than 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water instead of the currently recommended range which goes as high as 1.2 milligrams.  Despite studies so compelling that the federal government has started backpedaling, the states of New Jersey and Vermont are attempting to mandate the fluoridation of water supply. Unfortunately, the New Jersey bill is very close to being passed. By contrast, Illinois and New Hampshire have introduced bills to prohibit fluoride in drinking water.

Monsanto’s causing Birth Defects

Round Up

Round Up

Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world’s best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.  The report, “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.  But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.  Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.  The report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, a emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.  In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: “It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders.”
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.

FDA loss of drug control

Drug data reveal sneaky side effects:

Pills

Pills

 

An algorithm designed by US scientists to trawl through a plethora of drug interactions has yielded thousands of previously unknown side effects caused by taking drugs in combination.  The work, published today in Science Translational Medicine1, provides a way to sort through the hundreds of thousands of ‘adverse events’ reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) each year. “It’s a step in the direction of a complete catalogue of drug–drug interactions,” says the study’s lead author, Russ Altman, a bioengineer at Stanford University in California.  Pills in pill boxes.  A program predicts the potential side-effects of mixing different pills.  Although clinical trials are often designed to assess the safety of a drug in addition to how well it works, the size of the trials needed to detect the full range of drug interactions would surpass even the large, late-stage clinical trials sometimes required for drug approval. Furthermore, clinical trials are often done in controlled settings, using carefully defined criteria to determine which patients are eligible for enrollment — including other conditions they might have and which medicines they can take alongside the trial drug.  Once a drug hits the market, however, things can get messy as unknown side-effects pop up. And that’s where Altman’s algorithm comes in.  “Even if you show a drug is safe in a clinical trial, that doesn’t mean it’s going to be safe in the real world,” says Paul Watkins, director of the Hamner–University of North Carolina Institute for Drug Safety Sciences in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, who was not involved in the work. “This approach is addressing a better way to rapidly assess a drug’s safety in the real world once it is approved.”

More related stories

Altman and his colleagues have been studying drug–drug interactions as a way to understand how a person’s genes influence their response to pharmaceuticals. To do that, he says, you must first have a good picture of the molecular mechanisms that underlie drug responses.  “Adverse events are incredibly valuable clues to what these drugs are doing in the body,” Altman says. “They can tell you the other pathways in the cell that are being tickled by these drugs.”  But reports of adverse drug events are notoriously prone to bias. For example, cholesterol-lowering treatments are more often taken by older patients, and so conditions associated with ageing, such as heart attack, could be wrongly linked to a drug as a side effect.  Altman and his colleagues reduced this bias by adopting an approach sometimes used in observational clinical trials. They developed an algorithm that would match data from each drug-exposed patient to a nonexposed control patient with the same condition. The approach automatically corrected for several known sources of bias, including those linked to gender, age and disease1.  The team then used this method to compile a database of 1,332 drugs and possible side effects that were not listed on the labels of those drugs. The algorithm came up with an average of 329 previously unknown adverse events for each drug — far surpassing the average of 69 side effects listed on most drug labels.  The team also compiled a similar database looking at interactions between pairs of drugs, which yielded many more possible side effects than could be attributed to either drug alone. When the data were broken down by drug class, the most striking effect was seen when diuretics called thiazides, often prescribed to treat high blood pressure and edema, were used in combination with a class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, used to treat depression. Compared with people who used either drug alone, patients who used both drugs were significantly more likely to experience a heart condition known as prolonged QT, which is associated with an increased risk of irregular heartbeats and sudden death.  A search of electronic medical records from Stanford University Hospital confirmed the relationship between these two drug classes, revealing at roughly 1.5-fold increase in the likelihood of prolonged QT when the drugs were combined, compared to when either drug was taken alone. Altman says that the next step will be to test this finding further, possibly by conducting a clinical trial in which patients are given both drugs and then monitored for prolonged QT.  What should the drug regulators do with the thousands of possible side effects Altman and his team uncovered? That is a complex problem, says Watkins, who adds that regulators will have to factor in the availability of alternative treatments and the magnitude and seriousness of the side effect, among other considerations.  Altman, who serves as an adviser on the FDA’s Science Board, says that he plans to present his results to the agency. He suggests that the algorithm could be used with the FDA’s existing drug-surveillance programs to remove bias. However, he points out the enormity of the task: “We’ve just released a database with 10,000 or more adverse events,” he says. “I do not expect the FDA to uncritically take these results and add them to every drug label.”

U.S. diplomats work directly for Monsanto

Leaked documents reveal US diplomats actually work for Monsanto:

Monsanto's

Monsanto's

Biotech giant Monsanto has been genetically modifying the world’s food supply and subsequently breeding environmental devastation for years, but leaked documents now reveal that Monsanto has also deeply infiltrated the United States government. With leaked reports revealing how U.S. diplomats are actually working for Monsanto to push their agenda along with other key government officials, Monsanto’s grasp on international politics has never been clearer.  Amazingly, the information reveals that the massive corporation is also intensely involved in the passing and regulations concerning the very GM ingredients they are responsible for. In fact, the information released by WikiLeaks reveals just how much power Monsanto has thanks to key positions within the United States government and elsewhere. Not only was it exposed that the U.S. is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto with military-style trade wars, but that many U.S. diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto.  What the leaked documents reveal — Military style trade wars, government corruption.  In 2007 it was requested that specific nations in the European Union be punished for not supporting the expansion of Monsanto’s GMO crops. The request for such measures to be taken was made by Craig Stapleton, the United States ambassador to France and partner to George W. Bush. Despite mounting evidence linking Monsanto’s GM corn to organ damage and environmental devastation, the ambassador plainly calls for ‘target retaliation’ against those not supporting the GM crop. In the leaked documents, Stapleton states:  “Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”  The undying support of key players within the U.S. towards Monsanto is undeniably made clear not only in this release, but in the legislative decisions taken by organizations such as the FDA and USDA. Legislative decisions such as allowing Monsanto’s synthetic hormone Posilac (rBGH) to be injected into U.S. cows despite being banned in 27 countries. How did Monsanto pull this off?  The Biotech juggernaut managed to infiltrate the FDA positions responsible for the approval of rBGH, going as far as instating the company’s own Margaret Miller as Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services. After assuming this position, Miller reviewed her own report on the safety and effectiveness of rBGH.  Many US diplomats pawns of Monsanto’s GM agenda.  While it may be shocking to you if you are not familiar with the corrupt influence of Monsanto, the cables also show that many US diplomats are pushing GMO crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative. Interestingly enough, the U.S. focused their efforts toward advisers to the pope specifically, due to the fact that many Catholic figureheads have openly voiced their opposition to GM foods. With this kind of political influence, is it any wonder that many food staples are now predominantly GM? Nearly 93% of U.S. soybeans are heavily modified conservatively, with many other staple crops coming in at similar numbers.  U.S. diplomats have unique opportunities to spread honest and intellectual campaigns that can serve to better mankind and end suffering, however they are instead spreading the roots of Monsanto deeper and deeper into international territory. As a substitute for the betterment of mankind, these paid-off diplomats are now spreading environment desecration and health destruction.  As if there wasn’t already enough information to reveal Monsanto’s corruption, the biotech giant also spends enormous amount of money lobbying government each year. Monsanto spent an astonishing $2 million lobbying the federal government in the 3rd quarter of 2011 alone, according to mainstream sources. Why so much cash? The government lobbying focuses on issues like regulations for GM crops and patent reforms. This ‘legal’ form of persuasion is the reason government agencies like the USDA and FDA let Monsanto roam freely.  Satisfying government officials’ financial vested interest is all that matters when dealing with corrupt mega-corporations like Monsanto. As long as these financial ties continue to exist, Monsanto will continue to reign over the food supply and continue to wreak devastation to the environment, ecosystem, and humankind.

FDA destroys Amish Farmer, Selling Organic Natural Milk!

FDA Shut’s Down Amish Farm For Selling Fresh Milk:

The FDA once again has crossed the line and won its two-year fight to shut down an Amish farmer who was selling fresh raw milk to eager consumers in the Washington, D.C., region after a judge this month banned Daniel Allgyerfrom selling his milk across state lines and he told his customers he would shut down his farm altogether.  The decision has enraged Mr. Allgyer’s supporters, some of whom have been buying from him for six years and say the government is interfering with their parental rights to feed their children.  But the Food and Drug Administration, which launched a full investigation complete with a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and a straw-purchase sting operation against Mr. Allgyer’s Rainbow Acres Farm, said unpasteurized milk is unsafe and it was exercising its due authority to stop sales of the milk from one state to another.  Adding to Mr. Allgyer’s troubles, Judge Lawrence F. Stengel said that if the farmer is found to violate the law again, he will have to pay the FDA’s costs for investigating and prosecuting him.  His customers are wary of talking publicly, fearing the FDA will come after them.“I can’t believe in 2012 the federal government is raiding Amish farmers at gunpoint all over a basic human right to eat natural food,” said one of them, who asked not to be named but received weekly shipments of eggs, milk, honey and butter from Rainbow Acres, a farm near Lancaster, Pa. “In Maryland, they force taxpayers to pay for abortions, but God forbid we want the same milk our grandparents drank.”  The FDA, though, said the judge made the right call in halting Mr. Allgyer’s cross-border sales.  “Intrastate sale of raw milk is allowed in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Allgyerhad previously received a warning letter advising him that interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal,” agency spokeswomanSiobhan DeLancey said.  Neither the FDA nor the Justice Department, which pursued the legal case, provided numbers to The Washington Times on the cost of the investigation and court fight.  Fans of fresh milk, which they also call raw milk, attribute all kinds of health benefits to it, including better teeth and stronger immune systems. Raw milk is particularly popular among parents who want it for their children.  In a unique twist, the movement unites people on the left and the right who argue that the federal government has no business controlling what people choose to consume.  In a rally last year, they drank fresh milk in a park across Constitution Avenue from the Senate.  But the FDA says it concluded, after extensive study along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that raw milk is never safer than pasteurized milk. It disputes those who say pasteurization — the process of heating food to kill harmful organisms — makes it less healthy.  Many food-safety researchers say pasteurization, which became widespread in the 1920s and 1930s, dramatically reduced instances of milk-transmitted diseases such as typhoid fever and diphtheria.  The FDA began looking into Mr. Allgyer’s operations in late 2009, when an investigator in the agency’s Baltimore office used aliases to sign up for a Yahoo user group made up of Rainbow Acres customers.  The investigator placed orders for fresh milk and had it delivered to private residences in Maryland, where it was picked up and documented as evidence in the case. By crossing state lines, the milk became part of interstate commerce and thus subject to the FDA’s ban.  At one point, FDA employees made a 5 a.m. visit to Mr. Allgyer’s farm. He turned them away, but not before they observed milk containers labeled for shipment to Maryland.  After the FDA first took action, Mr. Allgyer changed his business model. He arranged to sell shares in the cows to his customers, arguing that they owned the milk and he was only transferring it to them.  Judge Stengel called that deal “merely a subterfuge.”  “The practical result of the arrangement is that consumers pay money toMr. Allgyer and receive raw milk,” the judge wrote in a 13-page opinion.  Grassfed On the Hill Buying Club has about 500 active members.  Liz Reitzig, a mother who has become a raw-milk activist and is an organizer of the group, said the lawyers who pursued the case against Mr. Allgyer ought to “be ashamed.”  “Many families are dependent on the milk for health reasons or nutritional needs, so a lot of people will be desperately trying to find another source now,” she said.