Power-hungry American Dietetic Association attempting to criminalize nutritional consulting in the USA

In similar style to those in the UK whose aim is to stamp out homeopathy and other natural healthcare therapies and who subverted our own UK Advertising Standards Authority and got them to harass homeopaths for making truthful statements about the benefits of their treatments, the representatives across the pond in the USA of another Big Business - Nutrition - have geared up to try and push lay nutritionists into the ocean. Big Business privately just about always believes that organising things so that it has a MONOPOLY IS A GOOD THING, though it will pretend that it loves competition....the type of competition where the opposition has bows and arrows and you have attack helicopters and machineguns i.e. what the Yanks call a "turkey shoot".

If you have been a reader of this blog you will by now be able to guess their tactics. First, they will publicise how important it is that EVERYONE "Giving advice or even just information" on basic Nutrition to others SHOULD BE LICENSED. People - placemen essentially - in high places will start parroting all the spurious reasons why this is necessary now even though the public hasn't found it necessary for the last few centuries. Secondly, that THEY SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF THE LICENSING i.e. the fox in charge of the hen coop. Thirdly, that ANYONE NOT LICENSED BE FINED. Those inside the (monopolistic) organisation are then urged to lay complaints against those outside it and request "the authorities" to prosecute them.

The UK Medical profession did this just before World War II. They managed to get the Cancer Act 1939 passed, giving them a monopoly on the treatment of cancer. How many people have they killed since then with radiation and chemotherapy?

See http://www.naturalnews.com/036520_American_Dietetic_Association_monopoly_laws.html

The American Dietetic Association (ADA), which refers to itself as "the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals," has launched a new attack on freedom of health speech that seeks to criminalize the giving of nutritional or counseling advice by individuals that are not officially licensed by the ADA or one of its state-level prototypes -- and the ADA is covertly attempting to accomplish this goal by quietly passing restrictive licensing laws in all 50 U.S. states.

Clearly on a downward spiral into total nutritional irrelevancy, the ADA as an organization is being slowly overtaken by competition from unlicensed nutritionists, holistic practitioners, and even ordinary bloggers with a powerful story to tell, all of which are now being taken far more seriously by those looking for legitimate nutrition advice than are many ADA-certified dietitians. So to artificially preserve its very existence, the ADA is now trying to legislate its way to a total nutritional monopoly.

8 Drugs with Really Embarrassing Side Effects

If you want a bit of a laugh take a look at

http://www.insurancequotes.org/2012/07/19/8-drugs-with-really-embarrassing-side-effects/

The Latest Flawed Research Findings On Vitamin E

Remember a while back when Vit E's undoubted benefits were slagged off by some bogus research doubtless funded by Big Pharma? Well they are at it again. The article is posted at http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/natural-remedies/vitamins/vitamin-e-prostate-cancer-cure-99332.html.



"Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men." That's the shocking conclusion of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association... and what's more it was a gold standard placebo-controlled study, which involved many men over many years.


It drives me up the wall!

When time, money and resources are completely squandered on medical research that sets out to discredit alternative medicine yet again... and allows the media to go on yet another rampage about how ineffective and bad vitamins and supplements are...

I'm talking about this headline: "Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men."

That's the shocking conclusion of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association... and what's more it was a gold standard placebo-controlled study, which involved many men over many years.

Pointless prodding

Here the mainstream had a golden opportunity to provide an important breakthrough in our understanding of vitamin E... but they squandered it... and to add to that, it was also a very expensive blunder.

Why?

Much as the researchers got everything right, they made a massive critical error... They used a synthetic form of vitamin E... and there's no way around it: synthetic vitamin E is junk!

As we've explained many times before, this form of E supplement should only be used EXTERNALLY, because it's a molecule shape that the body is not designed to handle.

Now, if the researchers had wanted to put vitamin E to a GENUINE test, they would have used d-alpha. Or even better — the full spectrum of tocopherols and tocotrienols.

The only lingering question is whether these researchers squandered this golden oppertunity on purpose.

It's no secret that vitamin E has different forms. So anyone with enough experience to conduct a massive vitamin E study would surely be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the different forms.

So, just for fun, let's check the study's Conflict of Interest Disclosures...


• Merck appears three times
• Pfizer twice
• Novartis twice
• AstraZeneca twice
• Sanofi-aventis, Abbott, Janssen, and Amgen all appear once
• One researcher helped develop educational presentations for a prostate cancer drug
• Another researcher is co-founder of Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals


... Says it all really!

The benefits of supplementing Vitamin D vs cancer, MS etc

High doses of Vit D can clearly help some people:- Joanne Rawlings · Perth, Western Australia "have ms and have taken vit d for 2 years 4000mg, I feel awesome, no fatigue, lost weight, and my multiple sclerosis is getting better yahoo! it has been the best thing I have done :-)" This can be found as one of the comments at http://www.naturalnews.com/Infographic-The-Vitamin-D-Guide.html which I got to through the latest Natural News email - see http://www.naturalnews.com/036303_vitamin_D_outlawed_nutrition.html The latter article is also worth a read to keep you on your toes as to the rubbish reports and consequent media headlines which spread disinformation around.

Vaccination theory crumbles as science reveals antibodies not necessary to fight viruses

It's good to keep abreast of the evidence which the scientific community itself produces to knock down the reasons orthodox medicine trumpets for following its mainstream practices, otherwise as sure as eggs are eggs it will be 'buried' if it is inconvenient. One such snippet in relation to the role of antibodies is the subject of the article below in Natural News at http://www.naturalnews.com/035371_vaccine_theory_antibodies_viruses.html. It has long been an inconvenient truth, but not generally known by the lay public, that if antibodies to a disease are found in the blood after administration of a vaccine, this is no guarantee of immunity from the disease. And that persons with no antibodies but a strong immune system may be more resistant than those who have been vaccinated since complementary practitioners have often observed that vaccination appears to reduce the overall health of the immune system. Nor do the public generally know that there are many examples in medical literature of heavily vaccinated communities, i.e. those possessing such antibodies, falling victim to precisely the disease they were vaccinated against. The corollary of course, as this blog has pointed out before, is that the idea that the 'herd (has) immunity' by a mass vaccination programme is a myth propagated by the vaccine salesmen and their masters. The sooner it is consigned to the dustbin by the scientific community itself the better.


"(NaturalNews) While the medical, pharmaceutical, and vaccine industries are busy pushing new vaccines for practically every condition under the sun, a new study published in the journal Immunity completely deconstructs the entire vaccination theory. It turns out that the body's natural immune systems, comprised of both innate and adaptive components, work together to ward off disease without the need for antibody-producing vaccines.

The theory behind vaccines is that they mimic infection by spurring B cells, one of the two major types of white blood cells in the immune system, to produce antibodies as part of the adaptive immune system. It is widely believed that these vaccine-induced antibodies, which are part of the more specific adaptive immune system, teach the immune system how to directly respond to an infection before the body becomes exposed to it.

But the new research highlights the fact that innate immunity plays a significant role in fighting infections, and is perhaps more important than adaptive immunity at preventing or fighting infections. In tests, adaptive immune system antibodies were shown unable to fight infection by themselves, which in essence debunks the theory that vaccine-induced antibodies serve any legitimate function in preventing or fighting off infection.

"Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus), and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity," said Dr. Uldrich H. von Andrian from Harvard Medical School. "It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis."

As explained by Dr. Russell Blaylock in a recent interview with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, vaccines not only do not work as advertised, but they actually damage the body's innate immunity. Rather than teach the body how to respond to infections, vaccines actually inhibit the immune system's ability to produce TH2-type cytokines, and suppress cellular immunity, which is how the body protects itself against deadly viruses and bacteria.

So once again, the myth that vaccinations serve any sort of legitimate medical purpose has been deconstructed by breakthrough science. Regardless of whether or not the mainstream medical community wants to admit it, pro-vaccine ideology is increasingly finding itself in the dustheap of outmoded pseudoscience.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035371_vaccine_theory_antibodies_viruses.html#ixzz1qdbEerjT"

MONSANTO'S MINIONS: The White House, Congress, and the Mass Media

Hamlet Act 1, Scene 4
Marcellus:
'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'

There's a reason he says "state of Denmark" rather than just Denmark: the fish is rotting from the head down—all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy. Fast forward a few hundred years and substitute USA for Denmark.

For those readers interested in the close links between President Obama, his administration and Monsanto the following paras give the details - at http://www.naturalnews.com/031263_Monsanto_organic_consumers.html.

The United States is rapidly devolving into what can only be described as a Monsanto Nation. Despite Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton's) campaign operatives in 2008 publicly stating that Obama supported mandatory labels for GMOs, we haven't heard a word from the White House on this topic since Inauguration Day. Michele Obama broke ground for an organic garden at the White House in early 2009, but after protests from the pesticide and biotech industry, the forbidden "O" (organic) word was dropped from White House PR. Since day one, the Obama Administration has mouthed biotech propaganda, claiming, with no scientific justification whatsoever, that biotech crops can feed the world and enable farmers to increase production in the new era of climate change and extreme weather.

Like Obama's campaign promises to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; like his promises to bring out-of-control banksters and oil companies under control; like his promises to drastically reduce greenhouse gas pollution and create millions of green jobs; Obama has not come though on his 2008 campaign promise to label GMOs. His unilateral approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa, overruling the federal courts, scientists, and the organic community, offers the final proof: don't hold your breath for this man to do anything that might offend Monsanto or Corporate America.

Obama's Administration, like the Bush and Clinton Administrations before him, has become a literal "revolving door" for Monsanto operatives. President Obama stated on the campaign trail in 2007-2008 that agribusiness cannot be trusted with the regulatory powers of government.

But, starting with his choice for USDA Secretary, the pro-biotech former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has let Monsanto and the biotech industry know they'll have plenty of friends and supporters within his administration. President Obama has taken his team of food and farming leaders directly from the biotech companies and their lobbying, research, and philanthropic arms:

Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods. Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Islam Siddiqui, Vice President of the Monsanto and Dupont-funded pesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is now the Agriculture Negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative. Rajiv Shah former agricultural-development director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation (a frequent Monsanto partner), served as Obama's USDA Under-Secretary for Research Education and Economics and Chief Scientist and is now head of USAID. Elena Kagan, who, as President Obama's Solicitor General, took Monsanto's side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, is now on the Supreme Court. Ramona Romero, corporate counsel to DuPont, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as General Counsel for the USDA.

Of course, America's indentured Congress is no better than the White House when it comes to promoting sane and sustainable public policy. According to Food and Water Watch, Monsanto and the biotech industry have spent more than half a billion dollars ($547 million) lobbying Congress since 1999. Big Biotech's lobby expenditures have accelerated since Obama's election in 2008. In 2009 alone Monsanto and the biotech lobby spent $71 million. Last year Monsanto's minions included over a dozen lobbying firms, as well as their own in-house lobbyists.

America's bought-and-sold mass media have likewise joined the ranks of Monsanto's minions. Do a Google search on a topic like citizens' rights to know whether our food has been genetically engineered or not, or on the hazards of GMOs and their companion pesticide Roundup, and you'll find very little in the mass media. However, do a Google search on the supposed benefits of Monsanto's GMOs, and you'll find more articles in the daily press than you would ever want to read.

Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. In a decade of Congressional lobbying, the OCA has never seen more than 24 out of 435 Congressional Representatives co-sponsor one of Kucinich's GMO labeling bills. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the outrageous "Citizens United" case gave big corporations like Monsanto the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Keep in mind that one of the decisive Supreme Court swing votes in the "Citizen's United' case was cast by the infamous Justice Clarence Thomas, former General Counsel for Monsanto.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031263_Monsanto_organic_consumers.html#ixzz1eLN1b16S

Sigh! Flu jab... here we go again. Flu Vaccine Rebranding job to make lots more pennies

Consumer products, particularly branded products, need 'refreshing' from time to time to make sure that the client base doesn't forget them or get bored with them. As we all know, a salesman's nightmare is not having any new story to tell those he needs to sell to, to convince them to stock his product. Pharmaceutical drugs are no exception, many of them having the added problem that when their patent period expires generic competitor manufacturers will pile in with a cheaper "me too" version. Sometimes the efficacy of the old product therefore has to be downplayed, or even trashed, to tell a convincing story which will pump up the attractiveness of the new refreshed product. Remember the pronouncement of Dr Allen Roses of GlaxoSmithKline, in Dec 2003 the worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline, who noted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them - "The vast majority of drugs – more than 90 per cent – only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people"? This was the scene setting for the new story which was that in future drugs would be designed to target just those patients who can benefit most from each medication (called pharmacogenomics)(The Independent. UK. 8 December 2003). And would there be any accountability for all the years the public purse had shelled out for 'useless' drugs, or for the side effects of drugs given to those they would never have worked on? You can bet your bottom dollar not.

So, when we hear the 'new story' for a 'universal flu jab' in place of the old annual flu jab (see NaturalNews below), why should we not yawn?

First, because the researchers in question seem to have decided to try to steal a message which historically has legitimately been the unique preserve of the natural, 'holistic' healthcare community viz. natural remedies are ultimately better for you because they support the body's immune system, not suppress or fight against it, with natural, not artificial substances. For any vaccine to make the same claim, if, as has been the case to date, it contains a laundry list of primary substances and adjuvants which are basically toxic to the body's immune system, and which will be injected in a place which bypasses much of the body's front-line IgA immune system (nose and mouth through to the gastrointestinal tract), would be hogwash - quite apart from the points that NaturalNews feature story by Ethan Huff makes below.

Secondly, because we have heard something like this before. Remember how the adjuvant squalene was added into swine flu vaccine in Europe to boost the immune response/creation of antibodies and how previously it had been in jabs given to Gulf War soldiers? Squalene as an oil molecule consumed normally would have been no problem for the immune system. But injected it had devastating effects on Gulf War veterans and contributed to the cascade of documented reactions called "Gulf War Syndrome".

The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud's phenomenon, Sjorgren's syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.

So, when we hear of another compound which has been found to "stimulate our own (immune) response ...and boost it to fight and infection", what's the betting that it will turn out to be "hogwash with side effects" for the human guinea pigs who participate in this annual experiment?

---------------------------

(NaturalNews) The medical community is in the process of unveiling a "universal" influenza vaccine that it claims will prevent all flu strains with a single jab. The only problem is that, in the process, the system has inadvertently admitted that current flu shots are medically useless because they fail to target the correct flu strain in many cases, and they do not stimulate a natural flu-fighting immune response even when the strain is a match.

A recent report by CBS 11 News in Dallas / Fort Worth explains that researchers from the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas have identified a compound they say spurs the growth of a key protein known as REDD-1, which prevents cells from becoming infected. By injecting this compound into patients, REDD-1 will increase, say the researchers, and thus effectively prevent any strain of flu from taking hold.

But what about current flu vaccines? Dr. Beatrice Fontoura, one of the head researchers involved with the new universal flu shot, explained to CBS 11 that it works differently than current flu shots because it "stimulates our own (immune) response which is already there and boost[s] it to fight an infection."

In other words, flu shots being sold today at pharmacies across the country do not actually promote natural immunity at all, which begs an important question. If current flu shots do not boost the immune response, then what, exactly, are they good for?

Not much, according to a recent study published in The Lancet. Though the mainstream media widely reported that the study's findings showed an effectiveness rate of 60 percent for flu shots, actual data in the study reveal that flu shots help about 1.5 out of every 100 adults. This, of course, translates into a measly 1.5 percent effectiveness rate (http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_i...).

And yet, for years, medical professionals everywhere have been hounding the public to get their flu shots or else face horrific sickness and even death. And those who continue to avoid the flu shot based on concerns about its safety and effectiveness have been routinely dubbed "anti-science," or worse.

Ironically, the CBS 11 piece about the universal flu shot also contains an interview with a woman who admits that she stopped getting the flu shot because it made her sick every single year. Once she stopped getting flu shots, she stopped getting the flu. So why, again, do we even need a universal flu shot?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034092_universal_flu_shot_vaccines.html#ixzz1d8oAaOqC