Flu Shot Season Is Here! – Want Some Mercury?

TheRedPillGuide
October 28, 2014

Today, walking into the local Costco, we could not help but noticed emblazoned in bright red [talk about ominous portent, right?] how Flu Shots were being advertised. Needless to say the thought of anyone injecting toxins into their system just makes me cringe.

One of the noxious substances featured in some vaccines is the element Mercury, which is known to be harmful in any form.

Per Wikipedia:

“Mercury Poisoning [also known as hydrargyria or mercualism] is a type of metal poisoning and a metal condition caused by exposure to mercury or its compounds….Toxic effects include damage to the brain, kidneys, and lungs. Mercury poisoning can result in several diseases including acrodynia [pink disease], Hunter-Russell syndrome, and Minamata disease.”

Mercury is highly reactive with selenium, an essential dietary element required by about 25 genetically distinct enzyme types (selenoenzymes). Among their numerous functions, selenoenzymes prevent and reverse oxidative damage in the brain and endocrine organs. The molecular mechanism of mercury toxicity involves its unique ability to irreversibly inhibit activities of selenoenzymes.

It goes without saying, but Mercury is also really detrimental to fetuses as well as infants.¹

One would figure that such a dangerous substance should not make it anywhere close to a person, yet alone a child.

You can tell someone that mercury is toxic [and some don’t even know it is, sadly!], and they agree because they know. The mind-numbing part that stretches one’s brain/logic is that if you know it is toxic, why on Earth would you inject that into your child?  It goes to show how well the propaganda machine works.

This ominously reminds me of Sodium Fluoride. Reason being is that although Sodium Fluoride is known to be toxic in many forms – even being an ingredient in rat poison! – it’s actually infused into the water supply.

Now let us get back to mercury. It is known that mercury is damaging in any dosages, as well as toxic in all forms.² This isn’t stretching the imagination one bit. A simple way of thinking of Mercury is: Toxic Substance = Harmful Side Effects.

Shockingly, in 2009 there was a report covered by the Washington Post detailing that High-Fructose Corn Syrup, which been linked to many diseases including cancer, contains mercury.

Average American consumers ingest about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS with youngsters eating 80% more High Fructose Corn Syrup then average. It’s no wonder that Americans consumed more than 37 pounds of HFCS in the year 2008!³

Of course, that means a hefty amount of mercury making its way into the diets of children, teenagers, adults and the elderly. Perhaps that is one of the myriad reasons why America’s health [and global health for that matter] is declining?

With evidence continuing to mount about the efficacy [or lack there of] of flu vaccines, what is going to give?

Knowing what we know, it’s time that people not only wake up to these series health issues, but also aid in keeping the establishment accountable for allowing such a pervasive and damaging toxin not only in the daily foods we eat, but also in the vaccines millions take blindly.  Only then will we being to ameliorate the tsunami of disease that just keeps getting larger and larger.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html
[3] Ibid

Komen for the Cure caught in mammography propaganda fraud; scientists blast agenda of deception

via: NaturalNews
by: Mike Adams
August 6, 2012

[NaturalNews] It is time for the truth to be told about Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The organization is, flatly stated, engaged in fraud. Funded by drug companies and mammogram manufacturers, the organization preys upon women in order to grow its own financial power while feeding female victims into the conventional cancer industry grinder.

All across America, men and women participate in “run for the cure” events, raising tens of millions of dollars each year that go into the hands of Komen for the Cure. What these people don’t know is that much of that money is spent on “free” mammograms. Those mammograms, in turn, actually cause breast cancer because they subject women to high doses of ionizing radiation.

The Susan G. Komen scam, in essence, is to raise money that’s used to give women cancer and create a financial windfall for the very same companies that financially support Komen in the first place. “The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca,” reports Tony Isaacs at NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/027307_cancer_breast_ACS.html).

“DuPont, another huge chemical company and major polluter, supplies much of the film used in mammography machines. Both DuPont and GE aggressively promote mammography screening of women in their 40s, despite the risk of its contributing to breast cancer in that age group. And while biotech giant Monsanto sponsors Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s high profile event, the Race for the Cure, it continues to profit from the production of many known carcinogens.” (http://www.tbyil.com/breast-cancer-deception.htm)

Komen’s corporate partners include General Mills, Zumba Fitness, Walgreens, The Republic of Tea, REMAX, New Balance, American Airlines, Bank of America, Ford Motor Company, Dell and many more (http://ww5.komen.org/corporatepartners.aspx).

The bottom line? Komen deceives women while powerful corporations rake in the profits. This isn’t merely my own opinion. Two prominent doctors, in an article published in the British Medical Journal, have sharply condemned Komen for the Cure for lying about the “benefits” of mammograms.

Komen ads are false, say scientists

“The world’s largest breast cancer charity used misleading statistics and deceptive statements about mammography to promote breast cancer awareness and screening,” stated scientists. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/34030)

Their names? Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, directors of the Center for Medicine and the Media at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire.

They join a growing number of other doctors and medical professionals who now see Komen for the Cure as a fundraising fraud and are going public with detailed accusations against Komen’s deceptions.

In the recently published BMJ article, Woloshin and Schwartz accused Komen of lying in its promotional propaganda for the 2011 Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In advertising, Komen falsely claimed the 5-year survival rate when breast cancer is caught early is 98%, while only 23% when not “caught early.” This is how Komen tricks women into getting more mammograms which cause more cancer — by claiming “early detection saves lives.” But it’s not science; it’s pure propaganda. (See below.)

According to study authors Woloshin and Schwartz, Komen willfully ignored “a growing and increasingly accepted body of evidence [showing] that although screening may reduce a woman’s chance of dying from breast cancer by a small amount, it also causes major harms.”

Here’s an image published by the British Medical Journal, detailing how Komen for the Cure is lying about mammography:
http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/Komen_Deception_BMJ.jpg

Here’s what the data actually say

Komen for the Cure is in the business of fear mongering. They want everyone to be scared out of their minds that breast cancer is going to strike down all the women in their life. And in order to deal with the fear, all you have to do is give more money to Komen.

It’s sort of like an old-school evangelical group that asks for donations and says you’ll be healed if you just “believe,” but instead of claiming to heal people with the power of faith, the Komen cult claims to heal women with the power of ionizing radiation.

In reality, the actual 10-year risk of a 50-year-old woman dying of breast cancer is about half a percent: 0.53% (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/34030).

With mammograms used to detect breast cancer tumors, that 10-year risk of dying from breast cancer moves ever so slightly downward to 0.46%.

In other words, the real risk reduction of dying from breast cancer by receiving mammograms is only 0.07% — seven women out of 10,000.

How mammograms kill women

Seven out of 10,000 is a far cry from the fear-mongering levels that Komen propagandizes. It’s not quite the cancer apocalypse that Komen makes it out to be, huh? And in the mean time, Woloshin and Schwartz explain that anywhere from 20% to 50% of women who receive mammograms for a decade of their lives will have at least one “false alarm.”

These false alarms often lead to women being treated with deadly chemotherapy cocktails. These expensive drugs enrich the very same drug companies that donate money to Komen for the Cure. This is all part of the cycle of fraud that exploits women’s bodies for profit, all while conducting this sick fraud with the message of “finding a cure,” emblazoned with pink ribbons. The magnitude of the deception in all this is pathological… even criminal.

“The Komen advertisement is deceptive in another way: it ignores the harms of screening,” say Woloshin and Schwartz. “Between 20% and 50% of women screened annually for a decade experience at least one false alarm requiring a biopsy. Most importantly, screening results in overdiagnosis. For every life saved by mammography, around two to 10 women are overdiagnosed. Women who are overdiagnosed cannot benefit from unnecessary chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. All they do experience is harm,” they write.

That harm often comes in the form of unnecessary chemotherapy that poisons women but financially benefits the drug companies. Here’s another article on NaturalNews which also supports this conclusion:
http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html

Also read my previous article, “10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You’re Not Supposed to Know”
http://www.naturalnews.com/024536_cancer_women_breast.html

“Women need much more than marketing slogans about screening,” wrote Woloshin and Schwartz. “They need — and deserve — the facts. The Komen advertisement campaign failed to provide the facts. Worse, it undermined decision making by misusing statistics to generate false hope about the benefit of mammography screening. That kind of behavior is not very charitable.”

The article goes on to emphasize that mammograms are a wash, offering no net benefit to women’s health:

The benefits and harms [of mammography] are so evenly balanced that the National Breast Cancer Coalition, a major US network of patient and professional organizations, “believes there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against universal mammography in any age group of women.”(http://www.knowbreastcancer.org/controversies/mammography-screening/)

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Gluten-Intolerant: Myth, Meme or Epidemic?

via: GreenMedInfo
by: Peggy Gannon
July 13, 2012

Gluten-free foods seem to be popping up everywhere. Is this just another diet fad?

Just five years ago, asking your server for gluten-free choices would get you the proverbial blank stare. Today it’s more likely to elicit a menu page of choices. Family chains, some fast-food outlets, even ball park vendors, now include gluten-free options. Why are millions of Americans suddenly eschewing wheat? Is this just another craze, like the grapefruit diet? What exactly is gluten, anyway?

Let’s start at the core, or more precisely, the endosperm. Gliadin and glutelin combine to  form gluten, a protein bound with starch in the endosperm of grains — specifically wheat, rye, barley and triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye). (Maize, rice and other members of the grass family also contain proteins sometimes referred to as gluten; the proteins are dissimilar and most gluten-sensitive people don’t react to them. New research, however, is showing that corn can cause problems for gluten sensitive individuals).

Why the focus on gluten? In baking, gluten provides strength and texture; it assists bread to rise, adds elasticity to the dough and stability and chewiness to the finished product. It has found other recent uses in food production: enhancing protein content, forming the basis for meat substitutes and conferring stability or thickening in products as dissimilar as catsup, Worcestershire sauce, sashimi and ice cream. Even beer, because it is brewed from malted barley, contains gluten.

If gluten is such a major player in our diet, how is it that anyone would be “intolerant” of such a useful protein? The answer combines history with biology. Consider that the practice of agricultureis a scant 10,000 years old. We humans, by comparison, have been evolving as large-brained primates for over four million years. Our ancient digestive system has simply not had time to adapt to this alien protein. Some people are able to handle gluten with no apparent problems, but many others develop wheat allergies, gluten intolerance, or celiac disease — all different, but all reactions to the gluten in our grains. Still others may have sub-clinical damage that goes unrecognized and undiagnosed. It would appear that wheat itself is a universal human toxin, and those who are symptomatic are simply the figurative canaries in the coal mine.

Yet every society has its signature bread or pasta. Wheat has such a long cultural tradition, with biblical roots and innumerable branches, that any mention of harm prompts cries of alarm and outrage.  Where did this explosion of gluten intolerance come from? Has something changed?

In fact, it has. As our food is increasingly processed, the demand for gluten has grown. Over the past 50 years the original ancestor of wheat has been so thoroughly hybridized that today’s version bears little resemblance to its parent. It has been dwarfed, made more robust, and had its gluten content deliberately increased in modern time to up to 50% higher levels than ancient forms of non-hybridized wheat. A predictable correlation: over the same 50 years, celiac disease has increased by 400%, and the rate of gluten intolerance parallels that rise.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

The top 10 worst sources of aspartame

Natural News
Sunday, March 04, 2012
By: Aurora Geib

————————————————————————————————————————–
I implore you, for the sake of your health and those near you, it is of utmost importance that you take a gander at the resource researched extensively below.  Your very well being might depend on it.  Please read:

The Red Pill Guide – Aspartame

————————————————————————————————————————–

[NaturalNews] If you think you are making a healthier option because you chose to have diet soda over a regular soda drink, its time to think again. Crafty advertising may have given the term “sugar free” an impression of healthy alternative, but the truth of the matter is that chemical sweeteners are far from healthy.

Despite the dismissive stand of aspartame producers that aspartame is safe for human consumption, various studies over the years have shown that aspartame is actually linked to headaches, migraines, dizziness, tumors and even cancer. The U.S. FDA made public 92 symptoms attributed to aspartame from submitted complaints. Despite its questionable effect, aspartame was approved for use in 1981 and still continues to be so today. Ironically, aspartame was never tested in humans before its approval. Its use in over 6,000 products and by 250 million people has made the public its unwitting guinea pig in a grand experiment 40 years in the making.

Key to health: Low-Sugar, not sugar-free

Stocking up on diet foods is the best way to gain weight. Latest research on aspartame has revealed that it actually increases the risk of weight gain. Being 200 times sweeter than sugar, aspartame appears to be the perfect answer to dieting since it contains only a few calories while still having the sweet taste of sugar. Unfortunately, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, major components of aspartame, trigger the release of insulin and leptins. The latter are hormones that stimulate storage of body fat.

Moreover, large doses of phenylalanine lower serotonin levels and lead to food cravings. Since both real and artificial sweeteners stimulate the taste buds, they affect the same taste and pleasure pathways in the brain. Artificial sweeteners, however, merely activate but do not satiate the pleasure-related region of the brain, proving to be an inferior system in preventing sugar cravings. In the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, researcher Qing Yang – a faculty at the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology – published findings that revealed artificial sweeteners more likely to cause weight gain than weight loss.

This is over and above the fact that aspartame is also highly addictive. The phenylalanine and methanol components increase the dopamine levels in the brain and cause a certain high. This further creates an addiction that is only made worse by the release of methyl alcohol or methanol, which is considered a narcotic. Keeping this in mind, it’s time we reconsider the “health benefits” aspartame is supposed to give.

Products containing aspartame

The following are well-known products that use aspartame:

• Diet sodas
• Yogurts
• Chewing gum
• Cooking sauces
• Crisps
• Tabletop sweeteners
• Drink powders
• Flavored water
• Sugar-free products
• Cereals

The above mentioned popular products are just a few of many that contain aspartame. Despite the rising reports of aspartame’s toxicity, a re-investigation by the FDA as well as of key regulatory bodies worldwide doesn’t seem to be coming anytime soon. We can only protect ourselves by making a conscious choice to check the label of every product we buy at the grocery store.

If you have complaints regarding aspartame, don’t be shy in making your complaint known. The last thing you want to be is a face in a crowd lining up before a government office that doesn’t have your interest at heart.

Source: NaturalNews.com

Aspartame withdrawal and side effects explained – Here’s how to protect yourself

Natural News
Friday, March 02, 2012
By: Aurora Geib

[NaturalNews] If you have been drinking diet soda and chewing gum, chances are you have been enjoying aspartame in generous quantities. Aspartame is a popular sugar substitute that can be found in diet soda drinks, chewing gum, fruit spreads and sugar-free products to name a few. It is also known by the brand names, Sweet One, NutraSweet and Spoonful. Despite its popularity in the market, what many do not know is that aspartame accounts for 75 percent of side effect complaints received by the Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS) of the US Food and Drug Administration.

Can aspartame be addictive?

Yes, according to Dr. Betty Martini, popular anti-aspartame advocate. She explains that it is an “addictive, exitoneurotic, carcinogenic, genetically engineered drug and adjuvant that damages the mitochondria.” Moreover, Dr. Janet Hall, another famous advocate against aspartame, shares on her website that all artificial sweeteners create an artificial need for more sweetness. She goes on to add that forced sweetness, being a class of altered food, is a trap that cause people to become addicted to sweeter tasting food with no nutritional value.

Recent studies have shown that aspartame is addictive because it affects the absorption of dopamine in the brain.

Side Effects of Aspartame

Aspartame is made up of 3 components: phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol. Understanding the effects of aspartame will require us to look into its genetic make up.

In its website, manufacturers of aspartame continue to assure the public that low-calorie sweeteners are effective for weight reduction, weight maintenance, reduction of tooth decay, management of diabetes and reduction of risks associated with obesity. They claim that consumers of low-calorie, sugar-free beverages were able to incorporate these products into a healthy lifestyle not because they need to manage their weight (since a majority of people use low-calorie foods and beverages for reasons other than dieting) but because use of low-calorie products is part of a healthy lifestyle.

Despite the benefits cited in the aspartame website, independent studies have been shown that aspartame is not as safe as it appears to be. In a recent study conducted by researchers from the University Of Miami Miller School Of Medicine and at Columbia University Medical Center, it was discovered that those who drank diet soft drinks on a daily basis were more likely to contract vascular diseases compared to those who took none.

Supporters of aspartame insist that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are found in many foods. What they have conveniently left out, however, is that the said neurotoxins are harmless only when consumed with other nutrients like fats, amino acids (protein) and carbohydrates. On their own, they are absorbed by the nervous system in large concentrations causing the stimulation of brain neurons and cell death. Symptoms of the conditions include headaches, confusion, balance problems and seizures.

Methanol, on the other hand, is also a highly toxic substance. It is released in the small intestine gradually with the assistance of chymotrypsin and then broken down into formaldehyde: a chemical used for embalming which is a carcinogen that causes birth defects, retinal damage and DNA replication.

Again, supporters of aspartame insist that methanol is safe because it is found in vegetables and fruit juices. What they neglect to mention, however, is that methanol in vegetables and fruit juices is bound with pectin and the body does not possess the digestive enzyme to break down pectin and release ethanol into the body. Furthermore, ethanol, the methanol toxicity antidote, is found in natural sources of methanol, inhibiting the metabolism of methanol and giving the body sufficient time, through the lungs and kidneys, to clear it. Methanol found in aspartame is easily absorbed because it is in a free form.

Aspartic acid, methanol and phenylalanine and their breakdown in the body are cumulative because of their fast absorption and slow excretion.

In 1984, studies conducted revealed that the toxicity of NutraSweet (aspartame) to living organisms. The State of Arizona arrived at findings which showed that aspartame in carbonated drinks can break down into free methanol in temperatures of 99 degrees Fahrenheit. On May 13, 1998, the University of Barcelona also arrived at results revealing that aspartame was transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living creatures, and on later examination formaldehyde had spread through the vital parts of the body.

“Artificial sweetener disease”

The US Food and Drug Administration has received reports of 92 medical health problems resulting from aspartame, ranging from abdominal pain to migraines, dizziness and hives. Aspartame poisoning is often misdiagnosed because its symptoms mock other syndromes. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, lowering or blocking levels of hormones like dopamine and tyrosine that are necessary for bodily function.

Since aspartame cannot be detected through lab tests and x-rays, these diseases and disorders may actually be a toxic load. Below are some specific health conditions that are associated with aspartame you might want to recall next time you open a can of diet soda:

1.Cancer–The Ramazzine Foundation, a European Cancer Research Center, conducted a study on aspartame which revealed that aspartame increases the risk of cancers (lymphoma, leukemia and breast cancers). Despite the National Cancer Institute‘s stand that no such connection was ever firmly established between aspartame and cancer, it might well be worth thinking that what is harmful to rats is also harmful to humans. Moreover, the dismissive stand of regulatory bodies concerning aspartame is merely based on the absence of data that can conclusively support such a connection and NOT on a finding that establishes that aspartame does not cause cancer.

2.Mental disorders and degeneration of brain cells– Excessive ingestion of artificial sweeteners, according to researchers from the University of Praetoria and the University of Limpopo, may lead to various mental disorders and the degeneration of the brain. Publishing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers noted that aspartame appeared to cause excessive signals, damage and even death to nerve cells. Since aspartame disrupts the functioning of the cell’s energy source, it will lead to a cascade of effects on the whole system.

3.Headaches– As early as 1994, a study conducted published on PubMed.gov showed that ingestion of aspartame was associated with headaches. Subjects in the study revealed that they experienced headaches 33 percent of the time when taking aspartame compared to 24 percent when on placebo treatment. Moreover, Dr. Robert Milne and Blake More in their book “Headaches” report that headaches are the most reported side effect given by those who take products containing aspartame. They add that in a University of Parkinson‘s at Florida study, it was found out that the incidences of migraines doubled for a majority of test subjects who took aspartame. Their headaches lasted longer and were marked by significant signs of shakiness and diminished vision.

4.Weight gain and increased blood sugar– Aspartame is not a healthy alternative for diabetics or those wanting to lose weight. Contrary to popular belief, a recent study has shown that regular consumption of diet soft drinks is strongly connected with abdominal obesity and that aspartame can increase blood sugar. Researchers from the University of Texas Health Center San Antonio reported in a study that, as a group, 70 percent of those who drank diet soft drinks gained weight as opposed to those who did not. Moreover, those who drank 2 or more diet sodas regularly experienced an increase in their waist circumference by 500 percent more than those who did not drink them.

In another related study that analyzed a possible relationship between intake of aspartame and fasting glucose and insulin levels among 40 diabetes-prone mice, one of the researchers in the study, Dr. Gabriel Fernandes, revealed that heavy aspartame exposure might potentially contribute to the associations noticed between soda consumption and the risk of diabetes in humans.

The above health conditions are just some of the 92 reported medical health problems reportedly associated with aspartame. Despite the stand of aspartame manufacturers that their product has been declared safe for human consumption, it is still strange that there are still reports from sectors who do not stand to benefit from such declarations that aspartame is not safe. Prudence would dictate that avoiding a product may be better in the long run than to discover firsthand that all that was said about it was true. Why? Because you happen to be living proof of it.

How to protect yourself

To keep yourself safe from contracting “artificial sweetener syndrome,” it is suggested that you stop taking all products containing this chemical.

If you have brought or stocked up on products containing aspartame, you can arrange to return the products so you can get a refund of your money. If you feel that you may need professional help in getting over the disease, please see your doctor as soon as possible. Take a proactive approach to being healthy.

Finally, for those taking aspartame simply because they want to observe a healthy diet, replace your aspartame habit with real sugar. Although it may have more calories, it offers a far better solution than being poisoned. Those who want to manage their weight problems are advised to seek a healthier course of action like eating more whole foods, vegetables and fruits and getting regular exercise. True and sustainable weight loss cannot be achieved through a quick fix without a change in lifestyle. Set a personal example to be healthy and watch yourself regain your life.

Source: NaturalNews.com

Splenda pushing new ‘essentials’ line of toxic sucralose as a health product

Natural News
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
By: Ethan A. Huff

[NaturalNews] Desperate to maintain its false brand image of being a healthy sugar alternative, the Splenda company, maker of toxic sucralose, has unveiled a new product line called “Splenda essentials” that incorporates trace amounts of B vitamins, antioxidants, and fiber as bait to convince the health-conscious community that Splenda is good for them. But do not be fooled. These products are still filled with the same toxic chlorocarbon sucralose as normal Splenda, which is linked to some very severe health problems.

Marketed as being “made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar,” Splenda’s main ingredient, sucralose, is basically a chlorinated sugar that the company claims is harmless because it passes right through the body unabsorbed. Utilizing the same process used to create some pesticides, however, including the now-banned pesticide DDT, sucralose is anything but an inert sweetener. Numerous scientific studies have found that sucralose is absorbed by the body when consumed, and one particular study in Japan found that up to 40 percent of it is absorbed (http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/images/japanese_study.pdf).

Why is this such a big deal? As reported by the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA), the absorption of chlorinated compounds can cause severe damage to the nervous system, immune system, bodily organs, microflora balance in the intestines, and glandular systems. Dr. James Bowen, M.D., a physician and biochemist, likens chlorine compounds to “nature’s Doberman attack dog — a highly excitable, ferocious atomic element employed as a biocide in bleach, disinfectants, insecticide, WWI poison gas and hydrochloric acid.”

Added vitamins and minerals in Splenda essentials so minimal that they provide no real health benefits

The addition of trace levels of a few vitamins and some fiber to its “essentials” line is obviously a desperate marketing ploy by Splenda to cover all this up and convince the public that sucralose is a healthy product. But the amount of added vitamins and fiber in each Splenda essentials packet is so incredibly low that it is virtually impossible for anyone to derive any health benefits from them.

A single packet of Splenda essentials fiber, for instance, contains just a single gram of fiber, which is about three percent of the U.S. government’s recommended daily allowance (RDA) of fiber. Splenda essentials with B vitamins contains about 20 percent of the RDA for vitamins B1, B5, and B6. But as we all know, the official RDA for most vitamins and minerals is too low to begin with, which means these amounts of B vitamins are basically nothing more than trace levels as well.

These added vitamins and fiber are also synthetic, which means the body will reject most of them anyway. And yet the Splenda company is making fraudulent claims that using Splenda essentials will “help support a healthy metabolism,” for instance, or that the packets contain nutrients “like those found in fruits and vegetables.”

These claims are patently false, especially because sucralose itself inhibits proper metabolic function and throws off digestive balance. The chemical also damages internal organs, including the liver, which is responsible for absorbing nutrients and distributing them throughout the body, as well as detoxifying the body of toxic chemicals like sucralose.

ANH-USA has filed a citizen petition with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to go after Splenda for its fraudulent marketing tactics. By making false claims about the supposed health benefits of Splenda essentials, the Splenda company is deliberately deceiving the public and putting the health of millions of people at great risk (http://www.anh-usa.org).

Source: NaturalNews.com

GMOs with ‘stacked traits’ exponentially more harmful to humans due to synergistic toxicity

NaturalNews
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
By: Ethan A. Huff

[NaturalNews] Monsanto’s pipeline of upcoming genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) includes several new varieties specifically engineered with “stacked traits,” which means they contain multiple genetic modifications and built-in resistance traits as opposed to just one. And a new study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology has found that these new multi-trait GMOs appear to be exponentially more harmful to humans than single-trait GMOs because of their synergistic toxicity.

Conducting actual research on the effects of GMO toxins on human cells — this is something Monsanto will never do — researchers from the University of Caen in France have found that the Cry1Ab protein, a Bt toxin deliberately produced in many GM crops, including Monsanto’s MON810 Bt corn, destroys human cells at levels of 100 parts per million (ppm) dilution and higher when consumed by itself. This level of exposure is relatively low, considering human exposure to Bt toxin comes from multiple sources, including meat and dairy products from animals fed Bt corn feed, as well as direct human consumption of Bt corn ingredients and soon-to-be Bt sweet corn from the produce section (http://www.naturalnews.com/035029_GM_corn_Walmart_Monsanto.html).

Additionally, the researchers found that exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide formula, induces human cell death at exposures as low as 50 ppm, which is “far below agricultural dilutions,” according to the report. At a dilution of 57.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher, Roundup effectively kills 50 percent of human cells, which clearly illustrates its severe toxicity.

This important finding confirms the findings of numerous other reports conducted in recent days concerning Roundup’s toxicity in humans, including the fact that this widely-used chemical causes birth defects, cancer, and death (http://www.naturalnews.com/033772_Monsanto_Roundup.html).

But the real kicker in the new research is the combined toxicity from exposure to both Roundup and Bt toxin which, according to the study, is tremendous. In their conclusion, researchers noted that “modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants” (http://www.greenmedinfo.com).

So much for Monsanto’s claim that Bt toxin, Roundup, and various other chemically-engineered traits are perfectly harmless. Monsanto actually claims on its website that human testing of GMOs is unnecessary because they are no different than conventional and natural crop varieties — and regulatory authorities have never taken the agri-giant to task on actually proving this baseless claim, which flies in the face of independent science (http://www.naturalnews.com).

Source: NaturalNews.com

WHO Admits Omitting Fluoride’s Damaging Health Effects to “Prevent Controversy”

Infowars.com
Jurriaan Maessen
February 23, 2012

A mention on the website of the World Health Organization (WHO) admits that there were suggestions by member or members of the Chemical Aspects Working Group meeting in Tokyo, held in 2002, to omit information on the “adverse health effects” of fluoride to “prevent controversy.” Here is the full quote from the WHO’s website:

“At the Chemical Aspects Working Group meeting (Tokyo, 2002), the group was informed that the monograph was being finalized, and there was considerable discussion on various aspects of the draft, including a suggestion that the monograph should not mix discussion on the beneficial use of fluoride with adverse health effects to prevent controversy. The monograph was not discussed at the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality Working Group meeting (Geneva, 2004). The document is in editing and layout (2005). A presentation to the Working Groups of the WHO Oral Health Programme on the importance of fluoridation was made in 2005.”

In the questionnaire for the working group, posted on the WHO’s website, the Working Group’s members are assured that their comments “will not be posted to the public website.” Well, it seems the WHO not only lies to the world, they lie to their own underlings as well. But no matter: the most important thing here is that the WHO deliberately contemplated omitting crucial information about fluoride’s damaging effects from its future publications- which in turn act as guiding principles, commandments almost, for states all around the world.

As it turns out, the WHO not only omits and deletes. That would make the whole affair some sad sort of cover-up or whitewash. No, the WHO- knowing perfectly well that fluoride is most damaging- actively promotes the use of fluoride and works to distribute it through the world’s water-supply. A WHO publication of the Expert Consensus Meeting Group Report even advises adding fluoride in the water-supply for specific segments of the population.

The “consensus” reached among the “experts” reads, that higher income groups often already consume enough fluoride for their purposes, which- by the way- has decidedly nothing to do with some dental battle against tooth decay.

“For example”, we can read in the report, “in countries such as those in Scandinavia, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste) are widely available and widely used, a decision to not fluoridate the water, or remove fluoride, or to supply drinking water with suboptimal levels of fluoride would likely be of little consequence.

The report continues with the statement that for segments of the population which do not have wide access to fluoridated toothpaste, the WHO would me more than willing to dump trace amounts of it into the water-supply, free of charge:

“On the other hand in developing and developed countries where public dental health awareness in some population groups (e.g. lower income) might be much lower, water containing either natural or added fluoride at concentrations of 0.5 to1.0 mg/l would be important for dental health.”

This idea perfectly coincides with the ruling guidelines of the WHO Oral Health Programme, which include a “particular focus” on “the disadvantaged and under-served population groups.”:

“The WHO Oral Health Programme, jointly with the FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) and the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), have embarked on an action plan for the promotion of using fluoride, particularly focusing on the disadvantaged and under-served population groups.”

Furthermore, the WHO’s Guidelines for drinking water quality states:

“In setting national standards for fluoride or in evaluating the possible health consequences of exposure to fluoride, it is essential to consider the intake of water by the population of interest and the intake of fluoride from other sources (e.g., from food, air and dental preparations).”

Dr.Richard Shames, graduated Harvard and University of Pennsylvania, after in-depth research into the effects of Fluoride on the human biological system, noted:

“(…) the Nazi concentration camps used fluoridated water to suppress the will and vigor of inmates. This appears to have been during the 1930s and was the first known example of fluoridated water supplies for a specific population.”

Fluoride, in whatever amount, is nothing less than a chemical weapon. Considering it is applied to entire populations or certain groups within a population, the definition is chemical warfare- a tool most useful to eugenicists who are intent on depopulation the planet.

If you wish to know more regarding Fluoride, please read The Red Pill Guide – Fluoride.   There is ample evidence for those seeking to do more research.

Source: InfoWars.com

Drugstores Pushing Poison On Customers

By: Infowars.com
February 19, 2012

Every place you go the population reduction agenda is pushed. The fluoride they put in the water is the toxic byproduct of the fertilizer and aluminum smelting industries. It is also sprayed on crops as a pesticide and added to baby water,you can’t make this stuff up. The CVS was also plastered with hen pecking so- called environmental propaganda posters and flue shot ads!

Read More Stories At InfoWars.com