“Our findings have global implications and advance what we know about the sustainability benefits of organic farming systems,” John Reganold, Washington State University Regents professor of soil science and lead author of the study, which was just published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE, said in a media statement. “We also show you can have high quality, healthy produce without resorting to an arsenal of pesticides.”

The comprehensive study involved the analysis of 31 chemical and biological soil properties and soil DNA, as well as the taste, nutrition and quality of three strawberry varieties on 13 conventional fields and 13 organic ones. All the farms in the study are in California, where about 90 percent of U.S. strawberries are grown. California is also the center of an ongoing controversy over whether the common use of soil fumigants on strawberries is safe.

Conventional farms in the study were found to be currently using methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting chemical which is due to be replaced by highly toxic methyl iodide. More than 50 Nobel laureates, members of the National Academy of Sciences and countless natural health advocates have protested the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent approval of the use of methyl iodide on crops, so far to no avail — despite the new evidence that organically grown crops are better for humans and the planet.

The research team, along with Dr. Reganold, included Preston Andrews, a WSU associate professor of horticulture, and seven other experts in scientific disciplines including agroecology, soil science, microbial ecology, genetics, pomology (the science of fruit breeding and production), food science, sensory science, and statistics. By virtually every major indicator, these scientists found the organic fields and fruit were equal to or better than their conventional counterparts.

Specifically, the scientists discovered that organic strawberries had significantly higher antioxidant activity including much higher concentrations of ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds (phytonutrients known to help protect and fight a host of disease). The organic strawberries also had a longer shelf life. What’s more, anonymous testers found organic strawberries looked and tasted better. The researchers also documented that organic soils excelled in important chemical and biological properties — including nitrogen, microbial biomass, enzyme activities, and micronutrients. Bottom line: organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious berries while leaving the soil healthier and more genetically diverse.

For more information:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012346

And that’s just the beginning…

Nutritional cures exist for nearly every major disease, but the FDA doesn’t want you to know about them. So it has censored truthful, scientifically-proven information about these substances in order to keep you ignorant about nutritional cures.

Watch my short public service announcement to see more (38 seconds): http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=544BD1D89A151956D37B2A70A55F4BA1

When one U.S. company offering cherry concentrates began linking to government-funded studies that concluded cherries reduce the symptoms of arthritis, they received a threatening letter from the FDA, demanding they remove the links from their website or face “criminal prosecution.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

Similarly, the FDA went on the attack to censor the truth about walnuts, claiming that “walnuts are unapproved drugs” when they are accompanied by truthful, scientific descriptions about their benefits for heart health (http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/FDA-Says-Walnuts-Are-Illegal-Drugs.htm).

Diamond Foods, a distributor of walnuts, posted a collection of peer-reviewed scientific evidence on its website that described the health benefits of walnuts. In return, here’s part of the utterly illogical set of demands Diamond Foods received from the FDA which claim that “walnuts are drugs”…

“Based on our review, we have concluded that your walnut products are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR). …Based on claims made on your firm’s website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. …Because of these intended uses, your walnut products are drugs within the meaning of section 201 (g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(B)]. Your walnut products are also new drugs under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(p)] because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions. Therefore, under section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)], they may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.”

In other words, telling the truth about walnuts turns you into a criminal according to the FDA. And if you tell the scientifically-validated truth about how walnuts can help reduce high cholesterol, that act magically transforms your walnuts into unapproved drugs.

And much the same is true when you’re talking about green tea or pomegranates or superfoods. If you dare discuss the health benefits of any food or natural substance while you are selling such items, you will be branded a criminal by the FDA, threatened with criminal prosecution and potentially have your company raided by the FDA along with armed law enforcement agents with guns drawn.

Only junk foods are good for you
At the same time the FDA is attacking health foods, it openly allows ridiculous health claims on processed dead junk foods. Frito-Lay potato chips, for example, are allowed to carry claims that they are “heart healthy.”

So while genuinely health foods like walnuts and pomegranates cannot make health claims, processed dead foods like potato chips may openly carry FDA-approved health claims!

Are you following this yet? Real food is bad for you. But junk food is good for you. That’s what the FDA wants you to believe.

The FDA, you see, doesn’t want you to learn the truth about healthy foods. This agency wants you to remain as ignorant as possible about the scientifically-validated health benefits of natural foods, supplements and superfoods while allowing you to be inundated with false and misleading health claims on processed dead junk foods like potato chips.

And can you guess the point of all this? It’s fairly obvious, isn’t it? The point is to keep Americans in a never-ending state of chronic degenerative disease that will result in a windfall of profits for the drug companies the FDA actually serves.

This is why natural food producers aren’t allowed to even link to scientific articles about their foods. The FDA, you see, is in the business of censoring nutritional science.

See more in my short video: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=544BD1D89A151956D37B2A70A55F4BA1

Can’t tell the truth about green tea, either
On August 30, 2010, the FDA sent warning letters to manufacturers of green tea beverages, warning them about making health claims about green tea. One such beverage made by Canada Dry carried a claim that the drink is “enhanced with 200 mg of antioxidants from green tea and vitamin C.”

In its threatening warning letter, the FDA insisted that green tea and vitamin C “are not nutrients with recognized antioxidant activity.” (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPahcLPBLnbdWEyGVIiV9P4en0FQD9I38FIO0)

Huh? Vitamin C isn’t an antioxidant? That’s funny, because outside the halls of the FDA offices, vitamin C has antioxidant activity and properties. The laws of chemistry, apparently, are suspended within the FDA’s jurisdiction. All the universal laws of physics cease to exist when the FDA is in charge, and they are instead replaced with the FDA’s distorted opinions of what those laws should actually be. Antioxidants don’t exist. Vitamins are inert substances. Foods contain no medicine. Only pharmaceuticals have biological effects within the human body. These are the far-fetched laws of the universe according to the FDA.

In its never-ending march on nutritional science, the FDA also went after Lipton teas, whose website linked to four scientific studies concluding that green tea has a cholesterol-lowering effect. The FDA warned the Lipton company to remove the links, claiming that they were “misleading” and were effectively making claims that Lipton tea could treat a “disease.”

But what if green tea really can help prevent a disease and the FDA just doesn’t want you to know about it? That’s actually the case with many plant-based nutrients that have powerful protective effects against disease. But according to the FDA’s official position, there is no such thing as a food, nutrient or supplement that can prevent or treat any disease.

Vitamin C doesn’t prevent scurvy. Vitamin D doesn’t prevent rickets. Vitamin B3 doesn’t prevent pellagra, according to the FDA. Vitamins are biologically useless substances unless they’re patented by drug companies in which case they are magically transformed into “therapeutic chemicals” that may be sold to patients at monopoly prices.

The FDA actually believes that fresh, unprocessed foods have no health benefits whatsoever. That’s why no health claims are allowed on such things. But dead processed foods like breakfast cereals can prevent disease, according to the FDA. That’s why the agency has allowed such products to carry a multitude of health claims.

It’s all part of the FDA’s censorship of science about nutrients, foods and supplements. Rather than promoting real scientific knowledge, the FDA is censoring the science to keep the public as ignorant as possible.

In this way, the FDA is an enemy of nutritional literacy because it aims to keep people in the dark about the health benefits of foods, supplements and nutrients.

And because nutritional literacy is crucial to the long-term survival of America, the FDA, through its campaign of enforced nutritional illiteracy, is effectively an enemy of America. The agency has already accomplished incalculable harm to America’s population and her economy. And the FDA is just getting warmed up! Now it wants to “step up its enforcement” of so-called “false” food labeling. This is just a cover story to clamp down on truthful health claims the FDA wants to censor.

It is through scientific censorship policies like those practiced at the FDA that America may fall to ignorance, disease and medical bankruptcy. The FDA is actually accelerating America’s downfall by isolating people from the nutritional knowledge that could prevent disease, reduce health care costs and save billions of dollars in unnecessary medical costs.

For example, can you imagine the cost savings alone if we as a nation could prevent just one percent of all cancers? According to the National Institutes of Health, cancer costs the USA $228.1 billion in 2008. That’s nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars.

Now imagine the savings if we could find a miracle nutrient that could reduce all cancers by three-quarters? That would save America $171 billion per year (not to mention saving human lives at the same time).

And here’s the good news: Such a nutrient already exists! It’s cheap, safe and readily available. But the American Cancer Society won’t talk about it, the FDA won’t approve it and your doctor almost certainly won’t recommend it. Want to know what it is? Read this article if you don’t already know: http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html

How to end the FDA’s reign of ignorance and censorship of nutritional science
First off, I highly recommend reading Jonathan Emord’s outstanding book on this subject entitled Global Censorship of Health Information (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0982059531).

This is a hugely important book on the subject from one of the industry’s intellectual giants: attorney Jonathan Emord.

Secondly, if you’re in the USA, support the Free Speech about Science Act, a new effort to end FDA censorship over truthful, scientifically-validated health claims for vitamins, foods and nutritional supplements. Click the following link to learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_censorship_healing_foods.html

Finally, recognize that we are beginning to defeat the FDA in court. In particular, the Alliance for Natural Health recently emerged victorious against the FDA in court over the agency’s effort to censor truthful information about how selenium can reduce your risk of cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028929_FDA_health_claims.html)

Now we need more companies to stand up to FDA tyranny and take this rogue agency to court in order to stop its campaign of censorship and oppression against the natural products industry.

Just to be clear about what is a valid health claim
Just to be clear, in no way am I advocating that natural products companies should be able to just think up whatever health claims they want and emblazon their product packages with such things. We need to insist that health claims be “scientifically validated.”

For example, if a cherry company could cite five studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude cherries can help ease the symptoms of arthritis, then it should be perfectly acceptable for that company to place corresponding claims on its packaging: “Cherries have been shown to reduce the symptoms of arthritis.” (With an appropriate citation on its website that points to the qualifying scientific studies.)

Almost everyone who believes in common sense would agree that this is a sensible approach to allowing health claims on foods and supplements. Yet the FDA’s position is that foods and supplements are not allowed to carry any health claims — even if such claims are scientifically validated and true!

The FDA absurdly insists that no food, no herb, no vitamin and no supplement can possibly have any biological effect on the human body… and if it does, then that magically transforms it into a “drug” requiring $400 million in testing and clinical trials before it can be approved by the FDA. And even then, it would only be available by prescription.

Do you see the catch-22 here? It’s sort of like the old “floating witch” test in the witch hunt days: If you float, you’re a witch and you get burned at the stake. If you sink, you die but you are declared innocent.

The FDA pulls the same thing with nutritional supplements: If it doesn’t work, then it’s inert and will be tolerated. But if it actually works, then it’s now a “drug” and will be outlawed as an “unapproved drug.”

I’m not making this up. This is precisely how the FDA operates at present.

It’s a logic trap that I believe has been specifically designed to discredit the entire nutritional supplements industry while promoting the “benefits” of pharmaceuticals — most of which we now know were falsified through pure scientific fraud, by the way.

Watch my short video to learn more about FDA censorship: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=544BD1D89A151956D37B2A70A55F4BA1

And share this video with others. Everyone deserves to know the truth about nutrition and health. The FDA cannot keep us all in the dark forever. With your help, we will shine the light of truth on this issue and end the era of nutritional illiteracy that has cost America trillions of dollars and destroyed millions of lives.

Synthetic hormone replacement drugs like Wyeth’s Prempro experienced a significant drop in sales after a 2002 study found that the drugs greatly increase women’s risk of developing ovarian and breast cancers, as well as strokes and other serious illnesses. Prempro sales, for instance, have fallen by 50 percent since 2001 as a result.

In an attempt to boost sales and reestablish public confidence in the dangerous drugs, Wyeth allegedly resorted to paying DesignWrite, a medical communications company, $25,000 to write positive articles about the drug. Wyeth also paid the company to write 20 positive review articles about its drug at $20,000 a pop.

These articles were designed not only to convince the public that the drugs are safe, but to suggest that they be used for unapproved uses such as to prevent heart disease, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, vision problems and even to reverse the effects of aging. They also highlighted supposed benefits while suppressing known dangers.

“Given the growing evidence that ghostwriting has been used to promote hormone therapy and offer highly promoted drugs, the medical profession must take steps to ensure that prescribers renounce participation in ghostwriting, and to ensure that unscrupulous relationships between industry and academia are avoided rather than courted,” she and her colleagues wrote in the PLoS Medicine, a Public Library of Science journal.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6865FQ20100907

Nearly 130,000 men and women between the ages of 34 and 75 participated in the study, which was published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers followed female participants from 1980 to 2006, and male participants from 1986 to 2006, and discovered that those who ate animal-based diets tended to die sooner than those who ate vegetable-based diets. Animal-based diets also raised participants’ risk of dying from cancer.

Experts believe the unique vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and micronutrients in plant foods is responsible for promoting better health, and thus a longer life. So while all participants may have consumed similar amounts of proteins and carbohydrates throughout their lives, those who consumed plant-based proteins as part of their diets achieved optimal benefit.

“Low-carbohydrate diets from animal and vegetable sources may have similar major macronutrient content, but the source of the macronutrients can result in large differences in dietary components that may affect mortality, such as specific fatty acids, protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals, and phytochemicals,” explained researchers in the report. “Therefore, the associations that we observed are more likely to be mediated by these bioactive components rather than the carbohydrate content.”

The study does not differentiate between organic, grass-fed animal proteins and conventionally-raised animal proteins. However, previous research has shown that grass-fed animals produce meat that is higher in vital nutrients and good fats, and may provide similar benefits.

Sources for this story include:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/06/news/la-heb-low-carb-20100906

This is now being revealed in some rather shocking video footage released by Brent Leung, creator of the House of Numbers documentary (www.HouseOfNumbers.com) which tears apart the inconsistencies and dogmatic non-science found in the conventional HIV / AIDS industry.

Watch the footage yourself right now at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E9FEA62D4E91BB913C8CCC3CC8C2A35F

There, you’ll see world-renowned scientists discussing the so-called “western blot,” a highly subjective test that is now being used around the world to falsely diagnose people with HIV and, subsequently, AIDS. This western blot, as you’ll learn below, is a spectacularly laughable test that seems to have been designed to make “positive” criteria as loose as possible in order to label perfectly healthy people as having AIDS.

“I don’t think the western blot is a useful diagnostic test. I don’t think it’s worth doing,” argues Dr Robin Weiss in the video clip.

Val Turner, an MD from Australia, adds, “It’s ludicrous that you can be [HIV] positive in one country and not positive in another.”

Neville Hodgkinson, the Medical and Science Correspondent for The Sunday Times (London) adds, “Some people argue that we have a confirmatory test in some western countries, and that repeated testing can lead you to a safer diagnosis. But if the very basis of the test is faulty, then nothing works in fact. …Because of the different criteria that apply in different countries, you can test HIV positive in one country and be given an AIDS diagnosis as a result of that, whereas in another country you won’t test HIV positive and you won’t be given an AIDS diagnosis.”

A full-blown AIDS patient will almost always show nine different “bands” on an HIV test. But in the 1980′s, only one band was required — P24 — to diagnose someone as HIV positive (and subsequently having AIDS). The problem is that perfectly healthy people can also test positive for P24, even if they aren’t HIV positive.

“In the early days, people developed criteria that were too much like a screening test. So if you had just P24 [band], they might have called it a positive,” said Robert Redfield MD, Director, Clinical Care and Research, Institute of Human Virology.

Doctor Val Turner adds, “Many people were diagnosed using these criteria, and then it was realized that forty percent of people who are completely healthy have one or more western blot bands, most commonly a P24 band.”

A few years later, the FDA changed its diagnosis criteria for HIV, upping the requirement beyond a single P24 band. But people who had already been diagnosed as having AIDS were never re-tested!

Dr Val Turner explains, “We don’t know how many thousand people were testing using that western blot criteria before 1987, but … shouldn’t they all have been tested when the criteria changed in 1987 in case they were no longer positive? So there are probably people out there who would not be positive under the criteria which developed subsequently. Using the FDA criteria which existed before 1993, only 80 percent of AIDS patients had a positive HIV test, which means 20 percent were not positive.”

HIV tests depend on personal opinion, not rigorous science
Even today, HIV tests are conducted in a wishy-washy, non-scientific manner where the results depend largely on the opinion of the lab technician reading the test results! (It’s absurd, of course, but this is what’s happening right now.)

In House of Numbers, Brent Leung visited Claudia Kücherer, MD, a Molecular Biologist at the Robert Kock Institute in Berlin. There, he recorded this conversation:

Brent: “When you’re looking at this western blot, how do you determine what is a positive [result]?”

Claudia: “You need a certain number of bands being present. It depends a little bit on the producer of the test.”

Brent: “It depends on the manufacturer?”

Claudia: “Yes”

Brent: “Is there a different criteria for what might be a positive?”

Claudia: “Yeah, there are different criteria from the manufacturer.”

Manufacturers of the HIV test, in other words, differ in how they define a “positive.” You might be “HIV positive” on one test, but negative on another. And the decision on which manufacturer’s test to use is based on the opinion of the clinic, hospital or doctor ordering the tests.

Astonishingly, this House of Numbers footage also includes a scene featuring two different HIV test lab technicians working in the same lab who disagree on the criteria for a positive HIV test result. While one lab workers says two bands are needed for a positive diagnosis, another worker says three are required. And they work in the same lab!

Watch this footage yourself right here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E9FEA62D4E91BB913C8CCC3CC8C2A35F

Western blot HIV test called into question
But some scientists feel the western blot is not just a good test, but a great one! Robert C Gallo MD, Director of the Institute of Human Virology, says “This has a margin of error if done properly that’s extremely low. In other words, it’s one of medicine’s better tests.”

One of medicine’s better tests? Really? And yet it can be interpreted in different ways by different lab technicians, different definitions in different countries, different manufacturers and different medical opinions?

The HIV tests, it turns out, is more a matter of opinion than scientific fact. And if you or someone you know has tested positive for HIV, maybe they should get a second opinion.

Why not make the test more accurate?
So why doesn’t the industry tighten up its guidelines and require five, six or even all nine bands to show up before diagnosing someone as HIV positive? No one seems to know.

I do, though. Isn’t it obvious? The AIDS industry is much like the cancer industry in that it’s focused on diagnosing as many patients as possible whether or not they actually have the disease. More patients equals more profits and a bigger “scare story” to feed the media propaganda machines.

We already know that the AIDS industry fabricated evidence to try to exaggerate the scope of the AIDS scare (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=D35F0FFB30FA5AB31FA918A6F6BF326C). So it’s not surprising they would be promoting a “loose” test that potentially has already ensnared potentially tens of thousands of innocent people into a false AIDS diagnosis.

Once a person is diagnosed with AIDS, you see, they become a profit generating machine for Big Pharma. AIDS pharmaceuticals are extremely expensive, and because they are protected under an FDA-enforced monopoly, they can be sold at practically any asking price.

Even better, once innocent “healthy” people start taking AIDS drugs, they begin to show AIDS symptoms such as compromised immune systems. These side effects are caused by the drugs, of course, not by the disease, but in the minds of doctors and patients, the emergence of these scary symptoms proves that “they really had AIDS.”

It’s all just loopy, circular logic with a single purpose: To earn more money for Big Pharma at the expense of human suffering.

Now, I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a genuine person with immune deficiency. Thanks mostly to our toxic environment, there are certainly people who suffer chronic immune system malfunctions. But it is in the AIDS industry’s interests to convince even healthy people that they are ill and need pharmaceutical intervention to survive. And, by sheer coincidence (not!), today’s HIV tests are specifically designed in a way that produces a disturbingly high number of false positives.

See the complete collection of exclusive clips from House of Numbers at NaturalNews.TV: http://naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?memberid=4745

Much of North America’s water is fluoridated, meaning that water utilities add hexafluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride or sodium fluoride to local water supplies. These toxic substances are said to prevent tooth decay, but many medical and dental professionals disagree, citing fluoride’s many harmful effects on the body and teeth.

Unlike the element fluorine which can occur naturally in water, the artificial fluoride added to drinking water is a toxic byproduct of the phosphate mining industry. Aluminum factories, for instance, create fluoride waste that is commonly used to fluoridate water.

In addition to being a dangerous poison, the Green Party initiative cites the fact that fluoride is not removed by sewage treatment plants, and that much of it ends up in lakes and rivers. The Great Lakes contain as much as ten times the maximum safe levels established by the Canadian Water Quality Guideline standards for aquatic life, for instance.

Artificial water fluoridation is technically illegal since fluoride is a toxic chemical. At best, it is an unapproved drug by which governments are unlawfully medicating the public. At worst, it is a toxic poison that is wreaking havoc on public health.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of fluoride is the fact that cavity rates are generally the same among areas that fluoridate and areas that do not fluoridate. So the purported benefits of water fluoridation are entirely unsubstantiated based on scientific evidence.

It is also generally known that too much fluoride causes dental fluorosis, a condition in which tooth enamel becomes mottled, and brown and white stains form. In extreme cases, dental fluorosis literally rots the teeth.

It remains to be seen whether or not the Green Party of the U.S.–or any other party, for that matter–decides to take on water fluoridation with similar legislation.

Sources for this story include:

http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/Canada/National/Green-Party-of-Canada-calls-for-ban-on-the-fluoridation-chemicals-hexafluorosilicic-acid-and-sodium-silicofluoride

According to his doctor, Douglas will undergo eight weeks of radiation combined with two rounds of chemotherapy. “Together, it has proven to give a good chance for a cure for the disease,” says Dr Kevin Cullen, director of the University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center. Apparently Dr Cullen is unaware that chemotherapy and radiation never “cure” cancer — they only temporarily shrink tumors while increasing the risk of cancer throughout the body.

One of the most prominent side effects of chemotherapy is, in fact, cancer! The same is true for radiation. These are both cancer-causing interventions in human biology. Instead of boosting immune function, they compromise it. And while they may temporarily shrink cancer tumors, recent research reveals that they don’t eliminate cancer tumor stem cells that can easily re-grow the tumor once the treatments are finished.

That’s why so many cancer tumors grow back after chemotherapy and radiation — the tumor still exists! Merely shrinking it is not an accurate gauge of any real reduction in the risk of the tumor growing back.

The only sure way to stop a cancer tumor from growing back is to change its environment by altering your exercise, diet and intake of anti-cancer foods, superfoods and medicinal herbs. By flooding your body’s cells with anti-cancer nutrients such as vitamin D, selenium, vitamin C and plant-based nutrients, your risk of growing cancer tumors is greatly decreased (by as much as 77% from vitamin D alone, according to the scientific research). (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html)

Chemo is the wrong choice
Celebrities who choose chemotherapy and radiation are usually the ones quick to die from their cancers. Patrick Swayze died after receiving chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/027047_cancer_chemotherapy_industry.html); Farrah Fawcett died after chemotherapy for anal cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/026511_cancer_chemotherapy_doctors.html); Peter Jennings died after chemotherapy treatments for lung cancer; Tony Snow died after chemotherapy treatments for colon cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/023626_cancer_chemotherapy_colon_cancer.html).

But celebrities who choose a healthier, more holistic treatment plan seem to do much better. Perhaps most famously, Suzanne Somers overcame her own breast cancer by turning to natural remedies and a holistic lifestyle (http://www.naturalnews.com/027526_Suzanne_Somers_curing_cancer.html).

Sadly, Michael Douglas appears to be following in the footsteps o Patrick Swayze rather than Suzanne Somers. This is sad because Douglas is a phenomenal film actor and we’d all like to have him around a few more decades so that he can continue to contribute to his art. While chemotherapy isn’t guaranteed to take his life, it sets in motion an accelerated biological decline caused by the undeniable toxicity of chemo (not to mention the radiation).

Following these treatments, we are likely to see Michael Douglas age more quickly, suffer impaired cognitive function, show worsening skin health and experience increased fatigue. These are all things that may prevent him from pursuing his work, thereby denying us the joy of seeing him appear in more films.

What cancer docs won’t tell you
While it’s true that radiation and chemotherapy can shrink throat cancer tumors, that alone isn’t enough to restore a person to true health. Following any such cancer treatments, patient should be strongly encouraged to get more vitamin D, consume anti-cancer nutrients and even take nutritional supplements that can boost their immune function.

Sadly, oncologists are currently telling their patients none of these things. In fact, many cancer doctors insist that their patients avoid taking antioxidants, medicinal mushrooms or any source of antioxidants, claiming they might “interfere” with the chemotherapy.

In this way, oncologists doom their patients to pain, suffering and often death. That’s why chemotherapy is often called “physician-assisted suicide.” It’s a way to kill yourself while enriching the drug companies that manufacture chemotherapy agents.

What is chemotherapy?
Chemotherapy agents are derived from highly toxic mustard gas chemicals used as chemical weapons in World War I (http://www.naturalnews.com/029191_secondhand_chemotherapy_cancer.html).

They are so toxic that pharmacists are getting cancer just from handling them.

The No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy is cancer. But it also causes “chemo brain” (the destruction of brain cells) and damages the liver and kidneys.

In choosing chemotherapy and radiation, Michael Douglas has bet his life on the illusion that conventional medicine is telling the truth about cancer. But the industry is actually lying to the public. Cancer is a multi-billion-dollar industry that preys upon the nutritional ignorance of the public while turning human beings into profit machines by promising them “treatments” that only worsen their health.

And sadly, Michael Douglas is the latest victim to be targeted for cancer industry profits.

But it turns out there’s already a substance that could do all this. And it’s not a side effect-laden chemical. It’s a compound in grapefruit.

Bottom line: there’s extremely sweet breaking news about a compound hidden in the tangy flavor of grapefruits that may treat diabetes naturally and also bring some of the benefits of low carb dieting to the body, too — without dieting. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), have discovered that naringenin, an antioxidant derived from the bitter flavor of grapefruits and other citrus fruits, triggers the liver to break down fat.

While the function of the pancreas is important to diabetics, the liver is the main organ responsible for the regulation of carbohydrates and blood levels of fat. After a meal, the blood is flushed with sugars, which activate LXR-alpha, a PPAR associated with inflammation. This triggers the liver to create fatty acids for long-term storage. But during periods of fasting (and low carb dieting) the process is reversed, fat cells release fatty acids and break them down to ketones. There’s an increased sensitivity to insulin, too. The new research, just published in the online journal PLoS ONE, shows that naringenin activates two kinds of PPARs (dubbed PPAR-alpha and PPARy) and blocks LXR-alpha — resulting in fasting-type benefits to the body.

“It is a process which is similar to the Atkins diet, without many of the side effects,” Martin L. Yarmush, MD, PhD, director of the MGH Center for Engineering in Medicine and one of the paper’s authors, said in a media statement. “The liver behaves as if fasting, breaking down fatty acids instead of carbohydrates.”

“It is a fascinating find,” Yaakov Nahmias, PhD, the paper’s senior author said in the press statement. He pointed out that the results of the research were what the pharmaceutical industry has long been seeking through drug research.

“But their (drug) development was plagued by safety concerns. Remarkably, naringenin is a dietary supplement with a clear safety record. Evidence suggests it might actually protect the liver from damage,” Dr. Nahmias added. If the results of the new study hold up in human patients, the research team believes the grapefruit compound could become a treatment for high cholesterol, type-2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.

For more information:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0012399

AquAdvantage salmon is genetically engineered to grow twice as fast as real Atlantic salmon. Company officials insist the GM fish is safe, sterile and identical to real salmon. It also insists that the GM fish poses no threat to the environment.

But since no safety studies have verified any of this to be true, such claims are entirely baseless. And since the company’s entire existence depends on AquAdvantage getting approved, the claims deserve further scrutiny and legitimate scientific testing.

The FDA is apparently taking Aqua Bounty’s word for it, however, by declaring the GM salmon to be “as safe to eat as food from other Atlantic salmon.” The agency also insists that the fish are “highly unlikely” to cause significant environmental harm, even though it has provided no rationale or evidence to back up this claim.

“The FDA is basically just assuming these fish are okay to eat,” stated Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit environmental and public health organization.

Contrary to claims by both Aqua Bounty and the FDA, the GM salmon will not necessarily remain sterile. It is also highly likely the fish will escape into the wild and eventually destroy native salmon populations–and potentially other fish species as well.

The FDA will accept comments and advice from various experts and from the public during the three-day panel. You can sign up to attend the meeting and express your thoughts on the matter at the following link:
https://www.fedmeetings.net/common/registration.cfm?mid=3210

You can also write the FDA at:
Division of Dockets Management
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

Be sure to reference Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0385.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68231Q20100903

Typically, high cholesterol is treated with a second chemical intervention — statin drugs. Statins can produce devastating side effects including kidney and liver damage (http://naturalnews.com/statins.html), muscle weakness and eye problems. So now we have a situation where people ingesting PFOA chemicals may be inaccurately diagnosed with cholesterol problems and be prescribed dangerous chemical medications that cause even more health problems.

This study looked at 12,000 children who were exposed to PFOA through their local water supply which was contaminated with PFOA. It does not prove a link between non-stick cookware and cholesterol, although it suggests a possible link that should probably be researched further.

PFOA is on more than just cooking pans
PFOA isn’t merely found on cooking pans, by the way: Nearly all cooking surfaces for electric consumer food prep appliances are made with it: Sandwich toasters, griddles and even popular cooking devices such as George Foreman Grills.

You’ll also get PFOA from most restaurants because non-stick cooking surfaces are commonly used to prepare your omelets, pancakes, pasta sauces and many other menu items. Avoiding PFOA is nearly impossible unless you prepare all your own food at home, and even then, you must be extremely careful with what food prep devices you use.

Even Swiss Diamond pans which claim that you’re “cooking on diamonds” are actually made with PFOA chemicals (http://www.naturalnews.com/021059.html).

I have avoided non-stick cookware for many years and wouldn’t dare prepare any food on such an item made with dangerous chemicals, but most consumers don’t know about the dangers of PFOA, and they continue to cook their food with non-stick pans. It gets really dangerous when people use forks or metal spatulas to stir their food in such pans because this action scrapes off microscopic bits of PFOA chemicals that then become lodged in their food and swallowed.

My advice is to avoid all non-stick cookware. Buy stainless steel cookware with copper plating on the bottom, which helps disperse heat and prevent burning. Better yet, eat more raw foods and superfood smoothies which require no cooking whatsoever.

The mere act of cooking food in a pan, after all, creates carcinogens in the food. The only “safely” cooked food is steamed or boiled. Anything that subjects foods to very high temperatures — frying, broiling, grilling, etc. — results in the creation of cancer-causing chemicals in the food itself. And that’s true whether you’re using a PFOA pan or not.

Sources for this story include:
BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11201956