Health & WellnessS


Arrow Down

Olive oil virginity questioned

Olive Oil
© Wikimedia Commons/stu_spivack

New York - The question of virginity is back in the news again after a controversial New York Times piece about extra-virgin olive oil and whether consumers are getting true value from the costly kitchen condiment.

The controversy started after a New York Times online interactive feature by Nicholas Blechman, in which he detailed the way today's olive oil is imported to Italy from countries such as Tunisia, cut with soy and other oils, mixed with beta-carotene and chlorophyll to mask taste and add color, and exported around the world to be shelved as Made-in-Italy "extra-virgin" olive oil - a label that designates the olives are pressed into oil within hours of being harvested.

Olive oil has been a valuable commodity for centuries, predating oils that are more treasured today - such as crude, which is the base for most of our energy needs. Through the centuries, olive oil has been used to cook our meals, light our paths, moisturize our skin, shine our hair, grease our machinery and it's even been traded for other things we've wanted to acquire.

How valuable is olive oil? If you were to compare today's market price of olive oil to the market price for crude, olive oil is almost five times more expensive. This could account for some producers' cutting costs by "cutting" the real stuff with less-expensive edible oils, and then passing it off as authentic in order to realize a healthy profit.

Syringe

Big Pharma and corporate media team up for Pro-Vaccine propaganda

Image
© theorganicprepper.ca
Every year, flu vaccine propaganda is ramped up by the pharmaceutical industry and its mouthpiece media, which then gives way to a second round (pun intended) of vaccine propaganda pushing toxic vaccinations for a variety of diseases, only then to be followed by the demonization of nutritional supplements. Around mid-January, rinse and repeat - (flu, childhood vaccine, and anti-supplement propaganda).

Thus, at the end of 2013, the American public was met with an onslaught of fear-mongering propaganda predicting flu pandemics and imminent death if vaccination was not immediately sought. We then saw the major propaganda assault regarding the safety and effectiveness of vitamins and minerals by the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Now, in early 2014, we are witnessing another propaganda assault against the "anti-vaccination" movement with claims of increased outbreaks and apocalyptic scenes of sickness.

The latest propaganda push comes not from the medical industry per se, however, but from an organization usually more focused on the spread of globalism, free trade, culture creation, and other domestic/international governmental policies, the Council on Foreign Relations.

Whistle

Gates Foundation/Council Foreign Relations propaganda against 'Anti-Vaccine' movement backfires

Image
"It is well known that in war, the first casualty is truth - that during any war truth is forsaken for propaganda." ~ Harry Browne
The war against so-called 'vaccine preventable' diseases has a new frontier: the internet, and most recently The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) has entered the fray with the publication of an interactive map that it claims "visually plots global outbreaks of measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio, rubella, and other diseases that are easily preventable by inexpensive and effective vaccines." This widely referenced map generated news headlines such as: CFR's map is "made possible by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation," and is part of The Global Health Program at the Council on Foreign Relations, which it claims "provides independent, evidence-based analysis and recommendations to help policymakers, business leaders, journalists, and the general public meet the health challenges of a globalized world." The problem, however, with this map is that is not based on peer-reviewed biomedical evidence as one would expect, but largely anecdotal evidence aggregated from unconfirmed and often unverifiable news stories.

Comment: Read more about UNICEF's attack on independent health journalism: UNICEF Surveils, Defames health sites over vaccines

A stunning new report reveals that the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has been monitoring independent health sites and their users in an attempt to identify 'anti-vaccine influencers' and their effect on lackluster vaccine uptake.
A newly fashioned United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) working paper tracking "the rise of online anti-vaccination sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe" identifies independent health websites, including GreenMedInfo.com, Mercola.com, NaturalNews.com and VacTruth.com, as contributing to lackluster vaccine uptake.

The UNICEF report, titled "Tracking anti-vaccination sentiment in Eastern European social media networks," obtained data using "state-of-the-art social medial monitoring tools," and confirmed that parents are using social media networks to decide whether to vaccinate their children...

...Ironically, UNICEF's own vaccine-based programs to combat child deaths from disease in West Africa appear to reduce survival relative to areas outside the reach of their programs. According to a 2010 BBC News report, "Unicef spent $27m (£17m) rolling out vaccinations, vitamin A pills and bed nets to protect against malaria from 2001 to 2005 in areas of 11 countries. The researchers studied parts of Ghana, Mali and Benin and said children often survived better outside the UN scheme." Indeed, the most well-known criticism of UNICEF is that it has done very little to decrease child mortality (in sub-Saharan Africa it has actually increased) underscoring why its focus on promoting vaccination, and now monitoring and perhaps targeting "anti-vaccine" organizations, is profoundly misguided.

Ultimately, UNICEF's new report is more than an objective analysis of so-called "anti-vaccine" organizations, but a concerning bit of propaganda aimed at dissuading the millions who visit alternative health sites daily from obtaining information that was not underwritten and/or ghostwritten by the very industries who stand to gain most by hiding the well-known adverse health effects of their products, and who have managed to transform many governmental health agencies - and we can see, even global ones - into their cheer leading, marketing, liability protection and now surveillance divisions.



Cow

Report says: FDA has allowed antibiotics in animal feed despite risk to human health

Image
© Carrie Antlfinger/APThe FDA has allowed dozens of antibiotics to be used in animal feed, despite findings that the drugs could expose humans to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, an advocacy group says in a new report.
The Food and Drug Administration has continued to allow dozens of antibiotics to be used in livestock feed, despite findings from its researchers that the drugs could expose humans to antibiotic-resistant bacteria through the food supply, an environmental advocacy group said in a report Monday.

FDA officials reviewed about 30 animal-feed additives between 2001 and 2010, rating 18 of them "high risk" in terms of contributing to health problems in humans, according to records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The remaining drugs the agency examined did not have adequate data to determine whether they were safe, the report said.

According to the NRDC, at least 26 of the feed additives that FDA researchers reviewed - some of which have been in use since the 1950s - did not meet standards set by the agency in 1973 that required companies to submit scientific studies proving that the drugs were safe.

Comment: Learn more about how the agriculture industry, FDA and CAFOs/factory farms abuse of antibiotics in animal production leads to serious human health and environmental risks. In addition, how the FDA is not efficient or effective, in changing anything in the near future:

The abuse of antibiotics and the rise of 'super bugs'
The use of antibacterial drugs on healthy livestock is a common practice in the United States. The meat industry's overuse of antibiotics has become so widespread that about 29 million pounds of these drugs (or 80% of all antibiotics sold in the US) are used in industrial feedlots, with only 14% of these drugs being used for therapeutic purposes.

As a result, dangerous germs, dubbed "super bugs", capable of fighting off antibiotics, are spreading throughout our communities, not only jeopardizing our health, but also the future of healthcare.
The Secret Source of Antibiotics in Your Food
For the last several decades, doctors have been warning about the dangerous practice of routinely feeding antibiotics to healthy animals. Many farmers do this in an attempt to ward off disease in crowded conditions and to speed growth, but public-health researchers have linked the overuse of antibiotics in farming to the sharp rise in hard-to-kill - and sometimes fatal - superbugs in people.
Why Factory Farms Threaten Your Health
Actually, the scientific consensus regarding antibiotic-resistant bacteria has been conclusive for many years. In 1989, the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences, stated that the use of antibiotics in factory farms was responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria and was seriously undermining the ability of these agents to protect human health. Three years later, the Institute of Medicine stated that multi-drug-resistant bacteria had now become a serious medical concern. The Institute of Medicine laid the problem squarely on the doorstep of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), also known as factory farms.

In 1997, the World Health Organization called for a ban on the routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock. A year later, the journal Science called the meat industry "the driving force behind the development of antibiotic resistance in species of bacteria that cause human disease." In 1998, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) blamed the serious emergence of Salmonella bacteria that had become resistant to no less than five different antibiotics on the routine and non-medically necessary use of antibiotics in livestock.
Got Antibiotics in Your Food? Thank the FDA
Free Antibiotics...in U.S. Food and Water
Spreading Antibiotics In The Soil Affects Microbial Ecosystems
Which is worse, germs in our food or the antibiotics that kill them?
U.S. Consumers Say 'No' to Antibiotics for Meat Production
CDC reveals disturbing truth about factory farms and superbugs
Groups Sue FDA to Stop Addition of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed


Arrow Up

Bad sleep may boost cancer

Sleep Deprivation
© Twin Design / Shutterstock
Poor quality of sleep marked by frequent waking can speed cancer growth and increase the disease's aggressiveness, according to new research.

Failing to get a good night's rest may actually have some serious health consequences.

Pills

Beta-blockers killed 800,000 in 5 years - "good medicine" as mass murder

Image
© UnknownEuropean doctors may have caused as many as 800,000 deaths in five years by following a guideline to use beta-blockers in non-cardiac surgery patients—a guideline based largely on discredited science. The discredited researcher, who was fired for scientific misconduct in 2011, was also the chairman of the committee that drafted the European treatment guideline.
Most people assume that scientific integrity is somehow assured; that there are safeguards along the way, preventing fraudulent research from harming patients.

Unfortunately, scientific misconduct has become a very serious and widespread problem that threatens the entire paradigm of science-based medicine - unless changes are made.

Again and again, papers assessing the prevalence of scientific fraud and/or the impact this is having shows that the situation is dire and getting worse. In short, we have lost scientific integrity, and without it, "science-based medicine" is just a term without substance.

Conflict of interest is another pervasive problem within the research field, and the featured article highlights a case that contains both.

Beta-blockers are drugs commonly used in the treatment of high blood pressure and congestive heart failure. They work primarily by blocking the neurotransmitters norepinephrine and epinephrine (adrenaline) from binding to beta receptors, thereby dilating blood vessels, which reduces your heart rate and blood pressure.

Until recently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) also recommended using beta-blockers in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

A recent article in Forbes Magazine1 highlights how medical guidelines based on questionable science may have resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of patients in just a few years:

Comment: More food for thought:

The Truth Wears Off


Alarm Clock

Finally, justification for taking a nap! Here is scientific proof that siestas are beneficial

Image
© Getty ImagesNapping for the wrong length of time could actually leave you feeling temporarily worse
Sleeping for short periods in the day helps memory and cognitive function. But napping for 30mins or an hour can leave you with a sleep hangover. This is because you wake yourself during periods of deep sleep. Instead nap for 10-20mins for a quick refresh
Or sleep 90mins for a full sleep cycle, with no grogginess when you wake

We have long known that naps have an important function in refreshing and reviving a tired mind.

Some of the greatest thinkers of recent times have been avid nappers - Winston Churchill reportedly relied on regular short naps to help him lead the country through the war.

And yet there remains a cruel stigma against those of us who wish to pop back into bed during daylight hours for a quick shut eye.

But now, in a round-up of scientific research, there is evidence not only proving the real benefits of a kip, but detailed findings that show how varying lengths of snooze have different beneficial effects on the brain.

If you want to wake up from your nap feeling immediately rested then either brief a snooze of 10-20 minutes or a longer 90 minute sleep are your best options.

Alarm Clock

Later school start times improve sleep and daytime functioning in adolescents

sleepy school children
© Dan Woods
How much extra sleep can make a difference to adolescent depression?

A new study finds a link between later start times at school and improved mood and sleep in teenagers.The study, published in the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, delayed the waking up time of adolescents at a boarding school by just 25 minutes (Boergers et al., 2013). They found that afterwards the number of students getting more than 8 hours sleep a night jumped from 18% to 44%.

Evil Rays

Flashback 34 scientific studies showing adverse biological effects + damage from Wi-Fi

warning wifi
Here is a collection of scientific papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz), complied by campaign group WiFi In Schools. The papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below. Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. Papers are in alphabetical order. A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here.

If you feel like sending a copy of this collection to the local schools in your area, you can search for them here [UK only] http://schoolsfinder.direct.gov.uk/schoolsfinder and either print out this article to post or email the link.

Pills

Guideline based on discredited research may have caused 800,000 deaths in Europe over the last 5 years

emergency
Last summer British researchers provoked concern when they published a paper raising the possibility that by following an established guideline UK doctors may have caused as many as 10,000 deaths each year. Now they have gone a step further and published an estimate that the same guideline may have led to the deaths of as many as 800,00 people in Europe over the last five years. The finding, they write, "is so large that the only context in the last 50 years comes from the largest scale professional failures in the political sphere." The 800,000 deaths are comparable in size to the worst cases of genocide and mass murder in recent history.

In their new article published in the European Heart Journal, Graham Cole and Darrel Francis continue to explore the extent and implications of the damage caused by the Don Poldermans research misconduct case. [Update: the EHJ article has been removed from the EHJ website. For more on this see the bottom of the story.]

The earlier paper demonstrated the potentially large and lethal consequences of the current European Society of Cardiology guideline recommending the liberal use of beta-blockers to protect the heart during surgery for people undergoing non cardiac surgery. The guideline was flawed because it was partly based on unreliable research performed by the disgraced Poldermans (who also served as the chairman of the guideline committee). This may seem like a highly technical question but it effects many millions of people and may, as Francis and his colleagues have demonstrated, led to many thousands of unnecessary deaths.