With today's manufacturing there are many chemicals and toxins that are both purposefully added to products, as well as those unintentionally added.

Mercury is one of those unintended additions to many of the products people consume and topically apply every day. In order to avoid exposure to this heavy metal, and in turn avoid the risk of any heavy metal toxicity, you need to know where the metal resides in order to avoid it.

Mercury Highly Present in Many Foods and Consumer Products

One of the most significant places you may find mercury is in processed foods.

In 2009, a study found that almost half of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury - a carcinogenic chemical element that is toxic in all its forms to the human body.

A drug used to keep pigs lean and boost their growth is jeopardizing the nation's exports of what once was known as "the other white meat."

The drug, ractopamine hydrochloride, is fed to pigs and other animals right up until slaughter and minute traces have been found in meat. The European Union, China, Taiwan and many others have banned its use, citing concerns about its effect on human health, limiting U.S. meat exports to key markets.

Although few Americans outside of the livestock industry have ever heard of ractopamine, the feed additive is controversial. Fed to an estimated 60 to 80 percent of pigs in the United States, it has sickened or killed more of them than any other livestock drug on the market, an investigation of Food and Drug Administration records shows. Cattle and turkeys have also suffered high numbers of illnesses from the drug.

Growing concern over sick animals in the nation's food supply sparked a California law banning the sale and slaughter of livestock unable to walk, but that law was struck down by the Supreme Court Monday. Meat producers had sued to overturn California's ban, arguing that the state could not supercede federal rules on meat production. The court agreed.

Millions of schoolchildren in the United States will see more fruit and vegetables and less fat on their lunch plates under new U.S. Department of Agriculture standards unveiled Wednesday aimed at improving child nutrition and reducing childhood obesity.

"Improving the quality of the school meals is a critical step in building a healthy future for our kids," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "When it comes to our children, we must do everything possible to provide them the nutrition they need to be healthy, active and ready to face the future - today we take an important step towards that goal."

The changes mark the first overhaul of the school lunch program in more than 15 years and will affect the nearly 32 million children who eat at school. The new regulations will be phased in over the next three years, starting in the fall.

"We strongly support the regulations," said Diane Pratt-Heavner, spokeswoman for the Maryland-based School Nutrition Association. "The new nutrition standards for school meals are great news for kids."

Cancer is not some predestined gene-bomb setting itself off within us, rather, a logical result of decades worth of cell shock/damage/adaptation to environmental poisoning, nutrient deprivation and psycho-spiritual stress. These cells have learned to survive the constant abuse, and flip into survival mode which is self-centered, hyper-proliferative (constant self-repair/replication) and aggressive (metastatic).

In a remarkable new essay by Mark Vincent this view has found its vindication. Entitled: "Cancer: A de-repression of a default survival program common to all cells?: A life-history perspective on the nature of cancer," cancer is viewed in an entirely new light:

"Cancer viewed as a programmed, evolutionarily conserved life-form, rather than just a random series of disease-causing mutations, answers the rarely asked question of what the cancer cell is for, provides meaning for its otherwise mysterious suite of attributes, and encourages a different type of thinking about treatment."

Additionally:

"The broad but consistent spectrum of traits, well-recognized in all aggressive cancers, group naturally into three categories: taxonomy ("phylogenation"), atavism ("re-primitivization") and robustness ("adaptive resilience"). The parsimonious explanation is not convergent evolution, but the release of an highly conserved survival program, honed by the exigencies of the Pre-Cambrian, to which the cancer cell seems better adapted; and which is recreated within, and at great cost to, its host."

What Mark Vincent explains here is cancer as a regression (atavism/re-primitivization) of the human normal cell type, to a more ancient and robust cell type possessed by an ancestral cell lineage in pre-Cambrian times, well over 542 million years ago. If this is true, given the right (or wrong) conditions, normal cells may regress to a more primitive, far more individualistic cell phenotype in an attempt to survive (if not thrive) within the biochemical/bioenergetic adversities characteristic of the sickened, cancer-prone body.

We Americans...we are always looking for the shortcut, the inside track, the one pill solution to every problem. We want world peace resolved in a 30-minute sitcom and expect complicated medical problems to be solved with a clever review of an MRI.

Equally unrealistic is our expectation that there exists some Promised Land of guilt-free, sugar-free candies and desserts that allow us to keep eating anything we want. In fact, we want this fantasy so badly that we are willing to overlook little things like brain tumors, seizures, joint problems, and even death.

Those and 92 other dangerous side effects come from a commonly used artificial sweetener with a sordid history of poor research, cover-ups and other nonsense. But that hasn't stopped this toxic poison from invading thousands of different foods and beverages we eat every day.

When Dr. Terry Wahls was diagnosed with MS, she did what any good doctor would do. She started the standard course of treatments recommended for MS by her peers. After 7 years of the best medicine had to offer for MS, she was for all intents and purposes a cripple. She couldn't sit in a normal chair, but rather had to recline in a zero gravity chair at home and at work. She could walk only very short distances - and that using two canes! Then one day she decided to put her research acumen to the test.

She knew that in order to reverse her MS, she'd have to fuel her mitochondria and support the function of her brain cells. So, she dug into the research and discovered which nutrients were absolutely vital to accomplishing those two goals. Then she set about increasing her intake of those nutrients with food.

She ultimately opted for a hunter-gatherer (Paleo) diet with an emphasis on eating more of the foods that would fuel her mitochondria and nourish her myelin sheaths. Within months, she was walking without any canes. In less than a year, she was walking miles each day, riding her bike, and going on trail-rides. Today, she is completely free of MS.

That's right. She's cured.

Why are ineffective and dangerous drugs peddled by supposed 'public health' organizations in place of well-established natural solutions with virtually zero side effects? The truth of the matter is that drug makers simply would not profit if the world were to awaken to the plethora of free health-promoting substances that beat out over-priced pharmaceuticals and medical interventions. There would be no need for pharmaceutical manufacturers, phony 'public health' organizations peddling the latest 'miracle' drug, and certainly no research organizations feeding off the donations of good-hearted individuals.

You may think that this is an impossibility and that natural solutions simply do not compare to 'scientifically proven' pharmaceutical science. The truth of the matter is that scientific evidence is the very thing disproving the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs as well as highlighting the surplus of beneficial properties associated with inexpensive and free vital nutrients.

Contrast: Cancer Drugs Causing 'Mega' Tumors, Turmeric Reduces Tumors by 81%

It was recently revealed that cancer drugs, toted as the only choice among chemotherapy for many cancer sufferers by 'public health' groups, are actually causing massive tumors and subsequently killing the patient. The cancer drugs were found to not only be completely ineffective, but deadly. These are the same drugs that are sold for a premium price and considered to be scientifically validated.

Meanwhile, peer-reviewed research has found that a spice known as turmeric can reduce tumors by 81% naturally. Researchers found that curcumin (a derivative of turmeruc) dramatically decreased brain tumors in 9 out of the 11 studies examined by 81 percent. Furthermore, there was no evidence of toxicity. Widely used as a spice in South Asian and Middle Eastern countries, turmeric is continually being pinpointed as an extremely potent anti-cancer solution. What's more is the fact that turmeric is extremely inexpensive, and can be found around the globe - from Saudi Arabia to Kentucky.

This is just one example of scientific research validating natural alternatives while simultaneously pinpointing the extreme dangers associated with mainstream pharmaceuticals pushed as the only treatment by drug companies.

The topic of obesity is popular in mainstream media. We are constantly warned of the dangers of being overweight, and while many groups have been targeted for 'health advice' in the past, it seems those labeled as obese bear the brunt. While having more weight than one is physically comfortable with can be unhealthy, the fact that our governments and media have chosen to take a parental role by constantly telling us what we should and shouldn't look like, should give us pause. To add insult to injury, people are made to feel bad or guilty for not fitting into a restrictive and arbitrary body size. It can actually discourage people who are trying to effect change when they feel demonized. The way information is presented can sometimes be an impediment to those genuinely seeking assistance.

Take, for instance, the word 'diet'. It's one of the most hated words. There are several meanings, but the most popular seems to be understood as 'an habitual way of eating'. Viewing it this way can, and has, led to thoughts of having to restrict what we eat, but the word's original definition, according to the Oxford dictionary, means 'way of life'. If we view it as a lifestyle, perhaps it won't feel as oppressive.

The word 'obesity' is a good example of how language can change abruptly. Don't think this can happen? Back in 1998, with the adoption of the Body Mass Index (BMI), it did. The National Institute of Heath (NIH), the primary governmental health related and biomedical research agency, made changes to the definition of this word that affected 25 million Americans who, under the old guidelines were considered of average weight, but who suddenly became obese. What's interesting is that just prior to that change:

The American Heart Association recently added obesity to its list of major risk factors for heart disease and heart attack, along with smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and a sedentary lifestyle.

From that moment on, not only was a percentage of the population suddenly classified as obese, but they were now considered at risk from other diseases. Was all of this just the result of good intentions gone awry?

On average, Americans consume 475 calories worth of added sugars each day. That is about 30 teaspoons, or 5x more than even the American Heart Association recommends.

The disturbing aspect is that if nothing changes, the rampant sugar consumption continues, and cumulatively begins bearing down on your health in the form of diseases like diabetes and cancer.

Just how much sugar are you consuming on a daily basis?

Keep in mind that the recommended amount of sugar to consume on a daily basis is 25 grams.

People who undergo common procedures, such as CT scans and angiograms, may be at greater risk for thyroid problems, according to a recent study.

The study found that people who received intravenous iodinated contrast media, which helps doctors see blood vessels and organs during imaging procedures, had a higher chance of developing hyperthyroidism than those who did not.

"We were surprised at how potent it was. People had twice the likelihood of developing hyperthyroidism when they received iodinated contrast media," said study researcher Dr. Steven Brunelli, an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

Hyperthyroidism occurs when the thyroid gland produces too much thyroid hormone. Symptoms include weight loss, heart palpitations, heat sensitivity and fatigue, but many cases are asymptomatic. However, people without symptoms may still face an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

The findings need to be confirmed, and people should not forgo procedures based on this work, Brunelli said.

Rather, researchers should try to examine the reasons for the link, he said.

The findings are detailed today (Jan. 23) in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.