In a spate of recent media appearances, Paula Deen, the unapologetic queen of culinary excess and indulgence would have us believe that she didn't eat herself into type 2 diabetes - that it was just Russian Roulette. Genes do matter, but just a little. Sorry Paula, but type 2 diabetes, and in fact over 90% of chronic disease, happens because of bad choices, not bad genes. New research proves that type 2 diabetes is nearly 100% reversible without medication or gastric bypass.

Deen would also have us believe that she really didn't expect us to eat her signature hamburger sandwiched in the middle of a donut. But whether unwittingly or not, Deen and her brand of junk food have been preying on a very human vulnerability: our innate tendency to become profoundly addicted to sugar, fat, and salt.

Bolstered by "experts" such as Dr. Linda Siminerio, director of the Diabetes Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who said, "To my knowledge no particular food has been linked to an increase in the risk of diabetes," Deen refuses to acknowledge that her sugary, fatty foods led to her diabetes. No food has been linked to diabetes? Dr. Siminerio stands alone with Paula Deen in that belief.

Environmental activist Erin Brockovich has started her own investigation into the mysterious illness that's caused symptoms of facial tics and verbal outbursts among teenagers in Le Roy, N.Y., in light of new evidence about a toxic chemical spill more than 40 years ago that caused water and ground contamination nearby.

Doctors Unsure Why The Lives Of Young People Have Changed For The Worse


More than a dozen teens at a high school in upstate New York are suffering from a mystery illness that is leaving them susceptible to twitches and spasms.

Thera Sanchez started showing symptoms when she woke up from a nap.

"It's very heartbreaking to me to be honest, knowing that right now I can't do what I love," she said.

Chelsey Dumars was stricken suddenly while in school.

"I couldn't stop stuttering," she said. "And then throughout the day, I got worse, and I started twitching and everything."

The BBC here in the UK has had a recent blitz on stories relating to vitamin D, particularly vitamin D deficiency in children and its potential to cause rickets (and the characteristic weakened, deformed bones prone to fracture). However, some doctors are suspicious that vitamin D deficiency may be an underlying factor in 'sudden infant death'.

Here is a link to an item which aired yesterday on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. There are comments from individuals within this item that leave one with the distinct impression that many health professionals are unaware of the issue of vitamin D deficiency in children. A lawyer who represented parents who were wrongly accused killing their child (who after death was diagnosed with rickets) tells of how a senior radiologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital (generally regarding as the UK's 'best' children's hospital) failed to recognise rickets or the importance of vitamin D.

A surprisingly consistent body of research exists indicating that conventional medical training actually reduces practitioner empathy. What is worse, the decline in empathy appears even more pronounced at the time that the curriculum shifts towards patient-care activities.

In one study published in 2009 in the journal Academic Medicine entitled "The devil is in the third year: a longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school," the authors conclude:

"It is ironic that the erosion of empathy occurs during a time when the curriculum is shifting toward patient-care activities; this is when empathy is most essential."

In another, higher-powered systematic review published in the same journal last year entitled "Empathy decline and its reasons: a systematic review of studies with medical students and residents," reseachers looked at data from 1990-2010, which included 18 studies, and found:

"The five longitudinal and two cross-sectional studies of residents showed a decrease in empathy during residency. The studies pointed to the clinical practice phase of training and the distress produced by aspects of the "hidden," "formal," and "informal" curricula as main reasons for empathy decline."

How would you react if I were to tell you that you or your child were forced to participate in experimental vaccine trials? A paper published by the American Medical Association's Virtual Mentor wants to do just that. It seems that the amount of current participants in current experimental vaccine trials is a bit too low, so why not create a federal law forcing each person to need to "opt-out" of experimental vaccine trials in an attempt to better society?

The proposed law is lunacy to say that least, stating that individuals must make a "mandated choice" to participate in such experimental trials. People shouldn't be automatically enrolled in experimental trials or need to state in advance their decision to "opt-out". Along with the law will come a customer list for big pharma, where each participant's information will be shared with the pharmaceutical companies in order to gather trial and field test data. Of course this isn't so different from how things operate now, where individuals are enrolled into big pharma's database even if you exempt your child from vaccination. But if big pharma can't produce enough positive data from those who actually want to volunteer for introducing a new product to the FDA for approval, they may just try to force people to participate or use a segment of the population that is ignorant to the laws surrounding the trials.

What happens if these experimental vaccines cause harm? There are laws already set in place that essentially give vaccine manufacturers immunity to legal repercussions. That is to say that if your child is harmed from a vaccine, the vaccine manufacturers are not financially or morally responsible. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 protects vaccine manufacturers from any liability.

Without research into risks, "the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology-based materials, products, and processes is uncertain"

Not enough is known about the potential hazards of nanotechnology, and millions of dollars more a year are needed to study the potential health and environmental effects of it, said the National Research Council yesterday.

The panel's findings come from a study sponsored by the EPA.

Reuters reports:

Nanotechnology involves designing and manufacturing materials on the scale of one-billionth of a meter. It is used in areas ranging from stain-resistant clothing and cosmetics to food additives. [...]

"Despite the promise of nanotechnology, without strategic research into emergent risks associated with it -- and a clear understanding of how to manage and avoid potential risks -- the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology-based materials, products, and processes is uncertain," said the study by a committee of 19 scientists.

There is a growing body of scientific evidence which proves that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are inherently different from natural organisms, including the way the body processes them, as well as how the immune system responds to them. But Monsanto, the largest purveyor of GMOs in the world, believes that GMOs are no different than natural organisms, and that GMO testing is both needless and valueless.

In the Why aren't you running human clinical trials on GM crops? section of Monsanto's Food Safety page, the biotechnology giant explains its opinion that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to natural organisms. According to Monsanto, since concentrations of proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrient factors vary among natural crops, as well as among natural and GM crops, then these differences are automatically unimportant in light of GMO safety.

Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the impression that they signify fairness, safety and adequate disclosure to consumers regarding the products those words are attached to. However, regarding the marketing of transgenic foods specifically genetically modified organisms in our food that is anything but the case. I think it is crucial that consumers are aware of what is in their food and how it may affect them and their children in order for them to be able to make informed decisions about what goes into their bodies. This knowledge is essential as a preventative measure to maintaining health and also regarding informing consumers about any other effects what they buy may have on the enviroment. Therefore, in discussing substantial equivalence in regards to GMOs and the underlayer of collusion involved in pushing them into the world I think it important to begin at the beginning.

This is the standard definition of "substantial equivalence":

"Substantial equivalence is a concept developed by OECD in 1991 that maintains that a novel food should be considered the same as a conventional food if it demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food."

This concept was pushed in regards to GMOs by the FAO and the WHO in the early 1990s. Its intent was the stripping away of years of testing of so called "novel" foods which can be prohibitively expensive and time consuming and therefore would have affected the profits of companies like Monsanto that have a virtual stranglehold on the FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies and governments that have afforded them special treatment in allowing them to use this planet and its species as one huge science experiment. The residual effects of applying these two words to GMOs and in allowing them to be foisted upon the world with little to no adequate testing already negates the validity of applying the substantial equivalence label to them.