A new animal study published in the journal PLoS sheds light on a possible mechanism behind the weight- and diabetes-promoting properties of wheat observed in humans, and perhaps offers some vindication for Dr. William Davis' New York Times best-selling but heavily criticized book Wheat Belly, wherein the argument is made that wheat is a major contributing factor to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes presently afflicting wealthier, gluten-grain consuming nations.

In the new study, researchers from The Bartholin Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, explored the role that gliadin, a difficult to digest class of proteins within wheat, plays in promoting weight gain and insulin secretion in both animal and cell models, finding that gliadin-treated mice gained 20% more weight (by day 100) than gliadin-free controls, and that gliadin fragments induce insulin secretion in pancreatic beta cells, the cells responsible for producing insulin, and which in type 1 diabetes are destroyed or rendered dysfunctional.

Gliadin does not break down easily in the body because they are extremely hydrophobic ("water fearing"), and contain disulfide bonds (the same kind found in human hair and vulcanized rubber);[1] as a result, undigested wheat gliadin fragments can enter through the intestinal wall, gaining systemic access to the human body. This can result in inflammatory and autoimmune conditions, among many other possible negative health effects (note: we have documented over 200 adverse health effects associated with wheat exposure).

A scary virus is sweeping Saudi Arabia. Six million religious pilgrims are about to descend on the country from across the world. The result could be disastrous.

When the Black Death exploded in Arabia in the 14th century, killing an estimated third of the population, it spread across the Islamic world via infected religious pilgrims. Today, the Middle East is threatened with a new plague, one eponymously if not ominously named the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV, or MERS for short). This novel coronavirus was discovered in Jordan in March 2012, and as of June 26, there have been 77 laboratory-confirmed infections, 62 of which have been in Saudi Arabia; 34 of these Saudi patients have died.

Although the numbers -- so far -- are small, the disease is raising anxiety throughout the region. But officials in Saudi Arabia are particularly concerned.

This fall, millions of devout Muslims will descend upon Mecca, Medina, and Saudi Arabia's holy sites in one of the largest annual migrations in human history. In 2012, approximately 6 million pilgrims came through Saudi Arabia to perform the rituals associated with umrah, and this number is predicted to rise in 2013. Umrah literally means "to visit a populated place," and it's the very proximity that has health officials so worried. In Mecca alone, millions of pilgrims will fulfill the religious obligation of circling the Kaaba. And having a large group of people together in a single, fairly confined space threatens to turn the holiest site in Islam into a massive petri dish.

The disease is still mysterious. Little is understood about how it is transmitted and even less regarding its origins. But we do know that MERS is deadly, with a mortality rate of about 55 percent -- a remarkably higher lethality than that posed by its close cousin, the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus, which in 2003 terrified travelers across the globe but posed a fatality rate of only 9.6 percent. The MERS coronavirus is new to our species, so mild and asymptomatic infections seem to be rare, but the human immune response to infection is itself so extreme that it can prove deadly in some cases.

The UK wants to be the first nation to have a "three-parent" in vitro fertilization (IVF) process approved to create babies without genetic disorders.

The UK National Health Services (NHS) announced the 3-parent IVF with a draft of new regulations to be approved by the British Parliament.

Dame Sally Davies, chief medical officer for the NHS said : "Mitochondrial disease, including heart disease, liver disease, loss of muscle co-ordination and other serious conditions like muscular dystrophy, can have a devastating impact on the people who inherit it. Scientists have developed groundbreaking new procedures that could stop these diseases being passed on, bringing hope to many families seeking to prevent their future children inheriting them. It's only right that we look to introduce this lifesaving treatment as soon as we can."

This new genetic manipulative process will develop from DNA of 3 participants to specifically target and prevent mitochondrial diseases.

This genetic process involves transferring genetic material from the nucleus of an egg or embryo from one that is diseased to one that is healthy. This will prevent the inheritance of negative mitochondria.

A professional farmer redefines the term 'Value Meal'

In 1996, I returned from college to my family's farm and found it in complete shambles. My parents had given up on ever making a profit from farming, and had taken jobs in the city to make ends meet. Our crops of corn and cattle barely covered our production costs, and the land didn't generate enough profit for us to even buy our own food. Our family farm, just like thousands of others across the country, was undeniably broken.

Now, nearly 20 years later, we've turned our farm around. We raise grass-finished beef, and sell it directly to customers at farmers' markets. Because I sell my food directly to the public, I'm constantly asked: "Why is organic food so expensive?" This is an understandable question, especially because 'conventional' beef at the grocery stores is so much cheaper by comparison. But in order to understand why one type of beef is more 'expensive,' we should first examine why the other meat is so 'cheap.'

Julie Redfern suffered seven years of being able to hear her eyeballs move and the blood move through her veins in a rare hearing condition.

The receptionist, of Padiham, Lancashire, had to stop dining with friends because she could not hear them speak over the sound of her own chewing.

Mrs Redfern, 47, also had to cut out crunchy foods like apples and crisps because of the loud noises they made.

She struggled at work because the phone ringing on her desk would make her eyeballs shake loudly from the vibrations, but her condition is being cured with pioneer surgery.

Mrs Redfern first noticed the condition aged 40 as she sat playing the computer game, Tetris, and realised she could hear her eyes squeak as they moved from side to side.

She said: "I was playing on the game and I thought 'What's that noise?' Then I realised that it was my eyeballs.

"Every time the block moved and I followed it with my eyes I could hear them squeaking. It was a horrible sensation, I could literally hear them moving, scratching, it was very weird."

Medical research is a huge industry churning out scientific papers at quite a rate. How are doctors supposed to keep up and know what is deemed the 'appropriate' treatment for a condition? A supposed helping hand comes for doctors in the form of 'clinical guidelines' which can come from a variety of sources including one or more of the relevant professional college or society.

However, a recent article in the British Medical Journal casts considerably doubt on the reliability of these reports. The article, written by medical investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer, focuses on the drug alteplase, a clot-busting drug given for acute stroke. Earlier this year, three US professional societies recommended use of the drug. However, it turns out that only two of the 12 studies on the drug found any benefit, and five of them had to be stopped early due to the finding of a lack of benefit, increased risk of brain haemorrhage or increased death rates.

So, how come the guidelines are at such variance with the science? Well, according to ms Lenzer: "Proponents of alteplase have launched projects to ensure uptake of the guidelines in the US, such as the development of "stroke certified hospitals," which require hospitals to commit resources to enable rapid administration of alteplase to eligible stroke patients. Since ambulances divert patients with suggestive symptoms to stroke certified hospitals, the project has substantial financial ramifications. These efforts, and others like the "Brain Attack" campaign, have been actively supported by the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association, which "partnered" with the Joint Commission (a quasi-governmental agency that accredits hospitals) to promote hospital stroke certification. Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, which market alteplase, have contributed tens of millions of dollars to the associations."

Advertising is a powerful and effective tool for promoting the sale of products, especially from the drug and food industries, due to their huge profits. Awareness of a need for government to keep advertisers in line goes back to the end of the 19th century. The very first US Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in 1906, when Theodore Roosevelt was president. Currently, the Federal Trade Commission requires that advertising must be "truthful and non-deceptive." Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims. Advertisements cannot be "unfair," and must inform about anything that may "materially affect" the consumer's decision. However, those terms are not easily defined. And corporations redefine them for their own benefit.

There has been a culture shift. We still like to stick it to the big corporations, but there is little concern for the nuances of false advertising. Many people today don't have the background to discern what they read, and may be inclined to trust a well-constructed ad. Even lawyers can barely determine what is "legal," let alone what is "right." More often, the aim is simply to construct effective advertising that boosts sales irrespective of morality.

Historically the American Medical Association (AMA) was the official "ethics police" for advertising of drugs, hospitals, clinics, individual physicians and medical devices. Initially, most advertising was forbidden. Members of the AMA were fined for violations. Since social standing in the community is important to a practicing physician, this embarrassment was enough to effectively chastise most offenders. Claims of the superiority of one clinic, hospital or specialist over another were rarely made. Advertising of drugs was minimal for many decades, but recently has been growing exponentially. I attribute this to two factors: the pharmaceutical industry's great power and influence on medical practice, and the private insurance industry that provides accessibility of drugs to its clients by covering the cost---whatever it is. The uninformed patient is usually not aware of the actual cost covered by the insurer. This enables a for-profit insurance company to have full say of what expenses are covered, because it does not have to face challenges from those covered.

Patients in life-saving operations could be up to 30 times more likely to die than others depending on their surgeon.

For the first time the NHS is to publish the death rates of doctors performing operations to repair major blood vessels and prevent strokes.

The figures are in a report due to be released today on the NHS Choices website. But last night there was speculation that its publication could be halted by legal challenges from some hospitals.

Previously experts have warned that publishing death rates will discourage surgeons from carrying out operations on patients most at risk of dying - such as the elderly.

Over the next few weeks, however, officials intend to release the mortality rates of surgeons performing nine other types of procedures in the hope that it will help patients choose where to have their operations done.

The figures, due to be released today, cover operations between 2008 and 2012.

They show a huge variation between the death rates of the 450 doctors in England who carry out vascular surgery - repairing blood vessels - mainly on the over-65s.

Researchers from Northwestern University's School of Medicine have determined that the use of certain pesticides over a lifetime produces a shortening of chromosome telomeres.

The researchers tested 1,234 men as part of a study of 57,310 licensed pesticide contractors - from the Agricultural Health Study, orchestrated by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This particular study was conducted in partnership with the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The researchers had the subjects - adult males involved with pesticide application on farms or other environments - fill out extensive questionnaires on their pesticide use over their lifetimes. Some 48 pesticides were used and included in the study.

The researchers also collected from each subject buccal cells - taken from cheek swabs. Using what is called "Real-time polymerase chain reaction" testing, the researchers analyzed those cells for telomere length.

This is one of the most dangerous, covert, and global operations to which we have ever been exposed; and this is very difficult for people to understand: the serious implications of products (cell phones and Smart Meters) and invisible environmental toxins that damage our ability to think clearly. This is a major contributing factor to our diminished cognitive functions. However, it is not the only source of harm.

When we begin to connect the dots to the thousands of unsafe and often highly toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and hormone disruptors to which we are exposed daily, we then can collectively see that this is not just a one-issue health crisis we face. Rather, with corporations allowed free reign to poison us with impunity [the new Monsanto protection bill is the latest crime against us], we do not have any way to have any redress of decades of grievances. The ramifications of this are enormous.