"The [Oct. 21, 2015] Senate Agriculture hearing reaffirmed the broad consensus among scientists and regulators that GMOs are safe . . . We were pleased to hear Senator Stabenow's [D-Mich.] personal commitment to work to develop a bipartisan bill that can pass the Senate by the end of this year...". - Pamela Bailey, Grocery Manufacturers Association, in an October 21, 2015 press release

In the ever-complicated debate over labeling of genetically modified foods, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack offers this idea: Use your smartphone. Vilsack told members of Congress on Wednesday that consumers could just use their phones to scan special barcodes or other symbols on food packages in the grocery store. All sorts of information could pop up, such as whether the food's ingredients include genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. "Industry could solve that issue in a heartbeat," Vilsack said during a House hearing on agriculture spending. - Associated Press, February 27, 2015.

"Gary Hirshberg, chairman of pro-labeling group Just Label It, told lawmakers during the [Oct. 21, 2015 Senate] hearing that his group is open to any national solution that requires disclosure of GMOs in foods, noting that "certainly the focus has been on labels, but there has been a lot of talk of technology" in helping to inform consumers. Hirshberg told reporters after the hearing that a final solution will likely be a mix of labeling and an online disclosure system, though he added that "in our view, however, two words in the ingredient label is a lot easier" than getting into smartphones - and consumers don't use QR codes. While it was hedged support, Hirshberg's comments go further than many other labeling advocates, who have long dismissed the idea that has been championed by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and who have said that smart labels are a non-starter." PoliticoPro, October 22, 2015

A recent report published by the World Health Organisation (WHO) titled 'Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat' has garnered a significant amount of media attention the world over in the past few days. As usual, the mainstream media didn't hesitate to take the opportunity to ramp up fear among the masses with sensationalist headlines like 'Processed meats do cause cancer - WHO' (BBC), 'If meat causes cancer, What can we eat?' (CNN), and 'Hot dogs, bacon and other processed meats cause cancer' (Washington Post).

These types of definitive statements, however, have not been limited to sensationalist media headlines, with even the World Health Organization itself making such claims on social media:

October 23 to 25, 2015 saw vaccine safety advocates from around the country converge upon the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, to demonstrate concerns regarding forced vaccination in the USA and to initiate "The Health Liberty Revolution to Save Our Children."

Barbara Loe Fisher gave a most dynamic and hard-hitting speech in which she drove home:

• the fact that today's children receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines;
• the autism rate is one in 50;
• junk science informs public policy;
• we will be mandated a "cradle to grave" vaccine schedule;
• doctors promote junk science;
• we are forced to play "vaccine roulette";
• what the U.S. Congress promised in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which has turned out to be lie, and that 1986 law failed and must be repealed;
• that adult flu vaccine health damages are the most awards paid today by the vaccine court
• and not vaccine damages to children; and
• Congress fails to provide oversight over the FDA regarding vaccine/vaccination issues.

Mobile devices make it easier to consume more media - at our peril.

Want to get fat, wreck a romantic relationship, perhaps lower your chance of getting pregnant - if you're trying - and shorten your life expectancy? Grab the remote. Click away to see how watching TV, particularly prolonged viewing, can hurt your health and reduce your quality of life. Spoiler: It's more than just sitting that does the damage. It's what we watch, too, from the effect of TV romance on real-world love to ads that make us want to pig out.

The World Health Organization (WHO) just announced that red meat is "probably carcinogenic to humans."

Yep - Right up there with glyphosate, cigarettes, alcohol and asbestos.

—— - > insert facepalm <—— -

This announcement is absurdly misguided and largely based upon the notoriously two least reliable forms of science we have:

1) Observational studies driven by...

2) Food questionnaires

(By the way, what did YOU have for lunch on Thursday of last week/month year?)

This is all fully based on the idea of "guilt by weak association" and any rational person knows that association is NOT causation.

UGH - Back to the nutritional Dark Ages we go...

Feeling hungry? If so, then this is the perfect time for a discussion of intestinal worms. Yum!

Intestinal worms, multicellular parasites in the helminth family, often surface in areas with poor sanitation and can cause chronic infections with debilitating side effects. These animals also communicate on a basic level with gut bacteria in order to boost the host's immune system, found a study published in the journal Immunity.

The gut's bacteria, also known as the microbiome, influence metabolism, immune function and possibly even mood, according to previous studies. Given how much of our health is affected by gut bacteria, the worms practically have a direct line the body's metabolic switchboard.

The family of a man is warning others about the dangers of electronic cigarettes.

Evan Spahlinger, 21, is in critical condition at a Miami hospital after he was badly burned Monday morning when his e-cigarette blew up.

Deep into my 6th year of researching and investigating the damning science that condemns vaccine efficacy and safety - yes, all of them - I am beginning to turn my attention more to the societal memes and the individual belief systems that protect and perpetuate tragically flawed and unacceptably dangerous collective behaviors.

The information is OUT THERE, brilliant scientists, physicians, and researchers without financial ties and agendas have weighed in and presented their concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, however, the average citizen resists and clings to a hyper-simplified, seemingly "safe" stance."Well, I'm not against vaccines, I mean, they've done a lot. I'm sure there are some risks, but they're extremely rare."

I understand, now, that, my collection of PubMed articles substantiating concerns about inefficacy, neurological, autoimmune, and fatal risks of these poorly conceived and anachronistically relevant immune modulators is not meaningful to someone who is not interested. The questions raised by this information are not provocative to someone who needs, above all, to believe that the government, the CDC, and doctors mean well, are doing their due diligence, and that they are holding themselves to a basic standard of ethical delivery of healthcare. They are not meaningful to someone who needs to outsource their power.

Instead of debating the science, what it may take to change to bring awareness to this egregious misuse of medical authority is, one of two, non-scientific, anecdotal exposures:

1.They see it doesn't work, and may even cause illness
I have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the CDC.
"Oh!" I say, "Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There's THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?"

Only after they have a personal template within which to fit the science affirming their observations, do they have room to hear it. But what of all of the children they have brought this ineffective and dangerous intervention to?

2.They know someone harmed
It is basic human psychology that what is out over there is irrelevant at best, and threatening at worst. What is near and familiar is what is true. Few of us seek to bridge gaps between what we are surrounded by and what may be out there to learn. The difficulty of appreciating the scale of harm brought to the population by vaccination practice is related to the insidious nature of immune and neurologic insult.

The CDC can report, as they do, that brain inflammation and death are known side effects of every vaccine, but most do not appreciate what brain inflammation looks like. That this can look like ADHD, autism, learning delay, and that autoimmune disorders can take years to manifest. Tracing the thread back to the vaccine exposure can only be done with studies that assess vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. These have not been done.

Tragically, we all know, now, of someone who has died from the flu vaccine, just this past week. CHANDLER WEBB, a healthy 19 year old, was given a "routine" and "recommended" flu vaccine at his physical, one day before he became violently ill, and one month before he died. He died from vaccine-induced encephalitis, a known risk of this intervention. In addition to feeling remorse for the pain that this family is experiencing, I feel rage for what I believe to be manslaughter. This is a medical intervention, delivered without any regard for its objectively determined lack of efficacy, and its potential to maim and kill healthy adults.

The propaganda surrounding this CDC and government-endorsed practice is so thick that doctors treating this young man were blind to even the most obvious of causative insults. If doctors cannot appreciate a documented adverse event that occurs within 24 hours, you cannot expect the system to acknowledge more complex disturbances to the immune system and neuorologic development that will land you and your loved ones on medications and in therapies for life.
And, remember, that this family cannot sue the physician who pushed the needle or the pharmaceutical company who created the lethal product.

If you have a sweet tooth, you may want to think twice before you pick up your next donut. A new study says that sugar is "toxic," leading to metabolic diseases such as high blood pressure and heart disease - even if no weight is gained.

The research - conducted by pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital in San Francisco, and Jean-Marc Schwarz of the College of Osteopathic Medicine at Touro University California - examined 43 obese children who had high blood pressure, unhealthy cholesterol levels, or signs of too much fat in their livers. The children were between the ages of nine and 18.

The children were put on a restricted diet which eliminated added sugar from sodas, sweet, and other foods.

Sugar intake was reduced from about 28 percent of total calories to about 10 percent. Fructose - a form of sugar believed to be particularly bad for health - was reduced from 12 percent to four percent of total calories.

ReadyNutrition guys and gals, this article will focus upon our Winter First Aid measures to treat Frostbite. We will cover first aid procedures, as well as, the ways to understand and recognize frostbite for what it is. As this is a medical condition, keep in mind we are giving first aid parameters to deal with in a wilderness/field environment. After you render first aid, immediately transport the patient to a doctor or a definitive healthcare treatment facility.

Frostbite

Frostbite is tissue damage sustained by prolonged or extreme exposure to cold temperatures. The tissue in this case refers to the epidermis, or skin layers. When the skin is exposed to temperatures of 32 degrees Fahrenheit or below, the vessels next to the skin surface begin to shrink and constrict. This causes shunting, a condition where the blood is whisked away from limbs and other parts of the body away from the thoracic cavity, or chest.

Shunting is a necessary survival response to the cold. You may have seen episodes of shunting when, for example, someone's car plunges into an icy river or body of water. The person may be lying unconscious in the water for almost an hour, yet they live. This is called the mammalian dive reflex, and is a type of shunting. The body (to preserve itself and survive) removes the blood from the extremities and sends it to the core (heart, lungs, and thorax).