Driving GMOs and Monsanto’s Roundup off the Market

By Ronnie Cummins

Since genetically engineered (GE) crops, foods, and animal drugs were brazenly forced onto the market in 1994 by Monsanto and the FDA, with neither pre-market safety testing nor labels required, consumers and small farmers worldwide have mobilized to ban, label, or boycott these controversial "Frankenfoods."

With mounting scientific evidence¹ underlining the human health and environmental toxicity of GE foods, and growing alarm over the toxic pesticides such as Monsanto's Roundup that invariably accompany genetically modified organisms (GMOs), currently 64 nations require mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Numerous states and regions in the European Union, and several dozen entire nations, including Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, and Russia, have banned GMO crops altogether.²
In the European Union (EU), where mandatory labeling laws are in effect, little or no GMO crops or food are on the market (except for imported GMO animal feed). In addition to banning GMOs, a growing number of countries, including El Salvador and Sri Lanka, have begun to ban the use of Monsanto's Roundup.
This  toxic herbicide is sprayed heavily on 84 percent of all GMO crops, and increasingly applied as a pre-harvest desiccant, or drying agent, on scores of other non-GMO crops including wheat, rice, beans, potatoes, barley, oats, flax, peas, lentils, and sugar cane.
Even in the US where 168 million acres of GE crops are under cultivation (including 90 percent or more of all corn, soy, cotton, canola, and sugar beets), survey after survey has shown that Americans, especially mothers and parents of small children, are either suspicious of, or alarmed by, unlabeled GMOs.
This is understandable given the toxic track records of the chemical companies pushing this technology (Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Dupont, BASF, and Bayer), as well as the mounting scientific evidence that these controversial foods and crops—and the toxic herbicides and insecticides sprayed on them or laced into their cells—severely damage or kill birds, bees, butterflies, lab rats, farm animals, and humans.
Currently US regulatory agencies, in sharp contrast to Europe, rely on industry's own indentured scientists to determine whether GMOs—and the toxic chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers that accompany their use—are "safe" for human health, animals, the environment, and the climate.
Meanwhile mass media journalists and food industry representatives monotonously regurgitate Monsanto's dangerous mantra: Genetically engineered foods and crops are just as safe as "conventional" foods and crops, and there is no "mainstream scientific evidence" that GMOs are dangerous.

Consumers Want Genetically Engineered Foods to Be Labeled

Polls consistently indicate that 90 percent of Americans want to know whether or not their food has been genetically engineered, even though massive lobbying and advertising by the GMO lobby has prevented labeling laws from passing at the federal level and in most US states.

 Read the rest of this article at -  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/04/21/boycott-gmos-roundup.aspx?e_cid=20150421Z1_DNL_B_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150421Z1_DNL_B&et_cid=DM73019&et_rid=923598124

A Nation Running from Pain: What Can Be Done About It

By Dr. Mercola

According to the most recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), lethal heroin overdoses nearly quadrupled between 2000 and 2013 in the US, escalating from 0.7 to 2.7 deaths per 100,000 during this timeframe.
Heroin-related deaths were nearly four times more prevalent among men than women in 2013, and lethal overdoses were highest among Caucasians between the ages of 25 and 44. The greatest increase in heroin-related deaths was seen after 2010.
As noted by Medical News Today:¹

"During the period investigated, the researchers found an average increase in heroin-related drug-poisoning deaths of six percent per year from 2000 through to 2010.
From 2010 through 2013, the average increase was a staggering 37 percent per year..."

Prescription Painkillers Are the New Gateway Drugs

What many fail to realize is that this trend is actually fueled by legal drug addiction. The reason for the resurgence of heroin is in large part due to it being less expensive than its prescription counterparts.
Addictive prescription drugs such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, codeine, and Fentora, all of which are opioids (derivatives of opium) are widely overprescribed for pain.
Many painkiller addicts also turn to heroin when their tolerance level surpasses their allotted prescription dosage, or when they're no longer allowed to refill their prescription.
According to previous statistics, prescriptions for opioid painkillers have risen by a staggering 300 percent over the past decade.² As of 2012, 259 million prescriptions for opioids and other narcotic painkillers were written³ in the US, and these drugs actually claim far more lives than heroin does.
In 2010, prescription painkillers were responsible for 16,600 deaths; heroin was involved in about 3,000.⁴ By 2013, the number of heroin deaths had increased to 8,257,⁵ but as noted in the featured article:⁶

"Although heroin-related drug-poisoning deaths have increased sharply in recent years, the overall rate is still considerably lower than that for opioid analgesics.
In addition, NIDA [National Institute on Drug Abuse] suggest that the abuse of prescription opioids such as Oxycontin and Vicodin could be the first step toward heroin abuse for many people."

Dr. Andrew Kolodny, chief medical officer at a drug treatment center called Phoenix House has also previously spoken out on this issue, noting that:⁷

"Heroin use is increasing because we have an epidemic of opioid addiction (caused by overexposure of our population to painkillers) and not enough has been done to expand access to treatment in communities hit hardest."

Financial Conflicts of Interest Fuel Narcotic Prescription Rates

Despite dramatic increases in prescriptions, two recent papers assert that no solid evidence can be found in the medical literature supporting the long-term safety and effectiveness of narcotic painkillers.
Many suffering from chronic pain end up using painkillers for years on end, yet there are no studies longer than one year on record. Most trials do not go past six weeks.

Read the rest of this article here 

The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are You Ready?

 

By Barbara Loe Fisher

More than 1.2 million people in the United States are infected with HIV¹ but government officials do not ban HIV infected children and adults from attending school, receiving medical care, being employed, or otherwise participating in society.
In fact, there are anti-discrimination laws that guarantee civil rights protections for Americans infected with HIV or living with AIDS.²

No Discrimination or Societal Sanctions for Infected Citizens

In 2012, public health officials reported that about two million people in America are infected with chlamydia, tuberculosis, syphilis, and gonorrhea,³ and they estimate another three million people are infected with hepatitis C.⁴
Like those with HIV or AIDS, these citizens are not targeted for discrimination and blocked from getting a public education, being employed, or moving freely in society.

Live Polio Vaccinated Children Could Still Attend School

Between 1963 and 1999, doctors gave live oral polio vaccine to millions of healthy American children, who became infected with vaccine strain polioviruses they shed in their body fluids and transmitted, sometimes causing other children and adults to contract vaccine strain polio paralysis and die.^5,6
Those with compromised immune systems were at special risk for getting vaccine strain polio and shedding vaccine strain poliovirus for longer periods of time than healthy persons. Yet, children recently given live oral polio vaccine were not excluded from attending school.

Read this article here 

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth—How GMOs Took Over the Food Supply, Part 2

By Dr. Mercola

Genetically engineered (GE) foods are a serious threat to our environment and our health.
In this article, Steven Druker, author of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, continues the fascinating story of how GMOs came into being and have been allowed to permeate our food supply through illegal means and without legally required safety testing.
If you missed the first installment of this interview, you may want to read through Part 1 first.
The subtitle of his book, How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public, is quite descriptive, and Steven has done a wonderful job of exposing this extraordinary fraud.
Not only has he exposed it, but he’s also taken an activist role and actually sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998 for their 1992 ruling in which they declared genetically modified organisms (GMOs) Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).
That ’92 ruling serves as the foundation by which the biotechnology industry has been able to get away with this fraud. There’s so much information here, I strongly encourage you to get a copy of his book if you have any interest in this topic.
It will give you a clear understanding of what the problems are and how we got to the point where we are now.

Facts Overlooked by Federal Judge

In part one of this interview, we reviewed his lawsuit against the FDA, and how the federal judge appointed to the case failed to rule in accordance to the law.

“She actually ignored some very important evidence that was in the FDA files and that the attorneys and I presented,” Steven says.
"We know that Congress certainly is not immune to special interest and to the money that can be thrown around. But the federal judiciary is supposed to be free of that.
I cannot speculate as to the judge’s motivations other than when I read the opinion, I find it difficult to understand how such an opinion came out because there are some serious facts that were overlooked.”  

One of the main pieces of evidence that came straight from the FDA’s own files was a letter written by the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator, sent to a Canadian health official less than six months before the FDA announced its policy on GE foods.

Read the rest of this article here

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth—How GMOs Took Over the Food Supply

YouTube wants me to warn you that this video is unlisted, presumably because it calls out the FDA for their failure to protect the public from these frankenfoods and for the revealing of shameful truths related to the corporate agri-giants that are pushing this stuff on the public.

By Dr. Mercola

Genetically manipulated foods may be one of the most serious threats not only to our environment but to the health and very survival of future generations. Typically, the blame for the promulgation of genetic engineering of our food is placed on chemical companies.
But there's actually a hidden back story to how genetically engineered foods were able to reach millions of dinner tables.
Steven Druker, who you may not be aware of, is the attorney who filed a lawsuit in the late '90s challenging the most important action the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken in this area: its presumption that genetically engineered (GE) foods are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) and can enter the market without a shred of safety testing.
However, the evidence clearly reveals that the FDA's GRAS presumption was fraudulent when first announced in 1992 and that it remains fraudulent today. Nonetheless, it has played the central role in allowing inadequately tested GE foods to permeate the American market. There are many components to this story, and Steven is just the man to set the story straight.
He's written a landmark and historic book Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, with the revealing subtitle: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.
If you have even the remotest interest in this topic, I would strongly encourage you to get a copy of this book. It is, without a doubt, the best book on the topic and provides a treasure trove of facts that will help you decimate anyone who believes that GMOs are safe.
Steven was aware of this issue 10 years before I was, and he's really a pioneer and a champion in warning the public and protecting us from the negligence and irresponsible action of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Read the rest of this article here

Flame Retardants and Cosmetic Chemicals May Jeopardize Your Health

By Dr. Mercola

Unless you live in some remote wilderness, you’re likely being exposed to a wide variety of chemicals on a daily basis that can compromise your health. One class of chemicals that have become ubiquitous in the US is flame retardants.

In the 1970s, the US implemented fire safety standards that led to more and more products adopting the use of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) to meet the stringent regulations.
PBDEs have a molecular structure similar to that of banned PCBs, the latter of which have been linked to cancer, reproductive problems, and impaired fetal brain development.
And, even though certain PBDEs have since been banned in some US states, they still persist in the environment and accumulate in your body. Tests have revealed that as many as 97 percent of all Americans have significant levels of PBDEs in their blood.
Many harmful chemicals also lurk in personal care products that you apply to your body on a daily basis.
A recent article in Environmental Health Perspectives¹ discusses the impact of newer flame retardants and the routes by which people are exposed to these hazardous chemicals—which, surprisingly, may include personal care products.

Hand-to-Mouth Exposures in Adults

In 2005, PBDEs used in foam furniture were voluntarily withdrawn from the US market.² But were they replaced with harmless chemicals? Hardly.
Many PBDEs were replaced by organophosphate flame retardants such as tris phosphate (TDCIPP), and triphenyl phosphate (TPHP), both of which are now used in a wide variety of consumer goods, including furniture, cars seats, carpet padding, and baby products, just to name a few.
According to the featured article:³

“TDCIPP is listed as a human carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65, and a small human study found evidence that exposure to both TDCIPP and TPHP was associated with altered levels of some hormones and lower sperm concentration.
In vitro and animal data have linked TDCIPP to neurotoxicity and both TDCIPP and TPHP to endocrine disruption.”

A recent study⁴ looked at how, and to what degree, people were exposed to these chemicals in their homes. A total of 53 men and women participated in the study, and more than 90 percent of them provided dust samples from their home.
Not only did every single dust sample contain both TDCIPPs and TPHPs, metabolites of TPHP and TDCIPP were also found in 91 percent and 83 percent of the urine samples respectively.

Read the rest of this article at - http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/02/24/flame-retardants-cosmetic-chemicals.aspx?e_cid=20150224Z1_DNL_B_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150224Z1_DNL_B&et_cid=DM69935&et_rid=853316000 

Low Vitamin D in Childhood Linked to Heart Risks Later in Life, and Raises Adults’ Risk of Severe Stroke and Cancer

By Dr. Mercola

Researchers such as Dr. Robert Heaney, who I previously interviewed in the above video, have now realized that vitamin D is involved in the biochemical “machinery” of all cells and tissues in your body, which is why it has such a potent impact on health and disease.
When you don’t have enough, your entire body will end up struggling to function properly, because all cells need the active form of vitamin D to open up the genome and access the information retained within its genetic plans.
When you’re deficient in vitamin D, your health can deteriorate in any number of ways from this lack of access to the cells’ genetic blueprint.

Researchers have previously pointed out that increasing levels of vitamin D3 among the general population could prevent chronic diseases that claim nearly one million lives throughout the world each year.
Chances are this number would reach even higher if more recent research were to be taken into account. Either way, compelling evidence suggests that optimizing your vitamin D can reduce your risk of death from any cause,¹ making it a foundational component of optimal health.

Childhood Vitamin D Deficiency Can Be Costly in Terms of Health

For years, it’s been known that children born to vitamin D-deficient mothers are at increased risk for type 1 diabetes. Vitamin D deficiency in childhood is also associated with more severe asthma and allergies.

Read the rest of this article at - http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/02/23/childhood-vitamin-d-deficiency.aspx?e_cid=20150223Z1_DNL_B_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150223Z1_DNL_B&et_cid=DM69932&et_rid=852502699 

Measles in Disneyland: Third MMR Shot and Vaccine Exemption Ban

By Barbara Loe Fisher

There have been hundreds of media stories published in the U.S. and around the world since Jan. 14, 2015, the day after it was first reported that visitors to Disneyland got measles and presumably infected other people in California, Washington, Utah, and Colorado.¹
Like wildfire, the story spread globally even though there was - and still is - limited information about the 51 lab-confirmed cases of measles public health officials say are linked to the happiest place on earth.
According a Jan. 23 Health Advisory issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "no source case for the outbreak has been identified."²

Demonizing of Parents and Their Children

The U.S. has a population of more than 320 million people and 38 million people live in California, so it is curious why a handful of measles cases prompted one California newspaper to quickly place blame on parents making informed vaccine choices, calling them "ignorant" and engaged in a "self-absorbed rejection of science."³
Astroturfers⁴ and trolls^5,6 saw that kind of talk as a green light to do more of it on public comment boards, suggesting that children with vaccine-related brain injuries are genetic mutants and calling mothers of vaccine injured children "liars" and "witches."⁷

Pediatrician Leads Blame and Shame Game

Dr. James Cherry,⁸ a prominent UCLA pediatrician and infectious disease expert, publicly joined in the blame and shame game, hurling insults at parents declining to give children every one of the government recommended 69 doses of 16 vaccines, including two MMR shots.
Dr. Cherry said, "There are some pretty dumb people out there,"⁹ and "Some people are just terribly selfish."¹⁰
Name-calling is a convenient way to deflect attention from inconvenient truths about vaccine failures and the dissolving myth of vaccine acquired herd immunity.¹¹

Read the rest of this article at -http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/02/10/measles-disneyland.aspx

Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Neurological Diseases; Also Raises Risk of Asthma Attacks, and More...

By Dr. Mercola

If there ever was a Top Nutrient competition, vitamin D just might nab the title. It affects your DNA through vitamin D receptors (VDRs) that bind to specific locations on the human genome.
So far, scientists have identified nearly 3,000 genes that are influenced by vitamin D status, and a robust and growing body of research clearly shows that vitamin D is critical for optimal health and disease prevention.
This includes some of the more difficult-to-treat conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease,¹ Parkinson’s, and multiple sclerosis² (MS).

Vitamin D Deficiency Is Prevalent in MS

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, neurodegenerative disease of the nerves in your brain and spinal column, caused through a demyelization process. It has long been considered a “hopeless” disease with few treatment options.

The typical prescription for MS focuses on highly toxic medications like prednisone and interferon. However, research over the past few years suggests MS may be improved using a number of natural methods—including vitamin D.

Most recently, a study^{3, 4} presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine⁵ (AANEM) shows that vitamin D deficiency is surprisingly prevalent both among those diagnosed with MS, and patients suffering other neuromuscular conditions.

Here, vitamin D deficiency was defined as a 25(OH)D3 level of 30ng/ml or less. Of patients diagnosed with a neuromuscular condition, 48 percent were deficient in vitamin D. Only 14 percent were above “normal,” which here constituted a vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml. According to one of the authors:

“While the connection between vitamin D deficiency and neurologic disease is likely complex and not yet fully understood, this study may prompt physicians to consider checking vitamin D levels in their patients with neurologic conditions and supplementing when necessary.”

Besides this one, about a dozen other studies⁶ have also noted a strong link between MS and vitamin D deficiency. For example, a number of studies have confirmed that your risk of MS increases the farther away you live from the equator, suggesting lack of sun exposure amplifies your risk.

I believe optimizing your vitamin D level is of great importance if you have MS, but it’s not the only factor. For additional treatment suggestions, please see my previous article discussing natural MS treatment guidelines.

 

Read more at - http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/11/17/vitamin-d-deficiency-asthma-multiple-sclerosis.aspx?e_cid=20141117Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20141117Z1&et_cid=DM60535&et_rid=731305630

To Protect Your Heart, Your Sodium to Potassium Ratio Is More Important Than Your Overall Salt Intake

Salt is the latest health/food villain that has been magically uncovered by the massive food establishment here in the US. While salt is being mandated out of foods in grocery stores and restaurants, chemicals unknown take it's place. And yet the body needs salt to function correctly, the brain needs salt so we can think clearly, so what is the truth?
By Dr. Mercola

The vilification of salt is similar to that of fat. Just as there are healthy fats that are necessary for optimal health and unhealthy fats that cause health problems, there are healthy and unhealthy types of salt. The devil’s in the details, as they say, and this is definitely true when it comes to salt and fat.
Salt provides two elements – sodium and chloride – both of which are essential for life. Your body cannot make these elements on its own, so you must get them from your diet. However, not all salts are created equal.

• Natural unprocessed salt, such as sea salt and Himalayan salt, contains about 84 percent sodium chloride (just under 37 percent of which is pure sodium^{1, 2}). The remaining 16 percent are naturally-occurring trace minerals, including silicon, phosphorus, and vanadium 
• Processed (table) salt contains 97.5 percent sodium chloride (just over 39 percent of which is sodium^{3, 4}). The rest is man-made chemicals, such as moisture absorbents and flow agents, such as ferrocyanide and aluminosilicate.
Besides the basic differences in nutritional content, the processing—which involves drying the salt above 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit—also radically and detrimentally alters the chemical structure of the salt

Appropriate vs. Inappropriate Salt Restriction

In the United States and many other developed countries, salt has been vilified as a primary cause of high blood pressure and heart disease. According to research presented at last year’s American Heart Association meeting,⁵ excessive salt consumption contributed to 2.3 million heart-related deaths worldwide in 2010.
However, it’s important to realize that most Americans and other Westerners get the majority of their sodium from commercially available table salt and processed foods—not from natural unprocessed salt.
This is likely to have a significant bearing on the health value of salt, just as dangerous trans fats in processed foods turned out to be responsible for the adverse health effects previously (and wrongfully) blamed on healthy saturated fats.
Current dietary guidelines in the US recommend limiting your salt intake to anywhere from 1.5 to 2.4 grams of sodium per day, depending on which organization you ask. The American Heart Association suggests a 1.5 gram limit.
For a frame of reference, one teaspoon of regular table salt contains about 2.3 grams of sodium.⁶ According to some estimates, Americans get roughly four grams of sodium per day, which has long been thought to be too much for heart health.
But recent research, which has been widely publicized,^{7, 8, 9, 10, 11} suggests that too little salt in your diet may be just as hazardous as too much.  Moreover, the balance between sodium and potassium may be a deciding factor in whether your salt consumption will ultimately be harmful or helpful.

Too Little Salt Raises Heart Risks Too, Researchers Find

One four-year long observational study (the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study), which included more than 100,000 people in 17 countries, found that while higher sodium levels correlate with an increased risk for high blood pressure, potassium helps offset sodium’s adverse effects.
The results were published in two articles: "Association of Urinary Sodium and Potassium Excretion with Blood Pressure"¹² and "Urinary Sodium and Potassium Excretion, Mortality, and Cardiovascular Events."¹³
I’ve discussed the importance of getting these two nutrients—sodium and potassium—in the appropriate ratios before, and I’ll review it again in just a moment.
In this study, those with the lowest risk for heart problems or death from any cause were consuming three to six grams of sodium a day—far more than US daily recommended limits.
Not only did more than six grams of sodium a day raise the risk for heart disease, so did levels lower than three grams per day. In short, while there is a relationship between sodium and blood pressure, it’s not a linear relationship.¹⁴ As noted by the Associated Press:¹⁵

"‘These are now the best data available,’ Dr. Brian Strom said of the new study. Strom, the chancellor of Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, led an Institute of Medicine panel last year that found little evidence to support very low sodium levels.
"‘Too-high sodium is bad. Too low also may be bad, and sodium isn't the whole story,’ Strom said. ‘People should go for moderation.’

The authors propose an alternative approach; instead of recommending aggressive sodium reduction across the board, it might be wiser to recommend high-quality diets rich in potassium instead. This, they surmise, might achieve greater public health benefits, including blood-pressure reduction.
As noted by one of the researchers, Dr. Martin O'Donnell¹⁶ of McMaster University, “Potatoes, bananas, avocados, leafy greens, nuts, apricots, salmon, and mushrooms are high in potassium, and it's easier for people to add things to their diet than to take away something like salt.”

Read the full article at -  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/08/25/sodium-potassium-ratio.aspx

Are You Allergic to Rain?

Dr. Mercola essentially presents the establishment case here for the causes of these reactions, but it's a fairly recent phenomenon, which means something is in the air and rain now that wasn't there in the past.  The most obvious answer is chemtrails, which has to be building up in the atmosphere after so many years of use...

By Dr. Mercola

Dust mites, animal dander, molds, and pollen are among the most common environmental triggers of asthma attacks and allergy symptoms. For some, however, a spring or summer thunderstorm may lead to a flare-up of symptoms.
Research shows an association between thunderstorm activity and worsening of allergy and asthma symptoms; one study found a 3 percent increase in emergency-room visits for asthma attacks in the 24 hours following thunderstorms.¹ As the researchers explained:

"While a three percent increase in risk may seem modest, asthma is quite prevalent… and a modest relative increase could have a significant public health impact in the population."

What Causes Thunderstorm Asthma?

The phenomenon, known as "thunderstorm asthma," isn't so much an issue of people being allergic to rain. Instead, thunderstorms form the "perfect storm," literally, of circumstances to increase breathing difficulties. Researchers wrote in the journal Thorax:²

"The most prominent hypotheses explaining the associations are that pollen grains rupture by osmotic shock in rainwater, releasing allergens, and that gusty winds from thunderstorm downdrafts spread particles and/or aeroallergens, which may ultimately increase the risk of asthma attacks."

In other words, pollen and mold particles that may otherwise be too big to get into your lungs (and instead tend to cause mostly nose-related symptoms) suddenly become broken up by a thunderstorm. This allows entrance into the lungs, potentially leading to an asthmatic reaction, even in some people who have never had asthma before.
It's also been suggested that storms' electrical charge makes tiny pollen and mold particles stickier, increasing the likelihood that they'll cause trouble in your lungs once inhaled.³ As written in Current Allergy and Asthma Reports:⁴

"The weather system of a mature thunderstorm likely entrains grass pollen into the cloud base, where pollen rupture would be enhanced, then transports the respirable-sized fragments of pollen debris to ground level where outflows distribute them ahead of the rain.
The conditions occurring at the onset of a thunderstorm might expose susceptible people to a rapid increase in concentrations of pollen allergens in the air that can readily deposit in the lower airways and initiate asthmatic reactions."

So what can you do? Pay attention to weather reports, especially if you've experienced thunderstorm asthma before. Although the condition is relatively uncommon, it's known to strike without warning, so if a thunderstorm is coming, stay indoors and close up your windows to avoid unnecessary exposure to ruptured pollen grains.

Read the rest of this article here

How the USDA Can Make or Break Public Health, and Why It Has Chosen the Latter

By Dr. Mercola

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) was formed in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln. It is responsible for developing and executing federal policies relating to farming, agriculture, forestry, and food. 

Since its inception, the USDA has been granted powers by both Congress and presidential executive orders that, progressively and collectively, have made it the policy-setter for both agricultural policies and nutritional guidelines. 

This is an obvious and serious conflict of interest that has led to an epidemic of chronic disease. It's also why federal guidelines relating to diet are so grossly divergent from nutritional science. 

Historically, USDA policies have been heavily—and in some instances, exclusively—influenced by pesticide producers and the junk food industry, and for the last 100 years, its nutrition "guidelines" have been a direct result of an effort to boost farm economics. 

In short, federal dietary recommendations have very little to do with actual nutrition science, and everything to do with promoting foods that serve the junk food industry's bottom line, not the public health.  

Through its power to set and enforce both agricultural policy and dietary standards, the USDA has much to answer for when it comes to the current state of health of Americans...

Nutrition Guidelines Set to Boost Junk Food Economics, Not to Promote Health

Ever since 1933, every five to seven years the US Congress passes a set of legislative acts commonly referred to as "the Farm Bill," which includes agricultural subsidies to growers of certain types of food.  

These subsidies are in large part responsible for promoting and worsening the US obesity epidemic—a fact highlighted in a 2013 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.¹ According to the authors, the root of the problem is that:

"Government-issued payments have skewed agricultural markets toward the overproduction of commodities that are the basic ingredients of processed, energy-dense foods."

This includes corn, soybeans, wheat and rice, which are the top four most heavily subsidized foods.  

By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the US government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these processed grains, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic disease. 

The Farm Bill essentially creates a negative feedback loop that perpetuates the highly profitable but health-harming processed food diet that the United States has become infamous for.  

The US government is actively promoting obesity and chronic disease through these subsidies, while simultaneously creating flawed and ineffective anti-obesity campaigns and programs to combat the very problems rooted in its agricultural policies!

 

Read the rest of this article here

Cell Phone Use Linked to Lower Grades, Anxiety, and Much Worse...

By Dr. Mercola

Mounting research raises tremendously important questions about the long-term safety of saturating ourselves in electromagnetic frequencies. As a result, at least a dozen countries around the world have begun to adopt a precautionary approach toward cell phone use and other wireless technologies.

For example, two years ago, a Council of Europe committee concluded that “immediate action was required to protect children” after examining the evidence.¹ Russian officials have issued the recommendation that all children under the age of 18 should avoid using cell phones entirely. And the UK, Israel, Germany, India and Finland also urge citizens to err on the side of caution with respect to their children’s use of cell phones.

Most recently, Belgium adopted new cell phone regulations² prohibiting the sale of mobile phones designed for, and marketed to children under the age of seven.³ The regulations take effect in March 2014. Retailers and internet marketers will also be required to disclose the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the phones they sell, and must display posters with recommendations for safer cell phone use.

Qualifying the new regulations, officials said, “But it is not the intention to use it for hours at a time: the way in which you use your mobile phone also determines your exposure.”

Such measures, while not going far enough to ensure safety, are at least a step in the right direction. I firmly believe the health ramifications of our modern technologies need to be properly assessed before coming to market—and addressed, the sooner the better. Pre-market testing and post-market surveillance should be the norm for any technology with biological consequences.

With Whom Does Responsibility of Safety Reside?

Alas, in the US, both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) have chosen to ignore the evidence of health risks associated with cell phones. As noted by the Environmental Working Group in a recent guide⁴ to safer cell phone usage:

“The FCC adopted radiation standards developed by the cell phone industry 17 years ago. These standards, still in use, allow 20 times more radiation to reach the head than the rest of the body. They do not account for risks to children.”

Camilla Rees, MBA of ElectromagneticHealth.org says clarification is also needed about where exactly responsibility and accountability reside on this subject between the FCC and FDA:

“If the FCC says it relies on the safety expertise of the FDA, and states it considered opinions from the FDA in setting its safety guidelines, but the FDA officially does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and PDAs before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices, then where is the responsibility for assuring safety actually domiciled?”

She asks, in a long piece on this subject:

"On what basis does the FCC, a communications commission charged with regulating interstate and international communications, not a health agency, have authority to ascertain safety and establish safety guidelines, such as the SAR limit for cell phones, in the first place? On what basis has the FCC assumed this responsibility?"

No Regulatory Agency Currently Looks at Biological Effects...

If the SAR value is a measure of the power or heating effects from a phone, and is a physics measure unrelated to biology, what regulatory agency is looking at the biological effects? This would include biological effects from all forms of radiation being emitted by a cell phone, including

1. The heating effects (that the SAR attempts to reflect)
2. Non-heating effects from the frequencies and modulation, and
3. Low frequency (ELF) fields emitted by the devices.

Has responsibility and accountability on this issue conveniently fallen through the cracks? Parallels can and have been drawn between the tobacco industry’s longstanding efforts to hide the truth about the health effects of smoking, and the wireless industry’s denial’s of harm without evidence of safety—and despite a plethora of scientific evidence of harm!

Frequent Cell Phone Use Promotes Anxiety and Poor Academic Performance

In one recent study, researchers from the College of Education, Health and Human Services at Kent State University in Ohio reported that frequent cell phone use appears to be associated with reduced academic performance, anxiety and unhappiness in college students. As reported by Medical News Today:⁵

“Not decrying the usefulness of the smartphone to today's college students, which allows them to stay in touch with family and friends and easily browse the Internet, the researchers suggest there is merit in considering what potential harms they may pose.”

The study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior⁶ surveyed more than 500 college students to assess their cell phone usage and then compared it to their grades and clinical anxiety- and life-satisfaction tests. Cell phone usage levels were linked to both GPA scores and anxiety levels in a “dose” dependent manner. The higher a student’s cell phone use, the lower their grades and the higher their reported anxiety level.

While it could be argued that perhaps people who are more anxious tend to spend more time on their smartphones, or that fiddling around on your phone too much will have a more or less obvious adverse effect on your academic performance, the authors urge students to consider the impact their cell phone use may be having on their grades, mental health and well-being.

This includes negative effects on activity levels. Earlier this year, researchers from the same University found that higher cell phone use was linked with reduced physical activity and fitness.⁷ Apparently, portability does not mean that people actually use them while staying active... According to the authors, “their findings suggest that cell phone use may be able to gauge a person's risk for a multitude of health issues related to an inactive lifestyle.”

Read the full article here

What’s Causing the Rise in ADHD?

By Dr. Mercola

According to a 2010 US government survey,¹ 1 in 10 American children now has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)—a 22 percent increase from 2003.
ADHD makes it hard for children to pay attention and control impulsive behavior, and an increasing number of older children, including high school students, are now being labeled as having ADHD. Adult ADHD is also becoming more prevalent. 

As reported by the Las Vegas Guardian Express,² nearly 11 percent of American kids are labeled with the disorder. More than twice as many boys are diagnosed with ADHD than girls—one in five, compared to one in 11. The featured article speculates about the cause behind these rising numbers. 

Some experts feel the increase could be due to increased awareness and better diagnosis, but I think you’ll find it interesting that this trend also coincides with increased prevalence of the pervasive weed killer, glyphosate, in the American food supply.

There’s also plenty of room for overdiagnosis. In fact, an ADHD diagnosis is often made on the subjective observations of teachers or guardians, based on signs that nearly every child will display at some point. Aggravating factors, such as diet or home environment, are oftentimes overlooked entirely. 

The featured article actually points out some interesting correlations between ADHD diagnoses and changes to the American educational system that might help explain how, if not why, so many children are misdiagnosed or flat out falsely diagnosed.

What Is ADHD?

But before we get into potential causes for the uptick in prevalence, let’s review how ADHD is qualified in the first place. The disorder involves a cluster of symptoms that includes inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsive behaviors.  

Often, children with ADHD struggle in school and have difficulty managing interpersonal relationships. They also tend to suffer from low self-esteem. The similar term attention deficit disorder (ADD) has largely been replaced with ADHD, as it describes two of the most common symptoms of the condition, inattention, and hyperactive-impulsive behavior.  

Diagnosing ADHD really comes down to a matter of opinion, as there is no physical test, like a brain scan, that can pinpoint the condition. This could change, however. According to a recent study, a newer MRI method called magnetic field correlation imaging that can detect low iron levels in the brains of children with ADHD could potentially help parents and patients make better informed decisions about treatment. As reported by Medicine.net:³

“Psychostimulant drugs used to treat ADHD affect levels of the brain chemical dopamine. Because iron is required to process dopamine, using MRI to assess iron levels in the brain may provide a noninvasive, indirect measure of the chemical, explained study author Vitria Adisetiyo... If these findings are confirmed in larger studies, this technique might help improve ADHD diagnosis and treatment...

The [magnetic field correlation imaging] scans revealed that the 12 ADHD patients who'd never been treated with psychostimulant drugs such as Ritalin had lower brain iron levels than those who'd received the drugs and those in the control group. The lower iron levels in the ADHD patients who'd never taken stimulant drugs appeared to normalize after they took the medicines.”

At present, diagnosis is dependent on subjective evaluation, and, for better or worse, teachers can play a significant role in this evaluation. Most children with ADHD will display a combination of inattention and hyperactive-impulsive behavior, along with the following symptoms:⁴

Frequent fidgeting or squirming	Difficulty playing quietly	Always seems on the go
Restlessness	Excessive talking and interrupting others	Difficulty waiting his or her turn
Frequent daydreaming	Frequently has problems organizing tasks or activities	Difficulty following through on instructions and apparently not listening

Many of these “symptoms” could describe virtually any child, or most children, on any given day. Hence, those who display these symptoms at school but not at home or with friends are not considered to have ADHD. Ditto for children who display symptoms at home but not at school.

Only children who struggle with inattention and hyperactive or impulsive behaviors around the clock are deemed to have ADHD—or at least they should be. According to a 2010 study,⁵ an estimated 20 percent of children are misdiagnosed with ADHD.
According to some, the disorder may not even be a “real” disorder at all. Psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, hailed as the “scientific father of ADHD,” actually went on record saying that ADHD is “a prime example of a fictitious disease.” He made this stunning confession in a 2012 interview with the German paper Der Spiegel, just seven months prior to his death⁶ at the age of 87.

How the American School System May Be Promoting ADHD Diagnoses

At least part of the rise in prevalence could be attributed to inappropriate diagnosis. As reported in the featured article, there’s an interesting correlation between the rise in ADHD diagnoses and the implementation of the US Elementary and Secondary Education Act known as “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). The program was implemented nationwide in 2002.  

The NCLB standardized teaching methods across the US which, contrary to what the name implies, does leave a lot of kids “behind,” in the sense that brighter children frequently end up bored and discouraged from lack of academic challenge. And bored, discouraged children will oftentimes “act out.”

“Now with the implementation of CORE standards, who some describe as NCLB on steroids, there is a chance the ADHD numbers may climb even more,” the article predicts.⁷

But there’s more to this story...

“Another study, published by the Child Mind Institute, states there might be another incentive behind the rise, and that is the financial benefit to schools. Many schools, especially those where the tax base is much poorer... rely heavily on federal funding to operate.  

Long before NCLB was enacted, many of these districts had already enacted ‘consequential accountability statutes,’” which penalized a school when children failed; however, often scores for children diagnosed with ADHD are not counted... thereby helping to ensure the passing test scores of the class as a whole.

Geographically speaking, children in the South are diagnosed far more often with ADHD than children living in Western states by a rate of nearly 63 percent. North Carolina, one of the first states to implement consequential accountability statutes, stands at a ADHD diagnosis rate of over 16 percent; California, one of the last states to implement these policies, ranks at only 6.2 percent. The difference is staggering.”

Read the full article here