Aussies may be first with swine flu vaccine

Topical Vitamin C Stops Basal Cell Carcinoma

(OMNS Nov 9 2007) The most common form of skin cancer, basal cell carcinoma, often responds to a remarkably simple, safe, at-home treatment: vitamin C. Physicians and patients report that vitamin C, applied directly to basal cell skin cancers, causes them to scab over and drop off. [1] Successful use involves a highly-concentrated vitamin C solution, directly applied to the blemish two or three times a day. Vitamin C is selectively toxic to cancer cells, but does not harm healthy skin cells. This is also the basis for high-dose intravenous vitamin therapy for cancer. [2] Even higher concentrations of vitamin C can be obtained by direct application. The use of topical vitamin C to kill basal cell carcinoma has been known at least since 1971. Frederick R. Klenner, MD, wrote: "We have removed several small basal cell epithelioma with a 30 percent ointment" of vitamin C. [3]

One person, who reported that a 2mm diameter spot on the nose would not heal for months, had it disappear within a week with twice-daily concentrated vitamin C applications. Another patient reported that after dermatologist-diagnosed multiple spots of basal cell carcinoma were coated with vitamin C, the spots fell off within two weeks. [4]

Basal cell carcinomas are slow growing and it is rare for them to metastasize. This provides an opportunity for a therapeutic trial of vitamin C, provided one has proper medical diagnosis and follow-up.

Preparation of a water-saturated vitamin C solution is simple. Slowly add a small amount of water to about half a teaspoon of vitamin C powder or crystals. Use just enough water to dissolve the vitamin C. Using less water will make a paste. Either way, application with the fingertip or a cotton swab, several times daily, is easy. The water will evaporate in a few minutes and leave a plainly visible coat of vitamin C crystals on the skin.

Consult your doctor before employing this or any other self-care treatment. A physician’s diagnosis is especially important, since other forms of skin cancer, such as melanoma, are faster growing and more dangerous. If the vitamin C treated area is not improved after a few weeks, a doctor should be consulted once again.

References:

[1] William Wassell, MD: Skin cancer and vitamin C. Cancer Tutor, http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer02/VitaminC.html
[2] Riordan NH, Riordan HD, Meng X, Li Y, Jackson JA: Intravenous ascorbate as a tumor cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agent. Med Hypotheses 1995; 44: 207-2 13. http://www.brightspot.org/cresearch/intravenousc2.shtml and http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/199x/riordan-nh-etal-med_hypotheses_1995-v44-p207.htm and also http://www.doctoryourself.com/riordan1.html
[3] Fredrick R. Klenner, MD: Observations on the dose and administration of ascorbic acid when employed beyond the range of a vitamin in human pathology. Journal of Applied Nutrition Vol. 23, Nos 3 & 4, Winter 1971. http://yost.com/health/klenner/klenner-1971.pdf and http://www.doctoryourself.com/klennerpaper.html
[4] Age spots, basal cell carcinoma and solar keratosis. http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v5n9.txt

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

www.themicroeffectlive.com  Mondays and Fridays 8 pm

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

By Jeffrey M. Smith

On May 19^th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11]^,[12]

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3^rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.

[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/ gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007

[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007

[6] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.

[7] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.

[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008

[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006

[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.

[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).

[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.

[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.

[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008

[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John

[16] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.

monsanto.com/monsanto/content/ sci_tech/prod_safety/ fullratstudy.pdf

[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008

[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.

[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005

[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).

[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/ archive2.asp

[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.

[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007

[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.

[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/ monsanto/content/sci_tech/ prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf 

[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.

[27] See memos at www.biointegrity.org

[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, n^o8, pp. 721- 733

[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.

[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25

Industry ties to vaccine advocates raises skepticism

July 31, 2008 — 8:48am ET | By John Carroll

Heightened media attention to the financial ties between vaccine makers and the physician groups which advocate their use appears to be encouraging a growing number of parents to skip the jabs for their kids--at a cost. The CDC noted that a recent outbreak of measles, a disease eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, could be attributed to the lack of a vaccination in 63 of 64 cases.

The Wall Street Journal notes that a recent CBS report highlighted millions of dollars in manufacturers' grants to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is responsible for major immunization campaigns. Drug makers like Merck and Wyeth have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the organizations. The groups insist that they're not swayed by the money, which they say allows them to pursue the work they believe in. But evidently a growing segment of the U.S. population isn't persuaded.

- check out the report in the Wall Street Journal
- read the CBS story

Related Articles:
Many infants don't get vaccinations on time
Pediatricians get tough with vaccine doubters
Americans want doc payments disclosed

Click here to get the FierceVaccines email newsletter for FREE!

Is Organic Overrated?

ScienceDaily (May 23, 2009) — Just a few short years ago, if you wanted to buy organic food, you had to make a special trip to an out-of-the-way grocery store. Today, organic products are, well, cropping up all over the place. Are they really worth the higher price or is it just another marketing maneuver?

What Is Organic?

First, let’s take a look at what exactly it means to be organic.

“Organic foods are grown without the use of chemical fertilizer or pesticides and have not been processed using irradiation or added hormones,” says Ashley Mullins, R.D., L.D., CNSC, a registered dietitian at Baylor All Saints Medical Center. “As with any product, it’s important to check the label to determine exactly what you’re getting.”

Products labeled “100 percent organic” must contain only organic ingredients with the exception of water and salt, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Products labeled “organic” must contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients. Products that are made with at least 70 percent organic ingredients are allowed to be labeled “made with organic ingredients.”

The Bottom Line

While organic food can cost up to two or three times that of regular foods, it may not be any better for you, Mullins says.

“From a nutrition standpoint, there isn’t enough research to show that organic foods are more nutritious than regular foods. The levels of pesticides currently used haven’t been found to be harmful,” she says. “Of course, there may be other benefits to buying organic, such as it being more environmentally friendly and, in some cases, fresher.”

It really comes down to personal preference and budget, adds Mullins. Whatever you do, don’t let your choice inhibit your ability to get the nutrients you need. “The most important thing to consider is the health benefit of consuming five servings of fruits and vegetables every day—whether or not they’re organic,” says Mullins. “That’s the biggest payoff.”

When It May Be Worth It

Want to buy organic, but don’t have it in your budget to do it across the board? Consider at least opting for organic when buying these fruits and vegetables, as they’re considered the top 10 worst offenders for pesticides, according to the Environmental Working Group:

Apples

Celery

Cherries

Grapes (imported)

Lettuce

Nectarines

Peaches

Pears

Strawberries

Sweet bell peppers

Adapted from materials provided by Baylor Health Care System,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2009/05/090519172045. htm

Children Who Get Flu Vaccine Have Three Times Risk Of Hospitalization For Flu, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (May 20, 2009) — The inactivated flu vaccine does not appear to be effective in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma. In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than their peers who do not get the vaccine, according to new research that will be presented on May 19, at the 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego.

Flu vaccine (trivalent inactivated flu vaccine—TIV) has unknown effects on asthmatics.

"The concerns that vaccination maybe associated with asthma exacerbations have been disproved with multiple studies in the past, but the vaccine's effectiveness has not been well-established," said Avni Joshi, M.D., of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. "This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the TIV in children overall, as well as the children with asthma, to prevent influenza-related hospitalization."

The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend annual influenza vaccination for all children aged six months to 18 years. The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (3rd revision) also recommends annual flu vaccination of asthmatic children older than six months.

In order to determine whether the vaccine was effective in reducing the number of hospitalizations that all children, and especially the ones with asthma, faced over eight consecutive flu seasons, the researchers conducted a cohort study of 263 children who were evaluated at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota from six months to 18 years of age, each of whom had had laboratory-confirmed influenza between 1996 to 2006. The investigators determined who had and had not received the flu vaccine, their asthma status and who did and did not require hospitalization. Records were reviewed for each subject with influenza-related illness for flu vaccination preceding the illness and hospitalization during that illness.

They found that children who had received the flu vaccine had three times the risk of hospitalization, as compared to children who had not received the vaccine. In asthmatic children, there was a significantly higher risk of hospitalization in subjects who received the TIV, as compared to those who did not (p= 0.006). But no other measured factors—such as insurance plans or severity of asthma—appeared to affect risk of hospitalization.

"While these findings do raise questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, they do not in fact implicate it as a cause of hospitalizations," said Dr. Joshi. "More studies are needed to assess not only the immunogenicity, but also the efficacy of different influenza vaccines in asthmatic subjects."

Setton Pistachio knew of salmonella, says FDA

By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 26-May-2009

Setton Pistachio knew that some of its products had tested positive for salmonella but kept shipping them anyway, according to an inspection report released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Californian company recalled two million pounds of pistachios in March after they were found to be tainted with salmonella through external testing by Kraft Foods, but federal health officials say the company had already known of the contamination for at least six months.

The Setton Pistachio inspection report said: “After receiving sample analysis results for your roasted pistachio products that were positive for Salmonella beginning in October 2008, your firm continued to process roasted pistachio products under the same processing conditions until March 2009.”

Cross contamination

If correct procedures are observed, roasting should kill salmonella, but it is thought that raw pistachios may have come into contact with roasted ones at the plant prior to distribution, causing the contamination.

At the end of March, assistant commissioner for food protection at the FDA David Acheson said that Setton Pistachio knew it had a salmonella problem revealed by its own tests, but it had re-roasted tainted nuts, an accepted way of killing salmonella after it has been identified.

But the newly-released FDA inspection report said that the firm lacked controls to ensure that the roasting step was effective against salmonella. After reviewing 14 lots of roasted pistachios, ten of those lots had had raw pistachios packaged on the same equipment beforehand, it said.

Continued distribution

“Your firm continued to distribute roasted pistachio products after the first private laboratory sample of your roasted pistachio product was reported positive for Salmonella and did not evaluate the adequacy of your roasting process to assure that your roasted pistachio products were free of microorganisms of public health significance,” it said.

“Your firm also did not attempt to determine potential routes of cross contamination within your facility between raw pistachios and roasted pistachios after your firm began receiving positive Salmonella sample results for your roasted pistachio products.”

The incident echoes the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) situation earlier this year, which also found salmonella in some of its products but continued distribution. By contrast, the PCA contamination led to nearly 700 illnesses and at least nine deaths, whereas no illnesses have been reported as a result of the contaminated pistachios.

The FDA said that the discovery of salmonella originating at Setton Pistachio is an example of how the food safety net should work: By recalling products to prevent an illness outbreak, rather than reacting after an illness has spread.

Europe's Uprising Against GMOs and Patents on Life

The unstoppable groundswell of opposition to GMOs in Europe Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION, AND REPRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT ISIS. WHERE PERMISSION IS GRANTED ALL LINKS MUST REMAIN UNCHANGED

The recent call for a moratorium on GMOs in Europe [1] (see Europe Holds the Key to a GM-Free World, 5th Conference of GM-Free Regions, Food & Democracy, SiS 43) reflects an unstoppable groundswell of opposition to GMOs from both European citizens and governments.

An online poll [2] on the question: “Should GMOs be banned in Europe?” conducted in April 2009 returned a 79 percent yes, 18 percent no and 3 percent don’t know. Days earlier, Germany outlawed the cultivation of Monsanto’s GM maize MON810, a surprising move that delighted campaigners. Germany became the sixth EU country to introduce a provisional ban on the GM maize, after France, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg and Greece [3]. A source close to the EC said the German ban might bring a revision of the European legislation on GM crops. Germany also voted with the majority in March when the European Commission (EC) attempted to force Austria and Hungary to reverse their bans, and its ruling was overturned by a big majority [1].

Ban by Germany the tipping point   

Germany’s move was broadly welcomed by its news media [4]. German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said she had legitimate reasons to believe that MON 810, posed “a danger to the environment,” a position which she said the Environment Ministry also supported. Aigner is taking advantage of a clause in EU law which allows individual countries to impose such bans. The left-wing Frankfurter Rundschau wrote: “Genetically modified corn is a risk to our environment, is totally superfluous in farming, represents industrial agriculture, causes pointless costs to food production in Germany and can even ruin beekeepers.” The left-wing Berliner Zeitung wroes: “The new studies don't show any new risks - they simply prove that the old warning about the risks was justified. It's a scandal that the subsequent ban was even necessary because the farming of genetically modified plants had been permitted without a thorough examination of all the possible dangers.”

Germany, the most populous country in the European Union (EU) ranking fourth in land area, is also its most influential and economically powerful member nation. Monsanto applied for an emergency ruling to overturn the ban to allow for its 2009 planting [5], saying its ban is arbitrary and goes against EU regulations.

But the court in Braunschweig in north Germany rejected Monsanto’s application [6]. Significantly, a statement from the court said Germany’s law on GMOs does not require that a ban on a new plant variety is justified by proven scientific research which showed without doubt the crop to be dangerous; it was sufficient when research showed there were indications that the crop could be dangerous.

Opposition strengthened by the eastern bloc

As countries from the former eastern bloc joined the European Union (EU), the US had expected them to help counter the opposition to GMOs, but far from it. The newer members have added strength to the GM opposition, often in direct defiance of Brussels.

In April the European Commission sent a letter to Bulgaria warning over its failure to implement the European Directive for GMO in its legislation, as reported in the Klasa Daily [7]. This was the sixth official warning to Bulgaria for not following regulations. Experts commented that the current Bulgarian legislation is much more restrictive compared to European regulation. Bulgaria supported Hungary’s decision to keep the ban.

No patents on animals and plants

Meanwhile, more than a thousand farmers demonstrated against patents on animals and plants at the European Patent Office in Munich 15 April 2009 [8]. Over 5 000 people and some 50 organisations have filed a joint opposition to a patent on breeding pigs originally registered by the US corporation Monsanto. Protestors want all patents on life to be prohibited by law.

Rudolf Buehler from the Schwaebisch Hall farmers’ Association led a herd of its traditional breeding pigs to the patent office. He said: “Corporations like Monsanto want control over agriculture and food, from piglets to cutlets.”

The demonstration was also supported by the German dairy farmers alliance, the BDM, and the AbL farmers' cooperative. “There are new patent applications that range from cows to milk and yoghurt,” said Romuald Schaber at the BDM. “The German government must set limits to big companies' greed for living creatures.”

The demonstrators in Munich have already scored an initial success. The Hesse state government and the Greens in the German Bundestag last month called for a change in European patent laws prohibiting such patents being granted in future.

References

Ho MW. Europe holds the key to a GM-free world; 5^th Conference of GM-free regions, food and democracy. Science in Society 43 (to appear).

Euro News online poll on GM food and farming 17 April 2009, http://www.euronews.net/news/you/

“EU to ‘reflect’ on Germany's GM maize ban”, EU Business, 15 April 2009, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1239807722.48

“The world from Berlin: ‘There was no reason to accept the risks of GM corn’” Spiegel Online 15 April 2009, http://www.congoo.com/news/2009April15/World-Berlin-Reason-Accept-Risks

“Monsanto sues Germany over GM corn ban”, DW-World.DE, 22 April 2009, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4196705,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

“German court rejects Monsanto plea to end GMO maize ban”
Reuters, May 5 2009
http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKL558166220090505?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

“Brussels makes a sixth warning over environment”
FOCUS News Agency, 11 May 2009
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n180607

“Farmers demonstrate in Munich against patents on animals and plants”,
No Patents on Seeds, 15 April 2009 http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=3&Itemid=28&lang=en

you've heard it eh!! all the hype of a genetically modified flu.....a combo of pig people and bird all wrapped in one...A virus....whoop tee doo.....this is designed to cause a pandemic so everyone will run and get a vaccination which will in turn cut your lifespan and continously keep you ill and a NEW CRY of the DANGERS OF organics or NON TREATED FOODS as a Hazardous element....remember the biblical prophesy about people asking to die but cannot and would feel the constant pain in there bodies....that is exactly what people are feeling now as a direct result of vaccinations and contaminated foods.......NOWW we have a NEW TERRORIST in the air SWINE FLU...don't be decieved with this BS or malarkey total total lies...
here are some things that will assist you......
Peroxide ---Store bought...Kills ALLLLL Viruses...Oxygen Kills virals...
GMV or otherwise..GMV= Genetically Modified Virus
GSE--- Kills Viruses
IODINE --- Kills Viruses
Colloidal Silver--Kills Viruses
Olive Leaf --- Kills Viruses
SAGE---Kills Viruses
Thyme --- Kills Viruses
Cinnamon--- Kills viruses
CLOVE--- Kills viruses
Baking Soda and ACV vinegar ---Kills Viruses
Propolis---Kills Viruses
Balm of Gilead--- Kills Viruses.....
Irish Moss---kills TB
Iceland Moss--kills TB
Hyssop- Kills TB

Do Not EAT ANYTHING with a MOSIAC VIRUS==== GMO food.....are you getting the gest here??? the mosiac viuses you have been cinsuming are destroying your immune system and when any pathogen that comes out makes you more susceptible to infection then boom you go down.....NOW READ those Labels if it has WHeat.....SOY...CANOLA ...CANOLA OIL....COTTON SEED OIL....TVP...HVP....Lecithin....HPP...VEGETABLE BROTH....VEGETABLE OIL...as examples....THESE ALL HAVE THE MOSIAC VIRUS== GMO or GE Foods....Thank Monsanto or CARGILL OR Dupont or NESTLE or ADM for doing this to you...and the Pharma group has released this so knowing the impact on your already compromised immune system
Eat it live and or RAW ( fruit or vege nonsprayed) .....
and if you apply these above you will make your self more resistant..and less prone to falling
By the way drink wine and or brandy as well and mix it with a good herbal tincture or essential oils( again be extremely careful) and honey ( Unpasteurized ) it has peroxide and propolis.....Remember in the days of the bubonic Plague people who used alcohol ( perfumes, colognes, wine. brandy, cognac...vodka) didn't fall prey to this plague and who did not drink the water which had the pathogen....the pathogen is in you if you are a consumer of packaged foods or contaminated foods with a GM or GE modification it will not matter if you are vegan or non vegan ...meat eater or non meat eater.... ( remember our meats and vegetables and fruits are either consuming or using GMO foods or the chemicals) Be Wise in your choices...you can't entirely escape it BUTTTT you can NEUTRALIZE this effect...

Share the Health!!

One of the best Vids I have seen in along time explaining what this is and How it actually Kills people....if you do not assimilate your food ...this GE and GMO will assimilate you ...your bacteria in the gut can and in fact become parsitic looking for right nutrition...look at this and Share the Health eh!!