Guest guest Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Boy, in reply to the mom with boy on the article of SOY being harmful to boys, causing dementia and containing aluminum- I think she'd better find that article again, re-read it for accuracy and if that is in factwhat it says, she should report that writer to the FDA, the department of preventative of bad nutritional information! We really need an idiot police to stop incorrectly informed people from spreading informationthat is inaccurate and can be harmful to others! Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 12:22:08 AM Digest Number 3807 Messages In This Digest (25 Messages) 1a. Re: Soy, as a source of Hormones is it ok??? mommy2threelilboys 1b. Re: Soy, as a source of Hormones is it ok??? Tony De Angelis 2a. Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team mommy2threelilboys 2b. Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team David West 2c. Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum. 3. Soy and hormones OmMerry 4. Naturopathic Medicine: Doctors for the New Millennia Micki 5. CEOs "cashed out" prior to economic crisis Micki 6. Expert or Pharma Shill? Viviane Lerner 7. Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men" Viviane Lerner 8. In Chronic Condition: Experiences of Patients Clare@GOOGLE MAIL 9. U.S. Health Care Workers Granted Right to Refuse "Morally Objectiona Viviane Lerner 10. I AM THANKFUL FOR ... AsianWoman 11. Once they get opur food all blended we will not have real food kerley983 12. First Report Linking Vaccine Aluminium With ME/CFS Viviane Lerner 13. A Shocking Look at Cancer Studies Viviane Lerner 14a. CPT-1 Qapuk 14b. Re: CPT-1 Jane MacRoss 15a. 90% of U.S. Infant Formula May Be Contaminated with Melamine; FDA Ab M.M. 16a. EFT Insights Newslette Eagle 17. Mystery, Truth Buffs: Raven 18. Re:_“Those_who_forget_history_are_doomed_to_repeat_it!” Raven 19. FDA may approve stevia-based sweeteners Kathy 20. Genetic Engineering Super-viruses Viviane Lerner 21. You mean to say that these people have our health in their hands??? kerley983 View All Topics | Create New Topic Messages 1a. Re: Soy, as a source of Hormones is it ok??? Posted by: "mommy2threelilboys" mommyon731 mommy2threelilboys Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:11 am (PST) I don't have time to look up the article. But, I recently read something that stated that boys should not ever have soy formula. They are getting too much estrogen from it, then when it comes time to have they testosterone surge later in live, it's not happening. In short, they'll be very "girly" boys because they've had too much estrogen. It's a good idea to stay away from soy in general unless it's fermented. , kerley983@.. . wrote: > > I wonder about little boys having soy based formula. Hormone wise, I know > my stepmother took soy oil I think in a jell cap. Also soy products are not > recommended for people who have had breast cancer. In other words Soy is a > source of hormones, female. Why would a boy child have soy based anything. > Unless it is being monitored and not much is used. I also know that soy milk > makes a difference in my own hormones. > > sharon > ************ **Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW > AOL.com. > (http://www.aol. com/?optin= new-dp & icid= aolcom40vanity & ncid=emlcntaolco m00000002) > Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (3) 1b. Re: Soy, as a source of Hormones is it ok??? Posted by: "Tony De Angelis" tntstuart tntstuart Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:11 pm (PST) Organic (non-GMO) soy has some benefit. However, when they originally tried to feed it to animals, they were unsuccessful because animals have a difficult time digesting it. The same is true for humans. The original soy consumers, found it necessary to ferment the soy into natto, miso, tempeh, etc. Soy beans (edamame) can be used occasionally but they are just another bean, and there are so many other beans available, you should not use soy beans on a regular basis Chemically processing soy into soymilk, candy bars, and tofu makes the soy more bioavailable, but the process also releases the high aluminum content. We have discovered their regular use leads to increased incidence of all forms of dementia by over 30%. Men are more susceptible to senility and women more susceptible to Alzheimer's. There are some soy derivatives that have hormonal benefits for some but are negatively indicated for many others, especially children, and especially for boys. If you find that soy helps control hot flashes or PMS symptoms, you will also find that soy-derived vitamin E in high initial doses can do the same. I.m sure this message will confuse many of you, but this topic is too complicated to handle well in a short document. My hope is that it will lead you to the proper research of the proper soy product for your specific needs. If you remain confused about this subject, theanswer is simple, avoid soy if you can. I suggest here that you will have a hard time avoiding soy because it is in nearly 70% of all processed foods including preformed hamburger and sausage meats that you can buy at your local supermarket and fastfood purveyors. --- On Sun, 11/30/08, kerley983 (AT) aol (DOT) com <kerley983 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote: kerley983 (AT) aol (DOT) com <kerley983 (AT) aol (DOT) com> [Health_and_ Healing] Soy, as a source of Hormones is it ok??? Sunday, November 30, 2008, 6:26 AM I wonder about little boys having soy based formula. Hormone wise, I know my stepmother took soy oil I think in a jell cap. Also soy products are not recommended for people who have had breast cancer. In other words Soy is a source of hormones, female. Why would a boy child have soy based anything. Unless it is being monitored and not much is used. I also know that soy milk makes a difference in my own hormones. sharon Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL..com. Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (3) 2a. Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team Posted by: "mommy2threelilboys" mommyon731 mommy2threelilboys Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:12 am (PST) Everyone has an angle...everyone , "M.M." <MedResearch121@ ...> wrote: > > Hello, > I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, so my posting of this person's opinion is a bit biased. In the back of my mind, when reading the Snopes material, I often wondered "who watches the watchers?" Well, for what it's worth, here is another person's opinion on this subject that I've read in the past three days; both of which were not too positive toward Snopes and had their own proof to back up their statements. > > I'd be interested to read other's opinions on this subject. > > p.s. I put a question mark after the exclamation point (only in the Subject line) to indicate my doubt on this whole subject. > Pauljs > > > Nov. 19, 2008 > > Snopes.com is a Scam > For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. > > David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the Website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticims - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have > the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint. > > A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. > > I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not! > > Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal.. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.. Gee, what a shock? > > So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www..snopes. com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' > fully looking into things. > FROM: rremelin > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ > > Paranormal_Research - Scientific Data, > Health Conspiracies & Anything Strange > > http://groups. / group/Paranormal _Research > Subscribe:.. . Paranormal_Research - > Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) 2b. Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team Posted by: "David West" dgwest7 dgwest7 Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:06 pm (PST) A couple of years ago, I posted a scam to Snopes. I said that the idea that 19 hijackers had captured 4 airliners, and flown two of thwm into the WTC knocking down two buidings, was a hoax! My message was removed from the site within two hours,and my membership terminated. That immediately told me where the opinions of the management of Snopes lie. They still believe that the government story on 9/11 is true. This must align them with a group of publicly known people who are so naive that they are not worth listening to. Best regards David , "M.M." <MedResearch121@ ...> wrote: > > Hello, > I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) 2c. Re: Snopes.com is a Scam !? - It is run by a husband and wife team Posted by: "Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum." bettym19 drbettymartini Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:51 pm (PST) Snopes has also been written continually about saying aspartame toxicity is a hoax. Even if you send them information they never change their web site. Further, attorney Ed Johnson who is in Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, and myself have written him and reported him to the Justice Department. Over the years when victims of aspartame toxicity write him, Dave Snopes actually tells them they must e working for the sugar industry or the Stevia people. They are in violation of Title 8 Section 1001 for giving false information and stumbling the public. One lady read his lies and got back on aspartame, then had a grand mal seizures. Some have told me they have been paid industry to do this. One thing for sure they don't want the facts, so they are putting out the propaganda for reason. Too much of the public think what he says is gospel and he researches. This is not true, its one man's opinion because of his own agenda. Regards, Betty www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com and www.wnho.net Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed. com/aspartame At 06:06 PM 11/30/2008, David West wrote: >A couple of years ago, I posted a scam to Snopes. I said that the idea >that 19 hijackers had captured 4 airliners, and flown two of thwm into >the WTC knocking down two buidings, was a hoax! My message was removed >from the site within two hours,and my membership terminated. >That immediately told me where the opinions of the management of >Snopes lie. > >They still believe that the government story on 9/11 is true. This >must align them with a group of publicly known people who are so naive >that they are not worth listening to. > >Best regards > >David > > ><Health_ and_Healing% 40. com>, >"M.M." <MedResearch121@ ...> >wrote: > > > > Hello, > > I have always been somewhat suspect of Snopes.com, > > Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (4) 3. Soy and hormones Posted by: "OmMerry" OmMerry Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:18 am (PST) Hello all, I have been reading the emails about the hormone effects of soy on boys and that would be a wonderful follow up on where you can obtain this information about the effects of soy on boys. Also, where can one find the information on fermented soy. I have so many people who come to me that eat and drink soy which I think they are going way over board with soy in the diet. Thanks for your help, Merry _OmMerry (AT) aol (DOT) com_ (OmMerry (AT) aol (DOT) com) ************ **Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol. com/?optin= new-dp & icid= aolcom40vanity & ncid=emlcntaolco m00000002) Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1) 4. Naturopathic Medicine: Doctors for the New Millennia Posted by: "Micki" micki_ immaxie2000 Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:30 am (PST) http://www.stopagin gnow.com: 80/news/news_ flashes/5218/ Naturopathic- Medicine- Doctors-for- the-New-Millenni a?refer=newsflas h_11_26 By Kevin Passero, N.D. Naturopathic Doctor Staff Writer November 26, 2008 Thomas Edison wrote "The doctor of the future will give no medicine but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease." I believe naturopathic physicians best represent the "doctors of the future" Thomas Edison envisioned. We use education to teach people the proper care of the human frame to prevent disease processes from starting in the first place. Additionally, naturopathic physicians use mainly natural therapies derived from herbs, vitamins and Chinese acupuncture principles to facilitate healing in a person who has already manifested a disease process. All naturopathic physicians are also trained in pharmacology so they understand the dynamic relationship that can occur between natural therapies and drug based therapies. The advances of modern medicine are not something to be taken for granted. They allow us to live healthier longer lives and reduce suffering for millions of people each day. The difference of philosophy is that naturopathic physicians believe these therapies should only be used after every other natural option has been exhausted. By doing this we instill the principle of health maintenance, rather than disease management. This notion of health maintenance rather than disease management is the only way our healthcare system will be able to improve the health of American's. Our current model is based on the concept that we must wait until someone is sick enough to manifest dangerous symptoms before an intervention is implemented. By the time the disease process has progressed to this point it is often necessary to use aggressive pharmaceutical or surgical intervention to manage the situation. Herein lies the problem. One must choose between the dangers of their disease, or the dangers of pharmaceuticals or surgery. Due to widespread acceptance and billions of marketing dollars spent by pharmaceutical companies, many people assume that there is very little risk associated with drug therapy. Many people are on multiple medications and many thousands of people die every year from properly prescribed prescription drugs. I tell my patients that the terms "alternative" and "conventional" should be reversed. What I mean is that the "conventional" medical approach should be based on the encouragement of managing disease though diet, lifestyle and natural therapies from vitamins, herbs and other non-toxic interventions. Only if these do not work, should we resort to the "alternatives" of potentially toxic drugs. I believe that if everyone knew that they had an option to correct their health problems without drugs, and insurance companies covered those expenses and doctors endorsed it, few American's would resort to drug therapy first unless their health status absolutely warranted it. Few people know that NDs receive similar training to MDs. Licensed NDs graduate from four year accredited naturopathic medical schools. These schools are recognized by the Department of Education and accredited by the appropriate state and regional bodies. Admission requirements are similar to those of traditional medical school. The curriculums for the first two years are quite similar to a traditional medical education to create competence in the basic medical sciences such as anatomy, physiology, pathology, microbiology, biochemistry and histology. As the program progresses many things are still similar, such as basic training in dermatology, family medicine, psychiatry, radiology, pediatrics, obstetrics, gynecology, neurology, surgery, pharmacology, endocrinology and ophthalmology. The major difference is the extensive training and emphasis on natural therapies such as herbal medicine, nutrition, homeopathy and naturopathic physical medicine. Thousands of hours of clinical training under the guidance of other NDs and MDs are carried out in various outpatient clinical settings. Board exams are administered after the second year to assess competence in the basic science skills (anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, microbiology and pathology) and after the fourth year to assess competence in clinical skills (diagnoses, physical exam, lab interpretation, herbal medicine, nutrition, pharmacology, minor surgery and homeopathy are just few examples). Always ask your naturopathic provider if they graduated from one of these four accredited schools: Bastyr University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine or Bridgeport University. There are many practitioners who use the term "naturopath" that are not qualified NDs. They may acquire their degrees from mail order correspondence programs over the course of one or two years. Their schools are not regulated by any state, federal or regional body and there are no admission requirements. To find a naturopathic physician who graduated from an accredited school, visit The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians and use the "Find an ND" function to locate the one nearest you.. Related Articles: Avoiding Prescription Pills - My Search for Real Healing Find a Vitamin Savvy Doctor More Supplement Bashing by Mass Media Written exclusively for Stop Aging Now, the authority on anti-aging research, anti-aging nutrition, and anti-aging supplements. Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1) 5. CEOs "cashed out" prior to economic crisis Posted by: "Micki" micki_ immaxie2000 Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:50 am (PST) All the facts are not present in this article, (typical internet) there is prosecution pending for many of these people & groups.. This is far from over, it's sad our economy had to nearly flop on it's face before anything was done, but keep watching, the government is nailing many of these people. Greed in big business has been at the forefront for decades now, with new legislation and laws perhaps some of these greedy Nazi's will be stopped. We can hope, eh? Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1) 6. Expert or Pharma Shill? Posted by: "Viviane Lerner" vivlerner vlerner2002 Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:21 pm (PST) http://www.nytimes. com/2008/ 11/30/opinion/ 30sun2.html? _r=5 & pagewanted= print November 30, 2008 EDITORIAL Expert or Shill? More evidence has emerged of appalling conflicts of interest that throw into doubt the advice rendered and the research performed by two prominent psychiatrists who have received substantial funding from the pharmaceutical industry. The revelations prove, once again, the need for universities and professional societies to crack down on conflicts of interest, and for Congress to pass legislation that will bring hidden conflicts into the open. Earlier this year, Congressional investigators discovered that Dr. Joseph Biederman, a world-renowned child psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, had failed to report to Harvard at least $1.4 million in income from drug companies, in violation of the university’s conflict-of- interest guidelines. Now, internal drug company e-mail and documents that surfaced in a lawsuit have sketched out what looks like an unsavory collaboration between Dr. Biederman and Johnson & Johnson to generate and disseminate data that would support use of an antipsychotic drug, Risperdal, in children, a controversial target group. The various documents indicate that Dr. Biederman repeatedly asked a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary to fund a research center at Massachusetts General to focus on children and adolescents with bipolar disorders and that the company provided almost $1 million. Disturbingly, one of the center’s publicly stated missions, along with improving the psychiatric care of children, was to “move forward the commercial goals of J. & J.” The company also drafted a scientific abstract on Risperdal for Dr. Biederman to sign — as if he were the author — before it was presented at a professional meeting. And it sought his advice on how to handle the uncomfortable fact, not mentioned in the abstract, that children given placebos, not just those given Risperdal, also improved significantly. Dr. Biederman’s work and reputation have helped fuel a huge increase in the use of powerful, risky and expensive antipsychotic medicines in young people, an upsurge that brought a warning recently from a federally appointed panel of experts. Now it is hard to know whether he has been speaking as an independent expert or a paid shill for the drug industry. Congressional investigators also recently reported that Frederick Goodwin, an influential psychiatrist who has been hosting a popular weekly program on public radio, earned at least $1.3 million by giving marketing lectures for drug makers who potentially stood to benefit from the recommendations he made on the program. He has rightly been removed from the air. ===== In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1) 7. Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men" Posted by: "Viviane Lerner" vivlerner vlerner2002 Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:45 pm (PST) http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ jeffrey-smith/ obamas-team- includes- dang_b_147188. html Jeffrey Smith Posted November 30, 2008 | 10:43 AM (EST) Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men" Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations- -where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology. Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand: "It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view" When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration. " By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist. • The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true. • We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers. • George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants. • Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger. Food Safety Lies Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public. Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Stephen Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests. "What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects." Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe. At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy. Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC. Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team. Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs .com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling. As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request. But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect. Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary. Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor. Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus" For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry." One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year. Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn. Change, Truth, Hope I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin. - His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely." On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice." There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors. President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs. Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration. (I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.) Please sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful. ===== In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1) 8. In Chronic Condition: Experiences of Patients Posted by: "Clare@GOOGLE MAIL" theclaremcharris theclaremcharris Sun Nov 30, 2008 1:02 pm (PST) In Chronic Condition: Experiences of Patients with Complex Health Care Needs, in Eight Countries, 2008 http://www.commonwe althfund. org/publications /publications_ show.htm? doc_id=726492 Synopsis A 2008 survey of chronically ill adults in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States found major differences in health care access, safety, and efficiency, with U.S. patients at particularly high risk of forgoing care because of costs and experiencing errors or inefficient, poorly organized care. there is a chart in this literature that is well worth looking at...... please follow the above link for the entire article Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1) 9. U.S. Health Care Workers Granted Right to Refuse "Morally Objectiona Posted by: "Viviane Lerner" vivlerner vlerner2002 Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:38 pm (PST) >>What about parents who wish to refuse vaccines for their children, for example? Or parents of cancer-stricken teens who wish to refuse toxic chemotherapy for their children and seek naturopathic cancer treatments instead? The Bush Administration is proposing no rules that would protect the rights of those who morally object to mandatory vaccines, chemotherapy or other dangerous treatments offered by western medicine. The upshot of all this, then, is that the Bush Administration believes doctors should have to right to refuse treatment for patients but that patients should have no right to refuse treatments they do want. Thus, Americans continue to live under a system of medical tyranny rather than medical freedom where free citizens might choose the health care modality they wish. Or, put another way, health care workers no longer have any responsibility to treat YOU if they don't want to, but YOU will be forced (at gunpoint, if necessary) to submit to whatever treatment THEY want you to undergo.<< ========= http://snipurl. com/6yytg [www_naturalnews_ com] U.S. Health Care Workers Granted Right to Refuse "Morally Objectionable" Treatments or Pharmaceuticals by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, November 30, 2008 The Bush Administration is set to announce new rules that would allow health care workers to refuse service to patients on moral grounds. It's a rule designed to allow pharmacists to refuse to prescribe "Plan B" pills, for example, or to allow doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in abortions, artificial insemination or even the prescribing of birth control pills. Not surprisingly, the rule has the full support of the Christian community, as the Christian Medical Association has thrown its full support behind it. But that's not the news here. The real news is this: Note carefully that the Bush Administration isn't proposing any rules that would allow patients to refuse medical care on moral grounds? What about parents who wish to refuse vaccines for their children, for example? Or parents of cancer-stricken teens who wish to refuse toxic chemotherapy for their children and seek naturopathic cancer treatments instead? The Bush Administration is proposing no rules that would protect the rights of those who morally object to mandatory vaccines, chemotherapy or other dangerous treatments offered by western medicine. The upshot of all this, then, is that the Bush Administration believes doctors should have to right to refuse treatment for patients but that patients should have no right to refuse treatments they do want. Thus, Americans continue to live under a system of medical tyranny rather than medical freedom where free citizens might choose the health care modality they wish. Or, put another way, health care workers no longer have any responsibility to treat YOU if they don't want to, but YOU will be forced (at gunpoint, if necessary) to submit to whatever treatment THEY want you to undergo. See http://www.naturaln ews.com/gunpoint _med... What's wrong with this picture? In a truly free society, patients should be able to refuse any treatment they morally object to, either for themselves or their children. But rather than boosting the rights of citizens to exercise free choice in their health care, the Bush Administration is focusing its efforts on allowing health care workers to refuse care to patients. By the way, also note that this rule could potentially allow informed pharmacists to refuse to prescribe psychiatric medications to children if they object to it on moral grounds. This could bring up some fascinating conflicts in the future where some better-informed pharmacists might refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs they know to be dangerous, such as psych meds or chemotherapy drugs. By attacking abortions and Plan B pills using such rules, the Bush Administration may be unwittingly opening the door for pharmacists and health care workers to refuse to participate in all kinds of treatments. Click to read: U.S. Health Care Workers Granted Right to Refuse "Morally Objectionable" Treatments or Pharmaceuticals From Baltimoresun. com: The Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other health care workers to refuse to participate in any way in morally "objectionable procedures" such as abortion and possibly including birth control and artificial insemination. ... more ===== In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1) 10. I AM THANKFUL FOR ... Posted by: "AsianWoman" i_asianwoman i_asianwoman Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:29 pm (PST) I AM THANKFUL FOR ... Author Unknown The partner who hogs the covers every night, because he Is not out with someone else. The child who is not cleaning his room, but Is watching TV, because that means he Is at home and not on the streets. For the taxes that I pay, because it means that I am employed. For the mess to clean after a party, because it means that I have been surrounded by friends. For the clothes that fit a little too snug, because it means I have enough to eat. For my shadow that watches me work, because it means I am in the sunshine. For a lawn that needs mowing, windows that need cleaning, and gutters that need fixing, because it means I have a home. For the parking spot I find at the far end of the parking lot, because It means I am capable of walking and that I have been blessed with transportation. For my huge heating/cooling bill, because it means I am warm/! refreshed. For the lady behind me in church that sings off key, because it means that I can hear. For the pile of laundry and Ironing, because it means I have clothes to wear. For weariness and aching muscles at the end of the day, because it means I have been capable of working hard. For the alarm that goes off in the early morning hours, because it means I am alive. And finally... For too much e-Mail, because it means I have friends who are thinking of me. Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1) 11. Once they get opur food all blended we will not have real food Posted by: "kerley983" kerley983 sharon_kerley Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:11 pm (PST) _http://www.huffingt http://www. http://www. hufhttp:/ /www.hhttp: //wwhttp: //www.h ufhttp_ (http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ jeffrey-smith/ obamas-team- includes- dang_b_147188. html) _Jeffrey Smith_ (http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ jeffrey-smith) Posted November 30, 2008 | 10:43 AM (EST) _Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men_ (http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ jeffrey-smith/ obamas-team- includes- dang_b_147188. html) We are not going to stand around and worry that Genocide has finally began for real, we are getting up off our asses and go to the streets, there are no peoplelwho want to eat food that has been crossed with a monster, or for that matter a rat. We are going to do something about it. We are NOT going to eat their Frankin food. I will bet that the white house will not serve that kind of food. It does not mean we are going to eat it anyway. We have had good wholesome food What we should do it shit can the Frankin food, and teach the world to grow their own.. This is one way we could make a change for the planet and the people of this country. Oh but they do not want us to grow our own, I remember when I read that the FDA would like to own our gardens. They want control. We also need to let Obama know about this stuff. I am sure he does not want his girls eating it. sharon ************ **Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol. com/?optin= new-dp & icid= aolcom40vanity & ncid=emlcntaolco m00000002) Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1) 12. First Report Linking Vaccine Aluminium With ME/CFS Posted by: "Viviane Lerner" vivlerner vlerner2002 Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:14 pm (PST) http://www.thenhf. com/vaccinations /vaccinations_ 221.htm First Report Linking Vaccine Aluminium With ME/CFS Provided by OneClickGroup November 20, 2008 One Click Note: Today we publish a most important paper that demonstrates yet again the link between vaccines and ME/CFS. The short introductory piece to this publication is a swift summary of this research produced by News Medical, followed by the Full Text of A role for the body burden of aluminium in vaccine-associated macrophagic myofasciitis and chronic fatigue syndrome by Dr Chris Exley et al. It should be noted that all the considerable vaccine damage evidence presented to the risible ME/CFS 'Inquiry' chaired by UK parliamentarian Dr Ian Gibson with the Countess of Mar prominent, was purposefully suppressed by this group of politicians. It was never permitted by them to see the light of day. The more this goes on at the hands of the ME/CFS charities conjoined with their politico buddies with science slapping them in the face, the worse it will get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.