Judge orders morning-after pill available without prescription

Elizabeth Landau
Fri April 5, 2013
Full Article:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/05/health/morning-after-pill/index.html

A federal judge in Brooklyn, New York, has ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to make the morning-after birth control pill available to people of any age without a prescription.

The order overturned a 2011 decision by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to require a prescription for girls under 17.

The FDA said it couldn't comment on an ongoing legal matter. But the U.S. Justice Department indicated an appeal of the ruling was under consideration. "The Department of Justice is reviewing the appellate options and expects to act promptly," department spokeswoman Allison Price said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended last year that oral contraceptives be sold over the counter in an effort to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in the United States. Opponents of prescription requirements say prescriptions can delay access to the drug.

In 2011, Teva Women's Health Inc., maker of Plan B One-Step, had asked the FDA to make the drug available without prescription to all sexually active girls and women. Sebelius overruled the FDA's recommendation, saying, "I do not believe enough data were presented to support the application."

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman said in his order, "The decisions of the Secretary with respect to Plan B One-Step and that of the FDA with respect to the Citizen Petition, which it had no choice but to deny, were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable."

Friday's order came in response to a lawsuit launched by the Center for Reproductive Rights. The group was seeking to expand access to all brands of the morning-after pill over the counter, such as Plan B One-Step and Next Choice, so that women of all ages would be able to purchase them without a prescription.

"Today science has finally prevailed over politics," Nancy Northup, the center's president and CEO, said in a statement. "This landmark court decision has struck a huge blow to the deep-seated discrimination that has for too long denied women access to a full range of safe and effective birth control methods."

In a press briefing, Northup said that according to the order, within 30 days, the pill would be available over the counter without "point of sale restrictions," such as needing to show identification or being a certain age.

There may be other settings besides drugstores where the morning-after pill will be sold, Susan Wood, associate professor at the George Washington University's School of Public Health and Health Services, told reporters.

"We no longer have to find, on a Sunday morning or a Saturday night, an open pharmacy counter with a pharmacist on duty," she said.

Walmart and Big Food pushing for GMO labeling?

Are Walmart and Big Food pushing for GMO labeling?
Tom Laskawy
25 Jan 2013
http://grist.org/food/are-walmart-and-big-food-pushing-for-gmo-labeling/

Since food companies collectively spent over $45 million to stop Prop 37, California’s GMO labeling law, it’s hard to believe that they — and Walmart in particular — would turn around and push for a federal GMO labeling standard. But a trickle of reports, aspects of which we’ve now confirmed, suggests just such a turnabout.

Playing a state-by-state game of whack-a-mole with grassroots groups trying to pass laws across the country (as is occurring in Washington state, Vermont, New Mexico, and Connecticut) may simply have become too exhausting and costly for these companies. If so, such an about-face would vindicate GMO opponents’ strategy of a direct appeal to consumers. GMO-labeling advocates may have succeeded in beginning to drive a wedge between biotechnology seed companies, like Monsanto and Syngenta, and the food companies that have to sell what’s produced with their wares.

That’s because GMOs, for all the claims made on their behalf, actually provide very little benefit to consumers — one of the strongest arguments against them. GMO innovations to date have simply allowed farmers to plant vast acreages of commodity crops like corn, soy, and cotton with less labor (but not, despite industry claims, with fewer chemicals). It’s on this basis, perhaps, that food companies felt like the fight wasn’t really theirs.

I first learned of this possible labeling sea change through an article by Ronnie Cummins, head of the Organic Consumers Association, who caught wind of news that a group of food companies went into the FDA earlier this month to “lobby for a mandatory federal GMO labeling law.”

Cummins went on to speculate the following:

Is it possible that the threat posed by the growing grassroots GMO labeling movement has prompted a number of Fortune 500 corporations to abandon Monsanto and the biotech industry, and rethink the PR and bottom-line costs of clinging to their anti-right-to-know positions? After all, it’s not as if these companies are incapable of making GMO-free products. Though many Americans don’t know it, Walmart, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nestle, Unilever, Kellogg’s, Starbucks — even McDonald’s — are GMO-free in Europe, thanks to strict GMO labeling laws.

I have been able to confirm through sources close to attendees that such a meeting did occur on Jan. 11. It did not take place at the FDA, however, though FDA representatives did reportedly attend. The meeting was “sponsored” by the AGree Foundation, which is a coalition of foundations active in agriculture and co-chaired by former Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farm Organics.

I was also able to confirm that, as Cummins claimed, a Walmart vice president did announce that the company would no longer take a lead in opposing GMO labeling efforts. Other food company executives agreed, saying that the fight had become too expensive, especially given the prospect of more state-level initiatives. And if Walmart moves to support, or rather to no longer oppose, GMO labels, others will certainly follow. (Walmart did not respond to my requests for comment.)

Of course, supporters of GMOs will likely cluck disapprovingly at the idea that food companies might turn on Monsanto. They are, after all, forever pointing to the potential genetically modified crops have to solve the various problems we face. But to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you plant with the GMOs you have, not the GMOs you might want or wish to have. And the ones we have don’t do any of the things proponents argue that we need, such as significantly boost yields, disease resistance, or nutrition.

In fact, existing GMO seeds do little more than enable chemical-based, fossil-fueled monocrops — the kind of farming that is least sustainable and most subject to climate shocks and resource limits. Nor do the products currently in the pipeline hold much promise. The much-heralded drought-tolerant seeds Monsanto released last year aren’t particularly drought tolerant. The big new GMO seed from DuPont currently awaiting USDA approval would simply allow farmers to douse it with a super-toxic Agent Orange ingredient.

The best you can say about GMOs’ consumer benefit is that by “simplifying” commodity agriculture, they keep commodity prices lower. But food companies will tell you that commodity costs are a small part of the retail price (most of which is actually marketing costs). So why on Earth should Walmart, Cargill, and General Mills keep spending hundreds of millions fighting Monsanto’s battles?

Still, it’s unknown whether anything will come of this “secret” meeting or if an industry-supported GMO label would be a weak, sheep-in-wolf’s-clothing version. For what it’s worth, Cummins did invoke the cautionary example of Japan, which enacted industry-sponsored GMO labeling that he considers chock full of loopholes.

But it may be that food companies realize that GMO labeling is an inevitability. After all, 61 countries already require it, and the World Health Organization’s food safety standards group has official, internationally approved guidelines for any country wishing to label GMOs. We’re the laggards on this issue, not the pioneers.

If I’m hopeful, it’s also because past history suggests the FDA will regulate upon request — if the right folks ask.

For example, in March 2012, the FDA rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to ban the use of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bipshenol-A in plastic. The agency stated at the time that it didn’t have the scientific data to support a ban (despite calls for a ban from many experts, including leading endocrinologists). This decision wasn’t entirely a surprise, however. Two years earlier, the FDA claimed it didn’t have the authority to ban bisphenol-A, even if it wanted to. Which it didn’t.

But then a funny thing happened. It turned out that the industry group the American Chemistry Council, with support from food companies — all presumably sick of the bad publicity and boycotts related to BPA — had filed its own petition to ban BPA in baby bottles and other children’s products. And while the FDA rejected the NRDC petition, in July of 2012 it accepted the industry petition for a partial ban. It was a classic case of “You say, ‘jump,’ I say, ‘how high?’”

Of course, even if the FDA doesn’t immediately start a process to label GMOs, it’s good news that food companies are ready to opt out of the political battle. With battles over GMO labeling gearing up in states across the country, we’ll soon find out if food companies will make good on this threat to biotech interests.

Advocates, meanwhile, can clearly smell Monsanto’s fear. Dave Murphy, of Food Democracy Now and one of the main architects of the GMO labeling movement, promised in an email that “come hell or high water, we will have labeling by the end of 2014.”

Labeling may come even sooner than that, however. With the prospect of final FDA approval for the first genetically modified fish designed for human consumption, AquaBounty’s AquAdvantage salmon, some states are moving quickly. Missouri has introduced a bill that would require labels for any genetically engineered meat or fish. The FDA itself may feel compelled to require a label as the “price” for approving the salmon. And once one kind of GMO food is labeled, how long can it be before others are?

Tom Laskawy is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. His writing has also appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, The New York Times, and The New Republic.

FDA admits that vaccines still contain mercury

FDA admits in court case that vaccines still contain mercury
Ethan A. Huff
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Full Article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035432_vaccines_mercury_court_case.html

It is a common myth today that the vaccines administered to children no longer contain the toxic additive thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative linked to causing permanent neurological damage. But a recent federal case involving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has revealed that, contrary to this widely-held belief, thimerosal is actually still present in many batch vaccines, including in the annual influenza vaccine that is now administered to children as young as six months old.

Filed by a citizen-backed coalition advocating vaccine safety, the lawsuit against the FDA alleged that the agency's continued endorsement and approval of thimerosal as a vaccine additive is a serious public health threat, especially since safer alternatives already exist and are widely used voluntarily by many vaccine manufacturers. But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, siding with antiquated pseudoscience, decided that thimerosal is not a health threat, and that those who wish to avoid it can simply choose thimerosal-free alternatives...

The fact that Judge Kavanaugh refused to hear the case is tragic in and of itself, as thimerosal, which is composed of 50 percent mercury, has been proven to cause serious health damage. But what may be even worse is the fact that many people falsely believe that thimerosal is not even included in vaccines anymore, which is leading them to blindly allow them to be administered to their children. And the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA have continued to provide dubious and misleading information on the subject, which the mainstream media has been complicit in spreading over the years.

But the FDA explains, in no uncertain terms, directly on its website that thimerosal is still added to certain vaccines. For this reason alone, it is crucial that parents who choose to vaccinate their children ask for an ingredients list for each and every vaccine before allowing them to be administered to their children...

The same but different

Study: Sugar & HFCS Not As Identical As Some Would Have You Believe
By Chris Morran on January 27, 2012
http://consumerist.com/2012/01/study-says-sugar-hfcs-not-as-identical-as-some-would-have-you-believe.html

While the corn industry waits on the FDA to decide whether or not it can have high fructose corn sugar (HFCS) relabeled with the marketing-friendly "corn sugar" label, it continues to push home its assertion that the human body reacts the same, whether the sweetener is HFCS or table sugar. But a new study claims that just isn't the case.

"Although both sweeteners are often considered the same in terms of their biological effects, this study demonstrates that there are subtle differences," says co-author Dr. Richard Johnson of the University of Colorado. "Soft drinks containing HFCS result in slightly higher blood levels of fructose than sucrose-sweetened drinks."

Their study looked at 40 men and women who each consumed 24 ounces of soft drinks sweetened with either HFCS or sucrose. Those who drank the HFCS beverage demonstrated higher levels of uric acid and increased systolic blood pressure.

From the abstract of the study, published in the appropriately titled journal, Metabolism: "Compared with sucrose, HFCS leads to greater fructose systemic exposure and significantly different acute metabolic effects."

While the study shows that there appears to be an immediate difference in how one's body processes the two sweeteners, researchers say that the next step is to study the long-term differences, if any, between sugar and HFCS.

The "corn sugar" name is a topic of dispute between the corn industry and the sugar refiners of the nation. The two parties are currently involved in a lawsuit over the Corn Refiners Association's ad campaign, which Big Sugar called "false and misleading." Big Corn says the lawsuit is an attempt to "stifle free speech."

Meanwhile, it has been reported that some folks at the FDA are none-too-taken by the Corn Sugar campaign, considering that the regulators have yet to rule on the name and already have "corn sugar" on the books as an acceptable name for dextrose.

GM Food Needs Mandatory Labels

Courtesy of Disinfo.com, from Business Week:

Genetically engineered corn, soy and plant oil should be disclosed on mandatory food labels, a coalition of more than 350 producers, trade groups and consumers said in a petition to U.S. regulators.

The U.S. should require added disclosure even when a product containing a gene-altered organism is similar to foods that aren’t bioengineered, the groups said today in the petition to the Food and Drug Administration. Stonyfield Farm, the organic-yogurt maker owned by Danone SA, and Dean Foods Co.’s Horizon Organic are among the coalition members.

Petitioners, led by the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, want to reverse a 1992 Food and Drug Administration policy that doesn’t require different labeling. Gene-altered seeds are used for almost 90 percent of U.S.-grown corn, 94 percent of soy and 90 percent of cottonseed, an oil-producing plant, the coalition said.

“Consumers ought to have the right to choose whether to be buying these foods,” said Gary Hirshberg, chief executive officer of Londonderry, New Hampshire-based Stonyfield Farm, in an interview...

Gene-Altered Foods Need Mandatory Labels, Coalition Tells FDA
Molly Peterson
October 04, 2011
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-04/gene-altered-foods-need-mandatory-labels-coalition-tells-fda.html

To those who Occupy: We stand with you

http://www.benjerry.com/activism/occupy-movement

We, the Ben & Jerry’s Board of Directors, compelled by our personal convictions and our Company’s mission and values, wish to express our deepest admiration to all of you who have initiated the non-violent Occupy Wall Street Movement and to those around the country who have joined in solidarity. The issues raised are of fundamental importance to all of us. These include:

•The inequity that exists between classes in our country is simply immoral.
•We are in an unemployment crisis. Almost 14 million people are unemployed. Nearly 20% of African American men are unemployed. Over 25% of our nation’s youth are unemployed.
•Many workers who have jobs have to work 2 or 3 of them just to scrape by.
•Higher education is almost impossible to obtain without going deeply in debt.
•Corporations are permitted to spend unlimited resources to influence elections while stockpiling a trillion dollars rather than hiring people.

We know the media will either ignore you or frame the issue as to who may be getting pepper sprayed rather than addressing the despair and hardships borne by so many, or accurately conveying what this movement is about. All this goes on while corporate profits continue to soar and millionaires whine about paying a bit more in taxes. And we have not even mentioned the environment.

We know that words are relatively easy but we wanted to act quickly to demonstrate our support. As a board and as a company we have actively been involved with these issues for years but your efforts have put them out front in a way we have not been able to do. We have provided support to citizens’ efforts to rein in corporate money in politics, we pay a livable wage to our employees, we directly support family farms and we are working to source fairly traded ingredients for all our products. But we realize that Occupy Wall Street is calling for systemic change. We support this call to action and are honored to join you in this call to take back our nation and democracy.

— Ben & Jerry’s Board of Directors

What’s our position on the issues that matter?

•Big Picture, Small World
•Fair Trade
•Climate Justice
•Peace Building
•Caring Dairy

Does Ben & Jerry’s spend money on lobbying in the United States?
Ben & Jerry’s has launched numerous activist campaigns over the years that are considered lobbying activities according to federal and state laws.

In the past four years, the positions we have taken in these activist campaigns are:

1.Support for a Constitutional amendment that would limit corporate spending in elections.
2.Support for stronger social and environmental protections in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.
3.Support for the Youth PROMISE Act, which funds proven youth violence prevention programs.
4.Support for continued funding for the United States Institute of Peace.
5.Support for continued funding for the Complex Crises Fund which supports State Department emergency efforts to defuse volatile conflicts around the globe.
6.Support for aggressive federal legislation to limit and reduce carbon emissions to respond to the challenge of climate change.
7.Opposition to FDA approval of foods from cloned animals.
8.Support for a USDA program to require mandatory tracking of cloned animals in the food supply to support consumer choice.
9.Opposition to FDA approval of genetically engineered animals in the food supply.
10.Support for the right of dairy companies to label their products as being ‘rBGH-free.’
11.Support for the United Nations Millennium Development goals to eradicate extreme poverty and inequality.

Ben & Jerry’s has reported all expenditures on these grassroots campaign activities as required by federal and Vermont state law.

Fraud claim against Dr. Andrew Wakefield has no basis in fact

BMJ admits that fraud claim against Dr. Andrew Wakefield has no basis in fact
Thursday, August 25, 2011
PF Louis
http://www.naturalnews.com/033425_BMJ_Andrew_Wakefield.html

(Natural News) Big Pharma, the FDA, AMA and other medical associations falsely accuse conscientious healers of crimes that they themselves routinely commit or cover up. Unfortunately, they get away with it since they are the "authority", and the mainstream media (MSM) usually favors authority's version of events. Dr. Andrew Wakefield was a victim of the BMJ's (British Medical Journal) injustice, which also helped hide vaccine injury science from public awareness.

What Wakefield Actually Did

Dr. Wakefield was organizing clinical research on Crohn's disease, colitis and gastrointestinal disorders in young children. The research intended to determine if there was a link between those disorders and measles at the Royal Free Hospital in England. Dr. Wakefield published the results of this clinical study in the U.K. medical journal Lancet in 1998.

Children were brought to him because of his interest, but contrary to all accusations, he never treated them. He described himself as "the thinker" when Health Ranger Mike Adams recently interviewed him. In this particular study, he was the thinker for the team of doctors directly involved with the treatment.

Another accusation, that Dr. Wakefield asserted a definite link of MMR vaccines to autism was never published. He never made that claim. Some of his team colleagues put forth their interpretation that MMRs were linked to autism, but that was not part of Wakefield's Lancet paper. Dr. Wakefield was looking into the possible link of those commonly experienced gut disorders in children under five years old as a precursor to their autism related behavior.

That link to MMRs was actually made by the parents of those 12 participating children. They were doing fine until they received MMR vaccinations, and the parents reported this to Dr. Wakefield's team. Dr. Wakefield included the parents' reports in the case study findings. Including parents' observations in case study reports is highly appropriate.

Dr. Wakefield's only conclusion was the measles/gut disorder connection to autistic behavior possibilities merited further study.

Other Discoveries that Corroborate Wakefield's Findings

According to a Mike Adams article, fourteen months before Dr. Wakefield's paper was published, two other researchers discovered the same problems of gut disorders and autistic behavior in seven children. Their 1996 presentation was called "Entero-colitis and Disintegrative Disorder Following MMR - A Review of the First Seven Cases." Those seven cases became part of the final twelve cases in Dr. Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper. This and other facts disprove accusations that Wakefield fabricated the twelve reports.

A more recent Wake Forest University study determined that 70 of 82 autistic children they studied had measles virus in their guts. Interestingly, the measles virus strain they discovered was not a wild virus -- it was the same strain used in MMR vaccines.

A Russian born U.K. pediatrician, Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, has not only established the connection of gastrointestinal tract disorders among the very young to autistic and other behavioral problems, she cures them with proper diet and supplementation. She learned how the hard way, by curing her own autistic son.

Dr. McBride coined the acronym GAPS for her book Gut and Psychology Syndrome. She describes the dietary solutions to her explanations of how the gut and the brain are connected. This relationship has been known by traditional Chinese medicine for centuries.

In a recent U.S. lecture, she mentioned that her colleagues were afraid to mention Dr. Wakefield due of the witch-hunt conspired against him earlier. But she acknowledges his research efforts as accurate contributions to her practice.

The U.K. government refuses to compensate cases of encephalitis (brain disease) due to vaccine injury. Here we may have one motive for a conspiracy against Dr. Wakefield.

There Really Was a Conspiracy

There are other motives from the usual suspects. The allegedly corrupt Murdoch empire's Sunday Times is run by Rupert Murdoch's son James. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer. James Murdoch is even on GSKs board of directors.

James hired a freelance hack journalist, Brian Deer, to fabricate the Wakefield fabrication. It created a firestorm in London that ignited another vaccine promoter, Dr. Fiona Godlee, who happens to be the editor in chief for the British Journal of Medicine (BMJ). She propagated Deer's lies officially.

This pincer move encircled the U.K. Government's medical establishment and forced a five member GMC (General Medical Council) hearing on Dr. Wakefield. Perhaps the hearing intended to defend the U.K.'s stance on not awarding vaccine injury victim?

The Sly Admission: Too Late; Damage Done

Private admission of wrong doing by the BMJ to newsletter Age of Autism, spoken evasively out of both sides of Dr. Fiona Godlee's mouth, is insufficient for the public damage done to Dr. Wakefield's integrity. But it has served to inspire a stronger alliance among medical professionals and aware parents of vaccine injured children on both sides of the Atlantic.

Peach contains an almond-like nut containing anti-cancer medicine

Amazing food facts: The seed of a peach contains an almond-like nut containing the anti-cancer medicine laetrile Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
Monday, July 25, 2011
http://www.naturalnews.com/033123_laetrile_vitamin_B17.html

(NaturalNews) Peaches, nectarines, plums, apricots and almonds are all closely related fruit trees with very similar pits. In all these fruits, the pit must be broken open to reveal the almond-shaped kernel within. In fact, this is what almonds actually are: the kernel within the pit of the fruit of the almond tree!

The kernels of all these species contain high concentrations of a chemical known as laetrile. It's also known as amygdalin or vitamin B-17. Research has shown that laetrile induces programmed cell death in cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone. It's sort of like Mother Nature's chemotherapy except that it doesn't make you suffer the way man-made synthetic chemotherapy does.

Laetrile appears to work because the nutrient is actually composed of four separate molecules: two of glucose, one of benzaldyhide and one of cyanide. The latter two chemicals are toxic, but are bound up in a non-bioavailable form. Cancer cells contain an enzyme that healthy cells do not, known as beta-glucosidase. This enzyme actually breaks apart the component pieces of laetrile, and the cell is poisoned by a combination of benzaldyhide and cyanide. Healthy cells do not undergo this effect, which is why they remain unaffected by laetrile.

The medical establishment, learning about this natural "chemotherapy" that killed cancer cells and didn't even require a prescription, quickly began to attack it by spreading lies about the dangers of laetrile. The FDA, long an enemy of healing through nutrition, banned laetrile in 1971. Highly toxic chemotherapy substances, however, remain perfectly legal and continue to kill hundreds of thousands of people every single year. (Most people who "die from cancer" are actually killed by chemotherapy and radiation, not from the cancer itself. "Cancer survivors" are people who miraculously survive chemotherapy.)

Yes, But It Stops Smoking...

From MSNBC.com:
Hundreds of reports of suicides, psychotic reactions and other serious problems tied to the popular stop-smoking drug Chantix were left out of a crucial government safety review because Pfizer Inc., the drug’s manufacturer, submitted years of data through “improper channels.”

Some 150 suicides — more than doubling those previously known — were among 589 delayed reports of severe issues turned up in a new analysis by the non-profit Institute for Safe Medication Practices.

“We’ve had a major breakdown in safety surveillance,” said Thomas J. Moore, the ISMP senior scientist who analyzed the data. The serious problems — including reports of completed suicides, suicide attempts, aggression and hostility and depression — had been mixed among some 26,000 records of non-serious side effects such as nausea and rashes, with some dating back to 2006, the year Chantix, or varenicline, was approved.

They echo previous claims that the drug can induce extreme reactions in people trying to quit cigarettes, including vivid nightmares, crippling depression and sudden, violent outbursts.

“It’s really chilling,” said Moore, who analyzed 26 Chantix reactions in a paper published in the September 2010 issue of the Journal of Pharmacotherapy. "This seems to unleash something in people. It can be violence to anything around."

Moore's case studies describe "inexplicable and unprovoked" reactions in Chantix patients with no previous history of violence or mental illness, including:

•A 24-year-old woman who started beating her boyfriend in bed because "he looked so peaceful" and later attempted suicide;

•A 42-year-old man who punched a stranger at a bowling alley;

•A 47-year-old woman who died after she came out of a room, yelled at her daughters and then shot herself.

Federal Food and Drug Administration officials acknowledged that they asked Pfizer to resubmit thousands of records after realizing that the company was sending required reports in an inappropriate format that could not be added to the agency’s Adverse Events Reporting System, or AERS.

“Last year, FDA became aware that a few manufacturers were submitting adverse events reports to FDA through improper channels,” the agency said in a statement.

Pfizer officials said they were submitting reports as required and that when the FDA asked them to change, they did so immediately. They said there's no proof that Chantix causes suicide or other serious side effects.

Moore, who has served as an expert witness in court regarding Chantix, said it's the riskiest drug among those analyzed from the FDA's adverse event reports. In the third quarter of 2010, it ranked first in reported deaths, with twice as many fatalities logged as any other drug, he said.

New reports don't change FDA's position

FDA officials said the new reports did not change the agency’s position on the risks and benefits of the controversial drug, which received a black box warning that included suicide — the strongest caution possible — in 2009, according to agency officials who would not speak on the record.

“At this point, based on the data, FDA does not have any new safety concerns with Chantix, though those that have been established remain under active review,” the agency said in a statement posted in response to the ISMP report.

Agency officials said they're continuing to review Chantix in clinical trials and two large observational studies with the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense.

But Moore said the new data should raise immediate alarms about the drug that was prescribed 3.2 million times last year to people trying to stop smoking — and 1.1 million times already this year, according to data from the firm Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions.

“To us, it raises questions about whether this drug is safe for widespread clinical use,” Moore said. “Does this tip the balance?”

That’s a view echoed by families of people who allegedly became suddenly and inexplicably violent after taking Chantix. Sean M. Wain, 34, of Beaver County, Pa., shot himself and his wife, Natalie, 33, in May 2009 in what a lawyer for their families claims was a Chantix-fueled rage.

If the FDA had more information about suicides and other side effects tied to Chantix, the agency might have taken stronger action sooner, said Victor H. Prebanic, who represents Robert Erdelen and George Wain, fathers of the slain couple.

“If Pfizer had been more forthcoming, the black box warning might have emerged earlier,” Prebanic said. “For all we know, the drug would not have been available.”

The lawsuit, filed this month, is the latest among hundreds of claims filed against Pfizer regarding Chantix. At least 1,545 injury claims that cite Chantix are pending in federal court.

Pfizer officials, however, said that the firm was following the FDA's rules and changed their reporting process once the agency asked for clarification...

Smoking-pill suicides overlooked in missing reports
JoNel Aleccia
5/27/2011
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43187290/ns/health-health_care

Toxic Waste Bars Have Hazardous Levels Of Lead, Recalled

Christian Nordqvist
16 Jan 2011
Nutrition / Diet
Regulatory Affairs / Drug Approvals; Public Health
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/213822.php

Toxic Waste Nuclear Sludge Chew Bars have been recalled because one lot was found to have high levels of lead - 0.24 parts per million, as opposed to the FDA tolerance of 0.1ppm. The FDA announced that Circle City Marketing and Distributors, which trades as Candy Dynamics, Indianapolis has issued a voluntary recall.

The recall refers to all flavors of "Toxic Waste® brand Nuclear Sludge® Chew Bars", net weight 0.7oz (20g) package.

These candy products are made in Pakistan.

According to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), lot number 8288A (cherry flavor) had levels of lead which have the potential to cause health problems, especially among small children, infants and pregnant mothers.

The company says it is recalling all lots and flavors distributed since 2007 "out of an abundance of caution".

The following products are included in this recall:
Toxic Waste® Nuclear Sludge® Cherry Chew Bar - UPC 0 89894 81430 6
Toxic Waste® Nuclear Sludge® Sour Apple Chew Bar - UPC 0 10684 81410 7
Toxic Waste® Nuclear Sludge® Blue Raspberry Chew Bar - UPC 0 89894 81420 7.
They all have a net weight of 0.7oz (20g).

Other Toxic Waste® brands are not affected by this recall, the company stresses.

The FDA, CDPH and Candy Dynamics all say thay have not received any reports of illnesses or adverse events linked to these recalled products.

Nuclear Sludge™ Chew Bars, that form part of this recall, were sold and distributed throughout the USA to retail outlets and via mail order.

Candy Dynamics says that distribution of the cherry flavor products has stopped, it had previously halted distribution of the other flavors.

If you have any of these recalled products you can call Eileen O'Neal at 317-228-5012 (Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm EST).

Source: FDA

It’s All Just Coincidental

On the 20th of January 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said there have been 36 confirmed reports of seizures this flu season in children ages 6 months through 2 years in the United States. The seizures occurred within one day after they were vaccinated with Fluzone, the only flu shot recommended in America for infants and very young children. Ten of the children were hospitalized. The vaccine’s manufacturer, Sanofi Pasteur, issued a statement emphasizing that no clear link has been established between the flu shot and the seizures and that the cases may be coincidental.
Only vaccine manufacturers have the gall to say something like that but they get away with it. We have been had on a grand scale by the pharmaceutical industry just as we have been had by medical officials around the globe who treat the rest of us like idiots every time they even open up their mouths about anything to do with vaccines.

Way back at the end of July of 2010 Mike Adams was shouting, “Vaccine pushers have always sworn their vaccines caused no seizures whatsoever. No neurological problems. No spontaneous abortions in pregnant women. No increased rates of autism. Vaccines are all perfectly safe, they say, and no children are ever harmed by them. That’s the mythology, at least, behind vaccines. But the reality is far different: Vaccines do cause seizures in children, and this year’s vaccines look like they’re going to cause a significantly higher rate of seizures than usual.”

And now we read in the papers that Adams was correct. Children have been hurt and it’s out in the papers for everyone to see. Governmental medical and health officials, the American Academy of Pediatricians, and doctors around the country only had to listen but this is too much for their minds to handle. They would rather inject than listen and that makes them awful doctors. They prove to be Neanderthals when it comes to listening to anything other than the propaganda and false hype that surrounds the world of childhood immunization. It does not take much intelligence to follow the herd in lockstep believing only what we are supposed to believe. We don’t expect religious leaders to listen to anything but their own religious doctrine and we shouldn’t expect anything better from orthodox baby doctors either. They are that dogmatic. They are that closed, blind and arrogant.

Most of us are too numb to feel much about these kids and their families and the hordes of autism and other developmentally-impaired children. We are too numb to feel for the homeless and the people we pass on the streets who have lost everything. We are also too numb about the constant wars and the absolutely retarded reasons for them. So we become so weak that most of us cannot even protect our children from medical terrorists who feel like all terrorists do—their cause is right; their reasoning is sound. So they stock their cabinets with chemically dangerous vaccines and charge right into herds of kids no matter what is reported, even in the mainstream press.

We have become cruel in our coldness and indifference. Life has conspired against us leaving us feeling helpless and defenseless. Some though fight with words and scream against the terrorism of the system and the people that run it. We point our fingers, but are we willing to fundamentally change ourselves? That’s really tough, as everyone knows —it has been said that it is easier to conquer the world than oneself. Certainly mainstream pediatricians find it easier to scare parents and attack babies than it is for them to listen to other doctors, medical researchers, chemists and even parents who are crying for the madness to stop.

It really is hard to buck the system so most people still allow their children to be vaccinated and then they cry later kicking themselves for allowing their children to be hurt. Heartless and spineless pediatricians continue their onslaught and drive home in their Mercedes. It really is no contest who is worse—the thieves on Wall Street who are destroying life as we know it or the pediatricians in their white coats who attack children with their arrogance. People are rallying against the banksters, but who is rallying directly against the field of pediatrics?

I saw a movie tonight that was the strangest I have ever seen. The main character lived a totally psychotic lie rather than facing his reality. Even with the help of psychiatrists who were really trying to help him, and even when he did see what he had done, he chose the lie even if it meant having a frontal lobotomy.

Orthodox card-carrying American Pediatric Association physicians are much the same. They refuse to look, they refuse to pay attention, they refuse to understand the hurt, damage and misery they are creating as they continue to attack children with their sometimes-deadly vaccines.

It takes extraordinary courage today to have children and to protect them from the harm that is intentionally directed at them. It takes courage to even read this book because one has to bear the pain of what is happening and what is being done to the children. One cannot talk about Humane Pediatrics without learning and studying inhumane pediatrics. It is really a very bad mirror on our humanity that we have allowed the worst kind of arrogance to take over the field of pediatrics and let them roam free amongst our children. Catholics have learned the hard way, having allowed way too many children to be sexually abused by celibate sexually-repressed priests. And the rest of us have allowed an exponentially greater number of children to be chemically abused by the “priests” we find everywhere in the field of pediatrics.

In the next week I will race like mad to finish my book Humane Pediatrics and I will pray that it gets into enough hands to make a difference. Pediatricians can learn from it and pediatrics can evolve into a form of medicine that cares more for the children than for the medical ideas born out of arrogance and pharmaceutical terrorism. I hope many will join with me in the fight to bring humaneness back to the medical treatment of our young.

Today is a sad day for parents because under the care of modern pediatrics, children have never been sicker emotionally, mentally and physically. Is there a humane pediatrician in the house?

People who are new to my work should not wait for the month it will take to actually get the book finished and formatted first into e-book form and then as quickly as possible into print. I suggest that parents and doctors read my important books: Sodium Bicarbonate, which is a full medical review as well as a cancer treatment book, Transdermal Magnesium Therapy (second edition due out in paperback in a few weeks), my book on Iodine as well as my book, Natural Allopathic Medicine. Each one contains information essential for the practice of Humane Pediatrics.

Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
Director International Medical Veritas Association
http://publications.imva.info/
http://blog.imva.info/

Legal Notice: The Author specifically invokes the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press without prejudice. The information written is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, and should not in any way be used as a substitute for the advice of a physician or other licensed health care practitioner. The statements contained herein have not been evaluated by the FDA. The products discussed herein are not intended to diagnose, cure, prevent or treat any disease. Images, text and logic are copyright protected. ALL rights are explicitly reserved without prejudice, and no part of this essay may be reproduced except by written consent. ©2010 by Mark Sircus

Our mailing address is:

IMVA
Av. Epitácio Pessoa
2234
João Pessoa, Paraiba 58040-000

Congress sticks it to U.S. farmers with passage of food safety bill

http://www.naturalnews.com/030808_food_safety_bill_American_farmers.html

Congress sticks it to U.S. farmers with passage of food safety bill that will actually cause fresh produce to be more dangerous
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2751 yesterday with a 216 to 144 vote (yes, many members of the House did not even vote). The so-called Food Safety Modernization Act now heads to the President to be signed into law.

When witnessing such a moment in history when the federal government greatly expands its power over an entire industry, it's important to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences. Virtually everything bad that happens after a bill gets passed is due to this Law of Unintended Consequences.

On the surface, the intention behind the food safety bill seems innocent enough: Let's all protect the food supply and prevent people from getting sick due to e.coli and salmonella exposure. But the reality of the result that emerges from the law is quite different.

Get ready for more dangerous, pesticide-ridden food from south of the border

Because the S.510 / HR 2751 food safety bill places an enormous new burden on U.S. farmers -- yes, even small farms that are supposedly "exempt" -- it's going to drive many farmers out of business.

It will also erect new barriers to farmers entering the food production business, and this is especially true for the small local farmers who grow food for local co-ops, farmers' markets and CSA organizations (Community Supported Agriculture). What we're going to see from all this, then, is the following:

• A reduction in the available SUPPLY of fresh local produce.
• A loss of local farming know-how and food sustainability.
• The financial failure of CSAs, food co-ops and small local markets.
• The loss of countless jobs that were related to local food production.
• An INCREASE in the price of local food, especially organic food.

Food safety bill does nothing to address food imports

At the same time these huge regulatory burdens are thrust upon U.S. farmers, there are no new regulations required for food grown outside the United States.

This means that food coming into the USA from Mexico, Chile, Peru or anywhere else does not have to meet S.510 food safety regulations at all. The FDA, after all, doesn't inspect greenhouses in Mexico or grape farms in Chile which export their products to the United States.

Furthermore, many dangerous chemical pesticides that have been banned in the USA are legal to use elsewhere, and foods treated with those pesticides are perfectly legal to import into the United States. So instead of buying food grown in the United States on small, organic farms, more U.S. consumers are going to be buying food grown elsewhere that's treated with extremely toxic pesticides.

Here are some of the unintended consequences of all this:

• An INCREASE in the importation of fresh produce from other countries.

• A worsening of the agricultural trade imbalance between the U.S. and other nations.

• An INCREASE in the pesticide contamination of fresh produce sold at U.S. grocery stores.

• An INCREASE in agriculture jobs in Mexico, Chile, Peru and elsewhere, even while agriculture jobs are lost in the USA.

• A DECREASE in the overall safety of the food supply because now the proportion of foods imported from foreign countries with little or no regulatory oversight will greatly expand compared to U.S. grown foods.

In effect, then, what Congress has done is impaired the competitiveness of U.S. farms, shifted farming jobs out of the country, increased the pesticide residues in fresh produce sold in U.S. grocery stores and harmed local food security and sustainability by driving small, local farmers out of business.

Such is the nature of the Law of Unintended Consequences. And such is the nature of just about everything that Big Government tries to do when it threatens to "solve problems" by expanding its regulatory control over almost any industry.

We need food security in America

What Congress fails to understand is that we need food security far more than we need more FDA regulations. The knowledge base of local farmers who know how to grow, harvest and distribute food is far more valuable to the security of our nation than preventing a relatively small number of people from getting sick from e.coli each year (even if such a trade-off were a simplistic equation, which it isn't). Because if we lose food security, then we become slaves to the big corporate food producers who are attempting to centralize food production and place food, seeds and crops under their absolute control.

A cynic might even suggest that was the whole purpose of the food safety bill in the first place: To destroy small farmers and centralize food production power in the hands of a few wealthy corporations. Whether that was the intent or not, it is certainly going to be the effect.

What Congress has done with this food safety bill, in effect, is to cripple America's food production know-how and poison the population with far more dangerous pesticide-ridden produce that will now be imported from other countries instead. This bill should have been called the "Mexico Farming Jobs Act" because it's going to shift countless jobs south of the border as farms in the USA realize they simply can't operate under the immense burden of FDA regulatory tyranny.

What's the definition of insanity?

It all makes you wonder what the members of Congress are really thinking. Don't they ever step back and attempt to consider the real-world ramifications of their actions?

Time and time again, the U.S. government seems to do the opposite of what would reasonably be required to solve problems. Think about it: When the U.S. government wanted to stop Wall Street bankers and investment firms from wasting money, it simply handed them a few trillion dollars in new money so they could waste more.

When the government wanted to end debt spending, it spent more debt money out of the foolish belief that you can somehow end your debt by going deeper into it.

When the government claimed it would reduce your health care costs and cover everyone with health insurance, it passed a sick-care law that has only seen health care costs spiraling out of control while insurers cancel policies and end coverage for many children.

And now, the government claims to be making your food safer even though the real impact of the new law will be to make your food far more dangerous while destroying U.S. farming jobs.

This is why those who really know government also know that they who govern best govern the least. Instead of trying to "fix" all the nation's problems by meddling with the actions of hard-working people trying to make a living (such as organic farmers), the government needs to simply get out of the way and let farmers produce their food without the heavy regulatory burden of the FDA -- an agency that we know is frequently engaged in actions that can only be called criminal in nature.

Get ready for skyrocketing food prices in 2011 - 2013

With the passage of this food safety bill, I am now publicly predicting skyrocketing food prices over the next two years. We will see fresh, local produce become increasingly more expensive and more difficult to acquire. Many local farmers will shutter their businesses, and farming know-how will be lost for perhaps a generation. The damage that will be done to America's food security and agricultural base is incalculable.

Such is the price we shall all pay for allowing our representatives in Washington to once again violate our Natural Right to grow food and exchange it for goods or cash with our neighbors. The reason this Natural Right was never even mentioned in the US Constitution, by the way, is because the right to grow your own food without government interference is such an obvious "Natural Right" (a God-given right, or a right that is self-evident) that our forefathers never imagined such a right would be infringed by the federal government.

Or if a right were ever infringed by the federal government, our forefathers were certain that the citizens of the United States of America would exercise their other Constitutional rights to nullify the attempted overreaching authority of the federal government and thereby restore their freedoms. Sadly, such a solution does not work when the majority of the population is lulled into a false sense of freedom by a government that deliberately lies to them on a daily basis. Freedom does not exist with the vast majority of the population has no interest in defending it.

Vegetable gardeners can learn something from marijuana growers

Better buy yourself some heirloom seeds while you have the chance. Plant your stealth garden and cover it with camouflage so the government can't see it and order you to destroy it. Soon, backyard vegetable gardeners will need to operate like marijuana growers and start hiding their food from government's prying eyes.

No doubt the U.S. federal government will start using spy satellites to identify "unregistered gardens" that will be targeted for termination. Soon, small farmers may even be raided by armed FDA agents who terrorize their operations and seize cabbages. Seriously.

It sounds crazy today, I know. But a decade ago, no one thought the government would ever outlaw raw cow's milk and arrest ranchers for selling milk to their neighbors, and that's now happening on a regular basis.

In five years, FDA farm raids may be routine. That is, if there's anything left of the federal government (as we know it) in five years. I'm not sure how long they can keep up the financial house of cards, frankly. Always remember this enlightening fact: The entire federal government is just one paycheck away from collapse. I wonder how long FDA inspectors will keep harassing farmers if their paychecks stop? Remember, FDA employees have no loyalty to anything other than their paychecks. Once the money from Washington stops, the army of FDA mercenaries collapses virtually overnight.

And the resilient farmers of America will win in the end, I have no doubt. If I had to choose to live on a deserted island with either ten North Carolina farmers or ten FDA bureaucrats, the choice would be a no-brainer. Farmers can keep you alive. FDA bureaucrats will only stab you in the back, steal your coconuts, and refuse to do any actual work on their own.

They are, after all, parasites who feed on taxpayer dollars and lend nothing of value to society. If the FDA actually did anything useful at all, it would have banned mercury fillings to protect the public from mercury toxicity.

Top ten lies about Senate Bill 510

http://www.naturalnews.com/030587_Senate_Bill_510_Food_Safety.html

Top ten lies about Senate Bill 510
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) The Food Safety Modernization Act looks like it's headed to become law. It's being hailed as a "breakthrough" achievement in food safety, and it would hand vast new powers and funding to the FDA so that it can clean up the food supply and protect all Americans from food-borne pathogens.

There's just one problem with all this: It's all a big lie.

Here are the ten biggest lies that have been promoted about S.510 by the U.S. Congress, the food industry giants and the mainstream media:

Lie #1 - Most deaths from food poisoning are caused by fresh produce

Here's a whopper the mainstream media won't dare report: Out of the 1,809 people who die in America every year from food-borne pathogens (CDC estimate), only a fraction die from the manufacturer's contamination of fresh produce. By far the majority of food poisoning is caused by the consumption of spoiled processed foods, dead foods and animal-human transmission of pathogens.

For example, one of the largest food-borne killers according to the CDC is Toxoplasma gondii, a disease that people acquire from cat feces coming into contact with their food, which can happen right in their own homes. Salmonella poisoning accounts for 553 deaths a year. As a reference for relative risk, over 42,000 people die each year from road accidents in the USA, meaning driving a car has a roughly 7600% higher chance of killing you than eating fresh produce.

In terms of food-borne illness, many of the deaths come from things like spoiled tomato sauce, spoiled canned foods and spoiled pasteurized milk. S 510, of course, does absolutely nothing to address these food contamination deaths, since those foods are considered "sterilized" at the time of sale.


Lie #2 - Under S.510, the FDA would only recall products it knows to be contaminated

Not true. S.510 merely requires the FDA to have "reason to believe" a food is contaminated. So right there, that means all raw milk will be targeted by the FDA because even without conducting any scientific tests at all, the FDA can say it has "reason to believe" the milk is contaminated merely because it is raw.

In other words, the FDA no longer needs science to outlaw a food product. It merely needs an opinion.

Is this "reason to believe" section really true? Yep, and here's how it was amended:

SEC. 208. ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION OF FOOD.
23 (a) IN GENERAL. - Section 304(h)(1)(A) (21 U.S.C.24 334(h)(1)(A)) is amended by
(1) striking ''credible evidence or information indicating'' and inserting ''reason to believe'';

In other words, in negotiating this bill, the U.S. Senate removed the requirement that the FDA needed "credible evidence" in order to recall a product and, instead, replaced that with the FDA only needing "reason to believe."

It is utterly amazing that the U.S. Congress would give the FDA to conduct large-scale product recalls and even imprison people based entirely on what the agency "has reason to believe."

Last time I checked, the FDA held some pretty bizarre (if not downright moronic) beliefs, including this jaw-dropping whopper: The FDA literally believes that there is no food, no herb, no vitamin or supplement that has any ability to prevent disease of any kind. They don't even believe limes can prevent scurvy, and you'd have to nutritionally illiterate to believe that.

The FDA believes foods are inert and that all the amazing phytonutrients in those foods (carotenoids, antioxidants, therapeutic fats like omega-3 and so on) are utterly useless for human biology.

This belief, held by the FDA that has now been put in charge of the food supply, is the belief system of an insane government agency that has completely lost touch with reality while abandoning nutritional science.


Lie #3 - They didn't tell you that nearly 70% of grocery store chickens are contaminated with salmonella every day

Yep, it's true: Amid all the fear-mongering over salmonella, everybody forgot to notice that the vast majority of fresh chickens sold at grocery stores every single day are widely contaminated with salmonella. Yet S 510 does absolutely nothing to address this. It's not even mentioned in the bill.

In fact, it is these contaminated chickens that end up cross-contaminating the fresh produce in many kitchens across America. So the so-called "food poisoning" that's often blamed on spinach or onions often originates with the contaminated chicken meat people bring home and slice on their kitchen cutting boards.


Lie #4 - S.510 will exclude and protect small farmers
The Tester Amendment, which was finally included in S.510, excludes farmers who sell less than $500,000 worth of food each
year from the more onerous paperwork and compliance burdens described in the bill. But this dollar amount is not indexed to inflation, meaning that as the U.S. dollar continues to lose value due to the Federal Reserve counterfeiting machine running at full speed (more "quantitative easing," anyone?), food prices will continue to skyrocket -- and this will shift even small family farms into the $500,000 sales range within just a few years.

In fact, a single-family farm with just four people could easily sell $500,000 worth of fresh produce a year right now, even before inflation. Remember, $500,000 is not their profit, but rather the gross sales amount. The profits on that might be only $50,000 or even less.

Furthermore, this $500,000 threshold means that small, successful farms that are doing well and would like to expand will refuse to hire more people or expand their operations. To avoid the tyranny of S 510, small farms will try to stay small, and that means avoiding the kind of business expansion that would create new jobs.


Lie #5 - The FDA needs more power to enforce food safety

The FDA already has the power to effectively recall foods by publicly announcing a product has been found to be contaminated. The FDA already has the power to confiscate "misbranded" products, too, and it could easily use this power to halt the sale of contaminated food items.

But the FDA simply refuses to enforce the laws already on the books and, instead, has sought to expand its power by hyping up the e.coli food scares. The ploy apparently worked: Now in a reaction to the food scare-mongering, the FDA is being handed not just new powers, but more funding, too! And you can bet it will find creative new ways to put this power to work suppressing the health freedoms and food freedoms of the American people.


Lie #6 - Fresh produce is contaminated because of a lack of paperwork

There is no evidence that requiring farms to fill out more paperwork will make their food safer. The real cause of produce contamination is the existence of factory animal farms whose effluent output (huge rivers of cow feces, basically), end up in the water supply, soils and equipment that comes into contact with fresh produce.

The food contamination problem is an UPSTREAM problem where you've got to reform the factory animal operations that now dominate the American meat industry. S.510, however, does absolutely nothing to address this. Factory animal farms aren't even addressed in the bill!


Lie #7 - The American people are dying in droves from unsafe fresh food

The truth is that Americans are dying from processed food laced with toxic chemical additives, not from fresh, raw produce. Partially-hydrogenated oils, white sugar, aspartame, MSG and artificial food colors almost certainly kill far more people than bacterial contaminations.

The American public is also dying from pharmaceuticals -- anywhere from 100,000 to 240,000 people a year are killed by FDA-approved drugs, most of which have been approved under the guise of blatantly fraudulent science and drug company trickery. The FDA doesn't seem to mind. In fact, it has been a willful co-conspirator in the scientific fraud carried out by Big Pharma in the name of "medicine."

To think that the FDA -- the very same agency responsible for the Big Pharma death machine -- is now going to "save us" by controlling food safety is highly irrational.


Lie #8 - The FDA just wants to make food "safer"

Actually, the FDA wants to make the food more DEAD. Both the FDA and the USDA are vocal opponents of live food. They think that the only safe food is sterilized food, which is why they've supported the fumigation, pasteurization and irradiation efforts that have been pushed over the last few years.

California almond growers, for example, must now either chemically fumigate or pasteurize their almonds before selling them. This has destroyed the incomes of U.S. almond farmers and forced U.S. food companies to buy raw almonds from Spain and other countries.


Lie #9 - Food smuggling is a huge problem in America

One of the main sections of S.510 addresses "food smuggling." Yep -- people smuggling food across the country. If you've never heard of this problem that's because it's not actually a problem.

Not yet anyway.

But there's a reason why they put this into the bill: Because they're probably planning on criminalizing fresh produce and then arresting people for transporting broccoli with the "intent to distribute."

Yep, farmers bringing fresh produce to sell at the weekend farmer's market could soon be arrested and imprisoned as if they were drug smugglers. Hence the need for the "food smuggling" provisions of S.510.

Soon, we will all have to meet in secret locations just to trade carrots for cash.


Lie #10 - S.510 will make America's food supply the safest in the world

Actually, even with S.510 in place, America's food supply is among the most chemically contaminated in the world, second only to China. You can find mercury in the seafood, BPA in the canned soup, yeast extract (MSG) in the "natural" potato chips, and artificial petrochemical coloring agents in children's foods.

Eating the "Standard American Diet" is probably the single most harmful thing a person can do for their health. It's the fastest way to get cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Every nation in the world that begins to consume the American diet starts to show record rates of degenerative disease within one generation. This is the "safe food" that the U.S. Senate is now pushing on everyone.

Remember, with S.510, SAFE = DEAD. And the FDA says it wants to keep everybody safe.


Permission granted to reproduce and post this list with credit

Feel free to share this list! Please give the courtesy of credit to this author and a clickable link back to NaturalNews.com. We are working hard to fight for freedom and educate the public about why we need to resist these "Big Government solutions" that trample over our Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which, in my mind, includes buying fresh produce at the farmer's market).

Thank you for your support.

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher, author and award-winning journalist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In mid 2010, Adams produced NaturalNews.TV, a natural health video sharing website offering user-generated videos on nutrition, green living, fitness and more. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and pursues hobbies such as martial arts, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at http://www.healthranger.org/

Rush to Approve Frankenfish May Prove Risky

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/18-6

Thursday, November 18, 2010 by Agence France Presse
Rush to Approve Frankenfish May Prove Risky

WASHINGTON - With the US government close to approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption, a study out Thursday warned that key risks to society could be missed in the rush to the market.

If approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the quick-growing salmon would be the first so-called "Frankenfood" animal approved for consumption by the American public.

But experts said not enough is known about the wider impacts on society of bringing such foods on the market, including a potentially major shift in dietary habits, buying practices and environmental hazards.

The current FDA process involves comparing modified salmon to the regular fish, analyzing the nutritional profile and screening for toxins, said the study by American and Norwegian researchers published in the journal Science.

"A more useful approach would be to evaluate whether society is better off overall with the new product than without it," said Duke University law professor Jonathan Wiener.

In the case of the salmon, which is known to carry omega three fatty acids that are good for the health, the benefits might be positive overall, said economist Martin Smith, also from the North Carolina based university.

"But what is important is that you establish a precedent. More foods like this might come on the market and they might not be ones where there is a public health benefit," he said.

"Making food cheaper is giving people more money to spend on other goods and that is certainly a good thing," he explained.

"But if you make an unhealthy food cheaper then people substitute away from healthier foods and there can be public health consequences and that's a bad thing."

If the FDA gives the salmon the go-ahead it could open the door to a variety of other kinds of genetically engineered animals ranging from tilapia to pigs to cows.

The altered salmon is made by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty which argues that its fish, injected with a gene from the Pacific Chinook salmon, can reach adult size in 16 to 18 months instead of 30 months for normal Atlantic salmon.

An FDA spokeswoman told AFP that the review is "still under way and we don't have any timeline."

Smith said that the team relied on past data about farmed salmon for its research but did not make its own projections about the societal benefits and hazards because they were unsure whether the FDA might make its decision before they could finish.

"It is more important to make the point that such a broad analysis needs to be done," he said.

In September, a group of independent experts also urged US authorities to do more studies before allowing genetically modified salmon on the market, saying that the studies undertaken so far were insufficient to determine with any certainty whether the salmon pose a risk to humans or the environment.

The FDA turned to the committee of independent experts after concluding, based on company data, that the modified fish was safe for human consumption and the environment.

The FDA is not bound to follow the recommendations of its experts group, but generally does so.

Thursday's research in the journal Science was co-authored by Frank Asche of the University of Stavanger, Norway, and Atle Guttormsen of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

FDA hearings go swimmingly for Frankenfish

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6424.shtml
FDA hearings go swimmingly for Frankenfish
By Martha Rosenberg
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Oct 7, 2010

ROCKVILLE, MD -- The FDA says it has not decided about approving AquAdvantage Salmon yet, even though it held hearings about how to label the genetically engineered fish the day after hearings about if it should be approved.

But a lot of invited speakers didn’t get the memo.

Presenting to the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) last week, Yonathan Zohar, from the Center of Marine Biotechnology at the University of Maryland, extolled the “promise” of aquaculture and bashed Greenpeace and other groups who are against growing “fish in cages.”

And, Alison Van Eenennaam, with the Department of Animal Science at University of California-Davis, declared during labeling hearings, that GE salmon “poses no additional risk,” criticized the New York Times’ AquAdvantage Salmon coverage and laughed at peanut allergy labels. She also served on the veterinary committee advising the FDA, the previous day.

The AquAdvantage Salmon was created by inserting the coding sequence from a chinook salmon growth hormone gene, under control of an ocean pout gene, into wild Atlantic salmon. The resulting fish grows twice as fast as wild Atlantic salmon, reaching its full size in 18 months instead of three years.

Though the fish, all female, are 95 to 99 percent sterile, Boston-based AquaBounty Technologies’ (ABT), its developer, says eggs will be grown on Prince Edward Island in Canada and adults in Panama because the respective marine environments discourage survival of escapees.

The FDA has approved GE crops, genetically modified bovine growth hormone (BGH) used in milk and, last year, a goat with human genes to create a blood clotting drug. But the AquAdvantage Salmon is the first GE animal whose flesh will actually be eaten.

Because the AquAdvantage Salmon is affected by a “transformation event” and the injected DNA “imparts traits” to the animal, the salmon’s application is actually being treated as a “new animal drug approval,” hence a vet committee.

Some say the public health orientation of the new top two at FDA, Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein (who spoke twice) will spell a harsher climate for genetically engineered foods. The public is also becoming less GE friendly and rejected BGH in milk in 2006, 13 years after it received FDA approval.

But FDA staffers who spoke at the hearings read right out of AquaBounty Technologies’ playbook, creating distinctions between “risk,” “hazard” and “harm” -- ice is only a risk if you slip on it they pointed out -- that made the fish appear safer.

FDA staffers also said the AquAdvantage Salmon had minimal impact on the “human environment” until the advisory committee asked as opposed to what other kind of environment whereupon the term was dropped.

FDA’s Eric Silberhorn itemized ABT’s redundant safety systems to prevent the escape of GE salmon -- screens, floor drains, chemical containment, chlorine, nets -- as written in the sponsor’s Environmental Assessment, prepared for the FDA, bringing to mind BP.

Why does the government present industry data on behalf of industry, some in the audience asked, and why is industry called the “sponsor” instead of “applicant”?

AquAdvantage Salmon were also said to be less “fit” if they escape though no one quoted the part of ABT’s Environmental Assessment report that says the salmon eat five times as much as wild salmon and have less fear of predators. (see: Jurassic Park)

The risk of bootleg AquAdvantage Salmon surfacing in unregulated Asian operations, even returning as imports like a “transgenic shrimp” Silberhorn says is reported in US food, would be handled with the labeling, control and inspection given any US drug, said staffers. Of course other nations, like Canada and Panama are “sovereign” and not bound by our laws, added FDA’s Larisa Rudenko.

Genetic unknowns, layers of carcasses

While the FDA did not use the loaded terms drift and mutate (or Frankenfish) it did request a “durability” report from ABT to make sure nothing genetically untoward happens.

And its Center for Veterinary Medicine briefing report finds an unexpected and unwanted genetic “rearrangement” with the AquAdvantage Salmon which relocates the inserted genetic material from “the far upstream promoter regions” to a “downstream location relative to the growth hormone coding region.” Oops. The loss of part of a “35 base repeat region” and possible duplication of another effect were also reported.

Asked by the committee if the genetic unknowns could create unanticipated events, Jeff Jones, a veterinarian presenter at the hearings, said the changes were “not subject to the hormone feedback system” in the fish and that the relocated genetic construct currently abuts “something that can’t be read.”

Elsewhere in its report, the FDA finds low glucose levels and high incidences of jaw erosion, focal inflammation and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the AquAdvantage Salmon but concludes, giving no evidence, they are not caused by the genetic engineering.

While the FDA report says ABT’s excessive culling of “abnormal” salmon may have “skewed” safety studies, it does not question ABT’s proposed method of disposing of salmon affected by the 3Ms, mutations, morbidity and mortality.

“As dead fish are deposited, they will be covered with caustic lime, followed by another layer of dead fish and caustic lime, etc., until the burial pit is ~0.5 m deep, at which point it will sealed with plastic and covered with soil,” says ABT’s Environmental Assessment. “In the event that disposal capacity at the site is inadequate to handle the immediate or aggregate waste volume, alternative means of disposal will be sought.”

Antibiotics, veterinary drugs and coded antibiotic resistance were barely mentioned at the hearings (though Zohar predicted egg farm like densities of up “80 to 100 per cubic meter for the GE salmon) -- nor was the practice of harvesting wild fish to feed farmed fish (though one invited speaker actually promoted the practice.)

In fact there was only one meltdown in the FDA’s otherwise confident presentation and it concerned ABT’s allergy study whose, “technical flaws . . . so limit its interpretation that we cannot rely on its results,” says the FDA report.

When FDA food scientists Kathleen Jones and Kevin Greenlees presented the allergy research, which sought to establish safety levels with no number that would be unsafe, the advisory committee pounced.

“It’s as if you selected an allergen in goat meat and one in sheep meat and compare the two and found a difference,” said Louisiana State University’s David F. Senior, who chaired the committee. “Who cares?”

“These studies are a bust,” said another committee member, asking why they were not conducted again.

“I am not a statistician and she is not here today,” retreated Jones, adding that the studies were absolutely “above board,” though no one had suggested they weren’t.

“You’ve reached the limit of my statistical” knowledge said Larisa Rudenko.

And when James D. McKean with the Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine at Iowa State University asked why one table showed a category of comparison salmon suddenly dropped as a lone, extra salmon seemed to appear out of nowhere, skewing the results, FDA’s Greenlees said, “It’s my fault” and “I apologize.”

Many hope an apology for considering an approval of the AquAdvantage Salmon itself is forthcoming.

Martha Rosenberg is a Chicago columnist/cartoonist who writes about public health. She may be reached at martharosenberg@sbcglobal.net.

Genetically engineered salmon could destroy the salmon industry

http://www.naturalnews.com/029957_genetically_modified_salmon.html

Genetically engineered salmon, if approved by FDA, could destroy the salmon industry
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) As the world awaits the FDA's decision on whether to approve genetically modified salmon as "safe enough" to allow into the food supply, it seems that not enough people in the existing fishing industries have really thought this through. As you'll see here, approval of GE salmon could destroy the existing salmon industry. Why? Here's the reason:

The FDA says that once it approves GE salmon (which now seems likely), it will not require GE salmon to be labeled as "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered." In fact, the FDA ridiculously claims it would be illegal to require these GE fish to be labeled as such because they are, in the minds of the FDA, no different from regular fish.

Now here's why this matters: If consumers are not told which salmon is GE, many will avoid buying ALL salmon.

In fact, organizations like NaturalNews and many others like the Organic Consumers Association would likely take strong action, warning people to avoid all salmon because you never know which salmon is genetically modified.

As word about the non-labeling of GE salmon spreads, more and more consumers would avoid buying salmon altogether. This is precisely how the introduction of GE salmon into the food supply could destroy the existing salmon industry.

The FDA's inexcusable non-labeling of genetically modified salmon creates distrust in the entire category. And just as the natural health community has been successful in warning people to avoid MSG and HFCS, we will almost certainly be successful in warning people away from eating salmon, too (if GE salmon infects the food supply). And that's a shame because, by and large, the natural health industry supports wild-caught salmon as a healthy source of omega-3 oils. But virtually overnight, the FDA's approval of GE salmon could reverse our position on this issue and make us outspoken opponents of buying and consuming salmon.

I wonder if the salmon industry is aware that this situation could devastate existing salmon farms and fisheries?

Opening the floodgates to more GE factory farmed animals

That GE salmon could cause sharp losses across the existing salmon industry is only the beginning of the problems potentially unleashed by the FDA's disturbing shortsightedness. There has never been a genetically engineered animal approved for use in the U.S. food supply, but once the FDA approves GE salmon, it sets a precedent for other genetically engineered animals to follow.

Imagine a genetically modified cow with triple growth hormone genes, carrying muscles (meat) so large that it can't even stand on its own feet. It is grown in a "cow factory" where it suffers every day from the pain of its unnatural existence. It never sees the outdoors or experiences a single day of freedom in a pasture. Instead, it is fed antibiotics and GMO feed crops through a system of tubes, much like the imprisoned characters in The Matrix. The sole purpose of its life is to grow premium steaks and ground beef, sold by a company that genetically engineers animals to create greed-driven food profits without a single thought about the suffering of the animal itself.

This is exactly what could be unleashed by the FDA's decision on GE salmon. Only it wouldn't end with just cows: Imagine genetically modified pigs, chickens and lambs, all distorted into artificial meat-producing forms to satisfy corporate profits.

Vaccines from sheep flesh

And it won't end with just food, either. Scientists are already experimenting with genetically modified animals who "grow" pharmaceuticals. Imagine a factory farm of sheep whose bodies are tapped to produce vaccines or hormone drugs.

This is the sick, demented world to which the biotechnology industry is now looking for the next wave of profits. Fueled by arrogant greed and a deeply-rooted disrespect for the natural world (and the suffering of sentient beings, which include farm animals), they will pursue bottom-line profits by any means necessary... even if it means playing God with the genes of animals and giving rise to Franken-animals that experience tremendous pain and suffering while being grown for food. (Much like in The Matrix, once again.)

The pain and suffering committed by factory farms today is more than enough reason to consider giving up all conventionally-raised meat products, by the way. But it could get far worse if the industry is allowed to start genetically engineering mutant animals designed to produce more meat (or milk) more quickly and with higher profits. And it all starts with GE salmon.

How do we even know, by the way, whether the genetically modified salmon who grow twice as fast as regular salmon experience some sort of unnatural pain as a result of their gene distortions? These gene modifications can, from another point of view, be described as a kind of "birth defect," and some birth defects quite literally result in tremendous suffering for those being unfortunate enough to be affected by them.

Not surprisingly, the experience of the animal isn't even being taken into account by the FDA! This agency, which is blind to the experience of animals, only cares about the impact of GE salmon on people who eat its flesh, not about the experience of the fish.

If this same lack of empathy is applied to future decisions regarding GE animals, it will only lead us down a dark path of Frankenfood misery, where humanity becomes the monster that creates horrific mutant animals to be grown and harvested in dark places, behind the closed doors of the sickening meat industry.

Action you can take right now

What can you do to stop this crime against nature? For starters, you can contact the FDA right now and tell them two things:

1) You oppose allowing GE salmon to be introduced into the food supply.
2) If it is approved, you support honest labeling of the salmon to indicate that it is genetically engineered.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Outreach and Information Center
5100 Paint Branch Parkway HFS-009
College Park, MD 20740-3835
Toll-Free Information Line:

1-888-SAFEFOOD
(1-888-723-3366)
Industry email: industry@fda.gov
Consumers email: consumer@fda.gov

Get ready to boycott salmon

If the FDA approves GE salmon, get ready to join NaturalNews in a nationwide boycott of salmon products.

As long as GE salmon is not honestly labeled, we will boycott salmon products, and we will coordinate with other non-profits who share our belief that consumers have a right to know what they're buying and eating.

For the FDA to say that they refuse to require the honest labeling of GE salmon is an outrageous insult to consumer intelligence. It's beyond an insult, actually: It's more like a crime against the People because it consciously seeks to misinform the public about what they're eating.

This demonstrates yet again how dangerous the FDA has actually become. Far from protecting consumers, the FDA has become the single greatest threat to the health and safety of the American people. This agency actively seeks to keep people in the dark about what they're buying and eating. It is a purveyor of ignorance and disinformation, and it is engaged in a conspiracy to commit yet another crime against humanity (against the entire planet, actually) in order to protect biotech profits.

Why can't the FDA just tell the truth and, at minimum, require that GE salmon be labeled as such?

Because being honest apparently isn't in the agency's genes. Maybe we need to genetically modify the FDA and insert some "truth hormone" proteins so it attains the ability to tell the truth. That would be a radical modification from the current behavior of the agency, wouldn't it?

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher, author and award-winning journalist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In mid 2010, Adams produced NaturalNews.TV, a natural health video sharing website offering user-generated videos on nutrition, green living, fitness and more. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and pursues hobbies such as martial arts, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at HealthRanger.org.

Consumer Activists Want Modified Salmon to Be Labeled

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/643433.html
September 22, 2010
Consumer Activists Want Modified Salmon to Be Labeled
The animals grow twice as fast due to genetic engineering; FDA decision on approval isn't expected for months
Jenifer Goodwin
HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Opponents of genetically modified salmon, as well as consumer activists and environmentalists, told a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel Tuesday that it would be irresponsible not to require labels on the fish if it is approved for humans to eat.

The American public has the right to know what it is consuming, the speakers said.

The advisory panel heard from opponents and supporters of the fish -- including the developer of the fish, Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies -- as it held two days of hearings that concluded Tuesday to review the science of the fish that grows twice as fast as conventional salmon, and to hear public comment on whether the fish should be labeled. Current federal guidelines would not require the fish to be labeled if the FDA determines the animal has the same material makeup as conventional salmon, the Associated Press reported.

AquaBounty says that genetically modified salmon has the same flavor, texture, color and odor as conventional fish.

The FDA has yet to decide if the fish can be sold to consumers or whether it should be labeled, and it could be months before the agency does so, the AP said.

If the FDA approves the fish, it would mark the first time a genetically modified animal has been approved for America's dinner plates and restaurant menus. Currently, genetically modified soybeans and corn are being sold for people to eat.

AquaBounty believes that, if approved, the fish could help reduce pollution, disease and other problems associated with saltwater fish farms, as well as provide an alternative source of seafood to help reduce the impact of overfishing.

But opponents of approval, including many consumer advocates, worry that the fish would pose a threat to both the health of consumers and the environment.

On Sept. 3, a scientific panel of experts that advises the FDA paved the way for the approval of the genetically modified salmon, calling it "as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon."

The FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee went on to say that the fish contained the same amount of nutrients and had "no biologically relevant differences" from ordinary farmed Atlantic salmon.

That's what worries consumer advocates, who say approving the salmon is opening the door to all sorts of genetically engineered animals, such as pigs and other mammals.

The FDA is regulating genetically engineered animals as it would a new veterinary drug, which means that much of the research and information about the product is being kept confidential, said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch in Washington, D.C.

"We don't know if it's safe for humans to eat and the only research that has been done was done by the company," according to Hauter. "The FDA is an under-resourced agency that has had so much trouble with the regulatory system for foods -- we've had tainted eggs, poisonous peanuts and other contaminations -- and is now taking on something in a very non-transparent way."

Recently, Food & Water Watch was joined by 30 other animal welfare, consumer, environmental and fisheries groups, including the Sierra Club, which issued a statement citing concerns that the fish could escape and pose an environmental threat. Previously, another group of consumer advocates and others warned that "transgenic fish" could introduce new or unknown allergens into the food supply.

AquaBounty creates its salmon by taking a growth gene from the Chinook salmon and a gene "promoter" from the ocean pout, another type of fish, said John Buchanan, AquaBounty's director of research and development. The pout gene promoter simply turns on the Chinook salmon growth gene, and is not actually "expressed" [active] in the modified fish. The resulting salmon grow to market weight about twice as fast as ordinary Atlantic salmon, though they don't get larger overall.

While it typically takes about three years for salmon to grow to market weight, AquaBounty's salmon get there in about 18 months, Buchanan said.

To safeguard the environment, Buchanan said the eggs will be treated so that all fish that grow from them will be sterile females. That means they will not be able to reproduce, nor will they come into contact with males to reproduce with, said Buchanan, whose firm would sell the treated eggs.

While farm-raised salmon are typically grown in ocean-based tanks, the genetically modified fish would be grown in land-based tanks, also minimizing the chances of escape, he said.

"We have done a tremendous amount of work geared toward regulatory approval to show that the fish is healthy and safe," Buchanan said.

Genetically modified animals have been produced since the 1970s, according to background information in the FDA's briefing materials, but none has been approved for human consumption.

AquaBounty said bringing the salmon to market would take at least 18 months after approval. Farmers who want to grow the fish would also need FDA approval of their facilities.

SOURCES: Wenonah Hauter, executive director, Food & Water Watch, Washington. D.C.; John Buchanan, Ph.D., director, research and development, AquaBounty Technologies, San Diego; Associated Press

Mercury Dental Fillings: What the FDA and the ADA are not Telling You

http://www.naturalnews.com/029001_dental_fillings_mercury.html

Mercury Dental Fillings: What the FDA and the ADA are not Telling You
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Many in the natural health and wellness community were elated when, in 2008, the FDA reluctantly declared mercury-based fillings (usually called "amalgams" or "silver") to have neurotoxic effects on children. Then the Food and Drug Administration reversed itself a year later, when it declared that mercury fillings were A-OK. The FDA`s opinion doesn't change the science behind mercury fillings and their link to debilitating diseases like autism and Alzheimer`s.

In 2009, several petitioners asked the FDA to reconsider their stance on mercury fillings, reversing their stance back to their original assessment of toxicity. Signing petitioners included Moms Against Mercury and several individuals holding various positions in the medical and health care industry as well as private citizens, all through the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT).

They cite the FDA`s use of an "ill-defined and unsubstantiated estimate of absorbed mercury exposure from dental amalgam of 1 to 5 [micrograms]/day that supposedly relates to the presence of between 7 and 10 amalgam fillings." The petition shows that the FDA's conclusions from that report were wrong and that further conclusions taken from another World Health Organization (WHO) report were also mis-represented in the FDA`s findings.

It is well-documented that amalgam fillings give off mercury vapors, even after decades of service as a cavity filling. A video of mercury vapor being given off of an extracted tooth when it is submitted to water at about the same heat level of a cup of coffee or tea shows that mercury fillings are toxic for a very long time.

In fact, many dentists, while they understand the dangers of an amalgam spill in their office, are unaware that they and their staff are exposed to mercury vapors and potential poisoning every time they handle both the fillings they're putting into teeth and the mouths of patients who already have them. The extraction and disposal of existing mercury fillings has been linked to at least one patient who developed Parkinson's Disease and became wheelchair bound.

Another study involving 9 velvet monkeys was conducted in Denmark. In that study, three of the monkeys were given amalgam fillings, three were given amalgam bone implants, and three were left untouched as controls. A year later, tissues in the monkeys showed that the fillings deposited mercury in several organs, including the spinal ganglia, adrenal, liver, pituitary, kidneys, and more. The monkeys in the control group had only trace amounts of mercury in their bodies.

Mercury has been linked to several neurological disorders including Alzheimer`s, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson`s Disease, and others. Other studies have been done into the links between mercury and other heavy metals and their reactive properties with one another.

In future articles here on NaturalNews, this citizen journalist will be exploring those other mercury-metal links and sources such as Thimerosal, fish, dentistry, and more.