"People think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is
doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day"
Dr Herbert Ley
former Commissioner of the FDA
Sunday 30 June 2013
El té verde: mucho más que antioxidantes
Además de ser un maravilloso antioxidante, esta infusión alivia problemas recurrentes de salud, de manera rápida y natural. Algunos de sus principales beneficios son:
Disminuye el riesgo de cáncer: las catequinas del té contienen sustancias anticancerígenas, gracias a los polifenoles. Según un estudio del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer de los Estados Unidos y también el Instituto del Cáncer de China, reveló que quienes bebían, al menos una taza de esta infusión a la semana, tuvieron el 57% menos de riesgo de padecer cáncer de esófago y en las mujeres, aumento a un 60%.
Quema grasas: al ser un agente de termogénesis, ayuda de manera natural a gastar más energías, conllevando un descenso de peso. Acelera el metabolismo mediante los polifenoles (sustancias antioxidantes), aceleran el metabolismo, ayudando a las enzimas digestivas a que trabajen mejor, logrando un efecto adelgazante. Y también, es diurético, es decir colabora el proceso de diuresis, depurando el organismo de toxinas acumuladas.
Reduce el estrés: ciertos compuestos de este té disminuyen la formación y la actividad de radicales libres, reduciendo el estrés. Asimismo, posee un aminoácido llamado L-teanina, cuyo efecto principal es la relajación, sin somnolencia y aumenta los niveles de hormona llamada dopamina que mejora el estado de ánimo.
Sin embargo, esas no son todas sus bondades, sino que sólo unas pocas. El té verde también reduce el riesgo de cáncer, previene enfermedades cardiovasculares, combate el envejecimiento, previene las arrugas, reduce el riesgo de artritis, fortalece los huesos, ayuda a bajar el colesterol, previene la obesidad, es bueno para la diabetes, fortalece la memoria, protege contra el mal de Parkinson, es hepatoprotector, previene la hipertensión, protege de intoxicaciones alimentarias, reduce los niveles de glucosa en la sangre, estimula la inmunidad, evita gripes y resfriados, alivia el asma, combate infecciones en los oídos, contribuye en el tratamiento contra el herpes, previene caries, reduce el estrés y alivia las alergias.
Disminuye el riesgo de cáncer: las catequinas del té contienen sustancias anticancerígenas, gracias a los polifenoles. Según un estudio del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer de los Estados Unidos y también el Instituto del Cáncer de China, reveló que quienes bebían, al menos una taza de esta infusión a la semana, tuvieron el 57% menos de riesgo de padecer cáncer de esófago y en las mujeres, aumento a un 60%.
Quema grasas: al ser un agente de termogénesis, ayuda de manera natural a gastar más energías, conllevando un descenso de peso. Acelera el metabolismo mediante los polifenoles (sustancias antioxidantes), aceleran el metabolismo, ayudando a las enzimas digestivas a que trabajen mejor, logrando un efecto adelgazante. Y también, es diurético, es decir colabora el proceso de diuresis, depurando el organismo de toxinas acumuladas.
Reduce el estrés: ciertos compuestos de este té disminuyen la formación y la actividad de radicales libres, reduciendo el estrés. Asimismo, posee un aminoácido llamado L-teanina, cuyo efecto principal es la relajación, sin somnolencia y aumenta los niveles de hormona llamada dopamina que mejora el estado de ánimo.
Sin embargo, esas no son todas sus bondades, sino que sólo unas pocas. El té verde también reduce el riesgo de cáncer, previene enfermedades cardiovasculares, combate el envejecimiento, previene las arrugas, reduce el riesgo de artritis, fortalece los huesos, ayuda a bajar el colesterol, previene la obesidad, es bueno para la diabetes, fortalece la memoria, protege contra el mal de Parkinson, es hepatoprotector, previene la hipertensión, protege de intoxicaciones alimentarias, reduce los niveles de glucosa en la sangre, estimula la inmunidad, evita gripes y resfriados, alivia el asma, combate infecciones en los oídos, contribuye en el tratamiento contra el herpes, previene caries, reduce el estrés y alivia las alergias.
¿Cómo consumirlo?
Según la Escuela de Medicina de Harvard, se debe tomar una taza de té tres veces al día. La hierba debe permanecer en agua caliente de tres a cinco minutos y es mejor si se consume recién macerado.
El mejor momento para beberlo es entre comidas, ya que puede impedir la absorción de hierro de las frutas y vegetales. Y si prefieres tomarlo en el desayuno o durante la comida, el problema se soluciona añadiéndole limón o leche.
Por último, los médicos recomienda beberlo al menos, dos horas antes de dormir, para prevenir el insomnio.
Bolivia busca la industrialización de la hoja de coca para su exportación
El presidente boliviano, Evo Morales, aplaudió los avances en la industrialización de la hoja de coca y los diversos productos que se elaboran en base a ese arbusto de uso tradicional y milenario en la región andina, y anunció gestiones con los países del ALBA (Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América) para exportar mate de coca, por sus cualidades curativas, sobre todo para aliviar la diabetes.
En un acto público en el que inauguró la IV Feria de la Coca en la población de Padre Sama, en el trópico de Cochabamba, el Jefe de Estado ratificó su permanente defensa a la denominada 'hoja sagrada', de uso medicinal y ceremonial desde tiempos inmemoriales en Bolivia.
En ese marco, felicitó a los cocaleros de los Yungas, que inaugurarán en los próximos días una planta de producción de mate de coca en El Alto de La Paz, y pidió a los cocaleros del Chapare similar esfuerzo para abrir un mercado internacional de ese producto.
"Vamos a pedir a Sudamérica o Celac (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños), especialmente a los países del ALBA que nos compren mate de coca, basado en los convenios internacionales. Si antes Estados Unidos compraba coca, ahora por qué los países del ALBA no pueden comprar mate de coca", argumentó.
El presidente boliviano dijo que los cultivadores de coca deben garantizar programas y proyectos para avanzar en la industrialización de la coca, mientras la obligación del Gobierno es garantizar el mercado.
"Yo tengo mucha confianza en los países del ALBA bajo convenios legales, basados en procedimientos internacionales exportar mate de coca para curar diabetes en toda Sudamérica y en los países del ALBA", fundamentó.
"Vamos a pedir a Sudamérica o Celac (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños), especialmente a los países del ALBA que nos compren mate de coca, basado en los convenios internacionales. Si antes Estados Unidos compraba coca, ahora por qué los países del ALBA no pueden comprar mate de coca", argumentó.
El presidente boliviano dijo que los cultivadores de coca deben garantizar programas y proyectos para avanzar en la industrialización de la coca, mientras la obligación del Gobierno es garantizar el mercado.
"Yo tengo mucha confianza en los países del ALBA bajo convenios legales, basados en procedimientos internacionales exportar mate de coca para curar diabetes en toda Sudamérica y en los países del ALBA", fundamentó.
Una lucha política para ocnservar una tradición ancestral
El Primer Mandatario, que emergió a la vida política como dirigente sindical de los cultivadores de coca del trópico de Cochabamba, recordó la lucha de muchos años en defensa de la coca que, a su juicio, es parte de la cultura, de la identidad boliviana, que ha sido atacada, "porque detrás de la coca estaban intereses geopolíticos de Estados Unidos para dominar las naciones y para después saquear los recursos naturales".
"Defendiendo la coca hemos defendido la soberanía nacional, defendiendo la coca hemos defendiendo la economía nacional", fundamentó.
Aseguró que en Bolivia existe una cultura de consumo de la hoja de coca y no de cocaína, porque la coca en su estado natural no hace daño a la salud humana, al contrario, es una medicina como recordó, reconoció a principios del '90 la Universidad de Harvard, una de las más prestigiosas universidades de Estados Unidos, que "no solamente recomendó masticar, sino comer coca", por sus bondades medicinales.
Ritalin et antidépresseur: sommes-nous tous fous?
Coup sur coup, deux personnes de mon entourage m’ont dit récemment qu’elles avaient découvert qu’elles souffraient de TDAH (Trouble du déficit de l’attention avec ou sans hyperactivité). Les deux, âgés dans la quarantaine, sont maintenant… sur le Ritalin.
Eh! oui, le Ritalin n’est plus qu’une affaire d’enfants et d’ados.
Une évolution qui allait de soi: le TDAH ne disparaît pas le jour de la majorité de la personne qui en est atteinte. Le Ritalin peut donc l’aider à être plus attentif au bureau, moins éparpillé, moins impulsif.
Évolution normale… mais néanmoins inquiétante. Car après nos enfants qui détiennent le record canadien de prise de Ritalin, les adultes vont vraisemblablement suivre le même chemin.
Il y a l’Assurance médicaments, qui fait que les petites pilules sont gratuites pour beaucoup de Québécois, mais il y a aussi, je crois, le fait que plusieurs médecins sont forts pour sortir leur carnet de prescriptions.
Un tiers des prescriptions d’antidépresseurs au Canada sont faites par des psychiatres et des médecins québécois, alors que le Québec représente moins du quart de la population canadienne. En 2010, un Québécois sur sept est sorti du bureau de son médecin avec une prescription d’antidépresseur !
Les diagnostics de dépression semblent tomber aussi facilement que la pluie ces temps-ci au Québec. Pourtant, établir un tel diagnostic requiert normalement du temps. Mais il manque cruellement de psychiatres au Québec. Un millier, apparemment.
Pour la majorité des Québécois, c’est donc leur médecin de famille, ou celui d’une clinique sans rendez-vous, qui leur prescriront des antidépresseurs après seulement quinze minutes de consultation !
Tout le monde est content. À commencer par les compagnies d’assurances, qui veulent minimiser les pertes liées au burn-out et autres dépressions qui causent des taux d’absentéisme élevés dans les bureaux.
Ainsi, des coups de déprime ou de découragement, des écoeurantites aigües, reçoivent le même traitement-choc que de véritables dépressions (pour lesquelles la médication, associée à une psychothérapie, reste souvent la seule alternative).
Un manuel controversé
Et ces diagnostics faits à la va-vite et accompagnés de petites pilules seront de plus en plus fréquents.
Pourquoi ? Parce que les médecins québécois, tout comme leurs homologues canadiens et américains, ont reçu la dernière édition de la bible de la psychiatrie, le DSM-5 (Manuel diagnostique et statistique des troubles mentaux).
Publié par l’American Psychiatric Association (APA) depuis 1952, ce livre, qui en est à sa cinquième édition, est la référence en psychiatrie moderne, tant pour les psychiatres eux-mêmes que pour les médecins, psychologues, compagnies d’assurances, voire juristes. Or, le DSM-5 est cette fois vivement controversé.
Eh! oui, le Ritalin n’est plus qu’une affaire d’enfants et d’ados.
Une évolution qui allait de soi: le TDAH ne disparaît pas le jour de la majorité de la personne qui en est atteinte. Le Ritalin peut donc l’aider à être plus attentif au bureau, moins éparpillé, moins impulsif.
Évolution normale… mais néanmoins inquiétante. Car après nos enfants qui détiennent le record canadien de prise de Ritalin, les adultes vont vraisemblablement suivre le même chemin.
Il y a l’Assurance médicaments, qui fait que les petites pilules sont gratuites pour beaucoup de Québécois, mais il y a aussi, je crois, le fait que plusieurs médecins sont forts pour sortir leur carnet de prescriptions.
Un tiers des prescriptions d’antidépresseurs au Canada sont faites par des psychiatres et des médecins québécois, alors que le Québec représente moins du quart de la population canadienne. En 2010, un Québécois sur sept est sorti du bureau de son médecin avec une prescription d’antidépresseur !
Les diagnostics de dépression semblent tomber aussi facilement que la pluie ces temps-ci au Québec. Pourtant, établir un tel diagnostic requiert normalement du temps. Mais il manque cruellement de psychiatres au Québec. Un millier, apparemment.
Pour la majorité des Québécois, c’est donc leur médecin de famille, ou celui d’une clinique sans rendez-vous, qui leur prescriront des antidépresseurs après seulement quinze minutes de consultation !
Tout le monde est content. À commencer par les compagnies d’assurances, qui veulent minimiser les pertes liées au burn-out et autres dépressions qui causent des taux d’absentéisme élevés dans les bureaux.
Ainsi, des coups de déprime ou de découragement, des écoeurantites aigües, reçoivent le même traitement-choc que de véritables dépressions (pour lesquelles la médication, associée à une psychothérapie, reste souvent la seule alternative).
Un manuel controversé
Et ces diagnostics faits à la va-vite et accompagnés de petites pilules seront de plus en plus fréquents.
Pourquoi ? Parce que les médecins québécois, tout comme leurs homologues canadiens et américains, ont reçu la dernière édition de la bible de la psychiatrie, le DSM-5 (Manuel diagnostique et statistique des troubles mentaux).
Publié par l’American Psychiatric Association (APA) depuis 1952, ce livre, qui en est à sa cinquième édition, est la référence en psychiatrie moderne, tant pour les psychiatres eux-mêmes que pour les médecins, psychologues, compagnies d’assurances, voire juristes. Or, le DSM-5 est cette fois vivement controversé.
J’assistais récemment à un Bar des sciences organisé par le magazine Québec-Science sur le thème fort explicite: sommes-nous tous fous? Car tous, nous pouvons nous retrouver quelque part dans le DSM-5.
Des 60 maladies répertoriées il y a 60 ans, on en compte plus de 400 aujourd’hui, et des plus variées. «Tous sont appelés, tous sont élus», a dit l’ex-directeur général du Collège des médecins du Québec, le Dr Yves Lamontagne, lui-même psychiatre. Le deuil, la timidité, l’apnée du sommeil sont inclus dans le DSM-5. «C’est trop», dit-il.
Les enfants peuvent désormais recevoir un diagnostic de «trouble perturbateur de dérèglement de l'humeur», ce qui était connu comme… des crises de colère.
Comme l’écrit The Economist, aux yeux de nombreux critiques, «la nouvelle édition est le véhicule idéal pour des diagnostics erronés, des surdiagnostics, la médicalisation de comportements normaux et la prescription d'un grand nombre de médicaments inutiles».
«On a transformé la détresse en maladie mentale», a dit, lors de ce Bar des sciences, le philosophe Jean-Claude Saint-Onge, qui vient de publier Tous fous ? L’influence de l’industrie pharmaceutique sur la psychiatrie.
Une épidémie
«L’épidémie» de troubles mentaux profite bien aux multinationales pharmaceutiques, dit-il. Aux États-Unis, la consommation de psychotropes a augmenté de 4 800% au cours des 26 dernières années!
Au Canada, en 2010, les agents psychothérapeutiques figuraient au deuxième rang des médicaments les plus prescrits. Il y a trente ans, les psychotropes n’apparaissaient même pas sur la liste des quinze premières catégories.
Plus troublant, selon M. Saint-Onge, près des deux tiers des membres du Groupe de travail sur le DSM-5 entretiendraient des liens financiers avec l’industrie pharmaceutique. «Bien des réactions normales aux difficultés de la vie et de l’existence sont donc traitées chimiquement.»
Cela dit, encore une fois, il ne faut pas jeter le bébé avec l’eau du bain. La bio-psychiatrie, comme on l’appelle, a permis de mieux comprendre et de soigner des maladies comme la schizophrénie, l’autisme ou la dépression majeure.
Les gens qui en sont atteints ne survivent souvent que grâce à leur médication. Elle empêche, par exemple, les schizophrènes d’entendre des voix. C’est un pas énorme. Car ces gens-là souffrent.
D’autres souffrent, aussi, parce qu’ils sont angoissés, malheureux, déprimés, découragés. Auront-ils tous besoin de pilules? Il y a une zone floue et complexe entre des maux biologiques et des maux de l’âme. Après 12 minutes en moyenne de consultation, nos médecins pourront-ils faire les nuances nécessaires ?
Car comme l’a dit Allen Frances, qui a dirigé la publication du DSM-IV, «le cerveau humain est la chose la plus incroyablement complexe de l’univers. Il ne cède pas facilement ses secrets.»
Codex Alimentarius: Population Control Under the Guise of Consumer Protection
Codex Alimentarius, latin for Food Code, is a very misunderstood organization that most people (including nearly all U.S. congressmen) have never heard of, never mind understand the true reality of this extremely powerful trade organization. From the official Codex website (www.codexalimentarius.net) the altruistic purpose of this commission is in "protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations". Codex is a joint venture regulated by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO).
Brief History of Codex
The history of Codex began in 1893 when the Austria-Hungarian empire decided it needed a specific set of guidelines by which the courts could rule on cases dealing with food [1]. This regulatory set of mandates became known as Codex Alimentarius and was effectively implemented until the fall of the empire in 1918. The United Nations (UN) met in 1962 and decided that Codex should be re-implemented worldwide in order to protect health of the consumers. Two-thirds of funding for Codex emanates from the FAO while the other third comes from the WHO.
In 2002, the FAO and WHO had serious concerns about the direction of Codex and hired an external consultant to determine its performance since 1962 and to designate which direction to take the trade organization. The consultant concluded that Codex should be immediately scrapped and eliminated. It was at this time that big industry realized the full monetary potential of this organization and exerted its powerful influence. The updated outcome was a toned down report asking Codex to address 20 various concerns within the organization.
Since 2002, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has covertly surrendered its role as an international public health and consumer protection organization. Under the helm of big industry, the sole surreptitious purpose of the new codex is to increase profits for the global corporate juggernauts while controlling the world through food. The implicit understanding of their philosophy is that if you control food, you control the world.
Codex Now
The most dominant country behind the agenda of Codex is the United States whose sole purpose is to benefit multinational interests like Big Pharma, Big Agribusiness, Big Chema and the like. At the latest meeting in Geneva, the U.S. recently became the chair of Codex which will facilitate an exacerbation of the distortion of health freedom and will continue the promulgation of misinformation and lies about genetically modified organism (GMOs) and nutrients while fulfilling the tacit population control agenda. The reason the U.S. continues to dominate Codex is because other countries falsely believe the U.S. possesses the latest and greatest safety technology when it comes to food and hence, whatever the U.S. asks for, its allies (E.U., Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore) follow suit nearly every time.
Many of the countries who wish to participate and want to voice their opinions are not allowed to attend the Codex meetings as the U.S. denies most visas for these representatives whenever they feel like it. Many of these countries (South Africa, Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria) realize that Codex has been altered from a benevolent food organization to one that is fraudulent, lethal and illegitimate. The fact that Codex meetings are held all over the world is also no accident and allows the U.S. to maintain its tight grip on the Codex agenda as the less economically viable countries are not able to attend.
The Real Threat
While the esoteric agenda of the media is busy driving fear into the hearts of the world by focusing on terrorism, global warming, salmonella, and food shortages, the real threats are clandestinely becoming a reality. Soon every single thing you put into your mouth (with the exception of pharmaceuticals, of course) will be highly regulated by Codex Alimentarius, including water. The standards of Codex are a complete affront to the freedom of clean and healthy food, yet these regulations have no legal international standing. Why should we be worried? These soon-to-be mandatory standards will apply to every country who are members of the WTO (World Trade Organization). If countries do not follow these standards, then enormous trade sanctions will result. Some Codex standards that will take effect on December 31, 2009 and once initiated are completely irrevocable include:
* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to "prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease"
* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).
* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries.
* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans' health.
* You will not even be able to obtain these anywhere in the world even with a prescription.
* All advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal. This includes www.naturalnews.com reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionist's consultations.
* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone.
Brief History of Codex
The history of Codex began in 1893 when the Austria-Hungarian empire decided it needed a specific set of guidelines by which the courts could rule on cases dealing with food [1]. This regulatory set of mandates became known as Codex Alimentarius and was effectively implemented until the fall of the empire in 1918. The United Nations (UN) met in 1962 and decided that Codex should be re-implemented worldwide in order to protect health of the consumers. Two-thirds of funding for Codex emanates from the FAO while the other third comes from the WHO.
In 2002, the FAO and WHO had serious concerns about the direction of Codex and hired an external consultant to determine its performance since 1962 and to designate which direction to take the trade organization. The consultant concluded that Codex should be immediately scrapped and eliminated. It was at this time that big industry realized the full monetary potential of this organization and exerted its powerful influence. The updated outcome was a toned down report asking Codex to address 20 various concerns within the organization.
Since 2002, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has covertly surrendered its role as an international public health and consumer protection organization. Under the helm of big industry, the sole surreptitious purpose of the new codex is to increase profits for the global corporate juggernauts while controlling the world through food. The implicit understanding of their philosophy is that if you control food, you control the world.
Codex Now
The most dominant country behind the agenda of Codex is the United States whose sole purpose is to benefit multinational interests like Big Pharma, Big Agribusiness, Big Chema and the like. At the latest meeting in Geneva, the U.S. recently became the chair of Codex which will facilitate an exacerbation of the distortion of health freedom and will continue the promulgation of misinformation and lies about genetically modified organism (GMOs) and nutrients while fulfilling the tacit population control agenda. The reason the U.S. continues to dominate Codex is because other countries falsely believe the U.S. possesses the latest and greatest safety technology when it comes to food and hence, whatever the U.S. asks for, its allies (E.U., Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore) follow suit nearly every time.
Many of the countries who wish to participate and want to voice their opinions are not allowed to attend the Codex meetings as the U.S. denies most visas for these representatives whenever they feel like it. Many of these countries (South Africa, Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria) realize that Codex has been altered from a benevolent food organization to one that is fraudulent, lethal and illegitimate. The fact that Codex meetings are held all over the world is also no accident and allows the U.S. to maintain its tight grip on the Codex agenda as the less economically viable countries are not able to attend.
The Real Threat
While the esoteric agenda of the media is busy driving fear into the hearts of the world by focusing on terrorism, global warming, salmonella, and food shortages, the real threats are clandestinely becoming a reality. Soon every single thing you put into your mouth (with the exception of pharmaceuticals, of course) will be highly regulated by Codex Alimentarius, including water. The standards of Codex are a complete affront to the freedom of clean and healthy food, yet these regulations have no legal international standing. Why should we be worried? These soon-to-be mandatory standards will apply to every country who are members of the WTO (World Trade Organization). If countries do not follow these standards, then enormous trade sanctions will result. Some Codex standards that will take effect on December 31, 2009 and once initiated are completely irrevocable include:
* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to "prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease"
* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).
* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries.
* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans' health.
* You will not even be able to obtain these anywhere in the world even with a prescription.
* All advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal. This includes www.naturalnews.com reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionist's consultations.
* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone.
* All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.
* The reintroduction of deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides that in 1991, 176 countries (including the U.S.) have banned worldwide including 7 of the 12 worst at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides (e.g., Hexachlorobenzene, Toxaphene, and Aldrin) will be allowed back into food at elevated levels.
* Dangerous and toxic levels (0.5 ppb) of aflotoxin in milk produced from moldy storage conditions of animal feed will be allowed. Aflotoxin is the second most potent (non-radiation) carcinogenic compound known to man.
* Mandatory use of growth hormones and antibiotics on all food herds, fish and flocks
* Worldwide implementation of unlabeled GMOs into crops, animals, fish and trees.
* Elevated levels of residue from pesticides and insecticides that are toxic to humans and animals.
Some examples of potential permissible safe levels of nutrients under Codex include:
- Niacin - upper limits of 34 mcg daily (effective daily doses include 2000 to 3000 mcgs).
- Vitamin C - upper limits of 65 to 225 mcg daily (effective daily doses include 6000 to 10000 mcgs).
- Vitamin D - upper limits of 5 μg daily (effective daily doses include 6000 to 10000 μg).
- Vitamin E - upper limits of 15 IU of alpha tocopherol only per day, even though alpha tocopherol by itself has been implicated in cell damage and is toxic to the body (effective daily doses of mixed tocopherols include 10000 to 12000 IU).
The Door is Open for Codex
In 1995, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created an illegal policy stating that international standards (i.e, Codex) would supersede U.S. laws governing all food even if these standards were incomplete. Furthermore, in 2004 the U.S. passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (illegal under U.S. law, but legal under international law) that requires the U.S. to conform to Codex in December of 2009.
Once these standards are adopted there is no possible way to return to the standards of the old. Once Codex compliance begins in any area, as long as we remain a member of the WTO, it is totally irrevocable. These standards are then unable to be repealed, changed or altered in any way shape or form.
Population control for money is the easiest way to describe the new Codex which is run by the U.S. and controlled by Big Pharma and the like to reduce the population to a sustainable 500 million - a reduction of approximately 93 percent. The FAO and WHO have the audacity to estimate that by the introduction of just the vitamin and mineral guideline alone, at a minimum 3 billion deaths (1 billion from starvation and another 2 billion from preventable and degenerative diseases of under nutrition, e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes) will result.
Degraded, demineralized, pesticide-filled and irradiated foods are the fastest and most efficient way to cause a profitable surge in malnutrition, preventable and degenerative disease which the most appropriate course of action is always pharmaceuticals. Death for profit is the new name of the game. Big Pharma has been waiting for this opportunity for years.
Fighting Back
Dr. Rima Laibow, M.D., who is the medical director for Natural Solutions Foundation, has undertaken legal action against the U.S. government and continues to attend every Codex meeting while fighting for your health freedom. The latest Codex meeting in Geneva heard some dissenting voices that were tired of the U.S. bullying every other country in the world with its population control agenda. Brazil and China have stated that when smaller, underrepresented countries are unable to attend Codex meetings (due to the U.S. not allowing Visas or for lack of monetary means) then every decision made in their absence is invalid. As a result, Codex may soon fall apart under the weight of it own corruption, but pressure needs to be unilaterally applied.
Dr. Rima has also been meeting with delegates from other countries and making them aware of something called Private Standards. Private standards allow countries to draft food standards which are safer and higher than those mandated by Codex. Obviously, this is not a very difficult task and many countries can seemingly circumvent the flawed and irrevocable guidelines Codex is attempting to implement on December 31, 2009.
Source
- Vitamin E - upper limits of 15 IU of alpha tocopherol only per day, even though alpha tocopherol by itself has been implicated in cell damage and is toxic to the body (effective daily doses of mixed tocopherols include 10000 to 12000 IU).
The Door is Open for Codex
In 1995, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created an illegal policy stating that international standards (i.e, Codex) would supersede U.S. laws governing all food even if these standards were incomplete. Furthermore, in 2004 the U.S. passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (illegal under U.S. law, but legal under international law) that requires the U.S. to conform to Codex in December of 2009.
Once these standards are adopted there is no possible way to return to the standards of the old. Once Codex compliance begins in any area, as long as we remain a member of the WTO, it is totally irrevocable. These standards are then unable to be repealed, changed or altered in any way shape or form.
Population control for money is the easiest way to describe the new Codex which is run by the U.S. and controlled by Big Pharma and the like to reduce the population to a sustainable 500 million - a reduction of approximately 93 percent. The FAO and WHO have the audacity to estimate that by the introduction of just the vitamin and mineral guideline alone, at a minimum 3 billion deaths (1 billion from starvation and another 2 billion from preventable and degenerative diseases of under nutrition, e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes) will result.
Degraded, demineralized, pesticide-filled and irradiated foods are the fastest and most efficient way to cause a profitable surge in malnutrition, preventable and degenerative disease which the most appropriate course of action is always pharmaceuticals. Death for profit is the new name of the game. Big Pharma has been waiting for this opportunity for years.
Fighting Back
Dr. Rima Laibow, M.D., who is the medical director for Natural Solutions Foundation, has undertaken legal action against the U.S. government and continues to attend every Codex meeting while fighting for your health freedom. The latest Codex meeting in Geneva heard some dissenting voices that were tired of the U.S. bullying every other country in the world with its population control agenda. Brazil and China have stated that when smaller, underrepresented countries are unable to attend Codex meetings (due to the U.S. not allowing Visas or for lack of monetary means) then every decision made in their absence is invalid. As a result, Codex may soon fall apart under the weight of it own corruption, but pressure needs to be unilaterally applied.
Dr. Rima has also been meeting with delegates from other countries and making them aware of something called Private Standards. Private standards allow countries to draft food standards which are safer and higher than those mandated by Codex. Obviously, this is not a very difficult task and many countries can seemingly circumvent the flawed and irrevocable guidelines Codex is attempting to implement on December 31, 2009.
Source
Dieta a base de grasa de pescado fortalece defensas contra cáncer de mama
Estudios revelaron que si las madres embarazadas consumen alimentos ricos en omega-3 durante el período de gestación, podrían reducir los riesgos hasta en un 40 por ciento de esta enfermedad.
Las mujeres embarazadas que consuman durante los meses de gestación una dieta a base de pescados y otros alimentos ricos en omega-3,como atún, salmón o sardina, podrían reducir el riesgo de sufrir cáncer de mama hasta en un 40 por ciento, según varios estudios públicos de investigadores de universidades en China y Estados Unidos.
Una investigación hecha en la Universidad de Zhejiang en China, determinó que al menos una o dos porciones semanales de pescado azul podría reducir esta enfermedad, debido a que estos alimentos incluyen ciertos tipos de ácidos involucrados en el trasporte químico de información al cerebro, y permite regular el movimiento de los vasos sanguíneos y áreas del sistema inmune.
El estudio fue publicado este viernes por el British Medical Journal y señala que los expertos revisaron datos de 26 estudios realizados en Estados Unidos, Europa y Asia, con la participación de 800 mil individuos y 20 mil de ellos con el cáncer de mama. La comparación de varios experimentos, determinó la asociación inversa entre los ácidos grasos del pescado y el riesgo de padecer cáncer de mama.
Por su parte, un reciente estudio en Estados Unido, presentado en la reunión anual de la American Association for Cancer Research, de Anaheim en California (oeste), coincidió con el estudio anterior, que alimentarse con una dieta rica en ácidos grasos de omega-3 reduce el riesgo, pero advierte que consumir grasas omega-6, que se encuentran generalmente en las dietas occidentales, podrían aumentar el riesgo de los hijos de adquirir cáncer de mama.
Una investigación hecha en la Universidad de Zhejiang en China, determinó que al menos una o dos porciones semanales de pescado azul podría reducir esta enfermedad, debido a que estos alimentos incluyen ciertos tipos de ácidos involucrados en el trasporte químico de información al cerebro, y permite regular el movimiento de los vasos sanguíneos y áreas del sistema inmune.
El estudio fue publicado este viernes por el British Medical Journal y señala que los expertos revisaron datos de 26 estudios realizados en Estados Unidos, Europa y Asia, con la participación de 800 mil individuos y 20 mil de ellos con el cáncer de mama. La comparación de varios experimentos, determinó la asociación inversa entre los ácidos grasos del pescado y el riesgo de padecer cáncer de mama.
Por su parte, un reciente estudio en Estados Unido, presentado en la reunión anual de la American Association for Cancer Research, de Anaheim en California (oeste), coincidió con el estudio anterior, que alimentarse con una dieta rica en ácidos grasos de omega-3 reduce el riesgo, pero advierte que consumir grasas omega-6, que se encuentran generalmente en las dietas occidentales, podrían aumentar el riesgo de los hijos de adquirir cáncer de mama.
El cáncer de mama, es una patología derivada del crecimiento de células malignas en el tejido mamario. Se conocen en la actualidad, dos principales tipos de esta enfermedad, el carcinoma ductal, que comienza en los conductos que llevan la leche desde la mamá hasta el pezón y el carcinoma lobulillar que comienza en partes de las mamas.
Quote of the day
“Everything will be all right in the end. If it's not all right then it's not the end”
Sonny
Kapoor
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Friday 28 June 2013
5 Reasons a Monsanto Exec Does Not Deserve the World Food Prize
1. No one knows how GMO food will affect our health.
A recent study found that pigs fed GMO corn and soy feed had a notably higher rate of severe stomach inflammation. A study published last September found that rats fed GMO corn developed tumors and died prematurely.
No extensive studies have yet been done on the effects of GMOs on humans. Some potential risks include the introduction of new allergens in our food supply and the development of antibiotic resistance.
2. Some insects are already evolving to become resistant to GMOs.
Rootworms are becoming resistant to GMO crops — disturbingly, as one of the”advantages” of GMOs was supposed to be that insecticides would not have to be used on them. Indeed, sales of corn insecticide made by Syngenta (the company that Chilton is a scientist at) more than doubled in 2012 as a result of “increased grower awareness” of rootworm resistance in the U.S.
3. Monsanto has contributed generously to the the World Food Prize Foundation.
In 2008, Monsanto gave the foundation a pledge of $5 million. The World Food Prize Foundation has also been previously criticized for favoring industrial agriculture; giving the prize to a Monsanto executive seems unlikely to change such criticism.
4. It is illegal to import GMOs to some parts of the world, due to concerns about their safety.
The European Union, Japan and other countries do not allow GMO seed or crops to enter their borders. The EU categorizes GMOs as “new foods” which must be subjected to extensive scientific testing on a case-by-case basis by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). After an illegal strain of GMO wheat was recently found on a farm in Oregon, Japan was so concerned that it suspended some wheat imports from the U.S.
GMO seed has been imported to and cultivated in countries in Africa and Asia (including India and China). But millions of small-scale farmers in Africa have repeatedly objected to using GMO crops and want their governments to ban them.
5. GMO crops could wipe out seed diversity.
Farmers in Africa are rejecting GMO crops not only because of the little that we know about them. As Million Belay and Ruth Nyambura write in the Guardian, small-scale African farmers are more than wary about how GMO crops could affect traditional farming practices developed over centuries.
Traditional African farming systems have indeed “developed an incredible diversity of seed varieties, which are able to deal with the multiple challenges of farming.” Many types of seeds have been bred for flavor and nutrition and have also “evolved with local pests and diseases and are adapted to different soils and weather patterns.” Using them, Belay and Nyambura emphasize, is “a far better strategy of resilience than developing a single crop that is bound to fail in the face of climate change.”
Even more, because companies like Monsanto make saving GMO seed illegal, small-scale farmers in Africa could face a huge dilemma. 80 percent of farmers in Africa save seed, say Belay and Nyambura, and “how are they supposed to protect the varieties they have developed, crossed and shared over generations from GM contamination?” Maintaining seed diversity and promoting healthy soil ecology are essential to “real food security” and a strategy more than worthy of recognition — maybe the World Food Prize Foundation will take note of such when choosing future prize recipients.
Source
Monsanto unveils ambitious corn plan
Monsanto is planning to spend $100 million on early maturing corn hybrids to achieve a goal of eight to 10 million acres of corn in Western Canada by 2025.
Through an initiative called the Canada Corn Expansion Project, the company will invest tens of millions over the next decade to develop corn hybrids that could potentially be grown on 26 million acres on the Prairies, it announced June 24.
“One of the obvious benefits of this project is that it provides western Canadian farmers with an additional crop choice that can enhance the overall profitability of their farming operation,” said Mike Nailor, Mon-santo corn and soybean lead for Canada. “Our goal will be to help farmers incorporate corn into their current production system to maximize opportunity across a variety of crops, whether they are farming in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta.”
The Canadian project is part of a larger Monsanto effort to develop corn varieties suitable for northerly agronomic regions, such as Ukraine and Russia.
Monsanto has already initiated its corn expansion project for Western Canada with a corn breeding and testing station at Carman, Man. It hired a corn breeder and technology development personnel.
The firm will focus on developing corn with earlier relative maturity.
Western Canadian farmers now grow up to 500,000 acres of corn, primarily in southern Manitoba.
Through an initiative called the Canada Corn Expansion Project, the company will invest tens of millions over the next decade to develop corn hybrids that could potentially be grown on 26 million acres on the Prairies, it announced June 24.
“One of the obvious benefits of this project is that it provides western Canadian farmers with an additional crop choice that can enhance the overall profitability of their farming operation,” said Mike Nailor, Mon-santo corn and soybean lead for Canada. “Our goal will be to help farmers incorporate corn into their current production system to maximize opportunity across a variety of crops, whether they are farming in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta.”
The Canadian project is part of a larger Monsanto effort to develop corn varieties suitable for northerly agronomic regions, such as Ukraine and Russia.
Monsanto has already initiated its corn expansion project for Western Canada with a corn breeding and testing station at Carman, Man. It hired a corn breeder and technology development personnel.
The firm will focus on developing corn with earlier relative maturity.
Western Canadian farmers now grow up to 500,000 acres of corn, primarily in southern Manitoba.
Quote of the day
"Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy, not everyone who get you out of shit
is your friend. And when you're in deep shit, it's smart to keep your mouth shut!"
Moral from a Pile of Shit
Drug companies may have to disclose actions taken by international drug regulators
After two of the country's top drug makers ran into trouble with US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) is considering asking pharma companies to make immediate disclosures to the government, as and when leading international drug regulators take adverse actions against their facilities located in India.
"Getting timely access to such leads is very important for us to take an informed decision on prompt follow-ups. If the drug-making facility under scanner is supplying medicine to the domestic market, one can quickly conduct inspections to monitor if these plants are following current good manufacturing practices under the domestic drug law," said an official from the Drug Controller General of India's (DCGI) office who did not wish to be named.
If the affected plant doesn't supply to the Indian market, the decision can be taken on a case-to-case basis, with the depth of action depending on the seriousness of the violations, he added. It could also help the drug regulator decide, whether other plants of the same company supplying drugs to the domestic market, need to be audited.
Recently, one of Wockhardt's Maharashtra-based plant faced an import alert, while Ranbaxy Labs has had sustained problems with the US drug regulator since 2008 and is still not out of the woods. As of now, the Indian drug regulator doesn't have any tie-ups with most top drug regulators such as the USFDA and the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agencies. This prevents immediate access to notifications of their inspections or access to inspection findings of other drug regulators.
Besides, state drug regulators issue manufacturing licences, not the central drug regulator. So lack of tie-ups with global counterparts and the fact that manufacturing licences are given by state drug regulators sometimes results in a lag of several months, at times even years between the time of inspections by a global drug regulator here and the action taken by the DCGI office, which usually kicks off after the information becomes public.
Ranbaxy, which last month pleaded guilty to the charges of data falsification and 'adulteration' in the US, agreed to pay a fine of $500 million, as ET had reported, and inspections have been ordered by the DCGI into facilities at Dewas and Paonta Sahib.
"The company is facing 'deep inspections' at the affected plants. The special teams constituted for the purpose include officials from the DCGI office, respective state drug controllers' office and independent regulatory experts," a health ministry official told ET .
Another official confirmed that random samples of Ranbaxy drugs are being picked from the market by the drug regulator for quality tests. Pharma experts say a higher level of disclosure would inspire more trust in 'brand India'. "In principle, this intervention would be a right step on part of the government because pharma is a sensitive sector with half of the industry's total revenues coming from exports. A single high-profile adverse instance is not necessarily an isolated incident but has the ability to erode the credibility of the image of Indian generics built over years," said Murali Nair, partner, Ernst & Young.
But Nair pointed out that due to different cost structures, companies usually have separate drugmaking facilities dedicated for regulated markets, which means there would be limited overlap between plants catering to domestic market and developed markets.
"An early warning technique based on global regulatory slippages, as a trigger for audits in a country has 14,000 drug manufacturers would be helpful for the regulator," he added.
"Getting timely access to such leads is very important for us to take an informed decision on prompt follow-ups. If the drug-making facility under scanner is supplying medicine to the domestic market, one can quickly conduct inspections to monitor if these plants are following current good manufacturing practices under the domestic drug law," said an official from the Drug Controller General of India's (DCGI) office who did not wish to be named.
If the affected plant doesn't supply to the Indian market, the decision can be taken on a case-to-case basis, with the depth of action depending on the seriousness of the violations, he added. It could also help the drug regulator decide, whether other plants of the same company supplying drugs to the domestic market, need to be audited.
Recently, one of Wockhardt's Maharashtra-based plant faced an import alert, while Ranbaxy Labs has had sustained problems with the US drug regulator since 2008 and is still not out of the woods. As of now, the Indian drug regulator doesn't have any tie-ups with most top drug regulators such as the USFDA and the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agencies. This prevents immediate access to notifications of their inspections or access to inspection findings of other drug regulators.
Besides, state drug regulators issue manufacturing licences, not the central drug regulator. So lack of tie-ups with global counterparts and the fact that manufacturing licences are given by state drug regulators sometimes results in a lag of several months, at times even years between the time of inspections by a global drug regulator here and the action taken by the DCGI office, which usually kicks off after the information becomes public.
Ranbaxy, which last month pleaded guilty to the charges of data falsification and 'adulteration' in the US, agreed to pay a fine of $500 million, as ET had reported, and inspections have been ordered by the DCGI into facilities at Dewas and Paonta Sahib.
"The company is facing 'deep inspections' at the affected plants. The special teams constituted for the purpose include officials from the DCGI office, respective state drug controllers' office and independent regulatory experts," a health ministry official told ET .
Another official confirmed that random samples of Ranbaxy drugs are being picked from the market by the drug regulator for quality tests. Pharma experts say a higher level of disclosure would inspire more trust in 'brand India'. "In principle, this intervention would be a right step on part of the government because pharma is a sensitive sector with half of the industry's total revenues coming from exports. A single high-profile adverse instance is not necessarily an isolated incident but has the ability to erode the credibility of the image of Indian generics built over years," said Murali Nair, partner, Ernst & Young.
But Nair pointed out that due to different cost structures, companies usually have separate drugmaking facilities dedicated for regulated markets, which means there would be limited overlap between plants catering to domestic market and developed markets.
"An early warning technique based on global regulatory slippages, as a trigger for audits in a country has 14,000 drug manufacturers would be helpful for the regulator," he added.
Monsanto's Unapproved GMO Wheat Stored In Colorado For 7 Years, Investigators Say
Monsanto Co's unapproved, experimental genetically engineered wheat, which is feared to have potentially contaminated U.S. wheat supplies after it was found growing in an Oregon field this spring, was kept in a U.S. government storage facility until at least late 2011, according to documents obtained by Reuters.
The revelation that the seed for the controversial genetically engineered wheat was kept viable in a Colorado storage facility as recently as a year and a half ago comes as the U.S. government is investigating how the strain of experimental wheat wound up growing in an Oregon field this spring.
The probe by the U.S. Department of Agriculture includes an examination of the handling of the GMO wheat seed that Monsanto directed be sent to the government-controlled National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado, beginning in late 2004, according to Peter Bretting, who oversees the center for the USDA's Agricultural Research Service.
David Dierig, research leader at the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, also said the matter was "under active investigation."
The National Center uses high-tech methods to extend the viability of seeds for decades, much longer than their viability in conventional storage. The facility took in at least 43 physical containers of Monsanto's so-called "Roundup Ready" wheat in late 2004 and early 2005, the documents show. The material represented more than 1,000 different unique varieties or lines, according to the documents that Monsanto provided in a heavily redacted format.
The documents were made up of correspondence between Monsanto and the Colorado facility.
Monsanto was shutting down its work with Roundup Ready wheat, altered to tolerate treatments of Roundup herbicide, when it set up a contract dated Nov. 2, 2004, for the resources preservation center to store its wheat seed. Monsanto said the seed was confirmed incinerated on Jan. 5, 2012.
"At our direction, the seed was destroyed ... as it was old material and we had no plans for its future use," said Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher, who provided Reuters with the supporting documents. Monsanto also archived some of the wheat at its facilities in St. Louis, Missouri.
When asked if USDA had accounted for all the supplies sent to the Colorado facility, USDA spokesman Ed Curlett said the government probe is seeking an answer to that question.
A USDA spokesman on Friday said the government does believe that all the seed it received was incinerated, and that it cannot account for seed that might have been sent elsewhere.
The Roundup Ready wheat was never approved for commercial use and was supposed to be tightly controlled. Monsanto has said it suspects someone covertly obtained its wheat seed and planted it in the Oregon field to sabotage Monsanto's work with biotech crops.
The government and Monsanto have said there is no indication the GMO wheat made it into commercial supplies, but the finding has hit Monsanto and the wheat industry hard.
Monsanto has been named in several lawsuits and over the last month, exports of U.S. western white wheat have been curtailed as foreign buyers shun the U.S. supplies and demand assurances that none of the biotech wheat has contaminated the marketplace.
Wheat growers want the mystery solved.
"Determining how it happened would certainly make it easier for us to make sure ... that it doesn't happen again, regardless of whether it was sabotage or some accident," said Blake Rowe, chief executive of the Oregon Wheat Commission. "Our customers would like to know how it happened."
The revelation that the seed for the controversial genetically engineered wheat was kept viable in a Colorado storage facility as recently as a year and a half ago comes as the U.S. government is investigating how the strain of experimental wheat wound up growing in an Oregon field this spring.
The probe by the U.S. Department of Agriculture includes an examination of the handling of the GMO wheat seed that Monsanto directed be sent to the government-controlled National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado, beginning in late 2004, according to Peter Bretting, who oversees the center for the USDA's Agricultural Research Service.
David Dierig, research leader at the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, also said the matter was "under active investigation."
The National Center uses high-tech methods to extend the viability of seeds for decades, much longer than their viability in conventional storage. The facility took in at least 43 physical containers of Monsanto's so-called "Roundup Ready" wheat in late 2004 and early 2005, the documents show. The material represented more than 1,000 different unique varieties or lines, according to the documents that Monsanto provided in a heavily redacted format.
The documents were made up of correspondence between Monsanto and the Colorado facility.
Monsanto was shutting down its work with Roundup Ready wheat, altered to tolerate treatments of Roundup herbicide, when it set up a contract dated Nov. 2, 2004, for the resources preservation center to store its wheat seed. Monsanto said the seed was confirmed incinerated on Jan. 5, 2012.
"At our direction, the seed was destroyed ... as it was old material and we had no plans for its future use," said Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher, who provided Reuters with the supporting documents. Monsanto also archived some of the wheat at its facilities in St. Louis, Missouri.
When asked if USDA had accounted for all the supplies sent to the Colorado facility, USDA spokesman Ed Curlett said the government probe is seeking an answer to that question.
A USDA spokesman on Friday said the government does believe that all the seed it received was incinerated, and that it cannot account for seed that might have been sent elsewhere.
The Roundup Ready wheat was never approved for commercial use and was supposed to be tightly controlled. Monsanto has said it suspects someone covertly obtained its wheat seed and planted it in the Oregon field to sabotage Monsanto's work with biotech crops.
The government and Monsanto have said there is no indication the GMO wheat made it into commercial supplies, but the finding has hit Monsanto and the wheat industry hard.
Monsanto has been named in several lawsuits and over the last month, exports of U.S. western white wheat have been curtailed as foreign buyers shun the U.S. supplies and demand assurances that none of the biotech wheat has contaminated the marketplace.
Wheat growers want the mystery solved.
"Determining how it happened would certainly make it easier for us to make sure ... that it doesn't happen again, regardless of whether it was sabotage or some accident," said Blake Rowe, chief executive of the Oregon Wheat Commission. "Our customers would like to know how it happened."
How High-Fat Extra Virgin Olive Oil is good for your immune system
One tablespoon of high-fat extra virgin olive oil can provide numerous benefits to the immune system.
Skip the butter and stick margarine in the kitchen and use oil — extra virgin olive — to improve your immune system. The consumption of this oil has increased dramatically in recent years with a United States purchase of 292,925 metric tons (MT) in 2011, reports the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). This high-fat oil contains 73 grams of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) and is popularly used as for frying and baking as a healthier replacement for vegetable oil. It can also serve as a dressing for salads. Its health benefits derive from its nutritional content of high MUFAs that are considered to be a healthy dietary fat. MUFAs have been linked to lower cholesterol and control the insulin levels in the body as they replace the saturated fats or trans fats that can increase LDL cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Extra virgin olive oil is a good source of antioxidants with vitamins E and K that can protect the body from oxygen-free radicals and promote healthy cognitive function, says the USDA. Implementing olive oil in cooking provides numerous health benefits if used correctly. The nutritional value of olive oil is affected by heat, light, and air. For storage, Mayo Clinic recommends to keep the oil in a dark, room-temperature cupboard or in the refrigerator to preserve the healthy fats and the taste that can wither over a long period of time.
Combats Inflammation
The phenolic compound — oleocanthal — found in olive oil has anti-inflammatory properties. A study from the Monell chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, Pa. examined the effects of daily intake of teaspoons of extra virgin olive oil on pain. Researchers found that four teaspoons of this high-fat oil per day for 12 weeks acted as an anti-inflammatory drug, such as ibuprofen, to reduce pain. While extra virgin oil and ibuprofen have the same effect on treating inflammation, they have different effects on the body. According to Science Daily, ibuprofen can increase bleeding and gastrointestinal damage whereas olive oil has no such effect on the body.
Tip: The amount of oleocanthal differs in olive oils. To see how strong the oleocanthal content is in an olive oil, you can take a sip and see how it stings the back of your throat. The stronger the sting, the more oleocanthal it has, says Arthritis Today.
Combats Diabetes
Diabetics are often told to limit their daily intake of dietary fat because they are at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease. In a landmark government study, it was determined that foods with high MUFAs does not cause weight gain in diabetics and can even reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by approximately 60 percent. MUFAs help diabetics regulate their insulin levels and blood sugar, especially for those who have type 2 diabetes.
Combats Cancer
The consumption of olive oil has been linked to a decrease in tumors of colon, prostate, and breast cancer. Before recent studies, researchers concluded that higher incidences of breast cancer are linked to a high saturated fat diet. In a study published in Annals of Oncology, researchers found that oleic acid — the main MUFA in olive oil — can weaken a cancer gene found in 25 to 30 percent of all breast cancers. What's more, with oleic acid, the effective of the breast cancer drug Herceptin improved dramatically.
Reduces Risk of Cardiovascular Disease
MUFAs in olive oil have been shown to reduce heart problems and rate of heart disease deaths. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers conducted a randomized trial of the Mediterranean diet pattern and its prevention of cardiovascular disease. In Spain, participants who were at high risk of cardiovascular disease but did not develop it yet were assigned to a Mediterranean diet with extra virgin oil, a Mediterranean diet with the addition of mixed nuts, or a control diet with advice on how to reduce dietary fat. Researchers found that a Mediterranean diet with either extra virgin olive oil or mixed nuts can significantly reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease.
Promotes Healthy Fetal Development
Pregnant women are often advised to include olive oil in their diet due to its high content of omega-3 fatty acids. This heart healthy oil has the ability to improve brain function and learning capacities in young children. The consumption of extra virgin olive oil has been linked to a positive effect on a child's height, weight, and cognitive and behavioral development. In a study published in the Journal of Physiology and Biochemistry, researchers tested the effects of consuming olive oil in relation to body weight gain and foot efficiency as well as placental and fetal development. The results of the study showed that a pregnant rat's consumption of olive oil as the only dietary fat source did not have any detrimental effects on the expectant mother's weight gain or placental and fetal development.
Overuse of Common Painkiller May Increase Health Risk
Millions of Americans take ibuprofen or naproxen for pain relief. They are the go-to drugs for headaches, pulled muscles, arthritis and menstrual cramps.
New findings suggest those common painkillers, called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or NSAIDs, increase the risk of heart attack or stroke risk if taken in high doses. Brands like Motrin and Advil contain these drugs.
In 2004, Vioxx, Bextra and Celebrex were found to increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes, and they were pulled from the market.
Dr. Tara Narula, associate director of Lenox Hill Hospital's cardiac care unit, told "CBS This Morning: Saturday" that the people who have to worry are those who use these drugs more than the recommended over-the-counter dose. Consumers with chronic diseases such as osteo-arthritis or rheumatoid arthritis should be careful.
The labels warn about overuse, but a new study quantifies the actual risk.
"The latest research looked at several hundred thousand patients, 300,000, and what they found is that if 1,000 patients take it for a year, three are at risk for having a heart attack, one of which can be fatal," said Narula. "So these medications taken in high doses can be exactly as risky and dangerous as those removed from the market."
Narula said that short-term use of NSAIDs should be fine as it is actually overusing the drugs that is a problem.
However, there are also a few other pain relievers that can be safer. Acetaminophen, which is the drug in Tylenol, as well as opium-based drugs, such as morphine, might be good options depending on what you're treating. Each of these drugs has its own set of side effects, so before taking any of these drugs, it is important to consult with your doctor.
New findings suggest those common painkillers, called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or NSAIDs, increase the risk of heart attack or stroke risk if taken in high doses. Brands like Motrin and Advil contain these drugs.
In 2004, Vioxx, Bextra and Celebrex were found to increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes, and they were pulled from the market.
Dr. Tara Narula, associate director of Lenox Hill Hospital's cardiac care unit, told "CBS This Morning: Saturday" that the people who have to worry are those who use these drugs more than the recommended over-the-counter dose. Consumers with chronic diseases such as osteo-arthritis or rheumatoid arthritis should be careful.
The labels warn about overuse, but a new study quantifies the actual risk.
"The latest research looked at several hundred thousand patients, 300,000, and what they found is that if 1,000 patients take it for a year, three are at risk for having a heart attack, one of which can be fatal," said Narula. "So these medications taken in high doses can be exactly as risky and dangerous as those removed from the market."
Narula said that short-term use of NSAIDs should be fine as it is actually overusing the drugs that is a problem.
However, there are also a few other pain relievers that can be safer. Acetaminophen, which is the drug in Tylenol, as well as opium-based drugs, such as morphine, might be good options depending on what you're treating. Each of these drugs has its own set of side effects, so before taking any of these drugs, it is important to consult with your doctor.
Can Studies on Mice Really Apply to Humans?
Harvard researchers compared mouse and human genomes to better determine when mouse studies are useful.
How many times have you been floored by an eye-catching headline about medical research, only to become far less impressed when you see the study was only done in mice? Using mice is the norm in medical research, but the differences between mice and humans account for many of the promising-looking discoveries that end up failing when they’re translated to human trials. In an effort to prevent some of those disappointing failures, Harvard set out to determine exactly how similar mice and human immune systems are.
Tal Shay, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute, led a team of scientists from Harvard Medical School, the Broad, and Stanford University in an extensive comparison of how comparable genes are expressed in mouse and human immune cells at different times and in various situations (when fighting an infection, for example). Amazingly, the researchers found that the two systems were approximately 80 percent the same—but there were some key differences that could lead mouse-based studies not to translate to humans. Shay and her colleagues published their findings in the journal PNAS and created a user-friendly web database that other researchers can use as they embark on studies.
A report from Harvard quotes Shay about the study:
“What we assume most people will be interested in knowing is, if they are working on gene X, whether gene X has the same expression pattern in human and mouse immune systems,” Shay said. “Most lineages have the same expression signature but some genes behave differently and we think it’s important for why some things work in mice but not humans and the other way around.”
The research is important because, despite their occasional flaws, mouse models are still some of the most useful tools available to biomedical researchers, and knowing when mouse trials will not transfer over could save scientists valuable time and funding. And judging by how many studies are done in mice first—everything from surgery recovery time to Botox health risks to autoimmune disease development—this data will go to good use. The Harvard report quotes PNAS paper co-author Christophe Benoist:
“Because the differentiation and function of human and mouse lineages are highly related, there is the expectation of conservation, so it is important to know when inter-species inferences may be an issue. Mouse models are far too valuable to be jettisoned for pre-clinical exploration, but it is important to know when caution is needed.”
Tal Shay, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute, led a team of scientists from Harvard Medical School, the Broad, and Stanford University in an extensive comparison of how comparable genes are expressed in mouse and human immune cells at different times and in various situations (when fighting an infection, for example). Amazingly, the researchers found that the two systems were approximately 80 percent the same—but there were some key differences that could lead mouse-based studies not to translate to humans. Shay and her colleagues published their findings in the journal PNAS and created a user-friendly web database that other researchers can use as they embark on studies.
A report from Harvard quotes Shay about the study:
“What we assume most people will be interested in knowing is, if they are working on gene X, whether gene X has the same expression pattern in human and mouse immune systems,” Shay said. “Most lineages have the same expression signature but some genes behave differently and we think it’s important for why some things work in mice but not humans and the other way around.”
The research is important because, despite their occasional flaws, mouse models are still some of the most useful tools available to biomedical researchers, and knowing when mouse trials will not transfer over could save scientists valuable time and funding. And judging by how many studies are done in mice first—everything from surgery recovery time to Botox health risks to autoimmune disease development—this data will go to good use. The Harvard report quotes PNAS paper co-author Christophe Benoist:
“Because the differentiation and function of human and mouse lineages are highly related, there is the expectation of conservation, so it is important to know when inter-species inferences may be an issue. Mouse models are far too valuable to be jettisoned for pre-clinical exploration, but it is important to know when caution is needed.”
Thursday 27 June 2013
Quote of the day
"Anything the medical profession says, do the opposite 99 percent of the time and you’ll be right"
Aajonus Vonderplanitz
American advocate
Pharma payments to doctors stay behind closed doors … for now
Patients will remain in the dark about whether their treating doctors receive payments from pharmaceutical companies that could influence prescribing habits, after a bill aimed at increasing transparency ground to a halt on Monday. The payments may be indirect (though conference sponsorship or funds to travel to or attend conferences) or direct (though consultation fees).
The Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee rejected the bill, agreeing with government, industry and the Australian Medical Association (AMA) that self-regulation is the preferred approach.
The Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee rejected the bill, agreeing with government, industry and the Australian Medical Association (AMA) that self-regulation is the preferred approach.
The rejection of legislative approach means that achieving transparency across the therapeutics goods industry will require up to nine industry associations to reform their disparate codes of conduct. Currently, only one (Medicines Australia) has commenced work in this area and at best, it will be 2016 before it reports to the public.
What did the bill propose?
Greens Senator (and medical doctor) Richard Di Natale sponsored the bill – an amendment of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 – to restrict the interaction between pharmaceutical companies and medical practitioners. Payments made by pharmaceutical companies to individual doctors would also have to be reported. The aim was to minimise industry inducements that could unduly influence prescribing behaviour.
There is increasing concern that industry-practitioner interaction can result in uncritical uptake of newer, expensive and less-well-evaluated products and the underutilisation of more cost-effective drugs and medical devices. The cost and safety implications of these influences can be significant.
The bill was referred to the committee for review on March 21, 2013. The committee received 25 submissions, held a public meeting in Melbourne and tabled its report on Monday.
Submissions to the committee by the Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA), pharmaceutical companies, industry and health professional bodies generally opposed the bill and supported self-regulation.
But a number of submissions argued that the current self-regulation model could be strengthened by co-regulation – by requiring companies to adhere to an industry code as a condition of product registration, for instance.
Government reviews
Improving the transparency of financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and clinicians has been on the government’s agenda for a number of years.
A 2010 government position paper supported industry self-regulation but acknowledged inconsistency among various codes within the therapeutic goods sector. It also noted the inapplicability of codes to non-members of industry associations, such as the Indian generic company Ranbaxy. A Working Group on the Promotion of Therapeutic Products was set up.
A 2011 report of the working group produced a set of high-level principles to assist strengthening and aligning industry codes (and those of health professionals). The working group recommended that, as a condition of product registration, all applicants, including those not a member of an industry association, be required to nominate the relevant code of practice to which it will subscribe.
The government rejected this recommendation, stating its preferred position was to maintain the self-regulatory framework. However, it did concede that legislative measures might be required if voluntary participation failed to deliver the outcomes desired.
In 2013, the government set up a Therapeutic Goods (Codes of Conduct) Advisory Group to assess the uptake of the Working Group’s recommendations and provide an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the self-regulatory framework.
Industry reforms
Alongside these government reviews, other influences have been at work.
In 2012, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) urged Medicines Australia to include the disclosure of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to individual health-care professionals in its next code of conduct revision.
In response, Medicines Australia established a Transparency Working Group. The group has developed transparency principles applicable to all therapeutic goods companies and all health professions and is currently finalising a draft reporting model for consultation. This consultative document is expected to be published in the next few days and then be open for debate until mid 2014.
The final model agreed by Medicines Australia members will be added to the 18th code revision to be put to the ACCC in late 2014. If authorised, data collection would start in 2015 with public reporting in 2016.
International examples
The Senate committee reviewed overseas experience. The US Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires pharmaceutical and device companies to report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) all payments, or other transfers of value, made to individual doctors and teaching hospitals that total more than US$100 per year.
Data is to be collected by therapeutic goods manufacturers from August 2013, with reporting to CMS in March 2014 and reporting to the public in September 2014.
The Dutch are already reporting financial arrangements exceeding €500 per year.
Alongside these government reviews, other influences have been at work.
In 2012, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) urged Medicines Australia to include the disclosure of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to individual health-care professionals in its next code of conduct revision.
In response, Medicines Australia established a Transparency Working Group. The group has developed transparency principles applicable to all therapeutic goods companies and all health professions and is currently finalising a draft reporting model for consultation. This consultative document is expected to be published in the next few days and then be open for debate until mid 2014.
The final model agreed by Medicines Australia members will be added to the 18th code revision to be put to the ACCC in late 2014. If authorised, data collection would start in 2015 with public reporting in 2016.
International examples
The Senate committee reviewed overseas experience. The US Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires pharmaceutical and device companies to report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) all payments, or other transfers of value, made to individual doctors and teaching hospitals that total more than US$100 per year.
Data is to be collected by therapeutic goods manufacturers from August 2013, with reporting to CMS in March 2014 and reporting to the public in September 2014.
The Dutch are already reporting financial arrangements exceeding €500 per year.
Why the bill failed
Many submissions argued that the timing of the bill was inappropriate, given that Medicines Australia’s Transparency Working Group and the government’s Codes of Conduct Advisory Group are currently underway.
The limited application of the bill was also noted: it only addressed pharmaceutical companies and registered medical practitioners, not all therapeutic goods companies and all health professionals.
There was concern that the bill proposed the publication of reports on individual company websites, whereas a single public repository was preferred by consumers and others.
The AMA, industry and others argued the bill would preclude valuable interactions between companies and medical practitioners such as medical education and the conduct of research. Given support for self-regulation by government, industry and the AMA, there was never a doubt the bill would be rejected.
Regardless, numerous questions remain. While Medicines Australia members may vote to include additional transparency in the 18th edition of their code (with public reporting in 2016) there is no compulsion on other industry associations to do so, let alone non-members.
And it remains to be seen what persuasive impact the latest government Codes of Conduct Advisory Group can have. In addition, the question of who will house and pay for a transparency register that is applicable to all therapeutic goods companies and all health practitioners is not yet on anyone’s agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)