Thursday, February 13, 2014

If You Know What's Good For You ... (Part 16)

Little Known Chinese Herb is a Cancer Killer
Arjun Walia
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
http://www.naturalblaze.com/2014/03/this-little-known-chinese-herb-kills.html
Today, odds are that you have had/have cancer, or know somebody who does. In Canada, approximately one million Canadians that were alive at the beginning of 2009 have had a cancer diagnosis in the previous 10 years. Two out of every five Canadians will develop cancer within their lifetime, and one in every four will die. In the United States, one out of every two men, and one out of ever three women will become infected with cancer.
These rates have continued to skyrocket since we started recording them, and more people are starting to ask questions and observe the environment we choose to surround ourselves with on a daily basis.
Despite these statistics, new research is emerging every day that puts into question the only two approved treatments for cancer, which are radiation and chemotherapy. It seems we are approaching a time where the medical community will be forced to open up to new options when it comes to cancer treatment. After all, scientists have discovered that chemotherapy fuels cancer growth and kills the patient more quickly, yet nothing has been changed, and both are extremely toxic to the human body.
A little-known Chinese herb might be eligible for the growing list of cancer killers via alternative methods of treatment. According to studies published in Life Sciences, Cancer Letters and Anticancer Drugs, artemisinin, a derivative of the wormwood plant commonly used in Chinese medicine, can kill off cancer cells, and do it at a rate of 12,000 cancer cells for every healthy cell.
Henry Lai and his team of researchers from the University of Washington synthesized the compound, which uses a cancer cells appetite for iron to make them the target. The great thing about artemisinin is that alone it can selectively kill cancer cells while leaving normal cells unharmed.
By itself, artemisinin is about 100 times more selective in killing cancer cells as opposed to normal cells. Artemisinin is 34,000 times more potent in killing the cancer cells as opposed to their normal cousins. So the tagging process appears to have greatly increased the potency of artemisinin’s cancer-killing properties. - Henry Lai

Despite the compound being licensed to Holley Pharmaceuticals, it has yet to be used for cancer treatment in humans.
We call it a Trojan horse because the cancer cell recognizes transferrin as a natural, harmless protein. So the cell picks up the compound without knowing that a bomb (artemisinin) is hidden inside. - Henry Lai

The wormwood extract was used many centuries ago in China for healing purposes. The treatment became lost over time and has now been rediscovered thanks to an ancient manuscript containing medical remedies. It kills 12,000 cancer cells for every healthy cell, which means it could be turned into a drug with minimal side effects.
The compound is currently being licensed by the University of Washington to Artemisia Biomedical Inc., a company that Lai, Sasaki and Narendra Singh, UW associate professor of bioengineering, founded in Newcastle, Washington for development and commercialization. Human trials are at least several years away. Artemisinin is readily available, Sasaki said, and he hopes their compound can eventually be cheaply manufactured to help cancer patients in developing countries.

The abstracts read:
Artemisinin reacts with iron to form free radicals that kill cells. Since cancer cells uptake relatively larger amounts of iron than normal cells, they are more susceptible to the toxic effect of artemisinin. In previous research, we have shown that artemisinin is more drawn to cancer cells than to normal cells. In the present research, we covalently attached artemisinin to the iron-carrying plasma glycoprotein transferrin. Transferrin is transported into the cells via receptor-mediated endocytosis and cancer cells express significantly more transferrin receptors on their cell surface and endocytose more transferrin than normal cells. Thus, we hypothesize that by tagging artemisinin to transferrin, both iron and artemisinin would be transported into cancer cells in one package. Once inside a cell, iron is released and can readily react with artemisinin close by tagged to the transferrin. This would enhance the toxicity and selectivity of artemisinin towards cancer cells. We found that holotransferrin-tagged artemisinin, when compared with artemisinin, was very potent and selective in killing cancer cells. Thus, this ‘tagged-compound’ could potentially be developed into an effective chemotherapeutic agent for cancer treatment.

Another abstract reads:
Our results demonstrate that the artemisinin disruption of E2F1 transcription factor expression mediates the cell cycle arrest of human breast cancer cells and represents a critical transcriptional pathway by which artemisinin controls human reproductive cancer cell growth.

Artemisinin is currently FDA approved for the treatment of malaria, and it’s very safe and easy to use. It’s inexpensive and works on all cancers but has yet to find its way into the mainstream. It’s really time to move beyond just radiation, surgery and chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer.
Sources:
http://www.washington.edu/news/2008/10/13/scientists-develop-new-cancer-killing-compound-from-salad-plant/(
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15642597
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22185819
http://www.cancer.ca/~/media/cancer.ca/CW/cancer%20information/cancer%20101/Canadian%20cancer%20statistics/canadian-cancer-statistics-2013-EN.pdf
Arjun Walia writes for Collective Evolution, where this first appeared.
*******
Largest, Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit

By Dr. Mercola
February 26, 2014
*******

*******
It appears once again, major industry defenders will remain in complete denial and do anything possible to put profits before people.
An annual mammogram is the conventional go-to "prevention" strategy for breast cancer. But researchers increasingly agree that mammography is ineffective at best and harmful at worst.
Unfortunately, breast cancer is big business, and mammography is one of its primary profit centers. This is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep it, even if it means ignoring the truth.
Several studies over the past few years have concluded that mammograms do not save lives, and may actually harm more women than they help, courtesy of false positives, overtreatment, and radiation-induced cancers.
The latest study to reach this conclusion is also one of the longest and largest. As reported by the New York Times:

"One of the largest and most meticulous studies of mammography ever done, involving 90,000 women and lasting a quarter-century, has added powerful new doubts about the value of the screening test for women of any age.
It found that the death rates from breast cancer and from all causes were the same in women who got mammograms and those who did not. And the screening had harms: one in five cancers found with mammography and treated was not a threat to the woman's health and did not need treatment such as chemotherapy, surgery or radiation."

Where's the Wisdom in Using a Cancer Screen That Causes Cancer?
Besides the harm caused by overtreatment, the wisdom of radiating your breasts year after year, for decades, is questionable at best, considering the fact that ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
Results published in the British Medical Journal2 (BMJ) in 2012 show that women carrying a specific gene mutation called BRCA1/2 are particularly vulnerable to radiation-induced cancer.

Women carrying this mutation who were exposed to diagnostic radiation before the age of 30 were twice as likely to develop breast cancer, compared to those who did not have the mutated gene.

They also found that the radiation-induced cancer was dose-responsive, meaning the greater the dose, the higher the risk of cancer developing. The authors concluded that:

"The results of this study support the use of non-ionizing radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA1/2 mutations."

I've warned against the use of routine mammograms for years, despite vehement attacks from radiologists and individuals hell-bent on attacking me. In the final analysis, it's been worth the legal fees I've had to pay to defend myself against these attacks over the years, as ever-mounting research repeatedly confirms my stance.
At this point, the controversy is pretty much settled—at least if you take the published research into account. To all of my opponents out there who have attacked me for my opinion regarding mammograms, I know they will remain in denial. The big lie must continue to be told to avoid the guilt associated with the damage done. The attacks only make us better at defending controversial views.

Biggest Mammography Study to Date Finds No Benefit
The featured study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), included a five-year screening period, with a total follow-up period of 25 years. The women, aged 40-59, were randomly assigned to receive either five annual mammography screens, or an annual physical breast examination without mammography.
Over the course of the study, 3,250 of the women who received mammography were diagnosed with breast cancer compared to 3,133 in the non-mammography group. Of those, 500 women in the mammography group, and 505 in the control group, died from the disease.
However, after 15 years of follow-up, the mammography group had another 106 extra cancer diagnoses, which were attributable to over-diagnosis. As previously explained by Dr. Otis Webb Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, the term "overdiagnosis" in cancer medicine refers to:
"...a tumor that fulfills all laboratory criteria to be called cancer but, if left alone, would never cause harm. This is a tumor that will not continue to grow, spread and kill. It is a tumor that can be cured with treatment but does not need to be treated and/or cured."
The authors of the featured study concluded that:
"Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available. Overall, 22 percent of screen detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial."
More Studies Disputing the Value of Routine Mammograms
The rate of overdiagnosis (22 percent) is virtually identical to that found in a 2012 Norwegian study, which found that as many as 25 percent of women are consistently overdiagnosed with breast cancer that, if left alone, would never have caused them any harm. Other studies that support the findings of the featured study include the following:
In 2007, the Archives of Internal Medicine published a meta-analysis of 117 randomized, controlled mammogram trials. Among its findings: rates of false-positive results are high (20-56 percent after 10 mammograms)
Similar results were found in a 2009 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database Review, which found that breast cancer screening led to a 30 percent rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which actually increased the absolute risk of developing cancer by 0.5 percent. The review concluded that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout a 10-year period, the life of just ONE woman was prolonged, while 10 healthy women were treated unnecessarily.
Another Norwegian study, published in 2010, concluded that the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening.
Research published in The Lancet Oncology in 2011, described the natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening program between 1986 to 1990, involving 650,000 women. Since breast lesions and tumors are aggressively treated and/or removed before they can be determined with any certainty to be a clear and present threat to health, there has been little to no research on what happens when they are left alone.
This study however, demonstrated for the first time that women who received the most breast screenings had a higher cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer over the following six years than the control group who received far less screenings.
False Negatives—Another Hazard of Mammography
Besides false positives that lead to unnecessary treatments, there's also the risk of getting a false negative, meaning that a life-threatening cancer is missed. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), mammograms miss up to 20 percent of breast cancers that are present at the time of screening. If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in your breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves taking a small amount of tissue from your breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present.
The problem is that early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be very hard to diagnose, and there are no diagnostic standards for it. Furthermore, pathologists doing the readings are not required to have specialized expertise. As Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times in 2010:
"There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin."
It's important to realize that a negative mammogram cannot be equated with a clean bill of health. All a negative mammogram can tell you is that IF you do have cancer, it hasn't grown large enough yet to be detected. This is particularly true for women with dense breast tissue. Forty-nine percent of women have high breast tissue density, and mammography's sensitivity for dense breasts is as low as 27 percent—meaning about 75 percent of dense-breasted women are at risk for a cancer being missed if they rely solely on mammography. Even with digital mammography, the sensitivity is still less than 60 percent.
Women Faced with Increasingly Confusing Choices
The featured study has reignited the debate about whether or not an annual mammogram is a wise choice for most women. Complicating matters further is the fact that, over the past few years, a number of medical groups have created divergent recommendations with regards to if and when you should get a mammogram.
In November of 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force, a federal advisory board, revised their cancer screening recommendations, saying annual mammograms weren't necessary for women under age 50 and that screenings were recommended only every two years after that. The panel based the new guidelines on data indicating that mammography does more harm than good when used on younger women.
Many cancer groups refused to adopt these guidelines however, and still recommend women over the age of 40 to be screened annually. This includes the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the American College of Radiology.
In 2011, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) threw women for yet another loop when it changed its guidelines to include MORE screening compared to its previous recommendations. ACOG had previously recommended annual mammograms starting at age 50. As of 2011, it began urging women to get an annual mammogram starting at the age of 40. As stated by the New York Times:
"[T]he days of one-size-fits-all screening may be ending. Now patients and their doctors will face much more nuanced choices, based on each woman's risk for breast cancer and her feelings about the prospect of unnecessary treatment. 'The balance between benefits and harms is more and more up in the air,' said Dr. Russell P. Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 'Reasonable people will disagree.'"
3D Tomosynthesis—The Crazy Alternative That Increases Your Risks Even Further
Unfortunately, instead of admitting the flaws and inherent dangers of mammography, the industry unveiled a "new and improved" type of mammogram in 2011 called 3D tomosynthesis, which actually exposes you to even HIGHER doses of radiation than a standard mammogram. What's worse, they also recommend you continue receiving your traditional 2D mammogram when you get tomosynthesis, thereby multiplying your radiation exposure even further. According to surgeon Dr. Susan Love,16 tomosynthesis exposes you to about twice the amount of radiation compared to a standard mammogram.
According to one 2010 study,17 annual screening using standard digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40–80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20–25 cases per 100, 000. Meaning, annual mammograms CAUSE 20-25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test. Further increasing—perhaps doubling—the number of fatal breast cancer caused as a direct result of the screening procedure itself can hardly be called progress.
Cancer Prevention Begins with Your Lifestyle Choices
Mammograms are portrayed as the best form of "prevention" a woman can get. But early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. And cancer screening that does more harm than good can hardly qualify as "your best bet" against becoming a cancer statistic! I believe the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strictly applying basic, common-sense healthy lifestyle strategies, such as the ones below.
Avoid sugar, especially fructose, and processed foods. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Refined fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible. This automatically means avoiding processed foods, as most are loaded with fructose (typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup, HFCS).
Optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should probably be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects. Ideally, your levels should reach this point by exposure to the sun or a safe tanning bed, not oral vitamin D.
Limit your protein. Newer research has emphasized the importance of the mTOR pathways. When these are active, cancer growth is accelerated. One way to quiet this pathway is by limiting your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or roughly a bit less than half a gram of protein per every pound of lean body weight. For most people this ranges between 40 and 70 grams of protein a day, which is typically about 2/3 to half of what they are currently eating.
Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
Improve your insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and restricting carbs to mostly fiber vegetables. Also make sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
Exercise regularly. One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down, and controlling your insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks. It's also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die. Studies have also found that the number of tumors decrease along with body fat, which may be an additional factor. This is because exercise helps lower your estrogen levels, which explains why exercise appears to be particularly potent against breast cancer
Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
Drink a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
Get plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil". Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer. It actually has the most evidence-based literature supporting its use against cancer of any nutrient, including vitamin D. For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis. It's important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided several absorption tips here. Newer preparations have also started to emerge, offering better absorption. For best results, you'll want to use a sustained release preparation.
Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)
If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
Avoid BPA, phthalates, and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk.
Make sure you're not iodine deficient, as there's compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein, author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.
For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein's book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are far too high.
Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame-broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted, or fried—has been found to increase cancer risk as well.
This is not an exhaustive list. There are many other strategies that can be useful as well. One excellent resource is Dr. Christine Horner's book, Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer, which contains research-proven all-natural approaches for protecting against and treating breast cancer.
Experts Tell Radiologists to Stop Lying About Mammograms
Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice on CNN explains why the American College of Radiology two main arguments against the Canadian National Breast Screening Study are wrong as he explains in the video below
Arm Yourself with Information So You Can Take Control of Your Health
Many women are still unaware that the science backing mammograms is sorely lacking. Instead of being told the truth, women are guilt-tripped into thinking that skipping their yearly mammogram is the height of irresponsibility. It can be hard to stand your ground against such tactics. After all, you expect health professionals to know what they're talking about, and to give you the best advice possible.
When it comes to cancer prevention however, many doctors are just as brainwashed as the average person on the street, having succumbed to industry propaganda that downplays or ignores research conflicting with their profit-based agenda. Mounting research shows that more women are being harmed by regular mammograms than are saved by them. In light of such facts, avoiding an annual mammogram is hardly an irresponsible act. Ditto for saying "no thanks" to 3D tomosynthesis, which exposes you to an even greater amount of cancer-causing radiation for virtually no benefit.
Please understand that there are other screening options, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and you have a right to utilize those options. Also remember that in order to truly avoid breast cancer, you need to focus your attention on actual prevention and not just early detection.
*******

*******
Gardasil and the Public Flogging of Katie Couric

By Barbara Loe Fisher
February 18, 2014
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/18/gardasil-vaccine.aspx?e_cid=20140218Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20140218Z1&et_cid=DM39642&et_rid=431216969
*******
  
Gardasil Vaccine, Katie Couric & Cyber Lynching  
*******
The public flogging of veteran broadcast journalist Katie Couric began on December 4, 2013, immediately after a 17-minute report on HPV and Gardasil vaccine was broadcast on her TV talk show "Katie." It was kick-started by a west coast business writer, who administered the first lash with a bizarre take-down of freedom of the press:
"The real punch of the show was its portrayal of HPV vaccination as "controversial," he charged. "Merely to ask questions is to validate them."
He ended with a sucker punch:

"Katie Couric established her credibility as a spokeswoman for preventive medicine more than a decade ago... now she'll be known for promoting junk medicine instead.
'Is Katie Couric the Next Jenny McCarthy?' 
Then, like piranhas in a fish tank full of fresh chum, an online clique of mean girls and bully boys let Katie have it right between the eyes.
"Is Katie Couric the next Jenny McCarthy?" sneered a headline for an article in which a cub reporter sharpened her claws on Couric's credibility by hissing "The damage a former Playboy Bunny has been able to do is bad enough. But Couric's misdeeds are all the worse given that she's taken much more seriously than Jenny McCarthy."
Continuing with that lame theme, an entertainment writer stuck it to Katie when she suggested that:
"To some, Couric's behavior is even more problematic than McCarthy's, given her stature as a respected journalist and former network news anchor, as well as her previous efforts to educate the public about the fight against cancer."
One headline screamed "Katie Couric Hands Over Her Show to Anti-Vaccine Alarmists" and another one gasped "Why Is Katie Couric Promoting Vaccine Skeptics?" followed by an article written by a photojournalist sniping that "Couric needs to review her priorities."
Katie Couric: Presenting HPV Information and Perspective 
Katie's unforgiveable transgression? On her afternoon talk show, she gave two mothers, who had witnessed their daughters' health suddenly deteriorate after Gardasil shots, an opportunity to speak about what happened.
She gave an international HPV infection expert, who participated in Gardasil vaccine clinical trial research, an opportunity to comment about the effectiveness of Gardasil vaccine and the need for all girls – whether they get vaccinated or not – to get regular pap screening.
She gave a pediatrician an opportunity to encourage parents to vaccinate their 11-year-old boys and girls because "HPV vaccine does not seem to be any risker than any of the other vaccines we routinely use;" and Katie gave a mother and her daughter an opportunity to enthusiastically endorse the vaccine.
Katie Couric presented information and a range of perspectives about a current topic being discussed by millions of parents and young women in homes and doctors' offices across the country. She did it because she is an intellectually honest journalist, a compassionate mother, and a cancer prevention pioneer.
Fourteen years ago, Katie Couric almost singlehandedly put a human face on the importance of colonoscopy screening, especially for those at high risk when she publicly witnessed about the tragedy of losing her husband and the father of her children to colon cancer. After a long and successful career in broadcast journalism in 2006 she became the first woman to anchor the evening news on a major US TV network.
 An Orchestrated Campaign of Intimidation   
The shaming of Katie Couric for caring and daring to ask questions about Gardasil vaccine was a well-orchestrated campaign of intimidation. It was a warning delivered to all journalists that – no matter who you are – your character will be assassinated if you step out of line and question the safety or effectiveness of a government recommended vaccine.
The cyber lynch mob presenting opinion as unassailable fact delighted in quoting each other and did not reserve their vitriol for Katie. Two mothers on the show were ridiculed for describing their daughters' Gardasil vaccine reaction symptoms, which are similar to those reported by many, many others in the US and around the world.
The credentialed Gardasil vaccine researcher on the show was attacked for stating that regular pap tests are the most reliable way of detecting and preventing cervical cancer regardless of vaccination, a position held by cancer prevention experts.
Katie Couric Encourages Informed Vaccine Decision Making  
Two days after the public flogging began, Katie interviewed the Assistant Surgeon General before authoring an article for The Huffington Post responding to the firestorm with unapologetic professionalism. She acknowledged her report could have spent more time putting the statistical risk of suffering a vaccine reaction into greater perspective but she defended the inclusion of mothers reporting Gardasil reactions:
"Some people say their children have suffered from a variety of medical problems after the HPV vaccination, and there have even been a few reports of death," she said. "As a journalist, I felt that we couldn't simply ignore these reports."
Katie reinforced a call for regular pap screening:
"There's been troubling research out of Australia that indicates some women are skipping their Pap tests because they have been vaccinated. That's a terrible idea.
While the vaccine protects against some of the HPV strains that cause cervical cancers, it doesn't protect against all of them and regular Pap smears are essential for life-saving diagnoses," she said.
Katie concluded her statement by encouraging critical thinking and informed vaccine decision-making:
"I had my own two daughters vaccinated against HPV. I hope that other parents will look at the research and the facts, and make a reasoned decision on the HPV vaccine and what is best for their children," she said.
"Not Enough," He Says  
However, Katie's clarification prompted one bully to bring out the whip one more time. Under a headline complaining that "Katie Couric Backs Off from Her Anti-Vaccine Show But Not Enough," he snarled:
"The video depictions of mothers and daughters in tears will stay with thousands of Couric's loyal viewers. Her written mea culpa, not so much."
Perhaps he wanted her to walk across cut glass on her knees and whimper a little on camera so he could be convinced that she would be a good girl from now on and never, ever step out of line again.
Mothers Will Not Stop Witnessing  

One thing is as clear today as it was 32 years ago when mothers publicly witnessed how they watched their children suffer brain inflammation or die after being injected with the old, crude, and toxic DPT vaccine. Clearly, when mothers stand up in the public square today and describe how Gardasil vaccine risks for their daughters turned out to be 100 percent, deniers of vaccine risks get really, really emotional. They get angry and defensive. They gather together in a pack, take out the rope, and start cyber-lynching.
Mothers around the world, who give birth to babies they are responsible for nurturing through infancy and childhood, are not going to stop talking about what happened to their children after vaccination. Mothers are not going to shut up and sit down like good little girls after they witness the bodies and brains of the children they love be destroyed when Gardasil shots go wrong.

Mothers Will Not Stop Thinking Critically  
They are not going to stop reading the medical literature and thinking critically about the science used to justify giving every child the most expensive federally recommended pediatric vaccine on the US market to prevent an infection that is cleared by more than 90 percent of people without a problem
A vaccine developed by NIH researchers using GMO technology that was sold by NIH to Merck and fast-tracked to licensure using questionable surrogate markers for efficacy
A vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease that was tested in fewer than 1,200 children under the age of 16 using a bioactive aluminum "placebo" as a bogus control in clinical trials
A vaccine that was only tested in 1,000 adolescent girls and boys in combination with the federally recommended Tdap and meningococcal vaccines
A vaccine given by pediatricians shielded from legal accountability for vaccine injuries and deaths, just like vaccine manufacturers are shielded from civil liability in US courts
A vaccine that by December 13, 2013 had generated nearly 30,000 adverse reaction reports to the US government, including 140 deaths - which is only a fraction of the numbers of Gardasil reactions, injuries, and deaths that have actually occurred because most doctors either do not report to the government or make reports directly to Merck. 
Federal Awards, Lawsuits, Gardasil Recommendation Withdrawal
Yes, it is illogical to assume that every single one of the reported Gardasil reaction reports and deaths are caused by the vaccine, but it is just as illogical to assume that none of them are caused by the vaccine. But logic has nothing to do with one-size-fits-all vaccine policies that sacrifice individuals, who are biologically or environmentally at high risk for suffering vaccine harm, while no research is being done to identify who they are to spare their lives.
Informed mothers know that among the $3 billion in federal compensation that has been awarded to vaccine victims in the US are awards for Gardasil vaccine injuries. They know Gardasil vaccine injured girls are suing vaccine manufacturers in France, where citizens can still file product liability lawsuits. They know that public health officials in Japan no longer recommend Gardasil vaccine because Japan's government is not writing off every death and case of brain inflammation and autoimmunity following Gardasil shots as just a "coincidence."
HPV Vaccination Made a Top Public Health Priority in US
In what may or may not be a coincidence, at the end of December, the Centers for Disease Control made HPV vaccination one of the top five "public health priorities" for 2014. In one media article, the HPV vaccination rate of 30 percent in the US was compared to the 85 percent vaccination rate in Rwanda, an impoverished, war-torn country where women have been dying in great numbers from cervical cancer because there has been no routine pap screening available to them. In 2011, Merck created a school-based vaccination program for all sixth graders in Rwanda to be injected with three doses of Gardasil vaccine.
But the United States is not Rwanda. In America, cervical cancer has declined more than 70 percent after pap screening became a routine part of women's health care in the 1960s and, by 2006, pap tests had driven down the numbers of new cases of cervical cancer to 9,700 per year with about 3,700 deaths in a US population of more than 300 million people. In the US, the 14,000 annual deaths from six cancers associated with HPV represent less than three percent of the more than 550,000 cancer deaths that occur every year.
Many Other Public Health Emergencies in US Deserve Priority Status
There are many public health emergencies in our country that cause far more deaths and disabilities but do not receive a fair share of the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated by Congress to health agencies every year. For example:
Between 210,000 and 440,000 hospitalized patients each year suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.
The US has the worst infant mortality and maternal mortalityrates of all developed nations, with 28,000 babies dying before their first birthday.
Millions of children are becoming disabled or dying in the unexplained chronic illness epidemic that costs trillions of dollars to treat: one child in six in America is learning disabled; one in nine suffers from asthma; one in 10 has ADHD; 1 in 50 develops autism and 1 in 450 becomes diabetic.
Millions more are suffering from mental health problems. One adolescent in five in the US experiences significant symptoms of emotional distress, and one in 10 is emotionally impaired.
Bigger Market for Merck and HPV Vaccine Mandates?
Perhaps the CDC is simply boosting the congressionally approved, lucrative public-private partnership with Big Pharma by securing a bigger market for Merck's new 9-strain version of Gardasil scheduled to be licensed in the fall of 2014. Or perhaps the Merck-Government-Medical Trade lobby is planning another multi-state roll-out of HPV vaccine mandates for all sixth grade children in the US just like they did in 2007.
Roll Up Your Sleeve - No Questions Asked
Whatever the reasons that government officials made HPV vaccination a top public health priority in the US, the cyber-lynching of Katie Couric and mothers reporting Gardasil vaccine reactions is a warning to parents everywhere. Do not forget that the cruel, dogmatic position of vaccine risk denialism is: roll up your sleeve - no questions asked - and "may the odds be ever in your favor."
*******
More toxic rice? FDA recalls Uncle Ben's Infused Rice after victims suffer skin rashes, headaches and nausea
by Mike Adams
Wednesday, February 12, 2014

(NaturalNews) Just days after Natural News revealed the presence of the heavy metals lead, cadmium and tungsten in rice protein products, the FDA has issued an urgent recall of Uncle Ben's Infused Rice products sold to institutions like schools and nursing homes.
According to
the FDA's recall notice, "FDA's Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation Network (CORE) was notified of a cluster of illnesses at three public schools in Katy, Texas. Thirty-four students and four teachers experienced burning, itching rashes, headaches and nausea for 30 to 90 minutes, before the symptoms went away. Uncle Ben's Infused Rice Mexican Flavor with the lot number 351EKGRV01, made by Mars Foodservices of Greenville, Miss., was the common food item eaten by ill students."
This wasn't the only outbreak from Uncle Ben's Infused Rice, however. The FDA also reports on several other outbreaks of strange symptoms among children who ate the rice:
"On Dec. 4, 2013, the Illinois Department of Public Health notified CDC of 25 children with similar skin reactions following a school lunch that served an Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice product. North Dakota reported a similar incident that occurred on Oct. 30, 2013. Three children in a daycare and one college student experienced flushing reactions 45 minutes after consuming an Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice product."
The FDA recall covers:
- UNCLE BEN’S INFUSED Rice Roasted Chicken Flavor (5- and 25-pounds)
- UNCLE BEN’S INFUSED Rice Garlic & Butter Flavor (5-pounds)
- UNCLE BEN’S INFUSED Rice Mexican Flavor (5- and 25-pounds)
- UNCLE BEN’S INFUSED Rice Pilaf (5-pounds)
- UNCLE BEN’S INFUSED Rice Saffron Flavor (5-pounds)
- UNCLE BEN’S INFUSED Rice Cheese Flavor (5-pounds)
- UNCLE BEN'S INFUSED Rice Spanish Flavor (25-pounds)
This recall is just the latest in a steady stream of bad news about rice, most of which is grown in Asian countries that lack any real regulation of industrial pollution affecting agricultural regions where rice is grown.
Click here to see my new video explaining how industrial pollution contaminates rice and other crops, even when those crops seem to be grown on "clean" farms.
In November, 2012,
Consumer Reports published findings of arsenic in rice. Arsenic is a heavy metal linked to many types of cancer.
Three possible culprits that can cause rashes, headaches and nausea

What can cause these symptoms from eating rice? Lots of things, it turns out. But the three most likely culprits are:
MSG poisoning - The brain-damaging excitotoxin known as MSG is commonly used in many flavored rice products fed to schoolchildren. It's just one of the many ways in which American society brain damages the next generation of children (mercury in flu shots is another way). MSG poisoning can cause precisely the same symptoms described by the FDA in this recall notice.
Arsenic poisoning - Very high levels of the heavy metal arsenic can also cause similar reactions. Arsenic, of course, can also be deadly in very high concentrations.
Click here to see the arsenic page at Labs.Naturalnews.com. It's difficult to see how deadly levels of arsenic could have been accidentally added to the rice, so my guess is that arsenic is not the culprit here.
Toxic levels of synthetic B vitamins - Many processed food companies like to add fake, synthetic vitamins to their products to act like they are more "nutritious." A synthetic B vitamin known as niacin can cause a "niacin flush" if consumed in high doses. This can produce skin rash symptoms and possibly nausea.
Most of the food the public is served is toxic in one way or another

As this case clearly demonstrates yet again, even common, everyday foods served to children in public schools can be extremely toxic.
Yet the real story in all this is that most food is toxic at a sub-clinical level, contributing to long-term cancer, diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer's without producing immediate symptoms that anyone would notice.
The reasons why nearly all foods are toxic these days include:
Mineral depletion - Nearly all beneficial minerals have been lost from the soils or stripped out of foods during processing and refining.
Toxic heavy metals - Foods are grown in soils and irrigated with water containing alarming concentrations of toxic heavy metals like lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury.
Labs.NaturalNews.com publishes heavy metals tests results for foods and superfoods.
Toxic food additives - Toxic food additives such as MSG, sodium nitrite (which causes cancer), aspartame, MSG and chemical preservatives are routinely added to foods to give them enhanced shelf life, flavor or visual characteristics. These additives benefit food companies but cause cancer and other diseases in consumers.
Artificial modifications - The homogenization and pasteurization of milk turns fresh milk into a substance that promotes heart disease and atherosclerosis. The hydrogenation of oils turns harmless oils into substances that clog arteries and cause cancer. Artificially modified ingredients promote deadly diseases but are preferred by food companies because they enhance product stability and texture, making their processed food products seem more appealing to consumers.
How to identify and consume safe food

The answer to all this is to do your homework on what you eat. Here are five important tips for ensuring food safety and purity:
1) Buy fresh ingredients, not processed factory foods.
2) Grow as much food as you can yourself, or buy from local farmers' markets.
3) Read ingredients labels and avoid anything with added chemicals such as MSG, yeast extract, sodium nitrite or chemical preservatives.
4) Check
Labs.NaturalNews.com for heavy metals test results on popular foods and superfoods, then choose food brands with lower concentrations of heavy metals.
5) Eat more whole foods with intact fibers, as fibers tend to help protect you from toxic substances found in foods.
*******
Health Ranger decimates false argument of "naturally occurring"
*******
The true horrors of pet food revealed: Prepare to be shocked by what goes into dog food and cat food
by: Jessica Smith
Friday, October 21, 2005
If you check the labels on grocery store foods, you've probably already begun to see that the list of ingredients doesn't always tell the whole truth about what's in your food. The same goes for your pets' food. Behind innocent-sounding words like "meat byproducts" and "meat meal" are horrific manufacturing practices that would turn your stomach. The nutritional considerations of pet foods go beyond the sources of meat in them. Pet food manufacturers add dangerous preservatives and vitamin fortifications that actually make your pets' food less healthy.
What mysterious "meat byproducts" really are
Let's start with what usually appears as the protein source and the primary ingredient in pet food: Meat byproducts or meat meal. Both are euphemisms for the parts of animals that wouldn't be considered meat by any smart consumer. The well-known phrase "meat byproducts" is a misnomer since these byproducts contain little, if any, meat. These are the parts of the animal left over after the meat has been stripped away from the bone. "Chicken by-products include head, feet, entrails, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, liver, stomach, bones, blood, intestines, and any other part of the carcass not fit for human consumption," writes Henry Pasternak in Healing Animals with Nature's Cures.
Meat meal can contain the boiled down flesh of animals we would find unacceptable for consumption. This can include zoo animals, road kill, and 4-D (dead, diseased, disabled, dying) livestock. Most shockingly, this also can include dogs and cats. That's right, your pets could be cannibals. Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser writes, "Although leading American manufacturers promise never to put rendered pets into their pet food, it is still legal to do so. A Canadian company, Sanimal Inc., was putting 40,000 pounds of dead dogs and dead cats into its dog and cat food every week, until discontinuing the practice in June 2001. "This food is healthy and good," said the company's vice president of procurement, responding to critics, ''but some people don't like to see meat meal that contains any pets."
How roadkill ends up in Fido's food bowl
The process that turns these animals and animal parts into pet food is also disgusting. After all, it takes a lot to turn roadkill into something owners feel good about pouring into their pets' bowls. Ann M. Martin describes the process in Food Pets Die For: "At the rendering plant a machine slowly grinds the entire mess in huge vats. Then this product is cooked at temperatures between 220 degrees Fahrenheit and 270 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes to one hour. The mixture is centrifuged (spun at a high speed) and the grease (or tallow) rises to the top and it is removed from the mixture. The grease becomes the source of animal fat in most pet foods. Oftentimes, when you open a standard can of dog food, you will see a top layer of fat. The centrifuged product is the source of that fat, which is meant to entice a hungry dog or cat. After the grease is removed in the rendering process, the remaining material is dried. Meat meal, and meat and bone meal are the end product of this process. This dried material is usually found in dry pet food."
Chemical dangers lurk in commercial pet food
Rendering practices aren't just gross; they're also dangerous for your pets. The chemicals used to euthanize zoo animals, dogs and cats can survive the cooking process, which means these chemicals end up in pet food, and ultimately, in your pet. Martin writes, "Euthanized cats and dogs often end up in rendering vats along with other questionable material to make meat meal, and meat and bone meal. This can be problematic because sodium pentobarbital can withstand the heat from rendering. For years, some veterinarians and animal advocates have known about the potential danger of sodium pentobarbital residue in commercial pet food, yet the danger has not been alleviated." In short, that means the poisons designed to kill pets are the same ones being fed to them.
Now that you know pet food manufacturers will seemingly go to any length to fill their foods with the cheapest sources of protein they can find, you probably won't be surprised to find out that the other ingredients in pet foods aren't much better. Cheap grain fillers, cellulose to bulk up the food, preservatives and poorly monitored vitamin and mineral supplements round out the recipe. In Healing Pets with Nature's Miracle Cures, Henry Pasternak writes, "Remember, pet foods are primarily processed, grain-based diets. These foods are 'fortified' with synthetic B vitamins, which can cause a subclinical B vitamin deficiency." Martin mentions in Food Pets Die For that one bag of dog food was overloaded with so much zinc that she had to take her dog to the vet because he became ill. She took the bag of food to an independent lab to verify that the zinc content of the food was 20 times the recommended daily allowance for dogs.
Preservatives in dog and cat foods keep the foods seemingly fresh for long periods of time: "Unfortunately, harmful chemical preservatives and other artificial additives are the norm in most pet foods. Some are intentionally added by the manufacturer, while others come from the herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides used by farmers to boost crop yields," Pasternak writes. While some pet food companies have decided to use less harmful preservatives and natural preservatives, most pet food companies don't find these ingredients to be cost effective.
So what should you do with this information? Many pet owners are discovering there are more natural alternatives to commercial pet food. Natural health food stores usually stock a few varieties of organic or all-natural pet foods. There are other owners who go even further and prepare their pets' foods from real, whole ingredients. Though this might not be for everyone, some owners say it's worth the peace of mind, and it helps them feel closer to their animal companions. Be aware though, that once your pet finds out what real, whole foods take like, they may not want to go back: "I used to feed my cat canned or dry pet food, but now I prepare her food from fresh ingredients. She thrives on raw meat," writes Debra Lynn Dadd in Home Safe Home. "She will eat canned or dry food if it is a natural brand, but if I give her pet food from the supermarket, she paws around it like she's trying to cover up something in her litter box."
The experts speak on pet food processing:
Most veterinarians acquire their only knowledge on pet nutrition in elective classes in veterinary school. These classes may only last a few weeks and are often taught by representatives from pet food companies. Hill's, lams, and Purina are the largest contributors for these courses. In addition, pet food companies even donate food to the vet students for their own companion animals. This practice has become so widespread among pet food companies that the veterinary school at Colorado State University made this an agenda item for an Executive Committee meeting in 2000. "Discussion was held on how to handle dealing with pet food companies and their donations of pet food to the university," according to the Executive
Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 21
Dry food has its advantages. In fact, the dry pet food you buy in the supermarket is manufactured for your convenience as much as Fifi's and Fluffy's health. It's the nibble-at -will, no-can-opening, no-greasy-spoon, no-smelly-bowl, no-budget-busting pet food. It has lower levels of fat than canned meat because the fat seeps through the paper bags (you don't want that greasy bag on your car upholstery or in your kitchen cabinet). Fifi and Fluffy get to eat more for your money, thus getting pleasantly full tummies, while less protein, fat and digestibility keep their figures from becoming unbecomingly porcine.
Everyday Health Tips by Prevention Magazine, page 346
Fats are necessary for good health and disease prevention. Here again, fats should be raw or unrefined—not processed. Meat, fish, eggs, or milk in their natural states are the best sources of fat. The pet food industry prepares some pet foods with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids that are claimed to be effective for treating various inflammatory diseases. However, omega-3 fatty acids are quite sensitive to heat and are destroyed and easily become rancid during processing. Cod liver oil can be added to pet foods. It is a good source of omega-3 fatty acids as well as vitamin A. Proteins
Healing Pets With Nature's Miracle Cures By Henry Pasternak DVM CVA, page 77

They don't need "special" diets. Your typical pet will do nicely on typical pet food. "There are a lot of marketing gimmicks in the pet food industry that aren't necessarily in the best interest of the dog," says Dr. Donoghue. It's not always a good idea, for example, to reduce protein in the diet of a healthy old dog.
Everyday Health Tips by Prevention Magazine, page 348

Sodium Pentobarbital:

As I discuss elsewhere, euthanized cats and dogs often end up in rendering vats along with other questionable material to make meat meal, and meat and bone meal. This can be problematic because sodium pentobarbital can withstand the heat from rendering. For years, some veterinarians and animal advocates have known about the potential danger of sodium pentobarbital residue in commercial pet food, yet the danger has not been alleviated. The "Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia," states, "In euthanasia of animals intended for human or animal food, chemical agents that result in tissue residue cannot be used."
Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 57

Another staple of the Tenderer's diet, in addition to farm animals, is euthanized pets-the six or seven million dogs and cats that are killed in animal shelters every year. The city of Los Angeles alone, for example, sends some two hundred tons of euthanized cats and dogs to a rendering plant every month. Added to the blend are the euthanized catch of animal control agencies, and roadkill. (Roadkill is not collected daily, and in the summer, the better roadkill collection crews can generally smell it before they can see it) When this gruesome mix is ground and steam-cooked, the lighter, fatty material floating to the top gets refined for use in such products as cosmetics, lubricants, soaps, candles, and waxes. The heavier protein material is dried and pulverized into a brown powder—about a quarter of which consists of fecal material. The powder is used as an additive to almost all pet food as well as to livestock feed. Farmers call it "protein concentrates." In 1995, five million tons of processed slaughterhouse leftovers were sold for animal feed in the United States. I used to feed tons of the stuff to my own livestock. It never concerned me that I was feeding cattle to cattle.
Mad Cowboy By Howard F Lyman, page 12

Pet owners are horrified to learn that rendered cats and dogs can be legally recycled back into pet food. At times, this outrage leads consumers to seek change. One case in point is Valley Protein, a rendering company that operates in twenty-two states in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Southwest regions of the United States. In the first edition of Food Pets Die For, I wrote about the Baltimore City Paper reporter Van Smith who described what he observed at the Valley Protein Rendering Plant in 1995. His article was replete with photos of barrels of dead dogs and cats about to be rendered. Smith reported that there are "thousands of dead dogs, cats, raccoons, possums, deer, foxes, snakes, and the rest that local animal shelters and roadkill patrols must dispose of each month." In that same article, Smith observed, "In a gruesomely ironic twist, most inedible dead animal parts, including dead pets, end up in feed used to fatten future generations of their kind."
Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 147
Pets used in Pet Food:
While researching and writing, there were times that I was absolutely horrified with what I discovered. There were other times when I was extremely frustrated with the run-around I received from government agencies, organizations involved with the pet food industry, the rendering industry, and at times, veterinary research centers. What has kept me going is the hope that pet owners will read my findings and be convinced that their pets' health is directly related to what they eat—and that most commercial pet foods are garbage. The most objectionable source of protein for pet food is euthanized cats and dogs. It is not uncommon for thousands of euthanized dogs and cats to be delivered to rendering plants, daily, and thrown into the rendering vat—collars, I.D. tags, and plastic bags—to become part of this material called "meat meal."
Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 153
Extensive records had to be kept on the disposition of various animal proteins, and feeds that were now prohibited for cattle had to be clearly labeled as such. There were no new restrictions, however, on what could be fed to poultry, hogs, zoo animals, or pets. Indeed, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the National Food Processors Association, and the pet food Institute successfully lobbied against any new labeling requirement for pet foods. These industry groups rightly worried that the FDA's proposed warning label — "Do not feed to ruminants" — might alarm consumers about what their pets were actually being fed.
Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, page 275
The current FDA feed rules are primarily concerned with efficiency and utility, not public health. They allow cattle to be fed pigs, pigs to be fed cattle, cattle to be fed poultry, and poultry to be fed cattle. They allow dogs and cats to be fed dogs and cats. Although leading American manufacturers promise never to put rendered pets into their pet food, it is still legal to do so. A Canadian company, Sanimal Inc., was putting 40,000 pounds of dead dogs and dead cats into its dog and cat food every week, until discontinuing the practice in June 2001. "This food is healthy and good," said the company's vice president of procurement, responding to critics, "but some people don't like to see meat meal that contains any pets."
Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, page 288 Ingredients in Pet Food:
One of the dirty little secrets kept by the pet food industry is that some by-products also contain substances such as abscesses and cancerous material. In my opinion, feeding slaughterhouse wastes to animals increases their chances of getting cancer and other degenerative diseases. Some meat, especially glandular tissue, may contain high levels of hormones, which may also cause serious health problems including cancer. Unlike bacteria and viruses, these hormones are not destroyed by the high temperatures or pressure cooking used in the manufacture of pet food. Cats seem to be most adversely affected by high hormone levels.
Healing Pets With Nature's Miracle Cures By Henry Pasternak DVM CVA, page 11
PET CARE Many pet foods claim to be " 100% nutritionally complete and balanced." This claim legally can be made and printed on commercial products based on information studies using isolated nutrients and not whole foods, or by feeding the complete pet food to animals for several weeks to determine whether it prevents obvious disease or malnutrition. Although motivated by an interest to assure quality for the consumer, these tests ignore important nutritional issues and give both producer and consumer a false sense of knowledge and security. Measuring a food's merit by levels of isolated nutrients tells only a partial story. There are more than forty known, essential nutrients, and more than fifty other nutrients are under investigation. Thus, making sure a food contains appropriate amounts of only a dozen of these nutrients can't possibly assure that a food is "complete."
Home Safe Home by Debra Lynn Dadd, page 413
Harmful components (and ingredients) found in Pet food:
Unfortunately, harmful chemical preservatives and other artificial additives are the norm in most pet foods. Some are intentionally added by the manufacturer, while others come from the herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides used by farmers to boost crop yields. Many pet foods advertised as "preservative-free" do, in fact, contain preservatives. As the law is currently written, manufacturers don't have to list preservatives that they themselves did not add. Many preservatives make their way into pet food at rendering plants before the meat is even sent to the manufacturer. An analysis of several pet foods labeled "chemical free" or "all natural ingredients" found synthetic antioxidants in all samples. With continued use, low levels of these synthetic antioxidants may build up in the tissues; inges-tion of small doses over time may be just as toxic as a single large dose. About 60 percent of all herbicides, 90 percent of all fungicides, and 30 percent of all insecticides are considered to be cancer causing in and of themselves.6-7
Healing Pets With Nature's Miracle Cures By Henry Pasternak DVM CVA, page 11
Under AAFCO guidelines, acceptable meat by-product can include animal lungs, spleens, kidneys, brains, livers, blood, bones, low-temperature fatty tissue, and stomachs and intestines freed of their contents. Livers can be infested with worms (liver flukes) or diseased with cirrhosis. Lungs can be filled with pneumonia. If an animal is diseased and declared unfit for human consumption, the carcass is acceptable for pet food. Even parts of animals, such as "stick marks,"—the area of the body where animals have been injected with antibiotics, hormones, or other drugs—are cut from the carcasses intended for human consumption and used for meat by-product for pet food.
*******
*******
Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 153
Commission warned that a series of mysterious dog ailments at kennels in Michigan may be the result of fluoride contamination of pet foods. They noticed a high incidence of deformed puppies and pointed out that chronic effects of fluoride poisoning may not be noticeable for a long time.
Fluoride The Aging Factor by John Yiamouyiannis, page 16
After 45 weeks of producing fertile eggs plagued by hunger, debeaking, detoeing, decombing, toxic ammonia, and diseases, these breeder chickens are "liquidated" and turned into human animal "food" and nonhuman animal "feed" and pet food products.
Prisoned Chickens Poisoned Eggs by Karen Davis PhD, page 93
She sees the problem all the time in older canines and felines, "usually those eight years or older." She blames the commercial pet foods and owners' irresponsibility for most of it. "There is just too much sugar in everything. You can't buy a decent brand of [pet] food anymore without there being some kind of sugar in it. An animal's system will rebel just like the human body does when excess sugar is taken into it. The same autoimmune disorder that attacks human pancreatic cells that make insulin destroys the insulin-producing capabilities in our dogs and cats."
Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 87
Just as products for kids carry the same dangers as I their adult counterparts, products for pets have the same I hazards as their human counterparts—pet food contains the same carcinogenic pesticide residues, and the pesticides used in flea collars are as toxic as the pesticides used to kill any other insects. And just as babies and children are more susceptible to the effects of toxic exposures than adults, so too are animals more susceptible to the effects of toxic exposures than humans.
Home Safe Home by Debra Lynn Dadd, page 341
Slaughterhouses also provide renderers with the leftovers from slaughtered animals not fit for human consumption. Before these animal parts and by-product used for pet food are shipped from the slaughterhouse to the rendering plant, the by-product is "denatured." This means that crude carbolic acid, cresylic disinfectant, or citronella, is sprayed on the product. In the case of a whole beef or swine carcass that has been condemned, the denaturing product is injected into the entire carcass. If meat inspectors condemn only parts of an animal, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires that "before an approved denaturing agent is applied, the product must be freely slashed so that pieces are less than 4" in diameter. This allows the denaturant to contact all parts of the product."
Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 18
Both animal-care professionals weren't at all reticent about vocalizing their strong opinions about this matter. Dr. Tejinder: "There are way too many chemicals in pet food that no one knows the side effects of. And the rancid fat that is used to cook a lot of this food that pets eat only complicates things more." Dr. Stefanatos: "The pesticides, preservatives, and additives in pet food reprogram the organs so their functions behave differently. No one knows the full extent of the problem, but it's there, nevertheless." The Nature of Animal Diabetes
Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 88
Mad Cow and Other diseases:
Those of us who are intimately acquainted with what goes into commercial pet foods have no problem discerning where a good majority of liver disorders originate. In their January 1998 newsletter, Love of Animals, Dr. Bob Goldstein and his wife, Susan, featured an interesting article entitled, "The Truth About Canned Dog and Cat Foods." They note that many so-called "naturally preserved" pet foods contain meat by-products that usually come "from diseased cows or sick chickens." "These are terrible foods" they warn their readers. And the fact that they contain chemical preservatives (to keep the high fat content from going rancid) and artificial coloring agents and dyes (for eye appeal of pet owners), not to mention appetite stimulants (salt, sugar, glucose, sucrose, fructose, phosphoric acid) only makes their impact upon the average animal liver that much more deadly.
*******
*******
Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 204
Cattle—dead, diseased, dying and disabled (4-D)—can legally be rendered and used in pet foods in the United States and in Canada. Rendering will not eradicate any of the TSEs, including the chronic wasting disease in deer, elk, and roadkill, which can also be rendered for use in pet food. The U.S. government believes it is safe to render diseased cattle for use in pet foods because this practice does not affect humans since we don't eat dogs and cats. But rendering diseased cattle into pet food does potentially endanger our animal companions. This is already happening in Europe. If dogs and cats succumb to a TSE disease, would their owners know the actual cause?
Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 100
Although you won't see it on the label, since it is often added at the rendering plant and not by the manufacturer, ethoxyquin (EQ) is used to preserve most dry pet food. First used as a rubber stabilizer, EQ is the most powerful of all preservatives and may be the most toxic. Originally, it was permitted in livestock food. So since pet food is considered animal feed, the use of EQ is also permitted in pet food. The fish industry uses high levels of EQ; factory workers exposed to it exhibited side effects similar to those of agent orange: a dramatic rise in liver or kidney damage, cancerous skin lesions, hair loss, blindness, leukemia, fetal abnormalities, and chronic diarrhea. In animals, EQ has been linked to immune deficiency syndrome; spleen, stomach, and liver cancers; and a host of allergies.
Healing Pets With Nature's Miracle Cures By Henry Pasternak DVM CVA, page 11
In Dr. Pitcairn's Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs & Cats (Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, Inc., 1995), the author, a renowned veterinarian, lists a number of other factors that could expose a family dog or cat to possible carcinogens. "These include," he writes, "… consuming pet foods high in organ meats and meat meal (concentrators of pesticides, and growth hormones used to fatten cattle, which can promote cancer growth) as well as in preservatives and artificial colors known to cause cancer in lab animals."
Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 78
*******Also See:
If You Know What's Good For You ...
(Part 1)
19 February 2009
and
(Part 2)
01 August 2009
and
(Part 3)
02 March 2010
and
(Part 4)
28 September 2010
and
(Part 5)
15 March 2011
and
(Part 6)
20 July 2011
and
(Part 7)
09 October 2011
and
(Part 8)
12 December 2011
and
(Part 9)
09 March 2012
and
(Part 10)
12 July 2012
and
(Part 11)
30 October 2012
and
(Part 12)
11 February 2013
and
(Part 13)
11 May 2013
and
(Part 14)
01 August 2013
and
(Part 15)
14 December 2013
and
Vitamins, Genetic Food, Health
03 April 2007
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2007/04/vitamins-genetic-food-health.html
and
FDA - Drugs, Vaccines & Vitamin Supplements
(Part 1)
07 July 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2008/07/marching-towards-police-state.html
and
How Safe Is Our Food?
(Part 1)
06 December 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2008/12/food-how-safe-is-it.html
and
(Part 2)
26 March 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-safe-is-our-food-part-2.html
and
Genetic Manipulated Foods Are Not Healthy!
24 May 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2009/05/genetic-manipulated-foods-are-not.html
and
Losing Weight - Are Diets Detrimental to Health?
16 September 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2010/09/too-much-too-young-teen-body-obsession.html
and
No More Fluoride in the Water - Waterloo, Ontario
08 November 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-more-floride-in-water-waterloo.html
and
No More Fluoride in the Water - Portland, Oregon
05 June 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/06/major-victory-as-portland-oregon-votes.html
and
Why is Fluoride in Our Water?
09 January 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-is-fluoride-in-our-water.html
and
Medication Errors are a Major Killer!
(Part 1)
04 February 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2011/02/medication-errors-are-major-killer.html
and
Can't Sleep? There is Help!
08 February 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2011/02/cant-sleep-there-is-help.html
and
Avoid Chemotherapy and Radiation!
19 November 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2011/11/chemotherapy-and-radiation.html
*******