September 24, 2010
Two new studies add to the growing body of research about the many health benefits of consuming blueberries. Researchers from Pennington Biomedical Research Center (PBRC) have found that blueberries help to prevent obesity-related insulin resistance, which leads to type 2 diabetes, while researchers from Oklahoma State University (OSU) have found similar success in using blueberries to prevent hypertension.
Published in the October issue of The Journal of Nutrition, the PBRC study found that obese participants who consumed blueberry-rich smoothies twice a day for 42 days experienced an increase in insulin sensitivity compared to participants who consumed an equally nutritious, but blueberry-free, smoothie twice a day for the same time period.
None of the participants had diabetes at the time of the study, but the blueberry compounds appeared to actually regulate the obesity-related insulin factors that are implicated in causing pre-diabetes and diabetes.
In the OSU study, which was also published in The Journal of Nutrition, researchers observed that patients with pre-hypertension — that is, elevated blood pressure levels that are not quite at full hypertension levels — responded well to drinking a beverage once a day for eight weeks that contained two cups of blended blueberries.
According to Arpita Basu, professor of nutritional sciences at OSU and author of the study, the blueberry group saw an average drop of seven-to-eight points in systolic blood pressure by the end of the evaluation period.
“Many patients rely too heavily on medication to help control blood glucose,” explained Basu. “A diet that includes blueberries is a component of a healthier lifestyle that also includes diet and exercise.”
September 24, 2010
The diabetes drug Avandia, shown to raise heart attack risk by 40 percent in a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, was banned today across many European countries in a coordinated global announcement. The FDA didn’t quite ban the drug but placed it under severe restrictions that will all but guarantee the drug’s sales in the United States drop to almost zero.
Specifically, the FDA’s new restrictions require that doctors and patients first “try every other diabetes medication” before turning to Avandia as a last resort. And even then, they must acknowledge being made aware of the drug’s serious risks.
The Avandia scam
Avandia has been the subject of seemingly endless accusations and criticisms from both alternative and conventional medicine practitioners. Just here on NaturalNews.com, we reported how the FDA’s own scientists backing Avandia’s so-called “safety” had financial ties to the drug manufacturer (http://www.naturalnews.com/029268_f…).
We exposed the Avandia fraud (http://www.naturalnews.com/029252_A…) and revealed how GSK hid evidence that Avandia was harming users (http://www.naturalnews.com/028233_G…). We reported how California suedGlaxoSmithKline for false advertising over the drug (http://www.naturalnews.com/028918_f…) and how even the FDA knew of Avandia’sdangers years ago but did nothing (http://www.naturalnews.com/021864.html).
Notably, some of these stories were published as far back as 2007. The FDA, we now know, knew about the dangers of Avandia as early as 2003 but chose to ignore the drug’s dangers in a bid to protect the profits of the drug industry.
Tens of thousands likely died
There’s no telling exactly how many diabetes patients actually died from the FDA’s lack of enforcement action on this drug, but realistic estimates based on Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steven Nissen’s work point to many tens of thousands of people dying needlessly from heart attacks.
Meanwhile, Avandia hasn’t cured a single case of diabetes. That’s because the drug doesn’t really cure anything. It only suppresses symptoms of diabetes while ignoring the underlying causes of diabetes.
Today’s decision by the FDA is seven years too late for all those likely tens of thousands of people who are dead. And even today, after all the evidence that has surfaced and all the shocking revelations about this drug, the FDA still can’t bring itself to ban the drug because it’s just too deeply in bed with Big Pharma.
European regulators have simply banned it. They don’t want their people dying from a drug that exhibits a scientifically-validated and highly significant increase in heart attacks. But the FDA, it seems, is always willing to sacrifice a few thousand more lives for the benefit of Big Pharma profits. There’s almost never a drug too dangerous for the FDA to keep on the market in one way or another.
The role of patients
Still, you can’t blame the drug companies and the FDA for everything. Patients who died from Avandia side effects have a role in their own deaths, too.
The typical diabetes patient (but not everyone) is an overweight, sedentary dead foods eater who won’t exercise, won’t eat healthy foods and lives on high sugar, processed dead foods. (Most of the, by the way, drink diet soda laced with aspartame, too.) Astonishingly, many have been convinced by doctors and pharmaceutical advertising that they can counteract their atrocious lifestyle choices by popping a chemical pill.
Most of these patients foolishly believe that their health rests in the hands of their doctor and not their own actions. They believe they can keep eating junk foods and liquid sugars while somehow a magic little pill will warp the rules of the universe and exclude them from the laws of biological cause and effect.
In that way, these diabetes patients who rely on medications play an often overlooked role in their own disease. Sure, Big Pharma and the FDA are at fault for misleading people, but people can’t put all the blame on pharma when they are the ones swallowing these lies, pretending they can keep pursuing a diabetes-causing lifestyle while somehow escaping the consequences of their actions.
People who were victimized by Avandia and GSK allowed themselves to become victims. No one forced them to swallow any pills. They did so willingly and often quite eagerly. They chose to take medications instead of eating right as others have done to reverse their diabetes. Drew Carey, for example, reversed his diabetes through changes in diet and exercise, not by taking chemical medications.
As adults, people have the responsibility to check the safety of what they swallow. One search of “Avandia safety” on Google at a public library would have turned up an enormous amount of information warning people not to take this drug, even as far back as 2006.
And frankly, any person who still trusts Big Pharma and the FDA today — after all the scandals, scams and corruption that has been reported in the media — is probably living in a fantasy land and needs a reality check.
To swallow anything made by a pharmaceutical company is to swallow one great big lie. And that lie may very well kill you.
September 24, 2010
Beware of Senate bill 3767, the so-called Food Safety Accountability Act. This dangerous legislation, if passed, would criminalize nutritional supplement manufacturers who tell the truth about their products or link to published scientific studies describing the biological benefits of their products. Based on language in the bill, health proponents who sell supplements could be criminalized and convicted to ten years in prison.
The Life Extension Foundation recently published an important warning piece about this, complete with some call to action items for which we need your help.
Here’s what was written by William Faloon and published at LEF (http://www.lef.org/featured-article…). I agree with every word written here and urge you to read this and take this message seriously, then do your part to oppose this new legislative tyranny that seeks to criminalize dietary supplement manufacturers.
Congress Seeks to put Dietary Supplement Makers in Jail for Ten Years!
by William Faloon, LEF.org
The Senate is debating a bill that will enable the FDA to put vitamin supplement makers in jail for ten years if they cite findings from peer-reviewed published scientific studies on the label of their dietary supplements or their web site.
The pretext for these draconian proposals is a bill titled the Food Safety Accountability Act (S. 3767). The ostensible purpose of the bill is to punish anyone who knowingly contaminates food for sale. Since there are already strong laws to punish anyone who commits this crime, this bill serves little purpose other than enriching pharmaceutical interests.
The sinister scheme behind this bill is to exploit the public’s concern about food safety. Drug companies want to convince your Senators that an overreaching law needs to be enacted to grant the FDA powers to define “food contamination” any way it chooses.
Even today, the FDA can proclaim a dietary supplement as “misbranded” even if the best science in the world is used to describe its biological effects in the body. The concern is that the FDA will use the term “misbranded” in the same way it defines “adulterated” in order to jail dietary supplement makers as if they were selling contaminated food.
The new bill being debated in the Senate increases the penalties the FDA can use to threaten supplement makers to ten years in prison. The big issue here is that the FDA will use this as a hammer to threaten and coerce small companies into signing crippling consent decrees that will deny consumers access to truthful non-misleading information about natural approaches to protect against age-related disease.
Please tell your two Senators to OPPOSE the Food Safety Accountability Act (S. 3767). You can do this in a few minutes on our convenient Legislative Action Center on our Web site.Click here to take action now.
If you’d like to read the legal details about this bill, log on to the Alliance for Natural Health Web site: http://www.anh-usa.org/breaking-new…
Health-conscious consumers have succeeded in preventing Congress from capitulating to the pharmaceutical industry this year. Please continue this string of victories by telling your Senators to OPPOSE this underhanded attempt (S. 3767) to grant the FDA dictatorial new powers.
Due to the short session before Congress adjourns for the election, please alert your two Senators today!
September 24, 2010
The Justice Department’s Inspector General has issued a report critical of the FBI for its spying on anti-war activists, animal-rights groups, and environmentalists. The report, entitled A Review of the FBI’s Investigations of Certain Domestic Advocacy Groups, said the “terror” investigations were “unreasonable and inconsistent with FBI policy.”
In fact, since the creation of the FBI in 1935, the agency has served as a secret police force and has been used against official enemies of the state, including the civil rights and anti-war movements.
Prior to the establishment of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, as special assistant to attorney general A. Mitchell Palmer, used the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 to launch a massive campaign against official enemies, mostly labor activists, communists, and anarchists. The effort to “neutralize” — as Hoover called it — opposition to the government reached its zenith in the 1960s with the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program, or COINTELPRO.
If the Inspector General’s report reveals anything, it is that COINTELPRO is alive and well today. “From this broad review we identified particular FBI investigations and other activities that potentially implicated the First Amendment activities of the groups or their members,” the report explains.
“A separate Justice Department investigation released earlier this year concluded that the bureau used lies and trickery to illegally obtain thousands of records, then issued after-the-fact approvals in an attempt to cover it up,” writes Alex Newman for the New American. “That report claimed agents repeatedly and knowingly violated the law by invoking non-existent ‘terror emergencies’ to get access to information they were not authorized to have. And among those targeted were journalists.”
“The FBI gave inaccurate information to Congress and the public when it claimed a possible terrorism link to justify surveilling an anti-war rally in Pittsburgh, the Justice Department’s inspector general said Monday in a report on the bureau’s scrutiny of domestic activist groups,” reports CBS and the Associated Press.
In other words, the agency lied to the American people when it said the Thomas Merton Center, a nonviolent anti-war organization, was a haven for terrorists. According to the FBI, people involved in civil disobedience, trespassing and vandalism are engaged in terrorist activities.
The Justice Department report underscores a pattern of continuing government abuse. Last week it was revealed that the Pennsylvania department of Homeland Security had hired an Israeli company to spy on Second Amendment activists and the Tea Party. “Pennsylvania militia groups apparently are planning on attending” a pro-Second Amendment rally, the Israeli company, the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response, said in a bulletin. It warned law enforcement might have to provide “crowd control.”
The release last year of a federal Department of Homeland Security report on “right-wing extremism” reveals that the government is concerned about the political activity of returning veterans, Second Amendment advocates, pro-life activists, and members of the sovereign citizen movement.
September 24, 2010
Dirk Van Dijk
Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance climbed by 12,000 last week to 465,000. That is the first increase in five weeks.
Since claims can be volatile from week to week, it is better to track the four-week moving average to get a better sense of the trend. It declined by 3,250 to 463,250. After declining sharply in the second half of 2009, the four-week moving average has been stuck in a tight trading range.
Just over a month ago, the weekly number hit 500,000 and threatened to break out to the upside from the range, but the decline over the last month brought us down to 450,000 (before being revised up to 453,000), which brought hopes that we might be breaking out to the downside.
September 24, 2010
What used to be talked about as “conspiracy theory” is now being discussed openly among the nations of the world. A global currency called the “Bancor” may soon be the global currency, and along with it a global central bank.
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.”
Those were the words of Mayer Amscel Rothschild of the Elite Rothschild Banking Family of Europe. And it is apparent that those in power hope to gain control of not only a single nation’s money, but of all nations’ monetary systems into a single Central Bank with a Global Currency. In that instance, whoever controls the monetary system of the world, will in effect control the policies and laws globally as well.
One of the priliminary measures of incorporating a global currency, however, seems to be the destruction of currencies around the globe in order to justify its inception.
Steps for bringing about this New World Order currency have been in the works for a long time, and the proponents are patient and deliberate. Calls for a global currency began to come about after WWII, when John Maynard Keynes and the British government proposed the “Bancor” as a world reserve currency.
Although it has taken time and effort, it looks as though the current economic crisis has set the stage for the demise of the dollar as a world reserve currency to make way for the proposed Bancor.
The Federal Reserve and our government are also in on the plan apparently, as the Fed continues to devalue the dollar through “easing” as they call it, or printing more and more of it. Our government then continues to grow and spend more and more as well, only to exasterbate the problem.
Of course, Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner said back in 2009 that the U.S. would be open to a world currency as well!
In this video Geithner was at a Council on Foreign Relations conference, and was asked about a proposal from China’s Central Bank Governor to expand the role of the IMF’s use of SDRs (Special Drawing Rights), whereupon Geithner said ” ..We’re actually quite open to that suggestion.”
Geithner then went on further to say however, that ” ..But you should think of it as rather evolutionary building on the current architecture, rather than to moving us to a global monetary union.” Geithner obviously knows that increasing the use of SDRs to the IMF will eventually make way for “a global monetary union” as he puts it.
How do I know this? In a recent document by the International Monetary Fund, drafted on April 13, 2010 titled Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability , the report shows that while there are benefits to the use of SDRs, there are also some limitations and drawbacks.
One of those drawbacks stated in the same document is the fact that the SDR is not a currency:
From SDR to Bancor. A limitation of the SDR as discussed previously is that it is not acurrency. Both the SDR and SDR-denominated instruments need to be converted eventually to a national currency for most payments or interventions in foreign exchange markets, which adds to cumbersome use in transactions. and though an SDR-based system would move away from a dominant currency, the SDR’r value remains heavily linked to conditions and performance of the major component countries.A more ambitious reform option would be to build on the previous ideas and develop, over time, a global currency. Pg 26. (emphasis mine)
Also to be noticed is the latter portion of the video, where Geithner says these very pertinent words:
“It is very important just to underscore that… the future evolution of the dollar’s role in the system, depends really primarilly on how effective we are here in the United States, in getting not just recovery back on track, our financial system repaired, but we get our fiscal position back to the point where people will judge it as sustainable..”
If these are the parameters for avoiding a global currency, then we are in serious trouble. It looks as though we may see the bancor soon.
In an article by James Turk on Kitco.com, he states clearly that the Fed is printing too much money and rapidly devaluating the dollar. He states in the article that commodity prices are rising not because of good economic activity, but because of what the Fed calls “quantitative easing“. He states two reasons for this:
1. Because too much money has been printed for years, not just over the past three months, which can be illustrated by comparing M3 to the total US population. In 2000 there were $26,977 in circulation, as measured by M3, for every man, woman and child in the United States. That amount has ballooned to $46,538, a 7.1% annual rate of growth, which is more than 7-times the 0.9% annual rate of population growth during this period.
2. Demand for money is usually ignored, but it is an important part of the equation. Unfortunately, demand cannot be measured, so we again need to rely on observations of market prices to determine the prevailing trend in the demand for dollars at any moment. So, for example, let’s look at the US Dollar Index, which measures the dollar’s rate of exchange against a basket of currencies. While commodities have been rising since June 4th, the Dollar Index has been falling. It is down 7.9% over this period, a 27.6% annualized rate of decline. Given that people are opting to hold other currencies in preference to the dollar, as evidenced by the dollar’s falling exchange rate, it is clear that the demand for the dollar is falling.
Carrol Quigely stated a similar development of a world bank in collaboration with central banks around the world, but with far more sinister motives and not the rosy picture Mr. Stephen Gallo is painting:
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.”
Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University
The housing market collapse, auto industry government takover, Wall Street and Banker bailouts, as well as the reduction in manufacturing here in the United States among other things, are all contrived events by the Elites in order to systematically crush our economy and our currency, in order to make way for this ominous takeover of the world’s monetary systems and the completion of a New World Order Feudalistic Dictatorship.
September 24, 2010
By Curt Nimmo
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will consider action today on a bill entitled Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, ostensibly designed to allow the Justice Department to combat copyright infringement. “The legislation authorizes the Justice Department to file a court order against the domain name and seek an order from the court stating that the domain name is being used to access a website that is engaging in illegal activities,” reports TechNewsDaily.
In addition, the bill contains provisions to block sites with domain names and TLDs (top-level domains) that are maintained by overseas companies, which are immune to US laws.
The bipartisan legislation “amounts to the Holy Grail of intellectual-property enforcement,” writes David Kravets for Wired. “Websites eligible for Justice Department targeting – if the measure is approved – must be ‘dedicated to infringing activities,’ according to the text’s language. A site can be ‘subject to civil forfeiture’ if it’s ‘primarily designed’ as a pirate site with ‘no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use’ other than to distribute pirated or counterfeited wares,’” according to Kravets.
Congress and the Obama administration, however, have demonstrated antipathy toward the idea of a free and open internet regardless of copyright infringement. Earlier this year, Senator Joe Lieberman pushed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, legislation designed to give Obama dictatorial power to shut down the internet under the rubric of national security.
“Senators pushing the bill rejected the claim that the bill was a ‘kill switch’ for the Internet, not by denying that Obama would be given the authority to shut down the Internet as part of this legislation, but by arguing that he already had the power to do so,” Paul Joseph Watson reported on June 25, 2010.
As Philip Giraldi notes, the government continues to invent excuses to intervene into the internet. All of these “arguments for intervention are essentially themselves fraudulent and are in reality being exploited by those who favor big government and state control,” writes Giraldi. “The real reason for controlling the internet is to restrict access to information, something every government seeks to do.”
In July, a hosting company pulled the plug on Blogetery, a blog website, after the FBI told the hosting service that a blog on the site had posted bomb-making information. “Sources close to the investigation say that included in those materials were the names of American citizens targeted for assassination by al-Qaeda. Messages from Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the terrorist organization, as well as bomb-making tips, were also allegedly found on the server,” CNet News reported on July 19.
“The extreme response implies a possible presumed terrorist connection, but it is important to note that no one was charged with any actual offense, revealing that the government can close down sites based only on suspicion,” writes Giraldi.
On Wednesday, senior Obama administration officials argued that “al-Qaeda inspiration… has become increasingly accessible through the Internet, and English-language Web sites are tailored to address the unique concerns of U.S.-based extremists,” according to the Washington Post.
Is it possible, in the event the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act is enacted, the government will use the law to shut down disfavored websites, using the excuse of copyright infringement?
In 2009, the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller said the internet not only represents a threat to national security, but also said we would all be better off if the technology had never been invented.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act is the latest effort by the government to control and eventually roll back the free and open internet under the guise of protecting copyright. In 2008, Alex Jones detailed government efforts to shut down the internet and kill off the most effective technology ever devised to spread truth and counter government and corporate media propaganda.