The Kevin Trudeau Show: 6-27-11

June 27, 2011 by Brandy  
Filed under Archives

Today, Kevin gives you more proof that the FDA is only protecting the profits of big corporations and that the government is hiding documentation revealing the link between sunscreens and skin cancer!

Self Help:
Turn Your Health Around
Show KT You Stand With Him

Health:
The FDA Is Not Protecting You!
Sunscreen May Actually Accelerate Cancer
Birth Defects Caused By World’s Top-Selling Weedkiller

NWO:
Elderly Woman Asked to Remove Adult Diaper During TSA Search
The Monsanto World Takeover

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Stand with KT!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!


Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!

Monsanto Trying to Take Over World Seed Supply, Nation By Nation

June 27, 2011 by Andrew  
Filed under Government

June 27th, 2011

Natural News

By:

He who controls the seed controls the food supply; and he who controls the food supply controls the world. There is no question that Monsanto is on a mission to monopolize the conventional seed market. In fact, they are steadfastly working towards the goal of creating a world where 100% of all commercial seeds are genetically modified and patented- basically a world where natural seeds are extinct.

Unfortunately for the global community Monsanto is accomplishing their purpose. They currently own 90% of the world’s patents for GMO seed including cotton, soybeans, corn, sugar beets and canola.

Yep, the creators of chemicals that will go down in history for their toxicity and horrific side effects, is attempting to take over the world’s seed supply. Ask yourself- do you really want companies such as BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow involved with your food? Sadly, to a large extent they already are. These Monsanto chemical and GMO cronies all share genetically engineered traits and create the patented herbicides and pesticides that GMO crops require to thrive.

Monsanto is infamous for taking advantage of small farmers, and with the advent of MoU’s they are doing so with governmental license. Countries like India, Pakistan, Australia, and New Zealand have all executed MoU’s with Monsanto. MoU’s or memorandum’s of understanding permit Monsanto to use publicly owned lands to create so called demonstration farms (GMO breeding camps) which in turn -at least in the case of Rajasthan – are subsidized by the government.

Monsanto literally takes farmer seeds, creates genetically engineered copycat versions, and then retains all intellectual property rights. Dr. Vandana Shiva, Executive Director of the Navdanya Trust, an Indian organization committed to organic biodiversity, states that “the MoU’s will in effect, facilitate bio-piracy of Rajasthan’s rich biodiversity of draught -resilient crops …. by failing to have any clauses that respect the Biodiversity Act and the Farmers’ Rights Act, the MoU’s promote bio-piracy and legalize the great seed robbery.”

It is common knowledge that GMO seeds are much worse than conventional ones. As with all of their agreements, Monsanto shields itself from any liability- so when the Monsanto’s promises of higher yields with less work ring hollow, when farmers crops fail, or when mass suicides are committed because of crop failure and spirit crushing debt- Monsanto presses on with no worries.

Farmers that sign up for Monsanto’s seeds of destruction find themselves hooked. Year after year, no matter what prices are being charged, they are dependent on GMO seeds for new crops because GMO seeds – the bastardized versions they are – don’t regenerate.

Monsanto has no qualms about robbing farmers that don’t play poker with them. As a mater of fact; it makes a business of it. Conventional and organic farmers in both Canada and the U.S., who have the misfortune of having lands that border GMO farms, often end up with trace contamination in their crops, making them (if organic), unsuitable for sale. Monsanto actually uses this situation against farmers and files patent infringement claims that they often win.

The result farm owners are left with exorbitant legal bills and fines often forcing them to shut down: clearing away Monsanto competition. In a savvy move for survival, a preemptive suit on behalf of almost 300,000 plaintiffs seeking legal safe harbor, has been filed in New York.

Monsanto’s product has changed from poison to food, but it has held true to its history of violating the rights and health of people around the globe. Monsanto is a 100% committed to the sale of their seeds of destruction no matter what it takes: bullying, infiltration of high government offices with company friendly individuals, or intimidation. The organic movement has taken up the standard against Monsanto’s machinations in court as well as through grassroots education and activist efforts. The organic revolution is Monsanto’s Achilles heel, and its goal is a world without Monsanto.

Click here for the full report from Natural News

Elderly Woman Asked to Remove Adult Diaper During TSA Search

June 27, 2011 by Andrew  
Filed under NWO

June 27th, 2011

NewsHerald.com

By: Lauren Sage Reinlie

A woman has filed a complaint with federal authorities over how her elderly mother was treated at Northwest Florida Regional Airport last weekend.

Jean Weber of Destin filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security after her 95-year-old mother was detained and extensively searched last Saturday while trying to board a plane to fly to Michigan to be with family members during the final stages of her battle with leukemia.

Her mother, who was in a wheelchair, was asked to remove an adult diaper in order to complete a pat-down search.

“It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,” Weber said Friday. “Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.”

Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration in Miami, said she could not comment on specific cases to protect the privacy of those involved.

“The TSA works with passengers to resolve any security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,” she said.

Weber’s mother entered the airport’s security checkpoint in a wheelchair because she was not stable enough to walk through, Weber said.

Wheelchairs trigger certain protocols, including pat-downs and possible swabbing for explosives, Koshetz said.

“During any part of the process, if there is an alarm, then we have to resolve that alarm,” she said.

Weber said she did not know whether her mother had triggered an alarm during the 45 minutes they were detained.

She said her mother was first pulled aside into a glass-partitioned area and patted down. Then she was taken to another room to protect her privacy during a more extensive search, Weber said.

Weber said she sat outside the room during the search.

She said security personnel then came out and told her they would need for her mother to remove her Depends diaper because it was soiled and was impeding their search.

Weber wheeled her mother into a bathroom, removed her diaper and returned. Her mother did not have another clean diaper with her, Weber said.

Weber said she wished there were less invasive search methods for an elderly person who is unable to walk through security gates.

“I don’t understand why they have to put them through that kind of procedure,” she said.

Koshetz said the procedures are the same for everyone to ensure national security.

“TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability,” she said.

Weber filed a complaint through Northwest Florida Regional’s website. She said she received a response from a Homeland Security representative at the airport on Tuesday and spoke to that person on the phone Wednesday.

The representative told her that personnel had followed procedures during the search, Weber said.

“Then I thought, if you’re just following rules and regulations, then the rules and regulations need to be changed,” she said.

Weber said she plans to file additional complaints next week.

“I’m not one to make waves, but dadgummit, this is wrong. People need to know. Next time it could be you.”

Click here for the full report from NewsHerald.com

Birth Defects Caused By World’s Top-Selling Weedkiller

June 27, 2011 by Andrew  
Filed under Health

June 27th, 2011

The Huffington Post

By: Lucia Graves

The chemical at the heart of the planet’s most widely used herbicide — Roundup weedkiller, used in farms and gardens across the U.S. — is coming under more intense scrutiny following the release of a new report calling for a heightened regulatory response around its use.

Critics have argued for decades that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides used around the globe, poses a serious threat to public health. Industry regulators, however, appear to have consistently overlooked their concerns.

A comprehensive review of existing data released this month by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open-source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, suggests that industry regulators in Europe have known for years that glyphosate, originally introduced by American agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto in 1976, causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals.

Founded in 2009, Earth Open Source is a non-profit organization incorporated in the U.K. but international in scope. Its three directors, specializing in business, technology and genetic engineering, work pro-bono along with a handful of young volunteers. Partnering with half a dozen international scientists and researchers, the group drew its conclusions in part from studies conducted in a number of locations, including Argentina, Brazil, France and the United States.

Earth Open Source’s study is only the latest report to question the safety of glyphosate, which is the top-ranked herbicide used in the United States. Exact figures are hard to come by because the U.S. Department of Agriculture stopped updating its pesticide use database in 2008. The EPA estimates that the agricultural market used 180 to 185 million pounds of glyphosate between 2006 and 2007, while the non-agricultural market used 8 to 11 million pounds between 2005 and 2007, according to its Pesticide Industry Sales & Usage Report for 2006-2007 published in February, 2011.

The Earth Open Source study also reports that by 1993 the herbicide industry, including Monsanto, knew that visceral anomalies such as dilation of the heart could occur in rabbits at low and medium-sized doses. The report further suggests that since 2002, regulators with the European Commission have known that glyphosate causes developmental malformations in lab animals.

Even so, the commission’s health and consumer division published a final review report of glyphosate in 2002 that approved its use in Europe for the next 10 years.

As recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BLV), a government agency conducting a review of glyphosate, told the European Commission that there was no evidence the compound causes birth defects, according to the report.

The agency reached that conclusion despite almost half a dozen industry studies that found glyphosate produced fetal malformations in lab animals, as well as an independent study from 2007 that found that Roundup induces adverse reproductive effects in the male offspring of a certain kind of rat.

German regulators declined to respond in detail for this story because they say they only learned of the Earth Open Source report last week. The regulators emphasized that their findings were based on public research and literature.

Although the European Commission originally planned to review glyphosate in 2012, it decided late last year not to do so until 2015. And it won’t review the chemical under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030, according to the report.

The European Commission told HuffPost that it wouldn’t comment on whether it was already aware of studies demonstrating the toxicity of glyphosate in 2002. But it said the commission was aware of the Earth Open Source study and had discussed it with member states.

“Germany concluded that study does not change the current safety assessment of gylphosate,” a commission official told HuffPost in an email. “This view is shared by all other member states.”

John Fagan, a doctor of molecular and cell biology and biochemistry and one of the founders of Earth Open Source, acknowledged his group’s report offers no new laboratory research. Rather, he said the objective was for scientists to compile and evaluate the existing evidence and critique the regulatory response.

“We did not do the actual basic research ourselves,” said Fagan. “The purpose of this paper was to bring together and to critically evaluate all the evidence around the safety of glyphosate and we also considered how the regulators, particularly in Europe, have looked at that.”

For its part, Earth Open Source said that government approval of the ubiquitous herbicide has been rash and problematic.

“Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable,” wrote the report’s authors. “What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.

“They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so,” the authors added. “This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards.”

Monsanto spokeswoman Janice Person said in a statement that the Earth Open Source report presents no new findings.

Click here for the full report from The Huffington Post

Natural Amino Acids Preferable to Antibiotics for Treating Infections

June 27, 2011 by Andrew  
Filed under Health

June 27th, 2011

Natural News

By: Jonathan Benson

As most NaturalNews readers probably already know, there is a rapidly-growing resistance to antibiotics that has given way to antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), and even the strongest antibiotic drugs available have all but lost their ability to treat even the most common infections that afflict people today.

However, a research scientist from the Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology IZI in Leipzig, Germany, has discovered that simple, natural amino acids work better than antibiotics at treating infections, and they do not cause harm to healthy cells in the body.

For their study, Dr. Andreas Schubert and his colleagues from Fraunhofer tested the effects of amino acids in vitro and found that they broke through bacterial membranes and penetrated them quicker and with less of a required concentration than antibiotic drugs. And the best part of all was that the amino acids caused no cell damage, unlike antibiotics which kill off beneficial bacteria in the system as well as harmful bacteria.

“Antibiotic peptides (from amino acids) unlock their microbicidal effect within a few minutes. They also work at a concentration of less than 1 microliter, compared with conventional antibiotics which require a concentration of 10 microliters,” said Schubert as part of his test results. “The spectrum of efficacy of the tested peptides includes not only bacteria and molds but also lipid-enveloped viruses. Another key factor is that the peptides identified in our tests do not harm healthy body cells.”

The findings are revolutionary, because they show that amino acids work on virtually every infection, including even MRSA and CRKP. And because amino acids occur naturally in various foods like nuts, grass-fed meats and dairy products, beans, seafood, eating more of these foods regularly can help boost levels of these vital nutrients without the need for drugs. Amino acids supplements are also a great way to boost amino acid levels to optimal levels in order to prevent or treat infections.

“We have already identified 20 of these short chains of amino acids which kill numerous microbes, including enterococci, yeasts and molds, as well as human pathogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans, which is found in the human oral cavity and causes tooth decay,” said Dr. Andreas Schubert, group manager of Fraunhofer. “Even the multi-resistant hospital bug Staphylococcus aureus is not immune, and in our tests its growth was considerably inhibited.”

Click here for the full report from Natural News

7 Surprising Things You’re Not Supposed to Know About Sunscreen and Sunlight Exposure

June 27, 2011 by Andrew  
Filed under Health

June 27th, 2011

Natural News

By: Mike Adams

Ask somebody about sunscreen and you’re likely to receive an earful of disinformation from a person who has been repeatedly misinformed by health authorities and the mainstream media. Almost nothing you hear about sunscreen from traditional media channels is accurate. So here’s a quick guide to the 7 most important things you need to know about sunscreen, sunlight and vitamin D:

#1) The FDA refuses to allow natural sunscreen ingredients to be used in sunblock / sunscreen products

It’s true: If you create a truly natural sunscreen product using exotic botanicals with powerful sunscreen properties, you will never be able to market it as a “sunscreen” product. That’s because the FDA decides what can be used as sunscreen and what can’t, regardless of what really works in the real world. And there are really only two natural ingredients the FDA has allowed to be sold as sunscreen: Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

Any other non-chemical sunscreen ingredients, if sold as “sunscreen,” would be considered mislabeled by the FDA and result in your products being confiscated… even if they offer fantastic sunscreen protection!

Not surprisingly, this whole monopoly over sunscreen chemicals is designed to protect the profits of the chemical companies while marginalizing the natural product companies which could easily formulate far better solutions. I have personally spoken to the founders of several health product companies who have figured out amazing sunscreen formulations using nothing but natural botanicals, but the FDA won’t let them market their products as sunscreen products!

It’s just another example of the FDA standing in the way of health innovation.

#2) Nearly all conventional sunscreen products contain cancer-causing chemicals

Read the ingredients list of any sunscreen product sold at Wal-Mart, or Walgreens, or any other mainstream store. I dare ya!

You will not be able to pronounce most of the chemicals found in the ingredients list. That’s because most sunscreen products are formulated with cancer-causing fragrance chemicals, parabens, harsh alcohols, toxic chemical solvents and petroleum oils. A typical sunscreen product is actually a chemical assault on your body. That’s why research shows that using sunscreen actually causes more cancer than it prevents.

#3) In a nation where over 70% of the population is vitamin D deficiency, sunscreen actually blocks vitamin D production

Vitamin D deficiency is perhaps the most widespread vitamin deficiency in North America. According to the research, 70 percent of whites are deficient in vitamin D, and up to 97 percent of blacks are deficient.

Chronic vitamin D deficiency promotes cancer, winter flu and infections, depression, osteoporosis and hormonal imbalances. Depending on whom you believe, vitamin D alone can prevent anywhere from 50% to nearly 80% of all cancers.

By blocking vitamin D production in the skin, sunscreen products actually contribute to cancer-promoting nutritional deficiencies.

This doesn’t mean you should never wear a sunscreen product, of course. If your skin is really pale and you’re planning a day on the beach in Hawaii, you will obviously benefit from some level of sun protection using a truly natural sunscreen product. But an informed health-conscious person would try to allow their skin to achieve a natural, healthy tan (yes, a tan truly is healthy if it’s combined with good nutrition, see below) through sensible exposure levels that activate vitamin D production in the skin.

#4) You can boost your internal sun resistance by changing what you eat

Here’s the real secret about sun exposure that no one in conventional medicine is talking about (because, as usual, they are woefully ignorant about nutrition): You can boost your internal sunscreen by eating antioxidant-rich foods and superfoods.

The supplement astaxanthin, for example, is very well known for boosting your skin’s natural resistance to sunburn. Its fat-soluble carotenoids are actually transported to skin cells where they protect those cells from UV exposure.

The more natural antioxidants you have in your diet, the more sunlight your skin will be able to handle without burning. Nearly everyone mistakenly believes that a person’s sunlight burn response is purely a genetic factor. They’re wrong. You can radically improve your resistance to UV exposure through radical dietary changes.

I’m a great example of this, actually, as I used to burn in just 20 – 30 minutes of sunlight when I was on a junk food diet years ago. But now, as someone who eats superfoods and high-end nutritional supplements every day, I can spend hours in the sun and will only turn slightly red (which fades a few hours later and does not result in a burn or skin peeling).

Except for one time on an all-day visit to a water park, I have not worn sunscreen in over 8 years. I spend a large amount of time in the sun, and I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever about skin cancer. My skin, most people tell me, looks significantly younger than my biological age. That’s not from sunscreen; it’s from nutrition. Sun exposure does not make your skin “age” if you follow a high-nutritional density diet.

Click here for the full report from Natural News

Sunscreen May Accelerate Cancer

June 27, 2011 by Andrew  
Filed under Health

June 27th, 2011

AOL News

By: Andrew Schneider

Almost half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivatives, according to an evaluation of those products released today.

AOL News also has learned through documents and interviews that the Food and Drug Administration has known of the potential danger for as long as a decade without alerting the public, which the FDA denies.

The study was released with Memorial Day weekend approaching. Store shelves throughout the country are already crammed with tubes, jars, bottles and spray cans of sunscreen.

The white goop, creams and ointments might prevent sunburn. But don’t count on them to keep the ultraviolet light from destroying your skin cells and causing tumors and lesions, according to researchers at Environmental Working Group.

In their annual report to consumers on sunscreen, they say that only 39 of the 500 products they examined were considered safe and effective to use.

The report cites these problems with bogus sun protection factor (SPF) numbers:

  • The use of the hormone-disrupting chemical oxybenzone, which penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream.
  • Overstated claims about performance.
  • The lack of needed regulations and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration.

But the most alarming disclosure in this year’s report is the finding that vitamin A and its derivatives, retinol and retinyl palmitate, may speed up the cancer that sunscreen is used to prevent.

A dangerous additive

The industry includes vitamin A in its sunscreen formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging.

But the EWG researchers found the initial findings of an FDA study of vitamin A’s photocarcinogenic properties, meaning the possibility that it results in cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight.

“In that yearlong study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent faster in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream,” the report said.

The conclusion came from EWG’s analysis of initial findings released last fall by the FDA and the National Toxicology Program, the federal government’s principle evaluator of substances that raise public health concerns.

EWG’s conclusions were subsequently scrutinized by outside toxicologists.

Based on the strength of the findings by FDA’s own scientists, many in the public health community say they can’t believe nor understand why the agency hasn’t already notified the public of the possible danger.

“There was enough evidence 10 years ago for FDA to caution consumers against the use of vitamin A in sunscreens,” Jane Houlihan, EWG’s senior vice president for research, told AOL News.

“FDA launched this one-year study, completed their research and now 10 years later, they say nothing about it, just silence.”

On Friday, the FDA said the allegations are not true.

“We have thoroughly checked and are not aware of any studies,” an FDA spokesperson told AOL News. She said she checked with bosses throughout the agency and found no one who knew of the vitamin A sunscreen research being done by or on behalf of the agency.

But documents from the FDA and the National Toxicology Program showed that the agency had done the research.

“Retinyl palmitate was selected by (FDA’s) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for photo-toxicity and photocarcinogenicity testing based on the increasingly widespread use of this compound in cosmetic retail products for use on sun-exposed skin,” said an October 2000 report by the National Toxicology Program.

FDA’s own website said the animal studies were done at its National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Ark. And it was scientists from the FDA center and National Toxicology Program who posted the study data last fall.

In a perfect world

The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients when degraded by UV light, the report said.

But in the U.S., there is currently no sunscreen that meets all of these criteria. European countries have more chemical combinations to offer, but in the U.S. the major choice is between the “chemical” sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s hormone systems, and “mineral” sunscreens zinc and titanium dioxide.

Increasingly, as AOL News reported in March, the industry is using titanium dioxide that is made nanosized, which a growing number of researchers believe have serious health implications.

The sunscreen industry cringes when EWG releases its yearly report — this is its fourth. The industry charges that the advocacy group wants to do away with all sunscreen products, a claim that is not accurate.

The report’s researchers clearly say that an effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it causes, but it wants consumers to have accurate information on the limitations of what they buy and on the potentially harmful chemicals in some of those products.

EWG does warn consumers not to depend on any sunscreen for primary protection from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. Hats, clothing and shade are still the most reliable sun protection available, they say.

Don’t count on the numbers

Some of us are old enough to remember when the idea of having a tan was good, a sign of health, when billboards and magazine ads featured the Coppertone girl showing off her tan when a puppy pulls down her bathing suit bottom.

Going for that tan, we coated our kids and ourselves with sun blockers with sun protection factors of 1 or 2. Some overly cautious parents might have smeared on a 4 during the hottest part of a day.

But we’ve learned of the dangers that come from exposure to the sun’s rays, especially ultraviolet A and B. So today, drugstore shelves are crammed with sunscreens boasting SPFs of 30, 45, 80 or even higher.

However, the new report says those numbers are often meaningless and dangerous because products with high SPF ratings sell a false sense of security, encouraging people using them to stay out in the sun longer.

“People don’t get the high SPF they pay for,” the report says. “People apply about a quarter of the recommended amount. So in everyday practice, a product labeled SPF 100 really performs like SPF 3.2, an SPF 30 rating equates to a 2.3 and an SPF 15 translates to 2.”

In 2007, the report says, the FDA published proposed regulations that would prohibit manufacturers from labeling sunscreens with an SPF higher than “SPF 50.” The agency wrote that higher values would be “inherently misleading,” given that “there is no assurance that the specific values themselves are in fact truthful.”

This is being widely ignored by the sunscreen makers who are heavily advertising their 80, 90 and 100 SPF products.

“Flouting FDA’s proposed regulation,” companies substantially increased their high-SPF offerings in 2010 with one in six brands now listing SPF values higher than 50. “Neutrogena and Banana Boat stand out among the offenders, with six and four products labeled as ‘SPF 100,’ respectively,” the new report says.

The full list of the best and worst sunscreens can be found on the EWG’s searchable database. (Update: The database has been loading slowly today. You may want to try it again later.)

Click here for the full report from AOL News

FDA Urges Public to Lather Toxic Sunscreen on Skin

June 27, 2011 by Andrew  
Filed under Health

June 27th, 2011

NaturalNews.com

By: Ethan A. Huff

The absurdity of many US government recommendations would be humorous if not for the millions of Americans that take them seriously. The latest pseudo-scientific nonsense being peddled by Big Brother is the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ignorant claim that sunlight is dangerous, and that only “broad spectrum” sunscreens that block basically every type of sun ray from penetrating the skin are capable of preventing skin cancer and other alleged sun-induced diseases.

The FDA’s recent announcement deals primarily with a significant change in sunscreen labeling, but the devil is in the details as the agency purports in its press release that the sun is dangerous and must be avoided. The agency would rather have every American lather on a coating of toxic, chemical-laden sunscreen than risk the chance that even a single ray of “damaging’ sunshine penetrate their skin.

Such nonsense, of course, has been debunked by a host of scientific studies in recent years. Not only is sunlight exposure absolutely vital for maintaining healthy levels of vitamin D in the body, but a lack of it can lead to serious illnesses like multiple sclerosis, cognitive decline, bone loss, and even cancer. But the FDA has never let the facts get in the way of its agendas, which in this case is to promote the myth that sunlight exposure causes cancer and has no legitimate health benefit, and that the only way to effectively avoid it is to wear lots of sunscreen.

“The population of the world has been brainwashed by the American Academy of Dermatology and the sunscreen industry for thirty years, with the unrelenting message that you should never be exposed to direct sunlight because it is going to cause serious skin cancer and death,” says Dr. Michael Holick, professor of Medicine, Physiology, and Biophysics at Boston University School of Medicine. “People are really quite surprised by the new message that sensible sun exposure, in moderation, is very important for good health. We should appreciate the sun for its benefits, and not abuse it.”

And yet nowhere in the recent FDA announcement does the agency even hint that moderate sunlight exposure could be beneficial to health. Instead, Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states that people should “regularly apply and reapply (approved) sunscreens,” as well as “limit sun exposure.”

Besides blocking beneficial sunlight rays that produce vitamin D in the skin, the sunscreens the FDA promotes are loaded with untested nanoparticles, as well as known toxins like retinyl palmitate and oxybenzone. The agency denies, of course, that nanoparticles and other sunscreen chemicals penetrate the skin, even though numerous scientific studies say otherwise.

“Sunscreens facilitate the skin’s absorption of pesticides,” says Dr. Tatiana Cannell from the Vitamin D Council. “So if you want pesticides to be readily absorbed through your skin, circulate in your blood, go to your internal organs, and be excreted in your urine, wear sunscreens. Or you could take a swig of your Coppertone and chase it with a shot of Deepwoods Off.”

Click here for the full report from NaturalNews.com

It’s Here!

June 27, 2011 by Andrew  
Filed under Featured

The moment you all have been waiting for is now upon us. Subscribers to Kevin’s Insider E-Mail Club will receive an e-mail that will offer them a HUGE discount on Kevin Trudeau’s Daily Dietary Supplementation Packs!

If you aren’t already a subscriber to the Insider E-Mail Club, now is the time to do it! Not only do you get unprecedented offers like this one, but you will receive top-notch information that you won’t find anywhere else!

“Kevin Trudeau’s DAILY Dietary Supplementation Packs (DAILY) delivers a 30-Day Supply in 60 clearly-marked individual packets (take one packet each morning, one packet each evening) containing 42 different nutritional formulas rotated throughout the 30 day cycle. DAILY delivers you supplementation in the form that nature intended, the way nature intended.”

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 6-25-11

June 25, 2011 by Brandy  
Filed under Archives

Today, Kevin exposes the drug and dietary supplement industries and gives you the four factors that are causing illness and disease in your life. Plus, get Kevin’s top recommendations to improve your health and happiness!

Self Help:
Success Secrets
Neutralize Electromagnetic Chaos
Positively Enhance Your Life
Eliminate Addictions
Stop Showering Yourself In Toxins
Get Rid Of The Negative Thoughts
Be The First To Know!!
Protect The Free Flow Of Information

Health:
The Effects of Municipal Water Fluoridation
Kangaroos Being Poisoned By Fluoride
Fed Probe Urged on Cancer Chemical in Marine Water
Chemical in Drinking Water Poses Greater Danger Than Previously Thought
Fluoride to Stay in Iowa City Water

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!


Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!

« Previous PageNext Page »