Today, Kevin reveals the truth behind mind manipulation within the music industry and two ways to counteract it.
High Doses of Vitamin D Prevent Cancer
Cell Phones Increase Brain Activity
Hold Off On Treating Kids With Drugs
Shape-Ups Blamed For Hip Fractures
Drinking Diet Soda Makes You Gain Weight
6 Things That Weaken Your Bones
Commercial Meat Increases Cancer Risk
Madoff: Government a Ponzi Scheme
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Today, Kevin explains how the media is only there to distract you from the real issues. Plus, friend of the show, Fred Van Liew, stops by to give you the facts behind electromagnetic chaos and how it is virtually killing you and your children.
Whistleblower Found Dead!
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
April 5, 2012
By J.D Heyes
“Let your kids play in the dirt. It’s good for them. In fact, you should join them. It’s fun getting dirty.” –KTRN
Here’s a concept that most parents will find a little hard to believe: new research shows that it’s possible kids can be too clean.
You read that right.
That’s because all of the soap dispensers, hand sanitizers and alcohol-tinged wipes could be robbing our kids from exposure to the germs that help strengthen their immune systems.
According to new research done on mice, increasing exposure to germs helps develop the immune system, thereby preventing allergies and other immune-related diseases like colitis and asthma later in life.
Researchers at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in Boston led the study and published their results in the March issue of Science magazine. Using the “hygiene hypothesis,” the team says research shows a lack of exposure to microbes at an early childhood age increases susceptibility to some diseases because the lack of exposure suppresses the body’s immune system. The study does more than just support the notion, it also may explain the whys and hows of the process.
Researchers warned, however, that their research was conducted on mice, not humans. Still, the results seemed to indicate that you have to trigger the immune system with the introduction of germs in order for it to develop fully.
How it works
The research team, led by co-authors Dr. Richard Blumberg, chief for the BWH Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, and Dr. Dennis Kasper, director of BWH Channing Laboratory, studied “germ-free” mice bred in a sterile environment without exposure to microbes, as well as specific-pathogen-free mice that were raised in a normal laboratory environment.
The mice were bred to develop forms of asthma and inflammatory bowel disease, in which their immune systems were then compared.
The team found that the germ-free mice had more invariant natural killer T cells in their lungs and bowel, and developed more severe disease symptoms.
“[... W]e show that, in germ-free (GF) mice, invariant natural killer T (iNKT) cells accumulate in the colonic lamina propria and lung, resulting in increased morbidity in models of IBD and allergic asthma compared to specific pathogen-free (SPF) mice,” Blumberg and Kasper wrote.
The researchers also found that when they exposed germ-free mice to mice with germs in their first few weeks of life, they didn’t develop high levels of invariant natural killer T cells. Also, they didn’t develop the more severe symptoms seen in those mice kept germ-free. And, they discovered, germ-free mice with early-life exposure to microbes developed long-term disease protection.
“These studies show the critical importance of proper immune conditioning by microbes during the earliest periods of life,” Blumberg told reporters. “Also now knowing a potential mechanism will allow scientists to potentially identify the microbial factors important in determining protection from allergic and autoimmune diseases later in life.”
March 30, 2012
The New York Times
By MARK BITTMAN
“The government shouldn’t be telling what we can and cannot eat. But at the same time, they shouldn’t be subsidizing junk food. They should help make healthy food cheaper and Hamburger Helper more expensive. Currently, it’s the exact opposite, and that is just wrong.” –KTRN
The First Amendment to the Constitution, which tops our Bill of Rights, guarantees — theoretically, at least — things we all care about. So much is here: freedom of religion, of the press, of speech, the right to assemble and more. Yet it’s stealthily and incredibly being invoked to safeguard the nearly unimpeded “right” of a handful of powerful corporations to market junk food to children.
It’s been reported that kids see an average of 5,500 food ads on television every year (sounds low, when you think about it), nearly all peddling junk. (They may also see Apple commercials, but not of the fruit kind.) Worse are the online “advergames” that distract kids with entertainment while immersing them in a product-driven environment. (For example: create your own Froot Loops adventure!)
And beyond worse: collecting private data, presumably in order to target children with personalized junk food promotions, as in this Capri Sun advergame, which asks for permission to use your webcam to film you — without first verifying your age.
Remember: 17 percent of kids in the United States are obese (many more are nearly so), and though there is an argument that during the boom-and-bust periods of capitalism’s development our genetic code has encouraged us to consume as many calories as possible, nowhere in our DNA is it written that we need to eat Big Macs, drink soda or eat Twizzlers (much as I personally like the last of these). These cravings become habits as they are taught, encouraged and reinforced by the marketing arm of Big Food, and the federal government appears powerless to change this. Here’s where the First Amendment comes in.
I’ve written before about the government’s pathetic attempt to nudge industry toward at least improving the nutritional profile of junk food advertising targeted at kids in the form of voluntary guidelines proposed by an interagency working group of the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture.
March 6, 2012
By Jean Chatszky
You may not have known it, but last week was America Saves Week, an effort coordinated by the Consumer Federation of America’s America Saves campaign and the America Savings Education Council designed to shine a light on the importance of saving money.
They’ve got their work cut out for them: Seven out of 10 Americans aren’t saving enough, according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute. But it’s not just today’s workers who aren’t socking away enough for retirement. New research from financial education site Doughmain.com shows that our kids aren’t getting the message to save, either.
And here’s the rub. It’s not that we parents don’t understand that it’s our responsibility to teach our children to save — 81% of Doughmain’s survey respondents said as much. We’re just not doing it.
“It’s kind of like the plumber having the leaky pipe. Sometimes we don’t do what we say we’re going to do,” says Doughmain founder Ken Damato.
February 22, 2012
By: Mike Adams
The vaccine-pushing, disease scare-mongering agency known as the CDC has put out a stunning piece of propaganda attacking fresh milk (raw dairy), claiming it is “150 times more dangerous” than pasteurized milk. This is all part of their anti-American agenda to crush food freedom and criminalize fundamental farming practices upon which this very nation was founded. (Yes, George Washington and the founding fathers drank raw milk, grew hemp and even smoked a little weed as medicine.)
But what the CDC won’t dare reveal to the public is the far more horrifying truth: Pasteurized dairy is produced in the dirtiest milk factories imaginable, where blood, pus, e.coli and other truly dangerous pathogens are routinely bottled into milk containers and fed to consumers.
That’s the whole point of pasteurization, you see: To kill everything that might be alive in their ultra-dirty milk. The real purpose of pasteurization is not to simply “make milk safe” as is claimed by the CDC, but rather to allow the dairy industry to operate DIRTY. It’s so much easier to just cook the crap out of the milk (yes, there’s fecal matter in it) than to clean up their operations, get it?
Thanks to pasteurization, conventional (non-organic, non-raw) dairy operators have no need to thoroughly wash their milking machines, no need to sterilize any milk containers, no need to wash their hands, and no need to maintain a clean milking environment whatsoever. It’s just total filth with festering diseased animals dying on the floor and being physically abused by the corporate dairy operators (see video links, below).
Dairy cows are routinely abused and left to suffer in total filth
Want to know how conventional (pasteurized) dairy cows are really treated? Here’s something the CDC won’t show you.
Watch this highly disturbing video of dairy cows being kicked, tortured, abused and injured by conventional dairy workers. This was filmed with an undercover spy cam (WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGERY):
When you buy pasteurized milk at the grocery store, you are supporting an industry that tortures cows and produces a dirty, filthy product!
Of course, the dairy industry would much rather force everybody to pasteurize their milk and outlaw clean raw dairy than to clean up their own act. That’s the whole point of the CDC going after raw dairy: To destroy the raw dairy industry and force everyone to drink dirty, contaminated pasteurized milk that’s extracted from tortured cows.
Here are some other short videos you may want to view (WARNING):
Dairy Cow Abuse – “Mercy For Animals” hidden camera in New York:
The disgusting treatment of (conventional) dairy cows:
Dairy cows with injuries and infections:
ABC Nightline – Dairy farm abuse:
So get it through your heads, folks: If you buy pasteurized, homogenized milk, you are supporting an industry of filth, torture, infected animals and dirty, dirty milk.
Blood, pus, bacteria and fecal matter – drink up, kiddies!
The reason all that milk has to be pasteurized is because it’s strongly contaminated with:
• fecal matter
In addition, conventional dairy cows are:
• Pumped full of bovine growth hormones
• Fed masses of antibiotics
• Fed tons of GMOs such as corn and soy
• Heavily contaminated with chemical pesticides
That’s what you get when you buy “Pasteurized” milk. Plus the feces in the milk, of course.
So the next time somebody gets mad at you in bumper-to-bumper traffic and they scream out the window: “EAT SH*T!” just hand them a glass of pasteurized milk. Let them drink it, huh?
The cleanest milk in the world? RAW, fresh milk!
You want to see a super clean dairy operation? Go to a raw dairy farm and check out their operation. It’s the cleanest, most pristine dairy operation you’ll ever find. And why? Because it has to be. If you want to produce clean, fresh dairy without pasteurization, you have to run a super clean facility with healthy cows, stringent cleanliness practices and a commitment to producing wholesome food.
Only raw milk dairies have this kind of commitment to cleanliness.
View this powerful comparison between pasteurized milk and raw milk:
In fact, if you took a gallon of unpasteurized milk from a conventional dairy and you compared it to a gallon of unpasteurized milk from a quality-certified raw milk dairy, I have no doubt you would find that the conventional dairy has at least 150 times the level of blood, pus, feces and dangerous bacteria (if not more).
February 21, 2012
By Jacque Wilson
Editor’s note: This is the fourth story in CNN’s series exploring the issues surrounding childhood obesity.
(CNN) — Lyn McDonald is doing everything right.
After losing more than 80 pounds, she taught her kids how to control their portion sizes, shop at the farmers market, eat vegetables with every meal and avoid a lot of sugar.
Her efforts are working. At a time when approximately one-third of American children are overweight or obese, McDonald’s kids are at healthy weights.
So why is every day still a struggle for the blogger and mother of five?
‘Hard to be a little girl if you’re not’ School kids have easy access to snacks
“I have had to deal with teachers who hand out Skittles, candy bars, lollipops and giant frosted sugar cookies to the children in class … before 10 a.m.,” McDonald says. “I think this is setting kids up for failure and un-teaching the healthy habits I have instilled.”
The fact that doughnuts and cupcakes are given out as a reward after soccer practice or dance class is a paradoxical hurdle in the fight against childhood obesity. As doctors and parents struggle to encourage healthy behaviors, our sugar-filled, sedentary surroundings resist every step.
Think about it, says Dr. Stephen Daniels, chief pediatrician at Children’s Hospital Colorado. Every day kids are exposed to advertising about fast food instead of home-cooked meals. They’re surrounded by vending and soda machines at school. They have hundreds of channels on TV, own three video game systems and live in neighborhoods that were built without sidewalks.
February 22st, 2012
By Lindsey Tanner
CHICAGO (AP) – A small but growing number of teens and even younger children who think they were born the wrong sex are getting support from parents and from doctors who give them sex-changing treatments, according to reports in the medical journal Pediatrics.
It’s an issue that raises ethical questions, and some experts urge caution in treating children with puberty-blocking drugs and hormones.
An 8-year-old second-grader in Los Angeles is a typical patient. Born a girl, the child announced at 18 months, “I a boy” and has stuck with that belief. The family was shocked but now refers to the child as a boy and is watching for the first signs of puberty to begin treatment, his mother told The Associated Press.
Pediatricians need to know these kids exist and deserve treatment, said Dr. Norman Spack, author of one of three reports published Monday and director of one of the nation’s first gender identity medical clinics, at Children’s Hospital Boston.
“If you open the doors, these are the kids who come. They’re out there. They’re in your practices,” Spack said in an interview.
Switching gender roles and occasionally pretending to be the opposite sex is common in young children. But these kids are different. They feel certain they were born with the wrong bodies.
Some are labeled with “gender identity disorder,” a psychiatric diagnosis. But Spack is among doctors who think that’s a misnomer. Emerging research suggests they may have brain differences more similar to the opposite sex.
Many Processed Foods Are Made With A Coal Tar Derivative Chemical That Causes Hyperactivity In Children
February 17th, 2012
By: Mike Adams
Would you knowingly feed your children an ingredient derived from coal tar? That’s exactly what you may be doing, if you let them eat any orange or yellow artificially-colored products including sodas, cheese-flavored products, flavored chips, pickles or a myriad of other foods and beverages. The industrial waste-derived coloring chemicaltartrazineis a common ingredient in all these foods, underscoring the need to read food labels religiously. (Why would anyone put artificial colors into pickles? Read the labels, and you’ll see!)
Tartrazine, also known as E102 or Yellow #5, was one of the colorings linked to childhood hyperactivity in a landmark 2007 study conducted by the United Kingdom’sFood Standards Agency. As a consequence, products containing it must carry a warning label anywhere in the European Union.
Not surprisingly, the United States has no such law — even though the coloring has been linked to asthma, migraines and cancer. But since when the FDA ever bother warning the public about dangerous chemicals in their food anyway? After all, aspartame, MSG and sodium nitrite are all legal — so why not add a little food coloring poison to the cocktail and call it “nutrition?”
For The Full Report Go To Natural News
February 8th, 2012
By: Lindsey Tanner
Junk food remains plentiful at the nation’s elementary schools despite widespread efforts to curb childhood obesity, a new study suggests. Between 2006 and 2010, nearly half of public and private schools surveyed sold sweet or salty snack foods in vending machines or other places, the study found. There was little change over the four years, a surprising finding given vocal advocacy campaigns to improve kids’ diets, said researcher Lindsey Turner, a health psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the study’s lead author. The study focused on snacks not sold during mealtimes, which until recently weren’t subject to government nutrition standards.
Schools most likely to sell chips, cookies or similar foods were in the South, where obesity rates are the highest; these foods were scarcest at schools in the West. The results are concerning, Turner said, because they show that many schools have not heeded messages from health advocates including the Institute of Medicine, which in a 2007 report urged limiting availability of food in schools outside of mealtimes, and said these items should not be sugary, salty or fatty snack foods. Many schools in the study also offered more healthy foods outside of mealtimes, including fruit and vegetables. But selling them along with junk food may tempt kids to skip the healthy options, and sends “mixed messages about healthful nutrition,” Dr. Thomas Robinson, a Stanford University pediatrician and obesity prevention researcher.
Robinson called the study results “sobering” and said a key strategy for reversing childhood obesity includes improving nutrition in schools. Recent data suggest that almost 20 percent of elementary school children nationwide are obese. Policies that limit junk food sold in schools have been linked with less obesity among students, said C. Tracy Orleans, a senior scientist at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which paid for the study.
The study appears in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, released Monday. Robinson wrote an accompanying editorial. Anti-obesity advocates also have pushed to remove sugary sodas from schools, and some states and schools have enacted bans. Also, a 2010 report found a big decline in sales of these drinks to schools during some of the years studied. The new study, which focused only on foods, is based on surveys mailed to principals at public and private elementary schools. Nearly 4,000 responded, or more than half of those contacted. The participating schools were nationally representative and there were no geographic or economic differences in schools that didn’t respond that would affect the results, Turner said.
Overall, about 45 percent of schools sold sugary and salty snacks. Some schools sold low-fat salty snacks and baked goods, including pretzels and low-fat ice cream, but their high sugar or salt content makes them a poor choice, Turner said. Candy, salty snacks and regular-fat baked goods were more common at private schools than public schools; and low-fat ice cream was more common at both types of schools than full-fat ice cream snacks. The study authors say their results should encourage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to crack down on junk food in schools. A law enacted in December 2010, after the study ended, gives the agency authority to do so, and it is developing changes.
Before that measure, USDA policy restricted schools from selling foods “of minimal nutritional value” during mealtimes. Under the new law, the agency can set nutrition standards for all foods sold in U.S. schools.
Another USDA change announced last month focuses on making school lunches healthier, with changes including less sodium and more whole grains. The changes affecting snack foods “need to be comprehensive, they need to be strong, they need to be specific,” and they could be “a game-changer,” said Orleans. A website for the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service says restricting these foods can pose challenges for schools, because many rely on sales of snack foods to boost revenue. But it also explains why changes are needed.
“The constant availability of foods and beverages may increase the likelihood of impulse buying and contribute to overeating by some students,” the USDA website says. It lists states and school districts that have imposed some restrictions on these foods.