Friday, April 18, 2014

China’s ban on GMO corn costs US up to $2.9 billion, grain association says

“It obviously is a significant cost when you add up the producer losses and the cost to exporters and others in the value chain,” NGFA President Randy Gordon said about the rejections in a telephone interview.
The NGFA and North America Export Grain Association unsuccessfully lobbied Syngenta to halt sales of corn seed containing MIR 162 and another unapproved variety called Agrisure Duracade.
Syngenta did not immediately respond to questions about NGFA’s estimates.
Since mid-November, China has turned away 1.45 million metric tons of U.S. corn because of the presence of MIR 162, topping a Chinese government estimate of 908,800 tons, according to NGFA. The corn was diverted to other buyers, who “almost assuredly would have negotiated a discount,” the report said.
(Rueters) China’s rejections of a banned variety of genetically modified U.S. corn have cost the U.S.
agriculture industry up to $2.9 billion, a grain group said on Wednesday in the first estimate on losses from the trade disruptions.

The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) estimated in a report that rejections of shipments containing Syngenta AG’s Agrisure Viptera corn resulted in losses of at least $1 billion, based on an economic analysis that included data supplied by top global grain exporters.
China, the world’s third-biggest corn buyer, in November began rejecting corn containing Viptera, known as MIR 162, after previously accepting the grain. The variety, which has been cleared by the United States and other importers, has been awaiting approval by Beijing for four years.
Costs to U.S. corn exporters like Cargill Inc and Archer Daniels Midland Co total an estimated $225 million, not the estimated $427 million reported last week by the Wall Street Journal, according to NGFA. [ID:nL6N0N32PA]
Cargill, the top exporter of U.S. grains, last week said rejections of U.S. corn shipments by China contributed to a 28 percent drop in earnings for the quarter ended February 28.
The rejections have depressed U.S. corn prices by an estimated 11 cents per bushel, accounting for projected losses of $1.14 billion for U.S. corn farmers for the last nine months of the marketing year that ends on August 31, according to NGFA. It is unknown whether China will approve the trait before the marketing year ends.
Karl Setzer, grain solutions team leader for MaxYield Cooperative in Iowa, said he had heard estimates that China’s rejections had reduced U.S. corn prices by 10 cents to 20 cents per bushel. He expects more shipments to be turned away because China has an ample supply of corn.
“How do you put a dollar figure on it?” he said. “I expect everything they have with us to be washed out.”
Potential losses from trade disruptions for the next marketing year, which begins on September 1, could range from $1.2 billion to $3.4 billion due to the introduction of Agrisure Duracade into the supply chain, according to NGFA. Duracade will be planted in the United States for the first time this spring.

Smart Meters: The Opposite of Green

Link to the pdf of the article: Smart Meters, The Opposite of Green.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Thirdhand Smoke Causes DNA Damage, ‘May Cause Cancer’

(Natural Society) Smoking causes health problems—we know this; it’s common knowledge. The dangers of secondhand smoke are similarly understood, but when we start to talk about thirdhand smoke, there is much that we need to learn. recent talk at the 247th National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society indicated that thirdhand smoke isn’t only dangerous, but could lead to DNA changes and even cancer.   
The talk was presented by Bo Hang, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who published a study on the topic, “Thirdhand smoke causes DNA damage in human cells”, in a 2013 issue of the journal Mutagenesis.
According to Hang, thirdhand smoke—or the residue from smoking found on surfaces and in dust in a room or area where someone previously smoked—can produce toxicants that undergo chemical changes when they encounter compounds in the air. One of these compounds created by thirdhand smoke is 4-(Methylnitrosamino)-4-(3-pyridyl)-butanal, or “NNA”.
NNA and another compound known as NNK break down DNA, damaging it in such a way that leads to uncontrolled cell growth and the possible formation of tumors.
While Hang’s research is still in its early stages, he says we have only begun to understand the full damage that thirdhand smoke can cause. Babies and toddlers may be most at risk of these dangers because they are still developing and because they are most likely to swallow, touch, and inhale these compounds as they crawl around, touching everything in their path and frequently putting their hands in their mouths.
This isn’t the first such troubling research on the topic. A previous study said that secondhand smoke isn’t the only culprit in sickening children with parents who smoke. Thirdhand smoke, researchers from the University of California-Riverside said, could be as dangerous as firsthand smoke.
“In detail, the thirdhand smoke increased lipid levels and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which is a forerunner to cirrhosis, cancer and cardiovascular disease. It also increased collagen production and inflammatory cytokine levels in the lungs, which has implications for fibrosis, pulmonary disease and asthma.” MedicalNewsToday
Just as it took decades for us to understand the risks of smoking, and decades more to discover how dangerous secondhand smoke was, it will take time for the real effects of thirdhand smoke to become apparent.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

What are we reading?

What are we reading this week? Simply Seasonal A Simple Guide to Eating Delicious and Nutritious Food by Michele Rusinko

Excerpt: from page 63:

One of nature's richest source of omega 3 fatty acids. Also, a good source of omega 6 and 9 fatty acids. Flax is also high in B vitamins, fiber, magnesium, and manganese.

For you to absorb what you need from flaxseeds, they must be ground. You can do this by using a coffee grinder or high speed blender.

If whole flaxseed is not an option, flaxseed oil or ground flaxseed are other options; the oil is more potent because it is less processed.

From Natural Healing Tools - try Yes EFA supplement from Flaxseed Oil. Available here. 

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Why Natural Supplements Will Be Banned and Replaced with Toxic Drugs

Dr. Gerhauser: There is a big concern that natural supplements will be banned and replaced with toxic drugs. This is because the FDA is requiring any supplement sold to go through highly expensive clinical trials. Most natural supplement companies can't afford this type of testing, but, drug companies easily can. Keep an eye out for this! 

YouTube Video Link here. 

Natural Healing Tools: NHT has  been watching Congressional legislation from Pharmaceutical companies to require supplements to be produced only in pharmaceutical grade plants. 

Both the strategy presented on the video by Dr. Gerhauser and the legislation are both pushes by the pharmaceutical companies to take over common supplements and capture profits. 

Natural Healing Tools believes in trusted supplement manufacturers with controlled and tested products - not pharmaceutical grade or prescription level supplements. 

Monday, April 14, 2014

‘Internet of Things’ gone mad: Google now brazen about its obession to microchip human beings

(Natural Society) Former Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) director and now Google Executive, Regina E. Duncan, has unveiled a super small, ingestible microchip that we can all be expected to swallow by 2017 (YouTube link). “A means of authentication,” she calls it, also called an electronic tattoo, which takes NSA spying to whole new levels. She talks of the ‘mechanical mismatch problem between machines and humans,’ and specifically targets 10 – 20 year olds in her rant about the wonderful qualities of this new technology that can stretch in the human body and still be functional.
Hailed as a ‘critical shift for research and medicine, ’ these biochips would not only allow full access to insurance companies and government agencies to our pharmaceutical med-taking compliancy (or lack thereof), but also a host of other aspects of our lives which are truly none of their business, and certainly an extension of the removal of our freedoms and rights.
The New York Times writes:
“These biochips look like the integrated circuits in a personal computer, but instead of containing tiny semiconductors, they are loaded with bits of actual DNA that make up genes or fragments of genes. Inserted in a PC-sized analytical instrument, the chips allow scientists to perform thousands of biochemical experiments at a fraction of the cost and time required for traditional tests.”
With bio-tech’s track record of hybridizing genes in our food and trees as GMO, why should we give them full access to our entire genetic makeup? With a satellite or the click of a button, these tiny micro-chips could also be set to begin our own demise, or even control our minds.
And the fact that microchipping has even been mentioned or considered in health care bills is insane.  [Even skeptics' haven confirms that a section linking a national healthcare registry to implantable microchips was "taken from HR 3200, an early House version of health care reform legislation".]
This is not a new idea. Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado, Director of Neuropsychiatry Yale University Medical School Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118 February 24, 1974 discusses it extensively in a paper in which he states, “Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain.”
Is this the kind of mind that is creating bio-tech warfare in the form of GMOs, chemtrails, and vaccines? Don’t sign me up for micro-chipping or high-tech tattoos. I trust the medical establishment and biotech about as far as I can throw a rotten, cancer-causing GMO apple.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Why Fish Oil Supplementation Fails

Why Fish Oil Fails: A Comprehensive 21st Century Lipids-Based Physiologic Analysis

B. S. Peskin

The medical community suffered three significant fish oil failures/setbacks in 2013. Claims that fish oil’s EPA/DHA would stop the progression of heart disease were crushed when The Risk and Prevention Study Collaborative Group (Italy) released a conclusive negative finding regarding fish oil for those patients with high risk factors but no previous myocardial infarction. Fish oil failed in all measures of CVD prevention—both primary and secondary. Another major 2013 setback occurred when fish oil’s DHA was shown to significantly increase prostate cancer in men, in particular, high-grade prostate cancer, in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) analysis by Brasky et al. 

Another monumental failure occurred in 2013 whereby fish oil’s EPA/DHA failed to improve macular degeneration. In 2010, fish oil’s EPA/DHA failed to help Alzheimer’s victims, even those with low DHA levels. These are by no means isolated failures. The promise of fish oil and its so-called active ingredients EPA / DHA fails time and time again in clinical trials. This lipids-based physiologic review will explain precisely why there should have never been expectation for success. This review will focus on under publicized lipid science with a focus on physiology.

1. Introduction

The object of this review is to show how there could be no possible expectation of general patient benefit with prophylactic fish oil use. It will be shown that the amount of EPA/DHA from routine fish oil recommendations is 20Xs-500Xs more than the body would naturally produce on its own from alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)—Parent omega-3.

Advances in quantitative analysis have been made in the 21st century which are not yet disseminated in the medical community; that is, the delta-6/-5 enzymes are not impaired in the general patient population, and the amount of EPA/DHA required on a daily basis by the brain is now known to be less than 7.2 mg/day. Neither extremely important fact was known in the 20th century. Lipid physiology makes the following clear: 

  • Marine oil’s EPA/DHA spontaneously oxidizes at room temperature and more rapidly at normal body temperature—no level of antioxidants can stop this deleterious effect. 
  • Fish oil blunts the insulin response and raises resting blood glucose levels. 
  • Fish oil decreases critical prostacyclin (PGI2) in patients with atherosclerosis—a very bad outcome. 
  • Fish oil rapidly decreases arterial compliance—increasing “hardening of the arteries.” 
  • In contrast to researcher’s expectations, fish oil accelerates metastases in animals. 
  • Fish oil’s EPA/DHA do nothing to increase cellular and tissue oxygenation; to the contrary, marine oils increase inflammation. 
  • Marine oil consumption impairs mitochondrial functionality, making it an anti-aging substance.

The medical profession is unaware of or is not acknowledging the lipid science unequivocally showing the great harm that marine/fish oil’s supraphysiologic amounts of EPA/DHA cause. As will be shown, the claim that prophylactic use of marine oil produces positive patient results is completely counter to 21st century lipid science.

Read the entire article at Natural Healing Tools. 

The International PEO Society, P.O. Box 56507, Houston, TX 77256, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to B. S. Peskin;
Received 26 September 2013; Revised 10 November 2013; Accepted 11 November 2013; Published 16, January 2014

Academic Editor: Angel Catala´
Copyright © 2014 B. S. Peskin. 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.