聯合國議呈21和議呈2030
Agenda 2030
The United Nations released Agenda 2030, or what it’s calling a “new universal agenda” for humanity.
Many are calling this the first public declaration of the long feared “New World Order” or the beginnings of a totalitarian one world government.
Whether or not one believes in the so-called conspiracy theory of the #NWO, the phrase “new universal agenda” and the phrase “New World Order” share the same linguistic meaning. The question is then, are they one in the same?
Originally a plan called #Agenda21 was released by the UN with a primary focus solely on environmental issues.
That plan has now morphed into #Agenda2030 and is being labeled “Agenda 21 on steroids.” This new agenda now addresses virtually all areas of human activity and is truly a blueprint for global governance. http://humansarefree.com/2016/04/agenda-2030-aka-new-world-order.html
This UN "2030 Agenda" document that pushes a blueprint for so-called "sustainable development" around the world.
This document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet.
The "goals" of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world's most powerful globalist corporations like #Monsanto and #DuPont.
In the interests of helping wake up humanity, I've decided to translate the 17 points of this 2030 agenda so that readers everywhere can understand what this document is really calling for. http://humansarefree.com/2015/10/the-un-2030-agenda-decoded-blueprint.html #Agenda2030 #Agenda21
This genocidal agenda of humanity has already begun and there are many means implemented to achieve this goal, including chemtrails (or “Geoengineering”), vaccines, irradiated food, GMOs (Codex Alimentarius), smart meters, 5G deployment that Trump promotes as part of a “technology race”
https://thetruthrevolution.net/the-dark-plan-of-bill-gates-mass-vaccinations-depopulation-agenda/
.
One such mean which is relatively ignored in the alternative media is mass population migration from Africa and the Middle East into the U.S. and Europe. #Agenda21 is carried out by NGOs funded by foreign countries.
“It will remove and destroy all constitutions, restrict free speech and disarm the people. When Agenda 21 is fully realized, the United Nations will be in possession of all guns and subsequently, there will be no opposition to their control.”
“The true agenda of Agenda 21[/2030] is to establish a global government, global economic system, and global religion. When U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon spoke of ‘a dream of a world of peace and dignity for all’ this is no different than when the Communists promised the people a ‘worker’s paradise.’” http://humansarefree.com/2019/03/agenda-21-reinvented-as-agenda-2030-and.html #depopulation #overpopulation
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3056413307750847&id=100001466238044
The Illuminati, Learned Elders of Zion, Holy Roman Empire & the NWO plus The Simpsons Code. 禍 哉 、 那 些 以 虛 假 之 細 繩 牽 罪 孽 的 人 、 他 們 又 像 以 套 繩 拉 罪 惡 。 說 、 任 他 急 速 行 、 趕 快 成 就 他 的 作 為 、 使 我 們 看 看 . 任 以 色 列 聖 者 所 謀 劃 的 臨 近 成 就 、 使 我 們 知 道 。〔賽 5 18-19〕禍 哉 、 那 些 向 耶 和 華 深 藏 謀 略 的 、 又 在 暗 中 行 事 、 說 、 誰 看 見 我 們 呢 . 誰 知 道 我 們 呢 。〔賽 29 15〕 禍 哉 、 這 悖 逆 的 兒 女 ...要 靠 法 老 的 力 量 ...〔賽 30 1-2〕 禍 哉 、 那 些 下 埃 及 求 幫 助 的...那 作 惡 之 家...〔賽 31 1-2〕那 撒 但 一 會 的 、 自 稱 是 猶 太 人 、 其 實 不 是 猶 太 人 、 乃 是 說 謊 話 的 ...〔啟 3 9〕
搜尋此網誌
2020年4月27日星期一
2019年4月2日星期二
了解真正邪惡的聯合國,了解議呈21,了解議呈2030,即是了解你的可怕未來😢...
了解真正邪惡的聯合國,了解議呈21,了解議呈2030,即是了解你無一倖免的可怕未來😢...
U.N. Agenda 21/2030. Corporate Dictatorship by the Bankers and erasure of all Human Rights.https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2333625306682366&id=100001047571168
2019年2月21日星期四
大藥廠現形: 一家製藥公司現在收取近300美元一瓶只值5美元的簡單、低成本維他命丸
大藥廠現形: 一家製藥公司現在收取近300美元一瓶只值5美元的簡單、低成本維他命丸
Big Pharma on display: A drug company now charges almost $300 for a $5 bottle of a simple, low-cost vitamin
*食品法典的方向
*The direction of Codex Alimentarius
The pharmaceutical industry certainly seems to attract more than its fair share of evil people who are totally focused on making money at any cost. In the United States, which has very lax federal regulatory laws in this regard, pharma giants have become infamous for price gouging – jacking the prices of lifesaving medications up astronomically, and virtually overnight.
The latest example of this total lack of empathy for the plight of the people dependent on their medications, is a pharmaceutical manufacturer called Avondale Pharmaceuticals which recently hiked the price of a prescription version of vitamin B3 (niacin), called Niacor, from $32.46 to $295.
https://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/big-pharma-on-display-a-drug-company-now-charges-almost-300-for-a-5-bottle-of-a-simple-low-cost-vitamin/
Big Pharma on display: A drug company now charges almost $300 for a $5 bottle of a simple, low-cost vitamin
*食品法典的方向
*The direction of Codex Alimentarius
The pharmaceutical industry certainly seems to attract more than its fair share of evil people who are totally focused on making money at any cost. In the United States, which has very lax federal regulatory laws in this regard, pharma giants have become infamous for price gouging – jacking the prices of lifesaving medications up astronomically, and virtually overnight.
The latest example of this total lack of empathy for the plight of the people dependent on their medications, is a pharmaceutical manufacturer called Avondale Pharmaceuticals which recently hiked the price of a prescription version of vitamin B3 (niacin), called Niacor, from $32.46 to $295.
Though inexpensive generic versions of this vitamin are available over the counter, doctors often prescribe this specific brand for the treatment of high cholesterol. The company purchased the rights to produce Niacor from a Japanese company called Sawai Pharmaceutical in 2017.
Not content to stop there, Avondale also purchased the rights to produce another drug called SSKI, which is used in the treatment of respiratory illnesses, and pushed that drug’s price up from $11.48 to $295.
Both price increases were implemented on November 13, 2017.
The Independent reports that Avondale is shrouded in mystery. The company has no website, and the office at the address listed as its head office in Birmingham, Alabama, is empty. When The Independent approached people working in neighboring offices, none had heard of the company or of its representative, Acrogen Pharmaceuticals, registered by a Mr. Mark Pugh in 2016.
Mother Nature’s micronutrient secret: Organic Broccoli Sprout Capsules now available, delivering 280mg of high-density nutrition, including the extraordinary “sulforaphane” and “glucosinolate” nutrients found only in cruciferous healing foods. Every lot laboratory tested. See availability here.
Journalists from The Independentreceived no response from Mr. Pugh when they tried to contact him by phone and via email to get his side of the story.
Pugh’s Linkedin page identifies him as the CEO of yet another pharmaceutical company – Acella Pharmaceuticals – and notes:
As Chief Executive Officer, Mark Pugh oversees the overall growth and development of Avion Pharmaceuticals. Drawing from more than 20 years of industry experience, Mr Pugh has a documented record of success in identifying and capturing new business opportunities to build high-profit, highgrowth [sic] corporations.
Of course, Mark Pugh is just the latest in a long list of evil Big Pharma profiteers. The most famous is probably Martin Shkreli, labeled the most hated man in America – at least back in 2015 – by the BBC.
GQ Magazine described Shkreli as“the fratboy CEO who gained overnight notoriety after his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, raised the price of HIV drug Daraprim from $13.50 a dose to $750: an increase of 5,500 percent.”
Despite the immediate and massive backlash from the public, Shkreli remained unrepentant. The Guardian reported that in an interview with the Financial Times(FT), he arrogantly insisted, “To me the drug was woefully underpriced. It is not a question of ‘Is this fair?’ or ‘What did you pay for it?’ or ‘When was it invented?’ It should be more expensive in many ways.”
He added, “I did it for my shareholders’ benefit because that’s my job. The political risk is being shamed, and shame isn’t dilutive to earnings per share.”
Then, in 2016, another pharma giant, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, came under fire when it pushed the price of a standard two-pack of EpiPen – the autoinjector that highly allergic people use when they have an anaphylactic reaction to peanuts, shellfish, etc. – up from its 2007 price of $55, to over $600.
Michael Rea, the chief executive of a company called Rx Savings, which helps people source cheaper medications, told the FT that part of the reason companies get away with price gouging is that doctors and patients often do not have access to the information they need to “make a financially sound choice.”
As consumers, it is up to each one of us to be aware of our options and to vote with our dollars when it comes to these outrageously expensive medications.
Stay up-to-date with the latest in medications and healthcare at Medicine.news.
https://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/big-pharma-on-display-a-drug-company-now-charges-almost-300-for-a-5-bottle-of-a-simple-low-cost-vitamin/
2018年2月28日星期三
2018年2月22日星期四
農產品供應商現在在你的水果和蔬菜上使用一種化學物"保鮮科技".....是否安全的呢?
農產品供應商現在在你的水果和蔬菜上使用一種化學物"保鮮科技".....是否安全的呢?
現在的蔬菜水菓長期不變壞,是使用了一種不同名字而實質成份卻是一樣的致癌,破壞基因的保鮮化學物...專利登記: SmartFresh Technology
(註: 另外根據Codex Alimentarius, 聯合國規定所有出口蔬果都要被幅射照過。)
2017年11月6日星期一
Jason A 光明會警告: 數十億人會死於這東西!!!! 末世跡象 (2017-2018)
Jason A 光明會警告: 數十億人會死於這東西!!!! 末世跡象 (2017-2018)
Jason A Illuminati Warning: Billions will Die from This!!!! End Times Signs (2017-2018)
https://youtu.be/kkM5iMC2wjA
Jason A Illuminati Warning: Billions will Die from This!!!! End Times Signs (2017-2018)
https://youtu.be/kkM5iMC2wjA
2013年2月6日星期三
(英鏈) 食品法典委員會和轉基因食品指南 第一、二及三部份
食品法典委員會和轉基因食品指南 第一部份
Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 1
Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom
來自食品法典委員會的更新摘錄 -- 健康自由的結束
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
Monday, February 4, 2013
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food.html
食品法典委員會和轉基因食品指南 第二部份
Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 2
Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom
來自食品法典委員會的更新摘錄 -- 健康自由的結束
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_6.html
食品法典委員會和轉基因食品指南 第三部份
Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 3
Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom
來自食品法典委員會的更新摘錄 -- 健康自由的結束
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_8.html
Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 1
Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom
來自食品法典委員會的更新摘錄 -- 健康自由的結束
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
Monday, February 4, 2013
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food.html
食品法典委員會和轉基因食品指南 第二部份
Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 2
Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom
來自食品法典委員會的更新摘錄 -- 健康自由的結束
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_6.html
食品法典委員會和轉基因食品指南 第三部份
Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 3
Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom
來自食品法典委員會的更新摘錄 -- 健康自由的結束
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/codex-alimentarius-and-gm-food_8.html
2012年12月31日星期一
2012年12月29日星期六
(英鏈) 更新:德國法蘭克福的2012年食品法典委員會會議結果
更新:德國法蘭克福的2012年食品法典委員會會議結果
UPDATE: Results of Codex Alimentarius Meetings 2012, In Frankfurt, Germany
December 24, 2012
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/update-results-of-codex-alimentarius-meetings-2012-in-frankfurt-germany/
UPDATE: Results of Codex Alimentarius Meetings 2012, In Frankfurt, Germany
December 24, 2012
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/update-results-of-codex-alimentarius-meetings-2012-in-frankfurt-germany/
2012年12月19日星期三
2012年2月28日星期二
如果你服用口服維他命D,你必須避免做出這嚴重的錯誤
如果你服用口服維他命D,你必須避免做出這嚴重的錯誤
If You Take Oral Vitamin D You MUST Avoid Making This Serious Mistake
Dr. Mercola
February 23 2012
Translation by Autumnson Blog
Did you know there are two types of vitamin D, and they are NOT interchangeable?
你知道有兩種類型的維他命D嗎,而它們是不可互相交換的?
In fact, taking the wrong one could do you more harm than good...
事實上,服用了錯誤的一種可能是弊多於利...
Drisdol is a synthetic form of vitamin D2—made by irradiating fungus and plant matter—and is the form of vitamin D typically prescribed by doctors.
Drisdol是一種合成形式的維他命D2 - 由輻照真菌和植物物質製造 - 及是一種典型地由醫生處方的維他命D形式。
This is not the type produced by your body in response to sun or safe tanning bed exposure, which is vitamin D3.
這不是那類型由你的身體回應接觸陽光或安全曬黑床所生產的,這即是維他命D3。
A recent meta-analysis by the Cochrane Databasei looked at mortality rates for people who supplemented their diets with D2 versus those who did so with D3, the form naturally produced by your body, highlighting the significant differences between the two.
最近一項由科克倫Databasei的表示變異分析,看看以D2補充他們的飲食對那些以D3 - 你身體自然產生的形式 - 這樣做的人們的死亡率,來突出兩者之間的重大差異。
The analysis of 50 randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 94,000 participants, showed:
其中包括共有94,000名參加者,作50個隨機對照試驗的分析,結果表明:
•A six percent relative risk reduction among those who used vitamin D3, but
•在那些使用維他命D3的人之中,有六%相對風險的減少,但
•A two percent relative risk increase among those who used D2
•在那些使用D2的人,有2%相對風險的增加
According to the Vitamin D Councilii:
據維他命D Councilii:
"You would think a paper that took a look at tens of thousands of subjects and analyzed the efficacy of prescription vitamin D (D2) and over-the-counter vitamin D (D3) would warrant a news story or two.
To my knowledge, these papers are the first to paint such a clear picture about the efficacy between D3 and D2.
While there may be explanations for D3's superiority other than improved efficacy, for the time being, these papers send doctors a message: use D3, not D2."
雖然可能有解釋維他命D3改善療效之外的優勢,目前是,這些文件發送一條消息給醫生:使用D3,而不是D2“
補充性的維他命D2和D3之間的差異
The Difference Between Supplemental Vitamin D2 and D3
The notion that vitamin D2 and D3 were equivalent was based on decades-old studies of rickets prevention in infants. Today, we know a lot more about vitamin D, and the featured study offers compelling support for the recommendation to take vitamin D3 if you need to take an oral supplement—which is the same type of D vitamin created in your body when you expose your skin to sunlight.
維他命D2和D3是等同的概念,是建基在嬰幼兒佝僂病預防的幾十年久的研究。今天,我們知道很多關於維他命D,和功能的研究提供強有力的支持,特別是如果你需要服用口服補充劑,給建議服用維他命D3,那即是當你暴露你的皮膚在陽光下時,在你身體創造的同類型維他命D。
Supplemental vitamin D comes in two forms:
1.Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2)
2.Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)
I personally recommend getting your vitamin D from safe sun exposure (or a safe tanning bed), as there's compelling reason to believe the vitamin D created in your skin in response to sun exposure has some slight but important differences that make it even more beneficial than supplemental vitamin D3. I will address this more in just a moment, but first, let's review the differences between the two types of supplemental vitamin D. Aside from the featured findings that supplemental vitamin D3 reduced the relative mortality risk by six percent, while D2 actually INCREASED mortality risk by two percent, the two types differ in the following ways:
•According to the latest research, D3 is approximately 87 percent more potentiii in raising and maintaining vitamin D concentrations and produces 2- to 3-fold greater storage of vitamin D than does D2.
•Regardless of which form you use, your body must convert it into a more active form, and vitamin D3 is converted 500 percent faster than vitamin D2.
•Vitamin D2 also has a shorter shelf life, and its metabolites bind poorly with proteins, further hampering its effectiveness.
飲食的來源如何?動物基對植物基的維他命D
What about Dietary Sources? Animal-Based versus Plant-Based Vitamin D
Aside from taking an oral vitamin D supplement, you can also obtain small amounts of vitamin D from your diet. Here too, it's important to realize that not all food sources provide the same kind of vitamin D. Plant sources provide you with D2. The more beneficial D3 can only be had through animal-based sources such as:
•Fish, such as salmon, mackerel, tuna and sardines
•Egg yolk
•Raw milk
Dairy processors producing pasteurized milk have also been fortifying milk with vitamin D since 1933. Today, about 98 percent of the milk supply in the U.S. is fortified with approximately 400 International Units (IU) of vitamin D per quart. While dairies used to fortify their milk with vitamin D2, most have now switched over to D3. But, if you still drink pasteurized milk (which I don't recommend), check the label to see which form of vitamin D has been added. (If you drink raw milk, then you're getting the naturally-occurring vitamin D in the milk fat.) Keep in mind that although milk is fortified, other dairy products such as cheese and ice cream does typically not contain added vitamin D.
維他命D能製造或破壞你的健康,所以取對的一種!
Vitamin D Can Make or Break Your Health, So Get the Right Kind!
There's overwhelming evidence that vitamin D is a key player in your overall health. This is understandable when you consider that it is not "just" a vitamin; it's actually a neuroregulatory steroidal hormone that influences nearly 3,000 different genes in your body. Receptors that respond to the vitamin have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your brain to your bones.
有過半證據表明,維他命D是你整體健康的關鍵球員,這是可以理解當你認為它不“衹”是一種維他命;它實際上是一種調控的神經甾體激素,影響你身體中近3,000個不同的基因。回應維他命的受體已在幾乎每一類型的人體細胞發現,從你的大腦至你的筋骨。
Just one example of an important gene that vitamin D up-regulates is your ability to fight infections, as well as chronic inflammation. It produces over 200 antimicrobial peptides, the most important of which is cathelicidin, a naturally occurring broad-spectrum antibiotic. This is one of the explanations for why it can be so effective against colds and influenza.
一個重要基因的衹是其中一個例子是,維他命D上調是你抵抗感染以及慢性炎症的能力。它生產超過200抗菌肽,其中最重要的是抗菌肽,一種自然地發生中的闊光譜抗生素。這就是其中一個解釋為什麼它可以對預防感冒及流感如此有效。
Optimizing your vitamin D levels should be at the top of the list for virtually everyone, regardless of your age, sex, color, or health status, as vitamin D deficiency has been linked to an astonishingly diverse array of common chronic diseases, such as:
優化你的維生素D水平應該是在列表的頂部,給幾乎每個人,不論你的年齡、性別、膚色、或健康狀況,正如維他命D缺乏症已被聯繫到一個驚人的常見慢性疾病的多樣化列,例如:
優化你的維他命D水平的理想方法
The IDEAL Way to Optimize Your Vitamin D Levels
While this article is focused on the two types of oral vitamin D supplementation, it's important to realize that the IDEAL way to optimize your vitamin D levels is through appropriate sun or safe tanning bed exposure. While your skin does create vitamin D3 in response to sun light, which is theoretically the same as the D3 you get from an oral supplement, there's cause to believe that the vitamin D created from sun exposure may have additional health benefits, and here's why:
•When you expose your skin to the sun, your skin also synthesizes high amounts of cholesterol sulfate, which is very important for heart and cardiovascular health. In fact, according to research by Dr. Stephanie Seneff, high LDL and subsequent heart disease may in fact be a symptom of cholesterol sulfate deficiency. Sulfur deficiency also promotes obesity and related health problems like diabetes
•When exposed to sunshine, your skin also synthesizes vitamin D3 sulfate. This form of vitamin D is water soluble, unlike oral vitamin D3 supplements, which is unsulfated. The water-soluble form can travel freely in your bloodstream, whereas the unsulfated form needs LDL (the so-called "bad" cholesterol) as a vehicle of transport. According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff, there's reason to believe that many of the profound benefits of vitamin D are actually due to the vitamin D sulfate. As a result, she suspects that the oral non-sulfated form of vitamin D might not provide all of the same benefits, because it cannot be converted to vitamin D sulfate
•You cannot overdose when getting your vitamin D from sun exposure, as your body has the ability to self-regulate and only make what it needs
So essentially, getting regular sun exposure has much greater health ramifications than "just" raising your vitamin D levels and preventing infections. Sun exposure also appears to play a role in heart and cardiovascular health, and much more!
If you cannot get your vitamin D requirements from sun exposure, I recommend using a safe tanning bed (one with electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, to avoid unnecessary exposure to EMF fields). Safe tanning beds also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight. If neither of these are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. It will certainly be better than no vitamin D at all.
你應該服用多少維他命D?
How Much Vitamin D Should You Take?
Some 40 leading vitamin D experts from around the world currently agree that there's no specific dosage level at which "magic" happens; rather the most important factor when it comes to vitamin D is your serum level (the level of vitamin D in your blood). So you really should be taking whatever dosage required to obtain a therapeutic level of vitamin D in your blood.
That said, based on the most recent research by GrassrootsHealth—an organization that has greatly contributed to the current knowledge on vitamin D through their D* Action Study—it appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU's of vitamin D a day in order to raise their serum levels above 40 ng/ml.4 For children, many experts agree they need about 35 IU's of vitamin D per pound of body weight.
At the time GrassrootsHealth performed the studies that resulted in this dosage recommendation, the optimal serum level was believed to be between 40 to 60 ng/ml. Since then, the optimal vitamin D level has been raised to 50-70 ng/ml, and when treating cancer or heart disease, as high as 70-100 ng/ml, as illustrated in the chart above.
What this means is that even if you do not regularly monitor your vitamin D levels (which you should), your risk of overdosing is going to be fairly slim even if you take as much as 8,000 IU's a day. However, the only way to determine your optimal dose is to get your blood tested regularly, and adjust your dosage to maintain that goldilocks' zone.
For more information, including an in-depth explanation of everything you need to know before you get tested, please see Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.
References:
i Vitamin D Supplementation for Prevention of Mortality in Adults, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, July 6, 2011: (7); CD007470, G. Bjelakovic, et al.
ii Meta-analysis Looks at Efficacy of D2 vs D3, Vitamin D Council, November 16, 2011: Dr. John Cannell.
iii Vitamin D3 Is More Potent Than Vitamin D2 in Humans, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, March 1, 2011: 96 (3); E447-E452, Robert P. Heaney, et al.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/23/oral-vitamin-d-mistake.aspx?e_cid=20120223-a3-ProductTest-1
If You Take Oral Vitamin D You MUST Avoid Making This Serious Mistake
Dr. Mercola
February 23 2012
Translation by Autumnson Blog
Did you know there are two types of vitamin D, and they are NOT interchangeable?
你知道有兩種類型的維他命D嗎,而它們是不可互相交換的?
In fact, taking the wrong one could do you more harm than good...
事實上,服用了錯誤的一種可能是弊多於利...
Drisdol is a synthetic form of vitamin D2—made by irradiating fungus and plant matter—and is the form of vitamin D typically prescribed by doctors.
Drisdol是一種合成形式的維他命D2 - 由輻照真菌和植物物質製造 - 及是一種典型地由醫生處方的維他命D形式。
This is not the type produced by your body in response to sun or safe tanning bed exposure, which is vitamin D3.
這不是那類型由你的身體回應接觸陽光或安全曬黑床所生產的,這即是維他命D3。
A recent meta-analysis by the Cochrane Databasei looked at mortality rates for people who supplemented their diets with D2 versus those who did so with D3, the form naturally produced by your body, highlighting the significant differences between the two.
最近一項由科克倫Databasei的表示變異分析,看看以D2補充他們的飲食對那些以D3 - 你身體自然產生的形式 - 這樣做的人們的死亡率,來突出兩者之間的重大差異。
The analysis of 50 randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 94,000 participants, showed:
其中包括共有94,000名參加者,作50個隨機對照試驗的分析,結果表明:
•A six percent relative risk reduction among those who used vitamin D3, but
•在那些使用維他命D3的人之中,有六%相對風險的減少,但
•A two percent relative risk increase among those who used D2
•在那些使用D2的人,有2%相對風險的增加
According to the Vitamin D Councilii:
據維他命D Councilii:
"You would think a paper that took a look at tens of thousands of subjects and analyzed the efficacy of prescription vitamin D (D2) and over-the-counter vitamin D (D3) would warrant a news story or two.
To my knowledge, these papers are the first to paint such a clear picture about the efficacy between D3 and D2.
While there may be explanations for D3's superiority other than improved efficacy, for the time being, these papers send doctors a message: use D3, not D2."
雖然可能有解釋維他命D3改善療效之外的優勢,目前是,這些文件發送一條消息給醫生:使用D3,而不是D2“
補充性的維他命D2和D3之間的差異
The Difference Between Supplemental Vitamin D2 and D3
The notion that vitamin D2 and D3 were equivalent was based on decades-old studies of rickets prevention in infants. Today, we know a lot more about vitamin D, and the featured study offers compelling support for the recommendation to take vitamin D3 if you need to take an oral supplement—which is the same type of D vitamin created in your body when you expose your skin to sunlight.
維他命D2和D3是等同的概念,是建基在嬰幼兒佝僂病預防的幾十年久的研究。今天,我們知道很多關於維他命D,和功能的研究提供強有力的支持,特別是如果你需要服用口服補充劑,給建議服用維他命D3,那即是當你暴露你的皮膚在陽光下時,在你身體創造的同類型維他命D。
Supplemental vitamin D comes in two forms:
1.Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2)
2.Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)
I personally recommend getting your vitamin D from safe sun exposure (or a safe tanning bed), as there's compelling reason to believe the vitamin D created in your skin in response to sun exposure has some slight but important differences that make it even more beneficial than supplemental vitamin D3. I will address this more in just a moment, but first, let's review the differences between the two types of supplemental vitamin D. Aside from the featured findings that supplemental vitamin D3 reduced the relative mortality risk by six percent, while D2 actually INCREASED mortality risk by two percent, the two types differ in the following ways:
•According to the latest research, D3 is approximately 87 percent more potentiii in raising and maintaining vitamin D concentrations and produces 2- to 3-fold greater storage of vitamin D than does D2.
•Regardless of which form you use, your body must convert it into a more active form, and vitamin D3 is converted 500 percent faster than vitamin D2.
•Vitamin D2 also has a shorter shelf life, and its metabolites bind poorly with proteins, further hampering its effectiveness.
飲食的來源如何?動物基對植物基的維他命D
What about Dietary Sources? Animal-Based versus Plant-Based Vitamin D
Aside from taking an oral vitamin D supplement, you can also obtain small amounts of vitamin D from your diet. Here too, it's important to realize that not all food sources provide the same kind of vitamin D. Plant sources provide you with D2. The more beneficial D3 can only be had through animal-based sources such as:
•Fish, such as salmon, mackerel, tuna and sardines
•Egg yolk
•Raw milk
Dairy processors producing pasteurized milk have also been fortifying milk with vitamin D since 1933. Today, about 98 percent of the milk supply in the U.S. is fortified with approximately 400 International Units (IU) of vitamin D per quart. While dairies used to fortify their milk with vitamin D2, most have now switched over to D3. But, if you still drink pasteurized milk (which I don't recommend), check the label to see which form of vitamin D has been added. (If you drink raw milk, then you're getting the naturally-occurring vitamin D in the milk fat.) Keep in mind that although milk is fortified, other dairy products such as cheese and ice cream does typically not contain added vitamin D.
維他命D能製造或破壞你的健康,所以取對的一種!
Vitamin D Can Make or Break Your Health, So Get the Right Kind!
There's overwhelming evidence that vitamin D is a key player in your overall health. This is understandable when you consider that it is not "just" a vitamin; it's actually a neuroregulatory steroidal hormone that influences nearly 3,000 different genes in your body. Receptors that respond to the vitamin have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your brain to your bones.
有過半證據表明,維他命D是你整體健康的關鍵球員,這是可以理解當你認為它不“衹”是一種維他命;它實際上是一種調控的神經甾體激素,影響你身體中近3,000個不同的基因。回應維他命的受體已在幾乎每一類型的人體細胞發現,從你的大腦至你的筋骨。
Just one example of an important gene that vitamin D up-regulates is your ability to fight infections, as well as chronic inflammation. It produces over 200 antimicrobial peptides, the most important of which is cathelicidin, a naturally occurring broad-spectrum antibiotic. This is one of the explanations for why it can be so effective against colds and influenza.
一個重要基因的衹是其中一個例子是,維他命D上調是你抵抗感染以及慢性炎症的能力。它生產超過200抗菌肽,其中最重要的是抗菌肽,一種自然地發生中的闊光譜抗生素。這就是其中一個解釋為什麼它可以對預防感冒及流感如此有效。
Optimizing your vitamin D levels should be at the top of the list for virtually everyone, regardless of your age, sex, color, or health status, as vitamin D deficiency has been linked to an astonishingly diverse array of common chronic diseases, such as:
優化你的維生素D水平應該是在列表的頂部,給幾乎每個人,不論你的年齡、性別、膚色、或健康狀況,正如維他命D缺乏症已被聯繫到一個驚人的常見慢性疾病的多樣化列,例如:
優化你的維他命D水平的理想方法
The IDEAL Way to Optimize Your Vitamin D Levels
While this article is focused on the two types of oral vitamin D supplementation, it's important to realize that the IDEAL way to optimize your vitamin D levels is through appropriate sun or safe tanning bed exposure. While your skin does create vitamin D3 in response to sun light, which is theoretically the same as the D3 you get from an oral supplement, there's cause to believe that the vitamin D created from sun exposure may have additional health benefits, and here's why:
•When you expose your skin to the sun, your skin also synthesizes high amounts of cholesterol sulfate, which is very important for heart and cardiovascular health. In fact, according to research by Dr. Stephanie Seneff, high LDL and subsequent heart disease may in fact be a symptom of cholesterol sulfate deficiency. Sulfur deficiency also promotes obesity and related health problems like diabetes
•When exposed to sunshine, your skin also synthesizes vitamin D3 sulfate. This form of vitamin D is water soluble, unlike oral vitamin D3 supplements, which is unsulfated. The water-soluble form can travel freely in your bloodstream, whereas the unsulfated form needs LDL (the so-called "bad" cholesterol) as a vehicle of transport. According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff, there's reason to believe that many of the profound benefits of vitamin D are actually due to the vitamin D sulfate. As a result, she suspects that the oral non-sulfated form of vitamin D might not provide all of the same benefits, because it cannot be converted to vitamin D sulfate
•You cannot overdose when getting your vitamin D from sun exposure, as your body has the ability to self-regulate and only make what it needs
So essentially, getting regular sun exposure has much greater health ramifications than "just" raising your vitamin D levels and preventing infections. Sun exposure also appears to play a role in heart and cardiovascular health, and much more!
If you cannot get your vitamin D requirements from sun exposure, I recommend using a safe tanning bed (one with electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, to avoid unnecessary exposure to EMF fields). Safe tanning beds also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight. If neither of these are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. It will certainly be better than no vitamin D at all.
你應該服用多少維他命D?
How Much Vitamin D Should You Take?
Some 40 leading vitamin D experts from around the world currently agree that there's no specific dosage level at which "magic" happens; rather the most important factor when it comes to vitamin D is your serum level (the level of vitamin D in your blood). So you really should be taking whatever dosage required to obtain a therapeutic level of vitamin D in your blood.
That said, based on the most recent research by GrassrootsHealth—an organization that has greatly contributed to the current knowledge on vitamin D through their D* Action Study—it appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU's of vitamin D a day in order to raise their serum levels above 40 ng/ml.4 For children, many experts agree they need about 35 IU's of vitamin D per pound of body weight.
At the time GrassrootsHealth performed the studies that resulted in this dosage recommendation, the optimal serum level was believed to be between 40 to 60 ng/ml. Since then, the optimal vitamin D level has been raised to 50-70 ng/ml, and when treating cancer or heart disease, as high as 70-100 ng/ml, as illustrated in the chart above.
What this means is that even if you do not regularly monitor your vitamin D levels (which you should), your risk of overdosing is going to be fairly slim even if you take as much as 8,000 IU's a day. However, the only way to determine your optimal dose is to get your blood tested regularly, and adjust your dosage to maintain that goldilocks' zone.
For more information, including an in-depth explanation of everything you need to know before you get tested, please see Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.
References:
i Vitamin D Supplementation for Prevention of Mortality in Adults, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, July 6, 2011: (7); CD007470, G. Bjelakovic, et al.
ii Meta-analysis Looks at Efficacy of D2 vs D3, Vitamin D Council, November 16, 2011: Dr. John Cannell.
iii Vitamin D3 Is More Potent Than Vitamin D2 in Humans, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, March 1, 2011: 96 (3); E447-E452, Robert P. Heaney, et al.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/23/oral-vitamin-d-mistake.aspx?e_cid=20120223-a3-ProductTest-1
2011年11月19日星期六
歐盟禁制水可以防止脫水的聲稱
歐盟禁制水可以防止脫水的聲稱
EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration
Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.
布魯塞爾的官僚昨天被嘲笑,在禁制飲料製造商聲稱水能防止脫水後。
By Victoria Ward and Nick Collins
6:20AM GMT 18 Nov 2011
Translation by Autumnson Blog
NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day Photo: ALAMY
NHS健康指引明確指出,飲水有助於避免脫水,及英國人應該至少喝1.2升一天 照片:ALAMY
EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.
繼一項為期三年的的調查後,歐盟官員得出的結論是,沒有證據去證明以前是不爭的事實。
Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.
瓶裝水的生產者現在被法律禁止作出聲稱,如果他們違抗下個月在英國生效的命令,將面臨兩年監禁。
Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.
昨晚,評論家聲稱歐盟是與科學和常識不一致。保守黨議員羅傑赫爾默說:“這是愚蠢大令狀。
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.
“歐元正在燃燒,歐盟正在煎頭拆骨,但他們在這裡卻是:高收入、高退休金的官員擔心明顯是水的質素,並試圖剝奪我們說公然地是真的東西的權利。
“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”
“如果曾有一個小插曲,示範了偉大歐洲工程的愚蠢,那麼就在此處了。”
NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.
The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible."
German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.
They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.
They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.
However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.
A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.
Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.
Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.
He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.
“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.
EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.
Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.
Prof Hahn, from the Institute for Food Science and Human Nutrition at Hanover Leibniz University, said the European Commission had made another mistake with its latest ruling.
“What is our reaction to the outcome? Let us put it this way: We are neither surprised nor delighted.
“The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and who has not? We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe.”
Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html
EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration
Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.
布魯塞爾的官僚昨天被嘲笑,在禁制飲料製造商聲稱水能防止脫水後。
By Victoria Ward and Nick Collins
6:20AM GMT 18 Nov 2011
Translation by Autumnson Blog
NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day Photo: ALAMY
NHS健康指引明確指出,飲水有助於避免脫水,及英國人應該至少喝1.2升一天 照片:ALAMY
EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.
繼一項為期三年的的調查後,歐盟官員得出的結論是,沒有證據去證明以前是不爭的事實。
Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.
瓶裝水的生產者現在被法律禁止作出聲稱,如果他們違抗下個月在英國生效的命令,將面臨兩年監禁。
Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.
昨晚,評論家聲稱歐盟是與科學和常識不一致。保守黨議員羅傑赫爾默說:“這是愚蠢大令狀。
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.
“歐元正在燃燒,歐盟正在煎頭拆骨,但他們在這裡卻是:高收入、高退休金的官員擔心明顯是水的質素,並試圖剝奪我們說公然地是真的東西的權利。
“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”
“如果曾有一個小插曲,示範了偉大歐洲工程的愚蠢,那麼就在此處了。”
NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.
The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible."
German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.
They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.
They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.
However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.
A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.
Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.
Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.
He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.
“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.
EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.
Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.
Prof Hahn, from the Institute for Food Science and Human Nutrition at Hanover Leibniz University, said the European Commission had made another mistake with its latest ruling.
“What is our reaction to the outcome? Let us put it this way: We are neither surprised nor delighted.
“The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and who has not? We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe.”
Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html
2011年11月3日星期四
2011年9月14日星期三
紅色警報:FDA準備禁止你的補充劑
紅色警報:FDA準備禁止你的補充劑
RED ALERT: FDA Set to Ban Your Supplements
Mercola.com
By Dr. Mercola
September 13, 2011
Translation by Autumnson Blog
Dr. Mercola Discusses the FDA
Mercola博士論述FDA
2011-09-10
The FDA has issued a proposed mandate that represents the greatest threat to dietary supplements since 1994. Back in the early 1990s, consumers were so alarmed by FDA bullying that they staged a massive revolt.
FDA已發出一建議的指命,代表自1994年以來藥膳補充劑的最大威脅。早在20世紀 90年代,消費者是如此擔憂FDA的欺凌,因此他們上演一場大規模的起義。
The result was that Congress passed a law prohibiting the FDA from banning popular nutrients (as the agency had threatened to do).
結果是國會通過一項法律禁止FDA,去禁制流行的營養物質(因為該機構威脅要做的)。
There was, however, a loophole in the 1994 law. The FDA was given authority to regulate ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994.
然而在1994年的法律有漏洞,FDA被賦予權力監管在1994年10月15日後引入的成分 。
It has been 17 years, but the FDA just issued draconian proposals as to how it intends to regulate what it now calls “new dietary ingredients”. You can find the the the FDA Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients (NDI’s) here.
迄今已有17年,但FDA剛剛發出嚴厲的建議,如打算規範它現在稱為“新藥膳成分”。你可以在這裡找到FDA的新藥膳成分(NDI的)的指南草案。
If implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you are taking will be removed from the market. This includes many fish oil formulas and natural plant extracts. A detailed analysis of the FDA Draft Guidance is available here.
如果實施,一些你正在服用的最有效用營養將由市場清除。這包括許多魚油配方和天然植物精華,一份FDA指南草案的詳細分析可以在這裡找到。
These oppressive rules are exactly what the 1994 law (DSHEA) sought to prevent. The FDA is using its authority in direct violation of Congressional intent.
In order for these ingredients you are using today to return to the market, the FDA will require manufacturers to conduct outrageously expensive studies using absurdly high doses, in some situations multiplied by a “safety factor” up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis.
The FDA defines dietary supplements as being “new” if they were introduced after October 15, 1994. That means that even certain nutrients that have been safely used over the course of three decades will be subject to the FDA’s oppressive policies that mandate costly animal testing.
FDA視補充劑為合成的食品防腐劑
The FDA Views Supplements in Same Light as Synthetic Food Preservatives
According to the new guidelines, the FDA believes that “new dietary supplements” must be regulated similarly to synthetic food preservatives. The FDA guidelines have modeled the outrageous safety thresholds after those in place for food additives.
This appears to be in direct violation of DSHEA, the law enacted in 1994 to protect consumer access to dietary supplements, which classifies dietary supplements as foods, not food additives.
The FDA proposes that new dietary supplement ingredients should adhere to aggressive safety margins, which are typically reserved for chemical compounds known to be dangerous in all but the most miniscule concentrations.
Since food additives or preservatives such as aspartame, monosodium glutamate, and sodium nitrate are known to cause cancer or other severe health problems, the FDA has implemented safety guidelines which limit allowable concentrations of these food additives to levels that are supposed to be physiologically inert.
The fact that the FDA is trying to impose the same limits upon dietary supplements seems to be arbitrary and completely unfounded.
In fact, when someone takes a dietary supplement, their intent is to positively affect the structure or function of their bodies in some way – limiting dosages of dietary supplements to physiologically inert levels defeats the entire purpose of supplementation with health-sustaining nutrients.
The FDA’s new guidelines are so flawed that even nutrients shown to be completely safe in hundreds of human clinical studies would fail to accommodate the unreasonable safety margins.
To give you an example, each manufacturer of certain fish oils would have to conduct a one year study where animals would have to consume the human equivalent of 240,000 milligrams each day of fish oil.
Another option under the FDA’s proposed mandates is to conduct a 90-day, 1,000 – fold safety margin study in which two species of animals, one being non-rodent – likely young beagle dogs, will theoretically consume the equivalent of 2.4 million milligrams of fish oil daily.
We know of virtually no species can tolerate this high dose, so by default, FDA guidelines will make it impossible for certain omega-3 supplements to be sold. (Note typical dose of EPA/DHA people take each day is around 2,400 mg—100 times less than what the FDA proposes must be tested.)
Since these are not patented drugs, no supplement maker will be able to afford these “safety” studies, which means that many of the nutrients you now purchase at low prices will convert into high-priced drugs.
醫藥行業的利潤受到低成本補充劑所威脅
Pharmaceutical Industry Profit Threatened By Low Cost Supplements
It appears that the FDA is claiming that dietary supplements are unsafe, and in order to “protect consumers” the agency must place a stranglehold on the dietary supplement industry by requesting exorbitant safety testing.
These ludicrous safety thresholds are in excess of those required by pharmaceutical drugs despite studies showing supplements are far safer than drugs.
According to the 2001 report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), of the substances implicated in fatal poisonings in 2001, 84.6 percent were pharmaceutical drugs, with analgesics being implicated as the primary cause of death in 32 percent of fatalities or 341 deaths.
This compares with 0.8 percent for all dietary supplements combined, even including substances such as dinitrophenol, a dangerous (and illegal) substance banned in 1938, as well as the central nervous system stimulant Ma Huang (Ephedra). Interestingly, the anti-asthma drug theophylline alone was responsible for 15 deaths, 66 percent more than all the available dietary supplements combined.
There is, however, a massive economic benefit for the drug industry if the proposed guidelines are enforced by the FDA. Health conscious Americans who properly supplement slash their risk of degenerative disease. The FDA’s new rules, if enacted, will force the price of many supplements to surge upwards, while removing many effective ones altogether.
That means that more aging people will have to rely on side effect laden prescription drugs to treat the degenerative diseases they will contract because they will be denied access to health-promoting nutrients.
(Should you support the opposition please click:)
http://theintelhub.com/2011/09/13/red-alert-fda-set-to-ban-your-supplements/
RED ALERT: FDA Set to Ban Your Supplements
Mercola.com
By Dr. Mercola
September 13, 2011
Translation by Autumnson Blog
Dr. Mercola Discusses the FDA
Mercola博士論述FDA
2011-09-10
The FDA has issued a proposed mandate that represents the greatest threat to dietary supplements since 1994. Back in the early 1990s, consumers were so alarmed by FDA bullying that they staged a massive revolt.
FDA已發出一建議的指命,代表自1994年以來藥膳補充劑的最大威脅。早在20世紀 90年代,消費者是如此擔憂FDA的欺凌,因此他們上演一場大規模的起義。
The result was that Congress passed a law prohibiting the FDA from banning popular nutrients (as the agency had threatened to do).
結果是國會通過一項法律禁止FDA,去禁制流行的營養物質(因為該機構威脅要做的)。
There was, however, a loophole in the 1994 law. The FDA was given authority to regulate ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994.
然而在1994年的法律有漏洞,FDA被賦予權力監管在1994年10月15日後引入的成分 。
It has been 17 years, but the FDA just issued draconian proposals as to how it intends to regulate what it now calls “new dietary ingredients”. You can find the the the FDA Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients (NDI’s) here.
迄今已有17年,但FDA剛剛發出嚴厲的建議,如打算規範它現在稱為“新藥膳成分”。你可以在這裡找到FDA的新藥膳成分(NDI的)的指南草案。
If implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you are taking will be removed from the market. This includes many fish oil formulas and natural plant extracts. A detailed analysis of the FDA Draft Guidance is available here.
如果實施,一些你正在服用的最有效用營養將由市場清除。這包括許多魚油配方和天然植物精華,一份FDA指南草案的詳細分析可以在這裡找到。
These oppressive rules are exactly what the 1994 law (DSHEA) sought to prevent. The FDA is using its authority in direct violation of Congressional intent.
In order for these ingredients you are using today to return to the market, the FDA will require manufacturers to conduct outrageously expensive studies using absurdly high doses, in some situations multiplied by a “safety factor” up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis.
The FDA defines dietary supplements as being “new” if they were introduced after October 15, 1994. That means that even certain nutrients that have been safely used over the course of three decades will be subject to the FDA’s oppressive policies that mandate costly animal testing.
FDA視補充劑為合成的食品防腐劑
The FDA Views Supplements in Same Light as Synthetic Food Preservatives
According to the new guidelines, the FDA believes that “new dietary supplements” must be regulated similarly to synthetic food preservatives. The FDA guidelines have modeled the outrageous safety thresholds after those in place for food additives.
This appears to be in direct violation of DSHEA, the law enacted in 1994 to protect consumer access to dietary supplements, which classifies dietary supplements as foods, not food additives.
The FDA proposes that new dietary supplement ingredients should adhere to aggressive safety margins, which are typically reserved for chemical compounds known to be dangerous in all but the most miniscule concentrations.
Since food additives or preservatives such as aspartame, monosodium glutamate, and sodium nitrate are known to cause cancer or other severe health problems, the FDA has implemented safety guidelines which limit allowable concentrations of these food additives to levels that are supposed to be physiologically inert.
The fact that the FDA is trying to impose the same limits upon dietary supplements seems to be arbitrary and completely unfounded.
In fact, when someone takes a dietary supplement, their intent is to positively affect the structure or function of their bodies in some way – limiting dosages of dietary supplements to physiologically inert levels defeats the entire purpose of supplementation with health-sustaining nutrients.
The FDA’s new guidelines are so flawed that even nutrients shown to be completely safe in hundreds of human clinical studies would fail to accommodate the unreasonable safety margins.
To give you an example, each manufacturer of certain fish oils would have to conduct a one year study where animals would have to consume the human equivalent of 240,000 milligrams each day of fish oil.
Another option under the FDA’s proposed mandates is to conduct a 90-day, 1,000 – fold safety margin study in which two species of animals, one being non-rodent – likely young beagle dogs, will theoretically consume the equivalent of 2.4 million milligrams of fish oil daily.
We know of virtually no species can tolerate this high dose, so by default, FDA guidelines will make it impossible for certain omega-3 supplements to be sold. (Note typical dose of EPA/DHA people take each day is around 2,400 mg—100 times less than what the FDA proposes must be tested.)
Since these are not patented drugs, no supplement maker will be able to afford these “safety” studies, which means that many of the nutrients you now purchase at low prices will convert into high-priced drugs.
醫藥行業的利潤受到低成本補充劑所威脅
Pharmaceutical Industry Profit Threatened By Low Cost Supplements
It appears that the FDA is claiming that dietary supplements are unsafe, and in order to “protect consumers” the agency must place a stranglehold on the dietary supplement industry by requesting exorbitant safety testing.
These ludicrous safety thresholds are in excess of those required by pharmaceutical drugs despite studies showing supplements are far safer than drugs.
According to the 2001 report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), of the substances implicated in fatal poisonings in 2001, 84.6 percent were pharmaceutical drugs, with analgesics being implicated as the primary cause of death in 32 percent of fatalities or 341 deaths.
This compares with 0.8 percent for all dietary supplements combined, even including substances such as dinitrophenol, a dangerous (and illegal) substance banned in 1938, as well as the central nervous system stimulant Ma Huang (Ephedra). Interestingly, the anti-asthma drug theophylline alone was responsible for 15 deaths, 66 percent more than all the available dietary supplements combined.
There is, however, a massive economic benefit for the drug industry if the proposed guidelines are enforced by the FDA. Health conscious Americans who properly supplement slash their risk of degenerative disease. The FDA’s new rules, if enacted, will force the price of many supplements to surge upwards, while removing many effective ones altogether.
That means that more aging people will have to rely on side effect laden prescription drugs to treat the degenerative diseases they will contract because they will be denied access to health-promoting nutrients.
(Should you support the opposition please click:)
http://theintelhub.com/2011/09/13/red-alert-fda-set-to-ban-your-supplements/
2011年7月13日星期三
食物自由警報:密歇根州官僚威脅女子入獄因為在自己的院子裡種菜
食物自由警報:密歇根州官僚威脅女子入獄因為在自己的院子裡種菜
Food freedom alert: Bureaucrats in Michigan threaten woman with jail time for planting vegetable garden in her own yard
Monday, July 11, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Translation by Autumnson Blog
(NaturalNews) The anti-food tyrants are at it again, this time threatening a Michigan woman with fines and jail time for her "crime" of daring to plant tomatoes and peppers in her front yard. Your help is needed to take action and fire off an avalanche of complaints against the local bureaucrats in Michigan who are threatening this woman (see action items below).
(NaturalNews)反食物的暴君再現,這一次威脅一名密歇根女子以罰款和坐牢,為的"罪行"是她敢於在她的前院種植西紅柿和辣椒。需要你的幫忙採取行動和展開如雪崩的投訴針對密歇根州的官僚,他們在威脅這個女人(見如下的行動項目)。
This story involves a woman named Julie Bass, whose front yard was dug up during sewer line construction. After the construction project was completed, instead of planting grass, she thought it would be far more practical to plant a vegetable garden. Watch the brief news reports on this at:
這故事涉及一名叫朱莉低音的女子,她的前院在下水道線建設時被挖。在建設項目完成後,卻不是種植草,她以為種植一個蔬菜園將是更實用。在此觀看簡短的新聞報導:
Food tyrants threaten Michigan woman with jail time for planting vegetable garden
食品暴君威脅密歇根女子入獄因為種植菜園
Uploaded 7/10/2011 10:29:31 AM
Michigan Woman Faces 93-Days in Jail For Planting Vegetable Garden
密歇根州女性面臨入獄93天因為種植菜園
Uploaded 7/9/2011 3:45:00 PM
Vegetable gardens not only provide organic, high-nutrient live foods to those who grow them, studies have also linked gardening to enormous health benefits such as sharp reductions in the risk of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/025280_c...) and even lung cancer. They also create an environment of food security while promoting eco-friendly practices. There's no food that's more "local" than the food grown in your own front yard, right? It's good for public health, great for the environment, and fantastic for teaching children useful skills that get them out of the house and away from the X-Box.
你不可在橡樹園種植食物
Thou shalt not grow food in Oak Park
None of this seems to matter to Kevin Rulkowski, the city planner for the city of Oak Park, Michigan. With a nasty arrogance that seems to be increasingly common among ignorant bureaucrats, he complains in a video news report that Julie Bass's garden is in violation of city code and Julie has to dig up her entire garden or face punitive enforcement actions by the city (which could include jail time).
City code says, "All unpaved portions of the site shall be planted with grass, shrubbery or other suitable live plant material."
But city planner Kevin Rulkowski, who really just comes off as an arrogant bully in his attacks on Julie Bass, proclaims, "If you look in Webster's dictionary, suitable means common. And you can look all throughout the entire city and you'll never find a vegetable garden that consumes the entire front yard." (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1D577...).
Hold on a minute, Mr. Rulkowski. Suitable does not mean "common." Suitable means appropriate within the context in which it is being used. Check any dictionary and you'll see the definition of "suitable" being either "appropriate" or "proper."
Even the Webster's dictionary Mr. Rulkowski quotes in his news report doesn't define "suitable" as "common." It defines "suitable" as "proper, able, or qualified" and gives examples such as "The dress was a SUITABLE choice."
Well what could be more suitable to a family with a yard than teaching children how to grow some of their own food right at home? That's suitable! It's the most suitable (and natural) thing in the world, in fact. What's weird is to grow nothing but grass and then spray your lawn with toxic chemicals to kill all the weeds, and then mow the lawn every week burning up fossil fuels and polluting the air just to keep your lawn manicured. That's bizarre (and terrible for city air quality, by the way).
Gardening, on the other hands, is eco-friendly, health-friendly and great for the air quality of the city! What could be more suitable to a city than people growing more of their own food right at home, right on their front lawns?
橡樹園憎恨蔬菜?
Oak Park hates veggies?
To be an opponent of a home garden is to be an enemy of the environment, an enemy of food freedom, an enemy of self reliance and an opponent of the rights of the People to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness.
Mr. Kevin Rulkowski, who can't even get his dictionary definitions straight, maintains his arrogance: "I told her don't do it. And she went ahead and did it anyway." As if Julie Bass is somehow supposed to grovel at this bureaucratic parasite's feet and lick his boots because he pretends to be in a position of authority.
Kevin Rulkowski is like every other mindless bureaucratic tyrant running around America or any other country: They are useless parasites on society who actually harm people while collecting public dollars as their own wages! The city of Oak Park, Michigan would be better served by firing this anti-gardening P.R. disaster before he gets any bright ideas such as banning fruit trees or edible flowers. As a spokesperson for the city of Oak Park, the guy is a shining example of how to not conduct public relations.
He also just looks kind of heartless and mean, you know? ...As if he's been living on processed junk food and hot dogs. I guess for a paper-pushing bureaucratic whip cracker, that's a "suitable" diet, eh? But growing your own food isn't suitable at all in his mind. Of course, he's perfectly fine with pavement. Lots of pavement. You can't have living vegetables in your front yard, but you can pave the entire yard and he's be fine with that! (Seriously, what kind of pathetic, hate-filled anti-lifer prefers pavement over fresh, living garden vegetables?)
So now Julie Bass is facing a jury trial and possible jail time for daring to stand up to the tyranny of miscreants like Kevin Rulkowski. The trial begins in a couple of weeks, and the outcome remains in doubt.
For action please click:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032960_Julie_Bass_home_gardening.html
無牌農業是一刑事企業
食品供應控制將被交予國土安全部
政治的控制狂怪胎接管農市場
美國S510法案在草中發出嘶嘶聲: 禁止私人種植食物
S510食品安全偷襲!一致同意通過
喬治亞州男人為種蔬菜被罰5000美元
猶他州女性因賣來自她家的花被判入獄
台灣上千農民夜宿總統府前抗議
Food freedom alert: Bureaucrats in Michigan threaten woman with jail time for planting vegetable garden in her own yard
Monday, July 11, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Translation by Autumnson Blog
(NaturalNews) The anti-food tyrants are at it again, this time threatening a Michigan woman with fines and jail time for her "crime" of daring to plant tomatoes and peppers in her front yard. Your help is needed to take action and fire off an avalanche of complaints against the local bureaucrats in Michigan who are threatening this woman (see action items below).
(NaturalNews)反食物的暴君再現,這一次威脅一名密歇根女子以罰款和坐牢,為的"罪行"是她敢於在她的前院種植西紅柿和辣椒。需要你的幫忙採取行動和展開如雪崩的投訴針對密歇根州的官僚,他們在威脅這個女人(見如下的行動項目)。
This story involves a woman named Julie Bass, whose front yard was dug up during sewer line construction. After the construction project was completed, instead of planting grass, she thought it would be far more practical to plant a vegetable garden. Watch the brief news reports on this at:
這故事涉及一名叫朱莉低音的女子,她的前院在下水道線建設時被挖。在建設項目完成後,卻不是種植草,她以為種植一個蔬菜園將是更實用。在此觀看簡短的新聞報導:
Food tyrants threaten Michigan woman with jail time for planting vegetable garden
食品暴君威脅密歇根女子入獄因為種植菜園
Uploaded 7/10/2011 10:29:31 AM
Michigan Woman Faces 93-Days in Jail For Planting Vegetable Garden
密歇根州女性面臨入獄93天因為種植菜園
Uploaded 7/9/2011 3:45:00 PM
Vegetable gardens not only provide organic, high-nutrient live foods to those who grow them, studies have also linked gardening to enormous health benefits such as sharp reductions in the risk of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/025280_c...) and even lung cancer. They also create an environment of food security while promoting eco-friendly practices. There's no food that's more "local" than the food grown in your own front yard, right? It's good for public health, great for the environment, and fantastic for teaching children useful skills that get them out of the house and away from the X-Box.
你不可在橡樹園種植食物
Thou shalt not grow food in Oak Park
None of this seems to matter to Kevin Rulkowski, the city planner for the city of Oak Park, Michigan. With a nasty arrogance that seems to be increasingly common among ignorant bureaucrats, he complains in a video news report that Julie Bass's garden is in violation of city code and Julie has to dig up her entire garden or face punitive enforcement actions by the city (which could include jail time).
City code says, "All unpaved portions of the site shall be planted with grass, shrubbery or other suitable live plant material."
But city planner Kevin Rulkowski, who really just comes off as an arrogant bully in his attacks on Julie Bass, proclaims, "If you look in Webster's dictionary, suitable means common. And you can look all throughout the entire city and you'll never find a vegetable garden that consumes the entire front yard." (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1D577...).
Hold on a minute, Mr. Rulkowski. Suitable does not mean "common." Suitable means appropriate within the context in which it is being used. Check any dictionary and you'll see the definition of "suitable" being either "appropriate" or "proper."
Even the Webster's dictionary Mr. Rulkowski quotes in his news report doesn't define "suitable" as "common." It defines "suitable" as "proper, able, or qualified" and gives examples such as "The dress was a SUITABLE choice."
Well what could be more suitable to a family with a yard than teaching children how to grow some of their own food right at home? That's suitable! It's the most suitable (and natural) thing in the world, in fact. What's weird is to grow nothing but grass and then spray your lawn with toxic chemicals to kill all the weeds, and then mow the lawn every week burning up fossil fuels and polluting the air just to keep your lawn manicured. That's bizarre (and terrible for city air quality, by the way).
Gardening, on the other hands, is eco-friendly, health-friendly and great for the air quality of the city! What could be more suitable to a city than people growing more of their own food right at home, right on their front lawns?
橡樹園憎恨蔬菜?
Oak Park hates veggies?
To be an opponent of a home garden is to be an enemy of the environment, an enemy of food freedom, an enemy of self reliance and an opponent of the rights of the People to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness.
Mr. Kevin Rulkowski, who can't even get his dictionary definitions straight, maintains his arrogance: "I told her don't do it. And she went ahead and did it anyway." As if Julie Bass is somehow supposed to grovel at this bureaucratic parasite's feet and lick his boots because he pretends to be in a position of authority.
Kevin Rulkowski is like every other mindless bureaucratic tyrant running around America or any other country: They are useless parasites on society who actually harm people while collecting public dollars as their own wages! The city of Oak Park, Michigan would be better served by firing this anti-gardening P.R. disaster before he gets any bright ideas such as banning fruit trees or edible flowers. As a spokesperson for the city of Oak Park, the guy is a shining example of how to not conduct public relations.
He also just looks kind of heartless and mean, you know? ...As if he's been living on processed junk food and hot dogs. I guess for a paper-pushing bureaucratic whip cracker, that's a "suitable" diet, eh? But growing your own food isn't suitable at all in his mind. Of course, he's perfectly fine with pavement. Lots of pavement. You can't have living vegetables in your front yard, but you can pave the entire yard and he's be fine with that! (Seriously, what kind of pathetic, hate-filled anti-lifer prefers pavement over fresh, living garden vegetables?)
So now Julie Bass is facing a jury trial and possible jail time for daring to stand up to the tyranny of miscreants like Kevin Rulkowski. The trial begins in a couple of weeks, and the outcome remains in doubt.
For action please click:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032960_Julie_Bass_home_gardening.html
無牌農業是一刑事企業
食品供應控制將被交予國土安全部
政治的控制狂怪胎接管農市場
美國S510法案在草中發出嘶嘶聲: 禁止私人種植食物
S510食品安全偷襲!一致同意通過
喬治亞州男人為種蔬菜被罰5000美元
猶他州女性因賣來自她家的花被判入獄
台灣上千農民夜宿總統府前抗議
2011年6月12日星期日
大腸桿菌和輻射- 驚奇!驚奇!
The Simpsons Code
...Alimentarius法例強制性實施於世貿會員國的牛隻,所有食用牛將被餵以致癌的Bovine somatotropin生長激素,另外此法例亦規定所有食物(除非本地用)都必須被幅射照過,照過的食物營養將會減少,亦會引致很多問題。最終引致飢荒和死亡,以大量減少世界人口...
大腸桿菌和輻射- 驚奇!驚奇!
E.coli And Radiation - Surprise! Surprise!
By David Temple
6-11-11
Translation by Autumnson Blog
That European e.coli may have been genetically engineered. But there is no question it is doing what serves the interests of industrial agriculture and the food industry. It has created a rationale ("whether real or promulgated") government officials to come forward on behalf of corporate interests with a "solution" that fresh food be irradiated. And in the words of Gomer Pyle, "Surprise! Surprise!" - they are doing just that.
歐洲的大腸桿菌可能是基因工程,但毫無疑問它正在做對工業性農業和食品工業有利益的事。它已創造一項基本理由(“無論是真實抑或散佈的“)給政府官員代表企業利益出面提出“解決方案“,即新鮮食物要被幅照。以戈梅派爾的說法“驚奇!驚奇!“ - 他們衹在做那。
Henry Kissinger spoke of the advantages to those interested in controlling things "if [people] were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence ..." Twice, he alludes to potential falseness, in the fact of the threat and in the telling about it.
基辛格談到那些有興趣控制事物的人的好處,“如果[人們]被告知有外來威脅,無論是真實抑或散佈的,那脅我們的非常生存...“兩次,他提到潛在的虛偽性,在那威脅的事實和講及它。
Irradiation of food would consolidate control of food by the corporations and would be the end of fresh and organic and local food.
食物輻照將鞏固企業的食品控制,和勢將成為新鮮和有機及本地食物的末日。
Is the e.coli terrorism on behalf of corporate farming and food consolidation? With a bonus to the nuclear industry which would make more profits irradiating food and have a use for its "nowhere safe to put them" spent fuel rods.
Beyond wondering where the e.coli came from and looking to who gains and who loses from it, serious questions about the proffered "solution" - radiating food - arises, especially after the Fukushima disaster.
Even logically, why is it that the public is warned that radiation landing on its food is unsafe and that all radiation is cumulative, and yet there is now this suggestion to directly radiate fresh food (expose it intentionally to radiation) and to a degree high enough to actually kill living things in it, yet that radiation is somehow different from the other radiation and perfectly safe, and in addition is somehow supposed to make food safe?
Assuming the radiation kills this super-dread e.coli, what happens to everything else in the food? The radiation can't target only that e.coli, and most of the time, it would not even be present). So what about all the things in food that the radiation would damage or kill (vitamins, for instance) or cause to mutate from its normal state?
Irradiation of food is part of Codex Alimentarius.
Codex was designed by Fritz ter Meer, a Bayer execitove, after he was released from prison for committing mass murder, human enslavement and crimes against humanity.
He was a member of the Managing Board of IG Farben [The Rockefeller had 1/2 interest in IG Farben, were originators of genetic engineering and eugenics and are behind the new US "food safety" law] from its inception to its dissolution. As the Wartime Manager, he was responsible for IG Auschwitz.
In the Nuremberg Tribunal, ter Meer stated: "Forced labor did not inflict any remarkable injury, pain, or suffering on the detainees, particularly since the alternative for these workers would have been death."
In 1948, ter Meer was sentenced by the Nuremberg Tribunal to seven years in prison for plundering and slavery.
In 1952, his sentence was commuted, due to the influence of powerful friends.
From 1956-1964, he was reinstated as a member of the Managing Board of Bayer AG.
In 1962, ter Meer was one of the architects of the "Codex Alimentarius - Commission" and one of the main designers of the schemes that would profit from human suffering.
Codex is meant to remove access to adequate nutrition. It is a brilliant idea - unlimited sickness would be generated for unlimited pharmaceutical industry profit. The pharmaceutical industry is controlled by the Rockefellers and thus is not to be distinguished from the bankers. They are quite literally invested in disease and starvation.
There are movies on the danger to health (and to democracy) posed by Codex, one with Dame Judy Dench.
Strong evidence of harm from radiating food.comes from what recently happened with the Irradiation of cat food in Australia. It had to be halted because of bizarre neurologic harm to cats. For any who begin to say, "But that is just cats ... ," they might be reminded that cats are chosen for university studies specifically because of the similarities between the neurological system of the
It appears that with just one little e.coli, The Idiot Cycle just sped up. For that cycle describes how those corporations making us sick with their GMOs, pesticides, chemicals, etc. then make money treating the diseases they are causing. And this e.coli was either genetically engineered intentionally by the pharmaceutical industry or, far less likely, the statistically stunning consequence of pharmaceutically dependent farming operations but in either case, from the corporations. Now, not on top of illnesses derived from their food with antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, GMOs and pesticides in it, the corporations suggest radiating fresh food, including from organic farms. The contaminated food would add radiation to their list of dangers, and the clean food would be killed. There would be no unprocessed, normal food in the country.
There has been massive media hubbub over the e.coli. But their silences are more significant. No word on whether the e.coli might have been bio-engineered, with pharma having the skills and requisite classes of antibiotics. There was great noise about the dozens of deaths from e.coli but an odd silence about the 100,000 people a year who die routinely from properly prescribed and FDA-approved prescription drugs, so media offers no context to put those deaths in proportion.
And the media is perpetuating the medical coverup of the century, a story that involves 20-50 million deaths but does not benefit the pharmaceutical industry: neither flu nor virus was the cause of the millions of 1918 deaths.
One of the most terrifying images that has been used by spokesmen for WHO, by the pharma industry and various beneficiaries of the current "swine flu" panic is that of the 1918 "Spanish Flu" which is said to have resulted in more deaths than all World War I. Was it really a flu? Broxmeyer is convinced as others that it wasn't. A Press Release, issued on August 19, 2008, by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), contains a striking finding and conclusion: The 20 to 40 million deaths worldwide from the great 1918 Influenza ("Flu") Pandemic were NOT due to "flu" or a virus, but to pneumonia caused by massive bacterial infection."4
It seems that - in conjunction with Bayer's intense advertising, and advice from government, medical authorities, and military - aspirin was the most likely culprit.
But the continuing myth of a virulent 1918 virus that killed millions has been the justification for the government pushing vaccines, worth billions to those invested in them and who, coincidentally fund the CDC and WHO.
Why does this matter in the context of the e.coli and government recommendations for radiating food? Because 1918 appears to have been the greatest corporate (pharmaceutical industry) catastrophe ever. The greatest loss of life from sickness, second only to the bubonic plague (treatable today) appears to be man-made, the threat not coming from nature but from lethal drugs and government pressure to use them. And practitioners who saved the lives of most who came to them in 1918 were never mentioned - they were homeopaths who avoided aspirin because they saw it for what it has proved to be, a toxic substance.
Today homeopaths (natural practitioners) are also avoiding vaccines as the CDC and government are pushing them for all they are worth ... based on a complete medical falsehood - the return of the virulent 1918 virus which killed millions. Such a dangerous virus never existed and the other pandemic scares are as empty but as invaluable for profit.
So, as people are told by a government whom they don't trust about money, war, homes, jobs, trade agreements, oil drilling, fracking, clean water, clean air, chemtrails, health, vaccines, etc. - a government closely tied to the pharmaceutical industry and nuclear industry and bankers - that this terrible e.coli has sprung out of nowhere and people have reason to be very afraid and the answer is to radiate fresh food.
Since this is the exact food human beings need to stay healthy, people might pause a little and think.
How wrong they got it during 1918. How silent they have been about the reality of 1918 since then. That falseness is basis of their scare-mongering around pandemics which are tied to not only their big plans for vaccines, but disturbing laws they put in place. Smothering the reality of 1918 and of what killed people and who saved them, allows pharma and their funded agency, the FDA, to be moving here and internationally to eliminate access to the natural substances that save lives and actually cure, and to continue imprisoning practitioners of natural medicine, the true heroes of 1918.
Such practitioners and doctors have condemned radiating food for a long time.
Who should people listen to?
The media tells us the e.coli is a great crisis. Is it a crisis caused by nature or by man? Media say nothing about its sudden unlikely appearance or who benefits. Yet the e.coli is undoubtedly a boon to those who have gain from fear and then from the destruction of health itself in the name of "food safety."
"The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, so what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes... They pull the strings... AND WE DANCE." John Swinton, former chief-of-staff for the New York Times, in an address to fellow journalists.
http://rense.com/general94/ecoli.htm
'新的大腸桿菌ST131 引起疫情'
法醫證據浮現:歐洲大腸桿菌超級病菌是生物工程以產生人類的死亡
2011年6月1日星期三
轉基因創造的食品可能被用來作為生物武器
轉基因創造的食品可能被用來作為生物武器
GMO created foods may be used as a biological weapon
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Examiner
Kenneth Schortgen Jr.
Translation by Autumnson Blog
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) which are used to create new food seeds and crops, are being tied to use as a potential biological weapon in creating infertility in places around the world.
被用來創建新食品和農作物種子的轉基因生物(GMO),正在被捆綁至用以作為一種有潛質的生物武器,以在世界各地造成不孕。
A report published on May 28th tied together that the international organization Codex, which is seeking to regulate every food, mineral, and herb in the world used for consumption, does not consider GMO created products as food, and thus they are being placed in a separate sphere of attributes that can be used for alternative functions.
一份 5月28日發表的報告一起綑綁國際組織法典,那在尋求規範世界上被用於消費的每一種食品、礦物及中藥,並不考慮轉基因創造的產品為食物,及因此它們被放置在一分開的屬性範圍,可被用於另類的功能。
Including birth control and creating infertility in a nation or population.
包括在一個國家或人口中的出生控制和創造不育。
Besides the creation and use of GMO corn and other staples in places like South America, Mexico, and Africa, an interesting data point was discovered in the US shortly after GMO foods (BT-Corn) were approved in 1996. Since that time, birth rates in the US have been falling, and accelerating in decline since 1999, just three years after the introduction of the GMO to the food supply.
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) which are used to create new food seeds and crops, are being tied to use as a potential biological weapon in creating infertility in places around the world.
A report published on May 28th tied together that the international organization Codex, which is seeking to regulate every food, mineral, and herb in the world used for consumption, does not consider GMO created products as food, and thus they are being placed in a separate sphere of attributes that can be used for alternative functions.
Including birth control and creating infertility in a nation or population.
Since GMO food is not considered a natural commodity for consumption by the UN's regulatory body (Codex), and scientists have purposefully introduced spermacidal modifications into corn for the purpose of controlling world populations, then unequivocally, one of the many purposes of GMO created foods is for the use as a biological weapon.
Many global foundations have been pushing for the expansion of GMO foods, especially corn, soybeans, and rice to help end hunger and poverty around the world, and primarily in third world countries. The Gates Foundation, the Rockfeller Foundation, and former UN Chief Kofi Annan's Agra organization are just three powerful entities supplying funds and promotions to expand GMO use in many countries.
There is also an ongoing battle between citizens and the FDA to demand labelling of GMO based food products, but to this point, the government agency has been able to keep the public in the dark on what is in their food. Since GMO based products are not considered food under UN regulations, many questions still remain as to the reasons why the FDA allows them in consumable foods at all.
Creating a food source or seed meant to be eaten by man as a dietary staple which has been modified to bring sterility or outright birth control is in essence, creating and distributing a biological weapon for the sole purpose of lowering birth rates and populations in one or more locations. Since GMO based products are not considered food according to the UN Codex, but are being allowed into the world's diet as a consumable, creates many questions as to the real purpose of expanding GMO use into the food supply.
http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/05/gmo-created-foods-may-be-used-as.html#%7B%22color%22%3A%22%23e8e8f3%22%2C%22backgroundColor%22%3A%22%232d2e4f%22%2C%22unvisitedLinkColor%22%3A%22%239999ff%22%2C%22fontFamily%22%3A%22'Trebuchet%20MS'%2CTrebuchet%2CVerdana%2CSans-serif%22%7D
(英鏈) 轉基因食品毒素被發現在93%未誕生胎兒的血液中
轉基因大豆:看不見的成份'毒害'兒童
德國電視公開有毒轉基因大豆的恐怖
美國正在採用食品法典
GMO created foods may be used as a biological weapon
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Examiner
Kenneth Schortgen Jr.
Translation by Autumnson Blog
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) which are used to create new food seeds and crops, are being tied to use as a potential biological weapon in creating infertility in places around the world.
被用來創建新食品和農作物種子的轉基因生物(GMO),正在被捆綁至用以作為一種有潛質的生物武器,以在世界各地造成不孕。
A report published on May 28th tied together that the international organization Codex, which is seeking to regulate every food, mineral, and herb in the world used for consumption, does not consider GMO created products as food, and thus they are being placed in a separate sphere of attributes that can be used for alternative functions.
一份 5月28日發表的報告一起綑綁國際組織法典,那在尋求規範世界上被用於消費的每一種食品、礦物及中藥,並不考慮轉基因創造的產品為食物,及因此它們被放置在一分開的屬性範圍,可被用於另類的功能。
Including birth control and creating infertility in a nation or population.
包括在一個國家或人口中的出生控制和創造不育。
There has been a concerted national effort by citizens to have the US government label GMOs. Opposing it are government intent not only to keep them unlabeled in the US but efforts at the international level by the US government to remove all labeling of GMOs through Codex. The problem is that Codex applies to food, and GMOs don't qualify.
已有一致的國家公民努力去令美國政府標籤轉基因生物,反對它的是政府的意圖,不僅是保持它們在美國無標籤,而且在國際級的美國政府努力去透過法典移除所有的轉基因生物標籤。問題是,法典適用於食品,而轉基因生物並不符合。
The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”
玉米已經由美國農業部以及美國加州一間叫 Epicyte的小生物技術公司資助而進行實地測試。在宣布它的成功於一個2001年的記者招待會上,Epicyte主席米奇海恩,指著他的轉基因玉米植物並宣布:“我們有一個溫室內裡充滿製造抗精子抗體的玉米植株。”
Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population". – Salem News
海恩聲稱它是一個世界“人口過多"的可能解決方案。 - 塞勒姆新聞
Besides the creation and use of GMO corn and other staples in places like South America, Mexico, and Africa, an interesting data point was discovered in the US shortly after GMO foods (BT-Corn) were approved in 1996. Since that time, birth rates in the US have been falling, and accelerating in decline since 1999, just three years after the introduction of the GMO to the food supply.
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) which are used to create new food seeds and crops, are being tied to use as a potential biological weapon in creating infertility in places around the world.
A report published on May 28th tied together that the international organization Codex, which is seeking to regulate every food, mineral, and herb in the world used for consumption, does not consider GMO created products as food, and thus they are being placed in a separate sphere of attributes that can be used for alternative functions.
Including birth control and creating infertility in a nation or population.
There has been a concerted national effort by citizens to have the US government label GMOs. Opposing it are government intent not only to keep them unlabeled in the US but efforts at the international level by the US government to remove all labeling of GMOs through Codex. The problem is that Codex applies to food, and GMOs don't qualify.Besides the creation and use of GMO corn and other staples in places like South America, Mexico, and Africa, an interesting data point was discovered in the US shortly after GMO foods (BT-Corn) were approved in 1996. Since that time, birth rates in the US have been falling, and accelerating in decline since 1999, just three years after the introduction of the GMO to the food supply.
The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”
Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population. – Salem News
Since GMO food is not considered a natural commodity for consumption by the UN's regulatory body (Codex), and scientists have purposefully introduced spermacidal modifications into corn for the purpose of controlling world populations, then unequivocally, one of the many purposes of GMO created foods is for the use as a biological weapon.
Many global foundations have been pushing for the expansion of GMO foods, especially corn, soybeans, and rice to help end hunger and poverty around the world, and primarily in third world countries. The Gates Foundation, the Rockfeller Foundation, and former UN Chief Kofi Annan's Agra organization are just three powerful entities supplying funds and promotions to expand GMO use in many countries.
There is also an ongoing battle between citizens and the FDA to demand labelling of GMO based food products, but to this point, the government agency has been able to keep the public in the dark on what is in their food. Since GMO based products are not considered food under UN regulations, many questions still remain as to the reasons why the FDA allows them in consumable foods at all.
Creating a food source or seed meant to be eaten by man as a dietary staple which has been modified to bring sterility or outright birth control is in essence, creating and distributing a biological weapon for the sole purpose of lowering birth rates and populations in one or more locations. Since GMO based products are not considered food according to the UN Codex, but are being allowed into the world's diet as a consumable, creates many questions as to the real purpose of expanding GMO use into the food supply.
http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/05/gmo-created-foods-may-be-used-as.html#%7B%22color%22%3A%22%23e8e8f3%22%2C%22backgroundColor%22%3A%22%232d2e4f%22%2C%22unvisitedLinkColor%22%3A%22%239999ff%22%2C%22fontFamily%22%3A%22'Trebuchet%20MS'%2CTrebuchet%2CVerdana%2CSans-serif%22%7D
(英鏈) 轉基因食品毒素被發現在93%未誕生胎兒的血液中
轉基因大豆:看不見的成份'毒害'兒童
德國電視公開有毒轉基因大豆的恐怖
美國正在採用食品法典
訂閱:
文章 (Atom)








































