Running and Triathlon Coach

With the mindset of wellbeing, inside and outside. Health, nutrition and awareness are the pillars of this blog.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Majority of Drug Reactions in Kids are Due to Vaccines

Majority of Drug Reactions in Kids are Due to Vaccines

Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 31 2011 | 279 views

The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) runs a national spontaneous reporting system to collect  adverse drug reaction (ADR) data.  More than 31,000 ADR reports for children below the age of 17 were received by the MHRA between 2000 and 2009.

And here's a little-known fact:  vaccines were a factor in more than 66% of these pediatric drug reaction reports.

According to a recent study:

 "Vaccines were included in 22,102 (66.5%) pediatric ADR reports, with Meningococcal Serogroup C conjugate vaccine reported most frequently (12,106 reports)  ... Excluding vaccines, methylphenidate (653 reports) and atomoxetine (491) were the most commonly reported medications".

Sources:

Bisphenol-A (BPA) Is Altering the Genital Development of Baby Boys

This Chemical Is Altering the Genital Development of Baby Boys

Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 31 2011 | 94 views
Email : 0

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is an endocrine disrupting chemical. A recent study sought to examine the effects of in utero BPA exposure on human offspring.

Parental occupational exposure to BPA during pregnancy was shown to be associated with shortened anogenital distance in male offspring. The association was stronger for maternal exposure.

According to the study, as reprinted on the website Green Med Info:

"Our findings provide the first epidemiologic evidence that in utero BPA exposure may adversely affect male genital development."

Sources:

HPV vaccine: Miracle or menace? Victims versus the perpetrators

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG3mWgsMt-A&feature=player_embedded

5 Surprisingly Healthy Fruits and Veggies You Aren't Eating

http://health.yahoo.net/rodaleSlideshow/PV/5-surprisingly-healthy-fruits-and-veggies-you-aren-t-eating#0

Top 10 Cancer-Fighting Foods

http://www.livescience.com/16336-top-10-cancer-fighting-foods.html

Saturday, October 29, 2011

EXCELLENT READ: Has Capitalism Ever Existed in America?

Has Capitalism Ever Existed in America?

Or has it always been a fascist country?

J.G. Vibes
Activist Post

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about capitalism in the news and among activists. Many people are taking stances on either one side of the issue or the other, but very few are stopping to consider the fact that capitalism may have never even existed. This concept may come as a surprise to some, but it shouldn't. If you examine most of the words used to describe our society such as democracy, freedom, representative or capitalism, you will find that these words are simply abstract euphemisms which are used to disguise the true nature of authoritarian civilization.

We are supposed to believe that we are represented by people who don't represent us, that we are somehow "free" in a situation where we are constantly being exploited and ordered around. Much in the same way that we are told we are "free" in our personal lives, we are also told that we are "free" in our financial lives. The word "democracy" is used to make our oppressive political system seem more benevolent and legitimate, while the term "capitalism" is used to give the impression that we operate under a "free market" economy. Obviously, neither are true.

Capitalism itself has been defined many different ways, but the rights to private property, as well as private production of goods and a free market economy, cross over between all of these definitions. Currently none of the above rights are being fully respected in the United States and most Western countries that claim to be capitalist. Sure, at face value it may seem like these ideas are prevalent in Western culture, but when you take a look at property taxes, government subsidies for big corporations and the mountain of red tape faced by entrepreneurs it should become painfully obvious that capitalism has probably never existed in this country; perhaps it has never even existed in this world.

The system that we have in place today could more accurately be called fascism, mercantilism or cartelism. These words describe a system where the elite use their power in government to control the rest of society, as well as prop up their businesses by eliminating competition through the political system. The monolithic corporations that now exist would have never been able to grow into what they are today without the help of government intervention and protection. Without government intervention, the infamous lobbyists in Washington would become obsolete because there would no longer be any ability to manipulate the marketplace through bribes or coercion. Government intervention and protection is the primary means by which the world's biggest corporations have devastated their competition and developed massive monopolies.

In a system of true free market capitalism there would be absolutely no need for a government, because any "service" that is apparently provided by the government can actually be better handled by entrepreneurs. In today's system we don't have independent businesses working on a level playing field, instead we are left with a few massive corporations and cartels that use their power in government to maintain their monopolies and stomp out their competition. This is the very definition of fascism -- the merger of state and corporate power -- this is the dominant economic system in the world, and has been for centuries, in various different forms.

In fascist countries there is really no line between government and big corporations; both types of organizations use legislative power to establish and maintain monopolies. When it comes down to it, both of these organizations rely on violence and threats of violence as a means of getting their way in the marketplace. Essentially, the government is an organization that is used to justify violence, from the military to the tax collectors to the police. This constant use of force is said to be keeping us safe, but in reality it just instigates further conflict and makes our lives more chaotic and violent.

For any authoritarian government to stay in power they must convince their subjects that they are providing them with safety and security. This is the typical public relations scheme of every oppressive government; the idea that they are providing worthwhile services. This is sadly a myth. The government doesn't provide services; they monopolize services. In other words, they make sure that they are the only organization that can provide schools, hospitals, roads and other utilities to the public because this creates a situation where the people are completely dependent upon the state for survival. This doesn't mean that a government is the only type of organization that is capable of providing these services. In fact, community groups and entrepreneurs would most likely do a far better job at providing these services because they would actually be judged by the integrity of their work, unlike politicians and corporations. 

Oftentimes when the government is providing a service they are actually doing a very poor job, but no one can really tell the difference because there is no competition to judge it by. If you look at the goals that government organizations apparently set out to achieve, you will see they always fail miserably. Therefore, if the government is claiming to provide maximum safety and security, it would be safe to assume that this goal will not be achieved. In the most authoritarian countries where the "leaders" claim to have established an extreme level of security, things are actually very unsafe and citizens in these kinds of countries live in constant fear. Just because there is a very high level of control does not mean that there will be adequate safety or order within a society. The most controlling type of government in today's world is without a doubt a fascist one.

Fascism is defined as an authoritarian system of government that has strong nationalist and corporatist values. Fascist governments often have strong military cultures and use force to establish themselves as authority figures, both at home and abroad. A Fascist government never refers to themselves as such; to do so would be to admit that they run unjust and oppressive regimes. Fascism exists in many economic systems that claim to be capitalist or communist and can develop even in countries that call themselves democratic.

In fact, most fascist "leaders" tell their people that they live in a free and democratic society so the public takes their grievances to the polls, instead of taking them into the streets where they could actually make an impact. Currently one of the most fascist nations on Earth is called the "Democratic Republic of North Korea". Likewise, the government in America and the European Union are some of the most fascist regimes in history, yet they still claim to operate under systems of "capitalism" or "democratic socialism". Like anything else in politics and economics, it's a word game that's designed to disguise the truth.

Personally I believe that the economic system of the future that will finally bring us peace, freedom and opportunity has yet to be discovered. However, there are some basics of capitalism and voluntarism that should be considered necessary if we are going to establish a new economic system that is designed to empower the people. The rights to private property, the freedom for people to open businesses and trade freely amongst themselves are elements of capitalism that will ensure freedom in a future economic system. The idea that all interactions in society should be voluntary and free from threats, coercion and violence will ensure peace. These are some good places to start our discussion, but to establish a system that will actually work in our best interest, we, the 99% need to hit the books and put our heads together.

Today, almost every economy in the world is totally dictated by the ideas of two long-dead aristocrats. Karl Marx on one end representing communism, and Adam Smith on the other end representing capitalism. Our whole way of doing business on this planet has changed very little since the time that these two characters were alive, and that right there is the root of our problem. Imagine if a few people in every city across the world wrote their own economic manifestos and got together to respectfully discuss their ideas. We refuse to accept yesterday's television shows, IPods and PlayStations but without thinking we have accepted ways of living that are centuries old. It's time for us to work together in creating strategies where everyone can meet their needs without violating the rights of 
others. 

The SUPER Antioxidant, 6,000x stronger than Vitamin C, ENDURANCE BOOSTER - Astaxanthin the most powerful antioxidant in nature

Better than Vitamin E: One of the Easiest Ways to Reduce the Appearance of Wrinkles*

By Dr. Mercola

Bob Capelli is the Vice President of Cyanotech, the largest grower of astaxanthin in the world.  Capelli has also co-authored some of the literature on astaxanthin.

Astaxanthin is now thought to be the most powerful antioxidant found in nature.

It is one of the most amazing supplements I have ever learned about. The only one that exceeds it in importance to be taking every day, from my perspective, is vitamin D. 

It is one of the most vital supplements I take, and one that I would not want to be without.

Astaxanthin is a derivative of the microalgae Haematoccous pluvialis  (it's the part that give salmon and flamingos that eat the algae their orange or pink coloring).

It is produced when the algae's water supply dries up, forcing it to protect itself from ultraviolet radiation. It's the algae's survival mechanism—Astaxanthin serves as a "force field" to protect the algae from lack of nutrition and/or intense sunlight.

As an analogy, the way the algae produces astaxanthin is similar to the way your skin cells produce melanin in response to sun exposure. 

The astaxanthin, just like melanin, protects the algae against excess ultraviolet radiation. Interestingly, one of the benefits of astaxanthin is actually its inherent ability to protect you against sunburn.

Astaxanthin Works as an Internal Sunscreen

Initial animal studies in Japan had discovered that by ingesting astaxanthin, mice could stay under UV radiation longer without getting burned or experiencing deleterious damage to their skin. 

Cyanotech tested it on human volunteers, and found that taking 4 mg per day for just two weeks statistically increased the amount of time the subjects could stay in the sun without getting burned.

"Astaxanthin absolutely works as an internal sunscreen," Capelli says.

It will not eliminate the risk of sunburn in everyone, because there are many individual factors involved, but it can radically reduce your risk of developing severe sunburn and related skin damage. Getting sunburned not only causes photoaging, it can also cause skin cancers, so you should always take care not to get burned.  Capelli recommends taking 4 mg of astaxanthin per day. It takes several weeks for the dose to build up  to achieve UV protection, and to help improve your skin's overall moisture balance and elasticity.

Astaxanthin May Boost Athletic Performance

Emerging evidence, and plenty of anecdotal stories, indicate astaxanthin may be a powerful performance booster for athletes.

"There are many endurance athletes that are taking astaxanthin," Capelli says. "A lot of them are just raving about it.  They love the stuff. 

There was a study about… 10 years ago in Sweden of young men that were training—they [were] doing deep knee bends; as many as they could do until exhaustion.  Obviously the control group [was] taking a placebo; they put the experimental group on astaxanthin… a 4 mg dose.  After six months, the men working out taking a placebo could do approximately 22 percent more deep knee bends.  The ones taking the astaxanthin could do 62 percent more!  They were getting stronger three times faster than those taking placebo.

Absolutely, for strength and endurance, it works wonders… Athletes generate a lot of oxidation, a lot of free radicals floating around their bodies from doing these intense workouts.  Because it's such an incredibly strong antioxidant, it helps combat those free radicals."

From my point of view, this is exciting because exercise is one of the crucial components for health that I recommend, and astaxanthin appears useful for protecting against injuries and overuse syndromes that can occur when you're exercising on a regular basis. According to Capelli, higher doses, up to 12 mg/day, is typically used by athletes.

As a Powerful Quencher of Inflammation, Astaxanthin is Useful for Many

As an antioxidant, astaxanthin has powerful anti-inflammatory benefits, which makes it useful for a number of diseases associated with inflammation, such as arthritis.  However, it's not a magic cure.

"All of the studies we've done point to the same final conclusion that astaxanthin is not going to cure these problems," Capelli admits. "It's not curative.  But it will absolutely help with having people feel better and definitely increase mobility and also help to reduce pain.

For example, rheumatoid arthritis is much harder to treat than osteoarthritis.  We've done a study on that.  Believe it or not, about halfway through the study when the results started kicking in… the people in the treatment group taking astaxanthin… were asking the researcher, "What is this?"  A lot of them with rheumatoid arthritis had tried many different things and had not gotten results.  With astaxanthin they were getting very good results.  It just took about a month or so to kick in.

We've done studies on people with carpal tunnel syndrome—again, very good results.  People with tennis elbow actually made their grip strength 93 percent stronger in eight weeks."

Not mistaking astaxanthin for a cure is an important point. However, it can effectively relieve symptoms when taken consistently over several weeks (effects are usually noticeable after about two to four weeks). And in many cases it can do so more effectively than far more expensive and potentially toxic prescription anti-inflammatories and over-the-counter pain killers.

If you have arthritis or any other inflammatory condition, you still need to address the foundational causes, which in many cases can be traced back to your diet, particularly eating too much sugars and grains, which increase your insulin levels and inflammatory prostaglandins.  You would also need to assess your fat intake, to make sure you're getting healthful saturated fats and enough essential animal-based omega-3s, for example.

Absorption Rate Can Vary from Person to Person

While most people, about 85 percent, experience benefits from taking astaxanthin, it doesn't work for everyone.

"The reason why, we think, is because many people have a very poor ability to absorb carotenoids (astaxanthin is a carotenoid)," Capelli explains.

"People absorb anywhere from as low as 5 percent of the carotenoids in their diet or in supplements, up to over 90 percent. If your body absorbs 90 percent, you're going to get a great benefit even at 2 to 4 mg a day.  But if you're a 5 percent absorber, you might take 12 mg a day and still get almost no benefit." 

Another factor to keep in mind is that astaxanthin is a fat soluble supplement.  So unless you take it with a small amount of fat, it's not going to absorb well.  Butter, coconut oil, or eggs would be ideal complements to ensure optimal absorption.

Other Benefits of Astaxanthin: Eye- and Brain Health

Research has also shown that astaxanthin may be quite beneficial for eye health in general, and age related macular degeneration (ARMD) and cataracts specifically. ARMD is the most common cause of blindness in the United States and most western countries.

Scientists have studied the most common carotenoids (lutein, zeaxanthin, canthaxanthin, and astaxanthin) and compared their respective abilities to protect the retina. But none perform to the degree that astaxanthin does, in terms of potency as a free radical scavenger and permeability across the blood-brain-retina barrier.

"Astaxanthin has been shown, in nine different human clinical studies, to be able to prevent tired eyes… It helps maintain the motor function of your eyes at the highest level, just like in your other muscles… Also, [astaxanthin] protects your eyes from sun damage just like it protects your skin... all the research points to astaxanthin being the champion of the supplements for eye health," Capelli says.

Other eye problems that may benefit from astaxanthin include:

  • Glaucoma
  • Retinal arterial occlusion
  • Cystoid macular edema
  • Inflammatory eye diseases (i.e., retinitis, iritis, keratitis, and scleritis)

It also appears to have potent benefits for your brain. In just the last two years, 10 different studies have demonstrated beneficial effects on brain health. For example, studies have shown that astaxanthin may:

"One animal study in Japan showed that it could potentially actually make rodents smarter," Capelli says. "That has not really been demonstrated in humans yet, but that's kind of an interesting thing, not just for people as they age but for anybody that just wants to have their brain functioning at maximum capacity."

What Makes Astaxanthin so Unique?

There are several different ways to measure antioxidant strength, but no matter which one is used, astaxanthin consistently comes out way above the others. According to Capelli:

"[Against] vitamin E, comparing singlet oxygen quenching, it was 550 times stronger.  CoQ10 – 800 times stronger.  Vitamin C, in one of the studies – again, this was singlet oxygen quenching – it was 6,000 times stronger.  Compared to some other antioxidants like let's say lutein it might be only 10 times stronger, but overall, whatever you're comparing it with, it's consistently well above all the competitors."

Astaxanthin is also unique in that it can protect the entire cell.  The astaxanthin molecule is actually in the same family as beta carotene and other carotenoids like lutein and lycopene, yet it's also very different. This difference is due to the shape of the molecule, and the ends of the molecule.

"One end of the astaxanthin molecule [protects] the water soluble part of the cell, and it spans the cell membrane, and the other end [protects] the fat soluble part of the cell. So it can protect the entire cell," Capelli explains.

 "Another thing that's really interesting to note is that many good antioxidants, under certain conditions, can change and have the opposite effect and become pro-oxidants.  It can actually cause additional oxidation in your body. It can start doing damage.   Astaxanthin has been shown in a few different studies never ever to be able to become pro-oxidant.  It's never going to hurt you.  It's only going to help you."

Salmon is a Good Source of Astaxanthin, But Beware of Farm Raised Variety

"Pretty much anything that is red in color that comes out of the sea has astaxanthin in it," Capelli explains. "So you're looking at shrimp, lobster, crab, of course salmon has the highest concentrations.  In salmon it tends to concentrate mostly in the muscles and so the theory is that… that's what gives the salmon this incredible endurance to swim upstream for weeks to spawn. It's in trout as well.  Several different [fish] species have it, but again not in big doses. 

If you like wild salmon, the species that has the highest amount is called sockeyei, [which is] common around Alaska.  If you eat about half to three-quarters of a pound, you're going to get the same amount of astaxanthin that you get in one 4 mg capsule."

Typically, that's too much for most people to be eating in one day, so it may be difficult to reach commonly used therapeutic doses through diet alone. Also keep in mind that the majority of salmon sold in restaurants and your local food store is farm raised, not wild-caught. The problem with farm raised salmon is that the astaxanthin is a highly inferior synthetic version that may have still unknown toxicities.

As for supplements, synthetic astaxanthin has not yet been permitted to be sold for human consumption, so all astaxanthin supplements on the market contain natural astaxanthin.

"Synthetic astaxanthin is produced from petrochemicals," Capelli explains. "It's made in the laboratory in a very elaborate process that turns it from oil into astaxanthin.  Frankly, it's a pretty amazing feat that they have figured out how to do this but…it's not natural and [the molecule] has a very different shape. 

… The very important difference is that the natural astaxanthin is sterified, which means that on either one or both ends of the molecule there is a fatty acid molecule attached.  Again, this is not proven.  We don't know why but that's the theory of why it works so much better, because in animal tests that have been done on synthetic versus natural astaxanthin, there has been a remarkable difference in all sorts of things like immunity, disease resistance, growth rates, strength, all things like that.

Also, in a laboratory test on antioxidant strength, the natural astaxanthin from algae was 20 times stronger in free radical elimination than synthetic astaxanthin from petrochemicals.   It's really like comparing apples to oranges.  They have the same name, astaxanthin, but again, one is very different from the other.  They don't even look the same under a microscope."

Final Recommendations

If you decide to give astaxanthin a try, I recommend starting with 2 mg per day, and working your way up to about 4 mg per day, or more if you're an athlete or suffering from chronic inflammation. If you are on a krill oil supplement, which naturally contains astaxanthin, take that into consideration. Different krill products have different concentrations of astaxanthin, so check your label.

Friday, October 28, 2011

WHY are children from Silicon Valley send to private schools without computers, forbid them in class and discourage at home?

BECAUSE THEY GET IN THE WAY OF READING BOOKS, HUMAN INTERACTION AND LEARNING ACTIVITY.  SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

A Silicon Valley School That Doesn't Compute

LOS ALTOS, Calif. — The chief technology officer of eBay sends his children to a nine-classroom school here. So do employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard.

But the school's chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. They are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home.

Schools nationwide have rushed to supply their classrooms with computers, and many policy makers say it is foolish to do otherwise. But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy, where some parents and educators have a message: computers and schools don't mix.

This is the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, one of around 160 Waldorf schools in the country that subscribe to a teaching philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks. Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans.

The Waldorf method is nearly a century old, but its foothold here among the digerati puts into sharp relief an intensifying debate about the role of computers in education.

"I fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school," said Alan Eagle, 50, whose daughter, Andie, is one of the 196 children at the Waldorf elementary school; his son William, 13, is at the nearby middle school. "The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that's ridiculous."

Mr. Eagle knows a bit about technology. He holds a computer science degree from Dartmouth and works in executive communications at Google, where he has written speeches for the chairman, Eric E. Schmidt. He uses an iPad and a smartphone. But he says his daughter, a fifth grader, "doesn't know how to use Google," and his son is just learning. (Starting in eighth grade, the school endorses the limited use of gadgets.)

Three-quarters of the students here have parents with a strong high-tech connection. Mr. Eagle, like other parents, sees no contradiction. Technology, he says, has its time and place: "If I worked at Miramax and made good, artsy, rated R movies, I wouldn't want my kids to see them until they were 17."

While other schools in the region brag about their wired classrooms, the Waldorf school embraces a simple, retro look — blackboards with colorful chalk, bookshelves with encyclopedias, wooden desks filled with workbooks and No. 2 pencils.

On a recent Tuesday, Andie Eagle and her fifth-grade classmates refreshed their knitting skills, crisscrossing wooden needles around balls of yarn, making fabric swatches. It's an activity the school says helps develop problem-solving, patterning, math skills and coordination. The long-term goal: make socks.

Down the hall, a teacher drilled third-graders on multiplication by asking them to pretend to turn their bodies into lightning bolts. She asked them a math problem — four times five — and, in unison, they shouted "20" and zapped their fingers at the number on the blackboard. A roomful of human calculators.

In second grade, students standing in a circle learned language skills by repeating verses after the teacher, while simultaneously playing catch with bean bags. It's an exercise aimed at synchronizing body and brain. Here, as in other classes, the day can start with a recitation or verse about God that reflects a nondenominational emphasis on the divine.

Andie's teacher, Cathy Waheed, who is a former computer engineer, tries to make learning both irresistible and highly tactile. Last year she taught fractions by having the children cut up food — apples, quesadillas, cake — into quarters, halves and sixteenths.

"For three weeks, we ate our way through fractions," she said. "When I made enough fractional pieces of cake to feed everyone, do you think I had their attention?"

Some education experts say that the push to equip classrooms with computers is unwarranted because studies do not clearly show that this leads to better test scores or other measurable gains.

Is learning through cake fractions and knitting any better? The Waldorf advocates make it tough to compare, partly because as private schools they administer no standardized tests in elementary grades. And they would be the first to admit that their early-grade students may not score well on such tests because, they say, they don't drill them on a standardized math and reading curriculum.

When asked for evidence of the schools' effectiveness, the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America points to research by an affiliated group showing that 94 percent of students graduating from Waldorf high schools in the United States between 1994 and 2004 attended college, with many heading to prestigious institutions like Oberlin, Berkeley and Vassar.

Of course, that figure may not be surprising, given that these are students from families that value education highly enough to seek out a selective private school, and usually have the means to pay for it. And it is difficult to separate the effects of the low-tech instructional methods from other factors. For example, parents of students at the Los Altos school say it attracts great teachers who go through extensive training in the Waldorf approach, creating a strong sense of mission that can be lacking in other schools.

Absent clear evidence, the debate comes down to subjectivity, parental choice and a difference of opinion over a single world: engagement. Advocates for equipping schools with technology say computers can hold students' attention and, in fact, that young people who have been weaned on electronic devices will not tune in without them.

Ann Flynn, director of education technology for the National School Boards Association, which represents school boards nationwide, said computers were essential. "If schools have access to the tools and can afford them, but are not using the tools, they are cheating our children," Ms. Flynn said.

Paul Thomas, a former teacher and an associate professor of education at Furman University, who has written 12 books about public educational methods, disagreed, saying that "a spare approach to technology in the classroom will always benefit learning."

"Teaching is a human experience," he said. "Technology is a distraction when we need literacy, numeracy and critical thinking."

And Waldorf parents argue that real engagement comes from great teachers with interesting lesson plans.

"Engagement is about human contact, the contact with the teacher, the contact with their peers," said Pierre Laurent, 50, who works at a high-tech start-up and formerly worked at Intel and Microsoft. He has three children in Waldorf schools, which so impressed the family that his wife, Monica, joined one as a teacher in 2006.

And where advocates for stocking classrooms with technology say children need computer time to compete in the modern world, Waldorf parents counter: what's the rush, given how easy it is to pick up those skills?

"It's supereasy. It's like learning to use toothpaste," Mr. Eagle said. "At Google and all these places, we make technology as brain-dead easy to use as possible. There's no reason why kids can't figure it out when they get older."

There are also plenty of high-tech parents at a Waldorf school in San Francisco and just north of it at the Greenwood School in Mill Valley, which doesn't have Waldorf accreditation but is inspired by its principles.

California has some 40 Waldorf schools, giving it a disproportionate share — perhaps because the movement is growing roots here, said Lucy Wurtz, who, along with her husband, Brad, helped found the Waldorf high school in Los Altos in 2007. Mr. Wurtz is chief executive of Power Assure, which helps computer data centers reduce their energy load.

The Waldorf experience does not come cheap: annual tuition at the Silicon Valley schools is $17,750 for kindergarten through eighth grade and $24,400 for high school, though Ms. Wurtz said financial assistance was available. She says the typical Waldorf parent, who has a range of elite private and public schools to choose from, tends to be liberal and highly educated, with strong views about education; they also have a knowledge that when they are ready to teach their children about technology they have ample access and expertise at home.

The students, meanwhile, say they don't pine for technology, nor have they gone completely cold turkey. Andie Eagle and her fifth-grade classmates say they occasionally watch movies. One girl, whose father works as an Apple engineer, says he sometimes asks her to test games he is debugging. One boy plays with flight-simulator programs on weekends.

The students say they can become frustrated when their parents and relatives get so wrapped up in phones and other devices. Aurad Kamkar, 11, said he recently went to visit cousins and found himself sitting around with five of them playing with their gadgets, not paying attention to him or each other. He started waving his arms at them: "I said: 'Hello guys, I'm here.' "

Finn Heilig, 10, whose father works at Google, says he liked learning with pen and paper — rather than on a computer — because he could monitor his progress over the years.

"You can look back and see how sloppy your handwriting was in first grade. You can't do that with computers 'cause all the letters are the same," Finn said. "Besides, if you learn to write on paper, you can still write if water spills on the computer or the power goes out."



Halloween face paint found to contain high levels of toxic heavy metals

Halloween face paint found to contain high levels of toxic heavy metals

by Elizabeth Walling
See all articles by this author
Email this author


(NaturalNews) Ghouls and goblins may be spooky, but what should really give you the creeps this Halloween is the decorative makeup you might be putting on your face. New evidence from the nonprofit Ecology Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan shows many novelty face paints used for Halloween are tainted with toxic heavy metals like cadmium and lead.

Your Halloween Costume May be Hazardous to Your Health

Researchers at the Ecology Center tested 31 types of novelty makeup you can find on the shelves of big name outlets and party stores all over the country. Every single product contained traces of some kind of metal, but that is just the beginning. More than half of the products contained cadmium, a toxic heavy metal linked to cancer, birth defects and brain damage. Other toxic metals like mercury and lead were also detected.

Even more disturbing is the popularity of these products with children. Kids dressing up as comical clowns and blood-sucking vampires routinely have their faces painted to match, but dress-up can turn ugly if toxic metals are involved. Children are especially at risk because their growing bodies and developing brains are more vulnerable to toxins like heavy metals. The health campaign director of the Ecology Center says parents should err on the side of caution until we know more about what levels of these metals are safe or unsafe for our children.


Representatives of some of the manufacturers insist their products have been tested to ensure legal levels of heavy metals, but health advocates say legal levels for topical products may be far too high. Not enough testing has been done to determine how much of these products are absorbed through the skin. Our skin is highly permeable, and putting these toxic metals on our skin may be no more safe than putting them straight into our mouths.

This Halloween the wise choice would be to avoid commercial makeup by either making your own at home or simply going without. When it comes to your health and that of your children, it's better to be safe than sorry.


Sources for this article include:

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parent...

http://www.annarbor.com/news/hallow...

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/loca...

"Slick-Dirty" MARKETING - Corporate marketers now stamping 'artisan' on factory food products to make them appear healthy, unique

Corporate marketers now stamping 'artisan' on factory food products to make them appear healthy, unique

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer 

(NaturalNews) There is never a shortage of deception in the factory food industry, which jumps on seemingly every marketing bandwagon in order to retain customers and convince them that junk food is healthy and nutritious. The latest marketing absurdity is the food industry's growing use of the word "artisan" on food branding, which deceptively evokes images of hand-made uniqueness in association with products that are really just mass-produced in a factory.

USA Today reports that major food brands like Frito-Lay, Domino's Pizza, Starbucks, and even Fannie May candies have all adopted "artisan" brand lines that suggest a healthier, hand-crafted product that is more special than other products. But in truth, these products are not much, if at all, different from other product lines, other than that they are usually smaller in size and sold at a premium price.

"The word artisan suggests that the product is less likely to be mass-produced," says Tom Vierhile, innovation insights director at Datamonitor, a research company that recently conducted an investigation into the "artisan" phenomenon. "It also suggests the product may be less processed and perhaps better tasting and maybe even be better for you."

Datamonitor found that, within the past five years, a whopping 800 new food products have emerged on the market bearing "artisan" labels, and that the rate of new "artisan" products being released every year is increasing. In 2007, less than 80 new food items branded as "artisan" were unveiled, while nearly 200 were unveiled in 2010.

The true definition of artisan is food that has actually been hand-crafted by a skilled food craftsman. This includes foods like small-scale, farm-produced cheese, for example, or slowly- and carefully-produced meals made by a chef or cook. Artisan food is not mass produced, in other words, which means it has no place on anything created by a food conglomerate like Frito-Lay.

Artisan appears to be evolving into the new "natural," which is another overused marketing term that no longer has any definitive meaning. Just like these phony "artisan" products, many "natural" food products are no different than conventional food products, except for the fact that they often have "greener" packaging and are sold at a premium price.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indus.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

OUTSTANDING READ -Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor 

(NaturalNews) A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"

This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn't even bother to read the study itself (as usual).

NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for 
actually READING these "scientific" studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.

The "60% effectiveness" claim is a total lie - here's why

What we found is that the "60% effectiveness" claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that "60% effectiveness" means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won't get the flu!

Thus, the "60% effectiveness" claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.

This is utterly false.

In reality -- and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis" -- only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!

See the abstract at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots

Let's start with the actual numbers from the study.

The "control group" of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 
97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.

The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a 
trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

The difference between these two groups is 
1.5 people out of 100.

So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!

Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, 
Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...)

In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines "don't work on 99 out of 100 people." Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).

So where does the media get "60% effective?"

This is called "massaging the numbers," and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.

First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.

You can then say that 0.43 is "43% of 2.73," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "57% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "57% effectiveness rate" claim.

The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for 
children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.

So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," what they really mean is that 
you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.

Or, put another way, 
flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.

But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.


How to lie with statistics

This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.

You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"

But what does that really mean? It could mean that 
2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.

But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!" And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"

And yet that's utterly false. In fact, there is 
only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies

At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don't), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.

In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let's suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it 
caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:

"This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!"

You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality -- scientifically speaking -- you are 
400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)

How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?

Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!

It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 
7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.

So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you 
prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)

Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (
http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).

Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality,
chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors."

Good news for children?

If there's any "good news" in this study, it's that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.

So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 
12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).

Guess who funded this study?

This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.

For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. (
http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)

The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called "Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine," (
http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/a...) which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.vppartners.org/sites/def...).

Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet study

Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:

Problem #1) The "control" group was often given a vaccine, too

In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the "control" groups were given so-called "insert" vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives 
but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The "control" group, in other words, wasn't really a proper control group in many studies.

Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy children

It's the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It's no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against "never vaccinated" children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.

Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin D

Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 
8 times more effective than flu shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v...). Read the article to see the actual "absolute" numbers in this study.

Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines

Vaccines are considered "effective" if they merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer's two decades later? Is that still a "success?" If you're a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer's pills, too. That's probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA 
ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.

Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis

There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 
28 studies that were "selected" for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.

Remember: Scientific fraud isn't the exception in modern medicine; 
it is the rule. Most of the "science" you read in today's medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the language of science.

Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers

I haven't had time to follow the money ties for each individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I'm willing to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in "scientific" circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing about vaccines who hasn't been in some way financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don't expect the medical journals to print that article, of course. They'd rather not reveal what happens when you 
follow the money.

Problem #7) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!

Need we point out the obvious? Trusting 
The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we're going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?

That's a lot like listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?

Just for fun, let's conduct a thought experiment and suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that 
flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?

Or to put it another way, even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.

Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a 
negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza to appear. That's the far more likely reality of the situation.

Flu shots, you see, actually 
cause the flu in some people. That's why the people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people who got flu shots! (Just ask 'em yourself this coming winter, and you'll see.)

What the public believes

Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are "70 to 90 percent effective." This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.

It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be "only" 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, "Vaccines don't work as well as you might have thought." These headlines were followed up with explanations like "Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!"

I hate to break it to 'em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 
1.5 out of 100 adults.

Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to 
long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.

Outright fraudulent marketing

Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!

So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?

It's truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as 
rubbing a rabbit's foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as "science" today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.

That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn't difficult these days. Just shroud it all under "science" jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!

The real story on flu shots that you probably don't want to know

Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren't for halting the flu. We've already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the "science" on that.

So what are flu shots 
really for?

You won't like this answer, but I'll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to "soft kill" the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates (
http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v...) and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated "public health" message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.

Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: 
To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.

And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.


Also worth reading:
Flu Vaccines -- The Mainstream Admits, We Want an Epidemic!
http://liamscheff.com/2011/10/flu-v...