Official Coverup Obscures The Collapse Of Reactor 4

Official Coverup Obscures The Collapse Of Reactor 4 See The Video Of What Is Being Demolished At Fuksuhima Daiichi Here By Yoichi Shimatsu Exclusive To Rense.com 6-30-12

A security camera inside the Fukushima 1 nuclear plant reveals the final steps in the demolition of a ferroconcrete structure. A mobile crane-mounted plasma torch cuts through the skeletal remnant of a three-story building, methodically cleaving the few remaining support beams, releasing dust clouds of burnt slake lime.

Obamacare dissent suggests Roberts switched sides Blogs Big Government by: Joel B. Pollak Thursday, June 28, 2012 Some legal scholars believe that the wording of Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissenting opinion of the Obamacare case suggests that a late change was made by Chief Justice John Roberts. Photo Credit:AP As legal scholars study the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case, more and more are concluding that Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissenting opinion, striking down the law in its entirety, was once the majority opinion — and that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at a late stage. As National Review's Ed Whelan, the Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein, and others are pointing out, the dissent refers to another opinion as "the dissent" and uses the pronoun "we," as if speaking for the Court, as majority opinions typically do. In addition, the dissent focuses on the government's arguments, rather than tackling the majority head-on. That suggests that a switch — most likely by the Chief Justice himself — may have come very late in the game, too late to offer more than the most cursory revisions of the opinions in the case. Read more: http://times247.com/articles/obamacare-dissent-suggests-roberts-switched-sides#ixzz1z9Tt05NJ

Obamacare dissent suggests Roberts switched sides

Blogs

Big Government

by: Joel B. Pollak

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Some legal scholars believe that the wording of Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissenting opinion of the Obamacare case suggests that a late change was made by Chief Justice John Roberts. Photo Credit:AP

As legal scholars study the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case, more and more are concluding that Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissenting opinion, striking down the law in its entirety, was once the majority opinion — and that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at a late stage.

As National Review's Ed Whelan, the Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein, and others are pointing out, the dissent refers to another opinion as "the dissent" and uses the pronoun "we," as if speaking for the Court, as majority opinions typically do. In addition, the dissent focuses on the government's arguments, rather than tackling the majority head-on. That suggests that a switch — most likely by the Chief Justice himself — may have come very late in the game, too late to offer more than the most cursory revisions of the opinions in the case.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/obamacare-dissent-suggests-roberts-switched-sides#ixzz1z9Tt05NJ

FLASHBACK - 20% of Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district

FLASHBACK - 20% of Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district

23 Natural Alternatives for Depression

Post date:

Tuesday, June 26th 2012 at 6:00 am by Pat Robinson

Many people have struggled with feelings of depression, feelings of general sadness, or intense sorrow and grief. Plant products have historically been consumed and utilized for their nutritive and holistic benefits. Many plant materials are being researched for their therapeutic value for our mental health. Here are 23 natural substances which can help to optimize our biochemistry, neurotransmitters and address nutrient deficiencies.

1. Kava is safe and effective in treating anxiety disorders and depression.
2. L-tryptophan is as effective as imipramine in treating depression.
3. Saffron may be of therapeutic benefit in the treatment of mild to moderate depression and has similar efficacy as the drug imipramine.
4. St. John's Wort is as effective as Selective Serotoin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) in the treatment of Depressive Disorder, with a greater safety rating.
5. St. John's Wort's cortisol reducing effect in brain may contribute to anti-depressive effect.
6. Blue-green algae improves quality of life, mood, anxiety and depressive attitude in menopausal women.
7. The omega-3 fatty acid EPA is as effective as fluoxetine (Prozac) in treating major depressive disorder.
8. Goji improves sense of well-being, and other indicators of good health.
9. Homeopathic medicine is as effective and better tolerated than Prozac (fluoxetine) in the treatment of acute depression.
10. Lavender fragrance had a beneficial effect on insomnia and depression in women college students.
11. Lion's Mane mushroom intake results in a reduction of depression and anxiety in mice by 4 weeks.
12. Motherwort improves symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with arterial hypertension.
13. Omega-3 fatty acids were shown to be more effective than placebo for depression in both adults and children in small controlled studies and in an open study of bipolar depression.
14. Rhodiola shows anti-depressive potency in patients with mild to moderate depression.
15. Dietary intake of zinc was inversely associated with depression.
16. Curcumin exhibits antidepressant properties.
17. Lobelia has antidepressant properties.
18. Nutmeg demonstrates antidepressant activity.
19. Onion powder has an antidepressant-like effect in a rat behavioral model of depression.
20. Panax ginseng extract exhibits antidepressant activity.
21. Rosemary exhibits antidepressant action probably through the monoaminergic system.
22. Valerian extract has anxiety-reducing and anti-depressant effects, but is not a sedative and does not interfere with muscle function.
23. Folate may have a therapeutic role in treating depressive symptoms.

Pat Robinson was in the medical industry for decades. She has invested over 10,000 hours learning about natural alternatives, reading hundreds and hundreds of medical research studies, and assisting thousands of people about holistic health issues.

Pat is passionate about sharing the amazing power of the body to heal itself.
Pat's Farmacy focuses on wellness promotion through whole food nutrition, so that you can Heal Thyself!

Study: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant

Study: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More MalignantStudy: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant

Post date:

Tuesday, June 26th 2012 at 10:00 am by Sayer Ji

Following on the heels of recent revelations that x-ray mammography may be contributing to an epidemic of future radiation-induced breast cancers, in a new article titled, "Radiation Treatment Generates Therapy Resistant Cancer Stem Cells From Aggressive Breast Cancer Cells," published in the journal Cancer July 1^st, 2012, researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center report that radiation treatment actually drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy.
The researchers found that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.
Last month, a related study published in the journal Stem Cells titled, "Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cells," found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed less malignant (more differentiated) breast cancer cells into iBCSCs, helping to explain why conventional treatment actually enriches the tumor population with higher levels of treatment-resistant cells. [i]
A growing body of research now indicts conventional cancer treatment with chemotherapy and radiation as a major contributing cause of cancer patient mortality. The primary reason for this is the fact that cancer stem cells, which are almost exclusively resistant to conventional treatment, are not being targeted, but to the contrary, are encouraged to thrive when exposed to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
In order to understand how conventional treatment drives the cancer into greater malignancy, we must first understand what cancer is….

What Are Cancer Stem Cells, And Why Are They Resistant To Treatment?

Tumors are actually highly organized assemblages of cells, which are surprisingly well-coordinated for cells that are supposed to be the result of strictly random mutation. They are capable of building their own blood supply (angiogenesis), are able to defend themselves by silencing cancer-suppression genes, secreting corrosive enzymes to move freely throughout the body, alter their metabolism to live in low oxygen and acidic environments, and know how to remove their own surface-receptor proteins to escape detection by white blood cells. In a previous article titled "Is Cancer An Ancient Survival Program Unmasked?" we delved deeper into this emerging view of cancer as an evolutionary throw-back and not a byproduct of strictly random mutation.
Because tumors are not simply the result of one or more mutated cells "going rogue" and producing exact clones of itself (multi-mutational and clonal hypotheses), but are a diverse group of cells having radically different phenotypal characteristics, chemotherapy and radiation will affect each cell type differently.
Tumors are composed of a wide range of cells, many of which are entirely benign.
The most deadly cell type within a tumor or blood cancer, known as cancer stem cells (CSCs), has the ability to give rise to all the cell types found within that cancer.
They are capable of dividing by mitosis to form either two stem cells (increasing the size of the stem population), or one daughter cell that goes on to differentiate into a variety of cell types, and one daughter cell that retains stem-cell properties.
This means CSCs are tumorigenic (tumor-forming) and should be the primary target of cancer treatment because they are capable of both initiating and sustaining cancer. They are also increasingly recognized to be the cause of relapse and metastasis following conventional treatment.
CSCs are exceptionally resistant to conventional treatment for the following reasons

1. CSCs account for less than 1 in 10,000 cells within a particular cancer, making them difficult to destroy without destroying the vast majority of other cells comprising the tumor.[ii]

2. CSCs are slow to replicate, making them less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy and radiation treatments that target cells which are more rapidly dividing.

3. Conventional chemotherapies target differentiated and differentiating cells, which form the bulk of the tumor, but these are unable to generate new cells like the CSCs which are undifferentiated.

The existence of CSCs explains why conventional cancer treatment has completely missed the boat when it comes to targeting the root cause of tumors. One reason for this is because existing cancer treatments have mostly been developed in animal models where the goal is to shrink a tumor. Because mice are most often used and their life spans do not exceed two years, tumor relapse is very difficult, if not impossible to study.
The first round of chemotherapy never kills the entire tumor, but only a percentage. This phenomenon is called the fractional kill. The goal is to use repeated treatment cycles (usually six) to regress the tumor population down to zero, without killing the patient.
What normally occurs is that the treatment selectively kills the less harmful populations of cells (daughter cells), increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign and/or less malignant cells. This is not unlike what happens when antibiotics are used to treat certain infections. The drug may wipe out 99.9% of the target bacteria, but .1% have or develop resistance to the agent, enabling the .1% to come back even stronger with time.
The antibiotic, also, kills the other beneficial bacteria that help the body fight infection naturally, in the same way that chemotherapy kills the patient’s immune system (white blood cells and bone marrow), ultimately supporting the underlying conditions making disease recurrence more likely.
The reality is that the chemotherapy, even though it has reduced the tumor volume, by increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign daughter cells, has actually made the cancer more malignant.
Radiotherapy has also been shown to increase cancer stem cells in the prostate, ultimately resulting in cancer recurrence and worsened prognosis.[iii] Cancer stem cells may also explain why castration therapy often fails in prostate cancer treatment.[iv]

Non-Toxic Natural Substances Which Target and Kill CSCs

Natural compounds have been shown to exhibit three properties which make them suitable alternatives to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy:

1. High margin of safety: Relative to chemotherapy agents such as 5-fluorouracil natural compounds are two orders of magnitude safer
2. Selective Cytotoxicity: The ability to target only those cells that are cancerous and not healthy cells
3. CSCs Targeting: The ability to target the cancer stem cells within a tumor population.

The primary reason why these substances are not used in conventional treatment is because they are not patentable, nor profitable. Sadly, the criteria for drug selection are not safety, effectiveness, accessibility and affordability. If this were so, natural compounds would form an integral part of the standard of care in modern cancer treatment.
Research indicates that the following compounds (along with common dietary sources) have the ability to target CSCs:

1. Curcumin (Turmeric)

2. Resveratrol (Red Wine; Japanese Knotweed)

3. Quercetin (Onion)

4. Sulforaphane (Brocolli sprouts)

5. Parthenolide (Butterbur)

6. Andrographalide (Andrographis)

7. Genistein (Cultured Soy; Coffee)

8. Piperine (Black Pepper)

Additional research found on the GreenMedInfo.com Multidrug Resistance page indicate over 50 compounds inhibit multidrug resistance cancers in experimental models.

---

[i] Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cancer cells. Stem Cells. 2012 May ;30(5):833-44. PMID: 22489015

[ii] Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. 1997 Jul ;3(7):730-7. PMID: 9212098

[iii] Long-term recovery of irradiated prostate cancer increases cancer stem cells. Prostate. 2012 Apr 18. Epub 2012 Apr 18. PMID: 22513891

[iv] Stem-Like Cells with Luminal Progenitor Phenotype Survive Castration in Human Prostate Cancer. Stem Cells. 2012 Mar 21. Epub 2012 Mar 21. PMID: 22438320

Sayer Ji is the founder of GreenMedInfo.com. His writings and research have been published in the Wellbeing Journal, the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity, and have been featured on numerous websites, including Mercola.com, NaturalNews.com, Reuters.com, GaryNull.com, and Care2.com.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Mol Psychiatry. 2012 Jun 26. doi: 10.1038/mp.2012.88. [Epub ahead of print] Advanced paternal age is associated with altered DNA methylation at brain-expressed imprinted loci in inbred mice: implications for neuropsychiatric disease. Smith RG, Reichenberg A, Kember RL, Buxbaum JD, Schalkwyk LC, Fernandes C, Mill J. Source Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. PMID: 22733127 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Mol Psychiatry. 2012 Jun 26. doi: 10.1038/mp.2012.88. [Epub ahead of print]

Advanced paternal age is associated with altered DNA methylation at brain-expressed imprinted loci in inbred mice: implications for neuropsychiatric disease.

Smith RG, Reichenberg A, Kember RL, Buxbaum JD, Schalkwyk LC, Fernandes C, Mill J.

Source

Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.

PMID:

22733127

[PubMed - as supplied by publisher] 

In my years as an investigative medical reporter, I've developed a rule of thumb when dealing with the US Centers for Disease Control: If they're not lying, they're lying.

In my years as an investigative medical reporter, I've developed a rule of thumb when dealing with the US Centers for Disease Control:

If they're not lying, they're lying.

HOW SWINE FLU WAS INVENTED AND USED TO CONTROL THE GLOBAL POPULATION

WHAT IF YOU STARTED A DISEASE-SCARE AND NOBODY CARED?

UPDATED AND EXPANDED June 27, 2012 to include the whole mind-boggling fraud.

By Jon Rappoport
June 26, 2012
www.nomorefakenews.com

I wrote a shorter version of this article yesterday. After I was done, I decided to expand it. So this is the longer piece. It exposes the whole Swine Flu operation as a complete fraud, from the beginning.

I'm assuming readers want to understand this. They are willing to follow a track of thought from start to finish. They want more than a headline and a few paragraphs. I say this because, as a reporter who has been exposing medical fraud for 25 years, I've found that the criminals try to cover their tracks. To see how they do it, you have to unwind their ball of yarn all the way. It's not one-two-three.

With that proviso, here we go.

Remember these terms: La Gloria, PCR test. They are important in understanding how a fake pandemic can be invented from scratch, based on no evidence. You see, it's not the germ, it's the false announcement of the germ. It's the concoction of an apparition, a ghost, a phantom. That's how you launch a fake pandemic. That's how you sell fear. That's how you try to make people take their vaccines and keep their mouths shut.

In my years as an investigative medical reporter, I've developed a rule of thumb when dealing with the US Centers for Disease Control:

If they're not lying, they're lying.

I've found this guideline works out well. It's almost magic.

For example, at the so-called height of the Swine Flu epidemic, in the summer of 2009, CBS News exposed the fact that the CDC, in an egregious dereliction of its duty, had stopped counting Swine Flu cases. The CDC just assumed people arriving at hospitals or doctors' offices with anything resembling the flu had Swine Flu. Therefore, the CDC really didn't have the faintest idea how many people in America had Swine Flu. Yet, soon after this CBS report broke, the CDC issued a mind-boggling announcement plucked out of thin air: there were undoubtedly 10 MILLION people in the US infected with Swine Flu. No evidence. No test results. No facts. Just scare tactics. As in: "You must get vaccinated."

Well, they're bloviating again, in a choice bit of revisionist history.

A new CDC study, published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases Journal, states that the final global figure for Swine Flu deaths, 18,500, was grossly underestimated. The new and far more precise figure is...25,000? No. 50,000? No. 100,000?

No.

250,000! But wait. It actually might be as high as 575,400, say the CDC wizards.

What kind of rabbit hat is the CDC pulling those numbers from? The hat is called "a computer model" or a "statistical model." This is code for: "We devised algorithms, equations, and charts which no one will bother to examine or assess or judge. Trust us. We're the pros."

It's well known that computer models can be created and spun to achieve a wide variety of outcomes, depending on, for example, the result one favors from the get-go. Models of global warming have come under withering attack on that basis.

In typical bungling CDC fashion, the researchers have left clues about their work. The study authors write, "Diagnostic specimens are not always obtained from people who die with influenza and the viruses might no longer be detectable by the time of death in some people." You might want to read that sentence again.

Translation: "We don't know what we're talking about when we jack up the estimates on deaths from Swine Flu because, well, there are a lot of dead people who died without ever having been tested for the H1N1 Swine Flu virus, and we can't dig up their bodies now and run the tests. But our computer models can somehow perform post-mortem exams."

Or: "Many, many people died without anyone knowing whether they had Swine Flu. So naturally we'll assume they did."

This is called science, and American tax dollars pay for it. They pay for an agency, the CDC, that is tasked with scaring Americans into getting vaccines, no matter what. Even if a re-write of history is necessary.

You see, after all the whipped-up hysteria, in 2009, when the CDC and the World Health Organization told us that a great horror, the H1N1 virus, was stalking the globe and mowing people down left and right with Swine Flu, the final mortality figure, worldwide, was an extreme embarrassment to these agencies. It was especially embarrassing because, well, the World Health Organization claims that, every year, between 250,000 and 500,000 people die from ordinary regular seasonal flu. This is not called a pandemic that could wipe out humankind. But when 18,500 people die of Swine Flu, this is called a Level 6 Pandemic, the highest danger category the World Health Organization can declare.

The CDC also announced today that, in 2009, the Swine Flu virus was "the predominant virus." In other words, we are supposed to believe, again, with no evidence, that most people who died that year from flu died from Swine Flu. Or to put it another way, in 2009 the usual seasonal flu viruses that circulate decided to take a holiday and give the new kid on the block, Swine Flu, H1N1, a chance to spread his wings and see what he could do.

Therefore, these viruses must be cordial to one another. When a new one comes along, the others make room. They have a conference (thankfully not supported with tax monies) and they come to a consensus.

In some media outlets, the AFP story on this new CDC Swine Flu study included an interesting final sentence, and in at least one other major outlet, the final sentence was omitted.

It was: "The Council of Europe accused the agency [the World Health Organization] of causing unjustified scare and a waste of public money [in their launch and handling of the Swine Flu debacle.]"

Nothing to see there, just move along. Listen to the CDC and the World Health Organization and obey. Do what they tell you to do. They know stuff; you don't. They're brilliant; you're a robot. Line up and take your vaccine.

If you swallow all that, I have stunning condos for sale on Jupiter.

Now let's go deeper.

Realize, as well, that when the whole Swine Flu scare was launched in the spring of 2009, the WHO absurdly declared the H1N1 virus a Level-6 Pandemic based on a mere 20, that's 20, cases of Swine Flu. At the same time, WHO changed its definition of "Level-6 Pandemic" so that severe destruction and widespread human death were no longer required. This is like saying a pandemic can be a pandemic without being a pandemic. (Search Peter Doshi, BMJ Online, for coverage on these two points.)

These factors provide strong circumstantial evidence that Swine Flu was an operation designed to frighten the global population, based on nothing. Nothing but anticipated pharmaceutical profits from the sale of vaccines and drugs.

Where did Swine Flu originate? A place called La Gloria, in Mexico, where a large industrial pig farm was located. Press reports described outdoor "pig feces lagoons" on the property. When workers began to get sick, the area was sprayed with unknown chemicals. More workers fell ill. Anyone with a basic knowledge of public health could testify that this combination of mind-boggling sanitation plus a strong germicide could cause human disease. In fact, it doesn't matter which particular germs are present in the mix.

People at the CDC had to be well aware of this. Yet their choice was to rush researchers to La Gloria, armed with the unfounded assumption that some novel virus, never before seen, was the culprit, and their job was to take blood samples and discover what the new germ was.

Why? Why assume when workers who operate in that kind of environment get sick there is some new disease at work? The symptoms of the workers were not unusual, given the circumstances. Workers dying in that vat of filth and chemical soup should be expected.

But, up front, based on no evidence, the CDC on-site team was going for a new germ and a new disease, and that's what they announced they had found. A gullible world, fed by press reports, bought in.

But, you say, cases of Swine Flu were subsequently diagnosed all over the planet. It wasn't just La Gloria. You have to understand how these diagnoses were made, when they were made at all, beyond eyeballing sick people with "flu symptoms" and automatically claiming Swine Flu was the cause.

There is a test called the PCR. This was the major tool used to diagnose Swine Flu. Given the fact that it's an expensive genetic assay, we can assume it wasn't done often. The PCR basically takes very, very tiny amounts of unknown human genetic material and amplifies them to the point where they can be observed. In other words, there wasn't enough "germ" to begin with. It was so miniscule, you couldn't ID it as is.

This is called a clue. In order to even begin to think about indicting a germ as a cause of a disease, you need to find very large amounts of it. The army of germs has to be huge and it has to be doing something in the body. The PCR test doesn't yield such a conclusion at all. If anything, it confirms that the army was non-existent.

The test used to diagnose Swine Flu was useless. It was misleading. It was obvious it was misleading. But it was used. Why?

Because it would provide cover. It would make it seem as if Swine Flu was everywhere on the planet.

This is more circumstantial evidence of an intentional operation.

Call a local environmental calamity (in La Gloria) a new disease based on no evidence. Have the leading public health agency in the world (the WHO) change its definition of pandemic to allow a declaration of a level-6 threat, based on a mere 20 cases. Start labeling ordinary flu Swine Flu. Claim it is a new disease, based on no evidence. Use a test to diagnose it that is useless and misleading.

And you're home free. You have a global threat. You have fear. You have drug companies making a fortune. You have people believing they have to get their vaccines. You have toxic vaccines (by their very nature and composition) injected into the global population.

You have billions of people listening to the WHO and the CDC and following medical orders, which really amounts to political control. It's all part of the operation to ensnare people into a cradle-to-grave medical apparatus that diagnoses one disease after another, treats these diseases with highly toxic drugs that produce new symptoms, then diagnosing those symptoms as new diseases and then treating those with more toxic drugs, until eventually death comes.

Except a funny thing happened on the CDC's road to victory in the Swine Flu operation. The Internet rose up like a bear and swatted the CDC with a big paw. A handful of reporters and researchers (including moi) blew the deal. Exposed the scam.

The CDC and the WHO lost. They were slammed. Governments all over over the world are holding stocks of unused H1N1 vaccine, because people didn't show up to get jabbed in the arm. It was a fiasco for the medical cartel.

Yes, Virginia, sometimes we win. And when we do, if we learn enough, we're ready for the next load of lies and we know what to do.

Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
www.nomorefakenews.com
qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Syrian Rebels Ransack Christian Churches

The Real Billy Corgan: Down the Rabbit Hole

AGENDA 21: THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION PART 6

AGENDA 21: THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATIONPART 6

Four Essentials of a Healthy Cleanse

Tracking Japan's Tsunami Debris (Infographic)

THE POWER ELITE'S HISTORICAL OUTLINE PART 2

THE POWER ELITE'S HISTORICAL OUTLINE
PART 2

“We are absolutely slaves to central banks.”

CNBC Admits We're All Slaves To ROTHSCHILD CENTRAL BANKERS GLOBAL GOVERNMENT

Italian Court Reignites MMR Vaccine Debate After Award Over Child with Autism

Italian Court Reignites MMR Vaccine Debate After Award Over Child with AutismItalian Court Reignites MMR Vaccine Debate After Award Over Child with Autism  

THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

AGENDA 21 CONSPIRACY THEORY OR THREAT PART 1 of 2

AGENDA 21 CONSPIRACY THEORY OR THREAT
PART 1 of 2

REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTS FOR MALE SEXUAL PERFORMANCE

REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTS FOR MALE SEXUAL PERFORMANCE

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/06/22/285-the-environmental-movement-wants-to-kill-you-since-youre-a-nasty-human/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/06/22/285-the-environmental-movement-wants-to-kill-you-since-youre-a-nasty-human/http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/06/22/285-the-environmental-movement-wants-to-kill-you-since-youre-a-nasty-human/

The Mythos of J. R. R. Tolkien Stephen Goodson explores the sympathies of the author of The Lord of the Rings

The Mythos of J. R. R. Tolkien
	Stephen Goodson explores the sympathies of the author of The Lord of the Rings

UCLA Sued in Federal Court

UCLA Sued in Federal CourtUCLA Sued in Federal Court

June 22, 2012 Why men should eat plenty of cranberries We've known for decades that cranberries are great for the health of your urinary tract. But we're now learning that they're good for your prostate as well. In a recent study, researchers followed 42 men with lower urinary tract disease. This disease puts men at risk for prostate disease. The men also had an elevated PSA and confirmed non-bacterial prostatitis. The researchers assigned the men to take either a supplement with 1,500 mg per day of dried powdered cranberries or a placebo. Why I Won't Take Most Natto Supplements on the Market Today. The Natto supplement you're taking now may be doing NOTHING for your health! Read More The researchers followed the men for six months and then evaluated them with the International Prostate Symptom Score. This test evaluates quality of life, urination parameters, average flow, total volume, and post-void residual volume. And wouldn't you know it, they had significant improvement. There was no improvement in the control group. I think berries are one of the best foods you can eat. I've repeatedly written about all of them. Here we see that cranberries, well known for their benefit in urinary tract infections, might also help your prostate. If cranberries help wipe out urinary tract infections, it's reasonable that they'll help your prostate as well, as it's directly plumbed to your urinary tract. What's more, the men in this study saw that their PSA fell. To me that's huge. You may know that I don't care for the PSA as a test for cancer. By the time you have cancer, it's too late for conventional intervention. But the PSA can be a useful test as a marker for inflammation. Inflammation can degenerate to cancer. So if cranberries are able to help lower your PSA, I think it's a huge finding. You'll have to take a stand-alone cranberry supplement to reach the 1,500 mg/day of dried powder used in this study. You can find cranberry products in this dosage readily available online. Yours for better health and medical freedom, Robert J. Rowen, MD Ref: "The effectiveness of dried cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms," Vidlar A, Simanek V, et al, Br J Nutr, 2010; 104(8): 1181-9.

June 22, 2012

Why men should eat
plenty of cranberries

We've known for decades that cranberries are great for the health of your urinary tract. But we're now learning that they're good for your prostate as well.

In a recent study, researchers followed 42 men with lower urinary tract disease. This disease puts men at risk for prostate disease. The men also had an elevated PSA and confirmed non-bacterial prostatitis. The researchers assigned the men to take either a supplement with 1,500 mg per day of dried powdered cranberries or a placebo.

Why I Won't Take Most Natto Supplements on the Market Today. The Natto supplement you're taking now may be doing NOTHING for your health! Read More

The researchers followed the men for six months and then evaluated them with the International Prostate Symptom Score. This test evaluates quality of life, urination parameters, average flow, total volume, and post-void residual volume. And wouldn't you know it, they had significant improvement. There was no improvement in the control group.

I think berries are one of the best foods you can eat. I've repeatedly written about all of them. Here we see that cranberries, well known for their benefit in urinary tract infections, might also help your prostate. If cranberries help wipe out urinary tract infections, it's reasonable that they'll help your prostate as well, as it's directly plumbed to your urinary tract.

What's more, the men in this study saw that their PSA fell. To me that's huge. You may know that I don't care for the PSA as a test for cancer. By the time you have cancer, it's too late for conventional intervention. But the PSA can be a useful test as a marker for inflammation. Inflammation can degenerate to cancer. So if cranberries are able to help lower your PSA, I think it's a huge finding.

You'll have to take a stand-alone cranberry supplement to reach the 1,500 mg/day of dried powder used in this study. You can find cranberry products in this dosage readily available online.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,

Robert J. Rowen, MD

Ref: "The effectiveness of dried cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms," Vidlar A, Simanek V, et al, Br J Nutr, 2010; 104(8): 1181-9.

High intake of cholesterol shown to actually repair damaged brains Friday, June 22, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

769 (NaturalNews) Including high-cholesterol foods as part of a healthy diet may not be the poor dietary choice we have all been told it is, suggests a new study published in the journal Nature Medicine. It turns out that cholesterol actually helps increase production of an important component of the nervous system that facilitates proper nerve cell communication, and prevents the onset of brain diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. The study focused specifically on patients with a condition known as Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease (PMD), in which nerve cells are unable to properly manufacture protective myelin sheaths. It is these myelin sheaths, which are composed of lipid fats and proteins, that allow nerves to communicate and send appropriate electrical signals that trigger movement and cognition, and that protect nerves from damage. Cholesterol, which is commonly dismissed as harmful and something that people should avoid, actually contributes to producing and maintaining myelin sheaths. Without it, as evidenced by the recent studies, individuals with PMD -- and potentially all individuals -- are at a higher risk of developing cognitive illness and brain degradation. And particularly those with PMD, low-cholesterol diets are almost sure to leave them exceptionally prone to nerve damage. "This six-week-long cholesterol treatment delayed the decline in motor coordination," wrote the scientists in their report. Researchers from the Max Planck Institute of Experimental Medicine in Germany fed a group of mice with PMD a high-cholesterol diet for six weeks, as well as another group of PMD mice a low-cholesterol diet. Those on the high-cholesterol diet stopped experiencing cognitive decline, while the low-cholesterol mice continued to get worse. Cholesterol appears to be beneficial for everyone Though the researchers attributed their findings about cholesterol specifically and solely to those with PMD, the implications for all individuals are striking, as the study further reinforces the idea that cholesterol is a necessary component of proper brain and nervous system function in everyone. This unconventional concept has been confirmed in several earlier studies, including a comprehensive study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. (http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf) "Cholesterol acts to interlock 'lipid molecules,' which stabilize cell membranes," writes Shane Ellison, M.S., in his book Health Myths Exposed. "[C]holesterol is a vital building block for all bodily tissues. Lowering such a vital molecule is absurdity. To illustrate, imagine that your house represents your body and the nails holding it together cholesterol. Now start pulling each and every nail out of the house. What happens? The house turns to a pile of rubble. The same is true for the human body." Cholesterol-lowering statins are responsible for destroying health, causing Alzheimer's What this all means for statin drugs, which mainstream medicine has ridiculously dubbed 'miracle drugs,' is that their cholesterol inhibiting properties can cause serious health problems down the road. By interfering with the liver's natural function of producing cholesterol, statin drugs can actually strip the body of much-needed cholesterol, and cause serious nervous system and cognitive damage. The key to promoting healthy cholesterol levels in the body is not to take synthetic drugs, but rather to achieve vibrant health through proper diet and exercise, which includes a diet rich in healthy saturated fats and, yes, even cholesterol. "Saturated fat and cholesterol in the diet are not the cause of coronary heart disease," says Dr. George V. Mann, M.D., professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. "That myth is the greatest scientific deception of this century, perhaps of any century." You can learn more about the cholesterol myths by visiting: http://www.naturalremediescures.com Sources for this article include: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18456749 http://blog.michaeljfox.org http://goodworkswellness.com/six-surprising-facts-about-cholesterol/ http://www.wellbeingjournal.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036258_cholesterol_brain_repair_Alzheimers.html#ixzz1yXRiTdti

Could This Be Nature's Near-Perfect Blood Sugar Regulator? 

Meditation technique repairs the brain processes that aspartame destroys Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036244_meditation_brain_repair_aspartame.html#ixzz1yRgUW3u3

Meditation technique repairs the brain processes that aspartame destroys

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036244_meditation_brain_repair_aspartame.html#ixzz1yRgUW3u3

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/21/iud-better-than-birth-control-pill.aspx

Unplanned Pregnancies 20 Times More Likely on Birth Control Pill than IUD 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/21/iud-better-than-birth-control-pill.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/21/iud-better-than-birth-control-pill.aspx

Sun exposure reduces pancreatic cancer risk by nearly 50 percent Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036247_sun_exposure_pancreatic_cancer_risk_reduction.html#ixzz1yReXz28G

Sun exposure reduces pancreatic cancer risk by nearly 50 percent

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036247_sun_exposure_pancreatic_cancer_risk_reduction.html#ixzz1yReXz28G

Iceland

GLOBAL ELITES THROWN OUT OF ICELAND: Iceland Dismantles Corrupt Gov’t Then Arrests All Rothschild Bankers

June 18th, 2012 | Author: The Meister

Since the 1900′s the vast majority of the American population has dreamed about saying “NO” to the Unconstitutional, corrupt, Rothschild/Rockefeller banking criminals, but no one has dared to do so. Why? If just half of our Nation, and the “1%”, who pay the majority of the taxes, just said NO MORE! Our Gov’t would literally change over night. Why is it so hard, for some people to understand, that by simply NOT giving your money, to large Corporations, who then send jobs, Intellectual Property, etc. offshore and promote anti-Constitutional rights… You will accomplish more, than if you used violence. In other words… RESEARCH WHERE YOU ARE SENDING EVERY SINGLE PENNY!!! Is that so hard? The truth of the matter is… No one, except the Icelanders, have to been the only culture on the planet to carry out this successfully. Not only have they been successful, at overthrowing the corrupt Gov’t, they’ve drafted a Constitution, that will stop this from happening ever again. That’s not the best part… The best part, is that they have arrested ALL Rothschild/Rockefeller banking puppets, responsible for the Country’s economic Chaos and meltdown.
Last week 9 people were arrested in London and Reykjavik for their possible responsibility for Iceland’s financial collapse in 2008, a deep crisis which developed into an unprecedented public reaction that is changing the country’s direction.
It has been a revolution without weapons in Iceland, the country that hosts the world’s oldest democracy (since 930), and whose citizens have managed to effect change by going on demonstrations and banging pots and pans. Why have the rest of the Western countries not even heard about it?
Pressure from Icelandic citizens’ has managed not only to bring down a government, but also begin the drafting of a new constitution (in process) and is seeking to put in jail those bankers responsible for the financial crisis in the country. As the saying goes, if you ask for things politely it is much easier to get them.
This quiet revolutionary process has its origins in 2008 when the Icelandic government decided to nationalise the three largest banks, Landsbanki, Kaupthing and Glitnir, whose clients were mainly British, and North and South American.
After the State took over, the official currency (krona) plummeted and the stock market suspended its activity after a 76% collapse. Iceland was becoming bankrupt and to save the situation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) injected U.S. $ 2,100 million and the Nordic countries helped with another 2,500 million.
Great little victories of ordinary people
While banks and local and foreign authorities were desperately seeking economic solutions, the Icelandic people took to the streets and their persistent daily demonstrations outside parliament in Reykjavik prompted the resignation of the conservative Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde and his entire government.
Citizens demanded, in addition, to convene early elections, and they succeeded. In April a coalition government was elected, formed by the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, headed by a new Prime Minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir.
Throughout 2009 the Icelandic economy continued to be in a precarious situation (at the end of the year the GDP had dropped by 7%) but, despite this, the Parliament proposed to repay the debt to Britain and the Netherlands with a payment of 3,500 million Euros, a sum to be paid every month by Icelandic families for 15 years at 5.5% interest.
The move sparked anger again in the Icelanders, who returned to the streets demanding that, at least, that decision was put to a referendum. Another big small victory for the street protests: in March 2010 that vote was held and an overwhelming 93% of the population refused to repay the debt, at least with those conditions.
This forced the creditors to rethink the deal and improve it, offering 3% interest and payment over 37 years. Not even that was enough. The current president, on seeing that Parliament approved the agreement by a narrow margin, decided last month not to approve it and to call on the Icelandic people to vote in a referendum so that they would have the last word.
The bankers are fleeing in fear
Returning to the tense situation in 2010, while the Icelanders were refusing to pay a debt incurred by financial sharks without consultation, the coalition government had launched an investigation to determine legal responsibilities for the fatal economic crisis and had already arrested several bankers and top executives closely linked to high risk operations.
Interpol, meanwhile, had issued an international arrest warrant against Sigurdur Einarsson, former president of one of the banks. This situation led scared bankers and executives to leave the country en masse.
In this context of crisis, an assembly was elected to draft a new constitution that would reflect the lessons learned and replace the current one, inspired by the Danish constitution.
To do this, instead of calling experts and politicians, Iceland decided to appeal directly to the people, after all they have sovereign power over the law. More than 500 Icelanders presented themselves as candidates to participate in this exercise in direct democracy and write a new constitution. 25 of them, without party affiliations, including lawyers, students, journalists, farmers and trade union representatives were elected.
Among other developments, this constitution will call for the protection, like no other, of freedom of information and expression in the so-called Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, in a bill that aims to make the country a safe haven for investigative journalism and freedom of information, where sources, journalists and Internet providers that host news reporting are protected.
The people, for once, will decide the future of the country while bankers and politicians witness the transformation of a nation from the sidelines.

Warning:Dont Treat Sinus Infections with Antibiotics

June 20, 2012

Warning: Don't treat sinus
infections with antibiotics

Orthodox medicine insists antibiotics are the only effective way to treat sinus infections. But a new study says this isn't true. In fact, it says antibiotics are completely ineffective.

In this study, researchers conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 166 adults with acute rhinosinusitis. They treated them at 10 community practices in Missouri.

They gave the patients either a 10-day course of amoxicillin (1,500 mg/day) or a placebo at three doses per day. A SNOT Test (yes, that's what they call it - just love that acronym), standing for Sinonasal Outcome Test, assessed their progress during their treatment. The researchers allowed the patients to take other over-the-counter drugs to suppress their symptoms.

How to flush metals from your body and make yourself healthier and more youthful at the same time! No painful or uncomfortable treatments involved ... just this simple remedy. Find out what it is here

The results showed no appreciable difference at days 3 and 10. The participants had no difference in days of work lost, recurrence, or routine aspects of life.

Doctors almost always prescribe antibiotics for sinusitis. This has been a sacred cow for decades. But this is just another example of a common practice they give to millions of people without justification. Yet if I do something not proven in the medical literature, I'm labeled a quack!

Believe me I'm not in favor of seeing you suffer with sinusitis. Medical reviewers of this research were quick to blame viral causes of sinusitis as the real reason antibiotics don't work. Yes, many doctors pump you full of antibiotics for viral diseases, which don't respond. That's always been irresponsible medicine, but quite common.

But sinusitis can also have a fungal cause. And, you can treat both viruses and fungi with "outside the box" treatments. You can add hydrogen peroxide to a nebulizer (0.06%) or a vaporizer. Add one ounce of 35% food-grade H2O2 per gallon of purified water. This works for both viral and fungal sinusitis.

I've also seen sinusitis resolve almost instantly with neural therapy. That involves superficial injections of a local anesthetic into acupuncture points. Oxidation therapy ratchets up your immune system to cleanly dispose of most any infection.

Supplements that might help include:

* Vitamin A (not beta carotene) — 100,000 units daily for a week. (While there have been studies showing problems with high doses of vitamin A, taking it for only one week won't cause any problems.)

* Vitamin C as sodium ascorbate — 1 gram hourly to bowel tolerance. (Again, take this dose for no more than one week.)

* Oil of oregano and citrus seed extract supplements (both widely available) are natural anti-infectives. Take according to the bottle directions.

This report is just further evidence that what routinely goes on in most medical offices is the real unproven "quackery."

Yours for better health and medical freedom,

Robert J. Rowen, MD

Ref: Fiore, Kristina. "Antibiotics No Help for Sinusitis," MedPage Today, February 14, 2012.

Subscribe now to Dr. Rowen's Second Opinion Newsletter and Get up to 11 Free Reports

12 Year Old Girl Tells The SHEEPLE the Truth about ROTHSCHILD 

Why The Senate Won't Touch Jamie Dimon: JPM Derivatives Prop Up U.S. Debt

Why The Senate Won't Touch Jamie Dimon: JPM Derivatives Prop Up U.S. Debt  By Ellen Brown

Hot Particles and Measurement of Radioactivity

Hot Particles and Measurement of Radioactivity

J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jun 18. [Epub ahead of print]

Paternal Age and Risk for Cesarean Delivery.

Faro R, Santolaya-Forgas J, Canterino JC, Oyelese Y, Ananth CV.

Source

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ.

Abstract

Abstract Objective: To determine whether advanced paternal age is associated with increased risk for cesarean delivery. Study Design: We used the 1990-2002 US linked live birth and infant death data files restricted to primiparous Caucasian and African-American women that delivered a singleton birth at ≥20 week's gestation (12.5 million). We examined temporal trends and risk ratios of cesarean birth in relation to paternal age before and after adjustments for known confounders. Results: Among Caucasians, the cesarean delivery rates were 21.1%, 26.7% and 31.8% in fathers aged 20-29, 30-39 and ≥40 years, respectively.Among African-Americans, the corresponding rates were 24.1%, 33.2%, and 38.1%, respectively.These increased cesarean delivery rates persisted in analyses stratified by maternal age before and after adjustment for a variety of confounders. Conclusions: These findings suggest that increasing paternal age may be associated with an increased risk for cesarean delivery in primiparous women.

How to Boost the Immune System

How to Boost the Immune System

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2012/06/forget-greece-watch-china-chris-duane.html#.T9-yw2JgCcQ.pingfm

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2012/06/forget-greece-watch-china-chris-duane.html#.T9-yw2JgCcQ.pingfmhttp://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2012/06/forget-greece-watch-china-chris-duane.html#.T9-yw2JgCcQ.pingfm

9 Health Risks That Aren’t Worth Taking by Joseph Mercola

9 Health Risks That Aren’t Worth Taking

by Joseph Mercola9 Health Risks That Aren’t Worth Taking by Joseph Mercola

How The Pill Kills

How The Pill KillsHow The Pill Kills  

http://fukushimafacts.com/

http://fukushimafacts.com/http://fukushimafacts.com/

Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users

Previous Article Next Article

Story at-a-glance

• The biological impact of your cell phone is not related to its power, which is quite weak, but rather to the erratic nature of its signal and its ability to disrupt resonance and interfere with DNA repair
• Serving as an illustrative warning of the potential for your cell phone to cause cancer is the case of a young woman with no other predisposing risk factors for cancer who developed multi-focal breast cancer directly beneath the area of her breast where she’d been tucking her cell phone into her bra
• Earlier research has shown that wearing a cell phone on your hip may weaken an area of your pelvis, and cell phone radiation has also been found to affect men's sperm count, and the quality and motility of their sperm
• As a general rule, you’ll want to avoid carrying your phone anywhere on your body. The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna, especially when it is put next to soft tissue such as in your pant or shirt pocket, or worse yet, in a woman’s bra

Most Popular

1

NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users

2

6 Ways to Shrink Your Belly (And 5 Don't Include Exercise!)

3

This Popular Procedure Tripled the Cancer Risk of 1.65 Million People Last Year

4

Used in Gardens Everywhere, This "Biodegradable" Product is Likely Carcinogenic

5

The BEST Way to Stop a "Beer Belly"

Related Links:

• Latest EMF News
  
• Why Are Cell Phones Using the Wrong Safety Standards?
  
• Radiation from Cell Phones and WiFi Are Making People Sick -- Are You at Risk?

 Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users

June 16 2012 | 292,045 views | + Add to Favorites

2.3K

9.9k Email

Print

Visit the Mercola Video Library

By Dr. Mercola

If you think the jury's still out on whether cell phones can be dangerous to your health, then you might want to take the time to listen to this video. Dr. Devra Davis, author of the book, "The Secret History of the War on Cancer," has been researching the safety hazards of radiation emanating from your cell phone.
Like many people, Dr. Davis just didn't believe the possibility of cell phones being dangerous―until she studied it. And now, with the toxicological and epidemiological evidence to back up her claims, she's trying to get the word out that cell phone radiation is not only dangerous, but can be downright lethal.
In her lecture, Dr. Davis explains how the biological impact of your cell phone is not related to its power, which is quite weak, but rather to the erratic nature of its signal and its ability to disrupt resonance and interfere with DNA repair. This is now believed to be the most plausible theory for understanding the wide array of health impacts discovered, which includes cancer...

Can Your Cell Phone Cause Cancer?

One interesting case that can serve as an illustrative warning of the cancer-causing potential of cell phones is that of a young woman with no other predisposing risk factors for cancer who came down with multi-focal breast cancer. The case was revealed in the May issue of the Environmental Health Trust's newsletterⁱ. As it turns out, the young lady had the curious habit of tucking her cell phone into her bra...
Two cancer specialists, Robert Nagourney and John West, concluded there was only one other possibility that might have directly contributed to her breast cancer. "We connected the dots," the patient said. And the dots―quite literally the pattern of the cancer, and distribution of the cancerous cells―lined up perfectly with the shape of her cell phone.

While her doctor can't prove the cell phone caused her cancer, it should serve as a potent warning not only to other women who might tuck their phones in their bras, but also to those of you who keep your phones in your pants pocket or shirt pocket as well. As a general rule, you'll want to avoid carrying your phone anywhere on your body. Keep in mind that the most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that proximity.

Why Carrying Your Cell Phone on Your Body is a Bad Idea...

Regardless of the area exposed to the continuous radiation emitted by your cell phone, there's the potential for harm, although certain areas are clearly more vulnerable than others.
For example, research published in 2009 showed evidence that wearing a cell phone on your hip may weaken an area of your pelvisⁱⁱ. Using an X-ray technique used in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis, researchers measured pelvic bone density in 150 men who regularly carried their cell phones attached to their belts. The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours each day, and had used cell phones for an average of six years. The researchers found that bone mineral density was lowered on the side of the pelvis where the mobile phones were carried, raising the possibility that bone density could be adversely affected by the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones.
It's important to realize that as long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. So wearing a cell phone on your hip for 15 hours a day is giving that area of your body nearly continuous radiation exposure.
Previous studies have found that cell phone radiation can affect men's sperm count, and the quality and motility of their sperm, and this may be a far greater issue than its effect on bone density. One such study, published in PLoS Oneⁱⁱⁱ found that:

"RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring."

Men in particular may want to reconsider carrying their cell phones on their belts or in their pocket, in close proximity of their reproductive organs. In addition, you have a number of other sensitive organs in that general area, including liver, kidneys, colon and bladder—all of which are susceptible to radiation.

Recent Evidence Identifies Strong Cell Phone Cancer Link

Last year, an Israeli research group reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors over the last 30 years, with the steepest increase happening after 2001. Your parotid gland is a type of salivary gland, located closest to your cheek—the same area where most people typically hold their cell phones. The researchers found a four-fold increase in parotid gland cancers from 1970 to 2006, while rates of other salivary gland cancers remained stable^iv.
That same year, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, the principle investigator of a 2008 study, testified at a U.S. Senate Hearing that cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland tumors. The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by:

• 34 percent if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.
• 58 percent if you had more than about 5,500 calls in your lifetime.
• 49 percent if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your lifetime.

World Health Organizaion Classifies Cell Phone Radiation as Class B Carcinogen

Cell phone subscriptions are now estimated at 5.9 billion globally^v—that's 87 percent of the world population! I think it's safe to say, we've already passed the point of no return when it comes to this technology. But as cell phone use continues to grow unabated, a growing body of researchers is speaking out against the technology, warning that it may have serious biological side effects that must be acknowledged and remedied.
Fortunately, their warnings are slowly but surely beginning to be heard.
On May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report admitting cell phones might indeed cause cancer, classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Class 2B)^vi. The classification came in part in response to research showing wireless telephones increase the risk for brain cancer.
According to the press release^vii:

"Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting."

Children are at Greatest Risk—Including While in Utero

Sadly, children and teens are at greatest risk—both for parotid gland tumors and brain tumors—as their thinner skull bones allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation. The radiation can enter all the way into their midbrain, where tumors are more deadly. In addition, children's cells reproduce more quickly, so they're more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Children also face a far greater lifetime exposure. According to Professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!
The following image, used with permission from the book Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, clearly shows the differences in depth of penetration between adults and young children.

Pregnant women would also be wise to avoid cell phones as much as possible. In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure to cell phones while in the womb, and also during childhood, were linked to behavioral difficulties.^viii Using handsets just two or three times a day during pregnancy was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions, and relationships by the time they reached school age—and the risk became even greater if the children also used the phones themselves before the age of seven.
Overall, the study revealed that mothers who used mobile phones were 54 percent more likely to have children with behavioral problems. Later on, when the children began using cell phones themselves, they were:

• 80 percent more likely to suffer from behavioral difficulties
• 25 percent more at risk from emotional problems
• 34 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers
• 35 percent more likely to be hyperactive
• 49 percent more prone to problems with conduct

Experts Adamantly Claim Harmful Effects are Now Provable

Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there's virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility. Researchers have now identified numerous mechanisms of harm, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA.
One such expert is Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S. He gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. In it, he explained why your DNA, with its 'coil of coils' structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.
As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011^ix, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas: electronic conduction, and self-symmetry.
These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern. Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and "judged by scientists capable of judging it." I wrote an in-depth article about these findings back in January of last year. If you missed it, go ahead and review it now.
An analysis of the range of known mechanisms of action, including DNA effects, was published in November 2010 in "Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter^x." Furthermore, the mobile industry's own research in the 13-country Interphone study^xi showed a 40 percent increased risk of brain cancer from 1,640 or more hours of cell phone use, and independent Swedish research published in 2007 showed a 540 percent increased risk of brain cancer from greater than 2,000 hours of cell phone use^xii.

My Top Tips for Cell Phone Safety

It's worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is much larger than the medical industrial complex, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They're also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to pedal their wares. This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies.
As Dr. Davis shows in her lecture above, the results of any study can be accurately predicted by looking at its sponsorship. According to a review by Dr. Lai in 2008, the probability that a study will find "no effect" is two to three times higher in industry-funded studies, while independently-funded studies into the health effects of mobile technology are TWICE as likely to find a positive result.
So please, be aware that there is already robust scientific evidence that cell phones and other wireless devices pose significant health risks to all of us—especially to children and pregnant women. So while such findings are not being widely publicized as of yet, it makes sense to take action now to protect yourself and your children. You can help to minimize your exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices by heeding the following advice:

• Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type.
• Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you're pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use may be especially important.
• Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness. SKYPE offers a portable number via your computer that can plug into any Ethernet port while traveling.
• Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them as often as you do. And most importantly, do not even consider having any electronic or wireless devices in the bedroom that will interfere with the quality of your sleep.

If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are not safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.
Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call.
Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed.
You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

• Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
• Avoid Carrying Your Phone on Your Body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
• Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another: There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone. This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.
• Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
• Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children. If you are using the Pong case, which redirects the cell phone radiation away from the head and successfully lowers the SAR effect, realize that in redirecting the radiation away from your head this may be intensifying the radiation in another direction, perhaps toward the person next to you, or, if in your pocket, increasing radiation intensity toward your body. Caution is always advised in dealing with any radiation-emitting device. We recommend cell phones be kept 'Off' except for emergencies.
  
• Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
  The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.