Sunday, December 21, 2014

Amazing Story: How a Rescue Dog Saved His Owner from Breast Cancer

© Natural Society
Natural Society | Dec 21, 2014 | Christina Sarich

Yes, dogs can smell out cancer

Forty-six-year-old Josie Conlin has her dog to thank for her life. Her Border Collie was a rescue dog that had been kept in cages for very long periods of time. When she took him home, it took him over 10 months to recover from undesirable treatment by previous owners and shelters. He would later save Josie’s life.

Conlin suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome and benign breast disease, she was used to getting lumps in her breast that were nothing to really worry about. Her dog, Ted, was insistent upon a certain lump that developed which could have taken her life. He would cry and nuzzle her at on the same spot on her breast so much so that she decided to get it checked out.

Conlin states:
“I had heard that dogs could smell cancer so I said to my husband, Brian, should I go and get this checked out Ted started sniffing it and at that point I knew I needed to do something about it.”
Conlin will receive treatment for a lump that was found to be cancerous by her doctor. Her daughter Hannah said:
“If Ted had not found it we would not have known and it would have been different. He has saved the family.”
She also nursed both parents through cancer.

There is evidence that dogs can sniff out cancer even before it has reached catastrophic stages. In one study, dogs were able to sniff out prostate cancer with 98% accuracy.

© Natural Society
While many ‘non-profit’ organizations urge for cancer screenings like mammography – the radiation from the machines used to conduct them can cause cancer. Not to mention the cost of mammography equipment is prohibitive. Here are just a few on the market now:
  • GE Senographe 2000D- $115,00 to $135,000
  • Hologic Selenia- $140,000 to $170,000
Other procedures for investigating cancer probabilities are also quite invasive and costly. With stories like Josie Conlin’s we might look to our canine friends to help diagnose this disease, and then take more holistic measures to treat it.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Scientists and media are grossly misleading public on the influence of genes in human behavior

© Natural News
Natural News | Dec 19, 2014 | Jonathan Benson

The way that practically every disease, health condition and even behavior is blamed on "faulty genetics" these days has thwarted the way that people process scientific information, according to a new study. Researchers from the University of Montreal in Canada found that, when presented with popular scientific articles on genetics and their role in human health, many people added their own preconceived beliefs into the findings, usually blaming everything deviant on bad genetics.

The team, led by Alexandre Morin-Chasse, tracked 1,500 Americans who were presented with various scientific articles on genopolitics, human genetics and emerging research into these and other related fields. Participants were shown articles specifically about research into a particular gene and its effects on one of three traits: breast cancer, political ideology (liberal or conservative) or the tendency to go into debt.

After viewing the material, participants were asked to rate the influence of genetics on various inherent biological traits, including hair color and height, as well as behavioral tendencies such as violence and alcoholism. These factors may or may not have been included in the presented materials, but participants were still asked to choose a percentage score between 0% to 100%, with 100% being completely genetic, for all of them.

Based on this assessment, the research team found that many people believed political persuasion to have some roots in genetics, after reading an article on the subject. Participants also tended to lump other behavioral characteristics and orientations, including sexual orientation, into the genetic category even though the scientific evidence they were presented with made no such claims.

Regardless of whether or not the participants were evaluating articles that dealt specifically with cancer genetics articles covering recent findings from behavioral genetics research, the results were still the same.

"The results indicate that both treatments inadvertently contribute to increasing subjects' impression that genetics also influence other orientations, skills, and behaviors that are at best loosely related to the content of the news," wrote Morin-Chasse.

"This finding highlights an important paradox: The dissemination of news about behavioral genetics unintentionally induces unfounded beliefs that are not supported by the scientific evidence presented, therefore going against the educational purpose of science reporting."

Mainstream media thwarts scientific truths to cover up true causes of disease: pharmaceuticals, GMOs, vaccines and more

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media's sensationalistic treatment of many scientific articles serves one common goal: to condition the public into believing that rising rates of autism, obesity and other modern conditions are a result of bad genetics. In truth, many of these conditions and more are the direct result of biotechnology (genetically modified organisms), pharmaceuticals, vaccines, nutrition, nanotechnology and now even synthetic biology.

If genetic changes are responsible for a particular disease, chances are they may have been brought about by pharmaceuticals or vaccines. Research conducted by Howard B. Urnovitz into the relationship between vaccines and diseases like Gulf War Syndrome and cancer revealed that foreign materials injected into the body can cause genetic damage and potentially lead to permanent changes in a person's genetic memory.

"Generally, science reporters' first goal is to inform the public about scientific developments," added the Morin-Chasse. "However, this practice is not disinterested; some news is purposely written in a manner intended to catch the public's attention with startling results in order to increase or to maintain market shares."


Monsanto USDA Study: Mixing Non-GMO Seed with GMOs Not Helping Pest Resistance

Activist Post | Dec 19, 2014 | Heather Callaghan

Failure of 'Refuge in a Bag' Method of GM Crop Help

Did you know that farmers who plant genetically engineered crops need to also plant some non-GE crops in the same field? It is supposed to delay pest resistance to Bt corn crops.

Chemical and biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer et al. have a long history of blaming farmers for failures of genetically modified crops and herbicides. When crop yields don't provide, when corn rootworm takes over, and when farmers have to hire extra help to hack down superweeds when they were promised an easier season - the companies will be the first to throw farmers under the tractor. They like to claim that farmers aren't following proper pesticide management and planting "refuges."

For a long time that reason was truly considered a factor. Then came RIBs - "refuge-in-a-bag." That way, some non-Bt corn would be pre-included in the Bt seed mixture.

GMWatch reports:

...previous studies have shown that refuges do not work well, for three reasons: farmers don't comply with refuge requirements, pests are able to live and reproduce in Bt maize fields, and the non-Bt refuge plants become contaminated by cross-pollination with Bt toxin-producing genes (see "Refuge concept breaking down" in GMO Myths and Truths).
According to them, the study, "A challenge for the seed mixture refuge strategy in bt maize: impact of cross-pollination on an ear-feeding pest, corn earworm" - was actually funded in part by Monsanto and the USDA. This writer was unable to locate the full text. It was originally published in PLOS ONE, in November.

 Researchers write:

A major concern in RIB is cross-pollination of maize hybrids that can cause Bt proteins to be present in refuge maize kernels and negatively affect refuge insects. Here we show that a mixed planting of 5% nonBt and 95% Bt maize containing the SmartStax traits expressing Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2 and Cry1F did not provide an effective refuge for an important above-ground ear-feeding pest, the corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie).
Cross-pollination in RIB caused a majority (>90%) of refuge kernels to express ≥ one Bt protein. The contamination of Bt proteins in the refuge ears reduced neonate-to-adult survivorship of H. zea to only 4.6%, a reduction of 88.1% relative to larvae feeding on ears of pure non-Bt maize plantings. In addition, the limited survivors on refuge ears had lower pupal mass and took longer to develop to adults.
GMWatch explains:
The study found that over 90% of maize kernels expressed at least one Bt protein. In addition, the surviving pests on the refuge plants did not thrive, meaning that no viable Bt-susceptible pest populations survived. (emphasis added)
This could mean that the lack of pest control was never the fault of farmers - that refuges simply do not work, and in the end show more complications from cross-pollination. Back to the drawing board for them. Please also see: Thanks for the Super Genes - Weeds Receive Transgenic Material From GMOs

Photo by Rich Sanders, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at and Like at Facebook.

Science and fraud are the same thing with biotech giant Monsanto

© nihongonews.wordpress
SOTT | Dec 19, 2014 | Jon Rappoport

Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, "The jury freed me. It's up to them. They decide. That's what justice is all about."

Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant's word. He said he was innocent, so that's what we ruled.

That's an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, "Playing God in the Garden"), Philip Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, famously stated:
"Monsanto shouldn't have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, "Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," here is what the FDA had to say on this matter:
"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."
The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It's not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It's a clear signal that the fix was in.

No real science. No deep investigation. No convincing evidence of safety. Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora's Box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

Read more..