This is a bit dated but no less outrageous with time.
(NaturalNews) The American Medical Association (AMA) has officially sold its collective soul to the corporate agriculture machine by announcing recently that it opposes the mandatory labeling of genetically-modified (GM) foods. Though the group simultaneously called for “premarket safety assessments” of GM foods, it unilaterally denied the need for honest food labeling or any sort of differentiation between bioengineered foods and natural foods.
The announcement has confounded many, including even the mainstream media, as it contradictorily admits that GMOs need to be tested “as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” and at the same time denies that GMOs are different from non-GMOs. If anything, the AMA’s duplicitous position is a pathetic attempt to play both sides of the issue at the same time, which means it actually supports the continued betrayal and deceit by the biotechnology industry against Americans.
Adopted at the AMA’s recent House of Delegates meeting, the group’s non-labeling policy for GMOs implies that labeling is “without value” because “science-based” assessments have allegedly never called into question the safety of GMOs. Apparently the AMA has never taken even a cursory glance at Monsanto’s own corporate website, which explains that human testing of GMOs has never actually been conducted, making its safety claims erroneous. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
The AMA has also apparently never taken a look at the dozens of independent, scientific studies on GMOs that have shown them to cause organ damage, intestinal upset, autoimmune disorders, allergies, cancer, skin problems, and other serious health problems (https://www.naturalnews.com/026426_GMO_food_GMOs.html). At no time have GMOs ever been proven, without a doubt, to be safe for human consumption, despite the arrogant statements now being made by AMA in defense of its corrupt position….
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the leading cause of death among USA infants under 1 year of age accounting for ~2,700 deaths per year. Although formally SIDS dates back at least 2,000 years and was even mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Kings 3:19), its etiology remains unexplained prompting the CDC to initiate a sudden unexpected infant death case registry in 2010.
Due to their total dependence, the ability of the infant to allostatically regulate stressors and stress responses shaped by genetic and environmental factors is severely constrained. We propose that SIDS is the result of cumulative painful, stressful, or traumatic exposures that begin in utero and tax neonatal regulatory systems incompatible with allostasis. We also identify several putative biochemical mechanisms involved in SIDS. We argue that the important characteristics of SIDS, namely male predominance (60:40), the significantly different SIDS rate among USA Hispanics (80% lower) compared to whites, 50% of cases occurring between 7.6 and 17.6 weeks after birth with only 10% after 24.7 weeks, and seasonal variation with most cases occurring during winter, are all associated with common environmental stressors, such as neonatal circumcision and seasonal illnesses.
We predict that neonatal circumcision is associated with hypersensitivity to pain and decreased heart rate variability, which increase the risk for SIDS. We also predict that neonatal male circumcision will account for the SIDS gender bias and that groups that practice high male circumcision rates, such as USA whites, will have higher SIDS rates compared to groups with lower circumcision rates. SIDS rates will also be higher in USA states where Medicaid covers circumcision and lower among people that do not practice neonatal circumcision and/or cannot afford to pay for circumcision. We last predict that winter-born premature infants who are circumcised will be at higher risk of SIDS compared to infants who experienced fewer nociceptive exposures.
All these predictions are testable experimentally using animal models or cohort studies in humans. Our hypothesis provides new insights into novel risk factors for SIDS that can reduce its risk by modifying current infant care practices to reduce nociceptive exposures. …
Isolating newborn infants from their mothers for a period of time and then skinning, crushing and cutting away their sexuality without anesthetic is a form of psychological as well as physical torture, similar to but more severe than what’s going on at guantanamo (global sensory deprivation except for pain, see “A Question of Torture” by Alfred McCoy). But I’m sure there’s some good reason for it. Probably has something to do with brainwashing. If we could just get the baby out of the picture then maybe the doctor could act out his compulsions in some other way. Preferably in a padded cell.
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand why such a tortured soul might want to get the hell out of dodge as soon as possible. With enough determination it’s not inconceivable that a sufficiently traumatized mind which is totally plugged into its body could stop the heart, especially when in an alpha-wave state in an isolated crib. What would be the point of staying given such an introduction to life? Infants may well be capable of making decisions with profound implications, given the last two links below.
In any case, I’m sure our medical professionals will generate lots more experimental data before common human decency and the threat of imprisonment finally force them to stop.
You don’t have to be a trumpster to realize the establishment’s TDS has nothing to do with its stated problems with Trump. After all, racism, mass murder torture etc under the watchful gaze of the “free press” have been part of the empire’s status quo for decades. In fact the media hysteria around Trump has been the most hopeful sign of his presidency. He has yet to deliver the real goods although he’s certainly better than hillary would have been. I remain hopeful.
The Donald has been on a red hot twitter rampage, and he’s completely justified. Actually, we didn’t think the Russian Collusion Hoax could get any stupider until we saw the New York Times’ Friday evening bushwhack.
The trio of authors, apparently self-tortured victims of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, actually had the gall to print a story in the once and former Gray Lady of journalistic rectitude which was nothing more than an ugly smear on the sitting President of the United States—one that would have done Joe McCarthy proud:
In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.
The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.
It doesn’t get lower than that. The only thing that they didn’t mention was presidential Treason, but it’s hard to say that “working in behalf of Russia against American interests” would constitute anything less.
So exactly what did the trio of wet behind the ears nincompoops at the New York Times—Adam Goldman, Michael Schmidt and Nicholas Fandos—dig up from the diarrhetic bowels of the FBI that warranted the above characterization?
Why, it is apparently the following, which is surely a red hot smoking gun. That is, one that condemns the FBI, not Trump; and shows that the NYT, which once courageously published the Pentagon Papers and had earned the above sobriquet for its journalistic stateliness, sense of responsibility and possession of high virtue, has degenerated into a War Party shill—not to say the journalistic equivalent of a comfort woman: Mr. Trump had caught the attention of FBI counterintelligence agents when…
…he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.
Well, for crying out loud!
Any journalist worth his salt would know that Trump’s July 2016 shout-out to the Russians was a campaign joke. At best, it was merely an attempt to cleverly state in one more way the running GOP theme about Hillary’s missing 30,000 emails. How many times before that had Sean Hannity delivered his riff about Hillary’s alleged hammer-smashing of 13 devices and acid-washing with BleachBit of the missing emails?
More importantly, how in the world of constitutional government, free speech, and contested elections does Trump’s refusal to criticize a foreign leader that we we’re not at war with constitute something worthy of a counter-intelligence investigation by the FBI? …
The reckoning for the Clintons I have dreamed of for a quarter of a century finally approaches with whistleblowing and documents about the slush fund known as the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The ability of the Clintons to blow off charges of criminality will be crippled by the latest evidence revealed to be in the hands of prosecutors. With the former first couple humiliated by their inability to draw a decent crowd anymore, and plenty of other Democrats anxious to move on and put this embarrassment behind them, it is starting to look as though karma finally is catching up with them.
John Solomon of The Hill reveals the story that has been percolating for a long time but kept tightly under wraps – because that is what serious prosecutors do, especially when grand juries are poring over evidence and issuing indictments that remain sealed until the right moment comes. The trigger for the story coming out now probably is a House subcommittee hearing scheduled next week by Mark Meadows, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, while the GOP still can set the agenda of House hearings….
How to take the zillions of years of adaptive evolution encoded in the human body for granted and “push the envelope” of what constitutes food and nutrition. It’s all for scyence. Don’t blaspheme the holy religion of blind trust in profit-driven corporate scyence.
Western food and medicine are not what they used to be. Our staple crops have been bastardized, adulterated, genetically mutated, and sprayed with toxins that kill everything but the plant, and that’s mainly because the plants contain the same toxins now, thanks to biotechnology firms screwing with Mother Nature.
Then there’s petroleum-based food colorings, synthetic flavorings, artificial sweeteners, bleached-white food, toxin-loaded gluten (that stops you up for days), microwaveable meals, monosodium glutamate (MSG), and the list just goes on forever.
Our mainstream medicine has gone from bad to worse, with most prescription drugs laced with deadly, addictive heroin (think opiates) or chemicals that cause side effects that are worse than the condition being “managed.”
Most people just eat and drink “whatever” and then rush to the M.D. for some painkillers, blood thinners, cholesterol-reducing meds, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, flu shots, vaccines, and surgery, hoping to stave off the inevitable – which is, ironically, preventable diseases and disorders. Wow.
The worst part is that most of what people think helps their health totally wipes out their immune system, bringing on other sicknesses, and enabling pathogens, parasites, bacteria, and viruses to drag their health down into the gutter, sometimes for good. So here we go, with the top 10 immune system killers of all time….
The structure of military alliances; the evolving situation in the Middle East; a shift in geopolitical alliances; the global military agenda; review of wars since 2001; nonconventional hybrid warfare to undermine a country’s financial structure; coalition of Turkey, Russia and Iran; Pakistan and India now a part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, INF Treaty and START; nuclear posture review; the Manhattan Project; Rand Corporation report on war with China; the neoliberal agenda and the militarization of the economy.
The Grace Commission Report was presented to Congress in January 1984. The report claimed that if its recommendations were followed, $424 billion could be saved in three years, rising to $1.9 trillion per year by the year 2000. It estimated that the national debt, without these reforms, would rise to $13 trillion by the year 2000, while with the reforms they projected it would rise to only $2.5 trillion. The report’s recommendations that intruded into policy were ignored by Congress, but many other efficiency recommendations were considered and some were implemented. The debt reached $5.8 trillion in the year 2000. The national debt reached 13 trillion after the subprime mortgage-collateralized debt obligation crisis in 2008.
The report said that one-third of all income taxes are consumed by waste and inefficiency in the federal government, and another one-third escapes collection owing to the underground economy. “With two thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government.”
H.R. 25: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States. Sponsor: Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA-7] | Cosponsor statistics: 27 current.
Cosponsor Date Cosponsored Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN-3]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH-1]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Conaway, K. Michael [R-TX-11]* 01/03/2019 Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN-4]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC-3]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA-14]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA-10]* 01/03/2019 Rep. King, Steve [R-IA-4]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK-2]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL-8]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN-1]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL-3]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA-9]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-7]* 01/03/2019 Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8] 01/09/2019 Rep. Carter, Earl L. “Buddy” [R-GA-1] 01/11/2019
National sales tax? This is regressive, the burden will be distributed thoughout the population instead of skimmed from the top where surplus wealth is most concentrated. How about tariffs and corporate income taxes? This is how the federal government used to fund itself. Tariffs encourage domestic economic production, and corporate profits are otherwise funneled into the coffers of the already wealthy and aren’t recirculated as readily as personal income. Sustainable economics is based on monetary recycling.