October 23, 2017

California government buried the truth about cell phone radiation

(Natural News) A once-secret document detailing links between cell phones and brain cancer has been released by order of a California court. Entitled, “Cell Phones and Health,” the document was demanded in a lawsuit filed by Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Technetronics Destroys Thinking, Useful Brains

It’s hard to remember what life was like before we had the internet at our fingertips, smartphones in our pockets, and a laptop on every desk. Today, our brains are racing to adapt to the digital age. Cognitive neuroscientists say all that time we now spend in front of screens has changed the way we read and comprehend. Internet browsing has shortened both our attention spans and our patience. And it’s doing a number on our memories.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Subway Chicken Ain’t But Half Chicken

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — If you think that chicken sandwich you ordered at Subway did not fully taste like fowl, you may have been right.

According to a Canadian study, a DNA test showed only half of Subway’s oven-roasted patty is made with real chicken.

Subway was among five fast-food restaurants whose chicken the Canadian Broadcast Corporation had tested.

The results showed the Oven Roasted Chicken patties averaged 53.6 percent chicken DNA while the Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki strips came in at 42.8 percent.

The sandwich chain refuted the results of the DNA test in a released statement:<<<Read More>>>

Share

Glyphosate Contaminants In Processed Brand Name Foods

Glyphosate is the main chemical active in several brands of agricultural and corporate farming herbicides used in the growing fields; in GMO seed crop cultures; and in what’s called “preharvest staging” [1]. That’s when the herbicide is sprayed several days [3 to 5 days] prior to crop harvest to “ensure” seed heads mature evenly. Some consider that process acts as a “desiccant.”

The more commonly-used herbicide is Roundup® manufactured by Monsanto. In GMO farming, there is Roundup Ready® seeds, which are totally different from heirloom or non-GMO seeds. One specific difference is GMO seeds have patents on them, meaning something has been done to modify the seed from the parent or original plant strain produced by Nature.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Are Microwaves Messing With Your Heart?

Natural News) Many health conscious consumers rarely, if ever, microwave their food anymore, but when they do, they probably do not realize that they’re not just destroying the nutritional value of the food, but the “nuker” is negatively impacting their hearts.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Killing Deer to Kill “Deer” Ticks

I was reading George Smith’s article about how the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is making plans within their proposals to draft 15-year management plans for deer, to figure out how the state can manage a “socially acceptable” population of deer and at the same time mitigate the affects of Lyme disease, at a socially acceptable level. Lyme disease is believed by most to be carried by the deer and thus deer have become the target. Because the deer is the target, the controversy comes from three different entities – those who find deer cute and cuddly and want them running all about their land; those who want them available in ample supply to hunt and fill their freezers; those who hate hunters and are willing to kill deer so hunters can’t enjoy their sport.

It certainly does appear that reducing deer populations (to what level I’m not sure there is a standard number due to varying influences and environmental factors) will reduce incidences of man contracting Lyme disease.

The life cycle of the tick responsible for carrying the infectious disease, including all directly influencing factors, is complicated. Perhaps the deer has become the easy target due to a lack of understanding about how to interrupt the life cycle of the tick – more appropriately should be called the mouse tick.

The deer is a host.  This means that an adult tick hitches a ride on a deer for the purpose of obtaining a meal of blood. This is all a necessary part of the life cycle. It is not the deer, however that gives the disease to the tick. The tick does infect the deer, but studies have shown that a deer will “cleanse” itself of the disease and thus is not considered a carrier of the disease.

It’s the white-footed mouse that is the main culprit of transmitting the disease. Once infected, the mouse remains a carrying until death. After the tick leaves the deer, the female ticks hatch all new larvae. The larvae make their way to the mouse, where the Lyme disease is passed to the nymph. As I understand the cycle, the tick larvae cannot have the infection but pick it up from the mouse as it becomes a nymph. The infected nymph grows to an adult and begins looking for a host for another blood meal.

Incidentally, the larvae doesn’t only go to the mouse. It can travel to other rodents and small wildlife, where the disease can be passed to the nymph, which can become an adult tick and begin looking for a blood meal.

It would appear that any interruption or change of this cycle would limit or change the prevalence of the tick. One way that has been tried is to reduce the populations of deer. In places where deer populations are very dense, a serious thinning of the herd becomes a reasonable limitation to tick growth and prevalence. It would only make sense…wouldn’t it?

Have we looked enough at finding ways to control the white-footed mouse? Snakes, owls, bobcats, weasels, and foxes are common predators. Are there changes in these predators and their environment that are effecting the white-footed mouse? Short of the use of chemicals, is the “natural” way of keeping mice in check being interrupted some how? Are changes in our ecosystems increasing, decreasing or having no effect on the perpetuation of the tick and Lyme disease?

Modeling in recent years has suggested that perhaps those predators that readily find the white-footed mouse a prey species, have been reduced in numbers to where they are ineffective at any kind of control over the mouse. There are a couple of difficulties in this presentation. First, to my knowledge, the modeling has not been taken to the field, or, if it has, results have not been made public. Another issue is that “scientists” can’t even agree on what predators consider the mouse’s prey. Some say the fox is the biggest predator of the mouse and some say the coyote is. Some say that even though the list of natural predators of the mouse is varied, there is little interruption of the perpetuation of mice.

I would find it interesting that it appears that the incidence of Lyme disease has increased right along with the prevalence of coyotes. If coyotes regularly eat white-footed mice for lunch, wouldn’t it make some sense that this would tend to reduce the prevalence of the spread of Lyme disease?

The argument is also made that the presence of coyotes limits the number of foxes, therefore, fewer mice are eaten. The theory has been laid on the table that coyotes do eat mice, but live in a more spread out habitat than the fox and so the effective result is that fewer mice get eaten, thus more ticks and more disease. Consider also that, for those familiar with the boots-on-the-ground eating habits of the coyote, an animal that will eat anything, the diet of the coyote includes “snakes, owls, bobcats, weasels, foxes and probably any other creature that, given the opportunity, would feast on a white-footed mouse.

So, depending upon which bandwagon best fits your narrative, will determine whether you want to kill deer, mice, or coyotes. For the MDIFW, their job will, more than likely, end up being a matter of making deer management decisions based on social demands rather than good science. But this is nothing new.

But above all,

DON’T GO LOOK!

 

Share

Walgreens Vows to Work with Trump Administration on New Health Care Plan

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

A Promoter of the Affordable Care Act, Pharmaceutical Giant Indicates Willingness to Assist New White House Team in Repeal and Replacement of ObamaCare 

National Center for Public Policy Research Seeks Commitment from Walgreens Regarding Employee Health Insurance Costs Caught up In ObamaCare Wake

New York, N.Y./Washington, D.C.  –  At today’s annual meeting of Walgreens Boots Alliance shareholders, responding to a question from the National Center for Public Policy Research, Walgreens Executive Chairman James Skinner indicated the pharmaceutical giant is willing to work with the Trump Administration in efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare with a free market alternative.  Skinner, however, refused to discuss specific ways the company might be willing to help bring about reform in the health care industry.

“Walgreens says it wants to work with President Trump, but its executives were evasive about what the company could offer.  Leading from behind was a strategy for the previous administration.  The new leadership in the White House is looking for quick and decisive action, and Walgreens owes it to their employees and the communities it serves to come to the table with plans to help reform the government’s broken health care infrastructure,”  said National Center General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended today’s meeting in New York City and questioned the Walgreens leadership. 

At the meeting, Danhof asked:

When former President Obama sought assistance with his health care law, Walgreens partnered with the administration to promote ObamaCare and its exchanges.  Largely unpopular, ObamaCare proved to be a failure as premiums skyrocketed, large insurers took massive taxpayer bailouts and many insurers left the exchanges altogether.

The current political climate offers a unique chance for both private industry and health care consumers.  President Trump has vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare with a more patient-centric approach that provides greater options and relies on market forces to control prices…

[W]ill Walgreens work with the Trump Administration to promote its health care agenda as it did with the Obama Administration, and what specific reforms would you suggest to the new president? 

“While the response from Walgreens leaders lacked specifics, I am encouraged the company seems willing to move on from ObamaCare,” said Danhof.  “By promoting ObamaCare, Walgreens contributed to the vast destruction it caused.  Millions of Americans who lost their doctors and insurance plans are right to blame corporations such as Walgreens for supporting former President Obama’s top-down health care scheme.  If Walgreens is sincere about its willingness to work with the Trump Administration, I hope its leaders will quickly lay out a clear vision of what reforms would be best for health care consumers.”

At today’s meeting, Danhof also asked about the future of Walgreens employees’ health insurance needs.  Beginning in 2014, Walgreens dropped 160,000 employees from their private health insurance plans and directed them to enroll in a health care exchange.  It was reported that this move was done, in part, because of high ObamaCare compliance costs.   This shifted the burden of potential higher future health-related insurance costs from the company to its employees.  While Walgreens apparently covered these costs in 2014, it is unclear what the company plans to do going forward.

In light of this, Danhof asked:

Walgreens greatest asset is its employees.  And unless their compensation will continue to increase to cover rising health care costs, Walgreens will have done harm to its greatest advocates.  As the public face of the company, these are some of the same employees that the company tasked with promoting ObamaCare…

[I]n 2014, Walgreens provided its employees with funds to cover the costs of their new health care plans.  Will you commit to continue this practice going forward?   

Walgreens Executive Chairman Skinner responded that the company would do what was necessary to take care of its employees. 

“If I were a Walgreens employee, I would be less than thrilled with Skinner’s response to my question,” said Danhof.  “There is great uncertainty regarding the future costs of health care services and health insurance.  This would be a large burden for its employees to bear.”

“Following the meeting,” Danhof added, “Walgreens spokesman Michael Polzin informed me that the company has continued to subsidize the employee’s health insurance plans at the same rate as before.  He also confirmed that, going forward, the company has every intention of maintaining the same subsidy percentages.” 

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business.  Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in 89 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.  Today’s Walgreens meeting marks its first shareholder meeting of 2017. 

In 2016, the Free Enterprise Project was featured in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Fox News “Cavuto,” the Drudge Report, the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the Quad City Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Chicago Tribune among many others.  The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kim Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group). 

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank.  Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations.  It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.  Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share

As ObamaCare Fades, What’s the Future of American Health Care?

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Free Market Leader Plans to Question Pharmaceutical Giant Walgreens About Its Promotion of ObamaCare While Dumping Private Plans for its Employees

National Center for Public Policy Research Set to Ask Walgreens Executives Whether the Company is Willing to Support President Trump’s Plan to Repeal and Replace ObamaCare

New York, N.Y./Washington, D.C.  –  Less than two blocks from Trump Tower in New York City, at today’s annual meeting of Walgreens Boots Alliance shareholders, a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research plans to ask the pharmaceutical giant’s CEO – Stefano Pessina – about the company’s promotion of the Affordable Care Act while it simultaneously dropped health care coverage for many of its employees. Pessina will also be asked whether the company will work with President Donald Trump’s administration to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

“Walgreens is in a unique position when it comes to the American health care system.  As a leading pharmaceutical chain, it worked closely with the Obama Administration to promote the Affordable Care Act by having its employees help customers navigate the ObamaCare exchanges.  However, many of those same employees were dropped from the company’s private health care plan because of high compliance costs associated with ObamaCare.  This burdened more than 150,000 Walgreens employees with the rising costs of health care,” said National Center General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who will attend today’s meeting in New York City.  “Walgreens should commit to covering the increased health insurance costs for its employees who lost their coverage.  The company should also seize upon the current political climate and work with the Trump Administration to improve health care choice and access while controlling costs.”

Beginning in 2014, Walgreens dropped 160,000 employees from its private health insurance plans and directed them to enroll in a health care exchange.  It was reported that this move was done, in part, because of high ObamaCare compliance costs.   This shifted the burden of potential higher future health-related insurance costs from the company to its employees.  While Walgreens apparently covered these costs in 2014, it is unclear what the company plans to do going forward.  That’s one question Danhof will ask Walgreens executives later today. 

“Walgreens employees are the face of the company.  It was rather duplicitous of company executives to ask their staff to push ObamaCare onto Walgreens customers while concurrently dropping them from the company’s health plan.  It appears that Walgreens employees, like so many other Americans, could not keep their plan if they liked their plan,” added Danhof.  “Walgreens employees got a bad deal.  The company choose to support ObamaCare, but decided it didn’t want to bear the brunt of increased health insurance costs.  Today, I am going to ask that the company to do right by its employees and pledge to cover these health care costs.  One way that the company might control costs is by working with the Trump Administration as they repeal and replace ObamaCare.” 

President Trump has already begun the process of dismantling the Affordable Care Act.  Last Friday, he issued an executive order requesting that federal agencies relieve the financial burdens of ObamaCare for the American people.  He also expressed a strong willingness to work with Congress on a large-scale repeal and replacement of ObamaCare.  Danhof plans to ask Walgreens executives whether the company will work with President Trump’s Administration as it implements a new health care agenda. 

“The opportunities for the large-scale reforms being sought by President Trump and his team are rare in Washington, D.C.  The President has shown a strong desire to work with American corporations to ensure quality American jobs and growth at home.  The health care sector is no exception,” said Danhof.  “Walgreens has a unique opportunity to help shape a better health care system for all Americans.  In doing so, it can amend for past support of ObamaCare and its top-down system that has harmed so many American families.”  

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a Walgreens Boots Alliance shareholder. 

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business.  Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in 89 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.  Today’s Walgreens meeting marks the National Center’s first shareholder meeting of 2017. 

In 2016, the Free Enterprise Project was featured in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Drudge Report, the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the Quad City Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Chicago Tribune among many others.  The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kim Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank.  Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations.  It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.  Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by NationalCenter staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share

Six Deceptions Needed for Agenda 21

Share

Impending Announcement by U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy on E-Cigarettes

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Impending Announcement by U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy on E-Cigarettes Draws Statement by Jeff Stier of the National Center for Public Policy Research
New York, NY / Washington, DC – United States Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy is expected to make an announcement this morning regarding e-cigarettes.


Jeff Stier, director of the Risk Analysis Division at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a nationally-recognized authority on e-cigarette policy, is available to comment on today’s news.

As a leading conservative expert on public health policies, Stier’s views on the topic should be of particular interest as the Trump transition team considers key appointments at the Food and Drug Administration, as well as when the time comes to appoint a new Surgeon General.

In anticipation of these developments, Stier says, “If Surgeon General Murthy only addresses the serious risks of e-cigarette use by minors, something we all agree on, but fails to provide much-needed education about their benefits to adult smokers who would like to quit, he’ll have missed an important opportunity.”

Further, says Stier, “If the Surgeon General goes on to make policy recommendations based only on the risk part of the equation, without considering the benefits, he will have failed his fundamental obligation of improving public health. Without a deep and thorough analysis of the issue, the Surgeon General’s approach becomes little more than platitudes.”

Stier says, “The Surgeon General would have been wise to adopt the clear approach used by the Royal College of Physicians in its landmark report last year, by saying, ‘It’s very simple: adult cigarette smokers who switch to e-cigarettes dramatically reduce their risk, by using “nicotine without smoke.”‘”

Stier has applauded the Food and Drug Administration, as well as almost every state, for banning sales of e-cigarettes to minors. “Kids should not use any nicotine product, including e-cigarettes, or even zero-nicotine e-cigarettes,” he says.

But Stier believes that our public health authorities “have the capacity to distinguish between keeping these products out of the hands of minors, while at the same time making sure adult smokers recognize that e-cigarettes present a dramatically lower risk than cigarettes.”

“In fact,” says Stier, “Public Health England did just that, when it recommended e-cigarettes as a less harmful alternative to smoking when it published the most comprehensive government report on the topic to date.”

Stier is concerned that “if, in the name of public health, federal regulations inhibit much-needed innovation in the e-cigarette market, if those regulations limit marketing to adults, or prevent companies from selling flavored e-cigarettes which appeal to adult smokers, public health will actually suffer, as fewer adult smokers will be likely to switch from smoking.”

Stier has written frequently and widely about e-cigarettes for major publications, including USA Today (here and here), National Review and elsewhere.

Stier also has appeared on numerous television news outlets on the topic, on one calling e-cigarettes “a boon to public health.”

Stier has also testified on the topic before numerous state and city legislative and regulatory bodies, as well as at Food and Drug Administration meetings and the Office of Management and Budget at the White House.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter or @JeffAStier.

Share