Colorado Bill Aims To Make Catching Rain Water Legal

rainwater-750x400

A bill is meandering its way through the Colorado state legislature to legally allow citizens to catch and store rainwater in barrels for the purpose of watering urban gardens.

That’s correct. Collecting rainwater in a barrel is outlawed.

The bill swept through the state’s House two weeks ago in a 61-3 vote. But its prospects in the Republican-controlled state Senate remain murky.

“Citizens in our state want the senseless ban on rain barrels to be lifted so they can use this conservation tool to water their lawns and gardens. We couldn’t be more thrilled that this important bill has cleared its first house on the path to become law,” Conservation Colorado Executive Director Pete Maysmith said in a press statement about the vote.

Colorado’s legislature attempted to vanquish the ban last year, but it was halted and eventually defeated by Republican Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, who claimed nixing the law would harm the so-called first-come first-serve water rights farmers and ranchers have in his district.

Sonnenberg, among others who oppose the bill, argue rainwater is included in first-come first-serve rights, as rain run off helps replenish aquifers, creeks and rivers.

Colorado operates under a prior appropriation system allowing people with “senior” water rights to get access before people with “junior” water rights. Those with “senior” water rights fear urban farmers will take the water before it is allowed to get to them.

Colorado State University conducted a study on the impact of rainwater collection last year.

The study found, on average, nearly 8,000 gallons pummel homes. The law would allow citizens two rain barrels, which would collect somewhere between 50 and 55 gallons of water.

Uncaptured rainwater run off, of course, would make its ways to the state’s rivers and streams.

The study concluded that the law would have minimal effect on the first-come first-serve rights.

Still, the bill’s opponents say there is no recourse for people with “senior” rights who say they are being affected by the law. If somebody has a beef with a lack of water run off, they’d have to hunt down the person who caught too much water and hash out their differences, Sonnenberg noted.

Water courts rule on these issues, but such legal systems are too expensive for average citizens.

Water engineers are responsible for investigating and regulating water barrel usage, Sonnenberg added.

“We’re not anti-rain barrel,” Farmer Jim Yahn told the House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources in February. “We’re against the misuse of the prior appropriation system.”

Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/colorado-bill-aims-to-make-catching-rain-water-legal/#ixzz44Chg65Xg

Robert De Niro pulls ‘Vaxxed’ documentary from Tribeca Film Festival lineup

image

Tribeca Film Festival co-founder Robert De Niro has reversed an earlier decision to screen a film directed by a former doctor best known for his debunked study linking vaccinations and autism.
“Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe” had been slated to screen at the festival on April 24.
“My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family,” De Niro said in a statement posted on Saturday to the festival’s Facebook page. “But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.”
The documentary is directed by Andrew Wakefield, whose 1998 study linking childhood vaccinations to autism was retracted by a British medical journal in 2010. Wakefield also lost his medical license after the General Medical Council found that the former doctor acted unethically in his study.
De Niro’s statement on Saturday continued: “The Festival doesn’t seek to avoid or shy away from controversy. However, we have concerns with certain things in this film that we feel prevent us from presenting it in the Festival program. We have decided to remove it from our schedule.”
In an earlier statement from De Niro, posted on Friday, he said that he and his wife, Grace Hightower, have a child with autism and that they “believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined.”
He continued, “In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening VAXXED. I am not personally endorsing the film, nor am I anti-vaccination; I am only providing the opportunity for a conversation around the issue.”
Before “Vaxxed” was removed from the schedule, here’s how it was described on Tribeca’s website: “Digging into the long-debated link between autism and vaccines, Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe features revealing and emotional interviews with pharmaceutical doctors, politicians, parents, and one whistleblower to understand what’s behind the skyrocketing increase of autism diagnoses today.”
A discussion with the film’s creators was to follow the screening.

Read More

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/celebrities/robert-de-niro-pulls-vaxxed-documentary-from-tribeca-film-festival-lineup-1.11621577

One Of The Most Important Scientists In The World: “Most Cancer Research Is Largely A Fraud”

pauling-600x400

“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” (source)

The above quote comes from Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994). He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. He is one of the founders of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, who was also a well known peace activist. He was invited to be in charge of the Chemistry division of the Manhattan Project, but refused. He has also done a lot of work on military applications, and has pretty much done and seen it all when it comes to the world of science. A quick Google search will suffice if you’d like to learn more about him.

This man has been around the block, and obviously knows a thing or two about this subject. And he’s not the only expert from around the world expressing similar beliefs and voicing his opinion.

Here is another great example of a hard hitting quote when it comes to scientific fraud and manipulation. It comes from Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long time Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. I apologize if you have seen it before in my articles, but it is quite the statement.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (source)

The list goes on and on. Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the National Cancer Institute and is also a former editor of its journal, publicly stated in a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that:

“My overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be judged a qualified failure. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure.” (source)

He also alluded to the fact that cancer treatment, in general, has been a complete failure.

Another interesting point is the fact that most of the money donated to cancer research is spent on animal research, which has been considered completely useless by many. For example, in 1981 Dr. Irwin Bross, the former director of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research Institute (largest cancer research institute in the world), said that:

“The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies.” (source)

Today, treating illness and disease has a corporate side. It is an enormously profitable industry, but only when geared towards treatment, not preventative measures or cures, and that’s an important point to consider.

Another quote that relates to my point above was made by Dr. Dean Burk, an American biochemist and a senior chemist for the National Cancer Institute. His paper, “The Determination of Enzyme Dissociation Constants (source),” published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1934, is one of the most frequently cited papers in the history of biochemistry.

“When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.” (source)

He also stated that:

“Fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical. It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.” (source)

In the April 15th, 2015 edition of Lancet, the UK’s leading medical journal, editor in chief Richard Horton stated:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn toward darkness.” (source)

n 2005 Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, currently a professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he stated:

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.”

In 2009, the University of Michigan’s comprehensive cancer center published an analysis that revealed popular cancer studies are false, and that there were fabricated results arising due to conflicts of interest. They suggested that the fabricated results were a result of what would work best for drug companies. After all, a large portion of cancer research is funded directly by them. You can read more about that story here.

There is so much information out there, and so much of it is coming from people who have been directly involved in these proceedings. There is really no shortage of credible sources willing to state that we live in a world of scientific fraud and manipulation.

All of this can be attributed to the “corporatocracy” we live in today, where giant corporations owned by a select group of “elite” people have basically taken control over the planet and all of its resources.

This is precisely why so many people are flocking towards alternative treatment, as well as focusing on cancer prevention. Much of what we surround ourselves with on a daily basis has been linked to cancer. Everything from pesticides, GMOs, multiple cosmetic products, certain “foods,” smoking, and much much more. This is something that is never really emphasized, we always seem to just assume that donating money to charities will make the problem go away, despite the fact that their business practices are highly questionable.

That being said, so many people have had success with alternative treatments like cannabis oil – combined with a raw diet or even incorporated into their chemotherapy regimen – that we should not feel as though there is no hope for the future.

The official stance on cannabis is a great example of the very practice of misinformation that I’m talking about. Its anti-tumoral properties have been demonstrated for decades, yet no clinical trials are taking place.

I am going to leave you with this video, as I have done in previous articles. It provides a little food for thought. Ignorance is not the answer, although this information can be scary to consider, it’s nothing to turn a blind eye towards.

Read More

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/11/one-of-the-most-important-scientists-in-the-world-most-cancer-research-is-largely-a-fraud/

Class action lawsuit accuses Monsanto of falsely advertising the “safety” of glyphosate

Editorial-Use-RoundUp-Herbicide

A California class action lawsuit is about to deal yet another hard blow to the already infamous Monsanto Corporation.

According to the lawsuit, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is not only killing plants but also targeting specific enzymes in the microbiome of the human gut.

NT1
The more we use glyphosate on our crops, the more its residue will be in food products. Ultimately, glyphosate residue makes its way into our guts and kills important species of bacteria that we depend on to stay healthy. The good bacteria colonies are responsible for regulating our immune system and helping it respond to invading pathogens. These bacteria help the body break down nutrients and also protect the gut wall from being penetrated by other toxins.

Unfortunately — and expectedly — there’s no mention of all this on Monsanto’s Roundup labels. What’s written instead is: “Glyphosate targets an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets.”

Monsanto’s glyphosate lies impact practically everyone
The class action lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942) aims to point out how Monsanto has been lying to us all along. The lawsuit isn’t making direct links between glyphosate and cancer, even though the World Health Organization recently admitted that glyphosate is a carcinogen. Instead, the lawsuit is pointing out the basic lie that Monsanto has been perpetuating all along: Glyphosate does not affect humans.

The fact is — and all educated, health-conscious consumers should know this — glyphosate does affect humans. The lawsuit points out that glyphosate targets the EPSP synthase enzyme, which is found in both human and animal intestines. If this enzyme is wiped out, humans and animals would lose their ability to fight off diseases.

As stated in the lawsuit: “Because it kills off our gut bacteria, glyphosate is linked to stomach and bowel problems, indigestion, ulcers, colitis, gluten intolerance, sleeplessness, lethargy, depression, Crohn’s Disease, Celiac Disease, allergies, obesity, diabetes, infertility, liver disease, renal failure, autism, Alzheimer’s, endocrine disruption, and the W.H.O. recently announced glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’.”

The world is awakening to glyphosate toxicity
Just recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer listed glyphosate as a Group 2A carcinogen. Even the American Cancer Society declared the herbicide a Group 2A carcinogen. In China, a resident named Yang Xiao-lu filed a case against the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture requesting the toxicology report for glyphosate that was registered with the Chinese government. The Ministry responded by saying the toxicology report contained “trade secrets.”

All of Monsanto’s lies are gradually coming to light, along with the fact that glyphosate is literally breaking down the human immune system by destroying specific enzymes in the human gut microbiome. Glyphosate is acting as a vector for mental disease, by breaking down beneficial bacteria in the human gut, thereby allowing other toxins to infiltrate the blood and bypass the blood-brain barrier.

Sources used:

NaturalNews.com

Examiner.com

MDPI.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Read more

http://newstarget.com/2016-03-09-class-action-lawsuit-accuses-monsanto-of-falsely-advertising-the-safety-of-glyphosate.html

Honey, not antibiotics, should be the first mode of treatment for bacterial illnesses

eatinghoney-e1457035425136

Nowadays, conventional antibiotics are often carelessly prescribed by doctors for various infections. In fact, 2010 data obtained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that a whopping 833 antibiotic prescriptions are handed out on average per every 1,000 people. To make matters worse, over-prescription and over-consumption make future infections more difficult to combat, since antibiotics deplete the good bacteria in the gut. Furthermore, the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has now also risen, making it harder for conventional antibiotics to work.

The CDC has recently identified 20 resistant strains of bacteria, thanks to reckless dependency on these prescriptions. A 2013 report by the CDC found that over 2 million people contract antibiotic-resistant infections each year. Conventional antibiotics are making users sicker and more vulnerable to infection in the long run.

NT2
Given all these data, it is clearly important for us to find a natural, healthier alternative to conventional, over-prescribed antibiotics. There’s no need to look too far, however, as researchers from the Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island, just recently rediscovered the health benefits of raw honey.

Honey fights infection on multiple levels
Lead author Susan M. Meschwitz, Ph.D., presented the findings at the 247th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society. She reports, “The unique property of honey lies in its ability to fight infection on multiple levels, making it more difficult for bacteria to develop resistance.”

Meschwitz says that honey uses a combination of weapons, such as polyphenols, hydrogen peroxide and an osmotic effect. Honey is practically an ambidextrous fighter, using multiple modalities to kill bacteria.

Honey also possesses properties that halt the formation of biofilms. Biofilms are bacteria communities which harbor diseases. Honey keeps these biofilms from congregating, by breaking up a bacterial communication process called quorum sensing, thereby stopping bacteria from expanding and preventing the release of toxins that increase their ability to cause disease.

Doctors should prescribe antibiotics as a last resort
The medicinal properties of honey are so powerful that researchers actually advise doctors to prescribe it as a first mode of treatment for bacterial illnesses. Prescribed antibiotics should be the “alternative” therapy, or the last resort. While conventional antibiotics allow bacteria to build up resistance over time, honey prevents it. Moreover, honey is filled with powerful antioxidants in the form of polyphenols.

Meschwitz adds, “Several studies have demonstrated a correlation between the non-peroxide antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of honey and the presence of honey phenolics.”

Honey is also antiviral, anti-fungal and full of antioxidants
Not only is honey antibacterial, but it is antiviral and anti-fungal as well. These properties alone make it more powerful than conventional antibiotics. Honey can target undetected fungal conditions that may be the root cause of perpetual illness.

Meschwitz says that her team of researchers has been measuring the level of antioxidant activity of honey. “We have separated and identified the various antioxidant polyphenol compounds. In our antibacterial studies, we have been testing honey’s activity against E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, among others.”

If you’re in need of a honey fix, make sure you get the medicinal, unfiltered type from honeybee farms, and not the overly diluted and filtered honey often found in supermarkets.

Source used:

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

read More

http://newstarget.com/2016-03-04-honey-not-antibiotics-should-be-the-first-mode-of-treatment-for-bacterial-illnesses.html

CDC Misconduct? Raw Milk “Death” Victim Was Treated for Advanced Cancer

Millers-Sign-IMG_7105-copy-220x300

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control last week issued a report accusing Miller’s Organic Farm in Pennsylvania of producing raw milk that was “the likely source” of listeria that killed a Florida individual. It was an open-and-shut case, the CDC suggested, by virtue of genetic similarities in listeria found in the individual and listeria found in Miller’s raw milk.

Unfortunately, the CDC left out a number of key facts associated with the individual, including that during the weeks preceding the death in late 2014, the individual complained of gastrointestinal pain, was diagnosed with advanced cancer at a major medical center, and was placed on intensive chemotherapy. Moreover, several family members are understood to have told CDC investigators earlier this year about the cancer diagnosis.

The CDC contention that Miller’s Organic Farm raw milk was the culprit in the death has been reported as fact in hundreds of media outlets, including CBS, NBC, Daily Mail, Yahoo, CNN, and the Associated Press, which together reach tens of millions of people. Typical was an Associated Press story on the ABC News site: “Pennsylvania Dairy’s Raw Milk Is Linked to Listeria Death”.

Here’s the real story, which we have uncovered over the last several days: The supposed victim of tainted raw milk was a 73-year-old woman, Christa Rittel. For several weeks in October and November 2014, she lived in the home of Peggy Stevenson, a 54-year-old mother of two in North Palm Beach, Florida. Stevenson, who is a member of a private association that distributes food from Miller’s Organic Farm, is also the sister-in-law of Rittel’s son. Rittel had come down to Florida from North Carolina with her son and his wife (Stevenson’s sister), and needed a place to live while her son and wife completed construction of a house nearby.

Rittel had had a stroke two or three weeks prior to arriving in Florida, according to Stevenson, and while Rittel had only slight paralysis on one side of her body, “she complained that her neck and stomach hurt.” Stevenson says she tried providing Rittel with massages to help her neck, and enzyme supplements to help her stomach.

Neither approach seemed to help, and Rittel’s pain and discomfort just worsened, reports Stevenson. “She said, ‘My stomach really hurts after I eat.’”

Stevenson isn’t even sure if she had raw milk in the house at that time, since her children weren’t drinking milk, but she is nearly certain that even if she did, Rittel didn’t drink any. “She mostly ate dry toast,” says Stevenson.

Some two to three weeks after Rittel’s arrival at Stevenson’s, the family took her for medical evaluation at Jupiter Medical Center, the main hospital in the area. “They found blood in her stool,” says Stevenson. Then, they put a scope down her throat and found a mass in her stomach. The diagnosis: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a cancer of the white blood cells that occurs primarily in older individuals.

She was put on R-CHOP, a chemotherapy for such cancers, but her condition continued to worsen. She went to another hospital, Palm Beach Gardens, where she died November 24, 2014, according to Stevenson.

It was after Rittel’s death that the family learned that Rittel had listeria in her system. Family members were understandably upset about the contradictory diagnoses, and consulted with medical malpractice lawyers, who suggested that there was too much confusion around the situation to take on a legal case. But even with the possibility that Rittel was made ill by listeriosis, the family didn’t make a connection to raw dairy, because Rittel hadn’t consumed raw dairy, to anyone’s knowledge.

For some reason, the confusion, uncertainty and contradictory medical data surrounding Rittel’s illness and treatment wasn’t considered worthy of even a slight notation in the CDC report issued last week. Rather, the CDC stated flat out that the “ill person from Florida died as a result of listeriosis,” the “likely source” of which was raw milk from Miller’s Organic Farm in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania.

Nor did the CDC see fit to report that Rittel arrived from North Carolina in Florida already complaining of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Or to note that no one observed her drinking raw milk.

Or to add the possibility that Rittel might have contracted listeriosis during her treatment at either of two hospitals.

Instead, the CDC has used this death to smear Amos Miller, the owner of Miller’s Organic Farm, and to generate hysteria about raw milk dangers. “Because Listeria was recently found in raw milk produced by Miller’s Organic Farm, we are concerned that contaminated raw milk and other raw dairy products from this company could still be on the market and make people sick,” the CDC report warns.

The fact that the CDC’s investigation into the Rittel case was so terribly flawed and then dishonestly reported calls into question the agency’s overall credentials and trustworthiness. That’s simply another instance of what happens when scientists become ideologues on a particular health issue; we have called the CDC to task repeatedly for misrepresenting data about raw milk illnesses.

Having dealt with one of the CDC investigators and then seen what resulted last week, Stevenson now views the agency’s report as an attempt to economically destroy a small family farm and business. In a letter she plans to send to the agency, she expresses her outrage and disgust for the improper reporting on what happened and for using her family’s tragedy to further its ongoing agenda.

Stevenson says she continues to have high regard for Miller’s Organic Farm, and wouldn’t hesitate to serve its milk to her children.

While this new evidence goes a long way toward vindicating Amos Miller and Miller’s Organic Farm, it seems as if they will likely be dealing with a long, intense regulatory or legal battle to simply continue peacefully feeding their community. Stay tuned.

Read More

http://www.davidgumpert.com/cdc-misconduct-raw-milk-death-victim-treated-advanced-cancer

Pin It on Pinterest

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.