(Natural - News) Companies that sell colloidal silver, which could provide protection against infection with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), now face possible reprimand from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for selling “fraudulent products.”

The federal agency, which only considers pharmaceuticals to possess any medical benefits, says it recently issued warning letters to multiple firms instructing them to stop suggesting that colloidal silver can in any way help prevent, treat, mitigate, diagnose or cure the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).

Instead of focusing on FDA-approved pharmaceuticals, which maim and kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year, the FDA has instead indicated that it will be “actively monitoring” companies that sell colloidal silver to ensure that they’re not trying to help people avoid infection using this natural alternative.

“The FDA is exercising its authority to protect consumers from firms selling unapproved products and making false or misleading claims, including, by pursuing warning letters, seizures, or injunctions against products and firms or individuals that violate the law,” the agency further indicated in an announcement on its “Health Fraud Scams” website.

In order to make way for an eventual Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine, the FDA is trying to clear out natural things like colloidal silver, vitamin C, zinc, and quinone that threaten to expose the inevitable jab “solution” as unnecessary, and thus fraudulent.

The colloidal silver companies targeted by the FDA as part of its crackdown include:

• JRB Enterprise Group Inc. DBA Anti-Aging Bed
• Halosense Inc.
• Bioactive C60/FullerLifeC60 LLC
• Corona-cure.com
• Carahealth
• Xephyr LLC dba N-ergetics
• GuruNanda, LLC
• Quinessence Aromatherapy Ltd
• Vivify Holistic Clinic
• Colloidal Vitality LLC
• The Jim Baker Show
• Herbal Amy Inc.

Listen below to The Health Ranger Report as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, talks about how people are already fleeing big cities to get away from what’s to come with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis:

The science is clear: Colloidal silver is a powerful antiviral

Say what it might about colloidal silver, but the FDA is just plain wrong when it comes to completely discounting it as “fraudulent.” While we can’t say for sure that colloidal silver is a certifiable cure for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), it remains a scientific fact that silver ions are powerfully antiviral.

Long before pharmaceutical drugs even existed, silver was commonly used to kill harmful microbes, whether they be bacteria or viruses. Research into colloidal silver has found that it’s capable of killing more than 650 known pathogens, including the smallpox virus and even HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).

Colloidal silver is also capable of attaching to the outer protein shells of viruses and foiling their attempts at attaching to host cells, effectively preventing infection.

“Colloidal silver may be a lifeline or just a gimmick – only time will tell,” reports Film Daily. “Clearly there is a lot of positive information about colloidal silver which, in the absence of a mainstream solution, is not something to be dismissed outright.”

More of the latest news about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is available at Pandemic.news.

Sources for this article include:

FDA.gov

FilmDaily.co

Dr. Gerald Pollack is one of the few expert researchers in the area of water and what it means to your health. He's a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, whose theory of water is nothing short of ground-breaking.

Water is clearly one of the most important factors in terms of what you put into your body, simply because without it you will die within a few short days. You may know that two-thirds of your body is water, but did you know that in terms of the number of molecules, your body actually consists of over 99 percent water molecules!

Astounding, isn't it?

For years, Dr. Pollack had been doing research on muscles and how they contract, but it struck him as odd that the most common ideas about muscle contraction do not involve water, despite muscle tissue consisting of 99 percent water molecules.

"So I became interested in water," Dr. Pollack says. "We've been doing research in my laboratory at the University of Washington for some 10 years now on water. The book that I wrote in 2001, it's called Cells, Gels, and the Engines of Life, talks about the role of water in cell biology. Water is absolutely central."

Yet textbooks by and large completely ignore the presence of water in your organs, muscles and tissues. Dr. Pollack's book addresses this discrepancy and brings to the fore the role of water.

"The central message of that book is that if you don't understand how water interacts with the components of the cell, you haven't a clue of how the cell works," he says.

Interestingly enough, if you're like most people, you probably think we've got water all figured out. But according to Dr. Pollack, this is far from true. In fact, "those in the field know that it's absolutely not true. We haven't a clue how water works," he says. So here we are in 2011, and even now leading scientists like Dr. Pollack are just starting to pick at the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding the foundational basis of water!

"In our lab, we've been focusing mainly on water structure near interfaces. Your body, of course, is filled with interfaces. Inside the cell, it's mainly proteins, nucleic acids, and salts. They're all interfacing with water," Dr. Pollack says.

"So the central question is: what happens when water interfaces with those constituents? Does it change? Does it remain the same? This is where we've made some important discoveries."

By the time of his death, the medical establishment had branded Pauling a quack, because he advocated the use of high doses of vitamin C to treat many diseases. Irwin Stone first introduced Pauling to vitamin C, and explained that it wasn't really a vitamin at all, but an essential substance we could no longer manufacture in our bodies. Most animals make their own vitamin C, in large amounts. In humans, the gene for this ability has mutated and no longer works properly.

When Pauling looked into Stone's claims, he found that conventional medicine had long ignored evidence from respected physicians and scientists. This research suggested that high doses of vitamin C might be a cure for many illnesses, including cancer and heart disease. However, when he explained these findings in his wonderfully constructed books "Vitamin C and the Common Cold" and "How to Live Longer and Feel Better", the medical profession was incensed, implying that a mere chemist could not possibly understand the intricacies of medical science.

If Pauling was correct, vitamin C could help overcome the major killers in the industrialised world. This sounded so unlikely that a lesser scientist making the claim would probably have been ignored; the medical world had already disregarded similar reports of vitamin C. Linus Pauling had a reputation for being 20 years ahead of other scientists.

He may well have been years ahead in other fields but, in medicine, the insiders considered such a thing to be impossible. Pauling battled with the medical authorities and convinced a lot of the public of the benefits of high dose vitamin C. He took on the medical establishment because the implication for health was enormous: an end to premature death and unnecessary suffering from heart disease, infection and many cancers.

Since Pauling's death, the medical establishment has reclaimed the scientific position with a series of experiments on vitamin C. In particular, the NIH measured the distribution of vitamin C in the body and claimed that Pauling was wrong about the need for high doses, as the blood could be saturated at low doses [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93, 3704-9.]. They added that doses higher than one gram were potentially dangerous. From this point on, the high dose vitamin C lobby were on the defensive.

If the body could be saturated at low doses, the argument went, higher doses were simply a waste or even potentially dangerous. However, clinical reports of the utility of high dose vitamin C had been repeated in the literature for over 50 years. These reports continued, particularly in the fields of heart disease, infections and cancer, contradicting the NIH conclusions. Either the clinical reports of the efficacy of high doses were incorrect, or the NIH experimental work was flawed.

Taking note of this inconsistency, Drs Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts decided to investigate the data for a book ("Ascorbate, the science of vitamin C", www.lulu.com/ascorbate). They began by looking at the apparently ludicrous claims for the medical effects of vitamin C. Pauling had stated that the substance could cure cancer and that shortage was the major cause of heart disease. Among his many scientific advances, Pauling had made occasional errors: perhaps he had done the same with vitamin C. If he was wrong, his hypotheses should be easy to refute.

When they examined the evidence, Hickey and Roberts found background evidence for Pauling's ideas from independent scientific and medical reports, covering half a century. The findings in these papers could neither be dismissed as placebo effects nor easily explained. The reports included remission of AIDS, cures for cancer, and the immediate recovery of children at the point of death from septic shock. The claims seemed so out of the ordinary that they were hard to believe. However, Hickey and Roberts could find no counter examples in the scientific or medical literature.

If these positive reports were indeed wrong, no-one had shown this to be true. The scientific evidence was consistent with Pauling's ideas, with a few notable exceptions. The primary exception was the NIH data on blood and tissue saturation. The medical establishment accepted the NIH conclusions and held them in the highest regard. The US Institute of Medicine had based their official recommended dietary allowance (RDA) on these results. If the NIH was correct, then Pauling was wrong and the positive reports of high doses must be invalid.

The NIH conclusions were not correct, however. Hickey and Roberts examined their experiments and found them to be full of errors. For example, the researchers had given a dose of vitamin C, waited until it had been excreted and then measured blood levels. Using this procedure, they found that increasing the dose did not greatly increase the blood levels. Instead of realising that this was because the dose had been excreted, the NIH claimed it was because the body was saturated, so higher doses were redundant. They then used white blood cells as a model for normal cells, to see how they absorbed vitamin C from their surroundings. These white blood cells are specialised to absorb vitamin C, even when supplies are low. If other body cells were similar to white blood cells, we would normally have a reserve of 40 grams in our bodies. In this case, given the proposed RDA of 200mg, it would take 2-3 years to fill a depleted body. This is demonstrably incorrect: the classic example is that James Lind's sailors recovered from scurvy in a matter of days when they were given citrus fruits containing small amounts of vitamin C.

These mistakes were gross and unsupportable. In order to check their re-interpretation of the data, Hickey sent emails to the NIH, the Institute of Medicine and every scientist he could contact who was associated with the RDA, asking them to provide a reasonable scientific response to these errors. No-one was able to provide such a response. Since it is normal scientific practice to explain and defend your ideas, the hypothesis that people only need small amounts of vitamin C looks increasingly shaky.

Even the NIH's subsequent data contradicts their earlier work. The NIH vitamin C group published a series of papers on vitamin C and cancer [Ann Intern Med, 140(7), 533-7.]. In these papers, they suggested that repeated doses of oral vitamin C would produce blood levels of at least 220 microM (a measure of the concentration) , which is three times greater than the 70 microM maximum 'saturated' value they claimed in their RDA papers. While their own papers clearly showed that their low-dose claims were wrong, the NIH appeared not to notice. Instead, they suggested that intravenous doses could produce higher blood levels, which might be effective against cancer. Even though their data were coming closer to Pauling's findings on the use of vitamin C in cancer, the NIH took the opportunity to mount another attack on Linus Pauling, suggesting he did not know the difference between oral and intravenous (IV) vitamin C.

Pauling had performed a series of trials with Dr Ewan Cameron, a Scottish cancer specialist, showing that intravenous vitamin C allowed cancer patients to live much longer than expected. Numerous other studies confirmed this effect, particularly the work of Dr Abram Hoffer and Dr Hugh Riordan. The Mayo Clinic tried to refute this research but failed, as they used low, oral doses, making their results invalid. In their own cancer paper, the NIH researchers claimed that Pauling and Cameron's use of the IV route was 'serendipitous', implying that Pauling did not know the difference between injected and oral doses. In fact, Pauling had written explicitly about this difference, so the NIH criticism was misplaced.

A new scientific theory, called the dynamic flow model, explains all the observed responses to vitamin C in the literature. This model is described in the book "Ascorbate", mentioned above. According to the model, people should ideally be in a state of dynamic flow, which means they should ingest more vitamin C than they need, in the form of divided dose supplements. The extra ascorbate flows through the body and is excreted in the urine. It is not wasted, however, as the excess acts as a reservoir when extra vitamin C is required. Dynamic flow is the closest we humans can get to restoring our physiology to how it was before we lost the ability to make vitamin C in our bodies, as most other animals still do.

It is difficult to imagine what Linus Pauling would have made of all this had he lived. Hickey and Roberts like to think that he would have pointed out the NIH errors earlier. He might have had fun explaining that the NIH could not perform a simple experiment, yet tried to blame him for the deficiencies in the Mayo Clinic's research. It is now 10 years since Pauling's death. Biologist Ren' Dubos suggested that the mainstream converges with Pauling twenty years later. If so, we only have another decade to wait until the medical establishment can admit that Pauling was right all along.

Dr. Hilary Roberts
Email: [email protected]

Similarly, in 2008, a federal judge ruled that three pharmaceutical companies artificially marked up their prices in order to defraud Medicare.
 
In fact, dozens of U.S. states have filed suit against pharmaceutical companies for actions that are conspiracies: conspiracy to engage in price fixing, conspiracy to bribe doctors, conspiracy to defraud the state and so on.
 
The massive drug company GlaxoSmithKline, even more, plead guilty to a massive criminal fraud case involving a global conspiracy to bribe doctors into prescribing more GSK drugs.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. A deeper look into the criminality of just the drug industry alone reveals a widespread pattern of conspiratorial behavior to defraud the public and commit felony crimes in the name of "medicine."
 

What is a conspiracy, exactly?

As any state or federal prosecutor will gladly tell you, a "conspiracy" is simply when two or more people plot to commit an act of deceit (or a crime).

Thus, when three hoodlums plan to rob the local Quickie Mart, they are engaged in a "conspiracy" and will likely be charged with a "conspiracy to commit armed robbery" in addition to the different crime of "armed robbery." The fact that they planned it with several friends makes it a "conspiracy" worthy of additional felony charges, you see. When these charges are brought up in court, the judge doesn't look at the prosecutor and say, "You are a conspiracy theorist!" That would be absurd.

The idea, then, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy is flatly ludicrous. And people who condemn others as being "conspiracy theorists" only make themselves look mentally impaired.

To live in our modern world which is full of collusion and conspiracy -- and yet somehow DENY the existence of any conspiracies at all -- is an admission of a damaged brain. Of course there are conspiracies, and when people analyze those conspiracies, they are "theorizing" about what happened. This is, in fact, precisely the job that police detectives and FBI agents carry out almost daily.

Most police detectives are, in reality, "conspiracy investigators" and analysts.

There are endless examples of real conspiracies

Auto manufacturers routinely conspire to cover up mechanical defects that put customer lives at risk. Even National Public Radio lays out the full timeline of the General Motors conspiracy to hide the problem with its faulty ignition switches.

Last year, food corporations conspired with the Grocery Manufacturers of America (the GMA) to commit money laundering crimes in Washington state in order to funnel money into a campaign to defeat GMO labeling there.

The FDA conspired with a drug manufacturer to keep a deadly diabetes drug called Rezulin on the market in the USA even after safety regulators pulled the product in Europe.

Similarly, the corrupt, criminal-minded operators of mainstream science journals conspired in a particularly evil way to railroad Dr. Andrew Wakefield with provably false accusations about the nature of his research into the side effects of vaccines. The GMO Seralini study has been similarly railroaded by a genuine conspiracy of evil, corrupt science journal editors who routinely conspire to suppress all the science they don't want to be seen by the public. Fortunately, 150 other scientists have come to support Seralini with a global condemnation of the obviously contrived scientific censorship.

We live in a world of such deception and collusion that, frankly stated, it's hard to find a large institution (such as medicine, agriculture or the war industry) which isn't involved in some sort of conspiracy at some level.

What is a "conspiracy theorist?

The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories.

Most so-called "conspiracy theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time.

People who are not skeptics of "official stories" tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.

Skeptics of official stories, it turns out, also have the support of history on their side. How many times has it later been revealed that the American people were lied to by the very institutions we were supposed to trust?

For example, it is an historical fact that 98 million Americans were injected with hidden cancer viruses which were later found in polio vaccines strongly recommended by the CDC. In an effort to cover that up and rewrite history, the CDC later scrubbed all accounts of that history from its website, pretending it never happened.

That's more than a cover-up; it's an Orwellian-style conspiracy to selectively rewrite history and deny Americans any memory of a monumental, deadly error made by the CDC in collusion with the vaccine industry.

According to two former Merck virologists, that company conspired to fake the results of its vaccine tests by spiking test samples with animal antibodies, thereby falsely distorting the results to make the vaccine appear effective. The two virologists filed a False Claims Act with the federal government detailing the conspiracy, saying:

Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that "did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life ... virus neutralization in vaccinated people..."

Conspiracies of money and big banks

Every month, the Federal Reserve conspires to steal a portion of your wealth through "quantitative easing" -- an irresponsible money creation scheme that devalues all the currency already in circulation (i.e. the money in your bank account).

The money the Fed creates is, not surprisingly, handed over to the big Wall Street banks -- the same banks that received a jaw-dropping $29 trillion in "bailout money" since the near-collapse of U.S. banking in late 2008.

Why did this bailout money go to the banks instead of the American people? Because powerful people sat in dark rooms and colluded to send the money to the most influential banks. A conspiracy, in other words, by definition.

Had that same amount of money been equally distributed across the U.S. population, the Fed would have distributed nearly $100,000 to each and every citizen in America; man, woman and child. But instead of enriching the population, the banking bailout burdened the population with the debt now owed to the Fed by future taxpayers.

Every $1 trillion created by the Fed, after all, is $1 trillion "loaned" to the U.S. Treasury which must somehow be repaid. In truth, the minute you start to investigate how money is created, why the Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel and why the big banks get all the bailout money, you run head-first into genuine conspiracies almost from the outset. When you look up the word "conspiracy" in a dictionary, it should probably say, "See Banking and Finance."

Our world is full of conspiracies because it's full of people who deceive

The reason conspiracies are real is because humanity is a race capable of extreme deception. As long as there are people whose actions are based in greed, jealousy and a desire to dominate others, there will be real conspiracies plotted and operating across every sector of society.

The correct term for "conspiracy theorist" should really be "conspiracy analyst." Most of the people who are skeptical of official stories are, in fact, analyzing conspiracies in an attempt to understand what really happened and what took place behind closed doors.

A highly-recommended book the delves into this matter in more detail is the five-star-rated masterpiece Official Stories: Counter-Arguments for a Culture in Need by Liam Scheff.

This book will open the minds of those who still have the cognitive capability remaining to grasp it. (Sadly, the injection of mercury into babies in the form of vaccines has damaged so many brains across America that many people are now cognitively incapable of rational thought.)

And remember: the next time someone flings the phrase "conspiracy theorist" in your direction, simply know that they are effectively wearing a DUNCE hat on their heads by admitting they have failed to acknowledge that true conspiracies are rather commonplace.

That's not merely a theory, either: it's a statement of fact.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045172_conspiracy_theories_rational_thought_corporate_collusion.html#ixzz326le7l75

(NaturalNews) Over the recent past few decades, the social stigma from the over-the-top absurdities of 1938's Reefer Madness have mostly evaporated. Millions have asserted they have at least tried marijuana without going insane and looking for stronger drugs to get "higher." Yet, today cannabis, a.k.a. marijuana, remains a DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) Schedule I drug, dangerous, addictive and without any medical merit.

Let's examine and refute some of the propaganda that puts users in prison and holds this plant as a Schedule I drug.

(1) No medical merit

In 1974, the NIH (National Institutes of Health) funded the Virginia Medical College to do studies that would determine the damaging effects of marijuana, such as immune system damage. Instead, they found that marijuana reduced brain tumor growth in lab rats. The DEA stepped in and canceled the study and forced destruction of the study documents.

Since then, there have been countless studies and testimonies proving cannabis efficacy at curing many diseases and maladies, including several cancers, effectively and without side effects.

Even patients who were told by mainstream medical doctors to get matters in order because death was around the corner managed to survive in better health than before after a few months of ingesting cannabis with THC, the compound with psychotropic effects (http://www.naturalnews.com).

(2) Marijuana dangers, pharmaceutical hypocrisy

In 1976, president Gerald Ford granted Big Pharma exclusive rights for researching cannabis while banning public research. Of course, Big Pharma's interest is to study enough of anything natural to figure out how to synthesize it and be able to patent it as a pharmaceutical for big bucks. Natural substances can't be patented or monopolized.

Big Pharma succeeded with its synthesis of cannabinoid THC, and the FDA approved Marinol in 1985 to curb vomiting and lack of appetite for chemotherapy patients. In 1992, Marinol was FDA-approved for AIDS patients to prevent anorexic wasting away.

So synthetic THC without many of the 65 other cannabinoids that provide healing was ruled a Schedule III drug with lower potential for abuse than drugs in the first two categories, accepted medical use and mild to moderate possible addiction.

Then, in 2003, another synthetic cannabis patent was approved to create drugs purportedly effective for neurological disorders, including epilepsy and Parkinson's. This patent claimed synthetic CBD content (another cannabinoid) while eliminating THC.

(3) Marijuana destroys brain cells

As part of the "War on Drugs" under Ronald Reagan, a study was done to prove that smoking pot destroyed brain cells. Monkeys were strapped into face masks connected to smoke from marijuana for hours at a time. The lack of oxygen damaged their brain cells, because the smoke was all they could breathe for long periods.

Since then, there have been studies disproving this notion, here's one (http://www.naturalnews.com).

(4) Marijuana is a gateway drug

Even alcoholic beverage drinkers believe that the first whiff of marijuana leads to your first needle as a heroine addict. This connection is mostly just not there. There have been many life-long potheads, some famous, who don't even consider those synthetic street drugs.

(5) Marijuana is addictive

Then how come there are so many who have tried or used it for a few years then stopped without interventions or painful withdrawals?

(6) Marijuana makes one lazy and unproductive

That's not the way this long-term heavy user of medical marijuana, successful stock broker/financial planner, family man and weekend volunteer sailing instructor for the underprivileged and handicapped experiences it (http://www.naturalnews.com).

The social stigma and legal restrictions are fading state by state and even Washington, DC, to allow cannabis medicinal and/or recreational use.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.alternet.org

http://www.thedailysheeple.com

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com

http://www.truthonpot.com

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

About the author:
Paul Fassa is dedicated to warning others about the current corruption of food and medicine and guiding others toward a direction for better health with no restrictions on health freedom. You can visit his blog at http://healthmaven.blogspot.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045149_marijuana_myths_cancer_treatment_natural_medicine.html#ixzz326iklbem

Author:

(NaturalNews) While Natural News is one of the best-known voices of the Clean Food Movement, there are actually many millions of voices across the movement. But what is the Clean Food Movement exactly? In this article, I explain what it means and where it came from.
 
  The Clean Food Movement is decentralized, grassroots movement that calls for total transparency about:
 
  * What's in the food (including honest labeling)
  * How it was grown or raised
  * Where it came from (geographically)
  * Whether it's genetically engineered
  * What chemicals it contains (such as MSG and aspartame)
 
  These days, food consumers are more sophisticated than ever, and they want to know what they're eating. They want to know what farming methods were used to produce the food, too, and in the case of meat production, they even want to know how those meat animals were raised and treated.
 
  Advocates of the Clean Food Movement believe in honest labeling of GMOs in foods, and they believe in "food democracy" in the sense that consumers should have full access to accurate information about foods on the shelf so they can make informed decisions about what to buy or what to avoid.

Show us the heavy metals!

Clean Food Movement advocates also seek to avoid toxic heavy metals in their foods, superfoods and dietary supplements. They want to know what levels are found in their foods, and they seek out foods with the lowest concentrations possible.

At the same time, they also want to know where their food is grown and whether any of it comes from China, a highly-polluted agricultural producer where 20 percent of the nation's farms are heavily contaminated with toxic heavy metals.

Who opposes the Clean Food Movement? Dirty food producers!

Opposition to the Clean Food Movement comes from producers of dirty, contaminated, genetically modified foods.

The larger the food corporation, it seems, the less they want you to know about what's in their food products. That's why most of the largest food corporations conspired with the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) to violate campaign laws in Washington state with a secret money laundering scheme to defeat GMO labeling laws there.

It's also why the GMA is reportedly planning to sue Vermont, the first U.S. state to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws. Evil industry front groups like the GMA believe you shouldn't know what you're buying and eating, so they want to keep consumers completely in the dark about what's in their food.

But the GMA is fighting against the most sweeping trend in the history of food: the Clean Food Movement. Everybody wants to know what they're eating, and as the scrutiny of foods increases across the board, consumers are going to demand more and more details such as country of origin, heavy metals concentrations, and manufacturing techniques.

Even inside the organic product industry, companies that Natural News revealed as selling contaminated rice protein products are rapidly reformulating and scrambling to introduce newer, cleaner products. I just received word from Healthforce, for example, that all the rice protein they are manufacturing right now is substantially lower in heavy metals than the products they previously sold. (I'm not sure how long it will take for this new batch to replace the old batches on store shelves, but it's on the way!)

Clean Food Movement is about food transparency

Generations ago, most people used to grow a significant portion of their own diets. People maintained backyard gardens, and a much larger percentage of the population was involved in agricultural production than are today.

Today, as the number of farmers is less than 2% of the total population, food production has become centralized and shrouded in secrecy. From the horrendous truths about CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) to the dirty little secrets of contaminated "organic" food imported from China, food production today is conducted behind closed doors, using techniques that food producers would often be horrified to see made public.

Even when it comes to food labels, food corporations hide the truths about their food using deceptive labeling code words. For example, MSG is hidden on labels using the ingredient "yeast extract." A food coloring pigment made from crushed female beetles is listed as "carmine," and toxic chemical preservatives are described on food labels as "added to retain freshness."

There are a lot of manufactured foods people wouldn't buy, you see, if the truth was shown on labels, so the food corporations engage in routine deception and obfuscation to keep consumers in the dark.

Huge victories already achieved for food transparency

The Clean Food Movement is winning in all fronts in this war for honest food, by the way. In addition to the Vermont GMO labeling law, Coke and Pepsi recently removed the flame retardant chemical "BVO" from their products due to a popular petition launched by a teenager!

Subway restaurants announced they would remove a "yoga mat chemical" from their breads after a sustained petition drive by the Food Babe.

And companies everywhere are now reformulating superfoods and supplements thanks to the heavy metals research I've conducted at the Natural News Forensic Food Lab.

Likewise, Ronnie Cummins at the Organic Consumers Association is fighting hard to preserve the very definition of "organic" in the face of extreme pressure by corporations to water down the standard. At the same time, the OCA has announced a massive boycott of all food corporations that belong to the GMA.

This includes a full-on boycott against all products made by Nestle, PepsiCo, Kraft, General Mills, Kellogg, Campbells, Smuckers and more. It even includes many natural-sounding brands owned by these corporate giants: Sweet Leaf Tea, Boca Burgers, Larabar, Alexia, Cascadian Farm, Bear Naked, Kashi, Morningstar Farms, Wolfgang Puck and many more.

There's even a "buycott" app for your mobile phone that will allow you to scan products at the grocery store before you buy them, then it tells you whether the product is part of the boycott.

Through grassroots efforts like these, consumers are increasingly empowered to vote with their dollars and stop financially supporting companies that sell dirty, contaminated, genetically modified foods.

The rules have changed: Grassroots power to defeat corporate collusion

The bottom line in all this is that the rules have changed: grassroots power now trumps corporate collusion.

The power of tens of millions of motivated members of the Clean Food Movement to force changes upon billion-dollar corporations is undeniable. Through the freedom of the internet and sites like Natural News which reaches millions of readers each month, corporations no longer control the narrative. The truth about their foods can no longer be suppressed or hidden, and the real power now belongs to consumers and activists.

That's why I'm excited to be one of the many voices of the Clean Food Movement -- a movement made up of scientists, hippies, journalists and even concerned parents of autistic children.

Each of us is different in our own way -- we each have eccentricities, personalities and some differences in opinion -- but together we are a powerful force for positive global change. Together, we are literally changing the landscape of the food industry and forcing billion-dollar corporations to remove toxic chemicals from their products.

And together, we have much more to achieve in terms of heavy metals limits, country of origin labeling, improved conditions for animals and the nationwide mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Keep up the fight! This is a fight against secrecy and collusion. It is a fight for the "Right to Know." It is a fight for the fundamental human right to make an informed decision of what we choose to buy and consume.

The age of food secrecy is fast drawing to a close. With your help, we can vastly expand the reach of the Clean Food Movement and achieve many more important victories for us all!

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045188_Clean_Food_Movement_transparency_grassroots_activism.html#ixzz326hcoFQ0

Testing is conducted via ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry), using high-level analytical chemistry and cutting edge scientific instrumentation.

Foods being tested by the CWC include fast foods, conventional grocery products, breakfast cereals, superfoods, protein powders, infant formula, packaged meats, dairy products, sodas, teas and dietary supplements. A small selection of lab results is already published, with dozens more posted each week. Results are available now at:
http://Labs.NaturalNews.com

Total transparency for foods, superfoods, organics and supplements

Mike Adams, the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, oversees laboratory operations. "This food science project is about providing transparency to consumers so they can make informed decisions about what foods they wish to consume or avoid," Adams explains. "Many people also have health conditions which are worsened by toxic heavy metals, and given that these elements can stay in the body for decades, consumers are empowered by knowing which foods are safer for them to consume."

Adams has also released a video explaining the announcement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnnTQaCbayk

Currently, the FDA sets no upper limit on allowable heavy metals in foods. The USDA's certified organic program also defines no limits. Foods can be legally sold in the United States even when they contain extremely high levels of heavy metals and toxic elements.

Because heavy metal contaminants are not required to be listed on labels, food consumers are unknowingly buying and consuming them in concerning quantities. All heavy metals bio-accumulate in mammals and humans, meaning the longer someone continues to eat them, the worse the health effects can become.

Learn more at http://labs.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043422_heavy_metals_lab_tests_organic_foods.html##ixzz2pnLxolCt