USDA Kills Animal Welfare Rule Angering Organic Farmers and Advocates

USDA Kills Animal Welfare Rule Angering Organic Farmers and Advocates

Angering organic farmers and advocates, the Trump administration announced on Monday that it will officially withdraw a rule that would have added animal welfare regulations for meat, eggs, and dairy marketed as “organic.”

“The decision nullifies 14 years of policymaking in a process mandated by Congress, and marks an about-face for the agency.”
—Lynne Curry, Civil Eats

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) killed the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) final rule after deciding that it “exceeds the department’s statutory authority, and that the changes to the existing organic regulations could have a negative effect on voluntary participation in the National Organic Program,” according to a USDA statement.While Greg Ibach, undersecretary for the USDA’s marketing and regulatory program, claimed that “the existing robust organic livestock and poultry regulations are effective,” organic farmers, animal rights advocates, and consumers who have supported the enhanced regulations—which were published on January 19, 2017 and would have taken effect in May—expressed disappointment with the move.

“The decision nullifies 14 years of policymaking in a process mandated by Congress, and marks an about-face for the agency,” Lynne Curry wrote for Civil Eats. The rule would have “specified a set of standards for organic livestock and poultry designed to minimize stress, facilitate natural behaviors, and promote well-being,” she noted in an update to a piece she published in December.
Continue reading USDA Kills Animal Welfare Rule Angering Organic Farmers and Advocates

Woman Cures Her Terminal Cancer With Cannabis Oil, 6 Weeks to Live

cancer cannabis

By Heather CallaghanEditor

“I know I would not be here today without it. I want to tell everybody….I’ve beaten science…”

English woman Joy Smith, age 52, was given “just six weeks to live after being diagnosed with inoperable stomach and bowel cancer in August 2016.”

Her friends encouraged her to obtain marijuana tablets to take along with chemo after doctors told her that chemotherapy would only buy her more time. Shortly after beginning chemo, she had to have the chemo line taken out due to Smith developing sepsis.

She also took CBD oil (which does not contain THC) alongside marijuana oil. She wants to see cannabis products legalized, crediting marijuana with saving her life.

Continue reading Woman Cures Her Terminal Cancer With Cannabis Oil, 6 Weeks to Live

Why does modern medicine have a big problem with natural health?

By Jon Rappoport

Well, there is the money, of course.

When millions of people forego expensive and toxic medical drugs; when they rarely see conventional doctors; when they don’t receive vaccinations and don’t have their children vaccinated; when they opt for natural remedies; when, worst of all, THEY STAY HEALTHY, this is a hammer blow to drug-based medicine.

These “natural health” people are also going against The Plan, which is a cradle-to-grave system, whereby humans are diagnosed with 30 or 40 diseases and disorders during their lifetime—requiring large amounts of toxic and debilitating drugs—and then they die. Note: The effects of the drugs are labeled “diseases,” which in turn are treated with more harmful drugs, resulting in new diagnoses of “diseases,” and so on. It’s a self-feeding, self-replicating parade of destruction.

You can see the final stages in nursing homes, where the elderly are warehoused. On their night tables are a dozen or so drugs. The tragic end-game.

This pathetic, vicious, pseudoscientific medical assault is praised to the skies, as “the best” in human care. On television, hired hands parade through show after show, insisting that modern medicine is the most brilliant program ever devised for the human race.

At the same time, untold millions of people who opt for natural health expose, by their choices, this titanic lie.

Continue reading Why does modern medicine have a big problem with natural health?

Cupping therapy from ancient Traditional Persian Medicine found to improve quality of life

Cupping improves quality of life
Cupping improves quality of life

(Natural News) Most healthy individuals hardly ever have to worry about improving their current quality of life. After all, being healthy is reason enough to celebrate, and people typically are only healthy if their lives aren’t causing them a lot of stress. But if one tried, would it be possible to improve quality of life even further while in such a state?

Researchers from the Tehran University of Medical Sciences wanted to find out the answer to that question, so they conducted a study on participants who were located in Tehran, Iran, with a particular method in mind. The researchers set out to find whether cupping therapy, a practice that first originated in ancient China, can have any positive or negative effects in healthy individuals.

The details of the study, which was published in the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, showed that cupping therapy can indeed increase the quality of life in individuals. And what’s interesting is that there were no serious adverse effects or, in fact, any negative consequences whatsoever.

The researchers noted that their study’s main objective was simply to determine the influence of cupping therapy on the quality of life of healthy patients that had been referred to traditional Persian medicine clinics located in Tehran. First, the study’s participants were examined by Traditional Persian Medicine (TPM) specialists, and their temperaments were determined for later reference. Then the cupping therapy sessions started for each and every one of them.


Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

by Jon Rappoport

March 8, 2018

Breaking: In Australia, an effort to label all alternative (traditional, complementary) medicine products as “based on pseudoscience” has failed.

Traditional remedies (much older than mainstream medicines) are defended as appropriate, and can include health claims.

The Crazz Files, a major defender of health freedom in Australia, reports: “In a major win, the Federal Government has ignored the Australian Greens and anti-complementary medicine activists like Doctor Ken Harvey…and passed a reform package that protects traditional medicine.”

“The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill, which passed Parliament on February 15, supports positive claims for complementary medicines based on traditional evidence, and abolishes the current complaints system.”

“Greens voters were shocked to learn Greens Leader and General Practitioner, Senator Dr Richard Di Natale was aligned with skeptics, whose platform is: ‘There is no alternative to [modern] Medicine’.”

“One of his [Dr. Di Natale’s] ‘concerns’ was that people were being ‘misled’ by traditional claims about the effectiveness of complementary medicine. He, and the skeptics, wanted labels on complementary and traditional medicines to state: ’this traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective’.”

“The Minister for Rural Health, Senator Bridget McKenzie, told Di Natale: ‘I think it is offensive and disrespectful to those who practice traditional medicine’.”

“’For some, particularly those using Chinese medicine, the history of practising in that traditional medicine paradigm goes back thousands of years. It’s been extensively refined, practised and documented and in many cases incorporated into mainstream medicine. So, a statement required by the Australian Government that the indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and that there is no scientific evidence will be seen as arrogant and insensitive to those practising and using traditional Chinese medicines,’ Senator McKenzie said.”


All right. Now I want to treat readers to a brief analysis of “modern medicine,” the so-called scientific system that is the “only valid system.” It is the system employed in Australia, America, and virtually all countries in the world.

People who watch the news or read mainstream news have the impression that “scientific” medical research is remarkably valid and always progressing.

Doctors and medical bureaucrats line up to confirm and ceaselessly push this view.

But they are concealing a dark truth.

Let’s go to the record. Here are two editors of two of the most prestigious and respected medical journals in the world. During their long careers, they have read and scrutinized more studies than any doctor, researcher, bureaucrat, or so-called medical blogger. And this is what they have written:

ONE: “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.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

There are many ominous implications in these two statements. I will point out one.

Incompetent, error-filled, and fraudulent studies of medical drugs—for example, published reports on clinical trials of those drugs—would lead one to expect chaos in the field of medical treatment. And by chaos, I mean: the drugs cause widespread death and severe injury.

Again, if a person obtains his news from mainstream sources, he will say, “But I see no evidence of such a vast scandal.”

That is a conspiracy of silence. Because this widespread death and grievous harm HAS been reported. Where? In open-source medical literature.

For example: On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.

Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

A: NO.

Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

—end of interview excerpt—

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.


If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.