Avisar de contenido inadecuado

Daily Multivitamin Reduces Cancer Risk

Even Low-Dose Supplementation Would Save 48,000 Lives Annually

by Robert G. Smith, PhD

(OMNS Oct 26, 2012) A major new health study published online last week found that everyday multivitamin supplements lower your risk of cancer by 8%.[1] This important result confirms what nutritionists and medical researchers have known over the past 50 years, that supplements of essential nutrients are beneficial for health and preventing disease. This is terrific news for everyone! Cancer deaths in the US in recent years have hovered near 600,000 per year (190 per 100,000) and are increasing.[2] If taking a daily multivitamin will prevent 8% of these deaths, then the lives of 48,000 people in the US could be saved each year, just by taking an inexpensive daily vitamin pill.

Details of the study

The study was performed on approximately 15,000 older men, half assigned randomly to take a multivitamin tablet and the other half to take a placebo. The men included in the study were medical doctors older than 50, including some older than 70, averaging about 64, and the most common cancer found was prostate cancer. Overall the risk of cancer was low, about 2% per person per year. After about 11 years, the cases of cancer in the 15,000 participants were tabulated. Those who took the multivitamin tablet were diagnosed with 89 fewer (1379 vs. 1290) cases of cancer, which represents a reduction of 8%.[1] This result, although modest, is significant because the reduction in risk was greater than would be expected by chance. However, when tabulated according to the specific type of cancer, for example, prostate cancer, no significant reduction in risk was found, probably because the incidence of each specific type of cancer was too low for statistical significance in the experimental methods employed. But when all the cases were considered together, this allowed the study to show a reduction in the cancer risk overall.

For many decades, it has been known that an excellent diet, along with adequate doses of supplements of essential nutrients can reduce the risk of chronic age-related diseases such as cancer. This knowledge was derived by doctors studying their patients and by observational health trials.[3,4] Other life-style changes, for example, quitting smoking, reducing obesity, and getting adequate exercise, are also known to reduce the risk for cancer and other chronic diseases.[4] Thus, the new study doesn't add much to our existing knowledge. The participants in this study, being doctors, were in good health and most of them exercised regularly, ate generous amounts of fruits and vegetables, and did not smoke.[1] So the results of the study, strictly speaking, are only applicable to a healthy population. However, it is likely that daily supplements of essential nutrients such as vitamins and minerals will help reduce the risk of age-related diseases such as cancer for everyone regardless of their health status and lifestyle. One confirmation of this was that the study showed a daily multivitamin tablet also reduced the risk of cancer for participants who previously had cancer.[1]

Flaws in previous trials

To put this new result in perspective, it is important to note that, over the last two decades, dozens of random-controlled health trials of individual supplements have been performed in which no positive health benefit was reported. In many cases, this likely occurred because the doses were inadequate, the wrong forms of vitamins and minerals were used, the duration of the trials was not long enough, or the disease under diagnosis was inappropriate for the specific nutrient being tested. These problems are known to nutritionists, which suggests that these trials were designed to fail. Moreover, it is known that supplementing with just one individual nutrient is less effective for many health conditions than a multivitamin. For example, a B-complex vitamin tablet is often more effective in promoting health than a tablet containing only one of the B vitamins because their effect is synergistic, that is, the body's biochemical pathways require all the B vitamins to function normally. Further, antioxidants such as vitamins C and E are synergistic and are more effective taken together in adequate doses (C: 3,000 - 6,000 mg/day in divided doses; E: mixed tocopherols and tocotrienols, 400-1200 IU/day [3]). Although one must laud the study for choosing to test a daily multivitamin tablet, it has missed a golden opportunity, because the doses of essential nutrients were far too low.

The multivitamin is the most popular dietary supplement. 56% of American adult women and 48% of American adult men take multivitamins. [15] 72% of physicians personally use dietary supplements. The multivitamin is the most popular dietary supplement taken by doctors. [16]


The multivitamin tablet used in the study contained doses of low-quality vitamins and minerals, some in an inaccessible form, such as magnesium oxide. The doses were similar to the recommended daily amounts published by the Institute of Medicine. [5] Such low doses, because they represent only an average minimum dose for health, should not be taken as the most appropriate dose for anyone. The study didn't test higher doses, and could not determine optimal doses for anyone's particular needs.[6] The participants in the study were arguably one of the most healthy segments of the population because they were medical doctors. But most of us don't have such healthy lifestyles. Many, perhaps most, of us require much higher levels of essential nutrients because of poor diet, stressful lifestyle, and differences in their genetic background.[6-8] So for many people, the much higher doses of supplements recommended by orthomolecular medicine are an inexpensive and very effective way to reduce the risk of cancer and other age-related conditions such as diabetes, eye disease, and heart disease. [3,4,8]

Most vitamin and mineral supplements when taken at appropriate doses are extremely safe.[9] Many nutritionists recommend doses of vitamins B1, B2, B5, and B6 in the range of 50 to 100 mg/day, vitamin B3 (niacin) in the range 200-1000 mg/day in divided doses, vitamin C in the range of 3,000-6,000 mg/day in divided doses, vitamin D in the range of 1500-2000 IU/day or up to 5000-10,000 IU/day for large or obese adults, and vitamin E in the range of 400-1200 IU.[3,10,11] Most of us have a deficiency in magnesium, which has been implicated in an elevated risk for cancer, and a dose of 200-500 mg/day of magnesium or more, taken in the proper form to recover from deficiency, will help to prevent cancer.[12] You may benefit by discussing these very safe but much higher doses with your doctor. Higher supplemental doses of vitamins and minerals, along with an excellent diet, do the best job helping the body to fight cancer and other chronic diseases. [3,4,11-14]


1. Gaziano JM, Sesso HD, Christen WG, Bubes V, Smith JP, MacFadyen J, Schvartz M, Manson JE, Glynn RJ, Buring JE (2012) Multivitamins in the Prevention of Cancer in Men: the Physicians' Health Study II Randomized Controlled Trial JAMA. 2012;():1-10. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.14641.

2. National Cancer Institute. http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/ReportNationRelease2012

3. Hoffer A, Saul AW (2008) Orthomolecular Medicine For Everyone: Megavitamin Therapeutics for Families and Physicians. Basic Health Publications, ISBN: 978-1591202264

4. Gonzalez MJ, Miranda-Massari JR, Saul AW (2009) I Have Cancer: What Should I Do?: Your Orthomolecular Guide for Cancer Management Basic Health Publications. ISBN: 978-1591202431

5. Institute of Medicine list of RDA for vitamins and minerals: http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/DRI-Tables.aspx

6. Hickey S, Roberts H (2011) Tarnished Gold: The Sickness of Evidence-based Medicine. CreateSpace Independent Publishing ISBN: 978-1466397293

7. Williams RJ, Deason G. (1967) Individuality in Vitamin C Needs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 57:1638-1641.

8. Pauling L (2006) How to Live Longer and Feel Better. Oregon State University Press ISBN: 978-0870710964

9. Schuitemaker G (2012) Restrictions on Food Supplements are Based on Misinformation: An alert from Europe to the rest of the world. Orthomolecular News Service, Oct 16, 2012. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v08n31.shtml

10. Holick MF. (2012) Evidence-based D-bate on health benefits of vitamin D revisited. Dermatoendocrinol. 4:183-190.

11. Levy TE (2011) Primal Panacea. MedFox Publishing ISBN: 978-0983772804

12. Dean C. (2006) The Magnesium Miracle. Ballantine Books. ISBN-13: 978-0345494580

13. Ames BN. (2010) Prevention of mutation, cancer, and other age-associated diseases by optimizing micronutrient intake. J Nucleic Acids. 2010: article ID. 725071. doi:10.4061/2010/725071

14. McCann JC, Ames BN. (2011) Adaptive dysfunction of selenoproteins from the perspective of the triage theory: why modest selenium deficiency may increase risk of diseases of aging. FASEB J. 25:1793-814.

15. Council for Responsible Nutrition. (2012). CRN Consumer Survey on Dietary Supplements. Retrieved October 4, 2012, from http://crnusa.org/CRNPR12-ConsumerSurvey100412.html

16 Dickinson A, Boyon N, Shao A. Physicians and nurses use and recommend dietary supplements: report of a survey. Nutrition Journal 2009, 8:29 doi:10.1186/1475-2891-8-29



You are being brainwashed

“Camera’s got them images, camera’s got them all…Nothing’s Shocking”.
“I have a vision…television!”
“Honey, where’s the remote?”

A funny thing happened to me about six months ago. See, being that I’m pursuing a career in the entertainment/music/radio industry, I’ve been pretty broke. An offset of my being broke is that I had to decide which expenses and bills to keep and pay, and which ones I could do without or get away with not paying for. I’ve eliminated such luxuries like buying new sneakers, switched from drinking Guinness to drinking PBR, and, my hardest transition was going from smoking kind nugs to cheap schwag. All of this took some adjustment but I began to fare well with my new financial state.

            One of the bills that I decided to blow off for “just a couple more weeks” was my cable bill. The notices started coming more frequently and the phone calls began, but I felt that I didn’t really need cable so it wasn’t on the top of my priority list. Eventually, the digital part of my service was shut off and I was left with just the basic channels. That lasted about two weeks until, finally, the axe fell and I was left with a pair of rabbit ears that could pick up three channels on a clear day.

            My first few days without television were like the first few days a junkie tries to kick heroin. I needed those Seinfeld reruns. My day wasn’t complete without at least an hour of “I love the 80’s” on VH1. I didn’t know how I’d survive without my ritualistic Sunday night Simpsons. How would I talk about Friends with my friends?

It felt very similar to getting out of a relationship that both parties involved knew was no good for the other, something I have also become something of an expert on. Yes, breaking the habit of not watching television was the same as breaking up with a bad girlfriend, but the true test was to see how long I could go without that comfortable booty call.

After the first week or so, I started to feel less of a need to lay motionless on the couch, scratching my nuts and farting into the same couch cushion every night for upwards of three hours on end. I found myself writing and reading more. I went to HACC and registered for some courses. I got my own business going again and started working part time with a radio station. I go out and see original music at least 5 nights a week.  I genuinely feel as if I’ve just now started to truly realize the world around me for what it is.

            As the weeks went on and the momentum built from my new found energy, I began to think more about why I hadn’t started doing all of the things I’m doing now sooner. Was it the divorce? Was it the psychological toll that a custody battle took on my mental constitution? Or, just maybe, could have it of been the fact that I, just like every other American, was spending an average of 7.2 hours in front of the television every single day?

            That’s right! 7.2 hours of each day (on average) is spent staring at a flickering screen filled with images that do nothing but distract, coerce, and waste valuable time of the viewer. 49 hours of every week is what it adds up to. Sure, right about now you may be saying, “Well I don’t watch TV for 7 hours every day”. Sure you don’t. Not every day. But think about this: Have you ever spent an entire weekend clutching the remote control as if it were a morphine drip button after painful surgery? How many days off from work have you woke up with Katie Couric, had lunch with Bob Barker, and went to bed with Raymond?

It all adds up to an average of 7.2 hours every day that we spend watching the television, and in my experience, I can tell anyone reading this that your life will become dramatically better if you just turn it off. Period.

            In my 27 years, according to the institute that figured out that Americans watch 7.2 hours of television every day, 65,318 hours of my life has been spent in front of the television. Holy shit. That’s a lot of hours. And what have I gained by watching that much television in my life? Nothing.

Television is not real.

 Nothing we see on the television is based on or presented to us in a realistic setting. Sure, they try really hard to convince us that it’s real, but what is reality? Reality is what we make of it. Reality is the color of the walls in your bedroom; reality is the itch on your back that you just can’t reach; reality, to me, is the notion that marriage is over rated; reality is the fact that I’m not worried about my daughter getting stung by a bee or falling down the stairs, because those things are going to happen; Reality is the fact that I’m actually afraid of when she goes to kindergarten and has to pass her Hello Kitty backpack through a fucking metal detector.

With the exception of The Simpsons, The Sopranos, and good old porn and movies, the main purpose of the television and networks, it seems to have become, is to force us into being bigger, more gluttonous, greedy consumers than we already are. Sure, America is based on capitalism, but when did it become a requirement for me to sit in front of an electrical box and be forced into a decadent mental deterioration that is being brought on by massive psycho-seductive efforts enlisted by multi-national corporations all fighting for dibs on my hard earned money? Every image we see on the television is shown to us in order to convince us that what we see is how it is, and I just am not buying what they’re selling anymore. From what I’ve seen, what they’re telling us just doesn’t add up.

Question Authority.

 Personally, I don’t like being told what to do. I’ve always had a problem with authority and to me, the television seems like it has become the most respected, and feared, authority that we know. Where do you go to get the scoop on what semi-developed country Baby Bush has decided to go into and fuck with? Where do you go to find out what all the cool kids are wearing to school this year? Where do you go to sneak a glance into the life of some homogenized, dramatized, idealized life of a family that you wish you were a part of?

Right after they tell you what to be afraid of (Sars, Y2K, Aids, child pornographers, a suspect described as a black male in his 20’s, virtually anyone of Middle Eastern descent,  road-rage, air-rage, airbags, con-men, a suspect described as a black male in his 20’s, killer bees, brain cancer from cell phones, cell phones causing explosions at gas pumps, the imminent threat of a terrorist attack at any given moment, Anthrax, West Nile, a suspect described as a…get the picture?) they tell you what to buy. Go lower your cholesterol with Cheerios and then brush your teeth with Colgate, pick your kids up from soccer practice in the all new, gas guzzling SUV, make Kraft macaroni and cheese with your Swanson fish sticks (and remember, Kraft is made by the good people that bring us Marlboro cigarettes, Philip Morris), get that purple pill to keep it up for the wife, and don’t forget the duct tape and plastic sheets, and then, if you’re unemployed because of an accident, call Angino and Rovner and get the compensation that you deserve. Sue somebody.

            Know who I think I’m going to sue? ABCNBCCBSFOX. Yes, I’m going to sue them for wasting 65, 318 hours of my time. I wonder how much I can get? The television has given me plenty of skewed, spun, and unreliable information that I had to un-learn in order to function properly again.

“But how do you get the news?”

 The news. Ah, good ol’ Tom Brokaw. How about this theory: Ever stop and think that “The News” is just another program that is “brought to you by our sponsors”? That’s all it is. Your nightly news broadcast is no different than an episode of Roseanne. How can I say that? Well, I’ll tell you. The news programs that we watch are scripted, choreographed bits of fluffed up crap that are sponsored by a variety of corporations. Yes, all of the things that they show us on the news do actually happen, but it’s nothing news worthy and most times all of the good news (good, in this case, meaning positive or heart-warming) hits the cutting room floor because it’s not as interesting as someone getting shot or a fire burning down three houses on 6th street. Notice this next time you see a segment on 20/20 about how unsafe your car is: immediately following the broadcast about car safety or dangers, I guarantee you that you will see a commercial for Volvo, or Volkswagen, or Subaru telling you how safe this new $32,000 MSRP piece of machinery is. Brainwashing.


I’ve spoke with a lot of people about kicking the habit and I get almost the same response every time: “I don’t watch that much TV.” Know what that sounds like to me? An alcoholic saying “I don’t drink that much” or a smoker saying “I really need to quit”. Television can be considered an addiction. That’s a good way to look at it if you truly want to eliminate it from your life. You need to tell yourself that you’ll be all right without CSI or RAW! on a Monday night. Trust me, you will be able to get to sleep without the 11:00 news flickering in the background with the sleep timer set on “90”.

            Know what else is interesting to me? Now, being an ex-watcher, I notice how many times during a typical day that people reference or mention TV in conversation. It’s crazy! It’s almost as if the television is the most interesting thing in peoples lives. When in reality, it’s a box of transistors and wires blaring enticing images with the sole purpose of selling you something. And I’m not just talking about the commercials either. The following is taken directly from author Ron Kaufman who published this on the Website http://www.turnoffyourtv.com (go ahead, click the link…just make sure you come back and finish reading my article). 

The Beautiful People Syndrome is what happens when you watch too much TV. You begin to believe, or expect, regular people to act, behave, and look like television stars. Does TV imitate life, or does life imitate TV, or does both happen? Television images portray people as beautiful, smart, wealthy, quick-witted, creative, instantly compelling, and exciting. Television wouldn't be worth watching, for those who watch, if it wasn't unbelievably interesting.

In the book Amusing Ourselves to Death, New York University Professor Neil Postman explains how television has changed modern imagery: "It is implausible to imagine that anyone like our 27th President, the multi-chinned, three-hundred pound William Howard Taft, could be put forward as a presidential candidate in today's world. The shape of a man's body is largely irrelevant to the shape of his ideas when he is addressing a public in writing or on the radio . . . but it is quite relevant on television. The grossness of a three-hundred-pound image, even a talking one, would easily overwhelm any logical or spiritual subtleties conveyed by speech."

Postman goes on to explain that "on television, discourse is conducted largely through visual imagery, which is to say that television gives us a conversation in images, not words . . . You cannot do political philosophy on television. Its form works against the content."

After watching hours and hours and hours of television imagery, those "Beautiful People" will become burned into your mind. The handsome, pretty, skinny and witty characters on the show "Friends" are more famous than writers, poets, politicians and more important than teachers, policemen, or firemen. The characters on "Friends" or "Ally McBeal" live the lives we all should live -- and they don't even have to work that hard.

The Beautiful People Syndrome is attacking the psyche of television-addicted America. For a man, if you are not 6'1'', handsome and wealthy you are not ideal. Any woman who isn't bone-thin with a large chest certainly is below the standard. Television is warping the American mind. Unfortunately, the Americanization of the rest of the world may contribute to mind-warping worldwide. Everyone wants to be one of the beautiful television people.

And now, a word from our sponsors:

            So what should we do about this television thing? Most likely, a lot of you will just keep watching. Some of you will actually close your web browser, disconnect from the internet, go lay down on the couch, and turn on your TV. And that’s okay; just do me a favor? Next time you’re watching some kid in the mall in Camp Hill strut around like a street thug from The Bronx, or your kid tells you that she absolutely has “to have the new DVD from Jessica Simpson” that she saw on MTV, or your annoying co-worker feels obliged to engage you in a conversation about which American Idol character he thinks Simon should take it easy on, just remember this: it’s not too late to turn it off.

Have a comment about this piece or want additional information? Let me know jersey@roundtablepresents.com





Reforma laboral 'borrará' Pymes

La reforma laboral en materia de instalaciones, podrían aumentar los niveles de mortandad de pequeñas empresas

Los cambios que plantea la reforma laboral en materia de instalaciones y medidas de seguridad y sus correspondientes sanciones por incumplimiento, podrían aumentar los niveles de mortandad de las pequeñas y medianas empresas (Pymes), advirtió la especialista en materia laboral Gloria Arellano.

"La reforma obliga a establecer esquemas más complicados, por lo que aumenta la posibilidad de mortandad de las empresas", aseguró la experta en el marco de la exposición: Las Nuevas reformas a la Ley Federal del Trabajo y Cómo Prepararse con Éxito, organizada por la consultoría AON.

Opinó que las multas que se contemplan en la reforma laboral son desproporcionadas y lo único que provocarán es inhibir el empleo y la creación de nuevas empresas, además de que fomentarían la corrupción.

Arellano indicó que las sanciones económicas que se pretenden aplicar son inconstitucionales y el empresario las puede impugnar en su momento, porque resulta totalmente injusto que se aplique la misma sanción a una micro o pequeña empresa, que a una empresa trasnacional.

La titular del despacho Sánchez Arellano consideró que la reforma laboral no generará en lo inmediato mayores empleos, porque las empresas primero deberán analizarla, antes que contratar más personal que implique compromisos.

A su decir, lo único a que llevarán las nuevas exigencias es a la corrupción, ya que le saldrá más barato al empresario sobornar al verificador o pagar la multa por no aceptar la verificación, que pagar la multa en sí.

En ese sentido, recomendó a los responsables de recursos humanos reelaborar sus contratos, sobre todo en la parte de outsourcing, a fin de evitar que asuman el papel de patrones, así como capacitarse para entender los nuevos cambios y llevar a cabo un diagnóstico laboral de las empresas, a fin de no incurrir en ninguna falta.



Imperialism In The X-Factor Age

By Colin Todhunter

In Vietnam, Agent Orange was dropped by the US to poison a foreign population. In Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, depleted uranium was used. In Western countries, things are a bit more complicated because various states have tended to avoid using direct forms of physical violence to quell their own populations (unless you belong to some marginalized group or hit a raw nerve, as did the Occupy Movement last year). The pretence of democracy and individual rights has to be maintained.

One option has been to use South American crack cocaine or Afghan heroin to dope up potential troublesome sections of the population. It’s worked wonders: highly lucrative for the drug running intelligence agencies and banks awash with drug money (1), while at the same time serving to dampen political dissent in the most economically and socially deprived areas. Another tactic has of course been the massive ever-increasing growth of the surveillance industry to monitor ordinary citizens.

But drugs, surveillance and direct violence are kind of a last resort to keep a population in check. Notwithstanding baton charges, tear gas and the use of rubber bullets on the European mainland and that the US Government is not ruling out the use of violence on its own people (2), ideology via the media has and continues to be the choice of method for population control in Western countries.

Whether it’s through the paranoia induced by the fear of terrorism or more general propaganda spewed out by the mainstream ‘news’ channels, political agendas and modes of thought are encouraged which seek to guarantee subservience and ‘integration’, rather than forms of critical thought or action that may lead to a direct questioning of or a challenge to prevailing forms of institutionalised power.

From trade unions to political parties, oppositional groups are infiltrated, deradicalised and incorporated into the system (3) and critical stances are stifled, ridiculed or marginalized. Consensus is manufactured both in cultural and political terms. The result is that presidential candidate TV debates, political discourse and much of the popular mass media is void of proper analytical discussion: public theatre scripted by speech writers and PR people, presented in manipulative, emotive, ‘human-interest’ terms.

From the TV news and commercials to the game-shows and latest instant fame programme, misinformation, narcissism and distraction pervade all aspects of life. Why be aware of the world’s ills and challenge anything when you can live in the dark, watch X-Factor, wear Reebok and shop till you drop? It is an infotainment paradise where lies are truth and unfettered desire a virtue.

It’s a world of crass consumerism and gleaming shopping malls bathed in designer lifestyle propaganda where people drown in their Friday night alcohol vomit, shop till they drop for things they don’t really need or indeed want and bask in their emptiness by watching TV with eyes wide shut.

But this is ‘free market’ democracy. And the concept behind it is that the mass of the population are a problem, and any genuine debate or the electorate’s ability to see what is actually happening must be prevented. People must be distracted – they should be watching millionaire footballers kick a ball around, mind numbing soap operas or some mindless sitcom. Every once in a while, at voting time, they are called on to parrot or back some meaningless slogans.

Politics is no longer about great ideas. The acquisition of power has become the core value in itself, not socialism or any other radical philosophy. What is required from mainstream political leaders is technocrat not, radical; middle manager, not firebrand. In an era of advanced capitalism, the role of mainstream glove puppet political leaders is to demonstrate competence when it comes to managing the machinery of state in order to fine tune the status quo, not overhaul it.

If ‘serious’ debate does even attempt to rear its head, it is increasingly to be found as part of a standardized, corporate TV news-cum-chat show format that is the same from country to country. There is usually some or other smug, user-friendly couple fronting the show, lying about how we may smooth away the wrinkles, according to the gospel of some grossly overpaid beauty guru to the stars.

But then, moving on to the next topic and with an anguished expression, no doubt well rehearsed in front of the mirror that morning, one of the hosts states: “A recent report says that high street fashion retailers use children in the developing world to make its clothes.”

A light and punchy studio debate among the show’s hosts and a ‘fashion expert’ will ensue, peppered with a certain degree of moral outrage. But only a ‘certain degree’ because hypocrisy abounds: “Stay tuned as next up you will be informed of how you too can dress like the celebs but for a fraction of the price.”

The next day it’s competition time. Win vouchers to go shopping for the latest high street fashion items. “Top of the range stuff… But the prices are so cheap… Just how do they do it?” one of the hosts remarks: the very same person from the day before who fronted the ‘in-depth debate’ about how they actually manage to do it by exploiting poverty and child labour.

It’s all very cony and comforting, with its sanctimonious world view of sexed up infotainment and bland titillation. It’s TV to inspire. TV to inspire the masses into apathy, fatalism and acceptance.

“Next up, we have a man who swallowed a live rabbit and lived to tell the tale” is sandwiched between “How you can save on your weekly wine bill” and “Knife crime – lock ‘em up and throw away the key.”

Forget about informed debate when platitudes, simple emotion and ‘common sense’ outlooks will do. You will rarely find anything radical or challenging here or elsewhere on mainstream TV because that’s not the point of it. The point of it all is to convince the public that their trivial concerns are indeed the major concerns of the day and that the major world events and imperialist wars can be trivialised or justified with a few ridiculous clichés about saving oppressed woman in Afghanistan or killing for peace in Africa.

From Fox to CNN, the BBC and beyond, this mind altering portrayal of the world is devoured as avidly as the health-altering, chemically-laden TV dinner that accompanies it. How about can of pesticide-ridden, cancer inducing cola to finish off (4)? Feel the spray. It’s all so refreshingly toxic. No need for Agent Orange here. So many people are already swallowing the poison via their plates or TV. If that fails and the drugs no longer work, the drones are waiting overhead.


1) Afghan heroin and the CIA, Geopolitical Monitor: http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/afghan-heroin-the-cia

2) DHS to purchase another 750 million rounds of ammo, Press TV: http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/256028.html

3) The influence of intelligence services on the British left, Lobster Magazine: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/rrtalk.htm

4) Things grow better with Coke, The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/02/india.johnvidal



Sanctions or Holocaust? 6 million lives at stake in Iran

By Ismail Salami

The US-led sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran which directly and painfully target the population have created an inconceivable situation for those whose very lives depend on the medicine adversely affected by these barbaric sanctions.

The West is sharply aware of the devastating inhuman effects of the sanctions on the sick people. On September 4, the Washington Post published an article titled In Iran, Sanctions Take Toll On The Sick, which details how dug shortages are particularly affecting "cancer patients and those being treated for complex disorders such as hemophilia, multiple sclerosis and Thalassemia, as well as transplant and kidney dialysis patients."

Fatemeh Hashemi, Head of Iran's Charity Institute for Special Diseases, has voiced grave concern for the six million patients suffering from special diseases and their families who are desperately wrestling with the problems originating therefrom. In fact, the US-led sanctions are exacting their deadly toll on the terminally ailing patients.

"We feel the shortage mainly for cancer and MS drugs. Of course, Thalassemia and dialysis patients are also the targets of these hardships. All these problems stem from the sanctions the US has imposed on the banking sector and the difficulties in transferring foreign currency," Hashemi said.

The bitter question is: Is the West taking sadistic pleasure in incurring genocidal deaths or does the West naively believe that they are achieving their fiendish goals in the Muslim country?

Bitterly exasperated by the fact that a large multitude of patients are on the brink of death on account of the US-led sanctions, Fatemeh Hashemi wrote a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon two months ago. Part of the letter which was sent through the Iranian Foreign Ministry reads: "Although medicine is not included in the list of the sanctions, the aftermaths of the sanctions, the impossibility of transferring money through the banks as well as the appalling atmosphere created thus has cast its cumbersome shadow upon medicine and healthcare in Iran and has austerely affected the import of medicines in the country. As the head of an institute dealing with the lives of six million patients, I hereby implore you to exert all your endeavors to champion human rights in lifting the sanctions as they are political in nature and prove to the in

Many of the Thalassemia patients in Iran are threatened by death due to the paucity of Desferrioxamine or Desferal, a medicine which helps keep their blood iron at a safe level in the body. Thalassemia patients keep having blood transfusions which cause extra iron in the body. When blood transfusions are regular, iron gathers in the body and is amassed in some organs such as the liver, the heart, and the endocrine glands. Functioning as a foreign body, the iron eventually damages the organs. One of the main drugs which helps keep the blood iron at a safe level is desferrioxamine or 'Desferal'.

In a recent speech, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has blasted the illogical western sanctions as 'barbaric' and described them as a war against a nation.

"The West is angry and they have used Iran's nuclear energy program as a pretext [to impose sanctions]. They claim that they will lift the sanctions if Iran backs down on its right to nuclear energy. They are lying. Out of spite and revenge, they decide to impose illogical sanctions against Iran."

As the leader says, the nuclear energy program is only an excuse for the West.

To be precise, the West is well aware that Iran has never sought a nuclear weapons program nor does it ever wish to do so. However they appear to be incapable of finding a better excuse than Iran's nuclear energy program to go ahead with their barbaric sanctions with the ultimate goal of installing a US-friendly regime in the country. A recent article by David Frum reveals how Washington uses the sanctions as a strategy to bring about regime change in Iran. He says, "The U.S. has three goals vis-a-vis Iran: minimalist, maximalist and in-between. The minimalist goal is to compel Iran to surrender its nuclear ambitions and submit fully to international monitoring. The in-between goal is more generally to moderate Iran's obnoxious behavior, including state sponsorship of terrorist outrages such as the recent attempt to murder the Saudi ambassador to Washington. The maximalist goal is to apply enough economic pressure to incite domestic revolution and the fall of the regime."

Apart from his naïve perception of the status quo in Iran, he touches on a very important issue which tops the US agenda: regime change in Iran. Parenthetically, Frum used to be Bush's speech writer and was well connected to the White House. His unconscious confession to this grand delusion entertained by the US officials indicates how very removed from reality the Washington officials are and how infernally adamant they are on bringing about this change at whatever cost, even the lives of millions of people.

The sheer idea of imposing illegal sanctions against the Islamic Republic and jeopardizing the lives of millions of patients is indeed an act of brutality which runs counter to the very true spirit of humanity as well as to international humanitarian laws.

Since when has the act of endangering the lives of the ailing people become part of a dirty political game played by the West?

What a shame!

In cahoots with the US, the West is willingly or unwillingly exterminating the Iranian patients through these illegal sanctions. Indeed, they will be held accountable for the human loss they are inflicting upon the Iranian nation: surely, the eyes of God are watching them and they are held in divine abhorrence.

Dr. Ismail Salami AKA Ali Salami is an Iranian writer, Shakespearean, Iranologist, lexicographer and political analyst. A prolific writer, Salami has authored over a hundred books and articles. His articles have appeared in international journals and many of them have been translated into numerous languages. Salami holds a PhD in Shakespeare Studies and is the author of Human Rights in Islam and Iran, Cradle of Civilization. He can be reached at salami2046@yahoo.com.





Creen científicos que optimistas tienen mejor sistema inmunitario

Oviedo, España, 24 Oct (Notimex).- Aun cuando aceptan que es difícil probarlo de manera rigurosa, los científicos Gregory Winter y Richard A. Lerner sostuvieron hoy que el sistema inmunitario de una persona optimista funciona mejor que el de alguien estresado o pesimista.

Ganadores del Premio Príncipe de Asturias de Investigación Científica y Técnica 2012 por sus contribuciones al campo de la inmunología, ambos coincidieron en que la producción de esteroides en los pesimistas genera un sistema inmunitario más débil.

“Yo hacía medicina y solía pensar que eso no tenía sentido, pero al reflexionar sobre ello, se ha sabido durante más de 50 años que los esteroides afectan en gran manera al sistema inmunitario”, dijo Lerner.

Añadió que “tampoco hay duda de que el estrés afecta la producción de esteroides”.

En consecuencia, dijo, “una persona que es pesimista ve la vida de una manera más estresante, produce por tanto más esteroides y eso conlleva que tenga un sistema inmunitario más débil que una persona que es más alegre. Así que hay una base científica”, planteó.

Winter se pronunció en igual sentido y dijo que “estoy de acuerdo en que hay una base científica, pero es difícil probarlo de manera rigurosa”.

Winter, un biólogo británico, y el patólogo estadunidense Lerner, se refirieron asimismo, en el emblemático Hotel de la Reconquista de Oviedo, en el norte de España, a la crisis económica que afecta el presupuesto destinado a investigación.

Sobre el punto, Winter subrayó que “este es un buen momento para invertir en investigación, porque esto finalmente terminará creando las economías del futuro”.

“Al fin y al cabo, el mundo cada vez va a ser más dominado por el conocimiento y las industrias del conocimiento, por lo que cortar la investigación, en este sentido, es un gran error, porque precisamente ahí es donde hay que invertir”, prosiguió.

Resaltó que la cantidad total que se destina a la investigación es una fracción pequeñísima del presupuesto total de un país y proporciona la capacidad en años de acabar creando una economía mejor.

Lerner expuso en igual sentido que la investigación conduce al empleo, al trabajo, a impuestos adecuados.

“Soy de California, ¿se pueden imaginar a California sin industrias basadas en el conocimiento como Google, Facebook, Ebay, entre otras? Todas ellas han surgido a partir de la investigación”, manifestó.

Ambos científicos ganaron el Premio Príncipe de Asturias de Investigación Científica y Técnica 2012 por sus contribuciones decisivas al campo de la inmunología.

El jurado, presidido por Pedro Miguel Echenique, destacó en el acta del fallo que ambos científicos obtuvieron anticuerpos de gran valor terapéutico.

La Fundación Príncipe de Asturias destacó al dar a conocer el premio que los investigadores Winter y Lerner están en la vanguardia de las investigaciones sobre el sistema inmunitario.

Indicó que los avances en la utilización de anticuerpos como herramientas terapéuticas han proporcionado nuevos métodos para prevenir y tratar desórdenes inmunes, enfermedades degenerativas y distintos tipos de tumores.

En muchos casos, el empleo de anticuerpos ha mitigado el sufrimiento del paciente y ha detenido el progreso de la enfermedad.

Estos investigadores han logrado crear un sistema inmune sintético en tubo de ensayo, demostrando además su potencial preventivo y terapéutico al superar el repertorio de anticuerpos naturales que el cuerpo humano puede generar.



[A report on 8 seronegative converted HIV/AIDS patients with traditional Chinese medicine].

Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 1997 May;17(5):271-3.

[Article in Chinese]


China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing



For the first time, serum anti-HIV antibody negative conversion was being reported.


Eight confirmed HIV/AIDS patients (AC1, ARC 6, AIDS 1) were treated with TCM recipes (802, 806, 809, 810, Shengmaiyin, ZY-1), recheck the serum antibody and immunological function and intranuclear HIV-DNA was investigated with PCR amplifying assay and were long-term followed-up.


After medication for 87-463 days, seronegative conversion occurred, PCR assay revealed that 5 cases were PCR(+), 2 of them(-), 1 turned seropositive again in the early stage. Observed continuously for 11-49 months, the "serum negative and intranuclear positive" state maintained. These patients belonged to immunosilent HIV-infection. The immunological function of all seronegative converted patients were good.


AIDS is a reversible disease. Using medicinal herbs to enhance the immune function will facilitate the appearance of seronegative conversion, which has not been reported before. If it could be further confirmed, its mechanism elucidated, this may greatly strengthen the confidence of the patients.



¿Qué hago si clonan mi tarjeta?

La Comisión Nacional para la Protección y Defensa de los Usuarios de Servicios Financieros emite algunas recomendaciones en caso de clonación de tarjetas de crédito o débito.


La Comisión Nacional para la Protección y Defensa de los Usuarios de Servicios Financieros (Condusef) dio a conocer algunas recomendaciones en caso de clonación de tarjetas de crédito o débito.

El organismo informa que los usuarios en esta situación pueden acudir ante la Unidad Especializada de Atención a Usuarios de los bancos para que ésta inicie una investigación, y en caso de no dar respuesta, exponga el caso en cualquier oficina de la Condusef.

Explica que la clonación o 'skimming' consiste en copiar los datos que contiene la banda magnética de una tarjeta de crédito o débito al deslizarla en un pequeño dispositivo llamado skimmer.

Señala que la información es utilizada para duplicar la tarjeta con la que podrán efectuar compras a nombre del titular en establecimientos o por Internet.

Esta situación se agrava porque los titulares de las tarjetas no se enteran de lo ocurrido hasta que les llega el estado de cuenta o cuando quieren comprar con su tarjeta algo y les informan que han llegado a su límite, abunda.

Actualmente, refiere la Condusef, las instituciones bancarias cuentan con sistemas de alerta que permiten conocer con oportunidad los pagos o movimientos que se pretenden efectuar con tu tarjeta.

En ese sentido y ante la presunción de que una tarjeta pudo ser objeto de clonación, sugiere al usuario verificar el saldo y confirmar si éste coincide con el cálculo o saldo estimado.

Indica que si la diferencia entre el saldo estimado y el que la entidad bancaria informa es pequeña, el tarjetahabiente deberá verificar detalladamente los consumos o retiros que haya realizado para descartar cargos omitidos por descuido, confusión, o por no haber guardado el voucher o nota de la operación efectuada.

La Condusef expone que en caso de no identificar en el estado de cuenta alguna razón social, se debe considerar que en ocasiones los establecimientos comerciales tienen diferente nombre comercial al que el usuario identifica.

En el caso de que el saldo proporcionado por la entidad bancaria no corresponda a la estimación (cargo no reconocido) del usuario, éste puede presentar su caso en la Unidad Especializada de Atención a Usuarios de su banco o ante la Condusef en caso que esta primera instancia no dé respuesta al hecho.

El Directorio de Unidades Especializadas de Atención a Usuarios puede consultarse en www.condusef.gob.mx/ o al 01 800 999 8080 para preguntar los datos (nombre, dirección, teléfono, correo electrónico) para presentar una controversia.