Monday, April 2, 2012

MedicalConspiracies- They Outnumber Your Cells Ten to One but Researchers Show they Play Crucial Role in Your Health

They Outnumber Your Cells Ten to One but Researchers Show they Play Crucial Role in Your Health

Posted By Dr. Mercola | April 02 2012 | 18,632views

Email : 145

Story at-a-glance

· There are 100 trillion cells in your body, but only one in 10 is human. The rest are bacteria, fungi, viruses and other microorganisms, i.e. your microflora.

· Your microflora influence your genetic expression, your immune system, your weight and your risk of numerous chronic and acute diseases, from diabetes to cancer.

· It is becoming increasingly clear that destroying your gut flora with antibiotics and poor diet is a primary factor in rising disease rates.

· A healthy low-sugar diet, along with plenty of unpasteurized fermented foods and/or a high-quality probiotic supplement, is crucial to restoring and maintaining both your gut’s inner ecosystem and your overall health.

By Dr. Mercola

Probiotics, along with a host of other microorganisms, are so crucial to your health that researchers have compared them to "a newly recognized organ."

In fact, your microflora – a term used to describe the bacteria, fungi, viruses and other microbes that make up your microbial inner ecosystem – impact far more than your digestive tract.

Researchers have found they may play key roles in the development of cancer, asthma, allergies, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and even brain, behavioral and emotional problems like ADHD, autism and depression.

Rob Knight, a biologist at the University of Colorado, told the Washington Post ⁱ:

"In terms of potential for human health, I would place it with stem cells as one of the two most promising areas of research at the moment…

We're seeing an unprecedented rate of discovery. Everywhere we look, microbes seem to be involved."

To put this into perspective, your body contains about 100 trillion cells, but only one in 10 is "human." The others? They're made up of bacteria and other microorganisms.

Gut Bacteria Divides People Into Three Types

Just as you have one of four blood types, researchers have revealed that there are three distinct microbial ecosystems ⁱⁱ in the gut of people they have studied. The three "enterotypes" could not be linked to ethnic background, sex, weight, health or age, so what causes you to develop a certain "gut type" is unknown (one theory is that infants' intestines are simply randomly colonized by different pioneering species of microbes, which alter the gut so that only certain species can follow them).

Lead researcher Peer Bork suggests that one of the "obvious" potential benefits of this finding is that doctors may some day be able to tailor diets or drug prescriptions based on your gastrointestinal enterotype. This includes providing a potential alternative for antibiotics – instead of killing off all your bacteria (good and bad) with antibiotics, doctors may give you a "prescription" for specific good bacteria that would restore you enterotype.

This is still an emerging field, but one that is growing by the day and revealing a host of exciting discoveries about the intricate workings of your inner ecosystem. One thing is for certain: the makeup of the "bugs" in your gut may have a direct role on your current and future health.

You are a Microbial Being

Your microflora plays an active role in a wide variety of diseases. If you want to dig into the research, check out the Human Microbiome Project (HMP)ⁱⁱⁱ, whose goal is to characterize microbial communities found at multiple human body sites and to look for correlations between changes in the microbiome and human health. There you can find 15 demonstration projects looking into the role of microflora and conditions like psoriasis, Crohn's disease, obesity, acne and more.

Other interesting research to date includes:

1. Behavior: A study published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility^iv found mice that lack gut bacteria were found to behave differently from normal mice, engaging in what would be referred to as "high-risk behavior." This altered behavior was accompanied by neurochemical changes in the mouse brain. Researchers stated:

"Bacteria colonize the gut in the days following birth, during a sensitive period of brain development, and apparently influence behavior by inducing changes in the expression of certain genes."

2. Gene Expression: As noted above, researchers also discovered that the absence or presence of gut microorganisms during infancy permanently alters gene expression.

Through gene profiling, they were able to discern that absence of gut bacteria altered genes and signaling pathways involved in learning, memory, and motor control. This suggests that gut bacteria are closely tied to early brain development and subsequent behavior. These behavioral changes could be reversed as long as the mice were exposed to normal microorganisms early in life. But once the germ-free mice had reached adulthood, colonizing them with bacteria did not influence their behavior.

In a similar way, probiotics have also been found to influence the activity of hundreds of your genes, helping them to express in a positive, disease-fighting manner.

3. Diabetes: Bacterial populations in the gut of diabetics ^v differ from non-diabetics, according to a study from Denmark. In particular, diabetics had fewer Firmicutes and more plentiful amounts of Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria, compared to non-diabetics. The study also found a positive correlation for the ratios of Bacteroidetes to Firmicutes and reduced glucose tolerance.

Researchers concluded:

"The results of this study indicate that type 2 diabetes in humans is associated with compositional changes in intestinal microbiota."

4. Autism: Establishment of normal gut flora in the first 20 days or so of life plays a crucial role in appropriate maturation of your baby's immune system. Hence, babies who develop abnormal gut flora are left with compromised immune systems and are particularly at risk for developing such disorders as ADHD, learning disabilities and autism, particularly if they are vaccinated before restoring balance to their gut flora.

To get a solid understanding of just how this connection works, I highly recommend reviewing the information shared by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride in this recent interview.

Total Video Length: 1:13:21

Download Interview Transcript

5. Obesity: The make-up of gut bacteria tends to differ in lean vs. obese people. This is one of the strongest areas of probiotic research to date, and you can read about a handful of such studies here. The bottom line is that restoring your gut flora should be an important consideration if you're struggling to lose weight, and doing this is relatively straightforward, as I'll describe below.

Your Gut Bacteria Are Under Constant Assault

Do you eat a lot of sugary foods? Take antibiotics? Drink chlorinated water? Eat CAFO (confined animal feeding operation) meats (which are typically pumped full of antibiotics)? All of these common practices will wreak havoc on the makeup of bacteria in your gut. And even though you may be born with a certain enterotype, your lifestyle can and does influence your gut flora on a daily basis. Your gut bacteria are extremely sensitive to:

· Antibiotics

· Chlorinated water

· Antibacterial soap

· Agricultural chemicals

· Pollution

This is why eating fermented foods is so beneficial! Doing so will help you to "reseed" your body with good bacteria. If you do not regularly consume the traditionally fermented foods below, a high-quality probiotic supplement will provide similar benefits:

· Lassi (an Indian yoghurt drink, traditionally enjoyed before dinner)

· Fermented milk, such as kefir (a quart of unpasteurized kefir has far more active bacteria than you can possibly purchase in any probiotics supplement)

· Various pickled fermentations of cabbage, turnips, eggplant, cucumbers, onions, squash and carrots

· Natto (fermented soy)

When choosing fermented foods, steer clear of pasteurized versions, as pasteurization will destroy many of the naturally occurring probiotics. This includes most of the "probiotic" yogurts you find in every grocery store these days; since they're pasteurized, they will be associated with all of the problems of pasteurized milk products and they typically contain added sugars, high fructose corn syrup, artificial coloring, or artificial sweeteners, all of which will only worsen your health.

Avoid This to Optimize Your Gut Flora …

Along with eating the naturally fermented foods above and/or taking a high-quality supplement, it's essential that you avoid sugar, including fructose. Eating sugar actually nourishes the bad or pathogenic bacteria yeast and fungi in your gut, which may actually harm you more than its impact on insulin resistance. One of the major results of eating a healthy diet like the one described in my nutrition plan is that you cause your beneficial gut bacteria to flourish, and they secondarily perform the real "magic" of restoring your health.

Remember, an estimated 80 percent of your immune system is located in your gut, which is just one more reason why "tending to" your gut microflora is an essential element of good health. A robust immune system, supported by your flourishing inner ecosystem, is your number one defense against ALL disease, from the common cold to cancer.

Additional Resources

In addition to the wealth of information shared in the interview above, there are also a number of other resources you can delve into. Dr. McBride's blog contains articles and videos relating to a wide variety of health problems that can be helped with the GAPS diet. I highly recommend getting her book Gut and Psychology Syndrome, which provides all the necessary details for her protocol. We were finally able to convince her to print it in the U.S., so I now offer it for sale in my store. It saves you a few dollars, compared to ordering it from the U.K..

Dr. McBride is also training GAPS practitioners, with sessions coming up in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. In the U.S., there are currently 160 certified GAPS practitioners who are well-qualified to help you to go through the GAPS Nutritional Protocol.

You can find certified GAPS practitioners on www.GAPS.me, listed by country and state.

Additionally, www.Immunitrition.com is another helpful resource where you can learn more about cultured and fermented foods. If you're so inclined, you can also find information about how to become a Certified Healing Foods Specialist there.

References:

· ⁱMicrobes May Play Crucial Role in Human Health, Researchers Discovering, Washington Post, October 10, 2011: Rob Stein.

· ⁱⁱ Enterotypes of the Human Gut Microbiome, Nature, May 12, 2011: 473(7346); 174-80, M. Arumugam, et al.

· ⁱⁱⁱ Human Microbiome Project, National Institutes of Health.

· ^iv Reduced Anxiety-Like Behavior and Central Neurochemical Change in Germ-Free Mice, Neurogastroenterology and Motility, March 2011: 23(3); 255-e119, K. M. Neufeld, et al.

· ^v Gut Microbiota in Human Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Differs from Non-Diabetic Adults, PLoS One, February 5, 2010: 5(2); e9085, N. Larsen, et al.

Source: Washington Post October 9, 2011

Love and blessings,

Jan Slama

Vibrant Energy

http://vibrantenergy.webs.com

Change your energy, change your life!

Your source for MMS, Diatomaceous Earth and Lugol’s 5% Iodine.

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12.

Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord Almighty.” Zach. 4:6.

“But, if any nation does not listen, I will completely uproot and destroy it,” declares the Lord. Jere.12:17

Pray without ceasing, because our only hope for our nation is in God.

MedicalConspiracies- 40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This "Cosmetic Ingredient" in Their Tissues

40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This "Cosmetic Ingredient" in Their Tissues

Posted By Dr. Mercola | April 02 2012

Story at-a-glance

· Recent research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampled. In 60 percent of cases, all five esters were detected. Parabens are chemicals that have been shown to have estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in the development of breast cancer

· Anything you ingest, inhale, or spread on your skin can be absorbed into your body and potentially cause damage over time. Parabens can be found in a wide variety of consumer products, such as deodorants, shampoos, lotions, cosmetics, drugs, and food additives

· Recent research has confirmed the existence of a previously unknown class of cancer-causing materials that can be found in thousands of consumer products. A broad range of metals have been shown to act as “metalloestrogens” with the potential to add to the estrogenic burden of the human breast

· According to recent research, women with the highest intakes of cadmium were 21 percent more likely to develop breast cancer compared to those with the lowest dietary intake. Cadmium is a carcinogenic heavy metal identified as a metal that can bind to estrogen receptors, effectively mimicking the female hormone estrogen. Food crops such as potatoes and whole grains are primary sources cadmium, but it’s also an air pollutant

By Dr. Mercola

New research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampled ⁱ.

The study examined 40 women who were being treated for primary breast cancer.

In 60 percent of cases, five of the different esters were present.

Parabens are chemicals with estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in the development of breast cancer.

The study notes that ⁱⁱ:

"Variation was notable with respect to individual paraben esters, location within one breast and similar locations in different breasts.

Overall median values in nanograms per gram tissue for the 160 tissue samples were highest for n-propylparaben and methylparaben; levels were lower for n-butylparaben, ethylparaben and isobutylparaben...

The source of the paraben cannot be identified, but paraben was measured in the 7/40 patients who reported never having used underarm cosmetics in their lifetime."

Sources and Dangers of Parabens

Deodorants and antiperspirants are some of the primary sources of parabens, but the fact that even those who reportedly never used them still had parabens in their breast tissue clearly demonstrates that these chemicals, regardless of what products they're added to, can, and apparently will, accumulate in breast tissue.

It's important to recognize that whatever you spread on your skin can be absorbed into your body and potentially cause serious damage over time, as this research demonstrates.

(To learn more about the potential toxicity of your cosmetics, I urge you to review the EWG's extensive Skin Deep Report.ⁱⁱⁱ) Parabens inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeast, and molds, and are used as preservatives. On the label they may be listed as:

Methyl paraben	Propyl paraben	Isobutyl paraben
Ethyl paraben	Butyl paraben	E216

These chemicals are commonly used in:

Deodorants and antiperspirants	Shampoos and conditioners	Shaving gel	Toothpaste
Lotions and sunscreens	Make-up / cosmetics	Pharmaceutical drugs	Food additives

Studies have shown that parabens can affect your body much like the estrogens, which can lead to diminished muscle mass, extra fat storage, and male gynecomastia (breast growth). Other studies besides the one featured here have also linked parabens to breast cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has linked methyl parabens in particular to metabolic, developmental, hormonal, and neurological disorders, as well as various cancers.

How to Avoid Some of the Most Common Culprits

Avoiding parabens and other harmful chemicals requires becoming an avid label reader. Beware that products boasting "all-natural" labels can still contain harmful chemicals, including parabens, so make sure to check the list of ingredients. Another alternative is to make your own personal care products. In many cases it's much easier than you might think. Michael DeJong, environmentalist and author of books on green living has a book called Clean Cures^iv, which is chockfull of affordable, easy, natural remedies you can prepare at home to treat ordinary ailments with items you have in your own refrigerator and pantry.

When it comes to deodorants, one option is to skip it altogether. Simple soap and water has served me quite well. For some additional odor-protection, try a pinch of baking soda mixed with a small amount of water.

Beware: There's a Brand NEW Class of Cancer-Causing "Estrogens"...

Recent research has also confirmed the existence of a previously unknown class of cancer-causing materials that can be found in thousands of consumer products. Some of them are even added to supplements and foods as "nutrients". These estrogen-mimicking compounds are: metals.

Yes, a broad range of metals have been shown to act as "metalloestrogens" with the potential to add to the estrogenic burden of the human breast, thereby increasing the risk of breast cancer. The following metals have been identified as being capable of binding to cellular estrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological estrogens ^v:

Aluminum	Antimony	Arsenite	Barium	Cadmium	Chromium	Cobalt
Copper	Lead	Mercury	Nickel	Selenite	Tin	Vanadate

According to Green Med Info ^vi:

"... [E]xposure to sodium selenite (and sodium selenate) is difficult to avoid, as it is the primary source of supplemental selenium in mass market vitamins, foods, beverages, etc. The same is true for inorganic forms of chromium, copper, nickel, tin and and vanadium, which you will find on the labels of many mass market multivitamins. Another daily source of metalloestrogen exposure for millions of consumers is aluminum-based antiperspirants."

Cadmium Linked to Higher Breast Cancer Risk

A recent study published in the journal Cancer Research indicates that women whose diets contain higher levels of cadmium are at a greater risk of developing breast cancer. Cadmium is a heavy metal long known to be carcinogenic, and, as you can see by its inclusion on the list above, it's also been identified as a metal that can bind to estrogen receptors, effectively mimicking the female hormone estrogen. The study found that among close to 56,000 women, those with the highest intakes of cadmium were 21 percent more likely to develop breast cancer ^vii.

Cadmium leaches into crops from fertilizers, or when rainfall or sewage sludge deposit it onto farmland. Potatoes and whole grains are a couple of the primary sources cadmium, but it's also present in air pollution from the burning of fossil fuel, and can therefore also be inhaled. According to the Los Angeles Times^viii:

"The study offers new evidence in a large human population that environmental chemicals that mimic the effects of the female hormone estrogen may contribute to women's risk of certain cancers, including endometrial and breast cancers.... The finding comes just three months after the Institute of Medicine, a prestigious body of independent biomedical researchers, concluded that a host of other factors — most within a woman's power to control, such as obesity and hormone-replacement medication — were the most important sources of breast cancer risk.

The report they're referring to is Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach by the Institute of Medicine (IOM)^ixissued in December of last year, which discusses environmental impacts on breast cancer risk.

The report is a step in the right direction, as it recognizes the need to further investigate the role environmental toxins play in the development of breast cancer. This is important, because while individuals can do their best to avoid harmful chemicals, if we really want to quell the rise in cancers of all kinds, we must remove chemicals linked with cancer from consumer products, manufacturing, and other sources of exposure. Furthermore, the IOM report also identifies ionizing radiation as one of the primary contributors to breast cancer, which of course includes mammograms...

Could More Women Be Harmed than Helped with Mammography?

Mammograms expose a woman's body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which increases the risk of cancer. Mammography also compresses breasts tightly (and often painfully), which could lead to a lethal spread of cancerous cells, should they exist.

Earlier this year, the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration issued a report stating that mammography screening may cause more harm than good. Their informative leaflet, Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography^x, is an important read for every woman. Even more provocative is the new book, Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy by Peter C. Gøtzsche, Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis Director at The Nordic Cochrane Centre, and Chief Physician. The very first paragraph of the book's ad reads ^xi:

"The most effective way to decrease women's risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid attending screening."

While this may sound too shocking to be true for some, the available data fully supports that conclusion. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, for every 2,000 women invited for screening over the course of 10 years, just ONE woman will have her life prolonged. Meanwhile, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed with cancer had it not been for the mammography screening, will be misdiagnosed as having breast cancer, and will be treated unnecessarily. Additionally, more than 200 women will experience significant psychological distress for many months due to false positives.

The Cancer Industry is Fraught with Corruption...

There's plenty of damning information out there that can, and ultimately will, be used to call for a congressional hearing on the mammography cover-up. As far back as 1974, professor Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine warned the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that a number of specialists had concluded that "giving a women under age 50 a mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical." In the 1990's, Dr. Samuel Epstein warned about the dangers of mammography, stating:

"The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening... The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with X-ray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogramed annually."

Yet despite all the evidence against the routine use of it, mammography has remained the number one recommended "prevention" strategy for all women over the age of 40. Alarmingly, there's evidence indicating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been negligent (to put it mildly) in their approval of a number of cancer-detecting devices. It recently became known that whistleblowers within the agency had been secretly monitored for two years; all of whom worked in the office responsible for reviewing medical devices, including cancer screening devices. The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.

Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health has repeatedly tried to take action against the employees, claiming they had disclosed information that undermined the integrity and mission of the FDA. Shuren is also the official who oversees mercury dental fillings, which they have been fraudulently referring to as 'silver fillings.' Shuren promised to make an announcement about dental amalgam by the end of 2011, but just before the end of the work year, the agency conceded that no announcement was forthcoming – not in 2011, and maybe not at all.

Again and again, Mr. Shuren demonstrates loyalty to industry interests rather than public health and safety... But he's not the only one. In a 2009 letter from an unknown number of FDA employees to President Obama's transition team, the authors clearly spell out the need for a complete overhaul of the agency due to deep-rooted systemic corruption at the highest levels ^xii. They write:

"Currently there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around. Disturbingly, the atmosphere does not yet exist at FDA where honest employees committed to integrity and the FDA mission can act without fear of reprisal. ... America urgently needs change at FDA because FDA is fundamentally broken, failing to fulfill its mission, and because re-establishing a proper and effectively functioning FDA is vital to the physical and economic health of the nation."

Mammograms No Longer Recommended for Women in Their 40's

The US Preventative Task Force revised its recommendations on mammograms in October 2009,^xiiistating that women in their 40's should no longer get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer. Instead, the panel recommended waiting until the age of 50, and only doing one mammogram every other year rather than annually. The Canadian task force followed suit in November last year.

While many cancer organizations were outraged and have shunned the task forces' new directive, it's important to realize that the main reasons for this change in guidelines were the documented dangers and short-comings of mammographic screening. All in all, there's convincing evidence that mammography is not all it's cracked up to be, and the FDA is not doing its stated job to protect your health. Instead, they're busy catering to industry and skirting the boundaries of the law to protect a lucrative business model. This is a tragedy, considering how many alternatives there are that could help stem the tide of cancer...

There's a wide variety of prevention and treatment strategies that appear to be both safer and more effective than conventional strategies like mammograms and the "cut-poison-burn" model of cancer treatment... To learn more, please review the related articles listed below.

References:

· ⁱ Journal of Applied Toxicology March 2012; 32(3): 219-232

· ⁱⁱ Journal of Applied Toxicology March 2012; 32(3): 219-232

· ⁱⁱⁱ Environmental Working Group, Skin Deep Report

· ^iv Clean Cures: The Humble Art of Zen-Curing Yourself, Michael DeJong

· ^v Journal of Applied Toxicology December 12, 2011 [Epub ahead of print]

· ^vi Green Med Info March 18, 2012

· ^vii Cancer Research March 15, 2012; 72: 1459

· ^viii Los Angeles Times March 15, 2012

· ^ix Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach, The Institute of Medicine (IOM), December 7, 2011

· ^x SCREENING FOR BREAST CANCER WITH MAMMOGRAPHY (PDF), The Nordic Cochrane Center 2012,

· ^xi MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING: TRUTH, LIES AND CONTROVERSY, Radcliffe Publishing, January 2012

· ^xii CDRH Staffers To Obama: House Cleaning Urgent At Device Center, National Whistleblowers Center

· ^xiii U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Screening for Breast Cancer 2009

Source: Green People

Source: Journal of Applied Toxicology March 2012; 32(3): 219-232

Source: Green Med Info March 18, 2012

Source: Los Angeles Times March 15, 2012

Source: Cancer Research March 15, 2012; 72: 1459

Sunday, April 1, 2012

MedicalConspiracies- Ron Paul Upsets Santorum in Missouri Caucuses Buoyed By Huge Youth Tur nout

It seems that all the socialist "deliberately dumbing down" of American youth, is backfiring, by producing pro Constitutional Conservatives. I LOVE IT;-)))))
Bruce Chesley

Source: LewRockwell.com

Ron Paul Upsets Santorum in Missouri Caucuses Buoyed By Huge Youth Turnout
by Hamdan Azhar
PolicyMic

The final outcome of Missouri's lengthy caucus process may not be known for months. Early results, however, indicate that Ron Paul may well walk away from the state with the most delegates. Yesterday, his supporters overwhelmed the largest pooled caucus – Jackson county, responsible for sending 179 delegates to the state and congressional district conventions – winning over two-thirds of the available delegate slots. Mr. Paul also swept St. Louis, winning all of the city's 36 delegates.

Missouri's second and third largest caucuses, which convened last Saturday, reported similar results. In Greene county (111 delegates), Paul backers won nearly 60% of the delegate slots. In St. Charles (147 delegates), they so thoroughly dominated that the county GOP chair, allegedly a Santorum supporter, adjourned the meeting and called in the police to prevent the election from taking place.

In each of these counties, Paul supporters were outnumbered by Santorum supporters by at least 4-to-1*. Against these daunting odds, the Ron Paulers emerged victorious due to their unmatched grassroots organization and their ability to turn out the youth vote. In Greene county, party insiders said they had "never seen so many young people at a Republican caucus."

Missouri's results – a shot in the arm for the Paul campaign – have led many observers to conclude that Mr. Paul's caucus strategy is working better than they had anticipated. His strong performance follows several events in recent weeks that suggest that Ron Paul supporters – energized by the message of limited government and fiscal conservatism – are quickly taking over the leadership of the Republican party at the state and local levels across the country.

Earlier this month, in Las Vegas, Paul supporters were elected to two-thirds of the board positions in the Clark County Republican Party after winning more county convention delegates than any other candidate at the caucuses – including Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, in Iowa, the state co-chair of the Paul campaign was elected as the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party in February. Last week, Paul supporters swept all the delegate slots in two of Seattle's largest legislative district conventions.

Such accomplishments belie the mainstream media's efforts to marginalize Ron Paul's candidacy. The Associated Press's projections, for example, report the Texas congressman as being last in the delegate count. Election analysts, however, insist that those projections are driven by a failure to understand the rules governing delegate allocation in caucus states. Josh Putnam, election expert and professor of political science, agrees. The AP delegate count, he admits, is based on "a fantasy proportional allocation of delegates in the non-binding caucus states."

Heading into the Missouri caucuses, the New York Times reported that Rick Santorum was "frantically wooing voters" in an attempt to secure a "second victory." Since then, the Times' caucus blog has maintained complete silence about Ron Paul's unexpectedly strong performance in the state.

With his likely victory in Missouri, Mr. Paul has shown once again that his campaign – fueled by the passion and determination of millions of grassroots supporters across the country – should not be written off too quickly. He has more than doubled his voter base since 2008, intends to compete aggressively in Texas and California, and continues to upend the establishment narrative at every turn. Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, all available evidence suggests that the Ron Paul movement will continue to be a significant force in American politics for decades to come.

*In Missouri's Feb. 7 primary – meaningless, since it awarded zero delegates - the ratio of Santorum votes to Paul votes was 3.8 in Jackson county, 4.3 in St. Charles county, and 4.5 in Greene county. Ron Paul won the majority of the county-level delegates in Jackson and Greene counties, and is expected to do the same in St. Charles when it holds its rescheduled caucus on April 10.

Reprinted from PolicyMic with the author's permission.

March 27, 2012

Hamdan Azhar is a New York-based writer and statistician. His commentary, which has been featured in the Huffington Post and the Christian Science Monitor, engages critical issues involving foreign policy, civil liberties, and international affairs. To read more of his work, visit his website.

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f7863297cec52be3679st01vuc

--
To subscribe: MedicalConspiracies-subscribe@googlegroups.com
Alternative Medicine info: http://www.elementsofhealth.webs.com/

"ClayAdvantage" The Gift of Health http://ClayAdvantage.com/
Holistic Store: http://www.holisticenergystore.com/

Information here in is for educational purpose only; it may be news related,
speculation or opinion. Consult with a qualified MD before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.
FDA and FTC have not evaluated or endorsed any message or product from this group. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

MedicalConspiracies- Manmade Global Warming Refuted by New Study

al goron, the illegal alien usurping potus, newt gingrinch pelosi, and their communo-marxist-nazi-progressive-socialist (cmnps) ilk, will disagree.
Bruce Chesley

Source: newsmax.com

Manmade Global Warming Refuted by New Study

Skeptics of manmade global warming claims can bolster their position with a new study showing that the Earth went through a previous warming period not caused by human CO2 emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has argued that the Medieval Warm Period approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago was confined to Europe and did not affect the entire planet, â€œwhich means the worldwide warming weâ€™re experiencing now is a manmade phenomenon,â€ the Daily Mail observed.

But a team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York found the warming was not confined to Europe and actually extended all the way down to Antarctica, affecting the entire planet. The finding indicates that â€œthe Earth has already experienced global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions,â€ according to the Mail.

Following that period, the Earth cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age.'

Professor Lu's study - published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters - relies on a rare mineral called ikaite, an icy version of limestone that forms in cold waters. The water that holds crystals of ikaite together traps information about temperatures present when the crystals were formed.

Lu's team studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica, and the crystals showed that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to Antarctica.

The Mail observed: 'Is this finally proof we're not causing global warming?'