If you are one of the 67 million Americans suffering from high blood pressure then you might want to pay attention to your lifestyle, diet, exercise, etc.
A recent report says that 1/2 of those with high blood pressure don’t do anything about it and then goes on to say you can help control it through adopting a better lifestyle and also drugs. I am sure Big Pharma will love this article.
From time to time I have high blood pressure, sometimes really high and I control it with herbs and I am taking better care of myself. I am getting more exercise and protein in my diet-which is pretty good but not enough protein.
I usually use herbs such as Linden Flower and a Heart Support Product from EnerHealth Botanicals. Normally they bring my blood pressure down quickly if I catch it in time. I also do have a prescription drug and have used exactly 3 pills in 3 years, for those occasions when I don’t catch the blood pressure in time. This works for me.
I am not saying that everyone should self treat as I do. This in itself requires awareness of your body and diligence. For me the bottom line is: Drugs are not always the answer. Be smart and take care of yourself.
There are millions of people worldwide, including many celebrities, that use and benefit from homeopathic medicine. Many don’t believe that such small amounts of anything could ever work but many swear by them.
These remedies have been around for over a century, having been developed by Dr Samuel Hahnemann in the early 1800′s. It was used quite extensively until the colleges that taught people how to use them came under fire, mostly attributed to a push by the elites in the U.S. to direct all ‘bona fide’ medical care studies for doctors to institutions accredited by panels created by the elites themselves. Thus was the system of western medicine created at the cost of all other modalities.
From this push in the early 1900′s we see the onset and growth of the Medical Profession, M.D.’s, pharmacists and of course Big Pharma!
I use homeopathy and have noticed the benefits. I admit that it can be confusing to diagnose and prescribe the various remedies, and there can be more than one for any given condition. It can be confusing.
At the end of the day, I think that many of these remedies could supplant the pharmaceutical medications of Big Pharma! I applaud any and all efficacious treatments and preventive programs that are non invasive and healthy such as homeopathy, nutrition and exercise!
HPV vaccination for boys recommended by CDC; Health experts believe rates will fall if boys and girls receive vaccine
Health authorities on Friday urged all boys age 11-12 to get a routine vaccination against the most common sexually transmitted disease, human papillomavirus, or HPV.
Other changes as part of an annual update to immunization schedules included a recommended hepatitis B vaccine to the protect the livers of adults up to age 60 who have diabetes and a vaccine against whooping cough for pregnant women.
The updates, agreed upon by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), were published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly report of February 3.
The HPV vaccine has been approved for girls since 2006 but the CDC had not expressly urged it for boys, though boys were included among those who could receive it to prevent certain cancers and genital warts.
No big surprise, Rick Santorum’s stance on Health care with a profit motive is a bit off base, in my opinion.
Believe me folks I am no socialist/communist etc…I believe in free enterprise. However, the health care system (I am not a proponent of Obamacare either! Quite the opposite) as we know it today is broken and we must look at all potential components of this disaster.
In my opinion, the take over of our health care system by Wall Street is a huge factor is why it isn’t working. You can call that profit driven…in my opinion profits are not the culprit, AVARICE IS!
Wall Street doesn’t care about the citizens, only profits. Capitalism with Compassion is a good thing in this case folks…to drive our health care system based solely on the ability to make a ton of dough seems wrong to me as it reflects on who can get health care and the quality of same.
Change is required, period.
Santorum defends drug companies in health care speech
CNN’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy
Woodland Park, Colorado (CNN) – In what his campaign billed as a “major speech on health care,” Rick Santorum found himself Wednesday defending a profit-driven health care system to a woman who said her son requires expensive medication to stay alive.
The former Pennsylvania senator also detailed the deficiencies he sees in his rivals’ health insurance records.
Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
One of the feistiest exchanges came in response to a young child’s question on the cost of medical care in America. Urged on by his mother, a boy asked what Santorum would do to lower medical costs, but before he could finish his question, the candidate said such things should be left up to the market.
“We can make medicine cheaper by using markets,” Santorum said. “That’s how you make medicine cheaper is that you have free people going out there and competing against each other and competition drives up quality and drives down costs.”
As Santorum was outlining his small-government, free-market approach to rising health care costs, another woman chimed in that she can no longer afford medication she desperately needs because the cost has become so exorbitant.
“The only reason new drugs are developed is because Americans actually do pay for the cost of that research,” Santorum said. “And so when you say oh, I’ll go and get my drugs in Canada, that’s great. Go get your drugs in Canada and if everybody did that, you’d have no new drugs. You have that drug and maybe you’re alive today because people have a profit motive to make that drug.”
Using a somewhat confusing metaphor, Santorum tried to explain the need for a profit motive by comparing health care consumption to technology consumption.
“People have no problem going out and buying an iPad for $900,” he said. “But paying $900 for a drug, they have a problem with it. It keeps you alive. Why? Because you have been conditioned to thinking that health care is something that you should get and not have to pay for. Drug companies, health care companies need to have a profit motive, because if they don’t, then how are we going to regulate costs? We are gonna ration care.”
The mother of the original questioner tried once more to plead her case, explaining that she’s paid $1.3 million a year to keep her son alive, and while she’s willing to go bankrupt for her child, it pains her to see his friends die in the hospital because their parents cannot afford the treatment.
Finding himself in the unenviable position of defending oft-derided drug companies, Santorum stuck to his guns.
“He’s alive today because drug companies thought that they would make money in providing that care and if the drug company didn’t think they could make any money by providing that care, I hate to put it in these terms, but that drug wouldn’t be here,” he said, adding that he sympathized with the mother, “we either believe in markets or we don’t.”
Asked by a reporter after the event about what alternatives people in such tough circumstances have, Santorum suggested that charity was a better option than government intervention.
“Even in the tough cases, even at the ones that pull at your heart strings, we’ve got to believe in people and markets and churches and families and charity instead of government, and that’s what I believe” he said.
Earlier in his remarks, while highlighting the similarities between the health care plan Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts and the controversial plan passed by President Obama, Santorum came out against the widely-popular provision that requires insurance companies to offer plans regardless of preexisting conditions.
“I have family members who have preexisting conditions, and I’m not for preexisting condition clauses,” Santorum said.
To justify his position, he described a hypothetical situation wherein healthy Massachusetts residents opt not to buy insurance, instead paying a fine. Then when they get sick, they purchase insurance, immediately dropping it again once they get better.
“What happens to the cost of health insurance,” Santorum asked the crowd, many of whom answered that costs would rise. “There’s a reason for preexisting conditions clauses. You want people to get insurance, and if they don’t, then they shouldn’t be free riding on everybody else. That’s exactly what’s going to happen with Obamacare.”
Santorum said this similarity between “Obamacare” and “Romneycare” would mean that “Barack Obama, in a debate or in this election, is going to destroy Mitt Romney on the issue of health care.” Both plans are wrong, he argued, because both represent top-down management of an issue that should be left up to families.
I don’t have insurance and haven’t had for many years now and thank God I haven’t really required any for my kids or wife or myself. We try to live a healthier lifestyle from that promoted on TV…junk food, visual garbage and mindless chatter. Organic food, herbal supplements and exercise is a common theme around here.
I don’t deny that there are others that have had the misfortune of falling ill and requiring intensive western medical treatments and they are probably financially ruined, even with insurance. This is just one of the reasons we have to see a rational change in the system, our minds and hearts.
Ah in yet another sign of the oppression we live in today, the EU is cracking down-AGAIN-on herbal remedies. The newest way to make sure ONLY Big Pharma remedies are available to you is to charge exorbitant fees for a license to sell a particular herbal remedy.
I don’t have to tell you that the safety record for all herbal remedies combined, including Ephidra based remedies which were deemed dangerous by the powers that be, is so much better than the safety of ALL PHARMACEUTICALS COMBINED that there is virtually no comparison. The instances, proven, of death and/or serious complications from taking PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION compared to herbal remedies is just ridiculous.
If the people of the EU let their oppressive regimes continue to make up rules to prohibit natural remedies from being sold-legally-we can expect the same rascals here in the U.S. to do the same. In fact, they are doing so as we speak…gradually. Before you know it we won’t be able to buy anything that isn’t produced by Big Pharma!
Do you want this to happen in this country? If now do something…we will give you ample opportunities to act via this blog.
EU crackdown on herbal ‘remedies’
By BARBARA McCARTHY
Sunday April 24 2011
From April 30 many herbal products will begin to disappear from the shelves of Ireland’s 300 herbal outlets following an EU directive which will regulate medicinal herbs in the same way as pharmaceutical products.
Herbalists claim the regulations will see that many popular herbs disappear entirely. “A license can cost up to €100,000 per herb, which means that manufacturers and retailers will be facing staff losses and even closures,” said Jill Bell, president of Irish Association of Health Stores.
“Ironically the safety record of our herbals is impeccable. The well-being of our customers is our primary concern, and in over 40 years there hasn’t been a single report of significant side effects,” she added.
In a recent statement, the Irish Medicines Board, which will be responsible for the licensing process, said: “The new system will protect the health and interests of consumers in Ireland.”
“If the prime concern for this directive is safety, then why are the herbs still on our shelves today?
“When have you ever heard bad stories about echinacea or ginseng, yet it’s OK for people to buy paracetamol, which when taken in large amounts can be lethal,” said Julie Owens, owner manager of Restore Health Food Shop on Camden Street.
So far, she said only one company has applied for licences for a significant number of herbal products.
- BARBARA McCARTHY
In the meantime, just in case, I suggest you stock up on a few essential herbal remedies at either EnerHealth Botanicals or Rocky Mountain Herbals. Check out their blog and you will see some great health info.
Why is it that when drug violence is spoken of we automatically thing illegal drugs like crack and heroin? In reality there are far more violent crimes committed while under the influence of LEGAL drugs than illegal ones.
Hmmm…why is this? Might it have something to do with the power of Big Pharma in keeping negative news off the airwaves? Just a thought…
Top Ten Legal Drugs Linked to Violence
By Maia Szalavitz Friday, January 7, 2011 | 227 comments
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/07/top-ten-legal-drugs-linked-to-violence/#ixzz1BVC1CCeX
When people consider the connections between drugs and violence, what typically comes to mind are illegal drugs like crack cocaine. However, certain medications — most notably, some antidepressants like Prozac — have also been linked to increase risk for violent, even homicidal behavior.
A new study from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices published in the journal PloS One and based on data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System has identified 31 drugs that are disproportionately linked with reports of violent behavior towards others. (More on Time.com: New Hope For An Anti-Cocaine Vaccine)
Please note that this does not necessarily mean that these drugs cause violent behavior. For example, in the case of opioid pain medications like Oxycontin, people with a prior history of violent behavior may seek drugs in order to sustain an addiction, which they support via predatory crime. In the case of antipsychotics, the drugs may be given in an attempt to reduce violence by people suffering from schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders — so the drugs here might not be causing violence, but could be linked with it because they’re used to try to stop it.
Nonetheless, when one particular drug in a class of nonaddictive drugs used to treat the same problem stands out, that suggests caution: unless the drug is being used to treat radically different groups of people, that drug may actually be the problem. Researchers calculated a ratio of risk for each drug compared to the others in the database, adjusting for various relevant factors that could create misleading comparisons. Here are the top ten offenders:
10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) An antidepressant which affects both serotonin and noradrenaline, this drug is 7.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) A drug related to Pristiq in the same class of antidepressants, both are also used to treat anxiety disorders. Effexor is 8.3 times more likely than other drugs to be related to violent behavior. (More on Time.com: Adderall May Not Make You Smarter, But It Makes You Think You Are)
8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) An antidepressant that affects serotonin (SSRI), Luvox is 8.4 times more likely than other medications to be linked with violence
7. Triazolam (Halcion) A benzodiazepine which can be addictive, used to treat insomnia. Halcion is 8.7 times more likely to be linked with violence than other drugs, according to the study.
6) Atomoxetine (Strattera) Used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Strattera affects the neurotransmitter noradrenaline and is 9 times more likely to be linked with violence compared to the average medication.
5) Mefoquine (Lariam) A treatment for malaria, Lariam has long been linked with reports of bizarre behavior. It is 9.5 times more likely to be linked with violence than other drugs.
4) Amphetamines: (Various) Amphetamines are used to treat ADHD and affect the brain’s dopamine and noradrenaline systems. They are 9.6 times more likely to be linked to violence, compared to other drugs.
3) Paroxetine (Paxil) An SSRI antidepressant, Paxil is also linked with more severe withdrawal symptoms and a greater risk of birth defects compared to other medications in that class. It is 10.3 times more likely to be linked with violence compared to other drugs. (More on Time.com: Healthland’s Guide to Life 2011)
2) Fluoxetine (Prozac) The first well-known SSRI antidepressant, Prozac is 10.9 times more likely to be linked with violence in comparison with other medications.
1) Varenicline (Chantix) The anti-smoking medication Chantix affects the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, which helps reduce craving for smoking. Unfortunately, it’s 18 times more likely to be linked with violence compared to other drugs — by comparison, that number for Xyban is 3.9 and just 1.9 for nicotine replacement. Because Chantix is slightly superior in terms of quit rates in comparison to other drugs, it shouldn’t necessarily be ruled out as an option for those trying to quit, however.
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/07/top-ten-legal-drugs-linked-to-violence/#ixzz1BVBMi4bC
If you know of anyone on the above listed drugs you might consider showing them this article…Of course, an MD probably prescribed it and as we all know the docs know best…right?
House plans a test vote to repeal Obamacare and not a minute too soon in my opinion. I am totally against forcing anyone to purchase health care insurance. In fact, I am not too fond of the ‘insurance’ industry as a whole, but that is beside the point.
These jokers in Congress need to pay attention to the rights of the People and not big money interests. This was nothing more than a huge windfall for the health insurers, HMOs etc. It just required the transfer of wealth from the People to insurers.
I am personally concerned about the entire medical/caregiving industry and the philosophy it has adopted over the decades. I believe that the time has come for a complete reevaluation of this system from Big Pharma to Medical inc…I am also a realist and don’t think this will ever happen…not under current circumstances.
House takes first step toward health care repeal
WASHINGTON – Confronting President Barack Obama, the new Republican-led House took a first step Friday toward a symbolic vote to repeal his landmark health care overhaul law, which would provide coverage to more than 30 million now uninsured.
The 236-181 largely party-line vote set the stage for what is likely to amount to no more than a political message, since Democrats who still run the Senate have promised to block efforts to scrap the law and Obama has veto power..
The House action set the rules for a debate next week that will culminate in a simple up-or-down vote on repeal, scheduled for Wednesday. The House will also instruct several committees to come up with more modest replacement health care legislation, a process that could take months even if successful.
Obama made history last year when Congress finally passed the law after months of contentious debate, closing in on a goal of coverage for all that Democrats had pursued for generations. Republicans say they changed history by taking back the House in the midterm elections, partly on the strength of their pledge to tea partiers and other conservative backers to undo the divisive law, whose complexities, costs and consequences remain largely unknown.
“Today we are taking the first step in fulfilling a key promise to the American people,” said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., who led the GOP side in the debate. “We are setting in motion a process to repeal President Obama’s job-killing health care bill and replace it with real solutions.”
During last year’s election campaign, many Democrats kept silent about the health care law. On the House floor, they mounted a full-throated defense, accusing Republicans of trying to take away benefits that many people are already receiving, from lower prescription costs for Medicare recipients to extended coverage for young adults on their parents’ plan and newly available insurance for people with serious medical problems.
“Repeal this bill, and you’re going to find more Americans dying,” said Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif.
Polls show the public remains divided over the underlying law as well as the question of whether it should be repealed, scaled back or added to.
Senate Democrats say what the House does matters little, since they will derail any repeal legislation when it reaches the other side of the Capitol.
That leaves House Republicans with few clear options. They could try to deny the administration money to carry out the law, but that may not work either. Major elements, such as tax credits to help make health insurance more affordable, were written as entitlements, meaning that they will be automatically funded. And if a drive to deny funding threatens to shut down the government, it could backfire politically.
Leading proponents of repeal acknowledge it may take the election of a Republican president to accomplish the goal. That means both parties will likely take the major issues in the health care debate to the voters in 2012, when Obama is expected to run for a second term and the House and Senate will again be up for grabs.
The drive to repeal has opened Republicans up to charges that they would increase the federal deficit. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan budget referee, says the legislation would increase deficits by $230 billion from 2012 to 2021. That’s because spending cuts and new taxes more than offset the cost of expanding coverage.
Republicans counter that even if that’s technically true, it would save money in the long run to repeal a big new program before it gets off the ground.
The law would provide coverage to more than 30 million now uninsured, expanding Medicaid to pick up more low-income Americans and offering tax credits to help the middle class buy coverage. Most Americans would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by purchasing their own policy. A legal challenge to that mandate is expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Voting with the Republicans were four Democrats who had opposed the law last year — Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissell of North Carolina, and Mike Ross of Arkansas.
Let’s hope this movement gets some momentum and doesn’t remain just a grandstanding effort by the opposition to this bill.
In not unsurprising news for anyone that has read this blog, food prices worldwide have risen yet again. Now, according to the world bank and U.N., to levels that precipitated rioting in 3rd world countries when these same levels were reached several years back.
We will see these price increases here in the United States as well. I suspect that we will see a lot of things here that will be unwelcome though not unexpected by this blogger or hopefully our readers!
To make matters worse, the spin this New Year, is to paint roses on piles of ____! 25% youth unemployment, 20% plus real unemployment across the board with over 6 million people on unemployment for more than 1 year…so what happens to all those unemployed folks when the benefits are gone at 99 weeks (just raised again)? Home prices weak and falling, banks unwilling to renegotiate ‘bad’ loans even if they should…
Lots of issues here on the downside with some good news on the employment front, not near enough in my opinion, and manufacturing. THE PROBLEM IS NOT BUSINESS, IT IS THE DEBT!! And debt in quantities unheard of before!
World Food Prices Surge to Record, Passing Levels That Sparked 2008 Riots
By Rudy Ruitenberg – Jan 5, 2011 5:24 AM MT
World food prices rose to a record in December on higher sugar, grain and oilseed costs, the United Nations said, exceeding levels reached in 2008 that sparked deadly riots from Haiti to Egypt.
An index of 55 food commodities tracked by the Food and Agriculture Organization gained for a sixth month to 214.7 points, above the previous all-time high of 213.5 in June 2008, the Rome-based UN agency said in a monthly report. The gauges for sugar and meat prices advanced to records.
Sugar climbed for a third year in a row in 2010, and corn jumped the most in four years in Chicago. Food prices may rise more unless the world grain crop increases “significantly” in 2011, the FAO said Nov. 17. At least 13 people died last year in Mozambique in protests against plans to lift bread prices.
“There is still, unfortunately, the potential for grain prices to strengthen on the back of a lot of uncertainty,” Abdolreza Abbassian, senior economist at the FAO, said by phone from Rome today. “If anything goes wrong with the South American crop, there is plenty of room for them to increase.”
White, or refined, sugar traded at $752.70 a metric ton at 11:53 a.m. on NYSE Liffe in London, compared with $383.70 at the end of June 2008. Corn, which added 52 percent last year on the Chicago Board of Trade, was at $6.01 a bushel, down from $7.57 in June 2008. Soybeans were at $13.6325 a bushel, against $15.74 at the close of June 2008.
Demand From China
The cost of food climbed 25 percent from a year earlier in December, based on the FAO figures, after Chinese demand strengthened and Russia’s worst drought in a half-century devastated grain crops. The agency’s food-price indicator rose from 206 points in November.
Last month’s year-on-year rise compares with the 43 percent jump in food costs in June 2008. Record fuel prices, weather- related crop problems, increasing demand from the growing Indian and Chinese middle classes, and the push to grow corn for ethanol fuel all contributed to the crisis that year.
“In 2008 we had rapid increases in petroleum prices, fertilizer prices and other inputs,” Abbassian said. “So far, those increases have been rather constrained. It doesn’t really reduce the fear about what could be in store in the coming weeks or months.”
New York-traded crude was last at $88.44 a barrel, compared with $140 at the end of June 2008. Bulk urea pellets, used in fertilizer as a source of nitrogen, were at $320 a ton in the last week of December, against $460 in June 2008.
9.1 Billion People
Global food production will have to rise 70 percent by 2050 as the world population expands to 9.1 billion people from about 6.8 billion people in 2010, the FAO has said.
In response to the 2008 crisis, countries from India and Egypt to Vietnam and Indonesia banned exports of rice, a staple for half the world. Skyrocketing food prices sparked protests and riots in almost three dozen poor nations including Haiti, Somalia, Burkina Faso and Cameroon.
Sugar and oilseeds have a disproportionate effect on the FAO’s food index because it’s based on trade values for commodities, Abbassian said. The price of staples including rice is lower than in 2008, he said. Rough rice last traded at $13.90 per 100 pounds in Chicago, compared with $20.21 at the end of June 2008.
“If you want to see the index as a barometer of food crisis, I’m not so sure this is the right thing to do,” Abbassian said. “In the previous episode, really the main driver in food commodities was cereals. This time around, look at sugar and oilseeds.”
Compared with 2007-2008, many poor countries had “good or above-average” cereal harvests last year, the economist said. Production problems took place in grain-exporting countries, and “supply at hand should be adequate,” he said.
The FAO’s gauge for sugar prices reached 398.4 points last month, increasing from 373.4 in November. The meat-price index rose to 142.2 points from 141.5.
The agency’s cereal-price index jumped to 237.6 points in December, the highest level since August 2008, from 223.3 the previous month. The indicator for cooking oils advanced to 263 points, the highest since July 2008, from 243.3. The index for dairy prices rose to 208.4 points from 207.8.
Global grain output will have to rise at least 2 percent this year to meet demand in 2011-2012 and avoid further depletion of stocks, the UN agency has said.
The basis for the FAO index is 2002-04. The gauge includes commodity quotations that the agency considers representative for international food prices.
“The real uncertainty and problem is the 2011-2012 market,” Abbassian said. “We are at a very high level. If it’s further up than this, then you really begin to be concerned.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Rudy Ruitenberg in Paris at email@example.com.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Claudia Carpenter at firstname.lastname@example.org.
I would really stay closely tuned in for the next 3 months at least. I feel something could happen that will be the big wake up call for Americans and people world wide! Don’t know what that is but feel something is amiss!
As the MSM promote GMO and all of its benefits seems like the farmers in Ohio are paying attention to what is working best…non GMO seed. That is a big ‘way to go’ for the home team!
I hope this is the beginning of a new, worldwide, trend.
Ohio Ag News Headlines
Ohio Bucks GMO Trend Across Midwest
Ohio Ag Connection – 12/20/2010
When it comes to a rapid adoption of transgenic corn hybrids across the Midwest, Ohio growers appear to be bucking the trend and holding more tightly onto their non-GMO hybrids.
Though far more transgenic hybrids are available to growers than non-GMO (genetically modified organism) hybrids, Ohio growers are snatching up non-GMO seed and planting more non-GMO acres than their Midwest counterparts, including Indiana, Illinois and Iowa.
Some reasons, said Ohio State University Extension agronomist Peter Thomison, include economics, premiums, and fewer pest problems.
“Most of these growers are looking at non-GMO from an economic standpoint. It’s less costly to buy non-GMO seed. In addition, we don’t have as much of a problem with insect pests, like the first-year rootworm variant, as states further west do,” said Thomison. “Growers also like non-GMO hybrids to take advantage of premiums for non-GMO grain. In addition, farmers who grow their crop organically are required to plant non-GMO hybrids.”
Ohio has more non-transgenic corn acreage than any other state in the Corn Belt. Nearly 30 percent of the acreage is non-transgenic, while in other Midwest states, it’s typically less than 20 percent.
“This year in our Ohio Corn Performance Trials, we tested nearly 40 non-transgenic hybrids, which is the most we’ve tested in several years,” said Thomison, who also holds a research appointment with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. “Many non-transgenic hybrids are still competing effectively with transgenic hybrids.”
Transgenic hybrids dominate the seed market, said Thomison, and the range and diversity of non-transgenic hybrids may be more limited for Ohio growers in the future.
“We tested over 275 hybrids in our trials in 2010 and nearly 80 percent of those hybrids were transgenic, with three or more traits protecting against pests and exhibiting herbicide resistance,” said Thomison. “So for those growers who are interested in transgenics, there are plenty of hybrids to choose from.”
Thomison recommends that growers focus on the performance characteristics of a hybrid rather than looking at a hybrid solely for its transgenic qualities.
“It’s important to select hybrids first for yield potential, adaption, maturity, stability, stalk lodging and disease resistance,” said Thomison. “Choosing transgenics with insect or herbicide-resistance traits is the easy part because transgenics are becoming readily available.”
For more information on the 2010 Ohio Corn Performance Trials, log on to http://oardc.osu.edu/corntrials/.
Support your local farmers…especially the organic, non gmo, farmers.
AS the swine flu hits the UK causing phrases like ‘pandemic’ to rear their ugly heads, we find that even though a very large portion of the population has now been vaccinated you still see that same percentages of infected population.
What they don’t want you to know is that the vaccinated are getting ill also…so what is the point? We can go from the really benign, MSM explanation to the more ‘radical’ interpretation of conspiracy. I tend to fall somewhere between the conspiracy theory and the just raw capitalism exhibited by these drug companies. The more of these toxic vaccines they get the governments to buy into and sell for them by ‘requiring’ said vaccinations, the better their bottom lines.
There is enough nasty business in these vaccines to cause some long term damage and even death in some cases. You can go from there in drawing more conclusions. This screwy scheme is far deeper than meets the eye, especially if your eyes are drawn to MSM reporting.
Britain on course for flu epidemic
Britain is on course for its first flu epidemic for more than a decade, according to the Government scientific data.
The level of influenza – including the swine flu strain – in the population is now higher – and rising more sharply – than they were at this point in 1999, when the country was heading for an epidemic which triggered a major NHS crisis.
With millions of people visiting friends and family over the Christmas period experts believe that the rate could reach epidemic levels within a week.
The number of flu victims in intensive care has more than doubled in one week, with 460 patients now in critical care beds.
Meanwhile, a Government memo is warning of shortages of Tamiflu – the main drug used to treat flu patients – in some parts of the country.
The rate of flu in England and Wales is 87.1 cases per 100,000 of the population, a rate which has tripled in seven days.
In the run-up to Christmas 1999, levels were less than 60 per 100,000 population, yet by early January 2000 the outbreak had reached epidemic proportions, with more than 200 cases per 100,000.
The records, which only represent those who visit their GP, always underestimate the true extent of sickness.
Influenza expert Prof John Oxford said: ‘The numbers now are worse than they were in winter of 1999, and the curve is steeper; when you look at the graph the line for this year it is incredibly unsettling; it looks like scaling Everest,” said the virologist.
“If that trend continues I would not be surprised if we get to epidemic levels within one week.”
In the millennium winter, the resulting crisis meant patients were left to wait on trolleys and thousands of elderly people died, prompting then prime minister Tony Blair to order a tripling in health service spending.
Prof Oxford, from Queen Mary University of London said the “massive movements of populations” across the country as families came together for Christmas were likely to be speeding the spread of disease.
He said it was a “great shame” that the Government had taken the decision to axe its annual publicity campaign urging vulnerable people to have their flu jab.
“We don’t know what will happen next – everything is now hanging in the lap of the Gods – and it wouldn’t have been that way if people had been vaccinated,” said the professor of virology.
While the elderly usually suffer worst from flu, research suggests they may have some immunity to swine flu having encountered a similar strain of the disease in previous decades.
As a result, in the event of an epidemic, overall death numbers were unlikely to be as bad as those in the winter 1999/2000, Prof Oxford said, though overall “years of life” lost might be the same, with more children and young adults being struck down.
Latest figures show 27 deaths from flu, 24 of which were from swine flu. Nine of the cases were children.
Across the country, pharmacists are complaining of shortages of Tamiflu, the main drug used to treat the virus.
Prof Dame Sally Davies, the Government’s chief medical officer, last week changed the official advice to GPs, instructing them to prescribe the drug to anyone who might benefit – not just those in “high risk” groups.
A Government memo seen by The Sunday Telegraph reveals there are already shortages of the drug in some parts of the country, with concerns that stocks will run out elsewhere as demand increases.
The letter, by Dr Keith Ridge, England’s chief pharmaceutical officer, sent to hospitals and pharmacies on Thursday and marked urgent, warns: “Following increased demand for antivirals, there have been reports of localised shortages at both pharmacies and wholesalers”.
The letter, which announces the release of more than 50,000 packs of drugs from national stocks, says increased demand is expected, but that the level is hard to predict.
Pharmacies are told to ensure they have sufficient drugs to give them to patients within 48 hours of them falling ill, but told that stockpiling drugs “will lead to further shortages”.
A separate warning about shortages of treatment for babies was issued by the Royal College of GPs on Christmas Eve.
Doctors have been ordered not to prescribe the liquid version of Tamiflu to anyone over the age of one, to ensure there is enough of the formula left for babies.
GPs have been told that patients aged one or more must be given tablets, with parents of children who cannot take tablets given instructions on how to crush and dilute them.
The same practice is more dangerous when the solution is for babies, because of the greater risk of giving too high a dose.
John Healey, shadow health secretary, attacked the Government’s decision to axe a national advertising campaign, which until this year had encouraged take-up of flu vaccinations.
Vaccine uptake among under 65s in at risk groups, such as those with conditions like asthma, is five per cent lower than last year, while the number of elderly people being vaccinated has dropped slightly.
He said: “The health secretary should authorise an immediate public advertising campaign to encourage those most at risk to get the flu jab. This is the time to act.”
Last weekend Prof Davies criticised ministers for stopping the campaign, after warning hospitals that half of the most severely ill patients treated had previously been in good health.
Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said the numbers of those now critically ill with flu had been a “significant increase”.
He said the NHS was “responding well” to the demands on it, and said the Government would continue to monitor the situation carefully.
Please don’t allow these animals to convince you get vaccinations. I can’t recommend them nor can many other folks, MDs included. They are not effective and can be dangerous to your health.