Natural Cures Not Medicine: 09/25/13

Most Read This Week:

Top Children's Vitamin Brand Contains Aspartame, GMOs and Other Hazardous Ingredients

The #1 Children’s Vitamin Brand in the US contains ingredients that most parents would never intentionally expose their children to, so why aren’t more opting for healthier alternatives?

Kids vitamins are supposed to be healthy, right? Well then, what’s going on with Flintstones Vitamins, which proudly claims to be “Pediatricians’ #1 Choice”? Produced by the global pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, this wildly successful brand features a shocking list of unhealthy ingredients, including:


Cupric Oxide

Coal tar artificial coloring agents (FD&C Blue #2, Red #40, Yellow #6)

Zinc Oxide


Ferrous Fumarate

Hydrogenated Oil (Soybean)

GMO Corn starch

Related: Join the March Against Monsanto on 10/12/13:

On Bayer Health Science’s Flintstones product page designed for healthcare professionals they lead into the product description with the following tidbit of information:

82% of kids aren’t eating all of their veggies1. Without enough vegetables, kids may not be getting all of the nutrients they need.

References: 1. Lorson BA, Melgar-Quinonez HR, Taylor CA. Correlates of fruit and vegetable intakes in US children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(3):474-478.

The implication? That Flintstones vitamins somehow fill this nutritional void. But let’s look a little closer at some of these presumably healthy ingredients….


Aspartame is a synthetic combination of the amino acids aspartic acid and l-phenylalanine, and is known to convert into highly toxic methanol and formaldehyde in the body. Aspartame has been linked to over 40 adverse health effects in the biomedical literature, and has been shown to exhibit both neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity [1] What business does a chemical like this have doing in a children’s vitamin, especially when non-toxic, non-synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia already exist?


Next, let’s look closer at Cupric Oxide, 2mg of which is included in each serving of Flinstone’s Complete chewable vitamins as a presumably ‘nutritional’ source of ‘copper,’ supplying “100% of the Daily Value (Ages 4+), according to Flintstones Vitamins Web site’s Nutritional Info.[2]
But what is Cupric Oxide? A nutrient or a chemical?

According to the European Union’s Dangerous Substance Directive, one of the main EU laws concerning chemical safety, Cupric Oxide is listed as a Hazardous substance, classified as both “Harmful (XN)” and “Dangerous for the environment” (N). Consider that it has industrial applications as a pigment in ceramics, and as a chemical in the production of rayon fabric and dry cell batteries. In may be technically correct to call it a mineral, but should it be listed as a nutrient in a children’s vitamin? We think not.


A well-known side effect of using synthetic dyes is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. For direct access to study abstracts on this topic view our Food Coloring research page.  There is also indication that the neurotoxicity of artificial food coloring agents increase when combined with aspartame, making the combination of ingredients in Flintstones even more concerning.


Each serving of Flinstones Complete Chewable vitamins contain 12 mg of zinc oxide, which the manufacturer claims delivers 75% of the Daily Value to children 2  & 3 years of age.  Widely used as a sun protection factor (SPF) in sunscreens, The EU’s Dangerous Substance Directive classifies it as an environmental Hazard, “Dangerous for the environment (N).”  How it can be dangerous to the environment, but not for humans ingesting it, escapes me.  One thing is for sure, if one is to ingest supplemental zinc, or market it for use by children, it makes much more sense using a form that is organically bound (i.e. ‘chelated’) to an amino acid like glycine, as it will be more bioavailable and less toxic.


CPS Threatens to Take Child Because Mother Chooses Medicinal Marijuana Over Chemo

(NaturalNews) The medical establishment loathes when free-thinking people stray from its prescribed methods of disease treatment, which is why this imperious beast is aggressively trying to force a Colorado mother, who for more than a year has been successfully treating her leukemic son with healing, non-psychoactive cannabis oil, to instead poison her child with toxic chemotherapy, and possibly kill him in the process.

As reported by CBS Denver, Sierra Riddle’s doctor recently threatened to report the informed mother to the state and Child Protective Services (CPS) for refusing to put her child through more rounds of chemotherapy, which she says were making him gravely ill. Rather than continue to subject her son to this institutionalized form of child abuse, Sierra instead made the educated choice to treat the young boy with a non-toxic cannabis extract loaded with healing cannabinoid nutrients.

When young Landon, who was two years old at the time, was first diagnosed with leukemia, Sierra followed her doctor’s advise to send her child to the local poison clinic for chemotherapy and radiation treatments. But Sierra realized that this toxic onslaught was destroying Landon’s health, causing severe night terrors and other horrible symptoms that would more than likely eventually lead to his miserable death.

Not wanting to subject her child to this outmoded form of torture, Sierra decided to go a different route by opting for natural treatments with non-psychoactive cannabis oil extract. Sierra reportedly moved to Colorado, where marijuana is more widely recognized as a legitimate form of medical treatment and is now legal, for the specific purpose of having access to the natural plant, which an increasing amount of credible research confirms possesses valid medicinal properties.

Conventional medical system tries to bully Sierra out of treating her son naturally with cannabis
But Sierra’s unconventional decision angered her conventional doctor, who decided to violate Sierra’s parental authority by threatening to report her to state authorities, a move that was obviously intended to scare Sierra into compliance with the medical system’s wishes. But Sierra bravely fought back, asserting her right to choose her own child’s treatments regardless of how the medical oligarchy feels about her decision.
“I am willing to do whatever I have to do to make sure my child gets to live another day and gets to have that relief and have that quality of life he deserves,” Landon’s mother, Sierra, is quoted as saying to CBS Denver. “They [the medical establishment] do not see cannabis as a treatment for cancer … [but] cannabis, just like morphine, is a medication. It’s not just a drug, it’s a medication, and it’s a medication that helps my son to fight his cancer.”

Unlike the chemotherapy, medical cannabis oil has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for young Landon, whose health has improved dramatically since starting the alternative protocol more than a year ago. And because of its incredible success, Sierra intends to continue using medical cannabis oil until her son is completely healed of his disease, which he is already well on his way to attaining.

“I made the decision to end chemo in mid May,” wrote Sierra recently on a Facebook support page she made for Landon. “The cannabis has been keeping Landon’s cancer in remission, he gets regular lab work and all his counts continue to be outstanding. He is responding amazingly to the cannabis, [and] his blood work is immaculate, especially for a cancer patient! How can they not see the proof that is right before their eyes?! Cannabis is fighting his cancer!”

Supporters of Sierra's decision to safely medicate her son with all-natural, non-psychoactive cannabis oil extract have created a petition in support of Landon. You can sign it here:


Anti-Depressant Use Linked to Type 2 Diabetes

People prescribed anti-depressants should be aware they could be at increased risk of type 2 diabetes, say UK researchers.

The University of Southampton team looked at available medical studies and found evidence the two were linked.

But there was no proof that one necessarily caused the other.

It may be that people taking anti-depressants put on weight which, in turn, increases their diabetes risk, the team told Diabetes Care journal.

Or the drugs themselves may interfere with blood sugar control.

Dr Matthew Hobbs of Diabetes UK
Their analysis of 22 studies involving thousands of patients on anti-depressants could not single out any class of drug or type of person as high risk.

Prof Richard Holt and colleagues say more research is needed to investigate what factors lie behind the findings.

And they say doctors should keep a closer check for early warning signs of diabetes in patients who have been prescribed these drugs.

With 46 million anti-depressant prescriptions a year in the UK, this potential increased risk is worrying, they say.

Prof Holt said: "Some of this may be coincidence but there's a signal that people who are being treated with anti-depressants then have an increased risk of going on to develop diabetes.

"We need to think about screening and look at means to reduce that risk."

Diabetes is easy to diagnose with a blood test, and Prof Holt says this ought to be part of a doctor's consultation.

"Diabetes is potentially preventable by changing your diet and being more physically active.

"Physical activity is also good for your mental health so there's a double reason to be thinking about lifestyle changes."

Around three million people in the UK are thought to have diabetes, with most cases being type 2.

Dr Matthew Hobbs of Diabetes UK, said: "These findings fall short of being strong evidence that taking anti-depressants directly increases risk of type 2 diabetes. In this review, even the studies that did suggest a link showed only a small effect and just because two things tend to occur together, it doesn't necessarily mean that one is causing the other.

"But what is clear is that some anti-depressants lead to weight gain and that putting on weight increases risk of type 2 diabetes. Anyone who is currently taking, or considering taking, anti-depressants and is concerned about this should discuss their concerns with their GP."


Activists score a victory in Senate against ‘Monsanto Protection Act’

Called “The Monsanto Protection Act” by opponents, the budget rider shields biotech behemoths like Monsanto, Cargill and others from the threat of lawsuits and bars federal courts from intervening to force an end to the sale of a GMO (genetically-modified organism) even if the genetically-engineered product causes damaging health effects.

Image: Reuters/Eduardo Munoz 

Related: Join the March Against Monsanto on 10/12/13:

The US House of Representatives approved a three-month extension to the rider in their own short-term FY14 Continuing Resolution spending bill, which was approved last week by the lower chamber.

The Senate version of the legislation will make clear the provision expires on Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year.

“That provision will be gone,” Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told Politico.

Pryor chairs the Senate subcommittee on agriculture appropriations.

The Center for Food Safety said the Senate’s eradication of the rider was “a major victory for the food movement” and a “sea change in a political climate that all too often allows corporate earmarks to slide through must-pass legislation.”

“Short-term appropriations bills are not an excuse for Congress to grandfather in bad policy,” said Colin O’Neil, the Center for Food Safety’s director of government affairs.

The biotech rider first made news in March when it was a last-minute addition to the successfully-passed House Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2013, a short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

Following the original vote in March, President Barack Obama signed the provision into law as part of larger legislation to avoid a government shutdown. Rallies took place worldwide in May protesting the clandestine effort to protect the powerful companies from judicial scrutiny.

Largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) to assess risk prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute.

The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless.

The biotech rider “could override any court-mandated caution and could instead allow continued planting.  Further, it forces USDA to approve permits for such continued planting immediately, putting industry completely in charge by allowing for a ‘back door approval’ mechanism,” the Center for Food Safety said earlier this month upon news the House was reviving the measure.

Source: &


Before trying anything you find on the internet you should fully investigate your options and get further advice from professionals.

Below are our most recent posts on facebook