Liberty Planet Weblog

Archive for February 2012

It was a kindergarten class piece of art that Jessie Sansone probably won’t want to hang on the refrigerator anytime soon.

After Jesse Sansone’s 4-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun, cops handcuffed the clueless father and dragged him off to jail. It was there that the dad was stripped of his clothes and searched by the authorities. Sansone was never charged with a crime.

Sansone wasn’t expecting to be greeted by police when he went to pick up his three children from school last week. Faculty there had become concerned, however, after the man’s 4-year-old daughter drew an image last Wednesday that they thought warranted investigation. It was a picture of a man holding a gun, and when teachers asked the girl to explain it, she said it was a depiction of her father.

“He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters,” teachers say the girl explained.

The father says he doesn’t own a gun. Nor does he kill monsters.

“I’m picking up my kids and then, next thing you know, I’m locked up,” Sansone, 26, tells The Record out of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

“I was in shock. This is completely insane. My daughter drew a gun on a piece of paper at school,” he says.
After seeing the image in question, the school’s staff became shocked as well. So much so, in fact, that they rang up child welfare officials and local law enforcement and arranged for them to meet the girl’s father at the end of the school day. By that evening, Sansone had been handcuffed, whisked away to jail and forced to remove his clothes so he could be subjected to a strip search.

Authorities took all three of Sansone’s children and dragged them to Family and Children’s Services to be interviewed. His wife, Stephanie Squires, tells The Record that authorities never explained themselves.

“He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them. ‘You’re making a mistake,’ ” she says.
Despite her pleas, the ordeal went on for hours. Sansone says he was scared and was told he would be charged with possession of a firearm. The problem was, he says, that he doesn’t own a gun. After being held for hours, Sansone was eventually freed from jail and was asked to authorize a search of his home. Though he didn’t have to comply, he says he did so anyway.

Authorities did not recover any weapons in their search (or monsters). His wife says they knew they wouldn’t. The police, she says, acted on an assumption and nothing else.

“The way everything happened was completely unnecessary, especially since we know the school very well. I don’t understand how they came to that conclusion from a four-year-old’s drawing,” she says.

The girl’s father was pretty surprised the school acted that way, as well. Only last year, he says, the principal offered him a job as a counselor there. Sansone is a licensed personal support worker that educates children in classrooms across the region. The principal, Steve Zack, tells The Record that it was the welfare agency’s decision to involve the authorities.

“Police chose to arrest Jessie here. Nobody wants something like this to happen at any time, especially not at school. But that’s out of my hands,” Zack explains.

Sansone and his family are left wondering why the investigation carried out as far as it did, however. When The Record followed up on the story days later, Waterloo Regional Police Inspector Kevin Thaler told them, “We had every concern, based on this information that children were in danger.” The information is now being called into question after Thaler adds that investigators never saw the drawing. Neither has Sansone or the school’s superintendent.

Police add that the strip-search was necessary since it was a firearms-related incident.

Source: RT

Advertisements

Source: Adask

(NaturalNews) Before, to be diagnosed with the big C seemed to be an implied death sentence. Patients even go through a stage of self-denial. Who can blame them? Conventional medicine paints a rather bleak future for cancer patients and the remedy it offers does nothing to improve their quality of life, nausea and falling hair not to mention.

However, the recent breakthroughs in science have allowed a peek into the true nature of cancer, allowing researchers to consider the concept of nutritional care. They are now faced with the idea that preventing and maybe even reversing cancer may not necessarily involve the development of expensive drugs but something already available in nature: food and sunshine! (http://www.naturalnews.com/034286_cancer_prevention_nutrition.html)

Just the facts

If something so powerful is actually available for everyone, why wouldn’t someone take advantage of it?

The recent discovery that the body, with the help of vitamin D, possesses the capacity to fight many chronic illnesses has spurred the interest of many researchers – especially on the possibilities the sunshine vitamin can offer with regard to the prevention and reversal of diseases like cancer. A brief rundown of some facts, revealed by recent studies, can give us a perspective on how vitamin D can help.

1. Vitamin D slashes cancer risk by 77 percent.

A study was conducted involving 1, 179 healthy Nebraskan women who were divided into a control group and a placebo group. In the four years the study was conducted, the group who was receiving vitamin D and calcium supplements revealed a 60 percent decrease in cancers as compared to the placebo group. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html)

2. Vitamin D can prevent cancer.

According to the National Cancer Institute, 80 percent of cancer cases can be prevented. Having a healthy and balanced diet can prevent cancer. An example would be a diet that is low in refined sugar and processed meat and high in fruits, leafy vegetables and vitamin D from dietary sources or the sun. Studies have shown that a diet high in animal products and dairy that contain hormones and saturated fat cause breast cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027334_cancer_diet_breast.html)

3. Sunshine offers powerful healing.

In a study conducted by the French in 2011 on 60,000 post menopausal women, it was discovered that women with increased levels of vitamin D obtained through diet and supplement reduced their risk of breast cancer. These vitamin D levels received a great boost when these women were exposed to actual sunshine. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034286_cancer_prevention_nutrition.html)

Which leads us to suspect that…

4. There are private interests involved.

The medical establishment’s dismissive take on vitamin D and its effects on cancer cannot seriously be taken in the light of new research supporting the effect of vitamin D on cancer. One cannot help but be suspicious of this rather cold shoulder treatment, especially when non-profit organizations that supposedly support the active search for a cure have financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, mammography equipment companies and other organizations that profit from cancer. Moreover, research on vitamin D is a threat to the cancer industry because it shows a way of dealing with cancer for free. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html)

5. Chemotherapy does not work.

One of the current remedies offered by conventional medicine when dealing with cancer is chemotherapy. Let it be said once and for all: chemotherapy does not have any positive effect on cancer. There is no scientific evidence that supports such fact. It shrinks tumors, but it doesn’t initiate the healing that needs to take place to reverse cancer and to stay cancer free. What’s more, its side effects are well documented – effects that worsen the patient’s condition instead of improving it. (http://www.naturalnews.com/024536_cancer_women_breast.html)

6. The recommended daily allowance of vitamin D does not provide cancer prevention benefits.

The revised recommended daily intake provided for vitamin D (600 IU for children and adults until 70 years old and 800 IU for adults above 70) has been criticized as below the required levels that provide anti-cancer effects. According to Dr. Cedric Garland, recent studies have shown that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults along the range of 4,000 – 8,000 IU is necessary to maintain the vitamin D blood levels needed to reduce the risk of several diseases including cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/031577_vitamin_D_scientific_research.html)

7. Exposure to the sun does not necessarily cause skin cancer.

A study conducted by researchers from Leeds University in 2009 found that increased levels of vitamin D were linked to improved skin cancer survival odds. Since most people are vitamin D deficient, it has left them vulnerable to a host of other diseases including cancer. The advantages of getting enough sun exposure far outweigh the disadvantages that are now being questioned by breakthrough science. (http://www.naturalnews.com/032533_sun_exposure_skin_cancer.html)

8. Cancer can be inherited.

The idea that cancer runs in families is a popular theme in the medical establishment. However, tons of research has now shown that cancer can be avoided through the maintenance of increased vitamin D levels in the blood. If a direct ancestor had cancer, chances are they were exposed to cancer causing agents like cigarette smoke, skin care products or chemical solvents. By identifying and avoiding these agents, you have lowered your chances of getting cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/024536_cancer_women_breast.html)

9. Watch what you eat.

Our nutrition actually determines our health. Recent findings have shown that the prevention and treatment of cancer may not necessarily be solved by an expensive drug but something that has always been available to us – good food. According to a new study by researchers from the Harvard School of Public health, men who eat fish five times a week run a 40 percent lower risk of developing colorectal cancer, , and fish is an excellent source of vitamin D. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021136_fish_protein_colorectal_cancer.html)

Learn more: Natural News

Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.

European Plastics News staff
Posted 21 February 2012

The proposed French ban on Bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging would jeopardise exports of food products to France, according to a new report from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The report says the ban, which is waiting to be examined by the French senate, would affect sales of beverage products such as beer and juice. France is the second largest market for Florida juices, with sales totalling $21m (€15.8m), says the USDA.

“In addition any product that contains a plastic packaging or a plastic component maybe affected by this law,” says the report. “Frozen seafood and meat products are most likely using BPA in their packaging, as well as packers for bulk dried fruit and dried legumes.”

The USDA says US companies that manufacture in France, for example Coca Cola, would be forced to change the composition of their packaging at a higher cost. Smaller companies may not have the financial resources to change their packaging, it adds.

In 2011, the French Socialist party proposed two bills at the National Assembly, banning the use of BPA in all food containers by 1 January 2014. The bill is due for approval by the end of this month.

Source: European Plastic News

By Dr. Mercola

Did you know there are two types of vitamin D, and they are NOT interchangeable?

In fact, taking the wrong one could do you more harm than good…

Drisdol is a synthetic form of vitamin D2—made by irradiating fungus and plant matter—and is the form of vitamin D typically prescribed by doctors.

This is not the type produced by your body in response to sun or safe tanning bed exposure, which is vitamin D3.

A recent meta-analysis by the Cochrane Databasei looked at mortality rates for people who supplemented their diets with D2 versus those who did so with D3, the form naturally produced by your body, highlighting the significant differences between the two.

The analysis of 50 randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 94,000 participants, showed:

A six percent relative risk reduction among those who used vitamin D3, but
A two percent relative risk increase among those who used D2
According to the Vitamin D Councilii:

“You would think a paper that took a look at tens of thousands of subjects and analyzed the efficacy of prescription vitamin D (D2) and over-the-counter vitamin D (D3) would warrant a news story or two.

To my knowledge, these papers are the first to paint such a clear picture about the efficacy between D3 and D2.

While there may be explanations for D3’s superiority other than improved efficacy, for the time being, these papers send doctors a message: use D3, not D2.”

The Difference Between Supplemental Vitamin D2 and D3

The notion that vitamin D2 and D3 were equivalent was based on decades-old studies of rickets prevention in infants. Today, we know a lot more about vitamin D, and the featured study offers compelling support for the recommendation to take vitamin D3 if you need to take an oral supplement—which is the same type of D vitamin created in your body when you expose your skin to sunlight.

Supplemental vitamin D comes in two forms:

Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2)
Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)

I personally recommend getting your vitamin D from safe sun exposure (or a safe tanning bed), as there’s compelling reason to believe the vitamin D created in your skin in response to sun exposure has some slight but important differences that make it even more beneficial than supplemental vitamin D3. I will address this more in just a moment, but first, let’s review the differences between the two types of supplemental vitamin D. Aside from the featured findings that supplemental vitamin D3 reduced the relative mortality risk by six percent, while D2 actually INCREASED mortality risk by two percent, the two types differ in the following ways:

According to the latest research, D3 is approximately 87 percent more potentiii in raising and maintaining vitamin D concentrations and produces 2- to 3-fold greater storage of vitamin D than does D2.

Regardless of which form you use, your body must convert it into a more active form, and vitamin D3 is converted 500 percent faster than vitamin D2.

Vitamin D2 also has a shorter shelf life, and its metabolites bind poorly with proteins, further hampering its effectiveness.

What about Dietary Sources? Animal-Based versus Plant-Based Vitamin D

Aside from taking an oral vitamin D supplement, you can also obtain small amounts of vitamin D from your diet. Here too, it’s important to realize that not all food sources provide the same kind of vitamin D. Plant sources provide you with D2. The more beneficial D3 can only be had through animal-based sources such as:

Fish, such as salmon, mackerel, tuna and sardines
Egg yolk
Raw milk
Dairy processors producing pasteurized milk have also been fortifying milk with vitamin D since 1933. Today, about 98 percent of the milk supply in the U.S. is fortified with approximately 400 International Units (IU) of vitamin D per quart. While dairies used to fortify their milk with vitamin D2, most have now switched over to D3. But, if you still drink pasteurized milk (which I don’t recommend), check the label to see which form of vitamin D has been added. (If you drink raw milk, then you’re getting the naturally-occurring vitamin D in the milk fat.) Keep in mind that although milk is fortified, other dairy products such as cheese and ice cream does typically not contain added vitamin D.

Continue reading at Mercola.com


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 30,425 hits

Categories

Top Clicks