Archive for the ‘Studies & Surveys’ Category

Russia could overrun the Eastern NATO forces within an hour

October 15, 2016

Russia could overrun the Eastern NATO forces within an hour

By Dark Politricks

Hey everybody, don’t be scared but Russia could overrun the eastern European NATO forces within an hour and then be heading to Paris like Hitler on a tank within a day.

Even the US admit this.

So lets not start a nuclear war with them over Syria please?

View the original article on
By Dark Politricks

© 2016 Dark Politricks


Do we need a new Bill of Rights?

July 18, 2013

Do we need a new Bill of Rights?

By Dark Politricks

A recent satirical survey carried out by Mark Dice showed that people were willing to sign a petition banning Christian symbols, Christmas lights, bumper stickers and other forms of expression covered by the 1st Amendment. His bigger coup was showing up the American people for signing another petition banning the first amendment altogether.

It seems no matter what crazy things Mark says to the signers they willingly agree to remove their own freedom. He uses Obama, racism, the Tea Party and even the New World Order to persuade people to sign, not that they need much persuading.

Even when he thanks people for “helping to repeal free speech” or “repeal the first amendment” from the USA they happily nod, agree and then sign on the dotted line.

The people signing these petitions should obviously be ashamed of themselves but it goes to show the indoctrination that has been achieved by politicians and the media.

Job well done it seems! These people are almost too eager to sign their freedoms away.

Here in the UK we don’t have a written constitution and our bill of rights (1689) which was inspiration for the USA is more concerned with limiting the power of the Crown, ensuring that our parliament is regularly elected and that the people we elect to it have the right to speak freely without fear of retribution from the Crown.

Remember that this was one of the first documents of its kind in the modern world so it’s nowhere near perfect and it followed the English civil war in which we deposed and killed our monarch and then replaced him with a quasi-religious military family dictatorship or what historians call a “Protectorate”.

This was a bit like North Korea today along with a puritanical religious nature and it involved a dictatorial dynasty i.e Oliver Cromwell and then his 3rd son Richard. The Cromwells, along with the military and their “Godly Governors” ruled the country until the monarchy was restored later in the century.

However our bill of rights, the preceeding Magna Carta, the writ of habeas corpus and it’s codified version in law the Habeas Corpus Act plus the writings of many enlightened English philosophers of the time such as John Locke and Thomas Paine, helped inspire and create the US Bill of Rights.

Whilst this bill is something to be proud of and US school children are taught from an early age that the Constitution is the primary law of the land and no other law can supersede it. It seems nowadays that either the US Government doesn’t preach what it teaches in its public schools or just believes, as George W Bush famously did, that it’s just a piece of paper.

Since 9.11, laws such as the PATRIOT ACT have removed many rights enshrined in the constitution and many local courts in the USA have actually found it and the FISA court to be in blatant violation of the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano explains about the recent NSA Prism revelations that the US/UK governments are conducting massive surveillance on millions of people without a warrant, the mass spying of Americans, whilst allowed by the PATRIOT ACT breaches the constitution which trumps it in law, or is supposed to!

With Obama now being able to act like a king with the NDAA (The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013) behind him, and the country still be ruled under emergency laws enacted after 9.11, he is now able to do such things as:

-allow for the “indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President.” (Section 1021)

-to allow force (and military detention) against not only those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and countries which harbored them, but also anyone who “substantially supports” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces” (Section 1031)

-mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system (section 1032)

Therefore, he can now, if he so wished, declare you a terrorist or “domestic extremist” by using NSA hovered up and illegally obtained data, and then if he so wished either detain you without due process indefinitely, or if you lived abroad, send a drone to kill you and your family in the manner he dispatched Anwar al Awlaki and his son in Yemen.

The bill also basically dispenses with Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, which says that nobody can be punished for treason without heightened due process requirements being met. Lets wait and see what happens to Edward Snowden. Is he a traitor for exposing massive and illegal spying by the NSA or a traitor for letting the people know what the Government is doing to them?

Therefore with free speech under attack due to massive state surveillance and unwarranted search and seizure of property such as any electronical private effects e.g emails, direct message tweets or text messages. And as Mark Dice has shown, a populace all too willing to just “sign a petition” abolishing their rights without second thought I am asking you today what you think our rights should be in this modern-day and age.

Do we need extra protections from government surveillance?

Is the requirement for a well maintained militia and the bearing of arms still needed when the US military is the largest on earth and a few handguns wouldn’t last long against the local police force let alone the US military – not that you can tell the two apart lately.

What about limits on free speech? Should you have the right to be offended or can I be racist, sexist, anti-religious and homophobic to you all without fear of punishment?

Taking a well-known section of the European Convention of Human Rights – Article 3, which prohibits torture, and “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Do Americans need to incorporate this into a bill after their water boarding, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo “enhanced interrogation” escapades?

What about Article 11 that supposedly protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions.

This seems to be trumped by local laws such as “free speech zones” in the USA or the much hated English Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which banned people assembling to “rave” i.e party. This law also and allowed for courts to make certain inferences if a defendant remained silent in custody or for the police to take intimate body samples on arrest and keep them whether or not the accused is ever convicted in court – an act that has been found to violate European law multiple times.

It seems that in this modern day and age people on all sides of the Atlantic need a Bill of Rights that protects them from their own government. What I’d like to know is which rights are most important to you.

Some of these points cross over and in a new bill they would be sectioned together. Therefore you may want to vote for more than one but I want to know the right that you feel is most important to you in your daily life.

For example is your right to speak freely without fear of being bugged and arrested more important than a theoretical chance that you might overthrow your government with your firearms?

If something important is missing just add it in the other section and feel free to use the comment section to expand on your points if you do.


View the original article “A New Bill of Rights” at

Alex Jones Needs To Calm Down To Get His Facts Across

January 14, 2013

Alex Jones Needs To Calm Down To Get His Facts Across

By Dark Politricks

After last weeks battle on prime time TV between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones  it has become a major talking point. It was a heated debate (on one side at least) that has been re-shown, mocked and repeated everywhere from blogs and news programs to satire shows like the Daily Show and beyond.

The question being asked is – “did Alex Jones do more harm than good by going off on one of his manic rants at Piers Morgan?”

Did he attempt his usual tactic of trying to claim to have facts on everything from A to Z. Far too many facts to explain in such a short period of time on TV, therefore the viewers probably didn’t take many if any of  them in at all. All they went away with after the interview is the perception that Alex Jones was crazy for going off on one on Piers who remained calm throughout the interview.

Even worse – did he make Piers Morgan, a liar whose testimony at the Leveson Inquiry about Press Standards and phone hacking has been called “utterly unpersuasive.” by the Judge himself seem like an honest, sensible and well-balanced person?

I used to listen to the Alex Jones radio show over the web and on pod-casts until I got so fed up with hearing the same adverts about survival food stocks over and over again that it just became a pointless exercise in hurting my ears with advertising.

I have seen the rants, I have seen the madness but I have also read some of the articles, the history and the evidence he constantly claims to have to back up his sometimes “heated” debates. He is not always right and he is most definitely not always wrong.

People need to look past any first impressions and research for themselves anything he says.

No one should make up your own mind but yourself. That means not Alex, not Piers or anyone else on the mainstream media but yourself after reading a balanced view of history. Keeping in mind that history is usually written by the winners and that conspiracies do and continue to exist and have done since the beginning of time.

If only Alex Jones could practise some form of Yoga or meditation to calm himself down before going on the mainstream media he would pass himself over a lot better. It is not good to be ripped apart on satire shows as he was on the recent Daily Show where he was being portrayed as just a right wing crazy nut job who thinks Obama is the new Hitler ready to come for your guns.

The problem with Alex Jones and his argument over gun control is two fold.

1. He does actually have facts and evidence coming out of his behind. The problem is, whether you believe them or not he does not put them over in such a way that people will catch everything he says.

He would have done much better during the interview with Piers to stick to the single salient point that the UK, a country where the population has no guns (apart from a few farmers), does actually have a higher violent crime rate than the USA a country filled to the brim with guns.

This was proven in a recent study published today that said:

Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday and the chances of having your car stolen are greater in England and Wales than anywhere else in the developed world.

According to the figures released in the report yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 – second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent. However in the USA only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery.

Also one out of every 40 people in England and Wales had their cars stolen in 1999, the highest rate in the 17 developed countries examined.

2. He needs to chill out before going on TV so that he cannot later be portrayed as crazy loon later on. When you are being shown in clips along with FOX TV presenters, Republican Tea Baggers and nutters who believe everything they see on TV without reading both sides first and coming up with their own opinions then you have lost the argument before you have even opened your mouth.

Take a Valium, no in fact take a 100. Just do what you have to do so that you don’t explode in anger and declare another war of independence like you did with Piers on CNN.

It is comments like that shouted in anger that will be shown over and over again on YouTube and MSM shows to repeatedly claim you are nothing more than a nutter no matter how much substance your argument has.

Whether you are on either side of the gun control argument you should read up about the facts first before making your OWN minds up.

And if you are going on TV – just take a chill pill first and don’t overload the audience with facts.

Stick to one or two proven facts and debate them calmly and honestly. Then you can walk away knowing that you won’t be derided from state to state for just being the bloke who wants to deport the known liar and phone hacker Piers Morgan and start a new revolution.

The interview between Alex Jones and Piers Morgan can be watched below.


View the original aticle on Alex Jones needing to calm down on the main site

Do we want an Alternative Voting system or an alternative governing system

April 21, 2011

Alternative Vote or Alternative Government

By Dark Politricks

The people of the UK are going to be asked in a few weeks to vote on whether they would like a new voting system.

We currently have a first past the post system which often leads to politicians gaining seats for life, leaves a large percentage (often the majority within a district) having a politician they haven’t voted for and leaves smaller parties out of government as they have to work extra hard to gain a seat even if they have a large percentage of support across the country.

The alternative we are being offered is AV (Alternative Vote) in which voters order the candidates in their prefered order first to last and then during the count up the candiate with the least votes drops out and their votes are redistrubted amongst the other candidates until one candidate manages to get 50% of the vote.

This is a comprimise system that the Lib Dem’s agreed to during coallition talks because neither Labour or the Tories would give them full proportianal representation which is what they really want. Nick Clegg see’s  this change as a miserable compromise and maybe as a stepping stone towards further change later on.

The alternative vote system is not a choice any party wants but it’s a change from the existing system and even though it’s not proportional in any way at least it makes people’s choices count a lot more than they currently do.

I will probably be voting for AV just because it is a change from the status quo and might help to get some smaller parties or independents into the houses of corruption/parliament. However what I would rather see is a total change in how our whole government works.

What we really need is a new system of politics that prevents lobbyists and powerful interest groups from controlling politicians and gives the educated people of this country more of a say in the decision making process.

This all reminds me of a couple of articles I wrote some time back titled:

We need a new form of government


What I would do if I were Prime Minister for a week

In which I offer a number of ideas and possible solutions to our current problems. Some people might find them interesting so I suggest having a read if you get the time.

Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer, Scientists Warn

February 3, 2010

David Gutierrez
Natural News
Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

A report issued by the International Electromagnetic Field Collaborative and endorsed by 43 scientists from 13 countries has reviewed the evidence linking cell phone use to brain tumors, and refuting the methodology of a forthcoming industry-funded study expected to give the phones a clean bill of health.

“I fear we will see a tsunami of brain tumors, although it is too early to see that now since the tumors have a 30-year latency,” study author Lloyd Morgan said. “I pray I’m wrong, but brace yourself.”

Among the research cited in the study was a recent study by a Swedish team of scientists that found a 420 percent higher risk of brain cancer among people who had started using cellular or cordless phones as teenagers. Older analog phones, which are now mostly off the market, had been found to increase cancer risk by 700 percent.

Because children are especially vulnerable to radiation, the report recommends that parents not allow their children under the age of 18 to use mobile phones except in emergencies, or to sleep with cellular phones under their pillows. It recommends using corded land lines whenever possible, and using cellular phones mostly as answering machines, turning them on only to check messages and return calls. Use of cell phones inside buildings or in cars increases cancer risk, as it increases the radiation a phone must emit to function. Use of text messages and non-wireless headsets can reduce cancer risk. The report also advises against carrying cell phones against the body, even in pockets.

“Some countries are already banning cell phones over health concerns, with France saying children in elementary schools can only use them for texting,” Morgan said.

The report also sets out 11 flaws in the forthcoming Interphone study, a study on cell phones and health being prepared by the wireless industry in 13 different countries. These flaws include the exclusion of non-cellular cordless phones (which also emit radiation), children and young adults (the most vulnerable demographics) from the study, the exclusion of certain types of tumors, and the exclusion of participants who died or were too sick to answer questions.

Sources for this story include:

Teenagers ‘think oats grow on trees’

February 2, 2010

Ron Paul
Campaign For Liberty
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Teenage schoolchildren think oats grow on trees and bacon comes from sheep, a survey showed today.

Many children and young adults also believe eggs were a key ingredient in bread, the researchers said.

The survey showed 26% of children thought bacon came from sheep, 29% thought oats grow on trees, while 17% of both children and adults under the age of 30 believed eggs were a core ingredient in bread.

Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers’ Union, said: ”The results show how important it is to teach the adults of tomorrow about the food they eat.

Full article here

TuneUp Utilities 2010

Poll: Americans pretty clueless about politics, world

January 30, 2010

John Byrne
Raw Story
Saturday, January 30th, 2010

Only one in four Americans know how many votes a Senate filibuster requires. One in three know the name of the chairman of the Republican Party. One in two know the Democratic leader of the US Senate.

Health care? Fewer than one in three Americans even know that no Republicans voted for the Senate health care overhaul.

Americans’ ignorance about politics isn’t new, but the latest results from the Pew Poll suggest few are really paying attention.

Half of Americans don’t even know that Stephen Colbert is a comedian. And among those surveyed, only one in three Democrats knew that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) was the Democratic leader.

“About four-in-ten (39%) know that Nevada Democrat Harry Reid is the majority leader of the U.S. Senate,” Pew reports. “About a third (32%) correctly pick Michael Steele as the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Interestingly, nearly half of Republicans (48%) are able to identify Reid as Senate majority leader compared with just a third (33%) of Democrats. More Republicans can identify Reid as majority leader than can identify Steel as chairman of the RNC (37%).”

“About four-in-ten (41%) correctly say that Stephen Colbert is a comedian and television talk show host,” Pew adds.

Notably, those who are more clueless about politics hail from the under 30 age bracket — except for the question about Colbert.

“This is the only question on the quiz that more people younger than 30 than older people answer correctly (49% vs. 39%),” Pew notes.

586 2 Poll: Americans pretty clueless about politics, world

Adds Pew:

About six-in-ten (59%) correctly identify China as the foreign country holding the most U.S. government debt. Nearly as many (57%) know that the United States imports two-thirds of the oil it consumes. As was the case in previous knowledge surveys, a majority (55%) knows the current unemployment rate is about 10%. However, far fewer (36%) correctly estimate the current level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average at about 10,000 points.

The news quiz, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Jan. 14-17 among 1,003 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, asked 12 multiple choice questions on subjects ranging from economics and foreign affairs to prominent people in the news. Americans answered an average of 5.3 questions correctly.

The survey finds that while the public struggled with most of the political questions on the survey, most Americans (56%) know that there currently is more than one woman serving on the Supreme Court. Notably, this is the only question on the quiz where as many women as men answer correctly; men scored significantly better on other questions.

In response to questions about terrorism and national security, half (50%) correctly identify Yemen as the country where intelligence officials believe the suspect in an attempted Christmas Day airline bombing received training and bomb materials. A slightly smaller percentage (43%) knows that during all of 2009 there were more American military fatalities in Afghanistan than in Iraq; 32% said more U.S. troops were killed in Iraq.

The poll was conducted Jan. 19, prior to the election of Massachusetts Senator-to-be Scott Brown.

586 4 Poll: Americans pretty clueless about politics, world

Statement Concerning C4L's Issue Discussion Program

January 29, 2010

By John Tate

Throughout 2010, Campaign for Liberty will be running an issue discussion program through our candidate surveys in every state to promote our issues and agenda and to lobby candidates for federal office and to get them on the record in support or opposition on our issues.

Since our inception, we have had many requests from our members for such an effort to help in their work to educate those around them.

As part of this program, mail, radio and TV ads, banner ads, and other forms of communication may be run to encourage candidates to go on record in support of our Liberty agenda, to highlight the responses of the candidates on our issues, and to hold those candidates who ignore our cause accountable.

There have been some questions as to why certain candidates have received surveys while others haven’t. This is simply a matter of putting in place a systematic approach based on candidate filing deadlines and clear survey response deadlines in order to send out surveys in an organized fashion.

For example, Texas candidate surveys have been mailed, and Kentucky surveys will be mailed next week. Illinois survey results are already available on our web site.

As we launch this new undertaking, I also want to take a moment to address your inquires about one of our first public survey ads in Colorado.

First, I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate. In our survey program, we seek only to report where candidates stand in regard to the specific questions to which they have responded.

In retrospect, the ad we are running could have been messaged differently to help avoid any confusion on its intent and to better advertise our issue discussion program. Your invaluable feedback will help us correct this in the future and, as a result, strengthen the effectiveness of our program. This is C4L’s first foray into launching this kind of national initiative, and we are convinced it has the potential to make a tremendous impact.

The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.

We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us.

That being said, there is an even more important fact: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.

So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon, and second, we did NOT use any money raised generally by Campaign for Liberty to run these ads in Colorado.

In order to both launch the Colorado effort and test our survey program, C4L did not use existing donor funds but built new support and donations, especially within Colorado, specifically for this project. This is the approach we hope to take as we seek funding for many other special projects this year in other states.

I take our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to me to run this organization very seriously. I hope you all know that, and can give us here at C4L the benefit of the doubt when a situation arises about which you might want more information, or with which you even might not agree. As a multi-issue organization with activists from all manner of backgrounds, we each certainly will have our share of disagreements and agreements. The critical question is whether or not we will let disagreements on occasional topics destroy the unity we share in our desire to be a free people.

This movement has a unique window of opportunity to change politics in our country and restore our lost liberties. But to accomplish this, it will take our unified effort and focus. I see great things for us in 2010 and beyond if we can do that. I hope I’ll have your support as we continue our campaign for liberty.

View the original article at Campaign for Liberty

Pew Poll: global warming dead last, down from last year

January 26, 2010

Watts Up With That?
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

It seems that the public just doesn’t share the worry some of the activists have.

Pew Poll: global warming dead last, down from last year 584 1

From the Pew Research Center

Global Warming and the Environment

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey.

Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public’s list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.

Pew Poll: global warming dead last, down from last year 584 2 click for a larger image

See the complete report at the Pew Research Center

Zero deaths caused by vitamins, minerals, amino acids or herbs

January 21, 2010

Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, January 21st, 2010

To hear opponents of natural medicine say it, vitamins and herbs are extremely dangerous for your health. They should be regulated, we’re told, because they’re so dangerous!

Statistics from the U.S. National Poison Data System prove otherwise. According to a 174-page report just published, the number of people killed in 2009 across America by vitamins, minerals, amino acids or herbal supplements is exactly zero.

Compare that to the 100,000 (or so) Americans killed each year by FDA-approved pharmaceuticals — and that’s even according to studies published in JAMA. Also consider the thousands of women harmed or killed by medically-unjustified cancer treatments following false positives from faulty mammograms. And don’t forget about the more than 16,500 Americans killed each year from internal bleeding caused by NSAIDs (over-the-counter painkillers).

As the July 1998 issue of The American Journal of Medicine explains:

“Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone.” (Singh Gurkirpal, MD, “Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Gastropathy”, The American Journal of Medicine, July 27, 1998, p. 31S)

So if NSAIDs alone are killing 16,500 people a year (or likely much more now, as use of these drugs has risen significantly since 1998), and nutritional supplements are killing zero people a year, why do health regulators try to scare everybody about vitamins being so “dangerous?”

Pharmaceuticals, meanwhile, are openly allowed to be prescribed for off-label use, meaning that doctors can prescribe them for diseases and health conditions for which they’ve never even been tested!

What’s wrong with this picture? It’s clearly a war against nutrition — a war against natural medicine — being waged by the health regulators of the world who are conspiring with Big Pharma to keep the people trapped in a state of malnutrition (all while profiting from their disease by selling them more patented pharmaceuticals).

The Orthomolecular Medicine News Service published a full article on this issue. Here’s what they had to say about the safety of nutritional supplements and the misguided attempts by world governments to limit or outlaw many supplements.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

No Deaths from Vitamins, Minerals, Amino Acids or Herbs

Poison Control Statistics Prove Supplements’ Safety

There was not even one death caused by a dietary supplement in 2008, according to the most recent information collected by the U.S. National Poison Data System. The new 174-page annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, published in the journal Clinical Toxicology, shows zero deaths from multiple vitamins; zero deaths from any of the B vitamins; zero deaths from vitamins A, C, D, or E; and zero deaths from any other vitamin.

Additionally, there were no deaths whatsoever from any amino acid or herbal product. This means no deaths at all from blue cohosh, echinacea, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, kava kava, St. John’s wort, valerian, yohimbe, Asian medicines, ayurvedic medicines, or any other botanical. There were zero deaths from creatine, blue-green algae, glucosamine, chondroitin, melatonin, or any homeopathic remedies.

Furthermore, there were zero deaths in 2008 from any dietary mineral supplement. This means there were no fatalities from calcium, magnesium, chromium, zinc, colloidal silver, selenium, iron, or multimineral supplements. Two children died as a result of medical use of the antacid sodium bicarbonate. The other “Electrolyte and Mineral” category death was due to a man accidentally drinking sodium hydroxide, a highly toxic degreaser and drain-opener.

No man, woman or child died from nutritional supplements. Period.

61 poison centers provide coast-to-coast data for the U.S. National Poison Data System, which is then reviewed by 29 medical and clinical toxicologists. NPDS, the authors write, is “one of the few real-time national surveillance systems in existence, providing a model public health surveillance system for all types of exposures, public health event identification, resilience response and situational awareness tracking.”

Over half of the U.S. population takes daily nutritional supplements. Even if each of those people took only one single tablet daily, that makes 154,000,000 individual doses per day, for a total of over 56 billion doses annually. Since many persons take more than just one vitamin or mineral tablet, actual consumption is considerably higher, and the safety of nutritional supplements is all the more remarkable.

If nutritional supplements are allegedly so “dangerous,” as the FDA and news media so often claim, then where are the bodies?

Those who wonder if the media are biased against vitamins may consider this: how many television stations, newspapers, magazines, and medical journals have reported that no one dies from nutritional supplements?


Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Giffin SL. 2008 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 26th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology (2009). 47, 911-1084. The full text article is available for free download at… .

(Vitamins statistics are found in Table 22B, journal pages 1052-3. Minerals, herbs, amino acids and other supplements are in the same table, pages 1047-8.)

For Further Reading:

Download any Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers from 1983-2008 free of charge at…

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information:

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

Editorial Review Board:

Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D.
Damien Downing, M.D.
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D.
Steve Hickey, Ph.D.
James A. Jackson, PhD
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D.
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D.
Erik Paterson, M.D.
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D.

Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Editor

To Subscribe at no charge, visit:…

Original article published at:…

View the original article at Natural News