Study finds half of ‘terror suspects’ arrested in Spain are Moroccan

spanish police cars


Almost half of people arrested in Spain on terrorism charges are Morocco-born or of Moroccan descent, a study by Spanish think tank Elcano Royal Institute has found.

Based on information from their database of terrorist activities between 2013 and 2017, the study found that approximately 46 per cent of the 233 people arrested or killed for alleged involvement in terrorism-related activities in Spain were Moroccan nationals.

The study also found that six out of ten people were second generation descendants of Moroccan immigrants, who were affiliated with terrorism cells and networks based in Spain. Many of these arrests took place in Catalonia, which the think tank argues is “increasingly known as a centre of extremism, with nearly one third of ISIS-linked arrests in Spain made there,” Morocco World News reported using another acronym for Daesh.

The authors of the report, Fernando Reinares and Carola Garcia-Calvo, added that the majority of those detained on suspicion of terrorism offences came from the northern Rif region of Morocco, with 73 per cent of all detainees hailing from Spain’s north African enclaves of Melilla and Ceuta. Situated on the Strait of Gibraltar, both have been held by Spain since the 15th and 16th centuries respectively and are a frequent point of contention for Spanish-Moroccan relations.

The two countries have frequently collaborated on anti-terrorism and security policy to reduce the terrorist threat. Earlier this week, Spanish and Moroccan security services dismantled a Daesh-affiliated terror cell operating in both countries, leading to the arrest of five people. A statement by Morocco’s Ministry of Interior said that the five suspects were aged between 22 and 33 and active between Morocco and Spain. They were arrested in Fnideq, a city in northern Morocco, and c in northern Spain. This was the third terrorist cell dismantled in Morocco, after members of two other terrorist groups were apprehended in February and March, according to Morocco World News.

Spain has undergone a number of high profile terrorist attacks in recent years, including an incident on Barcelona’s central tourist promenade Las Ramblas in 2017. The incident, which saw a rented vehicle drive onto the crowded street killing 20 and injuring dozens more, was labelled a “jihadist attack” by Spain’s Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy. Shortly after the event, Spanish police released a photo of a Moroccan-born man named Driss Oukabir in connection with the attack. He and three other men of Moroccan origin later appeared before Spain’s National Court, according to the Guardian.

Source Article from

Study finds that eating fast food has a negative effect on pregnancy rates by lowering fertility in women

Image: Study finds that eating fast food has a negative effect on pregnancy rates by lowering fertility in women

(Natural News)
If you needed more evidence that what we eat is having a net negative effect on the global population, here it is.

A new study found that the more women eat fast food instead of fresh fruits and vegetables, the less fertile they become and, hence, the less likely they are to get pregnant in the normal manner.

The study, published recently in the peer-reviewed medical journal Human Reproduction, analyzed the diets of 5,598 women in Ireland, the U.K., New Zealand and Australia. Researchers’ central question for the study was, “Is preconception dietary intake associated with reduced fecundity as measured by a longer time to pregnancy?”

“Several lifestyle factors, such as smoking and obesity, have consistently been associated with a longer TTP or infertility, but the role of preconception diet in women remains poorly studied,” said the study abstract. “Healthier foods or dietary patterns have been associated with improved fertility, however, these studies focused on women already diagnosed with or receiving treatments for infertility, rather than in the general population.”

As reported by USA Today, the research team led by Prof. Claire Robert from University Adelaide’s Robinson Research Institute in Australia found that women who consume fast food four times per week or more took nearly one month longer to become pregnant.

“Fast food was defined as items bought from fast food restaurants, and did not include fast food items bought from supermarkets, such as pizza. So, overall fast food consumption might have been underreported, researchers said,” USA Today reported, citing the study’s findings.

Sponsored solution from CWC Labs: This heavy metals test kit allows you to test almost anything for 20+ heavy metals and nutritive minerals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and more. You can test your own hair, vitamins, well water, garden soil, superfoods, pet hair, beverages and other samples (no blood or urine). ISO accredited laboratory using ICP-MS (mass spec) analysis with parts per billion sensitivity. Learn more here.

You have to eat good food too, not just avoid the bad

Meanwhile, women who consumed fruit three or more times daily boosted their chances of becoming pregnant quickly, while women who only ate fruit less than one to three times monthly took a half-month longer to conceive, researchers discovered. 

In addition, they concluded that women who consumed the least amount of fruit bolstered their risk of infertility by 8-12 percent, while women who ate more fast food increased their infertility risk by 8-16 percent. Researchers have defined infertility as being unable to become pregnant after a year.

Previous research has had similar findings

The study’s findings validate and replicate portions of previous research from the Boston University School of Public Health, where researchers found that fertility rates can fall just by consuming one or more sugary drinks (think canned soda) per day, for both men and women. (Related: You choose your brain health with your diet: Anti-inflammatory diet improves brain health while inflammatory diet accelerates atrophy.)

As Natural News reported in March: 

The researchers surveyed 3,828 women between the ages of 21 and 45, and 1,045 of their male partners. They were residents of the U.S. or Canada and were part of a Pregnancy Study Online web-based prospective cohort study. The research team gathered information on the participants’ diet, lifestyle factors, and medical history. The female participants also answered follow-up questionnaires every two months until they either became pregnant or the 12-month follow-up period was done.

“We found positive associations between intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and lower fertility, which were consistent after controlling for many other factors, including obesity, caffeine intake, alcohol, smoking, and overall diet quality,” said Elizabeth Hatch, lead author and professor of epidemiology.

As for the Australian-led study, first author Jessica Grieger said in a statement, “We recommend that women who want to become pregnant should align their dietary intakes towards national dietary recommendations for pregnancy.”

Grieger and her team found that consuming green, leafy veggies and fish had no noticeable effect on the time it takes to conceive. The father’s diet was not measured for the study. 

“For any dietary intake assessment,” Grieger continued, “one needs to use some caution regarding whether participant recall is an accurate reflection of dietary intake. However, given that many women do not change their diet from pre-pregnancy to during pregnancy, we believe that the women’s recall of their diet one month prior to pregnancy is likely to be reasonably accurate.”

See more reporting on fast food at

J.D. Heyes is editor of The National Sentinel and a senior writer for Natural News and News Target.

Sources include:



Source Article from

FDA finds glyphosate weedkiller residues in nearly all grocery foods, but has spent years hiding test results from the public

Image: FDA finds glyphosate weedkiller residues in nearly all grocery foods, but has spent years hiding test results from the public

(Natural News)
The two decades between 1994 and 2014 saw global glyphosate use boom from just over 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds) to around 826 million kilograms per year. Glyphosate is the world’s most popular weed killer and is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup product. In the United States alone, farmers douse their wheat, oats, corn and soybean fields in over 200 million pounds of this toxic chemical each year. Some spinach and almond farmers also spray it on their fields before the growing season.

Now, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by The Guardian newspaper has uncovered documents confirming that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has quietly been testing food samples to check for glyphosate residues but has not released its findings to the public. The Guardian notes that the agency has struggled to find any foods that have not been contaminated by this herbicide.

In an email to some of his colleagues, FDA chemist Richard Thompson noted, “I have brought wheat crackers, granola cereal and corn meal from home and there’s a fair amount in all of them.” He noted that the only food he had on hand that was not found to contain glyphosate traces was broccoli.

Even though the documents reveal that some of the foods tested contained 6.5 parts per million of glyphosate – well above the legal limit of 5.0 ppm – the FDA insists that these results don’t count, since the foods used in the tests were not “official” samples.

Back in 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) labeled the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” and linked it to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.

The IARC report noted:

Glyphosate currently has the highest global production volume of all herbicides. The largest use worldwide is in agriculture. The agricultural use of glyphosate has increased sharply since the development of crops that have been genetically modified to make them resistant to glyphosate. Glyphosate is also used in forestry, urban, and home applications. Glyphosate has been detected in the air during spraying, in water, and in food. The general population is exposed primarily through residence near sprayed areas, home use, and diet, and the level that has been observed is generally low.

The FDA insists that though it has discovered glyphosate residues on so many of the foods tested, these levels are low and are therefore not cause for concern. As such, they feel it is not in the public’s best interest to make their findings known.

Tracey Woodruff, a professor at the University of California San Francisco’s School of Medicine, disagrees.

“People care about what contaminants are in their food. If there is scientific information about these residues in the food, the FDA should release it,” she told The Guardian. “It helps people make informed decisions. Taxpayers paid for the government to do this work, they should get to see the information.”

Linda Birnbaum, toxicologist and director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), warns that even low-level exposure to glyphosate can be very dangerous because we are exposed to many different sources of this chemical and its effects are cumulative.

Many natural health advocates have spoken out about the FDA’s cover-up of its test findings and the fact that it took 40 years for them to start testing for glyphosate residue in the first place. (Related: Discover where glyphosate might be lurking at

These types of findings reinforce the need for us all to take responsibility for our own health and limit our exposure to glyphosate by purchasing or growing our own organic, pesticide-free fresh produce.

Sources for this article include:[PDF]



Source Article from

Photo: Barn owl family finds the perfect home

Our photo of the day reveals that barns take many shapes.

When I was in grade school one of my regular tropes rendered in crayon was a hole in a tree with an owl within. Like kids everywhere, I knew that tree hollows were the magical spots where owls lived. As an adult, I have (sadly) never witnessed this in person. But thankfully, photographers like DeeDee Gollwitzer, who took the photo above, provide proof that this is more than just a picturesque myth.

And as it turns out, cozy nooks in trees are not the only places that barn owls like to call home. Barn Owl Trust notes that historically, a significant proportion of barn owls nested in church towers in the UK. In addition to towers and trees, they live in “castles, dovecotes, derelict cottages, chapels, chimneys, bridges, walls, sea cliffs, quarry faces, mine buildings, mine shafts, disused factories, bunkers, observation towers, and water towers. Basically they will use anything that provides what they need: somewhere that gives them shelter from rain and wind and where they ‘feel safe.'” Oh, and barns.

Here, the happy barn owl family has taken up residence in a large sycamore tree – the tiny owlet peeking out from behind mom on the right is the clincher.

Would you like to see your nature photo featured as the TreeHugger photo of the day? Join TreeHugger’s Reader Photo Pool on Flickr and add your pictures to the group.

Source Article from

CNN Host Finds Nothing But ‘Racist’ Intent in Trump ‘Breeding’ Tweet

Erin Burnett OutFront
April 23, 2018
7:35:53 PM Eastern

ERIN BURNETT: So, April, I want to ask you about today’s press briefing because it was a significant moment. You and Jim Acosta were talking to Sarah Sanders and asking about the controversial tweet by the President, the one where he wrote in part quote, “there’s a revolution going on in California, so many sanctuary areas, want out of this ridiculous crime infested and breeding concept.” And everyone tried to understand what the word “breeding” could mean that was not a racist interpretation. And here is the exchange that you and Jim had with Sarah.

[Clip of interaction]

BURNETT: I mean, April, it’s not funny, but yet I hear this, “it could mean a lot of things to a lot of people.” “The President has recognized this as a major problem.” But we never define what the “this” [is]. She never actually will go there.

APRIL RYAN: Right. And that begs the question, again, what does “breeding” mean. And, you know, I even called California Congressman Barbara Lee. She said it’s disgusting, period. He meant what he said. Because some people are trying to say there was an autocorrect issue with this president. And if it was a problem he would have said: “I made a mistake” or recorrected it or correct it what have you.

BURNETT: What was it supposed to be in autocorrect even? I don’t even…

RYAN: It was supposed to be, according to some people that were talking to reporters, they said “breeding contempt.” Now if it was breeding contempt, you would change it, wouldn’t you? So — and I talked to Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, she said, ‘he meant what he said in that tweet.’ And I’m still waiting to find out what the President meant by “Breeding.” I don’t want to assume. And I asked her an open-ended question. But so many people can take it so many different ways, I guess. But I’m asking what the President meant.

BURNETT: You know what? If it was an autocorrect, Frank, she should have said. And it wasn’t.

FRANK BRUNI: Well, that would be a great way out of it.

BURNETT: By the way, if there’s autocorrect for him, it would be fixing a whole lot of other spellings errors and other things, which it doesn’t.

[Laughter from the panel]

BRUNI: He needed autocorrect like nobody needed auto correct. This is not a man who is artful with his language. The idea that he used the word breeding as a synonym for growing or spreading, that just doesn’t pass the laugh test. That’s not the way Donald Trump thinks or the way he writes.

BURNETT: And obviously the word “Breeding” here, all kinds of implications, April, that can come from it. And pretty much all of them are pretty racist. In fact, all of them are pretty racist.

RYAN: Yes, because you’re talking about a community that you’re looking down as animals. And it’s — it’s — it’s ugly. It’s an ugly statement. And if this president is a president of all America, if I were a Latino American, I’m a minority American, we’ve heard things before. We heard s-hole comments, we’ve heard things about Charlottesville, we’ve heard the confederate stuff. This just builds on it. It’s not normal. And let’s just say, it’s not normal. Well, for polite company, it’s not acceptable! So if he thinks Latinos breed, that’s what he thinks, but it’s wrong.

BURNETT: And of course, Frank, it’s the context of what he’s said before, about Charlottesville and other things, that make this consistent with that, not inconsistent with that.

BRUNI: This is a President who has been obsessed with anchor babies. And you have to factor all of that in.

Source Article from

DISGUSTING: Study finds that animal vaccines have no safeguards against contamination and contribute to serious pet diseases like cancer

Image: DISGUSTING: Study finds that animal vaccines have no safeguards against contamination and contribute to serious pet diseases like cancer

(Natural News)
Most of us are incredibly attached to our pets. As such, we do everything we can to prevent them from getting ill, including getting them vaccinated at the intervals recommended on the schedules we receive from their veterinarians. What we might not realize, however, is that in getting them vaccinated we may be exposing them to very dangerous retroviruses, some of which have been linked to cancer and other fatal animal diseases.

A study recently published in the journal Biologicals, entitled “Endogenous retroviruses as potential hazards for vaccines,” warns that the way in which animal vaccines are manufactured leaves them vulnerable to contamination by retroviruses which are present in the master seed stock of the cells used in their production.

The manufacture of both human and animal vaccines is dependent on the use of live human and animal cells as seed stock. Unfortunately, as noted by GreenMedInfo, many of these cells are contaminated with endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). When animal vaccines that have been created using contaminated cells are injected into our furry friends, these illnesses can be handed over along with the vaccine’s “normal” contents.

The study, which was conducted by researchers from the department of cell biology at Kyoto University in Japan, found that the risks associated with such vaccines have largely been ignored, leaving our pets vulnerable to serious diseases, including feline leukemia, the primary cancer diagnosed in cats. (Related: Read about other possible dangers for your feline friends at

Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.

Feline leukemia is of particular concern to cat lovers, as it affects between 2 and 3 percent of all cats in the United States, and up to 30 percent of cats who are already battling other illnesses.

Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine notes:

Cats persistently infected with [Feline Leukemia Virus] FeLV serve as sources of infection for other cats. The virus is shed in saliva, nasal secretions, urine, feces, and milk of infected cats. Cat-to-cat transfer of the virus may occur from a bite wound, during mutual grooming, and (rarely) through the shared use of litter boxes and feeding dishes. Transmission can also take place from an infected mother cat to her kittens, either before they are born or while they are nursing.

And now, the Kyoto University study has confirmed that another possible avenue of infection is through the very vaccines we give our cats to prevent them from getting sick.

So, what exactly are retroviruses, and why are they so difficult to fight off?

A YouTube video by the Sci Show, entitled “Retroviruses: Microbial supervillains” explains that while our bodies (and those of our animal friends) can produce antibodies that recognize and destroy cells infected with viruses before they get too out of hand, retroviruses operate in a completely different way – a way that the body does not identify and therefore does not fight off effectively:

[Retroviruses] get their supervillain status because of an enzyme called reverse transcriptase, which reads the virus’s RNA and turns it into DNA, which then makes its way into the cell’s DNA and attaches itself. Once the retroviral DNA is in the cell’s DNA, the cell just starts copying the new DNA along with its own. After the retroviral DNA infects the cell it can lie dormant for a while before it activates itself. On top of that, these viruses are reproduced a ton, so it provides lots of opportunities for mutation. All of this makes it incredibly difficult for the immune system to fight them off.

Purposely injecting these dangerous retroviruses into our pets just doesn’t make much sense, does it? So, if you really love your best friend, keep him healthy through his diet and exercise and skip the vaccinations. (Related: Pet vaccines are costly, toxic and dangerous – no wonder pets die early now.)

Sources include:



Source Article from