Sunday, December 20, 2009

10 Facts about Fluoride

10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)

8) Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.


To access the references, click here

Friday, December 11, 2009

Tests Find More Than 200 Chemicals in Newborn Umbilical Cord Blood

Tests Find More Than 200 Chemicals in Newborn Umbilical Cord Blood

Study commissioned by environmental group finds high levels of chemicals in U.S. minority infants

By Sara Goodman


TOXIC INHERITANCE: Babies are born with a slew of potentially dangerous chemicals.

U.S. minority infants are born carrying hundreds of chemicals in their bodies, according to a report released today by an environmental group.

The Environmental Working Group's study commissioned five laboratories to examine the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies of African-American, Hispanic and Asian heritage and found more than 200 chemicals in each newborn.

"We know the developing fetus is one of the most vulnerable populations, if not the most vulnerable, to environmental exposure," said Anila Jacobs, EWG senior scientist. "Their organ systems aren't mature and their detox methods are not in place, so cord blood gives us a good picture of exposure during this most vulnerable time of life."

Of particular concern to Jacobs: 21 newly detected contaminants, including the controversial plastics additive bisphenol A, or BPA, which mimics estrogen and has been shown to cause developmental problems and precancerous growth in animals. Last month, researchers reported that male Chinese factory workers exposed to high levels of the chemical experienced erectile dysfunction and other sexual problems.

"BPA is a really important finding because people are really aware about its potential toxicity," Jacobs told reporters. "This is the first study to find BPA in umbilical cord blood, and it correlates with national data on it."

Jacobs said the study focused on minority children to show that chemical exposure is ubiquitous, building on 2005 research on cord blood from 10 anonymous babies. That study found a similar body burden among the babies. This is the first study to look at chemicals in minority newborns.

"Minority groups may have increased exposure to certain chemicals, but here we didn't focus on those chemicals," Jacobs said. "The sample size is too small to see major differences, but we want to increase awareness about chemical exposures."

Leo Trasande, co-director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said the findings, while preliminary, show that minority communities are often disproportionately affected by chemical exposure. Trasande was not involved in the EWG study.

"Presently, minority communities suffer from a host of chronic disorders, and disproportionate chemical exposures may contribute significantly to the origins of the disparities that exist," Trasande said.

Both he and Jacobs said the findings add momentum for the call to revamp the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, the law regulating the more than 80,000 chemicals on its database. They released the report on the same day that a Senate panel is scheduled to discuss the government's strategy for managing the tens of thousands of chemicals in the marketplace with an eye toward overhauling TSCA.

TSCA does not require most chemicals to be tested for safety before they are approved for widespread use. Because of this, Trasande said, less than half of the 3,000 high-production volume chemicals on the marketplace have toxicity data, and less than one-fifth have toxicity testing data on the effects on developing organs.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Caffeine hurts your unborn baby, ADD

Coffee & Caffeine During Pregnancy

Links to Learning Disabilities, ADD and Behavior Disorders


A very large review of the coffee/caffeine research was presented by French researcher, Dr. Astrid Nehlig, in the 1994 journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology. His review summarized over 200 medical journal articles on the coffee/caffeine subject. Below are what we consider to be the most significant quotes from Dr. Nehlig’s article:

"The teratogenic effect of caffeine has been clearly demonstrated in rodents. However, rodents are much more sensitive than primates to the teratogenic effects of many substances. Moreover, the quantity of caffeine needed to induce malformations in rodents reaches doses that are toxic in man. Thus a woman weighing 60 kg would have to consume 50-70 cups of coffee per day (or at least 20 cups if interspecific metabolic variations are taken into account) to absorb the equivalent of 80-100 mg/kg/day of caffeine, which is the dose usually required for development of malformations rats."

"World coffee consumption is increasing. Analyzing the data from surveys carried out in the United States, Japan, and West Germany for the period of 1980-1991, it appears that the number of coffee drinkers has decreased by 2-5% in three countries, while coffee consumption, in terms of number of cups/consumer/day has increased in each country."

"A mean size cup (150 ml) of caffeinated coffee contains in general about 90 mg of caffeine and 63 mg of caffeine for soluble instant coffee. The same volume of decaffeinated coffee contains 3 mg of caffeine, whereas the content of caffeine reaches 32-42 mg in 150 ml of tea and 16 mg in 150 ml of cola drinks."

"The daily consumption of caffeine in the general population ranges from 202-283 mg of caffeine which represents 2.7-4.0 mg/kg/day in males and females 20-75 years old."

"The half life of caffeine ranges from .7 -1.2 hours in the rat and mouse, 3-5 hours in the monkey and 2.5-6 hours in humans."

"Caffeine half-life is increased in the neonatal period in both animals and humans due to the immaturity of hepatic (liver) enzyme systems, namely cytochrome P-450. Half lives of 40-130 hours are found in premature and newborn infants. They decrease rapidly to 14.4 and 2.6 hours in 3-5 month and 5-6 month infants, respectively. Longer half-lives of caffeine are found in breast-fed than in formula fed infants."

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration published a warning in 1980 advising pregnant women to restrict or even eliminate consumption of coffee given the teratogenic effect (the ability to cause birth defects) observed in rodents."

"Finally, in comparing results of drug administration in both humans and animals, a correction factor for the dose must be applied, also called metabolic body weight. Indeed, dose equivalents based on metabolic body weight are substantially lower than those based on body weight: 20 mg/kg in the rat is equivalent to about 17 cups of coffee (at 100 mg/cup) in a 70-kg man on a body weight basis, but only 4 - 6 cups when corrections are made for differences in metabolic body weight."

"In the monkey, spontaneous abortions and stillbirths have been recorded at the 2 doses used, 10-15 and 25-35 mg/kg/day of caffeine. (Equivalent to 2-3 cups and 5-8 cups of coffee, respectively). In humans, coffee and caffeine consumption from other sources have been associated with a higher incidence of spontaneous abortions (in 5 studies."

"The association between coffee and/or caffeine intake and prematurity seems then to be very weak, or absent. According to one study, 11% of the spontaneous abortions can be attributed to smoking, 5% to alcohol, and only 2% to coffee."

"The risk for any kind of congenital abnormalities is 3.7% in individuals who consume caffeine and 1.7% in those who do not. The difference is statistically significant."

"It has also been shown that absorption of caffeine has a vasoconstrictive effect on placental circulation. Blood flow is not modified in the umbilical fetal vein but intervillious placental blood flow is significantly diminished after absorption of 2 cups of coffee. This decrease in blood flow along with increased concentration of noradrenaline induced by caffeine in the maternal serum could represent a potential risk for the fetus."

"Caffeine diffuses through the placenta and accumulates in the brain of the fetus (3 studies) Caffeine concentration of the fetal rat is higher in the brain than in the placenta whereas the metabolites of methylxanthine are evenly distributed between brain and placenta."

"Exposure of female rats to caffeine during pregnancy (.04% in drinking water) causes proportionally greater loss in brain weight than in body weight (3 studies)."

"When pregnant rats ingest 10-20 mg/kg day caffeine, the cerebral concentrations of these various elements are lower in offspring at birth."

"Exposure to caffeine during gestation and lactation (.04% in drinking water) also induces modifications in cerebral concentrations of catecholamines, tyrosine, tryptophan, serotonin, 5-hydroxyindole acetic aid, and cyclic nucleotides in the brain of 1 - 35 day old rat (4 studies), which can cause behavioral abnormalities, such as hypoactivity, during development of the animal."

"...Thus, it seems that early caffeine exposure, even at quite low doses, is able to induce a wide variety of neurochemical changes. These deficits concern both constitutive material such as proteins, DNA and RNA, and functional material such as neurotransmitters and ions."

"Offspring of female rats exposed to 60 or 100 mg/kg caffeine in their drinking water throughout gestation have reduced learning capacities as adults in a novel environment. In an open field, these animals also spend less time grooming, playing, and touching new objects. The authors concluded that the behavioral effects induced by prenatal caffeine exposure could be related to the "hyperactive" children syndrome (Sinton, C. M. et. al., 1981)."


Smaller Head Circumference

Lower Birth Weight After 300 mg Caffeine Intake

Source: Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Teratology, Vol. 7:9-17, 1985

Although 300 mg of caffeine intake represents approximately 2 or 3 cups of coffee, many people don’t realize the amount of caffeine they can consume from other sources besides coffee. Most studies, such as the ones previously mentioned, look for toxic effects based on the number of cups of coffee consumed per day. However, if significant amounts of caffeine can be ingested from other sources besides coffee, this could hide the true dangers when comparing coffee drinkers with non-coffee drinkers.

In this 1983 Ottawa study at Carleton University, Canada, the researchers analyzed the total caffeine intake from all sources in 286 pregnant women. For the first trimester of their pregnancy, coffee accounted for only 56% of their total caffeine intake, tea accounted for 37% of caffeine intake, while caffeinated soft drinks, chocolate bars, chocolate drinks and caffeinated medications accounted for approximately 7% of caffeine intake. These levels maintained about the same throughout pregnancy.

Approximately 4% of the women during pregnancy consumed 100 - 300 mg of coffee daily while 4% of the group consumed over 300 mg of coffee daily.

The researchers stated,

"The most marked effect associated with heavy caffeine use (over 300 mg daily) in the present study were the reduced birth weight and the smaller head circumference that persisted after statistically controlling for other potentially contributing factors."

The mean head circumference of the infants born to the heavier caffeine users was 1.1 centimeters (cm) smaller when compared to those consuming under 300 mg of caffeine daily (33.5 cm compared with 34.6 cm, respectively). This difference was considered significant. A significant decrease of 379 grams in average birth weight was also observed in the heavier caffeine group. The average weight of infants born to the heavier caffeine users was less than women consuming little caffeine (3537 grams for the low caffeine users and 3158 for the heavy caffeine user- nearly a 400 gram difference).

In summary, the researchers stated,

"It is during the last trimester of pregnancy that the greatest spurt in fetal growth occurs. The present results suggest that daily caffeine intake of 300 mg or more can interfere with normal fetal growth... The observed, relatively small birth weight reductions may be of minor importance to a healthy full-term baby of acceptable weight but may be of major clinical significance for a preterm or small infant."

Drs. B. Watkinson and P. A. Fried
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Maternal Caffeine Use Before, During and After Pregnancy and Effects Upon Offspring
Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Teratology, Vol. 7:9-17, 1985


Caffeine Exposure Increases Learning Problems and Hyperactivity
in Laboratory Mice

Abstract: Dams from two strains of mice, were treated during gestation with caffeine, at doses of about 60, 80, and 100 mg/kg/day, in their drinking water. The resulting offspring were behaviorally tested over a 6 month period commencing at age 9 months. When compared with controls, mice from dams that had received caffeine demonstrated longer latencies in passive avoidance test, and differences were also noted for female offspring in activity and habituation measures. Having controlled as far as possible for post natal maternal and environmental effects, the most likely conclusion is that caffeine has a direct pharmacological action on the fetus, and should therefore be classed as a behavioral teratogen in mice.

Monday, November 23, 2009

ADHD and Natural Therapies

ADHD and Natural Therapies PDF Print E-mail

A small pilot study was published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (2007 Dec;13(10):1091-7). The idea was to treat the 10 subjects with multiple natural therapies, including chelation, nutrition, environmental control, behavioral therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy and educational therapy. The subjects were aged 4-10 and had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and with ADHD. They were treated with a comprehensive program of natural therapies for 3-6 months. The results were judged by doctors, teachers and parents and all ten children demonstrated significant improvement in language skills, writing, behavior and social interaction. Also, urinary lead levels dropped in all of the subjects.

Granted, this was a small study. It was not double-blind or placebo controlled. It does, however bring up the interesting possibility that children with ADHD may respond to a comprehensive program of natural therapies. It makes sense to use a multi-faceted approach and try to develop a safe and natural way to address this complex problem. A larger, objective study would be interesting to see.

Migraine Headaches and Magnesium

A study appearing in Cephalalgia (1993;13:94-98) looked at magnesium levels in patients with migraine headaches and compared them to healthy controls. There were 30 patients who had migraine headaches with aura, 60 without aura and 30 healthy controls. The amount of magnesium in the red blood cells was measured. The migraine sufferers had significantly lower magnesium levels than did the subjects without headaches.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Dangerous Additives to Your Food

Do you know which seven dangerous food ingredients to watch out for in your groceries? These are the "deadly seven," as I call them, and they can directly promote heart disease, migraines, obesity, outrageous food cravings, osteoporosis, diabetes and even birth defects.

The top three most dangerous ingredients I've found in my research are:

1) Sodium nitrite -- causes cancer, found in processed meats like hot dogs, bacon, sausage. Used to make meats appear red (a color fixer chemical).

2) Hydrogenated oils -- causes heart disease, nutritional deficiencies, general deterioration of cellular health, and much more. Found in cookies, crackers, margarine and many "manufactured" foods. Used to make oils stay in the food, extending shelf life. Sometimes also called "plastic fat."

3) Excitotoxins -- aspartame, monosodium glutamate and others (see below). These neurotoxic chemical additives directly harm nerve cells, over-exciting them to the point of cell death, according to Dr. Russell Blaylock. They're found in diet soda, canned soup, salad dressing, breakfast sausage and even many manufactured vegetarian foods. They're used to add flavor to over-processed, boring foods that have had the life cooked out of them.

Did you know, for example, that:

  • Feeding children hot dogs increases their risk of brain cancer by 300%?
  • Strawberry yogurt, fruit punch and other red-looking grocery products are often colored with dead, ground-up cochineal beetles? The ingredient is called "carmine," and it's made from insects. It's listed right on the label of many of your favorite foods.
  • Food companies now "hide" MSG in safe-sounding ingredients like yeast extract or torula yeast?
  • Many Florida oranges are actually dipped in an artificial orange dye in order to make them more visually appealing? It's the same dye that's been banned for use in foods because of cancer risk.
  • Girl Scout cookies are still made with hydrogenated oils that contain trans fatty acids?
  • Many so-called "healthy" or vegetarian foods also contain the very same offending ingredients as conventional groceries?
  • Eating just one serving of processed meats each day increases your risk of pancreatic cancer by 67%?
  • One artificial color additive causes behavioral disorders in children? And that 80% of children diagnosed with ADHD can be outright cured of the condition in two weeks by avoiding certain ingredients?
  • The #1 ingredient in Slim Fast meal replacement shake (powder form) is sugar?
  • Some guacamole dips don't even contain avocado? Instead, they're made with hydrogenated soybean oil and artificial colors.

Everything I'm sharing here is absolutely true. It's all quite shocking, yes, but this is information you need to know if you want to feed yourself -- and your family -- foods that actually promote health instead of disease.

The truth about metabolic disruptors

Nearly all modern diseases are caused by what I call "metabolic disruptors." These are common ingredients, such as white flour and sugar, that prevent your body from healing. Unfortunately, metabolic disruptors are used in almost all commercially prepared foods, which means most products on your grocer's shelves contribute to poor health. But if you know what to look for, you can fill your cart with foods that will help you live a longer more vibrant life.

Back to the "hidden" ingredients

So how do food companies manage to hide excitotoxins and taste additives to their foods? It's easy: They just keep changing the words to confuse consumers. Once customers learned to avoid MSG / monosodium glutamate, the food companies started using yeast extract.

And now, many companies have switched to "torula yeast," which accomplishes the same thing. Other hidden sources of MSG include:

• Autolyzed vegetable protein
• Hydrolyzed vegetable protein

• Calcium caseinate

• Sodium caseinate

• Textured protein

The ingredients "stacking" trick

Food companies also use the ingredients stacking trick to intentionally leave you with the wrong impression about what's really in their food products.

For example, one company makes a nutrition bar that's absolutely loaded with sugar, but they way they've arranged the ingredients prevents sugar from appearing as the #1 ingredient. Instead, the first ingredient is rice. But looking down the label, you'll find all the following forms of sugar, all in the same nutrition bar:

• Sugar
• Sucrose
• High-fructose corn syrup
• Corn syrup solids
• Dextrose

Add all these up, and the #1 component in the bar is, indeed, sugar (or sugary substances). But the manufacturer has used ingredients stacking to make you think the top ingredient is actually rice.

It's a clever, dishonest technique used by food companies to lie with food labels.

Remember, the longer the ingredients label, the less healthy the food. Read those ingredients lists before buying foods, and if you discover chemical names that you can't pronounce, don't buy the food!

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Mercury Amalgam Toxicity and Removal

Amalgam Removal Does Lower
the Body Burden of Mercury
Australian Risk Assessment of Mercury
Exposure from Dental Amalgam Published August 2000
Prepared by Chem Affairs Pty Ltd PO Box 890 Lane Cove NSW 1595
Published August 2000
This risk assessment was commissioned by the National Health & Medical Research
Council of Australia (NHMRC), as part of a series of recommendations put forward by a
working party which was set up in 1998 to assess the literature about the dangers of
mercury from dental amalgam. NH&MRC have not yet endorsed this document. Although
most of the report claims safety for amalgam on the bases of a supposed "Normal Mercury
Level" in the body it is important to know that there has never been a level of mercury
exposure which is considered safe. The “Normal” levels suggested in this report are far above
the levels set by both the USEPA and the ATSDR.
In point 8 of the Executive Summary the following is stated:
"Amalgam removal has been shown to be effective in reducing mercury levels to the
levels of those in people without amalgam fillings. Chelation treatment has also reduced
levels in the short-term….in one case report, amalgam removal has reduced a very
high urine mercury level to a normal level. This change was accompanied by a decline
in symptoms………."
Potential Biological Consequences of Mercury Released from Dental Amalgam. A
State of the Art Document?
The Australian and other dental associations in the world have consistently claimed that
removing amalgam for the sake of health improvements is unethical as there is no
relationship between mercury from dental amalgam and disease. They still hold this
position. Much of their claims of late are based on a report called "Potential Biological
Consequences of Mercury Released from Dental Amalgam. A State of the Art
Document. [MFR-panel (Swedish Medical Research Council)]A State of the Art Conference
in Stockholm 9-10 April 1992”.
The dental associations come to the following conclusions, which are responded to by Prof.
Murray Vimy, one of the leaders of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and
Toxicology. Note Prof Vimy's credentials - Murray J. Vimy BA, DMD, FAGD, FIAOMT
Clinical Associate Professor Department of Medicine
Dental Association Comments:
"- Mercury released from dental amalgam does not, according to available data, contribute
to systemic disease or systemic toxicological effects.
No significant effects on the immune system have been demonstrated with the amounts of
mercury which may be released from dental amalgam fillings.
- Allergic reactions to mercury from amalgam have been demonstrated, but are extremely
• In very few individuals local reactions such as lichenoid reactions of the mucosa,
may occur adjacent to amalgam restorations as well as adjacent to dental
restorations made of other materials.
• There are no data supporting that mercury released from dental amalgam give rise
to teratological effects.
• The possible environmental consequences of mercury from handling dental
amalgam can be controlled by proper waste management, including the installation
of efficient amalgam separators in dental offices.
• Available data do not justify discontinuing the use of silver-containing dental
amalgam fillings or recommending their replacement."
In the panel: Bergman B (chairman), Bostrom H, Larsson K S, Li5e H
Professor Vimy’s Response:
In An open letter to Sekreterare Tore Scherstén Medicinska Forskningsrådet Swedish
Medical Research Council Box 6713 S-113 85 Stockholm, Sweden December 15, 1992
Re: Potential Biological Consequences of Mercury Released from Dental Amalgam. A
Swedish state of the Art Conference,
April 9, 1992.
Dear Secretary Scherstén:
By now you must have felt the pressure of a number of groups who have criticized your
"conference". In fairness to you, it is apparent that trust was misplaced in an organizing
committee, which had no intention of convening an objective academic scientific forum.
Rather, these individuals had a predetermined agenda, as demonstrated by their public
positions on the issue of amalgam safety taken on many occasions prior to this meeting.
Drs. Larsson, Löe and Bergman are all on the record as defenders of the status quo. Dr.
Bergman's objectivity is tainted by his wife's involvement in the issue; while Dr. Larsson is
on the record as a strong supporter of amalgam. Indeed it was incredible to see this person
act as both presenter and "judge", especially since he has no scientific experimental track
record of his own to demonstrate his expertise in this area. Finally, Dr. Löe, politically,
administratively and economically affiliated with the American dental establishment, is
apparently more concerned with preventing litigation in the U.S.A. than he is with
determining scientific truth. His opening biased remarks made it obvious why he was chosen
as moderator. Dr. Boström was red herring - a physician "yes"-man with absolutely no
research expertise in this area.
The conference presenters showed a general lack of expertise. Most have poor research
records and many had not published research papers on either mercury or dental amalgam.
This is easily determined by reviewing the bibliographies to their written presentations.
They have few if any research papers of their own to cite! The penultimate example was Dr.
Petr Skrabanek, a self anointed "quack catcher". This individual, who has no scientific
expertise of amalgam, is one of a growing group of self appointed watch-dog "experts". In
North America, we have an organization called the National Council Against Health Fraud
which purports to be expert in everything. Dr. Skrabanek's mere presence at the meeting
totally discredited the scientific purpose of the conference. Sweden, a country of many
noted scientists, was better represented by the quality of the expertise in the audience
than by the quality of many conference speakers.
Finally, I understand that my invitation to present a paper at this conference was extended
reluctantly by the organizing committee, and only after political pressure for a more
balanced meeting. If you review the list of speakers chosen it will be obvious that the
intention of the organizers was to "white wash" the conclusions. The conclusions of the
conference were drawn by the organizing committee and do not represent a consensus view
of all the participants or the audience. Since the results were apparently prordained, as I
have just described, they are not credible.
I have enclosed for your information a reprint of a recent medical scientific forum on the
same issue (Goering et. al., 1992). As you can see, there is now international scientific
concurrence on a number of points related to the amalgam mercury issue and its potential
effects on human health; a concurrence which is in marked contrast to the "massaged"
conclusions of the Swedish Medical Research Council's biased organizing committee.
Respectfully yours, [signed Murray J. Vimy BA, DMD, FAGD, FIAOMT Clinical Associate
Professor Department of Medicine (also Private Practice of Dental Medicine)]
A vast wealth of published research exists which clearly demonstrates that removing the
source of the mercury poisoning – the amalgam fillings – will in fact lower the body burden
of mercury. Here is a small taste of this literature:
1. Idiosyncrasy to metallic mercury,
with special reference to amalgam
fillings in the Teeth. Bass M HJ Pediat
23:215-218 (1943)
2. Thrombocytopenia in two children
after placement of amalgam fillings in
primary teeth. Berglund F, Elinder G
Program, Sammanfattningar, Svenska
Läkarsällskapets Riksstämma 27-29
nov 1991
3. Mercury allergy resulting from
amalgam restorations. Engelman M A J
Amer Dent Assoc 66:122-123 (1963 )
4. Chronic illness in association with
dental amalgam: Report of two cases.
Godfrey M E J Adv Med 3:247-255
5. Amalgam-related chronic ulceration
of oral mucosa. Jolly M, Moule A J,
Freeman S Br Dent J 160:434- 437
6. Exercise-induced anaphylaxis:
improvement after removal of
amalgam in dental caries. Katsununa
T, Iikura Y, Nagakura T, Saitoh H,
Akimoto K, Akasawa A, Kindaichi S Ann
Allergy 64:472-475 (1990)
7. A Case of High Mercury exposure
from Dental Amalgam. Langworth S,
Strömberg R European Journal of Oral
Sciences. Jun 1996; 104(3):320-321.
ISSN: 0909- 8836
8. Urticaria following a dental silver
filling - case report. Markow H New
York State J Med 43:1648-1652 (1943)
9. Three cases of linear lichen planus
cused by dental metal compounds. :
Sasaki G, Yokozeki H, Katayama I,
Nishioka K: J Dermatol 1996 Dec
23:12 890-2
10. Generalized allergic reaction from
silver amalgam fillings Strassburg M,
Schubel R : Dtsche Zahnarztliche Zeit
22:3-9 (1967)
11. A case of hypersensitivity to
mercury released from amalgam
fillings. Witek E Source: Czas Stomat
12. Allergic reaction to mercury after
dental treatment. Wright F A C New
Zealand Dent J 67:25l-252 (1971)
13. Description of persons with
symptoms presumed to be caused by
electricity or visual display units--oral
aspects. Bergdahl J, Anneroth G,
Stenman E Scand J Dent Res. 1994
Feb; 102(1): 41-5
14. Long-term mercury excretion in
urine after removal of amalgam fillings
Begerow J, Zander D, Freier I,
Dunemann L Int Arch Occup Environ
Health 1994 66:3 209-12
15. Effect of Replacement of Dental
Amalgam on Oral Lichenoid Reactions.
Bratel J, Hakeberg M, Jontell M:
Journal of Dentistry. Jan-Mar 1996;
24(1- 2):41-45
16. Mercury sensitization in amalgam
fillings. Assessment from a
dermatologic viewpoint Brehler R,
Panzer B, Forck G, Bertram H P Dtsch
Med Wochenschr 1993 Apr 2 118:13
17. Healing of Lichenoid Reactions
Following Removal of Amalgam - a
Clinical Follow-up Henriksson E,
Mattsson U, Håkansson J:. J Clin
Periodont 22(4):287-294 (1995)
18. The Relevance and Effect of
Amalgam Replacement in Subjects with
Oral Lichenoid Reactions Ibbotson S H,
Speight E L, Macleod R I, Smart E R,
Lawrence C M British Journal of
Dermatology. Mar 1996; 134 (3):420-
423. ISSN: 0007-0963
19. Resolution of oral lichenoid lesions
after replacement of amalgam
restorations in patients allergic to
mercury compounds.: Laine J, Kalimo
K, Forssell H, Happonen R P Br J
Dermatol 126(1):10-15
20. Symptoms before and after proper
amalgam removal in relation to serumglobulin
reaction to metals.
Lichtenberg H Journal of
Orthomolecular Medicine Vol 11 No.4.
pp 195-203 1996.
21. Effects of Removing Amalgam
Fillings from Patients with Diseases
Affecting the Immune SystemLindqvist
B, Mörnstad H Medical Science
Research. May 1996; 24(5):355-356
22. Allergy and corrosion of dental
materials in patients with oral lichen
planus. Lundström I M C Int J Oral
Surg 13:16-24 (1984)
23. Amalgam Associated Oral Lichenoid
Reactions: Clinical and Histologic
Changes After Removal of Amalgam
Fillings. Östman P O, Anneroth G,
Skoglund A Oral Surgery Oral Medicine
Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and
Endodontics. Apr 1996; 81 (4):459-
24. Resolution of lichen planus
following removal of amalgam
restorations in patients with proven
allergy to mercury salts: a pilot study.
Smart E R, Macleod R I, Lawrence C M
Br Dent J 178(3):108-112 (1995)
25. The contribution of dental amalgam
to mercury in blood. Snapp K R, Boyer
D B, Peterson L C, Svare C W J Dent
Res. 1989 May; 68(5):780-5
26. Removal of Dental Mercury: Often
an Effective Treatment for the Very
Sensitive Patient Zamm A F J
Orthomolecular Med 5(53):138-142
27. Elimination of symptoms by
removal of dental amalgam from
mercury poisoned patients, as
compared with a control group of
average patients. Lichtenberg H J J
Orthomol Med 8:145-148 (1993)
28. Mercury, selenium, and glutathione
peroxidase before and after amalgam
removal in man. Molin M, Bergman B,
Marklund S L, Schütz A, Skerfving Acta
Odontol Scand. 1990 Jun; 48(3): 189-
29. The relationship between mercury
from dental amalgam and oral cavity
health. Siblerud R LAnn Dent 49(2):6-
10 (1990)
30. A comparison of mental health of
multiple sclerosis patients with
silver/mercury dental fillings and those
with fillings removed. Siblerud R L
Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun; 70(3 Pt 2):
31. Evidence that mercury from silver
dental fillings may be an etiological
factor in multiple sclerosis. Siblerud R
L, Kienholz E Sci Total Environ. 1994
Mar 15; 142(3): 191-205
32. Mercury-Specific Lymphocytes: An
Indication of Mercury Allergy in Man.
Stejskal V, Forsbeck M, Cederbrant K
E, Asteman O J of Clin Immun, Vol. 16,
No.1, 1996, pp. 31-40.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Phthalates, breast cancer, and plastics

One of the most important health concerns for women today is breast cancer. Statistics show approximately 1 in 7 women will get breast cancer. Those are scary odds. As clinicians, we can
make a profound difference. In many cases, we can truly predict and prevent breast cancer; and
we can monitor our progress.

Mammograms and early chemo cocktails are not my idea of prevention.
Now everyone knows you don’t just wake up one day and find out you have breast cancer.
Cancer growth is a process. It takes years before aberrant cells can accumulate to a point where
we can feel or even detect a lump. Most women have no idea that they are exposed to something every day that can dramatically speed cancer growth, excess estrogen and estrogen mimics.
Years ago, it was found that estrogen added to cancer cells caused the cancers to grow like
wild fire. Later researchers accidentally found that cancers cultured in plastic petri dishes had
dramatically accelerated growth even without adding estrogen. It turned out that the phthalates
leeching out of the plastic containers were such potent cast estrogen mimics that they turned
on the growth of cancer cells.
It’s obvious then that synthetic estrogens, whether they are from prescriptions or from estrogen
mimics, can alter our chances for breast and other types of cancer. The bad news is that our
society is swimming in a sea of estrogen.
Estrogen mimics or xenoestrogens are used in plastic bottles that hold pop and bottled water.
They’re also used in plastic wraps that wrap supermarket meats and vegetables, etc. Many of the pesticides and herbicides on our fruits and vegetables have estrogen like activity.
The meats we eat are also increasing our estrogen levels.

Animals are fed estrogen to increase their water weight before slaughter.

One dramatic study demonstrating the effects of zenoestrogens in our drinking water found that
male small mouth bass taken from a drinking water source actually had eggs in their testes.
Most women have no idea they are exposed to something everyday that can dramatically speed cancer growth. These fish were harvested from a river that provides drinking water for millions of people.
One of the best tests to predict and prevent breast cancer is the 2/16 hydroxyestrone test. It measures the ratio of “good” estrogen to “bad” estrogen. This simple urine test can predict years in advance whether your patients have the cellular soil that encourages cancer growth.

The article mentions the 16 alpha hydroxyestrone metabolite is a potent cancer “enhancer”; however, the 2-hydrolase estrogen metabolite actually “protects” us against cancer. If the 2/16 estrogen ratio favors the 16 hydroxyestrone, chances for cancer are significantly elevated. Ratios under 2 suggest an increased risk for breast cancer and with men prostate cancer, while ratios over 2 suggest healthy detoxification pathways and reduced risk.
Anyone concerned about breast cancer should start by reducing plastics, pesticides, and commercial meat exposure and begin the following: Eat at least 1 cup of the Brassica or cruciferous vegetables daily to detoxify the body and help keep this ratio in the correct balance. In fact, this will increase your body’s ability to detoxify harmful liver agents like Tylenol by 20 %.
Cruciferous veggies contain multiple nutrients with potent anti-cancer properties:
diindolylmethane, sulforaphane, and selenium. Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have recently discovered that 3, 3’-Diindolylmethane (or DIM) in Brassica vegetables has potent anti-cancer activity. DIM is actually derived from the digestion of indole-3-carbinol found in Brassica vegetables. Sulforaphane among other things increases Phase II detoxification and reduces free radical damage. Who would have ever thought that eating simple vegetables could have such strong anti-cancer properties?
Of course for men, cruciferous vegetable consumption is inversely related to the incidence of prostate cancer and reduces homocysteine levels. So you can see, these wonderful cancer preventers are not sexists. Ask us to get a list of these vegetables. And remember, just 1 cup a day can make a profound difference in long term health.
Here are some things you can do in terms of nutrients to affect estrogen ratios. The green drinkthat we carry from Biotics Research, NitroGreens, contains sprouted cruciferous vegetables broccoli, cauliflower, and kale. The sprouted forms are even more potent than the raw or cooked forms. 1 scoop per day is an excellent prevention strategy. It also contains beet and carrot juices which have liver protecting abilities as well. NitroGreens have the alkalizing effect of the grasses.
Also flax seeds: 2 tablespoons of ground up flax seeds on salad, in your NitroGreens shake or with the above mentioned cruciferous vegetables has been shown to improve the 2/16 hydroxyestrone ratio as well. That’s over and above what the veggies will accomplish.
Optimal EFAs (capsules or liquids) are a blend of ultra pure EPA, DHA, organic Flax seed oil, cancer (and eczema) fighting GLA, and a balance of the omega 9 oils. 2 to 3 capsules, 2 times per day will provide excellent protection.
Finally, we can’t even talk about reducing breast cancer without talking about one of the biggest
deficiencies in the Midwest. That is an iodine deficiency.
Iodine protects breast, ovarian, uterine and prostate tissue, and is essential for healthy thyroid
function. Liquid iodine forte should be used at 30 drops per day or use a tableted form called Iodizyme-HP. Iodine levels can be assessed through a 24 hour urine collection for more precise protocols.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Top 10 Myths About Vitamin D

Top 10 Myths About Vitamin D

By Jared M. Skowron, ND

Myth 1: Vitamin D is a vitamin.

Truth: Vitamin D is a hormone. It’s derived from cholesterol. It activates cellular processes and does not do so as a co-factor.

Vitamin D receptors have direct effects on the following cells: adipose, adrenal, bone, brain, breast, cancer, cartilage, colon, endothelium, epididymis, ganglion, hair follicle, intestine, kidney, liver, lung, muscle, osteoblasts, ovary, pancreatic B, parathyroid, parotid, pituitary, placenta, prostate, skin, stomach, testis, thymus, thyroid and uterus.

Myth 2: Normal activity provides us enough vitamin D from average sun exposure.

The truth: Most people do not get enough sunshine to maintain adequate vitamin D levels. Our ancestors spent most of the day in the sun, farming, fishing and hunting. Our bodies physiologically developed to need that much vitamin D. Today’s indoor society of office workers, television watchers and hermits gets much less sun exposure and vitamin D production. Add on clothing and sunscreen, which also inhibit vitamin D production, and you understand the problem.

Myth 3: Supplemented vitamin D in foods is adequate.

The truth: Vitamin D2 is one-third as effective in the body as naturally occurring vitamin D3. Most foods – milk, most notably – have D2 added. A study that analyzed vitamin D2 levels in milk off supermarket shelves showed almost 50 percent had less than the label claim of 400 IU of D2. A support scientist from the USDA believes no food-label claims are accurate and these labels cannot be trusted.

Myth 4: 1,25(OH)D3 is the best analysis for vitamin D levels.

The truth: Vitamin D is mostly stored in adipose and should not be routinely measured. It then converts to 25(OH)D3, which has a long half-life and is the best analysis of vitamin D levels. It then converts to bi-hydroxy forms such as 1,25(OH)D3, 24,25(OH)D3 and other forms, which have the actual action of the cell receptors. However, this form has a short half-life and is not a good measurement.

Myth 5: The reference range for vitamin D levels is accurate.

The truth: The reference range for 25(OH)D3 is horribly inaccurate and is maintaining our vitamin D deficiency in this country. The current reference range of 20-100 is too low. Levels <25>

Myth 6: Vitamin D supplementation is nontoxic.

The truth: The major consequence of vitamin D toxicity is hypercalcemia, which should be monitored periodically while under therapy. Changes in cardiac rhythms or lithiasis are common concerns. Urine calcium monitoring is not accurate. Serum calcium should be monitored monthly to check vitamin D toxicity, which normally occurs at 40,000 IU/day. Right now, 10,000 IU/day is being proposed as the safe upper limit.

Myth 7: The RDA for vitamin D is accurate.

The truth: People taking only the RDA of vitamin D will lower their 25(OH)D3 levels. The RDA is too low. When treating with vitamin D supplementation, three months of daily dosing is sufficient to max out 25(OH)D3 levels. Five thousand IU/day for three months should elevate 25(OH)D3 by 80 nmol/L, and 10,000 IU/day for three months should elevate 25(OH)D3 by 120 nmol/L. People on 1,000 IU/day will elevate their levels by only 10 nmol/L.

Myth 8: Forms of vitamin D are all the same.

The truth: Vitamin D3 is the preferred form. Avoid D2 at all costs. D3 is derived either from plant sources or from lanolin. Lanolin-derived D3 is more active and absorbable. I take the 10,000 IU capsules of D3.

Myth 9: Vitamin D only treats osteoporosis and rickets.

The truth: The therapeutic benefits of vitamin D are still being discovered. Benefits relative to cancer, cardiac, immune-boosting, diabetes and neurological (such as multiple sclerosis) therapies, as well as low bone density, are just the tip of the iceberg. I test all of my patients for vitamin D deficiency and supplement regularly up to the 75-200 reference range of 25(OH)D3.

Myth 10: Vitamin D should be avoided in pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The truth: Pregnant women should receive 4,000 IU of daily vitamin D supplementation. Breast-feeding women should receive 6,000 IU of daily vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D, not 25(OH)D3, crosses into the breast milk, and daily doses are preferred over weekly doses. Avoid supplementing the infant and instead supplement the breast-feeding mother directly. If the infant is bottle-fed, supplement with 400-800 IU/day.
Dr. Jared M. Skowron is in private practice in Hamden, Conn., where he specializes in pediatrics and treating autistic spectrum disorders in children. He is the senior naturopathic physician with Metabolic Maintenance and an adjunct professor at the University of Bridgeport, teaching pediatrics, CPD and EENT.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Symptoms is NOT the Cause

Are symptoms good or bad? What do they mean? Who gets them? What should i do when i don't feel good? When is the right time to get adjusted? When should you take medicine, either over the counter or prescription drugs? Is a fever bad? How hi is too hi? How come your kids are never sick? What do you give your kids when they're sick? What can i do to stop these earaches? If you don't give them drugs, what do you do?

My kids won't eat vegetables. My kids are always tired and fussy. Look at these bumps on her arm. Bedtime? What's that? What about the dark circles under her eyes? Bowel movements three times a day, are you kidding me! No milk! Where do they get their calcium? My doctor told me its normal to have 1 bowel movement a week. What do you feed your kids? You get your baby adjusted?!

Many years ago I learned about HERING'S LAW: "All cure comes from the head down, from the inside out, and in reverse order as the symptoms first appeared." I also learned that dis-ease is associated with 2 basic processes: the lack of biochemical elements(whole, pure and natural foods) and the lack of proper elimination(or the accumulation of the bodies toxic wastes), resulting in a lowered immune system. You see, you don't "catch" a dis-ease". You are either working and training to be healthy or working toward dis-ease. The choice is ours! When we focus on natural healing, eating organic, natural foods, and a more healthy lifestyle, the "bugs", "germs", and "viruses" are not a threat.

First, lets choose to reduce or eliminate fast, fake, processed, devitalized food. Start shopping only on the outside aisle of the grocery store. You will be amazed! That's where you are going to find your fruits, vegetables, meats, and dairy. When you are ready for the next step, look for organic produce and dairy products. You want your meals to consist of 6 vegetables, 2 fruits, 1 starch, and 1 protein per day: vegetables provide minerals, fruits provide vitamins, starches provide energy, and protein is needed for building healthy tissue cells. PROPER NUTRITION is the first step to a health. GO GREEN!!

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Immune Boost: This Is Spinal Zap

It came to the point where something had to give. Lilian Garcia's pollen, dust, and food allergies were getting her down. Her allergies were even affecting her job. The recording artist and World Wrestling ringmaster's voice wasn't achieving optimal performance. But that soon changed. While she was cutting a record with singer-songwriter Jon Secada, he suggested chiropractic care. Though the recommendation struck her as unconventional, Garcia was desperate for a solution. She set up an appointment.

The test of efficacy came soon after she started regular chiropractic treatment, during a moment of weakness in the mall. "I saw an ice cream cone and I went for it," Garcia remembers. "I ate two and I had zero complications. It was my first ice cream cone in 12 years." The connection between her allergies and chiropractic care seemed natural. "Something's flowing better."

Terry Rondberg, president of the World Chiropractic Alliance, explains that the spine does play a role in wellbeing. He notes that many factors affect the body's ability to maintain optimal balance. Nutrition, posture, exercise, stress, fatigue are important, but so is the health of your spine.

Chiropractic care was first linked to improved immunity during the deadly flu epidemic of 1917 and 1918. The funny thing was: Chiropractic patients fared better than the general population. This observation spurred a study of the field. The data reported that flu victims under chiropractic care had an estimated .25 percent death rate, a lot less than the normal rate of 5 percent among flu victims who did not receive chiropractic care.

In the years since, studies are finding that chiropractic care is a way to improve immunity. One study, from the National College of Chiropractic in Lombard, Illinois, found that disease-fighting white blood cell counts were higher just 15 minutes after chiropractic manipulation was applied to the back. A similar study investigated the immune system response in HIV-positive patients under chiropractic care. After six months of treating spinal misalignment, the group receiving the chiropractic treatment showed a 48 percent increase in white blood cell counts. Conversely, the group that did not receive chiropractic manipulation experienced a 7.96 percent decrease in immunity cells.

Time—and more studies—will show whether chiropractic treatment is a necessary addition to your immune system's arsenal. Lilian Garcia, however, has all the proof she needs. "I see my chiropractor every week," she says, "and there's no way I'm going to stop."

Chemo Does Not Cure: Often It Inflicts Damage and Spreads Cancer

taxol(NaturalNews) For years now, many of us who advocate natural health and natural approaches to beating cancer have warned against the dangers and the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy. The following report presented at the 27th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium illustrates how chemo actually spreads cancer cells, as well as points out how little we are being told about the dangers of chemo:

“German investigators from Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that taxol (the “gold standard of chemo”) causes a massive release of cells into circulation.

“Such a release of cancer cells would result in extensive metastasis months or even years later, long after the chemo would be suspected as the cause of the spread of the cancer. This little known horror of conventional cancer treatment needs to be spread far and wide, but it is not even listed in the side effects of taxol.”

As has oft been stated, chemo does not cure cancer - it merely attempts to eliminate the tumors and cancer cells that are symptoms of the underlying causes of cancer, and does so with little success and great risks. In some instances it may appear to eliminate tumors and cancer cell masses, though most often it merely destroys some of the cancer cells. In the process, it often inflicts a very high price.

Besides spreading cancer cells, chemo inflicts serious and perhaps irreversible damage to the immune system, the body’s natural first line of defense against cancer and other illness - thus paving the way for the remaining cancer cells or future cancers to overwhelm a body that is even less able to beat the cancer that got past the immune system in the first place.

Chemo also frequently results in serious and even fatal damage, and major organs are also damaged, particularly the liver - which as cancer pioneer Max Gerson observed is always impaired to begin in those who get cancer. The heart is also frequently seriously damaged.

The end result is that chemo kills more patients than it “cures”. Most of those deaths are the result of liver or heart failure. Statistically, it has been estimated that the five year success rate from chemo is only about 3% (meaning only about 3% more patients who opted for chemo survived at least five years than did those who opted to not undergo chemo). But even that meager statistic is misleading in two key ways:

First of all, though survival rates are slightly higher for the first couple of years compared to those who opted out of chemo, after the third year the survival rate for those who opted out is greater than those who were treated with chemo and the gap widens significantly every year after that.

Secondly, and perhaps most important of all, the survival rates compare all of those who either undergo chemotherapy or decide against it. That includes the very large number of people who do little or nothing to address their cancer naturally and merely forego chemo. If chemo survival rates were compared with those of people who not only opted out of chemo, but also chose a non-invasive natural protocol to eliminate the toxins and other causes of cancer, to boost their immune systems and to attack the cancer naturally without inflicting damage to the rest of the body, there would surely be no comparison.

You can bet that it is a comparison the cancer industry never wants to make.

Sources Included:

27th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, (abstract 6014)
“Conventional Cancer Treatments”
“Hiding the Truth about Losing the War on Cancer”
Buzz up!
8 votes

About the author
Tony Isaacs, is a natural health advocate and researcher and the author of books and articles about natural health including “Cancer’s Natural Enemy” and “Collected Remedies”as well as song lyrics and humorous anecdotal stories. Mr. Isaacs also has The Best Years in Life website for baby boomers and others wishing to avoid prescription drugs and mainstream managed illness and live longer, healthier and happier lives naturally. He is currently residing in the scenic Texas hill country near Utopia, Texas where he serves as a consultant to the Utopia Silver colloidal silver and supplement company and where he is working on a major book project due for publication later this year. Mr. Isaacs also hosts the CureZone “Ask Tony Isaacs” forum as well as the Yahoo Health Group “Oleander Soup”

Monday, October 5, 2009

Ten Swine Flu Lies Told by MSM

msm(NaturalNews) The mainstream media is engaged in what we Americans call “bald faced lies” about swine flu. It seems to be true with this issue more than any other, and it became apparent to me recently when a colleague of mine — a nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist — told me their column on natural defenses for swine flu was rejected by newspapers all across the country. Many newspapers refused to run the column and, instead, ran an ad for “free vaccine clinics” in the same space.

The media, it seems, is so deeply in bed with the culture of vaccinations that they will do almost anything to keep the public misinformed. And that includes lying about swine flu vaccines.

There are ten key lies that continue to be told by the mainstream media (MSM) about swine flu and swine flu vaccines.

Lie #1 - There are no adjuvants used in the vaccines

I was recently being interviewed by a major U.S. news network when the reporter interviewing me came up with this humdinger: There are no adjuvants being used in the swine flu vaccines, he said!
I assured him that adjuvants were, indeed, a crucial part of the vaccine recipe, and they were being widely used by drug companies to “stretch” the vaccine supply. It’s no secret. But he insisted he had been directly told by a drug company rep that no adjuvants were being used at all. And he believed them! So everything being published by this large news network about swine flu vaccines now assumes there are no adjuvants in the vaccines at all.

Lie #2 - The swine flu is more dangerous than seasonal flu

This lie is finally starting to unravel. I admit that in the early days of this pandemic, even I was concerned this could be a global killer. But after observing the very mild impact the virus was having on people in the real world, it became obvious that this was a mild flu, no more dangerous than a seasonal flu. The MSM, however, continues to promote H1N1 swine flu as being super dangerous, driving fear into the minds of people and encouraging them to rush out and get a vaccine shot for a flu that’s really no more likely to kill them than the regular winter sniffles. Sure, the virus could still mutate into something far worse, but if it does that, the current vaccine could be rendered obsolete anyway!

Lie #3 - Vaccines protect you from swine flu

This is the biggest lie of all, and the media pushes it hard. Getting a vaccine, they insist, will protect you from the swine flu. But it’s just flat-out false. Even if the vaccine produces antibodies, that’s not the same thing as real-world immunity from a live virus, especially if the virus mutates (as they often do). As I pointed out in a recent article, statistically speaking the average American is 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to have their life saved by a swine flu vaccine. (…)

Lie #4 - Vaccines are safe

And how would any journalists actually know this? None of the vaccines have been subjected to real-world testing for any meaningful duration. The “safety” of these vaccines is nothing more than wishful thinking. The MSM also doesn’t want you to know what’s in the vaccines. Some vaccines are made from viral fragments grown in diseased African monkeys. If that sounds incredible, read the true story here:…

Lie #5 - The vaccine isn’t mandatory

You hear this lie all the time: The swine flu vaccine shot is voluntary, they say. But it’s not true if you’re an employee at a place where vaccines are being mandated. Millions of Americans are now being told by their employers that if they don’t get vaccine shots, they will be effectively fired from their jobs. It’s especially true with health care workers, day care employees and school teachers.

Lie #6 - Getting a vaccine shot is a good bet on your health

In reality, a vaccine shot is far more likely to harm you than help you. According to one viral expert, the actual mortality rate of the swine flu virus is estimated to be as low as .007 percent (…). That means H1N1 swine flu kills less than one person in 100,000. Even if the vaccine works, let’s say, 10 percent of the time, you’d have to vaccine one million people to prevent one death from swine flu. And in vaccinating one million people, you would inevitably harm or kill several people, simply from the vaccine side effects! Your net risk of death is increased by getting a swine flu vaccine.

Lie #7 - The vaccine isn’t made with “attenuated live virus”

When the swine flu vaccines were first being announced several months ago, they were described as being made with “attenuated live virus.” This was directly mentioned in CDC documents, among other places. This term apparently freaked out the American news consumer, and it has since been all but erased from any discussion about vaccines. Now, journalists will actually argue with you and insist the vaccines contain no attenuated live viruses whatsoever. Except they’re wrong. The vaccines are, indeed, made with “attenuated live viruses.” That’s how you make a vaccine: You take live viruses, then you weaken them (”attenuate”) and inject them into people.

Lie #8 - Wash, wash, wash your hands (to avoid exposure)

This idea of washing your hands a hundred times a day is all based on the assumption that you can avoid exposure to the swine flu virus. But that’s impractical. The virus is now so widespread that virtually everyone is certain to be exposed to it through the air if not other means. This whole idea of avoiding exposure to the swine flu virus is nonsense. The conversation should shift to ways to survive exposure via a healthy immune system. Of course, hand washing is a very good idea in a hospital setting. Recent news reveals that doctors are too busy to wash their own hands, resulting in the rampant spread of superbugs throughout most large hospitals in first world nations.

Lie #9 - Children are more vulnerable to swine flu than adults

This is just a flat-out lie, but it makes for good vaccine sales. Vaccines are right now being targeted primarily to schoolchildren. But the truth is that swine flu is extremely mild in children. “It’s mildest in kids,” says Dr Marc Lipsitch of Harvard University. “That’s one of the really good pieces of news in this pandemic.” Reuters actually had the guts to report this story, but most of the larger media outlets are still reporting that children are the most vulnerable.

Lie #10 - There is nothing else you can do beyond a vaccine and Tamiflu

This is where the media lies by omission. The mainstream media absolutely refuses to print just about any story that talks about using vitamin D, anti-viral herbs or natural remedies to protect yourself from swine flu. In the MSM, there are two options and only two: Vaccines and Tamiflu. That’s it. No other options exist in their fictional reality.

Why is the mainstream media so afraid to print the truth these days? Why can’t reporting on swine flu see the light of day… literally, with a mention of sunlight and vitamin D? Apparently, Big Pharma has such a tight grip on mainstream newspapers that no true story on swine flu can ever make it past the editor’s desk.

Killing stories, deceiving the public

It must really be depressing to work for the mainstream media. Even the reporters I know can’t stand it. The truth, they admit, rarely makes it into print.

Over the last few years, I’ve had a couple of job offers from large media outlets. They want to pay me a six-figure salary and stick me behind a desk where they can control what I report. Needless to say, I routinely reject those offers. If I can’t write the truth like I do here on, there’s no point writing at all. In too many ways, the mainstream media has become little more than a corporate mouthpiece, whoring itself out to the highest bidder / advertiser.

It’s no fault of the frontline reporters who actually work there. For the most part, they agree with what I’m saying. It’s the fault of the profit-oriented corporate mindset where news is about selling newspapers rather than actually informing the public.

Important news stories get killed every day in the newsrooms across America. They get killed not because they are poorly investigated or poorly written, but because they upset advertisers and corporate string pullers who shape the news and reject any stories that threaten their own financial interests.

Here in 2009, the distorted reporting on the swine flu vaccine has been one of the greatest media frauds ever perpetrated. The media has in every way contributed to the widespread ignorance of the American people on the subject of vitamin D and natural immune-boosting defenses that could reduce swine flu fatalities. Rather than informing readers, the MSM has made it a point to keep the people stupid, and in doing so, the media has failed its only mission and betrayed the very audience is claims to serve.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

What's in YOUR Vaccine?

Remember: Thimerosal contains mercury.

The questions: "What is in the flu shot and what is in the vaccinations they are giving my child?", are being raised by those that are taking responsibility for their health and that of their loved ones. This brings hope that, one day soon, parents will have the truth and be able to make more logical decisions in the future. ~ Vickie Barker

a representative sample

Vaccine Manufacturer Microbes Antibiotics Chemicals / Heavy Metals Animal ByProducts
Acel-Immune DTaP
diphtheria - tetanus - pertussis
diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed
formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)gelatin
Haemophilus influenza
Type B
Connaught Laboratories
Haemophilus influenza
Type B, polyribosylribitol phosphate

ammonium sulfate, formalin, and sucrose
Merck & Co., Inc.
measles live virus neomycinsorbitol hydrolized gelatin, chick embryo
Merck & Co., Inc.
rubella live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin, human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
anthrax adsorbed
BioPort Corporation 517.327.1500 nonencapsulated strain of
Bacillus anthracis

aluminum hydroxide, benzethonium chloride, and formaldehyde
diphtheria - tetanus - pertussis
X 5231
diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed
formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, and thimerosalwashed sheep RBCs
(not licensed d/t expiration)
live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants," according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefensepolymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfateglycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tarvesicle fluid from calf skins
recombinant hepatitis B
X 5231
genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast
aluminum hydroxide, and thimerosal
Medeva Pharmaceuticals 888.MEDEVA 716.274.5300influenza virusneomycin, polymyxinbeta-propiolactonechick embryonic fluid
trivalent influenza virus, types A&Bgentamicin sulphateformadehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)chick embryonic fluid
hepatitis A
X 5231
hepatitis A virus
formalin, aluminum hydroxide, 2-phenoxyethanol, and polysorbate 20residual MRC5 proteins -human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
HiB Titer
Haemophilus influenza
Type B
Haemophilus influenza
Type B, polyribosylribitol phosphate, yeast

ammonium sulfate, thimerosal, and chemically defined yeast-based medium
Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463rabies virus adsorbedneomycin sulfatephenol red indicatorhuman albumin, human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
Connaught Laboratories 800.822.24633 types of polio virusesneomycin, streptomycin, and polymyxin Bformaldehyde, and 2-phenoxyethenolcontinuous line of monkey kidney cells
Japanese encephalitis
Aventis Pasteur USA
strain of Japanese encephalitis virus, inactivated

formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (Tween-80), and thimerosal mouse serum proteins, and gelatin
recombinant protein (OspA) from the outer surface of the spirochete
Borrelia burgdorferi
kanamycinaluminum hydroxide, 2-phenoxyethenol, phosphate buffered saline
measles - mumps - rubella
Merck & Co., Inc.
measles, mumps, rubella live virusneomycinsorbitolhydrolized gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
measles - rubella
Merck & Co., Inc.
measles, rubella live virusneomycinsorbitolhydrolized gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463freeze-dried polysaccharide antigens from
Neisseria meningitidis

Meruvax I
Merck & Co., Inc.
mumps live virusneomycinsorbitolhydrolized gelatin
(new smallpox batch, not licensed)
Aventis Pasteur USA
highly attenuated vaccinia viruspolymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfateglycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tarvesicle fluid from calf skins
oral polio
3 types of polio viruses, attenuatedneomycin, streptomycinsorbitolmonkey kidney cells and calf serum
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Merck & Co., Inc.
capsular polysaccharides from polyvalent (23 types) pneumococcal bacteria
Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine
Wyeth Lederle
saccharides from capsular
Streptococcus pneumoniae
antigens (7 serotypes) individually conjugated to diphtheria CRM 197 protein

aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, soy protein, yeast
measles, mumps, rubella and varicella
Merck & Co., Inc.
live measles (Enders' attenuated Edmonston), mumps (Jeryl LynnTM), rubella (Wistar RA 27/3), and varicella (oka/Merck) strains of virusesneomycinmonosodium L-glutamate (MSG), potassium chloride, potassium phosphate monobasic, potassium phosphate dibasic, sodium bicarbonate, sodium phosphate dibasic, sorbitol, and sucrosehuman albumin, human diploid cells, residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and proteins, bovine serum, hydrolized gelatin, and chicken embryo
Chiron Behring GmbH & Company
fixed-virus strain Flury LEPneomycin, chlortetracycline, and amphotericin Bpotassium glutamate, and sucrosehuman albumin, bovine gelatin and serum "from source countries known to be free of bovine spongioform encephalopathy," and chicken protein
Rabies Vaccine Adsorbed
X 5231
rabies virus adsorbed
beta-propiolactone, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, and phenol redrhesus monkey fetal lung cells
recombinant hepatitis B
Merck & Co., Inc.
genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast
aluminum hydroxide, and thimerosal
oral tetravalent rotavirus (recalled)
1 rhesus monkey rotavirus, 3 rhesus-human reassortant live virusesneomycin sulfate, amphotericin Bpotassium monophosphate, potassium diphosphate, sucrose, and monosodium glutamate (MSG)rhesus monkey fetal diploid cells, and bovine fetal serum
(not licensed due to expiration) 40-yr old stuff "found" in Swiftwater, PA freezer
Aventis Pasteur USA
live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants," according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefensepolymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfateglycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tarvesicle fluid from calf skins
(new, not licensed)
Acambis, Inc.
in partnership with Baxter BioScience
highly attenuated vaccinia viruspolymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfateglycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tarvesicle fluid from calf skins
TheraCys BCG
(intravesicle -not licensed in US for tuberculosis)
Aventis Pasteur USA
live attenuated strain of
Mycobacterium bovis

monosodium glutamate (MSG), and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)
diphtheria - tetanus - pertussis
Aventis Pasteur USA
Corynebacterium diphtheriae
Clostridium tetani
toxoids and acellular
Bordetella pertussis

aluminum potassium sulfate, formaldehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) gelatin, bovine extract US sourced
Typhim Vi
Aventis Pasteur USA SA
cell surface Vi polysaccharide from
Salmonella typhi
Ty2 strain

aspartame, phenol, and polydimethylsiloxane (silicone)
Merck & Co., Inc.
varicella live virus neomycinphosphate, sucrose, and monosodium glutamate (MSG)processed gelatin, fetal bovine serum, guinea pig embryo cells, albumin from human blood, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
yellow fever
Aventis Pasteur USA
17D strain of yellow fever virus
sorbitolchick embryo, and gelatin