Friday, August 28, 2009
Wake Up, America: Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory "decontaminations" by Mike Adams the Health Ranger
Friday, August 21, 2009
DON’T EAT THESE DISEASE-PRODUCING FOODS
When attempting to make change, the rule is to add positive first – meaning, start adding good habits first, then later work on getting rid of destructive habits. So please consult What To Do for the list of health-promoting lifestyle choices you should start to begin or continue your health transformation process.
That being said, the sooner you get bad habits out of your lifestyle choices, the sooner you’ll get back to being healthy. So, if you’re committed to getting healthy as quick as possible, I encourage you to jump in and do this RIGHT NOW!
JUMP START YOUR HEALTH TODAY
Start eliminating the bad stuff from your life, from your cupboards, from the choices you’re making each and every day at each and every meal.
The Top 10 Disease-Producing Foods
1. Artificial sweeteners: Aspartame (i.e. Nutrasweet) and Sucralose (i.e. Splenda), Saccharin (i.e. Equal) – cause brain tumors and increased cravings for sweets leading to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease and obesity
2. Hydrogenated oils, partially hydrogenated oils – cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity
3. Fried foods (this includes chips) – cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity
4. Pasteurized and homogenized milk and milk products (butter, ice cream, yogurt, etc.) – cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity
5. Soda pop (Diet and/or Regular) – leads to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease and obesity; also, the phosphoric acid leads to calcium depletion, which leads to osteoporosis.
6. White flour foods (breads, pasta, cakes, cookies, crackers, etc.) –Processed grains cause to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease and obesity. Gliadin, one of the two main protein components of gluten, is very pro-inflammatory.
7. Cured meats (bacon, sausages, and lunch meats; anything with nitrates, nitrites) – causes cancer
8. MSG (monosodium glutamate – i.e. hydrolyzed yeast extract, etc.) – neuroexcitotoxin which hyperstimulate brain cells causing them to burn out and die leading to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.
9. Sugar leads to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and obesity
9. High fructose corn syrup (found in many foods – too many to list;
– leads to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and obesity
10. Artificial Food Colorings Red, blue, yellow dyes are used widely in many foods. Like, MSG, they are neuroexcitotoxins and a contributory factor in asthma, attention-deficit disorder and hyperactivitity.
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
The first rule: Out of sight, out of mind. One of our first concepts is “out of sight, out of mind”. If you’re like me, if it’s in the the house or on your plate, you’ll eat it, right? Then remove it from your world; get it off your plate, get it out of your house NOW! This means the potato chips, soda pop, candy, bread, ice cream, … whatever you’ll eat if it’s in the house – get rid of it, NOW!
Just go through your cupboards, refrigerator(s) with a trash can or trash bag at hand, and toss out all the following disease foods. These also foods that may contain one of the following as an ingredient:
- Artificial sweeteners: Aspartame (i.e. Nutrasweet) and Sucrolose (i.e. Splenda), or Saccharin (i.e. Equal). Contrary to common belief, they will make you fat.
- Hydrogenated oils and partially hydrogenated oils. Commonly found in many foods including ‘non-dairy creamers’ for coffee.
- Chips: potato chips, tortilla chips, pork rinds (do people really eat ‘fried pork rinds’?); yes, even the ‘bake’ ones – they’re still made with bad oils
- Deep Fried foods (this includes chips)
- Milk and milk products (some people can eat sparingly if made from raw milk):
- Roasted, salted nuts – switch to eating raw nuts – they’re incredibly nutritious and energy providing (and non-gas producing – your spouse will be happy!)
- Soda pop (this includes ALL soda pop, ‘diet’ or regular) and energy drinks
- Fake ‘juices’ (you know, the kind that say “10% real juice” – do you ever wonder what comprises the other 90%?). Actually real fruit juices are very high in sugar – yes it’s ‘natural’ sugar, but sugar nonetheless.
- White flour foods (breads, pasta, cakes, cookies, crackers, etc.) this is a stumbling block for many people, but it will prevent you from developing diabetes and being overweight.
- Cured meats (bacon, sausages, and lunch meats; anything with nitrates, nitrites)
- MSG (monosodium glutamate; now disguised as hydrolyzed vegetable protein, hydrolyzed yeast extract, etc.)
- High fructose corn syrup – it’s in many, many foods, including ketchup, and sport/energy drinks - I had a pop the other day and my big toe started hurting - HFCS increases your uric acid levels.
- ‘Low fat’, ‘non-fat’ or ‘lite‘ foods
- Non-dairy “creamers”
- Chewing gum (especially ’sugarless’ – it has artificial sweeteners which are neurotoxic and cancerous)
MICROWAVE OVENS – FOR WARMING PLATES ONLY: One last note: Stop microwaving your food, any food. A great illustration of the nutrient-depleting effect that microwaving has on food (as well as the differences in water) is to take three identical small potted plants and feed one purified water, the second tap water and the third plant, water that has been microwaved (and cooled).
Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food
Correction Appended: Aug. 20, 2009
Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. When the pig is slaughtered, at about 5 months of age, he'll become sausage or bacon that will sell cheap, feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population. And when the rains come, the excess fertilizer that coaxed so much corn from the ground will be washed into the Mississippi River and down into the Gulf of Mexico, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around. That's the state of your bacon — circa 2009. (See TIME's photo-essay "From Farm to Fork.")
Horror stories about the food industry have long been with us — ever since 1906, when Upton Sinclair's landmark novel The Jungle told some ugly truths about how America produces its meat. In the century that followed, things got much better, and in some ways much worse. The U.S. agricultural industry can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals and humans. Those hidden prices are the creeping erosion of our fertile farmland, cages for egg-laying chickens so packed that the birds can't even raise their wings and the scary rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria among farm animals. Add to the price tag the acceleration of global warming — our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels, more than any other sector of the economy.
And perhaps worst of all, our food is increasingly bad for us, even dangerous. A series of recalls involving contaminated foods this year — including an outbreak of salmonella from tainted peanuts that killed at least eight people and sickened 600 — has consumers rightly worried about the safety of their meals. A food system — from seed to 7‑Eleven — that generates cheap, filling food at the literal expense of healthier produce is also a principal cause of America's obesity epidemic. At a time when the nation is close to a civil war over health-care reform, obesity adds $147 billion a year to our doctor bills. "The way we farm now is destructive of the soil, the environment and us," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). (See pictures of what the world eats.)
Some Americans are heeding such warnings and working to transform the way the country eats — ranchers and farmers who are raising sustainable food in ways that don't bankrupt the earth. Documentaries like the scathing Food Inc. and the work of investigative journalists like Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan are reprising Sinclair's work, awakening a sleeping public to the uncomfortable realities of how we eat. Change is also coming from the very top. First Lady Michelle Obama's White House garden has so far yielded more than 225 lb. of organic produce — and tons of powerful symbolism. But hers is still a losing battle. Despite increasing public awareness, sustainable agriculture, while the fastest-growing sector of the food industry, remains a tiny enterprise: according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), less than 1% of American cropland is farmed organically. Sustainable food is also pricier than conventional food and harder to find. And while large companies like General Mills have opened organic divisions, purists worry that the very definition of sustainability will be co-opted as a result. (See pictures of urban farming around the world.)
But we don't have the luxury of philosophizing about food. With the exhaustion of the soil, the impact of global warming and the inevitably rising price of oil — which will affect everything from fertilizer to supermarket electricity bills — our industrial style of food production will end sooner or later. As the developing world grows richer, hundreds of millions of people will want to shift to the same calorie-heavy, protein-rich diet that has made Americans so unhealthy — demand for meat and poultry worldwide is set to rise 25% by 2015 — but the earth can no longer deliver. Unless Americans radically rethink the way they grow and consume food, they face a future of eroded farmland, hollowed-out countryside, scarier germs, higher health costs — and bland taste. Sustainable food has an élitist reputation, but each of us depends on the soil, animals and plants — and as every farmer knows, if you don't take care of your land, it can't take care of you.
The Downside of Cheap
For all the grumbling you do about your weekly grocery bill, the fact is you've never had it so good, at least in terms of what you pay for every calorie you eat. According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966. Those savings begin with the remarkable success of one crop: corn. Corn is king on the American farm, with production passing 12 billion bu. annually, up from 4 billion bu. as recently as 1970. When we eat a cheeseburger, a Chicken McNugget, or drink soda, we're eating the corn that grows on vast, monocrop fields in Midwestern states like Iowa.
But cheap food is not free food, and corn comes with hidden costs. The crop is heavily fertilized — both with chemicals like nitrogen and with subsidies from Washington. Over the past decade, the Federal Government has poured more than $50 billion into the corn industry, keeping prices for the crop — at least until corn ethanol skewed the market — artificially low. That's why McDonald's can sell you a Big Mac, fries and a Coke for around $5 — a bargain, given that the meal contains nearly 1,200 calories, more than half the daily recommended requirement for adults. "Taxpayer subsidies basically underwrite cheap grain, and that's what the factory-farming system for meat is entirely dependent on," says Gurian-Sherman. (See the 10 worst fast food meals.)
So what's wrong with cheap food and cheap meat — especially in a world in which more than 1 billion people go hungry? A lot. For one thing, not all food is equally inexpensive; fruits and vegetables don't receive the same price supports as grains. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit. With the backing of the government, farmers are producing more calories — some 500 more per person per day since the 1970s — but too many are unhealthy calories. Given that, it's no surprise we're so fat; it simply costs too much to be thin.
Our expanding girth is just one consequence of mainstream farming. Another is chemicals. No one doubts the power of chemical fertilizer to pull more crop from a field. American farmers now produce an astounding 153 bu. of corn per acre, up from 118 as recently as 1990. But the quantity of that fertilizer is flat-out scary: more than 10 million tons for corn alone — and nearly 23 million for all crops. When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal, approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and therefore almost no sea life. Because of the dead zone, the $2.8 billion Gulf of Mexico fishing industry loses 212,000 metric tons of seafood a year, and around the world, there are nearly 400 similar dead zones. Even as we produce more high-fat, high-calorie foods, we destroy one of our leanest and healthiest sources of protein. (See nine kid foods to avoid.)
The food industry's degradation of animal life, of course, isn't limited to fish. Though we might still like to imagine our food being raised by Old MacDonald, chances are your burger or your sausage came from what are called concentrated-animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are every bit as industrial as they sound. In CAFOs, large numbers of animals — 1,000 or more in the case of cattle and tens of thousands for chicken and pigs — are kept in close, concentrated conditions and fattened up for slaughter as fast as possible, contributing to efficiencies of scale and thus lower prices. But animals aren't widgets with legs. They're living creatures, and there are consequences to packing them in prison-like conditions. For instance: Where does all that manure go?
Pound for pound, a pig produces approximately four times the amount of waste a human does, and what factory farms do with that mess gets comparatively little oversight. Most hog waste is disposed of in open-air lagoons, which can overflow in heavy rain and contaminate nearby streams and rivers. "This creek that we used to wade in, that creek that our parents could drink out of, our kids can't even play in anymore," says Jayne Clampitt, a farmer in Independence, Iowa, who lives near a number of hog farms.
To stay alive and grow in such conditions, farm animals need pharmaceutical help, which can have further damaging consequences for humans. Overuse of antibiotics on farm animals leads, inevitably, to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the same bugs that infect animals can infect us too. The UCS estimates that about 70% of antimicrobial drugs used in America are given not to people but to animals, which means we're breeding more of those deadly organisms every day. The Institute of Medicine estimated in 1998 that antibiotic resistance cost the public-health system $4 billion to $5 billion a year — a figure that's almost certainly higher now. "I don't think CAFOs would be able to function as they do now without the widespread use of antibiotics," says Robert Martin, who was the executive director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.
The livestock industry argues that estimates of antibiotics in food production are significantly overblown. Resistance "is the result of human use and not related to veterinary use," according to Kristina Butts, the manager of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. But with wonder drugs losing their effectiveness, it makes sense to preserve them for as long as we can, and that means limiting them to human use as much as possible. "These antibiotics are not given to sick animals," says Representative Louise Slaughter, who is sponsoring a bill to limit antibiotic use on farms. "It's a preventive measure because they are kept in pretty unspeakable conditions."
Such a measure would get at a symptom of the problem but not at the source. Just as the burning of fossil fuels that is causing global warming requires more than a tweaking of mileage standards, the manifold problems of our food system require a comprehensive solution. "There should be a recognition that what we are doing is unsustainable," says Martin. And yet, still we must eat. So what can we do? (See pictures of an apartment outfitted for goat-milking.)
Getting It Right
If a factory farm is hell for an animal, then Bill Niman's seaside ranch in Bolinas, Calif., an hour north of San Francisco, must be heaven. The property's cliffside view over the Pacific Ocean is worth millions, but the black Angus cattle that Niman and his wife Nicolette Hahn Niman raise keep their eyes on the ground, chewing contentedly on the pasture. Grass — and a trail of hay that Niman spreads from his truck periodically — is all the animals will eat during the nearly three years they'll spend on the ranch. That all-natural, noncorn diet — along with the intensive, individual care that the Nimans provide their animals — produces beef that many connoisseurs consider to be among the best in the world. But for Niman, there is more at stake than just a good steak. He believes that his way of raising farm animals — in the open air, with no chemicals or drugs and with maximum care — is the only truly sustainable method and could be a model for a better food system. "What we need in this country is a completely different way of raising animals for food," says Hahn Niman, a former attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice. "This needs to be done in the right way."
The Nimans like to call what they do "beyond organic," and there are some signs that consumers are beginning to catch up. This November, California voters approved a ballot proposition that guarantees farm animals enough space to lie down, stand up and turn around. Worldwide, organic food — a sometimes slippery term but on the whole a practice more sustainable than conventional food — is worth more than $46 billion. That's still a small slice of the overall food pie, but it's growing, even in a global recession. "There is more pent-up demand for organic than there is production," says Bill Wolf, a co-founder of the organic-food consultancy Wolf DiMatteo and Associates. (Watch TIME's video "The New Frugality: The Organic Gardener.")
So what will it take for sustainable food production to spread? It's clear that scaling up must begin with a sort of scaling down — a distributed system of many local or regional food producers as opposed to just a few massive ones. Since 1935, consolidation and industrialization have seen the number of U.S. farms decline from 6.8 million to fewer than 2 million — with the average farmer now feeding 129 Americans, compared with 19 people in 1940.
It's that very efficiency that's led to the problems and is in turn spurring a backlash, reflected not just in the growth of farmers' markets or the growing involvement of big corporations in organics but also in the local-food movement, in which restaurants and large catering services buy from suppliers in their areas, thereby improving freshness, supporting small-scale agriculture and reducing the so-called food miles between field and plate. That in turn slashes transportation costs and reduces the industry's carbon footprint.
A transition to more sustainable, smaller-scale production methods could even be possible without a loss in overall yield, as one survey from the University of Michigan suggested, but it would require far more farmworkers than we have today. With unemployment approaching double digits — and things especially grim in impoverished rural areas that have seen populations collapse over the past several decades — that's hardly a bad thing. Work in a CAFO is monotonous and soul-killing, while too many ordinary farmers struggle to make ends meet even as the rest of us pay less for food. Farmers aren't the enemy — and they deserve real help. We've transformed the essential human profession — growing food — into an industry like any other. "We're hurting for job creation, and industrial food has pushed people off the farm," says Hahn Niman. "We need to make farming real employment, because if you do it right, it's enjoyable work."
One model for how the new paradigm could work is Niman Ranch, a larger operation that Bill Niman founded in the 1990s, before he left in 2007. (By his own admission, he's a better farmer than he is a businessman.) The company has knitted together hundreds of small-scale farmers into a network that sells all-natural pork, beef and lamb to retailers and restaurants. In doing so, it leverages economies of scale while letting the farmers take proper care of their land and animals. "We like to think of ourselves as a force for a local-farming community, not as a large corporation," says Jeff Swain, Niman Ranch's CEO.
Other examples include the Mexican-fast-food chain Chipotle, which now sources its pork from Niman Ranch and gets its other meats and much of its beans from natural and organic sources. It's part of a commitment that Chipotle founder Steve Ells made years ago, not just because sustainable ingredients were better for the planet but because they tasted better too — a philosophy he calls Food with Integrity. It's not cheap for Chipotle — food makes up more than 32% of its costs, the highest in the fast-food industry. But to Ells, the taste more than compensates, and Chipotle's higher prices haven't stopped the company's rapid growth, from 16 stores in 1998 to over 900 today. "We put a lot of energy into finding farmers who are committed to raising better food," says Ells. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)
Bon Appétit Management Company, a caterer based in Palo Alto, Calif., takes that commitment even further. The company sources as much of its produce as possible from within 150 miles of its kitchens and gets its meat from farmers who eschew antibiotics. Bon Appétit also tries to influence its customers' habits by nudging them toward greener choices. That includes campaigns to reduce food waste, in part by encouraging servers at its kitchens to offer smaller, more manageable portions. (The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in the garbage.) And Bon Appétit supports a low-carbon diet, one that uses less meat and dairy, since both have a greater carbon footprint than fruit, vegetables and grain. The success of the overall operation demonstrates that sustainable food can work at an institutional scale bigger than an élite restaurant, a small market or a gourmet's kitchen — provided customers support it. "Ultimately it's going to be consumer demand that will cause change, not Washington," says Fedele Bauccio, Bon Appétit's co-founder. (See pictures of two farms in Nebraska.)
How willing are consumers to rethink the way they shop for — and eat — food? For most people, price will remain the biggest obstacle. Organic food continues to cost on average several times more than its conventional counterparts, and no one goes to farmers' markets for bargains. But not all costs can be measured by a price tag. Once you factor in crop subsidies, ecological damage and what we pay in health-care bills after our fatty, sugary diet makes us sick, conventionally produced food looks a lot pricier.
What we really need to do is something Americans have never done well, and that's to quit thinking big. We already eat four times as much meat and dairy as the rest of the world, and there's not a nutritionist on the planet who would argue that 24‑oz. steaks and mounds of buttery mashed potatoes are what any person needs to stay alive. "The idea is that healthy and good-tasting food should be available to everyone," says Hahn Niman. "The food system should be geared toward that."
Whether that happens will ultimately come down to all of us, since we have the chance to choose better food three times a day (or more often, if we're particularly hungry). It's true that most of us would prefer not to think too much about where our food comes from or what it's doing to the planet — after all, as Chipotle's Ells points out, eating is not exactly a "heady intellectual event." But if there's one difference between industrial agriculture and the emerging alternative, it's that very thing: consciousness. Niman takes care with each of his cattle, just as an organic farmer takes care of his produce and smart shoppers take care with what they put in their shopping cart and on the family dinner table. The industrial food system fills us up but leaves us empty — it's based on selective forgetting. But what we eat — how it's raised and how it gets to us — has consequences that can't be ignored any longer.
— With reporting by Rebecca Kaplan / New York
That fact alone is bad enough -- but how they get there is enough to make you swear off water for good.
You see, people eat and drink foods loaded with this garbage. And as the saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out.
Sewage treatment plants are supposed to clean up that waste, but a new kind of water analysis shows that artificial sweeteners like aspartame can remain. And if you happen to live downstream from the plant, then you could end up drinking the stuff straight from your tap.
Aspartame is bad enough on its own, but an artificial sweetener that's made its way through someone else's body before entering yours -- well, I don't think I need to add anything to that.
But whether you're funneling it straight from a Diet Coke can, or whether it's in the form of poorly filtered tap water, aspartame is bad news. This artificial sweetener has been linked to cancer and neurological disease and is responsible for more FDA complaints than any other additive.
Forget regulating it. The only acceptable solution is an outright ban.
Now, this analysis was carried out in Germany, but don't assume for a moment that it's the only place with this problem -- or that artificial sweeteners are the only dangerous substances in the water supply.
There are plenty of other pollutants -- the difference is that much of the other stuff is actually put there on purpose. I've been telling you for years about the contaminants and pollutants that Big Government's mad scientists intentionally dump into U.S. water supply -- things like fluoride and chlorine.
The fluoride they dump into the supply is an industrial-grade waste product, but you never hear them talk about that. What you DO hear are the idiots telling people they need to swallow glass after glass of this stuff.
My favorite is the "eight glasses a day". I can't say the same about aspartame, fluoride, or chlorine in the unfiltered tap water.
And yet most people just go on assuming their water is safe to drink -- when it reality, you shouldn't even be showering in it. Get a shower filter because it will absorb through your skin..
Most people, that is, except for those of you who've been listening to me. Count yourself among the lucky few -- and then go warn your neighbors.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Researchers from North Carolina State University and the Mayo Clinic have developed a computer model that is intended to determine the best time to begin using statin therapy in diabetes patients to help prevent heart disease and stroke.
According to the lead author, "The research is significant because patients with diabetes are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and statins are the single most commonly used treatment for patients at risk of heart disease and/or stroke."
The new model incorporates patient-specific data. An established risk model calculates each patient's probability of heart attack and stroke based on risk factors, such as their cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. This overall risk "score" is used to weigh the medical advantages of beginning statin therapy against the financial cost of the statins.
Friday, August 14, 2009
A landmark study published in the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association (JANA, winter, 1999) showed that only 2.5% of nutritional products available in the marketplace proved to be both non-toxic and effective. Would you take those odds with your health?
|Acupuncture Today |
September, 2009, Vol. 10, Issue 09
Treating Modern Nutritional Deficiencies
By Marlene Merritt, LAc
One of the great things about traditional Chinese medicine is that it has been developed, over a long period of time, to address a prodigious number of health problems, many of which still exist today. Unfortunately, one of its shortcomings is that it is not well versed in the challenges of dealing with modern diseases and complaints. What could be that much different, you ask? Let's take a look.
The average person, during the early development of traditional Chinese medicine, existed almost primarily in an agricultural society, which meant that they spent a lot of time outdoors, doing physical labor. They woke up when the sun came up, and stopped working when it went down. They ate according to the seasons, and they ate meat (including organ meats), more vegetables and unrefined grains. The general population had to contend with starvation if the crops didn't grow or there was civil unrest.
The average modern American, on the other hand, does none of those things. Additionally, even if the average person ate only organic vegetables, never mind conventional vegetables, the topsoil in which the vegetables are grown is enormously depleted. So much so that conventional farm crops are completely dependent on the chemical fertilizers they are fed in order to grow. A Rutgers University study showed that it now takes 19 ears of corn to equal the nutritional value of one ear of corn grown in 1940, just as one example. Add in the easy access to processed foods, specialized foods year-round, along with sedentary jobs and the lack of exercise, and we have a population that is malnourished but overfed, lives longer but has more health concerns, and has made great strides in defeating some diseases but is losing the battle with many others, ranging from cavities to cancer.
As you've probably noticed, there are some modern diseases that weren't in our textbooks - problems like hypoglycemia, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, hormones in foods causing hormone imbalances, thyroid disorders and different forms of cancers. It's not enough to treat patients as if they are metabolically the same as a Chinese person from generations ago. We have nutritional problems now that are dwarfing our abilities to impact our patients' health.
Have you heard of the severe deficiency of vitamin D? It is so severe that rickets is starting to appear again in children. Vitamin D doesn't just build bone health, but is also completely vital for immune function to prevent autoimmune disorders, infectious diseases and cancer. Best found within sunshine and cod liver oil, there are direct links between the latitude in which people live (and therefore, how much sun to which they are exposed) and the autoimmune conditions of multiple sclerosis, autoimmune diabetes and Crohn's. In our office, we routinely run a vitamin D blood test (25-hydroxycalciferol), and only one person has ever had sufficient amounts present in their blood. All the rest of our patients and staff failed. Between 10 and 20 minutes in the sun is enough to make adequate amounts of vitamin D, but we are either slathered in sunscreen or indoors all day. Furthermore, if it's the middle of winter, it's even worse.
Or what about vitamin B? Its highest concentrations are found in liver and in whole, unrefined grains, and is routinely deficient in anyone who eats any refined grains, which is basically everyone we see. It is required in all steps for converting energy in the cell, so when it is deficient, we're tired, have less brain function and suffer from more depression and anxiety. It is responsible for nerve regeneration. Deficiencies cause "frayed nerves" or poor resistance to stress. It breaks down homocysteine, which helps prevent heart inflammation and heart attacks. And yet, so many people are deficient. Chinese herbs alone will not provide enough nutrition to restore their health.
Today's food is irradiated, pasteurized, homogenized, bleached, colored, flavored, preserved with chemicals and processed to remove nutrients that would cause it to spoil quickly. Our water has aluminum, chlorine and fluoride added intentionally, in addition to petrochemical and pharmaceutical (antibiotic and hormone) contamination. Our meats are treated with hormones, growth factors and antibiotics. Livestock are fed unnatural foods like corn on feedlots until they have chronic diseases like fatty livers and stomach ulcers. Then, unlike traditional ways of eating, we ingest only the muscle meat and leave the rest behind. The two groups of food that are the most nutritionally dense are organ meats and vegetables. How many of either of these are you or your patients eating?
So how do we treat modern nutritional deficiencies? In two ways. One is to teach patients how to choose and prepare nutritious foods. This includes educating them in the difference between organic and conventional produce. For example, organic tomatoes are 12 times higher in magnesium, 68 times higher in manganese and almost 2,000 times higher in iron than traditional tomatoes. Organic lettuce is five times higher in calcium, 50 times higher in iron and 170 times higher in manganese. Patients also need to be educated as to why it's important to eat meat that is natural, free-range and free from hormones. It may be more expensive, but your patients are otherwise paying the difference with their health, in the form of antibiotic resistance, nutritional deficiencies and hormone imbalances.
The other way is to support patients with nutritional concentrates that allow them to "catch up." If their bodies are severely deficient in many nutrients, they can't digest the huge quantities of nutritious foods they would need to restore their health. It's not enough to give isolated, synthetic vitamins because then we are essentially doing the same type of treatments as in Western medicine by treating the symptoms and not the root cause. Instead, by using nutritional concentrates made from whole foods, we're utilizing all the known and unknown elements of foods, along with the synthesis that occurs with those ingredients. Just like with herbal medicine. Instead, by adding natural nutrition to their diet, using whole foods and food concentrates, your patients will not just feel better, but will appreciate your attention to their whole health.
Tavera-Mendoza L, White J. Cell defenses and the sunshine vitamin. Scientific American, November 2007.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Success has spawned similar efforts across the U.S., report finds
By Kathleen Doheny
(HealthDay News) -- When the New York City Health Department mandated that city restaurants change their menus to restrict trans fats, known to be a health hazard, the action was greeted with resistance and grumbling.
"There were the usual 'nanny state' comments," said Dr. Lynn Silver, assistant commissioner of the department's Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Control.
Initially, the campaign was voluntary, Silver said. "But after one year, there was no change," she said, so public health officials decided to make the ban mandatory.
In December 2006, the city required that artificial trans fats be phased out of restaurant food, and the mandate was in full effect by November 2008. Silver and colleagues from the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene report on the effort in the July 21 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.
And they deem it a success. Total saturated fat and trans fat in French fries, for instance, decreased by more than 50 percent in New York City restaurants, according to the report. Overall, the health officials found, the use of trans fats for frying, baking or cooking and in spreads declined from 50 percent to less than 2 percent.
Consumers didn't seem to mind. "It became clear that trans fats were being successfully replaced, and no one noticed the difference," Silver said. "Foods tasted just as good, and diners are healthier."
Trans fats were often used, she said, because they last longer than traditional vegetable oil, but "there was nothing terribly delicious about trans fat."
Trans fats, also call partially hydrogenated oils, are made by adding hydrogen to liquid vegetable oils to make them more solid. The fats are commonly found in French fries, doughnuts and baked goods, as well as margarine and shortening.
The problem with trans fats, Silver and her colleagues wrote in their report, is that increasing intake by just 2 percent can increase the risk for a heart attack or other cardiovascular problem by as much as 23 percent. Trans fats raise bad cholesterol levels and lower good cholesterol levels.
Restaurants' fears that diners would protest or the ban would affect business didn't happen, Silver said, and the good news for restaurant patrons is that they don't have to guess about what they're eating as much as they once did.
Silver said the idea seems to be catching on, too. At least 13 jurisdictions, including California, have adopted similar laws since New York's took effect, she said.
Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted in an editorial accompanying the report that Tiburon, a small community north of San Francisco, actually restricted trans fats in its 18 restaurants as early as 2003.
"The scientific rationale for eliminating exposure to artificial trans fatty acids in foods is rock solid," she wrote. Not only do they not have health benefits, but they are harmful, she said.
Though some experts have called for federal intervention to restrict trans fats, Gerberding said that idea "seems premature," but she doesn't rule it out for the future. Among other actions, she said, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could enhance educational efforts to inform consumers about the risk.
Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis and a past president of the American Dietetic Association, said that banning fats is not enough.
"While mandatory elimination of trans fats can help reduce intake, consumer understanding about healthy food choices is essential," Diekman said. Healthful eating is a joint responsibility, she said, shared by food processors, providers, health-care professionals and consumers.
Silver took it a step further. She compared the trans fat restriction to an earlier public health decision to remove lead from paint, now known to be a health hazard, especially for children.
And once those health risks were known, she said, "you really wouldn't ask a parent to choose a paint with lead or without."
The American Heart Association has more on trans fats.
SOURCES: Lynn Silver, M.D., M.P.H., assistant commissioner, Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Department of Health, New York City; Connie Diekman, M.Ed., R.D., director, university nutrition, Washington University in St. Louis; July 21, 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine
Any scientific credibility the FDA might have been clinging to in these last few years has now disintegrated with the agency's recent announcement that after reviewing 200 scientific studies, it has concluded mercury fillings are safe for human health! This ruling, as you'll read below, further demonstrates how the FDA is a rogue federal agency that respects no law and frequently operates in direct violation of the law.
Case in point: Last year Consumers for Dental Choice (www.ToxicTeeth.org) sued the FDA over the issue of mercury fillings. A court settlement required the FDA to remove from its website statements about mercury fillings being "safe" and, instead, to publish this statement: "Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses."
That statement stayed on the FDA's website for several months. But that page has now been removed from the FDA's website (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/P...), returning no results. The FDA also deleted a "question and answer" page from its website that discussed the health risk of mercury fillings.
Instead, the FDA now posts a press release stating that the levels of mercury "released by dental amalgam fillings are not high enough to cause harm in patients." (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsr...)
Mercury fillings are indestructible, says the FDA!What this so-called "scientific" conclusion really says is that mercury fillings don't produce mercury vapor or mercury dust. But any dentist can tell you that drilling on mercury fillings produces mercury dust that's immediately inhaled by the patient (and the dentist). This video from the IAOMT provides direct visual evidence that mercury fillings quite readily produce mercury vapor just by chewing on them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yln...
The FDA, however, insists mercury fillings are so safe that even infants and babies can have them installed in their mouths. Susan Runner is the head of dental devices at the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and she explained earlier this week that mercury fillings are safe for children under six years old because they have smaller mouths and breathe less air than adults, thereby "minimizing" any risks. (Huh?)
This kind of loopy logic has been extended to all groups -- Pregnant women, infants, children and senior citizens -- for which the FDA now insists mercury fillings are perfectly safe.
That's why attorney Charlie Brown of Consumers for Dental Choice says, "FDA remains alone in the world in failing to protect children and pregnant women from mercury fillings. Since 1996, Canadian dentists have been told not to put mercury amalgam in children or pregnant women. Since 1998, British dentists have been told the same for pregnant women. Norway and Sweden have banned amalgam altogether. Regrettably, this rule should have meant the end of two-tiered dentistry: mercury for the poor and choice for the rest. Instead the FDA has failed to carry out its mission of protecting the public health."
FDA breaks the law yet againWhat's especially astonishing in all this is how the FDA has blatantly violated its own legal settlement with Consumers for Dental Choice which required it to publicly disclose the health risks of mercury fillings. The FDA, much like a common criminal, simply ignores the courts and reverses itself without justification.
The FDA, you see, believes it is subject to no law. This fact is well pointed out in a book by health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord, entitled The Rise of Tyranny (http://www.vitacost.com/Book-The-Ri...). In this book, Emord explains how federal agencies like the FDA become rogue, lawless dictatorships that abide by the rulings of no court.
The FDA, in its decision to revoke its mercury warnings, has done so in direct violation of a court settlement. Any individual acting in such a manner would be found in contempt of court and likely be fined or thrown in jail, but the FDA is apparently subject to no law, and it does whatever it wants, regardless of what the law says.
This is the very definition of tyranny: Domineering power combined with a complete lack of respect for the law (and a lack of respect for human health). The FDA, by any reasonable definition, is a dangerous criminal organization that continues to terrorize Americans with its complete disregard for both the law and human safety.
Consider this: Mercury is one of the most biologically toxic elements in the universe. A teaspoon of it can contaminate an entire lake beyond EPA limits for water safety. For years, even the FDA warned consumers about the toxic level of mercury in seafood. Specific warnings were made to expectant mothers. Those warnings have now been reversed by the FDA, which believes pregnant women can eat all the mercury-contaminated fish they want!
Mercury is also a huge threat to the environment. The very use of mercury in dental fillings is a crime against nature because all that mercury eventually ends up in the environment. Over 30,000 pounds (yes, pounds!) of mercury are dumped into the environment each year through dentistry, and this is devastating our ocean ecosystems.
Lots of people today are worried about the mercury emissions of coal-fired power plants. As stated on Wikipedia: Mercury emissions from coal burning are concentrated as they work their way up the food chain and converted into methylmercury, a toxic compound that harms people who consume freshwater fish. In New York State, winds bring mercury from the coal-fired power plants of the Midwest, contaminating the waters of the Catskill Mountains. The mercury is consumed by worms, who are eaten by fish, and then by birds, including bald eagles. As of 2008, mercury contamination of bald eagles in the Catskills had reached new heights. Ocean fish account for the majority of human exposure to methylmercury; the sources of ocean fish methylmercury are not well understood. Coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer.
But according to the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/water_sanitation...), mercury from dental fillings and other medical devices accounts for 53% of the total mercury emissions, meaning that dental amalgams are a major source of mercury pollution of our planet.
According to Consumers for Dental Choice, dentists purchase nearly 40 tons of mercury each year. That's over 35 million micrograms of mercury being put into the bodies of humans and, ultimately, the environment.
How? Because of the popularity of cremation. With burial costs so high and families lacking funds to even claim the bodies of their dead loved ones (http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...), more families are choosing cremation over burial. Cremation, it turns out, vaporizes mercury and releases it into the air where it eventually falls on the land and water, contaminating our planet.
Remember this: Every microgram of mercury put into peoples' mouths eventually ends up in the environment. Anyone concerned about the future of life on earth should be concerned about mercury fillings.
The FDA, of course, is not concerned with protecting the future of life on Earth. That's why they also ignore the environmental contamination caused by pharmaceuticals. There are now antibiotics, antidepressants and hormone drugs showing up in fish (http://www.naturalnews.com/025933_p...). Pharmaceuticals are contaminating our rivers and oceans, yet the FDA does nothing to regulate their environmental effects. They merely pretend the problem doesn't exist (much like how they deal with mercury).
It is truly fascinating to see what the FDA considers dangerous: Colloidal silver, medicinal herbs and dietary supplements. But the things they don't consider dangerous include mercury, antibiotics, hormone drugs, cigarettes and chemotherapy.
What has this world come to? How has it all gotten so twisted?
I have an answer to that, actually. Watch NaturalNews for an upcoming article that attempts to explain it all...
Six facts about mercury you probably never knew(Courtesy of Consumers for Dental Choice):
1. Dentists purchase about 40 tons of mercury per year. Since mercury is so toxic it is measured in micrograms. Forty tons is over 35 million micrograms.
2. Dentists are the third largest purchaser of mercury, and they are moving up the list as the others decline faster.
3. There is more mercury in Americans' mouths than in all consumer and medical products combined.
4. Dental offices are by far the largest source of mercury in the wastewater.
5. Dental mercury is largest source of mercury in household waste (through our body waste).
6. In communities without power plants, dental mercury is the No. 1 source of mercury in AIR pollution because of the increased choice of cremation.
As Charlie Brown recently told me, "Those mercury-laden fish we eat... they aren't making their own mercury..."
FDA Ruling on Mercury Fillings Falls ShortReprint of the press release from Consumers for Dental Choice:
New FDA guidelines fail to protect pregnant women and children from threat of "silver" dental fillings
Washington (July 28, 2009) -- In a disappointing move, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today did an about face in issuing a final regulation classifying dental amalgam without calling for stringent precautions for pregnant women and children. Last June, a court settlement filed by the Consumers for Dental Choice required the FDA to withdraw claims of mercury amalgam's safety from its Web site and issue an advisory indicating: "Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses."
"FDA broke its contract and broke its word that it would put warnings for children and unborn children for neurological damage," said Charles G. Brown, National Counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice, who brought the lawsuit compelling today's action. "Bowing to the dental products industry, FDA for the first time in its history pulled a warning about neurological harm to children. This contemptuous attitude toward children and the unborn will not go unanswered. We will see FDA in court."
Most consumers, and most dentists, have already switched to the main alternative, resin composite. The FDA rule destroys a dental myth that the mercury becomes inert in the mouth; FDA says the vapors from dental mercury go into the human body. Due to mercury waste, amalgam is also increasingly targeted by environmentalists.
Intense interest in the rule exists on Capitol Hill. Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-CA) and Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) co-authored a letter to FDA in May, signed by 19 Members of Congress, calling for a rule to protect children and young women from amalgam. In July, they introduced a resolution on the issue with 29 co-sponsors (H.Res. 648).
Amalgam has also become controversial because the middle-class has largely moved to non-toxic alternatives while the poor, minorities, and institutional recipients, such as soldiers and prisoners, still get amalgam.
"FDA remains alone in the world in failing to protect children and pregnant women from mercury fillings. Since 1996, Canadian dentists have been told not to put mercury amalgam in children or pregnant women. Since 1998, British dentists have been told the same for pregnant women. Norway and Sweden have banned amalgam altogether. Regrettably, this rule should have meant the end of two-tiered dentistry: mercury for the poor and choice for the rest. Instead the FDA has failed to carry out its mission of protecting the public health," concluded Brown.
Of course, when we are young we can fall or bounce, get “really” hurt but, in many cases, the next day we’re back to normal. As we age however, if we sustain an injury, it seems to take longer to recover.
Why are adults less resilient?
One reason is that we have localized proteolytic enzymes in our tissues; and as we
age, those enzymes tend to become depleted. The localized enzymes act like “Pac-Men” and
digest the inflammatory debris caused by the injury, allowing better circulation, which speeds repair.
Current medical studies show dramatic reduction in injury healing time with proteolytic enzymes. One author after reviewing 14 different studies using over 1,500 subjects said the
length of recovery time was cut in half by using proteolytic enzymes. Proteolytic enzymes are indicated for edema, swelling, and acute injury. They have also been used as digestive
aids, for low back pain, disc herniation, reduction of food allergy symptoms, acute and
chronic sinusitis, increasing the effectiveness of antibiotics, post surgical trauma/recovery,
and as a natural vermifuge.
But the study that really says it all, in terms of reducing healing time, comes from a book by Dr. Anthony Cichoke “Enzymes and Enzyme therapy.” Although he doesn’t give dosages and it centers around an unusually aggressive sport “karate,” it represents what I have seen with myself and my patients over the last 7 years. Ten karate fighters of both sexes were given enzymes before the event. The second group of ten was given a placebo. All 20 athletes had
comparable injuries. Here are the impressive results. Hematomas disappeared in the treated
athletes in 6.6 days where placebo athletes took 15.6 days to heal. The swelling in the
enzyme group disappeared in 4.3 days vs. 9.8 days in the control group. Restrictions in
movement as a result of pain and injury disappeared in 5.0 days vs. 12.6 days for the placebo
group. When the injuries suffered in the karate competition became inflamed it took 3.6 days
to subside vs. 10.6 for the control group.
For the people who were injured and were unfit for work, the enzyme group was able to
return to work in 2 days whereas the placebo group was unable to return to work for 5.3
days. Although this is a small study, it is consistent with all the other studies which show
injuries heal faster, recovery time being reduced to 50% in many cases.
So before you try them let’s go over a few points. First all enzymes are not alike. Sometimes
the life or activity of the enzymes has expired before it gets ingested. I will never forget Dr. Kim Christensen discussed how a formula he designed for a major nutraceutical company caused a big stir during manufacturing. The plant manager called to tell him that the product was so good it was actually warm as it was bottled. It was so hot that the workers had to wear gloves to handle the tablets. Later Dr. Kim learned from the research team at Biotics that if the tablets were warm, they were spending their enzymatic potential on the raw materials in the tablet. They were actually digesting the tablet. When the product was assayed for enzyme activity, there was little to no activity in the tablet six months later.
Contrast that to one of Biotics Research’s flagship products, Intenzyme Forte, which met label claims eight years after the expiration date. You see enzymes are a whole field unto themselves and certain precautions have to be taken to make sure they are active when the patient takes them. That’s one of the wonderful things about working with Biotics Research.
Their enzymes meet or exceed label claim every time. So one reason patients might not get results is poor manufacturing.
Another reason is when enzymes are taken with food. Enzymes are catalysts and can have major effects on natural healing but if you take them with food, they will act as digestive enzymes. Another positive side effect of proteolytic enzymes is that they will lessen the effects of food allergy symptoms. So for best results to reduce inflammation or take advantage of their systemic benefits is to take them 30 minutes before a meal or 2 hours after eating. The third reason is
people don’t take enough. Always take a loading dose of 10 tablets, take more if your patient is large and you have experience with the product. Then take 5-7 tablets 3 or 4 times per day between meals.
In high school I had many football ankle injuries, so I know how painful a twisted ankle can be. Several years ago I was excited and ran down the stairs only to miss one of the middle steps. I fell about 6
feet, landed on my ankle, and twisted it just like I had done in High School. I saw stars.
When I got my bearings, I crawled on my hands and knees to a chair and promptly took 15 Intenzyme Forte from Biotics Research.
Then I asked for my wife to find some ice. I proceeded to take 5 tablets every 3 hours that I was awake and whenever I could take them between meals. The next day I was not only walking, but I was totally pain free. It was amazing.
Since then I have used them for any type of injury or accident, running, tennis, and any type of weekend warrior experience that leaves me tender. If you
haven’t used proteolytic enzymes for yourself
or your patients, give Intenzyme Forte
a try. You’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
By Dr. Mercola
According to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, your children should be the first target for mass swine flu vaccinations when school starts this fall.[i]
This is a ridiculous assumption for many reasons, not to mention extremely high risk.
In Australia, where the winter season has begun, Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon is reassuring parents the swine flu is no more dangerous than regular seasonal flu. "Most people, including children, will experience very mild symptoms and recover without any medical intervention," she said.[ii]
Sydney-based immunization specialist Robert Booy predicts swine flu might be fatal to about twice as many children in the coming year as regular influenza. Booy estimates 10-12 children could die from the H1N1 virus, compared with the five or six regular flu deaths seen among children in an average year in Australia.[iii]
“Cure the Disease, Kill the Patient”
Less than 100 children in the U.S. die each year from seasonal flu viruses.[iv] If we use Australia’s math, a very rough estimate would be another 100 children could potentially die of swine flu in the United States in the coming year.
If children are the first target group in the U.S. per Sebelius, that means we’re about to inject around 75 million children with a fast tracked vaccine containing novel adjuvants, including dangerous squalene, to prevent perhaps 100 deaths.
I’m not overlooking the tragedy of the loss of even one child to an illness like the H1N1 flu virus. But there can be no argument that unnecessary mass injection of millions of children with a vaccine containing an adjuvant known to cause a host of debilitating autoimmune diseases is a reckless, dangerous plan.
Why are Vaccinations Dangerous?
The presumed intent of a vaccination is to help you build immunity to potentially harmful organisms that cause illness and disease. However, your body’s immune system is already designed to do this in response to organisms which invade your body naturally.
Most disease-causing organisms enter your body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, pulmonary system or your digestive tract – not through an injection.
These mucous membranes have their own immune system, called the IgA immune system. It is a different system from the one activated when a vaccine is injected into your body.
Your IgA immune system is your body’s first line of defense. Its job is to fight off invading organisms at their entry points, reducing or even eliminating the need for activation of your body’s immune system.
When a virus is injected into your body in a vaccine, and especially when combined with an immune adjuvant like squalene, your IgA immune system is bypassed and your body’s immune system kicks into high gear in response to the vaccination.
Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature, and vaccination carries enormous potential to do serious damage to your health.
And as if Vaccines Weren’t Dangerous Enough on Their Own …
… imagine them turbocharged.
The main ingredient in a vaccine is either killed viruses or live ones that have been attenuated (weakened and made less harmful).
Flu vaccines can also contain a number of chemical toxins, including ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde, phenol (carbolic acid) and even antibiotics like Neomycin and streptomycin.
In addition to the viruses and other additives, many vaccines also contain immune adjuvants like aluminum and squalene.
The purpose of an immune adjuvant added to a vaccine is to enhance (turbo charge) your immune response to the vaccination. Adjuvants cause your immune system to overreact to the introduction of the organism you’re being vaccinated against.
Adjuvants are supposed to get the job done faster (but certainly not more safely), which reduces the amount of vaccine required per dose, and the number of doses given per individual.
Less vaccine required per person means more individual doses available for mass vaccination campaigns. Coincidentally, this is exactly the goal of government and the pharmaceutical companies who stand to make millions from their vaccines.
Will There Be Immune Adjuvants in Swine Flu Vaccines?
The U.S. government has contracts with several drug companies to develop and produce swine flu vaccines. At least two of those companies, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, are using an adjuvant in their H1N1 vaccines.
The adjuvant? Squalene.
According to Meryl Nass, M.D., an authority on the anthrax vaccine,
“A novel feature of the two H1N1 vaccines being developed by companies Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline is the addition of squalene-containing adjuvants to boost immunogenicity and dramatically reduce the amount of viral antigen needed. This translates to much faster production of desired vaccine quantities.”[v]
Novartis’s proprietary squalene adjuvant for their H1N1 vaccine is MF59. Glaxo’s is ASO3. MF59 has yet to be approved by the FDA for use in any U.S. vaccine, despite its history of use in other countries.
Per Dr. Nass, there are only three vaccines in existence using an approved squalene adjuvant. None of the three are approved for use in the U.S.
What Squalene Does to Rats
Oil-based vaccination adjuvants like squalene have been proved to generate concentrated, unremitting immune responses over long periods of time.[vi]
A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Pathology demonstrated a single injection of the adjuvant squalene into rats triggered “chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation,” also known as rheumatoid arthritis.[vii]
The researchers concluded the study raised questions about the role of adjuvants in chronic inflammatory diseases.
What Squalene Does to Humans
Your immune system recognizes squalene as an oil molecule native to your body. It is found throughout your nervous system and brain. In fact, you can consume squalene in olive oil and not only will your immune system recognize it, you will also reap the benefits of its antioxidant properties.
The difference between “good” and “bad” squalene is the route by which it enters your body. Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.
Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system.[viii]
Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) received anthrax vaccines which contained squalene.[ix] MF59 (the Novartis squalene adjuvant) was an unapproved ingredient in experimental anthrax vaccines and has since been linked to the devastating autoimmune diseases suffered by countless Gulf War vets.[x]
The Department of Defense made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Persian Gulf war military personnel – deployed and non-deployed – as well as participants in the more recent Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP).
However, the FDA discovered the presence of squalene in certain lots of AVIP product. A test was developed to detect anti-squalene antibodies in GWS patients, and a clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the GWS sufferers who had been injected with the vaccine containing squalene.
A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in the February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics:
“ … the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.
In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene.”[xi]
According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia:
“… this adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called "Gulf War Syndrome," documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War.
The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.”[xii]
Post Vaccination Follow-Up Might as Well Be Non-Existent
There is virtually no science to support the safety of vaccine injections on your long-term health or the health of your children. Follow-up studies last on average about two weeks, and look only for glaring injuries and illnesses.
Autoimmune disorders like those seen in Gulf War Syndrome frequently take years to diagnose due to the vagueness of early symptoms. Complaints like headaches, fatigue and chronic aches and pains are symptoms of many different illnesses and diseases.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for vaccine purveyors and proponents to look seriously at the long-term health consequences of their vaccination campaigns.
Monday, August 3, 2009
A Parable of Parabens
A toxic family that could be
poisoning your skin!
If you are becoming a bit of a 'toxic-chemical-spotter' then 'parabens' will no doubt be on your hit-list of 'key-chemicals-to-avoid'.
It is simply astounding that so many common products - bought off-the-shelf by unsuspecting customers still contain these chemicals that now clearly have such a bad reputation.
The paraben family - Ethylparaben, Methylparaben, Butylparaben and Propylparaben - are often found 'hanging-around' together - in the heart of the chemical cocktails that adulterate many of our skincare, bodycare and hair care products.
Because personal care products - such as shave gels, body lotions, hand cremes, even toothpaste as well as many others - often contain oils and other potential 'perishable' ingredients, parabens are a commonplace preservative used to extend a products shelf-life.
The problem is though that these synthetic chemicals - which, for the 'chemistry scholars' amongst us are actually esters of hydroxybenzoic acid - are actually rather nasty!
The paraben family have all been known to cause allergic reactions in certain sensitive individuals. Indeed - where laboratories have undertaken 'animal testing' (which, naturally we do not condone) parabens have been shown to be clearly 'toxic' if ingested.
As far as humans go - the ongoing 'chemistry experiment' that we all partake in whenever we use chemical-based personal care products - has led to the conclusion that parabens can act as 'endocrine disrupters'.
That is to say that any of the paraben quartet may interrupt the working of the endocrine system. The endocrine system is a system of glands that occur throughout the body, which release important hormones to regulate and control certain important functions. These functions include growth, sexual development, and the production of sperm in males, and ova in females.
The endocrine glands include: hypothalamus, pituitary, pineal gland, thyroid, parathyroid, pancreas, adrenal, ovary, and testis. Disruption of the crucial functions of these glands can lead to many, varied health problems. It is for instance recognized that fertility in the general population of Western countries - like the UK and US has fallen dramatically in recent years. Just how much this problem has been contributed to by the pervasive use of parabens is impossible to calculate...but it is simple to say...we should ALL avoid using products that contain this unpleasant family of chemicals!
As if further evidence was needed that parabens are the sort of family you don't want in the neighborhood of your bathroom. They have also been shown to trigger contact dermatitis - that unpleasant, uncomfortable and visually distressing condition of the skin that can be so difficult to 'settle' and which can flare-up so easily when provoked by such as these chemical nasties!
Parabens, through the evidence of finding them in tumour biopsies, have also been implicated in possibly increasing the risk of breast cancer...
All-in-all...the message is...if you see one or more of the family of parabens hanging around in your usual personal care products..."bin them"... and change to 100% natural, and preferably certified products...which are SURE to be chemical free!
Mr. Johnson weighed nearly a ton.
And drank pop 'til his health came undone.
His kidneys turned blue
But he said, "I've got two."
"So I'll drink 'til I only lose one."
The debate over health care reform has run smack into a brick wall of economic reality. There's just not enough money to pay for all the disease in America, it seems, and now lawmakers are desperately searching for new sources that might bridge the financial gaps. Their latest scheme involves taxing sodas with a three-cent tax to raise an extra $24 billion over the next four years.
At first, taxing soda might seem like a good idea. Sodas, after all, promote diabetes, obesity, bone loss and many other costly health conditions. It only stands to reason that people who drink soda should pay a little more towards a national health care plan.
But there are problems with this idea of a soda tax. For starters, it's a highly regressive tax that ultimately gets paid mostly by low-income, low-education people (the kind of people who drink a lot of soda). It's a tax, in other words, on those who can least afford it.
Another problem with such a tax is that if the U.S. government is going to use taxes to modify consumer behavior, it would seem prudent to first end the government subsidies on sugar that have existed since World War II. Why are we still using taxpayer dollars to lower the price of sugar when refined white sugar contributes so much to our nation's health problems?
Then there's the question of where the money will go. Even if you slap a five-cent tax on every can of soda, does that money actually end up going towards improved health care, or is it just lost in the morass of bureaucratic incompetude that wanders the halls of Washington these days?
Case in point: The government settlement with Big Tobacco. All that tobacco money that was supposed to go to "improving health care" across America has actually ended up in the general budgets of most states, where it gets wasted on a thousand different things that have nothing to do with health care. A soda tax would likely end up being lost in the system in much the same way.
A better solution for influencing consumer behaviorSlapping new "sin taxes" on consumer products as a way to shape consumer behavior while raising money is a seductively attractive idea if you're a bureaucrat with an itchy trigger finger. It seems (at first, at least) economically and morally sound: Make the people who cause the problem pay more for fixing it. It all seems so simple: Let cigarette taxes pay for health care. Let soda taxes help fight obesity. Let alcohol taxes pay for alcohol addiction recovery centers. But in the real world, it never quite works that way: Money gets stolen away for other uses, rarely going to the intended beneficiary. Meanwhile, the taxes end up hurting those consumers who can least afford it.
A far better option is educating consumers about the harm these products cause. Put large, unambiguous warnings on cigarettes like, "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER" along with a horrifying picture of a diseased lung. On soda cans, you could require warnings like, "DRINKING SODA CAUSES KIDNEY STONES" along with a picture of a short, sweaty man holding his junk and screaming in pain.
You get the idea. Why waste all that time and effort collecting and distributing a five-cent soda tax when you can just use pictures and warning labels to influence consumer behavior?
Of course, using honest labels on harmful products doesn't raise money for bureaucrats to ferret away in their favorite pork projects, but it does accomplish something much more important: It reduces long-term health care costs by dissuading people from consuming harmful products.
Sure, it doesn't stop every ignorant teen from slamming colas while he becomes obese and diabetic, but it does have a positive influence on many. The sad truth is that most people who drink soda have no idea the phosphoric acid causes bone mineral loss and kidney stones. They have no clue that high-fructose corn syrup promotes diabetes and obesity. They just don't know about the harmful effects of drinking highly acidic liquid sugar beverages, and that's part of the reason why they keep drinking them.
In my opinion, large health warnings should be required on all sodas and junk food products. And they should be blunt: Soda causes diabetes. Donuts cause obesity and heart disease. Hot dogs cause cancer. The list goes on...
Such a proposal would horrify the corporate giants in the food and beverage industries, of course. Their sales depend on consumers staying ignorant about the ravaging health effects of their products. Requiring their labels to tell the truth would devastate their sales and profits. The processed food industry would suffer huge economic losses. So would the sick care industry as fewer people suffer degenerative disease. Lots of jobs would be lost as people avoided disease-promoting foods.
And that should be the ultimate goal: A huge downsizing of the junk food and sick care industries. The smaller they are, the better off the people are. Ultimately, we should strive to destroy the sick care industry altogether. The day Big Pharma's top corporations declare bankruptcy due to a lack of sales is the day we've achieved something meaningful for the health of our nation. And we're not going to get there by taxing sodas without telling people the truth about how sodas destroy their health.