Rather Be Healthy

By Dr. Mercola

What should you reach for when you come down with the flu? The antiviral drug Tamiflu is at the second recommendation on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) list of recommended treatments, right behind the flu vaccine.

Both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency have approved Tamiflu for both the treatment and prevention of flu, and governments around the world have stockpiled the drug at the recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO), in preparation for potential flu pandemics.

Use of the drug dramatically increased after the worldwide 2009 swine flu pandemic. But does Tamiflu actually work?

Researchers with the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration group are now raising serious questions about the drug’s effectiveness and the scientific basis for the global recommendation of the drug.

Researchers Demand Transparency of Science

The Cochrane Collaboration conducts and publishes analyses of the scientific evidence supporting the use of various drugs and vaccines. They are considered the “gold standard” of independent scientific reviews, so when they issue a report, you’re well advised to pay heed because it’s free of conflict of interests and therefore very objective.

I’ve previously discussed a number of their reviews on flu vaccines that have shed light on the sheer lack of scientific data supporting the claim that flu vaccines are a safe and effective means of preventing seasonal influenza.

Most recently, Cochrane decided to update previous reviews that might have a bearing on influenza management, which includes Tamiflu. The previous assessment of Tamiflu was done in 2009. At the time, the group was unable to get Roche, the manufacturer of Tamiflu, to release eight of the 10 clinical trials involving the drug. The review therefore concluded that:

“Paucity of good data has undermined previous findings for oseltamivir’s prevention of complications from influenza. Independent randomized trials to resolve these uncertainties are needed.”

Three years later and now faced with continued stonewalling, Cochrane in collaboration with the British Medical Journal decided to take the issue to the public. The BMJ Open Data Campaign1 was recently created in an effort to force transparency as Roche continues to refuse to release the data from eight out of 10 clinical trials on Tamiflu. The campaign site contains links to Cochrane’s correspondence with not just Roche, but also with the CDC and WHO — all of whom appear to be complicit in this scheme to massively promote a drug without scientific support for doing so.

“This open correspondence of letters offers readers the chance to witness attempts to compel greater accountability and responsibility in public health decision making and policy. The BMJ plans to launch other campaigns linked to its investigations in the future,” the campaign page reads.

This is indeed an unsuspected and exciting turn of events. Such a campaign for transparency in science is fairly unprecedented. According to Peter Doshi2, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University:

“I’m not aware of anything that does more than just a simple open letter,” he tells David Payne, editor of BMJ3. “The reader can see the correspondence almost as a stage play. One can see how the actors are actually acting, especially when one is pushing for accountability but the other party refuses to engage. If you make that kind of behavior visible, perhaps you can actually achieve progress.”

“For decades industry and regulators have worked largely under agreement — sometimes forced by law and other times just tacit agreements — that the data that would be shared between them would be confidential and treated as a trade secret. Now we’re realizing there is a number of enormously harmful consequences from those policies in which arguably drug disasters like Vioxx [rofecoxib] or Celebrex [celecoxib] or Avandia [rosiglitazone] could have been detected much earlier had the data been available.”

Government Recommendations for Tamiflu are Based on “Nothing”

In 2009, conflicts of interest within WHO were unearthed, showing links between Roche, the manufacturer of Tamiflu, and those responsible for creating pandemic flu planning guidelines. Tamiflu is currently on the organization’s list “essential medicines.” Meanwhile, the Cochrane team could find “no evidence” to suggest that Tamiflu actually reduces complications in cases of influenza…

BMJ editor David Payne reports:

“Influenza drug oseltamivir has made billions of pounds for Roche, but why won’t the company give patients and doctors access to the full clinical data? … [Cochrane researcher Tom] Jefferson told the BMJ… the US Food and Drug Administration had described Tamiflu’s effects as modest. “Despite this, WHO and CDC have been extensively promoting the drug. WHO has made Tamiflu one of the essential drugs, so it sits next door to aspirin and penicillin, cortisone,” he said.

“The CDC has extensively recommended the use of Tamiflu, and, as you know, governments worldwide have stockpiled it on the advice, essentially, of WHO. “We were trying to find out exactly what evidence these decisions were made on. So we asked questions, and we also asked WHO and CDC whether they’d seen our review and what their thoughts were.

“Readers will see the kind of stonewalling that we got. Indeed, my correspondence with WHO shows that they didn’t answer a single one of my questions. Politicians have ignored the problem and have not demanded accountability from their own decision makers, from regulators, and from industry.”

One in 10 Scientists Have Witnessed Scientific Fraud

I for one am thrilled to see that people with functional moral compasses still exist, who are willing to fight for true science-based medicine. Hiding unfavorable research and/or “cherry picking” data has become a monstrous problem in medical science, along with outright fraud.

Earlier this year, a BMJ poll4 revealed that more than 1 in 10 scientists and doctors have witnessed colleagues deliberately fabricating data in order to get their research published! At the time, Dr. Richard Lehman from Oxford University and BMJ editor of clinical epidemiology Dr. Elizabeth Loder wrote5:

“Clinical medicine involves making decisions under uncertainty. Clinical research aims to reduce this uncertainty, usually by performing experiments on groups of people who consent to run the risks of such trials in the belief that the resulting knowledge will benefit others. Most clinicians assume that the complex regulatory systems that govern human research ensure that this knowledge is relevant, reliable, and properly disseminated.

It generally comes as a shock to clinicians, and certainly to the public, to learn that this is far from the case. The linked cluster of papers on unpublished evidence should reinforce this sense of shock.

These articles confirm the fact that a large proportion of evidence from human trials is unreported, and much of what is reported is done so inadequately. We are not dealing here with trial design, hidden bias, or problems of data analysis — we are talking simply about the absence of the data. And this is no academic matter, because missing data about harm in trials can harm patients, and incomplete data about benefit can lead to futile costs to health systems. Moreover, researchers or others who deliberately conceal trial results have breached their ethical duty to trial participants.”

The pair called for an end to the “culture of haphazard publication and incomplete data disclosure,” through the implementation of more robust regulation and full access to the raw trial data to ensure transparency. The BMJ Open Data Campaign demanding the release of trial information about Tamiflu is part and parcel of this new effort to put the house of medical science back in order.

What You Need to Know About Tamiflu

Tamiflu (oseltamivir phosphate) is approved for treatment of uncomplicated influenza A and B in children one year of age or older. It is also approved for prevention of influenza in people 13 years or older. It is part of a group of anti-influenza drugs called neuraminidase inhibitors, which work by blocking a viral enzyme that helps the influenza virus to invade cells in your respiratory tract.

If taken within 48 hours of onset of illness, it may reduce the duration of flu symptoms by about a day to a day and a half. That’s the extent of what this $100-plus treatment will get you.

However, some patients with influenza are at increased risk for secondary bacterial infections when on Tamiflu, which of course would defeat the plan of being able to jump out of bed a day sooner. Furthermore, adverse events reported include pediatric deaths, serious skin reactions, and neuropsychiatric events, including suicide committed while delirious.

According to BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee6, Tamiflu’s effectiveness has likely been overstated and serious adverse effects have been under-reported, and with eight out of 10 clinical trials “missing in action,” there’s every reason to suspect this to be true.

As for the claims that Tamiflu can prevent flu if you’ve come in contact with someone who’s ill, Cochrane’s review of the available data shows that any preventive effect is modest at best. Pediatric studies showed that 13 children would need to be treated to prevent just one case of flu. So if 13 children were treated, 12 would receive no benefit. A Cochrane review published in April of this year7 concluded that:

“There is currently no high-quality evidence to support targeted treatment of ‘at risk’ children (with underlying chronic medical conditions) with neuraminidase inhibitors.”

Tamiflu — Another Massive Drug Scam

So, let’s face it. You’ve been scammed. Health care providers around the world have been scammed. Patients have been hurt, and children have died because of this drug, just like 60,000 people died from Vioxx, and tens of thousands were injured by the diabetes drug Avandia — all because those in charge of the science behind these “science-based” medicines decide to withhold critical data in order to protect their bottom lines.

“[T]axpayers in the United Kingdom and around the world have spent billions of dollars stockpiling a drug for which no one except the manufacturer has seen the complete evidence base,” Fiona Godlee, BMJ editor-in-chief, writes8.

In response to the Open Data Campaign, Sarah Wollaston, a general practitioner and Conservative Member of Parliament in the UK, recently brought the issue of missing clinical trial data before the Parliament, asking ministers from the Department of Health to make sure all historical and future data is released in the public domain9: British health minister Norman Lamb subsequently agreed to meet experts to discuss what he referred to as “the really important issue” of access to data from clinical trials10.

“In an email telling [Cochrane researcher] Jefferson about the planned meeting, Wollaston said: “It will surely be a turning point in the campaign for open data if we can show that £1 in every £200 of the total NHS budget for 2009 was spent stockpiling a drug for which a drug company had knowingly concealed data either showing it had no real benefits . . . or worse . . . caused real harm,” Payne writes11.

The Two Most Potent Flu Prevention Strategies I Know of

So, what is the best way to avoid contracting the flu each and every year? And what can you do to speed up your recovery should you get ill? In a recent WebMD article12, Chris Del Mar, MD, dean of medicine at Bond University in Australia, echoes my own sentiments when he says:

“Don’t take [the antivirals] to prevent complications because we don’t have enough good data for that. It reduces the [duration of the] illness by one day. So you have to make a decision about whether it’s worth it or not.”

But while Dr. Del Mar limits his recommendations to taking acetaminophen or a hot lemon drink, I believe there are far more effective alternatives. The answer lies in maintaining a robust immune system, and the first thing you want to do when you feel yourself coming down with a cold or flu is to avoid ALL sugars (fructose in particular), artificial sweeteners, and processed foods. This also includes fructose from fruit juice, and all types of grains (as they break down as sugar in your body).

It’s important to remember that excessive sugar consumption effectively suppresses your immune system and impairs your defenses against all infectious disease.

I also strongly recommend taking one specific action that can help reduce your chances of ever developing symptoms in the first place, and that is to make sure your vitamin D levels are optimized year-round. There’s a hypothesis that the widespread prevalence of colds and flu’s may actually be due to vitamin D deficiency, which is incredibly common in the United States, especially during the winter months when cold and flu viruses are at their peak. And, while studies keep confirming the ineffectiveness of flu vaccines and flu drugs like Tamiflu, several studies now support that vitamin D can help keep you healthy during flu season:
•In the largest and most nationally representative study13 of its kind, people with the lowest vitamin D levels reported having significantly more recent colds or cases of the flu.
•In another study14, published two years ago, schoolchildren were given either vitamin D or a placebo for a year. Influenza A occurred in just 10.8 percent of the children in the vitamin D group, compared with 18.6 percent children in the placebo group.
•At least five additional studies also show an inverse association between lower respiratory tract infections and vitamin D levels.

This is not surprising once you realize that vitamin D produces 200 to 300 different antimicrobial peptides in your body that kill bacteria, viruses and fungi. Essentially, it works as a very broad antibacterial and antiviral agent.

Other All-Natural Immune-Boosting Strategies

Aside from boosting your vitamin D levels and abstaining from sugary foods, additional long-term prevention strategies include getting plenty of quality sleep, exercising regularly15, and effectively addressing the daily stresses of your life. Taken together, these strategies lay the groundwork for a robust immune system that can stand up to all kinds of viral and bacterial assaults. However, there are also a number of all-natural therapies that can help you combat colds and flu’s on a more short-term basis. Here’s a listing of some of the most effective ones:
•Zinc — According to a Cochrane Database Review of the medical research on zinc, when taken within one day of the first symptoms, zinc can cut down the duration of a cold by about 24 hours. It was also found to greatly reduce the severity of symptoms.
•Chicken soup — Chicken contains a natural amino acid called cysteine, which can thin the mucus in your lungs and make it less sticky so you can expel it more easily. For best results, make up a fresh batch yourself (or ask a friend or family member to do so) and make the soup hot and spicy with plenty of pepper. The spices will trigger a sudden release of watery fluids in your mouth, throat, and lungs, which will help thin down the respiratory mucus so it’s easier to cough up and expel. I would also strongly recommend using local pastured chicken and simmering the bones and the feet for 24 hours to get the most you can out of the chicken. It makes an absolutely heavenly soup.
•Mushrooms — While most people think only of eating the fleshy fruiting body of the mushroom (the part that grows above ground), most of the benefits are actually located in their complex root structure, called the mycelium. Beta glucans and proteoglycans are the primary biologically active compounds in the mushroom fruit body and mycelia that support your immune system. The beta glucans are special proteins with unique side-branching patterns that “fit” perfectly with cellular receptor sites that support your immune system, just like a key in a lock.

Mushrooms also contain trace minerals, polysaccharides, amino acids and fiber that support your health by protecting against environmental stressors; supporting your detoxification process; and promoting healthy gut flora and optimal digestion, just to name a few of the known health benefits.
•Vitamin C: A very potent antioxidant; use a natural form such as acerola, which contains associated micronutrients. You can take several grams every hour till you are better unless you start developing loose stools
•Oregano Oil: The higher the carvacrol concentration, the more effective it is. Carvacrol is the most active antimicrobial agent in oregano oil.
•Propolis: A bee resin and one of the most broad-spectrum antimicrobial compounds in the world; propolis is also the richest source of caffeic acid and apigenin, two very important compounds that aid in immune response.
•A tea made from a combination of elderflower, yarrow, boneset, linden, peppermint and ginger; drink it hot and often for combating a cold or flu. It causes you to sweat, which is helpful for eradicating a virus from your system.
•Olive leaf extract: Ancient Egyptians and Mediterranean cultures used it for a variety of health-promoting uses and it is widely known as a natural, non-toxic immune system builder.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

Whole Body Vibrational Training (WBVT), also known as Acceleration Training, is ideally done using a platform that vibrates in three planes: vertical, horizontal and sagittal (front to back).

There is equipment out there that only moves in two planes but the three plane movement devices seem superior.

These micro-accelerations force your muscles to accommodate, resulting in dramatic improvement in strength, power, flexibility, balance, tone and leanness. But that’s not all.

Whole Body Vibrational Training (WBVT) has also been shown to be a safe, natural way to ward off osteoporosis, and can also help the elderly maintain postural control and balance.

Bone fractures resulting from falls are commonplace among the elderly, which can have a devastating effect on their health.

Some, such as pelvic fractures, can be lethal.

It’s also useful for rehabilitating injuries, and research has even determined that women with fibromyalgia can achieve a reduction in pain and fatigue using WBVT. Fortunately, WBVT is gentle enough for even for the disabled, and can be a very helpful addition to anyone’s exercise routine—regardless of your age and fitness status.

Combating Osteoporosis without Drugs or Supplements

Osteoporosis is a disease characterized by porous and fragile bones. It affects 44 million Americans, striking 1 in 3 women, and 1 in 5 men. Those with osteoporosis are at increased risk of height loss, fractures of the hips, wrists and vertebrae, and chronic pain.

The conventional approach to address this problem is to use drugs such as Fosamax, Actonel or Boniva. However, while these drugs can increase your bone density, they do NOT make your bone stronger. Quite the contrary; having thicker bones with less strength actually increases your risk of bone fractures. Furthermore, these toxic drugs have been linked to a number of serious side effects, including:

Eye problems such as blurry vision, pain and swelling

Liver damage and renal (kidney) failure

Esophageal cancer

Thigh bone fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw

Atrial fibrillation

Hypocalcemia (blood calcium levels are too low)

Vibrational Training Beats Weight Training for Building Stronger, Denser Bones

Peak bone mass is achieved in adulthood and then begins to slowly decline. Exercise is very important for maintaining healthy bone mass. Weight-bearing exercise has been known as one of the most effective remedies against osteoporosis, but research shows vibrational training is even MORE effective.

In one six month long study, Whole Body Vibrational Training (WBVT) was found to produce a significant increase in hip area bone density in postmenopausal women, while conventional training was only able to slow the rate of deterioration.1 A total of 90 women, aged 58 to 70 years old, were divided into three groups:
1.The first group did up to 30 minutes of WBVT three times a week. Static and dynamic exercises for the upper leg and hip area included squats and lunges.
2.The second group did 60 minutes of conventional weight training three times per week.
3.The control group did not exercise at all.

According to the study:

“The whole body vibration group got positive results: strength increased as much as 16 percent in upper leg muscles, while bone density at the hip increased by 1.5 percent. In addition, the whole body vibration group showed an improvement in postural control and balance, increased muscle strength and lean mass while losing body fat and fat mass.

The conventionally trained subjects were able to slow the rate of bone loss, which is consistent with previous published studies on weight training and bone loss. The control group subjects continued to lose bone mineral density at the average rate.”

The researchers concluded that Acceleration Training might be a solution for reversing bone loss and eliminating osteoporosis. Improving balance and posture, while increasing bone strength, can also reduce falls and fractures among the elderly. NASA has also tested vibration platforms to help prevent the bone loss that occurs during space travel.2According to a 2001 article in NASA Science:

“…NASA-funded scientists suggest that astronauts might prevent bone loss by standing on a lightly vibrating plate for 10 to 20 minutes each day. Held down with the aid of elastic straps, the astronauts could keep working on other tasks while they vibrate. The same therapy, they say, might eventually be used to treat some of the millions of people who suffer from bone loss, called osteoporosis here on Earth.

‘The vibrations are very slight,’ notes Stefan Judex, assistant professor of biomedical engineering at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, who worked on the research. The plate vibrates at 90 Hz (1 Hz = 1 cycle per second), with each brief oscillation imparting an acceleration equivalent to one-third of Earth’s gravity. ‘If you touch the plate with your finger, you can feel a very slight vibration,’ he added. ‘If you watch the plate, you cannot see any vibration at all.’

Although the vibrations are subtle they have had a profound effect on bone loss in laboratory animals such as turkeys, sheep, and rats.

In one study (published in the October 2001 issue of The FASEB Journal), only 10 minutes per day of vibration therapy promoted near-normal rates of bone formation in rats that were prevented from bearing weight on their hind limbs during the rest of the day. Another group of rats that had their hind legs suspended all day exhibited severely depressed bone formation rates – down by 92 percent – while rats that spent 10 minutes per day bearing weight, but without the vibration treatment, still had reduced bone formation – 61 percent less. These results show that the vibration treatment maintained normal bone formation rates, while brief weight bearing did not.”

Your Secret Weapon for Rehab

A 2008 study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine investigated the effect of four weeks’ worth of vibrational training compared to conventional physiotherapy on the rehabilitation after Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) reconstruction.3 Twenty male athletes who had recently undergone ACL reconstruction performed standard tests used to measure postural control and balance, and were then randomly assigned to receive 12 sessions of WBVT, or 12 sessions of conventional training.

After four weeks, the vibrational training group had achieved significantly greater improvements than those in the conventional training group. The authors concluded that WBVT may be “a very useful tool to expedite rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction.”

Reducing Pain and Regaining Flexibility Made Easy

Another 2008 study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a six-week traditional exercise program with supplementary whole body vibration training in improving health status, physical functioning, and main symptoms of fibromyalgia in women diagnosed with fibromyalgia.4 Thirty-six patients were randomly divided into three groups:
1.Exercise plus vibrational training, twice a week
2.Exercise only, twice a week
3.No exercise (control group)

The conventional exercise therapy included aerobic activities, stretching, and relaxation techniques. The two exercise groups underwent the identical exercise protocol, but the first group also received vibrational training after each exercise session.

The Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire was administered at the beginning of the study, and at the end of the six-week program. At the end of six weeks, participants in the vibrational training group reported significantly reduced pain and fatigue scores. Meanwhile, neither the exercise-only nor the control group reported any significant reduction in pain or fatigue. The authors concluded:

“Results suggest that a 6-week traditional exercise program with supplementary WBV safely reduces pain and fatigue, whereas exercise alone fails to induce improvements.”

Acceleration Training is Ideal for Virtually Everyone

Whole Body Vibrational Training (WBVT), along with high intensity interval training, proves that exercise does not have to be difficult and time consuming to provide great benefits. The near-total muscle fiber recruitment of WBVT translates into a great high-intensity workout that can be completed in as little as 10 minutes, two to three times a week.

I truly believe vibrational training technology represents a revolution in fitness science that can benefit virtually everyone, regardless of age or fitness status.

Obviously, if you have health challenges such as heart disease or high blood pressure, you will want to consult with your health care provider before starting a new fitness program, but overall, vibrational training is so gentle that even the most frail can tolerate it, making it ideal even for the elderly, the disabled, and those recuperating from an injury. In fact, as the research discussed above shows, these folks may stand to gain the most from this type of training, as it actually speeds healing and recovery.

The History of Vibrational Training

Whole Body Vibrational Training is based on Rhythmic Neuromuscular Stimulation (RNS) dating back to the 1960s when Professor W. Biermann, from the former East German Republic, described ‘cyclical vibrations’ capable of improving the condition of your joints relatively quickly.

As the theories of acceleration training exercise developed, Russian ballet dancers with minor muscle injuries such as Achilles tendonitis discovered that vibration aided the healing process. They also found that their muscular strength and jump height increased with only a quarter of the effort or time required by traditional training methods. Since then many athletes have discovered the benefits of acceleration training exercise.

The Mechanics of Acceleration Training

The more precise scientific term for WBVT is Acceleration Training, as it works on the principle of Newton’s second law of thermodynamics, which you might recall from high school physics class:5

F = M x A

The force (F) on an object is a function of its mass (M) and its acceleration (F).

As it relates to your workout, you can think of force as the amount of work done. In order to benefit from your workout, you must increase the forces on your body by increasing one of the two variables, mass or acceleration:
1.When you lift weights, you’re increasing mass (the mass of your body plus any weights you use).
2.Acceleration Training increases acceleration. The vibrations are actually very rapid small movements of the platform – mainly up and down. The changes of directions of the platform result in strong acceleration and decelerating forces, 25 to 50 times per second. The mass is simply your body, and vibration is the acceleration.

By increasing either (or both) of these variables, you increase the amount of force on your body, which is what puts the “work” into your workout. A high quality Acceleration Training machine can generate forces from two to six Gs depending on the frequency and amplitude settings used. So, even at the lowest setting, you are almost doubling your body weight in terms of applied forces.

As mentioned at the beginning, high quality Acceleration Training machines vibrate in three planes: vertical, horizontal and front to back.

When you stand on the vibrating platform, each muscle in your body reacts in a continuous flow of micro adjustments, contracting reflexively. The up-and-down movement improves your muscle tone. The left-to-right, and front-to-back movements improve your balance and coordination. The net result is a dramatic improvement in strength and power, flexibility, balance, tone and leanness.

Consider this: If you apply 30 Hertz (30 cycles per second) for 30 seconds, you are triggering/stimulating your neuromuscular system a total of 900 times in just half a minute. This means you can train to athlete status with about 12-25 minutes of Acceleration Training, three days a week. No wonder the results are so impressive!

Buyer Beware: Not All Acceleration Equipment are Created Equal…

There are many cheap machines out there so please understand that not all machines will provide identical benefits. In fact, cheap machines using faulty construction could cause harm. In my opinion, here’s what you want to look for when shopping for Acceleration (or Whole Body Vibration) Training equipment:
•Solid steel construction. Avoid plastic platforms as they can and do break. Watch for sturdiness as you watch their demo video.
•Optional vibration settings and the convenience of automatic programs. You may want to challenge your body and increase the vibration setting.
•Adequate weight limit. If it can’t handle your weight, it can break or strain to run at a lower intensity level.
•Who is selling the equipment? Know the company and their reputation.
•How loud is it? Many machines are excessively noisy which can contribute to psychological stress.
•Does the company provide a detailed guide and user manual? A video demonstration can be very helpful to learn recommended exercise positions.
•A good warranty and customer service in case you have questions. How long has the company been around? Will they be around long enough to honor their warranty?
•Beware of fake ratings. For example, it appears that the “Koehler Rating” may be fabricated. Don’t fall for this type of marketing gimmick.

Be sure to take your time and check the fine print when shopping for Acceleration Training equipment. In my opinion, a reliable, well-built machine is truly a great investment that you’ll appreciate for many years to come. Try to demo the machine you’re interested. Notice how you feel when you step off. If you don’t feel good afterwards, that’s a red flag that the machine’s vibrations may not be in tune with your body’s natural frequencies.

Some foreign-made vibrating equipment is particularly poor with faulty electronics, buttons, cheap bearings and shoddy welds that commonly break. Beware of skinny support posts, unstable units, too small-sized plates, weak motors and units with insufficient power to support the vibration capacity.

With some Whole Body Vibration machines, you may experience a side-to-side type of motion – a “wobble board” effect. Avoid such machines, and look for two motor systems that provide a genuine 3-D workout.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Shiv Chopra1, B.V.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.,

Fellow World Health Organization

The latest recall of E. coli infected beef should not only be a concern for beef and beef products but also other meats, cheeses, vegetables and water.

E. coli is a generic name for billions of such bacteria thriving in the alimentary canal of humans and animals. Their presence in food or water indicates fecal contamination. The consumption of any such food or water can cause deadly disease. It cannot become safe by cooking or irradiation. Irradiation of the end products, such as steaks, hamburger, etc., may kill microbes but it does not exclude their original source which is feces and urine. Irradiation of meat may also generate carcinogenic substances. All such food and water must be rejected.

What Promotes E.Coli Infection?

Virtually every E. coli infection traces to unsanitary conditions in which food-producing crops and animals are being cultivated, processed, transported, stored, and ultimately sold for human consumption.

Most food-producing animals these days are raised at mega farms, commonly called factory farms. From there, they get transported for thousands of miles to similarly large slaughterhouses without being fed or watered for as long as 48 hours. Covered in feces and urine, dehydrated, frozen and badly bruised, approximately 50 percent of them are reported to arrive there already dead. Moreover, the mechanized tools and procedures used to slaughter these animals convey their infection-loaded excreta into the eventual meat and meat products for human consumption.

Finally, the waste water from these mega farms, slaughterhouses, packing plants and other establishments gets drained into fields, rivers, lakes and wells. Reports indicate that every year approximately 36 million Americans and 11 million Canadians contract food-borne infections, out of which many thousand get hospitalized and several thousand die.

Drugs Used in Livestock are Central to the Problem of Food Borne Illness

Central to this problem are the drug manufacturers selling tons of different antibiotics to prevent frivolous infections in farm animals. However, what ends up happening in these animals is that thus used antibiotics destroy harmless microbes in their alimentary canal and yield room to antibiotic resistant “super-bugs”, such as E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria, etc. Due to these problems, large scale use of antibiotics is no longer allowed in the EU. In contrast, it continues to prevail in the US and Canada with government approval.

Another cause for concern is illegal approval of sex hormones by USFDA and Health Canada in beef production. Beef stimulating hormones are recognized to be “complete carcinogens”. In other words, they can initiate cancers and also promote existing cancers. In addition, sex hormones are recognized to cause endocrine disruption. As such, sex hormones cause reproductive disorders, such as infertility, precocious puberty, drop in sperm count, etc. Like antibiotics, no such hormones to increase beef production are allowed to be utilized in the EU.

Other Food Safety Concerns: Slaughterhouse Waste Used in Animal Feed, and GMO’s…

Yet another concern for food safety should be the Canadian approval of slaughterhouse waste being fed to food-producing animals, which is known to transmit BSE in cattle (mad cow disease) and CJD (a fatal neurogenerative disorder) in people. Once again, any such use of slaughterhouse waste is strictly forbidden in the EU. The only other industrialized country allowing agricultural applications of antibiotics hormones and slaughterhouse waste is the US, whose food safety record is no better than that of Canada.

At issue also are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) attached to various herbicides and pesticides to increase agricultural yields of milk, meat, vegetables, fruits and ethanol whose public safety is being questioned throughout the world but not in Canada or the US.

These should be sobering thoughts for both Health Canada and CFIA. They cannot go on pretending the Canadian food supply to be the safest in the world when it is so frequently found to be unsafe. People have the right to know how their food is produced. The only sure way to know that is to conduct a public inquiry.

About the Author

Dr. Shiv Chopra is a world renowned scientist, author and public speaker. As a former employee of Health Canada (the Canadian equivalent of the US FDA) for 35 years, he was the Senior Scientific Advisor for the regulatory assessment of food and drugs, including new vaccines.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

Curious about the prevalence and extent of scientific misconduct, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research investigated the reasons why research studies were retracted, and from wherei.

The highest number of incidents of misconduct occurred in the drug literature, as compared to general biomedical literature. Nearly 75 percent of the retracted drug studies were attributed to scientific misconduct, which includes:
•Data falsification or fabrication
•Questionable veracity
•Unethical author conduct
•Plagiarism

This is a significant rise when compared to a 1998 review—cited in the featured NewsWise article—in which 37 percent of scientific retractions between 1966 and 1997 were due to scientific misconduct. Even more shocking: According to data from Thomson Reuters, the numbers of scientific retractions have climbed more than 15-fold since 2001ii!

The most unfortunate thing about this is that these are the types of studies many health care professionals rely on to make treatment recommendations. Large numbers of patients can be affected when false findings are published, as the average lag time between publication of the study and the issuing of a retraction is 39 months. And that’s if it’s ever caught at all.

Just How Scientific is “Science-Based Medicine” Really?

I am a big believer in the scientific method, provided it’s applied appropriately that is. And that’s the key issue here. In order to qualify in the first place, the research must be unbiased, unprejudiced and free from any significant conflicts of interest. Sadly, this is not the case with most of modern medicine—especially not when it comes to drug research, as evidenced by the featured findings.

It’s quite shocking that nearly three-quarters of all retracted drug studies are due to pure falsification of data. Especially when you consider that even well-researched drugs can still have significant side effects.

Just imagine the potential for tragedy when a drug is based largely on pure fantasy!

Vioxx is perhaps one of the better examples of what can happen when a drug is manufactured and sold under false pretenses. It killed more than 60,000 people in just a few years time, before it was removed from the market. In the case of Vioxx, there are lingering questions about the soundness of the research backing the drug in the first place. Back in 2008, Dr. Joseph S. Ross of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine came across ghostwritten research studies for Vioxx while reviewing documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck.

According to an April 16, 2008 article on MedHeadlinesiii:

“In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the report made substantial contribution to the research itself. … Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern… question the true nature of ghostwriting. One neurologist originally listed as “External author?” and then listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the University of California, San Diego in the final draft, died a year ago in an airplane crash.”

An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)iv that year by Drs. Psaty and Kronmal also questioned whether Merck might have deliberately manipulated dozens of academic documents published in the medical literature, in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.

Avandia is another potent example. This diabetes medication hit the market in 1999 and quickly became a blockbuster drug. By 2006 its annual revenue was $3.2 billion. A year later, a damning study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) linked Avandia to a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack and a 64 percent higher risk of cardiovascular death than patients treated with other methods.

Between 1999 and 2007, Avandia is estimated to have caused over 80,000 unnecessary heart attacksv, although the actual numbers of people harmed or killed by the drug is still largely unknown. The most recent analysis by the Cleveland Clinic in 2010vi, which used data from 56 clinical Avandia trials, calculated that for every 37 to 52 patients who take Avandia for five years, one additional heart attack can be expected as a result of the drug. As a result, the authors of this meta-analysis estimate the number of deaths caused by Avandia to be around 48,000, between 1999 and 2009.

This is a steep price, to say the least, for a disease that does not require drugs to begin with. Avandia is a poster child for the lethal paradigm of faux science as GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Avandia, hid damaging information about the drug for over 10 yearsvii, as it would adversely affect sales!

Again and again we are confronted with indisputable evidence that the drug paradigm is about money, not health, and certainly not dependable scientific inquiry.

Since that 2007 NEJM study, data from various trials, studies and meta-analyses have consistently confirmed the dangers of Avandia, and based on the evidence amassed over the past three years, the European Medicines Agency is now recommending the withdrawal of rosiglitazone-containing diabetic drugs due to the increased risk of ischaemic heart disease. NEJM also hit the nail on its head with the statement that,

“[T]he case of rosiglitazone underscores the need for a robust evidence base to demonstrate the safety of medicines administered long-term.”

Unfortunately, a committee of independent experts recommended that Avandia remain on the US market, despite its risks, and an FDA oversight board voted 8 to 7 to accept the advice.

It’s important to understand that our current medical system has been masterfully orchestrated by the drug companies to create a system that gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to manipulate and deceive you into using expensive and potentially toxic drugs that benefit the drug companies more than it benefits your health. Across the board, drugmakers do an excellent job of publicizing the findings they want you to know, while keeping very quiet about the rest.

It’s important to realize that all research is NOT published. And it should come as no surprise that drug studies funded by a pharmaceutical company that reaches a negative conclusion will rarely ever see the light of day… What this means is that even if you scour the medical literature to determine what the consensus is on any given medical topic, what you’ll find is an overwhelming preponderance of data in favor of the drug approach that in no way, shape or form reflects the reality of the scientific investigation that went into that specific drug.

How Drug Companies Manipulate Research Evidence to Fool You

The pharmaceutical industry as a whole has become the poster-child for fraud, deception, and manipulation of science for profit. Nearly 20 percent of the top 100 Corporate Criminals listed for the 1990s were in fact drug companies!

In an online series called Transparency and Medicine featured on the web site The Conversationviii, Jon Jureidini discusses how science-based medicine is clouded by marketing departments that control and distort information in the medical literature. Jureidini is a professor of psychiatry at the University of Adelaide (Australia), who got an inside look at this murky mess while examining drug company internal documents as an expert witness in a case against a pharmaceutical company. The voluminous amounts of documents he was given access to showed “serious misrepresentation” of both the effectiveness and safety of certain drugs, with published articles making the research appear positive, while negative secondary outcomes were deleted.

When you consider that this is the type of research data that then ends up being used to make treatment decisions for years to come by many expert review panels, is it any wonder the United States has the most expensive health care in the world, while STILL experiencing a decline in life expectancy and other health indexes? The whole idea that modern medicine is science-based has become laughable, as the evidence tells a whole different story…

The Snowball Effect Caused by Fabricated Research

Last year, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist had fabricated two of his studiesix. This case is a perfect example of how even a small number of fraudulent studies can wreak havoc with the science-based paradigm. The fabricated work of Sheng Wang, PhD, was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract themx.

But important studies by other scientists, like those at the Mayo Clinic, have in turn based their work on his flights-of-fantasy… As a result of the fall-out, 17 papers published in nine different research journals have been retracted, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Another example is that of Dr. Scott Reuben, a well-respected, prominent anesthesiologist, former chief of acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. and a former professor at Tufts University’s medical school, who in 2009 was found to have fabricated the data for 21 studies! Dr. Reuben succeeded in getting many of them published, and those studies were used to sway the prescribing habits of doctors. It was only due to a routine audit raising a few red flags that a larger investigation was later launched.

Consider the implications of this for a moment.

If one case involving just two falsified studies led to the retraction of 17 others, just imagine how many studies are affected or effectively invalidated by the 742 studies retracted between 2000 and 2010!xi

Unfortunately, despite retractions, fabricated research may still inadvertently live on, as it has been cited by other studies, and once a finding is accepted in the medical community, it’s difficult to reverse it. What’s worse, according to a 2011 study in the Journal of Medical Ethicsxii, nearly 32 percent of retracted papers were not noted as having been retracted by the journal in question, leaving the readers completely in the dark about the inaccuracies in those studies!

Beyond Fabrication—Flawed Research and Unsupported Conclusions

Peer-reviewed research published in medical journals gets the golden star of approval in the media, yet many of the findings—even if they’re not outright fabrications—can, and frequently are, incredibly misleading. One of the best exposé’s on this topic came from Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) who wrote the book The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. According to Angell:

“Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time.”

Also, back in 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece, showed that there is less than a 50 percent chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true!xiii According to his study:

“Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.”

He noted problems with the experimental and statistical methods used, including factors such as small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias and selective reporting. In 2008, Dr. Ioannidis again showed that much of scientific research being published is highly questionable…

The system itself is in large part to blame, because journals tend to be more likely to publish studies that show dramatic results, positive results, or results from “hot” competitive fields. For instance, a Cochrane Collaboration review and analysis of published flu vaccine studies found that flu vaccine studies sponsored by industry are treated more favorably by medical journals even when the studies are of poor quality.

It Gets Worse… Nearly 90 Percent of Cancer Studies Cannot be Replicated

As if things couldn’t get any worse, disturbing news reported by Reutersxiv earlier this year showed that the vast majority of the “landmark” studies on cancer are unreliable—and a high proportion of those unreliable studies come from respectable university labs. Former drug company researcher Glenn Begley looked at 53 papers in the world’s top journals, and found that he and a team of scientists could NOT replicate 47 of the 53 published studies—all of which were considered important and valuable for the future of cancer treatments! The allegations appeared in the March 28 issue of the prestigious journal Naturexv.

“It was shocking,” Glenn Begley, now senior vice president of privately held biotechnology company TetraLogic, told Reuters. “These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development. But if you’re going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it’s true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can’t take anything at face value.”

Part of the problem, they said, is that scientists often ignore negative findings in their results that might raise a warning. Instead, they opt for cherry-picking conclusions in an effort to put their research in a favorable light. Begley’s experience echoes a report from scientists at Bayer AG last year. Neither group of researchers alleges fraud however; nor would they identify the research they had tried to replicate, Reuters said.

Clearly, if we are to ever move forward, we cannot continue basing treatments on fraudulent and/or inaccurate research… It’s important to realize that if a study cannot be successfully and reliably reproduced, it is, quite simply, wrong. In order to be truly science-based, our medical protocols and drug treatments must be based on findings that are replicable.

Sadly, much of today’s “science” is financially motivated. According to NBC Newsxvi:

“As Begley and Ellis detail it, “To obtain funding, a job, promotion or tenure, researchers need a strong publication record…Journal editors, reviewers, and grant review committees… often look for a scientific finding that is simple, clear and complete—a ‘perfect’ story. It is therefore tempting for investigators to submit suspected data sets for publication, or even to massage data.” Whatever the motivation, the results are all too often wrong.

Begley and Ellis call for nothing less than a change in the culture of cancer research. They demand more willingness to admit to imperfections and an end to the practice of failing to publish negative results. “We in the field,” they say, “must remain focused on the purpose of cancer research: to improve the lives of patients.”

How to Get Solid Information in an Era of Confusion and Corruption

Ultimately, the take-home message here is that even if a drug or treatment is “backed by science,” this in no way guarantees it is safe or effective. Likewise, if an alternative treatment has not been published in a medical journal, it does not mean it is unsafe or ineffective.

You’ve got to use all the resources available to you, including your own sense of common sense and reason, true experts’ advice and other’s experiences, to determine what medical treatment or advice will be best for you in any given situation. I advise you to remain skeptical but open — even if it is something I’m saying, you need to realize that YOU are responsible for your and your family’s health, not me, and certainly not drug companies trying to sell their wares and convince you to take dangerous “symptom-cover-ups” disguised as science-based solutions.

Since it is very well established that most prescribed drugs do absolutely nothing to treat the cause of disease, it would be prudent to exercise the precautionary principle when evaluating ANY new drug claim, as it will more than likely be seriously flawed, biased, or worse…

If you’re facing a health challenge it is best to identify a qualified natural health consultant—someone who really understands health at a foundational level and has had extensive experience in helping others resolve their health care challenges. Just make sure to see a competent regular physician to make certain any serious disorders like cancer are ruled out as well.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 or 3 pounds will help.

By Dr. Mercola

A preliminary vote endorsing the continued use of dental amalgam has put the spotlight on the American Public Health Association (APHA), since it has long recognized the harm to the environment and public health of mercury releases.

The importance of APHA getting it right on the issue of dental mercury cannot be overstated, and this latest about-face has many scratching their heads, wondering how they could get it so wrong…

The Association is the only progressive multi-disciplinary organization dedicated to public health in the US, representing more than 60,000 health care workers. It has been an important organization for the validation of many of our environmental health resolutions over the last 20 years.

Its influence can also be felt internationally. As one of the largest public health associations it has great influence within the World Federation of Public Health Associations, so its position on this issue will be viewed as a broad pronouncement about what is good for the public’s health not just within the United States, but also abroad.

All of this makes APHA’s recent policy statement, reported by DentistryIQ1, so profoundly disturbing:

“The American Dental Association supports the American Public Health Association’s recent policy statement affirming that dental amalgam is safe and effective in treating dental cavities.”

The APHA policy notes that amalgam’s contribution to environmental mercury contamination is minimal, and that limiting or curtailing its availability could have negative health consequences, particularly in low-income areas, the featured article reports.

Members are urging the association to reconcile its contradictory positions before a final vote on the resolution early next year. But let’s be clear, if this resolution passes, it will keep dentistry firmly lodged in the proverbial stone age; put countless people’s health at risk (especially the poor and already underprivileged); and perpetuate significant environmental destruction.

Dental schools such as the New York University College of Dentistry, which recently decided to stop recommending mercury amalgam fillings as the default route of treatment, may have to ditch such notions and return to teaching the barbaric use of neurotoxic mercury rather than modern alternatives.

ADA’s Active Effort to Avoid Pollution Control Regulation

Dental amalgam is a primitive, polluting product — an antiquated remnant from the Civil War era — which is composed of about 50 percent mercury, a well-known neurotoxin. Once released into the environment, dental mercury converts to methylmercury and contaminates fish, which are the largest dietary source of mercury in the U.S.

The environmental impact of dental mercury simply cannot be overlooked.

The chief sponsor and endorser of the APHA resolution is the American Dental Association (ADA), a former patent-holder of amalgam that represents one faction of dentistry. Known for its midnight deal-making2 — such as with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2008 in avoiding pollution control regulation — the ADA appears on the verge of pulling off a similar stunt again.

Appearing at the APHA meeting last month, resolution in hand, ADA lobbyists presented a sequence of falsehoods to APHA leaders in the resolution they helped draft. The resolution claims that mercury fillings’ contribution to overall mercury pollution is “negligible” — when in reality, dentists are the number one purchaser of mercury in America for product use and the number one polluter of mercury into municipal waste water.

Will APHA, Like the ADA, Continue to Ignore the Science?

Contrary to ADA claims, a recent report from the World Health Organization3 (WHO) states that the amount of dental mercury entering the environment is “significant.” And contrary to APHA’s recommendation that “dental professionals continue the use of dental amalgam as a restorative material,” the WHO report calls for a “phasing-down” of dental amalgam use. It even says “WHO will facilitate the work for a switch in use of dental materials.” WHO noted the following three reasons for the new position:
1.Amalgam releases a “significant amount of mercury” into the environment, including the atmosphere, surface water, groundwater, and soil. WHO reported:

“When released from dental amalgam use into the environment through these pathways, mercury is transported globally and deposited. Mercury releases may then enter the human food chain especially via fish consumption.”
2.WHO determines that amalgam raises “general health concerns”: While the report acknowledged that a few dental trade groups still believe amalgam is safe for all, the WHO report reached a very different conclusion: “Amalgam has been associated with general health concerns.” The report observed:

“According to the Norwegian Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, the majority of cases of side-effects of dental filling materials are linked with dental amalgam.”
3.WHO concluded “materials alternative to dental amalgam are available” and cited studies indicating they are superior to amalgam. For example, WHO said “recent data suggest that RBCs [resin-based composites] perform equally well” as amalgam. And dental restorative materials have a higher survival rate, says WHO, citing a study finding that 95 percent of dental restorative materials and 92 percent of amalgams survive after 4 years.

In particular, WHO explained that “Alternative restorative materials of sufficient quality are available for use in the deciduous [baby] dentition of children” – the population whose developing neurological systems are most susceptible to the neurotoxic effects of dental mercury. Perhaps more important than the survival of the filling, WHO asserted that:

“Adhesive resin materials allow for less tooth destruction and, as a result, a longer survival of the tooth itself.”

The report also included mention of the known toxic effects of mercury exposure, stating:

“Mercury is highly toxic and harmful to health. Approximately 80 percent of inhaled mercury vapor is absorbed in the blood through the lungs, causing damage to lungs, kidneys and the nervous, digestive, respiratory and immune systems. Health effects from excessive mercury exposure include tremors, impaired vision and hearing, paralysis, insomnia, emotional instability, developmental deficits during fetal development, and attention deficit and developmental delays during childhood.”

What is the True Cost of Dental Amalgam?

Equally missing in the APHA resolution is any mention of amalgam’s true cost, when environmental expenses are factored. The price of amalgam is lower than its main alternative, composite, solely because the polluters, the pro-mercury dentists, are not paying for the externalized impacts they cause. As an authoritative economics study4 shows that when the environmental costs of amalgam are totaled, amalgam’s true costs are as much as $77 per filling more than composite.

In addition to the World Health Organization, a recent report created by the BIO Intelligence Service (BIO) for the European Commission5 recommends phasing out dental amalgam and mercury in button cell batteries by 2018 in order to protect the environment from continued devastating harm. According to the authors, dental amalgam is “a significant contributor to overall EU environmental emissions of mercury from human activities.” The situation is identical in the US.

The report, titled: Study on the Potential for Reducing Mercury Pollution from Dental Amalgams and Batteries6, highlights the extensive ecological harm caused by dental mercury, and the subsequent health impact on wildlife and humans:

“The current levels of mercury pollution in the EU are such that all the EU population is exposed to mercury above the natural background level and certain population groups such as high-level fish consumers, women of childbearing age and children are subject to high risk levels, principally due to their high exposure and/or high vulnerability to mercury in the form of methylmercury, which is ingested through the diet.

This presents a risk of negative impacts on health, in particular affecting the nervous system and diminishing intellectual capacity.

There are also environmental risks, for example the disturbance of microbiological activity in soils and harm to wildlife populations. The effects of mercury releases on the integrity of the ecosystem are substantial. Various species, especially eagles, loons, kingfishers, ospreys, ibises, river otters, mink and others that rely on fish for a large part of their diet, have been observed to suffer adverse health and/or behavioral effects.

Observed disorders such as effects on the muscles and nervous system, reduced or altered mating habits, ability to reproduce, raise offspring, catch food and avoid predators have been demonstrated to affect individual animal viability and overall population stability. According to calculations based on the critical load concept, more than 70 percent of the European ecosystem area is estimated to be at risk today due to mercury, with critical loads of mercury exceeded in large parts of western, central and southern Europe.”

World-Wide, Governments are Calling for the Phase Out of Amalgam

As an organization based in the United States, Consumers for Dental Choice has worked to educate its own government about dental mercury pollution and the many mercury-free alternatives to amalgam. In March of last year, their diligence paid off, as the U.S. government, in its official submission to UNEP’s mercury treaty negotiations, called for both the “eventual phase out” of amalgam and prompt “phase down” steps, including many of our recommendations, such as:
•”Educating patients and parents”
•”Protecting children and fetuses”
•”Training of dental professionals on the environmental impacts of mercury in dental amalgams”

From a government whose device regulator (FDA) had previously refused to educate the public about amalgam’s mercury content or take any steps to protect vulnerable populations, it was a welcome – even spectacular – development for the cause of mercury-free dentistry. Other governments from around the world quickly joined the push for mercury-free dentistry, including the Arab League, the African region, the Council of Europe, and numerous other developing nations.

ADA’s Self Serving Interests Coming to Light

Despite all this progress, the ADA still succeeded in ramming the resolution through APHA, claiming that it was a ‘late breaker” issue that warranted fast tracking, overcoming objections that it be withdrawn. Opponents argued that nothing had occurred since the resolution deadline (2/15/12) to justify “late breaking” status7 — and instead the resolution should be resubmitted through the normal policy next year where it would be more fully vetted.

Objection to the resolution inside APHA was fierce, with opposition expressed at both the public hearing and the Governing Council meeting. Both the Environment, Occupational, and Maternal and Child Health sections urged a No vote. But the ADA political machine won the day, crowing afterwards that APHA resolution (that the ADA helped draft) “further vindicates the ADA’s own long-standing and scientifically based policy.”

ADA’s self-serving interests are now only beginning to come to light as more APHA members become better informed.

In addition, some believe the ADA is now using APHA’s resolution as a way to derail the global WHO’s new policy to “phase down” amalgam — and influence negotiators who are considering incorporating the WHO policy into a global legally binding treaty on mercury8 when they meet for the final time in Geneva in mid-January. We knew the World Dental Federation was determined to protect amalgam to the bitter end… let’s hope APHA doesn’t give them the “ace” they need to eliminate dental mercury from the negotiations.

Join the Campaign for Mercury-Free Dentistry!

APHA still has time to undo its mistake. The final decision does not come until February. Consumers for Dental Choice leads the battle for mercury-free dentistry both in the US and worldwide. Its financial needs are greater than ever, so we ask for your help! Please consider a donation to Consumers for Dental Choice, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to advocating mercury-free dentistry.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, whatever you can manage will help.

Banned for Pets and Farm Animals, but Okay for You and Your Children?

By Dr. Mercola

With Consumers for Dental Choice

Dental amalgams have been in use since the American Civil War. They are an anachronism that has been perpetuated by dental industry patents, and there’s a conspiracy of silence that seeks to keep the 75 percent of Americans who are ignorant about that fact that amalgam fillings are actually 50 percent mercury.

As stated by Charlie Brown, who founded the Consumers for Dental Choice in 1996:

“The only way amalgam could be marketed was to hide the mercury. The only way you could hide the mercury is to have a coordinated effort to make sure that nobody blew the whistle.

At the start of our movement, we confronted an iron triangle; three major forces: The American Dental Association that profit from a system of consumer ignorance; The Food and Drug Administration that sits in the hip pocket of the American Dental Association… and the state dental boards, who were the enforcers who told dentists, “You have to be silent.”

The American Dental Association had a gag rule and said, “Don’t say the M word. Don’t tell people about the mercury; don’t say that it’s toxin, or there will be consequences.” The consequences were the state dental boards pulling licenses of dentists all through the 1990s and threatening to pull the licenses of many more.

Fortunately in the last 10 years nearly half of all US dentists have recognized the dangers of amalgams and have stopped using them in their practice. But the remaining 50 percent of dentists still use them, and that currently accounts for between 240-300 tons of mercury entering the market every year. In the United States, dental offices are the second largest user of mercury – and this mercury eventually ends up in our environment by one pathway or another.

Did You Know?…

Dental amalgam can cause far-reaching problems, such as:

• Exposure to mercury, the most toxic and more vaporous of the heavy metals, can harm your kidneys, and permanently damage your child’s developing neurological system, and even kill your unborn child in the womb.
• To implant amalgam, a dentist drills out healthy tooth matter in order to carve the crater necessary for amalgam placement – a primitive process that irreversibly weakens tooth structure. With a damaged tooth structure and with a metal-based filling that expands and contracts with temperature changes, teeth with amalgam are much more likely to crack years later, necessitating additional dental work.
• Amalgam is a workplace hazard, especially for young female dental workers who experience an elevated rate of reproductive failures.
• Dental mercury is the number one source of mercury in our wastewater, so dentists are handing the clean-up bill for their pollution to taxpayers and water ratepayers.

Why would a primitive, pre-Civil War polluting product that is 50 percent mercury and cracks teeth still be going into your mouth?

Amalgam was introduced in the Civil War era by the new American Dental Association, which won a political battle with the physicians of the mouth, who said using mercury in oral health care is malpractice. Florida dentist James Hardy, in his book Mercury Free, refers to the creation of amalgam and the creation of the American Dental Association as the “twin-birth.”

Why Do Half of All Dentists Still Use Mercury Amalgam?

We now know the risks, so why do half of dentists continue to use the filling material used by their great-grandfathers?

Is it the price?

No.

The alternatives to amalgam are comparably priced – or even less expensive. Amalgams cost more than glass ionomers, which can be applied via a mercury-free technique called Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). ART does not require drilling; only hand instruments, and is virtually painless.

Amalgam also cost the same as composite fillings (also called resin) for smaller cavities, although composite can cost a few bucks more for large cavities. But when you add the horrid environmental and health catastrophe caused by amalgam, of course, amalgam’s cost to society is much higher…

The answer is: Profits!

Amalgams are quick and easy. Dentists make more money per chair per day implanting mercury. For factory-style dentistry, where the teeth represent dollar signs instead of part of a human being, dentists drill, fill, and bill. The term “drill, fill, and bill” is a joke aspiring dentists learn in dental school. Only the joke is on us and our children: they count their money, and we have a vaporous neurotoxin implanted an inch from our brains or our children’s brains.

And of course, since amalgam damages tooth structure and cracks teeth, pro-mercury dentists will continue to profit from amalgam long after its initial placement. Teeth with amalgam require more dental work in the long term. So for the pro-mercury half of dentists, amalgam is the gift that keeps on giving.

How Can Pro-Mercury Dentists Compete with Toxic-Free Dentists?

The pro-mercury dentists’ trade group, the American Dental Association, has pulled every lever with Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, the state dental boards and the corporate media to cover up amalgam’s mercury.

1. First, the ADA popularized the deceptive term “silver fillings,” so consumers would think amalgam is made mainly of silver (actually, it has twice as much mercury as silver).
2. Second, it mounted a no-holds-barred campaign to silence competitors and critics of 19th century dentistry, especially the courageous dentists who realized their leadership was so fundamentally in error.

According to its own self-description, the American Dental Association appears focused more on promoting products – and getting paid handsomely to do so – than in promoting its dentist members. At the bottom of its news releases, the ADA has frequently written:

“The not-for-profit ADA is the nation’s largest dental association, representing more than 155,000 dentist members. The premier source of oral health information, the ADA has advocated for the public’s health and promoted the art and science of dentistry since 1859. The ADA’s state-of-the-art research facilities develop and test dental products and materials that have advanced the practice of dentistry and made the patient experience more positive. The ADA Seal of Acceptance long has been a valuable and respected guide to consumer and professional products. For more information about the ADA, visit the Association’s Web site at www.ada.org.”

Of the five sentences, one is about members, and three about the ADA’s product endorsement system. The “ADA Seal of Acceptance” is a pay-to-play system in which companies pay the ADA to secure their endorsement. By contrast, the American Medical Association will not do pay-to-play endorsements of products; it is considered unethical.

The ADA owns two patents on amalgam, patent numbers 4,018,600 and 4,078,921. They have expired, but while they were in effect the ADA went to incredible lengths to wipe out mercury-free dentistry and quash dissent from the emerging critics of mercury-based dentistry.

The Role of the American Dental Association

How does the ADA keep pro-mercury dentists in business – and keep profits rolling in for the amalgam makers?

Here’s how:

1. The “silver fillings” deceptionGold fillings are called gold because they are made of gold. Seizing on the comparison, the ADA brochures promoting mercury fillings called them “silver fillings.” The ADA claims the term means “silver-colored,” but who are they fooling? In my dictionary, the first definition of “silver” is the element. The color is the fourth definition, behind the element, medium of exchange, coins, and eating utensils.Consumers for Dental Choice, with its Campaign for Mercury-Free Dentistry, fought back against the “silver fillings” deception. In California these advocates launched the term “say the M word,” which led to fact sheets on amalgam in that state and several other states and cities. These fact sheets, which dentists are required to hand their patients, inform the public that amalgam is mercury.
2. The gag ruleWhen its amalgam patents were in effect, the ADA used its power to block the emergence of mercury-free dentistry by adopting a rule of conduct prohibiting dentists from discussing mercury with their patients:

“Based on available scientific data, the ADA has determined that the removal of amalgam restorations from the non-allergic patient for the alleged purpose of removing toxic substances from the body, when such treatment is performed solely at the recommendation or suggestion of the dentist, is improper and unethical.”

Yes, the ADA said it is unethical for a dentist to tell the truth to his patients!

Thanks to an extraordinary campaign by Consumers for Dental Choice, the gag rule is now just about defunct. Working with state lawmakers, with civil liberties organizations, with state Attorneys General (Charlie Brown, head of the consumer group, used to be one), and with an outraged citizenry, the movement for Mercury-Free Dentistry succeeded in the legislatures, in the courts, and in the courts of public opinions to restore free speech rights to dentists.

1. Rent-a-CongressmanHow about the political process? We do have friends in Congress, Republicans like Congressman Dan Burton and Senator Mike Enzi, and Democrats like Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Congressman Gregory Meeks. But they are few and far between.The ADA has been particularly devious in the halls of Congress. It doesn’t instruct its minions in Congress – members from both political parties – to write bills, conduct hearings, nor even make speeches. Instead, the ADA buys silence and inaction from Members of Congress. Sound familiar? It was the same tactic used by Big Tobacco for several decades.At the state level, it’s the same; in some state capitals, the ADA has had the single largest political action committee. The tactic is the same: Do nothing, say nothing, and cash the PAC money.
2. Strong-arming the children of AmericaIn the Maine legislature, money is not king. The state has fair practices that limit outside money and create a level-playing field for unfunded candidates. Unable to buy their way into power, the ADA resorted to outright strong-arming. A bill was gaining momentum in the Maine Legislature to phase out amalgam. The ADA struck back, threatening to deny treatment for Maine children if their dentists could not use their favorite filling material. If amalgam were banned, the ADA threatened:

“The result will be treatment delayed, treatment denied, and treatment never being sought. That is not a situation the dentists of Maine, the United States, or our policymakers can be willing to accept.”

Several years later, the ADA’s Pennsylvania chapter pulled the same power play against children with disabilities. A fact sheet law in the City of Philadelphia meant parents are now made aware of amalgam’s horrid health risks to their children. In inner-city clinics, parents were insisting on mercury-free dentistry – the same as parents do in the affluent areas. But to the Pennsylvania Dental Association, inner-city parents were supposed to take the crumbs their dentists offered: mercury fillings or no fillings.

A dental association leader was demanding that parents of children with disabilities sign a release allowing him to put mercury fillings in their children; when they refused, he denied all treatment. No tooth cleanings. Nothing… Suburban parents might go to a dentist down the street, but for inner-city minority parents of children with disabilities, finding a dentist is not easy – and this dentist knew it. Incredibly, the Pennsylvania Dental Association – which claims to support choice for children in the suburbs – endorsed the position of this dentist.

Fortunately, the story did not end there. This callous power play endorsed by the Pennsylvania Dental Association – denying dental care for children with disabilities unless they agreed to mercury fillings – caught the attention of the disability rights community. The Pennsylvania Governor’s Advisory Commission on Disabilities enacted a resolution condemning this ADA chapter.

What Can You Do to Stop the Use of Amalgam?

During this Mercury-Free Dentistry Awareness Week, I urge you to help spread the word and help educate others by sharing this article with your social networks. Together, we can END the use of toxic mercury in dentistry.

Charlie Brown, who runs Consumers for Dental Choice, is headed to Nairobi in October to lead a worldwide delegation participating in the world mercury treaty negotiations. With him will be a team of dentists, consumers, attorneys, and scientists fighting to get amalgam into that treaty. With the world deciding whether we continue allowing mercury in children’s mouths, much is at stake. Here’s what you can do in your nation or state:

Americans: Our #1 problem is the Food and Drug Administration, which has partnered with the American Dental Association to cover up the mercury, to make you think you are getting silver instead of mercury in your mouth. The FDA intentionally conceals the warnings about amalgam deep in its regulation — so parents will never see them. On its website, the FDA gives dentists the green light to continue to deceive consumers with the term “silver fillings”

“Americans are ready for the end of amalgam.” This was the theme of the testimony to the U.S. Department of State on August 18 by former West Virginia state Senator Charlotte Pritt. Yes, Americans are ready. But FDA is not. So let’s send them a message.

Nine months ago, FDA scientists advised the agency to disclose the mercury to all patients and parents, and to stop amalgam for children and pregnant women. Yet FDA sits – sits actually in the pocket of the American Dental Association – ignoring its own scientists.

Please write the Director of FDA’s Center for Devices, Jeff Shuren, [email protected] Ask Dr Shuren why FDA continues to ignore the scientists and covers up the mercury from American parents and consumers. Ask when FDA is going to get in step with the world on mercury.

Dr. Jeff Shuren, Director
Center for Devices, U.S. Food & Drug Admin.
10903 New Hampshire Ave.
WO66-5431, Room 5442
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
Telephone: 301-796-5900
Fax: 301-847-8149
Fax: 301-847-8109

Californians: Dr. Shuren is coming to San Francisco for a “town meeting” on September 22. We urge Northern Californians to attend. It will go from 8 am to 12 noon, at the Embassy Suites Hotel, San Francisco Airport (telephone 650.589.3400)

In Southern California, Consumers for Dental Choice is organizing a city-by-city attack on amalgam — and needs volunteers. If you wish to help with the grassroots work of organizing for city council hearings, gathering petitions, and telephoning, volunteer by writing [email protected]

Australians: Your government, Aussies, is now in last place on the mercury treaty, asking the world to throw in the towel instead of working to phase out dental mercury. A great new group has started, Australians for Mercury-Free Dentistry, led by dentist Lisa Matriste and consumer activist Anna Priest. We urge you to go to its website and join: http://www.mercuryfreedentistry.com.au/

Folks worldwide: If you aren’t on that list, there’s plenty to do – for example, Dominique Bally, an outstanding young advocate from the Ivory Coast, runs the Amalgam-Free Africa Campaign. If you want to help somewhere, anywhere, and there’s nothing on the list above for you, write Charlie Brown, [email protected]

Consumers for Dental Choice is working to protect your health – and the health of your children – all around the world. Charged with this important mission at state and local, national, and international levels, Consumers for Dental Choice would appreciate your help!

Dr. Mercola Recommends…

Every “Like” Helps Support This Cause

Please consider a donation to Consumers for Dental Choice, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to advocating mercury-free dentistry.

Donations can be made online at http://www.toxicteeth.org/donate.cfm. Checks can be mailed to:

Consumers for Dental Choice
316 F St., N.E., Suite 210
Washington DC 20002

Also, for timely updates and information, please join Consumers for Dental Choice on Facebook.

Thank you for supporting mercury-free dentistry.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

In most people, sometime during yours 30s your bone mass will start to gradually decline (there are steps you can take to slow, or stop, this from occurring, which I’ll discuss below).

For women, that bone loss speeds up significantly during the first 10 years after menopause, which is the period when osteoporosis often develops.

Many are under the mistaken impression that a prescription drug combined with megadose calcium supplements is the answer to strong and healthy bones.

In reality, as new research has once again revealed, nature has provided some of the best substances for preventing bone loss right in the foods you eat. Fermented vegetables using special starter culture designed to optimize vitamin K2 is one of your best strategies for maintaining healthy bones and preventing bone loss, in combination with vitamin D.

But before I get to that, recent research also suggests that one often-overlooked vegetable in particular can be of benefit, and if you’ve never had fennel, now might be a good time to give it a try.

Fennel May Prevent Post-Menopausal Bone Loss and Osteoporosis

Scientists looking for natural compounds to counteract postmenopausal bone loss believe they may have found the answer in fennel, a much under-appreciated vegetable that is native to southern Europe and the Mediterranean area.

In a study published in the International Journal of Molecular Medicine,1 it was found that eating the seeds of the plant had a beneficial effect on loss of bone mineral density, as well as bone mineral content.

Healthy bones maintain their strength through a continual process of bone breakdown and bone rebuilding. Osteoclasts are the cells that break down weakened bone, and osteoblasts are the cells that build it back up. The fennel appeared to work by reducing osteoclast differentiation and function, thereby slightly decreasing bone turnover markers and offering a protective effect on the bones.

Researchers indicated that fennel seeds show potential in preventing bone loss in postmenopausal osteoporosis. This vegetable, which has a celery-like base topped with feathery green leaves, has a long history of medicinal use, and has been valued since ancient times as a breath freshener, digestive aid, and for helping expel phlegm from the lungs.

It’s now known that the plant is a treasure trove of nutrients, including vitamin C, folate (the natural form of folic acid), calcium, magnesium, and more, as well as phytonutrients and antioxidants that may help reduce inflammation, boost immune function, and even help prevent cancer.

Eating Plenty of Vegetables is Key for Bone Health

Fennel is just one example of a veggie that’s excellent for your bones. High vegetable intake has been associated with positive effects on bone mineral status for years.2 Eating high quality, organic, biodynamic, locally grown veggies will naturally increase your bone density and strength, and will decrease your risk of developing a fracture at virtually any age.

One reason why this is so important is because it supplies your body with nutrients that are essential for bone health, like vitamin K1 and potassium.

Your body needs potassium to maintain proper pH levels in your body fluids, and optimize your sodium to potassium ratio which also affects your bone mass. If you eat a diet loaded with processed foods, there’s a good chance your potassium to sodium ratio is far from optimal, which is typically done by consuming a diet of processed foods, which are notoriously low in potassium while high in sodium.

An imbalanced sodium to potassium ratio can contribute to a number of diseases, including osteoporosis. To ensure you get these two important nutrients in more appropriate ratios, simply ditch processed foods, which are very high in processed salt and low in potassium and other essential nutrientsl

Also eat a diet of whole, unprocessed foods, ideally organically grown to ensure optimal nutrient content. This type of diet will naturally provide much larger amounts of potassium in relation to sodium, which is optimal for your bone health, and your overall health. If you find it difficult to eat the recommended amount of vegetables you need daily, give vegetable juicing a try.

Vitamin K2 is Critical for Bone Health

Vitamin K2, also called menaquinone, is made by the bacteria that line your gastrointestinal tract. The biological role of vitamin K2 is to help move calcium into the proper areas in your body, such as your bones and teeth. It also plays a role in removing calcium from areas where it shouldn’t be, such as in your arteries and soft tissues. It’s critical for keeping your bones strong and works in conjunction with a number of other nutrients, most important of which are vitamin D, calcium and magnesium.

The optimal amounts of vitamin K2 are still under investigation, but it seems likely that 180 to 200 micrograms of vitamin K2 should be enough to activate your body’s K2-dependent proteins to shuttle the calcium where it needs to be, and remove it from the places where it shouldn’t.

As I’ve discussed on numerous occasions, vitamin D is a critical nutrient for optimal health and is best obtained from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed. However, many are taking oral vitamin D, which can actually be problematic unless you’re also getting sufficient amounts of vitamin K2. In fact, this is a really crucial point that has not been emphasized enough in the past: If you opt for oral vitamin D, you need to also consume in your food or take supplemental vitamin K2.

Why?

Because when you take vitamin D, your body creates more vitamin K2-dependent proteins—the proteins that help move the calcium around in your body. But you need vitamin K2 to activate those proteins. If they’re not activated, the calcium in your body will not be properly distributed and can lead to weaker bones and hardened arteries.

In short, vitamin K2 ensures the calcium is deposited and removed from the appropriate areas. By taking vitamin D, you’re creating an increased demand for K2. And vitamin D and K2 work together to strengthen your bones and improve your heart health.

How Can You Tell if You’re Lacking in Vitamin K2?

There’s no way to test for vitamin K2 deficiency. But by assessing your diet and lifestyle, you can get an idea of whether or not you may be lacking in this critical nutrient. If you have osteoporosis, heart disease or diabetes, you’re likely deficient in vitamin K2 as they are all connected to K2.

If you do not have any of those health conditions, but do NOT regularly eat high amounts of the following foods, then your likelihood of being vitamin K2 deficient is still very high:
•Grass-fed organic animal products (i.e. eggs, butter, dairy)
•Certain fermented foods such as natto, or vegetables fermented using a starter culture of vitamin K2-producing bacteria. Please note that most fermented vegetables are not really high in vitamin K2 and come in at about 50 mcg per serving. However, if specific starter cultures are used they can have ten times as much, or 500 mcg per serving.
•Goose liver pâté
•Certain cheeses such as Brie and Gouda (these two are particularly high in K2, containing about 75 mcg per ounce)

Fermented vegetables, which are one of my new passions, primarily for supplying beneficial bacteria back into our gut, can be a great source of vitamin K if you ferment your own using the proper starter culture. They’re definitely FAR better than fennel for counteracting bone loss.

We recently had samples of high-quality fermented organic vegetables made with our specific starter culture tested, and were shocked to discover that not only does a typical serving of about two to three ounces contain about 10 trillion beneficial bacteria, but it also contained 500 mcg of vitamin K2. Note that not every strain of bacteria makes K2. For example, most yogurts have almost no vitamin K2. Certain types of cheeses are very high in K2, and others are not. It really depends on the specific bacteria. You can’t assume that any fermented food will be high in K2, but some fermented foods are very high in K2, such as natto.

Why Nutritional Interventions are Superior to Drugs

Your bones are made up of minerals in a collagen matrix. The minerals give your bones rigidity and density, but the collagen gives your bones flexibility. Without good flexibility, they become brittle and break easily. So bone strength is MORE than just bone density — which is why drugs such as biphosphonates have failed so miserably. Drugs like Fosamax build up a lot of minerals and make the bone LOOK very dense on an x-ray called a DEXA scan, which specifically measures bone density, or the degree of mineralization of your bones. But in reality, they are extremely brittle and prone to fracture, which is why there have been so many cases of hip fracture among people taking these damaging drugs.

Biphosphonate drugs are poisons that destroy your osteoclasts, which interferes with your normal bone-remodeling process. You are much better off building your bones using exercise and nutritional therapies, hormones like progesterone and vitamins D and K.

Natural Strategies for Preventing Age-Related Bone Loss

You need a combination of plant-derived minerals for strong bones. Your bones are actually composed of at least a dozen minerals. If you just focus on calcium, you will likely weaken your bones and increase your risk of osteoporosis as Dr. Robert Thompson explains in his book, The Calcium Lie.

It’s more likely your body can use calcium correctly if it’s plant-derived calcium. Good sources include raw milk from pasture-raised cows (who eat the plants), leafy green vegetables, the pith of citrus fruits, carob, sesame seeds and wheatgrass, to name a few. But you also need sources of silica and magnesium, which some researchers say is actually enzymatically “transmuted” by your body into the kind of calcium your bones can use. This theory was first put forth by French scientist Louis Kevran, a Nobel Prize nominee who spent years studying how silica and calcium are related.

Good sources of silica are cucumbers, bell peppers, tomatoes, and a number of herbs including horsetail, nettles, oat straw, and alfalfa. The absolute best source of magnesium is raw organic cacao. Yes, healthy high quality chocolate is extremely rich in magnesium!

A great source of trace minerals, which are important for many of your body’s functions, is Himalayan Crystal Salt, which contains all 84 elements found in your body. In addition, you need to make sure you’re eating plenty of vitamin K2, which is found in fermented foods like homemade sauerkraut. Osteocalcin is a protein produced by your osteoblasts (cells responsible for bone formation), and is utilized within the bone as an integral part of the bone-forming process. However, osteocalcin must be “carboxylated” before it can be effective. Vitamin K functions as a cofactor for the enzyme that catalyzes the carboxylation of osteocalcin.

Vitamin K2 has been found to be a far more effective “activator” of osteocalcin than K1 because your liver preferentially uses vitamin K1 to activate clotting factors, while most of your other tissues preferentially use K2. Further, vitamin D, which your body produces in response to sun exposure, is another crucial factor in maintaining bone health as you age.

The bottom line?

One of the best ways to achieve healthy bones is a diet rich in fresh, raw whole foods that maximizes natural minerals so that your body has the raw materials it needs to do what it was designed to do. In addition, you need healthy sun exposure along with regular, weight-bearing exercise.

To sum it up:
•Optimize your vitamin D either from natural sunlight exposure, a safe tanning bed or an oral vitamin D3 supplement. Check your blood levels regularly to make sure you’re within the optimal range.
•Optimize your vitamin K through a combination of dietary sources (leafy green vegetables, fermented foods like homemade sauerkraut and a K2 supplement, if needed. Remember, if you take supplemental vitamin D, you need to also increase your intake of vitamin K2.)

The optimal amounts of vitamin K2 are still under investigation, but it seems likely that 180 to 200 micrograms of vitamin K2 might be enough to activate your body’s K2-dependent proteins to shuttle calcium to the proper areas. If you’re taking high doses of supplemental vitamin D, Dr. Kate Rheaume-Bleue, a naturopathic physician and author of Vitamin K2 and the Calcium Paradox, suggests taking 100-200 micrograms (mcg) of vitamin K2 for every 1,000 IU’s of vitamin D you take. The latest vitamin D dosing recommendations, which call for about 8,000 IU’s of vitamin D3 per day if you’re an adult, means you’d need in the neighborhood of 800 to 1,000 micrograms (0.8 to 1 milligram/mg) of vitamin K2.
•Make sure you do weight-bearing exercise, which has profound benefits to your skeletal systems. My favorite is Peak Fitness but it is also very important to do strength-training exercises to produce the dynamic peizoelectric forces in your bones that will stimulate the osteoblasts to produce new bone.
•Consume a wide variety of fresh, local, organic whole foods, including vegetables, nuts, seeds, organic meats and eggs, and raw organic unpasteurized dairy. The more of your diet you consume RAW, the better nourished you will be. Minimize sugar and refined grains.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

A new study published in The Lancet1 shows that for every life saved by mammography screening, three women will be overdiagnosed and treated for a cancer that might never have given them trouble in their lifetimes.

This cost to women’s well-being is worth considering, the study panel said, because:
•99 percent of patients diagnosed with a screen-detected breast cancer will undergo surgery
•About 70 percent will receive radiotherapy
•70 percent will receive adjuvant endocrine therapy, and
•25 percent will undergo toxic chemotherapy

For Every Life Saved, Three are Overdiagnosed and Treated Unnecessarily

The featured analysis was done by an independent panel in the UK, convened “to reach conclusions about the benefits and harms of breast screening on the basis of a review of published work and oral and written evidence presented by experts in the subject.”

The review included both randomized trials and observational studies. The focus was on the British setting, where women between the ages of 50 and 70 are screened every three years.

In the US, the typical recommendation calls for women over the age of 40 to be screened annually, even though the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated their recommendation in 2009, advising women should wait until the age of 50 to get screened, and only get a mammogram every other year thereafter.

The recommendation was widely criticized and outright rejected by some American cancer organizations and doctors, so while mammograms among women in their 40’s have declined slightly since 2009,2 many are still sticking with the old guidelines.

What this means is that the findings from the featured review are actually an underestimation when applied to American women, as screening in the US has, and still tends to begin a decade earlier, and the frequency is three times as great (annually instead of every three years).

According to the authors:

“Since the estimates provided are from studies with many limitations and whose relevance to present-day screening programs can be questioned, they have substantial uncertainty and should be regarded only as an approximate guide.

If these figures are used directly, for every 10,000 UK women aged 50 years invited to screening for the next 20 years, 43 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented and 129 cases of breast cancer, invasive and non-invasive, would be overdiagnosed; that is one breast cancer death prevented for about every three overdiagnosed cases identified and treated.

…Evidence from a focus group organized by Cancer Research UK and attended by some members of the Panel showed that many women feel that accepting the offer of breast screening is worthwhile, which agrees with the results of previous similar studies. Information should be made available in a transparent and objective way to women invited to screening so that they can make informed decisions.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Having the facts with which to make decisions about your health is key. And when it comes to annual mammograms, it’s important to know that you’re FAR more likely to be harmed by the procedure than having your life saved by it. Many women will undoubtedly still be willing to take that risk, but having this information will probably make some women think twice, and propel them to start looking for safer, more effective alternatives to an annual dose of radiation…

Maybe that person is you, or your wife, mother, or daughter. I would encourage you to share this information with the women in your life, to help them make a more educated decision. As Karsten Jorgensen, a researcher at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen told NBC News:3

“Cancer charities and public health authorities have been misleading women for the past two decades by giving too rosy a picture of the benefits. It’s important they have at least acknowledged screening causes substantial harms.”

Gold Standard Medical Review Found 10 Women Harmed for Every Life Saved by Mammography

In the past few years, a number of studies have tried to ascertain the true value of mammography, and so far, the results have been dismal. Last year, a review by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews4 found that mammography breast cancer screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. Meanwhile, the absolute risk reduction for dying from breast cancer was 0.05 percent.

Seriously, if I tried to sell you a product that had a 0.05 percent chance of saving your life, would you buy it? Especially if I told you your chances of undergoing unnecessary surgery or toxic treatment was ten times higher than the possibility of it saving your life? According to the authors:

“This means that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.”

False positives from mammograms – a diagnosis of cancer when it turns not to be cancer – are notorious in the industry, causing women needless anxiety, pain and, often, invasive and disfiguring surgical procedures. If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in a woman’s breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves taking a small amount of tissue from the breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. The problem is that early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S., can be very hard to diagnose, and pathologists have a wide range of experience and expertise.

There are no diagnostic standards for D.C.I.S., and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise. As Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times:5

“There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin.”

Unconscionable Marketing Tactics Arise as Science Fails: Mammogram Parties!

In related news, the cancer industry and those who profit from it have taken shrewd marketing for their American clients to a whole new level. A recent article carrying the unbelievable headline: Mammogram Parties: Overlake Makes Breast Health A Good Time,6 shows that there’s apparently no level too low when it comes to keeping a profitable scheme going.

Knowing that the consequences of mammography can be harrowing, with misdiagnosis and overtreatment involving invasive surgery and/or toxic cancer treatment outnumbering lives saved by anywhere from 3-1 to 10-1, why on earth would you take it this lightly? According to the article:

“Overlake Medical Center is helping women host Mammogram Parties for their friends and family. The women meet at one of Overlake’s Bellevue or Issaquah breast screening locations, and relax in robes with wine and cheese or tea and cookies, while taking turns getting examined by a radiologist. Like any party, the hostess gets a gift, according to the medical center.”

The article then goes on to state that women in their 40’s should have annual or bi-annual mammograms – which again is an outdated recommendation.

It’s important to understand that mammograms are a major source of revenue. It’s a huge part of the entire cancer industry. We’re talking about something that half of the entire population is guided to buy on an annual basis for half of their entire lifetime. Even reducing the recommendation from annual mammograms to every other year means cutting the revenue that could be generated from each woman in half.

In light of the fact that your chances of being harmed by the test are three to 10 times greater than your life being saved by it, trying to lure you in with wine and cheese seems downright unconscionable, in my opinion. There are cases where a mammogram is probably warranted, but to urge women to get screened annually using a test that increases their risk of developing cancer in the future and overall harms more women than it saves, without fully informing them of these significant trade-offs, is just not good medicine.

Mammograms Raises Cancer Risk, Especially in Women with Genetic Mutation

Many have tried to stop me from warning you about the risks of mammography, despite the fact that I’m not just spouting my own opinions. Studies have repeatedly detailed these dangers, and now we can add yet another to the growing list of research blaming ionizing cancer screens for increasing cancer rates.

Results published in the British Medical Journal7 (BMJ) in September show that women carrying a specific gene mutation called BRCA1/2 are at significantly increased risk of breast cancer directly resulting from low doses of ionizing radiation, such as that from mammograms. Women carrying this mutation who were exposed to diagnostic radiation before the age of 30 were twice as likely to develop breast cancer, compared to those who did not have the mutated gene. They also found that the radiation-induced cancer was dose-responsive, meaning the greater the dose, the higher the risk of cancer developing. The authors concluded that:

“In this large European study among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, exposure to diagnostic radiation before age 30 was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer at dose levels considerably lower than those at which increases have been found in other cohorts exposed to radiation. The results of this study support the use of non-ionizing radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA1/2 mutations.”

David Liu, PHD commented on the study in an article for Foodconsumer.com:8

“The study abstract did not say how radiation exposure affects the risk of breast cancer after age 30. Prior evidence has suggested that mammogram screening also has a cancer causing effect on the breast cancer risk, particularly in women with BRCA 1/2 mutations. It’s just that women who are younger are at a higher risk if they are exposed to the same dose of radiation.

Ionizing radiation has been recognized as a human carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program. Ironically, such a cancer-causing agent is used to diagnose and treat many types of cancers including breast cancer. In reality, radiotherapy kills cancer cells and in the meantime cause carcinogenesis in healthy cells that can lead to future cancers.

John Gofman, Ph. D. M.D. late nuclear physician, said medical radiation is involved in 75 percent of breast cancer cases. Exposure to radiation on the chest also increases risk of ischemic heart disease, which is less publicized than the cancer-causing effect… An authoritative organization says that two most important risk factors for breast cancer are medical radiation and hormone therapy. Other risk factors such as exposure to pesticides are minor players.”

Cancer Prevention Begins with Your Lifestyle Choices

Mammograms are portrayed as the best form of “prevention” a woman can get. But early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. And cancer screening that does more harm than good can hardly qualify as the best you can hope for…

I believe the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strictly applying basic, common-sense healthy lifestyle strategies, such as the ones below:
•Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
•Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I’m aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more.
•Limit your protein. Newer research has emphasized the importance of the mTOR pathways. When these are active, cancer growth is accelerated. The best way to quiet this pathway is by limiting your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or roughly a bit less than half a gram of protein per every pound of lean body weight. For most people this ranges between 40 and 70 grams of protein a day, which is about 2/3 to half of what they are currently eating.
•Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
•Improve your insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and restricting carbs to mostly fiber vegetables. Also making sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
•Exercise regularly. One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down, and controlling your insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks. It’s also been suggested that apoptosis is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die. Studies have also found that the number of tumors decrease along with body fat, which may be an additional factor. This is because exercise helps lower your estrogen levels, which explains why exercise appears to be particularly potent against breast cancer.
•Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It’s important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
•Drink a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
•Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
•Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer. For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.9 It’s important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I’ve provided several absorption tips here.
•Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
•Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
•Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
•Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk
•Make sure you’re not iodine deficient, as there’s compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,10 author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein’s book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are too high.
•Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide – a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried – has been found to increase cancer risk as well.
By Dr. Mercola

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The Dark Side of Science – new video examines horrors of science pursued without ethics
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) When I began to investigate the horrors that have been committed against humanity in the last century or so, I was aghast to realize how many of them had been pursued in the name of “science.” DDT chemicals? “Scientific.” Agent Orange? “Science.” Hitler’s eugenics agenda? “Scientific.” Genetic pollution and GMOs? “Rational science!”

The pursuit of science was supposed to deliver humanity out of the age of superstition and ignorance, but in many ways it has actually condemned humanity to a new age of suffering and death. And in the last century, it has been wholly hijacked and bastardized by evil corporations with zero ethics, zero compassion and zero concern for anything other than their bottom-line profits. Through the invocation of corporate-run “science,” evil institutions have delivered humanity into an age where the very future of humanity is now at risk of total destruction.

For example, biotech science has given us global genetic pollution in the form of genetically modified crops, none of which have been rigorously tested for environmental safety before being unleashed on the planet. “Science” has also given us deadly prescription drugs that cause horrifying birth defects (Thalidomide and others), vaccines intentionally laced with mercury and MSG, and now the rise of terminator hunter-killer robots that federal agencies plan to unleash against Americans who have been added to Obama’s “kill lists” as authorized by the NDAA he secretly signed on December 31st, 2011.

“Science” has not merely compromised the future of Earth’s ecosystems; it has empowered corrupt governments to engage in “scientific dictatorships” where science and technology are routinely used to centralize power and oppress freedom rather than serving humanity. For example, Monsanto’s “scientific” agenda has long been to own and control all agricultural seeds while criminalizing seed saving by farmers, thus economically enslaving farmers into a never-ending cycle of dependence on monopolistic, genetically modified seeds available only from Monsanto.

This is but one example of how so-called “science” is being used to crush human freedom and destroy human rights. (Most people would agree that the ability to save seeds from one crop generation to the next is a fundamental human right.)

Watch my new video, The Dark Side of Science, to see yet more consequences of the scientific dictatorship that now threatens humanity:

Click here to view the video on TV.naturalnews.com

Or click here to watch it on YouTube.

When humanity destroys itself, it will all happen in the name of “science”
At its most fundamental level, science is supposed to be a framework for gaining knowledge about the universe through replicable, independent experimentation and observation. In that sense, science is a valuable tool for gaining knowledge, but the way science is practiced today almost perfectly resembles a religion, not science.

For example, ask a “scientist” why there are so many children who are maimed and killed by vaccines, and you question will be immediately dismissed as unacceptable. Rather than actually examining the data, modern-day scientists automatically reject any evidence that disagrees with their dogma. That’s not science, obviously. It’s religion.

Vaccines are only the beginning of the dogmatic religion of modern-day scientism, of course: The far more profound dogma is modern scientists’ belief in the “materialistic” view of the universe. In this view, there is no such thing as consciousness, free will or even a soul. Everything that exists is made up of tiny particles, they claim, and that’s why we need to keep smashing atoms together in supercolliders in order to try to determine what these particles are made of.

This view is, of course, childishly absurd. In truth, there are no particles, only energy expressed through waves of probability. Even more profoundly, consciousness is the driving force behind the apparent physical universe, starting with the consciousness and intention of the Creator.

Famed physicist Stephen Hawking is the ultimate pessimist, believing in a dead universe where there is no consciousness, no free will, no mind and no Creator. In his anti-consciousness view, we are all “biological robots” who are doomed to die and thereby cease to exist. As absurd and pessimistic as this view sounds, it is precisely the view of the world accepted by nearly all mainstream scientists! They believe in the same fatalistic pessimism, the same unconscious existence, and the same excuse for destroying life on our planet because “nothing is really alive anyway.”

Remember: These “scientific” worshippers of death and mindlessness are precisely the same people running our society in many ways; telling us to take more medications and vaccines, to fluoridate our water with toxic chemicals, to irradiate our bodies with deadly mammograms and power our cities with nuclear fuel stored in power plants like Fukushima. These so-called “scientists” attempt to control society at every level, but they never admit they are secretly “anti-consciousness” zealots who routinely express intense hatred at the very idea of a Creator, or free will, or even the existence of the mind. In their denial and delusion, they border on the insane.

This is why the term “mad scientist” rings true with everyone who knows what’s going on: Science pursued by those who lack understanding of reality becomes a threat to us all. Science applied without caution, without respect for life, and without a foundation of ethics becomes a threat to all of humanity.

Science breaks its promises to humanity
Virtually everything that science has promised humanity has turned out to be an utter failure. Through pharmacology, science promised us improved health and longevity but delivered only the “management” of chronic sickness and disease.

Through GMOs, science promised us an amazing new era of food abundance with higher crop yields and improved defenses against weeds and pests. But it actually delivered lower crop yields, roundup-resistant superweeds, runaway cancer in animals who eat GMO and the threat of global genetic pollution.

Science promised us endless, clean nuclear power but actually delivered the imminent threat of nuclear meltdowns and global nuclear fallout (Fukushima, anyone?).

Science promised us an era of enlightenment through the invention of television but actually delivered the era of mind-numbing idiocy and government control of the “programmed” masses.

Science promised an end to infections then developed antibiotics which turned out to breed even more deadly drug-resistant superbugs.

Nearly everywhere that science has claimed to improve our lives, it has actually made them far worse. Even the invention of the transistor has paved the way not to global enlightenment but rather the global cesspool known as “social networks” where the world’s most dumbed-down computer users attempt to impress each other with how uninformed and trendy they are.

Has science done anything GOOD for humanity? Certainly. There are many success stories, but these are almost universally accomplished by individuals working independent of corporate interests and focused on the betterment of humanity, NOT scientists working for corporations or governments. Some of the best science of all has been, predictably, suppressed by the modern science agenda. For example, much of the work of Nikola Tesla has been viciously suppressed for over a century.

Similarly, research by modern-day pioneers in cancer cures is routinely suppressed by the FDA and state medical boards. Just look at the true story of Dr. Burzynski in Texas.

Across the board, real science is oppressed and often destroyed while sinister corporate science is allowed to dominate the landscape.

The fabrication of junk science for corporate profit
GlaxoSmithKline, for example, recently maintained a network of 44,000 doctors on its bribery list. That’s 44,000 people who call themselves “scientists” but who are actually medical prostitutes serving a corporate agenda.

Similarly, vaccine companies have been caught red-handed faking clinical trial results in order to fabricate data for the FDA. This is all part of the great vaccine scam — an industry literally run by criminal corporations and based almost entirely on fabricated junk science.

The vaccine industry has abandoned even the appearance of actual science and simply “decrees” everything it wants the public to believe. Vaccines stop infections! Vaccines are safe! Vaccines should be taken by pregnant women! The mercury in vaccines makes them work better! …And so on to the point of utter absurdity.

Even in the study of cosmology, scientists behave almost like lost little children, screaming for their mommies in the way they desperately try to claim the Big Bang happened spontaneously, without cause, merely because it could. This idea of spontaneous creation of an entire universe without any cause whatsoever gives you a hint at the level of dumbed-down delusion these people actually buy into. Think about it: They don’t believe that a mother can telepathically feel a connection to her own child, but they do believe that an entire universe can suddenly create itself out of pure nothing, without cause. Which idea seems more absurd?

Check out more delusional science as revealed in my eye-opening video:

Click here to view “The Dark Side of Science” on TV.naturalnews.com

Or click here to watch it on YouTube.

For the record, I’m actually a huge advocate of scientific inquiry, the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge via science as one of many useful pathways. Natural selection, a theory first hypothesized by Charles Darwin, is very real and in fact going on right now in your own back yard (affecting weeds, insects, moths, etc.).

What Darwin’s theories completely fail to explain, however, are the ORIGIN of the species — a realization that’s especially ironic given the title of his most famous work. Natural selection says nothing about how life began, how the universe began, or even how planet Earth was first seeded with DNA.

There is absolutely nothing in the bag of tricks of modern-day science that even comes close to explaining the origin of the universe, faster-than-light spin-state travel, precognition or even how a common refrigerator magnet really works, for that matter.

If modern science weren’t so arrogant, it might actually be tolerable, but these ignorant, childlike scientists run around the planet insisting we should all inject ourselves with their chemicals, or subject our bodies to their imaging devices, or eat the foods they modified to be “better than God” and so on. Their arrogance is a huge red flag that what they’re pushing is really steeped in deception, not humanitarian science.

And that’s why out-of-control science must be stopped. It threatens the very future of humanity and our planet, and if science really claims to be serving the betterment of humankind, it should do so from a place of humility and ethics while erring on the side of caution.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Recently published research in the New England Journal of Medicine1 investigated the reasons behind, and potential solutions, for mumps outbreaks reported to the CDC during the past several years. According to the authors, widespread use of the MMR vaccine had reduced the annual incidence of mumps in the US by more than 99 percent by 2005.
But then, suddenly, something changed.
In 2006, a large outbreak was reported among highly vaccinated populations in the US, and two additional outbreaks occurred during 2009 and 2010. The latter two occurred in American Orthodox Jewish communities in and around New York City.
In 2009, more than 3,500 people got sick, and the overwhelming majority of them – 89 percent – were children, who had received the CDC recommended two doses of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Another eight percent had received one dose, putting the total numbers of students vaccinated at 97 percent!
Matters were much the same for the 2010 outbreak. Of the more than 1,000 people who contracted mumps that year, 77 percent had received two doses of the MMR.
Vaccinated Population Contracting and Spreading Disease
Virtually every outbreak of infectious disease in the U.S. for which there is a vaccine has been blamed on unvaccinated children – at least initially – but lately we’ve repeatedly seen that reported outbreaks of diseases like pertussis, influenza and mumps are occurring within the fully vaccinated population, even though the vaccine is supposed to prevent the disease in question.
This pattern is now so obvious that researchers have no choice but to try to address the discrepancy and come up with an explanation because, clearly, vaccinated people are contracting and facilitating the transmission of infectious diseases in much greater numbers than public health officials and doctors have been willing to admit.
The ludicrous explanation public health officials have come up with to try to explain the school-based mumps outbreak among fully vaccinated children is based on a theory that close and extended contact between the vaccinated children “bombarded students with large amounts of the virus” and allowed the mumps virus to “overwhelm the vaccine.”
As reported by NPR:2
“Public health officials… say it was the unique style of study in yeshivas, religious schools for Orthodox Jews. In a yeshiva, students are paired up in partnerships called chavrusas. The two students in a chavrusa share the same desk and the same book and engage in a vigorous dialogue about the day’s lesson. Throughout the school day, which lasts up to 15 hours in a yeshiva, the students rotate among different chavrusas, changing their study partner each time.
Albert Barskey, an epidemiologist with the CDC who worked to contain the outbreak, says the chavrusa style of studying probably exacerbated the spread of mumps. The mumps virus gets around on respiratory droplets, saliva and other bodily fluids. ‘Because of the close prolonged contact, uninfected students were probably bombarded with large amounts of the virus from the infected students, and the virus overwhelmed the vaccine,’ Barsky [says].”
Dr. Kenneth Bromberg, chairman of pediatrics and director of the Vaccine Study Center at the Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York City told US News:3
“These outbreaks are similar to what we saw on college campuses where you have crowding. Vaccines are safe and effective, but the protective effect of a vaccine can be overcome in the right situation.”
Their answer to the problem?
Just add another booster shot! As a test, a third dose of MMR vaccine was administered to children in three schools in an effort to stem the outbreak. According to follow-up results, recently published in the journal Vaccine,4 the third dose appeared to be well tolerated, with just over seven percent of the students reporting at least one local or systemic adverse event in the two weeks following vaccination. The long-term effects of a third MMR shot is, naturally, completely unknown.
Essentially, the thinking is that if two shots are useless, maybe a third equally useless shot will fix the equation and amount to some kind of protection. Surely I cannot be the only one who questions the intelligence of this?
Especially considering the fact that Merck was recently sued for covering up the ineffectiveness of the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine, costing the US government millions of dollars in wasted funds over the past decade, and exposing children to unnecessary risks from the vaccine for very limited benefit. An antitrust class action lawsuit was also filed shortly thereafter, alleging Merck went to great lengths to manipulate test procedures and falsify results to prop up fraudulent efficacy claims, thereby maintaining its monopoly on the MMR vaccine market in the US.
And now we’re supposed to just shrug our shoulders and say “okay” to children getting yet another MMR booster shot? Granted, it hasn’t become a CDC recommendation yet, but based on past actions of public health officials covering up vaccine ineffectiveness and drug companies seeking expanded vaccine markets, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if another MMR booster was added to the vaccination schedule without adequate testing to prove safety and effectiveness.
Natural Versus Artificial Immunity
Vaccines are never 100 percent protective, and the reason for this is because they provide only artificial, temporary, typically inferior immunity compared to that your body would obtain from naturally contracting and recovering from an infection.
According to the CDC, the MMR vaccine is estimated to be somewhere between 76-95 percent effective (or at least it was, prior to the lawsuit accusing Merck of falsifying their studies to hide declining efficacy rates). The second MMR dose was added to the CDC recommended child vaccination schedule because up to 20 percent of individuals do not develop even temporary protection after the first dose. The second dose is intended to provide a “second chance” for the vaccine to work, which is further evidence of this shot’s ineffectiveness.
And who knows, we may potentially be looking at yet another booster shot being added to the vaccination schedule. But is adding booster shots really the best answer to address poor vaccine effectiveness?
In the case of mumps, immunity is typically permanent for those who get it in childhood. Like many of the childhood diseases we’re now vaccinating our children against, mumps is not a serious disease for the vast majority of children. I think it’s worth considering that, while the disease can in rare cases lead to complications, including inflammation of the brain, testicles and ovaries or deafness, vaccines as well carry serious health risks that can be greater for some than others..
The MMR vaccine can cause acute brain inflammation and encephalopathy (permanent brain dysfunction), which has been acknowledged by the U.S. Court of Claims in the awarding of federal compensation to MMR vaccine injured children. Recently, the Italian health ministry reignited the debate over the safety of the MMR vaccine when it conceded that the MMR vaccine caused autism in a now nine-year-old boy, who suffered brain inflammation and permanent brain damage after he was vaccinated.
There are no guarantees either way. Your child could be that rare instance where the disease causes serious complications, or your child could become another statistic of vaccine damage.
However, children, who contract and recover from mumps during childhood, are afforded robust, long lasting protection. Not so with the vaccine. Even after taking the health risks associated with each and every dose of the vaccine, your child still might contract mumps, and then face the same risks for complications from the disease as they would have otherwise. This is one reason why potential risks and benefits must be carefully weighed…
Is the Current Vaccine Program Causing More Harm than Good?
Whether you’re dealing with drugs or natural nutrients, there’s usually a point at which “more” becomes detrimental. And I believe that in the US, we’ve reached that point with our vaccination schedule. American children are the most vaccinated children in the world, yet they’re among the sickest. For example, over the last 30 years, the number of American kids with learning disabilities, ADHD, asthma, and diabetes has more than tripled. Meanwhile, the number of vaccinations the CDC tells doctors to give to babies and children under the age of six has also tripled in the last 30 years. Many of the 69 doses of 16 vaccines currently recommended by federal health officials are now mandated by state health officials for children to attend daycare and school.
Sadly, extreme pressures are placed on parents to vaccinate their children for every disease under the sun – yet doctors cannot guarantee the safety of vaccines or that they will even work. Many vaccinations fail to work after multiple doses have been given – as is clearly demonstrated with a large number of mumps cases detected among fully vaccinated children – and every vaccine has the potential to cause catastrophic complications (including death).
Bear in mind that vaccine safety is not just about individual vaccines.
Dr. Russell Blaylock has written an excellent paper that explains the connection between excessive vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism that is definitely worth reading. In a nutshell, vaccines can over-stimulate your child’s immune system and, when several vaccines are administered together or in close succession, their interaction may completely overwhelm your child’s immune system. This situation is FAR worse than that of a virus overwhelming the vaccine, as suggested in the featured study, as your immune system is the primary defense against ALL disease, from the simple cold to autoimmune disorders to cancer.
Once you overburden your child’s immune system with too many vaccines, their health may be sorely compromised for life. As explained by Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center:
“Vaccines are supposed to fool your body’s immune system into producing antibodies to resist viral and bacterial infection in the same way that actually having the disease usually produces immunity to future infection. But vaccines atypically introduce into the human body lab altered live viruses and killed bacteria along with chemicals, metals, drugs and other additives such as formaldehyde, aluminum, mercury, monosodium glutamate, sodium phosphate, phenoxyethanol, gelatin, sulfites, yeast protein, antibiotics as well as unknown amounts of RNA and DNA from animal and human cell tissue cultures.
Whereas natural recovery from many infectious diseases stimulates lifetime immunity, vaccines only provide temporary protection and most vaccines require ‘booster’ doses to extend vaccine-induced artificial immunity.
The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body’s natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind’s biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.”
This knowledge leaves many open-ended questions about the vaccine process in the United States, and whether it is ultimately causing more harm than good. Barbara Loe Fisher continues:
“First, is it better to protect children against infectious disease early in life through temporary immunity from a vaccine or are they better off contracting certain contagious infections in childhood and attaining permanent immunity? Second, do vaccine complications ultimately cause more chronic illness and death than infectious diseases do? Both questions essentially pit trust in human intervention against trust in nature and the natural order, which existed long before vaccines were created by man.”
Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Vaccine Exemptions
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to informed consent to vaccination and fight to protect and expand vaccine exemptions in state public health laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.
Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact. It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.
Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your Smart Phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choices and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips..
So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.
I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:
• NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
• If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
• Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care
If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.
However, there is hope.
At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.
So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.