Rather Be Healthy

Systemic insecticides known as neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. Two prominent examples, imidacloprid and clothianidin, are used as seed treatments in hundreds of crops. Virtually all of today’s genetically engineered Bt corn, for instance, is treated with neonicotinoid insecticides.

Bee colonies began disappearing in the United States shortly after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowed these new insecticides on the market, and a debate has since been raging over whether or not these chemicals are indeed contributing to the serious honeybee die-offs that have been occurring around the world.

Now the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has released a report that may put the debate to rest, as they’ve ruled neonicotinoid insecticides are essentially “unacceptable” for many crops.

Is This the “Death Knell” for Neonicotinoids?

The European Commission asked EFSA to assess the risks associated with the use of three common neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – with particular focus on:
•Their acute and chronic effects on bee colony survival and development
•Their effects on bee larvae and bee behavior
•The risks posed by sub-lethal doses of the three chemicals

One of the glaring issues that EFSA came across was a widespread lack of information, with scientists noting that in some cases gaps in data made it impossible to conduct an accurate risk assessment. Still, what they did find was “a number of risks posed to bees” by the three neonicotinoid insecticides.

The Authority found that when it comes to neonicotinoid exposure from residues in nectar and pollen in the flowers of treated plants:1

“…only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable.”

As for exposure from dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, the Authority ruled “a risk to honeybees was indicated or could not be excluded…” According to certain environmental groups, the ruling could be the “death knell” for neonicotinoid pesticides.2

Pesticides Also Linked to Honeybee Colony Failures

Exposure to pesticides has been associated with changes in bee behavior and reductions in colony queen production, both of which could have detrimental impacts on the life of the colony. Last year, the impact of pesticides on individual bee behavior, and its subsequent impact on the colony as a whole, was also revealed. Bees given access to two commonly used agricultural pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) were adversely affected in numerous ways, including:3
•Fewer adult worker bees emerged from larvae
•A higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest
•A higher death rate among worker bees
•An increased likelihood of colony failure

The researchers said:

“Here we show that chronic exposure of bumble bees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behavior and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success.

We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail.”

What Makes Neonicotinoid Pesticides so Toxic?

Neonicotinoid insecticides are known as systemic chemicals because they disrupt the central nervous system of insects, leading to paralysis and death. It’s been suggested that even sub-lethal doses of the insecticides may be negatively impacting bees.

Because neonicotinoids are water soluble and very pervasive, they get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and generate long-term toxicity to the hive. They enter the vascular system of the plant and are carried to all parts of it, as well as to the pollen and nectar. Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.

One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees. Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) are found in large amounts in honeybee hives on the verge of collapse.

In addition to immune dysfunction and opportunistic diseases, the honeybees also appear to suffer from neurological problems, disorientation, and impaired navigation. These effects have great consequence, as a bee can’t survive for more than 24 hours if she becomes disoriented and unable to find her way back to the hive.

Bayer Downplays EFSA’s “Death Knell” Report

Bayer, a leading manufacturer of the neonicotinoid pesticides at the heart of the debate, has gone on record stating EFSA’s report “did not alter existing risk assessments and warned against ‘over-interpretation of the precautionary principle.'”4 In other words, it sounds as though they’d rather farmers continue using their pesticides without question, even if there are major concerns that they’re decimating bee populations worldwide. Bayer also noted that they are ready to work with the European Commission to address any “perceived data gaps.”

In fact, Bayer plans to open the North American Bee Care Center by July 2013. The Center is intended to be a research hub as well as promote “the active promotion of bee-responsible use of Bayer products along with communication activities worldwide.”5

Of course, it’s highly unlikely that any forthcoming research from Bayer’s North American Bee Care Center will find pesticides at fault… already, a report funded by the chemical industry has come out stating that banning neonicotinoid pesticides would cost farmers more than $980 million in lost food production.6 Yet, if these chemicals truly are killing off bee colonies, we stand to lose much, much more than that…

Bees Pollinate 70 Percent of the World’s Food

There are about 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of food, globally. Of these, 71 are pollinated by bees.7 In the United States, a full one-third of the food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. So if bee colonies continue to be devastated major food shortages could result. There is also concern that the pesticides could be impacting other pollinators as well, including bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others, which could further impact the environment.

If honeybees disappear, so, too, will all of these other innovations and any new developments that may be honeybee-inspired in the future, such as these contributions to human health, including:
•Playing an important role in human medicine; raw honey, which has potent anti-inflammatory and anti-infective properties, is being used for wound healing and treating coughs, while “stun” chemicals from bee stings are being looked at as an effective anesthetic for humans.
•Propolis, the “caulk” honey bees use to patch holes in their hives, may slow the growth of prostate cancer and has powerful immune-modulating effects, along with potent antioxidant and anti-microbial action, and healing, analgesic, anesthetic, and anti-inflammatory properties.
•Bee pollen, which is often referred to as a superfood because it contains a broad range of nutrients required by your body. About half of its protein is in the form of free amino acids that are ready to be used directly by your body and can therefore contribute significantly to your protein needs.
•Honeybees have helped make scientific discoveries in many fields, including the aeronautics industry, which used the design of the six-sided honeycomb to help design aircraft wings; honeybee communication systems have even been adopted by computer programmers to help run Internet servers more efficiently.8

Do You Want to Get Involved to Help Protect Honeybees?

The documentary film Vanishing of the Bees recommends four actions you can take to help preserve our honeybees:
•Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides!)
•Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.
•Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.
•Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!

If you are interested in more information about bee preservation, the following organizations are a good place to start.
•Pesticide Action Network Bee Campaign9
•The Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Bees10
•American Beekeeping Federation11
•Help the Honey Bees12

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

By Dr. Mercola

As recently reported, a hardier than normal type of flu has spread around the US, and much earlier than normal, causing some states to declare public health emergencies.

To speed up flu vaccine production, the US FDA has approved a new insect-based, genetically engineered flu vaccine, as well as vaccines grown in cultures of dog kidney cells rather than eggs.

And while mainstream media claims the flu vaccine is working well this year, a recent review of published research shows flu vaccines are ineffective at best, and produce neurological complications at worst, while having no effect at all on hospitalizations or working days lost.

Flu Outbreak Showing Signs of Waning

In response to the flu outbreak, New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued an executive order allowing pharmacists to give flu vaccine injections to minors. If you believe this is a good thing, you’re still in the dark about the side effects of flu vaccines — some of which can be fatal — which makes getting it at a neighborhood pharmacy risky business.

Besides, all vaccinations should be carefully recorded in your child’s medical file, which will not happen when you pop into a pharmacy. They’re also unlikely to be properly trained to ascertain and/or address any acute side effects that may occur.

On January 11, media outlets such as ABC News1 reported the outbreak was waning in some parts of the nation, claiming the flu shots appeared to be doing a good job in curbing the outbreak. However, in the same article, CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden points out that the flu tends to ebb and flow throughout the season.

Furthermore, this year’s flu vaccine contains a very good match to the circulating strains, yet the reported efficacy of the vaccine is still only slightly over 60 percent — a point made by Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota2. According to Osterholm:

“A match doesn’t tell us how well a vaccine is going to work. It’s almost meaningless.”

Perhaps the headlines are best explained as counter-propaganda to the latest scientific review that, yet again, found that the flu vaccine offers minimal, if any, protection against the flu, and that it comes at some risk. One of the most recent examples is the devastating side effects of the 2009-2010 flu vaccine, which caused some 800+ cases of narcolepsy in Sweden and other European countries3.

Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work, According to Recent Research Review

If you’re thinking about vaccinating yourself or your infant against the flu, I highly recommend reading the independent study review from the Cochrane Collaboration first. As Tom Jefferson, a researcher with the Cochrane Collaboration, recently told Northwestern.edu4:

“The [Center for Disease Control] is making policy based on weak evidence and it is refusing to answer questions. There is no evidence that vaccines can prevent deaths or prevent person-to-person spread of infection.”

According to these independent research reviewers5:

“At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10 percent of all circulating viruses. Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.

Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations.

Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited.”

As you may recall, Piers Morgan recently got the flu vaccine on the air on the Dr. Oz show, “and within 10 days I’ve been struck down,” he now reports. “Don’t ever take a flu shot again,” Yoakam tells him, in this January 23 interview. Good advice, I’d say. While health agencies deny the possibility of getting the flu from the flu vaccine, many still do experience flu-like symptoms and/or get ill to some degree or another after getting the vaccine.

Regulators Approve New Genetically Engineered Insect-Based Flu Vaccine

This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.

Despite evidence to the contrary, the conventional view is that getting inoculated is the best way to protect yourself against the flu, and to make more flu vaccines available faster, the FDA recently approved a number of novel flu vaccines.

The first, Flublok, is produced by programming insect cells to produce hemagglutinin, a flu virus protein essential for entry of the virus into your body’s cells. Flublok is “the first the first trivalent influenza vaccine made using an insect virus (baculovirus) expression system and recombinant DNA technology6,” and is approved for use in adults only, ages 18-49. This kind of genetically engineered vaccine technology, while you may never have heard of it before, has already been used in the production of vaccines against other infectious diseases. According to CNN7:

“This method allows for more rapid production, making more of the vaccine available more quickly in the event of a pandemic… Flublok will be available in limited supply this winter and widely available during the next flu season, said Protein Sciences, which is based in Meriden, Connecticut.

Flublok contains the elements necessary to help fend off three different flu strains, including H1N1 and H3N2, the regulator said. And it proved 44.6% effective against all influenza strains in circulation, not just those that matched the strains included in the vaccine, according to the FDA.”

Other Novel Flu Vaccines Being Unleashed

Last November, the FDA also approved a new flu vaccine by Novartis called Flucelvax, which is grown in cultures of dog kidney cells rather than chicken eggs8 . This too allows for speedier vaccine production, should another pandemic erupt. But does speedier production equate to safer products? If history offers any clues, the answer is no. But, as demand for vaccines of all kinds increases, the relationship between the US government and Big Pharma keeps getting cozier. As reported by Reuters9:

“In 2006, HHS [US Department of Health and Human Services] provided more than $1 billion in contracts to six manufacturers to develop cell-based flu vaccine technology in the United States… In 2009, spurred by difficulties in growing vaccine for the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, HHS provided Novartis with nearly $500 million to build the first U.S. facility capable of producing cell-based vaccine for seasonal and pandemic flu in the United States.”

The newly approved Flublok vaccine also received financial backing from the US government. The HHS bailed out the small manufacturer, Protein Sciences, with a $147million investment, allowing it to create the first gene-based flu vaccine to win FDA approval. It certainly won’t be the last however. Two other genetically engineered flu vaccines are under development. According to Reuters, one of them, created by Novavax, will use “bits of genetic material grown in caterpillar cells called “virus-like particles” that mimic a flu virus.”

I for one am not looking forward to finding out what the side effects might be from this new generation of genetically engineered flu vaccines… Even worse, the HHS also has its eye on a “universal” flu vaccine that would cover any and all flu strains, and only require one dose every five to 10 years. As reported by Reuters:

“Work by Fauci and Dr. Gary Nabel, former head of NIH’s Vaccine Research Center who just joined Sanofi as chief science officer, showed that a portion of the flu virus that is usually hidden from the immune system may be the key.

Fauci describes the hemagluttinin part of the flu virus as bulb-shaped with a stem on one end, sort of like a dandelion that has gone to seed or a lollipop on a stick. Most vaccines target proteins on the bulb portion of the virus, which mutates from year to year, but Fauci says the stem contains proteins that don’t change much from virus to virus. The problem is that when the flu virus is presented to the body, these stem proteins are structurally hidden from the immune system. A genetically engineered vaccine could overcome that by only presenting these stem proteins to the immune system.”

According to Robin Robinson, director of the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a part of the HHS, it’s “a good hypothesis” that will hopefully work. The HHS is “keeping fingers crossed.” What could possibly go wrong by making your body attack genetically engineered virus structures that are normally hidden from immune system detection, right?

Irresponsible Flu Vaccine Recommendations Reach a New Low

In related news, while a new breed of genetically engineered flu vaccines are hitting the market, some experts are now actually proclaiming the conventional egg-based flu vaccine safe for those with severe egg allergies. According to a recent article in the New York Times10:

“Amid an unusually widespread outbreak of the flu, a medical association of allergy specialists said Friday that even children with severe egg allergies should get flu shots. Because the vaccine is grown in chicken eggs, manufacturers recommend that the roughly 2 percent of all children who have egg allergies not get them. But flu hospitalizes 21,000 young children a year, said Dr. James L. Sublett, chair of the public relations committee of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

Because only trace amounts of egg protein remain in the vaccine, “we now know administration is safe,” he said. “’The benefits of the flu vaccination far outweigh the risks.” Even children who have gone into anaphylactic shock from eating eggs should get flu shots, but from an allergist trained to handle emergencies, the association recommended.”

I really cannot believe how far they will go to endanger your health — especially when you consider that, for an industry that claims to be science-based, flu vaccine recommendations go AGAINST the hard evidence. Worse yet, while studies show flu vaccination is ineffective, when it comes to safety, which is the other and more important factor (especially for infants), the evidence is basically non-existent! According to an independent study review from the Cochrane Collaboration11 published August 15, 2012, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine is similar to placebo in children under the age of two. Furthermore:

“Influenza vaccines were associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions [in children]. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age.”

Vaccine Damaged Child Awarded $1 Million

A lot of people still believe vaccines are safe, not realizing that children are being permanently harmed each and every day by mandated childhood vaccinations. Sadly, once that happens, the family is left ‘holding the bag,’ with no recourse.

In December last year, a family won a nearly $1 million settlement12 from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, but this is a rarity. Severe flaws in the system results in the majority of vaccine injured children not receiving any compensation at all for the harm inflicted on them. According to the court’s decision13:

“Petitioners alleged that as a result of “all the vaccinations administered to [Ryan] from March 25, 2003, through February 22, 2005, and more specifically, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations administered to him on December 19, 2003 and May 10, 2004,” Ryan suffered “a severe and debilitating injury to his brain, described as Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’)…

Petitioners specifically asserted that Ryan “suffered a Vaccine Table Injury, namely, an encephalopathy” as a result of his receipt of the MMR vaccination on December 19, 2003. Id. In the alternative, petitioners asserted that “as a cumulative result of his receipt of each and every vaccination between March 25, 2003 and February 22, 2005, Ryan has suffered . . . neuroimmunologically mediated dysfunctions in the form of asthma and ASD.”

In this case, while the MMR vaccine was indicated as a possible culprit, the primary cause was believed to be the sheer number of vaccinations. The cumulative effect of multiple vaccinations simply cannot be underestimated, and now they’re asking you to vaccinate your children against the seasonal flu, each and every year, starting from the age of six months! And they’re recommending this without ANY proof whatsoever that this is indeed safe. Safety is “assumed.” Not tested and verified. Please do remember this.

One way to evaluate your child’s potential for vaccine damage is to get his or her gut flora checked prior to getting any vaccine. For more information about this novel but promising way to prevent vaccine damage, please see my interview with Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride.

How to Protect Yourself During the Flu Season

Avoiding a serious case of influenza is not about vaccination but more about maintaining a healthy, well functioning immune system. By following these simple guidelines, you can help keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you’re far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with or, if you do get sick with the flu, you are better prepared to move through it without complications and soon return to good health.
•Optimize Your Gut Flora. This may be the single most important strategy you can implement as the bacteria in your gut have enormous control of your immune response. The best way to improve your beneficial bacteria ratio is avoid apply avoid sugars as they will feed the pathogenic bacteria. Additionally,, processed foods and most grains should be limited and replacing with healthy fats like coconut oil, avocados, olives, olive oil, butter, eggs and nuts. Once you change your diet than regular use of fermented foods can radically optimize the function of your immune response.
•Optimize your vitamin D levels. As I’ve previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency may actually be the true culprit behind the seasonality of the flu – not the flu virus itself. This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take. Regularly monitor your vitamin D levels to confirm your levels are within the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml.

Ideally, you’ll want to get all your vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed, but as a last resort you can take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. According to the latest review by Carole Baggerly (Grassrootshealth.org), adults need about 8,000 IU’s a day. Be sure to take vitamin K2 if you are taking high dose oral vitamin D as it has a powerful synergy and will help prevent any D toxicity.
•Avoid Sugar and Processed Foods. Sugar impairs the quality of your immune response almost immediately, and as you likely know, a healthy immune system is one of the most important keys to fighting off viruses and other illness. It also can decimate your beneficial bacteria and feed the pathogenic yeast and viruses. Be aware that sugar (typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup) is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice. If you are healthy than sugar can be consumed but the LAST thing you should be eating when you are sick is sugar. Avoid it like poison while you are sick.
•Get Plenty of Rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you’re tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night’s Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest.
•Have Effective Tools to Address Stress. We all face some stress every day, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness. If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique, which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma.
•Get Regular Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads. Be sure to stay hydrated – drink plenty of fluids, especially water. However, it would be wise to radically reduce the intensity of your workouts while you are sick. No Peak 8s until you are better.
•Take a High Quality Source of Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils that are trans fats and in processed foods as it will seriously damage your immune response.
•Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don’t use antibacterial soap for this – antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
•Tried and True Hygiene Measures. In addition to washing your hands regularly, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze. If possible, avoid close contact with those, who are sick and, if you are sick, avoid close contact with those who are well.
•Use Natural Antibiotics. Examples include oil of oregano and garlic. These work like broad-spectrum antibiotics against bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in your body. And unlike pharmaceutical antibiotics, they do not appear to lead to resistance.
•Avoid Hospitals. I’d recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you’re having an emergency and need expert medical care, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds. The best place to get plenty of rest and recover from illness that is not life-threatening is usually in the comfort of your own home.

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.

According to a new health analysis bearing the revealing title: US Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health1, Americans come in dead last in a comparison of 17 affluent nations.

The research was unable to uncover any single cause or “rallying point for action.” Instead, it calls for more research to “ferret out the effects of our current policies.”

C’mon! You’ve got to be kidding me.

Considering the fact that human health tends to be primarily affected by a) nutrition, b) exercise, and c) toxic exposures, do they seriously believe that we can improve public health while ignoring these three basic areas?

What Does the Human Body Require to Be Healthy?

A staggering two-thirds of American adults are overweight, and more than one-quarter of adults fall into the obese category. One in four Americans is pre-diabetic or diabetic. It should be obvious that diet and exercise are critical factors here. The National Institutes of Health even states that four of the six leading causes of death in the United States are linked to unhealthy diets.

The question is why are so many people unable to regulate their weight and insulin sensitivity? The following points are well worthy of careful consideration when pondering this issue:
•The top two crops grown in the U.S. are corn and soy. High fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated soybean oil are two of the most popular ingredients made from these crops.2 High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has repeatedly been shown to be a driving factor behind being overweight and having poor health outcomes. HFCS is pervasive and in many processed food items some individuals would never expect, including so called diet foods and ‘enhanced’ water products. Even most infant formulas contain the sugar equivalent of one can of Coca-Cola.

Furthermore, soybean oil is another common unhealthy ingredient in many processed foods and soybeans can be severely and systemically contaminated with high amounts of the potent herbicide glyphosate. Additionally, over 85 percent of all corn grown in the US is genetically engineered (GE)3, which further increases the risk of high glyphosate contamination.The safety of either of these items has never been proven. According to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG)4, Americans are eating their weight and more in GE foods each and every year.
•Thirty-three percent of American adults are also completely sedentary, and more than half of adults over the age of 18 never engage in any vigorous leisure-time physical activity lasting 10 minutes or more per week.
•According to a study by the EWG5, blood samples from newborns contained an average of 287 toxins, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides, and chemicals from non stick products. Of the 287 chemicals EWG detected in umbilical cord blood, it’s known that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals; 217 are toxic to your brain and nervous system; and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. Clearly, when babies are born loaded with toxic chemicals, it’s a sign that toxic exposure is too high.
•While there are many types and routes of toxic exposure, one would be remiss to overlook Americans use of pharmaceutical drugs, as drugs have, on average, 70 different potential side effects, and are responsible for the premature death of at least 106,000 Americans per year, when taken as prescribed. Americans pop the most pills of any other nation, and that includes children. Americans also receive the most amount of vaccinations.

So…. let’s think… What could possibly be the root of Americans’ failure to thrive? The Atlantic6, reporting on the findings writes:

“In presenting their findings… the authors seemed to be urging the U.S. to do some soul searching. Our culture ‘cherishes independence’ and ‘wants to limit the intrusion of government in our personal lives,’ said Steven Woolf, director of the Center for Human Needs at Virginia Commonwealth University, the panel chairman.

While those values serve us in some ways, he said, our resistance to regulation ‘may work against our ability to achieve optimal health outcomes.'”

Aha! So it’s Americans’ striving for independence and freedom of choice that is to blame for such poor dietary choices and health outcomes?! They mean to tell us that we’re all so inept at making healthy choices, we need to abandon our independent spirits and embrace more nanny state regulations that might finally whip us into shape. Honestly, I feel like I’m reading something out of The Onion… It’s all so backwards.

Why Do Americans Consume Such a Bad Diet?

For the sake of brevity, I will limit my comments to the issue of diet here. But first, let’s consider a few of the questions we need to ask:
•Do Americans purposefully consume excessive amounts of fat-promoting, health-harming HFCS because they love it and refuse to eat foods that don’t contain it, or are there other reasons why Americans can’t seem to control their waistlines?

And do they really intentionally consume far too many carbohydrates, sugar and processed foods in place of healthy fats like avocados, olives, coconut oil, butter, nuts, eggs and olive oil, which cause them to be adapted to burning carbs as their primary fuel rather than fat, or is this type of diet a more or less inevitable side effect of NOT thinking independently and seeking out real nutritional facts, but rather mindlessly buying what’s available in the store and advertised as healthy on TV?
•Do Americans really want to consume more genetically engineered foods than any other country?
•Do freedom-loving Americans who “cherish independence” seek to buy more or less whole, unadulterated, unprocessed foods that might help improve their health and, at the very least, reduce toxic exposure?

I propose considering the following facts before blaming America’s failing health on the average shopper’s pesky determination to make independent, foolhardy choices:
•The US government subsidizes the very crops identified as being the most harmful to human health and the environment; the top three being corn, wheat, and soybeans. And nearly all of the corn and soybeans grown are genetically engineered varieties.

By subsidizing these, the US government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), hydrogenated soybean oil, and meats loaded with antibiotics – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic disease. These junk-food subsidies make it much cheaper to buy a burger, fries and soda from a fast-food restaurant than it is to buy grass-fed beef and veggies. It’s not that these foods necessarily cost more to grow or produce; rather the prices for the junk foods are being artificially reduced by the government.
•The US further promotes use of HFCS in food manufacturing by imposing import tariffs on foreign sugar, raising the price of sucrose above those in other countries.
•When the dangers of HFCS finally began to seep into the American consciousness, consumer demand forced many companies to reformulate their processed foods using other types of sweeteners, or ditching sweetening agents altogether. Today, you can find a number of food products marked “No HFCS” and government intervention had nothing to do with this beneficial change.
•The US government has repeatedly refused to take any action to label genetically engineered foods, despite overwhelming public support and demand for labeling.
•The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has repeatedly harassed, raided, and shut down small farms producing healthful organic and raw foods, such as raw dairy and cheese, along with private co-ops procuring and delivering such foods to health-conscious customers.

Americans Die Earlier and Live in Poorer Health

These are examples of Big Government making health decisions for you. How have they been working out so far? The proof is in the pudding, and the featured report7 tells us that what we’ve been doing so far is NOT working.

According to the report, Americans die earlier and live in poorer health than people in other developed nations, which included Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the U.K.

Of these 17 affluent countries, the US ranks last overall, and near the bottom in nine key areas of health, including low birth weight; injuries and homicides; teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections; HIV and AIDS; drug-related deaths; obesity and diabetes; heart disease; chronic lung disease; and general disability. At 75.6 years, American men have the lowest life expectancy among the countries reviewed, and American women ranked second-to-last at 80.7 years. The infant mortality rate in the US is equally abysmal, with 32.7 deaths per 100,000, while most others range between 15 and 25 deaths per 100,000.

Interestingly, the US lags behind all these nations even though smoking rates in the US are far lower than many of the other nations, indicating that, apparently, there’s more to good health than quitting smoking. Or, alternatively, that even smokers can enjoy a modicum of health IF they’re able to compensate with other healthy lifestyle strategies. So, again, how are more nanny state regulations going to improve the situation when they clearly are not willing to accept the sources of the problem in the first place?

The truth is, in order to regulate away this problem, the US government would have to cut all ties with industry and eliminate its conflicts of interest and massive revolving doors with the very industry it is mandated to regulate.

The likelihood of that happening appears slim to none, considering that Big Ag and Big Pharma are two of the biggest and strongest lobbying groups of all business sectors vying for favors from our legislators8. And they’re getting them—which is how we got into this abhorrent mess in the first place, where what is good is portrayed as bad, and that which is bad is ignored. The answer is to promote more independence of choice, and limiting the intrusion of government in our food choices—the very things these reviewers claim are part of the problem… The report also found that Americans:
•Have a long-standing pattern of poorer health that is strikingly consistent and pervasive over the course of their lifetimes. Overall, Americans die and suffer from illness and injury at rates that are unnecessary
•Even affluent Americans with higher education and insurance who engage in healthy behaviors (such as not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight) are in worse health than similar people in other nations
•Consume the most calories among peer countries
•Have more alcohol-related accidents
•Spend more than $8,600 per person per year on health care, which is more than twice the amount spent by the UK, France, and Sweden

How Can the Wealthiest Industrialized Nation be the Sickest?

Since the mid-1990s, the number of Americans suffering from at least three chronic illnesses nearly doubled. Life expectancy has decreased and infant mortality has increased. Illnesses once rare are now common, with some approaching epidemic levels. For example:
•Autism now affects one in 88 children (CDC), compared to one in 25,000 in the mid-1970s
•Type 2 diabetes rates in the U.S. increased by 176 percent between 1980 and 2010
•Celiac disease is four times more common now than 60 years ago
•Alzheimer’s disease is rising at alarming rates. It’s estimated that 5.4 million Americans (one in eight older Americans) now has Alzheimer’s disease, and nearly half of those age 85 and older have it; AD rates have doubled since 1980
•New infectious diseases are increasing in number, according to a 2008 study

In his documentary, Jeffrey Smith makes a convincing argument that one of the primary forces driving these illnesses is America’s changing food supply. And one of the most profound changes is genetically engineered food. Proving GE food is causing Americans to be sick is a tall order, but the evidence presented in this film is very compelling and should not be ignored.

GMO Report Disproves FDA’s Safety Claims

There is a significant compilation of scientific evidence that casts serious doubt on the claims made by industry and government officials about the safety of GE foods. Consider this report by The Atlantic9 The authors of the report “GMO Myths and Truths”10 took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, arriving at the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increased yield potential do not at all support the claims.

In fact, the evidence demonstrates the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown – they simply aren’t true. Not only are GE foods less nutritious than non-GE foods, they pose distinct health risks, are inadequately regulated, harm the environment and farmers, and are a poor solution to world hunger.

The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou, PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He’s a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies; and John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GE testing. If you want to get a comprehensive understanding of genetically engineered foods, I strongly recommend reading this report.

11 Basic Guidelines for General Health and Longevity

Leading a common sense, healthy lifestyle is your best bet to produce a healthy body and mind, and increase your longevity. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, and even government itself sure won’t make it easy for you to avoid the garbage that ruins your health. The following guidelines form the basic tenets of optimal health and healthy weight—foundational strategies that will not change, regardless of what marvels modern science comes up with next. For more comprehensive guidance, please see my fully updated nutritional plan, which takes you from beginner’s stage to advanced:
1.Eat a healthy diet, paying very careful attention to keeping your insulin levels down (my free nutritional plan will help guide you through your dietary changes with minimal effort)
2.Replace sweetened drinks (whether they’re sweetened with sugar, HFCS, or artificial sweeteners) with plenty of pure, clean water
3.Avoid all genetically engineered foods. There are nine primary GE food crops, but their derivatives are in over 70 percent of supermarket foods, particularly processed foods. GE ingredients can hide. For example, every can of soda containing high fructose corn syrup most likely contains GE corn. Make sure none of the following are on your grocery list, unless they are USDA certified organic:

Soy

Cottonseed

Corn

Canola Oil

Hawaiian papaya

Alfalfa

Sugar from sugar beets

Some varieties of zucchini

Crookneck squash

Avoid any product containing aspartame, which is derived from a GE organism. And avoid any milk products that may have rBGH. I recommend consuming only raw, organic milk products you’ve obtained from a trustworthy local dairy farmer. The Institute for Responsible Technology has put together a helpful Non-GMO Shopping Guide you can download and print. They even have an iPhone app.
4.Optimize your gut flora with fermented foods, such as fermented vegetables, which you can easily and inexpensively make at home
5.Consume healthy fats, like butter, eggs, avocados, coconut oil, olive oil, and nuts, especially macadamia nuts which are higher in fat and lower in protein
6.Eat plenty of raw food
7.Exercise regularly. Make sure to incorporate high intensity interval training at least once or twice a week
8.Get an appropriate amount of sunlight to optimize your vitamin D levels
9.Limit toxin exposure
10.Get plenty of sleep
11.Manage your stress

Let’s face it, government health recommendations and regulations relating to diet and health have failed miserably, and the featured report delivers the somber statistics of where we’re at on the global scene. While spending twice as much on health care per capita, we’re not getting results. I believe we’ll keep seeing more of the same until or unless we change our stance on what a healthy diet is, and what constitutes a healthy lifestyle. We need to move away from the idea that being on a dozen medications means you’re doing something right for your health… This is NOT health care. This is disease management, and it comes at a very steep price, namely your longevity.

Until or unless the US government takes industry to task, our regulators and legislators cannot be trusted to usher Americans toward better health. In the meantime, it is up to YOU to take control of your health, and do what is right for you, to live a healthier, longer, drug- and disease-free life. Proper nutrition, exercise, and avoidance of toxins are three critical factors to address in this process, and this website contains literally tens of thousands of freely available articles to help you do just that.

By buying organic, you will dramatically reduce your exposure to pesticides, hormones and antibiotics, as those are used on nearly all GE crops. When shopping locally, know your local farmers. Many are too small to afford official certification, but many still adhere to organic, sustainable practices. The only way to determine how your food is raised is to check them out, meeting the farmer face to face if possible. Yes, it does take time but is worth it if you are really concerned about your family’s health.

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

Reduce Your Heart Attack Risk by Eating Berries

When it comes to fruit, berries are among the healthiest variety to choose, as they are densely packed with a variety of potent phytochemicals and fiber while at the same time being relatively low in sugar.

Blueberries and strawberries, in particular, have recently been highlighted by Harvard researchers as ‘superfoods’ for heart health.

Reduce Your Heart Attack Risk by Eating Berries

Women who eat more than three servings per week of blueberries and strawberries had a 32 percent lower risk of having a heart attack, according to new research.1 The benefit was due to flavonoids in the berries known as anthocyanins, which are antioxidants that give these fruits their characteristic red and purple hues.

Anthocyanins are known to benefit the endothelial lining of the circulatory system, possibly preventing plaque buildup in arteries as well as promoting healthy blood pressure. Other research has shown these antioxidants to protect against heart disease by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation, while enhancing capillary strength and inhibiting platelet formation.2 Researchers have further noted:3

“Epidemiological studies suggest that increased consumption of anthocyanins lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most common cause of mortality among men and women.

Anthocyanins frequently interact with other phytochemicals, exhibiting synergistic biological effects but making contributions from individual components difficult to decipher. Over the past 2 decades, many peer-reviewed publications have demonstrated that in addition to their noted in vitro antioxidant activity, anthocyanins may regulate different signaling pathways involved in the development of CVD.”

Processed Foods Containing Anthocyanin-Rich Fruits May Not Have the Same Benefit

If you want to get the health benefits of antioxidant flavonoids like anthocyanins, it appears fresh berries may be among the best source. Many processed food manufacturers – baby foods in particular – have attempted to cash in on their growing popularity among the health conscious by adding blueberries and other anthocyanin-rich fruits to their products.

Aside from berries, other anthocyanin-rich foods include eggplant, red cabbage, red leaf lettuce, red radish, and plums. But be very careful when purchasing processed foods with these beneficial fruits as one study found that in processed foods in which anthocyanins were added as raw materials, such as canned foods, breads, cereals and baby foods, the anthocyanins could no longer be detected. This was likely due to their poor stability and possible destruction during processing. Researchers said:4

“ACNs were barely detected in baby foods prepared from fruits high in anthocyanins such as blueberries. In some foods that may contain a mixture of berries and fruits, such as baby foods, the amount of ACN-containing berry added may be so low that the ACNs were unable to be detected.”

Please be Careful With Your Fruit Consumption…

Fruit can be immensely beneficial to your health, as it’s a natural source of fiber, vitamins and antioxidants. But it also contains fructose, the metabolism of which causes most of the same toxic effects as ethanol, such as visceral adiposity (belly fat), insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. When consumed excessively, fructose may actually be more damaging to your health than alcohol, having over 70 documented adverse effects.

The main offenders in this category are not whole, natural organic fruits, but added sugars that Americans are consuming in an “alarming number” on a daily basis. Soda, fruit juice, and high-fructose corn syrup in processed foods is likely to contribute far more to your daily fructose load than an apple or a handful of berries…

An appropriate amount of fructose is no more than 25 grams per day, but if you’re overweight or at risk of (or have) heart disease, cancer, or type 2 diabetes, then you’re probably better off cutting that down to 10-15 grams per day, including the fructose that comes from fruit. Another way to determine just how strict you need to be in regard to fruit consumption is to check your uric acid levels.

Some people may be able to process fructose more efficiently than others, and the key to assess this susceptibility to fructose-induced adverse health effects lies in evaluating your uric acid levels. The higher your uric acid, the more sensitive you are to the effects of fructose. The safest range of uric acid appears to be between 3 and 5.5 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), and there appears to be a steady relationship between uric acid levels and blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, even down to the range of 3 to 4 mg/dl.
If your levels are outside the healthy ranges listed above, then I strongly suggest you listen to your body’s biochemical feedback and reduce your fructose consumption, including that from fruit, until your uric acid levels normalize. I’ve also included a chart below of fructose levels in fruit to give you an idea of what 25 grams of fructose a day looks like.

What are 10 of the Healthiest Fruits You Can Eat?

If your fruit consumption only consists of apples, oranges and bananas, you’re missing out on some of the healthiest fruits out there!

1. Berries

Blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, cranberries… unless you overeat them, it is hard to go wrong with berries, as they contain powerful phytochemicals such as ellagic acid that provide antioxidant protection, as well as directly inhibit the DNA binding of certain carcinogens. Berries are also excellent sources of vitamin C, carotenes, zinc, potassium, iron, calcium and magnesium; they’re high in fiber and low in sugar.

2. Coconuts

Coconuts are among the most nutritionally dense foods on the planet and have been a dietary staple for millennia. Coconut, especially its oil, is a powerful destroyer of all kinds of microbes, from viruses to bacteria, from fungi to protozoa, many of which can harm your health. Over 50% of its fat is contains an immune-boosting fat called lauric acid that has been shown to stimulate weight loss, support heart health and healthy thyroid function, and more.

Coconut water, on the other hand, is a better sports hydration drink than ANY of the commercially available sugary sports drinks, and is both sterile and an isotonic beverage, meaning it has the same electrolyte consistency of human blood, which enabled medics in the Pacific Theater in World War II to use it as an emergency substitute for blood plasma.

3. Avocados

Avocados are a very low fructose fruit and only have two grams of carbohydrates per avocado. They are rich in heart-healthy monounsaturated fat, which is easily burned for energy, and contain more than twice as much potassium as a banana. Avocados are also good sources of folate, dietary fiber, vitamin C, vitamin E, riboflavin and vitamin B6. I eat a whole avocado nearly every day.

4. Watermelon

Like berries, watermelon is loaded with phytochemicals, including lycopene, beta-carotene, and citrulline. When citrulline is consumed, it is converted to arginine. Arginine is an amino acid that has beneficial effects on your heart and circulatory system, as well as your immune system. Arginine boosts nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, leading to another beneficial side benefit of watermelon… a Viagra-like effect without the hazards of a toxic drug! Arginine also helps the urea cycle by removing ammonia and other toxic compounds from your body.

5. Pomegranate

The primary source of this fruit’s benefits is its antioxidant content, particularly ellagitannin compounds like punicalagins and punicalins, which account for about half of the pomegranate’s antioxidant ability. The juice and pulp of pomegranates have previously been studied for their potential heart- and joint-health benefits.

6. Mangoes

One mango will give you about half of your recommended daily allowance of both vitamins A and C, as well as some B vitamins, polyphenols and beta-carotene. Mangoes contain calcium, iron and potassium, are a good source of phosphorus, selenium, folate and zinc, and even contain 17 of the 20 amino acids that make up the human body.

7. Papaya

Rich in antioxidants like carotenes, vitamin C and flavonoids, papaya is also useful for digestion, as it contains papain, an enzyme that helps with digestion by breaking down proteins. Papaya also has plant compounds that support your immune system, provide anti-inflammatory effects and may provide protection against cancer. It’s also a rich source of minerals, potassium and magnesium.

8. Pineapple

Pineapple contains an enzyme, bromelain, which aids digestion, reduces inflammation and swelling and may have anti-cancer effects. Rich in antioxidants like vitamin C, pineapple also provides immune support and is an excellent source of manganese, thiamin and riboflavin, which are important for energy production.

9. Kiwi

Rich in phytonutrients that appear to protect human DNA from free-radical damage, kiwi is also an excellent source of antioxidant vitamins C and E, and beta-carotene. Kiwi is also a good source of fiber, potassium, magnesium, copper and phosphorous.

10. Cherries

Cherries contain powerful compounds like anthocyanins and bioflavonoids, which are known to fight inflammation and may help lower your uric acid levels and risk of gout. Bioflavonoids in cherries may reduce the activity of the enzymes Cyclooxyygenase-1 and – 2, which helps to reduce inflammatory processes associated with arthritis and gout in the body. Queritrin – a flavonoid – is also rich in cherries, and has been found to be a potent anticancer agent. Cherries also contain ellagic acid, a naturally occurring plant phenolic known as an anti-carcinogenic/anti-mutagenic compound.

Important Shopper’s Guide: Fruits You Should Buy Organic…

If possible, it’s best to buy all of your produce organic in order to reduce your exposure to pesticides. If you need to pick and choose, however, the Environmental Working Group has compiled a shopper’s guide to help.5 The following fruits have been found to contain the most and least toxic pesticide residues:

Most Contaminated Fruits (Buy These Fruits Organic)

Apples

Peaches

Strawberries

Nectarines (imported)

Grapes

Blueberries (domestic)

Least Contaminated Fruits (OK to Buy Conventional)

Pineapples

Avocado

Mangoes

Kiwi

Cantaloupe (domestic)

Grapefruit

Watermelon

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

Chlorella, single-celled fresh water algae, is often referred to as a near-perfect food, with a wide range of health benefits.

A recent study investigated the effects of chlorella on methylmercury transfer to fetuses during pregnancy. Pregnant mice were fed diets containing either 0% or 10% chlorella powder, along with methylmercury in their drinking water.

Two neonates were randomly selected from each mother mouse within 24 hours of birth, and examined for mercury in the blood, brain, liver, and kidneys. The mothers were also examined for mercury. According to the study1:

“The blood and brain [mercury] levels of both neonates and mothers in the [chlorella powder] diet group were significantly lower…

The results obtained here revealed that continuous [chlorella powder] intake suppressed [methylmercury] transfer to the fetus, in addition to effective suppressing [methylmercury] accumulation in brains of the mothers.”

Methylmercury is a neurotoxic compound widely used in industrial applications. It accumulates in fish, which has led to widespread advisories against fish consumption by pregnant women. In fetuses and developing infants it can have negative effects on attention span, language, visual-spatial skills, memory and coordination. An estimated 60,000 children each year are born at risk for neurological problems due to methylmercury exposure in the womb.

Do You Need to Detox?

Heavy metal toxicity, just like chemical toxicity, has become one of the most pressing health hazards of our day. Whether you recognize it or not, your body is assailed by chemicals and heavy metals on a daily basis. The two primary sources of mercury exposure are:
•Seafood
•Dental fillings (mercury amalgams, better known as ‘silver fillings’)

The average individual has eight amalgam fillings, from which they could absorb up to 120 micrograms of mercury per day. For comparison, estimates of the daily absorption of mercury from fish and seafood is 2.3 micrograms, and from all other foods, air, and water is 0.3 micrograms per day. Adults with four or more amalgams run a significant risk of mercury-related health problems from them, while in children as few as two amalgams will contribute to health problems.

It’s important to realize that mercury and other heavy metals accumulate in your body, and your levels therefore increase with age. Such bioaccumulation also poses a direct threat to the developing fetus in pregnant women, as mentioned above.

While detoxing was once considered a ‘fad,’ in today’s world, regular detoxing has become more or less a necessity, especially if you’re planning a pregnancy. It’s wise for most people to proactively remove metals from their body before becoming plagued by symptoms. If you already have symptoms (see below), then ridding your body of metals may help resolve them.

Cilantro can be used as a synergetic aid along with chlorella. It’s particularly useful to take when consuming seafood.

Chlorella’s effectiveness was demonstrated in a study last year2, where mice given chlorella along with methylmercury excreted approximately twice the amount of methylmercury in their urine and feces, compared to mice not treated with chlorella.

Signs and Symptoms of Mercury Toxicity

As mercury and other heavy metals build up in your body over time, they can produce chronic symptoms that you might never associate with your love for sushi, or your dental fillings. Mercury is especially damaging to your central nervous system (CNS), and studies show that mercury in the CNS causes psychological, neurological, and immunological problems. Some of the symptoms of mercury build-up and toxicity include:

Fatigue

Aching joints

Depression, irritability, anxiety

Digestive distress and reduced ability to properly assimilate and utilize fats

Impaired blood sugar regulation

Female reproductive problems such as menstrual difficulties, infertility, miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, pregnancy-induced hypertension and premature birth

Neuron degeneration

Central nervous system damage

Kidney damage

Mercury Testing: What You Need to Know

Traditional mercury testing involves testing either your hair, blood, urine, or stool. Challenge tests that implement a chelating chemical, such as DMPS or DMSA, are also commonly used. However, all of these tests have drawbacks. They primarily measure total mercury load — and inaccurately at that. But most importantly they don’t give you any information about the forms of mercury in your system or how efficiently you are getting rid of them.

Traditional mercury tests don’t answer questions like, how much of your mercury load is from the seafood you eat? How much from amalgams? How well are your kidneys and liver eliminating it?

The two principal forms of mercury accumulate differently in your body, and are eliminated by different pathways. For example, mercury levels in your hair only reflect the mercury from the fish you eat. But mercury levels in your urine reflect the mercury coming from your dental fillings (plus some of the fish-based methylmercury that has broken down into inorganic mercury). The only way to determine if there is a problem is to compare your hair and urine levels with levels in your blood. So, if mercury testing is to be meaningful, it must measure both of the following:
1.Exposure level: Overall mercury level for each of the two main forms of mercury (methylmercury, related to your fish/seafood consumption, and inorganic mercury, related to dental amalgam exposure)
2.Excretion ability: How well your body is getting rid of each kind of mercury, regardless of your overall mercury level

A newer testing method called “mercury speciation ”does just this — it measures both of these factors. This test uses blood, urine and hair to give you a more comprehensive picture of how your body is eliminating mercury and where the process may be blocked. This information can be immensely helpful in preparing a successful detoxification plan. For more information about mercury speciation testing, refer to my recent interview with Dr. Shade below.

Download Interview Transcript

How to Use Chlorella

Preferably, you’ll want to take it in the morning. Many chlorella products are sold in small tablets, typically 500 mg each, which means you should take several tablets a day. According to Ginny Banks, an expert in functional foods and nutraceuticals:

“It’s not something that you just take occasionally like some herbs or some supplements. Chlorella is something you want to be taking every day… You need to be getting at least 4 grams each day of chlorella to get the benefits that it provides.”

I recommend starting with a lower dose and slowly work your way up to 4 grams. Taking it with food can help alleviate nausea. Mild diarrhea may also occur. For more information and guidance on detoxing mercury, please see my full protocol.

To Get the Health Benefits, Make Sure You’re Getting a Good Product

One of the most important factors to consider when purchasing a chlorella product is its digestibility. The key to its detoxing abilities lies within the membrane of this single cell, but the cell wall of chlorella is actually indigestible to humans.

“Broken cell wall” is the term most often used to describe that it has been rendered digestible. If a product does not specify that the cell wall has been broken, you’re likely flushing your money down the toilet as the chlorella will simply pass right through you without doing you any good. And detox is certainly not the only benefit that you’ll miss out on.

Chlorella has a number of other health benefits. The web site GreenMedInfo has assembled a list of studies 3 that found evidence of over 40 different health conditions that chlorella can help to prevent or ease. Here’s a sampling of some of the health benefits associated with this green algae:

Repairing nerve tissues

Increasing your energy levels

Enhancing your immune system

Normalizing your blood sugar

Improving digestion

Normalizing your blood pressure

Promoting healthy pH levels in your gut, which in turn helps good bacteria to thrive

Removing potentially toxic metals from your body

Overall CAUTION

It is important to realize that any mercury detoxification is a marathon and NOT a sprint. You do NOT want to do this quickly. Even if you believe you are healthy you want to start this process SLOWLY as you could easily cause severe flare ups. I am one of the healthiest people I know and when I did my program I did it over six months. Some people may need to do it far more slowly and may need a few years to effectively eliminate the mercury safely.

Your Most Important Goal: Removing the Source of Exposure

The very first goal is to plug the hole in your leaking ship. You must remove your source of mercury exposure, whether it’s primarily from the seafood you eat or from amalgams (or both). Mercury speciation testing, as described above, can help you identify which source is problematic. There is little point in embarking on a major detox mission if you continue exposing yourself to the offender… that’s like trying to bail water out of a sinking boat. Avoid the consumption of contaminated fish and seafood. Most fish and seafood are now contaminated, unfortunately, but some types are worse than others. Avoiding fish is relatively easy, but having your amalgams removed is more involved and costly and must be done with great care. You should do this ONLY with the help of a qualified biological dentist as you can become quite ill if your amalgams are extracted incorrectly.

However, if you have a mouthful of amalgams it is no mystery that you have exposure that ideally needs to be addressed. Just be very careful about jumping from the frying pan into the fire and have your mercury amalgam fillings removed by a non-biological dentist like I did. That mistake caused very serious damage to my kidneys that still troubles me 20 years later. You can find a trained and qualified dentist from the following list:
•International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT)
•International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine (IABDM)
•ToxicTeeth.org
•Holistic Dental Association
•Dental Amalgam Mercury Solutions (DAMS)
•Huggins Applied Healing

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

It has come to our attention that the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), a national non-governmental organization that claims to represent the interests of American farmers, is right now attempting to covertly eliminate the freedom of South Carolina farmers to sell raw milk at the retail level. One of only a few states that currently recognizes the freedom of individuals to buy and sell raw milk legally, South Carolina is basically being accosted by this Big Ag front group, which will attempt to eliminate raw milk freedom in the Palmetto State at a special meeting to be held on Friday, January 25, 2013, at 12:00 pm.

According to an insider alert we just received, the South Carolina Dairy Advisory Committee (SCDAC) will consider a proposal made by AFBF, which is strongly and vocally opposed to individuals having the freedom to buy and sell raw milk, to eliminate an existing state statute that recognizes the freedom of South Carolina farmers who are properly permitted to sell raw milk at the retail level. In its place, AFBF wants SCDAC to implement policies that reflect its own biased views towards raw milk, which for all intensive purposes would ban the sale of raw milk for human consumption throughout the state.

“Delegates approved a new policy that states only pasteurized milk and milk products should be sold for human consumption,” states the heinous proposal that AFBF is pushing SCDAC to adopt. “Delegates approved the measure in light of the potential risks to public health and food safety posed by consumption of raw milk.”

Science reveals raw milk is safe
Based on AFBF’s track record of lobbying, it is hardly surprising that the organization would side with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in clinging to a completely unscientific and outdated view of raw milk safety. After all, AFBF is the same organization that back in 2012 aggressively opposed reasonable restrictions that would have limited the use of antibiotics in factory-farmed animals, erroneously claiming that doing so would somehow negatively affect public health (when quite the opposite is true).

Now, AFBF is making similar inaccurate claims with its surreptitious attack on raw milk in South Carolina. Based on data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), raw milk is linked, at most, to causing only 42 sicknesses nationwide every year. And most of these cases cannot definitively be linked to raw milk — they are merely assumed to be the cause of illness, as the government has a unabashed and completely irrational bias against raw milk.

But even if all 42 of these annual cases could be conclusively linked to raw milk, the overall risk associated with raw milk consumption would still be ridiculously low, as roughly 10 million Americans consume raw milk on a regular basis. The federal government’s own data proves that Americans are 35 thousand times more likely to get sick from many other foods legally sold at grocery stores than they are from raw milk (http://www.westonaprice.org/press/government-data-proves-raw-milk-safe).

Take Action
Since the meeting takes place in less than 24 hours, it is crucial that the health freedom community band together as one to immediately oppose this assault on raw milk. NaturalNews readers are urged to contact both David Winkles, Jr., President and CEO of the South Carolina Farm Bureau, and Bob Stallman, President of AFBF, and urge them not to infringe on the freedom of South Carolinians to buy and sell raw milk. In your calls and emails, be sure to explain to these gentlemen that:

1) Raw milk is a safe food, rich in living enzymes and beneficial probiotic bacteria, that can actually improve health. People have been safely consuming raw milk for millennia, and many countries today allow raw milk sales without issue, including in Europe where raw milk vending machines can be spotted on street corners.

2) Scientific data supports the safety of raw milk that is properly regulated.

3) A movement away from regulated raw milk will adversely affect the citizens of South Carolina who rely on it for health.

4) If raw milk is made illegal, other potentially unsafe avenues like underground sales will quickly emerge, similar to what occurred during alcohol prohibition.

You can contact David Winkles, Jr. at:
[email protected]
(803) 936-4211

You can contact Bob Stallman at:
[email protected]

Remember to be polite, but assertive, in your correspondence. Without enough push-back, we can stop this blatant attack on raw milk from succeeding. But we must act now to show these bullies that we are paying attention, and that we will not succumb to their attempts to steal even more food freedom from Americans.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/raw_milk_map.htm

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038828_raw_milk_South_Carolina_farm_bureau.html#ixzz2JEU1T5tQ

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

After a grueling 15-year long battle, the Texas Medical Board has officially ended its crusade to revoke Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s medical license in an effort to end his use of Antineoplastons, as well as his combination gene-targeted therapy for cancer.

The Texas Medical Board’s case against him was dismissed1 on November 19, 2012, just in time for Thanksgiving. According to Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard A. Jaffe, Esq:2

“Early on, two medical board informal settlement panels found that the use of these combination drugs on the advanced cancer patients involved was within the standard of care.

However, the Texas Medical Board refused to drop the case and instead filed a formal complaint3 against Dr. Burzynski alleging the same standard of care violations previously rejected by the board settlement panels.

After two years of intense litigation, the case was set for trial in April 2012. However, a week before trial, the administrative law judges dismissed most of the charges against Dr. Burzynski which forced the Board to seek to adjourn the case to do some reevaluation.

After the judges denied the Board’s attempt to reverse the previous partial dismissal of the case, the Board did more reevaluation and moved to dismiss the entire case.”

In 2010, Texas Medical Board staff charged4 Dr. Burzynski with prescribing and administering drugs not yet approved by the FDA for the treatment of cancer in two patients. They also claimed he had overcharged for the drugs, and, in one case, that he had failed to inform the patient that the treatment was having an insignificant impact on her cancer, delaying her ability to make an informed decision about whether to continue her treatment.

On both counts, the Board determined that the treatments did not violate the standard of care, and that patients had been appropriately billed. They did however agree he failed to inform the patient that the treatment was ineffective, and in the other case, they determined he had failed to maintain adequate medical records.

Dr. Burzynski to Make History Yet Again

Dr. Burzynski received much-needed publicity two years ago with the release of Burzynski — The Movie, a documentary about Dr. Burzynski’s remarkable cancer discovery, and how he won the largest and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in American history.

This year, a second film detailing his continued struggles, and victories, is scheduled to be released. As announced in the trailer (see above), Dr. Burzynski is now doing the unthinkable… He is “the first and only scientist in United States history to enter the federal drug approval process for a proprietary cancer therapy without any financial support from the American government, the pharmaceutical industry, or the cancer establishment.”

After it was revealed that the FDA had pressured the Texas medical board to revoke Dr. Burzynski’s medical license — despite the fact that no laws were broken, and his treatment was proven safe and effective — the obvious question was “why?” In 1982, Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, wrote:

“I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances.”

The answer to this has to do with money. Lots and lots of money… See, Dr. Burzynski owns the patent for this treatment, and should it actually gain FDA approval, not only would it threaten conventional chemotherapy and radiation, it would also result in billions of dollars of cancer research funds being funneled over to the one single scientist who has exclusive patent rights — Dr. Burzynski.

When Medical Harassment Becomes Standard Practice

As Burzynski — The Movie revealed, it became clear that ever since 1977, when Dr. Burzynski first tried to get antineoplastons approved, the FDA had begun scheming to eliminate the threat he and his discovery posed to the cancer industry. With that in mind, the mistreatment dished out by the Texas Medical Board (TMB) against Dr. Burzynski becomes easier to understand.

The situation becomes even more enlightening once you take into account the fact that, for years, the TMB has cultivated intimidation and harassment of doctors to the point that the entire Board was sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in 2007, citing an “institutional culture of retaliation and intimidation.” The suit specifically pointed out misconduct by then Board president, Roberta Kalafut, who was accused of enlisting her husband to file anonymous complaints against targeted doctors, including her own competitors, who then faced losing their license and other punitive disciplinary actions based on fraudulent charges. (She resigned from her post in December 2008.)5

The situation was so bad that legislation was drafted in 2009 in an effort to clamp down on the abuses by the TMB.6 Unfortunately, the bill, HB3816, failed to get a House vote and didn’t make it into law. The bill would have prevented anonymous, unsworn complaints from ruining the careers of doctors, and given physicians a right to jury trial before license revocation, among other things. It seems not much has changed in the years since. In an AAPS blog dated September 22, 2011, Jane M. Orient, MD, Executive Director of AAPS stated:7

“Complaints from our members have identified the TMB as probably the worst in the country. It’s bad for patients when their doctors are afraid that doing the right thing could result in licensure action.”

Summary of Dr. Burzynski’s Cancer Treatment

Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a Polish immigrant, was trained as both a biochemist and a physician. He’s spent the last 35 years developing and successfully treating cancer patients suffering with some of the most lethal forms of cancer at his clinic in Houston, Texas. The treatment he developed involves a gene-targeted approach using non-toxic peptides and amino acids, known as antineoplastons. I personally interviewed Dr. Burzynski about his treatment in the summer of 2011.

His strategy includes studying the patient’s entire cancerous genome; analyzing some 24,000 genes in each cancer patient, in order to identify the abnormal genes. Once they’ve determined which genes are involved in the cancer, drugs and supplements are identified to target those genes. Antineoplastons work on approximately 100 cancer-causing genes, but traditional oncology agents (including chemotherapy) may also be used, typically in combination with antineoplastons.

Antineoplastons are peptides and derivatives of amino acids that act as molecular switches. However, as genome research blossomed and science progressed, Dr. Burzynski discovered that antineoplastons also work as genetic switches. They turn off the oncogenes that cause cancer, and turn on or activate tumor suppressor genes — genes that fight cancer. The antineoplastons were initially obtained from blood. For a time they were then extracted from urine, but they’ve now been using synthetic antineoplastons since 1980.

Burzynski — The Movie features several case stories of people who were successfully cured of cancer, and reveals for example clinical trial data of conventional therapies versus antineoplastons in Phase II FDA-sanctioned clinical trials for a type of brain cancer called Anaplastic Astrocytoma, Grade III. When stacked against each other, the benefits of antineoplastons become quite obvious:

Radiation or Chemotherapy Only

Antineoplastons Only

5 of 54 patients (9 percent)

5 of 20 (25 percent)

were cancer free at the end of treatment

were cancer free at the end of treatment

Toxic side effects

No toxic side effects

Gene Targeted Cancer Therapy is the Future

In recent years, the focus for cancer therapy has increasingly shifted toward individualized gene-targeted cancer treatment — such as that provided by Dr. Burzynski for the past 10 years. A description of how the patient’s individualized treatment plan is devised is given in the second video above, starting three minutes into the video. So, is it any wonder the industry wants to get rid of him in order to protect their own profits and access to research funds?

As an example, in January 2011, the Khalifa Foundation gave a $150 million grant to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center8 “to support genetic-analysis based research, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.” In short, personalized cancer treatment is the future of oncology, and the US government has spared no expense in trying to make eliminate Dr. Burzynski from the race — including patent theft…

In October 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a site visit to Dr. Burzynski’s clinic and verified that “anti-tumor activity was documented by the use of antineoplastons.”9 Seventeen days after this visit, the United States of America as represented by “The Department of Health and Human Services,” filed a patent for antineoplastons AS2-1 — one of the two antineoplastons Dr. Burzynski had already patented. The inventor listed on the copycat patent was Dr. Dvorit Samid, a former research consultant of Dr. Burzynski’s. The patent states:

“The invention described herein may be manufactured, used and licensed by or for the government, for governmental purposes, without the payment to us of any royalties thereon.”

In November of 1995, the US Patent office approved the first US Government patent for antineoplastons. Between 1995 and 2000, the US Patent office approved 11 copycat patents on antineoplastons AS2-1. Incredibly, In August of 2012, America’s National Cancer Institute has begun to finally acknowledge and cite some of Burzynski’s peer-reviewed Antineoplaston studies, as well as Japan’s studies who have been independently reproducing Antineoplaston clinical trials studies since the 1980’s. One of the most remarkable admissions by The National Cancer Institute is where they quote10:

“A Phase II study also conducted by the developer and his associates at his clinic reported on 12 patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma. Of the ten patients who were evaluable, two achieved complete tumor response, three had partial tumor response, three had stable disease, and two had progressive disease.”

A brainstem glioma has simply never been cured before in the history of medicine — Antineoplastons hold the first cures ever. Kudos to the National cancer Institute for finally giving credit where credit is due!

Is the Cancer Industry Really Interested in Finding Cancer Cures?

To summarize Dr. Burzynski’s story: He developed a cancer treatment that surpassed all other treatments on the market, and the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry knew it. They also knew he was the sole owner of the patents for this therapy, and these two facts combined, threatened the entire paradigm of the cancer industry.

So they decided to steal his invention. The problem is, they cannot actually use the stolen patents as long as Dr. Burzynski walks free and has the ability to defend his rights to them.

So, for the past 15 years, they’ve thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him in an effort to tuck him away in jail for the remainder of his life, or at the very least, make sure he doesn’t have a license with which to practice any kind of medicine. Without a profitable career, making and raising the needed cash for patent defense would be tricky. Sadly, you and I have all been paying for the brutal opposition to his cancer treatment this whole time. The US government spent $60 million on legal fees for just one of his trials alone…

Still, Dr. Burzynski has prevailed against enormous forces so many times it’s enough to make one believe in a higher power. Certainly, many of his patients would call him a God-send. Now, with the TMB finally dismissing their case against him, let’s hope that’s the end of the absurd witch hunt against Dr. Burzynski.

Part 2 of the documentary will be released sometime this year. Until then, you can show support for Eric Merola and his film by purchasing the first one, Burzynski: The Movie.

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

Dr. Mercola

Processed food is perhaps the most damaging aspect of most people’s diet, contributing to poor health and chronic disease. One of the primary culprits is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the dangers of which I touch on in virtually every article on diet I write.

The second culprit is partially hydrogenated soybean oil.

These two ingredients, either alone or in combination, can be found in virtually all processed foods and one can make a compelling argument that the reliance on these two foods is a primary contributing factor for most of the degenerative diseases attacking Americans today.

Part of the problem with partially hydrogenated soybean oil is the trans fat it contains. The other part relates to the health hazards of soy itself. And an added hazard factor is the fact that the majority of both corn and soybeans are genetically engineered.

As the negative health effects from trans fats have been identified and recognized, the agricultural- and food industry have scrambled to come up with new alternatives.

Partially hydrogenated soybean oil has been identified as the main culprit, and for good reason. Unfortunately, saturated fats are still mistakenly considered unhealthy by many health “experts,” so rather than embracing truly healthful tropical fats like coconut oil, which is mostly grown outside the US. The food industry has instead turned to domestic US alternatives offered by companies like Monsanto, which has developed modified soybeans that don’t require hydrogenation.

Why Hydrogenate?

Americans consume more than 28 billion pounds of edible oils annually, and soybean oil accounts for about 65 percent of it. About half of it is hydrogenated, as soybean oil is too unstable otherwise to be used in food manufacturing. One of the primary reasons for hydrogenating oil is to prolong its shelf life. Raw butter, for example, is likely to go rancid far quicker than margarine.

The process also makes the oil more stable and raises its melting point, which allows it to be used in various types of food processing that uses high temperatures.

Hydrogenated oil1 is made by forcing hydrogen gas into the oil at high pressure. Virtually any oil can be hydrogenated. Margarine is a good example, in which nearly half of the fat content is trans fat. The process that creates partially hydrogenated oil alters the chemical composition of essential fatty acids, such as reducing or removing linolenic acid, a highly reactive triunsaturated fatty acid, transforming it into the far less reactive linoleic acid, thereby greatly preventing oxidative rancidity when used in cooking.

In the late 1990’s, researchers began realizing this chemical alteration might actually have adverse health effects. Since then, scientists have verified this to the point of no dispute.

Beware that there’s a difference between “fully hydrogenated” and “partially hydrogenated” oils. Whereas partially hydrogenated oil contains trans fat, fully hydrogenated oil does not, as taking the hydrogenation process “all the way” continues the molecular transformation of the fatty acids from trans fat into saturated fatty acids. Fully hydrogenated soybean oil is still not a healthy choice however, for reasons I’ll explain below. The following slide presentation explains the technical aspects relating to the hydrogenation process.

This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.

The Health Hazards of Trans Fats Found in Partially Hydrogenated Oil

The completely unnatural man-made fats created through the partial hydrogenation process cause dysfunction and chaos in your body on a cellular level, and studies have linked trans-fats to:

Cancer, by interfering with enzymes your body uses to fight cancer

Chronic health problems such as obesity, asthma, auto-immune disease, cancer, and bone degeneration

Diabetes, by interfering with the insulin receptors in your cell membranes

Heart disease, by clogging your arteries (Among women with underlying coronary heart disease, eating trans-fats increased the risk of sudden cardiac arrest three-fold!)

Decreased immune function, by reducing your immune response

Increase blood levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL), or “bad” cholesterol, while lowering levels of high density lipoprotein (HDL), or “good” cholesterol

Reproductive problems by interfering with enzymes needed to produce sex hormones

Interfering with your body’s use of beneficial omega-3 fats

As usual, it took many years before conventional health recommendations caught up and began warning about the use of trans fats. Not surprisingly, as soon as the FDA required food manufacturers to list trans fat content on the label — which took effect on January 1, 2006 — the industry began searching for viable alternatives to appeal to consumers who increasingly began looking for the “No Trans Fat” designation. It didn’t take long before Monsanto had tinkered forth a genetically engineered soybean that is low in linolenic acid, which we’ll get to in a moment.

Beware that some food manufacturers have opted to simply fool buyers — a tactic allowed by the FDA as any product containing up to half a gram of trans fat per serving can still legally claim to have zero trans fat2. The trick is to reduce the serving size to bring it below this threshold. At times, this will result in unreasonably tiny serving sizes, so any time you check a label and a serving is something like 10 chips or one cookie, it probably contains trans fats.

The Health Hazards of Soybeans

Besides the health hazards related to the trans fats created by the partial hydrogenation process, soybean oil is, in and of itself, NOT a healthy oil. Add to that the fact that the majority of soy grown in the US is genetically engineered, which may have additional health consequences. When taken together, partially hydrogenated GE soybean oil becomes one of the absolute worst types of oils you can consume.

Years ago, tropical oils, such as palm and coconut oil, were commonly used in American food production. However, these are obviously not grown in the US. With the exception of Hawaii, our climate isn’t tropical enough. Spurred on by financial incentives, the industry devised a plan to shift the market from tropical oils to something more “home grown.” As a result, a movement was created to demonize and vilify tropical oils in order to replace them with domestically grown oils such as corn and soy.

The fat in soybean oil is primarily omega-6 fat. And while we do need some, it is rare for anyone to be deficient as it is pervasive in our diet. Americans in general consume FAR too much omega-6 in relation to omega-3 fat, primarily due to the excessive amount of omega-6 found in processed foods. Omega-6 fats are in nearly every animal food and many plants, so deficiencies are very rare. This omega-6 fat is also highly processed and therefore damaged, which compounds the problem of getting so much of it in your diet. The omega-6 found in soybean oil promotes chronic inflammation in your body, which is an underlying issue for virtually all chronic diseases.

What About Organic Soybean Oil?

Even if you were fortunate enough to find organic soybean oil, there are still several significant concerns that make it far from attractive from a health standpoint. Soy in and of itself, organically grown or not, contains a number of problematic components that can wreak havoc with your health, such as:
•Goitrogens – Goitrogens, found in all unfermented soy whether it’s organic or not, are substances that block the synthesis of thyroid hormones and interfere with iodine metabolism, thereby interfering with your thyroid function.
•Isoflavones: genistein and daidzein – Isoflavones are a type of phytoestrogen, which is a plant compound resembling human estrogen, which is why some recommend using soy therapeutically to treat symptoms of menopause. I believe the evidence is highly controversial and doubt it works. Typically, most of us are exposed to too much estrogen compounds and have a lower testosterone level than ideal, so it really is important to limit exposure to feminizing phytoestrogens. Even more importantly, there’s evidence it may disturb endocrine function, cause infertility, and promote breast cancer, which is definitely a significant concern.
•Phytic acid — Phytates (phytic acid) bind to metal ions, preventing the absorption of certain minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc — all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in your body. This is particularly problematic for vegetarians, because eating meat reduces the mineral-blocking effects of these phytates.

Sometimes it can be beneficial, especially in postmenopausal women and in most adult men because we tend to have levels of iron that are too high which can be a very potent oxidant and cause biological stress. However, phytic acid does not necessarily selectively inhibit just iron absorption; it inhibits all minerals. This is very important to remember, as many already suffer from mineral deficiencies from inadequate diets.

The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume, and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.
•Natural toxins known as “anti-nutrients” — Soy also contains other anti-nutritional factors such as saponins, soyatoxin, protease inhibitors, and oxalates. Some of these factors interfere with the enzymes you need to digest protein. While a small amount of anti-nutrients would not likely cause a problem, the amount of soy that many Americans are now eating is extremely high.
•Hemagglutinin — Hemagglutinin is a clot-promoting substance that causes your red blood cells to clump together. These clumped cells are unable to properly absorb and distribute oxygen to your tissues.

Worst of All — Genetically Engineered Soybean Oil

The genetically engineered (GE) variety planted on over 90 percent of US soy acres is Roundup Ready — engineered to survive being doused with otherwise lethal amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The logic behind Roundup Ready crops such as soy is that you can decrease the cost of production by killing off everything except the actual soy plant.

However, animal studies reveal there may be significant adverse health effects from these GE soybeans, including progressively increased rates of infertility with each passing generation. By the third generation, virtually all the hamsters in one feeding study were found to be infertile. Second-generation hamsters raised on GE soy also had a five-fold higher infant mortality rate.

Are Low-Linolenic Soybeans the Answer?

We now also have other Monsanto-made soy crops to contend with. Responding to the growing demand for healthier diets, Monsanto launched Vistive low-linolenic soybeans in 2005. Most soybeans contain roughly seven percent linolenic acid. The new varieties contain one to three percent. As explained by Monsanto3:

“The oil from these beans can reduce or virtually eliminate trans fat in processed soybean oil… Vistive low-linolenic soybeans have lower levels of linolenic acid. Because of these lower levels, which were achieved through traditional breeding practices4, the oil produced by Vistive low-linolenic seeds does not require hydrogenation, the process that is used to increase shelf life and flavor stability in fried foods, baked goods, snack products and other processed foods.”

Yet another soybean variety created by Monsanto is the high stearate soybean, which also has the properties of margarine and shortening without hydrogenation. But are these soybeans any better or safer than either conventional soybeans or Roundup Ready soybeans, even though they don’t have to go through partial hydrogenation, and therefore do not contain trans fat? No one knows.

Another Hazard of GE Soybeans: Glyphosate

I keep stacking health risks upon health risks, and here’s another one: Research has shown that soybean oil from Roundup Ready soy is loaded with glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup — the broad-spectrum herbicide created by Monsanto.

According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. GE soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg.5 That’s 10 times lower than the MRL.

This is an alarming finding because glyphosate is easily one of the world’s most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications.6 The malformations primarily affected the:
•Skull
•Face
•Midline and developing brain
•Spinal cord

When applied to crops, glyphosate becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And once you eat this crop, the glyphosate ends up in your gut where it can decimate your beneficial bacteria. This can wreak havoc with your health as 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut (GALT – Gut Associated Lymph Tissue) and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria. Separate research has also uncovered the following effects from glyphosate:

Endocrine disruption

DNA damage

Developmental toxicity

Neurotoxicity

Reproductive toxicity

Cancer

To Avoid Harmful Fats of All Kinds, Ditch Processed Foods

If you want to avoid dangerous fats of all kinds, your best bet is to eliminate processed foods from your diet. From there, use these tips to make sure you’re eating the right fats for your health:
•Use organic butter (preferably made from raw milk) instead of margarines and vegetable oil spreads. Butter is a healthy whole food that has received an unwarranted bad rap.
•Use coconut oil for cooking. It is far superior to any other cooking oil and is loaded with health benefits.
•Be sure to eat raw fats, such as those from avocados, raw dairy products, olive oil, olives, organic pastured eggs, and raw nuts, especially macadamia nuts which are relatively low in protein. Also take a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil.

Following my comprehensive nutrition plan will automatically reduce your trans-fat intake, as it will give you a guide to focus on healthy whole foods instead of processed junk food. Remember, virtually all processed foods will contain either HFCS (probably made from genetically engineered corn) and/or soybean oil — either in the form of partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is likely made from GE soybeans, loaded with glyphosate, or from one of the newer soybean varieties that were created such that they do not need to be hydrogenated. They’re ALL bad news, if you value your health.

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

A new report on US cancer rates1 received extensive coverage in print and online, as well as on two nightly national news broadcasts, where it was featured on many stations for more than five minutes.

Terrifying Goal: 80 Percent of Girls to Receive HPV Vaccine by 2020

Many of the reports, and the experts quoted therein, expressed a cautious optimism about the continued decline in cancer death rates.

However, many sources point to the increase in cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), leading them to focus on the low uptake of the HPV vaccine,2, 3 while ignoring the real root of our still-rising cancer incidence rates, namely diet, exercise, and weight control.

Cancer Rates Inching Down, According to New Report

According to the featured report, which was compiled by the American Cancer Society and other government and cancer advocacy groups, progress has been made in the “war on cancer.” One of the reasons for the overall decline of cancer deaths was thought to be due to decreases in smoking among Americans.

However, it’s worth noting that these declining mortality rates are not due to decreases in incidence. More people are getting cancer, but they’re staying alive longer. And as Brenda Edwards, study author and senior adviser at the NCI told Bloomberg:4

“These trends show we haven’t eliminated cancer, but we have managed to be able to diagnosis it and treat it.”

And therein lies the rub. Diagnosis and treatment are the money makers in this industry. Actual prevention is not. So when it comes to prevention, conventional medicine has stuck its head in the sand, and if you want to avoid being a statistic, good advice is virtually impossible to find in the average doctor’s office.

One of the most outrageous examples is that, women are increasingly being advised to remove their breasts to preempt breast cancer if they have a family history of it. This is beyond barbaric and irrational once you understand how epigenetics, and the influence that nutrition alone can have on genetic expression.

Overall, cancer deaths began dropping in the 1990’s, with death rates declining by 1.8 percent for men and 1.4 percent for women between the years 2000-2009, according to the featured report. Children’s death rates from cancer are also declining at a pace of 1.8 percent per year, although incidence is still rising by about 0.5 percent annually. Besides successful anti-smoking campaigns, the decline was found to be primarily related to reductions in deaths related to leading cancer types, such as:
•Lung cancer
•Breast cancer
•Prostate cancer, and
•Colorectal cancer

Other cancers are also still on the rise though, including liver and pancreatic cancer, melanoma (among men), and HPV-related cancers. As reported by the Washington Times:5

“Oral and anal cancers caused by HPV, the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, are on the rise among both genders. HPV is better known for causing cervical cancer, and a protective vaccine is available. Government figures show just 32 percent of teen girls have received all three doses, fewer than in Canada, Britain and Australia. The vaccine was recommended for U.S. boys about a year ago.”

Terrifying Goal: 80 Percent of Girls to Receive HPV Vaccine by 2020

According to the featured report, incidence of cervical cancer, tied to HPV, has fallen in white women while increasing in black women.6 Yet it wasn’t long since the HPV vaccine was boldly credited with having reduced incidence of HPV infection. As recently as March 28, 2012, MedPage.com reported:7

“The prevalence of infection with cancer-causing strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) declined among women during the period that coincided with the introduction of HPV vaccine, investigators reported here. The rates of infection with HPV 16 and HPV 18 have declined since July 2007, a year after the first vaccine was introduced, including a significant decrease in HPV 16 infection. Four other HPV subtypes, including the other two targeted by the quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil), also declined significantly.”

The fact that so many are still pushing the HPV vaccine against various cancers is to me a major mistake that needs to be rectified and reversed. It flies in the face of the scientific findings, and it doesn’t even make intuitive sense. According to the Los Angeles Times:8

“The team also examined how many girls in the U.S. had received HPV immunizations — and found the numbers were low. A three-dose course of an HPV vaccine is recommended for all 11- or 12-year-old girls as well as for girls and young women ages 13 through 26 who haven’t received the immunization. But the researchers found that only 32% of adolescent girls 13 to 17 had received all three doses of the vaccine in 2010, with less than half having even received a single dose. The federal government has set a goal of 80% immunization among girls by 2020.”

An 80 percent immunization rate among girls within the next seven years… That’s a very ambitious goal, and I shudder to think about the potential ramifications should they succeed. Published in the journal Current Pharmaceutical Design in September 2012,9 a systematic review of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine by a Canadian team shows that its effectiveness is not only overstated (through the use of selective reporting or “cherry picking” data) but also completely unproven.

It is truly mindboggling, and a true testament to the conflicts of interest manipulating public health guidelines, that the HPV vaccine has received such robust backing by health officials and legislators alike. The summary states it quite clearly:

“We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications).

Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.

Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).

We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.” [Emphasis mine]

Might Upticks in HPV-Related Cancers Be Associated with the HPV Vaccine?

Research from Merck10 (the manufacturer of Gardasil) presented to the FDA prior to approval showed that if you have been exposed to HPV 16 or 18 prior to injection and take the vaccine, you increase your risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6 percent.

Additionally, since Merck’s research indicates Gardasil may also ‘provide cross-protection’ against other strains of HPV that are closely related to HPV 16 and 18 (two of the four strains included in the vaccine), this would mean prior exposure to these additional strains (which are not included in the vaccine itself) may pose an additional increased risk for cervical cancer when combined with vaccination.

There are worrisome clues that this may in fact be happening. Data pulled by VAERS research analyst Janny Stokvis11 shows a dramatic and recent increase in abnormal pap smears, cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer following HPV vaccination. Bear in mind that cervical cancer typically does not strike until your late 40’s.

According to 2005 -2009 data by the National Cancer Institute,12 the median age at diagnosis for cervical cancer in the US is 48.

Only 0.2 percent of those diagnosed with cervical cancer were under the age 20, so it’s quite rare in this age group. An estimated 12,200 American women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer each year.13 Because we’re dealing with relatively low numbers to begin with, it makes the rapid increases detailed below all the more worrisome – especially when you consider that the vaccine is supposed to REDUCE cancer incidence.

The following data is for girls ages 14 to 26.14 According to Stokvis, some of the reports of cervical abnormalities are occurring four to five years after HPV vaccination, so we’re just now starting to see some of the longer-term ramifications, since the vaccine has only been on the market for just over six years.

March 2011

March 2012

Increase in 12 months (%)

Abnormal pap smear

384

479

24.74

Cervical dysplasia

138

190

37.68

Cervical cancer

41

50

21.95

Right to Informed Consent and Vaccine Exemptions Rapidly Vanishing

Virginia and Washington D.C. already require the HPV vaccine for girls to enroll in middle and high school, and the report suggests that such mandates could increase vaccination rates. This is a very dangerous trend. Young girls are now being prevented from an education lest they submit to an injection of a vaccine that has never been proven safe or effective. On the contrary, the vaccine has already been associated with deaths and, caused permanent disability and serious side effects in literally thousands of young girls, despite its short time on the market.

Think about this! Is this really a reasonable risk one should be forced to take to get an education? Similarly, well-trained veteran health care workers were in some states fired this past Christmas, simply for refusing to get vaccinated against the seasonal flu. It’s time to do some soul-searching on this issue, and if it worries you as much as it worries me, please get involved to protect vaccine exemptions and your right to informed consent.

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.

The Factor Driving Cancer Rates that Most News Sources Neglected to Address

Few media sources were more honest about the real underlying sources of cancer, namely diet, exercise and obesity. NBC News15 did highlight this however, stating:

“…[The] report also says that policymakers are doing far too little to fight obesity, which underlies a third of cancer cases… ‘The fact that people are not dying of cancer is clear evidence of progress,’ said Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society.

But we could have a much lower death rate from cancer if we simply got serious about doing all the things that work. ‘…Over the next 10 years, a combination of high caloric intake and low physical activity is going to surpass tobacco as a cause of cancer deaths,’ Brawley told NBC News. ‘We are not saying anything about that. That is a huge, huge cancer prevention effort that we haven’t gotten off the ground.'”

Indeed, the real reason why we, after 40+ years of waging “war against cancer,” have gotten nowhere in terms of reducing the numbers of people developing cancer is because the cancer industry is not spending any of its multi-billion dollar resources on prevention. Detection yes, but not prevention, and in the meantime, it has grown into such a massive cash-cow that it is not going to want to shave off any of the profits it is making. Teaching people how to avoid cancer is financial suicide for the industry.

A 2008 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences16 demonstrated how nutrition alone can have a tremendous impact not just on prevention, but even on the treatment of cancer once you’ve been diagnosed.

The study involved men with prostate cancer who declined surgery, hormonal therapy, or radiation and instead participated in an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention while undergoing careful surveillance for tumor progression.

The men made changes in their diets, exercised moderately, used stress management techniques and also participated in a psychosocial support group, and these changes influenced the expression of hundreds of genes. Specifically:
•Some of the changes positively impacted genes that help fight cancer
•Other changes helped turn off genes that promote cancer development

Top 12 Tips to Prevent Cancer

The bottom line here is that there’s a lot you can do to lower your chances of getting cancer — you and your family CAN take control of your health. Don’t wait for diagnosis, take the reins and be a proactive participant in your own health care, before you end up in need for disease management. I believe you can virtually eliminate your risk of cancer and chronic disease, and radically improve your chances of recovering from cancer if you currently have it, by following these relatively simple risk reduction strategies.
1.Reduce or eliminate your processed food, sugar/fructose and grain carbohydrate intake. This applies to whole unprocessed organic grains as well, as they tend to rapidly break down and drive your insulin and leptin levels up, which is the last thing you need to have happening if you are seeking to resolve or prevent cancer.
2.Consider reducing your protein levels to one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. It would be unusual for most adults to need more than 100 grams of protein and most likely close to half that.
3.Control your fasting insulin and leptin levels. This is the end result you’ll get when you remove sugars and grains from your diet and start to exercise regularly. Your levels can be easily monitored with the use of simple and relatively inexpensive blood tests.
4.Normalize your ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats by taking a high-quality krill oil and reducing your intake of most processed vegetable oils.
5.Get regular exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.

The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. If you have limited time Peak Fitness exercises are your best bet but ideally you should have a good strength training program as well.
6.Normalize your vitamin D levels by getting appropriate sun exposure, and consider careful supplementation when this is not possible. However, if you’re taking oral vitamin D, you also need to make sure you’re taking vitamin K2 as well, as K2 deficiency is actually what produces the symptoms of vitamin D toxicity, which includes inappropriate calcification that can lead to hardening of your arteries. To learn more, please see my previous article: What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and Calcium. If you take oral vitamin D and have cancer, it would be very prudent to monitor your vitamin D blood levels regularly.
7.Get regular, good sleep.
8.Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
9.Limit your exposure and provide protection for yourself from radiation produced by cell phones, towers, base stations, and WiFi stations.
10.Avoid frying or charbroiling your food. Boil, poach or steam your foods instead.
11.Have a tool to permanently reprogram the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. My particular favorite tool for resolving emotional challenges, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
12.Eat at least one-third of your food raw.

Consider adding cancer-fighting whole foods, herbs, spices and supplements to your diet, such as broccoli, curcumin and resveratrol. To learn more about how these anti-angiogenetic foods, and many others, work to fight cancer, please see my previous article: Dramatically Effective New Natural Way to Starve Cancer and Obesity.

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

Diet soda or blues in a bottle?

It may sound like a country and western song, but emerging research is showing that it may be time to give soda (or “pop” to you Midwesterners) a new moniker — blues in a bottle.

If you’ve been suffering from depression — or are just not feeling like yourself lately — take a look at that carbonated beverage you’re guzzling daily before you run out to get a prescription for the latest, dangerous antidepressant.

A new study scheduled to be released at the American Academy of Neurology’s conference this spring found that people who consumed four or more cans of soda daily were a whopping 30% more likely to suffer from depression.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health looked at the beverage consumption habits of more than 250,000 people between 1995 -1996, and followed up with these same people a decade later. The heavy diet soda drinkers were all much more likely to be diagnosed with depression. The study advises drinking unsweetened coffee instead. It turns out coffee drinkers were 10% less likely to suffer from depression than non-coffee drinkers (we’ve been telling you about the health benefits of coffee for years!).

So what’s the deal with soda? Must be all that sugar, right? As Dr. Wright has explained in the past, the link between excessive sugar intake and depression, diabetes, and a host of other illnesses is rock solid.

But get this — the research participants who drank diet soda were actually more likely to suffer from depression than those who drank regular soda.

Now, don’t get me wrong — sugar-laden regular soda will cause a variety of health problems (or make them worse) when you drink too much of it. But the nation’s soda bottlers would have you believe that once they take the sugar out of their product, they’ve somehow turned it into a vitamin-rich salad. Really, it’s more like putting a filter on a cigarette — they may have cut back on the calories, but there’s still plenty to worry about.

If you have been reading this e-letter for a while, you know this isn’t the first time we’ve warned you that diet soda is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A previous study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that adults who drank diet soda daily where a stunning 44% more likely to suffer a heart attack.

Some of those research subjects had other risk factors such as obesity, but let’s be clear — diet soda, at the very least, wasn’t doing a darned thing to help.

The real takeaway here is that no matter what the Cokes and Pepsis of the world may try to convince you, there’s absolutely no health benefit to diet soda — and research is showing it may be downright harmful.

Our bodies, particularly as we age, need adequate hydration to keep our muscles, skin and other vital organs healthy, to flush away toxins, and to fight illness. And diet soda is no substitute for healthy beverages like water, herbal tea, or unsweetened coffee. Replace that daily Diet Coke with one of these healthier choices, and within a few weeks I’m guessing you will be stunned by how much better you feel.

Sources:
Diet Soda Linked to Depression in NIH Study: usnews.com

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