Rather Be Healthy

It’s old news that drug companies essentially “bribe” doctors into prescribing their drugs by lavishing them with gifts – branded pens and coffee mugs, free lunches, golf outings, “educational” trips to the Caribbean … all have been regarded as fair game in the past, although now such free goodies are heavily discouraged.

Just how much influence such gifts had on doctors has long been debated (although the research suggests it did have a significant impact … why else would the drug companies put so much money into it?). But regardless, sound medical research published in a reputable medical journal should have much more influence …

A pen with a drugmaker’s name emblazoned on the side couldn’t possibly persuade a physician to prescribe a drug more than clinical data published in a medical journal.

Yet, what many people do not understand is that much of the scientific research published in journals is bought-and-paid-for by the drug industry as well.

A far more covert – and far more influential – practice than showing up at a physician’s office with a free pizza and a duffel bag full of coffee mugs, by controlling medical research itself the drug industry can make it virtually impossible for a well-meaning physician to decipher the truth about the medications he or she is prescribing to you.

Most Medical Journals Depend on Big Pharma Advertising Dollars

In The American Scholar, author Harriet Washington writes:1

“… while we still gravely debate whether physicians’ loyalties can really be bought for a disposable pen or a free lunch, the $310 billion pharmaceutical industry quietly buys something far more influential: the contents of medical journals and, all too often, the trajectory of medical research itself.

… Flimsy plastic pens that scream the virtues of Vioxx and articles published in the pages of The New England Journal of Medicine would seem to mark the two poles of medical influence. Scarcely any doctor admits to being influenced by the former; every doctor boasts of being guided by the latter.

In fact, medical-journal articles are widely embraced as irreproachable bastions of disinterested scientific evaluation and as antidotes to the long fiscal arm of pharmaceutical-industry influence.

And yet, ‘All journals are bought — or at least cleverly used — by the pharmaceutical industry,’ says Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal …”

It starts with advertising dollars, as pharmaceutical ads can make up 97-99 percent of a medical journal’s advertising revenue. As the featured article reported:

“ … medical journals themselves advertise to drugmakers, flooding the pages of pharmaceutical-industry publications such as Medical Marketing and Media to vie for the attentions of Big Pharma. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) bills itself in advertising as ‘a priceless audience at a price you can afford,’ while the Annals boasts: ‘With an audience of more than 90,000 internists (93 percent of whom are actively practicing physicians), Annals has always been a smart buy.’

In 2003, drug companies spent $448 million on advertising in medical journals. The ads promote not only drugs but also subsidized seminars and “training opportunities” that usually take place in tropical locations.

Of course, oftentimes the ads are only agreed upon if there will also be a positive mention of the product in an editorial piece; sometimes the drug maker will even have their own writers generate the content! It has been calculated that the return on investment on medical journal ads is between $2.22 and $6.86 for every dollar spent, with larger and older brands at the higher end.

Long-term returns may be even higher when you consider that one ad viewed by a physician could result in hundreds or even thousands of drug purchases, based on the prescriptions he or she writes.

At least certain medical journals are attempting to regain their unbiased reputations; in 2011 the journal Emergency Medicine Australasia announced it would no longer accept pharmaceutical advertisements, citing growing evidence that the drug industry “distorts research findings and engages in dubious and unethical publishing practices.”

Why Most Medical Research Cannot be Trusted

The sad truth is, there’s no easy way to determine what you can trust when it comes to medical research and official treatment guidelines. So much of it has been tainted by financial conflicts of interests. It’s well known that studies funded by industry or conducted by researchers with industry ties tend to favor corporate interests.

That’s why it probably comes as no surprise that many so-called “experts” are very much on the drug industry’s payroll — but they masquerade as independent medical experts or even state officials during their “day jobs.”

It is, by the way, 100% legal for drug companies to pay medical professionals to promote their products. The drug industry also often pays the expert medical reviewers who evaluate medications or medical devices for the journals. The featured article continues:2

“Today, medical-journal editors estimate that 95 percent of the academic-medicine specialists who assess patented treatments have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, and even the prestigious NEJMgave up its search for objective reviewers in June 1992, announcing that it could find no reviewers that did not accept industry funds.”

The conflict of interest within this practice is obvious, which is why the drug industry often keeps quiet on their actual payments, as do the medical professionals involved. Although many medical, educational and research institutions require faculty members to disclose such potential conflicts of interest, many do not actively monitor employees’ activities.

Financial disclosures are also added into medical journals, but the reader will only learn which company may have paid an expert author, not how much or what other ties to industry they may have. Unfortunately, even if you scour the medical literature to determine what the consensus is on any given medical topic, what you’ll find is an overwhelming preponderance of data in favor of the drug approach that in no way, shape or form reflects the reality of the scientific investigation that went into that specific drug.

How Negative Research Gets a Positive Spin

The fact is, there are many ways to turn an otherwise negative study positive, including choosing study participants who are more likely to benefit from the treatment or even hiding, or simply not publishing, negative results; in fact, researchers of industry-funded studies often sign gag orders that forbid them from publishing, discussing or analyzing data without permission of the funder. According to Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM): 3

“Any reputable journal is at the mercy of what is submitted to it and must choose from whatever comes over the transom. Many studies never see the light of day because their findings are negative. There is a heavy bias toward positive studies, and this negative bias is a real problem. A company may conduct 1,000 trials; if two are positive, they get FDA approval and are published. The other 998 never see the light of day. In fact, half of all study data is never published.”

In a tongue-in-cheek essay in the British Medical Journal, titled “HARLOT — How to Achieve Positive Results Without Actually Lying to Overcome the Truth,”4 it’s wittily explained exactly how industry insiders can help make their drugs look good:5
•“Comparing their drug to a placebo. A placebo, such as a sham or ‘sugar’ pill, has no active ingredient, and, although placebos may evoke some poorly understood medical benefits, called the ‘placebo effect,’ they are weak: medications tend to outperform placebos. Placebo studies are not ethical when a treatment already exists for a disorder, because it means that some in the study go untreated. However, if you care only that your new drug shines in print, testing against placebo is the way to go.
•Comparing their drug to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength. Too low a dose makes the rival drug look ineffective. Too high a dose tends to elicit worrisome side effects.
•Pairing their drug with one that is known to work well. This can hide the fact that a tested medication is weak or ineffective.
•Truncating a trial. Drugmakers sometimes end a clinical trial when they have reason to believe that it is about to reveal widespread side effects or a lack of effectiveness — or when they see other clues that the trial is going south.
•Testing in very small groups. Drug-funded researchers also conduct trials that are too small to show differences between competitor drugs. Or they use multiple endpoints, then selectively publish only those that give favorable results, or they ‘cherry-pick’ positive-sounding results from multicenter trials.”

Did You Know the Drug Industry Also Pays Ghostwriters?

One cross-sectional survey found that more than 20 percent of articles published in six leading medical journals during 2008 were likely written by honorary and/or ghostwriters.6 For medical journals, ghostwriting usually refers to writers sponsored by a drug or medical device company, who make major but uncredited research or writing contributions.

The pharmaceutical company hires a medical education and communications company, which is a company paid almost exclusively by pharmaceutical companies to write articles, reviews, and letters to editors of medical journals in order to cast their products in a favorable light. (Since they pay substantial amounts to have these articles written, it automatically implies that it will be written to their specifications.)

Once the article is written to their satisfaction, the pharmaceutical company then starts “shopping around” for an academic physician or physicians who are well known in the field, encouraging them to put their name on the article.

From there, they “massage” the article past peer review in one of the more prestigious medical journals, preferably one that strongly influences practicing doctors. Once the article is published, the pharmaceutical company then purchases tens of thousands of reprint copies to be distributed to doctors’ offices by their pharmaceutical representatives. The unsuspecting doctor thinks the study is reliable since it clearly appears to be written by a leading name in the field and has been published in a prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal.

Why would medical journals play along with this apparent sham? Perhaps the primary incentive to play it loose is that it’s very lucrative for them, as the reprints purchased by the pharmaceutical companies for distribution are quite expensive. And medical journals are, after all, for-profit businesses. In some cases, some of the leading publishers have even sunk so low as to publish entire sham journals. The featured article stated:7

“Elsevier publishes 2,000 scientific journals and 20,000 book-length works, but its Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which looks just like a medical journal, and was described as such, was not a peer-reviewed medical journal but rather a collection of reprinted articles that Merck paid Elsevier to publish. At least some of the articles were ghostwritten, and all lavished unalloyed praise on Merck drugs, such as its troubled painkiller Vioxx. There was no disclosure of Merck’s sponsorship.

Librarian and analyst Jonathan Rochkind found five similar mock journals, also paid for by Merck and touted as genuine. The ersatz journals are still being printed and circulated, according to Rochkind, and 50 more Elsevier journals appear to be Big Pharma advertisements passed off as medical publications. Rochkind’s forensic librarianship has exposed the all-but-inaccessible queen of medical publishing as a high-priced call girl.”

How Can You Make Educated Health-Care Decisions?

When your physician prescribes you a medication, even if he or she has reviewed the relevant published data, there is virtually no way to know whether that drug is truly safe or effective. The well from which that data has been drawn has been “poisoned” so that it’s nearly impossible to decipher what is real and what is a fabrication.

Since it is very well established that most prescribed drugs do absolutely nothing to treat the cause of disease, it would be prudent to exercise the precautionary principle when evaluating ANY drug claim, as it will more than likely be seriously flawed, biased, or worse … and, of course, I always advise taking control of your health, which you can easily do by reviewing my comprehensive nutritional plan that summarizes my 30 years of clinical experience and treating 25,000 patients. I put this together so you can stay well and avoid falling into the dangerous, deceitful traps discussed in this article.

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

If you had a choice to purchase eyeglasses or a stainless steel water bottle that was either radioactive, albeit only slightly, or not, which would you choose?

You would almost certainly choose the non-radioactive product, as it is well- known that no amount of radiation exposure is “safe.”

Yet the U.S. government – specifically the Department of Energy (DOE) – has released a proposal1 that would allow nearly 14,000 tons of radioactive metals to be recycled for use in consumer goods…

Department of Energy Wants to Recycle Their Radioactive Waste Metal Into Common Products

There is currently a suspension in place that restricts the release of scrap metal originating from radiological areas at U.S. DOE facilities (such as research laboratories or nuclear weapons facilities) for the purpose of recycling.

This suspension, which has been in place since 2000, is there for obvious reasons – it was imposed because of public concerns about the potential health and environmental effects of radioactive metals coming from these sites.

Now the DOE has issued a proposal to modify the suspension to allow scrap metals to be released to private industry to be used for any purpose, including recycling.

The draft proposal notes that only metal with the potential for surface, not volume, radioactivity, would be included in this plan, and they are touting it as benefit to the environment “from a decrease in the need for the mining and refining of metals due to the recycling of these materials.” The draft noted:

“Mining and smelting activities are large users of water and power, both of which would be reduced by the recycling of these materials.

In addition, there would be benefits to the environment resulting from reduced land use, reduced disturbance of geology and soils, reduced GHG [greenhouse gas] and other emissions, and reduced occupational injuries associated with the reduced need for mining and refining of metal ores attributable to the recycling of these materials.”

It is unclear just how significant these purported environmental “benefits” could truly be, considering the draft also notes that the radioactive metal in question represents only an “extremely small fraction (of the order of 0.004 percent) of the total metal recycled” in the United States. Of course, it also doesn’t hurt that sales of the metals could bring in up to $40 million a year for the DOE …2

Radioactive Metals Could Increase Cancer Risks and be Used by Pregnant Women and Children

According to the DOE, only a “negligible individual dose” of radiation would be gleaned from exposure to their contaminated metals. They likened the annual exposure amount to half the amount of radiation you’d get from flying across country.

This is an inappropriate comparison, as the internalization of low-dose radioisotopes can have decades-long, severe toxicological consequences due to their bioaccumulation and persistence within the body, whereas external natural radiation exposure only lasts as long as the body is exposed, e.g. the several hour duration of a flight.

Also, the DOE’s minimization of the risks involved do not take into account mistakes that have already happened in the past when the government recycled metal from nuclear sites in the 1990s to 2000s. During that time inadequate testing of the materials was noted, and one test in particular showed metals with radioactivity levels several times higher than were supposed to be allowed.3

Other unanswered questions include the risks that could be posed to workers who must handle the radioactive metals on a daily basis, or to those who end up with a “slightly” radioactive surgical implant or set of braces. The Wall Street Journal reported on just a peppering of the backlash that has already surfaced:4

“Some critics argue the DOE’s proposed exposure standards are too high and that information provided in its 50-page document explaining the proposal is even more worrisome.

Higher exposures could occur if contaminated metal is made into items such as belt buckles or hip-replacement joints, said Daniel Hirsch, a lecturer on nuclear policy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and critic of the government’s proposal. Such exposures would further increase a person’s cancer risk, he said.

…Rep. Ed Markey wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, calling the recycling proposal ‘unwise’ and stating the proposal ‘should be immediately abandoned.’ The Massachusetts Democrat added that contaminated products could ‘ultimately be utilized by pregnant women, children and other vulnerable populations.’”

Radioactive Scrap Metal is Already a Problem

The DOE’s proposal would only add to the growing amount of radioactive scrap metal circulating globally. You may remember headlines from last year when radioactive metal tissue boxes were found at Bed, Bath and Beyond stores in the United States. In this case the products were tainted with cobalt-60, a radioactive compound used in the medical industry to diagnose and treat cancer.5 The radiation-safety chief for one of the world’s biggest stainless-steel scrap yards actually told the Seattle Times last year that:6

“The major risk we face in our industry is radiation… You can talk about security all you want, but I’ve found weapons-grade uranium in scrap. Where was the security?”

That company alone found 145 nuclear items in their scrap metal in 2011 and another 200 in 2010. It’s unclear how much of this radioactive metal slips through the cracks and ends up getting processed into metal goods that are then sold to unassuming consumers…

And this isn’t only a matter of cancer. Radiation exposure of the developing embryo or fetus during pregnancy can also contribute to the development of diseases other than cancer in children. There is evidence of radiation exposure leading to increased incidence of cataracts, and there is also a phenomenon known as the “bystander effect,” which multiplies the dose and harm from radiation exposures. According to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, cells that have not been exposed to radiation can be harmed by nearby cells that have. Writing for ISIS, Dr. Ho explains:7

“…low dose radiation is all the more dangerous because it does not kill the targeted cell, but allows its influence to spread widely to adjacent cells, thus multiplying the radiation effect (about 100 fold) …a wide range of bystander effects in cells not directly exposed to ionizing radiation have been found, which are the same as or similar to those in the cells that were exposed, including cell death and chromosomal instability.”

Share Your Concerns About the Release of Radioactive Scrap Metal

Although the 30-day comment period for the DOE draft proposal to release radioactive scrap metal for recycling has ended, late comments may still be considered. You can share your comments with the Department of Energy by emailing:

[email protected]

Written comments can be mailed to:

Dr. Jane Summerson, DOE NNSA
P.O. Box 5400
Bldg 401
KAFB East
Albuquerque, NM 87185

Protecting Yourself in Our “Radioactive World”

“The general public basically isn’t aware that they’re living in a radioactive world,” said Ross Bartley, technical director for the Bureau of International Recycling.8 Indeed, today’s “background” levels of radiation have been greatly increased by discharges from nuclear activities including tests of nuclear weapons, use of depleted uranium, and uranium mining, not to mention environmental catastrophes like the Fukushima nuclear plant. If you’re looking for strategies to help prevent damage caused by radiation exposure, there are several I recommend, including:
•Vitamin D3 (also known as calcitriol) may offer protection against a variety of radiation-induced damages, including even those caused by background radiation or a low-level nuclear incident.
•Spirulina – a blue-green algae – might be another useful alternative to protect against the effects of radiation. Spirulina was actually used to treat children exposed to chronic low levels of radiation after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
•Turmeric contains a broad spectrum of water, fat and alcohol-soluble components, all of which may contribute to reducing damage associated with both external radiation and internalized radioisotope exposures.
•Whey: the use of a high-quality whey protein concentrate may help protect against absorbing radioactive minerals.

The following foods, herbs and supplements may also help support your overall health in the event of radiation exposure:

Ginseng

Kelp and other seaweeds (high in natural iodine)

Zeolites (to neutralize radiation) or bentonite clays

Ashwaganda (an adaptogenic herb)

Fulvic Acid

Reishi mushrooms (strong immune support)

High-dose vitamin C

Magnesium

Selenium

Coconut oil, which supports optimal thyroid health

Astaxanthin (has some protective function against ionizing radiation)

Chlorella (contains chlorophyll, which will increase your resistance to radiation)

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

Vaccine Propaganda Heats Up—The Latest Scandals You Need to Be Aware of

A wide range of vaccine stories have been featured in the news over the past few weeks – many, no doubt, published to propagandize the updated 2013 vaccination schedules for children and adults1, 2, 3 and to promote the seasonal flu vaccine.

Ironically, if not tragically, while increasing amounts of research highlight the many dangers of vaccinations and their ineffectiveness, the US government keeps insisting that everything is fine, “just get your shots and don’t worry about it. We know what we’re doing!”

But do they really? The evidence is overwhelmingly negative in this regard.

And, while suddenly paying lip service to vaccine safety, vaccine policymakers ignore the safest and most effective strategies that can naturally strengthen your immunity to help you stay well or move through illness with fewer complications if you do get sick.

For example, there are many far more effective ways to help prevent the flu and other flu-like diseases, such as dietary interventions, making sure your vitamin D and gut flora are optimized, being more meticulous about washing your hands, getting enough exercise and sleep, cutting back on processed foods and sugars, and ensuring your diet includes plenty of sulfur and zinc.

Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Waned Over 2011-12 Season

Propaganda scare tactics still do work, as demonstrated by the 25 percent uptick in 2012-2013 seasonal flu vaccine sales reported by Novartis.4 This despite the fact that not just one, but three recent studies published in the journal Eurosurveillance5, 6, 7 strongly challenge the claim that the flu vaccine will protect you against the flu.

According to CIDRAP:8

“All three studies suggest that during the 2011-12 flu season, the vaccine provided modest protection at first, but its effectiveness dropped sharply after 3 or 4 months.

A multicenter study by researchers in eight European countries indicated that overall vaccine effectiveness (VE) against influenza A/H3N2 in the first months of the season was 38%, but after mid-February, it dropped to -1%. ‘The concept that vaccine protection can be so short-lived provides a challenge for public health policy,’ says the British report.”

Ludicrous Claim of the Week: Following Vaccine Schedule Required to Ensure Vaccine Safety

But that’s not the only challenge facing public health policy. Over the past few years, the science simply hasn’t held up when it comes to vaccinations in general.

Multiple scandals involving fraud and conflicts of interest have surfaced, and studies are increasingly showing that vaccines don’t work all that well. In response, government health agencies, who are now little more than poorly disguised mouthpieces for the pharmaceutical industry, are beefing up the propaganda.

But despite blanketing the media with carefully chosen sound bites, repeated almost verbatim by multiple media outlet sources, the “evidence” of safety and effectiveness they bring to the table is flimsy at best.

One sound bite you’ll keep hearing again and again now is the ludicrous claim that the best way to ensure vaccine safety is to strictly follow the vaccine schedule.

Take Mary Anne Jackson for example. Dr. Jackson is the Division Chief of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital of Kansas City, MO. Reading her statements to the New York Times, it is crystal clear that she is taking her cue cards directly from the Institute of Medicine’s dubious new report.9 As reported by the New York Times:10

“The timing is specific for a reason. ‘We want to prevent the vaccines from competing against each other… Sticking to the schedule also ensures that a child’s immunity is likely to be maintained. These alternative schedules that are springing up have no data behind them,’ Dr. Jackson told me. ‘They’re not rigorously tested. It’s impossible to test all of them.’

…the most obvious problem with the exodus of parents from the recommended vaccination schedule is that it makes vaccine safety more difficult to monitor. ‘We want to drill down as far as we can, and make vaccines as safe as we can,’ said Dr. Jackson. ‘We’re not going find the one-in-a-million serious adverse event if you have thousands of different vaccine schedules out there.'”

To me, all of this sounds like both illogical and dangerous reasoning. They’re essentially saying everyone needs to participate in the experiment in order to tease out potential harms. This is not safety. This is human experimentation. Safety of a vaccine should be addressed PRIOR to being added to the vaccine schedule. Ditto for the safety of giving multiple vaccines at the same time.

Immunization Schedule Guaranteed ‘Safe,’ IOM Panel Declares

Speaking with WebMD, Dr. H. Cody Meissner, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics committee was also undoubtedly reading his cue cards when he said:11

“It’s so important to adhere to these immunization schedules. People need to understand: These schedules are put together with great care and discussion and review of scientific data… It’s critically important to adhere to the schedule…”

Fortunately, parents are slowly but surely waking up to the tragic fact that vaccine damage is real with a capital “R.” If each and every dose of every vaccine on the schedule, alone and/or in combination with others, is indeed safe, then show us the research! I want to see the methodologically sound studies using true placebos as controls and conducted by investigators without conflicts of interest with industry or public health agencies for each and every one of those vaccine combinations.

The fact is, there aren’t any studies like that. That kind of credible vaccine safety science doesn’t exist. So it’s no wonder that as many as 21 percent of American parents are now delaying or refusing some or all of the recommended childhood vaccines12 for their children. More and more parents are seeing the very real effects of vaccine damage to children all around them, and they have good reason to exercise caution.

“In response to those fears – or, rather, the quantifiable impact of reduced vaccination that stems from those fears – the Department of Health and Human Services asked the I.O.M. to review all the current scientific evidence13 on the schedule, and to research ways to address parental concerns.

That friendly face on the recommended schedule is still lacking (that’s up to individual pediatricians), but… the panel concluded that the current schedule is not only safe, but ‘rather than exposing children to harm, following the complete childhood immunization schedule is strongly associated with reducing vaccine-preventable diseases,'” the New York Times reports:14

And, according to a recent NPR report15 on the IOM panel’s findings:

“‘…some parents still worry that the schedule of vaccinations – 24 immunizations by the age of 2 – can be dangerous. That worry is likely misplaced, according to a yearlong review of all available scientific data. Researchers from the Institute of Medicine found there is no evidence that the federally recommended timeline for childhood vaccines is unsafe.

According to family physician Alfred Berg of the University of Washington School of Medicine, who was a member of the IOM committee, the research team looked at a large number of medical conditions, including ‘things like autoimmune diseases, which even captures diabetes, asthma, hypersensitivity, allergies, seizures, epilepsy, child developmental disorders including autism, and other learning disorders, communications disorders, intellectual disabilities, and even rare things like tics or Tourette’s syndrome.’

None could be linked to the vaccination schedule. Parents should be reassured, says Berg.

…Even though this review finds that there’s no reason to worry and that the current recommended schedule is completely safe, Berg says it still might be useful to know what happens to children who don’t get their vaccinations on time – by comparing them to children who do. Preliminary research does show children who don’t get vaccinated on time are hospitalized more often than children who are immunized according to federal guidelines.”

It would be laughable if it wasn’t so darn serious. As Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has pointed out, the panel relied on fewer than 40 studies, which, she argues, “is not nearly enough science to give parents confidence that the current vaccine schedule is safe.”16 Furthermore, to PROMISE that the schedule is “completely safe,” as if it comes with an ironclad guarantee, is not only irresponsible, it’s completely immoral.

Let me ask you: Who takes the blame and steps in to make things right when your child is harmed by a vaccine? NO ONE. You and you alone are left holding the tattered pieces of your life. As a parent, you are legally and morally responsible to provide for your minor child’s health and well being. You are the one left to mourn and cope with what has happened to your child and pay the medical bills, the special tutoring bills and whatever additional expenses you may face after your child is injured by a vaccine or combination of vaccines.

How much is that ironclad guarantee you were promised really worth then?

If all vaccines are “completely safe,” when taken alone and together, why did Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court completely shield drug companies selling vaccines in the U.S. from all vaccine injury lawsuits in civil courts when vaccines cause injury and death? Ironically, while the NPR17 reports (above) that children who don’t get vaccinated on time are hospitalized more often than those who get their shots according to schedule, the New York Times18 pointed out research demonstrating the complete opposite:

“…But following an alternative vaccination schedule does not appear to present a health risk for an individual child. In fact, a study of under-vaccination published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics19 found that children who were under-vaccinated because of parental choice had lower rates of outpatient and emergency department visits, even among the studied population consisting of children enrolled in and receiving primary care from managed care organizations – in other words, not the children of parents who shunned medical care altogether.”

Adult Vaccination Rates ‘Too Low’ CDC Says

In related news, vaccination coverage for American adults is “too low,” the CDC says,20 and in an effort to improve the numbers the agency has created a new webpage21 that will tell you what vaccines you need when and where to get them, because “immunizations are not just for kids!” According to CDC data, a mere 16 percent of adults over the age of 60 are vaccinated against shingles, and only about 20 percent over 65 have received the pneumococcal vaccine.

Similarly, only 13 percent of American adults have been vaccinated against pertussis (whooping cough). Meanwhile, last summer Australia stopped providing free pertussis vaccinations for parents to protect their newborns – a practice known as “cocooning” – after it was determined the practice doesn’t work. According to news.com.au:22

“…the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) had determined vaccinating parents was not effective in protecting newborns, after two pharmaceutical manufacturers made submissions to the PBAC.

‘The PBAC, which is totally independent and very expert, has determined that there is no clinical effectiveness of this strategy,’ Professor Brook [Department of Health divisional executive director] said. He said this had made it clear the cocooning strategy should not be continued. So all jurisdictions who have been in this program will be effectively ceasing the cocooning strategy as of the end of June this year [2012].”

In the US however, the discovery that the pertussis vaccine is ineffective has simply led them to add more booster doses to the schedule. The updated 2013 vaccine schedule includes additional doses of pertussis vaccine for both adolescents and pregnant women. Women are now advised to get a pertussis vaccine during each and every pregnancy. The CDC and AAP also now suddenly claim that egg-based seasonal flu vaccine is safe for those with egg allergies. Here again, the irresponsibility is staggering.

You Cannot Vaccinate Your Way Out of Disease and Death…

Why do those promoting the complete safety of vaccines keep trying to deceive the public by reassuring us with absolute statements of vaccine safety and effectiveness when truths like this keep breaking through?
•The widespread use of influenza vaccine is not an effective public health policy because vaccinated persons, especially seniors, are still gettting the flu;
•Whooping cough is spreading through vaccinated populations and “cocooning” pertussis vaccine strategies do not work

Their answer? Just add more! Increase the number of pertussis doses, and quadruple the flu vaccine dose for seniors. This is not good medicine. And it’s certainly not safe medicine.

Look… we cannot win the war against disease by trying to eradicate microorganisms in a misguided attempt to make certain viruses and bacteria extinct. It doesn’t work that way! When there was an attempt in the past century to kill certain bacteria with widespread use of antibiotics in animals and humans, what happened? The bacteria found a way to mutate and survive and now we have a serious problem with antibiotic resistant bacterial infections.

Microorganisms find ways to survive, and we end up with progressively more aggressive and difficult-to-treat diseases. We’ve taken a wrong turn with over-use of antibiotics and vaccines and it’s time to mend our ways before matters get any worse than they already are.

For example, one of the most recent examples of the devastating harm that can occur from widespread use of a single vaccine dose are the side effects of the 2009-2010 flu vaccine, which caused some 800+ cases of narcolepsy in Sweden and other European countries.23 As reported by Reuters on January 31:24

“The findings, which have not yet been published in full, are the first firm evidence in Britain that the flu vaccine, called Pandemrix, is linked to narcolepsy cases in children. Research in Finland, Sweden and Ireland has already found clear associations… In a research summary… seen by Reuters, the British researchers say ‘the increased risk of narcolepsy after Pandemrix suggests a causal association consistent with reports from Finland and Sweden.’

The abstract shows that the research team, led by Liz Miller, a consultant epidemiologist at the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA), found an almost 10-fold increased risk in cases of the sleep disorder in children seen in sleep centers who had been immunized with Pandemrix.”

Meanwhile, Norwegian researchers25 blame vitamin D deficiency for the latest flu epidemic in the Netherlands. That’s right:

“‘According to the study, these flu epidemics experience a steep rise in infection and mortality rates as soon as exposure to sunlight (and the corresponding synthesis of vitamin D) drops,’ Medical News Today reports.26

‘This is not only true of the outbreak of flu epidemics but also of the way in which they unfold. Seasonal differences are particularly apparent in the number of deaths. In winter, when vitamin D deficiency is at its greatest, the number of deaths is 20 to 600 times higher than during a summer epidemic, the Norwegian study reveals.

…Vitamin D acts as an antibiotic and strengthens the immune system. UV radiation exposure stimulates the production of vitamin D in the skin. In the winter months, when the sun’s zenith is too low in the sky for vitamin D synthesis to take place, the body’s vitamin D level drops, as a result of which its protective effect is unable to fully develop’, explains Professor Johan Moan.”

Why We Must Fight to Protect Philosophical Exemption to Vaccination

Informed consent to medical risk taking is a human right. You have the right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical products – like vaccines – and be allowed to make a voluntary choice about whether or to take the risk without being punished for it. More than $2 billion dollars has been awarded to children and adults in America, who have been seriously injured by vaccines. Yet those rights are increasingly being taken away from us.

For example, in Vermont, the legal right to take a vaccine exemption for philosophical beliefs is being threatened. Two Vermont legislators, State Senator Kevin Mullin and State Representative George Till, have joined with the Vermont Health Commissioner, Dr. Harry Chen, to lead a crusade to take away philosophical exemption to vaccination with two bills before the state House and Senate – S. 199 and H. 527

In the following video, Barbara Loe Fisher of the NVIC interviews Nicole, a Vermont mother, whose seven year old daughter, Kaylynne, died within 92 hours of a routine flu shot in December 2011. Nicole believes that parents should be fully informed and able to make voluntary decisions about vaccination for their children.

“If I would have known the reactions and symptoms of adverse reactions to vaccination, I would have had her seen immediately. If I would have known about the risks and symptoms, I would have been most likely able to save my daughter,” said Nicole. “I feel that Vermonters need to be educated and be able to make their own decisions on whether or not they want to vaccinate their children and pediatricians and physicians, as well, need to be more educated.”

While the NVIC led a successful effort with the Vermont parent group to preserve the philosophical exemption to vaccination in Vermont last year, legislators in Vermont are coming around again this session, attacking the philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccination. They now want to pass a law (HB138) that says that if vaccination rates in schools gets below 90 percent then both those exemptions will be suspended. VT legislators also have introduced a bill that would require pertussis vaccinations for childcare workers and teachers (HB 114).

How to Protect Yourself During the Flu Season

Aside from avoiding the flu vaccine, also beware that one of the main staples for treating pain and cold symptoms, acetaminophen, is a leading cause for calls to the Poison Control Center, and accounts for 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and an estimated 458 deaths annually.27

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 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. But be sure and get your level tested as that is the only way to know for sure.
• 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 then 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 Fitness exercises 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 Remedies. Examples include oil of oregano and garlic. These work 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.

A little-known carotenoid called astaxanthin is now believed to be the most beneficial antioxidant nature has to offer. Astaxanthin’s benefits are so numerous, I’ve written several articles to cover its many activities, from UV-radiation protection, to eye and heart health, to improved athletic performance.

It is one of the very few supplements I recommend to virtually everyone, for its overall health benefits. It’s really one of the most profoundly beneficial supplements I’ve ever encountered.

In terms of antioxidant power or potency, astaxanthin is 550 times stronger than vitamin E, and 6,000 times stronger than vitamin C!

Dr. Gerald Cysewski, who has a doctorate in chemical engineering and served as an assistant professor at the Department of Chemical Engineering at UC Santa Barbara, is recognized as a leading authority on large-scale production of microalgae, including the microalgae Haematococcus pluvialis, from which astaxanthin is produced.

Dr. Cysewski is also the founder of Cyanotech, the first company to produce natural astaxanthin — first for aquaculture use, and later, for human consumption.

Why Produce Astaxanthin in Hawaii?

Initially, the company was just seeking to provide a natural form of astaxanthin for use in fish farms — a healthier alternative to the synthetic version produced from petrochemicals. That astaxanthin had such remarkable benefits for human health was a rather serendipitous discovery, after the fact.

Cyanotech was founded in 1983. Its first product was the algae spirulina. The following year, the company identified the Natural Energy Laboratory on the Kona Coast of Hawaii as an ideal spot to grow Haematococcus microalgae, from which astaxanthin is produced.

According to Dr. Cysewski:

“It’s probably the best place in the world to grow microalgae. There’s a warm climate 12 months a year, so I can produce 12 months a year. There’s very low rainfall, only 12 inches a year. We also have access to a very unique resource: cold, deep seawater pumped up from a depth of 2,000 feet.

The center point out on the Kona Coast gets more sunlight than any other coastal location in the United States. It’s a very pristine environment. There are no other agricultural operations around for many miles.”

Cyanotech therefore takes great care to grow the microalgae without herbicides or pesticides, and they’ve developed advanced culture techniques to allow them to produce it very efficiently without contamination.

“We’ve been very successful in doing that. Others have not been successful,” he says.

The production of astaxanthin from Haematococcus microalgae is very difficult. It requires unique environmental conditions, plus some very advanced technology. If you compare production of astaxanthin or Haematococcus with another microalga like spirulina, it’s about 10 times more difficult to produce. One of the major reasons is because Haematococcus grows in a very neutral environment – essentially, freshwater with a small amount of nutrients added. It’s also very susceptible to contamination by unwanted microalgae, amoeba, or protozoa.

How Astaxanthin Became a Super-Nutrient

The first studies of the health benefits of natural astaxanthin were done on astaxanthin produced from krill oil. Cyanotech became aware of those studies as some of their customers started requesting supplement-grade astaxanthin for human consumption.

“It really caught our attention,” Dr. Cysewski says. “We started doing our own investigations, scouring the literature. And indeed, the first thing we found was that natural astaxanthin is probably the most potent natural antioxidant known.”

The combination of its high-potency antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties allows it to address a vast array of health concerns.

“When we started producing astaxanthin for human consumption, our employees started taking it. Those that surfed came back to us and said, ‘Hey, I’m not getting sunburned anymore. I’m not putting my suntan lotion on. I’m not getting burned. This stuff seems to help protect me from the sun.’ And the sun is more intense in Hawaii.

”We did a clinical trial, and sure enough, taking astaxanthin – the study we did was only four milligrams, over two weeks… actually did provide significant protection against UV radiation.”

An important distinction is that, astaxanthin does not block UV rays, so it doesn’t prevent UVB from converting into vitamin D in your skin. It simply protects your skin against damage. Dr. Cysewski explains how:

“One of the first reactions, of course, is that UV radiation produces free radicals. The astaxanthin, as a potent antioxidant, can neutralize or quench those free radicals and stop them from causing damage, which eventually [would] lead to sunburn or to inflammation of the skin.”

What Makes Astaxanthin so Unique

Astaxanthin is a carotenoid, related to beta-carotene, lutein, and canthaxanthin, but it has a unique structure, and works in some very unique ways. For example, most other antioxidants are depleted after they’ve transferred their free electrons. But astaxanthin has a massive surplus, allowing it to remain “active” far longer — at least one order of magnitude more than most other antioxidants. It donates electrons to neutralize free radicals, and then rejects the excess energy primarily as heat. But the astaxanthin remains intact — there are no chemical reactions to break it down, which is what occurs in most other antioxidants.

“It has these two polar heads, which are hydrophilic (water-loving), and then the long backbone that is hydrophobic [water-repelling]. It can actually expand cellular membranes and provide antioxidant protection right in the cellular membrane, which is very important,” Dr. Cysewski explains.

Astaxanthin also acts on at least five different inflammation pathways, and maintains balance within the system. Another major difference is in the number of free radicals it can handle at any given time. Most antioxidants, such as vitamin C, E and various others, can typically only handle one free radical at a time. But astaxanthin can handle multiple free radicals simultaneously – in some cases more than 19 at the same time. It does this by forming an electron cloud around the molecule. This is known as the electron dislocation resonance. When free radicals try to steal electrons from the astaxanthin molecule, they’re simply absorbed into and neutralized by this electron cloud, all at once.

“Astaxanthin can also cross the blood-brain barrier and the blood-retinal barrier, and provide antioxidant and anti-inflammatory protection to both the brain and the eyes. That’s where you need a carotenoid. “

Health Benefits of Astaxanthin

In fact, the most common cause of blindness in the United States, is age-related macular degeneration. Work completed by Dr. Tso at University of Illinois, shows astaxanthin can accumulate in the retina, and provide protection. Another surprising benefit is its ability to improve athletic performance.

“We have a number of very intense athletes coming back to us time and time again. [They] just love astaxanthin,” he says. “It allows them to recover much quicker from strenuous exercise. They just absolutely swear by it.”

Two areas of astaxanthin research that are gaining massive momentum are cardiovascular and brain health.

Over the last few years, there have been at least 17 studies on brain health showing that astaxanthin protects neurons, and can slow the effects of age-related cognitive decline, as well as decline in psychomotor functions. In one study, they found is that people taking astaxanthin had significantly decreased accumulation of phospholipid hydroperoxides, a compound that has been shown to accumulate in people with dementia or age-related forgetfulness. It may therefore also have therapeutic benefit against Alzheimer’s. Furthermore, according to Dr. Cysewski:

“Studies have also shown that it improves blood flow and decreases blood pressure. It’s very beneficial to your heart’s mitochondria membranes, [and] can have a positive effect on blood chemistry, increasing HDL (the good cholesterol), and decreasing triglycerides.”

Toxicity Data Shows Astaxanthin is One of the Safest Antioxidants

If you’re worried about potential toxicity, I have good news for you. Unlike other antioxidants, especially synthetic carotenoids, astaxanthin lacks the ability to turn into a pro-oxidant, even at high levels. The reason for this is mainly due to its molecular structure, discussed above.

“We really have not seen any kind of adverse reactions or negative effects on people taking astaxanthin,” Dr. Cysewski says. “There have been some acute toxicity studies done [with] as high as 50 or 75 milligrams dosage per day. No bad effects.”

It can however provide a slight coloration to your skin at higher levels. But most studies suggest that this coloration is actually perceived as cosmetically beneficial or desirable, in that it gives you a healthy “tan glow” — opposed to the sickly orange coloration you might end up with if you consumed too many carrots. According to Dr. Cysewski, about 15 different Japanese studies over the past five years have also demonstrated that astaxanthin has beneficial effects on skin health parameters such as wrinkles, moisture levels and so on.

“People consuming astaxanthin actually have an improvement in the way they look. It’s beauty from within,” he says.

Keep in mind that astaxanthin will not work miracles overnight. It typically takes two weeks to one month to see the benefits. I personally take astaxanthin every day, as does Dr. Cysewski — and every other astaxanthin researcher I’ve spoken to. We both take about 8 mg per day, but you may receive benefit from as little as 4 mg per day. Those seeking to improve their heart health, or take it to improve athletic performance may want to take anywhere from 8-12 mg daily.

For comparison, four to six ounces of salmon — which contains some of the highest levels of astaxanthin — would provide about 2-3 mg. However, unless you’re eating wild caught salmon, beware that what you’re getting is synthetic astaxanthin, which is produced from petrochemicals. In fact, the synthetic astaxanthin fed to farmed salmon is not approved for human consumption, which is yet another reason to abstain from farm raised fish — especially salmon.

“You can actually grab salmon off of the shelf, run an analysis using high-performance liquid chromatography, and determine whether that salmon was derived from a fish farm and has synthetic astaxanthin, or wild-caught and has a natural astaxanthin,” Dr. Cysewski says.

Make Sure Your Astaxanthin is Extracted Using Non-Toxic Methods

The Haematococcus microalgae are initially grown in darkness. The algae are then “stressed” by exposing them to harsh ultraviolet light (which is plentiful in Hawaii). Other stressors can also be used, such as changing the pH of the water. These stressors make the algae grow spores with large amounts of astaxanthin, as a protective mechanism. These spores are then put through a process to extract the astaxanthin. The spores are very tough, making extraction difficult.

“If you take and try to extract the astaxanthin from the spore, it won’t come out. If you put it into a fish or a human, it goes right through the digestive tract and no astaxanthin is bio-absorbed,” he explains.

Cyanotech has developed a mechanical process that breaks up and dries the spores. After that, harmless super critical carbon dioxide is used to extract the astaxanthin. No solvents are used in their process.

Few Supplements Can Compete in Terms of Overall Health Benefits…

Astaxanthin is clearly one of the most amazing supplements I have ever learned about. The only one that exceeds it in importance to be taking every day, from my perspective, is vitamin D. It is one of the most vital supplements I take, and one that I would not want to be without.

As an antioxidant, astaxanthin has powerful anti-inflammatory benefits, which makes it useful for a number of diseases associated with inflammation. However, it’s not a magic cure. Not mistaking astaxanthin for a cure is an important point.

If you decide to give astaxanthin a try, I recommend starting with 2 mg per day, and working your way up to about 4 mg per day, or more if you’re an athlete or suffering from chronic inflammation.

If you are on a krill oil supplement, which naturally contains astaxanthin, take that into consideration. Different krill products have different concentrations of astaxanthin, so check your label. Another factor to keep in mind is that astaxanthin is a fat soluble supplement. So unless you take it with a small amount of fat, it’s not going to absorb well. Butter, coconut oil, or eggs would be ideal complements to ensure optimal absorption.

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

By Dr. Mercola

The debate over the dangers of fluoride has been ongoing for more than six decades. Study after study confirms that fluoride is a dangerous, toxic poison that bioaccumulates in your body while being ineffective at preventing dental decay.

Dr. David Kennedy’s documentary film Fluoridegate — An American Tragedy,1 exposes the sordid truth about water fluoridation, and it has nothing to do with promoting dental health.

Water fluoridation came about as the result of a massively successful PR campaign, and was reportedly first suggested as a way to protect aluminum and steel producers from lawsuits against the fluorine pollution coming from their plant.

In fact, what’s being heralded as a safe and effective prophylactic against cavities is actually a toxic industrial waste product, and it’s being added to water supplies because they have so much to get rid of, and toxic waste disposal is expensive. In a nutshell, a solution was devised in which hazardous waste could be eliminated at a profit.

Water Fluoridation — The Willful Destruction of Children’s’ Health

Dr. Kennedy, who produced and directed the film, is no scientific slouch. He has a BA in Comparable Biochemistry and Physiology, and is the past President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. He received his Doctorate of Dental Surgery from the University of Missouri in 1971. He has lectured about the safety of dental materials in the human body to dental professionals around the world, including before the World Health Organization (WHO).

The film includes a number of distinguished professionals;2 scientists, doctors and academics — some of which have paid a very steep price for revealing the toxic truth about fluoride, such as Dr. Bill Marcus, who was the Chief Toxicologist for the Office of Drinking Water at the time.

The US government had completed a cancer study on fluoride, and Dr. Marcus discovered the raw data simply did not fit the final conclusion. He subsequently wrote a report calling for the study to be reopened and investigated. Robert Carton, PhD, a scientist at the EPA, received a copy of the report, and with Dr. Marcus’ permission leaked it to the press. Dr. Marcus was subsequently fired and spent the next two-and-a-half years looking for another job.

“While the basis of their motivation remains uncertain, the outcome [of water fluoridation] is crystal clear: it is destroying our nation,” the film states.

The film places particular focus on how water fluoridation can harm young children, as they tend to suffer the greatest health effects. One important point to remember, which few pediatricians, dentists or other health professionals stress, is that you should NOT use fluoridated water when mixing infant formula. As Dr. Kennedy states on his website:

“One of California’s highest paid and most prolific Fluoridation advocate admits that giving an infant a formula made with fluoridated tap water will overdose the baby and cause the teeth to come in spotted and fluorotic. One can only wonder why such insanity persists in our country when it has been banned in so many other more advanced democracies.”

While the CDC has hailed fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century, the evidence is stacking up against such a proclamation. Scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity,” and 25 studies have now reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children — including a recent study out of Harvard, in which the authors noted:

“The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment.”

Facts About Fluoride You NEED to Know

You can review some of the documentation gathered together by Dr. Kennedy on the film’s website.3 This includes Dr. Marcus’ memorandum, surveillance data for dental fluorosis, and more. No matter which scientific studies you examine or which population trends you view, the only rational conclusion you can come to is that fluoride’s health dangers far outweigh the marginal dental benefits it might offer. The science is very clear about the following:
•Fluoride is a toxic industrial waste product that is a poison to your body and in no way a “nutrient,” offering no benefits at all to the human body. The fluoride added to water supplies can be contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. Additionally, the fluoride added to municipal water supplies is not pharmaceutical grade.
•Fluoride exposure comes from tap water, most toothpaste and many antibiotics, including ones given to farm animals. There is a large variation in exposure levels, making it impossible to accurately predict these variables for any person, family or community.
•Fluoride exposure for many can easily reach toxic levels. For example, poison control should be called if you swallow a quarter milligram of fluoride from toothpaste. Meanwhile just ONE glass of water can contain this amount of fluoride.
•Fluoride is a cumulative poison that has been proven to cause wide-ranging, serious health problems, such as damage to your bones, brain and endocrine system.
•Dental caries can be prevented with means other than fluoridation, thereby avoiding the adverse effects of fluoride.

The Many Health Hazards of Long-Term Fluoride Exposure

It’s important to realize that fluoride is a cumulative toxin, which over time can lead to more serious health concerns than dental fluorosis (spotting on your teeth). Skeletal fluorosis from fluoride toxicity can be crippling and even deadly. The neurological effects are also quite disturbing.

As previously mentioned, there are now 25 studies showing fluoride is associated with diminished IQ, even at levels as low as 0.3 to 3 parts per million, which overlaps the range of fluoride added to the water supply in many American communities (0.7 to 1.2 ppm). About 100 animal studies have also linked fluoride to brain damage. Studies have shown fluoride toxicity can lead to the wide-ranging problems listed below.

Increases lead absorption

Disrupts collagen synthesis

Hyperactivity and/or lethargy

Crippling skeletal fluorosis and bone fractures

Genetic damage and cell death

Increased tumor and cancer growth

Disrupts immune system

Inhibits antibody production

Brain damage, and lowered IQ

Dementia

Arthritis

Severe eye problems, including blindness

Impaired thyroid function

Bone cancer (osteosarcoma)

Inactivates 62 enzymes

Muscle disorders

Educate Others — Share the Film

Dr. Kennedy gives full permission to anyone to share the film, in any way possible. Post it to your blog, web site, Facebook or Twitter. Link and embed code can be found here. I also join Dr. Kennedy in urging you to share the film with your government representatives. Their addresses can be found on the US House of Representatives website.4

“By sharing the links with officials via email you are helping us increase awareness where it counts! You may even save the life of a child,” he writes.

The fluoride added to water supplies is a toxic industrial waste product. It’s not even pharmaceutical grade fluoride, which would be bad enough. At best, it could be viewed as forced medication, given without medical oversight or monitoring, and without regard for dosage or contraindicated health conditions. At worst, it can be viewed as poisoning.

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should NOT be ingested. At least when it comes to topical application, you have a choice. You can easily buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you’re stuck with whatever your community puts in the water, and it’s very difficult to filter out of your water once it’s added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

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

Wake Forest University researchers simply called him “Mighty Mouse.”

Imagine, after being injected with 20 million of the most vicious cancer cells on earth, this tiny creature never showed a single sign of the disease.

There wasn’t a single trace of cancer in the mouse.

Buried deep in its genes was a stunning natural ability to outsmart cancer. Not only that, but all of Mighty Mouse’s offspring had this unbelievable power as well.

And now, as you’re about to see, one world-renowned M.D. has discovered a way you can do it too.

This is the most promising cancer breakthrough in the past 150 years…and it’s shockingly easy.

Please don’t miss this lifesaving special presentation.

https://www.logicalhealthalternatives.com/video/LHA/BabyBoomer_UHR20130215/KR_boomer_lead_40_poof.php

Copy and paste the above hyperlink to listen to some incredible news on a true Cancer cure…
Sincerely,

Karen Reddel
Logical Health Alternatives

P.S. The word is out! Already-this breakthrough video has been sent to over 2 million people (and counting). THIS is your chance to see the original source before hearing about it second-hand. You don’t want to miss this.

Marriage is hard work sometimes, and there are bound to be occasions when your spouse sends your blood pressure sky high.

Well, the next time that happens, just take a deep breath, throw your arms around your main squeeze, and remember one thing — it turns out your sweetie is the perfect tonic for your ticker.

That’s right — our friends from Finland found that if you’re married, you are far less likely to die from a heart attack. Just remember that the next time your spouse leaves the toilet seat up or insists on watching that silly romantic movie on the Lifetime channel.

Researchers analyzed more than 15,000 medical records of Finnish patients aged 35 and older who suffered from an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event, such as a heart attack, between 1993 and 2002. They found that unmarried men and women were up to two-thirds more likely to suffer a heart attack or other ACS event — and the news only got worse from there.

It turns out unmarried patients were much more likely to die within 28 days after a heart attack. Mortality rates were between 60 percent and 168 percent higher in unmarried men, and 71 percent to 175 percent higher in unmarried women.

Now if you’re single, you might be thinking that it’s time for drastic measures. Maybe you should try one of those online dating sites or just pop the question to the next stranger who darkens your doorstep.

Well, not so fast. You see, I don’t think the key to this research was marriage per se, but companionship. The key to surviving a heart attack is appropriate after care, and living with someone who can help advocate for you and nurse you back to health is critical.

Second, companionship just may keep you from having that heart attack in the first place. You see, as we get older, it becomes very easy to isolate ourselves. It’s a bit more difficult to get around, and we start to wonder if it’s worth the trouble. We become couch potatoes and start eating three meals a day out of the microwave.

Companionship gets us up and moving, and it stimulates our minds — and it doesn’t even have to be human variety. A study by Baker Medical Research Institute found that simply owning a pet could lower your blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Humans are meant to be social creatures. If you’re spending a little too much time alone, use this week to make a date with an old friend or find a club or activity you can join.

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

7 specific foods that will also help you control your cravings.

#1 Avocados

Yup, that’s right, a fatty food. But this fat is a good fat and these are loaded with two vital nutrients that will quickly kill belly fat: fiber and monounsaturated fats. These little suckers keep you full for hours.

#2 Nut Butters

Peanut butter and almond butter are loaded with monounsatured fats that can stave off hunger and provide valuable nutrition. Just be sure that it’s natural nut butter because the regular grocery store versions are filled with sugar and trans fats.

#3 Eggs

Need a quick breakfast solution? Look no further than to eggs. Loaded with protein, vitamin B6, V12, A, D, E, and K, as well as folate, choline, lutein, calcium, iron, phosphorus, zinc, and omega-3 fatty acids, you simply cannot go wrong. Choose free range chickens whenever possible and the nutritional benefits will be amplified.

#4 Dark Chocolate

More good news. That chocolate craving that you have, it too can be satisfied. Dark chocolate is actually a powerful source of antioxidants and it contains a natural “fat burner” called theobromine that will increase the rate of fat burning that takes place in the body. Stick to a few squares after a healthy meal to crush those chocolate cravings.

#5 Oatmeal

Another great breakfast food you can’t go wrong with. If you want to cure the mid-morning craving attack, start your day off with oats. Oats are a very good source of wholesome fiber and contain no sugar at all so they will keep your blood sugar levels on a nice even keel.

Mix in a little cinnamon for further blood sugar control support and to reduce belly fat and you’ve got a perfect way to start your day.

#6 Berries

Black berries and raspberries provide a great way to settle down sugar cravings. What’s more, their high fiber content keeps you feeling full while the antioxidants and vitamins improve your health.

#7 Wild Salmon

Last but not least, don’t forget about salmon. Another food that’s jam packed with protein and healthy omega fatty acids and that will help squash those cravings and keep your blood sugar balance in check. Eat this in the evening with some wholesome vegetables and you can kiss your cravings good bye for the night.

That’s 7 foods right there, but don’t forget about veggies and beans. Both are backed with nutrition and fiber to keep you full and satisfied.

Eating more of these foods during your day will help eliminate cravings, but if you want an ever faster and easier way to crush cravings and fight fat, then do this…

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