Tag Archives: Dr. Mercola

Vaccine Injury Data Removed fr/GOV Website

Posted on by

Government Wipes Recent Vaccine Injury Data from Website

Story at-a-glance

  • In March 2015 the US government removed the latest US Court of Federal Claims compensation award statistics (data from 2014 and 2015) from a chart usually made available to the public online
  • There had been a sharp uptick in reported vaccine injury and death compensation awards for children and adults in previous recent months
  • This data was no longer reflected on the website’s “adjudication” chart, which seriously distorted the reality of was happening in vaccine court

By Dr. Mercola

Many are not aware that in the US there is a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that Congress created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The US Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as “vaccine court”.

The VICP is a “no-fault” alternative to the traditional civil court lawsuit and was established in 1986 after a string of high-profile lawsuits had slammed vaccine manufacturers.

At the time, parents were suing vaccine manufacturers after their children were brain injured or died following federally recommended and state mandated DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccine). There were several DPT injury lawsuits against the vaccine makers in the 1970’s and early 1980’s that resulted in multimillion dollar jury verdicts.

At that point the vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing DPT, MMR, and oral polio (the only childhood vaccines at the time) if the civil litigation continued. Rather than raising safety standards and compelling vaccine manufacturers to  ensure they are producing the least toxic vaccines – Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and shielded the vaccine makers from most civil liability related to their products.1

The American Public – Not the Vaccine Makers – Pay the Costs of Compensation

The federal VICP compensates vaccine victims not from a fund paid into by vaccine manufacturers, but through a federal trust fund that collects a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine given (the combination MMR vaccine, for example, has a $2.25 fee tacked on to it because that shot contains three vaccines). So not only are drug companies making big profits from selling mandated vaccines to government and vaccine producers, they are also held legally blameless for both vaccine injuries and deaths and don’t have to pay a cent to those injured by their vaccines.

The VICP contains a Vaccine Injury Table that lists vaccine side effects that are known to be caused by vaccines. In order to win uncontested federal compensation for a vaccine injury, a person must prove he or she developed certain clinical symptoms and medical conditions on the Table within a certain time frame of receiving a certain vaccine, and that there is no more biologically plausible explanation for the vaccine-related injury or death.

If a clinical symptom and medical condition is not on the Vaccine Injury Table – or developed outside of the accepted timeframe, the vaccine injury claim is contested by the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the US Department of Justice and is adjudicated in the US Court of Federal Claims (“vaccine court”). In Vaccine Court, the vaccine injured plaintiff must prove, usually via medical records and statements from a medical expert, that the vaccine could have caused the injury.

NPR detailed the story of Lisa Smith, a woman who was healthy until she received a flu shot and, a few days later, realized she couldn’t walk and had developed severe pain in her legs.2

Lisa had developed Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), an autoimmune disease of the nervous system. GBS is in the process of being added to the official Vaccine  Injury Table. She only learned of the VICP after a friend told her about it. She filed a VICP claim and was awarded a settlement of an undisclosed amount.

Many People Are Not Aware of Vaccine Court

In 2014, there were 542 vaccine injury compensation claims filed in the VICP. Of the claims, 365 were compensated for a total of $202 million, with settlements ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.3

What you’ll notice is that very few of these claims are publicized or disclosed to the public in any way. It is obvious that the government does not want to publicize the existence of the VICP because the more Americans learn that there are vaccine injuries and deaths  – those that have been vetted and compensated in a court of law – the more they may start to question the safety and of vaccines.

There is a government VICP website, which is run by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

It maintains vaccine injury claim statistics that have historically been updated monthly – until the government mysteriously removed more than a years worth of data earlier this year…

US Government Removes Vaccine Injury Court Statistics from Public Website

According to investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, in March 2015 the US government removed the latest vaccine injury court statistics (data from 2014 and 2015) from a publicly reported chart.4

HRSA stated they removed the data in order to sync up with data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is only current through 2013 and details the number of vaccine doses given in the US.

However, Attkisson noted there had been a sharp uptick in VICP awards for children and adults filing vaccine injury and death claims and the data was no longer included on the HRSA websites “adjudication” chart, which distorted the reality of what’s happening in vaccine court. As Attkisson reported:

“Since January of 2014, the number of flu vaccine cases conceded by the government is more than double the previous eight years combined. The adjudication chart only reflects half of the current number.

Concessions won by flu shot victims since 2006
Chart shows (through 2013): 42
Actual number (through April 2015): 88

Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases the government has ‘conceded:’ up 55% in a little over one year. As a result of the recent website changes, neither of these trends is reflected on the current ‘adjudication’ chart.”

In addition, the HRSA website has been altered to make VICP stats harder to find. The adjudication chart used to be the first item on the statistics page, but was replaced by language stating vaccines are safe and effective.

Since 1998 through June 1, 2015, HRSA reports that 14,812 claims were filed in the VICP. The total paid out to vaccine victims was about $3.1 billion. While 4,121 were compensated,  9,904 have been dismissed. Further, the majority of vaccine injuries never make it to vaccine court. According to Attkisson:5

“Only about one injury case for every million doses of vaccines is compensated in vaccine court. Adverse events occur more frequently, according to vaccine warning labels, but rarely end up in the little-known vaccine court.”

Getting Compensated Through Vaccine Court Isn’t Always Easy…

While the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was originally set up to give vaccine-injured Americans an expedited, non-adversarial, less expensive administrative alternative to a civil court lawsuit, today it is the “exclusive remedy” for those seeking compensation for serious vaccine injuries.

Many vaccine victims are left waiting without support and financial assistance for years on end, while their case snakes its way through the federal governments red tape. Some VICP claimants even say they felt “attacked” by the government that was supposed to help them.

Another problem has been a lack of public awareness that this program even exists. Reportedly, federal officials operating the VICP have vowed to publicize the program, promising to improve the website to make its literature to make it easier to understand.

They’ve also stated they will seek to increase awareness among health care providers, parents and expectant parents, older adults, Spanish speaking adults, as well as civil litigation and plaintiff attorneys.6

What actually happens remains to be seen. Several years ago, a comprehensive consultant report about publicizing the VICP was created at a cost of $300,000.  However, few recommendations were ever implemented.7

Moreover, VICP directors didn’t begin taking action on publicity until after a congressionally requested Government Accountability Office (GAO) inquiry began last year.

Public outreach has also been largely ignored since the programs inception. The Associated Press also claims it found evidence suggesting that “the government seems intent on keeping the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’s public profile low.”8

How Common Are Vaccine Injuries?

When the VICP was first created, if the injured party was denied compensation or was dissatisfied with the amount of the award, they could then proceed with a civil lawsuit with certain restrictions, depending upon the case.

Unhappy with this partial liability protection, drug companies kept pushing for complete liability protection and, in 2011, convinced the US Supreme Court majority to rule that federally licensed and recommended vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and that the VICP should be the “sole remedy” for all vaccine injury claims.9

I think it’s worth repeating, in case you just glossed over it: The reason you cannot sue a vaccine manufacturer for injury or death is because vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” At this point, vaccine manufacturers have virtually no incentive whatsoever to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that are recommended by federal health officials and mandated by state health officials.

The question you’re probably wondering is, so how safe, or unsafe, are they? The answer is, no one really knows, as appropriate safety studies haven’t been conducted.

It’s important to understand that ALL vaccines carry a risk for provoking an immediate acute adverse reaction, such as anaphylactic shock, fainting, or having a seizure, which could be truly life threatening if you’re driving a car or crossing a street, for example.

Further, vaccines can impair and alter immune system responses and can also cause brain inflammation (encephalitis or encephalopathy) that may lead to permanent brain damage.

In addition, as Institute of Medicine Committees have pointed out in published reports, some individuals are more susceptible to suffering harm from vaccines because of biological, genetic, and environmental risk factors but, most of the time, doctors cannot predict who will be harmed because there are few scientific studies that have evaluated vaccine risks for individuals.10

Problems with a One-Size-Fits-All Vaccine Program

It’s now known that the microbiome influences our health and that an individuals gut microbes may help determine their immune response to vaccines. For instance, infants that responded to the rotavirus vaccine had a higher diversity of microbes in their gut, as well as more microbes from the Proteobacteria group, than infants who did not mount the expected immune response.11

Further, there has been little scientific research into how vaccines affect your genes and it’s likely different for every person because no two people are identical in terms of inherited genes, environmental exposures, or epigenetic influences that contribute to biodiversity.

There’s really no way to predict which genes will be affected, but the US government recommends, and many states mandate the same vaccine schedule for every American.

Yet, each individual will have a unique response to any given vaccine based on their age, current health status, and microbial makeup. In addition, we’re also epigenetically predisposed to respond differently in terms of the vaccine side effects we might develop.

The fact is vaccines appear to cause mild or no reactions in some people but clearly can cause devastating reactions in others. Here are just some of the ways vaccines can impair or alter immune responses and brain function:

  • Some components in vaccines are neurotoxic, including heavy metals such as mercury preservatives and aluminum adjuvants; residual toxins like endotoxin and bioactive pertussis toxin; and chemicals like formaldehyde and phenooxyethanol
  • The lab-altered and genetically engineered viruses and bacteria in vaccines may impair immune responses and do not stimulate the same kind of immunity that occurs when the body responds to an infectious disease
  • Foreign DNA/RNA from human, animal, and insect cell substrates used to produce vaccines may trigger serious health problems for some people
  • Vaccines may alter your T-cell function and lead to chronic illness
  • Vaccines can trigger allergies by introducing large foreign protein molecules into your body that have not been properly broken down by your digestive tract (since they are injected). Your body can have an allergic reaction to these foreign particles

from:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/06/23/vaccine-injury-data.aspx?e_cid=20150623Z1_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20150623Z1&et_cid=DM79751&et_rid=1005664917

Dr. Mercola’s Top Nutrition Myths

Posted on by

Top 10 Destructive Nutrition Lies Ever Told

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

There is no shortage of health advice out there, and no shortage of bad advice to go along with it. Some misguided notions are harmless—but others are outright dangerous and can lead you down the road to chronic health problems and may even trim years off your life.

It is critically important to decipher fact from fiction. Many nutrition myths get repeated over and over until they are mistaken for truth, especially when perpetually spread by public health authorities.

But the good news is that slowly, the real truth finally appears to be reaching mainstream audiences, as evidenced by the eagerness of satirists to take a jab at the food industry, as in the clever Coca-Cola parody featured below.

In an article addressing destructive nutrition lies, Kris Gunnars of Authority Nutrition[1] is among those admirably trying to bust the dangerous dietary myths that continue being spread by so many nutritionists.

I agree with the majority of his points, but have added a few others that I believe to be important. Read on for my own top 10 list, which builds upon his.

Lie #1: Breakfast Is the Healthiest Meal of the Day, and You Should Eat Many Small Meals a Day

There is now a good deal of research supporting the health benefits of intermittent fasting—which is what you are really doing whenever you zip out of the house in the morning without breakfast.

Recent studies suggest that intermittent fasting can provide the same health benefits as constant calorie restriction which many studies have shown to dramatically increase life span in animals. It may also be helpful for those who cannot successfully reduce their everyday calorie intake.

Besides turning you into an efficient fat burner, intermittent fasting can also boost your level of human growth hormone production (aka the “fitness hormone”) by as much as 1,200 percent for women and 2,000 percent for men.

Intermittent fasting and continuous calorie restriction have both been shown to produce weight loss and improve metabolic risk markers. However, intermittent fasting tends to be slightly more effective for reducing insulin resistance.

Other benefits include reducing inflammation, improving blood pressure, and increased lean body mass. Intermittent fasting can also improve your brain function by increasing levels of BDNF, a protein that protects your brain cells from the changes associated with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

There are several types of intermittent fasting to choose from, so I recommend experimenting to see what style works best for you. One of the easiest, however, is to simply skip breakfast, and limit your eating to a narrow window of time each day—say between 11am and 7pm, to start. You can review my more comprehensive article on intermittent fasting for more details.

The advice to “eat six small meals per day” comes from seemingly logical principles (portion control, keeping your energy up, stabilizing blood sugar, etc.), but in reality, eating this way has not been shown to provide these benefits. We seem to need periods of fasting for optimal metabolic function.

And if you think about it, our ancient ancestors never had access to a grocery store 24/7 and they went through regular periods of feast and famine. The problem is that most of us are in 24/7 feast mode. Implementing intermittent fasting is the quickest way I know of to jump start your body into burning fat as its primary fuel again.

Lie #2: Saturated Fat Causes Heart Disease

The dangerous recommendation to avoid saturated fat, which arose from anunproven hypothesis from the mid-1950s, has been harming people’s health for about 40 years now. As recently as 2002, the “expert” Food & Nutrition Board issued the following misguided statement, which epitomizes this myth:

“Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol have no known beneficial role in preventing chronic disease and are not required at any level in the diet.”

Similarly, the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine recommends that adults get 45-65 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, 20-35 percent from fat, and 10-35 percent from protein. This is the polar opposite of an ideal fat to carb ratio and virtually guarantees you a heightened risk of disease.

Most people benefit from a diet where 50-85 percent of daily calories are derived from healthful fats. However, you need very few, if any, carbohydrates for optimal health. Although that amount of fat may seem like a lot, fat is very calorie-dense, and will therefore still constitute the smallest amount, in terms of volume, on your plate.

The truth is, saturated fats from animal and vegetable sources provide the building blocks for your cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone-like substances, without which your body cannot function optimally.

Fats also serve as carriers for the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K and are required for converting carotene into vitamin A, absorbing minerals, and a host of other important biological processes. Saturated fat is also the preferred fuel for your heart! Good sources of healthy fats to add to your diet include:

Avocados Butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk Raw dairy Organic pastured egg yolks
Coconuts and coconut oil Unheated organic nut oils Raw nuts, especially macadamia, and raw seeds Grass-fed and finished meats

Lie #3: High Omega-6 Seed and Vegetable Oils Are Good for You

Of all the health-destroying foods on the market, those made with highly processed vegetable and seed oils are some of the worst. When consumed in large amounts, as they are by most Americans, they seriously distort your important omega-3 to omega-6 ratio. In a perfect world, this ratio is 1:1—but the average American is getting 20 to 50 times more omega-6 fats than omega-3 fats. Excessive omega-6 fats from processed foods significantly increase your risk for heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and many other illnesses.

The cholesterol found in arterial plaque is oxidized, damaged cholesterol, which your immune system identifies as bacteria. In response, your immune system sends out macrophages to attack it, which creates inflammation inside your artery walls. A major factor driving heart disease is this oxidized cholesterol, which you introduce into your body every time you consume vegetable oils, or foods cooked in them.

Many vegetable and seed oils are also genetically engineered, which only compounds their health risk. More than 90 percent of US canola oil is GE. So what’s the best oil to cook with? Of all the available oils, coconut oil is the one of choice for cooking because it’s close to a completely saturated fat—meaning, much less susceptible to heat damage. And coconut oil is one of the most nutritionally beneficial fats. For more information about coconut oil, please see our special report. Olive oil, while certainly a healthful oil, is easily damaged by heat and is best reserved for drizzling cold over salad.

Lie #4: Artificial Sweeteners Are Safe Sugar Replacements for Diabetics, and Help Promote Weight Loss

Most people use artificial sweeteners to lose weight and/or because they are diabetic and need to avoid sugar. The irony is that nearly all of the studies to date show that artificial sweeteners cause even MORE weight gainthan caloric sweeteners. Studies also show that artificial sweeteners can be worse than sugar for diabetics.

In 2005, data gathered from the 25-year long San Antonio Heart Study showed that drinking dietsoft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain much more so than regular soda.[2] On average, each diet soda the participants consumed per day increased their risk of becoming overweight by 65 percent within the next seven to eight years and made them 41 percent more likely to become obese. There are several possible reasons for this, such as:

  • Sweet taste alone appears to increase hunger, regardless of caloric content
  • Artificial sweeteners appear to perpetuate a craving for sweets, and overall sugar consumption is therefore not reduced, leading to further problems with weight control[3]
  • Artificial sweeteners may disrupt your body’s natural ability to “count calories,” as evidenced by multiple studies. For example, a Purdue University study found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-caloric sweetened liquids.[4]

The list of health risks associated with artificial sweeteners, particularly aspartame, continues to expand. I maintain an ongoing list of studies related to the detrimental effects of aspartame, which I recommend you review for yourself if you are still on the fence. I invite you to watch my aspartame video, as well.

Lie #5: Soy Is a Health Food

The meteoric rise of soy as a “health food” is a perfect example of how a brilliant marketing strategy can fool millions. But make no mistake—unfermented soy products are NOT healthful additions to your diet, regardless of your age or gender. I am not opposed to all soy—properly fermented and preferably organic soy, such as tempeh, miso, and natto, offer great health benefits, courtesy of the beneficial bacteria (probiotics) the fermentation process produces.

Thousands of studies have linked unfermented soy to a number of health problems, however. More than 90 percent of American soy crops are also genetically engineered, which only compounds its health risks.[5] If you find this information startling, then I would encourage you to review some of the articles on my Soy Page. The following table lists a number of the damaging health effects science has linked to unfermented soy:

Breast cancer Brain damage and cognitive impairment Heart disease
Thyroid disorders Kidney stones Immune dysfunction
Severe, potentially fatal food allergies Malnutrition Digestive problems
Problems with pregnancy and breastfeeding Reproductive disorders and impaired fertility Developmental abnormalities in infants

Lie #6: Whole Grains Are Good for Everyone

The use of whole grains is an easy subject to get confused about, especially for those with a passion for health annutrition. For the longest time, we’ve been told that whole grains are highly beneficial. Unfortunately, ALL grains can elevate your insulin and leptin levels, even whole grains and organic varieties—and elevated insulin/leptin increases your risk of chronic disease. This is especially true if you already struggle with insulin/leptin resistance, which would manifest as high blood pressure, distorted cholesterol ratios, being overweight, or diabetes).

It has been my experience that more than 85 percent of Americans have trouble controlling their insulin and leptin levels and have one or more of the symptoms listed above. You may be one of those if you struggle to maintain an ideal body weight and body composition, tend to accumulate fat around you belly, or have a suboptimal lipid profile. In fact, insulin/leptin dysregulation is a common indicator for many of the diseases so prevalent today, such as diabetes, heart disease, dementia, and cancer.

Many whole grains also contain gluten, which is a common trigger for allergies and sensitivities. Subclinical gluten intolerance is far more common than you might think, with symptoms that are not always obvious. I strongly recommend eliminating or at least restricting grains from your diet, as well as sugars/fructose, especially if you have any of the conditions listed above. As a general rule, the higher your insulin levels are, the greater your grain restriction should be.

#7: Genetically Engineered Foods Are Safe and Comparable to Conventional Foods

Genetic engineering (GE) of our food may be the most dangerous aspect of our food supply today. I strongly recommend that you avoid ALL GE foods. Since more than 90 percent of the corn and 95 percent of the soy grown in the US are GE, then you can count on virtually every processed food having at least one GE component if it doesn’t bear the “USDA 100% Organic” or non-GMO label.  Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of them is that the crops are saturated with one of the most dangerous herbicides on the market, glyphosate, to the tune of nearly a billion pounds per year. This toxic chemical can’t be washed off as it becomes integrated into nearly every cell of the plant, and then gets transferred into your body.

No one knows exactly what will be the ultimate impact of these foods on your health, particularly over the long term. Animal studies have pointed to increased disease, infertility, and birth defects as the top contenders. The first-ever lifetime feeding study showed a dramatic increase in organ damage, cancer, and reduced lifespan. It’s important to realize that, unless you’re buying all organic food or growing your own, you’re probably consuming GE foods on a daily basis. In order to avoid as many GE foods as possible, be aware that the following common crops are likely to be GE unless otherwise labeled:

Corn Canola Alfalfa
Soy Cottonseed Sugar from sugar beets
Zucchini Crookneck squash Hawaiian papaya

Lie #8: Eggs Are Bad for Your Heart

Eggs are one of the most demonized foods in the US… thanks to the cholesterol myth. The misguided belief that cholesterol, such as in egg yolks, will give you heart disease is simply untrue (see Lie #1). Studies have shown that eggs do NOT have a detrimental impact on cholesterol levels and are actually one of the most healthful foods you can eat. In one Yale study,[6] participants were asked to consume two eggs daily for six weeks. Researchers found that this egg consumption did not spike cholesterol levels and did not have a negative effect on endothelial function, a measure of cardiac risk.

Choose pasture-raised organic eggs, and avoid “omega-3 eggs” as this is not the proper way to optimize your omega-3 levels. To produce these omega-3 eggs, the hens are usually fed poor-quality sources of omega-3 fats that are already oxidized. Omega-3 eggs are also more perishable than non-omega-3 eggs. Some of the many nutritional benefits of eggs are summarized for you in the table below.

One egg contains six grams of high quality protein and all nine essential amino acids Beneficial for eye health due to lutein and zeaxanthin, antioxidants in your lens and retina that help prevent eye diseases such as macular degeneration and cataracts Good source of choline, a member of the vitamin B family (essential for nervous system, cardiovascular system, and prenatal brain development)
Vitamin D: eggs are one of the few foods that contains naturally occurring vitamin D (24.5 grams) Sulfur (essential component of glutathione, also promotes healthy hair and nails) Many other vitamins and minerals (B vitamins, vitamins A and E, calcium, copper, iodine, iron, magnesium, potassium, selenium, and zinc)

Lie #9: Low-Fat Foods Prevent Obesity and Heart Disease

Conventional recommendations over th

e past 40 years or more have called for drastically decreasing the overall fat in your diet, but this fat aversion is a driving force behind today’s metabolic dysfunction, obesity, and ill health. As discussed earlier, most people need between 50 and 85 percent of their calories from fats—a far cry form the less than 10 percent from saturated fat recommended by the USDA!7 Kris Gunnars stated it quite nicely:8

“The first dietary guidelines for Americans were published in the year 1977, almost at the exact same time the obesity epidemic started. Of course, this doesn’t prove anything (correlation does not equal causation), but it makes sense that this could be more than just a mere coincidence.

The anti-fat message essentially put the blame on saturated fat and cholesterol (harmless), while giving sugar and refined carbs (very unhealthy) a free pass. Since the guidelines were published, many massive studies have been conducted on the low-fat diet. It is no better at preventing heart disease, obesity or cancer than the standard Western diet, which is as unhealthy as a diet can get.”

Let’s face it, if low-fat diets worked, the United States would be the healthiest nation on the planet—folks have been following them since the late 1970s! But if you look at the following graph, you can see that America’s waistline has done nothing but expand since then. There’s no telling how many people have been prematurely killed by following these flawed guidelines. Yet, despite mounting research to the contrary, low-fat diets are stillbeing pushed as “heart healthy” by the majority of nutritionists, cardiologists, and the like.

Lie #10: Carbs Should Be Your Biggest Source of Calories

I have already covered how insulin resistance is a key factor in disease (see Lie #4). A diet high in non-fiber carbohydrates—particularly processed grains and sugar—leads directly to insulin and leptin resistance. When your highest percentage of calories comes from healthful fats, these problems just don’t exist. Most high-carb diets are high in sugar and starch, not vegetables. When the low-fat mantra swept over the country, the high-carb craze soon followed. When fat was removed from foods, something had to be added back in to make foods more palatable—and that something was sugar. Particularly, highly concentrated forms of fructose, such as high fructose corn syrup, which spell metabolic disaster for your body.

With fat being the identified villain (albeit falsely accused), sugar was completely ignored—even though sugar was the real culprit behind inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, diabetes, and heart disease. America’s love of sugar was a boon to the processed food industry—which added fructose to practically everything from soup to nuts… literally. If you want to see what effects this had on the country’s health and belt size, just turn on your national news.

A high-carb diet disrupts your insulin and leptin signaling, and over time may very well result in type 2 diabetes. By contrast, a diet higher in beneficial fats corrects these metabolic issues. Recent research has demonstrated that the ketogenic diet—one marked by carbohydrate restriction and substantial healthful fats—extended the lifespan of mice by 20 percent, because it optimized their insulin sensitivity and other metabolic processes. There is evidence that low carbohydrate diets, combined with appropriate amounts of protein, can even slow down Alzheimer’s disease and cancer.

Now for the #1 Truth…

The more you can eat like your ancestors, the better—fresh whole foods, locally and sustainably raised, and foods that are minimally processed or not processed at all. These are the types of foods that your genes and biochemistry are adapted to and will provide you with the ability to reverse and prevent most diseases. You will find these at your local farmer’s market, food co-op, or in your own backyard garden. And you will be amazed at the positive changes you’ll see in your health when you “clean up” your diet!  Be wary of nutritional advice from mainstream “experts” as it may not be based on science—or based on bad information that is several decades outdated. Truthful, accurate information is your number one weapon in taking control of your health.

 

from:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/16/top10-nutritional-myths.aspx

Contraceptive Properties of Fluoride

Posted on by

Fluoride May Be Your Next Contraceptive?

By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Research has linked fluoride in drinking water with sperm damage and other threats to reproductive health
  • Fluoride may have damaging effects on the process by which sperm are attracted toward an egg (sperm chemotaxis), which plays a critical role in allowing fertilization to occur
  • Sixty animal studies have found that fluoride adversely impacts the male reproductive system
  • Clean pure water is a prerequisite for optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives like fluoride really have no place in our water supplies

In the US, where about two-thirds of drinking water supplies are fluoridated, men may be putting their fertility at risk with every sip of water from the tap.

Research has long linked fluoride in drinking water with sperm damage and other threats to reproductive health, although many Americans remain completely in the dark about the association.

Yet, most of the studies on fluoride use sodium fluoride, which while extremely toxic is pharmaceutical-grade fluoride — NOT the kind added to water supplies. So researchers set out to determine the toxicity of the fluoride compounds that are actually in most water supplies. Here’s what they found…

Fluoride in Drinking Water May Be Toxic to Sperm

First a bit of background… sodium fluoride was the first of the fluoride waste materials to be used for fluoridation, but now is rarely used. It’s the most well known, as this is ‘pharmaceutical grade’ compound used in toxicology studies and other research into the potential health dangers of fluoride.

The other two types of fluoride, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid, are the compounds actually used for water fluoridation. Sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are the waste products from the fertilizer industry and are actually classified as hazardous wastes.

The new study compared the toxicity of three fluoride compounds – sodium fluoride and two silicofluorides used for water fluoridation – to determine their effect on the growth, feeding and reproduction of roundworms. They found:1

“Exposure to these compounds produced classic concentration-response toxicity profiles… This suggests that silicofluorides have similar toxicity to NaF [sodium fluoride].”

Since sodium fluoride appears to be equally toxic as the fluoride chemicals added to drinking water, it raises serious concern about another recent study, which found sodium fluoride may damage sperm chemotaxis, the process by which sperm are attracted toward an egg, which plays a critical role in allowing fertilization to occur.2 Though this study involved mice, if the findings apply to humans it could put men at risk of becoming infertile…

Fluoride May Be Dangerous to Male Fertility

Past research, too, has shown that fluoride has potentially disastrous effects on the male reproductive system. The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) reported:3

  • Exposing ram semen to 0.38 parts per million (20 umol/L) of fluoride for five hours caused a “statistically significant decrease in the motility of spermatozoa” along with other changes that would “undoubtedly affect the physiological function of the sperm.”
  • Infusing testes with modest amounts of fluoride (4.75 parts per million) inhibited the synthesis of testosterone
  • Sixty animal studies have found that fluoride adversely impacts the male reproductive system, including:
Decreases in testosterone levels Reduced sperm motility Altered sperm morphology
Reduced sperm quantity Increased oxidative stress Reduced capacity to breed

 

It’s not only animal studies that have shown an emerging problem, however. As FAN explained:4

“Consistent with the in vitro and animal research, studies of human populations have reported associations between fluoride exposure and damage to the male reproductive system. Most notably, a scientist at the Food & Drug Administration [FDA] reported in 1994 that populations in the United States with more than 3 ppm fluoride in their water had lower  ‘total fertility rates’ than populations with lower fluoride levels …

While 3 ppm is a higher concentration than used in water fluoridation programs (0.7 to 1.2 ppm), it is still considered a ‘safe’ level by the EPA. To date, no U.S. health agency has attempted to replicate… [these] findings.

However, three studies of highly fluoride-exposed populations in China and India have found that high fluoride exposure is associated with reduced male fertility. In addition, five studies from China, India, Mexico, and Russia have found that high-fluoride exposure is associated with reduced male testosterone levels.”

Fluoride Is an Undeniable Poison to Your Entire Body

to read more, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/29/fluoride-reproductive-health-dangers.aspx?e_cid=20131029Z1_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20131029Z1

On Pharmaceuticals, Honesty, & Safety

Posted on by

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Organized Crime Ring That Is the Pharmaceutical Drug Cartel

October 16, 2013
By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Nearly 20 percent of corporate crime is being committed by companies that make products for your health. Crimes committed by some of the top pharmaceutical companies include fabricated studies and hiding damaging research
  • A number of recent articles and books have delved into the practices of the drug industry, concluding it operates like an organized crime ring
  • Corruption of science is one of the most dangerous forms of corruption. Doctors rely on published studies to make treatment recommendations, and large numbers of patients can be harmed when false findings are published
  • A recent study concluded that a majority of American drug commercials—60 percent of prescription drug ads, and 80 percent of ads for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs—are either misleading or outright false
  • Warnings of adverse side effects in drug ads can backfire. While initially making viewers cautious, over the course of time people tend to ignore the warnings; some even see them as indications of honesty and trustworthiness

Even though the video above is a few years old now and bigger fines of $3 billion have been assessed to GlaxoSmithKline two years ago, it is a good summary of how the drug cartels operate.

Did you know that nearly 20 percent of corporate crime is being committed by companies that make products for your health?

Sad but true, no less than 19 pharmaceutical companies made AllBusiness.com’s Top 100 Corporate Criminals List for the 1990s, and the trend has continued if not increased into the 21st Century. Crimes committed by some of the most well-known drug companies include:

  • Fabricated studies
  • Covering up serious problems with their drugs
  • False claims
  • Bribery, illegal kick-backs, and defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and even the FDA
  • Immoral threat and intimidation tactics (recall the international drug company Merck actually had a hit list of doctors to be “neutralized” or discredited for criticizing the lethally dangerous painkiller Vioxx. “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read in court.)

Pulling Back the Curtain on Organized Crime

Fortunately, organizations like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism,1 the False Claims Act Legal Center,2 and Politicol News3 have all started investigating and publicizing the criminal actions these companies have been getting away with for decades.

Most recently, the British Medical Journal’s blog featured an article4 by former BMJ editor and director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative, Richard Smith, aptly titled: “Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Like the Mafia?”

The piece is also the foreword to the book, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, written by Peter Gøtzsche, head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, which is considered the gold standard in terms of independent research reviews.

In related news, a recently published study concluded that most drug commercials are misleading or outright false.5 There’s a literal mountain of evidence proving that pharmaceutical companies are untrustworthy at best, and criminal at worst. And yet they’re the backbone of our modern “healthcare” system…

Even Forbes Magazine6 recently published an article with the provocative headline: “Is Big Pharma Addicted To Fraud?” and asked out loud “whether any aspect of the pharmaceutical business can be trusted.”

Is It Fair to Compare the Pharmaceutical Industry with the Mafia?

If you depend on conventional medical care to address your health problems, then you’re basically entrusting your health to organizations that clearly have far more interest in their bottom line than your health. In his article, Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Like the Mafia? Smith writes:7

“The characteristics of organized crime, racketeering, is defined in US law as the act of engaging repeatedly in certain types of offence, including extortion, fraud, federal drug offenses, bribery, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, obstruction of law enforcement, tampering with witnesses, and political corruption.

Peter [Gøtzsche] produces evidence, most of it detailed, to support his case that pharmaceutical companies are guilty of most of these offenses.

And he is not the first to compare the industry with the Mafia or mob. He quotes a former vice-president of Pfizer, who has said:

‘It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry…’

Smith also notes that many more people are killed by the pharmaceutical industry than the mob. Prescription drugs also kill far more people than illegal drugs, and while most major causes of preventable deaths are declining, those from prescription drug use are on the incline.8, 9

For example, prescription drug fatalities more than doubled among teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, and more than tripled among people aged 50 to 69.

Legal prescription drug abuse is a silent epidemic, and is part of the reason why the modern American medical system has become one of the leading causes of death and injury in the United States.

An estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur in the US every year. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx alone killed more than 60,000 people within a few years’ time before being withdrawn from the market.

“… [T]he benefits of drugs are exaggerated, often because of serious distortions of the evidence behind the drugs, a ‘crime’ that can be attributed confidently to the industry,” Smith writes.“The great doctor William Osler famously said that it would be good for humankind and bad for the fishes if all the drugs were thrown into the sea.

He was speaking before the therapeutic revolution in the middle of the 20th century that led to penicillin, other antibiotics, and many other effective drugs, but Peter comes close to agreeing with him and does speculate that we would be better off without most psychoactive drugs, where the benefits are small, the harms considerable, and the level of prescribing massive.”

‘Science-Based’ Medicine Has Fallen on Its Own Sword

There are many areas within which corruption can take root, and the drug industry has nurtured corruption in most if not all of them. It would require an entire book to begin to address them all, which is exactly what Peter Gøtzsche has done in his book, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare.

One of the most dangerous forms of corruption is that which occurs within medical science. For example, according to data from Thomson Reuters,10 the number of retractions of scientific studies have increased more than 15-fold since 2001, and a review11 published just last year showed that nearly 75 percent of all retracted drug studies were attributed to “scientific misconduct,” which includes:

  • Data falsification or fabrication
  • Questionable veracity
  • Unethical author conduct
  • Plagiarism

Corruption of science is incredibly serious, as health care professionals rely on published studies to make treatment recommendations, and large numbers of patients can be harmed when false findings are published. The average lag time between publication of the study and the issuing of a retraction is 39 months. And that’s if the misconduct is ever caught at all. What’s worse, about 32 percent of retractions are never published,12 leaving the readers completely in the dark about the inaccuracies in those studies!

to read more, go to:     http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/16/drug-commercials-misleading.aspx?e_cid=20131016Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20131016Z1

UUNICEF Targeting Vaccine/GMO Critics?

Posted on by

Attacks on Health Reporters and Their Readers Are Escalating

September 18, 2013
By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • A new UNICEF report reveals that the organization is tracking the rise of online anti-vaccination sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe, and has identified the most important “anti-vaccine influencers” on the web
  • Instead of addressing the evidence of potential harm of vaccines, UNICEF is entering into ever-deepening partnerships with vaccine company giants like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline
  • UNICEF devises public relations schemes to convince you to ignore any science that raise safety questions
  • In the report, UNICEF infers that I and other vaccine-safety advocates are lying about the situation and therefore should be ignored
  • In 2009, it was revealed that Merck had a hit list of doctors to be “neutralized” or discredited for voicing critical opinions about the pain killer Vioxx—a drug that ended up killing more than 60,000 people before it was pulled from the market
  • GSK spent more than 10 years covering up information that proved they knew about the serious health dangers of their blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia, as it would adversely affect sales.

Truth becomes treason in an empire of lies. Attacks against health web sites like yours truly and others, and our readers—yes, that would be you—are rapidly escalating.

Thinly veiled threats are issued not just by industry spokespersons (many of whom hide their industry ties from their readers), but also international organizations like UNICEF. It’s become very evident, very quickly, that now more than ever, we need your support to counter the increasingly dirty tactics of these industry players.

Simply by reporting the scientific evidence—which is published in peer-reviewed journals, mind you—I’ve been labeled as a top “anti-vaccine influencer” for my pro-safety stance on vaccines, and a “media supporter of domestic eco-terrorists” for my reporting on the hazards of Roundup and genetically engineered foods.

Why Is UNICEF Accusing Health Journalists of Lying?

A recently published report1 by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reveals that the organization is tracking “the rise of online pro-vaccine safety sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe,” and has identified the most influential pro-vaccine safety influencers” on the web.

UNICEF included me on the list, along with other independent health websites like GreenMedInfo.com, Mothering.com and NaturalNews.com, just to name a few. In their opening reference, they use a quote by Mark Twain that reads:

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Clearly, UNICEF is inferring that I and other vaccine-safety advocates are lying about the situation and therefore should be ignored. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.

Here we have an international organization supposedly dedicated to children’s health and wellbeing, and instead of addressing the ample scientific evidence showing the potential harm of vaccines, they’re entering into ever-deepening partnerships with vaccine company giants like Merck2 and GlaxoSmithKline3 (GSK).

They spend precious time and resources on public relations schemes to convince you to ignore any science that raises questions about the wisdom of “carpet-bombing” infants’ and young children’s immune systems with potentially harmful vaccines.

UNICEF’s Bedfellows

This is especially disturbing because Merck has been involved in numerous criminal scandals and class-action lawsuits in recent years, including fraudulently marketing its deadly drug Vioxx; lying about the true efficacy of its mumps vaccine.

Additionally, they engaged in scientific fraud (a charge brought by its own scientists); and hiding critical side effects associated with its osteoporosis drug Fosamax, just to name a few of the most publicized.

Even more shocking, in 2009, it was revealed that Merck actually had a hit list of doctors to be “neutralized” or discredited for voicing critical opinions about the pain killer Vioxx—a drug that indeed ended up killing more than 60,000 people before it was pulled from the market.

Two years later, in 2011, the company ended up pleading guilty to a criminal charge over the fraudulent marketing and sales of this deadly drug.4 But sure, let’s listen to UNICEF and trust the guys who go so far as to threaten the lives of those who question the safety of a very factually dangerous drug. Then there’s GSK, whose leadership among corporate criminals is illustrious indeed.

Not only was GSK found guilty in the largest health fraud settlement in US history just last year, for which they were fined $3 billion. A couple of months ago, Chinese authorities accused the company of bribery and illegal marketing schemes. Chinese police claim to possess evidence showing that bribery has been a “core part” of GSK China’s business model since 2007.

Doctors and government officials are said to have received perks such as travel, cash, and sexual favors that when combined, amounted to nearly $5 billion, according to some reports. The company allegedly used travel agencies as middlemen to carry out these illegal acts. Four Chinese GSK executives have so far been detained on charges of cash and sexual bribery.

GSK also spent more than 10 years covering up information that proved they knew about the serious health dangers of their blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia, as it would adversely affect sales. While carousing with the true liars and criminals, UNICEF deems it fitting to paint me and other health journalists as the liars; the ones leading you astray.

Little does UNICEF realize that by publicizing a list of monitored “vaccine influencers”—the health reporters who stick pegs in the wheels of their crafty PR schemes by publishing all those studies the vaccine industry would rather see buried—they’ve basically given you a Who’s Who of real vaccine information.

Maybe we should thank them rather than rail against their poor judgment? As stated by Sayer Ji5 of Greenmedinfo.com, who was also targeted in the report:

“[W]hile the document purports to be analytical and descriptive, it has proscriptive and defamatory undertones, and only thinly conceals an agenda to discredit opposing views and voices. UNICEF’s derogatory stance.

This is all the more surprising considering that websites such as GreenMedinfo.com aggregate, disseminate and provide open access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library of Medicine, much of which comes from high-impact journals.”

GMO-Labeling Supporters Now Accused of Supporting Eco-Terrorism. What’s Next?

Another recent article, published in Forbes Magazine,6 really ups the ante of the attack on health journalists and their readers with the headline: “ Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep Pockets. And Many Enablers.” The article, written by Jay Byme and Henry I.Miller, reads in part:

“In recent years, [eco]terrorists have attempted to gain sympathy and “justification” for their actions by means of disinformation campaigns that relentlessly smear the safety and utility of genetic engineering applied to agriculture… “Frankenfood” headlines may sell newspapers and organic food, but this kind of “black marketing” — enhancing the perceived value of your products by disparaging those of your competitors – can also encourage serious criminal acts.

…There exists in this country a vast, well-established, highly professional, protest industry fueled by special interest groups seeking to line their own pockets… Anti-genetic engineering campaigns are openly funded and promoted by mainstream organic food marketers like Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield Organic, and alternative health and food-supplement hucksters Joe Mercola and Mike Adams — all cynical fear-profiteers who benefit from increased consumer mistrust in their competitors’ products… The ultimate objective, of course, is to sell more overpriced, overrated organic food…

One result of the widely disseminated disinformation effort is an environment that provides encouragement to extremists who commit criminal acts. It comes from the Facebook and Twitter followers of the genetic engineering conspiracy theorists, organic marketers and “right to know” labeling activists… Against the backdrop of this fear-mongering, hate-speech and support for acts of terror toward legal, highly regulated, safe and societally valuable R&D, we should condemn not only the perpetrators themselves but also their corporate and media enablers.”

to read more, go to:   http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/18/unicef-attacks-health-advocates.aspx?e_cid=20130918Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130918Z1

 

Rethinking SELL BY/BEST BY Date

Posted on by

Is Your Food Expired? Don’t Be So Quick to Toss It

September 30, 2013 |

Story at-a-glance

  • ‘Use by’ and ‘best by’ dates on food are only an indicator of peak freshness, not a measure of food safety
  • In many cases, foods are still safe to eat even after these dates have expired
  • Forty percent of the US food supply is thrown away uneaten every year because of expired food dates, even though the food is often still safe
  • ‘Sell by’ dates aren’t meant for consumer use at all; they’re intended to help retailers ensure proper product turnover
  • The greatest factor impacting whether your perishable food has spoiled isn’t total storage time but rather how much time it spends in the temperature ‘danger zone’ (between 40-120 degrees F)

By Dr. Mercola

Forty percent of the US food supply is thrown away uneaten every year because of expired food dates, but a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Harvard suggests that most of that food is still safe to eat.1

Labels like ‘use by’ and ‘sell by’ on foods aren’t actually an indicator of food safety, as many believe them to be, and, the report found, more than 90 percent of Americans are throwing out food prematurely because of misunderstandings of what food dates actually mean. In short, many foods are still safe to eat even after they’re expired.

There is Only ONE National Regulation on Food Dating

While both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have the authority to regulate food dating, neither does, with the exception of infant formula (the only food product with a federally regulated date label, as the nutrients in the formula decline over time).

The rest of the food market has no such federal dating regulations, and the end result is a veritable free for all, with some states requiring food dates and establishing selling restrictions based on them and others not.

For instance, 20 states restrict stores from selling products after the use by dates while 30 do not. As the report highlights, are the people in the 20 more restrictive states better off? Most likely not …

Adding to the confusion, even when products are regulated, the rules vary by state and even then definitions are vague and provide little usefulness, if any. According to the report:

  • In Florida, all milk and milk products “shall be legibly labeled with their shelf-life date,” but shelf life date is never defined.
  • In California, milk is required to have a date that the processor decides is the date “to ensure quality, such product is normally removed from the shelf” but sale after that date is not restricted.
  • In Montana, milk must have a “sell by” date within 12 days of pasteurization, while Pennsylvania requires it within 17 days.
  • In New Hampshire, a “sell by date” is required for cream but not milk.
  • New York, Texas, and Wisconsin, among many other states, have no requirements for date labels on milk or dairy.

There is No Way for You to Know How a ‘Use By’ Date is Calculated

It’s not only what happens to products after a ‘use by’ or ‘best by’ date has been applied that’s confusing. Even the creation of the date itself is subject to incredible variance and, ultimately, is up to individual product manufacturers to determine.

Again, while most assume such dates are used as a means for food safety, most manufacturers view them as a tool to protect their product’s reputation. They want you to consume their product at its peak freshness and flavor, which means many set food dates conservatively.

Yet, the food is many times still safe to eat after the date expires, often with minimal, if any, changes in taste or texture. Even the methods used by manufacturers to set food dates vary. The report explained:

“Some use lab tests, others use literature values, and yet others use product turnover rates or consumer taste testing … In consumer testing, some manufacturers will allow for a level of change in quality over time before setting a date limit, whereas others set them more conservatively

… Thus, while open dating appears on the surface to be an objective exercise, consumer preferences and brand protection impact the way most of these dates are determined. In most cases, consumers have no way of knowing how a “sell by” or “use by” date has been defined or calculated, and the method of calculation may vary widely by product type, manufacturer and geography.”

So a package of cheese or a box of crackers may have different ‘use by’ dates simply depending on which brand you choose, or where they’re purchased.

Food Dates Do Little to Protect You

The researchers concluded that food dates generally lead to good food getting thrown away, and may at the same time prompt you to eat a food that’s actually spoiled because of ‘undue faith in date labels.’

to read more, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/30/food-expiration.aspx?e_cid=20130930Z1_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20130930Z1

Drugging Children

Posted on by

Documentary: The Drugging of Our Children

July 20, 2013
by Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • The Drugging of Our Children documentary details the devastating consequences of the excessive medicating of US children, with a focus on children who have been given the diagnosis of ADHD
  • Drugs prescribed for ADHD are “class 2” narcotics, regulated by the Drug Enforcement Agency as a controlled substance because they can lead to dependence, heart attack, stroke, seizures and stunted growth; other mind-altering drugs commonly prescribed to kids can cause aggressive and violent behavior, suicide and more
  • The long-term effects of medicating children with mind-altering drugs during their key formative years are largely unknown, but likely devastating
  • The diagnosis of mental illness in children is far from an exact science; in many cases a child is labeled with a “disorder” such as ADHD based on subjective observations of behaviors that nearly all children exhibit at some time (such as excessive fidgeting or difficulty waiting his or her turn)
  • Behavioral problems in children – including what might appear to be serious mental disorders – are very frequently related to improper diet, emotional upset and exposure to toxins; these underlying issues should be resolved before suppressing symptoms with medications

By Dr. Mercola

Millions of US children are taking powerful mind-altering drugs, often before they’re even old enough to attend school.

Oftentimes the side effects are far worse than the conditions, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for which they’re prescribed, and rival illegal street drugs in terms of their dangerous risks to health.

In children, the long-term effects are often largely unknown, while in the short term, we’ve seen shocking increases in violent and aggressive acts committed by teens taking one or more psychotropic drugs.

With the problem getting increasingly worse instead of better, now is a perfect time to view Gary Null’s excellent documentary, The Drugging of Our Children.

The number of prescriptions for psychotropic drugs for children more than doubled between 1995 and 2000; the documentary details the devastating consequences of this excessive medicating of our children, with a focus on children who have been diagnosed with ADHD.

Most Children Diagnosed with ADHD Are Given Drugs Even Though Misdiagnosis Is Common

As the documentary points out, many of you reading this probably don’t remember any kids in your class at school who were taking mind-altering drugs. And that’s likely because the vast majority were not.

In contrast, one in 10 US children is now claimed to have ADHD, which is a 22 percent increase since 2003.1 About two-thirds of the children diagnosed with ADHD are on some form of prescription medication, which is unfortunate not only because there are far better (and safer) treatment options but also because many are misdiagnosed.

ADHD seems to have become more or less the catchall designation for children who do not “behave well” — and one study determined that about 20 percent of children have likely been misdiagnosed.2 That’s nearly 1 million children in the US alone.

The study found that many of the youngest children in any given grade level are perceived as exhibiting “symptoms” of ADHD, such as fidgeting and an inability to concentrate, simply because they’re younger and being compared to their older, more mature classmates.

The documentary, too, points out that an ADHD diagnosis is often made, in part, on the highly subjective observations of teachers or guardians, based on signs nearly every child will display at some point (fidgeting, easily distracted, difficulty waiting his or her turn, and so on), and with little regard for other factors that could be aggravating a child’s behavior, such as diet or home environment.

The outcome is, sadly, typically the same: another child placed on powerful drugs, of which parents are often completely unaware of the extreme side effects they carry.

We’re Talking Hard-Core ‘Class 2’ Narcotics

Drugs prescribed for ADHD are not “mild” by any means. These are hard-core, “class 2” narcotics, regulated by the Drug Enforcement Agency as a controlled substance because they can lead to dependence. The majority of kids diagnosed with ADHD will be prescribed these potentially dangerous drugs, the most common being Ritalin.

By definition, Ritalin stimulates your central nervous system and may certainly interfere with the delicate and complex workings of your brain and personality. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),3 side effects include:

Sudden death in people who have heart problems or heart defects Stroke and heart attack Increased blood pressure
New or worse behavior and thought problems New or worse bipolar illness New or worse aggressive behavior or hostility
New psychotic symptoms (such as hearing voices, believing things that are not true, are suspicious) New manic symptoms Increased heart rate
Slowing of growth (height and weight) in children Seizures Eyesight changes or blurred vision

 

There are reports of children committing suicide while taking the drug, and the long-term effects are unknown. Researchers have also revealed that Ritalin appears to delay puberty, an effect that was previously unknown, raising questions about what other effects may have yet to be uncovered. Another common ADHD drug is Adderall, which contains amphetamine (aka “speed”) and dextroamphetamine, and is used to reduce impulsiveness and hyperactivity in patients with ADHD. Like Ritalin, Adderall can cause potentially life-threatening side effects. Among them:

Aggressive behavior or hostility Bipolar illness Worse behavior or thought problems
Psychotic symptoms (hearing voices, believing things that are not true) or manic symptoms Sudden death in patients who have heart problems or heart defects Stroke or heart attack
Increased blood pressure and heart rate Seizures and eyesight changes Slowing of growth in children

Kids Turned Into ‘Lifetime Paying Patients’

As Drugging of Our Children reveals, there is big money to be made in prescribing medications to kids – especially when those medications are intended to be taken for life, as many psychotropic drugs are. What happens to kids once they become medicated at a very young age, during some of his or her key formative years?

for more and the video, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/20/drugging-children.aspx

Get GMO’s Labeled

Posted on by

Good News! Monsanto’s PR Machine Is Failing Miserably

by Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Mainstream press is finally starting to question the logic behind, and safety of, GE foods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—from crops with built-in pesticides, to salmon designed to grow abnormally large and fast
  • Some mainstream reporters have come down hard on Monsanto and their biotech allies in recent weeks, most of them highlighting the growing pest and weed resistance these crops have produced
  • A recent report illustrates the dramatic increase of pesticide use as resistance began taking hold in early 2000’s. Use of the herbicide 2,4-D (the active ingredient in Agent Orange) has also more than doubled since 2002
  • In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods
  • In November, Washington State will vote on GMO labeling. If the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) raises $150,000 by July 27, I will match the donation

Let’s Get GMO’s Labeled!

Even though Prop 37 in California last November just missed passing, it generated enormous amounts of exposure on this issue, far more than what was spent on the campaign. That exposure will be the catalyst to our eventual victory.

In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort. In November, Washington State will vote on GMO labeling. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

to read the rest of the article and take action to get GMO’s Labeled, go to:   http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/23/press-questions-gmo-safety.aspx?e_cid=20130723_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130723

Questions Abound over Efficacy of Flu Vaccines

Posted on by

Analysis Finds Flu Vaccine Efficacy Lacking, as Flu Vaccines are Suspended Across Europe and Canada

By Dr. Mercola

With flu season just around the corner, health agencies are telling Americans to just “get your flu shot,” assuring everyone that it’s safe and effective. Many, like MedicineNet.com,1 chalk up any and all safety concerns as “myths.”

“It’s the time of year when you should be thinking about flu vaccinations for yourself and your family,” they write. “Some people, however, decide not to get the flu vaccine and put themselves and others at risk of getting sick just because they believe long-held myths about the vaccine.”

Myths? I think not.

Vaccine Claims are Not Based on Science-Backed Medicine

Story at-a-glance

  • A recent review found that flu vaccines may not offer protection as previously thought. The elderly, in particular, do not appear to receive measureable value from the flu shot. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines also didn’t offer much protection to children over the age of seven
  • While infants and young children are at greatest risk, no one is exempt from the potential serious complications of flu vaccination, one of which is Guillaine-Barre syndrome. Early symptoms of GBS include sudden muscle weakness, fatigue and tingling sensations in the legs, eventually ending with either partial or total paralysis
  • A unit of U.S. drugmaker Johnson & Johnson, recently suspended delivery of their seasonal flu vaccine, Inflexal V, destined for Italy and other European countries, after discovering “problems” with two of 32 lots
  • Two weeks ago Italy banned the sale and use of four flu vaccines manufactured by Novartis, following the discovery of white particles in the vaccines. Over the next two days, Switzerland, Austria, Spain, France, Germany and Canada also suspended use of Novartis’ flu vaccines
  • ACIP recently changed their recommendation on Tdap during pregnancy. According to new recommendation, a Tdap booster vaccine is to be given to pregnant women during each consecutive pregnancy. The vote was unanimous despite the fact that neither safety nor efficacy data exists for women given multiple consecutive Tdap vaccinations during every pregnancy.

to read the rest, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/11/06/flu-vaccine-efficacy.aspx?e_cid=20121106_DNL_art_1

Microflora. Physical Health, Mental Well-Being fr/Dr. Mercola

Posted on by

The Wide-Ranging Influence of Gut Microbes on Your Mental and Physical Health

September 05 2012

By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Ninety percent of the genetic material in your body is NOT yours. It is from the nearly 100 trillion bacteria, fungi, viruses and other microorganisms that compose your microflora
  • Your microflora influence your genetic expression, your immune system, weight, mental health, memory, and your risk of numerous chronic and acute diseases, from diabetes to cancer
  • It is becoming increasingly clear that destroying your gut flora with antibiotics and poor diet is a primary factor in rising disease rates. Recent research suggests intestinal inflammation may play a crucial role in the development of certain cancers
  • Avoiding antibiotics (including those from conventionally-raised meats and rBGH-laced milk), adhering to a low-sugar diet, along with plenty of unpasteurized fermented foods and/or a high-quality probiotic supplement, are crucial elements for restoring and maintaining both your gut’s inner ecosystem and your overall health. Make sure to avoid both conventionally-raised meat and milk laced with rBGH

There are 100 trillion cells in your body, but 90% of the genetic material is not yours. It is from the bacteria, fungi, viruses and other microorganisms, i.e. your microflora. Gut microbes are big in the news lately, as researchers continue to discover the important roles these tiny organisms play in your overall health and well-being. We now know that your microflora influence your:

  • Genetic expression
  • Immune system
  • Weight, and
  • Risk of numerous chronic and acute diseases, from diabetes to cancer

Most recently, research has shown that a certain set of these microbes may actually influence the activity of genes in your brain – and the parts they play are not small parts. They may work to manipulate your behavior, and your memory as well.

Microbes Manipulate Your Mind

According to a recent article in The Guardian1, certain species of gut bacteria have been found to influence gene activity in your brain. Some of this research was published in 2011.2 Mice lacking gut bacteria were found to engage in “high-risk behavior,” and this altered behavior was accompanied by neurochemical changes in the mouse brain.

According to the authors, microbiota (your gut flora) may play a role in the communication between your gut and your brain, and:

“Acquisition of intestinal microbiota in the immediate postnatal period has a defining impact on the development and function of the gastrointestinal, immune, neuroendocrine and metabolic systems. For example, the presence of gut microbiota regulates the set point for hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity.”

But they also discovered other differences between the mice with normal gut flora and those lacking gut bacteria. When examining the animals’ brains, they discovered a number of genetic alterations in the germ-free mice. According to The Guardian:

“Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) was significantly up-regulated, and the 5HT1A serotonin receptor sub-type down-regulated, in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. The gene encoding the NR2B subunit of the NMDA receptor was also down-regulated in the amygdala.

All three genes have previously been implicated in emotion and anxiety-like behaviors.

BDNF is a growth factor that is essential for proper brain development, and a recent study showed that deleting the BDNF receptor TrkB alters the way in which newborn neurons integrate into hippocampal circuitry and increases anxiety-like behaviors in mice. Serotonin receptors, which are distributed widely throughout the brain, are well known to be involved in mood, and compounds that activate the 5HT1A subtype also produce anxiety-like behaviors.

The finding that the NR2B subunit of the NMDA receptor down-regulated in the amygdala is particularly interesting. NMDA receptors are composed of multiple subunits, but those made up of only NR2B subunits are known to be critical for the development and function of the amygdala, which has a well established role in fear and other emotions, and in learning and memory. Drugs that block these receptors have been shown to block the formation of fearful memories and to reduce the anxiety associated with alcohol withdrawal in rodents.”

for the rest of the article, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/05/microbes-manipulate-your-mind.aspx?e_cid=20120905_DNL_artNew_1