Monday, October 26, 2009

new swine flu shot

"Study found that primates that received just 1 vaccination containing thimerosal, the mercury-preservative found in new swine flu shot, had neurological impairment when compared with those who received a saline solution injection or no injection at all." Dr. Mercola, 10/22/2009

New Study Demonstrates Significant Harm
From Just ONE Mercury-Containing Vaccine
Posted by Mercola, D.O. October 22 2009

A new study found that primates that received just ONE vaccination containing thimerosal, the mercury-preservative found in many vaccines including the new swine flu shot, had significant neurological impairment when compared with those who received a saline solution injection or no injection at all.
Although the paper is carefully worded and the results reported modestly, these findings are certain to receive intense scrutiny. The vast majority of American infants born during the 1990’s received a vaccine formulation similar to the one the thirteen vaccinated primates received.

Thimerosal-containing vaccines are still routinely administered to newborn infants in developing countries such as Brazil, and most influenza vaccines contain thimerosal and are routinely administered to pregnant women and infants.
The finding that early exposure to potentially toxic vaccine formulations can cause significant neurodevelopmental delays in primates has explosive implications for vaccine safety management.
But while Americans are still debating whether to roll up their sleeves for a swine flu shot, companies have already figured it out: vaccines are good for business.
Drug companies have sold $1.5 billion worth of swine flu shots, in addition to the $1 billion for seasonal flu they booked earlier this year. These inoculations are part of a much wider and rapidly growing $20 billion global vaccine market.
"The vaccine market is booming," says Bruce Carlson, spokesperson at market research firm Kalorama, which publishes an annual survey of the vaccine industry. "It's an enormous growth area for pharmaceuticals at a time when other areas are not doing so well," he says, noting that the pipeline for more traditional blockbuster drugs such as Lipitor and Nexium has thinned.
As always with pandemic flus, taxpayers are footing the $1.5 billion check for the 250 million swine flu vaccines that the government has ordered so far and will be distributing free to doctors, pharmacies and schools. In addition, Congress has set aside more than $10 billion this year to research flu viruses, monitor H1N1's progress and educate the public about prevention.
Drugmakers benefit most from the revenues from flu sales, with Sanofi-Pasteur, Glaxo Smith Kline and Novartis cornering most of the market.
But some say it's not just drugmakers who stand to benefit. Doctors collect copayments for special office visits to inject shots, and there have been assertions that these doctors actually profit handsomely from these vaccinations.


Age of Autism September 30, 2009

Time Magazine October 19, 2009

Examiner September 30, 2009

Science News September 30, 2009

Neurotoxicology October 2, 2009 [Epub ahead of Print]

ABC News October 14, 2009

Last week I wrote about the Washington Department of Health’s (DOH) decision to suspend the rule limiting the amount of thimerosal in vaccines that can be administered to pregnant women and infants under the age of three. Thimerosal is the highly toxic and poisonous ethyl mercury agent that is used as a preservative in most flu vaccines.
With all the evidence stacked against this mercury-containing vaccine preservative, this decision is downright foolhardy.
The study above is just one of several studies published this year, suggesting that injecting mercury into children can have far-reaching health ramifications, contrary to everything your government health officials are saying.
For example, the Seattle Times quoted Washington’s Secretary of Health, Mary Selecky, as saying that “the preservative, thimerosal, has never been linked to any health problems.”
The article goes on to state that a “vocal minority” believes the compound could be linked to autism. Nowhere do they mention the fact that there is in fact abundant scientific evidence to come to that conclusion.
The Tricky Terrain of Vaccines
No doubt this study will be closely scrutinized and no effort spared to try to dismiss it as its findings are quite significant. If there are neurological effects after just one dose of mercury-containing vaccine, what might the ramifications be when you inject multiple vaccines within a short amount of time?
In the US, most childhood vaccines are now thimerosal-free. Vaccines that still contain mercury include:
• All DTwP products (Diphtheria, Tetanus & whole cell Pertussis)
• DT (Diphtheria & Tetanus) multi-dose vials
• All Tetanus Toxoid vaccines
• Meningococcal multi-dose vials
• All multi-dose vials of seasonal- and swine flu vaccine, typically recommended for adults and children over the age of three.
For a list of mercury content in US licensed vaccines, please see this link.
The vaccine-safety community fought long and hard to get thimerosal removed from childhood vaccines, and now, just a few short years later, we’re looking at government recommendations that include multiple injections of mercury-containing flu vaccines year in and year out from early toddlerhood…

Related Links:

Washington Health Department Suspends Mercury Restrictions for Swine Flu Vaccine

Proof That Thimerosal Induces Autism-Like Neurotox

Safe Minds’ Assessment of the Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine Study

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Friendly bacteria &/or Probiotics?

Bacteria in Your Gut May Enhance Your Health.

The human digestive tract is home to millions of bacteria. Some researchers estimate that humans have more bacterial cells than body cells. But when it comes to health, bacteria usually have a bad reputation. For example, if you've ever suffered from loose bowls that strikes people who travel to other countries), you're well aware of the effect of unwelcome bacteria on your digestion.
While there are well over 375 species of bacteria in humans, not all cause problems. I know that friendly bacteria—probiotics, may help digestion and over all wellness.
What are probiotics?
The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization defines probiotics as live microorganisms...which confer a beneficial health effect on the host. In other words, for bacteria to be considered a probiotic, it must be beneficial to humans. As a result, if food manufacturers labels a food as containing probiotics, the benefits must be proven by research.
In the United States, no health claims for probiotics have been approved, but this hasn't stopped the recently surging sales of probiotic products. Yogurt and yogurt-type drinks are especially popular probiotic-containing foods. In the European Union, there are even stricter rules requiring companies to prove the health claims about probiotics. New research efforts are focused on proving the beneficial effects, so that food producers can add these health claims to food labels.
Probiotics can be helpful.
Anecdotal (word of mouth) evidence suggests friendly bacteria help a variety of digestive problems. I believe this is often the start a Wellness deficiency.
Benefits have been proven, mainly because the research is complicated and time consuming. What's so complicated? Well, each species of bacteria may come in several different strains. If one strain shows a beneficial effect, researchers can't assume other strains will have the same effect and must test each strain individually.
At the moment, most probiotic-enhanced foods and supplements contain varieties of lactobacillus or bifidobacterium, which are the best known probiotics. As research continues, other types of bacteria may also prove beneficial.
Eat friendly bacteria (probiotics).
The concept sounds simple enough. Eat friendly bacteria and they will eventually arrive in your intestine and enhance your overall health. However, the reality is more complex. For starters, the bacteria may not survive the digestive enzymes in your stomach and upper small intestine. The probiotics industry is working to solve this problem by making more viable products so the cultures survive the digestive process. Then, there's the problem of the bacteria needing to eat, which is where prebiotics come in.
Eating food that containing probiotics.
Probiotics are not bacteria; they are food for friendly bacteria. The best-known of these are fructooligosaccharides (FOS), a class of sugars that are indigestible by humans. FOS are derived from edible plants like Jerusalem artichokes, and can now be found in a range of specialty food products from yogurt to ice cream to lollipops. FOS can also be purchased separately in capsule or powdered form. Consuming prebiotic-containing products encourage the growth of friendly bacteria in the digestive tract.
Friendly bacteria, along with prebiotics, may very well be shown to enhance your health in a variety of ways. Evidence for benefits will lead to an explosion of food products that contain pre and pro-biotics, or combinations of them termed "synbiotics." Live enzymes a a big part of this story also but that I will have to cover it at another time.

Get my free copy of “Bacteria Wars” for more information.
Ken Anderson

10 Studies Showing Link Between White Sugar & Increased Cancer Risk

10 Studies Showing Link Between White Sugar & Increased Cancer Risk

1. Colorectal Cancer in Women (United States)

A study conducted by Harvard Medical School found that women who ate the most foods with high glycemic load – the glycemic index, or GI, of a food gives an idea of how quickly sugar (more specifically, glucose) levels in the blood rise after eating it – had almost three times the risk of getting colorectal cancer in the future, compared with women who ate lesser amounts of such foods.

Typically, processed foods made from refined grains and refined sugar, including candy bars, cakes, cookies and other snacks, are high glycemic foods

"We find a very straightforward and clear association between high-glycemic foods and the risk of colorectal cancers," said lead researcher Simin Liu, MD, ScD.

This study involved some 40,000 American women.

2. Colorectal Cancer in Men (United States)

Another study at Harvard University found that middled aged men whose diets tended to increase blood sugar levels quicker, i.e. those who ate more high GI foods, had a 32% higher chance of getting colorectal cancer over a period of 20 years.

The study, which involved more than 50,000 men, also found that this effect seemed to be more pronounced in heavier men.

3. Breast Cancer in Women (United States)

The Women's Health Study found that those who consumed a diet which raised blood sugar levels more had a 135% higher risk of getting breast cancer in the 7-year period of the study.

4. Endometrial Cancer in Women (United States)

The Iowa Women's Health Study looked at some 23,000 post-menopausal women. It found that those who consumed a diet which raised blood sugar levels more had a 46% higher risk of getting endometrial cancer over a period of 15 years.

5. Endometrial Cancer in Women (Italy)

Another study in Italy carried out on women with endometrial cancer found that those who consumed a blood sugar-raising diet had a 110% higher risk of getting this disease.

6. Pancreatic Cancer in Women (United States)

In a study which followed almost 90,000 US women participating in the Nurse's Health Study for a period of 18 years, it was found that women with a high glycemic load intake had a 53% higher risk of getting pancreatic cancer. A similar increase in risk, 57%, was observed for fructose intake.

Further, the study also found that women who were heavy and with low levels of physical activity experienced greatly enhanced risk. Women in this group with high glycemic load had 2.67 times the risk of their counterparts with low glycemic load intake!

7. Pancreatic Cancer in Men and Women (Sweden)

A study carried out by Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden and Central Hospital in Västerås, Sweden followed almost 78,000 Swedish men and women with no previous diagnosis of cancer or history of diabetes for a mean period of more than 7 years. The subjects were aged from 45 to 83 years.

The study found that consuming added sugar, soft drinks, sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit increased the risk of pancreatic cancer.

Those who ate the most sugar had a 69% higher risk compared with those who ate the least sugar. The corresponding higher risk for soft drinks was 93%, while for sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit it was 51%.

The study concluded that "high consumption of sugar and high-sugar foods may be associated with a greater risk of pancreatic cancer".

8. Prostate Cancer in Men (Italy)

An Italian study examined the habits of men aged 46 to 74 who had prostate cancer and compared their dietary choices to similar men who did not contract the disease. The study found that those men whose diets were more likely to increase blood sugar levels had a 57% higher risk of getting prostate cancer.

9. All Cancers in Men and Women (Korea)

A large study carried out by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Yonsei University in Seoul, Korea tracked almost 1.3 million Korean men and women, aged between 30 and 95 years, for a period of 10 years.

The study found that those with the highest fasting glucose levels were more likely to die from all types of cancer combined. For the men, the strongest link was found for pancreatic cancer, while significant links were also reported for oesophagus, liver and colorectal cancers. For the women, the strongest associations were for liver and cervical cancers.

All in all, besides being more likely to die from cancer, those with highest fasting blood glucose levels also had higher risk of developing cancer.

And obesity had a part to play, too. "This study provides more information on glucose intolerance, an emerging cause of cancer. It points to increased cancer risk as another adverse consequence of rising obesity around the world," concluded Sun Ha Jee, leader of the study.

Another thing to note - the study participants were said to be substantially leaner than the typical population in Western countries, as mentioned by the study team.

10. Various Cancers in Men and Women (Sweden)

A study carried out at Umea University Hospital in Sweden looked at almost 65,000 people in northern Sweden for a mean period of 8 years.

The study found that women with the highest blood sugar levels had a higher risk of getting cancer before the end of the study period. This group of women also had higher risk of endometrial cancer, while those below 49 years of age had higher risk of breast cancer. In addition, both men and women who had the highest levels of blood sugar had higher risks of pancreatic cancer, urinary tract cancer, as well as malignant melanoma.

These results led Par Stattin, MD, PhD, part of the study team, to state that keeping blood sugar levels within the normal range "may reduce cancer risk".

Why Does Cancer Love White Sugar? – A Study Suggests Why

A study team at Duke University School of Medicine has suggested a possible reason why cancer cells like sugar so much.

Basically, according to the researchers, in healthy cells, certain growth factors regulate their metabolism and cell survival. When these growth factors are removed, there is loss of glucose uptake and metabolism, and the cells die.

However, they found that cancer cells are able to maintain glucose metabolism by using a protein called "Akt", which promotes glucose metabolism. This prevents cell death, even when the growth factors are not available.

What We Need to Take Note of

So, then, based on the findings of the abovementioned studies, can we conclude that sugar feeds cancer? The truth is, sugar feeds all cells in our bodies. It therefore cannot be all bad.

Two things we must take note of, however, is the amount and the type of sugar which we consume.

Consuming too much sugar causes our bodies to produce excessive amounts of insulin. And insulin itself encourages the growth of cells, something which is good for healthy cells, but not cancerous cells.

The other key point is to avoid simple sugars. Broadly speaking, processed and refined foods, including soft drinks, sugary beverages, candy bars, cakes, other desserts, as well as other snacks, contain high amounts of simple sugars. These are high GI foods, which can cause insulin levels to spike.

On the other hand, natural sugars found in fruits and vegetables are so much safer and better for health. Even fresh fruit juice, despite its high sugar content, is great for health. On top of that, healthy whole foods come with a wide concoction of vitamins and minerals, something which refined sugar is totally devoid of.

Simple White Sugars Cause Obesity

When one' insulin levels suddenly increase, the level of sugar in the blood can suddenly crash. This, then, can cause one to feel intensely hungry. People then eat more, and feel hungry again soon, and the cycle keeps going.

Further, because of their lack of nutrition, foods with a lot of simple sugars are basically empty calories. When the body's nutritional needs are not met, it continues to crave for food, which again explains the non-stop eating and feasting.

The more refined sugars one eats, the fatter one becomes, yet the more malnourished one can be. It is a huge paradox, and a dangerous one at that.


Refined white sugar is devoid of important nutrients, causes obesity, causes cavities, and also increases cancer risk. If you or a loved one are battling cancer, or are serious about avoiding the disease, you may want to take note of your intake of this common yet dangerous substance.

Main Sources: Various medical journal and health websites

9 Reasons Why to not get Flu Vaccine

Do NOT Let Your Child Get Flu Vaccine -- 9 Reasons Why Posted by: Dr. Mercola October 6, 2009

This year it is more important that you protect your children and loved ones from the flu vaccines than influenza itself. This article on Lew Rockwell discusses how:

1. The swine flu is simply another flu. It is not unusually deadly.
2. This is the first time both seasonal and pandemic flu vaccines will be administered. Both seasonal flu and swine flu vaccines will require two inoculations. This is because single inoculations have failed to produce sufficient antibodies. This is an admission that prior flu vaccines were virtually useless. Can you trust them this time?
3. Adjuvants are added to vaccines to boost production of antibodies but may trigger autoimmune reactions. Some adjuvants are mercury (thimerosal), aluminum and squalene. Why would you sign a consent form for your children to be injected with mercury, which is even more brain-toxic than lead?
4. This is the first year mock vaccines have been used to gain FDA
approval. The vaccines that have been tested are not the same vaccines your children will be given.
5. Over-vaccination is a common practice now in America. American children are subjected to 29 vaccines by the age of two. Meanwhile, veterinarians have backed off of repeat vaccination in dogs because of observed side effects.
6. Modern medicine has no explanation for autism, despite its continued rise in prevalence. Yet autism is not reported among Amish children who go unvaccinated.
7. Researchers are warning that over-use of the flu vaccine and
anti-flu drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can apply genetic pressure on flu viruses and then they are more likely to mutate into a more deadly strain.
8. Most seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus strains tested from the United States and other countries are now resistant to Tamiflu (oseltamivir). Tamiflu has become a nearly worthless drug against seasonal flu.
9. Public health officials are irresponsible in their omission of any ways to strengthen immunity against the flu. No options outside of problematic vaccines and anti-flu drugs are offered, despite the fact there is strong evidence that vitamins C and D activate the immune system and the trace mineral selenium prevents the worst form of the disease.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Study of Chemical in Plastic Bottles Raises Alarm

By Deborah Kotz

Posted April 16, 2008

Bisphenol A (BPA), a compound in hard, clear polycarbonate plastics, is getting official scrutiny—and things are looking less than rosy for the controversial chemical. The U.S. government's National Toxicology Program yesterday agreed with a scientific panel that recently expressed concern about physiological changes that occur in people when they ingest BPA that has leached from plastics into their food. The Canadian government is even considering declaring the chemical toxic, reports today's New York Times . This could set the stage for banning it from plastic baby bottles, water bottles, and food containers. At the very least, some people will be even more eager to buy foods and beverages in BPA-free containers.

BPA has raised concerns because it appears to mimic the effects of estrogen, interfering with hormone levels and cell signaling systems. Previous studies have shown that people exposed to high levels of BPA have a greater risk of developing uterine fibroids (noncancerous tumors that develop within or attach to the wall of the uterus, a female reproductive organ). breast cancer, decreased sperm counts, and prostate cancer. Babies and children are thought to be at greatest risk from the exposure. In fact, the scientific evidence warrants "a higher level of concern than those expressed by the expert [scientific] panel for possible effects of bisphenol A on prostate gland, mammary gland and early onset of puberty in exposed fetuses, infants and children," the NTP report concludes .

Not surprisingly, sales of BPA-free baby bottles spiked after yesterday's news. "We tripled our sales overnight on the website and will be shipping an additional 300,000 bottles to Canada this week to meet an increased demand," says Ron Vigdor, president of BornFree, which manufactures BPA-free bottles. He adds that Babies "R" Us also indicated that it would be increasing its order to U.S. stores.

Beyond switching baby bottles, another way to lower exposure to BPA is to avoid heating foods and liquids in plastic containers that contain the compound. The amount of BPA that leaches out, the NTP says, may depend more on the temperature of the liquid, food, or container itself than on the age of the plastic bottle or dish. Check out this story on BPA and babies and this story on BPA and plastic containers for more tips on minimizing you and your family's exposure to BPA.