Can These Household Chemicals Crush Your Son’s Masculinity?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
December 19 2009
Elevated levels of two plastic-softening chemicals in pregnant women's urine are linked to less-masculine play behavior by their sons several years later, according to a study published in the International Journal of Andrology. Phthalates, which are used in everything from vinyl floors to plastic tubing and soaps and lotions, are pervasive in the environment and have increasingly become associated with changes in development of the male brain as well as with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities and reduced testosterone in babies and adults.
A team of U.S. and British researchers posed a standard play questionnaire to the parents of 145 preschool-age children. Then they ranked the types of play on a scale from most masculine (such as play fighting or using trucks) to most feminine.
An effect was identified among the sons of women with higher concentrations of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) in their prenatal urine. On average, those boys scored 8 percent further away from the masculine end of the scale than other boys.
Sources:
The Washington Post November 24, 2009
International Journal of Andrology November 16, 2009 [Epub Ahead of Print]
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Phthalates are one of several groups of chemicals that have the power to disrupt the endocrine system, both in animals and humans. Nicknamed “gender-benders,” these chemicals are causing the males in many species to become feminized.
Are Men Becoming an Endangered Species?
According to a report issued by ChemTrust last year, HALF of all male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to grow eggs in their testes! And that’s just one eye-opening example of the impact these gender bender chemicals are having on our environment.
Their study lists the symptoms found in each of the numerous species tested, which includes testicular cancer, hermaphrodites, genital deformations, low sperm counts, and infertility.
Numerous other studies over the past eight years confirm that similar dangers are posed to human health, and males are particularly at risk.
Decreased sperm motility and concentration, as well as genital abnormalities in baby boys have been linked to these chemicals.
The fact that endocrine disruptors like phthalates affect the reproductive system in nearly all mammals is becoming rather well known, although governments and public health- and safety organizations are slow to respond.
Why Pregnant Women Need to Become More Health Conscious
Two studies published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives in 2003 found that pregnant women who are exposed to phthalates may be at risk of shortened pregnancy. Women who were exposed to the chemicals gave birth more than one week earlier than women who were not exposed to them.
Although it’s not clear exactly how phthalates impact the developing fetus, it’s believed they may play a role in inducing an intrauterine inflammatory process, which is a well-established risk factor for premature birth.
In addition, the more a pregnant woman is exposed to high levels of phthalates, the greater the risk her son will have smaller genitals and incomplete testicular descent, leading to impaired reproductive development. The chemical also appears to make the overall genital tracts of boys slightly more feminine.
It is believed that phthalates have these adverse effects because they reduce testosterone synthesis by interfering with an enzyme needed to produce the male hormone. This raises yet another worry: What if they also alter other biological processes dependent on this hormone? Why wouldn’t they?
This latest study adds to the growing body of evidence showing the harmful effects these chemicals have on males in particular.
Women who had higher concentrations of two types of phthalates (DEHP, and DBP) also had boys who appeared more feminized in their personality, while playing.
The presence of phthalates in the mothers was not associated with any differences in the girls’ play behavior. However, that is NOT an indication that phthalates are “safe” for women.
They also affect women’s endocrine systems and reproductive health although the effects are different between the genders.
The glands of your endocrine system and the hormones they release influence almost every cell, organ, and function of your body. It is instrumental in regulating mood, growth and development, tissue function, metabolism, as well as sexual function and reproductive processes.
One indication that this is an issue for both male and female is that infertility is on the rise. Girls are also reaching puberty earlier than ever before.
Bovine growth hormones used in food production, soy foods, and bisphenol-A (BPA), just to name a few, add to the problem as they also mimic estrogen and disrupt your endocrine system.
Other studies have linked the chemical to thyroid problems in both women and men, and researchers have also suggested a link between phthalates and illnesses like allergies, asthma, and contact dermatitis, all of which are on the rise in children.
Common Sources of Phthalates
Phthalates, or “plasticizers,” are a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They’re one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters.
Phthalates are found in, among other things:
*
Processed food packaging
*
Hoses
*
Raincoats
*
Shower curtains
*
Vinyl flooring and wall coverings
*
Lubricant and adhesives
*
Detergents
*
Beauty products like nail polish, hair spray, shampoo, deodorants, and fragrances
*
Toys
Other Gender-Bender Chemicals to Watch Out For
Endocrine disrupting chemicals are everywhere these days and can be difficult to avoid unless you take decisive steps to limit or eliminate them from your immediate surroundings. This is particularly important if you are pregnant, or planning a pregnancy.
Reading labels is a necessity these days. PVC plastics, which contain phthalates, will oftentimes carry the plastic recycling symbol # 3.
Some of the other gender-bender agents to look out for include:
*
Bisphenol A (BPA) -- a common ingredient in many plastics, including those in reusable water bottles and resins lining some food cans and dental sealants, can change the course of fetal development in a way that increases your risk of breast cancer.
Plastic items carrying recycling symbol # 7 is oftentimes indicative of a BPA-containing plastic.
*
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) -- found in grease- and water-resistant coatings like Teflon and Gore-Tex, is a likely carcinogen.
*
Methoxychlor and Vinclozin-- An insecticide and a fungicide respectively, have been found to cause changes to male mice born for as many as four subsequent generations after the initial exposure.
*
Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) -- Known to be potent endocrine disrupters, these chemicals affect gene expression by turning on or off certain genes, and interfere with the way your glandular system works. They mimic the female hormone estrogen, and have been implicated as one reason behind some marine species switching from male to female.
*
Bovine growth hormones commonly added to commercial dairy have been implicated as a contributor to premature adolescence.
*
Soy products, which are loaded with hormone-like substances.
*
MSG -- A food additive that’s been linked to reduced fertility.
*
Fluoride -- This chemical in the U.S. water supply has been linked to lower fertility rates, hormone disruption and low sperm counts.
For more information about the various health hazards inherent with each of these agents, please click on the individual links above.
How to Minimize Your Exposure to Chemicals That Can Harm Your Unborn Baby
In July 2008, the U.S. Congress finally passed legislation banning six types of phthalates from children’s toys and cosmetics. Legislators in Washington, Vermont and California have also restricted phthalate use in children’s goods, and several major retailers, including Wal-Mart, Toys-R-Us, Lego, Evenflo and Gerber claim they will phase out phthalate-laden toys voluntarily.
Yet, so many more products contain endocrine disruptors of varying types, it’s far easier to memorize the healthiest options, rather than compiling a never-ending list of items to avoid.
Here are a number of practical techniques you can use to limit your exposure to endocrine disruptors, and other common toxins:
*
As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic foods to reduce your exposure to pesticides and fertilizers.
*
Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with a high-quality purified fish or krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and lab tested for purity.
*
Eat mostly raw, fresh foods, steering clear of processed, prepackaged foods of all kinds. This way you automatically avoid artificial food additives of all kinds, including dangerous artificial sweeteners, food coloring and MSG.
*
Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap.
*
Have your tap water tested and, if contaminants are found, install an appropriate water filter on all your faucets (even those in your shower or bath).
*
Only use natural cleaning products in your home.
*
Switch over to natural brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group has a great safety guide to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals.
*
Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances.
*
Replace your Teflon pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
*
When redoing your home, look for “green,” toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.
*
Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
France best, US worst in preventable death ranking
France best, US worst in preventable death ranking
Tue Jan 8, 2008 12:15am EST
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.
If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.
Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they did.
They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.
Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.
"I wouldn't say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don't, I think that's the main problem, isn't it?" Nolte said in a telephone interview.
In establishing their rankings, the researchers considered deaths before age 75 from numerous causes, including heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, diabetes, certain bacterial infections and complications of common surgical procedures.
Such deaths accounted for 23 percent of overall deaths in men and 32 percent of deaths in women, the researchers said.
France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.
After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.
PREVIOUS RANKINGS
The researchers compared these rankings with rankings for the same 19 countries covering the period of 1997 and 1998. France and Japan also were first and second in those rankings, while the United States was 15th, meaning it fell four places in the latest rankings.
All the countries made progress in reducing preventable deaths from these earlier rankings, the researchers said. These types of deaths dropped by an average of 16 percent for the nations in the study, but the U.S. decline was only 4 percent.
The research was backed by the Commonwealth Fund, a private New York-based health policy foundation.
"It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen said.
"The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference," Schoen added in a statement.
preventable deaths, u.s. health care ranking, chiropractor, acupuncture, orem UT Utah
Tue Jan 8, 2008 12:15am EST
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.
If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.
Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they did.
They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.
Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.
"I wouldn't say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don't, I think that's the main problem, isn't it?" Nolte said in a telephone interview.
In establishing their rankings, the researchers considered deaths before age 75 from numerous causes, including heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, diabetes, certain bacterial infections and complications of common surgical procedures.
Such deaths accounted for 23 percent of overall deaths in men and 32 percent of deaths in women, the researchers said.
France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.
After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.
PREVIOUS RANKINGS
The researchers compared these rankings with rankings for the same 19 countries covering the period of 1997 and 1998. France and Japan also were first and second in those rankings, while the United States was 15th, meaning it fell four places in the latest rankings.
All the countries made progress in reducing preventable deaths from these earlier rankings, the researchers said. These types of deaths dropped by an average of 16 percent for the nations in the study, but the U.S. decline was only 4 percent.
The research was backed by the Commonwealth Fund, a private New York-based health policy foundation.
"It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen said.
"The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference," Schoen added in a statement.
preventable deaths, u.s. health care ranking, chiropractor, acupuncture, orem UT Utah
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Vioxx Scandal by Merck: Mind-blowing Cover Up...
The Vioxx scandal widened this week as new research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine reveals that Vioxx maker Merck held data for three years that proved Vioxx caused an alarming increase in the risk of heart attacks and strokes. And yet Merck chose not to release that data. In fact, it took three more years of patients dying from heart attacks before Vioxx was pulled off the market, and even then, Merck insisted the drug was not dangerous.
This new study was based on a meta-analysis of several unpublished studies that Merck obviously didn't want to see published in medical journals. Drug companies routinely engage in this subterfuge: They cherry-pick which studies they want published while burying the rest. They also choose which studies to forward to the FDA, all while claiming the whole charade is based on "evidence-based medicine."
It is, sort of. If you add the word "selective" in front of the phrase, making it: "Selective evidence-based medicine."
So how were the authors of this new study able to find these unpublished studies that Merck would much prefer remained hidden? They were disclosed in court proceedings against Merck. So many people were harmed by Vioxx, you see, that some of them decided to sue. And in that legal process, many "secret" studies were revealed. Some smart-minded researchers decided to analyze the data in those studies and that's what reveals Merck knew Vioxx raised the risk of heart-related side effects by 35 percent and yet did nothing to warn the public about those risks.
In essence, these documents prove that Merck knowingly and maliciously allowed a deadly drug to continue to be sold to patients for years. It's a clear case of profits before patients from a drug company mired in one scandal after another. (Merck is also the maker of Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine.)
In its defense, Merck says its own scientists couldn't find any link between Vioxx and heart attack deaths. Understandably, it's difficult to find anything when your profits depend on not finding it.
The Merck conspiracy
Now that this data is public, it reveals that Merck's executives and / or employees were engaged in a conspiracy to withhold important drug safety data from the public and the FDA. The aim of this conspiracy was simple: To maximize profits through the sale of a product they knew was killing people.
Of course, only the naive are surprised to hear this. Informed NaturalNews readers already know this is the default behavior of drug companies. They'll do anything to make a buck, including fabricating clinical trial data, withholding important evidence, misrepresenting their drugs in television ads and lobbying lawmakers to make their drugs mandatory. The idea that they would knowingly sell a deadly drug to the general public -- while sitting on data for years that proved the drug was dangerous -- isn't really surprising. Not once you know how the pharmaceutical industry really works, anyway.
Many people (and many states) are fed up with the criminal behavior of drug companies. Nearly 10,000 individuals filed personal injury lawsuits against Merck over the Vioxx scandal. Most were settled for $4.85 billion in 2007, but many lawsuits remain. Eleven states' Attorneys General have also filed lawsuits against Merck, alleging the company committed fraud in its marketing of the drug to state Medicaid programs. Those lawsuits have yet to be resolved.
More legal action against Merck is no doubt on the way, as the company has engaged in questionable marketing practices spanning many different drugs (not just Vioxx). Drug companies like Merck have operated in the shadows for years, hiding data they knew would be damaging to their profits. These actions no doubt resulted in the needless deaths of tens of thousands of health consumers who would likely be alive today if this hidden data had been made public in 2001 when it was first known by Merck.
Merck's actions fit the legal definition of "negligent homicide." By withholding this important information, Merck indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of people. And yet somehow Merck's executives and employees are literally "getting away with murder" as there are no efforts under way to prosecute these people for their crimes.
I have to ask the obvious question: Why aren't Merck's executives being arrested and hauled off to prison for prosecution? If this were a Wall Street scandal, you'd see the head honchos in handcuffs, paraded on videos blasted across the evening news. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it's just business as usual. No one is held accountable. All those dead Americans essentially have their graves spit on by the failed justice system in this country that allows murderous corporations to continue killing more people with their deadly products.
The reason for all this is simple: America values money more than it values lives. When peoples' investments are destroyed, that's a crime. But when peoples' lives are destroyed by a dangerous pharmaceutical product, that's nobody's fault. Accountability is non-existent.
It sure puts America's priorities into perspective, doesn't it? Public safety has been all but abandoned by the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry -- an industry ruled by nothing other than the almighty dollar. And yet, here's something that puts it all into yet more perspective: According to Congressional testimony about Vioxx from drug safety experts, Vioxx alone killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam War.
Is that something worth investigating for potential prosecution? If you value human life, then yes, absolutely. So why do Merck's executives all seem to be immune to the law? Why is the Department of Justice too timid to go after one of the most dangerous organizations in the country that has killed many times more Americans than all terrorists combined?
Why isn't Merck on the FBI's "America's Most Wanted" list?
And why do the American people tolerate such corporate behavior on their own soil? Is killing people with chemicals any less serious than killing people with bullets? Imagine the public outcry if a car company sold a defective vehicle that resulted in the deaths of more than 60,000 people... that would be shocking headline news. But when it comes to pharmaceutical deaths, the people remain strangely silent.
And the reason? There's no video footage of people dying. Pharmaceutical deaths are silent, whimpering deaths. No fiery crashes. No flying body parts. No explosions to splash across the evening news. Just millions of people being individually and chemically snuffed out, all around the world, after taking patented prescription drugs sold by companies that lied to them about their safety.
Sources for this story include:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...
http://www.reuters.com/article/heal...
This new study was based on a meta-analysis of several unpublished studies that Merck obviously didn't want to see published in medical journals. Drug companies routinely engage in this subterfuge: They cherry-pick which studies they want published while burying the rest. They also choose which studies to forward to the FDA, all while claiming the whole charade is based on "evidence-based medicine."
It is, sort of. If you add the word "selective" in front of the phrase, making it: "Selective evidence-based medicine."
So how were the authors of this new study able to find these unpublished studies that Merck would much prefer remained hidden? They were disclosed in court proceedings against Merck. So many people were harmed by Vioxx, you see, that some of them decided to sue. And in that legal process, many "secret" studies were revealed. Some smart-minded researchers decided to analyze the data in those studies and that's what reveals Merck knew Vioxx raised the risk of heart-related side effects by 35 percent and yet did nothing to warn the public about those risks.
In essence, these documents prove that Merck knowingly and maliciously allowed a deadly drug to continue to be sold to patients for years. It's a clear case of profits before patients from a drug company mired in one scandal after another. (Merck is also the maker of Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine.)
In its defense, Merck says its own scientists couldn't find any link between Vioxx and heart attack deaths. Understandably, it's difficult to find anything when your profits depend on not finding it.
The Merck conspiracy
Now that this data is public, it reveals that Merck's executives and / or employees were engaged in a conspiracy to withhold important drug safety data from the public and the FDA. The aim of this conspiracy was simple: To maximize profits through the sale of a product they knew was killing people.
Of course, only the naive are surprised to hear this. Informed NaturalNews readers already know this is the default behavior of drug companies. They'll do anything to make a buck, including fabricating clinical trial data, withholding important evidence, misrepresenting their drugs in television ads and lobbying lawmakers to make their drugs mandatory. The idea that they would knowingly sell a deadly drug to the general public -- while sitting on data for years that proved the drug was dangerous -- isn't really surprising. Not once you know how the pharmaceutical industry really works, anyway.
Many people (and many states) are fed up with the criminal behavior of drug companies. Nearly 10,000 individuals filed personal injury lawsuits against Merck over the Vioxx scandal. Most were settled for $4.85 billion in 2007, but many lawsuits remain. Eleven states' Attorneys General have also filed lawsuits against Merck, alleging the company committed fraud in its marketing of the drug to state Medicaid programs. Those lawsuits have yet to be resolved.
More legal action against Merck is no doubt on the way, as the company has engaged in questionable marketing practices spanning many different drugs (not just Vioxx). Drug companies like Merck have operated in the shadows for years, hiding data they knew would be damaging to their profits. These actions no doubt resulted in the needless deaths of tens of thousands of health consumers who would likely be alive today if this hidden data had been made public in 2001 when it was first known by Merck.
Merck's actions fit the legal definition of "negligent homicide." By withholding this important information, Merck indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of people. And yet somehow Merck's executives and employees are literally "getting away with murder" as there are no efforts under way to prosecute these people for their crimes.
I have to ask the obvious question: Why aren't Merck's executives being arrested and hauled off to prison for prosecution? If this were a Wall Street scandal, you'd see the head honchos in handcuffs, paraded on videos blasted across the evening news. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, it's just business as usual. No one is held accountable. All those dead Americans essentially have their graves spit on by the failed justice system in this country that allows murderous corporations to continue killing more people with their deadly products.
The reason for all this is simple: America values money more than it values lives. When peoples' investments are destroyed, that's a crime. But when peoples' lives are destroyed by a dangerous pharmaceutical product, that's nobody's fault. Accountability is non-existent.
It sure puts America's priorities into perspective, doesn't it? Public safety has been all but abandoned by the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry -- an industry ruled by nothing other than the almighty dollar. And yet, here's something that puts it all into yet more perspective: According to Congressional testimony about Vioxx from drug safety experts, Vioxx alone killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam War.
Is that something worth investigating for potential prosecution? If you value human life, then yes, absolutely. So why do Merck's executives all seem to be immune to the law? Why is the Department of Justice too timid to go after one of the most dangerous organizations in the country that has killed many times more Americans than all terrorists combined?
Why isn't Merck on the FBI's "America's Most Wanted" list?
And why do the American people tolerate such corporate behavior on their own soil? Is killing people with chemicals any less serious than killing people with bullets? Imagine the public outcry if a car company sold a defective vehicle that resulted in the deaths of more than 60,000 people... that would be shocking headline news. But when it comes to pharmaceutical deaths, the people remain strangely silent.
And the reason? There's no video footage of people dying. Pharmaceutical deaths are silent, whimpering deaths. No fiery crashes. No flying body parts. No explosions to splash across the evening news. Just millions of people being individually and chemically snuffed out, all around the world, after taking patented prescription drugs sold by companies that lied to them about their safety.
Sources for this story include:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...
http://www.reuters.com/article/heal...
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Deadlier than Cocaine, Heroin, and the Swine Flu?
Deadlier than Cocaine, Heroin, and the Swine Flu?
by: Dr. Mercola
November 21 2009
Addiction to prescription painkillers — which kill thousands of Americans a year — has become a largely unrecognized epidemic, experts say.
In fact, prescription drugs cause most of the more than 26,000 fatal overdoses each year, says Leonard Paulozzi of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The number of overdose deaths from opioid painkillers — opium-like drugs that include morphine and codeine — more than tripled from 1999 to 2006, to 13,800 deaths that year, according to recently released CDC statistics.
In the past, most overdoses were due to illegal narcotics, such as heroin, with most deaths in big cities. Prescription painkillers have now surpassed heroin and cocaine however, as the leading cause of fatal overdoses, Paulozzi says.
Experts say it's easy to see why so many Americans are abusing painkillers. As Americans age and carry extra pounds, more are asking for pain relief to cope with joint problems, back pain and other ailments.
by: Dr. Mercola
November 21 2009
Addiction to prescription painkillers — which kill thousands of Americans a year — has become a largely unrecognized epidemic, experts say.
In fact, prescription drugs cause most of the more than 26,000 fatal overdoses each year, says Leonard Paulozzi of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The number of overdose deaths from opioid painkillers — opium-like drugs that include morphine and codeine — more than tripled from 1999 to 2006, to 13,800 deaths that year, according to recently released CDC statistics.
In the past, most overdoses were due to illegal narcotics, such as heroin, with most deaths in big cities. Prescription painkillers have now surpassed heroin and cocaine however, as the leading cause of fatal overdoses, Paulozzi says.
Experts say it's easy to see why so many Americans are abusing painkillers. As Americans age and carry extra pounds, more are asking for pain relief to cope with joint problems, back pain and other ailments.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Aspirin kills 400% more people than H1N1 swine flu
Aspirin kills 400% more people than H1N1 swine flu
Friday, November 20, 2009
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger...Editor of NaturalNews.com
NaturalNews) The CDC now reports that nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed by H1N1 swine flu. This number is supposed to sound big and scary, motivating millions of people to go out and pay good money to be injected with untested, unproven H1N1 vaccines. But let's put the number in perspective: Did you know that more than four times as many people are killed each year by common NSAID painkillers like aspirin?
The July 1998 issue of The American Journal of Medicine explains it as follows:
"Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone." (Singh Gurkirpal, MD, “Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Gastropathy”, The American Journal of Medicine, July 27, 1998, p. 31S)
So for every person the CDC claims was killed by H1N1 swine flu this year, common painkillers like aspirin have killed four! Yet you don't see the CDC, FDA, WHO or mainstream media running around screaming about the extreme dangers of aspirin, do you? All those deaths apparently don't matter. Only swine flu deaths lead to hysteria.
Understanding risk
According to death statistics tables available on the 'net, you are ten times more likely to die in a car accident this year than be killed by swine flu.
Nearly 100,000 Americans die every year from adverse reactions to FDA-approved prescription drugs. That's twenty-five times the number of people killed by H1N1 swine flu (even if you believe the CDC's numbers). So where's the big warning about the dangers of prescription drugs? Why isn't the CDC warning Americans about an "epidemic of dangerous drugs" that poses a far greater threat to your health?
The answer, of course, is that health authorities want to push people to buy vaccines that are about to become worthless (they're only good before swine flu fizzles out). And the only way to sell more vaccines to people who don't need them is to hype up a bunch of scare stories by citing bold statistics that make H1N1 swine flu seem really, really dangerous.
But the flu is no more dangerous than aspirin. In fact, H1N1 swine flu may be safer than aspirin.
Here's another quote from the New England Journal of Medicine:
"It has been estimated conservatively that 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis every year in the United States. This figure is similar to the number of deaths from the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and considerably greater than the number of deaths from multiple myeloma, asthma, cervical cancer, or Hodgkin’s disease. If deaths from gastrointestinal toxic effects from NSAIDs were tabulated separately in the National Vital Statistics reports, these effects would constitute the 15th most common cause of death in the United States. Yet these toxic effects remain mainly a “silent epidemic,” with many physicians and most patients unaware of the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore the mortality statistics do not include deaths ascribed to the use of over-the-counter NSAIDS." (Wolfe M. MD, Lichtenstein D. MD, and Singh Gurkirpal, MD, “Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs”, The New England Journal of Medicine, June 17, 1999, Vol. 340, No. 24, pp. 1888-1889.)
Did you catch that? The 16,500 figure for deaths each year doesn't even include over-the-counter painkiller drugs! If you add in those numbers, you're probably looking at something closer to 40,000 Americans kills each year by these drugs. And that makes these drugs 1000% more deadly than swine flu (because 40,000 is ten times greater than 4,000).
Swine flu vs. seasonal flu
Also according to CDC statistics, swine flu is only approximately one-tenth as dangerous as regular seasonal flu. That's because the CDC maintains that seasonal flu kills 36,000 Americans each year (a figure that I've already pointed out is highly suspect, but that's what they claim).
But even seasonal flu is nothing to get all worked up over. Unless you're in a state of terrible health with a compromised immune system, obesity and asthma, beating seasonal flu is a no-brainer: Just nourish your body with vitamin D, zinc, superfoods and natural health supplements and let your built-in immune technology do its job. Your immune system has already saved your life countless times. It knows how to do it if you give it the right nutrition.
There are lots of things that are far more dangerous than swine flu and yet are openly sold to consumers. Over 400,000 Americans die each year from smoking and yet you can buy cigarettes at Walgreens, Wal-Mart and CVS pharmacies. That means statistically, these pharmacies knowingly sell a product that kills 400 times as many people as swine flu has this year. Where's the alarm about the epidemic of tobacco-related deaths? Nowhere. Not a word from the CDC or WHO.
Also, if pharmacies really cared about your health, why do they openly sell a product that causes cancer and heart disease? Think about it...
They're just trying to sell you something that will harm you
The fact is, pharmacies will sell anything that makes money: Tobacco, processed junk food, and of course H1N1 vaccines. If they could make money selling influenza, they'd sell that, too. To the pharmaceutical retailers, it doesn't matter how many people die from the products they sell. They're just in business to sell anything that turns a profit, regardless of the consequences to public health.
And the vaccine industry is similarly motivated to sell you false ideas that make money. By selling you on the concept that swine flu is extremely dangerous, they can manipulate you into buying yet more harmful stuff they're hawking at pharmacies... like H1N1 vaccines. And they're counting on the fact that the American people won't do the math (or can't).
Most people have a very poor understanding of risk, and the vaccine industry is counting on precisely that risk assessment ineptitude to push its dangerous vaccines. If people knew that they are 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to have their life saved by a swine flu vaccine, very few would line up to be injected with one. But they don't grasp the difference between numbers that are very far apart such as 10^2 versus 10^5. To many people, those factors are "about the same" and it's worth getting injected with a vaccine "just in case."
That's why I've always stated a simple truth that still holds true today: People who seek out vaccine shots are the same kind of people who regularly play the lotto. Both decisions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding risk vs. reward. In fact, if you get a swine flu vaccine injection on the same day you buy a lotto ticket, you have a greater chance of buying a winning lotto ticket than being saved by the swine flu vaccine.
Playing the lotto is actually smarter than getting a swine flu vaccine shot. Plus, the lotto ticket won't potentially cause neurological damage that puts you in a coma or causes the spontaneous abortion of your baby -- both of which have been happening to people after receiving H1N1 vaccine shots.
Friday, November 20, 2009
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger...Editor of NaturalNews.com
NaturalNews) The CDC now reports that nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed by H1N1 swine flu. This number is supposed to sound big and scary, motivating millions of people to go out and pay good money to be injected with untested, unproven H1N1 vaccines. But let's put the number in perspective: Did you know that more than four times as many people are killed each year by common NSAID painkillers like aspirin?
The July 1998 issue of The American Journal of Medicine explains it as follows:
"Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone." (Singh Gurkirpal, MD, “Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Gastropathy”, The American Journal of Medicine, July 27, 1998, p. 31S)
So for every person the CDC claims was killed by H1N1 swine flu this year, common painkillers like aspirin have killed four! Yet you don't see the CDC, FDA, WHO or mainstream media running around screaming about the extreme dangers of aspirin, do you? All those deaths apparently don't matter. Only swine flu deaths lead to hysteria.
Understanding risk
According to death statistics tables available on the 'net, you are ten times more likely to die in a car accident this year than be killed by swine flu.
Nearly 100,000 Americans die every year from adverse reactions to FDA-approved prescription drugs. That's twenty-five times the number of people killed by H1N1 swine flu (even if you believe the CDC's numbers). So where's the big warning about the dangers of prescription drugs? Why isn't the CDC warning Americans about an "epidemic of dangerous drugs" that poses a far greater threat to your health?
The answer, of course, is that health authorities want to push people to buy vaccines that are about to become worthless (they're only good before swine flu fizzles out). And the only way to sell more vaccines to people who don't need them is to hype up a bunch of scare stories by citing bold statistics that make H1N1 swine flu seem really, really dangerous.
But the flu is no more dangerous than aspirin. In fact, H1N1 swine flu may be safer than aspirin.
Here's another quote from the New England Journal of Medicine:
"It has been estimated conservatively that 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis every year in the United States. This figure is similar to the number of deaths from the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and considerably greater than the number of deaths from multiple myeloma, asthma, cervical cancer, or Hodgkin’s disease. If deaths from gastrointestinal toxic effects from NSAIDs were tabulated separately in the National Vital Statistics reports, these effects would constitute the 15th most common cause of death in the United States. Yet these toxic effects remain mainly a “silent epidemic,” with many physicians and most patients unaware of the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore the mortality statistics do not include deaths ascribed to the use of over-the-counter NSAIDS." (Wolfe M. MD, Lichtenstein D. MD, and Singh Gurkirpal, MD, “Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs”, The New England Journal of Medicine, June 17, 1999, Vol. 340, No. 24, pp. 1888-1889.)
Did you catch that? The 16,500 figure for deaths each year doesn't even include over-the-counter painkiller drugs! If you add in those numbers, you're probably looking at something closer to 40,000 Americans kills each year by these drugs. And that makes these drugs 1000% more deadly than swine flu (because 40,000 is ten times greater than 4,000).
Swine flu vs. seasonal flu
Also according to CDC statistics, swine flu is only approximately one-tenth as dangerous as regular seasonal flu. That's because the CDC maintains that seasonal flu kills 36,000 Americans each year (a figure that I've already pointed out is highly suspect, but that's what they claim).
But even seasonal flu is nothing to get all worked up over. Unless you're in a state of terrible health with a compromised immune system, obesity and asthma, beating seasonal flu is a no-brainer: Just nourish your body with vitamin D, zinc, superfoods and natural health supplements and let your built-in immune technology do its job. Your immune system has already saved your life countless times. It knows how to do it if you give it the right nutrition.
There are lots of things that are far more dangerous than swine flu and yet are openly sold to consumers. Over 400,000 Americans die each year from smoking and yet you can buy cigarettes at Walgreens, Wal-Mart and CVS pharmacies. That means statistically, these pharmacies knowingly sell a product that kills 400 times as many people as swine flu has this year. Where's the alarm about the epidemic of tobacco-related deaths? Nowhere. Not a word from the CDC or WHO.
Also, if pharmacies really cared about your health, why do they openly sell a product that causes cancer and heart disease? Think about it...
They're just trying to sell you something that will harm you
The fact is, pharmacies will sell anything that makes money: Tobacco, processed junk food, and of course H1N1 vaccines. If they could make money selling influenza, they'd sell that, too. To the pharmaceutical retailers, it doesn't matter how many people die from the products they sell. They're just in business to sell anything that turns a profit, regardless of the consequences to public health.
And the vaccine industry is similarly motivated to sell you false ideas that make money. By selling you on the concept that swine flu is extremely dangerous, they can manipulate you into buying yet more harmful stuff they're hawking at pharmacies... like H1N1 vaccines. And they're counting on the fact that the American people won't do the math (or can't).
Most people have a very poor understanding of risk, and the vaccine industry is counting on precisely that risk assessment ineptitude to push its dangerous vaccines. If people knew that they are 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to have their life saved by a swine flu vaccine, very few would line up to be injected with one. But they don't grasp the difference between numbers that are very far apart such as 10^2 versus 10^5. To many people, those factors are "about the same" and it's worth getting injected with a vaccine "just in case."
That's why I've always stated a simple truth that still holds true today: People who seek out vaccine shots are the same kind of people who regularly play the lotto. Both decisions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding risk vs. reward. In fact, if you get a swine flu vaccine injection on the same day you buy a lotto ticket, you have a greater chance of buying a winning lotto ticket than being saved by the swine flu vaccine.
Playing the lotto is actually smarter than getting a swine flu vaccine shot. Plus, the lotto ticket won't potentially cause neurological damage that puts you in a coma or causes the spontaneous abortion of your baby -- both of which have been happening to people after receiving H1N1 vaccine shots.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
7 health crimes against your immune system... and your health
Are you committing one of these common health crimes against your own body that can cost you the immunity you’re meant to have?
Stop right now!
Check out this list and see if you’re sabotaging your immune system in any of these ways… Only when you recognize these for the menace they are, will you be able to move forward to find your total solution.
Health Crime #1: Are you eating sugar and processed foods? Sugar decreases the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a strong immune system is a crucial key to keeping you healthy. Be aware that sugar is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice.
Health Crime #2: Do you fail to get enough rest each night? Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done when you're tired, if your body is overly fatigued, your immune system could be functioning less-than-optimally.
Health Crime #3: Is stress running your life? We all face some stress every day, but excess stress could have serious adverse effects on your immune system.
Health Crime #4: Do you forget to exercise on a regular basis? A comprehensive exercise program is one of the BEST strategies to improve your immune response. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. Your immune system has a better chance of performing at its best. I’ve written extensively about this on the site.
Health Crime #5: Do you ever leave the bathroom without washing your hands? Washing your hands is key to helping your immune system to function at its best. Be sure you don't use antibacterial soap for this -- antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
Health Crime #6: Do you eat a “balanced” diet without understanding your nutritional type and how to eat for your personal needs? Just as it is obvious that you differ tremendously with respect to your outward physical appearance, you also have a unique biochemistry and genetics. You process foods and utilize nutrients in a way that is unique to you. Therefore, when you adopt a diet based on your specific "nutritional type," it will help you achieve optimum health.
Health Crime #7: Are you failing to look after your digestive tract? Scientific research shows 80% of your immune system actually lives right in your digestive tract. The best way to look after your digestive tract is via a high quality probiotic. It’s one of the few supplements I take every day. I even carry a bottle with me when I travel out of the country.
Stop right now!
Check out this list and see if you’re sabotaging your immune system in any of these ways… Only when you recognize these for the menace they are, will you be able to move forward to find your total solution.
Health Crime #1: Are you eating sugar and processed foods? Sugar decreases the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a strong immune system is a crucial key to keeping you healthy. Be aware that sugar is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice.
Health Crime #2: Do you fail to get enough rest each night? Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done when you're tired, if your body is overly fatigued, your immune system could be functioning less-than-optimally.
Health Crime #3: Is stress running your life? We all face some stress every day, but excess stress could have serious adverse effects on your immune system.
Health Crime #4: Do you forget to exercise on a regular basis? A comprehensive exercise program is one of the BEST strategies to improve your immune response. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. Your immune system has a better chance of performing at its best. I’ve written extensively about this on the site.
Health Crime #5: Do you ever leave the bathroom without washing your hands? Washing your hands is key to helping your immune system to function at its best. Be sure you don't use antibacterial soap for this -- antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
Health Crime #6: Do you eat a “balanced” diet without understanding your nutritional type and how to eat for your personal needs? Just as it is obvious that you differ tremendously with respect to your outward physical appearance, you also have a unique biochemistry and genetics. You process foods and utilize nutrients in a way that is unique to you. Therefore, when you adopt a diet based on your specific "nutritional type," it will help you achieve optimum health.
Health Crime #7: Are you failing to look after your digestive tract? Scientific research shows 80% of your immune system actually lives right in your digestive tract. The best way to look after your digestive tract is via a high quality probiotic. It’s one of the few supplements I take every day. I even carry a bottle with me when I travel out of the country.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Conflicts of interest? Dr. Mehmet Oz owns 150,000 option shares in vaccine technology company
Conflicts of interest? Dr. Mehmet Oz owns 150,000 option shares in vaccine technology company
Here's the link, presented by Natural News:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027451_Dr_Mehmet_Oz_vaccines.html
Here's the link, presented by Natural News:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027451_Dr_Mehmet_Oz_vaccines.html
Canada changes flu vaccine policy... find out more...
Why is Canada Changing Its Flu Vaccine Policy?
Written by: Dr. Mercola
Many countries are pouring millions into orders for swine flu vaccine from pharmaceutical companies. But one country is taking a different approach.
The Irish Independent reports that the some Canadian provinces have suspended the 'normal' seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 in response to a recent study there. However, the vaccine suspensions do not apply for people over 65.
The study suggests that people vaccinated against seasonal flu are actually twice as likely to catch swine flu.
But plans vary across the provinces of Canada. Last month, British Columbia announced it is suspending seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 years old, joining Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia in halting the immunizations.
Quebec's Health Ministry announced it would postpone vaccinations until January, clearing the autumn months for health professionals to focus on vaccinating against H1N1, which is expected to the more severe influenza strain this season.
"By the time the H1N1 wave is over, there will be ample time to vaccinate for seasonal flu," said Dr. Ethan Rubinstein, head of adult infectious diseases at the University of Manitoba.
Other provinces, including Manitoba, are still pondering a response to the research. New Brunswick, one of the lone holdouts, made an announcement in September that it would forge ahead with seasonal flu shots for all residents in October, as originally planned.
Yet according to an even more recent posting by PreventDisease.com, some provinces are still recommending co-administration of both vaccines in as little as 60 days, according to a staggered schedule.
An international panel is currently scrutinising the controversial study's data. Dr Ethan Rubinstein, who has read the study, said it appeared sound.
"There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers," he said. "The sample size is very large, at 12 or 13 million people."
It was back in 1981 that R. Edgar Hope Simpson proposed that a principal cause of seasonal influenza is linked with the deficiency of solar radiation which triggers the production of vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D deficiency is common in the winter, and vitamin D is crucial in allowing your immune system to defend itself against invading organisms.
In addition to vitamin D, studies have suggested that people who exercise moderately suffer fewer and less severe colds and flu infections.
In a new study, researchers found that when they had a group of mice regularly run on a treadmill over 3.5 months, the animals developed less-severe symptoms when infected with the flu virus.
Additionally, mice that exercised right before flu infection, but not regularly over the preceding months, also showed some protection against severe symptoms -- which in mice means dampened appetite and weight loss. Those benefits, however, were only apparent in the couple days after infection, whereas regular long-term exercise reduced flu symptoms over the whole course of infection.
Written by: Dr. Mercola
Many countries are pouring millions into orders for swine flu vaccine from pharmaceutical companies. But one country is taking a different approach.
The Irish Independent reports that the some Canadian provinces have suspended the 'normal' seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 in response to a recent study there. However, the vaccine suspensions do not apply for people over 65.
The study suggests that people vaccinated against seasonal flu are actually twice as likely to catch swine flu.
But plans vary across the provinces of Canada. Last month, British Columbia announced it is suspending seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 years old, joining Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia in halting the immunizations.
Quebec's Health Ministry announced it would postpone vaccinations until January, clearing the autumn months for health professionals to focus on vaccinating against H1N1, which is expected to the more severe influenza strain this season.
"By the time the H1N1 wave is over, there will be ample time to vaccinate for seasonal flu," said Dr. Ethan Rubinstein, head of adult infectious diseases at the University of Manitoba.
Other provinces, including Manitoba, are still pondering a response to the research. New Brunswick, one of the lone holdouts, made an announcement in September that it would forge ahead with seasonal flu shots for all residents in October, as originally planned.
Yet according to an even more recent posting by PreventDisease.com, some provinces are still recommending co-administration of both vaccines in as little as 60 days, according to a staggered schedule.
An international panel is currently scrutinising the controversial study's data. Dr Ethan Rubinstein, who has read the study, said it appeared sound.
"There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers," he said. "The sample size is very large, at 12 or 13 million people."
It was back in 1981 that R. Edgar Hope Simpson proposed that a principal cause of seasonal influenza is linked with the deficiency of solar radiation which triggers the production of vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D deficiency is common in the winter, and vitamin D is crucial in allowing your immune system to defend itself against invading organisms.
In addition to vitamin D, studies have suggested that people who exercise moderately suffer fewer and less severe colds and flu infections.
In a new study, researchers found that when they had a group of mice regularly run on a treadmill over 3.5 months, the animals developed less-severe symptoms when infected with the flu virus.
Additionally, mice that exercised right before flu infection, but not regularly over the preceding months, also showed some protection against severe symptoms -- which in mice means dampened appetite and weight loss. Those benefits, however, were only apparent in the couple days after infection, whereas regular long-term exercise reduced flu symptoms over the whole course of infection.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Swine Flu Deaths Connected with Other Infection Besides the Virus
A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that of the 36 children who died from H1N1 from April to August, six had no chronic health conditions. But all of them had a co-occurring bacterial infection.
The most common co-occurring infection that causes flu-related deaths is staphylococcus aureus. A third of the population carries it, most in their nose or on their skin.
The flu causes upper respiratory damage, which allows the staph to make its way into the lungs.
The most common co-occurring infection that causes flu-related deaths is staphylococcus aureus. A third of the population carries it, most in their nose or on their skin.
The flu causes upper respiratory damage, which allows the staph to make its way into the lungs.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Study Confirms Hep B Vaccine Triples Risk of Autism
Hepatitis B Vaccine Triples the Risk of Autism in Infant Boys
A new study has shown that giving Hepatitis B vaccine to newborn baby boys more than triples their risk of developing an autism spectrum disorder.
The study’s authors used U.S. probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 1997–2002 datasets.
The conclusion states that: “Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD.”
The authors also noted that an earlier study by them found that hepatitis B vaccination was associated with receipt of early intervention and special education services.
The new study used a different database than their earlier study, and they found same results, suggesting a validation of their findings.
A new study has shown that giving Hepatitis B vaccine to newborn baby boys more than triples their risk of developing an autism spectrum disorder.
The study’s authors used U.S. probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 1997–2002 datasets.
The conclusion states that: “Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD.”
The authors also noted that an earlier study by them found that hepatitis B vaccination was associated with receipt of early intervention and special education services.
The new study used a different database than their earlier study, and they found same results, suggesting a validation of their findings.
How Much Vitamin D Do You Really Need to Take?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
On November 3 at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted doctors Cedric Garland and Tracey O'Connor are running a seminar on how vitamin D can be used to prevent breast cancer -- as well as infectious diseases, type 1 diabetes, hypertension, colon cancer, and falls in the elderly.
Presenters will include some of the best known vitamin D researchers/practitioners, such as Robert P. Heaney, Reinhold Vieth, John White and Susan Whiting.
It is estimated that 25 to 50 percent of any healthcare budget could be saved with adequate vitamin D serum levels.
The conference will look at the current research and practice with vitamin D to enable everyone to take action today based on what's known to solve the deficiency epidemic, and to start the prevention of many diseases.
Sources:
Grass Roots Health
As more and more scientific evidence emerges, confirming that currently recommended daily allowances (RDA) of vitamin D are grossly insufficient for young and old alike, many have asked me to clarify the recommended dosages, especially as it pertains to children.
General Information about Adult Vitamin D Requirements
Before I begin, I want to emphasize that under summer conditions it is frequently possible to generate about 20,000 units of vitamin D by exposing your skin to the sun. That fact makes these recommendations seem more in line with reality.
Currently, the U.S. RDA for vitamin D is 400 IU (international units) for the majority of the population. (IU is frequently shortened to just “units.”) This dose was recommended to prevent rickets, which works well, but does nothing to give the far more important protection from cancer, heart disease and infections.
To achieve the healthy blood levels in the graph below, most adults will need about FIVE THOUSAND units of vitamin D every day. Interestingly, the majority of people I see in my travels that are taking vitamin D are taking 1,000 units, and they believe they are taking “high” doses. Don’t fool yourself, as an adult, you likely need about 5,000 IU’s a day.
Some also worry that if they are in the sun that they will overdose on vitamin D.
However this is not typically the case, and here’s why: When you’re exposed to the sun, the UVB rays cause vitamin D to be produced in your skin while the UVA rays in the sunlight will tend to destroy excessive levels of vitamin D circulating in your body. It is somewhat of a natural failsafe mechanism that prevents overdosing.
HOWEVER, please understand that about 10 percent or more of the people reading this needs significantly more than 5,000 units. I have seen people requiring over 30,000 units of vitamin D a day to reach therapeutic levels of 25 hydroxy D in their blood..
Please remember that the ONLY way to know for sure is to get your blood level tested, which I’ll go over in just a moment.
Current RDA Guidelines for Vitamin D are Outdated in Light of New Research
At the end of 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics doubled its recommended dose of vitamin D for infants, children and adolescents, raising it from 200 to 400 units per day.
Unfortunately this is still a woefully inadequate recommendation for children.
Recent research reveals children may need ten times that amount in order to receive the health benefits that optimal vitamin D levels have to offer.
As of right now, the conventional RDAs are only:
*
400 IU for infants, children and adolescents
*
200 IU for adults up to age 50
*
400 IU for adults aged 51 to 70
*
600 IU for seniors over 70
Recommended Daily Intake for Optimal Health
Based on the most recent research, the current recommendation is 35 IU’s of vitamin D per pound of body weight.
So for a child weighing 40 pounds, the recommended average dose would be 1,400 IU’s daily, and for a 170-pound adult, the dose would be nearly 6,000 IU’s.
However, it’s important to realize that vitamin D requirements are highly individual, as your vitamin D status is dependent on numerous factors, such as the color of your skin, your location, and how much sunshine you’re exposed to on a regular basis.
So, although these recommendations may put you closer to the ballpark of what most people likely need, it is simply impossible to make a blanket recommendation that will cover everyone’s needs.
So how do you ensure optimal vitamin D levels for yourself, your child, and aging parents?
Blood Testing is the ONLY Reliable Way to Determine How Much Vitamin D You or Your Child Needs
Yes, the only way to determine the correct dose is to get your blood tested since there are so many variables that influence your vitamin D status.
I recommend using Lab Corp in the U.S. If you get it done by Quest, you’ll need to divide your result by 1.3 to get the “real” number.
For your convenience, by year’s end we hope to offer a blood test that those in the U.S. can do locally and does not require a doctor’s order.
Step 1: Make Sure You Use the Correct Test
Getting the correct test is the first step in this process, as there are TWO vitamin D tests currently being offered: 1,25(OH)D, and 25(OH)D.
The correct test your doctor needs to order is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which is the better marker of overall D status. This is the marker that is most strongly associated with overall health.
Step 2: Determine Your OPTIMAL Level of Vitamin D
Here again it’s important to realize the difference between what conventional medicine considers to be “normal,” versus what is optimal.
The “normal” 25-hydroxyvitamin D lab range is between 20-56 ng/ml. As you can see in the chart below, this conventional range is really a sign of deficiency, and is too broad to be ideal.
In fact, your vitamin D level should never be below 32 ng/ml, and any levels below 20 ng/ml are considered serious deficiency states, increasing your risk of as many as 16 different cancers and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, just to name a few.
The OPTIMAL value that you’re looking for is 50-65 ng/ml.
This range applies for everyone; children, adolescents, adults and seniors.
These ranges are based on healthy people in tropical or subtropical parts of the world, where they are receiving healthy sun exposures. It seems more than reasonable to assume that these values are in fact reflective of an optimal human requirement.
It’s worth to clarify here that ng/ml are U.S. units of measure. Much of the world uses nmol/l. If your test results are measured in nmol/l, simply multiply the above values by 2.5 to get the correct ranges.
optimal vitamin d levels:
Deficient= <50 ng/ml
Optimal= 50-65 ng/ml
Cancer treatment= 65-90 ng/ml
Excess= >90 ng/ml
Keeping your level in this range, and even erring toward the higher numbers in this range, is going to give you the most protective benefit. And the way you maintain your levels within this range is by getting tested regularly – say two to four times a year in the beginning, and adjusting your vitamin D intake accordingly.
Are Oral Vitamin D Supplements Your Best Choice?
The best way to optimize your vitamin D levels is through appropriate safe sunshine or safe tanning bed exposure. However, there are many times when it can be nearly impossible to get enough sun.
The darker your skin is, the farther away from the equator you are, and the further away you are from the summer months, the less likely it is that you will produce adequate vitamin D levels from sun exposure alone.
In these cases, supplementing with vitamin D is acceptable, but I strongly recommend you monitoring your blood levels regularly when taking oral vitamin D supplements to make sure you’re staying within the optimal range.
Only Supplement with the Right Kind of Vitamin D
There is one other thing you need to be aware of if you choose to use an oral vitamin D supplement and that is that there are basically two types – one is natural and one is synthetic.
*
The natural one is D3 (cholecalciferol), which is the same vitamin D your body makes when exposed to sunshine
*
The synthetic one is vitamin D2, which is sometimes called ergocalciferol
Once either form of the vitamin is in your body, it must be converted to a more active form. Vitamin D3 is converted 500 percent faster than vitamin D2, and is clearly a better alternative.
Vitamin D2 also has a shorter shelf life, and its metabolites bind with protein poorly, making it less effective. Studies have even concluded that vitamin D2 should no longer be regarded as a nutrient appropriate for supplementation or fortification of foods (although it continues to be used). So if you choose to use vitamin D supplements make sure it is in the form of vitamin D3.
Please be aware that nearly all the prescription-based supplements contain synthetic vitamin D2, so if you receive a prescription for vitamin D from your doctor, you’re most likely receiving the inferior vitamin D2.
On November 3 at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted doctors Cedric Garland and Tracey O'Connor are running a seminar on how vitamin D can be used to prevent breast cancer -- as well as infectious diseases, type 1 diabetes, hypertension, colon cancer, and falls in the elderly.
Presenters will include some of the best known vitamin D researchers/practitioners, such as Robert P. Heaney, Reinhold Vieth, John White and Susan Whiting.
It is estimated that 25 to 50 percent of any healthcare budget could be saved with adequate vitamin D serum levels.
The conference will look at the current research and practice with vitamin D to enable everyone to take action today based on what's known to solve the deficiency epidemic, and to start the prevention of many diseases.
Sources:
Grass Roots Health
As more and more scientific evidence emerges, confirming that currently recommended daily allowances (RDA) of vitamin D are grossly insufficient for young and old alike, many have asked me to clarify the recommended dosages, especially as it pertains to children.
General Information about Adult Vitamin D Requirements
Before I begin, I want to emphasize that under summer conditions it is frequently possible to generate about 20,000 units of vitamin D by exposing your skin to the sun. That fact makes these recommendations seem more in line with reality.
Currently, the U.S. RDA for vitamin D is 400 IU (international units) for the majority of the population. (IU is frequently shortened to just “units.”) This dose was recommended to prevent rickets, which works well, but does nothing to give the far more important protection from cancer, heart disease and infections.
To achieve the healthy blood levels in the graph below, most adults will need about FIVE THOUSAND units of vitamin D every day. Interestingly, the majority of people I see in my travels that are taking vitamin D are taking 1,000 units, and they believe they are taking “high” doses. Don’t fool yourself, as an adult, you likely need about 5,000 IU’s a day.
Some also worry that if they are in the sun that they will overdose on vitamin D.
However this is not typically the case, and here’s why: When you’re exposed to the sun, the UVB rays cause vitamin D to be produced in your skin while the UVA rays in the sunlight will tend to destroy excessive levels of vitamin D circulating in your body. It is somewhat of a natural failsafe mechanism that prevents overdosing.
HOWEVER, please understand that about 10 percent or more of the people reading this needs significantly more than 5,000 units. I have seen people requiring over 30,000 units of vitamin D a day to reach therapeutic levels of 25 hydroxy D in their blood..
Please remember that the ONLY way to know for sure is to get your blood level tested, which I’ll go over in just a moment.
Current RDA Guidelines for Vitamin D are Outdated in Light of New Research
At the end of 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics doubled its recommended dose of vitamin D for infants, children and adolescents, raising it from 200 to 400 units per day.
Unfortunately this is still a woefully inadequate recommendation for children.
Recent research reveals children may need ten times that amount in order to receive the health benefits that optimal vitamin D levels have to offer.
As of right now, the conventional RDAs are only:
*
400 IU for infants, children and adolescents
*
200 IU for adults up to age 50
*
400 IU for adults aged 51 to 70
*
600 IU for seniors over 70
Recommended Daily Intake for Optimal Health
Based on the most recent research, the current recommendation is 35 IU’s of vitamin D per pound of body weight.
So for a child weighing 40 pounds, the recommended average dose would be 1,400 IU’s daily, and for a 170-pound adult, the dose would be nearly 6,000 IU’s.
However, it’s important to realize that vitamin D requirements are highly individual, as your vitamin D status is dependent on numerous factors, such as the color of your skin, your location, and how much sunshine you’re exposed to on a regular basis.
So, although these recommendations may put you closer to the ballpark of what most people likely need, it is simply impossible to make a blanket recommendation that will cover everyone’s needs.
So how do you ensure optimal vitamin D levels for yourself, your child, and aging parents?
Blood Testing is the ONLY Reliable Way to Determine How Much Vitamin D You or Your Child Needs
Yes, the only way to determine the correct dose is to get your blood tested since there are so many variables that influence your vitamin D status.
I recommend using Lab Corp in the U.S. If you get it done by Quest, you’ll need to divide your result by 1.3 to get the “real” number.
For your convenience, by year’s end we hope to offer a blood test that those in the U.S. can do locally and does not require a doctor’s order.
Step 1: Make Sure You Use the Correct Test
Getting the correct test is the first step in this process, as there are TWO vitamin D tests currently being offered: 1,25(OH)D, and 25(OH)D.
The correct test your doctor needs to order is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which is the better marker of overall D status. This is the marker that is most strongly associated with overall health.
Step 2: Determine Your OPTIMAL Level of Vitamin D
Here again it’s important to realize the difference between what conventional medicine considers to be “normal,” versus what is optimal.
The “normal” 25-hydroxyvitamin D lab range is between 20-56 ng/ml. As you can see in the chart below, this conventional range is really a sign of deficiency, and is too broad to be ideal.
In fact, your vitamin D level should never be below 32 ng/ml, and any levels below 20 ng/ml are considered serious deficiency states, increasing your risk of as many as 16 different cancers and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, just to name a few.
The OPTIMAL value that you’re looking for is 50-65 ng/ml.
This range applies for everyone; children, adolescents, adults and seniors.
These ranges are based on healthy people in tropical or subtropical parts of the world, where they are receiving healthy sun exposures. It seems more than reasonable to assume that these values are in fact reflective of an optimal human requirement.
It’s worth to clarify here that ng/ml are U.S. units of measure. Much of the world uses nmol/l. If your test results are measured in nmol/l, simply multiply the above values by 2.5 to get the correct ranges.
optimal vitamin d levels:
Deficient= <50 ng/ml
Optimal= 50-65 ng/ml
Cancer treatment= 65-90 ng/ml
Excess= >90 ng/ml
Keeping your level in this range, and even erring toward the higher numbers in this range, is going to give you the most protective benefit. And the way you maintain your levels within this range is by getting tested regularly – say two to four times a year in the beginning, and adjusting your vitamin D intake accordingly.
Are Oral Vitamin D Supplements Your Best Choice?
The best way to optimize your vitamin D levels is through appropriate safe sunshine or safe tanning bed exposure. However, there are many times when it can be nearly impossible to get enough sun.
The darker your skin is, the farther away from the equator you are, and the further away you are from the summer months, the less likely it is that you will produce adequate vitamin D levels from sun exposure alone.
In these cases, supplementing with vitamin D is acceptable, but I strongly recommend you monitoring your blood levels regularly when taking oral vitamin D supplements to make sure you’re staying within the optimal range.
Only Supplement with the Right Kind of Vitamin D
There is one other thing you need to be aware of if you choose to use an oral vitamin D supplement and that is that there are basically two types – one is natural and one is synthetic.
*
The natural one is D3 (cholecalciferol), which is the same vitamin D your body makes when exposed to sunshine
*
The synthetic one is vitamin D2, which is sometimes called ergocalciferol
Once either form of the vitamin is in your body, it must be converted to a more active form. Vitamin D3 is converted 500 percent faster than vitamin D2, and is clearly a better alternative.
Vitamin D2 also has a shorter shelf life, and its metabolites bind with protein poorly, making it less effective. Studies have even concluded that vitamin D2 should no longer be regarded as a nutrient appropriate for supplementation or fortification of foods (although it continues to be used). So if you choose to use vitamin D supplements make sure it is in the form of vitamin D3.
Please be aware that nearly all the prescription-based supplements contain synthetic vitamin D2, so if you receive a prescription for vitamin D from your doctor, you’re most likely receiving the inferior vitamin D2.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Do NOT Let Your Child Get Flu Vaccine -- 9 Reasons Why
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.
For even more reasons, please review the full article on LewRockwell.com.
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.
For even more reasons, please review the full article on LewRockwell.com.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
7 Reasons to Eat More Saturated Fat
7 Reasons to Eat More Saturated Fat by Dr Mercola
Ferriss of The Four Hour Work Week has posted an exclusive excerpt from Drs. Michael and Mary Eades’ newest book, The 6-Week Cure for the Middle-Aged Middle.
The two doctors note that no matter how the story spins from the denizens of the anti-fat camp, one piece of their advice remains staunchly constant: “You should sharply limit your intake of saturated fats.” But will saturated fats really increase your risk of heart disease and raise your cholesterol? In a word, no. In fact, humans need them, and here are just a few reasons why:
1) Improved cardiovascular risk factors
Saturated fat plays a key role in cardiovascular health. The addition of saturated fat to the diet reduces the levels of a substance called lipoprotein (a) that correlates strongly with risk for heart disease. Research has shown that when women diet, those eating the greatest percentage of the total fat in their diets as saturated fat, lose the most weight.
2) Stronger bones
Saturated fat is required for calcium to be effectively incorporated into bone. According to one of the foremost research experts in dietary fats and human health, Dr. Mary Enig, Ph.D., there’s a case to be made for having as much as 50 percent of the fats in your diet as saturated fats for this reason.
3) Improved liver health
Saturated fat has been shown to protect the liver from alcohol and medications, including acetaminophen and other drugs commonly used for pain and arthritis.
4) Healthy lungs
For proper function, the airspaces of the lungs have to be coated with a thin layer of lung surfactant. The fat content of lung surfactant is 100 percent saturated fatty acids. Replacement of these critical fats by other types of fat makes faulty surfactant and potentially causes breathing difficulties.
5) Healthy brain
Your brain is mainly made of fat and cholesterol. The lion’s share of the fatty acids in the brain are actually saturated. A diet that skimps on healthy saturated fats robs your brain of the raw materials it needs to function optimally.
6) Proper nerve signaling
Certain saturated fats, particularly those found in butter, lard, coconut oil, and palm oil, function directly as signaling messengers that influence metabolism, including such critical jobs as the appropriate release of insulin.
7) Strong immune system
Saturated fats found in butter and coconut oil (myristic acid and lauric acid) play key roles in immune health. Loss of sufficient saturated fatty acids in white blood cells hampers their ability to recognize and destroy foreign invaders, such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi.
Chiropractor Orem UT Acupuncture Health saturated fats
Ferriss of The Four Hour Work Week has posted an exclusive excerpt from Drs. Michael and Mary Eades’ newest book, The 6-Week Cure for the Middle-Aged Middle.
The two doctors note that no matter how the story spins from the denizens of the anti-fat camp, one piece of their advice remains staunchly constant: “You should sharply limit your intake of saturated fats.” But will saturated fats really increase your risk of heart disease and raise your cholesterol? In a word, no. In fact, humans need them, and here are just a few reasons why:
1) Improved cardiovascular risk factors
Saturated fat plays a key role in cardiovascular health. The addition of saturated fat to the diet reduces the levels of a substance called lipoprotein (a) that correlates strongly with risk for heart disease. Research has shown that when women diet, those eating the greatest percentage of the total fat in their diets as saturated fat, lose the most weight.
2) Stronger bones
Saturated fat is required for calcium to be effectively incorporated into bone. According to one of the foremost research experts in dietary fats and human health, Dr. Mary Enig, Ph.D., there’s a case to be made for having as much as 50 percent of the fats in your diet as saturated fats for this reason.
3) Improved liver health
Saturated fat has been shown to protect the liver from alcohol and medications, including acetaminophen and other drugs commonly used for pain and arthritis.
4) Healthy lungs
For proper function, the airspaces of the lungs have to be coated with a thin layer of lung surfactant. The fat content of lung surfactant is 100 percent saturated fatty acids. Replacement of these critical fats by other types of fat makes faulty surfactant and potentially causes breathing difficulties.
5) Healthy brain
Your brain is mainly made of fat and cholesterol. The lion’s share of the fatty acids in the brain are actually saturated. A diet that skimps on healthy saturated fats robs your brain of the raw materials it needs to function optimally.
6) Proper nerve signaling
Certain saturated fats, particularly those found in butter, lard, coconut oil, and palm oil, function directly as signaling messengers that influence metabolism, including such critical jobs as the appropriate release of insulin.
7) Strong immune system
Saturated fats found in butter and coconut oil (myristic acid and lauric acid) play key roles in immune health. Loss of sufficient saturated fatty acids in white blood cells hampers their ability to recognize and destroy foreign invaders, such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi.
Chiropractor Orem UT Acupuncture Health saturated fats
Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Swine Flu Deaths
Despite Anti-Vitamin D Bias, CDC Stumbles on Deficiency Link to H1N1 Deaths
vitamin D, flu, swine flu, flu vaccine, swine flu vaccineSo far, Swine flu, H1N1, has killed thirty-six children in U.S. and analysis of CDC data indicates Vitamin D deficient children at higher risk of death.
The CDC did not realize they discovered this. However, anyone familiar with the Vitamin D literature will recognize it.
Almost two-thirds of the dead children had epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or other neurodevelopmental conditions like mental retardation.
All of these neurological conditions are associated with childhood Vitamin D deficiency. Exacerbating the problem further, many of these kids take anticonvulsant drugs, which lower Vitamin D levels.
58 million American children are Vitamin D deficient; 7.6 million are severely deficient.
When researchers looked at more than 6,000 American kids (age one to 21) who were carefully selected to be representative of the average American child. 9 percent of the kids had 25(OH)D levels less than 15 ng/mL and 70 percent had levels less than 30 ng/mL.
Chiropractor Orem UT Acupuncture swine flu vitamin D
vitamin D, flu, swine flu, flu vaccine, swine flu vaccineSo far, Swine flu, H1N1, has killed thirty-six children in U.S. and analysis of CDC data indicates Vitamin D deficient children at higher risk of death.
The CDC did not realize they discovered this. However, anyone familiar with the Vitamin D literature will recognize it.
Almost two-thirds of the dead children had epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or other neurodevelopmental conditions like mental retardation.
All of these neurological conditions are associated with childhood Vitamin D deficiency. Exacerbating the problem further, many of these kids take anticonvulsant drugs, which lower Vitamin D levels.
58 million American children are Vitamin D deficient; 7.6 million are severely deficient.
When researchers looked at more than 6,000 American kids (age one to 21) who were carefully selected to be representative of the average American child. 9 percent of the kids had 25(OH)D levels less than 15 ng/mL and 70 percent had levels less than 30 ng/mL.
Chiropractor Orem UT Acupuncture swine flu vitamin D
Huge Study Shows Soda's Undeniable Link to Obesity
Huge California study concludes soda consumption undeniably linked to obesity
by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Much like Big Tobacco once did with nicotine, the soda industry and high-fructose corn syrup producers of America have maintained a ridiculous state of flat-out denial about the links between soda consumption and obesity. "Sodas don't make you fat," they insist. Meanwhile, as Americans guzzle down insanely large quantities of soda and liquid sugar with each passing year, rates of obesity and diabetes continue to steadily climb. Surely diet must have something to do with it, right?
Thanks to a new California study, soda companies can no longer hide behind the defense of uncertainty when it comes to links between soda consumption and obesity. This massive study questioned the soda consumption habits of 43,000 adults and 4,000 adolescents and concluded this: Drinking one or more sodas a day increases your chances of obesity by 27 percent. A whopping 62% of adults who drink at least one soda each day are overweight or obese.
The study also found that Californians are gulping down sodas at an unprecedented rate: At least one soda is consumed daily by 41 percent of children, 62 percent of adolescents and 24 percent of adults. Through the study, another shocking statistic was revealed: The average California teen consumes 39 pounds of liquid sugar a year solely from soda consumption.
Sadly, the study didn't look at rates of diabetes and bone loss -- the phosphoric acid in sodas causes osteoporosis, even in males -- but there's little doubt that a similar correlation exists between soda consumption and those diseases, too. The whole issue of aspartame and diet sodas also wasn't looked at in this study, but that's yet another important area of investigation that will probably be delayed for many years until the number of people drinking diet soda who get diagnosed with brain cancer can no longer be denied.
We've been warning about this for years
The interesting thing about all this is that the champions of natural health have been warning society about this for years. Whether you're talking about myself and NaturalNews, or Dr. Julian Whitaker, or even going back to Weston Price, we've all been shouting about the dangers of widespread cola consumption long before it appeared on the radar of mainstream consciousness.
Now, in the thick of a disastrous epidemic of obesity and diabetes, more mainstream health authorities are finally starting to put the pieces together and realize just how bad sodas are for public health. There's now no question about it: When soda consumption goes up, so do rates of obesity. And with higher obesity rates, you automatically get greatly increased rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, depression and other diseases that are very expensive to treat.
Ultimately, that means that soda consumption greatly increases the health care costs of any nation, because higher soda consumption leads to higher rates of diseases that are expensive to treat. I'm guessing that for every dollar a consumer spends on soda, another dollar's worth of long-term health care cost is created at the same time. Except those costs are paid directly by the consumer; they're paid by the taxpayers and health insurance customers.
That's why reforming health care necessarily requires doing something drastic to reduce soda consumption across first-world nations. You can't have both affordable health care and a nation full of soda guzzlers.
How to reduce soda consumption
Greatly reducing the consumption of sodas is easier than you think. It just takes some political backbone... and a willingness for politicians to stop pussyfooting around with the issue in an effort to please the rich, powerful soft drink corporations.
It's time to start treating soft drink companies as what they truly are: The enemies of public health and financial parasites that drain public coffers through increased health care costs caused by their products. Their ads promise happiness, but their products deliver disease.
The first step to reducing soft drink consumption is to ban all soda advertising. In fact, that might be the only step that's necessary. Simply reveal that sodas are a clear and scientifically-proven hazard to public health, and declare that in order to protect our nation's youth, products that pose a clear and imminent hazard to public health will no longer be allowed to be advertised in any form: Not on television, magazines, sporting events or even through internet advertising. They are still free to have their own websites, of course, where they can describe their products. They just can't advertise on someone else's website.
But what about free speech? Doesn't the U.S. Constitution guarantee free speech for all individuals? Indeed, it does, but in my opinion -- and I know that far better-informed Constitutional lawyers would probably disagree with me on this -- there's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech to corporations. That "right" has been invented through a loose interpretation of what the Constitution really says.
I don't believe that corporations should have the same rights as individuals, because the free speech of one person is all too often completely drowned out by the "free speech" of a multi-billion dollar corporation that can buy virtually unlimited air time on television.
Can't we just tax sodas instead?
Another popular suggestion is to tax the heck out of sodas, thereby making them more expensive in order to discourage consumers from buying them. If you believe in levying new taxes on the poor, this is a great idea, because poor people buy and consume far more soda than wealthy people, making a "soda tax" largely a tax on the poor.
I strongly disagree with the idea of using new taxes to shape consumer behavior. Why? Because the current tangle of government taxes and subsidies is so complex and confusing that it has long since lost any attachment to common sense. For example, there are currently subsidies on sugar and corn. Yet one of the sweeteners used in soft drinks is high-fructose corn syrup, which is derived from corn. If a new soda tax passes, it means our government would simultaneously be in the business of providing subsidies to corn while taxing another product that uses an ingredient derived from corn. The overhead of tracking and collecting all these taxes is an enormous waste of government resources.
It's far better to just deny these soda companies the ability to use the media to influence teens and adults into buying and consuming their products. With no advertising, soda consumption would plummet, and the obesity epidemic would begin to turn around. Health care costs would ease and we'd be on our way to a healthier generation of future adults in America.
The mainstream media: Running on disease
The mainstream media, of course, would have a tissy fit with this idea. A significant portion of their advertising revenues come directly from companies that sell sodas and sugary drinks, putting them in the business of promoting products that directly harm children and teens.
But that's business, and the media doesn't feel any special responsibility to protect people from dangerous products that just happen to be paying their salaries. That's why they'll openly advertise dangerous, deadly pharmaceuticals designed to treat the very diseases caused by other products they advertise, like junk foods and soda.
There's a lot of money to be made from selling harmful products the people, and just like everybody else, the mainstream media wants its piece of the action. If you ban the advertising of harmful foods and beverages, many newspapers, magazines and television shows would collapse in weeks. It is precisely the advertising expenditures of high-margin junk product companies that keep the media afloat. Never forget that... especially when you're reading an article about sodas in the mainstream media.
Choose one: Children or corporations
At some point, America has to make a decision: Do we, as a nation, continue to sacrifice the health of our children in order to keep our powerful corporations flush with cash? Or do we sacrifice the profits of powerful corporations in order to save the health of our children?
That's really the only choice we have on this issue. We cannot protect both children's health and the profits of the corporations selling products that harm them.
Right now, the status quo has chosen to sacrifice the children in order to protect the corporations. That has been the stance of the FDA, Senators, Congressmen (and women) and even the mainstream media. To heck with the children, they say. We've got to keep this economy running, even if it means selling poison to our kids!
That's a stupid, short-sighted stance. But it's business as usual in America today: Sacrifice the future in order to create the illusion of wealth in the present. But even if all these soda-pumping corporations continue to rake in more profits, is the nation really economically better off?
I think not. The long-term health care costs of treating diseases caused by soda consumption equal or outweigh any short-term benefits derived from the economic activity of selling sodas. While it may seem like a net gain in this fiscal year, in the long haul it's a net loss to the nation.
When our political leaders begin to demonstrate an understanding of those concepts -- and they begin to act in accordance with the long-term interests of the nation -- we might have a future that can be salvaged out of the health care mess that exists now. We can, of course, turn this nation around and eliminate virtually all obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic degenerate diseases, but doing that will require making courageous decisions that directly violate the profiteering interests of some of the most powerful corporations in the world.
This will likely never happen. Poisoning children generates far too much profit to see it stopped. The media makes money, the politicians get campaign contributions that keep them in office, and the corporations selling their harmful products get to pocket obscene profits from doing so.
And so we end up with a nation of fat children and fat-cat adults who rake in the profits from soda companies even while wondering why their own kids have diabetes and can't concentrate in school. If it weren't so sad, the whole thing would be truly laughable. We are doing this to ourselves. We are poisoning our own children and calling it "profitable." And We the People of the United States of America continue to let this happen, day after day, year after year, even as we go bankrupt from the whole sickening charade.
I have a message for every newspaper, television station, sporting event and website that accepts advertising from soda companies: You are part of the problem! By agreeing to promote these products that directly harm the health of your readers, you are promoting a culture of disease and death.
Greed is powerful in the western world, and it often overshadows compassion. In a world where compassion took precedence over greed, no one would dare advertise sodas and sugary drinks. But we don't live in that world; we live in the world of ingrained American greed and blatant pass-the-buckishness. Some of the wealthiest people in the world have accumulated that wealth primarily by pushing products that harm or kill children. It's true for Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and the junk food giants, too.
Sources for this story include:
LA Times:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boo...
California Center for Public Health Advocacy:
http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org...
Orem Ut, Chiropractor, acupuncture, sports injuries, health, weight loss
by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Much like Big Tobacco once did with nicotine, the soda industry and high-fructose corn syrup producers of America have maintained a ridiculous state of flat-out denial about the links between soda consumption and obesity. "Sodas don't make you fat," they insist. Meanwhile, as Americans guzzle down insanely large quantities of soda and liquid sugar with each passing year, rates of obesity and diabetes continue to steadily climb. Surely diet must have something to do with it, right?
Thanks to a new California study, soda companies can no longer hide behind the defense of uncertainty when it comes to links between soda consumption and obesity. This massive study questioned the soda consumption habits of 43,000 adults and 4,000 adolescents and concluded this: Drinking one or more sodas a day increases your chances of obesity by 27 percent. A whopping 62% of adults who drink at least one soda each day are overweight or obese.
The study also found that Californians are gulping down sodas at an unprecedented rate: At least one soda is consumed daily by 41 percent of children, 62 percent of adolescents and 24 percent of adults. Through the study, another shocking statistic was revealed: The average California teen consumes 39 pounds of liquid sugar a year solely from soda consumption.
Sadly, the study didn't look at rates of diabetes and bone loss -- the phosphoric acid in sodas causes osteoporosis, even in males -- but there's little doubt that a similar correlation exists between soda consumption and those diseases, too. The whole issue of aspartame and diet sodas also wasn't looked at in this study, but that's yet another important area of investigation that will probably be delayed for many years until the number of people drinking diet soda who get diagnosed with brain cancer can no longer be denied.
We've been warning about this for years
The interesting thing about all this is that the champions of natural health have been warning society about this for years. Whether you're talking about myself and NaturalNews, or Dr. Julian Whitaker, or even going back to Weston Price, we've all been shouting about the dangers of widespread cola consumption long before it appeared on the radar of mainstream consciousness.
Now, in the thick of a disastrous epidemic of obesity and diabetes, more mainstream health authorities are finally starting to put the pieces together and realize just how bad sodas are for public health. There's now no question about it: When soda consumption goes up, so do rates of obesity. And with higher obesity rates, you automatically get greatly increased rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, depression and other diseases that are very expensive to treat.
Ultimately, that means that soda consumption greatly increases the health care costs of any nation, because higher soda consumption leads to higher rates of diseases that are expensive to treat. I'm guessing that for every dollar a consumer spends on soda, another dollar's worth of long-term health care cost is created at the same time. Except those costs are paid directly by the consumer; they're paid by the taxpayers and health insurance customers.
That's why reforming health care necessarily requires doing something drastic to reduce soda consumption across first-world nations. You can't have both affordable health care and a nation full of soda guzzlers.
How to reduce soda consumption
Greatly reducing the consumption of sodas is easier than you think. It just takes some political backbone... and a willingness for politicians to stop pussyfooting around with the issue in an effort to please the rich, powerful soft drink corporations.
It's time to start treating soft drink companies as what they truly are: The enemies of public health and financial parasites that drain public coffers through increased health care costs caused by their products. Their ads promise happiness, but their products deliver disease.
The first step to reducing soft drink consumption is to ban all soda advertising. In fact, that might be the only step that's necessary. Simply reveal that sodas are a clear and scientifically-proven hazard to public health, and declare that in order to protect our nation's youth, products that pose a clear and imminent hazard to public health will no longer be allowed to be advertised in any form: Not on television, magazines, sporting events or even through internet advertising. They are still free to have their own websites, of course, where they can describe their products. They just can't advertise on someone else's website.
But what about free speech? Doesn't the U.S. Constitution guarantee free speech for all individuals? Indeed, it does, but in my opinion -- and I know that far better-informed Constitutional lawyers would probably disagree with me on this -- there's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech to corporations. That "right" has been invented through a loose interpretation of what the Constitution really says.
I don't believe that corporations should have the same rights as individuals, because the free speech of one person is all too often completely drowned out by the "free speech" of a multi-billion dollar corporation that can buy virtually unlimited air time on television.
Can't we just tax sodas instead?
Another popular suggestion is to tax the heck out of sodas, thereby making them more expensive in order to discourage consumers from buying them. If you believe in levying new taxes on the poor, this is a great idea, because poor people buy and consume far more soda than wealthy people, making a "soda tax" largely a tax on the poor.
I strongly disagree with the idea of using new taxes to shape consumer behavior. Why? Because the current tangle of government taxes and subsidies is so complex and confusing that it has long since lost any attachment to common sense. For example, there are currently subsidies on sugar and corn. Yet one of the sweeteners used in soft drinks is high-fructose corn syrup, which is derived from corn. If a new soda tax passes, it means our government would simultaneously be in the business of providing subsidies to corn while taxing another product that uses an ingredient derived from corn. The overhead of tracking and collecting all these taxes is an enormous waste of government resources.
It's far better to just deny these soda companies the ability to use the media to influence teens and adults into buying and consuming their products. With no advertising, soda consumption would plummet, and the obesity epidemic would begin to turn around. Health care costs would ease and we'd be on our way to a healthier generation of future adults in America.
The mainstream media: Running on disease
The mainstream media, of course, would have a tissy fit with this idea. A significant portion of their advertising revenues come directly from companies that sell sodas and sugary drinks, putting them in the business of promoting products that directly harm children and teens.
But that's business, and the media doesn't feel any special responsibility to protect people from dangerous products that just happen to be paying their salaries. That's why they'll openly advertise dangerous, deadly pharmaceuticals designed to treat the very diseases caused by other products they advertise, like junk foods and soda.
There's a lot of money to be made from selling harmful products the people, and just like everybody else, the mainstream media wants its piece of the action. If you ban the advertising of harmful foods and beverages, many newspapers, magazines and television shows would collapse in weeks. It is precisely the advertising expenditures of high-margin junk product companies that keep the media afloat. Never forget that... especially when you're reading an article about sodas in the mainstream media.
Choose one: Children or corporations
At some point, America has to make a decision: Do we, as a nation, continue to sacrifice the health of our children in order to keep our powerful corporations flush with cash? Or do we sacrifice the profits of powerful corporations in order to save the health of our children?
That's really the only choice we have on this issue. We cannot protect both children's health and the profits of the corporations selling products that harm them.
Right now, the status quo has chosen to sacrifice the children in order to protect the corporations. That has been the stance of the FDA, Senators, Congressmen (and women) and even the mainstream media. To heck with the children, they say. We've got to keep this economy running, even if it means selling poison to our kids!
That's a stupid, short-sighted stance. But it's business as usual in America today: Sacrifice the future in order to create the illusion of wealth in the present. But even if all these soda-pumping corporations continue to rake in more profits, is the nation really economically better off?
I think not. The long-term health care costs of treating diseases caused by soda consumption equal or outweigh any short-term benefits derived from the economic activity of selling sodas. While it may seem like a net gain in this fiscal year, in the long haul it's a net loss to the nation.
When our political leaders begin to demonstrate an understanding of those concepts -- and they begin to act in accordance with the long-term interests of the nation -- we might have a future that can be salvaged out of the health care mess that exists now. We can, of course, turn this nation around and eliminate virtually all obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic degenerate diseases, but doing that will require making courageous decisions that directly violate the profiteering interests of some of the most powerful corporations in the world.
This will likely never happen. Poisoning children generates far too much profit to see it stopped. The media makes money, the politicians get campaign contributions that keep them in office, and the corporations selling their harmful products get to pocket obscene profits from doing so.
And so we end up with a nation of fat children and fat-cat adults who rake in the profits from soda companies even while wondering why their own kids have diabetes and can't concentrate in school. If it weren't so sad, the whole thing would be truly laughable. We are doing this to ourselves. We are poisoning our own children and calling it "profitable." And We the People of the United States of America continue to let this happen, day after day, year after year, even as we go bankrupt from the whole sickening charade.
I have a message for every newspaper, television station, sporting event and website that accepts advertising from soda companies: You are part of the problem! By agreeing to promote these products that directly harm the health of your readers, you are promoting a culture of disease and death.
Greed is powerful in the western world, and it often overshadows compassion. In a world where compassion took precedence over greed, no one would dare advertise sodas and sugary drinks. But we don't live in that world; we live in the world of ingrained American greed and blatant pass-the-buckishness. Some of the wealthiest people in the world have accumulated that wealth primarily by pushing products that harm or kill children. It's true for Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and the junk food giants, too.
Sources for this story include:
LA Times:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boo...
California Center for Public Health Advocacy:
http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org...
Orem Ut, Chiropractor, acupuncture, sports injuries, health, weight loss
Monday, September 14, 2009
Should I Exercise During Pregnancy?... The Answer is YES! Read Below:
Have You Heard the Latest on Exercise During Pregnancy?
pregnant, pregnancy, exercise, babyPhysicians should recommend low to moderate levels of exercise to their pregnant patients, even if they have not exercised prior to pregnancy, according to a new report.
Exercise can strengthen and improve overall musculoskeletal and physiologic health as well as pregnancy related symptoms.
Exercise such as aerobics, impact and nonimpact activities, resistance training and swimming:
* Eases back and other musculoskeletal pain
* Lowers maternal blood pressure
* Reduces swelling
* Improves post-partum mood, including sadness
Sources:
Eurekalert August 3, 2009
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons August 2009; 17(8):504-14
Dr. Mercola''s Comments
It should come as no surprise to find out that exercising during pregnancy is helpful both for you and your baby. After all, exercise is an essential element of a comprehensive physical and mental health program.
Timing and Intensity of Your Program May Affect Nutrient Intake and Birth Weight
Previous studies have shown that, in general, women who exercise throughout their pregnancies have larger placentas than their more sedentary peers.
The volume of your placenta is a general marker of its ability to transport oxygen and nutrients to your fetus, so it stands to reason that having a large, healthy placenta will lead to a healthier baby.
However, they also found that women who exercised at the same rate throughout their pregnancy, or boosted the intensity of their exercise regimen later in pregnancy, gave birth to infants who were lighter and had less body fat than women who slowed down in the final trimester.
That said, none of the babies born to women who exercised moderately or intensely through the ninth month were considered low birth weight. (Low birth weight is associated with developmental problems in childhood and may be linked to heart disease and other health problems later in life.)
The findings, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2002, indicated that regular weight-bearing exercise is beneficial for both mother and baby, and that the amount of benefit varies with the timing and amount of your exercise.
In short, if you are healthy and your pregnancy is normal, regular exercise can do nothing but improve your and your baby’s health. Avoiding physical movement for fear of causing harm is contra-intuitive and not based on reality, unless you have some form of medical condition that is putting your pregnancy at risk.
What’s a Healthy Amount of Exercise During Pregnancy?
As just mentioned above, the amount of benefit has been found to vary with the timing and amount of exercise. Slowing down a little during your ninth month may be beneficial, but what about the amount of exercise?
How much exercise is “just enough?”
Previous research has found that exercising either too much or too little can raise your risk of having a low birth weight baby.
According to one previous study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, pregnant women who exercised three to four times a week seemed to have the best chance of having a healthy weight baby. Exercising more than four times a week, or less than three, was linked to lower birth weight (but not dangerously low birth weight).
As specified in the study above, particularly beneficial exercises during pregnancy include:
* Aerobics
* Both impact and nonimpact activities
* Resistance training (weight training)
* Swimming
Avoid Back Pain and Leg Cramps with Regular Exercise
For years, expectant mothers have considered back pain, hip soreness and leg cramps to be more or less unavoidable during pregnancy. But research suggests that these aches and pains can be avoided with proper conditioning and physical exercise.
When you are pregnant you’re carrying around extra weight and your weight distribution is altered. Therefore, your muscles must work harder to accomplish your normal gait pattern when you walk. Exercising during your pregnancy will help keep your muscles conditioned to handle the increasing weight, and can be very beneficial for both preventive and rehabilitative management.
As a result of the decrease in aches and pains, this practice will likely also reduce the amount of pain-relief drugs taken during pregnancy. This, in and of itself, is good, considering that no drugs have been 100 percent proven to be safe during pregnancy.
Other Health Benefits of Exercising During Pregnancy
Aside from optimizing your baby’s nutrient supply and avoiding annoying aches and pains during pregnancy, exercising during this time has other health benefits, including:
* Reduced risk of gallstones, which is a fairly common problem for many pregnant women. Serious cases may even require surgical intervention, which is far more risky during pregnancy.
* Reduced risk of preterm birth. The risk of delivering a baby during the first 37 weeks of pregnancy, known as preterm birth, has been found to be reduced in women who engage in vigorous activity such as jogging or bicycling.
All-Natural Post Partum Depression Relief
Depression and mood-swings are common phenomena that affect many pregnant women. Changes in your hormone levels, and physical/emotional/mental stresses related to all the changes that are currently taking place in your life are contributing factors.
Even if you’re elated about being pregnant, depression may still affect you, and may take you completely by surprise.
In recent years, conventional medicine has started prescribing antidepressants to pregnant women, both as a preventive measure and as treatment. This is a major mistake that can cause significant harm both to you and your unborn child.
Fortunately, exercise is one of your most effective tools for mental- and emotional health as well.
Dr. James S. Gordon, a world-renowned expert in using mind-body medicine to heal depression and anxiety, states that physical movement can:
* Improve your mood
* Relieve your anxiety
* Alleviate your symptoms of depression
So sticking to your exercise regimen while you are pregnant can go a long way to insulate you from the pre- and post-partum depression episodes that plague so many pregnant women. Numerous studies have found that exercise is at least as good as, or better, than antidepressants for depression.
The main reason for this is because physical exercise changes the level of serotonin in your brain. It also increases your levels of endorphins, your “feel good” hormones.
If you are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant, I hope you’ll take this advice to heart and exercise, not just for you, but also for the benefit of your baby.
pregnant, pregnancy, exercise, babyPhysicians should recommend low to moderate levels of exercise to their pregnant patients, even if they have not exercised prior to pregnancy, according to a new report.
Exercise can strengthen and improve overall musculoskeletal and physiologic health as well as pregnancy related symptoms.
Exercise such as aerobics, impact and nonimpact activities, resistance training and swimming:
* Eases back and other musculoskeletal pain
* Lowers maternal blood pressure
* Reduces swelling
* Improves post-partum mood, including sadness
Sources:
Eurekalert August 3, 2009
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons August 2009; 17(8):504-14
Dr. Mercola''s Comments
It should come as no surprise to find out that exercising during pregnancy is helpful both for you and your baby. After all, exercise is an essential element of a comprehensive physical and mental health program.
Timing and Intensity of Your Program May Affect Nutrient Intake and Birth Weight
Previous studies have shown that, in general, women who exercise throughout their pregnancies have larger placentas than their more sedentary peers.
The volume of your placenta is a general marker of its ability to transport oxygen and nutrients to your fetus, so it stands to reason that having a large, healthy placenta will lead to a healthier baby.
However, they also found that women who exercised at the same rate throughout their pregnancy, or boosted the intensity of their exercise regimen later in pregnancy, gave birth to infants who were lighter and had less body fat than women who slowed down in the final trimester.
That said, none of the babies born to women who exercised moderately or intensely through the ninth month were considered low birth weight. (Low birth weight is associated with developmental problems in childhood and may be linked to heart disease and other health problems later in life.)
The findings, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2002, indicated that regular weight-bearing exercise is beneficial for both mother and baby, and that the amount of benefit varies with the timing and amount of your exercise.
In short, if you are healthy and your pregnancy is normal, regular exercise can do nothing but improve your and your baby’s health. Avoiding physical movement for fear of causing harm is contra-intuitive and not based on reality, unless you have some form of medical condition that is putting your pregnancy at risk.
What’s a Healthy Amount of Exercise During Pregnancy?
As just mentioned above, the amount of benefit has been found to vary with the timing and amount of exercise. Slowing down a little during your ninth month may be beneficial, but what about the amount of exercise?
How much exercise is “just enough?”
Previous research has found that exercising either too much or too little can raise your risk of having a low birth weight baby.
According to one previous study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, pregnant women who exercised three to four times a week seemed to have the best chance of having a healthy weight baby. Exercising more than four times a week, or less than three, was linked to lower birth weight (but not dangerously low birth weight).
As specified in the study above, particularly beneficial exercises during pregnancy include:
* Aerobics
* Both impact and nonimpact activities
* Resistance training (weight training)
* Swimming
Avoid Back Pain and Leg Cramps with Regular Exercise
For years, expectant mothers have considered back pain, hip soreness and leg cramps to be more or less unavoidable during pregnancy. But research suggests that these aches and pains can be avoided with proper conditioning and physical exercise.
When you are pregnant you’re carrying around extra weight and your weight distribution is altered. Therefore, your muscles must work harder to accomplish your normal gait pattern when you walk. Exercising during your pregnancy will help keep your muscles conditioned to handle the increasing weight, and can be very beneficial for both preventive and rehabilitative management.
As a result of the decrease in aches and pains, this practice will likely also reduce the amount of pain-relief drugs taken during pregnancy. This, in and of itself, is good, considering that no drugs have been 100 percent proven to be safe during pregnancy.
Other Health Benefits of Exercising During Pregnancy
Aside from optimizing your baby’s nutrient supply and avoiding annoying aches and pains during pregnancy, exercising during this time has other health benefits, including:
* Reduced risk of gallstones, which is a fairly common problem for many pregnant women. Serious cases may even require surgical intervention, which is far more risky during pregnancy.
* Reduced risk of preterm birth. The risk of delivering a baby during the first 37 weeks of pregnancy, known as preterm birth, has been found to be reduced in women who engage in vigorous activity such as jogging or bicycling.
All-Natural Post Partum Depression Relief
Depression and mood-swings are common phenomena that affect many pregnant women. Changes in your hormone levels, and physical/emotional/mental stresses related to all the changes that are currently taking place in your life are contributing factors.
Even if you’re elated about being pregnant, depression may still affect you, and may take you completely by surprise.
In recent years, conventional medicine has started prescribing antidepressants to pregnant women, both as a preventive measure and as treatment. This is a major mistake that can cause significant harm both to you and your unborn child.
Fortunately, exercise is one of your most effective tools for mental- and emotional health as well.
Dr. James S. Gordon, a world-renowned expert in using mind-body medicine to heal depression and anxiety, states that physical movement can:
* Improve your mood
* Relieve your anxiety
* Alleviate your symptoms of depression
So sticking to your exercise regimen while you are pregnant can go a long way to insulate you from the pre- and post-partum depression episodes that plague so many pregnant women. Numerous studies have found that exercise is at least as good as, or better, than antidepressants for depression.
The main reason for this is because physical exercise changes the level of serotonin in your brain. It also increases your levels of endorphins, your “feel good” hormones.
If you are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant, I hope you’ll take this advice to heart and exercise, not just for you, but also for the benefit of your baby.
Warning: Swine Flu Shot Linked to Killer Nerve Disease
A warning that the swine flu vaccine has been linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the UK Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.
The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, was leaked to The Daily Mail, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.
It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine. GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.
The letter refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:
* More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu
* The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times
* The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear
* The U.S. Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected
Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.
The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, was leaked to The Daily Mail, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.
It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine. GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.
The letter refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:
* More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu
* The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times
* The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear
* The U.S. Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected
Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.
6 Diseases You Thought Were In The Past, But Aren't
September 10 2009
Many think of bubonic plague, leprosy and polio as diseases of the past -- things that might have had a part in history, but aren't around any longer. But these diseases are still very much with us.
Pneumonic/Bubonic Plague
The pneumonic and bubonic plagues are caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, the difference being that pneumonic plague can spread from person to person -- without infected fleas.
The pneumonic form struck China earlier this year, and bubonic plague still persists in the United States, in the Southwest. Wild rats and fleas carry the disease, and when in proximity to humans, fleas will spread it to them rather than simply among rats.
Polio
Polio is still a problem in many countries. It can cause paralysis, in the legs and even the lungs.
But more often it has only subtle signs, so it is difficult to determine who has the virus, making it tricky to eradicate. Complicating matters is that symptoms of polio can often mimic those of other viruses.
Chagas Disease
The disease is spread by the bug known as the kissing bug and the assassin bug. It bites its human victim, defecating and causing an itch, which becomes Chagas disease when the victim scratches the area, allowing the infection to enter the body.
About 8 to 9 million people in Latin America are infected, and 400,000 people in the United States have the disease. The infection attacks the heart, but over the course of many years. Five percent of people will develop symptoms early on, such as liver or spleen enlargement. But the other 95 percent will show no signs for 20 or 30 years.
Leprosy
Leprosy is among the oldest of human diseases. The disease attacks skin and ultimately nerve cells. It is caused by a bacterium similar to the one responsible for tuberculosis.
The most common cause within the United States is exposure to armadillos, whether through eating them, having a farm of them or hunting them.
Hookworm
Hookworm still plagues many living in rural poverty throughout the world. The hookworm parasite, which lives in soil, causes severe anemia in its victim and the infection can prove difficult to get rid of.
Tuberculosis
Tuberculosis is still around, even if it isn't as deadly as it once was. But TB still poses a major problem for doctors. It's an insidious, slow-onset disease. Ultimately, patients can develop a persistent fever and lose energy and weight. Patients may not know they have the disease, and they can spread it to other people during that time.
Tuberculosis has become more of a threat than it once was with the development of forms that are resistant to the drugs typically used to treat the disease. Because of this, tuberculosis is still fatal to 40 to 50 percent of people who catch it.
Sources:
ABC News August 14, 2009
Dr. Mercola''s Comments
Before you get frightened, it’s worth mentioning that most of these diseases, although not entirely eradicated, are quite rare. But by implementing just two of my most recommended lifestyle changes, you can further reduce your chances of contracting two of the more common diseases in this rare bunch.
Polio Linked to Sugar Consumption
For example, were you aware of the polio-sugar connection? Few people are, but there’s plenty of research showing that consuming refined sugar increases your risk of contracting polio.
According to one such study, a substance produced during the sugar refining process, such as deoxysugars, may be responsible for polio.
Even if the poliovirus is present in a population, you’re not likely to get it unless you consume large quantities of refined sugar.
One of the most potent clinical examples I can share that supports this surprising conclusion comes from animal experiments done over 50 years ago.
Researchers repeatedly tried to infect rabbits with polio but were unsuccessful until they lowered the rabbits' blood sugar levels with insulin injections, which likely crippled the rabbits’ immune systems and allowed them to contract polio.
As many already know, I firmly believe that sugar is actually more damaging to your health than cigarettes, and my clinical experience supports this view.
Polio, and other infections, only tend to cause complications when your immune system is weakened, which can easily happen through poor nutrition, stress, and lack of sleep.
The polio vaccine is not the ultimate solution to prevent this disease.
In fact, one polio outbreak that occurred in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 was traced to a strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that mutated back to virulence.
This is one example showing that acquiring the disease you’re being vaccinated against is one risk of getting vaccinated.
As opposed to loading up on vaccines, limiting your sugar intake is one of the most potent actions you can take to drastically improve your overall health, as it helps keep your immune system strong, which in turn will reduce your risk of any number of diseases.
Vitamin D – One of Your Most Potent Strategies Against TB
A number of recent studies have confirmed the vital role vitamin D plays in increasing your body’s natural capacity to ward off autoimmune diseases, including preventing and treating tuberculosis.
One of the most important functions of vitamin D, which was not at all known until the 21st century, is that it turns on genes in your DNA that are responsible for producing hundreds of antimicrobial peptides that can destroy not only bacteria, but also viruses and fungi.
How good is that?!
To this day scientists haven’t been able to create effective anti-viral drugs, but your body can make them for free by simply exposing your skin to healthy amounts of sunshine or UVB from a safe tanning bed.
Although nearly one third of the world’s population carries the tuberculosis bacteria, only about 0.2 percent of those infected with tuberculosis (TB) actually develop a clinically significant infection. This fact indicates that something other than the bacteria is responsible for developing the disease.
Several studies have appeared in the last decade, indicating that vitamin D is one of the major keys that dictate whether you will actually develop the disease. These studies have all come to the conclusion that vitamin D deficiency sets off the disease if you are a carrier of the bacteria.
One previous study was able to show an astonishing 100 percent resolution rate by treating TB patients with 10,000 units of vitamin D daily (compared with the 400 units usually advocated by conventional medicine).
Researchers have discovered that your white blood cells convert the vitamin D that your skin produces from proper sun exposure into an active form, which helps form a protein that kills the tuberculosis bacteria.
Therefore the more severe your vitamin D deficiency is, the higher your risk of developing the active form of TB.
I’ve written quite extensively on the many health benefits of vitamin D. In fact, one recent meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials concluded that supplemental vitamin D significantly reduces mortality from ALL diseases!
For a refresher on this essential nutrient, I recommend viewing my free one-hour video lecture on vitamin D.
For more information about optimal vitamin D levels, and the best way to safely and effectively raise your levels, please see this previous article.
Ten Steps to Optimal Health and Disease Prevention
When you take steps to optimize your health, you’re also implementing effective measures that will help prevent disease of all kinds.
Remember, disease is a dis-ease – a lack of harmony and balanced functioning inside your body, and a sign that something is askew.
Following these guidelines – which are based on basic tenets of health – will help you optimize your health, and by doing so, minimize your risk of developing disease.
1.
Address your emotional traumas and manage your stress
2.
Get optimal exposure to sunlight
3.
Drink plenty of clean water
4.
Limit your exposure to toxins
5.
Consume healthy fat
6.
Eat a healthy diet that’s right for your nutritional type (paying very careful attention to keeping your insulin levels down)
7.
Eat plenty of raw food
8.
Optimize your insulin and leptin levels
9.
Exercise
10.
Get plenty of good sleep
Posted by Dr Dallas Makin, Chiropractor in Orem Ut, acupuncture, sports medicine, health and wellness.
Many think of bubonic plague, leprosy and polio as diseases of the past -- things that might have had a part in history, but aren't around any longer. But these diseases are still very much with us.
Pneumonic/Bubonic Plague
The pneumonic and bubonic plagues are caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, the difference being that pneumonic plague can spread from person to person -- without infected fleas.
The pneumonic form struck China earlier this year, and bubonic plague still persists in the United States, in the Southwest. Wild rats and fleas carry the disease, and when in proximity to humans, fleas will spread it to them rather than simply among rats.
Polio
Polio is still a problem in many countries. It can cause paralysis, in the legs and even the lungs.
But more often it has only subtle signs, so it is difficult to determine who has the virus, making it tricky to eradicate. Complicating matters is that symptoms of polio can often mimic those of other viruses.
Chagas Disease
The disease is spread by the bug known as the kissing bug and the assassin bug. It bites its human victim, defecating and causing an itch, which becomes Chagas disease when the victim scratches the area, allowing the infection to enter the body.
About 8 to 9 million people in Latin America are infected, and 400,000 people in the United States have the disease. The infection attacks the heart, but over the course of many years. Five percent of people will develop symptoms early on, such as liver or spleen enlargement. But the other 95 percent will show no signs for 20 or 30 years.
Leprosy
Leprosy is among the oldest of human diseases. The disease attacks skin and ultimately nerve cells. It is caused by a bacterium similar to the one responsible for tuberculosis.
The most common cause within the United States is exposure to armadillos, whether through eating them, having a farm of them or hunting them.
Hookworm
Hookworm still plagues many living in rural poverty throughout the world. The hookworm parasite, which lives in soil, causes severe anemia in its victim and the infection can prove difficult to get rid of.
Tuberculosis
Tuberculosis is still around, even if it isn't as deadly as it once was. But TB still poses a major problem for doctors. It's an insidious, slow-onset disease. Ultimately, patients can develop a persistent fever and lose energy and weight. Patients may not know they have the disease, and they can spread it to other people during that time.
Tuberculosis has become more of a threat than it once was with the development of forms that are resistant to the drugs typically used to treat the disease. Because of this, tuberculosis is still fatal to 40 to 50 percent of people who catch it.
Sources:
ABC News August 14, 2009
Dr. Mercola''s Comments
Before you get frightened, it’s worth mentioning that most of these diseases, although not entirely eradicated, are quite rare. But by implementing just two of my most recommended lifestyle changes, you can further reduce your chances of contracting two of the more common diseases in this rare bunch.
Polio Linked to Sugar Consumption
For example, were you aware of the polio-sugar connection? Few people are, but there’s plenty of research showing that consuming refined sugar increases your risk of contracting polio.
According to one such study, a substance produced during the sugar refining process, such as deoxysugars, may be responsible for polio.
Even if the poliovirus is present in a population, you’re not likely to get it unless you consume large quantities of refined sugar.
One of the most potent clinical examples I can share that supports this surprising conclusion comes from animal experiments done over 50 years ago.
Researchers repeatedly tried to infect rabbits with polio but were unsuccessful until they lowered the rabbits' blood sugar levels with insulin injections, which likely crippled the rabbits’ immune systems and allowed them to contract polio.
As many already know, I firmly believe that sugar is actually more damaging to your health than cigarettes, and my clinical experience supports this view.
Polio, and other infections, only tend to cause complications when your immune system is weakened, which can easily happen through poor nutrition, stress, and lack of sleep.
The polio vaccine is not the ultimate solution to prevent this disease.
In fact, one polio outbreak that occurred in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 was traced to a strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that mutated back to virulence.
This is one example showing that acquiring the disease you’re being vaccinated against is one risk of getting vaccinated.
As opposed to loading up on vaccines, limiting your sugar intake is one of the most potent actions you can take to drastically improve your overall health, as it helps keep your immune system strong, which in turn will reduce your risk of any number of diseases.
Vitamin D – One of Your Most Potent Strategies Against TB
A number of recent studies have confirmed the vital role vitamin D plays in increasing your body’s natural capacity to ward off autoimmune diseases, including preventing and treating tuberculosis.
One of the most important functions of vitamin D, which was not at all known until the 21st century, is that it turns on genes in your DNA that are responsible for producing hundreds of antimicrobial peptides that can destroy not only bacteria, but also viruses and fungi.
How good is that?!
To this day scientists haven’t been able to create effective anti-viral drugs, but your body can make them for free by simply exposing your skin to healthy amounts of sunshine or UVB from a safe tanning bed.
Although nearly one third of the world’s population carries the tuberculosis bacteria, only about 0.2 percent of those infected with tuberculosis (TB) actually develop a clinically significant infection. This fact indicates that something other than the bacteria is responsible for developing the disease.
Several studies have appeared in the last decade, indicating that vitamin D is one of the major keys that dictate whether you will actually develop the disease. These studies have all come to the conclusion that vitamin D deficiency sets off the disease if you are a carrier of the bacteria.
One previous study was able to show an astonishing 100 percent resolution rate by treating TB patients with 10,000 units of vitamin D daily (compared with the 400 units usually advocated by conventional medicine).
Researchers have discovered that your white blood cells convert the vitamin D that your skin produces from proper sun exposure into an active form, which helps form a protein that kills the tuberculosis bacteria.
Therefore the more severe your vitamin D deficiency is, the higher your risk of developing the active form of TB.
I’ve written quite extensively on the many health benefits of vitamin D. In fact, one recent meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials concluded that supplemental vitamin D significantly reduces mortality from ALL diseases!
For a refresher on this essential nutrient, I recommend viewing my free one-hour video lecture on vitamin D.
For more information about optimal vitamin D levels, and the best way to safely and effectively raise your levels, please see this previous article.
Ten Steps to Optimal Health and Disease Prevention
When you take steps to optimize your health, you’re also implementing effective measures that will help prevent disease of all kinds.
Remember, disease is a dis-ease – a lack of harmony and balanced functioning inside your body, and a sign that something is askew.
Following these guidelines – which are based on basic tenets of health – will help you optimize your health, and by doing so, minimize your risk of developing disease.
1.
Address your emotional traumas and manage your stress
2.
Get optimal exposure to sunlight
3.
Drink plenty of clean water
4.
Limit your exposure to toxins
5.
Consume healthy fat
6.
Eat a healthy diet that’s right for your nutritional type (paying very careful attention to keeping your insulin levels down)
7.
Eat plenty of raw food
8.
Optimize your insulin and leptin levels
9.
Exercise
10.
Get plenty of good sleep
Posted by Dr Dallas Makin, Chiropractor in Orem Ut, acupuncture, sports medicine, health and wellness.
Autism Rates Going Up, Why?... Read this..
ASDA pair of studies on autism rates show that somewhere around one percent of all U.S. children currently have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The rate is even higher among 6 to 11 year olds and among boys.
Among all children aged two to 17, one in 100 currently have an ASD, which is considerably higher than the previously estimated rate of one in 150. There was a 100 percent increase in parent-reported ASD rates compared to 2003.
One possible explanation for some of the increase is the expansion of the ASD classification within the public schools to include not only full-blown autism, but also milder forms of ASD such as Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Asperger's Syndrome. But it is difficult to believe that this accounts for the entire increase.
One possible answer is the Hepatitis B vaccine, which also contained 25 micrograms of mercury containing thimerosal. Only 8 percent of infant children received the Hep B vaccine in 1992, when that birth cohort showed an ASD rate of 60 per 10,000.
By 1994, the number of children receiving Hep B vaccine had reached just 27 percent -- and the cohort showed an ASD rate of 66 per 10,000. The Hep B coverage rate rose to 82 percent by 1996, when that cohort's ASD rate exploded to around 100 per 10,000, or one in 100.
Sources:
Huffington Post August 11, 2009
Dr. Mercola''s Comments
If you’ve been following this issue you will be very aware that autism is on the rise.
For a number of years the accepted rate of autism was about one in 150, but for awhile now I have been stating that the incidence is far higher than that, and now we finally have statistics to support that.
Overall, the 2007 survey results from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) reveals a 100 percent increase in parent-reported cases of autism spectrum disorders (ASD), compared to their 2003 survey.
According to this latest data, the odds that your infant will develop some form of ASD are now one in 63. And if you have a boy, the chances are a staggering one in 38.
That’s 2.6 percent of all male children in the U.S.!
Among all children aged two to 17, out of the 82,000 respondents, one in 100 reported that their child currently has an ASD. This is far higher than the previous CDC estimate of one in 150.
A similar British study puts the overall U.K. rate at one in 83.
These numbers sadly support the surprising findings earlier this year, when the journal Epidemiology published a study showing a sevenfold increase in autism cases in California, between the years of 1990 to 2006.
In 1990, 6.2 of every 10,000 children born in California were diagnosed with autism by the age of 5. By 2001, that had risen to 42.5 in 10,000.
I still remember that 25 years ago. when I first started practicing, the incidence of autism in the United States was only one in 100,000! This is clearly an epidemic happening in massive proportions right before our very eyes.
What’s Causing These Out of Control Autism Rates?
Many researchers are now advocating for a shift in autism research to focus on environmental factors such as pesticides, viruses and chemicals in household products rather than genetics.
It makes no rational sense that funding for studying the genetic causes of autism is 10 to 20 times higher than funding for environmental causes. Because although genetics play a role in an estimated one percent of cases, the other 99 percent are still a mystery to conventional scientists.
Likewise, to suggest this massive increase could be due to relaxed diagnosis criteria seems to be grasping at straws.
So what is the explanation?
The Common Thread Among Those With Autism
Dr. Klinghardt, one of my primary mentors and a pioneer in natural medicine, discussed the toxic origins of autism in an extensive interview with me late last year. You can watch a snippet of it here, or join my Inner Circle to get access to the entire interview.
One topic discussed is the fact that in most people with autism, their pathways of detoxification have become overwhelmed by both man-made and microbial toxins.
The toxins that are at the top of this list are:
1.
Mercury and other metals, such as aluminum. The major route of exposure here is from vaccines, and also from eating contaminated seafood.
2.
Viruses and microbes, such as mold. Children with autism not only have overwhelmed detoxification pathways and often heavy metal toxicity, but, according to Dr. Klinghardt, they also have a silent, daily toxin production in their body caused by toxic microbes.
3.
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF). These come not only from cell phones and cordless phones, but also from electrical outlets and WI-FI. Dr. Klinghardt considers EMF “synergistically causal," partly because it potentiates the production of toxic microbes and endotoxins.
We already know that children are now born toxic due to the increasing toxic load of their mothers. We know that the childhood vaccination schedule has gone from requiring 10 vaccinations in 1976, to now including 36 injections before your child reaches 12 months of age.
We also know that the use of cell phones and other WiFi equipment has exploded, and according to some experts, like Dr. Klinghardt, EMF exposure increases the toxicity of many already hazardous substances.
For example, in a small study performed by Dr. Klinghardt, he showed that autism can actually be predicted based on the EMF levels of your sleeping quarters while you are pregnant!
He found that if you sleep in strong electromagnetic fields during pregnancy, your child will likely begin to exhibit neurological abnormalities within the first two years of life, such as:
*
Neurological dysfunction
*
Hyperactivity
*
Learning disorders
What About Vaccines?
Once you’ve reviewed the available data, it’s also virtually impossible to ignore the dangerous impact of our overzealous vaccination schedule.
According to Lee Grossman, President and CEO of Autism Society of America (ASA):
"A person with an autism spectrum disorder has a number of underlying and seemingly unnoticed immunological, inflammatory or mitochondrial issues happening, and there could be any number of factors that trigger this, and it is certainly plausible that vaccines are one of those triggers."
As discussed in the article above, the increased use of the Hepatitis B vaccine also coincides with a rise in autism, and the Hep B vaccine contained 25 micrograms of thimerosal – a mercury-containing ingredient that has long been thought to be a contributing factor to autism due to its potent neurotoxic effects.
According to the CDC's National Immunization Survey, 8 percent of infants received the Hep B vaccine in 1992. At the time the ASD rate was 67 in 10,000. Four years later, at which time 82 percent of infants received the Hep B vaccine, the ASD rate rose to about 100 in 10,000.
Recent studies have shown that the Hepatitis B vaccine can damage myelin in those with certain genetic factors. For example, one recent study found that children who received the vaccine were 50 percent more likely to develop "central nervous system inflammatory demyelination" than children who did not receive the vaccine.
GlaxoSmithKline’s Engerix B brand of the vaccine was shown to be the worst of the bunch, increasing the risk of demyelination by 74 percent. It also nearly tripled the risk of developing multiple sclerosis in genetically susceptible people.
As you can see, there are likely a wide variety of potential factors involved, and we need to know what all of these exposures in combination mean to the health of our children if we ever want to turn this tide of autism around.
One Contributing Factor You Can Remedy Right Now
Another major contributor to autism that has recently been appreciated is vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women.
The vitamin D receptor appears in a wide variety of brain tissue early in the fetal development, and activated vitamin D receptors increase nerve growth in your brain. It is my personal belief that this may be the single largest contributing factor to autism and that it is a deficiency of sun exposure to the pregnant mom, and subsequently to the fetus, that puts the child at a massively increased risk of developing autism in the first place.
Fortunately, this is one risk factor you can do something about right now.
I believe one of the most important changes that could radically reduce autism is to make certain that ALL pregnant women normalize their vitamin D levels to 50-60 ng/ml.
What to Do and Where to Turn if You Have an Autistic Child
Lee Grossman of the ASA was quoted as saying,
"Now, many people believe that autism is associated with environmental triggers, and my message is: 'Wake up.'
If this doesn't wake people up, then I don't know what will.
I'm hopeful that this unfortunate statistic, and the terrible growth in autism, will finally get people to act to do something about autism. And by that, I mean the fine folks in government who are not responding in the ways that they should."
I hope so too.
But I’m not holding my breath for sanity to sweep across government any time soon. And if you’re waiting for conventional medicine to come up with some “cure,” you may be waiting for a long time.
Fortunately, there are other options, many of which are turning out to be effective.
I am collaborating with some of the leading experts in autism, including Dr. Klinghardt, and participating in the THRiiiVE think-tank that will provide basic resources for those afflicted with autism.
During the most recent THRiiiVE summit in October, 2008 we created the Top 10 Prioritized To Do List for people with autism.
I have detailed the entire list in this past article, so please, if your child or someone you know has autism, take a few minutes to review it.
As part of the program, Dr. Klinghardt recommends the following three steps that should be urgently addressed in children with autism:
1. Lower microbial burden: Reduce microbial overgrowth in your child’s body through dietary changes (less starch and sugar at minimum) and lower overall stress. Also, consider testing for mold (in your house) and Lyme (in his or her body) but only after “provocation treatment.”
2. Lower incoming toxic burden: Do whatever you can to establish a mold, dust, toxin and smell-free environment for your whole family and THEN establish a detoxification program. Please remember hidden toxins like fluoride, and look carefully at ALL your cleaning products.
3. Lower EMF burden in your child’s home and bedroom: Your child’s health will be optimized with daily sun exposure (healthy EMF) and nightly avoidance of man-made (harmful) EMF.
Posted by Dr Dallas Makin, Chiropractor, Acupuncture, Detox in orem UT
Among all children aged two to 17, one in 100 currently have an ASD, which is considerably higher than the previously estimated rate of one in 150. There was a 100 percent increase in parent-reported ASD rates compared to 2003.
One possible explanation for some of the increase is the expansion of the ASD classification within the public schools to include not only full-blown autism, but also milder forms of ASD such as Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Asperger's Syndrome. But it is difficult to believe that this accounts for the entire increase.
One possible answer is the Hepatitis B vaccine, which also contained 25 micrograms of mercury containing thimerosal. Only 8 percent of infant children received the Hep B vaccine in 1992, when that birth cohort showed an ASD rate of 60 per 10,000.
By 1994, the number of children receiving Hep B vaccine had reached just 27 percent -- and the cohort showed an ASD rate of 66 per 10,000. The Hep B coverage rate rose to 82 percent by 1996, when that cohort's ASD rate exploded to around 100 per 10,000, or one in 100.
Sources:
Huffington Post August 11, 2009
Dr. Mercola''s Comments
If you’ve been following this issue you will be very aware that autism is on the rise.
For a number of years the accepted rate of autism was about one in 150, but for awhile now I have been stating that the incidence is far higher than that, and now we finally have statistics to support that.
Overall, the 2007 survey results from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) reveals a 100 percent increase in parent-reported cases of autism spectrum disorders (ASD), compared to their 2003 survey.
According to this latest data, the odds that your infant will develop some form of ASD are now one in 63. And if you have a boy, the chances are a staggering one in 38.
That’s 2.6 percent of all male children in the U.S.!
Among all children aged two to 17, out of the 82,000 respondents, one in 100 reported that their child currently has an ASD. This is far higher than the previous CDC estimate of one in 150.
A similar British study puts the overall U.K. rate at one in 83.
These numbers sadly support the surprising findings earlier this year, when the journal Epidemiology published a study showing a sevenfold increase in autism cases in California, between the years of 1990 to 2006.
In 1990, 6.2 of every 10,000 children born in California were diagnosed with autism by the age of 5. By 2001, that had risen to 42.5 in 10,000.
I still remember that 25 years ago. when I first started practicing, the incidence of autism in the United States was only one in 100,000! This is clearly an epidemic happening in massive proportions right before our very eyes.
What’s Causing These Out of Control Autism Rates?
Many researchers are now advocating for a shift in autism research to focus on environmental factors such as pesticides, viruses and chemicals in household products rather than genetics.
It makes no rational sense that funding for studying the genetic causes of autism is 10 to 20 times higher than funding for environmental causes. Because although genetics play a role in an estimated one percent of cases, the other 99 percent are still a mystery to conventional scientists.
Likewise, to suggest this massive increase could be due to relaxed diagnosis criteria seems to be grasping at straws.
So what is the explanation?
The Common Thread Among Those With Autism
Dr. Klinghardt, one of my primary mentors and a pioneer in natural medicine, discussed the toxic origins of autism in an extensive interview with me late last year. You can watch a snippet of it here, or join my Inner Circle to get access to the entire interview.
One topic discussed is the fact that in most people with autism, their pathways of detoxification have become overwhelmed by both man-made and microbial toxins.
The toxins that are at the top of this list are:
1.
Mercury and other metals, such as aluminum. The major route of exposure here is from vaccines, and also from eating contaminated seafood.
2.
Viruses and microbes, such as mold. Children with autism not only have overwhelmed detoxification pathways and often heavy metal toxicity, but, according to Dr. Klinghardt, they also have a silent, daily toxin production in their body caused by toxic microbes.
3.
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF). These come not only from cell phones and cordless phones, but also from electrical outlets and WI-FI. Dr. Klinghardt considers EMF “synergistically causal," partly because it potentiates the production of toxic microbes and endotoxins.
We already know that children are now born toxic due to the increasing toxic load of their mothers. We know that the childhood vaccination schedule has gone from requiring 10 vaccinations in 1976, to now including 36 injections before your child reaches 12 months of age.
We also know that the use of cell phones and other WiFi equipment has exploded, and according to some experts, like Dr. Klinghardt, EMF exposure increases the toxicity of many already hazardous substances.
For example, in a small study performed by Dr. Klinghardt, he showed that autism can actually be predicted based on the EMF levels of your sleeping quarters while you are pregnant!
He found that if you sleep in strong electromagnetic fields during pregnancy, your child will likely begin to exhibit neurological abnormalities within the first two years of life, such as:
*
Neurological dysfunction
*
Hyperactivity
*
Learning disorders
What About Vaccines?
Once you’ve reviewed the available data, it’s also virtually impossible to ignore the dangerous impact of our overzealous vaccination schedule.
According to Lee Grossman, President and CEO of Autism Society of America (ASA):
"A person with an autism spectrum disorder has a number of underlying and seemingly unnoticed immunological, inflammatory or mitochondrial issues happening, and there could be any number of factors that trigger this, and it is certainly plausible that vaccines are one of those triggers."
As discussed in the article above, the increased use of the Hepatitis B vaccine also coincides with a rise in autism, and the Hep B vaccine contained 25 micrograms of thimerosal – a mercury-containing ingredient that has long been thought to be a contributing factor to autism due to its potent neurotoxic effects.
According to the CDC's National Immunization Survey, 8 percent of infants received the Hep B vaccine in 1992. At the time the ASD rate was 67 in 10,000. Four years later, at which time 82 percent of infants received the Hep B vaccine, the ASD rate rose to about 100 in 10,000.
Recent studies have shown that the Hepatitis B vaccine can damage myelin in those with certain genetic factors. For example, one recent study found that children who received the vaccine were 50 percent more likely to develop "central nervous system inflammatory demyelination" than children who did not receive the vaccine.
GlaxoSmithKline’s Engerix B brand of the vaccine was shown to be the worst of the bunch, increasing the risk of demyelination by 74 percent. It also nearly tripled the risk of developing multiple sclerosis in genetically susceptible people.
As you can see, there are likely a wide variety of potential factors involved, and we need to know what all of these exposures in combination mean to the health of our children if we ever want to turn this tide of autism around.
One Contributing Factor You Can Remedy Right Now
Another major contributor to autism that has recently been appreciated is vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women.
The vitamin D receptor appears in a wide variety of brain tissue early in the fetal development, and activated vitamin D receptors increase nerve growth in your brain. It is my personal belief that this may be the single largest contributing factor to autism and that it is a deficiency of sun exposure to the pregnant mom, and subsequently to the fetus, that puts the child at a massively increased risk of developing autism in the first place.
Fortunately, this is one risk factor you can do something about right now.
I believe one of the most important changes that could radically reduce autism is to make certain that ALL pregnant women normalize their vitamin D levels to 50-60 ng/ml.
What to Do and Where to Turn if You Have an Autistic Child
Lee Grossman of the ASA was quoted as saying,
"Now, many people believe that autism is associated with environmental triggers, and my message is: 'Wake up.'
If this doesn't wake people up, then I don't know what will.
I'm hopeful that this unfortunate statistic, and the terrible growth in autism, will finally get people to act to do something about autism. And by that, I mean the fine folks in government who are not responding in the ways that they should."
I hope so too.
But I’m not holding my breath for sanity to sweep across government any time soon. And if you’re waiting for conventional medicine to come up with some “cure,” you may be waiting for a long time.
Fortunately, there are other options, many of which are turning out to be effective.
I am collaborating with some of the leading experts in autism, including Dr. Klinghardt, and participating in the THRiiiVE think-tank that will provide basic resources for those afflicted with autism.
During the most recent THRiiiVE summit in October, 2008 we created the Top 10 Prioritized To Do List for people with autism.
I have detailed the entire list in this past article, so please, if your child or someone you know has autism, take a few minutes to review it.
As part of the program, Dr. Klinghardt recommends the following three steps that should be urgently addressed in children with autism:
1. Lower microbial burden: Reduce microbial overgrowth in your child’s body through dietary changes (less starch and sugar at minimum) and lower overall stress. Also, consider testing for mold (in your house) and Lyme (in his or her body) but only after “provocation treatment.”
2. Lower incoming toxic burden: Do whatever you can to establish a mold, dust, toxin and smell-free environment for your whole family and THEN establish a detoxification program. Please remember hidden toxins like fluoride, and look carefully at ALL your cleaning products.
3. Lower EMF burden in your child’s home and bedroom: Your child’s health will be optimized with daily sun exposure (healthy EMF) and nightly avoidance of man-made (harmful) EMF.
Posted by Dr Dallas Makin, Chiropractor, Acupuncture, Detox in orem UT
10 Ways Exercise Helps YOU Lose Weight
A recent Time magazine article, "Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin," is misleading at best. Exercise is critical to losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight, especially when paired with healthy eating habits.
Countless studies, numerous experts who study exercise, and the millions of people who have lost weight all attest to the fact that working out works.
1.
Exercise zaps belly fat
Regular moderate to high intensity aerobic exercise has the greatest impact on reducing abdominal fat -- the dangerous fat that increases your risk of diabetes and heart disease.
2.
Exercise controls calories
You need to burn more calories than you consume in order to lose weight. Regular exercise uses up excess calories that would otherwise be stored as fat.
3.
Exercise keeps lost pounds MIA
Ninety percent of people who have successfully lost weight and kept it off for a year do about an hour of physical activity a day.
4.
Exercise boosts metabolism
You'll lose fat when you diet without exercising, but you'll also lose muscle, which means you'll burn fewer calories. The more muscle you have, the higher your metabolism and the more calories you'll burn.
5.
Exercise does more than the scale shows
If you gain 3 pounds of lean muscle and lose 4 pounds of fat, you've actually experienced a 7-pound improvement in your body condition, despite the scale only showing 1 pound of weight loss.
6.
Exercise curbs emotional eating
Working out has been proven time and time again to help regulate mood, which has a direct effect on people who eat when they're stressed or upset.
7.
Exercise creates a healthy chain reaction
Healthy habits tend to cluster together. When people make positive changes, like getting more exercise, they tend to work on other health improvements as well, such as eating better.
8.
Exercise brings on the fun
Rock-climbing is more exciting than eating a celery stick. That's why it's sometimes easier to be active to stay slim than to maintain a strict diet.
9.
Exercise stops hunger
People who exercise and diet are actually less hungry than those who only diet, according to at least one study.
10.
Exercise increases energy
Regular physical activity increases stamina by boosting your body's production of energy-promoting neurotransmitters. That gives you even more motivation to get moving and shed pounds.
Countless studies, numerous experts who study exercise, and the millions of people who have lost weight all attest to the fact that working out works.
1.
Exercise zaps belly fat
Regular moderate to high intensity aerobic exercise has the greatest impact on reducing abdominal fat -- the dangerous fat that increases your risk of diabetes and heart disease.
2.
Exercise controls calories
You need to burn more calories than you consume in order to lose weight. Regular exercise uses up excess calories that would otherwise be stored as fat.
3.
Exercise keeps lost pounds MIA
Ninety percent of people who have successfully lost weight and kept it off for a year do about an hour of physical activity a day.
4.
Exercise boosts metabolism
You'll lose fat when you diet without exercising, but you'll also lose muscle, which means you'll burn fewer calories. The more muscle you have, the higher your metabolism and the more calories you'll burn.
5.
Exercise does more than the scale shows
If you gain 3 pounds of lean muscle and lose 4 pounds of fat, you've actually experienced a 7-pound improvement in your body condition, despite the scale only showing 1 pound of weight loss.
6.
Exercise curbs emotional eating
Working out has been proven time and time again to help regulate mood, which has a direct effect on people who eat when they're stressed or upset.
7.
Exercise creates a healthy chain reaction
Healthy habits tend to cluster together. When people make positive changes, like getting more exercise, they tend to work on other health improvements as well, such as eating better.
8.
Exercise brings on the fun
Rock-climbing is more exciting than eating a celery stick. That's why it's sometimes easier to be active to stay slim than to maintain a strict diet.
9.
Exercise stops hunger
People who exercise and diet are actually less hungry than those who only diet, according to at least one study.
10.
Exercise increases energy
Regular physical activity increases stamina by boosting your body's production of energy-promoting neurotransmitters. That gives you even more motivation to get moving and shed pounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
