Contact Us
Latest Posts:
McGillespie
Category

Health

Category
Defense

Magnesium Puts Psychiatric Drugs to Shame for Depression

By

By Sayer Ji

A powerful clinical study shows that pennies worth of magnesium a day provides an effective, safe, affordable alternative to dangerous and relatively ineffective pharmaceutical antidepressants.

Depression is one of the most widely diagnosed conditions of our time, with over 3 million cases in the U.S. every year, and 350 million believed affected worldwide.1 Conventional medicine considers antidepressant drugs first-line treatments, including the newly approved injected postpartum drug costing $34,000 a treatment, to the tune of a 16 billion dollars in global sales by 2023. Despite their widespread use, these drugs are fraught with a battery of serious side effects, including suicidal ideation and completion — the last two things you would hope to see in a condition that already has suicidality as a co-morbidity. For this reason alone, natural, safe, and effective alternatives are needed more than ever before.

While research into natural alternatives for depression is growing daily — GreenMedInfo.com’s Depression database contains 647 studies on over 100 natural substances that have been studied to prevent or treat depression — it is rare to find quality human clinical research on the topic published in well-respected journals. That’s why a powerful study published in PLOS One titled, “Role of magnesium supplementation in the treatment of depression: A randomized clinical trial,” is so promising. Not only is magnesium safe, affordable, and easily accessible, but according to this recent study, effective in treating mild-to moderate symptoms of depression.

While previous studies have looked at the association between magnesium and depression,2-7 this is the first placebo-controlled clinical study to evaluate whether the use of over-the-counter magnesium chloride (248 mg elemental magnesium a day for 6 weeks) improves symptoms of depression.

The study design was a follows:

“ An open-label, blocked, randomized, cross-over trial was carried out in outpatient primary care clinics on 126 adults (mean age 52; 38% male) diagnosed with and currently experiencing mild-to-moderate symptoms with Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores of 5–19. The intervention was 6 weeks of active treatment (248 mg of elemental magnesium per day) compared to 6 weeks of control (no treatment). Assessments of depression symptoms were completed at bi-weekly phone calls. The primary outcome was the net difference in the change in depression symptoms from baseline to the end of each treatment period. Secondary outcomes included changes in anxiety symptoms as well as adherence to the supplement regimen, appearance of adverse effects, and intention to use magnesium supplements in the future. Between June 2015 and May 2016, 112 participants provided analyzable data.”

The study results were as follows:

“Consumption of magnesium chloride for 6 weeks resulted in a clinically significant net improvement in PHQ-9 scores of -6.0 points (CI -7.9, -4.2; P<0.001) and net improvement in Generalized Anxiety Disorders-7 scores of -4.5 points (CI -6.6, -2.4; P<0.001). Average adherence was 83% by pill count. The supplements were well tolerated and 61% of participants reported they would use magnesium in the future. Similar effects were observed regardless of age, gender, baseline severity of depression, baseline magnesium level, or use of antidepressant treatments. Effects were observed within two weeks. Magnesium is effective for mild-to-moderate depression in adults. It works quickly and is well tolerated without the need for close monitoring for toxicity.”

For perspective, conventional antidepressant drugs are considering to generate an “adequate or complete treatment response” with a PHQ-9 score “decrease of 5 points or more from baseline.” At this level of efficacy, their recommended action is: “Do not change treatment; conduct periodic follow-up.” The magnesium’s score of -6.0 therefore represents the height of success within conventional expectations for a complete response, which is sometimes termed “remission.” In contradistinction, conventional antidepressant drugs result in nearly half of patients discontinuing treatment during the first month, usually due to their powerful and sometimes debilitating side effects.8

To summarize the main study outcomes:

  • There was a clinically significant improvement in both Depression and Anxiety scores.
  • 61% of patients reported they would use magnesium in the future.
  • Similar effects occurred across age, gender, severity of depression, baseline magnesium levels, or use of antidepressant treatments.
  • Effects were observed within two weeks.

The study authors concluded:

“Magnesium is effective for mild-to-moderate depression in adults. It works quickly and is well tolerated without the need for close monitoring for toxicity.”

Beyond Depression: Magnesium’s Many Health Benefits and Where To Source It

Magnesium is a central player in your body’s energy production, as its found within 300 enzymes in the human body, including within the biologically active form of ATP known as MG-ATP. In fact, there have been over 3,751 magnesium binding sites identified within human proteins, indicating that it’s central nutritional importance has been greatly underappreciated.

Research relevant to magnesium has been accumulating for the past 40 years at a steady rate of approximately 2,000 new studies a year. Our database project has indexed well over 100 health benefits of magnesium thus far.  For the sake of brevity, we will address seven key therapeutic applications for magnesium as follows:

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
panacur-c
Business

A Cancer Cure Has Gotten Out of Control

By

by Bill Sardi

While Wall Street awaits the entry of over 1,813 new cancer drugs into human clinical trials representing billions of dollars of investment capital, the announcement of a bona fide cure for cancer comes from an outsider – patient Joe Tippens.

An astounding report of Mr. Tippens’ cancer cure is circulating the internet now.  First diagnosed with small cell lung cancer in 2016 and with tumors popping up on scans in virtually every organ in his body, in desperation Joe Tippens began using a dog de-worming agent at the suggestion of a veterinarian.

He was told this cancer cure “was batting 1,000 in killing different cancers.”  He heard one of the scientists involved in the research was cured.  He had no time to dither.  He was weeks away from dying.

Treatment began in the third week of January 2017.  Three months later at MD Anderson Cancer Hospital in Houston, Tippens anxiously awaited the report of his oncologist who had no idea Tippens started taking the dog deworming medication.

The doctor is reported to have walked up to Mr. Tippens and said: “I am going to have to ask you to leave this hospital, because we only treat patients with cancer here at MD Anderson.”


Within just 3 months his cancer vanished.  His insurance company spent $1.2 million before Tippens switched to a $5 a week medicine that saved his life.  Daily vitamins and CBD oil were also an essential part of his curative regimen.  Here’s the video report.

Don’t think Big Pharma isn’t involved here.  Merck Animal Health division makes the de-worming drug that has gone up in price since the report of Tippens’ cure spread in the news media.

Joe Tippens now reports at his own “My Cancer Story Rocks” blog site that is bustling with visitors.

He now says around 40 otherwise hopeless cancer patients have reported similar cures.

He continues to take the anti-worming medication and dietary supplements as prevention.

His dietary supplement regimen that he still adheres to is as follows:

  • Vitamin E complex (tocotrienols, tocopherols)
  • Curcumin (turmeric extract 600 mg/day
  • CBD oil

The history of this cure

The anti-tumor therapy involves an anti-worming agent used for horses and dogs. It has been deemed to be safe by the Food & Drug Administration.  Published studies involving this canine drug, fenbendazole, date back a couple of decades.  There has been a lot of foot dragging over fenbendazole since it was unexpectedly reported to exhibit potent anti-cancer properties when combined with a vitamin regimen in laboratory animals in a study published in 2008.

Researchers reported that fenbendazole alone or vitamins alone did not alter the size or growth of implanted tumors in laboratory mice.  But their combination produced a striking increase in activity of one type of white blood cell, neutrophils, resulting in a no-growth effect.  There also was strong inhibition of a protein (hypoxia inducing factor) that induces hypoxia (absence of oxygen) which forces cancer cells to utilize sugar for energy rather than oxygen.

In the laboratory this drug/vitamin combo overcame treatment resistance as well.

Researchers were initially investigating fenbendazole because it was interfering with anti-tumor studies with other drugs.

Given that pinworms are a common problem in laboratories where mice are employed in pre-clinical testing of anti-cancer drugs, use of fenbendazole to clear these animals of parasites is standard practice.

Unexpectedly, fenbendazole halted the growth of implanted human lymphoma cells in rodents.

To prevent animal infection during the testing period the chow fed to these lab animals is sterilized and then vitamins and minerals (vitamin A, D, E, K and B) are added back to eliminate variance in nutrient intake.  But the chow for these lab animals in question was not sterilized and therefore more nutrients were delivered to these animals than normal.

Whereas implanted tumors take hold and grow 80-100% of the time, in this experiment none of the implanted tumors grew among 40 animals over a 30-day period!  This was striking.

In 2011 researchers investigated fenbendazole for its ability to treat a nasty form of brain cancer (glioblastoma multiforme).  Five-year survival with this form of brain cancer is only 10%. Over 600 clinical trials for this form of cancer have been unsuccessful in finding a cure.  These researchers found the addition of an anti-worming (pinworm) agent (fenbendazole) halted the growth of brain tumors whereas among animals that were not de-wormed, there was consistent tumor growth.  The researchers noted the long track record of safety for fenbendazole as well as its low cost and availability.

Contrarily, in 2013 researchers reported they found no evidence that fenbendazole has value in cancer therapy and did not warrant further testing.

Then in 2018 researchers in India reported fenbendazole exerts cancer cell killing activity at very low concentrations and does so partially by its inherent ability to inhibit the uptake of sugar (glucose) into fast-growing tumor cells.  Cancer cells develop an inordinate demand for sugar to feed their growth, switching from oxygen to sugar as a source of energy.  Fenbendazole did this by inhibition of an enzyme called hexokinase.

Fenbendazole’s ability to preferentially kill of malignant cells without harming healthy cells is another of its proposed properties.

The last thing the cancer industry needs is a cure

The last thing the cancer industry needs is a cure.  In fact, it can’t afford a cure.

Financial analysts admit “a cancer cure is not a sustainable business model.”

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Once Burned, Twice Shy—Why “Anti-Vaxxers” Are Really "Ex-Vaxxers” • Children's Health Defense
Belief

Once Burned, Twice Shy—Why “Anti-Vaxxers” Are Really “Ex-Vaxxers”

By

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

In the 1920s, Edward Bernays, the so-called “father of public relations,” wrote several influential books outlining the principles of successful propaganda. In his book by that title, Bernays argued that “the mind of the people…is made up for it by…those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion” and know how to skillfully supply the public with “inherited prejudices” and “verbal formulas.”

Bernays’ comments come to mind in the current climate of hostility and intolerance being directed against individuals pejoratively dubbed by the vaccine lobby as “anti-vaxxers.” The dumbed-down propaganda being plastered across the mainstream media on an almost daily basis would have the public believe that anyone who questions any aspect of vaccination is ignorant, selfish or both. However, there is a glaring flaw with this logic. The incontrovertible fact—which the legislators, regulators, reporters and citizens who are participating in mass tarring and feathering are not honest enough to admit—is that many of the people classified as “anti-vaxxers” are actually “ex-vaxxers” whose dutiful adherence to current vaccine policies led to serious vaccine injury in themselves or a loved one.

Parental compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) heavy-duty vaccine requirements for infants is often the catalyst for the injuries that start families down the path of becoming ex-vaxxers.

From compliance to injury

Vaccine coverage in the United States is high. In their first three years, over 99% of American children receive some vaccines. By the government’s indirect admission, however, vaccine-related adverse events are also common—with fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries ever getting reported.

Parental compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) heavy-duty vaccine requirements for infants is often the catalyst for the injuries that start families down the path of becoming “ex-vaxxers.” In one tragic case, a parent who followed doctors’ orders lost her six-week-old infant girl 12 hours after the child received eight vaccines; medical experts’ conclusion that vaccination was the cause of death prompted a different valuation of risks and benefits with a subsequent child. There are many other such stories. Moreover, when individuals who suffer nonfatal vaccine injuries stick to the standard vaccination regimen, research shows that they often experience even more severe injuries the next time around.

In the U.S., vaccines have been liability-free since 1986—and evidence suggests that vaccine safety has deteriorated significantly as a result. The only current recourse for the vaccine-injured is to file a petition with the stingy and slow-moving National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). Although the NVICP has paid out over $4 billion in taxpayer-funded compensation, it denies far more petitions than it awards. The family of the six-week-old described in the preceding paragraph eventually received NVICP compensation, but not before the program expended considerable effort to leave the cause of death unexplained. And, literally adding insult to injury, the maximum payout for any vaccine-related death is only $250,000.

The chair of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee has stated, ‘Congress is getting paid to not hold pharma accountable.’

Money talks

When people or their loved ones are vaccine-injured, many begin to unravel the unscrupulous world of pharmaceutical influence on our media, government agency leaders and lawmakers. Connecting the dots is a horrifying and enlightening experience, exposing facts to which the general public generally remains oblivious. These revelations weigh heavily when someone makes the decision to permanently change into an “ex-vaxxer.”

Why would the people’s elected representatives (and the officials they appoint) propagate smears, promote censorship and ignore the testimonials of the many families that have experienced devastating vaccine injuries?

Why would officialdom ignore the escalating fiscal implications of vaccine injuries, which are imposing a staggering financial burden on households and taxpayers?

Why do the media increasingly advocate for the elimination of informed consent and vaccine choice?

One of the inescapable answers has to do with the overt and covert influence of pharmaceutical industry funding on those who shape vaccine policy and public opinion.

At the government level, senior Senators openly admit that “drug companies have too much influence in Washington,” with big pharma spending more than any other industry on lobbying and campaign contributions. For example, the pharmaceutical industry poured an estimated $100 million into the 2016 elections, rewarding politicians on both sides of the aisle with its largesse. The chair of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee has stated, “Congress is getting paid to not hold pharma accountable” [emphasis added].

…studies show that medical journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.”

Not content to just influence legislators, the pharmaceutical industry puts equally high value on print advertising directed at doctors—the all-important “gatekeepers” between drug companies and patients. In fact, studies show that medical journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.”

Covering all bases, pharmaceutical companies also advertise vaccines and other drugs directly to U.S. consumers. The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world (along with New Zealand) that permits this type of direct-to-consumer pandering. Drug company spending on television and print advertising in the U.S. rose to $5.2 billion in 2016—a 60% increase over 2012—with untold additional amounts spent on digital and social media advertising. Astoundingly, pharmaceutical companies even get a tax break for these marketing expenditures, a corporate deduction that costs taxpayers billions annually.

The media benefit handsomely from the steady infusion of pharma advertising dollars. Four networks (CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox) received two-thirds of the TV ad monies spent on top-selling drugs in 2015, with the Prevnar 13 vaccine representing the eighth most-advertised pharmaceutical product that year. Under these bought-media circumstances, it is somewhat astonishing that a few media outlets were willing to concede that drug money “coursing through the veins of Congress” directly contributed to the opioid crisis. So far, however, no reporters have been willing to connect similar dots between drug money and unsafe vaccines.

What the WHO failed to mention, however, is the preponderant role of “commercial interests”—and especially pharmaceutical industry interests—in shaping its goals and strategies.

Pharmaceutical industry influence makes itself felt not just domestically but also globally, and this has led to a corresponding amping-up of rhetoric against “anti-vaxxers” around the world. In early 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) hyperbolically declared “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate” to be one of ten major “global health threats.” What the WHO failed to mention, however, is the preponderant role of “commercial interests”—and especially pharmaceutical industry interests—in shaping its goals and strategies.

Back in 2009, sleight of hand by WHO scientists rebranded the swine flu from “a ‘perfectly ordinary flu’” into a “dangerous pandemic.” This maneuver successfully generated billions in profits for vaccine and anti-flu drug manufacturers; however, the vaccine in question (Pandemrix) caused cases of narcolepsy—many in young people—to surge all over Europe to nearly four times higher than prevaccine levels. In all likelihood, the parents of the narcolepsy-afflicted youth joined the ranks of “ex-vaxxers.” A researcher looking back on the Pandemrix fiasco recently stated:

“If vaccine regulators were serious about safety, the entire vaccine fleet would have been grounded following the Pandemrix narcolepsy disaster, to check for the same mechanism of failure in other vaccines. But nothing of that sort happened….”

Double standards

If consumers want to learn about the potential risks of widely used FDA-approved drugs, they can—with a little legwork—find detailed information on hundreds of drugs on the FDA’s website. For azithromycin, for example, the FDA links to studies showing that the antibiotic increases risks of cancer relapse and cardiovascular problems. A link for fentanyl clearly warns of “the potential for life-threatening harm from accidental exposure” and “deadly” risks to both children and adults. Although it can be an uphill battle to get drugs taken off the market, the ongoing pressure of lawsuits has succeeded in removing some egregious offenders such as Vioxx—and Merck, Vioxx’s manufacturer, has been forced to pay out billions in settlements.

In contrast, consumers who go to the FDA website for risk information about vaccines (classified as “biologics” rather than “drugs”) will search almost in vain, finding sparse information for only four vaccines. One of the four is Gardasil—also manufactured by Merck, and one of the most notoriously dangerous vaccines ever rushed onto the market. While the FDA cautiously states that “concerns have been raised about reports of deaths occurring in individuals after receiving Gardasil,” the agency asserts that “there was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine.” The 2018 book, The HPV Vaccine on Trial, contradicts this benign narrative and describes how Gardasil has caused thousands of perfectly healthy young women and men to “suddenly lose energy, become wheelchair-bound, or even die” while Merck continues to enjoy “soaring revenues.”

For government and the media to dismiss these and other accounts of serious vaccine injuries as insignificant—while falsely labeling injured individuals and their advocates as irresponsible “anti-vaxxers”—is both shameful and insulting. After revealing how the mainstream narrative about Gardasil is riddled with “discrepancies and half-truths,” the authors of The HPV Vaccine on Trial issued a call for greater civility. Noting that marginalization and bullying of the vaccine-injured “destroys civil public discourse and discourages scientific inquiry,” they pointed out that “we urgently need both.”

© April 30, 2019 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
tylenol empathy reducer
Health

Consumer Alert: Tylenol’s Empathy-Killing Properties Confirmed in 2nd Study

By

by Sayer Ji

Two highly concerning clinical studies in four years reveal that Tylenol not only kills pain but human empathy as well, adding soul-deadening properties to its well-known list of serious side effects. 

When will we learn? Synthetic, patented chemicals have profound unintended, adverse health effects which take decades to recognize, long after exposed populations have suffered profoundly. The risks of these pharmaceuticals are sometimes several orders of magnitude higher than their natural alternatives. Over-the-counter painkillers have become classical examples of this, with so-called “low-dose” aspirin no longer considered safe enough to use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, ibuprofen causing tens of thousands of deaths each year due to its recently discovered cardiotoxicity, and Tylenol’s adverse effects on the psychospiritual constitution of humanity only just beginning to surface on top of it’s already well-established extreme toxicity to the liver.

In 2015, a groundbreaking study found that Tylenol (known by the chemical names acetaminophen and paracetamol) not only blunts pain but has potent psychotropic side effects highly relevant to human social connection and behavior, such as blunting both positive and negative emotional stimuli, also known as “affect flattening” in psychiatric terminology.

Now, a new study published last month in the journal Frontiers of Psychology, titled, “A Social Analgesic? Acetaminophen (Paracetamol) Reduces Positive Empathy,” further confirms that this extremely popular drug (billions of doses taken annually) directly interferes with the experience of human empathic connection; specifically, reducing empathy for other people’s suffering.

In the new study, researchers tested the hypothesis that Tylenol impaired affective processes related to the experience of empathy with a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial consisting of 114 undergraduate students, who randomly received either 1,000 mg of the drug or a placebo.

One hour after administration, subjects read scenarios about the uplifting experiences of other people (different protagonists within the stories), and their responses were evaluated with the aim of determining their ability to empathize. The researchers reported that,

“Results showed that acetaminophen reduced personal pleasure and other-directed empathic feelings in response to these scenarios.”

They further reported:

Tylenol study empathy

“These findings suggest that (1) acetaminophen reduces affective reactivity to other people’s positive experiences and (2) the experience of physical pain and positive empathy may have a more similar neurochemical basis than previously assumed. Because the experience of positive empathy is related to prosocial behavior, our findings also raise questions about the societal impact of excessive acetaminophen consumption.”

Below is a graph of the relative responses between Tylenol-treated and placebo-treated individuals, with the Tylenol group clearly seeing reductions in positive empathic responsiveness:

 

© April 21, 2019 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Periodic Table Aluminum Element
Disease

Geoengineering, Aluminum, and the Increase of Eurodegenerative Diseases

By

By Tracey Watson

Geoengineering, also known as climate engineering, is a controversial subject. Though many people dismiss it as nothing more than a conspiracy theory, there are many others who vehemently insist that governmental and other organizations are actively involved in attempts to manipulate the weather. Most of these experiments, they say, are directed at reversing the effects of so-called climate change, while some agencies have more sinister reasons for wanting to manipulate the weather, including a desire to control the ionosphere – and therefore radio communications – for military purposes.

In recent years, evidence has been mounting that perhaps geoengineering should not quickly be dismissed as conspiracy theory. Reports have emerged suggesting that increased amounts of aluminum are being detected in precipitation. If this heavy metal is present in the rain, it is certainly present in large quantities in the air. This ties in perfectly with the theory of geoengineering, which claims that aluminum is sprayed into the atmosphere as a way to control the rain.

Perhaps the most damning evidence supporting the geoengineering theory, however, is the massive increase in neurodegenerative diseases in recent years. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, the number of people dying from Alzheimer’s has increased by a staggering 145 percent since 2000. This is significant, because scientists have been warning for some time that the use of aluminum for geoengineering purposes would cause a spike in the number of people with neurodegenerative diseases. (Related: U.S. fake news media claims geoengineering is a “conspiracy theory” while China and Russia work together to “modify the atmosphere”.)

The scientists have been warning about this for years

See more about aluminum’s effect on human health and geoengineering efforts involving aluminum.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Incentive Trap
Children

Japan Leads the Way: No Vaccine Mandates and No MMR Vaccine = Healthier Children

By

The Promise of Good Health; Are We Jumping Off the Cliff in the U.S.?

By Kristina Kristen

In the United States, many legislators and public health officials are busy trying to make vaccines de facto compulsory—either by removing parental/personal choice given by existing vaccine exemptions or by imposing undue quarantines and fines on those who do not comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) vaccine edicts. Officials in California are seeking to override medical opinion about fitness for vaccination, while those in New York are mandating the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine for 6-12-month-old infants for whom its safety and effectiveness “have not been established.”

The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness.

American children would be better served if these officials—before imposing questionable and draconian measures—studied child health outcomes in Japan. With a population of 127 million, Japan has the healthiest children and the very highest “healthy life expectancy” in the world—and the least vaccinated children of any developed country. The U.S., in contrast, has the developed world’s most aggressive vaccination schedule in number and timing, starting at pregnancy, at birth and in the first two years of life. Does this make U.S. children healthier? The clear answer is no. The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness. Analysis of real-world infant mortality and health results shows that U.S. vaccine policy does not add up to a win for American children.

Japan and the U.S.; Two Different Vaccine Policies

In 1994, Japan transitioned away from mandated vaccination in public health centers to voluntary vaccination in doctors’ offices, guided by “the concept that it is better that vaccinations are performed by children’s family doctors who are familiar with their health conditions.” The country created two categories of non-compulsory vaccines: “routine” vaccines that the government covers and “strongly recommends” but does not mandate, and additional “voluntary” vaccines, generally paid for out-of-pocket. Unlike in the U.S., Japan has no vaccine requirements for children entering preschool or elementary school.

Japan also banned the MMR vaccine in the same time frame, due to thousands of serious injuries over a four-year period—producing an injury rate of one in 900 children that was “over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate.” It initially offered separate measles and rubella vaccines following its abandonment of the MMR vaccine; Japan now recommends a combined measles-rubella (MR) vaccine for routine use but still shuns the MMR. The mumps vaccine is in the “voluntary” category.

Here are key differences between the Japanese and U.S. vaccine programs:

  • Japan has no vaccine mandates, instead recommending vaccines that (as discussed above) are either “routine” (covered by insurance) or “voluntary” (self-pay).
  • Japan does not vaccinate newborns with the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, unless the mother is hepatitis B positive.
  • Japan does not vaccinate pregnant mothers with the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine.
  • Japan does not give flu shots to pregnant mothers or to six-month-old infants.
  • Japan does not give the MMR vaccine, instead recommending an MR vaccine.
  • Japan does not require the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

In contrast, the U.S. vaccine schedule (see Table 1) prescribes routine vaccination during pregnancy, calls for the first HepB vaccine dose within 24 hours of birth—even though 99.9% of pregnant women, upon testing, are hepatitis B negative, and follows up with 20 to 22 vaccine doses in the first year alone. No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.

The HepB vaccine injects a newborn with a 250-microgram load of aluminum, a neurotoxic and immune-toxic adjuvant used to provoke an immune response. There are no studies to back up the safety of exposing infants to such high levels of the injected metal. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) upper limit for aluminum in intravenous (IV) fluids for newborns is far lower at five micrograms per kilogram per day (mcg/kg/day)—and even at these levels, researchers have documented the potential for impaired neurologic development. For an average newborn weighing 7.5 pounds, the HepB vaccine has over 15 times more aluminum than the FDA’s upper limit for IV solutions.

Unlike Japan, the U.S. administers flu and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women (during any trimester) and babies receive flu shots at six months of age, continuing every single year thereafter. Manufacturers have never tested the safety of flu shots administered during pregnancy, and the FDA has never formally licensed any vaccines “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.”

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms.

U.S. vaccine proponents claim the U.S. vaccine schedule is similar to schedules in other developed countries, but this claim is inaccurate upon scrutiny. Most other countries do not recommend vaccination during pregnancy, and very few vaccinate on the first day of life. This is important because the number, type and timing of exposure to vaccines can greatly influence their adverse impact on developing fetuses and newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to toxic exposures and early immune activation. Studies show that activation of pregnant women’s immune systems can cause developmental problems in their offspring. Why are pregnant women in the U.S. advised to protect their developing fetuses by avoiding alcohol and mercury-containing tuna fish, but actively prompted to receive immune-activating Tdap and flu vaccines, which still contain mercury (in multi-dose vials) and other untested substances?

Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms. U.S. regulators have ignored these and similar reports and not only continue to aggressively promote and even mandate the formerly optional HPV vaccine beginning in preadolescence but are now pushing it in adulthood. The Merck-manufactured HPV vaccine received fast-tracked approval from the FDA despite half of all clinical trial subjects reporting serious medical conditions within seven months.

Best and Worst: Two Different Infant Mortality Results

The CDC views infant mortality as one of the most important indicators of a society’s overall health. The agency should take note of Japan’s rate, which, at 2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, is the second lowest in the world, second only to the Principality of Monaco. In comparison, almost three times as many American infants die (5.8 per 1,000 live births), despite massive per capita spending on health care for children (see Table 2). U.S. infant mortality ranks behind 55 other countries and is worse than the rate in Latvia, Slovakia or Cuba.

If vaccines save lives, why are American children dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a 57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood?

To reiterate, the U.S. has the most aggressive vaccine schedule of developed countries (administering the most vaccines the earliest). If vaccines save lives, why are American children “dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger” compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a “57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood”? Japanese children, who receive the fewest vaccines—with no government mandates for vaccination—grow up to enjoy “long and vigorous” lives. International infant mortality and health statistics and their correlation to vaccination protocols show results that government and health officials are ignoring at our children’s great peril.

Among the 20 countries with the world’s best infant mortality outcomes, only three countries (Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore) automatically administer the HepB vaccine to all newborns—governed by the rationale that hepatitis B infection is highly endemic in these countries. Most of the other 17 top-ranking countries—including Japan—give the HepB vaccine at birth only if the mother is hepatitis B positive (Table 1). The U.S., with its disgraceful #56 infant mortality ranking, gives the HepB vaccine to all four million babies born annually despite a low incidence of hepatitis B.

Is the U.S. Sacrificing Children’s Health for Profits? 

Merck, the MMR vaccine’s manufacturer, is in court over MMR-related fraud. Whistleblowers allege the pharmaceutical giant rigged its efficacy data for the vaccine’s mumps component to ensure its continued market monopoly. The whistleblower evidence has given rise to two separate court cases. In addition, a CDC whistleblower has alleged the MMR vaccine increases autism risks in some children. Others have reported that the potential risk of permanent injury from the MMR vaccine dwarfs the risks of getting measles.

Why do the FDA and CDC continue to endorse the problematic MMR vaccine despite Merck’s implication in fraud over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy? Why do U.S. legislators and government officials not demand a better alternative, as Japan did over two decades ago? Why are U.S. cities and states forcing Merck’s MMR vaccine on American children? Is the U.S. government protecting children, or Merck? Why are U.S. officials ignoring Japan’s exemplary model, which proves that the most measured vaccination program in the industrialized world and “first-class sanitation and levels of nutrition” can produce optimal child health outcomes that are leading the world?

A central tenet of a free and democratic society is the freedom to make informed decisions about medical interventions that carry serious potential risks. This includes the right to be apprised of benefits and risks—and the ability to say no. The Nuremberg Code of ethics established the necessity of informed consent without “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Forcing the MMR vaccine, or any other vaccine, on those who are uninformed or who do not consent represents nothing less than medical tyranny.

© April 23, 2019 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

by
Keep Reading
Physiological Effects of the Ketogenic Diet
Diet

The Ketogenic Diet and Its Physiological Effects on the Human Body

By

by Dr. Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Insulin is key to health and disease prevention, and controlling your carbohydrate intake is the most effective way to control your insulin level and optimize your insulin sensitivity
  • An estimated 80 percent of Americans are insulin resistant, even though their glucose levels are normal, and thus undiagnosed, placing them at increased risk for chronic disease
  • A low-carb ketogenic diet addresses the endocrine aspect of metabolic health, effectively driving your insulin level down, and as your insulin decreases, your metabolic rate increases
  • The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway controls autophagy and plays an important role in aging and cancer. While protein primarily activates mTOR and therefore needs to be restricted to just what your body needs, insulin, which is increased by sugar and refined carbohydrates, activates mTOR to a far greater degree than protein
  • Aside from a ketogenic diet, intermittent fasting — where you do not eat for 16 to 18 hours a day; 12 hours being the absolute minimum — is another effective way to regain your insulin sensitivity and control mTOR

In this interview, Benjamin Bikman, Ph.D., an obesity and diabetes scientist and associate professor of physiology and developmental biology at Brigham Young University (BYU) in Utah,1 reveals how the ketogenic diet affects your physiology and supports optimal health.

“My main interest early on was looking at how the body adapts to obesity,” he says. “That was my master’s thesis. My master’s degree was exercise science here at BYU … I ended up pursuing a Ph.D. in bioenergetics at East Carolina University, under this wonderful scientist named Lynis Dohm, Ph.D.

His focus had been looking at how lipids cause insulin resistance. That was an interest of mine because I thought this was starting to explain why and how the body becomes insulin-resistant in the midst of obesity … Insulin resistance is that connection.

During my Ph.D., we were looking at inflammation in people who were losing weight following gastric bypass procedures and how improved inflammation is likely part of the improvements in insulin sensitivity that people see post-bypass.

I followed that up with a post-doctoral fellowship at … the Duke National University of Singapore. They had this focus on cardiometabolic disorders. I … looked at inflammation as a particular mediator there … Then in 2011, my alma mater, BYU, came knocking. They wanted to do more diabetes research, and I fit the requirements … That got me, essentially, to where I am now …

If I really am getting this conviction, based on my own research, that insulin is key to not only diabetes but to almost every chronic disease, what is the best way to control insulin? That was when I insisted on only looking at published human clinical data — not rodents, not cells, not epidemiology, just clinical data.

The low-carb diet was just this very effective way to do that. That then got me interested in asking questions about ketones, which is what my lab is doing … how ketones are regulated by insulin.”

Bikman’s conviction that insulin is a key to health and disease prevention, and that controlling carbohydrate intake is the most effective way to control insulin, led him to start practicing what he’d learned. He went on a low-carb diet about eight years ago. “Sure enough, at middle age, it’s helped me stay healthy,” he says.

Most Americans Are Insulin Resistant

Unfortunately, many, including doctors, still do not understand the influence of insulin on health and disease. The late Dr. Joseph Kraft, former chairman of the department of clinical pathology and nuclear medicine at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Chicago, wrote the book “Diabetes Epidemic and You: Should Everyone Be Tested?”

In it, he presents data that suggests 80 percent of Americans are in fact insulin resistant, or have “diabetes in situ.” Based on data from 14,000 patients,2 Kraft developed a powerful predictive test for diabetes.3 He would have the patient drink 75 grams of glucose, and then measure their insulin response over time, at half-hour intervals for up to five hours.

He noticed five distinctive patterns suggesting that a vast majority of people were already diabetic, even though their fasting glucose was normal. Only 20 percent of patients had healthy post-prandial insulin sensitivity and low diabetes risk. According to Kraft, “Those with cardiovascular disease not identified with diabetes … are simply undiagnosed.”

One of the take-home messages here is that insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia (a condition marked by excess insulin in your blood relative to your level of glucose) are two sides of the same coin, as they drive and promote each other. In other words, if you have hyperinsulinemia, you are essentially insulin resistant and on your way toward developing Type 2 diabetes.

High Insulin Is a Key Disease Promoter

Both insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia promote fatty liver and high blood glucose, and both of those, in turn, promote atherosclerosis. High blood pressure is another side effect of insulin resistance that drives atherosclerosis by placing stress on your arteries.

The effects of insulin resistance are really at the heart of most if not all chronic degenerative diseases. Diabetes, heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s are just a few of the most obvious ones. The logical conclusion then would be that addressing insulin resistance is a foundational component of effective health care. Bikman says:

“When I teach this to my students … I put insulin resistance in the core. Around it, I have all these chronic diseases. It’s what I call the ‘wheel of misfortune.’ Really, the most common cancers, prostate and breast cancers, almost always … will heavily express — by six or seven times — the number of insulin receptors. So, insulin is promoting the growth of the tumor.

With dementia, the connection between insulin resistance and Alzheimer’s is so tight that people refer to it as Type 3 diabetes. With sarcopenia, we know that if a muscle becomes insulin-resistant, that actually diminishes insulin’s ability to promote the anabolic production of proteins within the muscle …

We have to have our medical practitioners start appreciating … the utility [of] measuring insulin, because our focus on measuring glucose misses the mark. As someone’s becoming insulin-resistant, their insulin is climbing, but it’s enough to keep their glucose in check.

And because we always look at glucose, we don’t catch the disease until they become so insulin-resistant that no amount of their own insulin is enough to keep the glucose in check. Now, the glucose starts to climb — 10 years later, perhaps — and that’s when we detect the problem. We’re looking at the wrong marker.”

How the Ketogenic Diet Improves Insulin Sensitivity

The question then becomes, how do we treat insulin resistance? As Bikman’s research reveals, the ketogenic diet is part and parcel of the “cure” for this condition.

“For me, the benefit of a low-carb ketogenic diet is that it addresses the endocrine aspect of metabolic health,” _Bikman says. “For too long … the message has been completely focused on calorie number._

It is this idea that if you can simply put a person into caloric deficiency, they will lose weight — problem solved … But we know that has long-term consequences … There’s a lasting metabolic damage …

Nevertheless, the power of the low-carbohydrate diet is that it addresses the endocrine component. As important as calorie number is, and I can appreciate the laws of thermodynamics … we cannot ignore the relevance of hormones, especially insulin.”

As explained by Bikman, it’s important to realize that insulin is what dictates what your body does with the energy it has — the energy you consume and the energy you have stored. “Insulin has its strong, capable hands right on the steering wheel of what the body does with the energy that it has available,” he says.

Importantly, research shows your metabolic rate increases as insulin decreases. “To me, that’s the power of the low-carb diet. You’re controlling insulin, and that can start to address all of those chronic diseases,” Bikman says.

The Importance of Cycling High and Low Carbohydrate Intake

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
silence soothes the ear.jpg
Defense

Science Says Silence Is Vital For Our Brains

By

by Joe Martino

If you’re the average person, you wake up to the sound of an alarm. That alarm sends you to the bathroom where you quickly get yourself ready for your workday. If you have the time, you might eat something before jumping into your car to listen to music or the radio while you sit in traffic on your way to work.

Once you get there, it’s all people, customers, co-workers, cars, trucks, planes, lawn mowers, construction, phone calls, and tasks for the next 8 hours. These noises that most of us experience in excess send our bodies into stress states, decreasing our quality of life and potentially reducing our lifespan. It appears that noise, in excess, is not healthy for humans. Silence, on the other hand, can have huge benefits, but let’s explore the damage caused by noise before we get to the benefits of silence.

Before we get into the research, I’d like to note that the word ‘noise’ is said to come from the Latin word nausea, or the Latin word noxia, meaning seasickness, sickness, hurt, damage, or injury. Is it any wonder ‘noise’ is not healthy for us?

The Studies

Outside of your anecdotal reflection, there is scientific evidence that supports the negative effects of noise on our health. The World Health Organisation (WHO) examined and quantified its health burden based on a European study that involved 340 million people living in Western Europe. It found that residents were cumulatively losing about a million years off their lives due to noise every year. That’s like one in every three people losing an entire year off their life due to excessive noise!

A study that was published in 2011 in Psychological Science examined the effects Munich’s airport had on children’s health and cognition. Professor Gary W. Evans of Cornell University noted that the children who were exposed to noise developed a stress response that caused them to ignore the noise. These children not only ignored harmful noises, but also regular stimuli that are important to pay attention to like speech. Wonder why people have trouble paying attention these days? Perhaps we are exposed to too much noise and too many sounds.

This study is among the strongest, probably the most definitive proof that noise–even at levels that do not produce any hearing damage–causes stress and is harmful to humans. – Professor Gary Evans

Going back to anecdotal evidence for a moment, I always find that staying with my friends who live in cities produces a much more uncomfortable situation for myself than when I’m in more quiet situations or living at my quiet, somewhat isolated home in nature. I always share with friends that the environment of living in a city seems to be unhealthy; not just the air, but the energy, hustle and bustle, and the noise as well. Reading these studies clearly illustrates that it does not appear to be natural or healthy for humans to live or work in loud environments every day.

Noise has been linked to high blood pressure, heart disease, tinnitus, and loss of sleep. Living in consistently noisy environments will cause you to experience much higher levels of these harmful hormones. Of course, there is something you can do about this should you take action on it, but it requires that–action.

The Benefits of Silence

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Baby using tablet
Communication

Generation Zapped? The EMF Experiment We’re All Part Of

By

By Dr. Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The primary hazard of cellphone radiation is systemic cellular and mitochondrial damage, which threatens health in general and can contribute to any number of health problems and chronic diseases
  • Three recent studies add strength to the claim that long-term, heavy cellphone radiation can trigger cancer. EMFs also impair reproductive function in men and women, and have neurological effects
  • Serving as an illustrative warning is the case of a young woman with no risk factors for cancer who developed multifocal breast cancer directly beneath the area where she’d been tucking her cellphone into her bra
  • Risk factors for electromagnetic hypersensitivity include spinal cord damage, whiplash, brain damage, concussion, chemical and heavy metal toxicity, impaired immune function and bacterial or parasitic infections such as Lyme
  • You can reduce your exposure by shutting off your Wi-Fi at night, keeping cellphones away from your sleeping area, using the speaker phone and not carrying your cellphone on your body

Mankind evolved on a planet where background microwave radiation was infinitesimal. Today, most live in a sea of microwave radiation and radio frequencies (RF) emitted from wireless technologies — routers, smartphones, tablets, baby monitors, smart TVs, appliances, smart meters and more.

Globally, there are now more than 6 billion cellphone subscriptions, which means we’re nearing the point where every single person on the planet has one of these devices, and most now get their first cellphone or tablet at a very early age.

According to the Pew Research Center, 90 percent of adults say their phone is frequently with them and rarely turned off. Americans are so attached to their smartphones and social networks that they check Facebook and Twitter an astounding 17 times each day on average, and many teens spend a mind-boggling nine hours a day on social media.

Many experts now warn that chronic, heavy exposure to these electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could be having severe repercussions for our health, especially that of children, who are being exposed in utero.

Fetuses and young children have never before been exposed to this level of pulsed radiation, and it’s still too early to determine the exact extent of the harm, as it may take decades for effects to manifest.

In recent years, it’s become increasingly clear that mitochondrial dysfunction is at the root of most chronic disease, so in terms of public health, the effects of chronic EMF exposure may be far more profound than currently suspected.

We may not only face an avalanche of brain cancer in coming decades but also heart disease, neurological disorders, infertility and newly identified disorders such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).

Generation Zapped

The featured documentary, “Generation Zapped,” investigates the potential health consequences of today’s wireless world, noting microwave radiation “is a very real environmental pollutant.”

The film opens up with the late Martin Blank, Ph.D., who was an associate professor of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University, who points out one of the most obvious reasons EMFs may cause physical harm, and that is because your body is bioelectrical. Many of your bodily processes involve the transmission of electric signals, and external interference can disrupt those signals.

As explained by Dr. Jonathan Samet, director of the Institute on Inequalities in Global Health at the University of Southern California, radiation can be divided into ionizing radiation and nonionizing radiation, the former having sufficiently high energy to break up molecules as it passes through your tissues.

EMFs have much lower energy, which is why the cellular industry has insisted cellphones and other wireless technologies have no biological effects. Alas, mounting science reveals this simply isn’t true.

Evidence of Carcinogenicity

The mobile industry’s own research in the 13-country Interphone study showed a 40 percent increased risk of brain cancer from 1,640 or more hours of cellphone use, and independent Swedish research published in 2007 showed a 540 percent increased risk of brain cancer from greater than 2,000 hours of cellphone use.

An analysis of known mechanisms of action, including DNA effects, was also published in November 2010 in “Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter.”

Importantly, EMFs have been shown to increase oxidative stress, which can damage cell membranes and proteins, and break DNA bonds. EMFs also decrease ATP — the energy currency in your body, without which your cells cannot function properly.

Samet is familiar with the evidence against cellphone radiation, having served as chairman of the International Agency for Research on Cancer working group, which in 2011 classified RF-EMFs as a Class 2B “possible human carcinogen” based on the available evidence.

At the time, Samet said, “The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.” Since then, the evidence has only grown stronger. Most recently, two government-funded studies — one on mice and one on rats — found evidence of heart tumors and damage to the brain and DNA.

This $25 million research, conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is said to be the most extensive to date, and it confirms that the heart and brain are key areas affected by high, chronic EMF exposure.

The connection between cellphone radiation and cancer became even stronger when the respected Ramazzini Institute in Italy published its lifetime exposure findings, effectively duplicating the NTP’s findings.

According to Fiorella Belpoggi, director of research at the Ramazzini Institute and the study’s lead author, RF radiation from cellphones should probably be classified as a “probable” human carcinogen rather than a “possible” carcinogen.

Carrying Your Cellphone on Your Body Is a Dangerous Habit

The filmmakers’ interview a woman named Donna, who developed multifocal breast cancer after habitually carrying her cellphone tucked into her bra. She had no family history or other predisposing risk factors for breast cancer.

Two cancer specialists, Robert Nagourney and John West, concluded her cellphone was the most likely cause, as the distribution of the cancerous cells lined up perfectly with the shape of her phone. Donna is far from alone in this habit. Many young women keep their phones in their bra for convenience.

As a general rule, you’ll want to avoid carrying your phone anywhere on your body. Breast cancer and heart problems are but two possible outcomes when carrying your phone in your breast pocket or bra. Research published in 2009 found that wearing a cellphone on your hip may weaken your pelvis.

Using an X-ray technique used in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis, researchers measured pelvic bone density in 150 men who regularly carried their cell phones attached to their belts. The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours each day and had used cell phones for an average of six years.

The researchers found that bone mineral density was lowered on the side of the pelvis where the mobile phones were carried, raising the possibility that bone density could be adversely affected by cellphone radiation.

Cellphone Radiation Affects Fertility and Can Triple Risk of Miscarriage

Studies have also linked RF-EMF exposure and impaired fertility in men, finding it lowers sperm count and the quality and motility of sperm. One such study, published in PLOS One found that:

“RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation.

These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and well-being of their offspring.”

Wi-Fi equipped laptops have been linked to sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use. Blank also cites research suggesting cellphone radiation creates DNA mutations in the sperm, and that these mutations appear to be yet

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Lfie Extension Choices and Factors
Blood-Letting

Poor Man’s Life Extension: Fasting & Reduced Blood Iron

By

by Bill Sardi

Sweat, Fast, Donate Blood, Limit Red Meat, Supplement With Iron/Copper Chelators (Fisetin, Quercetin, Resveratrol, IP6 Rice Bran, Nucleotides) To Reduce The Population Of Senescent Cells In Your Body & Live Longer & Healthier Than You Ever Imagined

To Stay Young… Kill “Zombie” Cells — Scientific American

(TG Note: A doctor once told me that, by donating blood, I had unwittingly saved my own life. Now Bill Sardi   says that giving blood may be extending that life, as well. And anyone can do it!)

Now you and your loved ones can play the game of life into extra innings and they aren’t going to have to send in a pinch runner for you, and you won’t be forced to retire and you can still hit home runs!

Biologists just figured out how people living in developed countries are going to live 100 healthy years and the masses aren’t going to have to wait for some high-priced drug to achieve it.

Despite precautions from university-based researchers not to forge ahead on their own and wait for anti-senescent (sen-ess-cent) drugs to be approved, longevity seekers have jumped on this newly understood longevity bandwagon, first by adoption of intermittent fasting (Dr. Jason Fung’s book The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended Fasting is a best seller).

Then North Americans are eating less iron-rich red meat (not for the sake of reducing cow farts by the way).

And a growing number of Americans are adding a strawberry extract called FISETIN to their dietary supplement regimens.

These and other health measures will add up to fewer “dud” senescent cells in the body, say biologists who study human aging.

370 million “dud” cells

There are an estimated 37 trillion cells in the human body.  Over time, senescent cells, that is, cells that no longer divide and replicate (mitosis), so-called “dud” or “zombie” cells, are produced.  These zombie senescent cells foment low-grade inflammation that is a hallmark characteristic of aging (inflammaging) in organs throughout the body and induce gene mutations.  The accumulation of these senescent cells leads to frailty in the latter years of life and premature death.

Around age 20, after full growth is achieved, the human body begins to accumulate senescent cells.  Over time senescent cells represent 1-3% of the body’s total cells, which roughly amounts to 370 million to 1.110 billion senescent cells.  Over a period of 45 years, from age 20-65, let’s presume these senescent cells accumulate at a steady rate.  That would come to ~22,500 cells/day becoming senescent or ~8 million per year.  The challenge for longevity seekers is how to non-toxically annihilate these senescent cells.

Senescent cells eradicated in old animals

The good news is that an anti-senescent drug eradicated all of these zombie cells in the animal lab and even prolonged the life of very old mice (24-27 months old, equivalent to 75-90 years in humans) by 36% (up to age 108 human equivalent).  So, no one is ever too old to embark on a regimen to eliminate senescent cells.

Iron is the culprit

Cell senescence starts after childhood growth is completed, ~age 18-20 years.  Current data “supports the hypothesis that accumulated iron in tissues is a key factor in aging.” The population of senescent cells grows commensurate with iron accumulation and storage.  Senescent cells accumulate up to 30-fold more iron.

Therefore, a ferritin blood test serves as a measure of cell senescence.  Blood is stored in ferritin.  The normal healthy range for ferritin is 20-90 nanograms/milliliter/ blood sample.

The prevalence of adults with high iron storage levels (high ferritin, above 90 nanograms/milliliter of blood) is 10.9%.  This iron overloaded segment of the population will age faster than those with ferritin in the normal healthy range (20-90 nanograms/ milliliter).  A ferritin blood test can be easily obtained to determine your iron load.

Impaired degradation of ferritin leads to iron overload and cell senescence.  Any molecule that promotes ferritin degradation via enzymatic (lysosomal) activity as part of a “self-eating” cell cleansing process called autophagy would reduce the accumulation of iron in ferritin and abolish cell senescence.  Polyphenols found in grapes (wine), strawberries, apple peel, have strong iron chelating properties and promote autophagy.

While iron is the predominant metallic mineral in the human body, copper, while less voluminous (~200 mg stored in the body of an adult) also induces premature cell senescence. Resveratrol solely chelates copper.

How to reduce iron load

Excess iron is removed from the body via menstruation in young females, by blood donation (phlebotomy) in full-grown males and postmenopausal females, or by chelation (key-lay-shun).

Adult males have 1000-2500 milligrams of iron stored in their body compared to just 300 milligrams in menstruating females.

Historical misdirection

Historically, in the 1950s-60s the popular Lawrence Welk TV show advertised Geritol, an alcohol-based iron and B-vitamin tonic.  Older adults taking Geritol would have predictably experienced an increase in cell senescence as alcohol increases iron absorption.   Geritol liquid provides a whopping 18 milligrams of iron is still sold today as a tonic for older adults.

Iron-limited diet

A typical carnivorous diet provides 10-20 milligrams of highly absorbable heme (heem) iron while plant food (vegetarian) diets provide non-heme iron that is only absorbed on an as-needed basis.

Only about 1 to 1.5 milligram of iron is actually absorbed by males to make up for losses from sweat, urine, and feces. Menstruating females absorb 3.0-3.5 mg per day to replace iron lost in menstruation.  This is a reason why females generally live longer than males – they don’t begin to accumulate iron till they reach menopause, at age 45-55.

A 3-ounce portion of red meat provides ~2.5 milligrams of iron while chicken provides ~1.4 milligrams.  The same portion of beef liver, appropriate for anemia-prone menstruating females, provides ~5.2 milligrams of iron.  Iron pills are not recommended for mildly anemic women as they induce constipation and nausea.

Blood donation

Given that more than 70% of iron is stored in hemoglobin, the red pigment in blood cells, blood donation is a direct way of reducing iron load and therefore, cell senescence.  According to the Iron Disorders Institute, each 500 cc blood donation reduce the amount of blood in the body by ~250 milligrams and lowers typically lowers ferritin by 30 nanograms/milliliter of blood.  Bloodletting is primarily a health strategy for middle-aged males.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Children

The Lunacy of Water Fluoridation

By

By Dr. Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Research links fluoridated water consumption to endocrine dysfunction, hypothyroidism, ADHD and reduced IQ
  • Many water authorities do not use pharmaceutical grade fluoride; they use hydrofluosilicic acid — a toxic waste product of the fertilizer industry that is frequently contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins
  • 97 percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate, and data show non-fluoridating countries have seen the exact same reduction in dental cavities as fluoridated areas

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has hailed water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century. Beginning in 1945, it was claimed that adding fluoride to drinking water was a safe and effective way to improve people’s dental health. Over the decades, many bought into this hook, line and sinker, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The featured film, “Our Daily Dose,” reviews some of this evidence. As noted in the film’s synopsis:

“Filmmaker Jeremy Seifert lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue. Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day.”

Share This Film With Those Still Sitting On the Fence on Fluoride!

The film may not offer many brand new revelations to those of you who are already well-informed about the history and documented hazards of fluoride.

It was primarily created as an educational vehicle aimed at those who may not be aware of these issues, or who might not yet be entirely convinced that drinking fluoride isn’t a good thing. So PLEASE, share this video with all of your friends and family who are on the fence on this issue, and ask them to watch it. It’s only 20 minutes long, but it packs a lot of compelling details into those 20 minutes.

Understanding how fluoride affects your body and brain is particularly important for parents with young children, and pregnant women. It’s really crucial to know that you should NEVER mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water for example, as this may overexpose your child to 100 times the proposed “safe” level of fluoride exposure for infants!

If your child suffers with ADD/ADHD, drinking fluoridated water may also worsen his or her condition. Ditto for those with under-functioning thyroid. So please, do share this video with your social networks, as it could make a big difference in people’s health.

Fluoride Is Both an Endocrine Disruptor and a Neurotoxin

Scientific investigations have revealed that fluoride is an endocrine-disrupting chemical, and a developmental neurotoxin that impacts short-term and working memory, and lowers IQ in children. It has been implicated as a contributing factor in the rising rates of both attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) and thyroid disease.

Indeed, fluoride was used in Europe to reduce thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients as late as the 1970s, and reduced thyroid function is associated with fluoride intakes as low as 0.05 to 0.1 mg fluoride per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day).

For Over 50 Years, Fluoride Levels Were Too High, Government Admits

Children are particularly at risk for adverse effects of overexposure, and in April 2015, the US government admitted that the “optimal” level of fluoride recommended since 1962 had in fact been too high. As a result, over 40 percent of American teens show signs of fluoride overexposure — a condition known as dental fluorosis. In some areas, dental fluorosis rates are as high as 70 to 80 percent, with some children suffering from advanced forms.

So, for the first time, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lowered its recommended level of fluoride in drinking water by 40 percent, from an upper limit of 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.7 mg/L. The HHS said it will evaluate dental fluorosis rates among children in 10 years to assess whether they were correct about this new level being protective against dental fluorosis. But just what is the acceptable level of harm in the name of cavity prevention?

A number of studies have shown that children with moderate to severe dental fluorosis score worse on tests measuring cognitive skills and IQ than peers without fluorosis — a clear revelation highlighted in the film, as some still insist that dental fluorosis is nothing more than a cosmetic issue.

The Price We Pay for Cavity Prevention

According to the film, the CDC estimates water fluoridation decreases dental decay by, at most, 25 percent. Recent research, however, suggests the real effect may be far lower. Based on the findings of three papers assessing the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay, the researchers concluded that water fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth.

If that’s the case, then why are we still jeopardizing our children’s long-term thyroid and brain health by adding fluoride to drinking water?

Fluoride — like many other poisons — was originally declared safe based on dosage, but we now know that timing of exposure can play a big role in its effects as well. Children who are fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water receive very high doses and may be affected for life as a result of this early exposure.

Fluoride can also cross the placenta, causing developing fetuses to be exposed to fluoride. Considering the fact that fluoride has endocrine-disrupting activity, this is hardly a situation amenable to the good health of that child. It’s important to realize that fluoride is not a nutrient. It’s a drug, and it’s the ONLY drug that is purposely added directly into drinking water.

This route of delivery completely bypasses standard rules relating to informed consent, which is foundational for ethical medical practice. What’s worse, there’s no way to keep track of the dosage. And no one is keeping track of side effects.

Infants Are Severely and Routinely Overdosed on Fluoride

According to the recent Iowa Study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the CDC, infants and young children are being massively overdosed on fluoride. This study, which is the largest U.S. study conducted measuring the amount of fluoride children ingest, concluded that:

  • 100 percent of infants receiving infant formula mixed with fluoridated tap water get more than the allegedly safe dose of fluoride. Some formula-fed infants receive 100 times the safe level on a daily basis
  • 30 percent of 1-year-olds exceed the recommended safe dose
  • 47 percent of 2- to 3-year-olds exceed the safe dose

Most Water Authorities Use Toxic Waste Product, Not Pharmaceutical Grade Fluoride

As stated, fluoride is a drug, and research into the health effects of fluoride are based on pharmaceutical grade fluoride. However, a majority of water authorities do not even use pharmaceutical grade fluoride; they use hydrofluosilicic acid, or hexafluorosilicic acid — toxic waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry, which are frequently contaminated with heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, and other toxins.

This is a key point that many fluoride proponents fail to address when arguing for its use. Indeed, holding elected officials accountable for procuring proof that the specific fluoridation chemical used actually fulfills fluoride’s health and safety claims and complies with all regulations, laws and risk assessments required for safe drinking water, has been a successful strategy for halting water fluoridation in a number of areas around the U.S.

While the idea of hiding toxic industrial waste in drinking water would sound like a questionable idea at best to most people, it was welcomed by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 1983 letter, Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, wrote:

“… In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water, and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them…”

Data and Science Do Not Support Water Fluoridation

Ninety-seven percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate their water, and data collected by the World Health Organization (WHO) show that non-fluoridating countries have seen the exact same reduction in dental cavities as the U.S.,16 where a majority of water is still fluoridated. If fluoride were, in fact, the cause of this decline, non-fluoridating countries should not show the same trend.

Clearly, declining rates of dental decay are not in and of themselves proof that water fluoridation actually works. It’s also worth noting that well over 99 percent of the fluoride added to drinking water never even touches a tooth; it simply runs down the drain, contaminating and polluting the environment.

Source: KK Cheng et.al. BMJ 2007.17 Rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.

Ending Fluoridation Will Be the Greatest Public Health Achievement of the 21st Century

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading
Bill Gates with Vaccine
Belief

Gates’s ‘Illogical Causal Reasoning’ on Vaccines

By

by Children’s Health Defense Team

Bill Gates is fond of using his bully pulpit to talk about “miracles” and “magic.” Gates has featured one or both words in nearly all of his annual wrap-up letters for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017), most often in reference to the Gates Foundation’s outsized financial and ideological support for global vaccine programs. As Gates says, “In the same way that during my Microsoft career I talked about the magic of software, I now spend my time talking about the magic of vaccines.”

Gates’s words give us an immediate clue that he is engaging in his own brand of magical thinking—which social scientists define as “illogical causal reasoning.” How else to explain his simplistic endorsement of vaccines as a miraculous intervention with unmitigated benefits and no down side? The Gates Foundation’s global spreadsheet appears to have no room to tally the massive flood of vaccine injuries afflicting children worldwide, despite abundant evidence that this damage is standing the vaccine risk-benefit calculus on its head and turning childhood into an extended round of Russian roulette.

Let’s Report History Accurately

In a widely cited 2014 blog post on the “miracle of vaccines,” Gates expressed enthusiasm about the “inspiring” data on vaccines and the “fantastic” and “phenomenal” progress being made to expand vaccine coverage. There is one major problem with Gates’ professed reliance on “data,” which is that the philanthropist ignores fundamental historical facts governing infectious disease and vaccine timelines.

There is one major problem with Gates’ professed reliance on “data,” which is that the philanthropist ignores fundamental historical facts governing infectious disease and vaccine timelines.

Vital statistics data reveal that in the U.S. and elsewhere, fatalities from diseases such as scarlet fever—in the absence of any vaccine—had become quite rare by the mid-20th century. Mortality from infectious diseases such as measles and whooping cough (pertussis) also had declined rapidly, well before the introduction of the corresponding vaccines (see Figure 1). A meticulous review of U.S. mortality data from 1900–1973 concluded:

“Medical measures [such as vaccines] contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900—having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in.”

The same researchers, in another article, chastised the medical establishment for its misplaced confidence in “magic bullets” (there is that word “magic” again!). Instead, if the decline in infectious disease incidence and mortality in the last century represented any kind of “miracle,” the phenomenon was, by all honest accounts, attributable to classic and long-term public health measures such as better sanitation and, especially, improved nutrition. A study of 20th-century mortality trends in Italy found a significant association between increased caloric intake and declining mortality, reflecting “progress in average nutritional status, lifestyle quality, socioeconomic level and hygienic conditions.” Moreover, mortality dropped most sharply in Italy’s youngest age groups—who were “probably the most sensible to the changes in nutrition and wellness.” Even early 20th-century epidemiologists who were inclined to give some credit to vaccines recognized that other factors were at play, including changes in “human resistance and bacterial quality” as well as factors yet to be determined.

Figure 1. U.S. mortality rates, 1900–1963Source: http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccination/


Oh Miracle, Where Art Thou?

Even if one leaves 20th-century vital statistics behind, there is a glaring piece of evidence that gives the lie to Bill Gates’ disingenuous assertions about vaccine miracles: vaccines are not actually making or keeping children healthy. Instead, in the U.S. (where children are the most highly vaccinated in the world), over half of all young people have a chronic illness—a trend that coincides with the expansion of the nation’s vaccine schedule. Similar patterns of chronic illness are emerging worldwide, including for potentially life-threatening conditions such as food allergies and asthma.

…there is a glaring piece of evidence that gives the lie to Bill Gates’ disingenuous assertions about vaccine miracles: vaccines are not actually making or keeping children healthy.

The World Mercury Project’s Campaign to Restore Child Health has been documenting parents’ first-hand accounts of serious adverse outcomes experienced by their children following vaccination. These testimonials, which represent the tip of the iceberg, cover a panoply of disorders that were rare or even unheard of a few decades ago:

  • Thirteen percent of U.S. children are in special education.
  • One in six American children has a developmental disorder such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
  • Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects nearly 11% of American children.
  • One in 20 children under the age of five has epilepsy.
  • Peanut allergies are the most common cause of food-related death.
  • Women who receive flu and Tdap vaccines during pregnancy are at greater risk of miscarriages and other problems.
  • Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal or other infections (PANDAS or PANS) may affect as many as 1 in 200 children in the U.S., including up to 25% of children diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and tic disorders.
  • Sensory processing disorder (SPD) often co-occurs with ADHD and ASD.
  • In the U.S., the infant mortality rate, including from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), is double the rate in many other high-income countries. In Africa, a comparative study in Guinea-Bissau found that infant mortality was at least twice as high (10%-11%) in children who received the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and polio vaccines as in children who did not receive the vaccines (4%-5%).

…large foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation exert influence not just through their “enormous resources” but also “by shaping development concepts and policies.

Cui bono?

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by
Keep Reading