Wednesday, June 5, 2019

JAMA Study: Flu Shots Are Killing the Elderly in Record Numbers

Reposted from News Punch

https://newspunch.com/jama-study-flu-shots-killing-elderly/?fbclid=IwAR3DFKPZP8oaVbM4K-dhL-pOm7VfI2gmk2S3s0Stdp8NUFcjjoJrXFndGhs

According to data collected by the study, 60 percent of people aged 65-years and over have a massively increased risk of death if they receive the flu shot.

  Sharyl Attkisson, former investigative journalist for CBS, says the study highlights how those vaccines may actually be killing lives rather than saving them. Inquisitr.com reports: In her blog, Attkisson cites a buried JAMA study from almost a decade ago which showed that there was no improvement in mortality rates among senior citizens with a flu vaccine, even after greatly increased vaccination rates. The study “got little attention,” she says, “because the science came down on the wrong side.” Whereas the researchers had set out to prove that the push for massive flu vaccination would save the world, the researchers were “astonished” to find that the data did not support their presupposition at all. The data actually shows that deaths increased, not decreased, among seniors following vaccination.


Johns Hopkins scientist, Peter Doshi, Ph.D., issued a report in the prestigious British Medical Journal, according to NewsLI, asserting that the CDC policy of routinely recommending the flu vaccine is being based on “low quality studies that do not substantiate claims.”

He says there is no evidence that the vaccine reduces deaths among senior citizens. Interestingly, Doshi cites an Australian study which found significant risks for children as well, stating that “one in every 110 children under the age of five had convulsions following vaccinations in 2009 for H1N1 influenza.”

During the drug trials for the Fluzone flu vaccine, 23 seniors out of 3,833 died after receiving the shot, according to the drug’s package insert, reported by Health Impact News. Another 226 experienced “serious adverse effects.” The manufacturer denies any connection between the deaths and the flu vaccine.
There appears to be growing public skepticism that the flu vaccine is as beneficial as the experts say, according to an earlier Inquisitr report.

The level of doubt is strongly correlated to the incidence of accounts of research fraud in the vaccine industry, an industry which makes billions of dollars of profit every year.

Often when an article about the dangers of a vaccine comes out, there are people who write in to tell about a family member who was harmed by the vaccine, and the flu vaccine for senior citizens in no exception.
A number of people have written to report that their grandmother, or uncle, or brother died shortly after getting a flu shot, sometimes after receiving their first ever such shot.

Their stories are frequently minimized, yet the government pays out more compensation from the flu vaccine than any other vaccine.

Despite this, it is increasingly expected that every senior citizen line up for their annual flu shot.
A nursing home near Atlanta, Georgia, now reports a devastating outcome to such a policy, according to Health Impact News. All of the residents of the Hope Assisted Living & Memory Care were given a flu vaccine on Friday, November 7. Every one of the senior citizens developed an immediate fever. Within the week following, five of them died. The source reports that the facility’s typical pattern is one or two losses every six months, frequently due to Alzheimer’s.

Questions must be asked, then, such as: do the benefits of getting a flu vaccine outweigh the risks, especially among vulnerable senior citizens? Or would they be better off choosing to reject the shot? Who benefits if evidence showing the harm of the vaccine is buried?

And what would be the motive for fabricating evidence of harm if none exists? If the facts are as solid as some insist, then why do they seem to be threatened by the data being challenged? Shouldn’t truth be able to stand up under scrutiny?

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Magnesium better than antidepressants For Depression

Reposted from Healthy Holistic Living

https://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/magnesium-treats-depression-better-antidepressant-drugs/?utm_source=DM&fbclid=IwAR2FO67bBuMCvyiVIqGO11UuzpyGh9Vua8JUfrigsLW6E2UgUXXAEu0ypOs

Currently in the world there are an astounding 350 million people who are suffering from some form of depression. That’s 5% of the world population. As this condition becomes a more popular diagnosis, there needs to be alternatives to the common antidepressant prescription. Antidepressants can work wonders and perform miracles, but they can still leak toxins into the body that can cause addiction, worse health problems, and other mental health conditions. Depression is often caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain. Depression medications can cure these imbalances but usually leave some side effects including nausea, weight gain, insomnia, dry mouth, and blurred vision. For some people the side effects are minimal and almost absent, but for others the side effects can be as horrible as the depression. Many of those people are searching for a new type of treatment, one that can cure them without doing a different kind of harm.

A New Alternative To Antidepressants

A new option has recently debuted in the medical world. A natural medication that can help treat depression as well, if not better than previous depression medications.This new miracle is magnesium. Magnesium is a mineral that the body naturally craves and recent studies have shown that 248 mg of magnesium per day can lead to an astounding reversal of depression symptoms. 

Thanks to a rise in pharmaceutical prices, medication is often pricey and it can be tough to afford necessary medications. Depression medication can cost anywhere from $30.00-$200.00 per month. Over the course of a year this amount can build up to quite an expense. Unfortunately many people can not afford these rises and therefore can no longer afford their medications. One of the greatest things about the recent discovery of magnesium and its medicinal properties is that people can take magnesium for just pennies a day. Magnesium is an effective approach to treating depression and eliminating side effects. It is safer and cheaper than other prescription therapies and drugs.

How to Get Magnesium

There are many foods that naturally contain magnesium like spinach, Swiss chard, pumpkin seeds, dark chocolate, and almonds. Each of these example have at least 75 mg of magnesium per serving so eating 3 to 4 servings would account for your intake for the day. Or if it is easier for you can purchase a supplement pill to take every day instead.
Taking your daily dose of magnesium can really help improve your mental health as well as your physical health. Not only is magnesium great for helping with depression, but magnesium has a whole list of other wonderful benefits. Magnesium is great for brain health, kidney health, and cardiovascular health. Turning to natural remedies could save you a lot of a money in a year and it will help your body to heal without all the harsh chemicals and side effects. Natural is the way to go, it’s great for your body and great for your pocket. If you are curious, give it a try, stop wondering and make the switch. Your body will thank you later.   
Note: Before going off any prescription medication, it is important that you speak to and work closely with your physician.

One Percent Health NOTE:  We recommend taking magnesium in the form of magnesium chloride (also known as magnesium oil).   Spray 10 to 15 shots onto your skin, daily, and rub it in.

 

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Fluoride causes Tumors, Lowers IQ

Reposted from RealPharmacy

https://realfarmacy.com/top-cancer-researchers-harvard-epa-agree-fluoride-causes-tumors-lowers-iq/?fbclid=IwAR0qyG3hyhyi8SKGj4pqDDW4xZCv7l6W0lAmdlSRU6nPdcC9K4ipl2mdRO4

A recently published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas.
In a 32-page report that can be downloaded free of charge from Environmental Health Perspectives,1 the researchers said:
“A recent report from the U.S. National Research Council (NRC 2006)2 concluded that adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory

To summarize the available literature, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on increased fluoride exposure in drinking water and neurodevelopmental delays. We specifically targeted studies carried out in rural China that have not been widely disseminated, thus complementing the studies that have been included in previous reviews and risk assessment reports…

Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence… The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults…

Serum-fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 Smol/L) of water-fluoride for one year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls…
 In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment.
Future research should formally evaluate dose-response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance, in addition to improving assessment and control of potential confounders.

Studies have Repeatedly Linked Fluoride to Reduced IQ and Brain Damage

There are so many scientific studies showing the direct, toxic effects of fluoride on your body, it’s truly remarkable that it’s NOT considered a scientific consensus by now. Despite the evidence against it, fluoride is still added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies.
It amazes me that the medical (and dental) communities are so stubbornly resistant to connect the dots when it comes to the skyrocketing increase of cognitive decline in adults, and behavioral issues in children (ADD, ADHD, depression and learning disabilities of all kinds). In fact, there have been over 23 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage. Fluoride can also increase manganese absorption, compounding problems since manganese in drinking water has also been linked to lower IQ in children.
Reported effects of fluoride on your brain include:

Harmful Effects have Been Known for Half a Century…

What is perhaps most surprising is that the harmful effects of fluoride have been known by conventional medical organizations for over half a century. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) stated in their September 18, 1943 issue that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes. And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, October 1, 1944, stated:
“Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.”
Part of the problem is that it’s an accumulative toxin that, over time, can lead to significant health problems that are not immediately linked to fluoride over-exposure. In a 2005 paper entitled “Fluoride—A Modern Toxic Waste,” Lita Lee, Ph.D. writes:3
“Yiamouyiannis’ book, “Fluoride, The Aging Factor,” documents the cumulative effect of tissue damage by fluoride, commonly seen as aging (collagen damage), skin rashes and acne, gastrointestinal disorders, and many other conditions, including osteoporosis. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and the Safe Water Foundation reported that 30,000 to 50,000 excess deaths occur in the United States each year in areas in which the water contains only one ppm fluoride.
… Fluoride suppresses the immune system: Fluoride inhibits the movement of white blood cells by 70%, thereby decreasing their ability to reach their target. Yiamouyiannis cites 15 references in his pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation, that document immunosuppressive effects of as little as 10% of the amount of fluoride used in fluoridated water… Immunosuppressive effects run the gamut, from a cold that won’t go away to increased risk of cancer and other infectious diseases.”
Studies have shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to a wide variety of health problems, including:

mer2

Suppressed Science: Fluoride Link to Cancer

Long-lost research linking fluoride to cancer has resurfaced in a Dutch film clip [above] featuring Dr. Dean Burk, who in 1937 co-founded the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) and headed its cytochemistry department for over 30 years. In the taped interview, he equates water fluoridation to “public murder,” referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it.
The study clearly demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. This and other studies linking fluoride to cancer were government-ordered but were quickly buried once fluoride was found to be linked to dramatic increases in cancer.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

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

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

There’s no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis—unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?
At least when it comes to topical application, you have a choice. You can easily buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you’re stuck with whatever your community puts in the water, and it’s very difficult to filter out of your water once it’s added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.
The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation, both in the United States and Canada. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, support the anti-fluoride movement by making a donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

 

  

Merck and the Vioxx Nightmare

Reposted from Dr. Mercola

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/14/mercks-adhd-drugs-unsafe.aspx


By Dr. Mercola
What would you say if you knew someone had killed 60,000 people? Would you call it a felony of the worst kind, times 60,000? If you totaled up the value of all those lives in criminal court, what would you say they're worth?
Billions? Trillions?
Or—how about a measly $321 million in exchange for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor? When you consider that this involves the second-largest drug maker in the U.S.—Merck—and its deadly drug Vioxx, then you'll probably agree that a misdemeanor and a $321 million fine amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Business analysts were estimating a $25 billion judgment when the drug was taken off the market, but even when combined with the $4.85 billion in payouts to patients who suffered heart attacks and strokesi, the final bill is nowhere close to original estimates of the damage.
Yet that's the plea agreement Merck recently made with a federal court in Boston on April 19ii, after being charged with illegal promotion of Vioxx for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, before it was approved for that use.
The sad tale brings up memories of what I tried to warn readers about in 1999, when I showed that people taking this drug were at a massively increased risk of dying from heart disease and stroke. It's tragic that Vioxx was removed only AFTER 60,000 people died.
It's even more tragic that a court would consider Merck's illegal promotion of the drug a misdemeanor rather than a felony, since this tactic clearly exposed far more people to the dangerous drug than it would have otherwise. And, adding insult to injury, instead of the billions that Merck anticipated paying out, it got away with such a paltry sum.

Hired Writers Responsible for Some of Merck's Vioxx Studies?

Particularly galling is the fact that these deaths could have been so easily avoided, were it not for the deceptive maneuvering of parties who stood to profit handsomely from the success of the drug.
Ghostwriting has become an increasingly troublesome problem in the medical science community, and the Vioxx debacle is a perfect example of why ghostwriting medical research is a devious practice that needs to be rooted out.
Merck has previously acknowledged that it has been known to hire professional writers to develop research-related documents that eventually get published under the name of reputable leaders in the medical community. Critics rightfully doubt the validity of such research, and question the actual involvement of the scientists listed as authors of these ghostwritten papers.
Back in 2008, Dr. Joseph S. Ross of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine came across ghostwritten research studies for Vioxx while reviewing documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck.
According to an April 16, 2008 article on MedHeadlinesiii:
"In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the company's marketing department, not its scientific department. In others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the report made substantial contribution to the research itself. ... Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern... question the true nature of ghostwriting. One neurologist originally listed as "External author?" and then listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the University of California, San Diego in the final draft, died a year ago in an airplane crash."
An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)iv that year by Drs. Psaty and Kronmal also questioned whether Merck might have deliberately manipulated dozens of academic documents published in the medical literature, in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.


Blockbuster Drugs Tend to Be More Unnecessary than Others

Vioxx was a so-called blockbuster drug—a designation given to extremely popular drugs that generate a minimum of $1 billion in annual sales. Vioxx was marketed in more than 80 countries, and pulled in $2.5 billion in worldwide sales in 2003 alone (the year before it was pulled from the market due to its heart risks). So despite paying out fines in various lawsuits over the drug, Merck certainly made enough from it to cover all such expenses and still make obscene profits while patients were dying in droves.
An important strategy for creating a true blockbuster drug—at least in the United States—is the use of direct to consumer advertising.
A little over 20 years ago direct-to-consumer advertising for drugs was not allowed in the US. Drug advertising is still illegal in most countries around the world, except for the US. If Big Pharma wanted to sell a product, they had to do it through the person prescribing it—your doctor. If a physician didn't have time to listen to sales reps or attend conferences where new drugs were pushed, well then, sometimes they just didn't get pushed on you.
But ever since drug advertising became legal in the U.S., Big Pharma has been making big bucks selling you pills that not only are expensive, but intended to keep you hooked on them for life. As with most advertised consumer products, drugs with blockbuster potential are not necessarily important life-saving drugs. No, rather than curing actual disease, these drugs tend to be focused on the treatment of symptoms—symptoms that many people tend to experience, and which may or may not be caused by a particular disease...
Oftentimes, symptom complexes will be given official-sounding designations, to make it appear more like an actual disease. Either way, since these types of drugs cannot cure anything, they must be taken indefinitely—until you die or cannot afford them anymore. According to Melody Petersen, author of Our Daily Medsv:
"Most blockbusters are pills for conditions such as anxiety, high cholesterol or constipation that must be taken daily, often for months or years. They are designed for rich Americans who can afford to buy them."

6 Kinds of Pills Big Pharma Tries to Get You Hooked on for Life

There are two effective marketing strategies employed by drug companies on a regular basis, and they include:
  1. Convincing you that drugs you used to take only when you needed them are now everyday "prevention" necessities in the form of a prescription; and
  2. Selling you the idea that just being at risk for a chronic disease makes you someone who should be taking a drug for the disease.
What makes these two strategies so successful is that by seeing the advertisement, YOU are the one who sells it to your doctor, by suggesting that you need a certain drug, or outright asking for it. According to a recent article by Martha Rosenbergvi:
"Since direct-to-consumer drug advertising debuted in the late 1990s, the number of people on prescription drugs -- especially prescription drugs for life -- has ballooned. Between 2001 to 2007 the percentage of adults and children on one or more prescriptions for chronic conditions rose by more than 12 million, reports the Associated Press and 25 percent of US children now take a medication for a chronic conditionvii. Seven percent of kids take two or more daily drugs.
Who says advertising doesn't work? Of the top-selling drugs in 2011viii, led by Lipitor, Nexium, Plavix, Advair Diskus, Abilify, Seroquel, Singulair and Crestor, none is taken occasionally, or "as needed" and the treatment goal is never to get off the drug, like an antibiotic."
She lists six types of drugs that are "marketed for perpetuity," meaning they're intended to be taken for life. Sadly most of these drugs come with potential side effects that can be far worse than your original symptom, and few of them have been definitively proven to actually provide any significant health benefits. In fact, some of these drugs have been found to worsen the very condition they're meant to treat (such as antidepressants, statins, proton pump inhibitors, and asthma-control meds), and/or cause other serious diseases. For more information, please follow the hyperlinks provided:
ADHD Drugs and Drugs for Pediatric Psychopathologies, such as "pediatric bipolar disorder" Antidepressants
Statins
Hormone Replacement Therapy Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) Asthma-Control Medicines

Bribery, Fraud, and Deception Hurts YOU in More Ways than One...

Unfortunately, all of this medical deception (and at times outright fraud) is part and parcel of a much larger problem: the near unchecked system of corporate bribery that drives our political processes.
The pharmaceutical industry is the BIGGEST political lobby in the U.S.. There should be no doubt about the power the drug industry wields in shaping the U.S. health care system and all the laws relating to the industry. Political lobbying is one of the primary reasons why the drug companies control nearly the entire health industry, and why alternative medicine is under such constant legislative attack. For greater insight into this problem, please review this previous article, featuring a 60-Minutes segment with Jack Abramoff, a former lobbyist.
In recent news, we get further indications of how pervasive lobbying fraud and illegalities are.
In a submission to the Internal Revenue Service under the Tax Whistleblower Act, a nonpartisan advocacy organization, Common Causeix, has exposed what amounts to a tax scam run by a legislative group known as ALEC, for some of American's largest companies. ALEC stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council, which describes as a public-private partnership between member legislators and business leaders.
According to legal papers filed with the IRS, Common Cause believes that ALEC's lobbying efforts for "model" legislation are tailored to boost the profits of its corporate members—a violation of its tax-exempt status. While ALEC claims it doesn't do lobbying, the Huffington Post reports that at least one state, South Carolina, has written a special exemption for ALEC so it can engage in a type of lobbying. The whistleblower letter to the IRS reads in part:
"... This matter concerns the massive underreporting of lobbying by the American Legislative Exchange Council ("ALEC"). While ostensibly a nonprofit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, ALEC's primary purpose is to provide a vehicle for its corporate members to lobby state legislators and to deduct the costs of such efforts as charitable contributions. ALEC drafts "model" legislation provided by its corporate and legislative members, and lobbies for the adoption of that legislation. These goals are fundamentally inconsistent with ALEC's claimed tax-exempt status as a charitable organization under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), because (i) "no substantial part" of a charity's activity can be "attempting to influence legislation," and (ii) ALEC's activities do not qualify under any of the enumerated purposes of Section 501(c)(3).
This scheme causes harm to taxpayers in two distinct ways. First, ALEC's activities constitute an abuse of its 501(c)(3) tax exemption, which is reserved for organizations "operated exclusively " for a limited number of purposes, such as "religious, charitable, scientific ... or educational purposes ...." 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).
Second, ALEC's corporate members improperly deduct from their taxable income the dues and other contributions made to ALEC; such expenditures are non-deductible lobbying expenses under Section 162(e). In fact, because ALEC solicits very few contributions from individuals, its false claims of tax-exempt status appear driven by the desire of ALEC corporate members to deduct lobbying expenses as charitable contributions..."

Why are Soldiers Dying in Their Sleep?

While lobbying may have its place—when done in a transparent and legal way to inform legislators, and not to simply buy their votes by any means necessary—the practice has deteriorated to the point that it is endangering the health and welfare of people everywhere. Dangerous drugs are brought to market and used in lieu of harmless alternatives, and polypharmacy, the taking of too many drugs, is becoming ever more dangerous.
A case in point is the growing problem of U.S. soldiers literally dying in their sleep...
They survived the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But instead of bombs and guns, a growing number of U.S. veterans of these wars, whether they're still deployed or back at home, are being downed by something else. They die in different ways but they all have one thing in common—at the time of their deaths they're on a cocktail of drugs prescribed for them by military doctors.
Such deaths have been occurring for years, but they were recently brought to light by a West Virginia couple who shared the story of their son, Andrew White, with ABC News. Andrew died in 2008 of fatal drug intoxication. The Whites blame the prescriptions their son was on for his death. According to a report by ABC11x:
""We call it the lethal cocktail. It's antidepressants, antipsychotics and analgesics. It's just overloading, and your body can't take it," Stan [White] explained. The Whites said Andrew was taking Seroquel, Klonopin, and Paxil. They still have the pills prescribed by Veteran's Administration doctors to treat Andrew's post-traumatic stress disorder... "He made that choice to trust the VA and that trust cost him his life," [Mrs. White] continued."
The twist to the story is that within weeks of Andrew's death, three other war veterans—all of whom were taking the same drugs Andrew was on—also died in their sleep. It seemed like too much of a coincidence to San Diego neurologist Dr. Fred Baughman, so he combed newspaper articles and obituaries and created a list of 300 military deaths linked to sudden cardiac arrest. Surprisingly, they were all men in their 20's, many of whom died quietly in their beds. According to Dr. Baughman, these deaths appear to be caused by the antipsychotics and antidepressants these young men were all taking.
Just weeks before White died, U.S. Surgeon General Eric B. Schoomaker had also publicly acknowledged that the military was experiencing a series of deaths that "often (were) a consequence of the use of multiple prescription and nonprescription medicines and alcohol." Antipsychotics and antidepressants have been linked to many of the deaths. Another family who has stepped forward with their story is John and Mary Nahas, who nearly lost their son Michael after he returned from Iraq. ABC11 reports:
"Look at all the drugs they had him on," Mary said, showing ABC11 cameras a list that includes Oxycodone, Xanax, Percocet, Klonopin, Celexa, Lunesta, and Ambien.
"I ran the list of medications by my niece - who was a psychologist in a psychiatric hospital - and she said: 'Oh Mary, that's a cocktail of death, they're trying to kill him,'" said Mary. "When they returned our son to us, he looked like a concentration camp victim. He was thin. He was gray in color," she continued. The Nahas say the medication prescribed for their son's PTSD made him attempt suicide."We noticed a decline in his personality from the drugs. They change cognition and behavior. We noticed anger, just couldn't think straight," said Mary. "The drugs had messed him up so badly."
The Veterans Administration investigated Andrew White's death and ruled that his doctors had done nothing wrong, as they met "the community standards of care." Sadly, just as with conventional cancer treatment, the "standard of care" is oftentimes just as deadly as the disease... Still, the White's are pushing for a Congressional investigation into the overmedication of military service personnel. They want VA doctors to reduce their reliance on toxic drugs, and focus on other therapies such as counseling and outdoor activities.
I couldn't agree more.
There's a mountain of evidence supporting the use of such alternatives, and there's very strong evidence that some alternative treatments, such as exercise, are FAR more effective than any of the drugs currently in use. For more information about this, please listen to my interview with Robert Whitaker, author of Mad in America, and Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America.
References:




Tuesday, May 14, 2019

MMR vaccine, Safe or Not

Is the vaccine safe?

There are now a large number of studies that show no evidence at all of any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Autism is a developmental disorder which is usually diagnosed in pre-school children. The original research which suggested a link has now been discredited. The National Autistic Society in the UK has issued a statement saying that ‘there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine’.
Below is a list of studies and their findings. Click on the links to view the abstracts (summaries) of the scientific papers:
The MMR vaccine is given later than some of the other vaccines in the UK schedule because it works better then. In the short film below, Professor Octavio Ramilo explains why this is. In other countries the vaccine may be given at 9 months. The MMR vaccine can safely be given to babies younger than this, especially if there is a measles outbreak.

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Triclosan & Anti-Bacterial Soaps

Reprinted from Smithsonian.com

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/triclosan-a-chemical-used-in-antibacterial-soaps-is-found-to-impair-muscle-function-22127536/?fbclid=IwAR1YbQGqDOps5llljH1KOkBnsQ2hosbsy1ODf2NkbrSXGv55LbwtVKcg0wc


In a new study, the chemical inhibited muscle activity in individual human heart cells, mice and minnows

smithsonian.com

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/triclosan-a-chemical-used-in-antibacterial-soaps-is-found-to-impair-muscle-function-22127536/#FH7cFvDKD6r4QDXL.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
 
Take a look at the bottle of antibacterial hand soap in your bathroom. Chances are good that a particular chemical is listed among its ingredients: triclosan.

The antibacterial substance, which was first developed in the 1960s to prevent bacterial infections in hospitals, has since been incorporated into everything from hand soaps to toothpastes to mouthwashes. Manufacturers see it as a marketing bonus, increasing consumer confidence that a particular product kills harmful bacteria. Even some household products—such as kitchen utensils, toys and bedding—include triclosan.

In recent years, though, research has shed light on a number of problems with employing triclosan so widely. Studies have shown that the chemical can disrupt the endocrine systems of several different animals, binding to receptor sites in the body, which prevents the thyroid hormone from functioning normally. Additionally, triclosan penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream more easily than previously thought, and has turned up everywhere from aquatic environments to human breast milk in troubling quantities.

To this list of concerns, add one more: A new paper, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that triclosan impairs muscle function in both animals and humans. The study, conducted by researchers from the University of California, Davis, found that the chemical hinders human muscle contractions at the cellular level and inhibits normal muscle functioning in both fish and mice.
“Triclosan is found in virtually everyone’s home and is pervasive in the environment,” said lead author Isaac Pessah. “These findings provide strong evidence that the chemical is of concern to both human and environmental health.”

In the first phase of the study, the researchers exposed individual human muscle cells, both from the heart and typical skeletal muscles, to concentrations of triclosan similar to what our bodies experience in everyday life. Then, they used electrical stimulation to cause the muscle cells to contract. Normally, electrical stimulations prompts an immediate muscle contraction—a mechanism that is responsible for the entirety of our muscle activity. In the isolated cells, though, exposure to triclosan disrupted communication between two proteins crucial for proper muscle functioning, causing failure in both the heart and skeletal muscle cells.
The research team also tested the effects of the chemical on two types of live animals—mice and fathead minnows. In the mice, heart muscle function was reduced by as much as 25 percent after exposure to a single dose of triclosan, and grip strength was reduced by as much as 18 percent.

The minnows were used in the experiment to mimic the effect of triclosan in marine environments. After being exposed to concentrations of triclosan equivalent to those found in the wild for 7 days, the minnows were significantly worse swimmers than minnows that hadn’t been exposed to triclosan, and were less effective in swimming tests that simulated the the act of evading a predator.

Using studies with animals to make assumptions about human health is always dicey, but the researchers say the fact that triclosan produced similar results in widely varying conditions with different animals—and the troubling effects of the chemical on human heart cells in test tubes—are causes for concern. ”The effects of triclosan on cardiac function were really dramatic,” said co-author Nipavan Chiamvimonvat. “Although triclosan is not regulated as a drug, this compound acts like a potent cardiac depressant in our models.” He speculates that in some cases, triclosan may be responsible for exacerbating heart problems in patients with an underlying condition.

Additionally, the FDA has declared that there is no evidence that using antibacterial soaps with triclosan confers any more health benefits than simply washing with conventional soap and water, and the agency is currently conducting a risk assessment for the chemical. ”Triclosan can be useful in some instances, however it has become a ubiquitous ‘value added’ marketing factor that actually could be more harmful than helpful,” said study co-author Bruce Hammock. “At the very least, our findings call for a dramatic reduction in its use.”

Monday, March 11, 2019

Splenda is Poison!

Reposted from Dr. Mercola

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/09/05/artificial-sweetener-splenda.aspx?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=facebookmercola_ranart&utm_campaign=20190311_artificial-sweetener-splenda&fbclid=IwAR1jxn_QMPg_DUGIPJlp5hAMuUkRt8xB0ngfpngYfVxXWzNfKVfRJcS5Rmc


New Study Finds Sucralose Is Metabolized and Stored in Your Body

Needless to say, the industry has vehemently defended sucralose (and all other chemical sweeteners), stating that it rapidly passes unmetabolized through your body and therefore has no biological effects. Alas, recent research has punched yet another giant hole in the argument that sucralose is a biologically inert chemical, showing it is in fact metabolized and that it accumulates in fat cells.
The study3,4 in question was published in the online version of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health August 21, 2018. An interview with the authors can be found on Inverse.5
Ten rats were given an average dose of 80.4 milligrams (mg) of sucralose per kilo per day (k/day) for 40 days. According to the researchers, this dosage is "within the range utilized in historical toxicology studies submitted for regulatory approval in North America, Europe and Asia."
Urine and feces were collected daily from each rat, and were analyzed using ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC–MS/MS), which "revealed two new biotransformation products that have not previously been reported."


Research Calls for New Safety Review of Sucralose

The two metabolites are acetylated forms of sucralose that are lipophilic, meaning they dissolve in and combine with fats. Sucralose itself is far less lipophilic, which has been part of the safety argument. According to the authors:
"These metabolites were present in urine and feces throughout the sucralose dosing period and still detected at low levels in the urine 11 days after discontinuation of sucralose administration and six days after sucralose was no longer detected in the urine or feces.
The finding of acetylated sucralose metabolites in urine and feces do not support early metabolism studies, on which regulatory approval was based, that claimed ingested sucralose is excreted unchanged (i.e., not metabolized).
The historical metabolic studies apparently failed to detect these metabolites in part because investigators used a methanol fraction from feces for analysis along with thin layer chromatography and a low-resolution linear radioactivity analyzer.
Further, sucralose was found in adipose tissue in rats two weeks after cessation of the 40-day feeding period even though this compound had disappeared from the urine and feces."
So, not only is sucralose metabolized, these metabolites accumulate in your fat tissues, where they remain for "an extended period of time" after you stop consuming sucralose. In all, these findings led the authors to conclude:
"These new findings of metabolism of sucralose in the gastrointestinal tract and its accumulation in adipose tissue were not part of the original regulatory decision process for this agent and indicate that it now may be time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of this organochlorine artificial sweetener."

Sucralose Is Not an Inert Compound

Previous research has also noted that sucralose is not a biologically inert compound, as claimed. In the 2013 paper,6 "Sucralose, a Synthetic Organochlorine Sweetener: Overview of Biological Issues," the authors state, in part:
"Sucralose and one of its hydrolysis products were found to be mutagenic at elevated concentrations in several testing methods … Both human and rodent studies demonstrated that sucralose may alter glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 levels. Taken together, these findings indicate that sucralose is not a biologically inert compound."
Importantly, the study also notes that "Cooking with sucralose at high temperatures … generates chloropropanols, a potentially toxic class of compounds." Yet, Splenda is frequently recommended for cooking and baking,7 and is often used in processed foods in which high heat was involved.
Chloropropanols, which are still poorly understood, are thought to have adverse effects on your kidneys and may have carcinogenic effects.8 However, it's worth noting that chloropropanols are part of a class of toxins known as dioxins, and dioxins are known to cause cancer and endocrine disruption.

Sucralose May Cause Liver Damage With Regular Use, and More

Another study9 published online August 2, 2018, in the journal Morphologie, found sucralose caused "definite changes" in the liver of treated rats, "indicating toxic effects on regular ingestion." According to these researchers, their findings suggest "sucralose would be taken with caution to avoid hepatic damage."
In other words, regularly using Splenda could damage your liver. Here, adult rats were given a much higher (yet nonlethal) oral dose of sucralose — 3 grams (3,000 milligrams) per kilo body mass per day for 30 days, after which the animals' livers were dissected and compared to the livers of unexposed controls. According to the authors:
"Experimental rats showed features of patchy degeneration of hepatocytes along with Kupffer cells hyperplasia, lymphocytic infiltration, sinusoidal dilatation and fibrosis indicating a definite hepatic damage on regular ingestion of sucralose. Sinusoidal width was also found to be increased in experimental animals as compared to controls."
Studies have also linked sucralose consumption to:
Genotoxicity (DNA damage) and potentially adverse epigenetic effects.10 According to this paper, the acceptable daily intake set for sucralose may in fact be hundreds of times too high to ensure safety
Shrinkage of the thymus, up to 40 percent11,12
Enlargement of the liver and kidneys13,14
Calcification of the kidneys15,16
Increased leukocyte populations (immune system cells) in the thymus and lymph nodes17
Migraines18
Altered glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 levels and responses,19 which raises your risk for Type 2 diabetes.
A study20 published in the journal Diabetes Care confirmed that, compared to controls, obese patients using sucralose experienced a greater incremental increase in peak plasma concentrations of glucose, a greater incremental increase in insulin and peak insulin secretion rate, along with a decrease in insulin clearance.
According to the authors, "These data demonstrate that sucralose affects the glycemic and insulin responses to an oral glucose load in obese people who do not normally consume non-nutritive sweeteners"
Alterations in P-glycoprotein (P-gp) levels, which could result in medications used in chemotherapy, AIDS treatment and treatments for heart conditions being shunted back into the intestines, rather than being absorbed by your body21

Commonly Reported Side Effects of Splenda

If you start searching for adverse events reports, you'll find scores of people reporting a variety of side effects from using Splenda. The following are common symptoms, usually noticed within a 24-hour period following consumption of a Splenda product:
Skin — Redness, itching, swelling, blistering, weeping, crusting, rash, eruptions or hives (itchy bumps or welts)
Lungs — Wheezing, tightness, cough or shortness of breath
Head — Swelling of the face, eyelids, lips, tongue or throat; headaches and migraines (severe headaches)
Nose — Stuffy nose, runny nose (clear, thin discharge), sneezing
Eyes — Red (bloodshot), itchy, swollen or watery
Stomach — Bloating, gas, pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea
Heart — Palpitations or fluttering
Joints — Joint pains or aches
NeurologicalAnxiety, dizziness, spaced-out sensation, depression

Are You Having a Reaction to Splenda?

To determine if you're having a reaction to artificial sweeteners — be it Splenda, aspartame or any of the others — take the following steps:
  1. Eliminate all artificial sweeteners from your diet for two weeks
  2. After two weeks, reintroduce your artificial sweetener of choice in a significant quantity (about three servings daily)
  3. Avoid other artificial sweeteners during this period
  4. Do this for one to three days and take notice of how you feel, especially as compared to when you were abstaining from artificial sweeteners
  5. If you don't notice a difference in how you feel after reintroducing your primary artificial sweetener for a few days, it's a safe bet you're able to tolerate it acutely, meaning your body doesn't have an immediate, adverse response. Just know that this doesn't mean your health won't be damaged in the long run
  6. If you've been consuming more than one type of artificial sweetener, repeat steps 2 through 4 with the next sweetener on your list
If you do experience side effects from an artificial sweetener (or any other food additive for that matter), please report it to the FDA (if you live in the U.S.). It's easy to make a report — just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state and make a call to report your reaction.
Keep in mind that some medications may contain sucralose as well, even if it's not listed on the label. If you continue to experience any of the symptoms above even though you're avoiding Splenda and other artificial sweeteners, then it may be worth investigating whether any of the medications you're taking contain artificial sweeteners.

Splenda Has Never Been Proven Safe for Human Consumption

The FDA claims they reviewed over 100 studies conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that: a) only six of these studies were human trials — and only two of them were published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption — and b) the remaining animal studies actually revealed potential health problems, including:22
  • Decreased red blood cells (a sign of anemia) at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day
  • Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
  • Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group
  • A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent death rate in the control group
What's more, the two human trials had a grand total of 36 subjects, only 23 of whom were actually given sucralose, and the longest of these trials lasted just four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.23
Even more shocking, the absorption of Splenda into the human body was studied on a grand total of six men. Based on that study,24 the FDA allowed the findings to be generalized as being representative of the entire human population, including women, children, the elderly and those with any chronic illness — none of whom were ever examined.

Healthier Sugar Substitutes

Two of the best sugar substitutes are from the plant kingdom: Stevia and Lo Han Kuo (also spelled Luo Han Guo). Stevia, a highly sweet herb derived from the leaf of the South American stevia plant, is sold as a supplement. It's completely safe in its natural form and can be used to sweeten most dishes and drinks.
Lo Han Kuo is similar to Stevia, but it's a bit more expensive and harder to find. In China, the Lo Han fruit has been used as a sweetener for centuries, and it's about 200 times sweeter than sugar. A third alternative is to use pure glucose, also known as dextrose.
Dextrose is only 70 percent as sweet as sucrose, so you'll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than regular sugar. Still, it's well worth it for your health as it does not contain any fructose whatsoever. Contrary to fructose, glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is a far safer sugar alternative.