Triclosan and 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

By Joseph Stromberg

smithsonian.com
August 13, 2012

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.”

The Devil We Know: How Dupont Poisoned the World with Teflon

Reposted from Organic Consumers

https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/devil-we-know-how-dupont-poisoned-world-teflon?fbclid=IwAR2quuivsJ_m3LIgJH0t3r0YxFcRG8hwcWJS10vPyIZs9emACWqFAieUQMk

A new Netflix documentary titled, “The Devil We Know,” tells the story of DuPont’s decades-long cover-up of the harm caused by chemicals used to make its popular non-stick Teflon™ products. The film shows how the chemicals used to make Teflon poisoned people and the environment—not just in Parkersburg, West Virginia, where DuPont had a Teflon plant, but all over the world.

It all began in 1945, when DuPont, renamed DowDuPont following its 2017 merger with Dow Chemical, began manufacturing Teflon, a product best known for its use in non-stick cookware, but also widely used in a variety of other consumer products, including waterproof clothing and furniture, food packaging, self-cleaning ovens, airplanes and cars.

One of the key ingredients in DuPont’s Teflon was C8, a toxic, man-made chemical created by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, better known as 3M, to make Scotchgard. The chemical, also known as PFOS or PFOA, is what gave Teflon its non-stick properties.

Both 3M and DuPont were well aware of the health hazards associated with C8. But that didn’t stop DuPont from dumping the toxic chemical into local waterways, where it made its way into public drinking water and subsequently sickened thousands of people, and ultimately killing many of them.

3M and DuPont covered up the health risks of C8

The film features stories from a number of people who were affected by DuPont’s Teflon, including DuPont employees, children and adults in the surrounding community, as well as pets, livestock and wildlife.
One of those stories is that of Sue Bailey, a former DuPont employee who gave birth to a son with severe deformities. Her son, William Bailey, aka Bucky, was born with half of a nose, one nostril, a serrated eyelid and a keyhole pupil where his iris and retina were detached.

Sue’s work for DuPont required her to come in direct contact with C8. Her job involved working in a large room with huge cylinders filled with C8. The cylinders would bubble over like an out-of-control bubble bath, according to the film. The Teflon production process left behind a discharge of water. It was Sue’s job to pump it out back, where it would flow directly into the river. 

DuPont tried to blame Sue for her son’s birth defects. But she wasn’t buying it. On her first day back to work, she heard her co-workers talking about another DuPont employee who had given birth to a baby with deformities very similar to Bucky’s.

DuPont knew exposure to C8 could harm human health and cause birth defects. Both DuPont and 3M had been studying the chemical since the 1960s. One study on the chemical led by 3M, determined that the chemical could potentially cause birth defects in the eyes of rat fetuses.

Studies link Teflon chemical to six human diseases

The film also features Ken Wamsley, a former DuPont employee who worked for the company for 40 years. He said the first time he heard C8 was dangerous was from a supervisor who said it might hurt pregnant women. DuPont sent all the women home, but insisted the men were not at risk.
That turned out to be a bold-faced lie.

Today, we know that exposure to C8 in drinking water is linked to six different diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, preeclampsia and high cholesterol, according to the film.
Evidence shows that DuPont knew for decades that exposure to C8 could cause long-term health effects in humans. DuPont started conducting cancer studies in 1988. The company’s own studies showed that exposure to C8 killed rats, dogs and monkeys, by causing testicular cancer, liver disease and pancreatic disease.

Teflon chemical is in the blood of 99 percent of Americans

Not only did DuPont continue to manufacture Teflon, but it also continued to dump the chemical into waterways.

In 2001, a class-action lawsuit was brought against DuPont by residents of the Ohio River Valley who had been exposed to C8 in their drinking water. DuPont agreed to settle the suit, offering the plaintiffs $343 million.

But in a groundbreaking decision, the plaintiffs refused to take individual payments. Instead, they decided to establish a C8 Science Panel dedicated to studying the link between C8 in drinking water and human disease.

C8 contamination is so widespread that, according to this article in the Intercept, 99 percent of Americans have the chemical in their blood. It’s also been found in the blood of people from all parts of the world. The main sources of exposure are still somewhat of a mystery. The likely culprits, though, are industrial waste and the consumer products that shed C8 over time.

Under terms of the $343-million settlement, six water districts could test people’s blood and sue DuPont if the Science Panel could prove exposure to C8 caused any harm.

DuPont said it was confident the test results would prove C8 was safe.

In order to overcome the challenge of recruiting enough volunteers to submit their blood for analysis, the panel used some of the funds from the settlement to offer each volunteer $400.

Through the payout and a massive media effort, the panel got more than 70,000 people to participate. The process took more than seven years. In 2012, the results were in: Exposure to C8 in drinking water caused six different human diseases.

DuPont is still manufacturing Teflon

More than 3,500 cases were filed against DuPont. Soon, the victories started pouring in.
The first case involved a woman who said exposure to C8 caused her kidney cancer. The jury found DuPont guilty and awarded the plaintiff $1.6 million.

In 2017, DuPont and Chemours, a company created by DuPont, agreed to pay $671 million to settle thousands of lawsuits.

Many lawsuits are still pending to this day.

DuPont agreed to casually phase out C8 by 2015. But it still makes Teflon. DuPont replaced C8 with a new chemical called Gen-X, which is already turning up in waterways.

Animal studies conducted by DuPont found tumors in rats exposed to Gen-X, according to the film. The tumors are similar to those seen in rats exposed to C8.

Whether Gen-X is just as bad—or even worse—than C8 remains to be seen.
Want to learn more? Click here to find places where you can watch the film.
Julie Wilson is communications associate for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). To keep up with OCA news and alerts, sign up for our newsletter.

Cancer & Cruciferous Vegetables

Reposted from Life Extension

https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2019/9/new-strategy-to-reduce-cancer-risk/page-01

By Edward Sanford

As the “war on cancer” drags on, the National Cancer Institute estimates that 1.7 million Americans were diagnosed with cancer last year.¹
Doesn’t sound like much progress has been made since the “war” was declared by the U.S. government in 1971.
But there is hope that lies in prevention. Scientists agree that preventing cancer is the best strategy.
As many as 90% of all cancers are caused by environmental factors and lifestyle behaviors.^2,3
Ongoing research points to anti-cancer effects of compounds found in broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables.
Studies show that higher intake of cruciferous vegetables is associated with a reduced risk for different types of cancers.^4,5
But to maximize the effects of these cancer-fighting compounds, you’d have to consume an enormous quantity of raw vegetables.
Scientists have discovered a way to remedy this problem. They have developed a delivery system to maximize the amounts of cancer-fighting compounds in cruciferous vegetables that enter the bloodstream.

Chemistry of Cruciferous Vegetables 

Cruciferous vegetables are a group of edible plants that include broccoli, kale, green and red cabbage, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts.
These vegetables are loaded with nutrients shown to help prevent a wide variety of common disorders.
In particular, cruciferous vegetables have a profound ability to shield cells from several processes that can transform healthy cells into malignant tumors.^4,5
Two cruciferous nutrients are especially well validated: sulforaphane and 3,3’-diindolylmethane (DIM). The benefits of both are supported by ample medical literature.^6-8
DIM is a stable compound that is readily absorbed from the digestive system.
Sulforaphane, however, is very unstable, which means it rapidly degrades into non-active substances if it isn’t quickly absorbed, or if the vegetable is heavily cooked.
Nature has found a way around this problem.

How Plants Make Sulforaphane

Sulforaphane itself isn’t contained in broccoli and cabbage.
Instead, a precursor called glucoraphanin is stored in these plant cells, along with an enzyme, myrosinase, that converts the glucoraphanin into sulforaphane.
In raw vegetables, glucoraphanin and myrosinase are stored in separate compartments.
Only when the vegetables have been eaten and partially digested do they mix in the body and form sulforaphane, the beneficial compound.
Once formed, sulforaphane must be absorbed rapidly in the small intestine or it will be lost.

A Solution Inspired by Nature

Scientists have found a way to deliver both glucoraphanin and myrosinase, isolated from broccoli, separately to the small intestine.
In the small intestine, these two components mix and form sulforaphane, which can be immediately absorbed into the body, achieving higher blood levels of this anti-cancer compound.
In a study done by scientists at Johns Hopkins, healthy individuals were given either glucoraphanin alone or in combination with the enzyme myrosinase. Urinary metabolites of sulforaphane were used to assess bioavailability.
The bioavailability of the combination of glucoraphanin and myrosinase was 35% compared to 10% in the group given only glucoraphanin.⁹

 

Sulforaphane and DIM Research 

For decades, studies have shown that large dietary intakes of cruciferous vegetables reduce the risk of developing different forms of cancer, including many of the most common types, such as lung and colorectal cancer.^5,10,11
Researchers have also evaluated the individual compounds derived from these vegetables, most importantly sulforaphane and DIM.
Scientists at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine compared two different groups of rats; one was given sulforaphane and one was not.¹² Both groups were then given a potent carcinogen, a chemical that produces cancerous tumors at a high rate. They found that the animals given sulforaphane developed 39% fewer tumors. In addition, the tumors that did develop were smaller and grew more slowly.
In human cancer cell lines, including breast cancer and leukemia, sulforaphane was shown to halt the growth of the tumors and to kill tumor cells.⁸
The benefit of DIM supplementation has been evaluated in two studies of women with a history of breast cancer.^13,14 In both studies, women were randomized to receive DIM supplementation (108 mg per day in one, 300 mg per day in the other) or a placebo. DIM was found to significantly alter the mix of estrogen types, supporting an increase in “good” estrogen and reducing “bad” estrogen, which is linked to cancer progression.
DIM has also been evaluated in women for prevention of cervical cancer.^6,10 Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is a cervical cancer precursor.
In one study, women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia were randomized to receive either 100 mg of DIM, 200 mg of DIM, or a placebo. After 90 to 180 days of supplementation researchers found that all patients’ cervical intraepithelial neoplasia resolved completely with the 200 mg dose of DIM. With the lower 100 mg dose of DIM, 90.5% regressed.⁶
What this shows is that these compounds, derived from cruciferous vegetables, can both prevent cancer and reverse the progression of cells that are already abnormal.

What you need to know

Cruciferous Vegetables and Cancer

• Cruciferous vegetables, including broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, and kale, are associated with reduced risk of cancer and other age-related diseases.
• Two compounds derived from these vegetables, sulforaphane and DIM, are responsible for most of this anti-cancer activity.
• Large amounts of raw vegetables would need to be consumed to maximize these effects.
• Unlike DIM, sulforaphane is unstable and rapidly degrades if not absorbed quickly.
• Scientists have found a way to deliver glucoraphanin and myrosinase to the intestine to achieve higher levels of the anti-cancer compound sulforaphane.

Four Ways Cruciferous Vegetables Protect Against Cancer 

Cancer results from damage to genes that causes cells to multiply out of control.
Toxins and pollutants in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat can all cause this damage. Even our own metabolism produces oxidative stress and potential toxins.
Behavior such as smoking greatly increases the amount of damage that is occurring.
Methods to decrease cancer risk include:

• Protecting DNA genes from mutations (damage)
• Reducing inflammation
• Impairing ability of abnormal cells to propagate

Compounds found in cruciferous vegetables act in four major ways to prevent cancer.
1. Protecting against Epigenetic Changes
Cancer can be caused by epigenetic changes, the ability to “turn genes on and off.” These changes don’t alter the DNA, but they change expression patterns of genes.
Studies have shown that sulforaphane and DIM can reverse some of these cancer-associated alterations.¹⁵
Sulforaphane also reverses alterations of histone proteins involved in the regulation of genes, another epigenetic change that can contribute to cancer.^16,17
2. Attacking Cancer Cells
Even after a cell starts down the path to cancer, the progression can be halted or reversed.
DIM and sulforaphane have been shown to suppress the growth of tumors by interfering with abnormal signaling factors that drive cancer cells to proliferate more rapidly.¹²
DIM also slows the propagation of tumor cells by blocking abnormal angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels.¹⁸
Cancers need ample blood flow to supply oxygen and nutrients so that they can grow aggressively. By impeding this new blood vessel growth, cruciferous vegetables can help starve tumor cells.
DIM and sulforaphane also directly kill cancer cells through the process of apoptosis, programmed cell death.^19,20
By turning on the genes associated with apoptosis, cruciferous vegetables initiate “suicide” of the abnormal cells, while protecting healthy, normal cells.
3. Modulating Sex Hormones
Some forms of the hormone estrogen can stimulate breast cancer growth in women. By modulating estrogen metabolism, DIM shifts estrogen balance to favor the healthier forms of these hormones.²¹
In aging men, estrogen balance is also critical. Our early observations revealed that men presenting with benign prostate enlargement or prostate cancer had higher blood estrogen levels.^22,23 Subsequent clinical and laboratory studies helped confirm our early observations.^24-28 DIM can prevent stimulation of prostate cancer cells by estrogen.^29,30
4. Inhibiting NF-kB
NF-kB (nuclear factor-kappa B) is a regulator in cells that activates inflammation, including the low-grade chronic inflammation that is a major contributor to most age-related diseases, including cancer.
Sulforaphane blocks NF-kB, thereby reducing inflammation that contributes to cancer growth.³¹
By reducing NF-kB activity, sulforaphane also has a powerful impact on other chronic diseases, and aging in general. For example, in animal models it can reduce inflammation in the brain that contributes to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.^32,33

Summary

High dietary intake of raw cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cabbage, and cauliflower, is associated with a reduced risk for many types of cancer and other disorders.
Studies have demonstrated that many of the anti-cancer effects are due to two compounds derived from these vegetables: sulforaphane and DIM.
These cruciferous compounds target cancer at different points in its development and progression, reducing the risk of cancer formation in the first place, and halting the progression of some tumor cells.
While DIM is stable and easily absorbed when taken orally, sulforaphane is rapidly converted to inactive compounds.
To solve this problem, scientists have developed a delivery system (glucoraphanin plus myrosinase) that maximizes the amount of sulforaphane available for absorption into the bloodstream.
By separating these precursor plant compounds, much more sulforaphane becomes bioavailable in the small intestine. There, it can be rapidly absorbed, delivering higher blood levels of this anti-cancer (sulforaphane) compound.
If you have any questions on the scientific content of this article, please call a Life Extension® Wellness Specialist at 1-866-864-3027.

References

1. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics. Accessed June 7, 2019.
2. Anand P, Kunnumakkara AB, Sundaram C, et al. Cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes. Pharm Res. 2008 Sep;25(9):2097-116.
3. Wu S, Powers S, Zhu W, et al. Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development. Nature. 2016 Jan 7;529(7584):43-7.
4. Dinkova-Kostova AT, Fahey JW, Kostov RV, et al. KEAP1 and Done? Targeting the NRF2 Pathway with Sulforaphane. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2017 Nov;69(Pt B):257-69.
5. Verhoeven DT, Goldbohm RA, van Poppel G, et al. Epidemiological studies on brassica vegetables and cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1996 Sep;5(9):733-48.
6. Ashrafian L, Sukhikh G, Kiselev V, et al. Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial (phase IIa) on diindolylmethane’s efficacy and safety in the treatment of CIN: implications for cervical cancer prevention. EPMA J. 2015;6:25.
7. Kyung SY, Kim DY, Yoon JY, et al. Sulforaphane attenuates pulmonary fibrosis by inhibiting the epithelial-mesenchymal transition. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018 Apr 2;19(1):13.
8. Su X, Jiang X, Meng L, et al. Anticancer Activity of Sulforaphane: The Epigenetic Mechanisms and the Nrf2 Signaling Pathway. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2018;2018:5438179.
9. Fahey JW, Holtzclaw WD, Wehage SL, et al. Sulforaphane Bioavailability from Glucoraphanin-Rich Broccoli: Control by Active Endogenous Myrosinase. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0140963.
10. Higdon JV, Delage B, Williams DE, et al. Cruciferous vegetables and human cancer risk: epidemiologic evidence and mechanistic basis. Pharmacol Res. 2007 Mar;55(3):224-36.
11. Tang L, Zirpoli GR, Jayaprakash V, et al. Cruciferous vegetable intake is inversely associated with lung cancer risk among smokers: a case-control study. BMC Cancer. 2010 Apr 27;10:162.
12. Zhang Y, Kensler TW, Cho CG, et al. Anticarcinogenic activities of sulforaphane and structurally related synthetic norbornyl isothiocyanates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Apr 12;91(8):3147-50.
13. Thomson CA, Chow HHS, Wertheim BC, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of diindolylmethane for breast cancer biomarker modulation in patients taking tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Aug;165(1):97-107.
14. Dalessandri KM, Firestone GL, Fitch MD, et al. Pilot study: effect of 3,3’-diindolylmethane supplements on urinary hormone metabolites in postmenopausal women with a history of early-stage breast cancer. Nutr Cancer. 2004;50(2):161-7.
15. Wong CP, Hsu A, Buchanan A, et al. Effects of sulforaphane and 3,3’-diindolylmethane on genome-wide promoter methylation in normal prostate epithelial cells and prostate cancer cells. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86787.
16. Tortorella SM, Royce SG, Licciardi PV, et al. Dietary Sulforaphane in Cancer Chemoprevention: The Role of Epigenetic Regulation and HDAC Inhibition. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2015 Jun 1;22(16):1382-424.
17. Bayat Mokhtari R, Baluch N, Homayouni TS, et al. The role of Sulforaphane in cancer chemoprevention and health benefits: a mini-review. J Cell Commun Signal. 2018 Mar;12(1):91-101.
18. Chinnakannu K, Chen D, Li Y, et al. Cell cycle-dependent effects of 3,3’-diindolylmethane on proliferation and apoptosis of prostate cancer cells. J Cell Physiol. 2009 Apr;219(1):94-9.
19. Pledgie-Tracy A, Sobolewski MD, Davidson NE. Sulforaphane induces cell type-specific apoptosis in human breast cancer cell lines. Mol Cancer Ther. 2007 Mar;6(3):1013-21.
20. Kim SM. Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of 3,3’-Diindolylmethane in Gastrointestinal Cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Jul 19;17(7).
21. Thomson CA, Ho E, Strom MB. Chemopreventive properties of 3,3’-diindolylmethane in breast cancer: evidence from experimental and human studies. Nutr Rev. 2016 Jul;74(7):432-43.
22. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Stampfer MJ. A prospective evaluation of plasma prostate-specific antigen for detection of prostatic cancer. Jama. 1995 Jan 25;273(4):289-94.
23. Krieg M, Nass R, Tunn S. Effect of aging on endogenous level of 5 alpha-dihydrotestosterone, testosterone, estradiol, and estrone in epithelium and stroma of normal and hyperplastic human prostate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993 Aug;77(2):375-81.
24. Giton F, de la Taille A, Allory Y, et al. Estrone sulfate (E1S), a prognosis marker for tumor aggressiveness in prostate cancer (PCa). J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2008 Mar;109(1-2):158-67.
25. Prins GS, Korach KS. The role of estrogens and estrogen receptors in normal prostate growth and disease. Steroids. 2008 Mar;73(3):233-44.
26. Singh PB, Matanhelia SS, Martin FL. A potential paradox in prostate adenocarcinoma progression: oestrogen as the initiating driver. Eur J Cancer. 2008 May;44(7):928-36.
27. Ho CK, Nanda J, Chapman KE, et al. Oestrogen and benign prostatic hyperplasia: effects on stromal cell proliferation and local formation from androgen. J Endocrinol. 2008 Jun;197(3):483-91.
28. Matsuda T, Abe H, Suda K. [Relation between benign prostatic hyperplasia and obesity and estrogen]. Rinsho Byori. 2004 Apr;52(4):291-4.
29. Smith S, Sepkovic D, Bradlow HL, et al. 3,3’-Diindolylmethane and genistein decrease the adverse effects of estrogen in LNCaP and PC-3 prostate cancer cells. J Nutr. 2008 Dec;138(12):2379-85.
30. Chen D, Banerjee S, Cui QC, et al. Activation of AMP-activated protein kinase by 3,3’-Diindolylmethane (DIM) is associated with human prostate cancer cell death in vitro and in vivo. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47186.
31. Sturm C, Wagner AE. Brassica-Derived Plant Bioactives as Modulators of Chemopreventive and Inflammatory Signaling Pathways. Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Sep 1;18(9).
32. Hernandez-Rabaza V, Cabrera-Pastor A, Taoro-Gonzalez L, et al. Neuroinflammation increases GABAergic tone and impairs cognitive and motor function in hyperammonemia by increasing GAT-3 membrane expression. Reversal by sulforaphane by promoting M2 polarization of microglia. J Neuroinflammation. 2016 Apr 18;13(1):83.
33. Subedi L, Cho K, Park YU, et al. Sulforaphane-Enriched Broccoli Sprouts Pretreated by Pulsed Electric Fields Reduces Neuroinflammation and Ameliorates Scopolamine-Induced Amnesia in Mouse Brain through Its Antioxidant Ability via Nrf2-HO-1 Activation. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2019;20

• Innovative Doctors
• Become a Reseller
• Careers
• Select Language​▼

Life Extension does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
See additional information.
All Contents Copyright ©2019 Life Extension® All rights reserved

^†2019 Consumer Satisfaction, Rated #1 Catalog/Internet Supplement Brand.
Ratings based on results of the 2019 ConsumerLab.com Survey of Supplement Users.
More information at consumerlab.com/survey2019.

• 
• 
• 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

;

   

 

 

Autism and Aluminum

Reposted from Collective Evolution

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/10/15/brain-imaging-shows-autistic-brains-contain-high-amounts-of-aluminum/?fbclid=IwAR3Dblb12y0NWsWBWBV6CAIKacdkFbKeagQF2s7sKjfP4BHH0TMQOarTH7U

• The Facts:A study published early in 2018 identified very high amounts of aluminum lodged in the brains of multiple people with autism.
• Reflect On:We know little about where the heavy metals used as adjuvants in vaccines end up in the body. We now know that injected aluminum doesn't exit the body like aluminum intake from other sources. When injected, it ends up in the brain.
  
  
  

  In Brief

  • The Facts:A study published early in 2018 identified very high amounts of aluminum lodged in the brains of multiple people with autism.
  • Reflect On:We know little about where the heavy metals used as adjuvants in vaccines end up in the body. We now know that injected aluminum doesn't exit the body like aluminum intake from other sources. When injected, it ends up in the brain.
  
  
  Five people were used in the study, four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.
  Of course, this caused people to downplay the study, citing a low sample group, but that’s not entirely a valid argument given the reason why this study was conducted. As cited in the study above, recent studies on animals, published within the past few years, have supported a strong connection between aluminum, and aluminum adjuvants used in human vaccinations, and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD.)
  
  
  Studies have also shown that injected aluminum does not exit the body, and can be detected inside the brain even a year after injection. That being said, when we take aluminum in from sources such as food, the body does a great job of getting it out, but there is a threshold. It’s important to acknowledge that the aluminum found in the brain, could be due to the presence of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. This latest study also identified the location of aluminum in these tissues, and where they end up. This particular study was done on humans, which builds upon, and still supports, the findings of the animal studies.
  
  
  This is also important because the majority of studies that previously examined human exposure to aluminum have only used hair, blood and urine samples. The study also makes a clear statement regarding vaccines, stating that “Paediatric vaccines that include an aluminum adjuvant are an indirect measure of infant exposure to aluminum and their burgeoning use has been directly correlated with increasing prevalence of ASD.”
  
  
   Aluminum, in this case, was found in all four lobes of the brain.
  
  

  The aluminum content of brain tissues from donors with a diagnosis of ASD was extremely high (Table 1). While there was significant inter-tissue, inter-lobe and inter-subject variability the mean aluminium content for each lobe across all 5 individuals was towards the higher end of all previous (historical) measurements of brain aluminium content, including iatrogenic disorders such as dialysisencephalopathy[13], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. All 4 male donors had significantly higher concentrations of brain aluminum than the single female donor. We recorded some of the highest values for brain aluminum content ever measured in healthy or diseased tissues in these male ASD donors

  We Know, And Have Known, Aluminum Is Not Safe, Yet We Ignore It

  When we talk about the ‘safe’ amount of aluminum here, there is no such thing. Aluminum is extremely toxic to any biological process, it’s not meant for us which is why it stayed deep within the Earth until we took it out. It has no place within us, and that’s simply due to the fact that it causes nothing but havoc. This makes it odd that we would put them in vaccinations despite the fact that for 100 years there has been no appropriate safety testing.

  Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.

  The quote above comes from a study published in 2011, it’s 2018 now and we’ve come along way in our understanding. We are starting to see even more research confirming the statement above.
  
  
  Almost every study you read regarding previous studies on aluminum adjuvants within vaccines emphasized how the nature of its bioaccumulation is unknown, and a serious matter. We now know that it goes throughout the body, into distant organs eventually ends up in the brain.
  
  
  Another fairly recent study from 2015 points out:
  

  Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph notes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.(source)

  
  The more recent study discussed in this article is adding to that evidence. Below you can watch one of the most recent interviews with Dr. Eric Exley one of the world’s foremost leading authors on the subject, and one of the authors of this most recent study. He is a Biologist (University of Stirling) with a Ph.D. in the ecotoxicology of aluminum. You can read more about his background here.
  
  
  In Brief

  • The Facts:A study published early in 2018 identified very high amounts of aluminum lodged in the brains of multiple people with autism.
  • Reflect On:We know little about where the heavy metals used as adjuvants in vaccines end up in the body. We now know that injected aluminum doesn't exit the body like aluminum intake from other sources. When injected, it ends up in the brain.

  A study published earlier in 2018 should have made headlines everywhere, as it discovered historically high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains. The study was conducted by some of the worlds leading scientists in the field.

  
  

  Five people were used in the study, four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.

  Of course, this caused people to downplay the study, citing a low sample group, but that’s not entirely a valid argument given the reason why this study was conducted. As cited in the study above, recent studies on animals, published within the past few years, have supported a strong connection between aluminum, and aluminum adjuvants used in human vaccinations, and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD.)

  
  

  Studies have also shown that injected aluminum does not exit the body, and can be detected inside the brain even a year after injection. That being said, when we take aluminum in from sources such as food, the body does a great job of getting it out, but there is a threshold. It’s important to acknowledge that the aluminum found in the brain, could be due to the presence of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. This latest study also identified the location of aluminum in these tissues, and where they end up. This particular study was done on humans, which builds upon, and still supports, the findings of the animal studies.

  
  

  This is also important because the majority of studies that previously examined human exposure to aluminum have only used hair, blood and urine samples. The study also makes a clear statement regarding vaccines, stating that “Paediatric vaccines that include an aluminum adjuvant are an indirect measure of infant exposure to aluminum and their burgeoning use has been directly correlated with increasing prevalence of ASD.”

  
  

   Aluminum, in this case, was found in all four lobes of the brain.

  The aluminum content of brain tissues from donors with a diagnosis of ASD was extremely high (Table 1). While there was significant inter-tissue, inter-lobe and inter-subject variability the mean aluminium content for each lobe across all 5 individuals was towards the higher end of all previous (historical) measurements of brain aluminium content, including iatrogenic disorders such as dialysisencephalopathy[13], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. All 4 male donors had significantly higher concentrations of brain aluminum than the single female donor. We recorded some of the highest values for brain aluminum content ever measured in healthy or diseased tissues in these male ASD donors

  We Know, And Have Known, Aluminum Is Not Safe, Yet We Ignore It

  When we talk about the ‘safe’ amount of aluminum here, there is no such thing. Aluminum is extremely toxic to any biological process, it’s not meant for us which is why it stayed deep within the Earth until we took it out. It has no place within us, and that’s simply due to the fact that it causes nothing but havoc. This makes it odd that we would put them in vaccinations despite the fact that for 100 years there has been no appropriate safety testing.

  Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.

  The quote above comes from a study published in 2011, it’s 2018 now and we’ve come along way in our understanding. We are starting to see even more research confirming the statement above.

  Almost every study you read regarding previous studies on aluminum adjuvants within vaccines emphasized how the nature of its bioaccumulation is unknown, and a serious matter. We now know that it goes throughout the body, into distant organs eventually ends up in the brain.

  

  Subscribe To Our Daily Email

  Start Your Day With The Latest News

   
  Another fairly recent study from 2015 points out:
  

  Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph notes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.(source)

  The pictures below come from the recent 2018 study and show ‘bright spots’ that indicate heavy metals in the brain.
  
  
  
  The more recent study discussed in this article is adding to that evidence. Below you can watch one of the most recent interviews with Dr. Eric Exley one of the world’s foremost leading authors on the subject, and one of the authors of this most recent study. He is a Biologist (University of Stirling) with a Ph.D. in the ecotoxicology of aluminum. You can read more about his background here.
  

  Take Away

  People need to understand that despite media bullying, it’s ok to question vaccine safety, and there is plenty of reason to. There are many concerns, and heavy metals are one of them. In fact, the persistence and abundant presence of heavy metals in our environment, foods and medications is a concern, one that has been the clear cause for a variety of health ailments, yet it’s one that’s hardly addressed by the medical industry.
  
  
  You can detox from this with items such as Spirulina, and waters that contain a high Silica content. There are studies that show various methods of detoxing can be used to get this lodged aluminum, or some of it, out of your body, organs and brain. This is where educating yourself regarding the medicinal value of food and nutrition is a key Perhaps this can be a motivation to better your diet, especially if you have, are someone, or know someone with an ASD diagnosis.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

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?

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.

Sources

 

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:

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 Meds^v:

"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 Rosenberg^vi:

"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 condition^vii. Seven percent of kids take two or more daily drugs.
Who says advertising doesn't work? Of the top-selling drugs in 2011^viii, 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 Cause^ix, 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 ABC11^x:

""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:

---

• ⁱ The New York Times November 10, 2007
• ⁱⁱ Reuters April 19, 2012
• ⁱⁱⁱ MedHeadlines April 16, 2008
• ^ivJAMA 2008;299(15):1813-1817
• ^v AlterNet April 26, 2012
• ^vi AlterNet April 26, 2012
• ^vii The Wall Street Journal December 28, 2010
• ^viii Forbes Magazine April 19, 2011
• ^ix Common Cause April 20, 2012
• ^x WTVD-TV Raleigh-Durham April 26, 2012