Day: 03/12/2013

Strong Flu Season Boosts Vaccine Profits, Despite Flu Vaccine having Shockingly Low Effectiveness Rate in US and Europe.

Posted by

0


 

flu-seasonnvic-billboard

Vaccine policymakers routinely ignore the safest and most effective strategies that can naturally strengthen your immunity to help you stay well or move through illness with fewer complications if you do get sick.

For example, there are many far more effective ways to prevent the flu and other flu-like diseases, such as dietary interventions, making sure your vitamin D and gut flora are optimized, being more meticulous about washing your hands, getting enough exercise and sleep, and taking natural immune boosters like oil of oregano and garlic.

But ignoring the obvious is not the worst of it.

The vaccine industry is also ceaselessly working to figure out which propaganda strategy can most effectively lull concerned parents back to sleep and quit asking questions about safety.

Such questions threaten that which is truly important to the vaccine industry: their profits. Sadly, vaccines DO come with potential side effects, and many parents are already grossly underinformed about such risks. Narcolepsy, for example, has yet again been confirmed as a vaccine-induced side effect from the European version of the 2009-2010 H1N1 swine flu vaccine that contained an oil in water adjuvant, ASO3.

With such serious side effects at stake, should the government really be permitted to resort to what’s looking like outright fraud, in order to increase vaccination rates?

Flu Vaccine Shown to have Shockingly Low Effectiveness Rate

Propaganda scare tactics still do work, as demonstrated by the 25 percent uptick in 2012-2013 seasonal flu vaccine sales reported by Novartis.1 This despite the fact that not just one, but three recent studies published in the journal Eurosurveillance2, 3, 4 strongly challenge the claim that the influenza vaccine will protect you against the flu.

According to CIDRAP:5

“All three studies suggest that during the 2011-12 flu season, the vaccine provided modest protection at first, but its effectiveness dropped sharply after 3 or 4 months.

A multicenter study by researchers in eight European countries indicated that overall vaccine effectiveness (VE) against influenza A/H3N2 in the first months of the season was 38%, but after mid-February it dropped to -1%.

‘The concept that vaccine protection can be so short-lived provides a challenge for public health policy,’ says the British report.”

Similarly, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently admitted that this year’s flu vaccine is doing a “startlingly dismal job of protecting senior citizens,” to quote the San Francisco Chronicle.6

While not at a negative percentage rate, as reported by CIDRAP for the European community, the US flu vaccine is only nine percent effective against this season’s type A (H3N2) influenza strain in people 65 and older. Across all age groups reviewed by the CDC, the flu vaccine’s effectiveness was found to be just 56 percent—in essence, the statistical equivalent of a coin toss…

When Does Misrepresentation of the Facts Equate to Outright Fraud?

While none of this surprises me, I am troubled by the gross discrepancies between the government’s claims about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine compared to the actual effectiveness.

“Get vaccinated” is the mantra, even though the scientific evidence backing such a recommendation is flimsy at best. And, when you factor in effectiveness rates of negative one percent, or nine percent, or even 40-50 percent within the first few months of vaccination, the recommendation to use vaccination as your primary flu prevention strategy really becomes rather ludicrous. Not only that, but at what point do these PR tactics become equivalent to outright fraud?

More people than ever are reportedly sick this winter,7 including those who got their flu vaccination. This is in large part due to a new flu strain, the “H3N2 type variant,” identified as being particularly aggressive, and believed to be the cause of many if not most of the illnesses.8

Interestingly, according to Dr. Joseph Bresee, a medical epidemiologist in the influenza division at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the H3N2 component in this year’s seasonal flu vaccine “has been a good match against almost all the confirmed H3N2 samples the agency has tested,”9 and due to flu fears, vaccines have been flying off the shelves this year.

So, the vaccines are a great match against the most virulent flu strain in circulation, yet the effectiveness rate for the type A H3N2 influenza strain is nine percent for seniors, and equivalent to a 50/50 tossup for the rest of us? Personally, I would never accept the potential side effects associated with the influenza vaccine—such as permanent paralysis from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) —for such odds.

Another thing to consider is that states that have fired health care workers for refusing the flu vaccine10 have done so over an absolutely useless vaccine that provides nothing but profits for the vaccine industry. Meanwhile, health professionals who buckle to the pressure are taking some very real health risks, just to keep their jobs. For a first-hand look at what’s at stake, take a look at the following video, featuring a former nursing professor who became permanently disabled following a flu shot.

Health Care Industry Boasts about Profits During Worse-than-Average Flu Season

A January 8 CNBC report11 highlighted the profitability of the flu season:

“Walgreens reported earlier this month that it had administered 5.5 million flu shots by the end of December — up from 5.3 million in the same period a year earlier. ‘Walgreens is a key provider of flu shots,’ said Muken, ‘so they are seeing a modestly outsized benefit.’ Beyond flu shots, a strong cold and flu season could mean stronger sales for over the counter medication and other cold care items at Walgreens and its competitors, CVS Caremark and Rite Aid….The CDC reports outpatient visits and hospitalizations are up sharply with the early start of the flu season. That likely results in more testing for influenza, and higher overall medical costs.”

Similarly, an article in Infectious Diseases in Children, titled “Influenza vaccination makes sense for everyone,”12 written by Dr. Richard Lander, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in northern New Jersey and a member of the Infectious Diseases in Children Editorial Board, offers an insightful glimpse into the motivations behind the at times near-rabid push for flu vaccinations.

It not only spells out the financial incentives for pediatricians and other physicians to “sell, sell, sell!” the vaccine to as many as possible, but when you read his disclosure, the root of his pro-vaccination stance becomes quite obvious, as he is not only co-owner of the National Discount Vaccine Alliance, he’s also a speaker for Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi-Pasteur… Here, for the first time, a real doctor, with real numbers reveals exactly how profitable giving the flu vaccines is for doctors. The article reads, in part:

“…let’s calculate monies generated for administering influenza vaccine for a doctor with a panel of 2,000 patients. We’ll be conservative and consider that only 1,000 patients will get their influenza vaccine in your office. Some of the 1,000 not receiving the vaccine in your office might be infants younger than 6 months of age and not eligible for the vaccine, and some patients will go to retail-based clinics or refuse the vaccine.

I know you are all financially savvy and you have purchased influenza vaccines at the lowest possible price… The fee you receive has been set by your contract with each managed care organization and you are seeing a 10% to 25% profit.

If your practice purchased the vaccine at approximately $10, the profit on these 1,000 patients will range from $1,000 to $2,500. Additionally, you are receiving a vaccine administration fee, which should range from $14 to $30. This amounts to $14,000 to $30,000 for the 1,000 patients. Furthermore, in my practice, we do not vaccinate if a patient has not received a well visit in the last 12 months. If 100 patients who call for a flu shot ending up scheduling a well visit, you should be generating an additional $10,000. Bottom line: $25,000 to $42,500, which is not bad!”

Australian Study Reveals Strategic PR Plan

Another recent study published in the journal Vaccine13 reveals how the vaccine industry is plotting to adapt its propaganda strategy to make more people accept vaccine risks. According to the authors:

“We aimed to determine demographic predictors of parental vaccine safety and risk perceptions, and assess the relationship between the occurrence of children’s perceived adverse events following immunization (AEFI) on parents’ opinions.”

The survey found that:

  • Of 469 parents interviewed, 95 percent were confident in vaccine safety in general, but nearly 50 percent still expressed concern for pre-licensure testing of vaccines
  • 41 percent of all parents responded that at least one of their children had experienced an adverse event following immunization. Parents of children who had a previous AEFI were more concerned about vaccine safety
  • Only half of parents surveyed were aware of surveillance for vaccine safety
  • Almost one third of the AEFI parent group indicated they reported their children’s symptoms to either a healthcare professional or the Department of Health, with most reports being made to the family’s general practitioner
  • Parental acceptability of the risks of febrile convulsion and anaphylaxis were 73 percent and 76 percent respectively. Mothers were less accepting of these risks

In conclusion, the authors state:

“Parents commonly perceive and report that their child has experienced an AEFI. In this group of parents the subsequent expectation of an AEFI and vaccine safety concerns may be heightened. Further research should investigate parental understandings of differentiating an expected event from an adverse event as this could inform immunization risk communication and consumer AEFI reporting strategies.”

The latter paragraph tells you what they’re really after. Vaccinologists in charge of the US public health system are looking for ways to convince parents, and mothers in particular, of two things:

  1. When your child suffers a health problem after vaccination, it really isn’t caused by the vaccine, and that
  2. Certain side effects, some of which may be severe and/or life threatening, are “normal” occurrences. Meaning, they want you to view side effects like convulsion and anaphylaxis as “expected events” rather than “adverse events,” which in and of itself would make vaccinations appear to be far safer than they are

The former has already been accomplished through pediatricians, who have been taught to dismiss anything bad that happens after vaccination as a “coincidence.” But they have not yet convinced mothers of that myth. That will be much more difficult as they need to somehow eradicate a mother’s gut instincts. Perhaps they can develop a vaccine for that… Until then, they are “investigating parental understandings” of the difference between adverse reactions they want you to think are normal, and adverse events worth blaming on the vaccine. Once they figure out how parents think about these things, your thinking will be used against you in their “immunization risk communications” and shape their adverse events reporting strategies.

Narcolepsy — A Confirmed Adverse Effect of European Flu Vaccines

A recent example of the devastating harm that can occur from a single dose of a vaccine and the side effects of the 2009-2010 H1N1 flu vaccine licensed in Europe, which caused some 800+ cases of narcolepsy in Sweden and other European countries14. According to a retroactive analysis recently published in the British Medical Journal15, the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix, which contained an oil in water adjuvant, AS03, resulted in a 10-fold increased risk of the sleep disorder. The authors write:

“’The increased risk of narcolepsy after vaccination with ASO3 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 vaccine indicates a causal association, consistent with findings from Finland. Because of variable delay in diagnosis, however, the risk might be overestimated by more rapid referral of vaccinated children.’

…Our attributable risk estimate of between one in 57 500 and 52 000 doses was lower than reported from Finland (one in 16 000), despite a similar odds ratio/relative risk and annual incidence before vaccine, which was 0.42 per 100 000 in our study (based on the 29 incident cases in 2008) and 0.31 in Finland between 2002 and 2009. This could be because of differences in population susceptibility or because proportionately more vaccine in Finland was given to adolescents, in whom incidence is highest.”

Why We Must Fight to Protect Philosophical Exemption to Vaccination

Informed consent to medical risk taking is a human right. You have the right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical products – like vaccines – and be allowed to make a voluntary choice about whether to take the risk without being punished for it. More than $2.5 billion dollars has been awarded to children and adults in America, who have been seriously injured by vaccines. Yet those rights are increasingly being taken away from us.

For example, last year in Vermont, the legal right to take a vaccine exemption for philosophical beliefs was threatened with bills promoted by two Vermont legislators, State Senator Kevin Mullin and State Representative George Till. They joined with the Vermont Health Commissioner, Dr. Harry Chen, to lead a crusade to take away philosophical exemption to vaccination but the bills went down in defeat after supporters of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) and Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice educated legislators and the public about the need to keep the philosophical exemption from being stripped from Vermont public health laws.

In the following video, Barbara Loe Fisher of the NVIC interviews Nicole, a Vermont mother, whose seven year old daughter, Kaylynne, died within 92 hours of a routine flu shot in December 2011. Nicole believes that parents should be fully informed and able to make voluntary decisions about vaccination for their children.

“If I would have known the reactions and symptoms of adverse reactions to vaccination, I would have had her seen immediately. If I would have known about the risks and symptoms, I would have been most likely able to save my daughter,” said Nicole. “I feel that Vermonters need to be educated and be able to make their own decisions on whether or not they want to vaccinate their children and pediatricians and physicians, as well, need to be more educated.”

While the NVIC led a successful effort with the Vermont parent group to preserve the philosophical exemption to vaccination in Vermont last year, legislators in Vermont are coming around again this session, attacking the philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccination. They now want to pass a law (HB138) that says that if vaccination rates in schools gets below 90 percent then both those exemptions will be suspended. VT legislators also have introduced a bill that would require pertussis vaccinations for childcare workers and teachers (HB 114).

Vaccinations? Know the Risks and Failures

The NVIC is currently running a billboard campaign in a few different states. In Illinois, the billboard is located on 1409 Roselle Road in Roselle, where it will remain until March 24.

How to Protect Yourself During the Flu Season

Also be aware that one of the main staples for treating pain and cold symptoms, acetaminophen, is a leading cause for calls to the Poison Control Center, and accounts for 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and an estimated 458 deaths annually.16

Avoiding a serious case of influenza is not about vaccination but more about maintaining a healthy, well functioning immune system. By following these simple guidelines, you can help keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you’re far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with or, if you do get sick with the flu, you are better prepared to move through it without complications and soon return to good health.

  • Optimize Your Gut Flora. This may be the single most important strategy you can implement as the bacteria in your gut have enormous control of your immune response. The best way to improve your beneficial bacteria ratio is avoid sugars as they will feed the pathogenic bacteria. Additionally, processed foods and most grains should be limited and replacing with healthy fats like coconut oil, avocados, olives, olive oil, butter, eggs and nuts. Once you change your diet then regular use of fermented foods can radically optimize the function of your immune response.
  • Optimize your vitamin D levels. As I’ve previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency may actually be the true culprit behind the seasonality of the flu – not the flu virus itself. This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take. Regularly monitor your vitamin D levels to confirm your levels are within the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml.

Ideally, you’ll want to get all your vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed, but you can also take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. According to the latest review by Carole Baggerly, (Grassrootshealth.org), adults need about 8,000 IU’s a day. Be sure to take vitamin K2 if you are taking oral vitamin D as it has a powerful synergy and will help prevent any D toxicity. But be sure and get your level tested as that is the only way to know for sure.

  • Avoid Sugar and Processed Foods. Sugar impairs the quality of your immune response almost immediately, and as you likely know, a healthy immune system is one of the most important keys to fighting off viruses and other illness. It also can decimate your beneficial bacteria and feed the pathogenic yeast and viruses. Be aware that sugar (typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup) is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice. If you are healthy then sugar can be consumed but the LAST thing you should be eating when you are sick is sugar. Avoid it like poison while you are sick.
  • Get Plenty of Rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you’re tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night’s Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest.
  • Have Effective Tools to Address Stress. We all face some stress every day, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness. If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique, which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma.
  • Get Regular Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads. Be sure to stay hydrated – drink plenty of fluids, especially water. However, it would be wise to radically reduce the intensity of your workouts while you are sick. No Peak Fitness exercises until you are better.
  • Take a High Quality Source of Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils that are trans fats and in processed foods as it will seriously damage your immune response.
  • Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don’t use antibacterial soap for this – antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
  • Tried and True Hygiene Measures. In addition to washing your hands regularly, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze. If possible, avoid close contact with those, who are sick and, if you are sick, avoid close contact with those who are well.
  • Use Natural Immune Boosters. Examples include oil of oregano and garlic. Unlike pharmaceutical drugs, they do not appear to lead to resistance.
  • Avoid Hospitals. I’d recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you’re having an emergency and need expert medical care, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds. The best place to get plenty of rest and recover from illness that is not life-threatening is usually in the comfort of your own home.

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to informed consent to vaccination and fight to protect and expand vaccine exemptions in state public health laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact. It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your Smart Phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choices and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips..

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:

  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

Source: mercola.com

Should Factory-Farmed Foods Be Labeled?

Posted by

1


food-label

A growing number of organic consumers, natural health advocates and climate hawks are taking a more comprehensive look at the fundamental causes of global warming.

It has led them to this sobering conclusion: Our modern energy-, chemical- and GMO-intensive industrial food and farming systems are the major cause of man-made global warming.

How did they reach this conclusion? First, by taking a more inclusive look at the scientific data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – not just carbon dioxide (CO2), but also methane and nitrous oxide.

Next, by doing a full accounting of the fossil fuel consumption and emissions of the entire industrial food and farming cycle, including inputs, equipment, production, processing, distribution, heating, cooling and waste. And finally, by factoring in the indirect impacts of contemporary agriculture, which include deforestation and wetlands destruction.

When you add it all up, the picture is clear: Contemporary agriculture is burning up our planet, and factory farms or, in industry lingo, Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), play a key role in this impending disaster.

The Global Impact of Factory Farming

The science behind global warming is complex. Without question, coal plants, tar sands and natural gas fracking have contributed heavily to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, the major cause of global warming. We must unite to shut down these industries.

Similarly, consumer overconsumption of fossil fuels represents another big piece of the climate-crisis equation. We absolutely must rethink, retrofit and/or redesign our gas-guzzling cars and our energy-inefficient buildings, if we want to reduce fossil fuel use by 90 percent over the next few decades.

But we also must address the environmental impact of factory farming.

Today, nearly 65 billion animals worldwide, including cows, chickens and pigs, are crammed into CAFOs. These animals are literally imprisoned and tortured in unhealthy, unsanitary and unconscionably cruel conditions.

Sickness is the norm for animals who are confined rather than pastured, and who eat genetically engineered (GE) corn and soybeans, rather than grass and forage as nature intended.

To prevent the inevitable spread of disease from stress, overcrowding and lack of vitamin D, animals are fed a steady diet of antibiotics. Those antibiotics pose a direct threat to the environment when they run off into our lakes, rivers, aquifers and drinking water.

How Factory Farms Affect Global Climate

CAFOs contribute directly to global warming by releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – more than the entire global transportation industry. The air at some factory farm test sites in the US is dirtier than in America’s most polluted cities.

According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, including 37 percent of methane emissions and 65 percent of nitrous oxide emissions.

The methane releases from billions of imprisoned animals on factory farms are 70 times more damaging per ton to the earth’s atmosphere than CO2.

Indirectly, factory farms contribute to climate disruption by their impact on deforestation and draining of wetlands, and because of the nitrous oxide emissions from huge amounts of nitrate fertilizers used to grow the genetically engineered corn and soy fed to animals raised in CAFOs.

Nitrous oxide pollution is even worse than methane – 200 times more damaging per ton than CO2. And just as animal waste leaches antibiotics and hormones into ground and water, pesticides and fertilizers also eventually find their way into our waterways, further damaging the environment.

CAFOs — A Major Contributor to Poor Health

Factory farms aren’t just a disaster for the environment. They’re also ruining our health. A growing chorus of scientists and public health advocates warn that the intensive and reckless use of antibiotics and growth hormones leads to factory-farmed food1 that contains antibiotic-resistant pathogens, drug residues such as hormones and growth promoters, and “bad fats.”

Yet despite these health and environmental hazards, the vast majority of consumers don’t realize that nearly 95 percent of the meat, dairy and eggs sold in the U.S. come from CAFOs. Nor do most people realize that CAFOs represent a corporate-controlled system characterized by large-scale, centralized, low profit-margin production, processing and distribution systems.

There’s an alternative: A socially responsible, small-scale system created by independent producers and processors focused on local and regional markets. This alternative produces high-quality food, and supports farmers who produce healthy, meat, eggs and dairy products using humane methods. And it’s far easier on the environment.

Why We Need to Label Factory-Farmed Food

Consumers can boycott food products from factory farms and choose the more environmentally-friendly alternatives. But first, we have to regain the right to know what’s in our food. And that means mandatory labeling, not only of genetically engineered foods, but of the 95 percent of non-organic, non-grass-fed meat, dairy and eggs that are produced on the hellish factory farms that today dominate US food production.

In 2013, a new alliance of organic and natural health consumers, animal welfare advocates, anti-GMO and climate-change activists will tackle the next big food labeling battle: meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on factory farms, or CAFOs.

This campaign will start with a massive program to educate consumers about the negative impacts of factory farming on the environment, on human health and on animal welfare, and then move forward to organize and mobilize millions of consumers to demand labels on beef, pork, poultry and dairy products derived from these unhealthy and unsustainable so-called “farming” practices.

Opponents and skeptics will ask, “What about feeding the world?” Contrary to popular arguments, factory farming is not a cheap, efficient solution to world hunger. Feeding huge numbers of confined animals actually uses more food, in the form of grains that could feed humans, than it produces. For every 100 food calories of edible crops fed to livestock, we get back just 30 calories in the form of meat and dairy. That’s a 70-percent loss.

With the earth’s population predicted to reach nine billion by mid-century, the planet can no longer afford this reckless, unhealthy and environmentally disastrous farming system. We believe that once people know the whole truth about CAFOs they will want to make healthier, more sustainable food choices. And to do that, we’ll have to fight for the consumer’s right to know not only what is in our food, but where our food comes from.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.

  • No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
  • If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
  • For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

About the Author

Ronnie Cummins is the founder and Director of the Organic Consumers Association. He has been a writer and activist since the 1960s, with massive expertise in human rights, anti-war, anti-nuclear, consumer, labor, environmental, and sustainable agricultural areas.  He is the author of several published articles, a children’s book series called Children of the World, and Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.

About the Organic Consumers Association

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 public interest organization promoting health, justice, and sustainability. It prides itself as the only organization in the United States focused on promoting the views and interests of the country’s estimated 76 million organic and socially responsible consumers.

The OCA participates in the important issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children’s health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, and other key topics. The Organic Consumers Fund, a 501(c)4, is the OCA’s grassroots action and lobbying arm.

Source: .mercola.com

Featured in Journal Watch: More Studies from the San Francisco Cardiology Sessions.

Posted by

0


Journal Watch Cardiology summarizes three New England Journal of Medicine studies that were presented at the American College of Cardiology conference:

Nonemergency PCI seems safe to perform at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery facilities, according to a randomized study that included some 3700 patients. Three fourths underwent PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery, and the rest were transferred to hospitals with on-site facilities. The rate of a composite outcome (death, MI, repeat revascularization, or stroke) did not differ between the groups at either 30 days or 12 months.

In two studies of relatively high-risk patients undergoing CABG, use or nonuse of cardiopulmonary bypass had no significant effect on the rate of composite outcomes that included death, MI, stroke, repeat revascularization, or renal failure. Joel M. Gore comments that the choice regarding cardiopulmonary bypass “thus depends chiefly on operator expertise and individual patient characteristics and preferences.”

Source: Journal Watch Cardiology

About a Quarter of Screening Colonoscopies in U.S. Elderly Seem Inappropriate.

Posted by

0


Roughly 25% of screening colonoscopies done among the elderly may be inappropriate, according to a JAMA Internal Medicine study of Medicare data.

Researchers examined claims data on some 75,000 Texas Medicare recipients aged 70 or older who underwent complete colonoscopy in a 1-year period starting in 2008. Procedures that were repeated early without a clear indication, or those that were done contrary to published guidelines with regard to age, were considered possibly inappropriate. In addition, a 5% national Medicare sample was also examined.

Overall, 23.4% of the cohort were found to have undergone a potentially inappropriate procedure. There was marked variation geographically both within Texas and the U.S., as well as among colonoscopists, some of whom had rates of potentially inappropriate colonoscopies above 45% (they tended to be surgeons and graduates of U.S. medical schools).

Source: JAMA

Pertussis Immunity Drops Soon After the Last Vaccine Dose Is Given.

Posted by

0


The incidence of pertussis in children rises steadily in the years immediately following receipt of the fifth dose of the diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, according to a study in Pediatrics.

Researchers examined the incidence of pertussis among more than 400,000 children in Minnesota and Oregon who’d received all five doses of DTaP, with the fifth dose given between ages 4 and 6 years. In the 6 years after the last dose was received, some 550 pertussis cases were identified. The incidence rose steadily with each passing year.

The authors say their findings “strongly [suggest] waning of vaccine-induced immunity,” which “helps to explain the emergence of an increased burden of disease among 7- to 10-year-olds.” (Currently, the adolescent booster is recommended at ages 11 to 12 years.)

Source: Pediatrics

How Intermittent Fasting Stacks Up Among Obesity-Related Myths, Assumptions, and Evidence-Backed Facts .

Posted by

0


 

fasting

Is it a good idea to “starve” yourself just a little bit each day? The evidence suggests that yes, avoiding eating around the clock could have a very beneficial impact on your health and longevity.

What we’re talking about here is generally referred to as intermittent fasting, which involves timing your meals to allow for regular periods of fasting.

It takes about six to eight hours for your body to metabolize your glycogen stores and after that you start to shift to burning fat. However, if you are replenishing your glycogen by eating every eight hours (or sooner), you make it far more difficult for your body to use your fat stores as fuel.

It’s long been known that restricting calories in certain animals can increase their lifespan by as much as 50 percent, but more recent research suggests that sudden and intermittent calorie restriction appears to provide the same health benefits as constant calorie restriction, which may be helpful for those who cannot successfully reduce their everyday calorie intake (or aren’t willing to).

Unfortunately, hunger is a basic human drive that can’t be easily suppressed, so anyone attempting to implement serious calorie restriction is virtually guaranteed to fail. Fortunately you don’t have to deprive yourself as virtually all of the benefits from calorie restriction can be achieved through properly applied intermittent fasting.

Three Major Mechanisms by which Fasting Benefits Your Health

While fasting has long gotten a bum rap for being one of the more torturous ways to battle the bulge, it really doesn’t have to be an arduous affair. We’re NOT talking about starving yourself for days on end. Simply restricting your daily eating to a narrower window of time of say 6-8 hours, you can reap the benefits without the suffering. This equates to 16-18 hours worth of fasting each and every day — enough to get your body to shift into fat-burning mode.

Many studies have evaluated daily intermittent fasting, and the results are compellingly positive. Three major mechanisms by which fasting benefits your body, as it extends lifespan and protects against disease, include:

  1. Increased insulin sensitivity and mitochondrial energy efficiency – Fasting increases insulin sensitivity along with mitochondrial energy efficiency, and thereby retards aging and disease, which are typically associated with loss of insulin sensitivity and declined mitochondrial energy.
  2. Reduced oxidative stress – Fasting decreases the accumulation of oxidative radicals in the cell, and thereby prevents oxidative damage to cellular proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids associated with aging and disease.
  3. Increased capacity to resist stress, disease and aging – Fasting induces a cellular stress response (similar to that induced by exercise) in which cells up-regulate the expression of genes that increase the capacity to cope with stress and resist disease and aging.

Is Daily Fasting the Key to Permanent Weight Loss?

As reported by George Dvorsky1 in a recent article, one of the most important studies in support of daily intermittent fasting was published just last year by biologist Satchidananda Panda and colleagues at Salk’s Regulatory Biology Laboratory. They fed mice a high-fat, high-calorie diet but altered when they were able to eat.

One group had access to food both day and night, while the other group had access to food for only eight hours at night (the most active period for mice). In human terms, this would mean eating only for 8 hours during the day. Despite consuming the same amount of calories, mice that had access to food for only eight hours stayed lean and did not develop health problems like high blood sugar or chronic inflammation2. They even had improved endurance motor coordination on the exercise wheel. The all-day access group, on the other hand, became obese and were plagued with health problems including:

This suggests that your body may benefit from the break it receives while fasting, whereas constant eating may lead to metabolic exhaustion and health consequences like weight gain. Researchers said their latest work shows it’s possible to stave off metabolic disease by simply restricting when you eat with periodic fasting, or even by just keeping to regular meal schedules rather than “grazing” off and on all day. They concluded:

“[Time-restricted feeding] is a nonpharmacological strategy against obesity and associated diseases.”

What the Research Says about Intermittent Fasting

Dvorsky highlights other research into fasting that point to similar conclusions, such as:

  • Research by Valter Longo3 at the University of Southern California’s Longevity Institute shows that intermittent fasting has a beneficial impact on IGF-1, an insulin-like growth factor that plays a role in aging. When you eat, this hormone drives your cells to reproduce, and while this is good for growth, it’s also a factor that drives the aging process. Intermittent fasting decreases the expression of IGF-1, and switches on other DNA repair genes. In this way, intermittent fasting switches your body from “growth mode” to “repair mode.”
  • Krista Varady with the University of Illinois has been researching the impact of fasting on chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer. Her work also compares the effects of intermittent fasting with caloric restriction, which is known to benefit health and longevity. Animal studies using alternate-day fasting4 have shown it lowers the risk of diabetes, at rates comparable to caloric restriction. Alternate-day fasting has also been shown to reduce cancer rates by reducing cell proliferation.
  • Research by Mark Hartman and colleagues5 indicates short-term fasting can trigger production of human growth hormone (HGH) in men, and reduce oxidative stress that contributes to disease and aging; benefits brain health, mental well-being, and clarity of thought

Review Debunks Myths about Weight Loss, Obesity

Intermittent fasting is one of the latest weight management strategies to get a lot of press. Meanwhile, other weight loss myths are being debunked. Dr. David B. Allison, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama, and colleagues recently published a paper on Myths, Presumptions, and Facts about Obesity6, stating:

“Many beliefs about obesity persist in the absence of supporting scientific evidence (presumptions); some persist despite contradicting evidence (myths). The promulgation of unsupported beliefs may yield poorly informed policy decisions, inaccurate clinical and public health recommendations, and an unproductive allocation of research resources and may divert attention away from useful, evidence-based information.”

The team identified:

  • Seven obesity-related myths concerning the effects of small sustained increases in energy intake or expenditure, establishment of realistic goals for weight loss, rapid weight loss, weight-loss readiness, physical-education classes, breast-feeding, and energy expended during sexual activity. These include:
    • Small things make a big difference. Walking a mile a day can lead to a loss of more than 50 pounds in five years.
    • Set a realistic goal to lose a modest amount.
    • People who are too ambitious will get frustrated and give up.
    • You have to be mentally ready to diet or you will never succeed.
    • Slow and steady is the way to lose. If you lose weight too fast, you will lose less in the long run.
  • Six presumptions that have yet to be proven true or false about the effects of regularly eating breakfast, early childhood experiences, eating fruits and vegetables, weight cycling, snacking, and the built (i.e., human-made) environment, such as:
    • Diet and exercise habits in childhood set the stage for the rest of life.
    • Add lots of fruits and vegetables to your diet to lose weight or not gain as much.
    • Yo-yo diets lead to increased death rates.
    • People who snack gain weight and get fat.
    • If you add bike paths, jogging trails, sidewalks and parks, people will not be as fat.
  • Nine evidence-supported facts that are relevant for the formulation of sound public health, policy, or clinical recommendations, including:
    • Heredity is important but is not destiny.
    • Exercise helps with weight maintenance.
    • Weight loss is greater with programs that provide meals.
    • Some prescription drugs help with weight loss and maintenance.
    • Weight-loss surgery in appropriate patients can lead to long-term weight loss, less diabetes and a lower death rate

What I feel is missing here is the focus on an all-around healthy lifestyle pattern. Can you lose weight on prescription drugs? Yes. Does the research support this as “fact”? Yes. But this does NOT automatically mean that recommending diet drugs is good public health policy! Will diet drugs have a beneficial impact on your health in the long run? Do potential side effects of the drugs outweigh the benefit of losing weight?

Ditto for bariatric surgery. Does it lead to weight loss? Yes! But the side effects can be severe, including death, and several studies have shown the long-term outcome in terms of overall health is not that great…

Some of the items listed as myths and presumptions are simply common-sense guidelines and “helpful tips” that can help you maintain a healthier lifestyle, which will inevitably form the foundation of good health. So I would advise you to differentiate between “established scientific fact” (such as: weight loss surgery leads to weight loss) and what amounts to holistic healthy lifestyle guidelines, as the two are not necessarily interchangeable.

If your goal is to promote health, then supporting the addition of bike paths in your communities is not a crazy idea at all. In fact, some of these myths and presumptions are sort of silly, as when you talk about things like “can adding jogging trails and parks promote healthier weight?” You also have to consider the fact that there is social conditioning at work, and people have to start to rethink how they live their daily lives in order to see a change. This can take time. Having a public policy that tells you to get bariatric surgery instead of going for a walk every day is nothing short of crazy if you really think about it…

Clinical Trial to Be Conducted to Test Whether Skipping Breakfast Leads to Weight Loss

According to the New York Times7:

“… people often rely on weak studies that get repeated ad infinitum. It is commonly thought, for example, that people who eat breakfast are thinner. But that notion is based on studies of people who happened to eat breakfast. Researchers then asked if they were fatter or thinner than people who happened not to eat breakfast — and found an association between eating breakfast and being thinner. But such studies can be misleading because the two groups might be different in other ways that cause the breakfast eaters to be thinner. But no one has randomly assigned people to eat breakfast or not, which could cinch the argument.

… The question is: ‘Is it a causal association?’ To get the answer, he added, ‘Do the clinical trial.’

He decided to do it himself, with university research funds. A few hundred people will be recruited and will be randomly assigned to one of three groups. Some will be told to eat breakfast every day, others to skip breakfast, and the third group will be given vague advice about whether to eat it or not.”

Is Intermittent Fasting Right for You?

If you’re already off to a good start on a healthy diet and fitness plan, then intermittent fasting might be just the thing to bring you to the next level. However, you need to pay careful attention to your body, your energy levels, and how it makes you feel in general.

Please keep in mind that proper nutrition becomes even MORE important when fasting, so addressing your diet really should be your first step. Common sense will tell you that fasting combined with a denatured, highly processed, toxin-rich diet is likely to do more harm than good, as you’re not giving your body proper fuel to thrive when you DO eat.

If you’re hypoglycemic, diabetic, or pregnant (and/or breastfeeding), you are better off avoiding any type of fasting or timed meal schedule until you’ve normalized your blood glucose and insulin levels, or weaned the baby. Others categories of people that would be best served to avoid fasting include those living with chronic stress, and those with cortisol dysregulation.

Signs and Symptoms of Hypoglycemia

Hypoglycemia is a condition characterized by an abnormally low level of blood sugar. It’s commonly associated with diabetes, but you can be hypoglycemic even if you’re not diabetic. Common symptoms of a hypoglycemic crash include:

  • Headache
  • Weakness
  • Tremors
  • Irritability
  • Hunger

As your blood glucose levels continue to plummet, more severe symptoms can set in, such as:

  • Confusion and/or abnormal behavior
  • Visual disturbances, such as double vision and blurred vision
  • Seizures
  • Loss of consciousness

One of the keys to eliminating hypoglycemia is to eliminate sugars, especially fructose from your diet. It will also be helpful to eliminate grains, and replace them with higher amounts of quality proteins and healthful fats. However it will take some time for your blood sugar to normalize. You’ll want to pay careful attention to hypoglycemic signs and symptoms, and if you suspect that you’re crashing, make sure to eat something.The ideal food would be coconut oil as it will not worsen your insulin levels and is metabolized relatively quickly for energy. You can try some coconut candy, for example. Ideally, you should avoid fasting if you’re hypoglycemic, and work on your overall diet to normalize your blood sugar levels first. Then try out one of the less rigid versions of fasting and work your way up.

Fasting While Pregnant is Not a Good Idea…

As for pregnant and/or lactating women, I don’t think fasting would be a wise choice. Your baby needs plenty of nutrients, during and after birth, and there’s no research supporting fasting during this important time. On the contrary, some studies8 suggest it might be contraindicated, as it can alter fetal breathing patterns, heartbeat, and increase gestational diabetes. It may even induce premature labor. I don’t think it’s worth the risk.

Instead, my recommendation would be to really focus on improving your nutrition during this crucial time. A diet with plenty of raw organic, biodynamic foods, and foods high in healthful fats, coupled with high quality proteins will give your baby a head start on good health. You’ll also want to be sure to include plenty of cultured and fermented foods to optimize your — and consequently your baby’s — gut flora. For more information, please see this previous article that includes specific dietary recommendations for a healthy pregnancy, as well as my interview with Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride.

Finding a Lifestyle Plan that Works for You Requires Trial and Error

While intermittent fasting can provide valuable health benefits, remember that fasting does not mean abstaining from ALL food for extended periods of time. Rather it involves a dramatic reduction of calorie intake at regular intervals — whether you opt for a 16, 20, or 24 hour fast once or twice a week, or fasting every other day, or simply delaying certain meals, such as skipping breakfast.

Just remember, it takes about six to eight hours for your body to metabolize your glycogen stores and only after that do you start to shift to burning fat, but only if you are already adapted to burning fat by having your fat burning enzymes upregulated by the strategy discussed above, which takes anywhere from a few weeks to a few months, depending on how healthy you are.

Always listen to your body, and go slow; work your way up to 16-18 hour fasts if your normal schedule has included multiple meals a day. Also be sure to address any hypoglycemic tendencies, as it can get increasingly dangerous the longer you go without eating to level out your blood sugar.

Source: mercola.com

The role of vitamin D in chronic heart failure .

Posted by

0


Vitamin D is an emerging agent with tremendous potential and may represent a novel target for therapy in congestive heart failure (CHF). Further studies are needed to identify the mechanism(s) involved in the pathophysiology as well as to adequately examine the role of Vitamin D measurement and supplementation in patients with CHF.

  • Despite advanced medical and device–based therapies, congestive heart failure (CHF) remains a major medical problem, associated with significant morbidity and mortality.
  • Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent in CHF and is associated with poor outcomes.
  • In this manuscript the authors review the evidence linking vitamin D deficiency and CHF and discuss potential mechanisms involved, as well the clinical data on vitamin D supplementation in CHF patients.
  • A clear relationship has been established between Vitamin D deficiency and increased mortality and morbidity in CHF.
  • However, the mechanism involved is not clearly understood.
  • Recent clinical and experimental evidence have identified the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and inflammatory cytokines as likely mediators that can lead to poor clinical outcomes via the cardiorenal syndrome.
  • Clinical data on vitamin D supplementation also remain unestablished, with potential clinical benefits recently reported in patients with vitamin D deficiency.
  • Nonetheless, large–scale randomized clinical trials are lacking.

Source: Current Opinion in Cardiology

Lowering Your Blood Pressure Using Drugs May Increase Your Risk of Death, Study Shows .

Posted by

0


 

blood-pressure

Hypertension is dangerous if uncontrolled, increasing your risk for heart attack and stroke. But using drugs to lower your blood pressure may shorten your lifespan instead of extending it, according to the results of a University of Florida study.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association,1 suggests that when it comes to blood pressure medication, less is more.

This is another example of using drugs to “Band Aid” a health problem without addressing the underlying cause. There is a major difference between achieving a healthy blood pressure number by eating well, exercising and managing stress, versus “forcing” your body to produce that number with a drug.

Drugs promised to be safe have, on many occasions, done more harm than good, yet blood pressure medications join sleeping pills and painkillers as some of the most popular drugs in America.

Be Careful—Blood Pressure Drugs May Backfire On You

The featured study was performed on individuals age 50 and up who had been diagnosed with both type 2 diabetes and CAD (coronary artery disease). The standard hypertension guidelines for diabetics suggest maintaining a systolic blood pressure under 130 mm Hg, but there is little data for the growing number of diabetics who also have CAD. This study aimed at filling that informational gap.

Each person in the study received one or more blood pressure medications (a combination of calcium antagonist, beta-blocker, ACE inhibitor, and diuretic) in whatever combination required to achieve a systolic blood pressure less than 130 mm Hg.

Researchers discovered that tighter control of blood pressure in these patients was NOT associated with better outcomes! The uncontrolled group fared worst, which wasn’t surprising. But the group whose systolic blood pressure was held between 130 and 140 actually showed a slightly lower risk of death than the group whose systolic was maintained at the recommended level—under 130 mm Hg. The authors write:2

“In this observational study, we have shown for the first time, to our knowledge, that decreasing systolic BP to lower than 130 mm Hg in patients with diabetes and CAD was not associated with further reduction in morbidity beyond that associated with systolic BP lower than 140 mm Hg, and, in fact, was associated with an increase in risk of all-cause mortality. Moreover, the increased mortality risk persisted over the long term.”

Tight Control Group

12.7 percent risk for death

Usual Control Group

12.6 percent risk for death

Uncontrolled Group

19.8 percent risk for death

Is It ‘Pharmageddon’?

This isn’t the first time pharmaceutical drugs have backfired. In fact, prescription drugs now kill more people than illegal drugs. Death by prescription drugs is a 21st-century epidemic, now killing even more Americans than motor vehicle accidents.

Drug fatalities more than doubled for teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, and more than tripled among people age 50 to 69. It’s estimated there are 450,000 preventable adverse events related to medications in the U.S. every year, accounting for a substantial proportion of emergency room visits.

In a June 2010 report in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, almost a quarter of a million deaths resulted from in-hospital medication errors between the 1976 and 2006, based on a review of 62 million death certificates.

This doesn’t include the people who died after taking drugs exactly as prescribed! And when you add in deaths from hospital-acquired infections, unnecessary medical procedures, and adverse surgical outcomes, conventional medicine should top the list of the leading causes of death in the United States.

The Little-Known Connection Between Carbohydrates and Your Blood Pressure.

The good news is, the vast majority of you don’t need prescription drugs to normalize your blood pressure. In most cases, hypertension can be reversed with a few basic adjustments to your diet and lifestyle.

Are you on a high grain, low fat regimen? If so, I have bad news for you. This nutritional regimen is a prescription for many to develop hypertension. For years I’ve been advocating avoiding wheat, and this advice is finally making its way into the mainstream. The LA Times just featured an article discussing how wheat (and low-fat diets) contribute to inflammation, heart disease, diabetes, joint pain and many other chronic health problems. Cardiologist William Davis is quoted as saying:3

“Eat more fat. Eat as little grain as possible. Grains don’t really belong in the human experience.”

This is not new information. Scientific research published way back in 1998 in the journal Diabetes reported that nearly two-thirds of the test subjects who were insulin resistant also had high blood pressure. Insulin resistance is directly attributable to a high sugar, high grain diet, especially if accompanied by inadequate exercise.

So, chances are that if you have hypertension, you also have poorly controlled blood sugar levels, because these two problems often go hand in hand. As your insulin level increases, so does your blood pressure.

Along with excessive carbohydrates, most people are consuming inadequate dietary fats, in terms of both quality and quantity. Contrary to what you’ve been told, glucose is not the preferred fuel of human metabolism—fat is. And fat doesn’t make you fat—excess carbohydrates make you fat. I believe that most people would benefit by consuming around 50 to 70 percent of their diet as beneficial fats. Sources of healthy fats include

Olives and Olive oil (for cold dishes)

Coconuts, and coconut oil (for all types of cooking and baking)

Butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk

Raw nuts, such as, almonds or pecans

Organic pastured egg yolks

Avocados

Pasture finished meats

Palm oil (make sure it’s the eco-friendly variety!)4

Unheated organic nut oils

My Prescription for Achieving Healthy Blood Pressure WITHOUT Drugs

  • Replace most of your carbs with non-starchy vegetables and replace the lost calories with healthy fats as mentioned above
  • Normalize your omega 6:3 ratio. Both omega-3 and omega-6 fats are essential for your health. Most Americans, however, are getting too much omega-6 and too little omega-3 in their diets. Consuming omega-3 fats is one of the best ways to re-sensitize your insulin receptors if you suffer from insulin resistance. Omega-3 fats are also important for strong cell membranes and good arterial elasticity. The best sources of omega-3 fats are fish and animal products. Unfortunately, most fresh fish today contains dangerously high levels of mercury. Your best bet is to find a safe source of fish, or if this proves too difficult, supplement with a high quality krill oil.
  • Eliminate caffeine. The connection between caffeine consumption and high blood pressure is not well understood, but there is ample evidence to indicate that if you have hypertension, coffee and other caffeinated drinks and foods can ex­acerbate your condition.
  • Consume fermented foods. Disturbances in gut flora appear to be a significant factor in the development of heart disease, as well as in many other chronic health problems. The best way to optimize your gut flora is by including some naturally fermented foods in your diet, such as sauerkraut and other fermented vegetables, yogurt, kefir, cheese and natto. Fermented foods (especially gouda and edam cheeses) are an important source of vitamin K2, which plays a crucial role in protecting your heart and brain.
  • Optimize your vitamin D level. Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to metabolic syndrome, as well as to high blood pressure. Vitamin D is a negative inhibitor of your body’s renin-angiotensin system (RAS), which regulates blood pressure. If you’re vitamin D deficient, it can cause inappropriate activation of your RAS, which may lead to hypertension. Ideally, you’ll want to get your vitamin D by safely exposing your skin to the sun, or using a safe tanning bed. If those are not possible, then consider taking a vitamin D3 supplement.
  • Make exercise a priority. A comprehensive exercise regimen such as my Peak Fitness program is very important in maintaining a healthy cardiovascular system. Your routine should incorporate high-intensity burst-type exercises and weight training one to three times a week, as these have been shown to be even more effective than aerobic exercises at reducing your risk of dying from a heart attack.
  • Get Grounded. Lack of grounding, due to widespread use of rubber or plastic-souled shoes, is likely contributing to chronic inflammation today. When you walk on the earth barefoot there is a massive transfer of beneficial electrons rom the Earth into your body. Experiments show that walking barefoot outside improves blood viscosity and blood flow, which help regulate blood pressure.So, do yourself a favor and put your bare feet upon the sand or dewy grass to harness the healing power of the Earth.
  • Manage your stress. It’s a well-known fact that stress elevates blood pressure, so controlling stress is an essential element of good heart health. My preferred stress-busting tool is Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), which is easy to learn and easy to use. However, you might find other methods like yoga, meditation, or prayer, equally effective.

Final Words

High blood pressure is reaching epidemic proportions in the Western world. Hypertension is best addressed using a natural approach, as opposed to a cocktail of prescription drugs that may actually backfire on you. One study showed that tighter control of blood pressure using pharmaceutical drugs is NOT associated with better outcomes and in fact may shorten your lifespan. Lifestyle changes, with particular emphasis on normalizing your insulin levels, will put you on the safest and most reliable path toward optimal health.

Source: mercola.com

Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation to Prevent Fractures in Adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement .

Posted by

0


 

New U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on vitamin D and calcium supplementation to prevent fractures in adults.

Methods

  • The USPSTF commissioned 2 systematic evidence reviews and a meta–analysis on vitamin D supplementation with or without calcium to assess the effects of supplementation on bone health outcomes in community–dwelling adults, the association of vitamin D and calcium levels with bone health outcomes, and the adverse effects of supplementation.
  • These recommendations apply to noninstitutionalized or community–dwelling asymptomatic adults without a history of fractures. This recommendation does not apply to the treatment of persons with osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency.

Results

  • The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of combined vitamin D and calcium supplementation for the primary prevention of fractures in premenopausal women or in men. (I statement)
  • T he USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of daily supplementation with greater than 400 IU of vitamin D3 and greater than 1000 mg of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women. (I statement)
  • The USPSTF recommends against daily supplementation with 400 IU or less of vitamin D3 and 1000 mg or less of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women. (D recommendation)
  • The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that daily supplementation with 400 IU or less of vitamin D3 and 1000 mg or less of calcium has no net benefit for the primary prevention of fractures
  • The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about the effectiveness of specific clinical preventive services for patients without related signs or symptoms.
  • It bases its recommendations on the evidence of both the benefits and harms of the service and an assessment of the balance. The USPSTF does not consider the costs of providing a service in this assessment
  • The USPSTF recognizes that clinical decisions involve more considerations than evidence alone. Clinicians should understand the evidence but individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation. Similarly, the USPSTF notes that policy and coverage decisions involve considerations in addition to the evidence of clinical benefits and harms.

Source: Annals of Internal Medicine

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

Posted by

0


Rituximab plus chemotherapy, most often CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced indolent lymphoma, and for elderly patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. Bendamustine plus rituximab is effective for relapsed or refractory disease. We compared bendamustine plus rituximab with CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP) as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas.
METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial at 81 centres in Germany between Sept 1, 2003, and Aug 31, 2008. Patients aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 2 or less were eligible if they had newly diagnosed stage III or IV indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma. Patients were stratified by histological lymphoma subtype, then randomly assigned according to a prespecified randomisation list to receive either intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of a 4-week cycle) or CHOP (cycles every 3 weeks of cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) on day 1, and prednisone 100 mg/day for 5 days) for a maximum of six cycles. Patients in both groups received rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00991211, and the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices of Germany, BfArM 4021335.
FINDINGS: 274 patients were assigned to bendamustine plus rituximab (261 assessed) and 275 to R-CHOP (253 assessed). At median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 25-57), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in the R-CHOP group (69.5 months [26.1 to not yet reached] vs 31.2 months [15.2-65.7]; hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.74; p<0.0001). Bendamustine plus rituximab was better tolerated than R-CHOP, with lower rates of alopecia (0 patients vs 245 (100%) of 245 patients who recieved >/=3 cycles; p<0.0001), haematological toxicity (77 [30%] vs 173 [68%]; p<0.0001), infections (96 [37%] vs 127 [50%]); p=0.0025), peripheral neuropathy (18 [7%] vs 73 [29%]; p<0.0001), and stomatitis (16 [6%] vs 47 [19%]; p<0.0001). Erythematous skin reactions were more common in patients in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in those in the R-CHOP group (42 [16%] vs 23 [9%]; p=0.024).
INTERPRETATION: In patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoma, bendamustine plus rituximab can be considered as a preferred first-line treatment approach to R-CHOP because of increased progression-free survival and fewer toxic effects.

Source: Lancet.