Tag: toxic

  • Gut-Wrenching Dangers of ROUNDUP

    Systemic pesticides are in the plant, not on it. When we make the plant itself poisonous to predators, one has to wonder what (or who) else it’s poisoning.

    Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the pervasive herbicide and pesticide Roundup®.  The same Roundup used as to control dandelions in your yard and weeds growing in the cracks of your walkways is sprayed on your food and you consume it on a regular basis. Monsanto, Roundup’s manufacturer, convinced the U.S. regulatory agencies over four decades ago that glyphosate is practically nontoxic to humans.

    A study published in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe reveals that Americans have applied 1.8 million tons of Roundup since its introduction in 1974. It’s enough to spray nearly half a pound of Roundup on every cultivated acre of land in the world. This is a staggering amount, says Charles Benbrook, study author.

    The sheer quantity of herbicide applied on our planet makes its contamination inescapable! It is in our soil, our water, 75% of the rain samples in the Midwest tested positive for it, it contaminates least 75% of the foods in our grocery stores (probably more). Its found in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and all the childhood vaccines. <Glyphosate testing results Moms Across America>

    No Protection from Regulatory Agencies

    Glyphosate formulations are often claimed to be safe by industry-linked sources.However, these claims are based on outdated and largely unpublished studies on the isolated ingredient glyphosate, commissioned by manufacturers in support of their application for regulatory authorization. In 2013, Monsanto requested and received approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for increased tolerance levels for glyphosate. <6>  Recent court findings show that the corporation Monsanto ghost wrote research, bought off and lied to regulatory agencies to increase the usage (and profits) of their product. <Monsanto Confidential Internal Documentation> And because of its perceived nontoxicity, the government has put minimal effort into testing residue levels in the foods that we put on our table. The crops that are engineered to resist glyphosate are highly contaminated because they take up the glyphosate and incorporate it into their tissues. <1>

     Systemic pesticides are chemicals that are actually absorbed by a plant when applied to seeds, soil, or leaves. The chemicals then circulate through the plant’s tissues, killing the insects that feed on them. Use of these pesticides on food crops began in 1998, and has steadily increased.  Unlike with traditional insecticides, you can’t wash or peel off systemic pesticide residues.
    – Mother Earth News

    You can’t wash or cook off the glyphosate residue. Contaminated crops include corn, soy, canola, alfalfa, and sugar beets. As well, many grains, legumes, and other crops are sprayed with glyphosate right before harvest as a desiccant or ripener. These include sugar cane, wheat, barley, and oats, among others. Even non-GMO crops use glyphosate just before harvest. While the FDA has a regulated ‘safe level’ limit on glyphosate contamination, they fail to take into account that it bioaccumulates in our bodies.

    Miniscule amounts of RoundUp in the parts per trillion are shown to increase the growth of breast cancer cells. Regardless of FDA limits, the reality is that there is no safe level of glyphosate consumption.

    One study out of Norway looking at Roundup Ready soybean crops confirmed the presence of glyphosate inside the beans themselves, and even Monsanto itself admits that some glyphosate remains on and in food crops like canola, cotton, and corn that are heavily sprayed with it. This means that animals and people are literally eating glyphosate in unknown amounts on a regular basis.

    Leading Researchers Agree on the Dangers of Glyphosate

    Over 100 peer reviewed papers have been published by Don Huber, Emeritus Professor at Purdue University and senior scientist on USDA’s National Plant Disease Recovery System, and other scientists on the detrimental effects of glyphosate. Glyphosate increases disease in plants (as well as animals), prompting Huber to write to the Secretary of Agriculture. Respected scientific studies show that there is a strong correlation between Glyphosate and Glyphosate formulations and serious health and environmental hazards, including disruption of hormonal systems and beneficial gut bacteria, damage to DNA, developmental and reproductive toxicity, birth defects, cancer and neurotoxicity. <6>


    How Does Glyphosate Damage the Human Body?

    Chronic toxicity—the effects of continually ingesting glyphosate residues in food—is cause for concern. Glyphosate interferes with fundamental biochemical reactions and may predispose humans to a host of health problems.

    Glyphosate performs two primary functions in agriculture – it robs plants of vital nutrients and weakens their immune defenses, resulting in their systematic destruction and eventual death.

     

    How does that affect the human body?

    1. MINERAL CHELATOR 
     
    Glyphosate was first patented as a chelator, a ‘magnet’ for drawing out metal ions in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical Co.

    In the case of plants, it binds to trace minerals and nutrients like manganese, magnesium, zinc, calcium, and iron, among many others. It does this in order to disrupt the physiological and enzymatic processes plants require for growth and life, ultimately destroying them. <8>

     According to Dr. Huber, an award-winning scientist and professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years, “It’s important to realize that glyphosate is not ‘just’ an herbicide. It was first patented as a *mineral chelator*. It immobilizes nutrients, so they’re not physiologically available for your body.”<3>

    Glyphosate chelates essential minerals iron, cobalt, manganese. Thus plants have fewer nutrients if glyphosate has been used on the field, and you absorb less of the existing nutrients that the food has if there is glyphosate residue. <7>

    Indirectly, glyphosate damages both food crops and soils, depleting them of the nutrients our bodies need for health. Manganese, which I mentioned earlier as being a chelating target of glyphosate, is an important trace mineral that governs multiple essential functions within the human body.

    For instance, manganese protects the integrity of mitochondria, the energy centers of our cells, against degradative oxidative damage. It also protects bone integrity, gut balance, bile acid homeostasis, neurological function, as well as a number of other vital life systems.

    If glyphosate’s broad-spectrum chelating ability to strip not only manganese but a host of other vital nutrients from plants and soils is enough to kill them, imagine what it’s doing to our bodies when we consume the nutrient-deficient foods derived from them! <7>

    2. HERBICIDE ‘WEEDKILLER’

    It was patented by Monsanto and introduced as an herbicide in 1974 –that’s how it is most commonly known. It kills weeds by attacking the “immune system” of the plant. The metabolic pathway it effects is called the shikimate pathway. It disrupts that pathway, thus killing the plant. Humans do not have that pathway, so it was at first thought to be safe for humans. The pathway is found in bacteria, however, and humans depend on bacteria in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to synthesize the essential amino acids.

    By interfering with the biochemistry of bacteria in our GI tract, consumption of glyphosate depletes essential amino acids and predisposes humans to a host of chronic health problems. Specifically, glyphosate depletes the amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine, which can then contribute to obesity, depression, autism, inflammatory bowel disease, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s.

    There is also evidence that Roundup® inhibits cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in plants[iii] and mammals[iv].  The CYP enzymes help to detoxify foreign chemicals (such as pesticides), regulate levels of vitamin D, and control cholesterol in humans.

    Dr. Huber says, ” When you take the good bacteria out, then the bad bacteria fill that void because there aren’t any voids in nature. We have all of these gut-related problems, whether it’s autism, leaky gut, C. difficile diarrhea, gluten intolerance, or any of the other problems. All of these diseases are an expression of disruption of that intestinal microflora that keeps you healthy.”

    Chronic disease and less nutritious foods are clear ramifications of upsetting the balance of microorganisms naturally occurring in soil and plants, related to our gut microbiota. Glyphosate causes the villi in the intestines die, leading to the leaky gut syndrome, which is associated with all autoimmune diseases. Furthermore, leaky gut leads to “leaky brain”–a breakdown of the blood-brain barrier.

    3. ANTIBIOTIC/Microbial Agent

    Glyphosate is a registered anti- microbial agent that annihilates organisms, both good and bad. When it enters your gastrointestinal tract, glyphosate not only destroys protective organisms like bacillus and lactobacillus, it also inhibits the growth of new protective organisms, leaving your body vulnerable to pathogenic invaders and bowel diseases like leaky gut syndrome.

    Dr. Huber further explains: “When you take the good bacteria out, then the bad bacteria fill that void because there aren’t any voids in nature. We have all of these gut-related problems, whether it’s autism, leaky gut, C. difficile diarrhea, gluten intolerance, or any of the other problems. All of these diseases are an expression of disruption of that intestinal microflora that keeps you healthy.” <5>

    Direct Evidence of Harm

    A study examining the effect of glyphosate on bacteria that grow in the GI tract of chickens found that beneficial bacteria were susceptible, and harmful bacteria were resistant, to glyphosate. The growth of four types of beneficial bacteria—Lactobacillus, Bacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus—was reduced at low concentrations of glyphosate. [viii] The same types of beneficial bacteria inhabit the human GI tract, and they are sold over the counter as a probiotic supplement. Some strains are also found in yogurt.

    When exposed to the same levels of glyphosate that harmed the beneficial bacteria, several harmful bacteria, including Salmonella, grew successfully. The authors concluded that ingestion of glyphosate can disturb the normal microbial community and predispose chickens to carrying high levels of Salmonella or other harmful bacteria.

    4. MOLECULAR MIMICRY

    Glyphosate also replaces an amino acid called “glycine” in our protein chains. However, because it’s a bigger molecule, it causes the protein chains to fold in on themselves in such a way that they can no longer function properly.

    STEPHANIE SENEFF, Ph.D. says, “My recent research, inspired by Anthony Samsel’s conjecture, leads me to strongly suspect that glyphosate is getting into proteins by mistake in place of glycine. This has huge consequences to our health, because the human proteins contaminated with glyphosate don’t work properly in their function in the body, and the glyphosate-contaminated food proteins tend to resist proteolysis, sticking around and causing autoimmune disease through molecular mimicry. This feature easily explains the epidemic we see in allergies to foods that are likely to contain high amounts of glyphosate contamination, such as gluten, casein, and soy.” <1>

    5. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR

    Glyphosate has been shown in several recent studies to be an endocrine disruptor. According to the National Institutes of Health, endocrine disruptors could have long-term effects on public health, especially reproductive health. And the “dose makes the poison” rule does not apply to endocrine disruptors, which wreak havoc on our bodies at low doses.

    Not Enough Safety Tests

    Roundup and other glyphosate herbicide formulations as sold and used have been found in studies to be more toxic than the isolated ingredient, glyphosate. However, only glyphosate alone is tested in long-term safety tests for regulatory authorizations. This is a fundamental problem affecting all pesticide authorizations.

    The ‘safe’ dose for Roundup exposure set by regulators is not based on up-to-date objective evidence. So, current regulations do not protect the public.

    The chemicals used in the GM model of farming are toxic, and the model of farming itself is unsustainable and damaging to the environment – with an increase in herbicides significantly increasing pollution and health risks for citizens, and contributing to biodiversity loss. The only people who stand to gain from this model are those that produce the herbicide-resistant crop the chemicals required to grow them.

    Take Local Action

    Perhaps NOW is the time to systematically SHUT DOWN the use of Roundup in our everyday spaces. While it will take much more to get the farms to switch, we could start small and unravel it bit by bit.

    Irvine got them to stop spraying in their parks. We can get it stopped around our schools/daycares. Its easier on a city level you have to change the minds of a few on the City Council instead of 100’s in the State legislature.

    How to Detoxify Your Body from Glyphosate Exposure …. https://biofoundations.org/how-to-detoxify-your-body-from-glyphosate-exposure/

    Learn More:

    <1> Glyphosate in Collagen – The Weston A. Price Foundation. https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/environmental-toxins/glyphosate-in-collagen/
    <2> News from Organically Grown – Week of February 22. http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs123/1104797399382/archive/1123807793233.html
    <3>Glyphosate was first patented as a chelator in …. https://gmoanswers.com/ask/i%E2%80%99ve-read-glyphosate-was-first-patented-chelator-1964-stauffer-chemical-co-it-was-patented
    <4> What’s In Your Food? A Look at Food Fraud | Food Safety News. https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/04/whats-in-your-food-a-look-at-food-fraud/
    <5> Dr. Huber: Things You Need to Know About GMO and Roundup. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/06/dr-huber-gmo-foods.aspx
    <6> https://content.sierraclub.org/grassrootsnetwork/sites/content.sierraclub.org.activistnetwork/files/teams/documents/The_Unintended_Consequences_of_Using_Glyphosate_Jan-2016.pdf

    <7> https://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/glyphosate-chelating-agent/

    <8> https://www.cornucopia.org/2014/03/gut-wrenching-new-studies-reveal-insidious-effects-glyphosate/

    <9> https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/glyphosate-dangers/

    Learn More: 

    Detoxing Glyphosate

    Monsanto Loss $289 million due to fraud and maliciousness

    Contaminated Foods

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/USDA_scientist_reveals_all.php

    Dr Seneff video interview: https://youtu.be/CmAsTrsUjBc

    http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/htm

    https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2016/Seneff_Stephanie_052516.pdf

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X09003047

    http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

    https://biofoundations.org/how-to-detoxify-your-body-from-glyphosate-exposure/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5823954/

    https://www.academia.edu/30440130/Glyphosate_pathways_to_modern_diseases_V_Amino_acid_analogue_of_glycine_in_diverse_proteins

    https://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/food-policy/gmo-debate-continues-as-herbicides-reveal-health-problems-zwfz1307zsal

    https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/environmental-toxins/glyphosate-in-collagen/

    [i] Samsel, A., and Seneff, S. 2013. Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Page 1443. Entropy, 15, 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416

    [ii] Samsel, A., and Seneff, S. 2013. Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Page 1443. Entropy, 15, 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416

    [iii] Lamb, D.C.; Kelly, D.E.; Hanley, S.Z.; Mehmood, Z.; Kelly, S.L. Glyphosate is an inhibitor of plant cytochrome P450: Functional expression of thlaspi arvensae cytochrome P45071b1/reductase fusion protein in Escherichia coli. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 1998, 244, 110–114.

    [iv] Hietanen, E.; Linnainmaa, K.; Vainio, H. Effects of phenoxyherbicides and glyphosate on the hepatic and intestinal biotransformation activities in the rat. Acta. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 1983, 53,  103–112.

    [v] Kim, Y.H.; Hong, J.R.; Gil, H.W.; Song, H.Y.; Hong, S.Y. 2013. Mixtures of glyphosate and surfactant TN20 accelerate cell death via mitochondrial damage-induced apoptosis and necrosis. Toxicol. In Vitro, 27, 191–197.

    [vi] Kim, Y.H.; Hong, J.R.; Gil, H.W.; Song, H.Y.; Hong, S.Y. 2013. Mixtures of glyphosate and surfactant TN20 accelerate cell death via mitochondrial damage-induced apoptosis and necrosis. Toxicol. In Vitro, 27, 191–197.

    [vii] Clair, E.; Linn, L.; Travert, C.; Amiel, C.; Séralini, G.E.; Panoff, J.M.  2012.  Effects of Roundup and glyphosate on three food microorganisms: Geotrichum candidum, Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Curr. Microbiol. 64, 486–491.

    [viii] Shehata, A.A.; Schrödl, W.; Aldin, A.A.; Hafez, H.M.; Krüger, M. 2013. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro. Curr. Microbiol. 66, 350–358.

    [ix] Krüger, M.; Shehata, A.A.; Schrödl, W.; Rodloff, A. 2013. Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum. Anaerobe 2013, 20, 74–78.

    [x] Samsel, A., and Seneff, S. 2013. Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Page 1443. Entropy, 15, 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416

    [xi] Federal Register, May 1, 2013, page 25396. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-01/pdf/2013-10316.pdf

  • Scientist find that LED Blue Light can Damage Health

    The “blue light” in LED lighting can damage the eye’s retina and disturb natural sleep rhythms, a French health authority warned in a new report. “Exposure to an intense and powerful [LED] light is ‘photo-toxic’ and can lead to irreversible loss of retinal cells and diminished sharpness of vision,” the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) warned in a statement. LED lighting may actually be one of the most important, non-native EMF radiation exposures you’re exposed to on a daily basis. Other health problems rooted in mitochondrial dysfunction may also be exacerbated, and these run the gamut from metabolic disorder to cancer.

    While less dangerous, even chronic exposure can “accelerate the ageing of retinal tissue, contributing to a decline in visual acuity and certain degenerative diseases such as age-related macular degeneration,” the agency concluded.

    Long-lasting, energy efficient and inexpensive, light-emitting diode (LED) technology has gobbled up half of the general lighting market in a decade, and will top 60 percent by the end of next year, according to industry projections. The basic technology for producing a white light combines a short wavelength LED such as blue or ultraviolet with a yellow phosphor coating. The whiter or “colder” the light, the greater the proportion of blue in the spectrum.

    LEDs sabotage health and promote blindness. Limit your exposure to blue light swap out LEDs for incandescent or low-voltage incandescent halogen lights

    Blue Light Disturbs the Circadian rhythm

    LEDs are used for home and street lighting, as well as in offices and industry. That are also increasingly found in auto headlights, torches (flashlights) and some toys. LED cellphone, tablet and laptop screens do not pose a risk of eye damage because their luminosity is very low compared to other types of lighting, Francine Behar-Cohen, an ophthalmologist and head of the expert group that conducted the review, told journalists.

    But these back-lit devices — especially when they are used at night or in a dark setting — can “disturb biological rhythms, and thus sleep patterns,” the agency cautioned.

    Because the crystalline lens in their eyes are not fully formed, children and adolescents are particularly susceptible to such disruptions, the ANSES reports noted.

    Interfering with the body’s circadian rhythm is also known to aggravate metabolic disorders such a diabetes, as well as cardiovascular disease and some forms of cancer, noted Dina Attia, a researcher and project manager at ANSES. In addition, a stroboscopic affect in some LED lights — provoked by tiny fluctuations in electric current — can induce “headaches, visual fatigue and a higher risk of accidents,” the report said.

    For domestic lighting, ANSES recommended buying “warm white” LED lighting, limiting exposure to LED sources with a high concentration of blue light, and avoiding LED screens before bedtime. ANSES also said that manufacturers should “limit the luminous intensity of vehicle headlights,” some of which are too bright.

    Lighting Plays an Important Role in Biological Energy Production

    Light is a sorely misunderstood and overlooked part of the equation for biological energy production, specifically at the mitochondrial ATP level.  ATP is the fuel your cells need for all of their varied functions, including ion transport, synthesizing and metabolism. Remarkably, your body produces your body weight in ATP every day. And, while you can survive for several minutes without oxygen, were all ATP production to suddenly stop, you’d die within 15 seconds. Your body’s energy production involves not just food intake. You also need exposure to certain wavelengths of light in order for your metabolism to function optimally. This is yet another reason why sun exposure is so vitally important for optimal health.
    – Dr. Mercola

    Change the Light

    Best,  Incandescent light, especially the old type “Edison” style tungsten filament lamps. light is 2300K, close to sun-set light.

    I’ve replaced all my lamps with these tungsten filament lamps, and I sleep better, my children sleep better, and I can tolerate getting up at night to help the baby Much better.

    There is much more to light, also as a medicine to help energize the body, we are starting to understand all the mechanisms just recently, if you want to know more on this topic.

    Learn More from Experts in this field

    Dr. Hamblin. Battling Superbugs and Cancer with light

    Healing with Ozone and Light

    SOURCES:

    CNN
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/23/near-infrared-led-lighting.aspx

  • A Trillion Dollars is Spent Each Year from the Damaging Health Effects of Sugar

    America spends two and a half times more on healthcare per capita than any other developed nation, quickly approaching $3 trillion EVERY year. With this kind of expenditure, you would expect our citizens to be the healthiest in the world, but this is not the case.

    In fact, the US ranks dead last in quality of care—Americans are sicker and live shorter lives than people in most other industrialized nations. So where’s the money going?

    The Credit Suisse Research Institute’s 2013 study1 “Sugar: Consumption at a Crossroads” found that 30 to 40 percent of US healthcare expenditures are for diseases directly related to the overconsumption of sugar!

    We spend more than a trillion dollars each year fighting the damaging health effects of sugar. This, combined with the massive waste, fraud, and inefficiency of our healthcare system, make it completely unsustainable over time.

    US Government Actually Encourages Sugar Consumption

    Excess sugar causes obesity as well as a plethora of illnesses, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease and cancer. If you want to locate the sickest people, follow obesity rates. According to a United Health Foundation study, nine of the 10 least healthy states in the nation also have nine of the 10 worst obesity rates.2

    With one food causing such pervasive health problems and so much national expense, you would think our government regulators would do everything they could to lower sugar consumption. But the opposite is true—they encourage it!

    Maybe the US government read the 2008 study that challenged the common notion that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.3 The study suggested that healthy people are more expensive to care for because they live longer.

    Maybe the government wants us to get obese—because we’ll die younger. As cynical as that sounds, it would explain why they continue to subsidize the corn syrup industry.4

    Cancer Predicted to Become #1 Killer of Americans

    Besides the obvious sugar-obesity link, I’ve also often discussed the intrinsic connection between sugar consumption and cancer. It’s no surprise to me that cancer rates keep rising, considering that most people consume highly processed food as the bulk of their diet.

    A diet devoid of healthy fats and natural vitamins and minerals, while being chockfull of processed sugars and fructose along with synthetic chemicals of all kinds simply cannot produce health, and the proof of this is plain for all to see… A recent report by the American Society of Clinical Oncology predicts that a mere 16 years from now, cancer will be the leading cause of death in the US, surpassing heart disease, which is currently number one.  As reported by CNN Health:5

    “The number of new cancer cases is expected to increase nearly 45 percent by 2030, from 1.6 million cases to 2.3 million cases annually. This influx of new patients will place a bigger burden on a field of medicine already stretched by physician shortages and financial difficulties, says the report, which highlights growing problems for cancer care in the United States.”

    Without Sugar, Cancer Cannot Thrive

    The most powerful essential strategy I know of to treat cancer is to starve the cells by depriving them of their food source, which, in large part, is typically sugar. Unlike all the other cells in your body, which can burn carbs or fat for fuel, cancer cells have lost that metabolic flexibility and can only thrive if there enough sugar present.  Dr. Otto Warburg was actually given a Nobel Prize over 75 years ago for figuring this out but virtually no oncologist actually uses this information.

    Make no mistake about it, the FIRST thing you want to do if you want to avoid or treat cancer if you have insulin or leptin resistance (which 85 percent of people do) is to cut out all forms of sugar/fructose and grain carbs from your diet, in order to starve the cancerous cells.

    I recommend reducing your total fructose intake to a maximum of 25 grams/day, from all sources, including fruit. If you are insulin resistant, you’d do well to make your upper limit 15 grams/day. Cancer patients would likely be best served by even stricter limits.  For a more detailed discussion please review my interview with Dr. Seyfreid.

    The easiest way to dramatically cut down on your sugar and fructose consumption is to switch to a diet of whole, unprocessed foods, as most of the added sugar you end up with comes from processed fare, not from adding a teaspoon of sugar to your tea or coffee. But there are other ways to cut down well. This includes:

    • Cutting back on the amount of sugar you personally add to your food and drink
    • Using Stevia or Lo Han instead of sugar and/or artificial sweeteners. You can learn more about the best and worst of sugar substitutes in my previous article, “Sugar Substitutes—What’s Safe and What’s Not“
    • Using fresh fruit in lieu of canned fruit or sugar for meals or recipes calling for a bit of sweetness
    • Using spices instead of sugar to add flavor to your meal

    Also consider reducing your protein intake to one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. It would be unusual for most adults to need more than 100 grams of protein and most likely close to half of that amount. Replace the non-vegetable carbs (sugar/fructose/grains) and excess protein with high quality fats, such as organic eggs from pastured hens, high quality meats, avocados, and coconut oil. It’s certainly much easier to prevent cancer than to treat it, once it takes hold, and I believe you can virtually eliminate your risk of cancer (and radically improve your chances of recovering from cancer if you currently have it) by following certain basic lifestyle guidelines. For a full list, please see this previous article.

    Two Sodas Per Day May DOUBLE Your Chances for an Untimely Death

    A new study found a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and death from heart disease. Americans who consumed the most sugar — about a quarter of their daily calories — were twice as likely to die from heart disease as those who limited their sugar intake to seven percent of their total calories. The average American is consuming 22 teaspoons of sugar per day, about three times what’s recommended. That’s the equivalent of about two sodas.13

    According to Dr. Robert Lustig, one of the leading experts on childhood obesity, excess sugar acts as a poison, responsible for weight gain and a multitude of chronic and deadly diseases. Recent research shows that fructose can activate taste cells found on your pancreas, a reaction that can increase your body’s secretion of insulin and raise your risk for type 2 diabetes. Sugar also reacts with AGEs (advanced glycation end products), which is one of the major mechanisms by which damage accrues in your body and leads to aging and disease.

    To protect your health, consider restricting your fructose consumption to 25 grams per day or less. If you’re overweight or have a disease such as cancer, diabetes, or heart disease (or are at high risk for them) then you’re probably better off further reducing your fructose intake to 15 grams per day or less (and this includes all sources—HFCS, sugar, honey, agave, fruit, fruit juice, maple syrup, etc.).

    Redesigning Subsidies for the Health of People and Planet

    The time is ripe for change. Redesigning our food system could help move us toward health and economic recovery. If we’re going to subsidize farmers, let’s subsidize them in a way that helps restore the health of American citizens and our land—programs that might just pay for themselves by the reduction in healthcare costs they bring about. Two years ago, Mark Brittman of the New York Times14 argued that subsidy money could be easily redirected toward helping smaller farmers to compete in the marketplace in a number of ways. For example, funds could be redirected toward:

    • Funding research and innovation in sustainable agriculture
    • Providing incentives to attract new farmers
    • Saving farmland from development
    • Assisting farmers who grow currently unsubsidized fruits and vegetables, while providing incentives for monoculture commodity farmers (corn, soy, wheat, and rice) to convert some of their operations to more desirable foods
    • Leveling the playing field so that medium-sized farms can more favorably compete with agribusiness as suppliers for local supermarkets

    If you don’t like the idea of your tax dollars funding corporate welfare programs for corporations that flood the market with sugary beverages and processed foods, join forces with organizations that are actively working for positive change. Here are five actions you can take:

    • The Environmental Working Group has started a petition urging Congress to enact a Farm Bill that protects family farmers who help us protect the environment and public health. Take a moment to sign it now.
    • Sign up with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition to keep abreast of news and action alerts relating to the Farm Bill.
    • Join Food Democracy Now, an organization co-founded by Aaron Woolf, director of the documentary film King Corn.
    • Of course, you can also voice your opinion every day by voting with your wallet and supporting small family farms in your area.
    • Say no to junk food producers by not buying their products, andreturn to a diet of real, whole foods—fresh organic produce, meats from animals raised sustainably and humanely on pasture, and raw organic milk and eggs.

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/29/sugar-consumption-healthcare-costs.aspx

  • Breakfast with a Dose of Roundup?

    EWG’s new report, Breakfast With a Dose of Roundup?, reveals alarming levels of glyphosate in popular cereals, granola bars and instant oatmeals. Glyphosate is the cancer-causing key ingredient in Monsanto’s signature herbicide, Roundup. Recently, a San Francisco court ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages after ruling glyphosate played a key role in causing a school groundskeeper’s cancer. 

    EPA has denied that glyphosate may increase the risk of cancer, and documents introduced in the recent California trial showed how the agency and Monsanto worked together to promote the claim that the chemical is safe. EWG has been urging the EPA to review all evidence linking glyphosate to increased cancer risk and other adverse health effects in human and animal studies. The EPA should limit the use of glyphosate on food crops, including pre-harvest application.

    Each year, more than 250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on American crops, primarily on “Roundup-ready” corn and soybeans genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide. But when it comes to the food we eat, the highest glyphosate levels are not found in products made with GMO corn.

    Increasingly, glyphosate is also sprayed just before harvest on wheat, barley, oats and beans that are not genetically engineered. Glyphosate kills the crop, drying it out so that it can be harvested sooner than if the plant were allowed to die naturally.

    Monsanto’s cancer-causing chemical shouldn’t be anywhere near our food!

    Quick Stats on Glyphosate

    • In 2016, the non-profit Food Democracy Now tested for glyphosate in single samples of a variety of popular foods. “Alarming levels” of glyphosate were found in a number of cereals and other products, including more than 1,000 ppb in Cheerios. More recently, the Center for Environmental Health tested single samples of 11 cereal brands and found glyphosate levels ranging from about 300 ppb to more than 2,000 ppb.
    • Glyphosate has contaminated our planet, and is now found in our children’s urine, mother’s milk, our bloodstreams, and our food and water. 
    • In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization found that glyphosate “is a probable human carcinogen”.
    • In July of 2017 the California State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added glyphosate to its prop 65 list of known carcinogens.
    • In October of 2017, after over 1 million Europeans requested a ban, 72% of the Members of the European Parliament voted to BAN glyphosate and EU Member states have refused to renew the license.
    • Four countries have banned glyphosate: Malta, Sri Lanka, The Netherlands, and Argentina. 
    • Many U.S. school districts and cities have already discontinued the use of glyphosate.

    Read the full report to find out if glyphosate is in any of your favorite foods. Check out the resources below to protect your family and tell food giants to get glyphosate out of our food!

    GLYPHOSATE Resources:

    Glyphosate Herbicides Contain Toxic Levels of Arsenic 

    Glyphosate: Its inert ingredients are just as toxic

    Nampa commits to reduction of Glyphosate in Parks

  • Tylenol Just Once A Month Raises A Child’s Asthma Risk 540%

    A major study of over 20,000 children suggests that giving Tylenol even as infrequently as once per year could have a permanent, life-threatening health effect. The vast majority of babies are given Tylenol (acetaminophen) within the first six months of life. It is the go-to medicine for modern parents for the last several decades as pediatricians have recommended for almost every ailment an infant or child may suffer from. But what if the newest evidence is showing that it isn’t as safe as we were led to believe? 

    Researchers at the University of A Coruna in Spain asked the parents of 10,371 children ages 6-7 and 10,372 adolescents aged 13-14 whether their children had asthma and how often they had been given acetaminophen within the previous year and when they were babies.

    The children in the younger age group who had received the medicine only once per year were at 70% greater risk for asthma while those receiving Tylenol once a month or more were shockingly 540% more likely to have asthma.

    The study, published in the European Journal of Public Health, also found that children who had even a single dose of Tylenol before their first birthday had a 60% risk of developing asthma. In the older age group of 13 and 14 year-olds, asthma was 40 percent more likely if they had taken acetaminophen within the previous 12 months. The young teenagers were 250% more at risk if they took it once a month.

    The researchers speculated that Tylenol, called paracetamol in the UK, may reduce a potent antioxidant called glutathione in the lungs and blood, which results in damage to the lung tissue. Glutathione is produced by the body (it is a combination of three amino acids: cysteine, glycine and glutamine) and is referred to as the “mother” of all antioxidants by Dr. Mark Hyman MD.

    While Tylenol use is strongly associated with a significant increase in asthma and the effect is greater the more often the drug is taken, no causal link is yet established via randomized-controlled trials.

    Does this mean the results of this large study should be dismissed and parents should continue favoring use of the popular over the counter medication for fever and pain? Not so fast. It would certainly be the wise and cautious approach for parents to investigate alternatives to Tylenol while additional follow-up research is performed.

    • Asthma rates have been on the increase for decades at the same time Tylenol use became more widespread. The potential link cannot and should not be ignored.
    • Examination of 20,000 children establishing such a strong associative risk must be taken seriously and the dismissal of the research by some doctors is irresponsible given the seriousness and life-altering outcome of an asthma diagnosis.

    “All the asthma symptoms analyzed increased significantly with paracetamol consumption,” the researchers wrote.

    Other Autoimmune Illness Also Higher in Children Who Use Tylenol

    The associative link is even stronger when one considers that another autoimmune disease is also more prevalent in Tylenol use making the probability of inverse causation far less likely. Inverse causation would mean that children with asthma are simply more likely to pick up coughs and colds that require painkillers.

    • For example, the Spanish study also concluded that the prevalence of eczema in children increased dramatically the more frequently Tylenol was used.
    • In addition, scientists in New Zealand found in 2010 that Tylenol use before the age of 15 months was associated with a higher risk of children having allergies at the age of six.
    • Also in 2010, another large study of 11,000 children conducted by the Imperial College of London demonstrated that taking Tylenol in the first six months of life was associated with a higher prevalence of asthma and wheezing.
    • Prior to that in 2009, researchers at the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute in Canada found a higher risk of asthma for both adults and children via a meta-analysis of existing research.

    Should savvy and health conscious parents wait awhile until the likely causative relationship is established?

    Definitely not!

    With such repetitive and significant associative links firmly established, taking that Children’s Tylenol and chucking it in the trash would be a really constructive action step. There is absolutely no reason to use this product when raising children anyway. I’ve personally never owned a bottle of Children’s Tylenol let alone used it anytime in the past 15 years since my first child was born. There are plenty of other non-toxic options for dealing with fevers and pain in your young ones!

    Another constructive action step? Finding a quality local pasture based farm and having your children drink unpasteurized grassfed milk. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reported in August 2011 that children who drank raw milk had a 41% reduced chance of developing asthma. These same children had a nearly 50% reduction in hay fever as well even when other relevant factors were considered.

    Written by Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

    About the Author

    Sarah is the founder of The Healthy Home Economist,™ which has been featured on NBC, ABC, The Huffington Post, Dr. Mercola, Infowars, Prison Planet, BabyCenter, GreenMedInfo.com, NaturalNews.com and many others. Sarah has had the honor of taking the message of Traditional Diet abroad and has been interviewed on the national TV evening news from as far away as the Philippines. For her full biography visit her website.

    Sources:

    Babies given Calpol just once a month are five times as likely to develop asthma : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21051083

    Glutathione: The Mother of All Antioxidants

    It’s Too Soon to Blame Paracetemol for Rising Childhood Asthma Rates

    Exposure to Paracetemol and Asthma Symptoms

    The effects of early and late paracetamol exposure on asthma and atopy: a birth cohort

    Prenatal and infant acetaminophen exposure, antioxidant gene polymorphisms, and childhood asthma

    Acetaminophen use and the risk of asthma in children and adults: a systematic review and metaanalysis

    Reduce Your Child’s Asthma Risk by 41%

    Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff.

    This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.

    Additional Medical Study Resources: *some of these might be behind paywalls :
    https://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20091105/acetaminophen-may-be-linked-to-asthma-risk

    https://www.health.com/allergy/tylenol-asthma

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21051083

  • Monsanto Faces Man Dying of Cancer in Roundup Trial

    Doctors didn’t think he’d live long enough to testify in court that exposure to Monsanto Co.’s Roundup weed killer caused his deadly cancer. But the 46-year-old is now first in line to go to trial against the agrochemical giant among thousands of people across the U.S. who blame its herbicide for their disease.As groundskeeper for the school district in Benicia, California, about 40 miles east of San Francisco, Johnson mixed and sprayed hundreds of gallons of Roundup. He was diagnosed with cancer in 2014, and in July, after chemotherapy and other treatment, his oncologist gave him six months to live.  A pretrial ruling allows Johnson’s lawyers to try to use internal Monsanto correspondence to show that the company has long been aware of the risk its herbicides are carcinogenic.

    Monsanto knows “the cat is out of the bag” and there is no more hiding or pretending. We know that the majority of researches that claim safety of glyphosate are performed by scientists who are funded by Monsanto. Monsanto and its financial beneficiaries should be ashamed aware of the toxicity of their product they are poisoning our nation with glyphosate its residue found in soy, sugar, corn or wheat, orange juice and more. 

     

    #ELIMINATEGLYPHOSATE AROUND SCHOOLS AND IN PARKS – sign the HFI PETITION

    Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, was first approved for use in Monsanto’s weed killer in 1974. According to rodale.com, in U.S. alone, homeowners and farmers use about 100 million pounds of Roundup herbicide every year. At the same time, weeds are becoming more resistant to Roundup, so farmers are using more and more chemicals to deal with super-pests and super-weeds. From 1994 to 2005, the use of glyphosate has increased by 1,500 percent. As it grew to become the world’s most popular and widely used herbicide, the question of whether it causes cancer has been hotly debated by environmentalists, regulators, researchers and lawyers — even as Monsanto has insisted for decades that it’s perfectly safe. Now, a jury will decide in a case set to start this week in San Francisco state court.

    The case is Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Co., CGC-16-550128, California Superior Court (San Francisco).

    Biologist and cancer survivor Sandra Steingraber comments on the links between cancer and pesticides in the President’s Cancer Panel report:

    We have sprayed pesticides … throughout our shared environment. They are now in amniotic fluid. They’re in our blood. They’re in our urine. They’re in our exhaled breath. They are in mothers’ milk … What is the burden of cancer that we can attribute to this use of poisons in our agricultural system? … We won’t really know the answer until we do the other experiment — which is to take the poisons out of our food chain, embrace a different kind of agriculture, and see what happens.

    Steingraber’s book (and documentary film) Living Downstream tells the story of her own “journey” as a cancer survivor, and documents her scientific investigations that expose a simple, tragic truth: As a society, we are so busy treating cancer and searching diligently for a cure that we’re failing to tackle its causes.

    Read more at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-18/monsanto-squares-off-with-man-dying-of-cancer-in-roundup-trial

    MORE ABOUT GLYPHOSATE:

    RoundUp Toxicity it isn’t just the carcinogenic glyphosate

    Farmers Sue Monsanto 2016

  • When good hygiene comes with a dose of toxins

    HFI: Did you brush your teeth? Did you wash your hands? As moms we ask this to our children about 10 times a day. Depending on the toothpaste and soap your using, you could actually be exposing yourselves to toxic, hormone disrupting triclosan. Here is a pertinent article on the toxin and how to avoid it from EWG. 

    The chemical was once widely used in these and other personal care products as an antimicrobial agent. Many companies, including Johnson & Johnson and Proctor & Gamble, have removed it from products in recent years. Last year, the federal Food and Drug Administration finally banned triclosan from hand soap, an action for which EWG has long been advocating. But it is still allowed as an ingredient in toothpaste and other consumer products. Colgate continues to use it unnecessarily in its toothpaste.    

    A study by Brown University researchers, published in May in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, provided some startling evidence about just how much of the chemical can wind up in the bodies of pregnant women, babies and young children.

    Scientists tested urine samples of 389 mothers and their children – mothers were tested three times during pregnancy and children were tested periodically between the ages of 1 and 8. The results show that the levels of triclosan in children’s bodies increased as they got older, almost certainly from increased use of both toothpaste and hand soap. Children who washed their hands more than five times a day had levels of triclosan in their urine that were four times higher than those of children who reported washing their hands once a day.

    Children who had their urine tested within a day of brushing their teeth had levels 2.5 times higher than those who did not.

    In 2008, EWG found triclosan and 15 other toxic chemicals in the blood and urine of 20 teen girls from eight states and the District of Columbia.

     In a separate report from the same year, EWG assembled a list of all the products in which triclosan was approved for use.

    Here are a few tips from EWG for people interested in avoiding exposure to triclosan.

  • The Ill Fated Flu Shot

    The Ill Fated Flu Shot

    C

    The Flu Shot is:

    • NOT EFFECTIVE 98.5% of adults will get the flu even after the shot
    • NOT TESTED FOR SAFETY you can’t do a long term test on something that changes annually
    • NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PREGNANT WOMEN manufacture’s insert advise caution
    • NOT TESTED for potential to cause CANCER or INFERTILITY
    • NOT TESTED FOR SAFE use on children
    • NOT MERCURY FREE
    DC RECOMMENDED FLU SHOT OR NOT

    THE FLU SHOT IS NOT EFFECTIVE

    CDC numbers reflect its quite the opposite

    Actual data provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows that flu shot has ALWAYS been found to be remarkable ineffective. The number of people studied to determine this result exceeded 9000. When you look at the CDC’s table you’ll get a sense that it’s a ‘shot in the dark’ and more than half the people choosing to get the shot derived no benefit whatsoever.
    You would probably think that, since the CDC states the annual flu vaccine is the “best” way to avoid catching the seasonal flu, that it has been proven to be effective. Review the chartm using CDC’s OWN NUMBERS the flu shot has NEVER been very effective.
    In fact, it is hard to find ANY valid scientific evidence to support flu vaccine effectiveness or safety — and this is particularly true for key target groups for which the CDC says the flu shot is most important, like seniors, children and pregnant women!

    One Flu VACCINE INSERT READS CLEARLY :
    “There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with Flulaval.”     

    THE FLU SHOT IS NOT TESTED FOR LONG TERM SAFETY

    It’s IMPOSSIBLE to test the flu Vaccine as it changes annually

    All Influenza Vaccines Clearly State: 
    “This vaccine has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.”  – see section 13.1 in all manufacturers inserts listed on left

    THE FLU SHOT IS NOT TESTED FOR SAFETY IN PREGNANCY

     ALL Flu Vaccine manufacture’s package insert warnings which read as follows:
    “no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. …this vaccine should be used during pregnancy only if clearly needed”
    section 8.1 in the following influenza vaccine inserts listed on the left 

    Pregnant mother and her unborn child become part of the HUMAN EXPERIMENT with the FluLaval Quadrivalent vaccine.
    *When you get a FluLaval Quadrivalent vaccine you and your unborn child become part of the experiment. Rather than complete safety research in advance, GlaxoSmithKline maintains a surveillance registry to collect data on pregnancy outcomes and newborn health status outcomes following vaccination with FLULAVAL QUADRIVALENT during pregnancy. (See Page 12 of the Manufacture Insert)

    4250% INCREASE in FETAL DEATH REPORTED after flu shot

    The CDC deliberately misled the nation’s obstetricians and gynecology regarding the flu shot for pregnant women.

    If you’re pregnant, beware of doctors using aggressive fear tactics pushing you to get vaccinated. Here’s why…On September 27, 2012, the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal (HET) published a study by Dr. Gary Goldman reporting a 4,250 percent increase in the number of miscarriages and stillbirths reported to VAERS in the 2009/2010 flu season. That year the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had recommended the double-dosing pregnant mothers with two flu shots spiked with mercury. In his abstract, Goldman said:“The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season.” [source:http://vactruth.com/2012/11/23/flu-shot-spikes-fetal-death/

    THE FLU SHOT IS NOT TESTED FOR SAFETY IN CHILDREN

    Despite what your health practitioner will say as they attempt to convince you to get the flu vaccine, the shot has not been evaluated for cancer risks, safety in pregnant women, or safety in various age range categories for children.
    Vaccine package insert warnings which read as follows:

    • Flubok: “Safety and effectiveness in children 3 years to less than 18 years of age have not been established.”
    • Flucelvax: “Safety and effectiveness have not been established in children less than 18 years of age.”
    • Fluzone: “Safety and effectiveness in children below the age of 6 months have not been established.”
    • Fluvirin: “The safety and immunogenicity have not been established in children under 4 years of age.”
    • FluLaval: “Safety and effectiveness in children younger than 3 years have not been established.”
    • Afluria: “…not approved for use in children less than 5 years of age.”
    • Fluarix: “…not approved for use in children younger than 3 years.”
    • Fluvirin: “The safety and immunogenicity have not been established in children under 4 years of age.”

    FLU VACCINE IS NOT JUST A DEAD VIRUS IN STERILE SOLUTION

    It’s an injection of immune debilitating toxins and allergens

    READ THE LABEL!  
    Influenza vaccines contain three or four influenza virus strains and are produced using either chicken eggs or genetically-engineered dog kidney. Vaccine ingredients may include: formaldehyde, antibiotics, hydrocortisone, non-human protein and genetic materials, polysorbate 80, Thimerosal, MSG (monosodium glutamate), all of which are considered poisonous to humans.

    FLU VACCINE IS NOT Mercury-Free

    THIMEROSAL/MERCURY 
    The Influenza Vaccine clearly shows the vaccine contains Thimerosal a neurotoxin. Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines.
    Tests conducted via ICP-MS document mercury in the Flulaval vaccine at a shocking 51 parts per million.
     50,000 ppb Mercury = Current “preservative” level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of supply).
    SOURCE: *Mercury in Vaccines

    WHAT EFFECTIVE DOES MECURY HAVE ON YOUR BODY?
    0.5 parts per billion (ppb) mercury = Kills human neuroblastoma cells
    (Parran et al., Toxicol Sci 2005; 86: 132-140).
    2 ppb mercury = U.S. EPA limit for drinking water http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#mcls 
    20 ppb mercury = Neurite membrane structure destroyed (Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37).
    200 ppb mercury = level in liquid the EPA classifies as hazardous waste. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/mercury/regs.htm...
    25,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in the Hepatitis B vaccine, administered at birth in the U.S., from 1990-2001.
    50,000 ppb Mercury = Concentration of mercury in multi-dose DTaP and Haemophilus B vaccine vials, administered 4 times each in the 1990’s to children at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months of age.
    Current “preservative” level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of supply), meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines.
    By injecting mercury instead of ingesting it, you are essentially by-passing your inner filtration systems.  All of the mercury in a vaccine enters the blood stream, which leads straight to the brain.  Remember that toxic amounts of mercury is considered anything over 200 ppb, and the amount of mercury in a “thimerosal-free” flu vaccine is 300 to 600 ppb – the vaccine most commonly used contains 50,000 ppb.  When you ingest mercury, the amount that reaches your blood stream is much less than the actual amount you consumed.  When you vaccinate, the entire amount of mercury reaches your blood stream.

    THE FLU SHOT NOT SAFE.
    IT IS THE MOST DANGEROUS VACCINE. 

    VAERS reporting reflects FLU VACCINE caused the most damage

    As of April 2016, 126,884 adverse reactions/events were reported for the flu shot to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and it has the been the most compensated for vaccine injury. Vaccine manufacturer’s and providers administering vaccinations are exempt from lawsuit in the case of injury or death. Possible reactions include: Paralysis, severe allergic reaction,vomiting, chronic exhaustion, facial palsy, blood and lymphatic system disorders,convulsions and more.

    DOJ Quarterly Vaccine Injury Compensation Information

    Department of Justice numbers reported regarding quarterly vaccine injury information reveals that the flu shot remains the most dangerous vaccine based on injuries and death compensated by the U.S. Government.
    The estimated 1,000 claims that the VICP anticipates being filed in 2016 are projected to cost $224 million. Although the VICP was originally created by Congress to shield drug companies producing government licensed, recommended and mandated vaccines for children, today it is not children but adults injured by influenza vaccine who are receiving most of the compensation.
    The majority of compensated flu shot injury claims are for nerve inflammation diagnosed as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), an autoimmune disorder that attacks the nervous system and can result in life-long paralysis. Other complications include fibromyalgia, transverse myelitis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and death.
    – See more at: http://vaccineimpact.com/2016/flu-vaccine-injury-and-death-claims-increase-in-2016/#sthash.JxwOFdJZ.Wkd8XjMT.dpuf

    Vaccine Injuries are Seldom Reported
    The U.S. Government keeps a database of reports documenting vaccine injuries and deaths called The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The problem is that very few medical officials ever report vaccine injuries or deaths, either because they are not trained to recognized them, or due to pressure within their profession to not report them. To admit that vaccines do cause harm is professional suicide for most doctors and medical professionals.
    Hence, the quarterly DOJ report on vaccine cases only represents a tiny fraction of the actual cases that exist.
    One place we can get a glimpse of the amount of vaccine harm that is being caused in the U.S. today is to look at emergency room visits. As one can see in the report above, with most of the settlements being cases of harm caused by the flu vaccine, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) is the most common injury suffered from the flu shot. GBS is a debilitating disease that attacks a person’s own immune system and damages their nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis. It is very similar to the symptoms one may see with polio.
    If you are taken to the emergency room with signs of GBS during flu season, chances are one of the first questions the doctors will ask you is if you have received the flu shot recently. GBS is also listed as a side effect of the flu shot in the package insert.
    – See more at: http://vaccineimpact.com/2016/government-continues-to-pay-damages-for-injuries-and-deaths-due-to-the-flu-vaccine-in-vaccine-court/#sthash.OOOM6ZRj.dpuf

    Preparing Yourself for the Flu Season Naturally  Naturopathic prevention and treatment of the flu virus includes vitamins and minerals, botanical medicine and lifestyle recommendations.
    Natural Treatment for Cold, Flu, and Illness Once you or your child has contracted an illness, there are a lot of natural options that can shorten the duration of the illness and lessen the symptoms
    5 Best Ways to Prevent the Flu WITHOUT the Shot

    READ IT FOR YOURSELF
    Manufacture Package Inserts – Influenza
    Afluria Package Insert (injectable)
    bioCSL Inc.

    FluLaval Quadrivalent Package Insert (injectable)
    GlaxoSmilthKline
       
    Fluad Package Insert
    Novartis (Seqirus)

    FluMist Quadrivalent Package Insert (intranasal)
    MedImmune, Inc.
       
    Fluarix Package Insert (injectable)
    GlaxoSmithKline

    Fluvirin Package Insert (injectable)
    Novartis (Seqirus) Vaccines

    Fluarix Quadrivalent Package Insert (injectable)
    GlaxoSmithKline

    Fluzone Package Insert (injectable)
    Sanofi Pasteur  

    Flublok Package Insert (injectable)
    Protein Sciences Corporation

    Fluzone High-Dose Package Insert (injectable)
    Sanofi Pasteur
       
    Flucelvax Package Insert (injectable)
    Novartis

    Fluzone Intradermal Package Insert
    Sanofi Pasteur
       
    FluLaval Package Insert (injectable)
    GlaxoSmithKline

    Fluzone Quadrivalent Package Insert (injectable)
    Sanofi Pasteur
     

  • ACTION ALERT: Petition to ban neurtoxic additive to our water

    ACTION ALERT: Petition to ban neurtoxic additive to our water

    New York – November 30, 2016 – A coalition of environmental, medical and health groups have served the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a Petition calling on the Agency to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to the risks these chemicals pose to the brain, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

    The Petition, which includes over 2,500 pages of supporting scientific documentation, explains that “the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects.”  Signers  include FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, and Moms Against Fluoridation.

    “If EPA applies its own risk assessment guidelines to fluoridation, we believe it will agree that fluoridation poses an unacceptably high risk to the brain,” says attorney Michael Connett, FAN legal adviser.

    The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.

    Subpopulations especially vulnerable to fluoride’s neurotoxic effects include infants, the elderly, kidney patients, and the nutrient deficient (e.g. iodine and calcium). Evidence also suggests that African-Americans may suffer disproportionate harm as well.

    EPA scientists characterize chemicals with human evidence of neurotoxicity as “gold standard” chemicals warranting assessment priority.  Not only is there human research on fluoride neurotoxicity, it is so extensive that fluoride is classified alongside lead, mercury and PCBs as one of only 12 chemicals “known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in human beings.” (Lancet Neurology)

    At EPA’s request, the National Research Council (NRC) reviewed fluoride toxicology research and concluded in 2006, “It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”

    Since NRC’s review, 196 fluoride/brain studies have been published, including 61 human studies.

    Contrary to claims that only high doses of fluoride are linked to brain damage, studies of fluoride-exposed human populations consistently find neurotoxic effects at water fluoride levels well below the EPA’s “safe” level (4 mg/L).

    One recent study from China found that children ingesting just 1.4 milligrams of fluoride each day suffered a 5-point loss in IQ. Some children living in fluoridated areas in the United States ingest doses comparable to this level.

    Research also shows that some Americans have fluoride levels in their urine and blood that equal or exceed the levels linked to cognitive deficits.

    “As with lead, fluoride is a neurotoxic and endocrine disrupting substance that has no place in our drinking water,” Connett states. “The EPA should follow Europe’s lead and end fluoridation.”

    EPA has 90 days to respond to the Petition.

    To access a copy of the Petition, click here.

    RESOURCES: