The Truth About Vaccines and Your Immune System: Bringing On Future Health Problems

Vaccines have become somewhat of a sacred cow in many countries around the world with government regulators, drug companies, medical societies, and the mainstream media collaborating to suppress the truth about known hazards and false information regarding vaccinations. But despite all this misinformation, there are many organizations that continue to speak out about the short and long term dangers of vaccines and the undeniable amount of evidence that contradicts the lies of the vaccination industry. Many of these groups are composed of concerned parents who have seen their own children exposed to sometimes life-threatening reactions to various vaccines.

This battle for truth has been accelerating in the U.S., Britain, Japan, and other developed nations. The motivation for increase vaccination rates has always been profit-driven by this mega-industry. The U.S. Congress has established a fund to compensate families whose members, mainly children, have been injured or killed after being vaccinated, with particular focus on the link between vaccines and autism. Britain is currently embroiled in a scandal regarding government denial of evidence indicating the hazards that vaccines expose children to.

Vaccines and the Immune System

One of the most damaging effects of many vaccines, according to multiple studies, is the overall weakening of the immune system. This is especially alarming amongst infants and children, the part of the population that receives the vast majority of vaccines. We find, however, that vaccinations are pushed on infants who have a very under-developed immune system. Right now, by the age of six months, most babies have received at least 16 shots! By the time a newborn is 12 years of age, she/he will have received 30-35 doses of vaccines to protect her/him against 34 diseases.

Researchers are documenting a significant increase in the number of ear infections, respiratory infections, and other viral and bacterial ailments in newborns and infants. There are reputable health care practitioners and others who are putting the pieces together and deducing that wholesale vaccination of infants and children is the common thread in this increase in childhood infections.

Vaccines negatively affect the immune system in two major ways. First of all, a poor immune system, from vaccinations or for any other reason, increases risk for infections and diseases of all types, and can typically lead to many chronic illnesses. Secondly, and this is particularly true for vaccinated persons, damage to the immune system commonly results in autoimmune diseases such as lupus, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, arthritis, and others. Autoimmune disease happens when the immune system begins to malfunction and turn on itself by attacking healthy cells. This causes many serious and chronic conditions.

Reasons To Avoid Vaccinations

One of the major problems with mass vaccinations, is that in the vast majority of cases, no medical history of patients is taken into consideration. People who are immuno-compromised are at much higher risk for serious side effects from vaccines. The 'one-size-fits-all' approach to vaccinations is a very dangerous and irresponsible practice. In our modern world, a large percentage of the population has a weakened immune system, both adults and children. Unfortunately, many babies are born immuno-compromised due to chemicals and toxins they inherit from the Mother, that have accumulated in her system from polluted air, food, water, and from vaccinations she likely received.

The vaccination concept (as are most in conventional medicine) is based on Louis Pasteur's germ theory, which is flawed. Germs in and of themselves do not make us sick. Germs change their function depending upon the kind of tissue they live in. If our tissues are full of toxins and not well nourished with vitamins and minerals, those germs will feed on this toxic tissue. If we are healthy, making sure we are eating organic and regularly cleansing the digestive tract, the germs will actually act in a maintenance and restorative way, thus helping our body to maintain health. If the immune system is functioning at optimum levels then germs will not be harmful.

Immunity is not guaranteed through vaccines. Most studies done on populations that have been vaccinated show that after vaccines are introduced, the incidence of the disease will eventually rise, thus the need for boosters. Before required immunizations were introduced in America, the rate of childhood infectious diseases were beginning to drop. Pharmaceutical companies like to convince us that their immunizations are responsible for this drop, but statistics clearly show different.

Most of these diseases, if contracted today, rarely, by themselves, cause death. They are absolutely not the threat that they were in the previous centuries. This is due mainly to proper sanitation methods. Active/natural immunity is the best type of immunity to have and is only gotten when the child contracts the disease itself. For children who are healthy and who have strong immune systems, contracting these diseases will not cause a problem and will, in fact, give them life-long immunity in most cases.

Your state's immunization requirements along with exemption options can be found at: http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/vaccination-exemption.html

For those who have not been able to get the exemption you need, or need legal assistance pertaining to immunizations, vaccine injury or other related matters, there is a law firm which is dedicated to just these issues at Vaccine Exemption Alliance.

How Can I Boost My Immune System if It's Been Damaged?

In addition to avoiding vaccinations, consider the following:

• The first step to take is deciding to make lifestyle choices that lead toward wellness a priority, including eating an organic, healthy diet that is heavy on fresh fruits and vegetables. A good rule of thumb is to eat as close to nature as possible.


• Drink plenty of purified water every day. This helps to flush out impurities from the body, which stimulates healthy cell function and helps to keep your digestive tract operating efficiently as well.


• Speaking of the digestive tract, it is estimated that 80% of the immune system is found here. Keep your intestinal tract in tip-top shape through a healthy diet and by periodically performing a digestive tract cleanse and always use a quality spore-bearing probiotic to nurture helpful bacteria in the gut.


• Exercise is essential to a strong immune system. It increases the effectiveness of all your bodily systems, and is especially good for the lymphatic system, which is responsible for circulating disease-fighting white blood cells.


• Avoid chemical pollution in and around the home. Use only organic, toxin-free personal care products, cleansers, and lawn-garden products.


• Get at least 8-10 hours of quality sleep nightly. This accomplishes many benefits for your health, and sleep actually stimulates bone marrow growth which is where much of the immune system function originates.


• Be sure to take a good organic, multi-vitamin/mineral complex along with emulsified Vitamin D-3.


• Get lots of fresh air. When you are outside, the oxygen and sunshine both work to boost the immune system. In order to improve the quality of indoor air, use numerous house plants to decorate your home as well as considering ionic air purification.


• Avoid sugar. Ingesting sugar compromises your immune system very quickly and very significantly.


• Breastfeed your baby as long as possible. This is the most natural way to give your child a strong immune system.

Mexican Swine Flu - Natural Health Suggestions

Several people have asked me to blog about the Mexican Swine Flu and what I would recommend to have on hand as well as how to prepare for a possible flu pandemic.

Let's remember that we must not panic, no matter how much media-hype that we are exposed to, as any type of flu can kill. Nor do we need to become fearful as fear is not condusive in making good decisions and misplaced fear is almost always controlling. Some aspects of this flu seem to be following the trend of the 1918 flu in that it is striking younger people as well as older people. Health authorities say there is no vaccination for this unusual, mutant hybrid strain of flu, which is part pig virus, part bird virus and part human virus. Certainly this flu could reach pandemic status or it could resolve itself very quickly.

Below is some information from my e-book Surviving Flu Pandemics (currently being up-dated) that was actually written during the Avian Flu scare.

"The new Mexican Swine Flu has elements of DNA from the following: avian flu, human flu Type A, human flu Type B, Asian swine flu, and European swine flu. A strange combination never seen before and having less than 1/10% chance of being a natural event. Human and animal viruses from four or more continents suddenly recombine in a new flu during a non-flu season that spreads from human-to-human with a 10% fatality rating. Many believe this new flu is a lab created advanced biological warfare DNA genetically engineered virus that either: (1) Escaped accidentally from a lab; or (2) was deliberately released by a nation or non-state organization or a well-trained individual." (http://www.rense.com/)

Whether this is true or not, it is prudent to take precautions now.Your immune system is your basic defense against all illness and disease. When it is functioning properly, disease cannot get a strong-hold on the body. It does not mean that you will never get sick. It means that if your body takes on an invader the immune system will recognize it quickly and work on eliminating the invader quickly. Your down-time will be extremely less and your body will recover at a faster rate.

Right now, my concern is not so much with the actual flu but the condition of most peoples body. Most are toxic, acidic, dehydrated, oxygen-deficient, poor lymphatic system drainage and clogged with years and years of built-up, old fecal matter. Add to this the fact that between 40-50% of all Americans are taking at least one or more prescription meds. These situations keep the immune system from functioning at a healthy rate.

God gave us our immune system to help the body fight off disease/infection, etc. It is the philosophy of conventional medicine that the immune system can be manipulated in order to fight disease. For instance, chemotherapy literally kills the one thing that God put in our body to fight disease. Yet, we are taught to believe that in this instance it is ok to kill the immune system. Personally, I think the idea about the flu attacking seemingly healthy people is junk science. What exactly is the definition of healthy people? Conventional medicine would most likely say the definition is absence of disease. However, one can have no disease but still hvae a compromised immune system. How do they know the person was healthy? Did they do a history? Was the person vaccinated, on any type of meds, have allergies, on chemical overload? These situations do not make a healthy individual. It's another instance of the medical community using a "lingo" that they know most people will take in an entirely different manner than which it is meant. This is done all the time with cancer patients.

Immune System Calculator - To rate your immune system function

http://www.glyconutrients-center.org/immune-calculator.php

What exactly is a cytokine storm? Does this mean I should not try to protect my immune system?

According to Jon Barron: As with the 1918-1919 pandemic, some types of flu seems to claim almost half its victims by using their own immune systems against them through a condition called acute respiratory distress syndrome in which the victims own immune system unleashes a cytokine storm that literally chews up their lung tissue, ultimately causing the victim to suffocate.

In a cytokine storm, the immune system sees a virus that it has never seen before (which in this case will be true for every single person living on the planet), and it goes nuts, whipping itself into a frenzy in response to the invading virus. A biochemical cascade of immune cells and immune system bio-chemicals such as interferon, interleuken, monokines and cytokines literally pours into the lungs. The subsequent damage to the lung tissue caused by these cells and bio-chemicals leads to the condition mentioned above called acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The net result is that the victim suffocates as a result of their own disease-fighting chemistry.

In fact, as discussed above, having a good immune system could be a major contributing factor in mortality rates. Does that mean I'm saying that you are better off weakening your immune system? Absolutely not!! It just means you can't rely on a healthy immune system alone. You still want the best immune system you can get, but you must take some of the burden off of your immune system so that it doesn't overreact and trigger a cytokine storm. You need to find a way to kill off most of the flu virus directly so that your immune system is only required to clean up a weakened virus rather than take it on entirely by itself. In other words, you will want to stock up on and use natural pathogen destroyers.

What Can I Do Now to Improve My Health?

• Make sure that you are eating very healthy -- very important.
  
• Get 30 minutes of sunshine every day.
  
• Eliminate stress. It brings the immune system down!
  
• Get enough sleep and rest. 8-10 hours. Go to bed by 10:30 PM every night.
  
• Try to walk every day. Use deep breathing techniques while walking.
  
• Make pure, clean water and herbal teas your only beverages.
  
• Eliminate as much sugar, pre-packaged foods, junk foods, fast foods, sugary drinks and hydrogenated oils as possible.
  
• Eliminate eating out at restaurants, etc. Sanitation is not always what we "think" it is in restaurants.
  
• Use healthy oils only such as flax seed oil, coconut oil, hemp seed oil and olive oil.
  
• Stock up on foods such as organic frozen vegetables as well as staples such as beans, brown rice, etc.
  
• Thoroughly wash all produce, even the skins of fruits, before eating/storing.
  
• Have food supplies on-hand to make nourishing soups.
  
• Have access to clean, pure water.
  
• Wash hands frequently, before and after meals and after restroom visits. Do not touch your face or eyes with your fingers. Avoid shaking hands with people or hugging people, instead just smile, nod or wave. Teach your children to do the same. Avoid putting children in church nurseries, day care centers, play groups, etc.
  
• If you or a family member get sick or exhibit symptoms, STAY HOME. Do not be around people, ride in public transportation (buses, planes, etc.) or continue to go to work. Do not send your children to school/day care if anyone in your home has flu symptoms.
  

Precautions for Office Workers or Those Working in the Public

• Purchase a personal ionic air purifier to wear around your neck.
  
• Office air is usually recirculated. Purchase an air ionizer for your office area.
  
• Purchase an all-natural hand sanitizer spray or gel. Use it often.
  
• Keep hands away from face -- especially eyes, ears and mouth.
  
• Avoid shaking hands or hugging people.
  
• Keep tissue in your office and use for coughs or sneezes.
  
• Place some live plants in your office. They are good for air purification.
  
• Purchase some face masks for emergency use.
  
• Purchase your own personal mug or water bottle. Keep it clean and do not allow anyone else to use it.
  
• Purchase a car air ionizer especially if you carpool to work or chauffeur children to school, sports, music lessons, etc.
  
• Do not share food or drinks with friends. Prepare your own food for lunches, snacks.
  
• If you become sick GO HOME immediately and STAY HOME until you are completely well.
  

Below is what I recommend to have in your Natural Medicine Chest

Vitamin D-3 - VERY IMPORTANT! Begin using this now. It has been suggested that having adequate levels of Vitamin D-3 (around 50-70 ng/ml) may prevent the flu. As the amount of vitamin D circulating in blood climbs, risk of upper respiratory tract infections falls.* Most people do not/cannot get adequate amounts just from the sun especially if one lives in the northern latitudes. Tey to get at least 2000-5000 IUs per day in emulsified form.

Vitamin C - VERY IMPORTANT! Begin taking this now. I would suggest having a lot of this on hand. Try to find a tapioca-derived Vitamin C.

Colloidal Silver - VERY IMPORTANT! ACS 200 is the best that I have found and I have researched and tried many. I have seen excellent results with this one and the manufacturer has done extensive tests to prove its effectiveness.

LivaPure - VERY IMPORTANT! Begin taking this now. Helps support and keep the liver clean through the use of organic and wildcrafted herbs.

Transfer Factor - Transfer factors boost NK cell activity level over baseline by over 400%. Transfer Factor supplement is in the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) 2008 pages 689 -690. Page 690 states, "Due to new studies conducted in Russia, the Russian Health Ministry has approved 4Life Transfer Factor and 4Life Transfer Factor Plus to be the first supplement to be used by doctors and hospitals in Russia. Many of these studies and papers can be accessed through PubMed or other clinical portals. Nano Factor research is currently in the forefront of immune science. It is also stated that No toxicity level of Tri-Factor has been found.

Nascedyne - Iodine used to be the therapy of choice becuase it got good results. Nascent Iodine is a potent anti-infective agent and, in fact, no virus, bacteria or parasite has been shown to be resistant to the correct use of iodine therapy.

Oregasil Oregano Oil - Contains at least 80% Carvacrol and made from Wild Mediterranean Oreganic Oregano Oil. Called Natures Purifier, Oregasil, is one of the most concentrated oregano oil products on the market today.

Germ Fighter Spray - All-Natural hand sanitizer that contains Wellness Water, Colloidal Silver, Essential oils of Lavender, Lemon, Tea Tree, Thyme, Eucalyptus, and Rosemary.

Enzymes - Enzymes help to strengthen the digestive process thus lending support to the immune system itself. There are three basic enzyme forms: plant based (bromelain and papain), pancreatic enzymes (from animal pancreas), or mycelial based (from Aspergillus oryzae and niger as well as other microorganisms). The mycelial based enzymes can be more effective in protecting against the flu because they work in a wider range of pH environments. The pancreatic enzymes may be more flu effective for people who have diabetes or metabolic issues. When the proteolytic potential is raised inthe blood it provides an efficient therapy as well as preventionof viral infection. It has been suggested that successful inhibition of infection has been accomplished in many different viruses including six different influenza type A viruses.

NutriBiotic Grapefruit Seed Extract

Oscillococcinum - Homeopathic flu tablets.

Essential Oils - Lavender, Eucalyptus, Lemon, Tea Tree.

ParaPure - ParaPure is not only for parasites but also supports the immune system while working with the natural defense system of the body. ParaPure helps to create an unfriendly environment for invading parasites, harmful organisms and pathogens.

Lomatium dissectum

Thieves essential oil - There are web sites that have great thieves oil mixtures and also directions on how to make your own.

GlycoEssential 7 - The first Advanced Immune Support glyconutrient product containing seven essential sugars plus added Optimum Mushroom Complex (OMC) to provide ultimate immune enhancement and support. If one cannot do anything else, I would highly recommend using GlycoEssential 7 with OMC.

Oxy SC - Oxygen drops. Chlorine dioxide. Also great for washing produce. The cells of the body can utilize the chlorites from OXY-SE, particularly the leukocytes, as a substrate to increase the efficiency of a group of enzymes known as peroxidases. These enzymes are an important component in the immune system since they are involved in the oxidation of foreign material. Can also be used to purify water - Use 16 drops per gallon of water to disinfect and purify water sources

Himalayan Crystal Salt + Oasis neti pot - Keep sinuses washed out. This is also a good thing to be doing now. Can also add grapefruit seed extract or Nascedyne to it.

Hydrogen Peroxide - Can use it as a mouth wash and gargle. Do not swallow.

Spore-bearing Probiotic - Very important in keeping the digestive tract populated with friendly bacteria.

Pure Vegan Mag O7 - Oxygen digestive tract cleanser - I would highly suggest doing an Optimum Wellness Seven-day Digestive Tract Cleanse before flu season.

Ionic Air Purification - For use in all bedrooms. Ionic air purification helps to keep the air clean from viruses, bacteria, fungus, mold, etc.

NutriBiotic Ear Drops - Contain grapefruit extract and tea tree oil.

Bio-EZE - All-natural lotion that is great for aches and pains. Can be applied to the chest and back for lung congestion/colds/flu. Call us for special pricing.

Nebulizer - Several mouth pieces for different users will need to be purchased.

Essential oil diffuser / humidifier

Hot water bottles

Masks and Gloves

Anti-bacterial cleaning supplies - You can make your own or buy all-natural cleaning supplies.

Learning/Activity books, books on cd and videos - Just in case schools are closed.


More Information

Sunshine Vitamin Diminishes Risk of Colds, Flu
Epidemic Influenza And Vitamin D

The Case Against Aspartame

NutraSweet. Sounds like a pretty good product -- nutritious, sweet, low-calorie and approved by the FDA. Well, that's what the makers of aspartame (G.D. Searle) and the commercial food and diet industries want us to think, but in truth, this chemical poison is one of the most damaging substances ever introduced into the food chain. Let's take a look at some of the basics about how aspartame affects the body, and how it is cloaked in secrecy and controversy, and never should have been approved for human consumption.

The first thing you need to understand is that aspartame, known by the brand names NutraSweet and Equal, is a multi-billion dollar product that is sold directly as a sweetener, but is also used in many consumer products. Thus, many people are exposed to it without even realizing it. The food industry loves this product, and they make a fortune from it. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the makers of aspartame spent megabucks in their efforts to get FDA approval and that some very suspicious things occurred during this process. Consider the following:

• In 1981, a researcher within the FDA was so concerned about data that pointed towards brain tumors caused by aspartame, that he stated he could not recommend its approval.
  
• Studies investigating aspartame's possible link to birth defects were cut off before completion because of "damaging information" about aspartame.
  
• Other studies about aspartame's effects on individuals with mood disorders were also stopped because of a dangerous increase of serious symptoms within the population being studied.
  
• Airline pilots have been warned against using aspartame in over twenty articles in various flight magazines including those published by the Air Force and the Navy. In fact, a hotline was set up for pilots to report adverse reactions to aspartame, and over 600 pilots reported experiencing seizures in the cockpit after using aspartame. How can the FDA ignore such data and continue to approve this toxic substance?
  
• In 1991, the FDA banned the import of the herbal sweetener stevia, and in the last few years resistance against stevia has surfaced in regulatory circles. It is estimated that stevia, which has been proven to be safe for human consumption, is a huge financial threat to the aspartame industry. Thus, it is very interesting that in 1992, shortly after this ban, the FDA approved widespread use of aspartame.
  
• There is also evidence that studies were falsified and misrepresented by G.D. Searle during the FDA pre-approval phase. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon in the world of FDA. Coincidentally, several high-ranking FDA officials that were involved in the ultimate approval of aspartame later moved into jobs with G.D. Searle or other companies linked to aspartame.

What Are the Hazards of Aspartame?

This "natural" substance, as the industry likes to call it, is actually composed of several very toxic chemicals that have been linked to cancer, birth defects, seizures, and other serious disorders.

50% of aspartame is a substance called phenylalanine, a naturally occurring amino acid found in certain foods. However, when it is isolated from other amino acids, and in high doses as in aspartame, it is very toxic and can cause brain dysfunction and mental retardation, especially in individuals who genetically cannot process phenylalanine (those with PKU).

Another major component of aspartame is methanol, which breaks down in the body into free-radicals formaldehyde and other hazardous substances. Methanol is a neurotoxin or "neuroexciter" that can cause hyperactivity, headaches, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, chest pain, high blood pressure, and other neurological side effects.

Because of its unique chemical structure, aspartame is very easily absorbed by the bloodstream and into organs throughout the body. Because of this quality, some researchers believe aspartame has the ability to trigger or mimic the symptoms of many illnesses including:

• ADD/ADHD
• Epilepsy
• Alzheimer's Disease
• Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
• Diabetes
• Migraines/headaches
• Fibromyalgia
• Hypothyroidism (low thyroid function)

Better Choices: Stevia, Agave Nectar & Organic Fruits

If you haven't already, I strongly suggest eliminating all sources of aspartame from your diet and then performing several liver/gallbladder/digestive tract cleanses in order to purge your system. If you need a sweetener, try using the herb Stevia or Agave Nectar from the agave cactus plant. Neither will spike insulin levels, and both are nutritious. Many people like to use freshly juiced organic fruit for use as a sweetener. You may be pleasantly surprised at how much better you will feel, simply by eliminating aspartame from your diet.

FDA Approves Known Dangerous Drug for Use on Children

Federal regulators have pulled a lot of bizarre stunts over the years, but this one is a real head-scratcher. Just over a month ago, the manufacturer of an antidepressant drug called Lexapro (Forest Laboratories Inc.) was brought up on charges for illegally bribing pediatricians to prescribe it for children, for which it was not approved. So what does the FDA do? They announced last week that they had given the green light for Lexapro to be used on patients from 12-17 years of age. To make things even weirder, this ruling contradicts Forest Labs' own statement that Lexapro had not proven itself in studies to effectively maintain control of depression symptoms in adolescents.

The timing of this move makes absolutely no sense, and it screams of corruption and conflict of interest, something the FDA is no stranger to. The really odd thing about this all is that the FDA's ruling actually overrides Forest Labs' findings that Lexapro is ineffective for treating depressed children, and that it is highly dangerous for them as well -- even more so than for adults. If you visit Forest Labs' Lexapro website where their branding mantra is "POWER TO ENJOY LIFE", they have clearly posted an ominous warning right under their Big Announcement:

LEXAPRO is now approved for
acute and maintenance treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in adolescents aged 12-17.

"Antidepressants increased the risk, compared to placebo, of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders."

For the FDA to make the decision to legalize the prescriptions of Lexapro to children under any circumstances is highly questionable, but when it was done in the shadow of the indictment of Forest Labs, it becomes scandalous.

What Kind of Corruption is Going on Here?

The accusations against Forest Labs that were announced last month were the culmination of a five-year investigation by the Federal Department of Justice. Prosecutors found that executives in the company had told their sales and marketing people to push pediatricians to prescribe Lexapro and its chemically similar sister drug Celexa to children and adolescents, even though it had not received FDA clearance to do so. However, this is a common occurrence in the world of Big Pharma, and the practice is called "off-label" prescription and is not technically illegal. However, it is illegal for drug companies to urge physicians to do so.

Yes, it sounds unbelievable, but if a physician wants to use a drug for something other than what it is designed to do because he feels it may "help" his patient, he is legally free to do that in some cases. Where Forest Labs got themselves in trouble, is that they were caught pushing off-label use through illegal "marketing" methods such as offering bribes to doctors in the form of cash, tickets to sporting events and Broadway shows, fishing trips, spa visits, and other expensive perks. Employees of Forest Labs were also instructed to ignore studies that showed less than favorable results of these drugs on kids, and to highlight studies that gave the results the company was looking for. This cat and mouse game is also a very common practice in the FDA/Big Pharma network. Lexapro is Forest's biggest product ($2 billion in annual sales and number 15 on the list of all US drug sales), but apparently they weren't satisfied with that.

Just How Dangerous is Lexapro Anyway?

Many doctors, and thus their patients, have been told by drug company reps that Lexapro is "non-habit forming." However, the truth of the matter is that this toxic drug has over 250 known side-effects, either during use or when stopping use of the drug (withdrawal symptoms). Some of the major side effects include:

• Gastrointestinal: (cramps, diarrhea, constipation difficulty swallowing, vomiting)
• Cardiovascular: (irregular heartbeat, chest pain abnormal EKG, varicose veins)
• Muscle pain
• Aches and pains
• Joint pain
• Loss of balance
  Tremors
• Involuntary muscle contractions
• Psychiatric: (crying fits, auditory hallucinations, abnormal dreaming, depression -- the very thing it is supposed to treat!)
• Asthma and other allergies
• Acne and other skin disorders
• Shortness of breath

Experts also urge caution when withdrawing from Lexapro. Potential problems include many of those listed above, plus:

• Cardiac arrest
• Gastric ulcers
• Irritable Bowel Syndrome
• Increased psychiatric symptoms
• Kidney disease
• Vision problems: (macular degeneration, detached retina)

Google "Lexapro withdrawals" or "weaning off of Lexapro" and you will find literally hundreds of sites and forums of individuals trying to wean off of Lexapro. Drugs.com contains a discussion forum with 314 pages of posts devoted only to people trying who are trying to stop Lexapro. Evidently some have been trying to get off this "non-addictive anti-depressant" from 3 to 8 months, and yet are still having tremendous difficulties in accomplishing their goal.

Unfortunately, as you can see, you can't always trust what your doctor tells you and the FDA continues to show us over and over just how much they really do NOT care about our health and well-being. Be sober and wise about any drug that is prescribed for you or your loved ones. Research and do your "due diligence." For me, I will choose NOT to get my POWER TO ENJOY LIFE from a pharmaceutical drug.

FYI About the Hazards of CT Scans

The article below does an excellent job of summarizing the issues surrounding the use of CT scans, which expose patients to much higher amounts of radiation than other imaging devices. It is critical that we are educated about these issues so that when a CT scan is ordered by a healthcare practitioner, we can ask intelligent questions and discuss options before submitting to it.

No one is more responsible for your safe, effective healthcare than you. If your doctor recommends a CT scan, be sure it is appropriate and go over safety procedures with the operator as well. Doctors and technicians are often more willing to cover the details of such a procedure with an informed, proactive patient. Remember, you have both a right and a responsibility to make your own healthcare decisions based on what you feel is best for you and your family.


Facing a CT Scan? Think About Radiation
By Matthew Shulman
Posted May 30, 2008

How much radiation you've been exposed to may be the last thing on your mind on the way to the emergency room. But with the increasing use of computed tomography, or CT scans, and nuclear medicine screenings as highly accurate first-line tools in diagnosing illnesses and injuries, a new study suggests such concerns should be front and center.

The study, presented this week at the annual conference of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, confirms what many doctors have believed: that people may be receiving doses of radiation, sometimes unnecessarily, that put them at a heightened risk of cancer. Researchers found that a typical patient who visited the emergency room received a cumulative radiation dose of 40 millisieverts over a five-year period. Ten percent of patients ended up with a staggering 100 or more millisieverts. Both levels are well above the safety threshold for lifetime radiation exposure. Exposures above the threshold leave patients vulnerable to increased long-term risk of cancer. As a point of comparison, one chest CT is around 10 millisieverts of radiation and a traditional chest X-ray only 0.02 millisieverts.

The findings come just months after a New England Journal of Medicine report suggested that about one third of all CT scans are unnecessary and that overuse of these tests may be a significant factor in raising the total public risk of cancer deaths in the coming decades. The Columbia University researchers noted that while the individual risks of cancer from CT scans remain low, the increased incidence of cancer may be considerable. To balance image quality with these safety concerns, radiologists use a protocol known as the ALARA principle, short for As Low as Reasonably Achievable. It's meant to ensure that "CT dose factors are kept to a point where risk is minimized for maximum diagnostic benefit," says Arl Moore, president of the American College of Radiology.

Both studies raise the question of when CT and other diagnostic exams are necessary. "There are times when performing a scan is very valuable and absolutely worth the risk," says Timothy Bullard, lead author of the current study and chief medical officer at Orlando Regional Medical Center. In the case of diagnosing acute appendicitis, for example, CT scans have become an almost indispensable tool, reducing the chances of removing a healthy appendix from 24 percent down to just 3 percent. Similarly, with life-threatening or potentially debilitating problems from head trauma, "the obvious risks from radiation are outweighed by the benefit of the test," says Lynn Massingale, an emergency physician from Knoxville, Tenn., and CEO of Team Health, a company that provides ER doctors to more than 260 emergency departments nationwide.

There are times, however, "when we need to ask if it's worth exposing someone to this radiation and if doing so will actually give us the medical information we seek," says Bullard.

Hanging over every decision, according to many ER physicians, is the threat of legal liability. If, for example, a doctor misses a subdural hematoma because a CT scan wasn't ordered, malpractice suits are not an uncommon response. Another problem, according to Linda Lawrence, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, is that emergency room doctors often have no way of knowing how much prior exposure a patient has had. Absent a reason not to, physicians often go straight to the test that provides the most information -- the CT scan.

The fix, Bullard and others say, is for emergency departments nationwide to adopt portable electronic medical records that would store the number and type of exams as well as the estimated cumulative radiation exposure for each patient. Until that happens, though, experts recommend that patients keep track of all of their X-ray and CT scans and make sure that any medical personnel who might order diagnostic tests know the tally.

It's also entirely appropriate for patients to ask their doctors if another diagnostic exam could be used instead of a CT scan. Ultrasound and MRI, for example, do not emit the same sort of harmful radiation.Manufacturers have added adjustable dosage settings on the CT scanning equipment that take into account a patient's size and weight. Patients should inquire if technicians operating the machines are trained to minimize radiation exposure while still providing accurate images. Gregory Morrison, chief knowledge officer of the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, says patients should also ask if radiation could be reduced by performing one scan instead of several.

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/cancer/2008/05/30/facing-a-ct-scan-think-about-radiation.html

MRSA Infections Spreading From Swine to Humans

There has been a lot of coverage lately about the dangerous spread of a highly contagious form of bacterial infection known as MRSA that thrives in healthcare settings such as hospitals and nursing homes. The story we are looking at today raises a red flag about the link between MRSA and its rising incidence in swine and agricultural workers who work on swine farms or in pork processing plants.

For years the pork industry -- and the meat industry in general -- have exposed animals to high doses of antibiotics both through their feed and by directly injecting them with these drugs. It appears this practice is finally catching up with us, as the animals are becoming resistant to diseases such as MRSA, thus putting sick animals into the food chain, and also crossing the species barrier and directly infecting humans with diseases that are also resistant to treatment. You cannot violate the principles of nature indefinitely without eventually reaping the consequences. Thus, the greedy practices of the food industry and the blind eye of regulatory agencies are increasingly taking their toll on human health.


Drug-Resistant Staph Found in Midwestern Swine, Workers

IOWA CITY, Iowa, January 23, 2009 (ENS) - The first study documenting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in swine and swine workers in the United States has been published by University of Iowa researchers.

The investigators found a strain of MRSA, known as ST398, in a swine production system in the Midwest, according to research published today by the science journal "PLoS One."

"Our results show that colonization of swine by MRSA was very common in one of two corporate swine production systems we studied," said Dr. Tara Smith, an associate professor of epidemiology in the University of Iowa College of Public Health and lead author of the study.

"Because ST398 was found in both animals and humans, it suggests transmission between the two," she said.

"Our findings also suggest that once MRSA is introduced, it may spread broadly among both swine and their caretakers. Agricultural animals could become an important reservoir for this bacterium," Smith warned.

Staphylococcus aureus, often called staph, are bacteria commonly carried on the skin or in the nose of healthy people. MRSA is a type of staph that is resistant to the broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used to treat it.

A recent study estimated that MRSA caused 94,000 infections in humans and more than 18,000 deaths in the United States in 2005.

Most MRSA infections occur in hospitals or other health care settings, such as nursing homes and dialysis centers, according to the Mayo Clinic. Older adults and people with weakened immune systems are at most risk. More recently, another type of MRSA has occurred among otherwise healthy people in the wider community. This form, community-associated MRSA, is responsible for serious skin and soft tissue infections and for a serious form of pneumonia.

MRSA has been found in a variety of animals, including horses, cattle, dogs, cats and swine.
Previous studies have shown that many swine and swine farmers in Canada and the Netherlands carry MRSA. However, the University of Iowa study was the first to investigate carriage of MRSA among swine and swine farmers in the United States.

For the study, investigators analyzed nasal swabs of 299 swine and 20 swine workers from two different production systems in Iowa and Illinois. At Production System A, the overall prevalence of MRSA was 70 percent in swine and 64 percent in workers. At Production System B, all swine and human samples were negative for MRSA.

The researchers could not determine why System A had a high prevalence rate of MRSA among its swine and swine handlers, but listed several differences compared to System B.

First, the systems raised different breeds of swine. Second, System A was an older, more established operation that had approximately twice the number of animals as System B. Third, both systems imported sows from different sources, raising the possibility that ST398 may have been introduced via live swine or pork products.

"Iowa ranks first in the nation in swine production," Smith said. "Transmission of MRSA on swine farms or in veterinary facilities could complicate efforts to reduce MRSA transmission statewide and beyond."

The investigators recommended that future studies assess the risk of MRSA disease among swine workers and their contacts, survey retail meat products for MRSA contamination, study larger populations of swine and humans to define the epidemiology of MRSA within swine operations, and assess MRSA carriage rates in other livestock.

http://www.ens-newswire.com:80/ens/jan2009/2009-01-23-095.asp

Psych Drugs Linked to Fatalities?

In a very disturbing study released last week, British researchers have determined that Alzheimer's patients who are given certain antipsychotic drugs, often for the purpose of controlling undesirable behaviors, have a much greater chance of premature death than those who are not given the drugs.

This is a scathing indictment of the way we treat the elderly in Western society, many times institutionalizing them and drugging them with hazardous medications that can have serious side effects. In the situation outlined in today's story, it actually goes beyond side effects and results in unnecessary deaths. This is an outrage, and certainly morally, if not legally, a crime against humanity.

To call such procedures "healthcare" is a clear violation of the Hippocratic Oath, despite the muddled ethics of Big Pharma and many doctors that are under their spell. As I have so often stated on this blog, it is time we stand up and take back the control of responsible healthcare for our selves and our loved ones. It is critical that we are involved and informed about any and all medications or other procedures that are recommended to us or our family members, whether they are young or old. If we fail to do this we are only enabling the promiscuous use of drugs and must also take part of the blame for allowing ridiculous and dangerous care such as this to occur.


Antipsychotics Up Death Risk in Alzheimer's Patients
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter Fri Jan 9, 11:48 pm ET

FRIDAY, Jan. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Alzheimer's patients who are prescribed antipsychotic drugs face a higher risk of death than similar patients not given these medications do, British researchers report.

While the short-term use of antipsychotics has been found to benefit Alzheimer's patients, studies have found that prolonged use can have serious side effects, including Parkinson-like symptoms, sedation, chest infections, decline in brain function, stroke and death.

"It's an eye-opening study since it was one of the few non-company sponsored studies to look at long-term risks," said dementia expert Dr. P. Murali Doraiswamy, chief of the biological psychiatry division at Duke University.

"Antipsychotics are not and never were indicated for use in people with dementia," he added.
"But millions of elderly [people] were put on antipsychotics in nursing homes, often with little or no evidence to support such use."

For the study, lead researcher Dr. Clive Ballard, of the Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases at King's College London, and his colleagues randomly assigned 128 Alzheimer's patients to one of several antipsychotics or a placebo. The antipsychotic drugs included thioridazine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, trifluorperazine or risperidone.

The researchers found that, for the whole study period, the risk of death was 42 percent lower among people taking a placebo compared with those taking antipsychotics.

After one year of follow-up, 70 percent of the patients taking antipsychotics were still living, compared with 77 percent of those on placebo.

But after two years, 46 percent of those taking antipsychotics were alive, compared with 71 percent of those taking placebo. And after three years, only 30 percent of those on antipsychotics were alive, compared with 59 percent of those taking a placebo, the researchers found.

The findings were published online Jan. 8 in The Lancet Neurology.

Despite the findings, Doraiswamy said there's still a place for antipsychotics in some people with dementia. "If there is no other way to stop an Alzheimer's patient from acting dangerously and all other measures have failed, then antipsychotics can be used as a measure of last resort, but only for the shortest possible time at the lowest possible dose," he said.

The study authors agreed.

"Our opinion is that there is still an important but limited place for atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of severe neuropsychiatric manifestations of Alzheimer's disease, particularly aggression," the researchers wrote. "However, the accumulating safety concerns, including the substantial increase in long-term mortality, emphasize the urgent need to put an end to unnecessary and prolonged prescribing."

William Thies, chief medical officer at the Alzheimer's Association, said his group suggests that "non-pharmacological treatments" may be as effective as the antipsychotic drugs and should be considered first.

"Non-pharmacological treatments are things like changing the environment of the patient, changing the way the patient is addressed, and eliminating certain triggering events that may cause deteriorations in patient behavior," he said.

What You Need to Know About Antipsychotics

"Families need to be on the lookout and question their doctor closely if he or she recommends an antipsychotic for Alzheimer's," said Dr. P. Murali Doraiswamy, chief of the biological psychiatry division at Duke University.
He said families need to ask:

What is it for?
Why did you choose it? Is this the lowest dose that works?
Have you considered an alternative?
How long will my relative need to be on it?
How often will my relative be checked for side effects?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090110/hl_hsn/antipsychoticsupdeathriskinalzheimerspatients/print

Unhealthy Trends in Rural Population

In a reversal of traditional patterns, the study analyzed in today's article finds that many rural Americans weigh more and exercise less than their urban counterparts. I find this to be an interesting sociological phenomenon, because it contradicts what used to be the norm in decades past. The stereotypical city-dweller was thought to be physically soft due to a passive lifestyle and a poor diet, while those that lived in the country generally were seen as engaging in labor-intensive work in conjunction with a more nutritious diet of foods fresh off the farm.

Nowadays, it appears that many city people are more proactive about pursuing a healthy lifestyle, and unfortunately many individuals who live in rural areas do not make their living working physically hard, as farmers used to. In addition, it is often more difficult to find a good source of organic fruits and vegetables in some rural areas. In many small towns, fast food restaurants are the main choices for dining out. Perhaps the lesson here is that no matter where we live, if we value a lifestyle that leads to wellness, it is up to us to take whatever steps are needed whether we are a "city mouse" or "country mouse."


Eating At Buffets Plus Not Exercising Equals Obesity In Rural America
25 Dec 2008

In small towns in the Midwestern United States, people who eat out often at buffets and cafeterias and who perceive their community to be unpleasant for physical activity are more likely to be obese."

It's not that people don't want to get physical activity or eat healthy foods, but we've made it difficult in many communities," says Ross Brownson, Ph.D., senior author of the study and a professor at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis.

"People in small towns spend a great deal of time in cars, and they also may not have easy access to fresh fruits and vegetables in their markets."

The findings are published in the December issue of Preventive Medicine.

Thirty percent of U.S. adults are obese, which increases their risk for health conditions such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Rural adults have higher levels of obesity and are less active in their leisure time than urban and suburban U.S. adults, says Brownson, a faculty scholar of Washington University's Institute for Public Health and a professor at the School of Medicine.

From July to September 2005, 1,258 randomly selected adults in 12 rural communities in Missouri, Arkansas and Tennessee completed telephone surveys about their food choices and physical activity. Eligible households were within two miles of a community walking trail.

Researchers asked about their access to produce and low-fat foods, frequency and location of food shopping and frequency and location of restaurant dining. They also were asked how they perceived their community for physical activity.

The findings revealed that respondents who ate out often, especially at buffets, cafeterias and fast food restaurants, were more likely to be obese. Those with a high school education or less reported limited access to fruits and vegetables and were more likely to shop at convenience stores.

Additionally, obese participants tended to have less education and lower annual incomes than normal weight respondents. They also were more likely to view their community as unpleasant for physical activity, such as lacking sidewalks for walking or biking or to have few places to be active.

"Although obesity rates are higher in rural areas, this is one of the first studies to look at food choices and exercise in this population," says Alicia Casey, first author of the paper and now a doctoral student in health communications at Penn State University. "Determining how much these factors increase the risk of obesity in rural areas can help us determine methods to help this group."

Brownson points out that a lot of travel planning focuses on how to increase the numbers of automobiles on our roadways, not on how to make travel friendly by foot or bicycle.

Possible interventions to enhance safety for people who want to walk or bicycle along rural roads include widening the shoulders, using signage to identify pedestrian and cycle areas and reducing speed limits. Options to increase availability and affordability of healthy foods could involve working with food outlet owners and changes in state or federal taxation and agricultural policies to reduce the relative price of healthy foods compared to unhealthy foods.

Society, Brownson stresses, will be better off finding ways to prevent obesity instead of trying to treat the condition. "We need to take these issues into account when we're making transportation and city planning decisions," he says. "Everyone will benefit if we make the healthy choice the easy choice."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com:80/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=133837

Consumers Duped by "Healthy" Soft Drinks

It's about time somebody took action against soft drink manufacturers that are pawning their beverages off as health food, and that has happened in the form of a recently filed law suit that takes on Coca-Cola regarding what boils down to sugar water with a few useless vitamins thrown in to justify the excessive price. So basically what they are marketing is sweetened water (likely of a questionable source) with synthetic compounds they call "vitamins" that cannot be recognized and nutritionally utilized by the body anyway.

Corporations are very wily when it comes to marketing and consumer trends, and they know that people are becoming more educated about health and desire to make changes, although most have no clue where to begin. So, companies provide a slew of products that are "low-fat" or "diet" or "enriched" or "natural" (there are many "healthy" terms that are indiscriminately used) so that their customers can feel better about the things they are buying and consuming. In reality, as is the case in this situation, it is all about profit and the public is getting the wool pulled over their eyes. Let's hope that lawsuits such as these may continue to be publicized in the media and that the end result will be a dramatic shift in the way consumers view and understand the value of real food and nutritionally beneficial choices.


Coca-Cola Sued for Marketing Vitaminwater as Healthy
Center for Science in the Public Interest Claims Line's Labels, Ads are Misleading
By Ira Teinowitz and Natalie Zmuda Published: January 15, 2009

WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- A class action suit filed in California yesterday contends that Coca-Cola is illegally marketing its Vitaminwater line as healthy, and has in the process generated more than half a billion dollars in revenue.

The suit cites the labeling of Vitaminwater with flavors such as 'energy' and 'multi-v' as proof of its health claims.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is one party to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, that cites California consumer-protection laws and Coke's marketing of Glaceau Vitaminwater. The "defendant's advertising and marketing campaigns as well as its labeling of Vitaminwater deceptively promote VitaminWater as a healthy alternative to soft drinks," said the suit, which was filed by Reese Richman, a New York law firm.

"Vitaminwater is not a healthy beverage. Rather it is sugar water -- just like soft drinks -- with a few added vitamins," it further reads.

The suit cites the labeling of Vitaminwater with flavors such as "defense," "rescue," "energy" and "multi-v" as proof of its health claims. It contends that the claims allow Coke to sell a "healthy" product that contains the same level of sugar as a can of soda at a price premium to that of soft drinks.

The suit asks that California consumers of Vitaminwater since 2005 be awarded actual and punitive damages.

No negotiations
At a press conference today in Washington, CSPI leader Steve Gardner said the group hadn't negotiated with Coke because it hadn't had much success in negotiating on other cases with the company. "It's is really shocking that a company like Coca-Cola feels the need to market a soft drink as a vitamin pill to hide the fact it is really sugar water," he said.

Diana Garza Ciarlante, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman, called the suit and charges "ludicrous."

"Glaceau Vitaminwater is clearly and properly labeled and shows the amount of vitamins and calories in the product," she said. "Consumers today are savvy, educated and are looking for more from their beverages than just hydration. Many people know that they are not receiving adequate nutrients from their diets, so they have turned to products like Glaceau Vitaminwater in order to help supplement what they are not receiving from the foods they eat," she said.

"This is not about protecting the public interest," added the spokeswoman. "This is about increasing the readership of CSPI's increasingly irrelevant newsletter."

http://adage.com/print?article_id=133810

More Antibiotics? You Must be Kidding!

At first I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this story. Free antibiotics from a major grocery store chain? Even conventional medicine has recognized the dangers of the promiscuous use of these drugs and the hazards that can result. Where is the watchdog of our drug safety in America -- the FDA -- when a company comes up with a marketing ploy such as this? They get militant with anyone that dares discuss the benefits of natural foods or supplements, but yet allow the encouragement of these harmful drugs that, as the article points out, don't even effectively treat most of the ailments they are typically prescribed for.

Not only don't antibiotics help with viral ailments such as flu, colds, and others, but they actually weaken the body's ability to fight disease by compromising the balance of flora in the digestive tract where approximately 75% of the immune system is located. A better alternative is to take a quality probiotic product that boosts the number of "good" bacteria in the gut, thus strengthening the body and increasing its ability to absorb more nutrients from food as well. This plan to hand out antibiotics only encourages doctors to overprescribe and is one of the finest examples that I have ever seen of the pretzel logic that has long been the hallmark of Big Pharma and the FDA.


Antibiotics -- Even Free Ones -- Won't Cure Most Winter Ills
January 07, 2009 01:01 PM ET

The eastern seaboard will soon be awash in free antibiotics, as Wegmans yesterday announced the 72-store supermarket chain will make a 14-day supply of nine generic oral antibiotics available at no charge.

Giant Foods and Stop & Shop had already announced similar programs.

Wegmans says the program is aimed at helping people get through cold and flu season and will end March 31.

This is a nice public relations effort, and it is truly helpful for consumers who need these drugs. But the fact is that most wintertime ailments -- cold, flu, most sore throats, bronchitis, sinusitis -- are caused by viruses, not bacteria, and won't respond at all to antibiotics, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But doctors, pressed for time and perhaps not entirely certain that their patient's illness isn't caused by a bacterial infection, often go ahead and prescribe a course of antibiotics anyway. If the drugs are free, the temptation to prescribe is even greater. This can lead to a second problem: antibiotic resistance.

Overuse of antibiotics has led to an alarming growth in bacteria and other microbes that don't respond to the antibiotics that used to kill them. Antibiotic resistance is considered one of the world's most pressing public health problems.

Taking antibiotics when you don't need them may make your body resistant to antibiotics when you do, according to the CDC. If you've got a bug and your doctor says to let it run its course, do that instead of demanding antibiotics, even free ones.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2009/01/07/antibiotics_print.htm

Additional Hazards of Cigarette Smoke

The article featured today is pertinent to everyone, but may be of particular interest to individuals who suffer from allergies and asthma, or who are prone to chemical sensitivity. This research indicates that exposure to a building where smoking has occurred may result in toxic reactions due to the dust and chemicals that have accumulated.

This is especially important for anyone who is very sensitive to smoke and the many chemicals it contains or leaves behind. Smokers can apparently collect hazardous materials on their clothing, hair, and skin which can be toxic to others, especially children. Even when staying at a hotel, be sure to verify that your :non-smoking" room has truly never been smoked in. Some establishments may run an air purifier in a smoking room and pass it off as a non-smoking room when they need the space. Protect yourself from third-hand smoke!



Third-Hand Smoke Becomes Latest Cigarette Scare
Posted By MedHeadlines On 6 January, 2009 @ 6:26 In Children's Health, Medical Research,

Smoking cigarettes is a bad idea and medical science is continuously proving it's even worse than originally imagined. Science has proven that smoking often kills the smoker, by way of inhaled (first-hand) smoke. Second-hand smoking is both annoying and dangerous to anyone who, willingly or not, inhales the smoke of a nearby smoker. The medical journal, 'Pediatrics,' has now identified third-hand smoke and the health dangers it poses, especially to the very youngest non-smokers in a room.

Even when a smoker isn't actively smoking, toxic dust and dangerous volatile chemical compounds that filled the air while the cigarette was lit are still in the air. And what goes up, almost always comes down, settling onto furniture surfaces, flooring, and all other objects in the same room where the cigarette was smoked. It’s this residual contamination that is becoming known as third-hand smoke.

What makes third-hand smoke a particular concern is that it settles onto eating utensils and glassware that children eat and drink from, passing the toxins it contains on to the child. It also settles on children's food, toys, and everything else in the room, a particular concern for children who are learning to crawl along contaminated carpets, rugs, and smooth floorings and for everything a young child puts into his or her mouth.

Many parents are aware of the health risks to their children and pets when toxic lawn chemicals are used outside and a growing number of parents and pet owners have chosen to refrain from their use. In light of the 'Pediatrics' report on third-hand smoke, Joel Africk suggests concerned parents beware of the hazards of third-hand smoke with the same degree of vigilance with which they monitor lawn chemicals. Africk is president and CEO of the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago.

While noting the 'Pediatrics' study doesn't call for a legal ban on cigarette smoking in the privacy of one's home, he does urge parents to be aware of the hazards cigarettes cause to their children, even after the cigarette is extinguished and the smoke has cleared. According to Africk, it seems rather simple. He says, "if (parents) allow smoking in the home, it's going to hurt their children."

http://medheadlines.com:80/2009/01/06/third-hand-smoke-becomes-latest-cigarette-scare/print/

Common Cancer Screen Prone to Errors

The colonoscopy has long been recommended for people over the age of 50 and for younger individuals who have a history of colon cancer in their family, and is in fact one of the most commonly performed tests in America. While it can be a valuable tool when used appropriately, there is evidence that a disturbingly high percentage of these procedures fail to find cancer or the precursors that could indicate a risk for colon cancer. If you choose to undergo a colonoscopy, be sure to have it done by a provider who has a lot of experience, and a proven track record for safety and the ability to properly interpret the results.

While there is some valuable information in the article below, it is inaccurately titled, as a colonoscopy is not actually a preventative measure. The only way to prevent colon cancer is to practice a lifestyle of wellness that includes a whole foods based diet that is heavy on foods such as organic raw fruits and vegetables. It is also important to maintain good colon health by drinking plenty of pure water and regularly cleaning the colon using a quality oxygen-based cleanser. Exercise also helps to promote regularity, another way to keep the colon operating efficiently and thus prevent disease as well. The health of the colon/digestive tract is one of the primary issues that will dictate whether we are living well or simply existing in a state of disease. It is also where 75-80% of the immune system is located. Only a healthy digestive tract can properly absorb nutrients and remove waste from the body. You may want to consider doing a colon cleanse followed by the Optimum Liver and Gallbladder Cleanse to start the New Year, especially if you have overindulged in rich or unhealthy foods over the Holidays.


Colonoscopy Only Prevents 60% of Colon Cancer Cases

Washington (dbTechno) - According to a new study, having a colonoscopy come back negative does not mean you do not have colon cancer in some cases, as it has been found that the screening can possibly contain errors, missing some colon cancer cases.

A new Canadian study was published this week in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, and focused on the effectiveness of the colonoscopy screening for colon cancer.

What they found may surprise you, as the screening, which is commonly recommended, may not be as accurate as once thought.

Researchers carried out the study on patients to see if the screening could successfully detect colon cancer.

They discovered that the screening was not effective in finding cancer in the right side of the colon.

Colon cancer in this area is very hard to detect, and can prove to be deadly.

Overall, the colonoscopy screenings missed the majority of the cancers on the right side, and over 30% of cancers in the left side of the colon.

Doctors now believe these screenings may prevent around 60% of colon cancer cases, rather than the 90% originally believed.

http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2008/12/18/update-colonoscopy-only-prevents-60-of-colon-cancer-cases/

Sweets Can Be Habit-Forming

Princeton University researchers have discovered that sugar, one of the main components of the typical American diet, may have addictive properties similar to many drugs. The consumption of sweet foods increases for many people during the holiday season, but the truth is that most Americans consume way too much sugar all year round. This dietary habit leads to a multitude of health problems including diabetes, a weakened immune system, and malnutrition due to empty sugar calories replacing more nutritious foods.

Kicking the sugar habit is a very positive step that I highly recommend, especially as the New Year approaches. Try replacing sugar with a quality, locally grown honey, or stevia. But even honey and other natural alternatives to sugar should be used in moderation. Some people find that when quitting sugar it is best to avoid all sweeteners for a period of time and allow your body to adjust and get used to being without sweets. By all means, never stoop to using artificial sweeteners, as these substances are very toxic to the body. If you do whatever it takes to become free of sugar, you will be taking a major step towards overall wellness.


Study Suggests Sugar May Be Addictive
Finding might yield new insights into eating disorders, experts say
Posted December 10, 2008
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Science is verifying what many overeaters have suspected for a long time: sugar can be addictive.

In fact, the sweetener seems to prompt the same chemical changes in the brain seen in people who abuse drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

The findings were to be presented Wednesday at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology's annual meeting, in Nashville.

"Our evidence from an animal model suggests that bingeing on sugar can act in the brain in ways very similar to drugs of abuse," lead researcher Bart Hoebel, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, said during a Dec. 4 teleconference.

"Drinking large amounts of sugar water when hungry can cause behavioral changes and even neurochemical changes in the brain which resemble changes that are produced when animals or people take substances of abuse. These animals show signs of withdrawal and even long-lasting effects that might resemble craving," he said.

Dr. Louis Aronne, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City, added: "The big question has been whether it's just a behavioral thing or is it a metabolic chemical thing, and evidence like this supports the idea that something chemical is going on."

A "sugar addiction" may even act as a "gateway" to later abuse of drugs such as alcohol, Hoebel said.

The stages of addiction, as defined by the American Psychiatric Association, include bingeing, withdrawal and craving.

For the new research, rats were denied food for 12 hours a day, then were given access to food and sugar (25 percent glucose and 10 percent sucrose, similar to a soft drink) for 12 hours a day, for three to four weeks.

The bingeing released a surge of the neurotransmitter dopamine each time in the part of the brain involved in reward, the nucleus accumbens. "It's been known that drugs of abuse release or increase the levels of dopamine in that part of the brain," Hoebel said.

But it wasn't only the sugar that caused this effect, Hoebel explained -- it was the sugar combined with the alternating schedule of deprivation and largesse. After three weeks, the rats showed signs of withdrawal similar to those seen when people stop smoking or drinking alcohol or using morphine.

The scientists next blocked the animals' brain endorphins and found withdrawal symptoms, anxiety, behavioral depression and a drop in dopamine levels. In other words, they confirmed a neurochemical link with the rats' behavior.

But longer periods of abstinence didn't "cure" the rats. Instead, there were long-lasting effects with the animals: They ingested more sugar than before, as if they were craving the substance and, without sugar, they drank more alcohol.

The researchers speculated that some of these brain changes may also occur in people with eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia, although more research needs to be done to confirm the effects in humans.

"Some say it's easy to lose weight -- you just have to shut your mouth, stop eating so much," Aronne said. "I tell them a good way to overcome global warming is if people made less carbon dioxide by breathing less. Obviously, that's absurd. You can't do it because you feel uncomfortable.

"The same thing is true of eating," he added. "Fattening food has an impact on the regulating mechanism that breaks down your sense of fullness, makes you feel an urge to go back and get that blast of sugar and this creates the vicious cycle of weight gain that we're going through."

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/12/10/study-suggests-sugar-may-be-addictive_print.htm

Hidden Sodium in "Healthy" Foods

Today's post gives an interesting perspective on how the American food industry replaces ingredients that have gotten a bad reputation (such as fat) with others that are also harmful to our health, like excessive amounts of salt. In an effort to appeal to consumers, many foods that are marketed as "healthy" (but in reality are still processed junk foods, for the most part) are laced with extra salt to boost their flavor. Ordinary table salt imposes a huge burden on the body. Because it is bleached and chemically stripped of everything that might be beneficial, it introduces additional toxins into the body that are difficult to be expelled completely. Next to animal fat, high levels of sodium is one of the most dangerous factors of the SAD (Standard American Diet).

The best way to avoid too much sodium is to choose a diet based on whole, natural foods (organic is always best) that are not processed or full of artificial ingredients and additives. Using Himalayan Crystal Ionic salt is also recommended, as this has the added benefit of providing many minerals that the body needs. Himalayan Crystal Salt contains 84 minerals along with trace elements that come alive when dissolved in water, and is then able to penetrate the human cell in a form that can be easily metabolized by the body and does not lead to dehydration the way that common salt can.


High Salt Levels Common in Many Foods
Tuesday, December 2, 2008; 12:00 AM

TUESDAY, Dec. 2 (HealthDay News) -- There can be plenty of sodium -- commonly known as salt -- in foods that seem to be health-friendly, and shoppers should know that lower-fat foods can have much more sodium than full-fat products.

That's the finding of a report published online Monday by Consumer Reports magazine. Researchers analyzed 37 common supermarket items and found large amounts of sodium in unexpected places, including some products that don't even taste salty. For example: a cup of Kellogg's Raisin Brain cereal contains 350 milligrams of sodium; a half-cup of Friendship 1 percent low-fat cottage cheese has 360 milligrams of sodium; and a single Pepperidge Farm Whole Grain White Bagel has 440 milligrams of sodium.

Here are some other findings from the report:

Four strands of Twizzlers Black Licorice Twists have 200 milligrams of sodium, while four strands of Twizzlers Strawberry Licorice have 115 milligrams.

Prego Heart Smart Traditional Italian Sauce has 430 milligrams of sodium per half cup. The product has an American Heart Association logo on the label, which means that saturated fat and cholesterol are restricted, but not that it's low in sodium.

Each pancake made, as directed, with Aunt Jemima Original Pancake and Waffle Mix contains 200 milligrams of sodium.

One cup of Heart Healthy V8 vegetable juice has 480 milligrams of sodium.

Some seemingly healthy fast food can contain high levels of sodium. For example, McDonald's Premium Caesar Salad with grilled chicken has about 890 milligrams of sodium, without dressing. A large order of fries has 350 milligrams of sodium.

"Our analysis found that lower-fat products might be higher in sodium. That's in part because when fat is taken out of full-fat foods, sodium is sometimes used to compensate for flavor," Jamie Hirsh, associate health editor at Consumer Reports, said in a news release.

Healthy adults should consume no more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium a day (the amount in one teaspoon of table salt), according to dietary guidelines. Middle-aged and older people, those with high blood pressure, and black Americans should consume no more than 1,500 milligrams of sodium a day. But, the average American consumes 2,900 to 4,300 milligrams a day, the study authors said.

A high-sodium diet can increase the risk of high blood pressure (which can lead to heart attack, stroke, and kidney disease) and also increase the risk of asthma, kidney stones, osteoporosis and stomach cancer. A 50 percent reduction in Americans' dietary sodium intake could save 150,000 lives a year, according to the American Medical Association.

"On average, Americans consume far more sodium than the recommended daily limit. Unfortunately, cutting back isn't easy because of the high levels of sodium in the many processed and prepared foods that Americans eat on a regular basis," Hirsh said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/02/AR2008120201634_pf.html

Beware of Some Skin Care Treatments

The market for treatments regarding skin care and skin disorders is huge, and there are many new "remedies" that have recently become available and are quite safe when used correctly. In the past on this blog, we have warned readers about the dangers of many cosmetic and personal skin care products that contain toxic chemicals. Today's post covers ELOS (Electrical Light Optical Synergy) and IPL (Intense Pulsed Light) machines, and a recent case in New Zealand involving injury to a woman undergoing such treatments.

Apparently the training and certification given to operators of these machines varies greatly, as does the quality and safety of the equipment itself. The article also points out that certain medications can negatively affect ELOS treatments as well.

The skin is particularly vulnerable, as whatever substances are applied to this organ can go directly into the bloodstream and are quickly dispersed throughout the body. Newer procedures such as ELOS and IPL are usually safe and effective when properly administered; however, care must be taken when choosing this type of therapy. When dealing with any type of skin care, it is critical to research and make sure that the company offering the treatment has properly certified technicians and uses quality equipment. We must also remember that some people's skin is more sensitive because of diet, sun exposure, medications, cosmetics, etc. Thus, not everyone will react in the same manner nor should they all be treated alike. Before any type of skin treatment/therapy make sure that you tell the technician everything about your skin and be certain that you are getting treated by a reputable company. Ask for references. Also, if the pricing seems too good to be true, then check out other companies that are offering the same technique. Skincare therapy is really not a good place to "pinch" pennies.


Call for tight controls after scar therapy goes wrong
4:00AM Wednesday Nov 19, 2008
By Martin Johnston

The beauty therapy industry is calling for tighter controls after a woman who was treated for acne scars ended up with worse damage on her face.

Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Rae Lamb yesterday made public her brief report on the case, in which she said the therapist breached the code of patients' rights on standard of care and informed consent.

The woman had asked the clinic about laser treatments for acne scars and a skin pigmentation disorder which had left dark patches on her cheeks.

She was treated with an ELOS machine (electrical light optical synergy). The next morning she found blisters and swelling where she had been treated.

She sought help from another beauty therapist and a doctor. The clinic apologised, refunded her fee and offered free treatments. She needed further assessment and treatment from a skin specialist.

The therapist had been trained in the use of the machine. She assessed the woman's skin type as highest risk for treatment with ELOS or the related intense pulsed light (IPL) machine.

The woman signed her consent to the therapy, but was "clearly unaware of the risks", Ms Lamb
said.

The consultation form listed medications that could cause problems with ELOS. The woman's acne was concurrently being treated with an antibiotic, but it did not appear the use of this medication was "satisfactorily explored".

Ms Lamb said the Association of Beauty Therapists had no guidelines on therapists' use of ELOS and IPL machines and the industry relied on the machines' distributors for training. The association's policy on IPL focused more on workplace safety than managing risks to clients.

"It appears that there is a need for adequate guidelines/standards regarding the use of ELOS and IPL equipment across the whole sector."

Association president Judy West said yesterday: "We have been really concerned. We are certainly looking into trying to make this more safe for the public." The established distributors provided good training, but many machines were obtained through the internet "and that's creating massive problems".

Russell Smith, owner of InTouch Medical, the distributor of a British IPL machine, said British and US machines cost $50,000 to $100,000. Chinese-made machines could be imported for $7000, but some were so poorly designed that patients could inadvertently be burned.

THE MACHINE
* Electrical light optical synergy (ELOS).
* Uses an adjustable combination of pulsed light and radio frequencies.
* A development of intense pulsed light (IPL), which uses only light.
* It is estimated there are up to 300 machines in use in New Zealand, mainly by beauty therapists.
* They are different from laser therapy.
* IPL can be used to remove hair, freckles and spider veins. ELOS can also treat acne.
* Beauty therapists, unlike nurses and doctors, are not regulated by statute.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10543799

Perfume = Air Pollution

Many individuals have an allergy or chemical sensitivity to ingredients in perfumes, colognes, and other fragrances. But today's article points out that even if a person does not have an allergic reaction to such chemicals, they are by nature toxic, and many are carcinogens as well. People who use these products create a hazard for those around them, and by applying perfumes to their skin they endanger themselves as well.

Indoor air pollution is a very serious problem. Due to the confined nature of interior air, the conditions inside our homes, offices, and automobiles are typically much worse than outside. Most homes are loaded with cleaning and personal care products that are also very toxic. Whether we are aware of bad reactions to these substances or not, it is wise to very carefully consider what we allow ourselves to be exposed to in our homes and places of work.

Many people like to use an essential oil hydrosol. They are very refreshing and up-lifting without being harmful or polluting the air. Rose Hydrosol is one of my personal favorites.


Co-Workers Can Sue Over Excessive Perfume in Workplace
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, November 29, 2008

A Judge has ruled that a lawsuit over workplace perfume filed by a Detroit city planner can proceed. The lawsuit alleges that perfume from a co-worker made Susan McBride unable to properly breathe, creating a hazardous work environment and making it difficult for her to complete her work.

The city of Detroit sought to have the lawsuit dismissed in court, but the Judge agreed with McBride that her difficulty in breathing with the excessive perfume did, indeed, qualify for protection under federal laws that protect the disabled from workplace discrimination.

That may seem like an odd law to invoke in this case (is McBride really "disabled" due to her difficulty in breathing?) but at least it is recognizing the reality of perfume toxicity.

Let's get straight to the real story here, folks: Perfume-wearing people are toxic to the world, and they create a toxic workplace filled with poisonous, cancer-promoting chemicals that cause healthy people to gasp for breath.

It mostly seems to be old ladies who slosh on the perfume, but it's also a few old men, and none of them seem to have any idea that their toxic scents can be detected a quarter-mile away, upwind!

That's because the senses of these perfume-wearing idiots have been burned out by years and years of chemical assault. They can't even smell their own perfume, so they slop on ever-increasing amounts of the stuff, completely oblivious to the fact that they're creating a toxic cloud of fumes emanating at least ten meters from their body in all directions. They stand in elevators, sit in meetings or walk down hallways, thinking, "Gee, I smell so pretty!" when, in reality, they smell like some disgruntled family member smashed a bottle of perfume over their thick skulls and they never bothered to wash it off.

Synthetic perfume chemicals cause cancer

These people also remain oblivious to the fact that perfumes contain cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed right through the skin. These chemicals enter the blood where they poison the liver and other organs, causing cancer and cellular toxicity throughout the body.

I also have a theory that this onslaught of chemicals literally affects brain function, causing the brain to recede from sensory reality by decoupling neurons, thus making those people cognitively impaired. You can observe this in the real world, too: Have you ever noticed it's the dumbest people who wear the most perfume or cologne? I do not believe that is by chance: It could very well be a cause-effect relationship between perfume chemicals and brain function.

Keep in mind, too, that dumbed-down mainstream consumers use a lot of perfume-laced products throughout their homes: Laundry detergent, dryer sheets, air fresheners, carpet cleaners, shampoo, shower soap and other products laced with the same toxic fragrance chemicals found in perfumes. This creates a toxic environment in which cancer is accelerated and brain development is retarded.

NaturalNews supports a nationwide ban on perfumes in the workplace. Indoor air pollution in offices across the country is already quite bad due to the toxic chemicals used in building materials (particle board, carpet glues, etc.). It certainly does not need perfumes, colognes and smelly shower soap added to the recipe.

In addition, personal care products containing cancer-causing chemicals should be banned from the marketplace entirely. All perfume products are technically illegally labeled because they don't warn consumers of the cancer risk of their ingredients.

I encourage ALL workers exposed to perfumes to sue for damage caused by exposure to such chemicals. It is only through such lawsuits that employers will enforce "no fragrance" rules and eliminate such toxic chemicals from work environments.

Barely a decade ago, people even SMOKED in the workplace! Today that would be considered ludicrous. And why? Because smoke contains hazardous chemicals and pollutes the air for everyone.Precisely the same argument applies to perfumes.

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000560_fragrance_chemicals_indoor_air_workplace_environment.html