Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

[BroJones]

Important material today, IMO --

By Dr. Mercola

There is no shortage of misinformation when it comes to diet and exercise. The fitness industry is a multi-billion dollar business based on selling you one piece of equipment or another, one supplement or another, constantly bombarding you with images of "the perfect body" if you will only do this or that.

Unfortunately, marketing perpetuates myths, and these myths are further perpetuated by word of mouth. Some of these myths will hold you back from achieving your fitness goals—or worse yet, damage to your body and your health.

* Are you under-exercising?
* Or maybe over-exercising?
* Are you on the right supplements?

Are you stuck with your progress toward your weight loss and fitness goals? Maybe you have unknowingly bought into some of the same exercise myths that I did over the years. It's time to take a look at fact versus fiction, when it comes to diet and exercise. Let's take a look at several of the more common exercise myths making the rounds today.

Myth #1: Long Cardio Workouts are the Key to Weight Loss

If you walk into any gym, you'll likely observe like I do that the majority of people working out are using the cardio equipment, believing they're getting an excellent workout. I really don't blame them as I was caught up in the same misinformation for over 40 years. Only recently did I learn there are FAR better forms of exercise, especially if you're 40 or above. There is a growing body of science showing that longer workouts are not better—which is great news if you are already trying to fit 25 hours of activity into every day.

Runners can rejoice—your days of spending long hours pounding the pavement each morning are finally over!

Science continues to confirm that shorter, higher-intensity burst workouts result in greater fat burning, greater development of lean body mass, and a variety of other benefits than the more time-consuming cardio routines of yesteryear.

The reason for this is that high-intensity burst exercises, like what I've incorporated into my Peak Fitness program, engage all the different muscle fibers in your body, including a certain group of muscle fibers that you cannot engage through conventional aerobic cardio. High-intensity burst exercises also boost your body's natural production of human growth hormone (HGH), a hormone produced by your pituitary gland that is key for physical strength, health and longevity.

High-intensity burst exercises require only a 20-minute time investment two to three times per week for optimal benefits.

I've been doing high-intensity burst exercises since April 2010 and have shed over 17 pounds of fat and three inches off my waist, while gaining more than seven pounds of muscle, all while dramatically reducing the time I spend in the gym. My Peak Fitness program is a comprehensive exercise plan that also includes strength training, core exercises, and stretching. But please remember that 80% of those results were related to the foods I was choosing to ear. It is the combination of the right foods and exercise the produces the results.

Myth #2: When it Comes to Exercise, More is Better

Although nearly everyone reading this is probably exercising too little, it is important to realize you can also sabotage your weight loss efforts by over-exercising. In this case, your body goes into an elevated stress response, keeping your cortisol levels too high. Cortisol, also known as "the stress hormone," is secreted by your adrenal glands and is involved in a variety of important metabolic functions, such as regulating your insulin and glucose levels, and controlling inflammation. Elevated cortisol will cause your body to store fat instead of building muscle.

Recovery is absolutely crucial to your long term success. You simply must provide your body with the opportunity to rebuild and restore itself after you stress it with intense workouts.

I no longer recommend marathon running and other high endurance exercises because science has now confirmed that these extreme endurance races place extraordinary stress on your heart—even if you're very fit.

Long-term endurance athletes have been found to suffer from diminished function of the right heart ventricles and increased cardiac enzyme levels, which indicate injury to the heart muscle itself. In 12 percent of endurance athletes, scarring of the heart tissue is detectable one week post race. Regardless of what type of exercise you do, always listen to your body as it will give you important feedback about whether or not you are overexerting yourself.

Myth #3: You Need to Take Supplements to Build Muscle

Muscle is hard to build and easy to lose. As you age, this is even more pronounced. Building a lean, healthy body depends on your overall diet, not just the right supplements, contrary to what you might hear at the gym. As I have said many times, with few exceptions, supplements should supplement your foods—not replace them. Strength training and resistance training are also key for building a lean body.

The leaner you are, the higher your metabolic rate will be. Weight training (aka resistance training) should be an integral part of your total fitness routine, which is why it's an important component of my Peak Fitness program.

Good nutrition requires eating a wide range of high-quality, fresh whole foods, such as organic vegetables, grass-pastured meats, organic eggs, etc., and minimizing your sugar intake. For more comprehensive nutritional guidelines, refer to my Nutrition Plan. If you are interested in augmenting your fitness routine and want to incorporate some supplements, there are a few that stand out above the rest:

* Omega-3 fats: Omega-3s benefit your heart and reduce inflammation, which may decrease your muscle soreness after a workout. Omega-3s also aid in tissue repair—and many other things. Research suggests the overall best omega-3 supplement is krill oil. Omega-3s can also improve your insulin response, and their deficiency has been linked to obesity.
* Carnosine: Carnosine is composed of two amino acids, beta-alanine and histidine, which help buffer acids in your muscles and serve as a potent antioxidants to quell inflammation, thereby reducing muscle soreness. (As an added note, research has also shown that fresh ginger can alleviate sore muscles.) Beta-alanine is probably more important if you are going to supplement with carnosine. This is particularly important for those who choose to avoid animal protein.
* Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA): Research shows CLA is beneficial in lowering your body fat while preserving muscle tissue, and may also increase your metabolic rate. The best source is grass-fed beef, but if you don't have access to this, you may want to consider a supplement.
* Whey Protein High quality whey protein is not really a supplement but a food, and it's one of the highest quality sources of protein you can consume. Whey protein contains a complete range of the amino acids necessary for building muscle, and benefits your heart as well. Whey protein should be consumed at the appropriate time with respect to exercising, for maximum benefit.

Myth #4: You Need a Sports Drink to Replenish Your Body's Electrolytes when Exercising

For most average exercisers and athletes, sports drinks are not only a waste of your money, but they are typically far more harmful than helpful to your health. Most sports drinks are loaded with things you DON'T want, like refined sugars, artificial colors and chemicals.

If you exercise for 30 minutes a day at a moderate to high intensity, fresh, pure water is the best thing to help you stay hydrated. It's only when you've been exercising for longer periods, such as for more than 60 minutes or in the heat, or at extreme intensity levels where you are sweating profusely, that you may need something more than water to replenish your body.

Besides plain water, coconut water is one of the best and safest options to rehydrate you after a strenuous workout. Coconut water has a powerhouse of natural electrolytes, vitamins, minerals, trace elements, amino acids, enzymes, antioxidants and phytonutrients, and is low in sugar but still pleasantly sweet. Depending on how much salt you've lost through sweating, you might even add a tiny pinch of natural Himalayan salt to your glass of coconut water. One study in 2007i found sodium-enriched coconut water to be as effective as commercial sports drinks for whole body rehydration after exercise, with less stomach upset.

Myth #5: Stretching Before Exercise Will Prevent Injury

Traditional warm-ups are seriously flawed. One of the most common mistakes is stretching—doing the wrong type or the wrong amount of stretching—during the warm-up. Stretching too much or in the wrong way can actually cause, rather than prevent, injury. Mild stretching is okay, but keep each stretch brief. Five to 10 seconds per body part is usually sufficient; keep your repetitions below six.

It is better to do more sets at low repetitions than low sets at high reps during a warm-up. Save the more intense stretching for later in your workout.

The best type of stretching to do before a workout is dynamic stretching, as opposed to static stretching (which is what most people do). I personally have been doing active isolated stretching for the past three years. I consider it a vital element of my exercise program and seek to do it daily if time permits. I typically do it at night before I go to bed while I relax.

Myth #6: If You Don't Exercise When You're Young, It's Dangerous to Start When You're Older

You are never too old to start exercising. In fact, exercise gets even more important with advancing age. Research shows that, no matter your age, you stand to gain significant improvements in strength, range of motion, balance, bone density and mental clarity through exercise. Ideally, you will have made exercise a regular part of your life long before you reach your "golden" years… but if you haven't, there's no better time to start than the present. Research has shown that regular exercise, even initiated late in life, offers profound health benefits.

For example, consider the following scientific studies:

* Even a small amount of exercise may protect the elderly from long-term memory loss and even help reverse some of the effects of aging.ii
* Women between the ages of 75 and 85, all of whom had reduced bone mass or full-blown osteoporosis, were able to lower their fall risk with strength training and agility activities.iii
* Moderate exercise among those aged 55 to 75 may cut the risk of developing metabolic syndrome, which increases heart disease and diabetes risk.iv
* Among those who started exercising at age 50 and continued for 10 years, the rate of premature death declined dramatically, similar to giving up smoking and mirroring the level as seen among people who had been working out their entire lives.v
* Exercise significantly improved muscle endurance and physical capacity among heart failure patients with an average age of 76.vi

My mother is a perfect example of how exercise can benefit the elderly. She began a workout program in 2010 while still recovering from a fall in 2009 in which she fractured both her shoulder and wrist. Exercise has been extremely helpful to her in regaining strength, balance, and flexibility.

COROLLARY to Myth #6: The Dreaded Spread is Inevitable

"Middle-age spread" is avoidable! People often DO gain weight as they move into middle age, but this is due to decreased activity, rather than an inevitable by-product of aging. Remember though that optimizing your weight is about 80 percent related to the foods you are eating.

If you aren't engaging in regular exercise as you age, your muscles will atrophy, a phenomenon called sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss). The key to avoiding sarcopenia is challenging your muscles with appropriately intense exercise. Age-related muscle loss affects about 10 percent of people over 60, with higher rates with advancing age. This loss of muscle means you'll burn fewer calories when both active and at rest, so your body composition tends to shift to less muscle and more fat.

The good news is that this dreaded spread can be prevented (or reversed) with a comprehensive fitness program that incorporates anaerobic exercise, core strengthening, resistance training, stretching, and of course good nutrition.

Seize the Day!

If you're still on the fence about starting an exercise program, there's no time like the present. I guarantee it will make a major difference in your energy level, self-esteem and probably your entire outlook on life. It is really THAT powerful, whether you're 18 years old or 80!

It's important to incorporate a wide variety of activities into your exercise routine, to provide comprehensive conditioning and prevent boredom. If you've been sedentary for any length of time or you're out of shape for some other reason, then start slowly. One of the main reasons people don't stick with an exercise routine is because they go too hard, too fast and wind up with an injury, illness or simple exhaustion.

For tips on getting started, I invite you to explore my fitness site, Mercola Peak Fitness, which is a treasure trove of exercise videos and articles. It's a wonderful resource to help you become fitness savvy and make exercise a regular and enjoyable part of your life.

References:

* i See All References

[BroJones]

From another--

Woman Stuns Researchers by Overcoming Cancer with Turmeric Spice

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
July 8, 2012

While expensive cancer drugs linked to premature death and mega-tumors are pushed by many mainstream doctors as the only option outside of chemotherapy, a growing number of informed individuals are consistently opting to instead utilize natural methods that are known to conquer cancer cells and effectively negate the disease — without harsh side effects. One such person, Vicky Stewart of Britain, chose such a path when she refused mainstream medical cancer treatments and instead began consuming powerful turmeric spice.

Despite excessive warnings from MD’s who insisted that Vicky would surely not recover using superfoods that are commonly touted as ‘woo’ and ‘ineffective medicine’ by pharma-backed doctors, Stewart found amazing success by altering her lifestyle and taking in extra amounts of supefoods like turmeric each day.

Stewart recalls to The Telegraph how her doctor repeatedly voiced concern over switching to a healthy diet full of turmeric to fight the cancer (one of many turmeric health benefits), telling her that it would do virtually nothing:

“The doctors absolutely will not say that the diet is going to do anything to help the cancer in any way.”

Four years later with absolutely no mainstream treatments, she is still cancer free with no signs of it coming back. At the age off 44, Stewart is now the center of a major research project led by scientists who are downright fascinated by what she has done.
Research Shows Turmeric Spice is a Natural Cancer Fighter

While it is indeed fascinating, it should come as no surprise that Vicky healed herself naturally using turmeric and other lifestyle changes. In fact, copious amounts of research highlight the anti-cancer properties of turmeric (in many cases due to it’s active compound curcumin), and countless individuals have used it to aid themselves in the fight against many diseases.

Not only has peer-reviewed research by the UCLA shown that turmeric can naturally block the growth of cancer cells, but in more than 9 studies it was revealed that turmeric can reduce tumor size by a whopping 81%. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. So why is it so fascinating that a spice that has been used for thousands upon thousands of years by many South Asian and Middle Eastern countries as a ‘heal-all’ substance can actually stop cancer naturally?

As Stewart explains, turmeric has a unique ability (along with other great superfoods) to essentially cause cancer to regress in a number of ways. As she puts it, it essentially caused the cancer cells to ‘commit suicide’. Stewart explains to The Telegraph:

“Turmeric kind of makes cancer cells commit suicide and ginger and garlic are great to cook with.”

Mainstream Health Organizations, Doctors Continue to Ignore the Evidence

Even in the face of such overwhelming evidence (whether it be studies that have been available for decades, stories like those of Stewart’s, or the prominent role of turmeric in multi-national cultures), mainstream health organizations and traditional medical doctors continue to cling to radiation and dangerous cancer drugs as the only possible option to ‘treating’ cancer. Just as Stewart’s doctor warned her that diet would do virtually nothing despite saving her life and eliminating cancer from her body completely, these individuals will continue to assert that all alternative medicine is a joke.

In the same vein, cancer researchers will continue to be paid by charity walks and expensive non-profit events to ‘find the cure’ through invasive surgeries and pharmaceuticals. Turmeric, a dirt cheap alternative along with other nearly-free suprfoods, are blatantly ignored as they cannot be patented and sold through Big Pharma’s proverbial commodity gates. Thankfully, millions worldwide are waking up to this ‘old paradigm’ of health full of pharmaceuticals, surgery and sickness. In turn, they are utilizing life-saving techniques and foods to further their health without sacrificing both their finances and their health.
540x80 papaya leaf extract Woman Stuns Researchers by Overcoming Cancer with Turmeric Spice

Explore More:

1. Beating Cancer with Nutrition – Turmeric Slows Spread of Breast Cancer
2. Natural Cancer-Fighting Spice Reduces Tumors by 81%
3. Turmeric Offers Powerful Anti-Cancer Benefits Without Side Effects
4. Turmeric, Curcumin Naturally Block Cancer Growth
5. Turmeric Shown to Cut Heart Disease, Diabetes Risk
6. Cancer Rates Can be Cut in Half with Lifestyle Changes


Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/woman-stuns-r ... z205LVBLt0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Elizabeth]

Is Cancer the Result of Diminished Pancreatic Enzymes?

This systemic use of enzymes is just now taking off in the United States, but the use of enzymes to treat cancer has its roots all the way back to 1911 with John Beard's The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis. Beard believed cancer was a result of diminished pancreatic enzymes, impairing your immune response. A study in 1999iv suggests he may have been right on target.

Ten patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer were treated with large doses of oral pancreatic enzymes (along with detoxification and an organic diet), and their survival rates were 3 to 4 times higher than patients receiving conventional treatment. Proteolytic enzymes can be helpful in treating cancer because they help restore balance to your immune system. Dr. Nick Gonzalez in New York City, NY has also done a lot of work on enzymes in cancer treatment and has written a book on the subject.v

Some of the ways proteolytic enzymes can be helpful in the fight against cancer are:vi

Boosting cytokines, particularly interferon and tumor necrosis factor, which are very important warriors in destroying cancer cells.
Decreasing inflammation.
Dissolving fibrin: Cancer cells hide under a cloak of fibrin to escape detection. Once the cancer cells are "uncloaked," they can be spotted and attacked by your immune system. It is also thought that fibrin makes cancer cells "stick together," which increases the chance for metastases.
German studies have shown that systemic enzymes increase the potency of macrophages and killer cells 12-fold.
Fortunately, you get (or should be getting) many enzymes from the foods you consume—particularly, raw foods. These directly help with your digestive process. The more raw foods you eat, the lower the burden on your body to produce the enzymes it needs, not only for digestion, but for practically everything. Whatever enzymes are not used up in digestion are then available to help with other important physiological processes.

This is one of the reasons why it is so important to eat a diet rich in fresh, organic, raw foods. You may even want to try juicing some of your vegetables, and the core of your pineapple, as a way of getting more nutrients—and enzymes—into your body. In the event you use enzymes in supplement form, it is crucial that, in order for enzymes to be used systemically, they must be consumed on an empty stomach. Otherwise, your body will use them for digesting your food, instead of being absorbed into the blood and doing their work there.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... L_artNew_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BroJones]

Thanks, Sarah.

Today Dr Mercola pursues the theme of effective alternatives to chemotherapy.

Surprising Cancer-Fighting Benefits of Pineapple Enzyme
July 11 2012 | 87,324 views |
By Dr. Mercola

One of the reasons why conventional cancer treatment is such a dismal failure in the United States is because it relies on chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy drugs are, by their very nature, extremely toxic and typically work against your body's natural ability to fight cancer, e.g. destroying host immunity instead of supporting it.

One of the biggest drawbacks to chemotherapy is the fact that it destroys healthy cells throughout your body right along with cancer cells, a "side effect" that often leads to accelerated death, not healing.

Another devastating side effect of chemotherapy is the way it actually supports the more chemo resistant and malignant cell subpopulations within tumors (e.g. cancer stem cells), both killing the more benign cells and/or senescent cells within the tumor that keep it slow-growing, or even harmless.

As a result, this unleashes a more aggressive, treatment-resistant type of cancer to wreak havoc on the body.

A handful of natural compounds have been discovered, however, which exhibit an effect called "selective cytotoxicity." This means they are able to kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed.

This type of cancer treatment is intelligent, targeted and will not result in the death of the patient from "collateral damage" in what is increasingly a failed war not against the cancer being treated, but the patient's own irreversibly devastated body.

Bromelain in Pineapples Kills Cancer Cells Without Harming You

One such compound is bromelain, an enzyme that can be extracted from pineapple stems. Research published in the journal Planta Medica found that bromelain was superior to the chemotherapy drug 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in an animal study.i Researchers stated:

"This antitumoral effect [of bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control."

What makes this impact particularly impressive is that the bromelain worked without causing additional harm to the animals. The chemo drug 5-fluorauracil, on the other hand, has a relatively unsuccessful and dangerous track record despite being used for nearly 40 years.

As written by GreenMedInfo:

"As a highly toxic, fluoride-bound form of the nucleic acid uracil, a normal component of RNA, the drug is supposed to work by tricking more rapidly dividing cells -- which include both cancer and healthy intestinal, hair follicle, and immune cells -- into taking it up, thereby inhibiting (read: poisoning) RNA replication enzymes and RNA synthesis.…

When a person dies following conventional cancer treatment it is all too easy to "blame the victim" and simply write that patient's cancer off as "chemo-resistant," or "exceptionally aggressive," when in fact the non-selective nature of the chemotoxic agent is what ultimately lead to their death."

Selective cytotoxicity is indeed a property that is only found among natural compounds; no chemotherapy drug yet developed is capable of this effect. Aside from bromelain, other examples of natural compounds that have been found to kill cancer cells without harming healthy cells include:

* Vitamin C -- Dr. Ronald Hunninghake carried out a 15-year research project called RECNAC (cancer spelled backwards). His groundbreaking research in cell cultures showed that vitamin C was selectively cytotoxic against cancer cells.
* Eggplant extract: Solasodine rhamnosyl glycosides (BEC), which is a fancy name for extracts from plants of the Solanaceae family, such as eggplant, tomato, potato, Bell peppers, and tobacco, also impact only cancerous cells leaving normal cells alone. Eggplant extract cream appears to be particularly useful in treating skin cancer. Dr. Bill E. Cham, a leading researcher in this area, explains:

"The mode of action of SRGs [glycoalkaloids solasodine rhamnosy glycosides (BEC)] is unlike any current antineoplastic [anti-tumor] agent. Specific receptors for the SRGs present only on cancer cells but not normal cells are the first step of events that lead to apoptosis in cancer cells only, and this may explain why during treatment the cancer cells were being eliminated and normal cells were replacing the killed cancer cells with no scar tissue being formed."

* Turmeric (Curcumin Extract): Of all the natural cancer fighters out there, this spice has been the most intensely researched for exhibiting selective cytotoxicity.ii Remarkably, in a 2011 study published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, rats administered curcumin, the primary polyphenol in turmeric, saw a decrease in experimentally-induced brain tumors in 9 out of 11 treated, while noting that the curcumin did not affect the viability of brain cells "suggesting that curcumin selectively targets the transformed [cancerous] cells."

How Enzymes Might Help Treat Cancer

Bromelainis a proteolyticenzyme (an enzyme that digests proteins). In the Planta Medica study, it was injected directly into the abdominal cavity. Getting enzymes from your digestive tract into your bloodstream isn't as easy as it would seem, as enzymes are very susceptible to denaturing and must be helped to survive the highly acidic environment in your stomach. They are often given an "enteric coating" to help them survive the journey through your digestive tract.

And then, there is the matter of absorption. For nearly 100 years, medical dogma insisted that enzymes taken orally were too large to pass through the digestive tract wall.

However, there is now a good deal of research that they can indeed pass through your intestine intactiii and into your bloodstream and lymphatic system, where they can deliver their services to the rest of your body... one of the mysteries of medical science.

Now that we know this is possible, systemic oral enzymes have been used to treat problems ranging from sports injuries to arthritis to heart disease and cancer, particularly in European countries. But most of the research has been published in non-English language journals.

Is Cancer the Result of Diminished Pancreatic Enzymes?

This systemic use of enzymes is just now taking off in the United States, but the use of enzymes to treat cancer has its roots all the way back to 1911 with John Beard's The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis. Beard believed cancer was a result of diminished pancreatic enzymes, impairing your immune response. A study in 1999iv suggests he may have been right on target.

Ten patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer were treated with large doses of oral pancreatic enzymes (along with detoxification and an organic diet), and their survival rates were 3 to 4 times higher than patients receiving conventional treatment. Proteolytic enzymes can be helpful in treating cancer because they help restore balance to your immune system. Dr. Nick Gonzalez in New York City, NY has also done a lot of work on enzymes in cancer treatment and has written a book on the subject.v

Some of the ways proteolytic enzymes can be helpful in the fight against cancer are:vi

* Boosting cytokines, particularly interferon and tumor necrosis factor, which are very important warriors in destroying cancer cells.
* Decreasing inflammation.
* Dissolving fibrin: Cancer cells hide under a cloak of fibrin to escape detection. Once the cancer cells are "uncloaked," they can be spotted and attacked by your immune system. It is also thought that fibrin makes cancer cells "stick together," which increases the chance for metastases.
* German studies have shown that systemic enzymes increase the potency of macrophages and killer cells 12-fold.

Fortunately, you get (or should be getting) many enzymes from the foods you consume—particularly, raw foods. These directly help with your digestive process. The more raw foods you eat, the lower the burden on your body to produce the enzymes it needs, not only for digestion, but for practically everything. Whatever enzymes are not used up in digestion are then available to help with other important physiological processes.

This is one of the reasons why it is so important to eat a diet rich in fresh, organic, raw foods. You may even want to try juicing some of your vegetables, and the core of your pineapple, as a way of getting more nutrients—and enzymes—into your body. In the event you use enzymes in supplement form, it is crucial that, in order for enzymes to be used systemically, they must be consumed on an empty stomach. Otherwise, your body will use them for digesting your food, instead of being absorbed into the blood and doing their work there.

Looking for an Alternative to Chemo for Cancer Treatment?

Dr. Gonzalez is on the front lines and actively engaged in helping people by coaching them with natural alternatives instead of toxic drugs and radiation for cancer. I would personally not hesitate to recommend him to a family member or a friend diagnosed with cancer. His website, http://www.dr-gonzalez.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, also contains information on how to become a patient, and everything a potential patient needs to know.

Another source for more information about alternative cancer treatments in general is Suzanne Somers' book, Knockout. She reviews Dr. Gonzalez' work in one chapter, and Dr. Gonzalez personally recommends the book as a well-researched resource for anyone interested in getting more information.

Additionally, Dr. Gonzalez has written a series of books, two of which have already been published and received five-star reviews: The Trophoblast and the Origins of Cancer and One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley. Three others are in the works, one of which will contain 100 of Dr. Gonzalez' case reports of patients with advanced cancer who successfully recovered on his program.

References:

* i See All References

[karend77]

Is Cancer the Result of Diminished Pancreatic Enzymes?

This systemic use of enzymes is just now taking off in the United States, but the use of enzymes to treat cancer has its roots all the way back to 1911 with John Beard's The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis. Beard believed cancer was a result of diminished pancreatic enzymes, impairing your immune response. A study in 1999iv suggests he may have been right on target.

Ten patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer were treated with large doses of oral pancreatic enzymes (along with detoxification and an organic diet), and their survival rates were 3 to 4 times higher than patients receiving conventional treatment. Proteolytic enzymes can be helpful in treating cancer because they help restore balance to your immune system. Dr. Nick Gonzalez in New York City, NY has also done a lot of work on enzymes in cancer treatment and has written a book on the subject.v

Some of the ways proteolytic enzymes can be helpful in the fight against cancer are:vi

Boosting cytokines, particularly interferon and tumor necrosis factor, which are very important warriors in destroying cancer cells.
Decreasing inflammation.
Dissolving fibrin: Cancer cells hide under a cloak of fibrin to escape detection. Once the cancer cells are "uncloaked," they can be spotted and attacked by your immune system. It is also thought that fibrin makes cancer cells "stick together," which increases the chance for metastases.
German studies have shown that systemic enzymes increase the potency of macrophages and killer cells 12-fold.
Fortunately, you get (or should be getting) many enzymes from the foods you consume—particularly, raw foods. These directly help with your digestive process. The more raw foods you eat, the lower the burden on your body to produce the enzymes it needs, not only for digestion, but for practically everything. Whatever enzymes are not used up in digestion are then available to help with other important physiological processes.

This is one of the reasons why it is so important to eat a diet rich in fresh, organic, raw foods. You may even want to try juicing some of your vegetables, and the core of your pineapple, as a way of getting more nutrients—and enzymes—into your body. In the event you use enzymes in supplement form, it is crucial that, in order for enzymes to be used systemically, they must be consumed on an empty stomach. Otherwise, your body will use them for digesting your food, instead of being absorbed into the blood and doing their work there.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... L_artNew_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the article

Many UC and Crohn's patients are turning to enzyme supplements to help go into remission. My son with UC (ulcerative colitis) uses this.

[karend77]

Is Cancer the Result of Diminished Pancreatic Enzymes?

This systemic use of enzymes is just now taking off in the United States, but the use of enzymes to treat cancer has its roots all the way back to 1911 with John Beard's The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis. Beard believed cancer was a result of diminished pancreatic enzymes, impairing your immune response. A study in 1999iv suggests he may have been right on target.

Ten patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer were treated with large doses of oral pancreatic enzymes (along with detoxification and an organic diet), and their survival rates were 3 to 4 times higher than patients receiving conventional treatment. Proteolytic enzymes can be helpful in treating cancer because they help restore balance to your immune system. Dr. Nick Gonzalez in New York City, NY has also done a lot of work on enzymes in cancer treatment and has written a book on the subject.v

Some of the ways proteolytic enzymes can be helpful in the fight against cancer are:vi

Boosting cytokines, particularly interferon and tumor necrosis factor, which are very important warriors in destroying cancer cells.
Decreasing inflammation.
Dissolving fibrin: Cancer cells hide under a cloak of fibrin to escape detection. Once the cancer cells are "uncloaked," they can be spotted and attacked by your immune system. It is also thought that fibrin makes cancer cells "stick together," which increases the chance for metastases.
German studies have shown that systemic enzymes increase the potency of macrophages and killer cells 12-fold.
Fortunately, you get (or should be getting) many enzymes from the foods you consume—particularly, raw foods. These directly help with your digestive process. The more raw foods you eat, the lower the burden on your body to produce the enzymes it needs, not only for digestion, but for practically everything. Whatever enzymes are not used up in digestion are then available to help with other important physiological processes.

This is one of the reasons why it is so important to eat a diet rich in fresh, organic, raw foods. You may even want to try juicing some of your vegetables, and the core of your pineapple, as a way of getting more nutrients—and enzymes—into your body. In the event you use enzymes in supplement form, it is crucial that, in order for enzymes to be used systemically, they must be consumed on an empty stomach. Otherwise, your body will use them for digesting your food, instead of being absorbed into the blood and doing their work there.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... L_artNew_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the article

Many UC and Crohn's patients are turning to enzyme supplements to help go into remission. My son with UC (ulcerative colitis) uses this.

[farfromhome]

From Yahoo (and GMA): Strong warning about Propecia use!

Kevin Malley was almost 30, and he was starting to lose his hair. He went to his doctor to see if there was a way to keep from going bald, and his doctor prescribed Propecia.
"I looked young for my age, so I wanted to hold off my hair loss for a little bit," Malley said. "I didn't plan on taking Propecia for more than a year."
Malley started taking the drug in May 2011, and by October he was completely impotent and had no sex drive whatsoever. His body changed, even his genitals shrank, and he slipped into a mental fog that he just couldn't clear. His doctor told him the side effects would go away if he stopped taking the drug, so he did. But nothing changed.
"I kept expecting the side effects to go away, but they did not, they only got worse," he said.
Malley is not alone: A new study published today in the Journal of Sexual Medicine suggests that for some men, the sexual side effects of Propecia may last for months to years, even after they stop taking the drug.
Researchers from George Washington University interviewed 54 men under age 40 who reported side effects for three months or more after taking Propecia, also called finasteride, to treat their hair loss. None of the men reported having any sexual, medical or psychiatric problems before they took the drug. Some of the men took the drug for a few weeks, others took it for years, but all of them reported side effects such as erectile dysfunction, decreased sexual drive, problems with orgasms, shrinking and painful genitals, even some neurological problems, such as depression, anxiety and mental fogginess.

For 96 percent of the men, the sexual problems lasted for more than a year after they stopped taking the drug.

"Our findings make me suspicious that this drug may have done permanent damage to these men," said Dr. Michael Irwig, the author of the study. "The chances that they will improve? I think it's lower and lower the longer they have these side effects."
Irwig cautions that it's possible that only men who were the most affected by the drug participated in the study. Because he recruited his study participants through an online forum called PropeciaHelp, a group for men who have experienced persistent sexual side effects from the drug, he said the study may not have included men who have fewer or less pervasive side effects.

FDA, Merck Know of Drug's Side Effects
Finasteride works by blocking the conversion of testosterone into a more potent form, called DHT, which contributes to hair loss. It was originally developed in 1992 by drug giant Merck as a treatment for enlarged prostates and sold as the drug Proscar.
Propecia was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1997, and at that time Merck noted that a few men reported sexual side effects during clinical trials of the drug. On its website, the agency said those side effects were resolved when patients stopped taking the drug.
But the agency received more than 400 reports over 13 years from consumers reporting sexual dysfunction, and nearly 60 men reported that those side effects lasted longer than three months after the men stopped the medication. In 2011, the FDA mandated a label change for Propecia and Proscar, warning that some patients reported erectile dysfunction that lasted after patients stopped taking it; in April, the agency updated the label to include reports of libido, ejaculation and orgasm disorders.
In a statement, Merck said no evidence has proved a causal relationship between Propecia and long-lasting sexual dysfunction.
"Merck believes that Propecia (finasteride) has demonstrated safety and efficacy profiles and that the product labeling appropriately describes the benefits and risks of the drug to help inform prescribing," the company wrote in the statement.
But researchers say many physicians who prescribe finasteride are likely not aware that the side effects of the drug may haunt patients for years.
"These things just get handed out left and right for any urinary symptoms," said Dr. Ryan Terlecki, an assistant professor of urology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, who has prescribed Proscar for some of his patients with enlarged prostates.
Terlecki said the findings about long-term side effects from the drug are alarming, but more research will likely be needed before doctors can know for sure that the symptoms are completely attributed to the drug.
"There are so many things that go into the male erectile response," he said. "You have to be very careful before you attribute it to one cause or another."

Men Report Neurological Side Effects, Too
Malley said before he took Propecia, he was a normal, ambitious guy. He was engaged and worked as a public health researcher at a university in Las Vegas.
"Before, I would get up at eight in the morning, go to work, go to school, go to the gym, come home, have sex with my girlfriend. I had a lot of ambition, I had career goals," he said. "Now basically I just sit in my room all day and don't talk to anyone."
His fiancée broke off their engagement, and Malley had to resign from his job because of his persistent cognitive symptoms. He has sought treatment for these side effects, but doctors told him there's nothing they can do for him. He said he is angry that no one told him that the drug might change his life so dramatically.
"Even if the side effects are rare, that doesn't mean that I should not have been warned. I did have a life before this," he said.
Steven Rossello, 29, said his doctor made no mention of the potential for any sort of side effects from finasteride when he prescribed it to treat Rossello's hair loss in 2010.
"That's what really makes me really mad. He never mentioned any side effects, not to mention that they last forever," Rossello said.
But after four months of taking Propecia, Rossello said he began suffering anxiety and crippling depression, along with the drug's sexual side effects, and decided to stop taking the drug.

But his symptoms only got worse. He was demoted from his job as an investigator for the Department of Homeland Security in Texas after his symptoms were evaluated by a psychiatrist, who pronounced him unfit for duty. Rossello said the psychiatrist was unfamiliar with the neurological side effects of Propecia.
Abdulmaged Traish, a professor of biochemistry and urology at Boston University School of Medicine, said scientists are just beginning to investigate finasteride's effects on the brain and nervous system.

"We are just beginning to venture in that direction. It might be in the next five to 10 years that we may find there's more to this story than we know now," Traish said.
He said he would not advise men to take this drug to treat a cosmetic problem like hair loss.
"Why take that chance? Telling the risks of the drug is fine, but most physicians don't sit and take the time to explain to their patients the possible effects of these drugs."
On its website, the FDA said only 36 of 945 men who took Propecia in clinical trials reported any adverse sexual side effects. Irwig agrees that the number of men who will experience these long-lasting side effects is relatively small, likely around 3 percent of all men who take the drug.
"But because the medication is prescribed so commonly, it's still a lot of people, likely several thousand men around the world," he said.
And currently, doctors have no way of knowing which patients will suffer the long-term side effects. Irvig said it's possible that an unknown genetic factor drives how individual men respond to the drug.
Both Malley and Rosello were not involved in Irwig's study, but they are two of many men who have joined class-action lawsuits against Merck over the side effects of Propecia. In May, Malley camped out in front of Merck's headquarters in New Jersey for a week, staging a hunger strike to protest the company's response to Propecia's side effects. A representative came out to deliver a letter to him, detailing how he could report his symptoms to the company.
Malley has a simple message for men who might consider taking Propecia for their hair loss.
"Stay away from it at all costs," he said.

[BroJones]

Thanks for the warning about Propecia.

This weekend, Dr Mercola broaches a subject that should interest us -- the connection between the current medical/Big Pharma industry and Big Banking. And what to do about it. PLEASE read:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... _SNL_Art_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Surprising Links: How Big Banks Manipulate and Influence Your Health
By Dr. Mercola

Ellen Brown is a civil litigation attorney who has written 11 books on health and the politics of health, including the Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System (which focuses on the money and banking system itself), and Forbidden Medicine, which traces the suppression of natural health treatment back to the corrupting influences of our financial system.

In the course of writing her books, Brown was asked to join the legal team of Jimmy Keller, an alternative cancer therapist in Tijuana, who was jailed for, as she puts it, “the alleged crime of representing that he had a high rate of cure for cancer.”

“He always showed the movie World Without Cancer to his patients, which is by Ed Griffin,” she says, “so I read the book World Without Cancer, and it linked the cancer industry—the cancer cartel, basically—with the banking cartel. It showed they had the same roots.

It went back to the Rockefeller-Morgan cartel at the turn of the 20th century. Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie supported drugs, funded the medical schools, and basically got the homeopathic schools shut down. (In the 19th century, the homeopathic schools were the leading health treatment.)

... I realized in the course of that that if you wanted to get to crux of the problem, you had to deal with banking, because that was actually where they got their power. They got their power from the power to create money.”

The Shocking Truth about Our Money System, and the Power it Wields Over Your Health

As Brown explains, the shocking truth about our money system is that virtually all of our money is created by banks when they make loans. It’s not created by the government, as most people believe. The way it works is that, while the banks create the principal, they don’t create the interest, so they’re always getting more back than they’re putting out.

“The thing that most people don’t realize is that banks don’t just take in people’s money, and then lend it out again,” Brown explains. “What they do is, literally, every time they make a loan, they create that money on their books. They need the deposits in order to clear the checks, but they’re basically double-counting the money.

... When you’ve put your money in the bank and then you go to withdraw it, they never say, “Sorry, we just lent your money out to your neighbor for 30 years. You’ll have to come back later.” No, they always give you your money. That’s because your deposit’s still there at the same time that they’ve lent it out. So, if you need the money, then they’ll borrow it from somewhere else. But where do they borrow it from? Basically, from the very bank that the check just went into from the loan that they just made.

It’s like a big check-kiting scheme, where you create the money; it goes into another bank; and then you borrow it back. The banks can borrow it back at 0.25 percent at the moment, which is the Fed funds rate. And of course, they lend it out at five percent, or on credit cards 18 percent... or outrageous industry rates. They get a huge spread on money that didn’t actually exist until they created the loan.

... Their control over money is how they manage to corner politics, buy up the media, and basically monopolize the field.”

The Links Between Big Banks and the Drug Industry

Two good primers if you want to learn more about the banking system and the link between the pharmaceutical industry and banking, are The Creature from Jekyll Island, and World Without Cancer.

To me, this link between banking and Big Pharma intuitively makes sense.
It was just earlier this year that I came to appreciate what Brown is talking about here. While the focus of this web site is on the damage done by the drug companies, it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the banking system is the behemoth backing the Goliath-like drug industry.

As explained by Brown, the drug connection goes back to the 19th century. John D. Rockefeller’s father was actually, literally, a snake-oil salesman.

“He was a patent remedy seller. The drugs, of course, are oil-based, and John D. Rockefeller was an oil magnate. He also had a bank. So did J.P. Morgan. The drug industry—the patent remedy industry—was in competition with the natural herbal remedies, and the homeopathic remedies. And the way they prevailed in the whole system was that, first of all, they funded the American Medical Association—the AMA Journal, which got their funding from advertising. And if your drug was advertised in the AMA Journal, then you’ve got the AMA’s seal of endorsement... It was a cartel.”

Where the Federal Reserve Fits in

In this interview, Brown discusses far more than I have included here, so to learn more, I urge you to listen to this fascinating interview in its entirety. Of course, it’s virtually impossible to discuss the financial system without touching on the Federal Reserve. According to Brown, there’s an important distinction that needs to be understood regarding the role of the Federal Reserve, because while both banks and the Fed are creating money out of thin air, there are some differences:

“The Federal Reserve is the lender of last resort, so it is allowed to [create money] without actually backing the money from anywhere... There are basically two banking systems.

This is also very complicated, but there is what’s called ‘base money,’ and that’s created by the Federal Reserve. Those are the banks’ reserves. At one time the reserves were gold. You actually, literally, had to keep a certain amount of gold for your depositors, who could cash in their dollars for gold. But in 1933, everybody stopped trusting the banks, because they knew they didn’t have enough gold, so there were runs on the banks. At that time the dollar was 40 percent backed by gold. So, every time somebody would bring two dollars and cash it in for gold, the bank had to call in three dollars’ worth of loans. The whole money supply was just closing in on itself and collapsing.

That’s why Roosevelt finally took the dollar off the gold standard.

Then, to back the dollar, the Fed created “base money” for the banks to use as reserves. But it’s a separate system. We don’t actually get to borrow the Fed’s reserves. That’s the bankers’ money. The bankers’ bank is the Federal Reserve.”

The Economics of Our Medical System and the Drug Cartel

While at UCLA law school, Brown wrote an article about the economics of California’s regulations on doctors and other medical professions, and how these regulations effectively eliminate all competition to the conventional medical paradigm. It may not be immediately apparent, but the medical profession is very cleverly manipulated and influenced in such a way as to bolster profits for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s a tightly controlled profession, and any competition—such as alternative or integrative treatments related to natural health—is more or less illegal. You cannot claim to treat disease without a medical license.

“I think what’s even worse than that is they control information,” Brown says. “People don’t even know that there are alternative remedies. Or if they do hear about them, they think it’s quackery, and that it’s been disproven, because that’s what the conventional media says [which is largely owned by the same banking cartel as the pharmaceutical industry is]. You really have to dig to find out what’s out there, and how well natural remedies work. Also, you have to dig to find out how drugs don’t work, and how they’ve been over-hyped...”

How Can You Protect Your Health Freedom and Personal Liberty?

When asked to provide some recommendations for what you can do right now to take control of your own health, and how we can win this war on health freedom and personal liberty, Brown shares the following:

“I think the first thing you need to do… is get on the Internet and research what’s [been] done before; what the downside of the drug treatment that they’re trying to recommend for your condition is, for example.

Then we really seriously need to get organized. I was in the alternative healthcare movement for a long time. It seemed to me that the medical doctors were all literally brainwashed... They keep you up all night, because you have to do your rounds... and then, you’re force-fed this information. You want to pass the test; you haven’t had enough sleep; you’re looking at this data, and it says, “All right, give this drug for this condition.” You just accept that, because you’re sort of dazed, locked in a medical school.

The doctors are all trained in one discipline...

They won’t testify against each other in court. And so they’re like this strong wall of solidarity versus all the alternative people, who are all like mavericks and geniuses in their way but they all think the others are quacks. We need to, in some way, form a movement where we have to agree on some basics and worry about the details later. We need a big umbrella that accepts what we’re going to [focus on]... We want something that’s for the body; that helps the body do what it’s trying to do.

Another thing is the cost. American medicine is the costliest in the world, and we do not get the best results. Body-supporting therapies are cheaper than the drugs that are trying to block what the body’s trying to do. Things that block what the body’s trying to do make you unhealthier, which means you have to add more treatment, which means you have to be hospitalized more often, and which means you run up more bills.

We could save a lot of money if our whole approach was to support what the body’s trying to do.

Natural treatments would be much cheaper for the whole country. We cannot afford our healthcare right now, so something has to be done about this whole parasitic medical system; the parasitic banking system; and the parasitic insurance scheme that is draining the profits out of our economy.”

An Alternative Banking Plan that Could Save America, and the World

Brown is also the president of The Public Banking Institute, which stands poised to serve as a powerful part of the solution to the financial debacle we’re currently in, not just in the US, but worldwide. From her research, she came to the conclusion that the main problem plaguing our financial system is the massive interest going into private coffers, and the remedy for that is to replace the privately owned banking system with a public one. She explains:

“After the whole system collapsed in the fall of 2008,... I became aware that there was one state that actually escaped the credit crisis, and that was the only state that had a publicly owned bank—North Dakota. The Bank of North Dakota is owned by the state. They’ve had this bank in place since 1919.

... The private banks are always siphoning off this extra money in interest that they don’t create as principal when they make loans. But if you have a public system—if banking [and]... credit were a public utility just like water should be, or electricity or highways… these are all blood systems of the economy—if money and credit were considered public utility, owned by the public, then the interest would go back to the public.

That is a sustainable system.

The original model is Benjamin Franklin’s Colony of Pennsylvania, which owned its own bank. The government both printed money, the way all the colonies did... [and] it had a bank. So the bank lent the money, and the money came back to the government. The interest was sufficient to fund the government. During that period, the colonists paid no taxes, they had no government debt, and prices did not inflate. It was a sustainable model.”

From that idea, the Public Banking Institute developed the Return to Prosperity Plan.

It sounds incredible, but 40 percent of the cost of everything we buy is interest, according to research by Margrit Kennedy, a German researcher. This interest is entirely hidden, so you don’t know you’re paying it. This is because at every stage of development of a product, interest is paid, again and again. For example, a business must typically take out a loan in order to pay for raw materials and the workforce before it can have a final product to sell. The same goes for each of the businesses in the supply chain, and for each and every retailer.

“If the state owned the bank... then the people get the interest back...” Brown explains. “For example, in North Dakota, the state’s revenues, by law, go into the Bank of North Dakota, so they have a huge deposit base and a huge capital base....

That means the state could save 40 percent on its projects, which means we could either cut taxes by 40 percent, or we could have 40 percent more services provided with the same amount of taxes that we pay now. We just have to change bankers. Instead of banking with Wall Street, we should be banking in our own bank (where we get the profits) or cooperative system (where it all comes back). Banking, instead of feeding off the economy, should feed the economy. And it could be a sustainable system.”

More Information

According to Brown, 18 states have now introduced bills of one sort or another for state-owned banks. And the Public Banking Institute, which is run entirely by volunteers, is continuing to work on furthering this plan.

“We have a very active group,” she says. “People get really excited about this idea. We’ve got representatives all over the country and groups you can join if you want.”

To learn more, please refer to their web site.

I’ve long been aware of the challenges with our whole economic model, but I’ve only recently begun to appreciate the connection between the banking industry and health, as discussed in this interview. Again, I highly recommend listening to it in its entirety, or reading through the transcript, to get a broader view.

The problem is so vast, and that’s true for just about every problem we have these days. But a large portion of it can be traced back to an unsustainable, unscrupulous, parasitic, private banking system that does not benefit those who use it! It has become a fundamental pernicious evil that’s ruining our culture. I think once people understand the concept proposed by this “Return to Prosperity Plan” at a deeper level, it’s going to be an easy step to switch over. But of course, there’s the logistics of educating the public on how it works, and then developing the funding to get these ballot initiatives passed in each individual state.

But I think it’s a marvelous model, and I applaud Brown for what she’s doing to really wake us up—both to the roots of the problem and to sustainable solutions.

My approach as a physician is to treat the root cause of the problem. If you just treat symptoms like the drug model is doing, the industry makes obscene profits while the public health continues to suffer and decline. In many ways, we’ve done the same thing with Wall Street. We’re not treating the root problem, namely a corrupted banking system, which is what Brown’s Institute and economic plan addresses head on.

Creating a nation-wide public banking system seems like a marvelous solution, and we know it works—it’s been proven in North Dakota.

To learn more about Ellen’s work, please see her web site, which contains more than 130 articles—mostly on banking, but also some on health—and over 500 interviews.

http://www.webofdebt.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WldtuZv82Hs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Original_Intent]

Thanks for that great post Dr. Jones. Even though it is long-ish, I HOPE everyone will take time to read and ponder it.

[BroJones]

Thanks for that great post Dr. Jones. Even though it is long-ish, I HOPE everyone will take time to read and ponder it.

Thanks O_I -- agreed, hoping everyone will take a little time to read it.

Today -- corporate criminals go unpunished while their corporations pay the % fine:

By Dr. Mercola

One of the biggest news stories relating to health right now is the finalization of the biggest lawsuit yet by the American government against a pharmaceutical company.

On July 2, the British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline plead guilty to three counts of criminal misdemeanor and other civil liabilities relating to the prescription drugs Paxil, Wellbutrin and Avandia, and agreed to pay a total of $3 billion in fines--$1 billion to settle criminal charges, and $2 billion to cover civil liabilities.

The payment is the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history, and the largest fine ever paid by a drug company.

In 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion to settle similar charges1, and as recently as May, Abbott Laboratories settled charges over wrongful marketing of the anti-seizure drug Depakote to the tune of $1.6 billion2. The company had illegally promoted the drug to health care providers for off-label use in seniors with dementia.

And, according to a July 6 report in the Huffington Post3, a federal investigation into wrongful marketing by Johnson & Johnson of its antipsychotic drug Risperdal is also wrapping up and may result in a fine of anywhere between $1.6 to 2 billion.

According to FiercePharma's recent compilation of the Top 11 marketing settlements by the drug industry over the past 10 years4, drug makers have agreed to pay more than $11 billion in fines for their illegal marketing shenanigans over the past decade! But the worst may still lie ahead: more than 900 whistleblower lawsuits were filed in the last year alone and historically about 10 percent of whistleblower claims involve drugmakers...

While these fines sound like staggering amounts of money to most people, a fundamental problem has now become blatantly and painfully apparent, and that is that fines don't work. They simply do not curtail criminal behavior when applied to faceless corporations. They've become little more than an expected annoyance that are calculated into the price of doing business.

Meanwhile, average people are paying for the criminal behavior of these "corporate personhoods" with their very lives.

Keep in mind that while "wrongful marketing" may not sound like a big deal, we're not talking about a toy that you can't play with in the manner advertised. We're talking about extremely potent chemicals that alter brain and biological chemistry. When you consider how shoddy and fraught with conflicts of interest the approval process is to begin with—as poorly tested drugs are approved with increasing frequency and must later be withdrawn—it should be frighteningly obvious how dangerous it can be to market drugs for unapproved uses.

GlaxoSmithKline Guilty of Illegal Marketing and Withholding Hazard Info

When GSK began targeting children, Paxil became a top 10 selling drug with annual sales in excess of $1.8 billion in 2001 and 2002 alone. This is particularly grievous as, according to the Justice Department's complaint5, several clinical studies on Paxil involving children and adolescents, performed in the mid- to late-90's, had ALL FAILED to demonstrate efficacy on this age group! Every single one of them!

According to the US Justice Department6, GlaxoSmithKline:

1. Unlawfully marketed the antidepressant Paxil to children and adolescents.
The drug is FDA approved for the treatment of depression in adults only.The complaint details how GSK manipulated the findings of one of these studies to reach the false conclusion that Paxil was effective against depression in adolescents. A GSK employee also recommended revising a section of the study relating to side effects, removing the finding that serious side effects like worsening depression and hostility (suffered by 11 children in the study) were considered related to the treatment, and replacing it with a statement that headache (suffered by one participant) was the only side effect considered to be treatment-related.

The complaint calls the study, published in July 2001 in The Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, "false and misleading." This fraudulent and misleading study was subsequently used by GSK to illegally promote Paxil for children and teens...
2. Unlawfully marketed the antidepressant Wellbutrin for weight loss and sexual dysfunction.

In a recent NPR radio interview7, Carmen Ortiz, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, stated that "GSK hired a public relations firm to create a buzz about getting skinny and how you could have more sex simply by using this drug...using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations to paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to a European pheasant hunt, to tickets for Madonna concerts."
3. From 2001 through September 2007, failed to report safety data relating to clinical experience and other information as required by law to the FDA for the diabetes drug Avandia.

As previously reported, Avandia has been found to be profoundly dangerous—a fact hid by GSK for over 10 years, as they knew it would adversely affect sales8. This was revealed in a Senate Finance Committee report, released by Max Baucus and Charles E. Grassley in February 2010. The report also asked why the FDA allowed a clinical trial of Avandia to continue even after the agency estimated the drug had caused an estimated 83,000 heart attacks between 1999 and 20079.

Avandia hit the market in 1999 and quickly became a blockbuster drug. By 2006 its annual revenue was $3.2 billion. A year later, a damning study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) linked it to a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack and a 64 percent higher risk of cardiovascular death than patients treated with other methods10.

This is a steep price, to say the least, for a disease that does not require drugs to begin with, and Avandia has become a poster child for the lethal paradigm of faux science.

Why Isn't Someone Going to Jail??

According to the July 2 press release issued by GSK11, the criminal and civil liabilities resolved by this final agreement also include inappropriate marketing of six other drugs, and "possible inappropriate use of the nominal price exception under the Medicaid Rebate Program."

One aspect that truly worries me is that while the criminal cases we've seen in the past several years are related to drugs, many of these companies, including GSK, also produce VACCINES.

And guess what?

They're typically not liable for damages from, or harm done by, contaminated or otherwise dangerous vaccines! We've recently seen evidence of "mistakes" in vaccine manufacturing as well, but vaccine makers are rarely if ever punished for these willful errors and omissions, which should provide you some further food for thought.

Celebrity Doctors Paid to Illegally Promote Dangerous Drugs

A few days after the US Justice Department reached its agreement with GSK, it was revealed that TV and radio personality Dr. Drew Pinsky (aka "Dr. Drew," of sex-advice-giving fame) allegedly accepted $275,000 to carry out the illegal promotion of GSK's antidepressant Wellbutrin. Dr. Pinsky is said to have highlighted the drug's libido-enhancing side effects on a number of occasions in 199912, 13.

While Dr. Drew is the one in the news right now, he's not the only TV and radio doctor who's accepted money from drug companies to push their products to an unsuspecting public. For example, Dr. Marie Savard14, who has appeared on dozens of TV shows such as Good Morning America, ABC News, and Oprah, is paid by Merck to pitch their HPV vaccine.

According to a July 3 report in the Wall Street Journal15:

"In June 1999, popular radio personality Dr. Drew Pinsky used the airwaves to extol the virtues of GlaxoSmithKline's antidepressant Wellbutrin, telling listeners he prescribes it and other medications to depressed patients because it "may enhance or at least not suppress sexual arousal" as much as other antidepressants do.

But one thing listeners didn't know was that, two months before the program aired, Dr. Pinsky—who gained fame as "Dr. Drew" during years co-hosting a popular radio sex-advice show "Loveline"—received the second of two payments from Glaxo totaling $275,000 for "services for Wellbutrin."

... Doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs as they see fit, but it is illegal for companies to promote drugs for uses not approved by the FDA, a practice known as "off-label" marketing. Wellbutrin's prescribing label doesn't state that the drug is less inhibiting of sexual libido than other antidepressants. In an email Tuesday, Glaxo declined to answer questions about its financial relationship with Dr. Pinsky or other physicians. The company said: "The complaint to which you refer concerns events in 1999, 13 years ago. It does not reflect what would be allowed in GSK today."

I for one do not buy into any of this drivel about how things have changed... If anything, the evidence tells us that illegal and unethical behavior of corporations like GSK has WORSENED and solidified into standard modus operandi over the past decade. Case in point: According to a 2010 report by the Public Citizen's Health Research Group, titled "Rapidly Increasing Criminal and Civil Monetary Penalties Against the Pharmaceutical Industry: 1991 to 2010"16:

"Of the 165 settlements comprising $19.8 billion in penalties during this 20-year interval, 73 percent of the settlements (121) and 75 percent of the penalties ($14.8 billion) have occurred in just the past five years (2006-2010). Four companies (GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Schering-Plough) accounted for more than half (53 percent or $10.5 billion) of all financial penalties imposed over the past two decades. These leading violators were among the world's largest pharmaceutical companies."

As I've reported before, pharmaceutical companies accounted for nearly 20 percent of the top 100 Corporate Criminals in the 1990's, and there's NO evidence to indicate that these shenanigans are in fact on the decline...

Bill Gates Connection to Glaxo Drug Fraud Scandal

Even the Gates Foundation has been linked to this massive scandal through the swinging doors of employment. According to a July 3 report by Tom Paulson on KPLU 88.517:

"Most news reports quoted GSK's CEO Andrew Witty blaming the misconduct on others and "a different era for the company," adding that such behavior will not be tolerated...

One of the most high-profile GSK executives alleged to have engaged in misbehavior is Tachi Yamada, former head of global health for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who was before that head of research and development for GSK.

Yamada, while he was head of global health for Gates Fdn, was accused in a U.S. Senate hearing of bullying a scientist to not publish negative findings about a GSK diabetes drug. This was fairly big news at the time and such behavior is part of the federal complaint against the drug firm... But so far as I can tell, nobody has made any mention of Yamada's role in this case. Yet he was pretty high profile — at the center of the controversy surrounding the drug company's attempt to cover-up adverse side effects of its diabetes drug Avandia.

... Yamada... recently left the Gates Foundation to work for a Japanese drug company... But there's no getting away that Yamada played a leading role in the largest health fraud case in American history and that, given his much greater influence as head of a philanthropic program that many say sets the agenda for global health, it might be worth mentioning."

Indeed, the Gates Foundation is deeply entrenched in an unholy alliance with both Big Pharma and Monsanto. For example, 2011 Wikileaks documents detailed the alliance between the U.S. State Department and the Gates Foundation Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the private interests of Monsanto in an effort to turn Africa into a GMO-friendly continent. High level officials leading AGRA are in fact former Monsanto executives, and the Gates Foundation also owns Monsanto stock. Other ties that bind the Gates Foundation to Big Pharma and Monsanto include the following close associations:

* Vice president of Monsanto Robert Horsch joined the Gates Foundation in 2006
* Merck CEO Raymond Gilmartin was placed on the Gates Foundation Board of Directors in 2001
* Gates invested $205 million in nine of the large pharmaceutical companies in 2002

Why are Children Sacrificed as Guinea Pigs?

GSK and the rest of the Big Pharma cronies want you to believe that "things have changed;" that they've "learned from their mistakes," and that everything is fine now since the real wrongdoers like Tachi Yamada have moved on to other venues. Now, they promise, your health and well-being is at the forefront of everyone's mind working in the pharmaceutical industry. Think again. A recent story on TechDirt.com18 really underscores the perverse nature of drug company greed:

"... Purdue Pharma, the makers of the highly addictive painkiller OxyContin, is now running clinical tests to get the FDA to approve its use for kids as young as 6-years old19.

Why?

Because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act section 505A20 includes a little "gift": if drugmakers conduct clinical studies for their drugs with kids, they can get six more months of patent protection. So even if they don't even sell OxyContin to six year olds, just securing the extended patent, thanks to the massive monopoly rents given to drugs still on patent, Purdue is likely to profit massively. Lots of people are reasonably troubled by this:

"They are doing (the pediatric trial) for patent exclusivity, there's no doubt about it in my mind — not out of largesse," said Dr. Elliot Krane, director of pain management at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif..."

This is about as crazy as it gets, folks. How many young children could possibly be in need of a potent narcotic pain reliever like OxyContin? Not to mention the fact that this particular drug has been identified as one of the absolute most problematic in terms of drug abuse and death. To say that the incentive for this kind of drug trial is questionable would be an understatement. It's downright abhorrent, and it speaks volumes about the ethics, or rather lack thereof, that drives the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.

Prescription Painkillers: New "Gateway Drug"

For the longest time marijuana, smoking and alcohol were the first drugs of choice by those who later may move into more hard-core drugs; hence the term "gateway drug." But things have changed a lot in recent years. Prescription drugs—especially prescription pain killers like OxyContin—are now leading the pack as the most common "gateway" to illegal drug use, and the consequences are far deadlier.

According to a July 6 press release21:

"... Since 2000, the drugs sending people to their graves or to rehab have been shifting away from illicit drugs and toward prescription drugs. The 2011 report on the subject from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made it clear: prescription narcotic pain reliever overdose deaths now exceed the number of deaths from heroin and cocaine combined.

For decades now, it has been usual that many young people looking for a drug to experiment with for the first time would choose marijuana... The Narconon Arrowhead drug rehabilitation program has recently uncovered a new pattern since prescription opiates have increasingly become the first drug used by many young people. This pattern is backed up by government surveyed results. According to Michael Botticelli, Director of the Massachusetts Bureau of Substance Abuse, prescription drugs now equal marijuana as entry-level drugs.

... "Our own clients and people calling in daily for information about our program or help have told us story after story about addictions starting with the use of prescription drugs," stated Derry Hallmark, Director of Admissions at Narconon Arrowhead, a premier drug rehab facility in Southeastern Oklahoma. "Sadly, prescription medications have become the newest of the gateway drugs. Sadder still are the losses of life and other severe consequences that go hand in hand with drug abuse, which is especially the case with prescription drug abuse."

Hallmark adds that those addicted to prescriptions will often end up needing treatment or will even start taking illicit drugs. One of the most common examples of this is the connection between those addicted to painkillers that then start taking heroin..."

Fines Alone Cannot Change Drug Co. Criminality

It has become abundantly clear that fines do NOT work. In order to see any changes whatsoever in the rampant criminal behavior enveloping the drug industry, the Justice Department must slap criminal charges on the individuals responsible for, and complicit with, these criminal acts. Quite simply, those engaging in fraud need to know they can be held personally liable and face time in federal prison for their crimes.

A number of recent articles in the press have highlighted this now obvious fact, and brought up related issues that really need to be addressed. For example, Judith Warner, writing for Time Magazine states:

"... we are confronted, yet again, with the fact that these fines, however punitive-seeming on their face, are chump change in comparison to the company's bottom line and highly unlikely to bring real change to its — or, indeed, the industry's — future practices... Glaxo wasn't exactly ruined by the fines: In the years covered by the settlement, the company had earned $10.4 billion in sales of Avandia, $11.6 billion from Paxil, and $5.9 billion from Wellbutrin...

A number of commentators... argued that seeking monetary damages isn't going to change most problematic practices of the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, they say, we should seek criminal charges against specific executives, the risk of jail time being the only way to actually change behavior. Though such a solution certainly offers the prospect of some real gut-level satisfaction, I'm not convinced that it will actually show results. (Given the enormous resources, legal and otherwise, of the drug companies, I think it's fair to assume that they'd be quickly able to figure out methods of Teflon-shielding their executives.)

Such a strategy also doesn't address the fundamental problems that have enabled, if not created, Big Pharma's repeat bad behavior: a balance of power between the industry and our government that is seriously askew, and a particular lack of smart regulation... over the way information about specific drugs is controlled, verified, and disseminated." [Emphasis mine]

She brings up an excellent point, which is that the entire system is broken and a number of changes need to be implemented to put an end to this no-holds-barred profit-driven era of faux-science-derived medicine. The health care system is driven and controlled by Big Pharma, which churns out a mind-boggling amount of faked and flawed science to justify its recommendations, while simultaneously purchasing the "right" to monopolize the health industry via strategically placed industry lackeys in various positions of political and federal power.

Still, I believe holding individuals accountable for the criminal activities performed under the auspice of corporate personhood is a must, and would serve as a good starting point to weed out the most heinous psychopaths.

Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California and former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration also addressed this issue in a recent Huffington Post article, and brought up two more vital points of contention that need to be addressed22:

"... Not a single executive has been charged -- even though some charges against the company are criminal. Glaxo's current CEO came on board after all this happened. Glaxo has agreed to reclaim the bonuses of any executives who engaged in or supervised illegal behavior, but the company hasn't officially admitted to any wrongdoing - and without legal charges against any of executive it's impossible to know whether Glaxo will follow through... The only way to get big companies like these to change their behavior is to make the individuals responsible feel the heat.

An even more basic issue is why the advertising and marketing of prescription drugs is allowed at all, when consumers can't buy them and shouldn't be influencing doctor's decisions anyway. Before 1997, the Food and Drug Administration banned such advertising on TV and radio. That ban should be resurrected.

Finally, there's no good reason why doctors should be allowed to accept any perks at all from companies whose drugs they write prescriptions for. It's an inherent conflict of interest. Codes of ethics that are supposed to limit such gifts obviously don't work. All perks should be banned, and doctors that accept them should be subject to potential loss of their license to practice." [Emphasis mine]

Final Thoughts

Mark my words, this will not be the last time we'll learn more than we've ever wanted to know about the seedy underbelly of the pharmaceutical industry. The real take-home message from all this is that the ultimate responsibility for your health lies with you. Always remember that drugs are rarely anything more than a short-term band-aid to your health problems.

Some drugs are convenient short-term fixes for acute problems (like a headache), for which most of us are grateful, but problems arise when you believe the deception these multi-national drug corporations have created, and choose drugs as the long-term answer to your health challenges. It doesn't really matter whether the drug has been approved for your particular ailment or is being recommended off-label—the risks are much the same.

Life would be grand if we could just swallow a pill and all our health problems would be solved. But believing this fairy tale will only make these companies wealthier, while putting you at risk for serious side effects or even death, like the 80,000+ men and women who chose Avandia as their band-aid solution and ended up with a drug-induced heart attack...

My advice: Strive to better understand and treat the real problem behind your medical condition. There are hundreds of thousands of pages of free information on this site designed to help you achieve that goal and help you and your family Take Control of Your Health. Remember to use the site search engine located at the top of every page to find more information on your health questions.

References:

See All References

[jonesde]

This is a good example of the classic problem with government oversight and regulatory agencies. Along with FDA approval comes some level of protection, because technically the FDA itself is complicit in many of these problems. The fines are very manageable for these companies because the FDA and other agencies are funded by the corporations and do not want them to go out of business or stop their operations (or even slow them down very much).

These sorts of lawsuits have NOTHING to do with actual harm done, just not following rules about marketing. When actual harm is done, there is no lawsuit because of the protection that comes with getting approval from a govt agency. These lawsuits are just about collecting funds to help sustain and grow operations, and they grow over time because other revenues for these agencies are falling, just like with most govt agencies these days.

A much better overall system would be for the government to not have an agency at all that does drug approvals. The fact that they do results in a moral hazard, or a conflict of interest as Dr. Mercola put it in this article. If there were only private institutions that did testing and approval of drugs, we could have multiple opinions in the marketplace and actual statistics comparing how different firms do, and which we trust the most. We could also have firms that work with forms of remedies and herbs that the FDA does not generally deal with because of the corruption inherent in how they are structured.

With private treatment development firms and private treatment testing and certification firms all you need is laws related to force and fraud. If those organizations or individuals in them harm other people through force or fraud, they are criminally and civilly liable. It's that simple. The problems is right now that the FDA cannot be found criminally or civilly liable even though they ARE. Even worse, they are funded by the corporations they are supposed to protect us from and the result is that instead they protect those corporations. It is just about the worst possible way to run things, period.

Increased penalties won't fix it, the moral hazard created by drug approvals from a govt agency and the conflict of interest created by how the FDA and other agencies are both funded and staffed (revolving door) are NOT things you can simply fix with words on paper. The only solution is to not have such govt agencies in the first place. Leave it to private institutions that really are both criminally and civilly liable with no moral hazard and no conflict of interest.

[BroJones]

Agreed, jonesde. There is documented collusion between government (FDA) and Big Pharma which is NOT beneficial to the populus. This comes to what Jesus warned about, discussing health issues in the last days:

4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

Not a mere "conspiracy theory" to him!

The solution seems to be for us to develop as independent a life style as we can, independent of both Big Pharma and Big Gov't; to "come out of Babylon" IOW.

[jonesde]

Agreed, jonesde. There is documented collusion between government (FDA) and Big Pharma which is NOT beneficial to the populus. This comes to what Jesus warned about, discussing health issues in the last days:

4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

Not a mere "conspiracy theory" to him!

The solution seems to be for us to develop as independent a life style as we can, independent of both Big Pharma and Big Gov't; to "come out of Babylon" IOW.

That's a good point. This is one of the conspiracies that the scriptures not only mention, but label as a conspiracy and warn us against.

For an independent lifestyle what I really wish existed was a number of organizations studying different herbs and chemicals and so on and reporting on the results. I don't have enough time or other resources to do this myself, and I don't trust a single organization (especially a government organization) to do this for me, so having testing and reviews from multiple organizations that I could study would be really valuable. Certifying organizations could have two sources of funding: from people like me who want to know more about various options, and from solution developers who pay a number of different agencies to have their solutions tested and certified.

I wonder what kind of response I'd get from a doctor if I was prescribed something and I asked which organizations have certified the drug and what did they all agree on and how did their results differ? I imagine I'd get a response like it is certified or approved by the FDA. To that I'd have to respond that I don't trust an agency with no liability, that is funded mostly by the very organizations they are meant to monitor, and that is staffed largely by people from the organizations they are meant to keep an eye on.

The doctor would probably write an additional prescription based on a diagnosis of "Oppositional Defiance Disorder" or something!

[BroJones]

Well said, Jonesde. Made me laugh, too.

This morning, Dr M talks about Monsanto's push to feed GMO's to sea life...

By Dr. Mercola

The mass cultivation of genetically modified (GM) soybeans has a hugely detrimental environmental and health impact worldwide.

As it stands, soy is widely used in our diets, in processed foods and found in most meat, as soy is fed to animals on CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations).

The next "natural" step, at least according to two of the largest stakeholders in the soy industry, Monsanto (creator of GM soy) and food giant Cargill, is to make soy the feed of choice for factory-farmed fish around the world – a move they are misleadingly labeling as "sustainable."

Fortunately, Food & Water Watch has released a report that reveals the truth: bringing soy to fish feed would be an environmental, and human health, disaster.

Why We Need to Keep Soy Out of the Sea

It's estimated that about half of the world's seafood comes from aquaculture, which is the term used to describe industrial fish farming. Like the land-based CAFOs, industrial fish farming has had problems from the start, including overcrowded conditions, pollution and unnatural diets.

Feed has been an area of controversy, as sometimes wild fish are used to prepare the fishmeal fed to farmed fish, depleting the natural fish supply in some areas.

In September 2011, the Illinois Soybean Association announced that soy feed could "revolutionize sustainable agriculture" on fish farms. They're clamoring to get soy into fish feed as soon as possible, as doing so could earn them a reported $201 million a year, and that is a low estimate! But as Food & Water Watch points out, just as soy has been detrimental to land-based food lots, human health and the environment, it could be devastating to our oceans, and seafood supplies, as well:

" … while the soy industry stands to make large profits from the expansion of factory fish farming, there is no guarantee that soy-based aquaculture feed can consistently produce healthy fish or promote ecological responsibility . In fact, by causing fish to produce excess waste, soy could lead to an even more polluting fish farming industry.

By supporting factory fish farming, the soy industry could not only help to expand an industry that degrades marine environments, threatens wild fish populations and damages coastal communities, it could also extend its own negative impacts.

Already, industrial soy production has led to the prevalence of genetically modified crops on U.S. farmland and in consumer food products, caused massive deforestation in South America and displaced indigenous communities living in areas now used to grow soy. Rather than actually promoting sustainability in a developing industry, the involvement of soy associations in aquaculture could spur the growth of two industries that have extremely negative impacts on our land, our oceans and the communities that depend on them."

4 Reasons Why Soy in Fish Feed Could be Devastating

What could happen if fish are fed soy – a food they would virtually never come into contact with in their natural environment?

* Increased pollution: Fish fed soy produce more waste than other fish, which means more pollution the ocean is not set up to handle. Also, GM soy is invariably contaminated with residues of potent glyphosate-based herbicide formulations (e.g. Roundup) used to produce them, which a growing body of research clearly shows is extremely toxic to aquatic life.1
* Contamination of the oceans (and your seafood) with genetically modified organisms (GMOs): About 94 percent of the soy grown in the United States is genetically modified. And when you feed farmed fish raised in an ocean environment, any feed that is not consumed flows directly out of the cage and into the ocean. As Food & Water Watch noted, feeding soy to farmed fish means GM food will enter the environment and diets of wild marine organisms, permanently contaminating our oceans with completely unknown consequences.
* Monsanto and Cargill will have control of seafood … and parts of the ocean: Monsanto, which has sponsored feed trials with GM soy and salmon, is already keen on spreading their GM seeds "from sea to shining sea" … Cargill, which has an aquaculture feed division, is another industrial food giant. By bringing soy into fish farming, their reach will now extend into issues concerning the very sustainability and future of marine life!
* Deforestation could increase: Large quantities of South American land are already being cleared to make way for soy farms. This could increase if even more soy is needed for aquaculture.

There are many reasons why I already advise avoiding factory-farmed fish, but the addition of GM soy as a staple to their diets is the icing on the cake. The soy industry, however, is showing no signs of stopping. Food & Water Watch reported:

"The American soy industry is powerful. It has been able to fund many studies on using soy for fish feed; it has built relationships in the aquaculture industry; and it has publicly supported federal policies in favor of offshore aquaculture.

… Soy does not have the full array of nutrients demanded by fish, however; nor is it a natural fish food or substance in the marine environment. In fact, using soy may cause some fish farms to pollute more by producing extra waste. Further, the negative ramifications of the soy industry on the environment and potentially on our health are reasons to resist the allure of soy as a "savior" of the aquaculture industry.

The cultivation of soy is associated with agricultural runoff that is contributing to the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, with deforestation in Latin America and with the displacement of many indigenous peoples from their homes and work.

As soy becomes increasingly ubiquitous in our diets — in processed foods and the meat from animals that have been raised on it — we must ask what health impacts this high level of soy consumption may have on us. Scientists are beginning to question claims about the benefits of eating soy and to suggest that the plant-based estrogens that occur naturally in soy, many of which are endocrine disruptors, could potentially have adverse impacts.

In light of these concerns and unanswered questions, it is troubling to know that much of our fish — one of our last wild foods — could be fattened on this crop."

Do You Know the Truth About GM Soy?

Genetically modified soybeans are designed to be "Roundup ready." This means they are chemically engineered to withstand heavy doses of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide without killing the plant! What does this mean for your health and the health of your unborn or yet-to-be-conceived children?

The long-term effects of the human consumption of genetically modified soy and soy-based products are staggering. In April 2010, researchers at Russia's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security found that after feeding hamsters GM soy for two years over three generations, by the third generation, most lost the ability to have pups!2

A Brazilian study published in 2009 looked at the impact of soy on the reproductive system of female rats. Female rats fed GM soy for 15 months showed significant changes in their uterus and reproductive cycles, compared to rats fed organic soy or no soy.3

Extrapolating the findings to people, women who eat GM soy products may be more likely to experience severe hormonal disruptions, including an overabundance of estrogen and/or estrogenic activity, a hair-growth stimulating hormone, and damage to the pituitary gland. GM soy has also been linked to loss of libido and erectile dysfunction in men, and, disturbingly, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that the gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continues to function.

This means that years after you stop eating GM soy, you may still have a range of potentially allergenic proteins continuously being produced in your intestines. Not to mention, the intensive soy farming taking place in areas like Paraguay is subjecting residents to pesticide poisoning, and threatening biodiversity and access to locally grown produce.

There are Ways You Can Help

If you're wondering what you can do, one step in the right direction is to avoid factory-farmed fish. By doing this, you're withdrawing your support of an industry that is not in the best interest of human health and the environment, and you're protecting your health, as nutritionally speaking farmed fish are among the worst type of seafood you can eat.

I do not recommend consuming seafood of any kind unless you know it is from pure waters, not contaminated with chemicals, and harvested by a sustainable fishery. Keep in mind that virtually all fish served in restaurants is from factory farms. On a larger scale, you can boycott not only farmed fish but also GM soy by following the tips below. It is time to shift our food paradigm toward one that is more focused on natural, organic and independent community farms, and this is true both on land and at sea.

1. Buy local products whenever possible. Otherwise, buy organic and fair-trade products.
2. Shop at your local farmers market, join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture), or buy from local grocers and co-ops committed to selling local foods.
3. Support restaurants and food vendors that buy locally produced food.
4. Avoid genetically engineered (GM) foods. Buying certified organic ensures your food is non-GM.
5. Cook, can, ferment, dry and freeze. Return to the basics of cooking, and pass these skills on to your children.
6. Drink plenty of water, but avoid bottled water whenever possible, and do invest in a high-quality water filter to filter the water from your tap.
7. Grow your own garden, or volunteer at a community garden. Teach your children how to garden and where their food comes from.
8. Volunteer and/or financially support an organization committed to promoting a sustainable food system.
9. Get involved in your community. Influence what your child eats by engaging the school board. Effect city policies by learning about zoning and attending city council meetings. Learn about the federal policies that affect your food choice, and let your congressperson know what you think.
10. Spread the word! Share this article with your friends, family, and everyone else you know.

References:

* 1 GreenMedInfo, Roundup Toxicology Research
* 2 Huffington Post April 20, 2010
* 3 The Anatomical Record: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology Volume 292, Issue 4, pages 587–594, April 2009

[BroJones]

Today Dr Mercola discusses iron in your body, and avoiding Alzheimers.

By Dr. Mercola

Iron is essential for virtually every life form, including humans, where it is a key part of various proteins and enzymes, involved in the transport of oxygen and the regulation of cell growth and differentiation, among other uses.

One of the most important roles of iron is to provide hemoglobin (the protein in red blood cells) a mechanism through which it can bind to oxygen and carry it throughout your tissues, as without proper oxygenation your cells quickly start dying.

If you have too little iron, you may experience fatigue, decreased immunity or iron-deficiency anemia, which can be serious if left untreated.

However, if you have more iron than your body needs to satisfy your hemoglobin requirement (for cell oxygenation), the excess becomes a dangerous surplus.

Your body has a very limited capacity to excrete iron, which means it can build up in your tissues and organs, a dangerous occurrence because iron is a potent oxidizer and can damage your body tissues contributing to serious health issues, including Alzheimer's disease.

Reducing Iron Levels May Protect Your Brain from Alzheimer's

High iron levels in your blood can lead to the production of free radicals that can damage neurons in your brain. It's also believed that iron accumulates at high levels, and is extremely reactive in the beta-amyloid plaques found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.

A new animal study revealed that reducing iron levels in the blood triggered levels of beta-amyloid and phosphorylated tau protein, which disrupts the ability of neurons to conduct electrical signals, to return to normal.1

Experts on metal metabolism in the body said the research highlights the role of metal ions in the development of Alzheimer's, as excess iron accumulation in the brain is a consistent observation in Alzheimer's disease.

Separate research also showed that reducing excess iron in your brain can alleviate Alzheimer's-like symptoms in mice,2 while measuring brain iron has been suggested as a way to detect Alzheimer's disease in its early stages.3

Iron is also known to accumulate specifically in brain regions associated with memory and thought processes, which are gradually lost as Alzheimer's progresses. At this time it's not entirely clear whether the excess iron is the result of external sources, such as supplements or metal pans, or due to a genetic predisposition to absorbing too much iron or biochemical changes that cause an imbalance internally -- likely it's a combination of factors.

What is known is that too much iron in the wrong places is clearly toxic, and when accumulated in neurons may be a "final end-stage event in neurodegeneration."4

How do You Know if Your Iron Levels are High?

Checking your iron levels is done through a simple blood test called a serum ferritin test. I believe this is one of the most important tests that everyone should have done on a regular basis as part of a preventive, proactive health screen. The test measures the carrier molecule of iron, a protein found inside cells called ferritin, which stores the iron. If your ferritin levels are low it means your iron levels are also low.

The healthy range of serum ferritin lies between 20 and 80 ng/ml. Below 20 is a strong indicator that you are iron deficient, and above 80 suggests you have an iron surplus. The ideal range is between 40-60 ng/ml. The higher the number over 100 the worse the iron overload, with levels over 300 being particularly toxic and will eventually cause serious damage in nearly everyone that sustains those levels long term.

Fortunately most premenopausal women lose iron every month when they menstruate. As a result, menstruating women rarely suffer from iron overload syndromes, as removing blood from your body is the most effective way to lower iron levels. However, most adult men and postmenopausal women tend to be at a high risk for iron overload and all of its toxicity, as they don't have this monthly blood loss.

Additionally, some people also have a genetic predisposition to absorbing too much iron, which is called either hemochromatosis or hemosiderosis. Interestingly, one of the most common causes of excess iron is the regular consumption of alcohol. Alcohol consumed on a regular basis will increase the absorption of any iron in your diet. For instance, if you drink some wine with your steak, you will likely be absorbing more iron than you need. Other potential causes of high iron levels include:

* Cooking in iron pots or pans. Cooking acidic foods in these types of pots or pans will cause even higher levels of iron absorption.
* Eating processed food products like cereals and white breads that are "fortified' with iron. The iron they use in these products is inorganic iron not much different than rust and it is far more dangerous than the iron in meat.
* Drinking well water that is high in iron. The key here is to make sure you have some type of iron precipitator and/or a reverse osmosis water filter.
* Taking multiple vitamins and mineral supplements, as both of these frequently have iron in them.

What to Do if You Have High Iron Levels

Some people advise using iron chelators like phytic acid or IP6, but I don't think that is a wise approach as donating your blood is a far safer and more effective and inexpensive approach for this problem. If, for some reason, a blood donor center is unable to accept your blood for donation you can obtain a prescription for therapeutic phlebotomy. At the same time, you will want to be sure to avoid consuming excess iron in the form of supplements, in your drinking water (well water), from iron cookware, or in fortified processed foods.

Certain phenolic-rich herbs and spices can reduce iron absorption, such as green tea and rosemary.5 Curcumin actually acts as an iron chelator, and in mice studies, diets supplemented with this spice extract exhibited a decline in levels of ferritin in the liver.6 Lastly, astaxanthin, which has been researched to have over 100 potential health benefits,7 has been shown to reduce iron-induced oxidative damage.8

Keep in mind, however, that iron is only one problematic metal for your brain. Others, including zinc, aluminum and copper, are also known to accumulate in your brain and are similarly linked to Alzheimer's disease.

Tips for Preventing Alzheimer's Disease

Alzheimer's disease is currently at epidemic proportions, with 5.4 million Americans -- including one in eight people aged 65 and over -- living with Alzheimer's disease, according to the Alzheimer's Association's 2011 Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures.9 By 2050, this is expected to jump to 16 million, and in the next 20 years it is projected that Alzheimer's will affect one in four Americans.

You do not, however, have to feel powerless against this disease, as although there is no known cure as of yet, there are simple strategies available to significantly lower your risk. Some of the best strategies for Alzheimer's prevention, aside from avoiding excess iron, include:

* Fructose. Most everyone benefits from keeping their total fructose consumed to below 25 grams per day. Fructose has several modes of neurotoxicity, including causing damage to the circulatory system upon which the health of nervous system depends, as well as changing the brain's craving mechanism. Since the average person is exceeding this recommendation by 300% this is a pervasive and serious issue. I view this as the MOST important step you can take.

Additionally, when your liver is busy processing fructose (which your liver turns into fat), it severely hampers its ability to make cholesterol, an essential building block of the brain crucial to its health. This is yet another important facet that explains how and why excessive fructose consumption is so detrimental to your health.
* Improve Magnesium Levels. There is some exciting preliminary research strongly suggesting a decrease in Alzheimer symptoms with increase levels of magnesium in the brain. Unfortunately most magnesium supplements do not pass the blood brain levels, but a new one magnesium threonate appears to do and holds some promise for the future for treating this condition.
* Optimize your vitamin D levels with safe sun exposure. Strong links between low levels of vitamin D in Alzheimer's patients10 and poor outcomes on cognitive tests have been revealed. Researchers believe that optimal vitamin D levels may enhance the amount of important chemicals in your brain and protect brain cells by increasing the effectiveness of the glial cells in nursing damaged neurons back to health. Vitamin D may also exert some of its beneficial effects on Alzheimer's through its anti-inflammatory and immune-boosting properties. Sufficient vitamin D is imperative for proper functioning of your immune system to combat inflammation that is also associated with Alzheimer's.
* Keep your fasting insulin levels below 3. This is indirectly related to fructose, as it will clearly lead to insulin resistance. However other sugars, grains and lack of exercise are also important factors.
* Vitamin B12: According to a small Finnish study recently published in the journal Neurology,11 people who consume foods rich in B12 may reduce their risk of Alzheimer's in their later years. For each unit increase in the marker of vitamin B12 (holotranscobalamin) the risk of developing Alzheimer's was reduced by 2 percent. Very high doses of B vitamins have also been found to treat Alzheimer's disease and reduce memory loss.
* Eat a nutritious diet, rich in folate, such as the one described in my nutrition plan. Strict vegetarian diets have been shown to increase your Alzheimer's risk,12 whereas diets high in omega-3's lower your risk.13 However, vegetables, without question, are your best form of folate, and we should all eat plenty of fresh raw veggies every day.
* High-quality animal based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. (I recommend avoiding most fish because although fish is naturally high in omega-3, most fish are now severely contaminated with mercury.) High intake of the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA help by preventing cell damage caused by Alzheimer's disease, thereby slowing down its progression, and lowering your risk of developing the disorder. Researchers have also said DHA "dramatically reduces the impact of the Alzheimer's gene."
* Avoid and remove mercury from your body. Dental amalgam fillings are one of the major sources of mercury, however you should be healthy prior to having them removed. Once you have adjusted to following the diet described in my optimized nutrition plan, you can follow the mercury detox protocol and then find a biological dentist to have your amalgams removed.
* Avoid aluminum, such as antiperspirants, non-stick cookware, vaccine adjuvants, etc.
* Exercise regularly. It's been suggested that exercise can trigger a change in the way the amyloid precursor protein is metabolized,14 thus, slowing down the onset and progression of Alzheimer's. Exercise also increases levels of the protein PGC-1alpha. Research has also shown that people with Alzheimer's have less PGC-1alpha in their brains,15 and cells that contain more of the protein produce less of the toxic amyloid protein associated with Alzheimer's. I would strongly recommend reviewing the Peak Fitness Technique for my specific recommendations.
* Avoid flu vaccinations as most contain both mercury and aluminum!
* Eat plenty of blueberries. Wild blueberries, which have high anthocyanin and antioxidant content, are known to guard against Alzheimer's and other neurological diseases.
* Challenge your mind daily. Mental stimulation, especially learning something new, such as learning to play an instrument or a new language, is associated with a decreased risk of Alzheimer's. Researchers suspect that mental challenge helps to build up your brain, making it less susceptible to the lesions associated with Alzheimer's disease.
* Avoid anticholinergic and statin drugs. Drugs that block acetylcholine, a nervous system neurotransmitter, have been shown to increase your risk of dementia. These drugs include certain nighttime pain relievers, antihistamines, sleep aids, certain antidepressants, medications to control incontinence, and certain narcotic pain relievers.

A study found that those who took drugs classified as 'definite anticholinergics' had a four times higher incidence of cognitive impairment.16 Regularly taking two of these drugs further increased the risk of cognitive impairment. Statin drugs are particularly problematic because they suppress the synthesis of cholesterol, deplete the brain of coenzyme Q10 and neurotransmitter precursors, and prevent adequate delivery of essential fatty acids and fat-soluble antioxidants to the brain by inhibiting the production of the indispensable carrier biomolecule known as low-density lipoprotein.

References:

See All References

Sources:

* Science Daily April 10, 2012
* Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease March 9, 2012

[BroJones]

By Dr. Mercola

It was big news when court documents were unsealed revealing a whistleblower lawsuit accusing drug giant Merck of fraud and lying about the true efficacy of its mumps vaccine. Just about every media, large and small, picked it up and the world was abuzz about the hundreds of millions of dollars the lawsuit claimed Merck had defrauded from the U.S. government.

The Wall Street Journal published the story in the form of a Dow Jones news release written by Jon Kamp on June 22, 2012, and links to the story began popping up on social media like Facebook.

Then, suddenly, the link to the story no longer worked, and if anyone clicked on the link in social media, it would show up "page not found." Apparently the story had been pulled, and when search engines and Internet archives wouldn't even show it, it looked as if it had never been published on the Journal's site at all. It was erased nearly clean--except for a small stock-watcher's website, 4Traders.com, which did a good job of erasing it from its main site but didn't catch it in the cache.

The question is, why did the WSJ pull the story and try to erase as if it never existed when there were actual court documents for evidence?

Is it possible that an event that occurred on June 251—three days after the story broke—could have influenced the story being pulled? On that day, the Wall Street Journal’s "elite" network of CFOs from the world’s top corporations met at the WSJ2. Merck is on that executive council3.

My team attempted to connect with the WSJ on this issue, but as of this time, we have not yet received an answer as to why this article was pulled. UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal replied to our inquiry on Tuesday July 24th at 3:12 PM CST. The story has since been restored on their site, and they are looking into how the story was temporarily dropped.

Merck Accused of Falsifying Efficacy Studies and Lying about Effectiveness of Mumps Vaccine

Merck has actually been slapped with two class-action lawsuits over their mumps vaccine (which is part of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine). The first, which was initially filed in 2010, was unsealed late last month.

Two former Merck virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, claim they witnessed first-hand the improper testing and falsification of data that was done to hide the fact that the vaccine has significantly declined in effectiveness4.

By artificially inflating the efficacy, Merck was able to maintain its monopoly over the mumps vaccine market—and that is the main point of contention of the second class-action lawsuit, filed by Chatom Primary Care5.

According to Courthouse News Service6:

"Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is "far less effective" than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of "questionable efficacy," flooding and monopolizing the market... Chatom says in its antitrust complaint that Merck falsely claims its mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective. That claim "deterred and excluded competing manufacturers," who would enter the risky and expensive vaccine market only if they believed they could craft a better product...

Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the FDA to sell the mumps vaccine in United States, and if it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it risked losing its lucrative monopoly...

That's why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming such a high efficacy rate, the complaint states. And, Chatom claims, that's why Merck went to great lengths, including "manipulating its test procedures and falsifying the test results," to prop up the bogus figure, though it knew that the attenuated virus from which it created the vaccine had been altered over the years during the manufacturing process, and that the quality of the vaccine had degraded as a result."

How Merck Faked and Manipulated Vaccine Trials to Achieve Desired Results

According to these two lawsuits, Merck began a sham testing program in the late 1990's to hide the declining efficacy of the vaccine. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to "report efficacy of 95 percent or higher regardless of the vaccine's true efficacy."

According to Krahling and Wlochowski’s complaint, they were threatened with jail were they to alert the FDA to the fraud being committed. The sham testing program was initially referred to as "Protocol 007," the Chatom anti-trust claim states. Suzanne Humphries recently wrote an excellent summary for GreenMedInfo.com7, explaining in layman's terms how the tests were manipulated8.

Here’s a brief extract. For more, please refer to the original source article:

“For the new testing method, the children’s blood was tested for its ability to neutralize the virus using the vaccine strain virus, instead of the wild type strain that is much more infective, and the one that your children would most likely catch... But still it was not 95% effective. In order to make the blood pass the test, antibodies from rabbits was added. The addition of rabbit antibody increased the efficacy to 100%. But that was not the end, because the test has to be done on pre-vaccine blood and post-vaccine blood.

Just the addition of rabbit antibody made the pre-vaccine blood go from 10% positive to 80% positive and that was such an obvious sign of foul play that yet another manipulation had to be made.

The desired end result is to have very low pre-vaccine antibody and 95% or more post-vaccine efficacy as measured by antibody neutralization. So, yet one more change in procedure was made: The pre-vaccine tests were all redone... According to the Merck scientists, they did this by fabricating the "plaque" counts on the pre-vaccine blood samples, counting plaques that were not there. What this allowed was a mathematical dilution of the pre-vaccine positive blood counts.”

This is a perfect example of how medical research can be manipulated to achieve desired results, and why it may be wise to question vaccine makers’ study results. Clearly, there needs to be a truly independent review in the mix... As reported by the Courthouse News Service9:

“Chatom claims that the falsification of test results occurred" with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior management."

While I do not advocate indiscriminately abstaining from all vaccines, I strongly encourage you to exercise a major dose of due diligence as vaccines can cause serious reactions that can have devastating consequences. I believe in informed consent and the freedom to choose. There can be little doubt anymore that drug companies are in it for the profits, and virtually no price seems too high for them when it comes to protecting their profit-making.

When Words and Deeds Don’t Match, which is Closer to the Truth?

Forbes quoted a Merck spokesman saying10:

"Nothing is more important to Merck than the safety and effectiveness of our vaccines and medicines and the people who use them.".

Really?

Then WHY did they heavily promote Vioxx and keep it on the market until it had killed more than 60,000 people? I warned my readers that this pain killer might be a real killer for some people, five years before Merck made its $30 billion recall! Five years they let it go, and they undoubtedly would have kept it on the market longer had the lethal dangers not become so shockingly obvious to other scientists.

After Vioxx came the HPV vaccine Gardasil—perhaps the most unnecessary vaccine ever created, and likely one of the most dangerous to boot. Merck claims their main concern is safety, yet ever since Gardasil's approval in 2006, reports of life-altering side effects and sudden deaths of otherwise healthy teenagers have stacked up into the thousands, and Merck has steadfastly refused to acknowledge or address these health risks.

Gardasil appears to have one of the highest risk to benefit ratios of any vaccine on the market, and India even halted Merck's post-licensing trials of the vaccine after four young participants died, yet Merck has the gall to claim that nothing is more important to them than safety. Give me a break... Actions speak louder than words, and Merck has a long paper trail of litigation highlighting the company's questionable ethics.

More Censored News: MMR Vaccine Caused Autism, Italian Court Rules

These two lawsuits couldn't come at a more precarious time for Merck, as the Italian Health Ministry recently conceded the MMR vaccine caused autism in a now nine-year old boy. As a result, a court in Rimini, Italy has awarded the family a 15-year annuity totaling 174,000 Euros (just under $220,000), plus reimbursement for court costs, ruling that the boy "has been damaged by irreversible complications due to vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR)."

According to The Daily Mail, a British paper11:

"Judge Lucio Ardigo, awarding compensation to the family... said it was 'conclusively established' that Valentino had suffered from an 'autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay' and his illness, as Dr Barboni stated, was linked to receiving the jab. Lawyer Mr Ventaloro explained yesterday: 'This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino.

'It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions.'

Claudio Simion, a leading member of the lobby group Association for Freedom of Choice in Vaccination (Comilva), adds: 'The Rimini judgment is vitally important for children everywhere. The numbers with autism are growing. It is a terrible thing that the authorities turn a blind eye to the connection between the MMR vaccination and this illness.'"

This vaccine-news story was not picked up by a single US media outlet when it happened! Why? Could it be because the US government, which is brimming with paid-off industry shills, is hellbent on protecting the vaccination program? Not because it's a marvelous panacea that promotes optimal health and longevity and can be defended with raw facts and first-class science, but because it's a major profit center, both for the vaccine makers and for those whose pockets are lined with Big Pharma bribes.

U.S. Varicella Vaccination Program Also Found to be a Total Flop

In related news, a recent review of the varicella (chickenpox) vaccination program in the US concluded that the vaccine efficacy had declined well below 80 percent by of 2002. Furthermore, the varicella vaccine has:

* Not proven to be cost-effective
* Increased the incidence of shingles
* Failed to provide long-term protection from the disease it targets―chicken pox―and
* Is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in the general population before the vaccine

The damning news was published in May in the journal Vaccine12, and lends additional support to the idea that the vaccine program is based on financial interests, not health, as serious side effects are routinely ignored and ineffective and/or harmful products continue to be used.

The information was gathered from a review of chicken pox and shingles statistics in the years since the vaccine was introduced. The researchers point out that although statistics showed shingles rates increased after the vaccine, "CDC authorities still claimed" that no increase had occurred. The authors also state that the CDC not only ignored the natural boost in immunity to the community that occurred with wild chickenpox, as opposed to the vaccine, but also ignored the "rare serious events following varicella vaccination" as well as the increasing rates of shingles among adults:

"In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased herpes zoster [shingles] morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease."

Get Informed Before You Vaccinate Yourself or Your Family

Stories such as these underscore the importance to take control of your own health, and that of your children. It's simply not wise to blindly depend on the information coming directly from the vaccine makers' PR departments, or from federal health officials and agencies that are mired in conflicts of interest with industry...

No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks of medical interventions and pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, and have the freedom to refuse if you conclude the benefits do not outweigh the risks for you or your child.

Unfortunately, the business partnership between government health agencies and vaccine manufacturers is too close and is getting out of hand. There is a lot of discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use.

We cannot allow that to continue.

It's vitally important to know and exercise your legal rights and to understand your options when it comes to using vaccines and prescription drugs. For example, your doctor is legally obligated to provide you with the CDC Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) sheet and discuss the potential symptoms of side effects of the

vaccination(s) you or your child receive BEFORE vaccination takes place. If someone giving a vaccine does not do this, it is a violation of federal law. Furthermore, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 also requires doctors and other vaccine providers to:

* Keep a permanent record of all vaccines given and the manufacturer's name and lot number
* Write down serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination in the patient's permanent medical record
* File an official report of all serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

If a vaccine provider fails to inform, record or report, it is a violation of federal law. It's important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that you have the legal right to opt out of using a vaccine that you do not want you or your child to receive. At present, all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 18 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

However, vaccine exemptions are under attack in a number of states, and it's in everyone's best interest to protect the right to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand your rights under the law to make voluntary vaccine choices, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights will have the greatest impact.

Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at http://www.NVICAdvocacy.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen you will be put in touch with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Right now, in California, the personal belief exemption is under attack by Pharma-funded medical trade organizations and public health officials trying to get a bill (AB 2109) passed that would require parents to get a medical doctor's signature to file an exemption for personal religious and conscientious beliefs. Watch NVIC's 90-second public service message and learn more about what you can do if you are a California resident.

Internet Resources

To learn more about vaccines, I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at http://www.NVIC.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

* NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
* If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
* Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or state officials for making independent vaccine choices.
* Vaccine Ingredient Calculator (VIC): Find out just how much aluminum, mercury and other ingredients are in the vaccines your doctor is recommending for you or your child.
* Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) on MedAlerts. Search the government's VAERS database to find out what kinds of vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths have been reported by patients and heath care workers giving vaccines.

Find a Doctor Who will Listen to Your Concerns

Last but not least, if your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to punish those patients and parents, who become truly educated about health and vaccination and want to make vaccine choices instead of being forced to follow risky one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.

If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor (or government official), do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media, if you or your child are threatened.

That said, there is hope.

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

So take the time to locate and connect with a doctor who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child, and isn't just competing for government incentives designed to increase vaccination rates at any cost.

References:

See All References

[BroJones]

Today Dr Mercola talks about what is best for BABY -- it ain't soy!

By Dr. Mercola

If you're pregnant or thinking of having a baby, you might want to take a look at some new research on the effects of plant estrogens, such as that found in soy, on a developing fetus.

According to Medical News Today1, a paper published in Biology of Reproduction2 suggests that exposure to estrogenic chemicals in the womb or during childhood has the potential to negatively affect a woman's fertility as an adult.

This coincides with earlier research on neonatal effects of exposure to plant or environmental estrogens. In studies with mice, researchers found that causes of infertility included:

* Failure to ovulate
* Reduced ability of the oviduct to support embryo development before ovulation, and
* Failure of the uterus to support effective implantation of blastocyst-stage embryos

According to Medical News Today:

"The team now reports that neonatal exposure to genistein changes the level of immune response in the mouse oviduct, known as mucosal immune response. Some of the immune response genes were altered beginning from the time of genistein treatment, while others were altered much later, when the mouse was in early pregnancy.

Together, those changes led to harmfully altered immune responses and to compromised oviduct support for preimplantation embryo development, both of which would likely contribute to infertility."

Since human development of the reproductive tract continues through puberty, researchers believe that estrogenic chemical exposure to human females as a fetus, infant, child, and adolescent could have impacts on fertility. The authors suggested that minimizing the use of soy-based baby formula would be a step toward maintaining female reproductive health.

Earlier research has also found that the compound genistein impairs sperm as they swim toward the egg. Even tiny doses of the compound in the female tract could destroy sperm, which would impair your ability to conceive in the first place.

Do You Still Believe Soy is a Health Food?

Soybeans contain compounds called phytoestrogens or isoflavones, which have been found to produce a variety of mild hormonal actions within the human body by mimicking the sex hormone estrogen. An increased risk of breast cancer is another potential hazard, especially if you're exposed to high amounts of estrogen-mimicking compounds from birth.

Making matters worse, unless you're buying USDA 100% Organic soy products, chances are you're consuming genetically engineered (GE) soy, or feeding it to your baby, and GE crops—soy in particular—has also been linked to serious fertility problems. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has similarly been implicated in causing miscarriages, and both conventional- and genetically engineered soy is typically treated with heavy doses of this herbicide.

All in all, the health hazards of unfermented soy products—particularly genetically engineered varieties—are so serious and numerous, I strongly suggest avoiding them altogether, whether you're planning a pregnancy or not. But clearly, it's of particular concern for pregnant women.

For an excellent summary of the many dangers of consuming unfermented soy, please see this previous article by The Weston A. Price Foundation.

Unfortunately, many Americans who are committed to healthy lifestyles have been hoodwinked and manipulated into believing that unfermented and processed soy products like soy milk, soy cheese, soy burgers and soy ice cream are good for them. This is a tragic case of shrewd marketing and outright lies, with the end result of producing large profits for the soy industry and impaired health for most who have been deceived into using unfermented soy long-term.

Why You Should Avoid Feeding Your Baby Soy Infant Formula

Nearly 20 percent of U.S. infants are now fed soy formula, but as demonstrated in the featured study, the estrogens in soy can cause serious long-term harm to your baby's sexual development and reproductive health. It's important to realize that feeding your baby soy formula is like giving her an estimated four to five birth control pills' worth of estrogen every day. Infants fed soy formula have up to 20,000 times the amount of estrogen in circulation as those fed other formulas!

A 1997 study in The Lancet3 found that infants who consume soy formulas were exposed to phytoestrogen levels that were 6-11 times higher, on a body weight basis, than in adults consuming soy foods. And when you consider the fact that drinking two glasses of soy milk a day for one month provides enough of these compounds to alter your menstrual cycle, I'm sure you can see what a massive problem soy formula can be.

Male infants are also adversely affected by phytoestrogens. Male babies undergo a testosterone surge during the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those of an adult male.

During this period, baby boys are programmed to express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of their sexual organs and other masculinity traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male behavior. Flooding his system with female hormones during this time can have severe ramifications on his development, including potentially smaller testes and significantly reduced testosterone levels.

Today, about 15 percent of white girls and as much as 50 percent of African-Americans girls show signs of puberty, such as breast development and pubic hair, before the age of eight. Some girls are showing sexual development before the age of three! Such premature development of girls has been linked to the use of soy formula and exposure to other environmental estrogen-mimickers such as PCBs and DDE.

Soy Infant Formula May Reduce Your Baby's IQ

Aside from harmful endocrine disrupters, soy infant formula can also contain over 1,000 percent more aluminum than conventional milk-based formulas. Aluminum is a potent neurotoxin that has been implicated in the development of Alzheimer's disease and other brain disorders. According to a study in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics4:

"Aluminum is now being implicated as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in other tissues."

But that's not all. Many soy foods also have toxic levels of manganese. Soy formula contains up to 80 times more manganese than is found in human breast milk, and according to recent research, high concentrations of manganese can lead to brain damage in infants and altered behaviors in adolescents.5

I rarely talk about absolutes but this is one instant where I will say: I encourage you to NEVER give your child soy formula. (I guess the only exception would be if there was a catastrophe and soy formula was the only food source temporarily available to keep your baby alive.)

The Benefits of Breast Feeding, and Healthier Alternatives

One of the best gifts you can give your child is to start out their life with a sound nutritional foundation, and the best way from a health perspective to do this is by breastfeeding if you can. In fact, statistics show a clear correlation between feeding infants artificial formula and increased infant mortality within the first year.

It's important to realize that there are at least 400 nutrients in breast milk that are NOT found in formula. Of course, the healthier a mom's diet is, the healthier her breast milk will be, too. While any amount of breastfeeding is better than none at all, it is clearly to your advantage, and best for your baby's health, to breastfeed exclusively for at least the first 6 months. Then, at the age of 6 or 9 months, you can begin to supplement with solid foods (while still continuing to breastfeed as well).

As you can see from the chart below, breast milk, and animal milk are far superior to commercially available infant formulas. What exactly does your baby stand to gain by being breastfed?

* Lower risk of respiratory tract and middle ear infections
* Lower risk of eczema
* Lower risk of obesity
* Added protection against heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and allergies
* Improved brain function and immune system function

There are benefits to mom, too. The main ones are a reduced risk of chronic diseases like cancer, a faster return to your pre-pregnancy weight, and increased bonding between you and your baby.

There are circumstances and medical conditions that can prevent a woman from breastfeeding, however the majority of women are able to breastfeed successfully. If you need help, contact a lactation consultant in your area for tips and support. You can also visit La Leche League, which is a phenomenal resource for breastfeeding moms. If for some reason you're not able to breastfeed, or you have adopted a baby, your next best option is to make a healthy infant formula using raw milk. You can find homemade formula recipes here.

[BroJones]

Comparisons Table from the same article above:

[BroJones]

Is obesity a greater health risk than smoking?
By Dr. Mercola

This may come as a surprise to some, but data collected from over 60,000 Canadians show that obesity leads to more doctor visits than smoking.

The idea that being overweight can be worse for your health than smoking is likely to make many balk, considering how "normal" it has become to carry around extra pounds, but in terms of overall health effects and subsequent health care costs, it's likely true.

The study estimates that if obesity were not a factor, doctor visits in Canada would decrease by 10 percent. The decrease would be even greater if you take into account problems related to type 2 diabetes, which is also directly related to obesity and poor diet.

With the obesity epidemic putting pressure on health care systems everywhere, this news may trigger financial penalties or incentives to get people to lose weight, according to Medical News Today [1].

"Just as smokers have higher life insurance premiums, people who are obese could also be made to pay more for health insurance. The complication is that obesity tends to be more prevalent among people with low income, making this solution difficult to implement," Medical News Today said.

... "The fact that obesity is more serious than smoking helps people understand the gravity of the problem because they already have some kind of intuitive understanding of how bad smoking is," says [lead researcher, James] McIntosh.

Excess Weight is a Gateway to Chronic Disease

Canadian and American obesity statistics are neck-to-neck, with about one-quarter to one third of adults in the obese category. A staggering two-thirds of Americans are overweight. This does indeed place a heavy burden on the health care system. It's important to realize that a large number of diseases are directly attributable to obesity, including:
Diabetes Polycystic ovarian syndrome Urinary incontinence Pickwickian syndrome
Cancer Gastro-esophageal reflux disease Chronic renal failure Depression
Congestive heart failure Fatty liver disease Lymph edema Osteoarthritis
Enlarged heart Hernia Cellulitis Gout
Pulmonary embolism Erectile dysfunction Stroke Gallbladder disease

Most Adults and Teens Not Exercising and at High Risk of Disease

Physical activity and good health go hand-in-hand. The problem is most adults and teens aren't physically active enough to stay healthy and maintain ideal weight. According to a series in the journal Lancet on physical activity and health, not exercising is leaving around a third of adults (1.5 billion people) and 4 out of 5 adolescents at a 20-30 percent greater risk of diabetes, heart disease, and some types of cancer.

Reported by Medical News Today [2]:

"Investigations revealed that the recommended activities, known as moderate-intensity activities, like walking for 30 minutes at least 5 times a week, or running for 20 minutes 3 times a week, is not being done by approximately 3 out of 10 adults worldwide."

Worse yet, an estimated 80 percent of 13 to 15 year olds are not getting the recommended one hour per day of physical activity! According to one of the Lancet reports [3], lack of exercise causes as many as 1 in 10 premature deaths around the world each year — roughly as many as smoking...

Too Much TV Linked with Thicker, Weaker Kids

There can be little doubt that our modern lifestyle is at the heart of the problem. We eat poorly and don't exercise enough. The results of this sedentary, under-nourished lifestyle are evident in today's children. Today, one-third of all American children ages 2-19 are overweight or obese. Most of these children will become diabetic.

Spending hours in front of the TV or playing video games is of course a hallmark of a sedentary lifestyle.

If you needed any more proof that too much time in front of the TV is not good for kids, then you'll be interested in a new study that not only affirms that TV-time is linked to sleep problems and weight problems, but also to weaker muscles [4]. The new study, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity [5], shows that the number of hours in front of the TV during preschool years is linked to increased waist size and decreased leg strength.

According to the authors:

"Watching television excessively in early childhood may eventually compromise muscular fitness and waist circumference in children as they approach pubertal age."

This is significant, the study's authors said, because it not only could affect performance in sports activities, but also cardiovascular health and susceptibility to injuries. TV programming also expose your children to commercials promoting health-harming junk foods; literally programming them from infancy to have a skewed understanding of what to eat. Just as you don't want your child exposed to ads for cigarettes during Saturday morning cartoons, neither should your kids be bombarded by non-stop commercials for sugary foods and snacks.

Tips for Raising Healthy Weight Children

If you have children who are overweight or obese, I highly suggest you pick up a copy of my book Generation XL, which is packed with tools to transform the health of your children. In the meantime, I would recommend getting started on these crucial lifestyle changes right now:

1. Set strict viewing limits for TV, computer and video games
2. Make exercise a part of your family's daily schedule. Remember, children model your behavior more than anything else
3. Get rid of the junk food and sweetened drinks
4. Set family meal times and prepare home-cooked meals for your family
5. Reward your children with kind words, not food

Where Americans Spend Grocery Money, 1982 vs. Today

Overall, about 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods [6]. This includes restaurant foods (i.e. food away from home) and processed grocery foods that require little or no preparation time before consuming.

When looking at the ratio of money spent on store-bought groceries only, Americans spend nearly a fourth of their grocery money on processed foods and sweets—twice as much as they did in 1982—according to Department of Labor statistics [7]. Pricing of meats, sugar, and flour has had a great influence our spending habits. These items have actually seen a decrease in price per pound, which has had an inverse effect on Americans' spending habits, in that cheaper prices encourage people to buy more.

The result is obvious. Compared with shoppers 30 years ago, American adults today are twice as likely to be obese, and children and adolescents three times as likely to be overweight. Pediatric type 2 diabetes—which used to be very rare—has markedly increased along with the rise in early childhood obesity. According to previous research, early onset type 2 diabetes appears to be a more aggressive disease from a cardiovascular standpoint [8].

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Credit: Lam Thuy Vo / NPR [9]

Soda—One of the Greatest Threats to Your and Your Children's Weight and Health

According to the 2010 Report by the Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans [10], the top 10 sources of calories in the American diet are:
1. Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars) 139 calories a day 6. Alcoholic beverages
2. Yeast breads, 129 calories a day 7. Pasta and pasta dishes
3. Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes, 121 calories a day 8. Mexican mixed dishes
4. Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks, 114 calories a day 9. Beef and beef-mixed dishes
5. Pizza, 98 calories a day 10. Dairy desserts



Between the previous graphic showing where the majority of food dollars are spent, and this listing detailing the top sources of calories in the American diet, it's easy to recognize that the dietary roots of the American weight problem is linked to carbs—sugars (primarily fructose) and grains—in the form of processed foods and sweet drinks. You've often heard me state that soda is the number one source of calories in the US diet, which it was, based on the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The updated NHANES survey above covers nutritional data from 2005-2006, placing grain-based foods in the top two slots.

Still, soda comes in at number four, and I still believe many people, particularly teenagers, probably still get a majority of their calories from fructose-rich drinks like soda.

Needless to say, obesity and its many related chronic health problems will also take a toll on your lifespan, and soda is a major culprit driving these sad health trends. Term Life Insurance may have an alternative motive for creating and posting an infographic online showing soda's effect on your body [11], but in this case the industry managers are actually trying to help you out while simultaneously adding to their bottom lines.

Harmful Soda

Image source: Term Life Insurance

Basic Tenets of Optimal Health

Leading a common-sense, healthy lifestyle is your best bet to achieve a healthy body and mind. And while conventional medical science may flip-flop back and forth in its recommendations, there are certain basic tenets of optimal health (and healthy weight) that do not change:

1. Proper Food Choices: For a comprehensive guide on which foods to eat and which to avoid, see my nutrition plan. Generally speaking, you should be looking to focus your diet on whole, ideally organic, unprocessed foods. For the best nutrition and health benefits, you will want to eat a good portion of your food raw.

Avoid sugar, and fructose in particular. All forms of sugar have toxic effects when consumed in excess, and drive multiple disease processes in your body, not the least of which is insulin resistance, a major cause of chronic disease and accelerated aging.

I believe the two primary keys for successful weight management are severely restricting carbohydrates (sugars, fructose, and grains) in your diet, and increasing healthy fat consumption. This will optimize insulin and leptin levels, which is key for maintaining a healthy weight and optimal health.
2. Regular exercise: Even if you're eating the healthiest diet in the world, you still need to exercise to reach the highest levels of health, and you need to be exercising effectively, which means including high-intensity activities into your rotation. High-intensity interval-type training boosts human growth hormone (HGH) production, which is essential for optimal health, strength and vigor. HGH also helps boost weight loss.

So along with core-strengthening exercises, strength training, and stretching, I highly recommend that twice a week you do Peak Fitness exercises,' which raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, followed by a 90-second recovery period.
3. Stress Reduction: You cannot be optimally healthy if you avoid addressing the emotional component of your health and longevity, as your emotional state plays a role in nearly every physical disease -- from heart disease and depression, to arthritis and cancer.

Meditation, prayer, social support and exercise are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional and mental equilibrium. I also strongly believe in using simple tools such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) to address deeper, oftentimes hidden, emotional problems.
4. Drink plenty of clean water
5. Maintain a healthy gut: About 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut, and research is stacking up showing that probiotics—beneficial bacteria—affect your health in a myriad of ways; it can even influence your ability to lose weight. A healthy diet is the ideal way to maintain a healthy gut, and regularly consuming traditionally fermented foods is the easiest, most cost effective way to ensure optimal gut flora
6. Optimize your vitamin D levels: Research has shown that increasing your vitamin D levels can reduce your risk of death from ALL causes. For practical guidelines on how to use natural sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D benefits, please see my previous article on how to determine if enough UVB is able to penetrate the atmosphere to allow for vitamin D production in your skin
7. Avoid as many chemicals, toxins, and pollutants as possible: This includes tossing out your toxic household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides, and insecticides, just to name a few, and replacing them with non-toxic alternatives.
8. Get plenty of high quality sleep: Regularly catching only a few hours of sleep can hinder metabolism and hormone production in a way that is similar to the effects of aging and the early stages of diabetes. Chronic sleep loss may speed the onset or increase the severity of age-related conditions such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and memory loss

[BroJones]

DCA cannot be patented, but looks like a great CANCER cure (gasp-- i used the term):

By Dr. Mercola

According to the American Cancer Society, the odds you'll develop cancer in your lifetime are one in two, if you're a man, and one in three, if you're a woman.1 But an experimental cancer drug shown to shrink tumors by correcting metabolic oddities in cancer cells shows promise in the fight against this deadly disease. The synthetic drug DCA (dichloroacetate) DOES indeed kill cancer cells, both in the lab and in human beings. However, whether it can reverse tumor growth without harming you in other ways remains to be seen.

The first clinical trial, although small, involving patients with brain cancer (glioblastoma) was encouraging, and the results were published in Science of Translational Medicine in 20102 . However, there is still a great deal more work to be done before DCA can be pronounced a safe and effective cancer treatment.

An interesting aspect of DCA is that it's an inexpensive, non-patentable molecule, which makes it of minimal value to pharmaceutical companies that profit by patenting expensive new drugs. Therefore, clinical trials are slow to get going due to lack of funding by Big Pharma. Researchers must await sufficient money to trickle in from government sources and public donations before moving forward.

In the paragraphs below, my aim is to give you information from both sides of the story—the potential benefits as well as the possible risks.

Rats Fed DCA Showed Dramatic Tumor Regression

The impetus behind most of the DCA research has been cardiologist Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. In 2007, Michelakis and his colleagues sparked a firestorm of interest when they announced rats fed DCA showed rapid tumor regression without any apparent side effects. Michelakis has been the first to say these results are preliminary and cautions cancer patients to refrain from running out and buying the drug, prior to clinical trials.

Yet, many desperate cancer patients with few remaining options are doing just that, and side effects ARE being reported.

There are currently three clinical trials involving use of DCA to treat cancer that are currently recruiting participants3. Some of these studies plan to combine DCA with other chemotherapy drugs and radiation, all known to have damaging effects in your body. However, if you have cancer and are tempted to participate, there are some things you should know in order to make an informed decision about the risk versus the benefits of this experimental treatment.

Cancer Cells and Healthy Cells Have Different Metabolic Processes

In order to understand how DCA kills cancer cells, it is necessary to understand a bit about how the cellular metabolism of cancer cells differs from that of your normal, healthy cells. Cancer cells have very different metabolic processes than normal cells, in terms of how they derive their energy.4 It's a rather complicated distinction, so please bear with me as I try to explain it in the simplest terms possible.

There are two major pathways your cells use to covert sugar into energy: glucose oxidation and glycolysis:

1. Glucose oxidationis the primary energy metabolism in normal cells and takes place in your mitochondria, which are the little "power plants" inside your cell; it requires the presence of oxygen, as its name suggests. This is why you breathe and your heart beats to circulate oxygen throughout your body. Glucose oxidation is sometimes referred to as cellular respiration.
2. Glycolysis takes place in your cell's cytoplasm. It can occur without the presence of oxygen. Glycolysis is less efficient for normal cells, but it is acancer cell'spreferredmeans of energy metabolism, and it depends on the availability of sugar.

So, when your cells are oxygen-starved they have a backup plan. They can extract energy from sugar without the presence of oxygen, by glycolysis.

Pyruvate is required for glucose oxidation. There is an enzyme (pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase, or PDK) that acts as gatekeeper to regulate the flow of pyruvate into the mitochondria. If PDK is active, it suppresses the transport of pyruvate into the mitochondria, and your cell is forced to rely on glycolysis, even if oxygen is available. If PDK is inactive, pyruvate is shuttled into the mitochondria, even if oxygen is low.

Unlike normal cells, cancer cells are masterful at deriving energy from glycolysis—they have very active PDK. The way to make a cancer cell unhappy is by suppressing PDK, forcing the cell to use glucose oxidation, instead of glycolysis. This is called the Warburg theory of cancer, or the Warburg hypothesis5.

This is where DCA comes in.

DCA Instigates Mass Suicide among Cancer Cells

DCA suppresses PDK (the mitochondrial gatekeeper), and this fires up the cell's mitochondria. Not only does this force the cancer cell to abandon its preferred metabolic process, but it flips the cell's "suicide switch" as well. This happens because mitochondria are the primary regulators of apoptosis, or cellular suicide—they are loaded with sensors that react to abnormalities by pushing the cell's self-destruct button.

When a cancer cell's mitochondria realize it's a cancer cell, it spontaneously kills itself. This is the reason chemotherapy and radiation result in such terrible side effects—your healthy cells actually die much more easily because of this self-destruct button.

The reason cancer is so fast growing is that the mitochondria have been deactivated, so the cells evade apoptosis, as well as being able to grow in the absence of oxygen (glycolysis)6. DCA reverses this.In effect, DCA directly causes cancer cell apoptosis and works synergistically other cancer therapies, such as radiation, gene therapy, and viral therapy. A number of scientific studies have been performed to date, and most are encouraging.

DCA--Cancer Research Review

Most of the studies thus far have been done on cell cultures in the lab (in vitro), as opposed to on cancer patients themselves (in vivo). Yet the results are impressively consistent across the board, suggesting DCA is effective against a wide variety of cancer types. The DCA Site7 has a good list of all clinical studies through 2011.

The study that sparked the DCA excitement appeared in Cancer Cell in January 20078 According to an article in the Edmonton Journal9 in the 2007 rat study, DCA killed lung, breast, and brain cancer cells but left healthy cells alone. The rats' tumors decreased by up to 70 percent in three weeks of DCA treatment, without negative side effects.

This announcement led to a cyclone of excitement from cancer patients everywhere who scrambled to get their hands on the new "cancer cure," in spite of warnings from Michelakis himself (and others) against prematurely self-medicating with the compound.

Several more studies soon followed, including the first clinical trial2 involving brain cancer patients. In that trial, the research team selected five glioblastoma patients with a particularly aggressive form of brain cancer. They treated them with oral DCA for 15 months.

Tumor tissue was compared before and after DCA treatment in three of the five patients. In all three, there were signs that the tumor growth had slowed, and more cancer cells were undergoing programmed cell death after the treatment with DCA. Unfortunately, one of the five patients died. Another had "debulking" surgery before completing the full course of DCA treatment.Below are some of the other DCA cancer studies, all within the past five years. (Note that none of these involved human subjects.)

* Endometrial Cancer: DCA causes apoptosis in endometrial cancer cells.10
* Prostate Cancer: DCA produces significant cytotoxic effects in prostate cancer cells11
* Breast Cancer: DCA has anti-proliferative properties against breast cancer cells and caused apoptosis of those cells12
* Colorectal Cancer: DCA reduced colon cancer tumors by 20 to 40 percent13
* Cervical Cancer: Researchers concluded DCA is a quick and effective cure for advanced cervical carcinoma14

For comprehensive information about DCA's method of action, history, and related scientific research, refers to The DCA Site7, and to this 2011 article in the International Journal of Cancer15. It should be noted that caffeine may radically increases the effects of DCA16. In fact, this effect is so pronounced that some researchers are working on developing a "DCA-caffeine" cancer treatment protocol.

Now that you're aware of DCA's cancer-fighting effects, let's take a look at the adverse effects identified thus far.

DCA's Side Effects Can Be Daunting

DCA is not a natural agent—it's a chemical produced in the water chlorination process. It's a small molecule, which accounts for one of its major advantages: DCA is easily absorbed by your body and can reach areas other drugs can't, such as your brain, which is why it's of particular interest for treating brain cancers. This, however, can be a two-edged sword, because any compound that easily permeates your brain can exert all sorts of unexpected and worrisome neurological effects.

DCA is a byproduct of another chemical called trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound believed to cause cancer. TCE is used mainly as a solvent to remove grease from metal parts, but is also used in adhesives, paint removers, and typewriter correction fluids. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reports TCE is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" and may cause birth defects. They state TCE may also cause the following17:

* Skin rashes
* Nerve, kidney, and liver damage
* Impaired heart and immune function
* Unconsciousness
* Death

When DCA is added to the drinking water of laboratory mice, it causes liver cancer. While DCA may offer hope and a novel approach to treating cancer, it is far from a "miracle cure." Of course, chemotherapy drugs are quite toxic as well!

DCA has been used successfully in children with metabolic disorders, with no signs of toxic poisoning. But adults appear to suffer more adverse effects—especially peripheral neuropathy and encephalopathy, such as the case described in a letter to the editor of the Journal of Neurology18. According to a survey performed by The DCA Site19, there are a fair number of serious side effects reported by those taking DCA, many of them neurological. Research suggests the side effects are at least somewhat dose-dependent, but safe dosing guidelines have not yet been established.

In the online survey, the side effects reported by DCA users include:
Tingling and numbness in the fingers, toes and lips; peripheral neuropathy Leg weakness Hand tremors Ankle swelling Increased urination
Mild nausea Anxiety and depression Dizziness Sleepiness Breathing "heavier" than usual



In some studies, under some circumstances, DCA seems to actually make cancer cells stronger. For example, an in-vitro animal study20 published in May 2010 revealed that some types of colon cancer cells are actually protected by DCA when grown under anoxic conditions or as xenografts in mice (xenografts are tissues transplanted into one species from a dissimilar species). And when DCA is combined with frontline drugs, it sometimes interferes with their effectiveness. The neurological side effects are compounded when DCA is used with other anti-cancer drugs, which are also neurotoxic.

So, if you're already using a cancer medication, DCA's effects are going to be unpredictable and potentially dangerous. This underscores the importance of fully understanding the mechanisms of action of an agent before it enters clinical trials.

A Safer Alternative: FOODS that Cause Cancer Cells to Self-Destruct

What if there were natural agents that induced cancer cell suicide, without the side effects of DCA? As it turns out, these agents DO exist—and you may already have some in your kitchen pantry or supplement cabinet. Here are a few21:

* Co-Q10/Ubiquinol
* Curcumin (the active agent in the spice turmeric)
* Capsaicin (the compound that makes hot peppers hot)
* Se-methylselenocysteine aka methylselenocysteine (found in garlic and broccoli)
* Ellagic acid (from pomegranates and other fruits)

There are many all-natural cancer-prevention strategies, and research shows they may cut your risk in half. Consequently, by implementing multiple strategies, you can radically lower your risk of cancer as well as other chronic diseases.

Lifestyle Factors that Influence Your Cancer Risk

A healthful lifestyle encourages proper gene expression, as the science of epigenetics has shown. We now know you are in control of your genes, instead of being controlled by them. You actually have tremendous power to shape and direct your health! Your thoughts, your environmental exposures, and your food choices all directly affect your gene expression.

The best "cancer cure" is to prevent it from taking hold in the first place. Cancer cells are circulating in everyone, all the time. The stronger your immune system is, the less likely your cellular function will run amok. Your diet is extremely important in keeping your immune system strong. One of the primary cancer-promoters is sugar. Cancer cells love sugar and use it to fuel their rapid proliferation (by glycolysis, as discussed earlier). This includes ALL forms of sugar, including fructose and grains. The higher your blood glucose level, the more prolific the cancer cells will be.

According to breast cancer expert, author, and board certified surgeon Dr. Christine Horner:

"To me, sugar has no redeeming value at all, because they found that the more we consume it, the more we're fuelling every single chronic disease," Dr. Horner says. "In fact, there was a study done about a year ago… and the conclusion was that sugar is a universal mechanism for chronic disease. It kicks up inflammation. It kicks up oxygen free radicals. Those are the two main processes we see that underlie any single chronic disorder, including cancers. It fuels the growth of breast cancers, because glucose is cancer's favorite food. The more you consume, the faster it grows."

Your diet is the one of the best ways to either feed or prevent cancer. Processed foods, soft drinks, red meat from CAFO-raised animals, trans fats, and any food containing or contaminated with xenoestrogens promote cancer growth. Plant foods, particularly cruciferous vegetables and flax seeds, as well as many herbs and spices are cancer-preventive. Beneficial fats of particular importance for cancer prevention are omega-3 and omega-9, which effectively slow down tumor growth in estrogen-sensitive cancers, such as those of the breast, prostate and colon.

Generally speaking, your diet should focus on fresh, whole, unprocessed foods (vegetables, meats, raw dairy, nuts, and so forth) that come from healthy, sustainable, local sources, such as small organic farms. For the highest nutrient content, you will want to make raw food a significant portion of your diet.

Personally, I aim to eat about 80 to 85 percent of my food raw, including raw eggs and humanely raised organic animal products that have not been raised on a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation).

For more information about which foods to eat and which to avoid, please consult my comprehensive nutrition plan.

Vitamin D May Cut Your Cancer Risk in Half

There's overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a roll in cancer development. If there were something close to a silver bullet for cancer, vitamin D would be it.

If you currently have cancer, evidence shows that higher blood levels of vitamin D—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—are beneficial. If natural sun exposure is not practical, then a safe tanning bed or oral supplement are the next best things. Just keep in mind that it's BEST to get your vitamin D from natural sun exposure. It appears vitamin D may play an important role in sulfur metabolism, and taking it orally may not provide the same benefit as deriving it from the sun. To learn the details about how to optimize your vitamin D, including dosage and blood testing, please review our comprehensive vitamin D article.

Vitamin D has been found to offer protection from cancer by several mechanisms, including:

* Regulating genetic expression
* Increasing apoptosis of defective, mutant cells thereby reducing cancer cell replication
* Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
* Choking off the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous

Exercise Can Also Slash Your Cancer Risk

If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn't immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your cancer risk. One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment—and remember, cancer cells LOVE sugar! Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Consider integrating exercise with intermittent fasting to greatly catalyze your healing and rejuvenation.

Restore Your Sleep

Getting proper sleep is critical, both in terms of getting enough sleep and sleeping during the right hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal sleeping hours are between 10 pm and 6 am. Modern research has confirmed the value of this recommendation as certain hormonal fluctuations occur throughout the day and night, and if you engage in the appropriate activities during those times, you'll "ride the wave," so to speak. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should be sleeping, or vice versa, interferes with these natural hormone rhythms.

Manage Your Stress

Research tells us that if you experience a traumatic or highly stressful event, such as a death in the family or loss of a job, your risk of breast cancer is 12 times higher in the five years that follows. It is imperative to your health and longevity that you address your emotional well-being. Stress has a direct impact on inflammation, and inflammation drives many of the chronic diseases that kill people prematurely every day.

Meditation, prayer, yoga, and EFT (an energy psychology tool) are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional/psychological equilibrium. I'm sure you can think of others—the bottom line is, find what works best to de-stress yourself and practice it daily.

Avoid as Many Chemicals, Toxins, and Pollutants as Possible

Just as stress is toxic to your emotional health, chemical overload is toxic to your physical health, and both can weaken your immune system. Get rid of as much toxic junk as you can. This includes harsh chemical household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides, insecticides and the rest. Replace them all with green, non-toxic alternatives.

For more suggestions about how to prevent and heal from cancer, please refer to the cancer section of our website, which contains a wealth of free, research-based information.


Print
[+] Sources and References

* 1 American Cancer Society
* 2 Science Translational Medicine May 2010
* 3 ClnicalTrials.gov
* 4 Lucinda Ball July 2011
* 5 Wikipedia
* 6 ISIS 2012
* 7 The DCA Site
* 8 Cancer Cell January 2007
* 9 Canada.com March 2007
* 10 Gynecological Oncology June 2008
* 11 The Prostate 2008
* 12 Breast Cancer Res Treat June 2009
* 13 British Journal of Cancer 2010
* 14 Biomaterials June 2012
* 15 International Journal of Cancer March 2011
* 16 The DCA Site
* 17 ATSDR July 2003
* 18 J Neurol 2010
* 19 The DCA Site
* 20 Cancer Letters May 2010
* 21 Cosmic Penguin

Post your comment
[+] Comments (26)

[BroJones]

No By Dr. Mercola

It’s hard to imagine what could be controversial or even illegal about planting a couple of rows of tomato plants, green peppers and a cucumber vine … but depending on where those vegetables are planted, they have been the subject of great debate – even prosecution.

Across the United States and Canada a war is being waged against urban homeowners who want to plant gardens on their own property.

From Quebec to Oklahoma to New Jersey to Michigan and Georgia, people who have the “audacity” to try growing their own fresh, organic foods are being forced to pull up their plants, or in some cases, have been forced by the city to dig them up.

Cities Cracking Down on Vegetable Gardens

In Drummondville, Quebec, Josée Landry and Michel Beauchamp planted what some have called “a gorgeous and meticulously-maintained edible landscape full of healthy fruits and vegetables.” Rather than planting grass or ornamental flowers, this couple chose to use their land to grow food (in a rather attractive way, I might add … the picture of their garden is in the featured article).

The “problem,” the town says, is that a vegetable garden may only take up 30 percent of a yard’s area, and theirs takes up nearly the whole space. Due to this town code, they’ve been ordered to remove their garden in two weeks or less.

If it sounds ridiculous to you that a city government would spend time and money to pursue and even prosecute a resident for -- of all things -- planting a vegetable garden, be prepared to be amazed, as this is not an isolated case. Far from it …

* In 2011, Julie Bass of Oak Park, Michigan was charged with a misdemeanor and threatened with jail time for planting a vegetable garden in her front yard

* In British Columbia, Dirk Becker was threatened with six months in jail for converting an acre of his 2.5-acre lot into an organic farm. What's even more unsettling about the charges in this case is that the lot was literally stripped bare down to a gravel pit before this.

The owner spent over a decade healing the land and converting it into a self-contained ecosystem that is now home to thriving vegetable crops, fruit trees, bees, butterflies, birds, frogs, dragonflies and more. But because the area is zoned a "residential" lot, the local government is calling on him to "cease all agricultural activity" or pay the consequences.
* Earlier this year, city inspectors bulldozed more than 100 types of plants, including garlic chives, strawberry and apple mint, being grown by Denise Morrison in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The inspectors said her plants were too tall, but city code allows for plants over 12 inches if they’re meant for human consumption, which hers were. Morrison is now suing the city for violating her civil rights.1
* Steve Miller was fined $5,200 for growing vegetables in his Clarkston, Georgia backyard, which he not only consumed but also sold at farmers markets and shared with friends.2

Why are Vegetable Gardens Demonized and Lawns Embraced?

Legal codes that outlaw planting vegetables on a large percentage of your yard, or restrict them to only certain areas, like the backyard out of view of the public, truly defy all common sense.

New York Times author Michael Pollan was one of the first to tackle the absurdity of the pursuit of lush green lawns – which he says are a “symbol of everything that’s wrong with our relationship to the land” – over environmentally friendly and productive landscapes like vegetable gardens, meadows or orchards.

Unlike a vegetable garden, which gives back in the form of fresh produce and a symbiotic relationship with soil, insects and wildlife, a lawn gives nothing, yet requires significant chemical treatments and meticulous mowing and watering to stay within society’s confines of what a properly “manicured lawn” should be. Writing in The New York Times Magazine, Michael Pollan said it best in his article “Why Mow? The Case Against Lawns”:3

“Like Jefferson superimposing one great grid over the infinitely various topography of the Northwest Territory, we superimpose our lawns on the land. And since the geography and climate of much of this country is poorly suited to turfgrasses (none of which are native), this can’t be accomplished without the tools of 20th-century industrial civilization -- its chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and machinery.

For we won’t settle for the lawn that will grow here; we want the one that grows there, that dense springy supergreen and weed-free carpet, that Platonic ideal of a lawn we glimpse in the ChemLawn commercials, the magazine spreads, the kitschy sitcom yards, the sublime links and pristine diamonds.

… Need I point out that such an approach to “nature” is not likely to be environmentally sound? Lately we have begun to recognize that we are poisoning ourselves with our lawns, which receive, on average, more pesticide and herbicide per acre than just about any crop grown in this country.

Suits fly against the national lawn-care companies, and interest is kindled in “organic” methods of lawn care. But the problem is larger than this. Lawns, I am convinced, are a symptom of, and a metaphor for, our skewed relationship to the land. They teach us that, with the help of petrochemicals and technology, we can bend nature to our will. Lawns stoke our hubris with regard to the land.

What is the alternative?

To turn them into gardens. I’m not suggesting that there is no place for lawns in these gardens or that gardens by themselves will right our relationship to the land, but the habits of thought they foster can take us some way in that direction.

Gardening, as compared to lawn care, tutors us in nature’s ways, fostering an ethic of give and take with respect to the land. Gardens instruct us in the particularities of place. They lessen our dependence on distant sources of energy, technology, food and, for that matter, interest … The garden suggests there might be a place where we can meet nature half way.”

Is it Your Constitutional Right to Grow Food on Your Land?

If you choose not to rely on the food sold in your supermarket, want to control the conditions in which your food is grown, or even if you can't afford the prices at the supermarket, what other option do you have than to raise your own? And why should it be illegal for a person to plant food on any area of the land they own and pay taxes on?

When governments start meddling with the issue of food freedom, including the ability to grow your own food on your own land, it is a serious affront, as most people would agree this is an absolute, basic, and unalienable right. The good news is that many residents are now fighting back. Last year after Julie Bass was legally threatened for growing vegetables in her front yard,

Facebook pages were created in her support and local media outlets aired the story as well. Probably as a result of the backlash, the city backed down and quietly dropped the charges, although the city ordinance stating that only "suitable" plant material is allowed in a front lawn has not been changed, which means the charges could be reinstated at any time.

As people are becoming more interested in where their food comes from, and in securing food that is grown responsibly and without chemicals, the interest in backyard (and front yard) veggie gardens is only going to continue to grow – and it’s time for local ordinances to reflect this.

The featured article states:4

“It’s not the 1950s anymore: Not everyone needs to grow a perfectly manicured lawn, especially when vegetable gardens can look just as attractive, improve the soil (instead of requiring tons of pesticides), and provide fresh food. If the problem is that these types of front yards are illegal in current city codes, then the codes need to change, along with people’s assumptions that a burnt-out, water-sucking lawn is better than a few patches of thriving tomato plants and string bean vines.”

If you're thinking of planting veggies but are not sure where to begin, Better Homes & Gardens has a free All-American Vegetable Garden Plan5 that can be put into a 6x6 area. It's a great starting point for beginners. You can also visit a few local plant nurseries around your home, especially those that specialize in organic gardening. The employees are likely to be a great resource for natural planting tips that will help your garden thrive.

Even if you only have access to a patio, you can still grow some of your own veggies using containers. Tomatoes, herbs, cucumbers, lettuce, and peppers are examples of plants that thrive in containers, but the sky is really the limit. If, for whatever reason, you are unable to garden or prefer not to then you can still access healthy vegetables grown locally by supporting local farmer's markets

problem growing gardens in our town... encouraged by Dr M, who also notes difficulties elsewhere:

[BroJones]

Sleeping and melatonin production...

By Dr. Mercola

When you climb into bed for the night, is your bedroom “littered” with dim light from streetlights, passing traffic, a computer, night-light or television set?

Even if the light is so dim that you can easily sleep through it, light pollution can prompt biological changes that have a very significant, and potentially serious, impact on your physical and mental health.

Obvious examples would be the glow that can be seen from miles outside of a big city, or the absence of stars in the night sky if you live in an urban environment.

More subtle examples of light pollution are the strips of light that come in around your curtains at night, or even the glow from your clock radio.

All of these light sources disrupt the natural rhythms of nature, as like most other creatures, humans need darkness. When this natural rule is violated, the consequences can be steep …

Dim Light at Night May Lead to Depression

A study done with hamsters at Ohio State University Medical Center has found that chronic exposure to dim light at night can cause signs of depression after just a few weeks.1 The study also showed changes in the hamsters’ hippocampus similar to brain changes seen in depressed people. They pointed out that rates of depression have risen along with exposure to artificial light at night:

“Exposure to artificial light at night (LAN) has surged in prevalence during the past 50 years, coinciding with rising rates of depression.”

The link could be due to the production of the hormone melatonin, which is interrupted when you’re exposed to light at night. There are many studies that suggest melatonin levels (and by proxy light exposures) control mood-related symptoms, such as those associated with depression -- especially winter depression (aka, seasonal affective disorder, or SAD).

In a study published by researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), it was found that melatonin relieved SAD.2 The study found insomniacs have a circadian misalignment in which they are “out of phase” with natural sleeping times.

This misalignment can be corrected either by exposure to bright lights (during daylight hours), or by taking a melatonin supplement at a certain time of day. While your body will begin to produce melatonin only after it’s dark outside, the level of melatonin produced is related to the amount of exposure you have had to bright sunshine the previous day; the less bright light exposure the lower your melatonin levels.

Yet another study about melatonin and circadian phase misalignment found a correlation between circadian misalignment and severity of depression symptoms.3

Studies have also linked low melatonin levels to depression in a variety of populations, including multiple sclerosis patients4 and post-menopausal women.5 Clearly, anything that negatively effects melatonin production is likely to have a detrimental effect on your mood. Melatonin’s immediate precursor is the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is a major player in uplifting your mood.

Too Much Light at Night May Also Contribute to Cancer

Normally, your brain starts secreting melatonin around 9 or 10 pm, which makes you sleepy. These regularly occurring secretions thus help regulate your sleep cycle.

The good news is the condition appears to be reversible by simply going back to regular light-dark cycles and minimalizing exposure to artificial light at night. But when light receptors in your eyes are triggered, such as by the glow from your television set, they signal your brain to 'stay awake.' To do that, your brain stops secreting melatonin, which is not only a hormone but also a potent antioxidant against cancer.

Melatonin is secreted primarily in your brain and at night it triggers a host of biochemical activities, including a nocturnal reduction in your body's estrogen levels. It’s thought that chronically decreasing your melatonin production at night -- as occurs when you’re exposed to nighttime light – thereby allows your body to be exposed to higher estrogen levels, which increases your risk of developing estrogen-sensitive cancers, such as breast cancer.6

In addition to dampening your mood and increasing your cancer risk, a confused body clock from too much light exposure at night can result in increased appetite and unwanted weight gain.

Light at Night Might Even Make You Fat

Exposure to light during the night can seriously impact your body's internal clock, even leading to metabolic changes and weight gain. In fact, mice that were exposed to dim light during the night gained 50 percent more weight over an eight-week period than mice kept in complete darkness at night.7 They also had increased levels of glucose intolerance, a marker for pre-diabetes.

The weight gain occurred even though the mice were fed the same amount of food and had similar activity levels, and the researchers believe the findings may hold true for humans as well.

When mice were exposed to nighttime light, they ended up eating more of their food when they would normally be sleeping and this lead to significant weight gain. However, in a second experiment when researchers restricted meals to times of day when the mice would normally eat, they did not gain weight, even when exposed to light at night.

This suggests that the timing of your meals, for instance eating late at night when you'd normally be sleeping, may throw off your body's internal clock and lead to weight gain. In this case, the artificial light, such as a glow from your TV or computer, can serve as a stimulus for keeping you awake and, possibly, eating, when you should really be asleep.

In other words, while it's typically thought that your biological clock is what tells you when it's time to wake up or go to sleep, light and dark signals actually control your biological clock. In turn, your biological clock regulates your metabolism. So when your light and dark signals become disrupted it not only changes the times you may normally eat, it also throws your metabolism off kilter, likely leading to weight gain.

More Consequences of Nighttime Light Exposure

Your circadian rhythm has evolved over many centuries to align your physiology with your environment. However, it is operating under the assumption that you're still behaving as your ancestors have for countless generations: sleeping at night and being awake during the day.

If you push these limits by staying up late at night, depriving yourself of sleep, or even being exposed to the glow from your computer when you should be sleeping, your body doesn't know whether it should be producing chemicals to tell you to go to sleep, or gear up for the beginning of your day.

But maintaining this natural circadian rhythm affects far more than just your sleep pattern. Your body actually has many internal clocks -- in your brain, lungs, liver, heart and even your skeletal muscles -- and they all work to keep your body running smoothly by controlling temperature and the release of hormones.

Disrupting your natural rhythm can also make you more vulnerable to disease, including not only cancer, as mentioned above, but also many others. A report from the American Medical Association highlighted the health risks that changes in circadian rhythms pose: 8

* Carcinogenic effects related to melatonin suppression, especially breast cancer
* Obesity
* Diabetes
* Depression and mood disorders
* Reproductive problems

Researchers concluded:

“The natural 24-hour cycle of light and dark helps maintain precise alignment of circadian biological rhythms, the general activation of the central nervous system and various biological and cellular processes, and entrainment of melatonin release from the pineal gland. Pervasive use of nighttime lighting disrupts these endogenous processes and creates potentially harmful health effects and/or hazardous situations with varying degrees of harm.”

The Damage is Reversible!

Even though too much light at nighttime causes undeniable health damage, it appears you can undo some of the harm by turning out the lights … in the featured study, the hamsters depressive symptoms went away when they were allowed eight hours of darkness each day.

For you, this may mean turning off your laptop and television earlier than normal, or conducting a light check of your bedroom to wipe out any light pollution creeping in. Even very low levels of light can be enough to suppress melatonin production, so it’s important to keep your sleeping environment as pitch-black as possible. If your bedroom is currently affected by light pollution, you will notice a major improvement when you eliminate it. To get your room as dark as possible, consider taking the following actions:

* Install blackout drapes
* Close your bedroom door if light comes through it; if light seeps in underneath your door, put a towel along the base
* Wear an effective face mask that blocks out light -- a very inexpensive solution and very easy to implement when you are travelling. Many hotels I stay at during my travels do not have blackout drapes so I use this to get darkness at night. Also useful for sleeping on planes at night.
* Get rid of your electric clock radio (or at least cover it up at night)
* Avoid night lights of any kind
* Keep all light off at night (even if you get up to go to the bathroom) -- and this includes your computer and TV (computer screens and most light bulbs emit blue light, to which your eyes are particularly sensitive simply because it's the type of light most common outdoors during daytime hours. As a result, they can disrupt your melatonin production)
* If possible, avoid working any night shifts.
* Please note that red light has a wavelength that has minimal impact on your melatonin production. I actually use a red LED alarm clock in my normally very dark room so I know what time it is, as the alarm will cause adrenal stress.

Neat Gadget to Help Evaluate Your Sleep Quality

Over the last two years I have been playing with an interesting device that monitors your sleep at night. It measures

* Total time slept, including when you fall asleep and wake up
* Type of sleep, including, deep sleep, light sleep and REM
* Number of times and how long you were awake during the night

The company has worked with a number of prominent sleep scientists and they have reviewed the data above and developed an algorithm for creating a single sleep score that you can easily monitor over time. The advantage of this is that you can play with a number of different variables such as what time you go to bed, exercise levels, and different foods, and objectively analyze its impact on your sleep pattern.

Initially I was reluctant to use the device and did not for some time as the device actually transmitted the data in real time to a clock radio. Although that is still possible, I do not recommend using this mode due to the EMF exposure. So rather you can merely use it as a sensor that records the data and in the morning you can use Bluetooth to transfer to your smartphone or tablet device. It is a really slick device and I consider it an important part of my health strategy. You can pick it up on Amazon for about $90.

[BroJones]

Today, Dr Mercola warns about side-effects of statin drugs. If you are among the tens of millions taking statins, or if you know someone taking these Big Pharma drugs, I recommend that you research the issue. As always, each of us can take responsibility for our own health, and base it on our study and prayers (and NOT just follow "doctor's orders"). Our health is our responsibility, and we can trust the Lord to guide us in health matters (D&C 89).

By Dr. Mercola

Tens of millions of Americans are taking cholesterol-lowering drugs—mostly statins—and some "experts" claim that many millions more should be taking them. I couldn't disagree more.

Statins are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, that is, they act by blocking the enzyme in your liver that is responsible for making cholesterol (HMG-CoA reductase).

The fact that statin drugs cause side effects is well established—there are now 900 studies proving their adverse effects, which run the gamut from muscle problems to increased cancer risk. For starters, reported side effects include:
Muscle problems, polyneuropathy (nerve damage in the hands and feet), and rhabdomyolysis (a serious degenerative muscle tissue condition) Anemia
Acidosis Sexual dysfunction
Immune depression

Cataracts
Pancreas or liver dysfunction, including a potential increase in liver enzymes Memory loss



Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side effects, but cognitive problems and memory loss are also widely reported. A spectrum of other problems, ranging from blood glucose elevations to tendon problems, can also occur. There is evidence that taking statins may even increase your risk for Lou Gehrig's disease, diabetes and even cancer. Statins currently available on the U.S. market include1 :
Advicor (lovastatin with niacin) – Abbott Crestor (rosuvastatin) - AstraZeneca Mevacor (lovastatin) – Merck Simcor (niacin/imvastatin) – Abbott
Altoprev (lovastatin) – Shionogi Pharma Lescol (fluvastatin) – Novartis Pravachol (pravastatin) -- Bristol-Myers Squibb Zocor (simvastatin) – Merck
Caduet [atorvastatin with amlodipine (Norvasc)] – Pfizer Lipitor (atorvastatin) - Pfizer Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin) – Merck/Schering-Plough

Statin Drugs: A Surprising Cause of Diabetes

Statins have been shown to increase your risk of diabetes through a few different mechanisms. The most important one is that they increase insulin resistance, which can be extremely harmful to your health. Increased insulin resistance contributes to chronic inflammation in your body, and inflammation is the hallmark of most diseases. In fact, increased insulin resistance can lead to heart disease, which, ironically, is the primary reason for taking a cholesterol-reducing drug in the first place! It can also promote belly fat, high blood pressure, heart attacks, chronic fatigue, thyroid disruption, and diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and cancer.

Secondly, statins increase your diabetes risk by actually raising your blood sugar. When you eat a meal that contains starches and sugar, some of the excess sugar goes to your liver, which then stores it away as cholesterol and triglycerides. Statins work by preventing your liver from making cholesterol. As a result, your liver returns the sugar to your bloodstream, which raises your blood sugar levels.

Now, it's important to realize that drug-induced diabetes and genuine type 2 diabetes are not necessarily identical.

If you're on a statin drug and find that your blood glucose is elevated, it's possible that what you have is just hyperglycemia—a side effect, and the result of your medication. Unfortunately, many doctors will at that point mistakenly diagnose you with "type 2 diabetes," and possibly prescribe another drug, when all you may need to do is simply discontinue the statin in order for your blood glucose levels to revert back to normal. So if friends or loved ones you know are on a statin (and one in four Americans over 45 are) and they are told they have diabetes, please do them a favor and tell them about the information in this article.

Major Statin Drug Study Found to Be Flawed

A study known as the JUPITER trial initially suggested cholesterol-lowering statin drugs might prevent heart-related death in many more people than just those with high cholesterol. But two years after its publication in 2008, researchers came out saying the JUPITER results are flawed -- and that they do not support the benefits initially reported. Not only is there no "striking decrease in coronary heart disease complications", but a more recent report has also called into question drug companies' involvement in such trials.

According to a report by ABC News2 :

"... major discrepancies exists between the significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and heart attacks reported in the JUPITER trial and what has been found in other research ... 'The JUPITER data set appears biased,' [the researchers] wrote in conclusion."

If You Take Statins, You MUST Take CoQ10

Statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which can have devastating results. If you take statin drugs without taking CoQ10, your health is at serious risk. Unfortunately, this describes the majority of people who take them in the United States. CoQ10 is a cofactor (co-enzyme) that is essential for the creation of ATP molecules, which you need for cellular energy production. Organs such as your heart have higher energy requirements, and therefore require more CoQ10 to function properly. Produced mainly in your liver, it also plays a role in maintaining blood glucose.

Physicians rarely inform people of this risk and only occasionally advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement. As your body gets more and more depleted of CoQ10, you may suffer from fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness, and eventually heart failure.

Coenzyme Q10 is also very important in the process of neutralizing free radicals. So when your CoQ10 is depleted, you enter a vicious cycle of increased free radicals, loss of cellular energy, and damaged mitochondrial DNA. If you decide to take a CoQ10 supplement and are over the age of 40, it is important to choose the reduced version, called ubiquinol. Ubiquinol is a FAR more effective form—I personally take it daily for its many far ranging benefits. As for dosage, Dr. Graveline, a family doctor and former astronaut, made the following recommendation in a previous interview on statins and CoQ10:

* If you have symptoms of statin damage such as muscle pain, take anywhere from 200 to 500 mg
* If you just want to use it preventively, 200 mg or less should be sufficient

Statins Impair Numerous Biological Functions

Statin drugs also interfere with other biological functions, including an early step in the mevalonate pathway, which is the central pathway for the steroid management in your body. Products of this pathway that are negatively affected by statins include:

* All your sex hormones
* Cortisone
* The dolichols, which are involved in keeping the membranes inside your cells healthy
* All sterols, including cholesterol and vitamin D (which is similar to cholesterol and is produced from cholesterol in your skin)

It's still uncertain whether statins actually deplete your body of vitamin D, but they do reduce your body's natural ability to create active vitamin D (1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol). This is the natural outcome of the drug's cholesterol-reducing ability, because you need cholesterol to make vitamin D! It's the raw material your body uses for vitamin D conversion after you've exposed your skin to sunlight. It's also well-documented that vitamin D improves insulin resistance, so needless to say, when you take a statin drug, you forfeit this 'built-in' health-promoting mechanism, which is yet another clue as to how statins can cause diabetes.

Ninety-Nine Out of 100 People do Not Need Statin Drugs

That these drugs have proliferated the market the way they have is a testimony to the power of marketing, corruption and corporate greed, because the odds are very high— greater than 100 to 1—that if you're taking a statin, you don't really need it. The ONLY subgroup that might benefit are those born with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia, as this makes them resistant to traditional measures of normalizing cholesterol.

And, even more importantly, cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease.

If your physician is urging you to check your total cholesterol, then you should know that this test will tell you virtually nothing about your risk of heart disease, unless it is 330 or higher. HDL percentage is a far more potent indicator for heart disease risk. Here are the two ratios you should pay attention to:

1. HDL/Total Cholesterol Ratio: Should ideally be above 24 percent. If below 10 percent, you have a significantly elevated risk for heart disease.
2. Triglyceride/HDL Ratio: Should be below 2.

I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who were actually at low risk for heart disease due to their elevated HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen many people with cholesterol levels under 200 who had a very high risk of heart disease, based on their low HDL. Your body NEEDS cholesterol—it is important in the production of cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps your brain form memories and is vital to your neurological function. There is also strong evidence that having too little cholesterol INCREASES your risk for cancer, memory loss, Parkinson's disease, hormonal imbalances, stroke, depression, suicide, and violent behavior.

Statins Should NEVER Be Used By Pregnant Women

One in four Americans over the age of 45 is now taking these drugs, and few are properly warned about the related health risks. Part of the problem is that many doctors are not even aware of all the risks. A study published last spring highlighted this dilemma.

Most disturbingly, the researchers found that physicians were lacking in awareness of the teratogenic risks3 (ability to cause fetal malformations) of statins and other cardiovascular drugs they prescribed for their pregnant patients. The study followed an earlier report, which had concluded statins should be avoided in early pregnancy due to their teratogenic capability4 . An even earlier 2003 study5 had already established that cholesterol plays an essential role in embryonic development, and that statins could play a part in embryonic mutations or even death...

Indeed, it's difficult to look at these facts and not reach the conclusion that the pharmaceutical industry is quite willing to sacrifice human lives for profit. Statins are in fact classified as a "pregnancy Category X medication" meaning, it causes serious birth defects, and should NEVER be used by a woman who is pregnant or planning a pregnancy.

Parents Beware: Outrageous Push to Put Kids on Statin Drugs!

In a bold attempt to increase profits before the patent runs out, Pfizer has introduced a chewable kid-friendly version of Lipitor. Its US patent for Lipitor expired in November 2011, and seeking to boost sales of the drug, children have become the new target market, and the conventional medical establishment is more than happy to oblige.

Researchers and many doctors are now calling for universal school screening of children to check for high cholesterol, to find those "in need of treatment." In addition, older siblings, parents and other family members might be prompted to get screened as well, the researchers say, which would uncover additional, previously undiagnosed adults in need of the drug.

This is clearly NOT the way to improve public health. On the contrary, it could produce a new, massive wave of extremely dire health consequences in just a few years time.

So rather than improving school lunches, which would cost about a dollar a day per child, they'd rather "invest" ten times that for tests and drugs that in no way, shape, or form address the root cause, which is an improper, unhealthy diet! All they're doing is allowing all the industries to maintain or increase their profits: Big Pharma; Big Sugar; Big Corn and the processed food industry.

Who pays?

You, and your children! And in far more ways than one!

Optimizing Your Cholesterol Levels, Naturally

There's really no reason to take statins and suffer the damaging health effects from these dangerous drugs. The fact is that 75 percent of your cholesterol is produced by your liver, which is influenced by your insulin levels. Therefore, if you optimize your insulin level, you will automatically optimize your cholesterol. It follows, then, that my primary recommendations for safely regulating your cholesterol have to do with modifying your diet and lifestyle:

* Optimize your vitamin D levels. Research by Dr. Stephanie Seneff has shed additional light on the extreme importance of appropriate sun exposure for normalizing your cholesterol levels and preventing heart disease. For more information, please see this previous interview.
* Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your diet. Ideally, you'll also want to consume a good portion of your food raw.
* Make sure you are getting plenty of high quality, animal-based omega 3 fats, such as krill oil.
* Other heart-healthy foods include olive oil, coconut and coconut oil, organic raw dairy products and eggs, avocados, raw nuts and seeds, and organic grass-fed meats as appropriate for your nutritional type.
* Exercise daily. Make sure you incorporate peak fitness exercises, which also optimizes your human growth hormone (HGH) production.
* Address your emotional challenges. My favorite technique for stress management is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
* Avoid smoking or drinking alcohol excessively.
* Be sure to get plenty of good, restorative sleep.

Unlike statin drugs, which lower your cholesterol at the expense of your health, these lifestyle strategies represent a holistic approach that will benefit your overall health—which includes a healthy cardiovascular system.

The Baycol Statin Recall and Safety Issue:

In August 2001, Bayer AG, the maker of Baycol (cerivastatin), a popular cholesterol-lowering drug used by about 700,000 Americans, pulled the medicine off the market after 31 people died from severe muscle breakdown, a well-recognized side effect of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Related articles follow:

Statins: Is the Danger in the Dose? Here is the hard data on Baycol-associated adverse reactions. If you or someone you know is taking one of the statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, this is a "must-read" article by Jay Cohen, MD to help you understand the potential dangers that this exposes you to.

Baycol Pulled From Market as Numerous Deaths Linked to It

Baycol, a cholestrol-lowering drug (statin), has been voluntarily pulled off the market because of numerous deaths associated with its use.

The Baycol Recall: How Safe is Your Statin?

With the recall of Baycol, patients are now searching out a new drug to take its place, but are other statins really safe? Here are some precautions necessary for anyone taking Baycol or any statin.

Baycol: Another Fluoride Drug Bites the Dust

Baycol is just one of many fluoride drugs to be pulled from the market due to health hazards posed. Read about this and some of the others in this informative article written by Andreas Schuld and Wendy Small.

BMJ: Bayer faces potential fine over cholesterol lowering drug

Bayer might have to pay a fine to the German government of about $23,400 for withholding from the German authorities information on the drug's potentially fatal interaction with another drug.

Lipitor Tied to Liver, Kidney Injury, as Well as Muscle Damage

It seems that Baycol is not alone among cholesterol lowering drugs in posing serious dangers to the public. A number of legal actions are also being pursued against Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of the Lipitor.

Excerpts from Public Citizen's Health Research Group's Petition to Require a Box Warning on All HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ("Statins"):

" ... Public Citizen, representing 135,000 consumers nationwide, hereby petitions the FDA pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21, U.S.C. Section 355(e)(3), and C.F.R. 10.30, to add a black box warning and additional consistent bolded warnings about this serious problem to the label of all statins marketed in the United States."

"Doctors and the public must be warned to immediately discontinue use of statin drugs at the onset of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness."

"Prompt cessation of the use of statins at the first sign of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness and prompt evaluation by a physician including a blood test for creatine phosphokinase (a measure of muscle destruction) may avoid the progression to more extensive muscle damage, rhabdomyolysis and death."

"Rhabdomyolysis has been reported with all statins currently marketed in the United States."

About the Experts

Joseph Mercola, DO

Founder and Owner of Mercola.com.

Uffe Ravnskov, MD

Born 1934 in Copenhagen, Denmark Graduated 1961 from the University of Copenhagen with an M.D. 1961-1967: Various appointments at surgical, roentgenological, neurological, pediatric and medical departments in Denmark and Sweden. 1968-1979: Various appointments at the Department of Nephrology, and the Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 1975-79: As an assistant professor at the Department of Nephrology. 1973: PhD at the University of Lund. 1979-2000: A private practitioner. Since 1979 an independent researcher. A specialist in internal medicine and nephrology. Honored by the Skrabanek Award 1998.

For more information about him, see Dr. Ravnskov's Web site.

Jay Cohen, M.D

Jay Cohen, M.D., is an associate professor of Family and Preventative Medicine and of Psychiatry at the University of California in San Diego. He is the author of two books and has numerous papers published in peer-reviewed journals. His book, Over Dose: The Case Against the Drug Companies, is an outstanding read.

[BroJones]

PROCESSED FOODS AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

By Dr. Mercola

I recently visited Joel Salatin at his Polyface farm in Virginia. He’s truly one of the pioneers in sustainable agriculture, and you can take a virtual tour through his various farm operations in the video above.

As a physician, it’s patently obvious to me—and I’m sure most of you viewing this--that the food we eat plays a major role in our health. As a society, we’ve strayed quite far from our dietary roots and become so disconnected from our food sources that our health is now in serious jeopardy.

About 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods1, and the health of the average American is a testament to the abject failure of such foods to support good health. Fortunately, more and more people are now beginning to recognize this, and are making efforts to get back to real food.

Two Models of Food Production

As Joel discusses in this interview, there are basically two different models of food production today, and there’s growing conflict between them. The first, and most prevalent, is the large-scale agricultural model that takes a very mechanistic view toward life, whereas the other—the local, sustainable farm model—has a biological and holistic view.

“As a culture, we view life as fundamentally mechanical; we’re asking “How do we grow the pig faster, fatter, bigger cheaper?” And that’s all that matters.

... Our side asks, “How do we make the pig happier, more piggy, and more expressive of its pigness?” We recognize the fundamental honor and sacredness of that life form or that being, if you will. That’s the fundamental difference,” Joel says.

“The amalgamation of farms has followed a mechanistic view. Machinery does run more efficiently when it runs 24/7. A bigger earthmover is more efficient than a smaller earthmover, because the bucket’s bigger and still only takes one operator to move more cubic yards of material. A mechanistic view does move a culture toward size, scale, and toward an inability to account for some of these unseen things.

But what’s happening now is E.coli, salmonella, mad cow disease, C. diff, and MRSA. I call that the biological Profit and Loss Statement that is starting to come to the fore and create awareness that, “Oh, maybe just growing it faster, fatter, bigger, cheaper isn’t all there is. Maybe there is more. Maybe it does matter if the earthworms are healthy. Maybe you can’t just replace earthworms with fossil fuel fertilizers.”

I think this is an excellent point. The widely adopted factory farm “bigger is better” food system has reached a point where the fundamental weaknesses of it are becoming readily apparent, and food borne disease and loss of nutrient content are just two of the most obvious side effects.

It’s a proven fact that factory farmed and processed foods are far more likely to cause illness than unadulterated, organically-grown foods. For example, one study by the British government found that 23 percent of farms with caged hens tested positive for salmonella, compared to just over 4 percent in organic flocks, and 6.5 percent in free-range flocks. Contamination occurred most often at farms that contained the most birds, typically 30,000 or more.

This connection should be obvious, but many are still under the mistaken belief that a factory operation equates to better hygiene and quality control, when the exact opposite is actually true. A pig rolling in mud on a small farm is far “cleaner” in terms of pathogenic bacteria than a factory-raised pig stuck in a tiny crate, covered in feces, being fed an unnatural diet of genetically modified grains and veterinary drugs.

How YOU Can Help Change the Food System, Every Single Day

“The food system that we have right now is the summation of decades of billions and billions of individually made decisions: to buy a Snickers bar and not this, or buy potato chips instead of potatoes and lard and make them yourself,” Joel says.

“What we have is a physical manifestation of all these billions and billions of decisions. Where we will be in 20 years will also be a physical manifestation of where we are. Each one of us needs to understand the power of one, the power of that single decision, day by day. “

Whereas our ancestors, going back just a generation or two, were actively participating in the growing and procurement of their food, many children today have no idea where the food comes from or how it’s grown. But many are now sensing this disconnection from the sources of their food as a disconnection from life itself, and it’s no wonder, because that’s essentially what it is.

As the sustainer of life, food surely deserves to be regarded with some measure of reverence. And it certainly deserves to place high on anyone’s list of priorities in life. Home cooked food is also tied to culture and family traditions—both of which are also threatening to slip away as home cooked meals are replaced with the ultra-processed contents of hermetically sealed bags and jars...

“As we know, artisanal anything must be small-scale. The difference between a pot made on a potter’s wheel as an individual craft, as an extension of a person’s soul if you will, compared to a pot made in a mass-produced factory—the difference is that this one has character, integrity, and often has nuances that this one over here won’t have.

And certainly the same thing is true in food,” Joel says.

“Ultimately, we, as individuals, need to appreciate that we have created the food system that we have. I don’t like this, “It’s because of them. It’s because of that. It’s because of this.” Ultimately, we have the food system that we have, because that’s what we want.”

The question is, what kind of food system do YOU want? If every American decided to not eat at a fast food restaurant tomorrow, the entire system would collapse overnight. It doesn’t take an act of Congress to change the food system. All that is required is for each and every person to change their shopping habits.

“That’s why our slogan is, “We’re healing the land one bite at a time.” We want people to understand that when you eat, that is a decision that affects the landscape our children will inherit,” Joel says. “You can make that decision independent of politics and everything else. You could make that decision three times a day. And there are thousands of farmers like us (many of them smaller than us) around the country and around the world,that are waiting to serve that clientele.”

Resources for Consumers

A website called Real Food University2 offers a fascinating analysis of where our food comes from, and reveals that despite what you hear on the news, every year we produce less and less of the food we really need. From massive industrial farming conglomerates to feedlot- and confined animal operations (CAFOs) to contaminated imports, Real Food University delivers the scoop on what you probably have on your plate right now.

Fortunately there are ways to get around these food disasters, and sourcing your foods from a local farmer is one of your best bets to ensure you’re getting something wholesome.

As Joel explains, every state has a sustainable agriculture organization or biological farming organization that is the nucleus of the farmers in that state. You can also find an ever increasing number of “eat local,” and “buy local” directories, in which local farms will be listed. The following organizations can also help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area:

1. Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

2. Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.

3. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

4. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

5. FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.

Resources for Farmers

For farmers who want to learn more, I suggest reading some of the books Joel Salatin has authored, such as The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer.

“To me, that really describes the paradigm, the heart and soul, and it’s a fun book,” Joel says.

“But beyond that, certainly in the pasture-based livestock, the Stockman Grass Farmer magazine is the world leader, published out of Jackson, Mississippi. It is the world leader in the whole pasture-based how-to. It’s pasture-based by farmers for farmers. Another one would certainly be Acres U.S.A. magazine, which is broader. It brings the grains in. But Acres U.S.A. would be a good one... Certainly link up with the local Weston A. Price chapter... Get linked up with what I call the “tribe”—the tribe that’s thinking differently.”

For a list of such organizations, please see my Sustainable Agriculture page.

His own website, PolyFaceFarms.com, also offers a wealth of information and resources for farmers and consumers alike, including an online store that also offers the actual physical hardware to make everything from fences to chicken feeders. Again, I can’t encourage you strongly enough to take the necessary steps and do what it takes to take control of the food that you’re eating, because the resources are out there. They exist. It may take a little time and effort, but it’s well worth it.

[BroJones]

A former FDA employee has become a whistleblower, disclosing clandestine activities within this government agency.

What happens to whistleblowers who have an interest in protecting the public AGAINST the government? Read on:

By Dr. Mercola

In the wake of shocking reports on how the FDA, terrified of being outed for its questionable practices, spied on its own employees in the hopes of rooting them out before they could become whistleblowers, a new story has emerged on how deep the deceit goes. From marginalizing safety reports to not reading them at all―and then going ahead and approving the drugs in question―the FDA once more stands accused of being little more than a rubber-stamping agency for Big Pharma.

Explosive revelations of an intensive spy operation by the FDA on its own scientists emerged last month. Using sophisticated spy software, the agency tracked and logged every move made by the targeted individuals. The program even intercepted personal emails and copied documents on their personal thumb drives.

The targeted scientists had expressed concern over the agency’s approval of dangerous medical imaging devices for mammograms and colonoscopies, which they believe expose patients to dangerous levels of radiation. Now, another whistleblower has stepped forward, and what he has to say about the agency’s drug safety reviews is shocking even to the jaded...

Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Systemic Suppression of Safety

Ronald Kavanagh was a drug reviewer for the FDA in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research from 1998 to 2008. In a recent interview he reveals how the FDA bypassed or ignored safety issues on major drugs approved during his employment. In an interview for the online news magazine Truth-Out he tells Martha Rosenberg1:

“In the Center for Drugs [Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or CDER], as in the Center for Devices, the honest employee fears the dishonest employee.

There is also irrefutable evidence that managers at CDER have placed the nation at risk by corrupting the evaluation of drugs and by interfering with our ability to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs. While I was at FDA, drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs. We were prevented, except in rare instances, from presenting findings at advisory committees.

In 2007, formal policies were instituted so that speaking in any way that could reflect poorly on the agency could result in termination. If we asked questions that could delay or prevent a drug's approval - which of course was our job as drug reviewers - management would reprimand us, reassign us, hold secret meetings about us, and worse. Obviously in such an environment, people will self-censor.”

According to Kavanagh, people would be shocked if they knew just how malleable safety data is. As examples, he points out that human studies are typically too short and contain too few subjects to get a clear picture of potential risks. In such a scenario, even a single case of a serious adverse event must be taken very seriously, and data from other longer term safety studies also need to be carefully analyzed. Kavanagh claims he has seen drug reviews where the medical safety reviewer completely failed to make such evaluations prior to the drug’s approval.

FDA Actively Thwarts Serious Safety Investigations

There’s no telling how many ineffective and/or dangerous drugs and medical devices have been approved and ushered into market through sheer intimidation and bullying, either by pharmaceutical companies or FDA management. Perhaps even more shocking are the revelations that some of the internal rules and regulations of the FDA are clearly designed to thwart serious safety reviews from the get-go.

According to Kavanagh:

“[H]uman clinical pharmacology trials are typically done in Europe, yet clinical pharmacology reviewers at FDA have been barred from analyzing this information prior to studies being conducted in the US. Without being able to do this, we are unable to detect evidence of risks early and cannot provide guidance that would help with the development of the drug in terms not only of safety and proving efficacy, but also with the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the drug's development.”

Another loophole that can put your health in serious jeopardy is that drug companies are not required to include adverse events on the drug’s label if the adverse reaction is:

* Below a certain percentage, and/or
* Below double the rate of the adverse event found in a placebo

According to Kavanagh:

“By this rule, certain serious and potentially lethal adverse events that eventually resulted in a drug being withdrawn from the market would not have had any mention of the adverse events made in the labeling at all.”

Kavanagh also claims to have discovered another common loophole used by pharmaceutical companies to circumvent safety issues. They’d simply submit bits and pieces of data to different places, effectively preventing the reviewer to pull it all together. Then, because the safety issues falsely appeared to be negligible, it would be decided that no further evaluation would be necessary...

“On one occasion, the company even told me they were going to call upper management to get a clear requirement for approval that they did not want to fulfill eliminated, which I then saw happen. On another occasion a company clearly stated in a meeting that they had "paid for an approval,” Kavanagh says.

“Sometimes we were literally instructed to only read a 100-150 page summary and to accept drug company claims without examining the actual data, which on multiple occasions I found directly contradicted the summary document. Other times I was ordered not to review certain sections of the submission, but invariably that's where the safety issues would be. This could only occur if FDA management was told about issues in the submission before it had even been reviewed.

In addition, management would overload us with huge amounts of material that could not possibly be read by a given deadline and would withhold assistance. When you are able to dig in, if you found issues that would make you turn down a drug, you could be pressured to reverse your decision or the review would then be handed off to someone who would simply copy and paste whatever claims the company made in the summary document.”

Examples of Dangerous Drug Approvals

In his interview, Kavanagh discusses some of the dangerous drugs that were approved in the face of unequivocal safety concerns. One is the nerve gas drug pyridostigmine—a prophylactic drug against the nerve agent Soman. The drug was approved under the "Animal Rule," which allows drugs to be approved based on animal data alone. There were multiple problems with this approval. First, the animal studies did not reflect how the drug would be used in humans. Second, the drug actually increases lethality if nerve agents other than Soman are used.

According to Kavanagh:

“This information was not secret - both FDA and DoD public documents acknowledge increased lethality with other nerve agents such as Sarin, and DoD and other government documents that are public also document that Saddam Hussein was not using Soman and was instead using these other nerve agents exclusively.

Yet because I raised this as an objection, I was immediately replaced as the primary reviewer so that I could not document my concerns and so that pyridostigmine could be approved. It's since been proposed that if we ever face the prospect of nerve agents in the future, that this approval will be used as a justification to convince the President at that time to waive informed consent without presenting a full picture.”

Pediatric drugs also end up posing unnecessary risks due to the FDA’s failure to adequately review safety risks, and the many scientific loopholes employed by pharmaceutical companies. For example, the following flawed parameters are typically used in pediatric drug studies:

* Dosages are based on approved adult dosages, without regard for metabolic differences between a developing child’s body and an adult
* Exposure studies oftentimes use overweight children, and include too few children to adequately evaluate risks
* No allowances are made for race, age, puberty, or actual weight

Dangers to pregnant women and their developing fetuses are also frequently ignored. All in all, the FDA appears to be engaged in a systematic hush-operation designed to give just about anything Big Pharma develops the green light. Essentially, dangerous drugs are given a rubber stamp of approval—the necessary go-ahead to make obscene profits while killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people every year. It is, quite simply, inexcusable. The mainstream media has a lot to answer for as well, as their lack of reporting on these issues contributes to the problem by keeping a lid on reality.

According to Kavanagh:

“FDA's response to most expected risks is to deny them and wait until there is irrefutable evidence postmarketing, and then simply add a watered down warning in the labeling. In fact, when patients exhibit drug toxicity, it is usually attributed to an underlying condition which we know is likely to make the drug toxicity worse. This also allows the toxicity to be dismissed as being unrelated to the drug in any way.

Consequently, toxicities are only attributed to the drug when the evidence is irrefutable. Thus the majority of cases where there is a contributing factor are simply dismissed. When you do raise potential safety issues, the refrain that I heard repeatedly from upper management was‚"where are the dead bodies in the street?" Which I took to mean that we only do something if the press is making an issue of it.”

FDA Safety Reviewers Made to Fear for Their Lives?

Kavanagh was not surprised to learn about the agency’s retaliation against the five whistleblowers, giving several examples of how he was personally intimidated, to the point of fearing for his life, and the safety of his children!

“After FDA management learned I had gone to Congress about certain issues, I found my office had been entered and my computer physically tampered with,” Kavanagh tells Rosenberg.

“... After I gave Representative Waxman's (D-CA) office a USB drive with evidence, FDA staff was admonished that it was prohibited to download information to USB drives. Then, after I openly reported irregularities in an antipsychotic drug review and FDA financial collusion with outsiders to Senator Grassley’s office and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I was threatened with prison if I should release trade secret information to Congress... [T]he Food Drug and Cosmetics Act explicitly allows communication of trade secrets by FDA employees to Congress, but since most people are unaware of this, FDA management can use the threat of jail for violation of the Trade Secrets Act, not only to discourage reviewers, but in my case they got Senator Grassley's staff to destroy the evidence I provided them.

The threats, however, can be much worse than prison. One manager threatened my children - who had just turned 4 and 7 years old - and in one large staff meeting, I was referred to as a "saboteur." Based on other things that happened and were said, I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

We Now Know What Domestic Surveillance of Whistleblowers Looks Like

The following video features attorney, Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center and attorney for the FDA whistleblowers in the recently revealed FDA spy operation against them2.

"For the first time, we now have a glimpse into what domestic surveillance of whistleblowers looks like in this country with the modern technological developments," Kohn says. "The agency [sought] to destroy the reputation of these whistleblowers forever."

[Been there, as a whistleblower myself. I have seen how they seek to "destroy the reputation of these whistleblowers", and to cut off their jobs.]

FDA Failures Place Health of Americans and Nation at Grave Risk

The FDA’s mission statement reads as follows:

“The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.”

In 2007, a report bearing the revealing title “FDA Science and Mission at Risk” by the Subcommittee on Science and Technology3, detailed how the FDA cannot fulfill its stated mission because:

1. Its scientific base has eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak
2. Its scientific workforce does not have sufficient capacity and capability, and
3. Its information technology (IT) infrastructure is inadequate

Furthermore, the report found that “the development of medical products based on “new science” cannot be adequately regulated by the FDA, and that the agency does not have the capacity to carry out risk assessment and analysis. Additionally, the agency’s science agenda “lacks coherent structure and vision, as well as effective coordination and prioritization.”

The fact that the FDA does not have its ducks in a row; has sorely misplaced its priorities; and is not working to fulfill its mission is clearly evidenced in the numerous cases where hundreds and sometimes thousands of complaints about dangerous drugs (like Vioxx and Avandia), vaccines (like Gardasil), and additives (like aspartame) are stubbornly ignored, while SWAT-style teams armed to the teeth are sent to raid supplement makers, whole food businesses, organic farmers, and raw dairies when oftentimes not a single incidence of harm can be attributed to their products.

According to the Science and Technology Subcommittee’s report, the failures of the FDA is placing the health of Americans, and indeed the economic health of the entire nation, at grave risk:

“The FDA constitutes a critical component of our nation’s healthcare delivery and public health system. The FDA, as much as any public or private sector institution in this country, touches the lives, health and wellbeing of all Americans and is integral to the nation’s economy and its security.

The FDA’s responsibilities for protecting the health of Americans are far-reaching. The FDA protects our nation’s food supply through regulatory activities designed to cover 80 percent of the food consumed in this country. The FDA also regulates all drugs, human vaccines, and medical devices, and hence plays a critical role in ensuring the appropriate safety and efficacy of rapidly emerging medical products.

... The FDA is also central to the economic health of the nation, regulating approximately $1 trillion in consumer products or 25 cents of every consumer dollar expended in this country annually.. Thus, the nation is at risk if FDA science is at risk. The Subcommittee concluded that science at the FDA is in a precarious position: the Agency suffers from serious scientific deficiencies and is not positioned to meet current or emerging regulatory responsibilities.”

Final Thoughts

One of the root causes for their utter abandonment of public safety is that the majority of the FDA’s funding comes from the very companies that it is seeking to monitor and evaluate. The FDA has progressively morphed into a mere pawn and instrument of the drug industry, which has little to do with drug safety, and everything to do with maximizing profits.

As Dr. David Graham—another prominent FDA whistleblower who blew the lid on the Vioxx scandal—stated in a 2005 interview:

“As currently configured, the FDA is not able to adequately protect the American public. It's more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client, and the client is someone whose interest you represent. Unfortunately, that is the way the FDA is currently structured.

Within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, about 80 percent of the resources are geared towards the approval of new drugs and 20 percent is for everything else. Drug safety is about 5 percent. The "gorilla in the living room" is new drugs and approval. Congress has not only created that structure, they have also worsened that structure through the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, by which drug companies pay money to the FDA so they will review and approve its drug.”

The only real solution isn't minor changes to the existing structure, but a complete reform of the FDA. But until then, please, don't risk your money or your life on a paradigm designed to profit from your ill health. Instead, switch to natural methods that will allow your body to heal itself without the need for the deadly drugs being pushed on you by the drug companies and the FDA.