It turns out that much of the population is spending almost 2000 times more for water than they normally would. The typical price of bottled water is $3.79 per gallon while the typical price of tap water is $0.002 per gallon. You may think that the extra investment is worth it for the improved quality of bottled water, but in fact many bottled water brands may be just as damaging to your health as tap water. The bottled water industry is selling water for about a 1900% markup from what you’re paying at home while successfully turning this nearly free resource into a commodity. People are virtually throwing money away, all in the name of “purity”.
Don’t Fall Victim to False Advertising
Bottled water has long been recognized for being purer and safer than tap water, but why? The research shows that this common misconception is the result of massive advertising and marketing schemes. Bottled water companies claim to be “purer” than tap water with pictures of beautiful mountains on their labels from which we’re supposed to think the water comes from. The truth is that bottled water companies almost always don’t answer at least one of three quality qualifying questions.
1). Where does the water come from?
2). Is it purified? How?
3). Have tests found any contaminants?
According to an extensive study conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) , 9/10 of the best selling water brands including Pepsi’s Aquafina, Coca-Cola’s Dasani, Crystal Geyser, and 6 of 7 Nestle brands, don’t answer any those questions.
Many bottled water companies simply refuse to disclose information regarding their “pure” product. Another study performed by the EWG showed that of the 173 brands tested:
18% fail to disclose the location of their water source
32% say nothing about the treatment or purity of the water
Over 50% flunked EWG’s transparency test
Stop Paying a Premium Price for Mystery Water
After extensive research and testing, the Environmental Working Group recommends filtered tap water over any bottled water. If you buy bottled water, you’re paying a premium price for mystery water. As shocking as it may seem, the bottled water being purchased is actually municipal tap water almost 50% of the time. Not only that, but bottled water is also less regulated than tap water and oftentimes more contaminated.
Water Successfully Turned into a Commodity by the Bottled Water Industry
Can you imagine paying $1,500 for a pack of gum, or $5,000 for a smoothie? The truth is that no one would knowingly pay 1900 times more for a product than they need to, especially if that product is in your own kitchen. It may be time to chuck the plastic bottle and make them exclusive for traveling and bike rides.
It is important to remember that while bottled water may be ridiculously glorified above its own contamination, tap water is not so safe either. That is why it is essential to purchase a high quality water filter that can remove contaminants such as fluoride from your water. When filtering tap water, reverse osmosis is one preferred method in removing toxic substances such as fluoride and heavy metals. While reverse osmosis filters remove toxic substances from the water, it also removes natural minerals and nutrients. Luckily a simple solution to this would be to add certain minerals to the water, use a mineral filter, or even add apple cider vinegar to restore the natural nutrients back into the water.
Be careful of the bottled you choose to drink. Again the best option is to drink filter water or reverse osmosis tap water. You'll save yourself a bundle and take in to your body a healthier substance.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Vitamins Are safe; Drugs Are Not
Anthony Gucciardi
Over the past 27 years — the complete time frame that the data has been available — there have been 0 deaths as a result of vitamins and over 3 million deaths related to prescription drug use. In fact, going back 54 years there have only been 11 claims of vitamin-related death, all of which provided no substantial evidence to link vitamins to the cause of death. The news comes after a recent statistically analysis found that pharmaceutical drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the US.
In 2009, drugs exceeded the amount of traffic-related deaths, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide.
The findings go against the claims of mainstream medical ‘experts’ and mainstream media outlets who often push the idea that multivitamins are detrimental to your health, and that prescription drugs are the only science-backed option to improving your health. While essential nutrients like vitamin D are continually being shown to slash your risk of disease such as diabetes and cancer, prescription pharmaceuticals are continually being linked to such conditions. In fact, the top-selling therapeutic class pharmaceutical drug has been tied to the development of diabetes and even suicide, and whistle blowers are just now starting to speak out despite studies as far back as the 80s highlighting the risks.
Mainstream medical health officials were recently forced to speak out over the danger of anti-psychotic drugs, which millions of children have been prescribed since 2009. U.S. pediatric health advisers blew the whistle over the fact that these pharmaceuticals can lead to diabetes and even suicide, the very thing they aim to prevent. What is even more troubling is that half of all Americans will be diagnosed with a mental condition during their lifetime thanks to lack of diagnosis guidelines currently set by the medical establishment, of which many cases will lead to the prescription of anti-psychotics and other similar medications.
Covering up the side effects
In order to protect sales, the link between suicide and ant-psychotic drugs was completely covered up by Eli Lilly & Co, the makers of Prozac. Despite research stretching as far back as the 1980s finding that Prozac actually leads to suicide, the company managed to hide the evidence until a Harvard psychiatrist leaked the information into the press. The psychiatrist, Martin Teicher, stated that the American people were being treated like guinea pigs in a massive pharmaceutical experiment.
Greedy and often times prescription-happy doctors are handing out anti-psychotic medication like candy to adults and young children alike. In 2008, anti-psychotics became the top-selling therapeutic class prescription drug in the United States and grossing over $14 billion in sales.
Anti-psychotic drugs are not the only dangerous pharmaceuticals. The average drug label contains 70 side effects, though many popular pharmaceuticals have been found to contain 100 to 125. Some drugs, prescribed by doctors to supposedly improve your health, come with over 525 negative reactions.
Ritalin, for example, has been linked to conditions including:
Increased blood pressure
Increased heart rate
Increased body temperature
Increased alertness
Suppressed appetite
Perhaps the hundreds of negative side effects is part of the reason why the FDA announced last year that it is pulling more than 500 cold and allergy off the market due to health concerns. Prescription drugs kill more people than traffic accidents, and come with up to 525 negative side effects. Avoiding these drugs and utilizing high quality organic alternatives like whole food-based multivitamins and green super foods will lead to a total health transformation without harsh side effects and an exponentially increased death risk.
Sources:
Most recent year: Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Giffin SL. 2009 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 27th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology (2010). 48, 979-1178. The full text article is available for free download at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2009%20AR.pdf
Over the past 27 years — the complete time frame that the data has been available — there have been 0 deaths as a result of vitamins and over 3 million deaths related to prescription drug use. In fact, going back 54 years there have only been 11 claims of vitamin-related death, all of which provided no substantial evidence to link vitamins to the cause of death. The news comes after a recent statistically analysis found that pharmaceutical drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the US.
In 2009, drugs exceeded the amount of traffic-related deaths, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide.
The findings go against the claims of mainstream medical ‘experts’ and mainstream media outlets who often push the idea that multivitamins are detrimental to your health, and that prescription drugs are the only science-backed option to improving your health. While essential nutrients like vitamin D are continually being shown to slash your risk of disease such as diabetes and cancer, prescription pharmaceuticals are continually being linked to such conditions. In fact, the top-selling therapeutic class pharmaceutical drug has been tied to the development of diabetes and even suicide, and whistle blowers are just now starting to speak out despite studies as far back as the 80s highlighting the risks.
Mainstream medical health officials were recently forced to speak out over the danger of anti-psychotic drugs, which millions of children have been prescribed since 2009. U.S. pediatric health advisers blew the whistle over the fact that these pharmaceuticals can lead to diabetes and even suicide, the very thing they aim to prevent. What is even more troubling is that half of all Americans will be diagnosed with a mental condition during their lifetime thanks to lack of diagnosis guidelines currently set by the medical establishment, of which many cases will lead to the prescription of anti-psychotics and other similar medications.
Covering up the side effects
In order to protect sales, the link between suicide and ant-psychotic drugs was completely covered up by Eli Lilly & Co, the makers of Prozac. Despite research stretching as far back as the 1980s finding that Prozac actually leads to suicide, the company managed to hide the evidence until a Harvard psychiatrist leaked the information into the press. The psychiatrist, Martin Teicher, stated that the American people were being treated like guinea pigs in a massive pharmaceutical experiment.
Greedy and often times prescription-happy doctors are handing out anti-psychotic medication like candy to adults and young children alike. In 2008, anti-psychotics became the top-selling therapeutic class prescription drug in the United States and grossing over $14 billion in sales.
Anti-psychotic drugs are not the only dangerous pharmaceuticals. The average drug label contains 70 side effects, though many popular pharmaceuticals have been found to contain 100 to 125. Some drugs, prescribed by doctors to supposedly improve your health, come with over 525 negative reactions.
Ritalin, for example, has been linked to conditions including:
Increased blood pressure
Increased heart rate
Increased body temperature
Increased alertness
Suppressed appetite
Perhaps the hundreds of negative side effects is part of the reason why the FDA announced last year that it is pulling more than 500 cold and allergy off the market due to health concerns. Prescription drugs kill more people than traffic accidents, and come with up to 525 negative side effects. Avoiding these drugs and utilizing high quality organic alternatives like whole food-based multivitamins and green super foods will lead to a total health transformation without harsh side effects and an exponentially increased death risk.
Sources:
Most recent year: Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Giffin SL. 2009 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 27th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology (2010). 48, 979-1178. The full text article is available for free download at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2009%20AR.pdf
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Flu Vaccine Pushed Despite Nerve Disease Link
Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
August 22, 2011
The push for the H1N1-loaded 2011 flu vaccine has begun, with the CDC calling on healthcare workers and citizens around the world to become vaccinated. The call comes almost a full year after government health chiefs confirmed a link between the H1N1-containing seasonal flu vaccination and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome (see quoted article below for sourcing). Oftentimes leading to partial paralysis and death, The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the link following a report that 50% of doctors were refusing the swine flu vaccine over health concerns.
Organizations around the world have been speaking out against the H1N1 vaccine, speaking out against the risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). Even the mainstream media was forced to report on the association between the vaccine and GBS, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a ‘death link’. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
“The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Here is the report that I wrote on October 18, 2010 warning readers about the link between the flu shot and Guillain-Barre Syndrome:
Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.
“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”
Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.
The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.
Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.
“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”
Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.
The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.
Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.
NaturalSociety
August 22, 2011
The push for the H1N1-loaded 2011 flu vaccine has begun, with the CDC calling on healthcare workers and citizens around the world to become vaccinated. The call comes almost a full year after government health chiefs confirmed a link between the H1N1-containing seasonal flu vaccination and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome (see quoted article below for sourcing). Oftentimes leading to partial paralysis and death, The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the link following a report that 50% of doctors were refusing the swine flu vaccine over health concerns.
Organizations around the world have been speaking out against the H1N1 vaccine, speaking out against the risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). Even the mainstream media was forced to report on the association between the vaccine and GBS, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a ‘death link’. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
“The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Here is the report that I wrote on October 18, 2010 warning readers about the link between the flu shot and Guillain-Barre Syndrome:
Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.
“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”
Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.
The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.
Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.
“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”
Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.
The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.
Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.
Monday, October 3, 2011
3 Reasons to Avoid the Flu Shot
Anthony Gucciardi
GreenMedInfo.com
October 1, 2011
Flu shots are becoming the most widely recommended vaccine on the planet, with The Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changing their flu shot recommendation from children between 6 months and 5 years old demographic to virtually everyone except those between the ages of 19-49 who are in perfectly good health. Even within this category there is a barrage of organizations warning against avoiding the ubiquitous flu shot.
The fact of the matter is that seasonal flu shots are simply not backed by reputable science, and a number of major studies have even shown that the seasonal flu shot is not effective at all in preventing the flu. Adding fuel to the fire, this ineffective shot comes with pages of nasty side effects that will certainly make you reconsider getting one this year. Here are 3 major reasons you, your family, and the medical establishment should reconsider flu shots as effective flu prevention tools:
1. Seasonal flu vaccines have been found to only be 1% effective
A new major study has numerically determined the effectiveness of the flu shot to be 1%. This means that despite the H1N1-loaded flu jab, there is still a 99% chance that you will not be protected against the flu. The reason for this, despite the faulty science behind the development of the vaccine, has to do with flu strains. It is extremely challenging, to the point of guessing, which flu strain will affect your area. With such a wide selection, it is very rare (about 1%, according to the study), for it to be the correct strain.
The researchers from the study stated:
“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” announced the study authors. In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people affected by the influenza virus by just one.
The findings do not stop there. The researchers also highlighted other findings about the flu vaccine, which topple the mainstream concept of their safety and effectiveness:
“Vaccination had…no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”
“Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”
“The analysis howed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
“There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” — Meaning vaccines do not affect transmission of disease, what they are designed for.
“In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”
2. Flu shots have been linked to killer nerve disease
Even government health officials have confirmed the link between the H1N1-containing flu shot and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A government agency known as The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the connection following the phony swine flu pandemic. The news came after mainstream media reported on the fact that even 50% of doctors were refusing the H1N1 vaccine over health concerns.
Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
3. Vitamin D is over 800% more effective with no side effects
A major clinical trial performed at the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective in preventing and reversing influenza. Led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the study involved 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. This is actually a very low amount of vitamin D, with many natural health experts recommending around 5,000 IUs per day for most individuals. If the researchers used a higher amount like 5,000 IUs, the findings and subsequent percentage would most likely be even more profound.
What the study found was that 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the 4 month duration of the study, while only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This is in comparison to the flu shot being effective in 1 out of 100 participants, with countless side effects.
This means that vitamin D is 800% more effective in preventing the flu than vaccines at 1200 IUs daily. The percentage could likely climb into the thousands if the dosage was upped to the recommended 5,000 IUs per day, and perhaps even higher beyond that.
There is simply no reason to receive a flu shot when natural alternatives like vitamin D exist. Deadly nerve disease, narcolepsy, and overall ineffectiveness are but a few of the negative aspects of the flu shot. Spread the word about flu shots during Vaccine Information Week, starting October 1st.
GreenMedInfo.com
October 1, 2011
Flu shots are becoming the most widely recommended vaccine on the planet, with The Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changing their flu shot recommendation from children between 6 months and 5 years old demographic to virtually everyone except those between the ages of 19-49 who are in perfectly good health. Even within this category there is a barrage of organizations warning against avoiding the ubiquitous flu shot.
The fact of the matter is that seasonal flu shots are simply not backed by reputable science, and a number of major studies have even shown that the seasonal flu shot is not effective at all in preventing the flu. Adding fuel to the fire, this ineffective shot comes with pages of nasty side effects that will certainly make you reconsider getting one this year. Here are 3 major reasons you, your family, and the medical establishment should reconsider flu shots as effective flu prevention tools:
1. Seasonal flu vaccines have been found to only be 1% effective
A new major study has numerically determined the effectiveness of the flu shot to be 1%. This means that despite the H1N1-loaded flu jab, there is still a 99% chance that you will not be protected against the flu. The reason for this, despite the faulty science behind the development of the vaccine, has to do with flu strains. It is extremely challenging, to the point of guessing, which flu strain will affect your area. With such a wide selection, it is very rare (about 1%, according to the study), for it to be the correct strain.
The researchers from the study stated:
“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” announced the study authors. In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people affected by the influenza virus by just one.
The findings do not stop there. The researchers also highlighted other findings about the flu vaccine, which topple the mainstream concept of their safety and effectiveness:
“Vaccination had…no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”
“Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”
“The analysis howed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
“There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” — Meaning vaccines do not affect transmission of disease, what they are designed for.
“In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”
2. Flu shots have been linked to killer nerve disease
Even government health officials have confirmed the link between the H1N1-containing flu shot and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A government agency known as The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the connection following the phony swine flu pandemic. The news came after mainstream media reported on the fact that even 50% of doctors were refusing the H1N1 vaccine over health concerns.
Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
3. Vitamin D is over 800% more effective with no side effects
A major clinical trial performed at the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective in preventing and reversing influenza. Led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the study involved 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. This is actually a very low amount of vitamin D, with many natural health experts recommending around 5,000 IUs per day for most individuals. If the researchers used a higher amount like 5,000 IUs, the findings and subsequent percentage would most likely be even more profound.
What the study found was that 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the 4 month duration of the study, while only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This is in comparison to the flu shot being effective in 1 out of 100 participants, with countless side effects.
This means that vitamin D is 800% more effective in preventing the flu than vaccines at 1200 IUs daily. The percentage could likely climb into the thousands if the dosage was upped to the recommended 5,000 IUs per day, and perhaps even higher beyond that.
There is simply no reason to receive a flu shot when natural alternatives like vitamin D exist. Deadly nerve disease, narcolepsy, and overall ineffectiveness are but a few of the negative aspects of the flu shot. Spread the word about flu shots during Vaccine Information Week, starting October 1st.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Is Your Multivitamin Toxic?
by Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo.com
[previously published in the Well Being Journal and Mercola.com]
In episode #11 (season 2) of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, a woman poisons her husband with the chemical sodium selenite. Strange as it may sound, this exotic murder weapon, and it’s close cousin, sodium selenate, are listed as “nutrients” on the labels of most mass-marketed vitamins. Even though both sodium selenite and selenate are classified as dangerous and toxic to the environment by regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union, they are the primary forms of this mineral - selenium - sold on the mass market today. In fact, most mass-market vitamins contain chemicals that the EPA does not allow in our public drinking water at levels above 50 parts per billion per liter. According to the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards, the highest allowable level of selenium in public drinking water is 50 parts per billion (equivalent to 50 micrograms, dry weight). To get a sense of how small an allowable limit this is, 50 parts per billion is equivalent to a tablespoon of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.
How can vitamin manufacturers advertise something as being a “nutrient” when the EPA—out of concern for our health—has barred it from our drinking water at all but exceedingly minute levels? Have sodium selenite/selenate really been shown to be toxic? A brief perusal of toxicology reports from the Hazardous Substances Databank (toxnet.nlm.nih.gov) and PUBMED (pubmed.gov) shows that both forms can be carcinogenic and genotoxic and may contribute to reproductive and developmental problems in animals and humans. The question is not whether these minerals have toxicity, but rather at what level they overwhelm our capacity for their detoxification and/or biotransformation into non-toxic metabolites?
A word should be said here about the differences that exist between inorganic minerals and biologically active ones:
The selenium that is found in foods like brazil nuts, mustard seeds, and fresh produce grown in selenium-rich soil is infinitely different from the biologically inert forms being put in some multivitamins. In fact, sodium selenite/selenate can cause cancer, whereas the selenium found within food, or laboratory chelated forms like selenomethionine, have all been shown to prevent and combat cancer.
The basic principle that explains this difference is that when you isolate a nutrient or vitamin out of the food complex within which it is naturally found, and where it is inseparably bound to thousands of known and unknown food factors (e.g., enzymes, protein chaperones, glyconutrients, etc.) it is no longer as beneficial to life. This is especially true in the case of vertebrate mammals who are equipped to get their minerals from the plants they ingest or through the biotransformation of inorganic minerals to organic ones by microflora in their gastrointestinal tracts.
The primary reason that sodium selenite/selenate are preferred by some vitamin manufacturers over safer, more beneficial forms like chelated or yeast-grown selenium is because it is more profitable to use raw materials of lower quality.
“You get what you pay for” is a saying that almost always rings true for dietary supplements. Buying industrial waste products, or chemicals that are considered hazardous waste, and repackaging them as “dietary supplements” can be extremely profitable.
Indeed, this is not the first time in American history that such a hoax has been perpetrated on the public. The FDA-approved use of fluoride in our drinking water and the use of radioactive cobalt-60 culled from nuclear reactors for the IRRADIATION of conventional food illustrates how industrial waste products with known toxicity are eventually converted into commodities or technologies “beneficial to health.” Whereas initially these substances have very high disposal costs for the industries that excrete them into our environment, the liability is converted — through the right combination of lobbying, miseducation and “checkbook science” –- back into a commodity, with the environment and consumer suffering health and financial losses as a result.
Unfortunately, inorganic forms of selenium are not the only problem with mass-market vitamins. Take the multivitamin Centrum, for instance, whose manufacturer Wyeth is one of the most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world. This vitamin contains the following chemicals:
Chemical: Amount Found in Centrum/ EPA Maximum Allowed Limit in 1 Liter of Drinking Water
1) Sodium selenite : 55 mcg/ 50 mcg
2) Nickelous sulfate: 5 mcg/ 100 mcg
3) Stannous chloride (tin): 10 mcg/ 4 mcg
4) Ferrous fumarate (iron): 18 mg/ .3 mg
5) Manganese sulfate: 2.3 mg/ .05 mg
6) Cupric sulfate: .5 mg/ 1.3 mg
In the left hand column above you will see the quantities of inorganic minerals found within each dose of Centrum. In the right hand column are the maximum quantity allowed by the EPA in one liter of drinking water. In the case of stannous chloride (tin), ferrous fumarate (iron) and manganese sulfate there are significantly higher doses in Centrum than are considered safe for human consumption in a liter of water. Although the others listed are at levels well under the EPA’s allowable limit, it is simply amazing that they are found in a product for human consumption at any quantity given their known toxicity.
So, if these chemicals are toxic, how can they be marketed as beneficial to our health?
As of today no law forbids the use of these substances in dietary supplements, despite laboratory research demonstrating their toxicity in animals, and epidemiological and occupational data demonstrating their actual or potential toxicity in humans. This is due to the widespread acceptance in the U.S. of a chemical and drug industry-friendly “weight of evidence” standard for toxicological risk assessment. Rather than using the “precautionary principle,” which dictates that a substance that is suspected of being harmful should be duly regulated in order to minimize the public’s exposure, the “weight of evidence” paradigm requires that a panel of government appointed experts must evaluate all available toxicological data, and must come up with a consensus that the evidence, unequivocally, demonstrates the substance in question poses a serious health risk. Until such an assessment can be made, a number of substances with obvious toxicity are “innocent until proven guilty” and can be portrayed by irresponsible and/or uneducated manufacturers as being beneficial to human health. It is sad and ironic that at a time when smaller dietary supplement manufacturers are being accused of being “unregulated” and having poor quality standards (even when they are incurring great costs by using vastly superior ingredients) that massive pharmaceutical companies, who have every resource at their disposal, are allowed to market toxic chemicals to consumers under the banner of USP (United States Pharmacopeia) or “pharmaceutical grade” quality, and get away with it.
Ultimately, we need to use common sense in our purchasing decisions and realize that sometimes companies will intentionally mislead the public—with the complicity of regulatory bodies like the FDA—and will advertise a product that has no health benefits; or worse, may actually detract from our health. The fact that Centrum may or may not be “the #1 doctor multivitamin brand” is irrelevant, considering that one does not ordinarily go to a doctor to seek wise counsel on nutrition. It is simply not their specialty.
The irony is that billions of dollars in health care cost —and the suffering these costs represent— could be saved every year if Americans took the simple step of taking a good multivitamin every day. It is advisable to look for product manufacturers that use high quality ingredients, including those from whole foods, as they are easier for our bodies to absorb and to utilize and therefore contribute more significantly to filling the voids in our diet.
[previously published in the Well Being Journal and Mercola.com]
In episode #11 (season 2) of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, a woman poisons her husband with the chemical sodium selenite. Strange as it may sound, this exotic murder weapon, and it’s close cousin, sodium selenate, are listed as “nutrients” on the labels of most mass-marketed vitamins. Even though both sodium selenite and selenate are classified as dangerous and toxic to the environment by regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union, they are the primary forms of this mineral - selenium - sold on the mass market today. In fact, most mass-market vitamins contain chemicals that the EPA does not allow in our public drinking water at levels above 50 parts per billion per liter. According to the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards, the highest allowable level of selenium in public drinking water is 50 parts per billion (equivalent to 50 micrograms, dry weight). To get a sense of how small an allowable limit this is, 50 parts per billion is equivalent to a tablespoon of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.
How can vitamin manufacturers advertise something as being a “nutrient” when the EPA—out of concern for our health—has barred it from our drinking water at all but exceedingly minute levels? Have sodium selenite/selenate really been shown to be toxic? A brief perusal of toxicology reports from the Hazardous Substances Databank (toxnet.nlm.nih.gov) and PUBMED (pubmed.gov) shows that both forms can be carcinogenic and genotoxic and may contribute to reproductive and developmental problems in animals and humans. The question is not whether these minerals have toxicity, but rather at what level they overwhelm our capacity for their detoxification and/or biotransformation into non-toxic metabolites?
A word should be said here about the differences that exist between inorganic minerals and biologically active ones:
The selenium that is found in foods like brazil nuts, mustard seeds, and fresh produce grown in selenium-rich soil is infinitely different from the biologically inert forms being put in some multivitamins. In fact, sodium selenite/selenate can cause cancer, whereas the selenium found within food, or laboratory chelated forms like selenomethionine, have all been shown to prevent and combat cancer.
The basic principle that explains this difference is that when you isolate a nutrient or vitamin out of the food complex within which it is naturally found, and where it is inseparably bound to thousands of known and unknown food factors (e.g., enzymes, protein chaperones, glyconutrients, etc.) it is no longer as beneficial to life. This is especially true in the case of vertebrate mammals who are equipped to get their minerals from the plants they ingest or through the biotransformation of inorganic minerals to organic ones by microflora in their gastrointestinal tracts.
The primary reason that sodium selenite/selenate are preferred by some vitamin manufacturers over safer, more beneficial forms like chelated or yeast-grown selenium is because it is more profitable to use raw materials of lower quality.
“You get what you pay for” is a saying that almost always rings true for dietary supplements. Buying industrial waste products, or chemicals that are considered hazardous waste, and repackaging them as “dietary supplements” can be extremely profitable.
Indeed, this is not the first time in American history that such a hoax has been perpetrated on the public. The FDA-approved use of fluoride in our drinking water and the use of radioactive cobalt-60 culled from nuclear reactors for the IRRADIATION of conventional food illustrates how industrial waste products with known toxicity are eventually converted into commodities or technologies “beneficial to health.” Whereas initially these substances have very high disposal costs for the industries that excrete them into our environment, the liability is converted — through the right combination of lobbying, miseducation and “checkbook science” –- back into a commodity, with the environment and consumer suffering health and financial losses as a result.
Unfortunately, inorganic forms of selenium are not the only problem with mass-market vitamins. Take the multivitamin Centrum, for instance, whose manufacturer Wyeth is one of the most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world. This vitamin contains the following chemicals:
Chemical: Amount Found in Centrum/ EPA Maximum Allowed Limit in 1 Liter of Drinking Water
1) Sodium selenite : 55 mcg/ 50 mcg
2) Nickelous sulfate: 5 mcg/ 100 mcg
3) Stannous chloride (tin): 10 mcg/ 4 mcg
4) Ferrous fumarate (iron): 18 mg/ .3 mg
5) Manganese sulfate: 2.3 mg/ .05 mg
6) Cupric sulfate: .5 mg/ 1.3 mg
In the left hand column above you will see the quantities of inorganic minerals found within each dose of Centrum. In the right hand column are the maximum quantity allowed by the EPA in one liter of drinking water. In the case of stannous chloride (tin), ferrous fumarate (iron) and manganese sulfate there are significantly higher doses in Centrum than are considered safe for human consumption in a liter of water. Although the others listed are at levels well under the EPA’s allowable limit, it is simply amazing that they are found in a product for human consumption at any quantity given their known toxicity.
So, if these chemicals are toxic, how can they be marketed as beneficial to our health?
As of today no law forbids the use of these substances in dietary supplements, despite laboratory research demonstrating their toxicity in animals, and epidemiological and occupational data demonstrating their actual or potential toxicity in humans. This is due to the widespread acceptance in the U.S. of a chemical and drug industry-friendly “weight of evidence” standard for toxicological risk assessment. Rather than using the “precautionary principle,” which dictates that a substance that is suspected of being harmful should be duly regulated in order to minimize the public’s exposure, the “weight of evidence” paradigm requires that a panel of government appointed experts must evaluate all available toxicological data, and must come up with a consensus that the evidence, unequivocally, demonstrates the substance in question poses a serious health risk. Until such an assessment can be made, a number of substances with obvious toxicity are “innocent until proven guilty” and can be portrayed by irresponsible and/or uneducated manufacturers as being beneficial to human health. It is sad and ironic that at a time when smaller dietary supplement manufacturers are being accused of being “unregulated” and having poor quality standards (even when they are incurring great costs by using vastly superior ingredients) that massive pharmaceutical companies, who have every resource at their disposal, are allowed to market toxic chemicals to consumers under the banner of USP (United States Pharmacopeia) or “pharmaceutical grade” quality, and get away with it.
Ultimately, we need to use common sense in our purchasing decisions and realize that sometimes companies will intentionally mislead the public—with the complicity of regulatory bodies like the FDA—and will advertise a product that has no health benefits; or worse, may actually detract from our health. The fact that Centrum may or may not be “the #1 doctor multivitamin brand” is irrelevant, considering that one does not ordinarily go to a doctor to seek wise counsel on nutrition. It is simply not their specialty.
The irony is that billions of dollars in health care cost —and the suffering these costs represent— could be saved every year if Americans took the simple step of taking a good multivitamin every day. It is advisable to look for product manufacturers that use high quality ingredients, including those from whole foods, as they are easier for our bodies to absorb and to utilize and therefore contribute more significantly to filling the voids in our diet.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Sub-Arachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH)
by J. Michael Pece
I am recovering from a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. What is a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage you ask? Its when a blood vessel underneath the skull and the membrane and the brain ruptures. Thus leading to bleeding in the brain . Bleeding in the brain can destroy brain tissue causing a variety of problems for the patient.
Mine occurred August 4, 20011. I was walking around my front yard, near an ditch, in the early morning when suddenly I fell unconscious and hit my head, apparently on a rock. I do not remember the incident. It was during a heat wave, here where we live, and the temperature was around 110 degrees. I lay unconscious for about three hours in the blazing sun, until a neighbor, who lives about 1/4 mile away noticed our dogs were loose and in his workshop. Since we never let our dogs loose, he immediately came over to see why they were loose. He found the front door opened and a man separated from our yard by a 10 foot fence screaming for him to help me. He then found me lying on the top of the ditch unconscious and bleeding from the back of the head.
My neighbor called 911 and soon the EMT's and the fire truck were on the scene attending me. Thank God for neighbors.
I was taken to the nearest hospital and immediately had a CT scan done. It showed bleeding in the brain. I was still unconscious and had no idea what was going on, I've only been told later. My wife was called by the EMT's at work and she immediately came to the Hospital ER to see me. The Emergency Department doctors tried to stop the bleeding and stabilized me, but could not. They then told my wife that I would need to go to a hospital which treated brain hemorrhages and had a Neurosurgical team on board.
An ambulance was called and I was taken to another hospital renown for their neurological department and actually was where I had gone as an outpatient for 2 1/2 years after my previous traumatic brain injury.They took and MRI and CT scan and saw the bleeding and began working to stop the bleeding. The choice was to use a coagulating drug to try and stop it or do surgery. They tried the drug first. I became conscious enough that I could tell the doctors that my head hurt tremendously.
And they began giving me morphine and when that did not work they gave me a combination of painkillers which immediately knocked me out again.my wife went home to tend to the dogs after the doctors told he they wouldn't know anything until early morning.
The next morning my wife called the hospital at 6:30 am, and was told by the nursing staff that the bleeding had been stopped by the drugs, but I was still unconscious.
I have absolutely no recollection of August 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th. On the fifth day I began to remember consciousness. On the sixth day the hospital sent me to an in-house
rehabilitation clinic. There I underwent Occupational therapy (how to dress,, brush your teeth, comb your hair, etc), Speech therapy, and physical therapy.
My main lasting effect was dizziness. I was extremely dizzy.After an brain hemorrhage after effects can be things such as dizziness, loss of speech, loss of movement, headaches, loss of memory, and loss of self. Luckily I just suffered from dizziness, loss of memory and difficulty speaking certain polysyllable words. I left rehab with a walker to help me get around and a shower chair for taking showers without falling.
This week I went to the Neurosurgeon for my 6 week follow up and he said my most recent CT scan did not show any bleeding and he felt relatively sure that the chances of a re-occurrence was as close to zero as possible provided I did not fall and hit my head again.
Today my speech is almost back to normal, my dizziness is getting better as time goes on, and I have no head aches. I was lucky.
I was lucky the first hospital was only 10 minutes away and they recognized they could not help me besides stabilizing me, and transferring me to the best Neurological Hospital in the city where we live. I was lucky a neighbor found me when he did or I would have died of exposure to the heat, I was lucky that I was transferred to the best Neurological hospital in our city, I was lucky I will have no lasting effects from this brain hemorrhage. For all of this I am thankful. Most of all I am lucky to be married to such a wonderful wife who nursed me back to health and cautioned me against doing "too much" or doing the wrong things.
Having a brain bleed is nothing to be shy about. Signs are headache, stiff neck, confusion, inability to speak, inability to walk and total confusion. If you ever have these symptoms get help at a hospital immediately. In my case having a brain hemorrhage caused by a head trauma there is a 46 - 75% chance of permanent vegetative state, or mental deficits or death. Luckily I was in that 25% that recover.
If you want to learn more about Sub-arachnoid Hemorrhage or other brain bleed strokes Google PubMed,WebMD, or Medscape and learn about this potentially deadly experience.
I am recovering from a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. What is a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage you ask? Its when a blood vessel underneath the skull and the membrane and the brain ruptures. Thus leading to bleeding in the brain . Bleeding in the brain can destroy brain tissue causing a variety of problems for the patient.
Mine occurred August 4, 20011. I was walking around my front yard, near an ditch, in the early morning when suddenly I fell unconscious and hit my head, apparently on a rock. I do not remember the incident. It was during a heat wave, here where we live, and the temperature was around 110 degrees. I lay unconscious for about three hours in the blazing sun, until a neighbor, who lives about 1/4 mile away noticed our dogs were loose and in his workshop. Since we never let our dogs loose, he immediately came over to see why they were loose. He found the front door opened and a man separated from our yard by a 10 foot fence screaming for him to help me. He then found me lying on the top of the ditch unconscious and bleeding from the back of the head.
My neighbor called 911 and soon the EMT's and the fire truck were on the scene attending me. Thank God for neighbors.
I was taken to the nearest hospital and immediately had a CT scan done. It showed bleeding in the brain. I was still unconscious and had no idea what was going on, I've only been told later. My wife was called by the EMT's at work and she immediately came to the Hospital ER to see me. The Emergency Department doctors tried to stop the bleeding and stabilized me, but could not. They then told my wife that I would need to go to a hospital which treated brain hemorrhages and had a Neurosurgical team on board.
An ambulance was called and I was taken to another hospital renown for their neurological department and actually was where I had gone as an outpatient for 2 1/2 years after my previous traumatic brain injury.They took and MRI and CT scan and saw the bleeding and began working to stop the bleeding. The choice was to use a coagulating drug to try and stop it or do surgery. They tried the drug first. I became conscious enough that I could tell the doctors that my head hurt tremendously.
And they began giving me morphine and when that did not work they gave me a combination of painkillers which immediately knocked me out again.my wife went home to tend to the dogs after the doctors told he they wouldn't know anything until early morning.
The next morning my wife called the hospital at 6:30 am, and was told by the nursing staff that the bleeding had been stopped by the drugs, but I was still unconscious.
I have absolutely no recollection of August 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th. On the fifth day I began to remember consciousness. On the sixth day the hospital sent me to an in-house
rehabilitation clinic. There I underwent Occupational therapy (how to dress,, brush your teeth, comb your hair, etc), Speech therapy, and physical therapy.
My main lasting effect was dizziness. I was extremely dizzy.After an brain hemorrhage after effects can be things such as dizziness, loss of speech, loss of movement, headaches, loss of memory, and loss of self. Luckily I just suffered from dizziness, loss of memory and difficulty speaking certain polysyllable words. I left rehab with a walker to help me get around and a shower chair for taking showers without falling.
This week I went to the Neurosurgeon for my 6 week follow up and he said my most recent CT scan did not show any bleeding and he felt relatively sure that the chances of a re-occurrence was as close to zero as possible provided I did not fall and hit my head again.
Today my speech is almost back to normal, my dizziness is getting better as time goes on, and I have no head aches. I was lucky.
I was lucky the first hospital was only 10 minutes away and they recognized they could not help me besides stabilizing me, and transferring me to the best Neurological Hospital in the city where we live. I was lucky a neighbor found me when he did or I would have died of exposure to the heat, I was lucky that I was transferred to the best Neurological hospital in our city, I was lucky I will have no lasting effects from this brain hemorrhage. For all of this I am thankful. Most of all I am lucky to be married to such a wonderful wife who nursed me back to health and cautioned me against doing "too much" or doing the wrong things.
Having a brain bleed is nothing to be shy about. Signs are headache, stiff neck, confusion, inability to speak, inability to walk and total confusion. If you ever have these symptoms get help at a hospital immediately. In my case having a brain hemorrhage caused by a head trauma there is a 46 - 75% chance of permanent vegetative state, or mental deficits or death. Luckily I was in that 25% that recover.
If you want to learn more about Sub-arachnoid Hemorrhage or other brain bleed strokes Google PubMed,WebMD, or Medscape and learn about this potentially deadly experience.
High-Fructose Corn Syrup Propaganda
By Dr. Alan R. Gaby
I received a packet of glossy brochures and a small booklet the other day from the Corn Refiners Association, along with a Dear Doctor cover letter. The purpose of the mailing was to explain to me, the doctor, that much of the negative press surrounding high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) lacks scientific merit, and that this "versatile sweetener" is pretty much the same as sucrose.
The cover letter started off comically enough: "Because you are a trusted source of information about nutrition . . . ", like nobody knows that medical doctors are considered so uninformed and so biased regarding nutrition that nearly three-quarters of patients won’t even tell their doctor what nutrients and herbs they are taking.
But, flattery is like a foot in the door, so I read on. The letter was signed by the president of the Corn Refiner’s Association and also by a cardiologist/professor with a university affiliation. The letter did not disclose the cardiologist’s conflicts of interest, but a Medline Search revealed that he has received research funding and consulting fees from PepsiCo, one of the biggest users of HFCS in the world.
The main point of the information packet was that HFCS is nutritionally the same as sucrose (table sugar). Emphasizing that point was considered so important that it was stated at least 17 times in the mailing.
As discussed below, HFCS and sucrose are not the same, which might be why so much effort was made to convince doctors otherwise. As a corollary to the main point, the packet sought to dispel the "myth" that "sugar is healthier than HFCS." The use of the word "healthier" is particularly amusing, since almost no one on the planet considers sugar to be a health food.
A more appropriate framing of the argument would have been to claim that HFCS is no more likely to give you diabetes, make you fat, raise your triglyceride and uric acid levels, cause nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or give you stomach aches and diarrhea than sucrose is. While there is a great deal of research that contradicts such claims (as discussed, for example, in my review article on the adverse effects of dietary fructose), at least those would have been claims that could have been debated honestly.
The Corn Refiner’s Association argues that HFCS and sucrose are pretty much the same, because they both consist of about 50% fructose and 50% glucose.
In actuality, HFCS consists of 55% fructose and 42% glucose, while sucrose consists of 100% sucrose (which can be converted by intestinal enzymes to 50% fructose and 50% glucose). The difference in the relative proportions of fructose and glucose in these two sweeteners (1.31:1 versus 1:1) may not be insignificant. Fructose malabsorption is a common cause of gastrointestinal symptoms that mimic irritable bowel syndrome.
Fructose malabsorption tends to occur primarily when the fructose concentration of a meal exceeds that of glucose, because glucose enhances the intestinal absorption of fructose. HFCS, which contains fructose in excess of glucose, is more likely to cause gastrointestinal symptoms than is sucrose, which is converted to equal parts fructose and glucose.
The fact that HFCS consists mainly of two monosaccharides, while sucrose is a disaccharide, may also not be insignificant. In order to be absorbed as its constituent monosaccharides, sucrose must first be hydrolyzed by intestinal mucosal disaccharidase enzymes. Thus, the absorption of fructose from sucrose might be considerably slower than the absorption of the free fructose present in HFCS. That possibility is supported by studies in which serum fructose concentrations increased to a greater extent after feeding free fructose than after feeding the same amount of fructose in the form of sucrose.
Fructose is the most powerful reducing sugar of all of the edible sugars. Reducing sugars promote the glycosylation of tissue proteins, which is a factor both in the complications of diabetes and in the aging process.
The human body has elaborate mechanisms to prevent serum fructose concentrations from rising to any great extent, but these mechanisms can be overwhelmed by feeding large quantities of free fructose. Exposure to the large amounts of free fructose that are currently being consumed is unprecedented in human evolution, and there is no reason to believe that humans are equipped to handle this new stressor.
There are still significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the consequences of consuming large amounts of free fructose. According to my reading of the scientific literature, the effects of HFCS are somewhere between slightly worse than the effects of sucrose and seriously horrible.
Alan R. Gaby, M.D., is an internationally recognized authority on nutritional therapies. Dr. Gaby has recently completed a 30-year project, a textbook of Nutritional Medicine.
Dr. Gaby received his undergraduate degree from Yale University, his M.S. in biochemistry from Emory University, and his M.D. from the University of Maryland. He is a contributing medical editor for Alternative Medicine Review. Dr. Gaby was a professor of nutrition at Bastyr University in Washington.
I received a packet of glossy brochures and a small booklet the other day from the Corn Refiners Association, along with a Dear Doctor cover letter. The purpose of the mailing was to explain to me, the doctor, that much of the negative press surrounding high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) lacks scientific merit, and that this "versatile sweetener" is pretty much the same as sucrose.
The cover letter started off comically enough: "Because you are a trusted source of information about nutrition . . . ", like nobody knows that medical doctors are considered so uninformed and so biased regarding nutrition that nearly three-quarters of patients won’t even tell their doctor what nutrients and herbs they are taking.
But, flattery is like a foot in the door, so I read on. The letter was signed by the president of the Corn Refiner’s Association and also by a cardiologist/professor with a university affiliation. The letter did not disclose the cardiologist’s conflicts of interest, but a Medline Search revealed that he has received research funding and consulting fees from PepsiCo, one of the biggest users of HFCS in the world.
The main point of the information packet was that HFCS is nutritionally the same as sucrose (table sugar). Emphasizing that point was considered so important that it was stated at least 17 times in the mailing.
As discussed below, HFCS and sucrose are not the same, which might be why so much effort was made to convince doctors otherwise. As a corollary to the main point, the packet sought to dispel the "myth" that "sugar is healthier than HFCS." The use of the word "healthier" is particularly amusing, since almost no one on the planet considers sugar to be a health food.
A more appropriate framing of the argument would have been to claim that HFCS is no more likely to give you diabetes, make you fat, raise your triglyceride and uric acid levels, cause nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or give you stomach aches and diarrhea than sucrose is. While there is a great deal of research that contradicts such claims (as discussed, for example, in my review article on the adverse effects of dietary fructose), at least those would have been claims that could have been debated honestly.
The Corn Refiner’s Association argues that HFCS and sucrose are pretty much the same, because they both consist of about 50% fructose and 50% glucose.
In actuality, HFCS consists of 55% fructose and 42% glucose, while sucrose consists of 100% sucrose (which can be converted by intestinal enzymes to 50% fructose and 50% glucose). The difference in the relative proportions of fructose and glucose in these two sweeteners (1.31:1 versus 1:1) may not be insignificant. Fructose malabsorption is a common cause of gastrointestinal symptoms that mimic irritable bowel syndrome.
Fructose malabsorption tends to occur primarily when the fructose concentration of a meal exceeds that of glucose, because glucose enhances the intestinal absorption of fructose. HFCS, which contains fructose in excess of glucose, is more likely to cause gastrointestinal symptoms than is sucrose, which is converted to equal parts fructose and glucose.
The fact that HFCS consists mainly of two monosaccharides, while sucrose is a disaccharide, may also not be insignificant. In order to be absorbed as its constituent monosaccharides, sucrose must first be hydrolyzed by intestinal mucosal disaccharidase enzymes. Thus, the absorption of fructose from sucrose might be considerably slower than the absorption of the free fructose present in HFCS. That possibility is supported by studies in which serum fructose concentrations increased to a greater extent after feeding free fructose than after feeding the same amount of fructose in the form of sucrose.
Fructose is the most powerful reducing sugar of all of the edible sugars. Reducing sugars promote the glycosylation of tissue proteins, which is a factor both in the complications of diabetes and in the aging process.
The human body has elaborate mechanisms to prevent serum fructose concentrations from rising to any great extent, but these mechanisms can be overwhelmed by feeding large quantities of free fructose. Exposure to the large amounts of free fructose that are currently being consumed is unprecedented in human evolution, and there is no reason to believe that humans are equipped to handle this new stressor.
There are still significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the consequences of consuming large amounts of free fructose. According to my reading of the scientific literature, the effects of HFCS are somewhere between slightly worse than the effects of sucrose and seriously horrible.
Alan R. Gaby, M.D., is an internationally recognized authority on nutritional therapies. Dr. Gaby has recently completed a 30-year project, a textbook of Nutritional Medicine.
Dr. Gaby received his undergraduate degree from Yale University, his M.S. in biochemistry from Emory University, and his M.D. from the University of Maryland. He is a contributing medical editor for Alternative Medicine Review. Dr. Gaby was a professor of nutrition at Bastyr University in Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
