Tag Archives: Dr. Mercola

Questions Abound over Efficacy of Flu Vaccines

Posted on by

Analysis Finds Flu Vaccine Efficacy Lacking, as Flu Vaccines are Suspended Across Europe and Canada

By Dr. Mercola

With flu season just around the corner, health agencies are telling Americans to just “get your flu shot,” assuring everyone that it’s safe and effective. Many, like MedicineNet.com,1 chalk up any and all safety concerns as “myths.”

“It’s the time of year when you should be thinking about flu vaccinations for yourself and your family,” they write. “Some people, however, decide not to get the flu vaccine and put themselves and others at risk of getting sick just because they believe long-held myths about the vaccine.”

Myths? I think not.

Vaccine Claims are Not Based on Science-Backed Medicine

Story at-a-glance

  • A recent review found that flu vaccines may not offer protection as previously thought. The elderly, in particular, do not appear to receive measureable value from the flu shot. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines also didn’t offer much protection to children over the age of seven
  • While infants and young children are at greatest risk, no one is exempt from the potential serious complications of flu vaccination, one of which is Guillaine-Barre syndrome. Early symptoms of GBS include sudden muscle weakness, fatigue and tingling sensations in the legs, eventually ending with either partial or total paralysis
  • A unit of U.S. drugmaker Johnson & Johnson, recently suspended delivery of their seasonal flu vaccine, Inflexal V, destined for Italy and other European countries, after discovering “problems” with two of 32 lots
  • Two weeks ago Italy banned the sale and use of four flu vaccines manufactured by Novartis, following the discovery of white particles in the vaccines. Over the next two days, Switzerland, Austria, Spain, France, Germany and Canada also suspended use of Novartis’ flu vaccines
  • ACIP recently changed their recommendation on Tdap during pregnancy. According to new recommendation, a Tdap booster vaccine is to be given to pregnant women during each consecutive pregnancy. The vote was unanimous despite the fact that neither safety nor efficacy data exists for women given multiple consecutive Tdap vaccinations during every pregnancy.

to read the rest, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/11/06/flu-vaccine-efficacy.aspx?e_cid=20121106_DNL_art_1

Microflora. Physical Health, Mental Well-Being fr/Dr. Mercola

Posted on by

The Wide-Ranging Influence of Gut Microbes on Your Mental and Physical Health

September 05 2012

By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Ninety percent of the genetic material in your body is NOT yours. It is from the nearly 100 trillion bacteria, fungi, viruses and other microorganisms that compose your microflora
  • Your microflora influence your genetic expression, your immune system, weight, mental health, memory, and your risk of numerous chronic and acute diseases, from diabetes to cancer
  • It is becoming increasingly clear that destroying your gut flora with antibiotics and poor diet is a primary factor in rising disease rates. Recent research suggests intestinal inflammation may play a crucial role in the development of certain cancers
  • Avoiding antibiotics (including those from conventionally-raised meats and rBGH-laced milk), adhering to a low-sugar diet, along with plenty of unpasteurized fermented foods and/or a high-quality probiotic supplement, are crucial elements for restoring and maintaining both your gut’s inner ecosystem and your overall health. Make sure to avoid both conventionally-raised meat and milk laced with rBGH

There are 100 trillion cells in your body, but 90% of the genetic material is not yours. It is from the bacteria, fungi, viruses and other microorganisms, i.e. your microflora. Gut microbes are big in the news lately, as researchers continue to discover the important roles these tiny organisms play in your overall health and well-being. We now know that your microflora influence your:

  • Genetic expression
  • Immune system
  • Weight, and
  • Risk of numerous chronic and acute diseases, from diabetes to cancer

Most recently, research has shown that a certain set of these microbes may actually influence the activity of genes in your brain – and the parts they play are not small parts. They may work to manipulate your behavior, and your memory as well.

Microbes Manipulate Your Mind

According to a recent article in The Guardian1, certain species of gut bacteria have been found to influence gene activity in your brain. Some of this research was published in 2011.2 Mice lacking gut bacteria were found to engage in “high-risk behavior,” and this altered behavior was accompanied by neurochemical changes in the mouse brain.

According to the authors, microbiota (your gut flora) may play a role in the communication between your gut and your brain, and:

“Acquisition of intestinal microbiota in the immediate postnatal period has a defining impact on the development and function of the gastrointestinal, immune, neuroendocrine and metabolic systems. For example, the presence of gut microbiota regulates the set point for hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity.”

But they also discovered other differences between the mice with normal gut flora and those lacking gut bacteria. When examining the animals’ brains, they discovered a number of genetic alterations in the germ-free mice. According to The Guardian:

“Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) was significantly up-regulated, and the 5HT1A serotonin receptor sub-type down-regulated, in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. The gene encoding the NR2B subunit of the NMDA receptor was also down-regulated in the amygdala.

All three genes have previously been implicated in emotion and anxiety-like behaviors.

BDNF is a growth factor that is essential for proper brain development, and a recent study showed that deleting the BDNF receptor TrkB alters the way in which newborn neurons integrate into hippocampal circuitry and increases anxiety-like behaviors in mice. Serotonin receptors, which are distributed widely throughout the brain, are well known to be involved in mood, and compounds that activate the 5HT1A subtype also produce anxiety-like behaviors.

The finding that the NR2B subunit of the NMDA receptor down-regulated in the amygdala is particularly interesting. NMDA receptors are composed of multiple subunits, but those made up of only NR2B subunits are known to be critical for the development and function of the amygdala, which has a well established role in fear and other emotions, and in learning and memory. Drugs that block these receptors have been shown to block the formation of fearful memories and to reduce the anxiety associated with alcohol withdrawal in rodents.”

for the rest of the article, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/05/microbes-manipulate-your-mind.aspx?e_cid=20120905_DNL_artNew_1

Biological Dentistry

Posted on by

How to Find a Biological Dentist that Can Treat You Holistically

August 25 2012

Story at-a-glance

  • About 50 percent of dentists in the US are mercury-free. However, only an estimated 10 percent of those fully understand the health risks associated with dental amalgam. It’s crucial to understand these risks when removing amalgams, or you could risk acute toxicity from the mercury released during the removal process
  • Biological dentists, also known as holistic, or environmental dentists, operate according to the belief system that your teeth are an integral part of your body and hence your overall health, and recognize that your oral and dental health can have a major influence on other disease processes in your body
  • Amalgam is a major source of environmental mercury pollution. Dental offices must be equipped with mercury separators to elimninate further mercury contamination of our environment
  • Resources for finding a qualified biological dentist are included. You’re encouraged to ask questions of your dentist prior to enlisting his services, to make sure the office is truly adhering to holistic dental practices. A dozen questions are offered as a starting point

 

By Dr Mercola

About 50 percent of dentists in the U.S are mercury-free However, only an estimated 10 percent of those fully understand the health risks associated with dental amalgam—half of which is toxic mercury, despite what the misleading term “silver filling” might lead you to believe

It’s crucial to understand these risks when removing and replacing amalgam “silver” fillings, or you could risk acute toxicity from the mercury released during the removal process I can testify to these risks first-hand, as I suffered kidney damage as a result of improper amalgam removal in the mid-90’s by an otherwise qualified and competent dentist Still today, two decades later, I struggle with some kidney challenges

So please, do take this advice seriously

Dr Bill Glaros is a practicing biological dentist based in Houston, Texas He’s a former president of the International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine (IABDM), and he’s also an accredited member of the American Naturopathic Medical Association

He has testified before the FDA about the health risks of dental amalgam, and in this interview, he offers helpful advice on how to find a qualified biological dentist who can safely remove amalgam fillings

What is Biological Dentistry?

Biological dentists, also known as holistic, or environmental dentists, operate according to the belief system that your teeth are an integral part of your body and hence your overall health, and recognize that your oral and dental health can have a major influence on other disease processes in your body Any medical treatment performed takes this fact into account The primary aim of holistic dentistry is to resolve your dental problems while working in harmony with the rest of your body

I recommend using a biological dentist for all your dental needs, but if you’re considering removing dental amalgams, it’s an absolute necessity Most conventional dentists simply do not have the know-how to do it without putting your health at risk in the process For example, some things that need to be done to keep you safe during amalgam removal include:

  • Providing you with an alternative air source and instructing you not to breathe through your mouth
  • Using a cold-water spray to minimize mercury vapors
  • Putting a dental dam in your mouth so you don’t swallow or inhale any toxins
  • Using a high-volume evacuator near the tooth at all times to evacuate the mercury vapor
  • Washing your mouth out immediately after the fillings have been removed (the dentist should also change gloves after the removal)
  • Immediately cleaning your protective wear and face once the fillings are removed
  • Using room air purifiers

Additional or alternative precautions may also be used For example, Dr Glaros uses a saliva ejector beneath the dam along with a mercury vapor sniffer in his practice, as he’s found that the mercury vapors have a tendency to migrate underneath the dam He also stresses the importance of making sure your bladder and bowels are healthy prior to getting the work done

“There are some other issues that can happen before you start the dental part, and that would be nutritional support and making sure that people’s exit routes are open – their bladder and bowels are functioning –because it’s easier to get it out of the mouth than it is to get out of the body Getting it out of the body is the main goal It doesn’t do it by itself easily for some people,” he explains

Interestingly, certain bacteria in your gut, such as Candida, actually tries to demethylate the mercury it comes across Methyl mercury is the more hazardous type of mercury, in terms of toxicity According to Dr Glaros, some people who struggle with Candida may actually owe the troublesome bacteria a debt of gratitude, because the reason they can’t get rid of it is because your body is using it to demethylate the mercury, which decreases or limits the toxicity they’d otherwise be experiencing

Checking Compatibility of Dental Materials—An Important Step in Biological Dentistry

“One of the things that we believe in biological dentistry is it’s important to check for the compatibility of dental materials,” Dr Glaros says “There are different ways to do that I don’t care which way it’s done; I just like that it’s paid attention to That is the way to honor a patient We all have patients that can take anything Then we all have patients for whom everything becomes an issue So testing for compatibility of materials is crucial

[W]e also want to protect the environment Having mercury separators in dental offices is a unique thing, unfortunately But dentists don’t see that as an issue It’s not particularly expensive, you know, 500 bucks maybe to put a separator in your office, so that the mercury fillings you’re grinding out and cleaning out don’t end up in our water supply ”

According to Dr Glaros, an estimated 30 tons of mercury are placed in people’s mouths each year in the US That’s A LOT of mercury! And a lot of it ends up as environmental pollution as a result of dentists who fail to give this issue the attention it deserves

“San Francisco Bay had a big problem with mercury in it They tried to get the dentists to volunteer to put the separators on They didn’t do it, so they mandated it Within four or five years, the problem has cleared up in San Francisco Bay,” Dr Glaros says

Beware of Root Canals

Root canals are particularly troublesome, and a number of diseases can be traced back to individual root canaled teeth Sadly, the vast majority of dentists are oblivious to the serious potential health risks they are exposing their patients to, risks that persist for the rest of their patients’ lives The American Dental Association

for more info and video links, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/25/biological-dentistry.aspx?e_cid=20120825_DNL_artNew_1

More on the Risks of Soy, Especially for Babies

Posted on by

The Potential Effects of Soy, and How it Might Decimate the Health of Your Unborn Baby and the Fertility of Future Generations

July 29 2012

By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Plant estrogens, such as that found in soy, can have profound detrimental effects on a developing fetus. Exposure to estrogenic chemicals in the womb or during childhood has the potential to negatively affect a woman’s fertility as an adult, and has previously been linked to an increased chance of breast cancer.
  • Earlier research has found that the soy compound genistein impairs sperm motility. Even tiny doses of the compound in the female tract could destroy sperm and impair your ability to conceive
  • Avoid feeding your baby soy infant formula as it can equate to giving her an estimated four to five birth control pills’ worth of estrogen every day
  • Soy infant formula can contain potentially dangerous levels of aluminum and manganese—both of which are linked to reduced IQ

 

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

to read more, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/29/soy-effects-on-women.aspx?e_cid=20120729_SNL_Art_1

(Note:    I sometimes feel that Dr. Mercola can be a bit of an alarmist.  I have read much about potential dangers linked to unfermented soy consumption.  DO your homework.)

Let’s Keep GMO Soy out of the Oceans

Posted on by

As if the Oceans have not been tortured enough…

Factory Fed Fish: Monsanto’s and Cargill’s Plans for the Ocean

July 17 2012

by Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • The soy industry, Monsanto, Cargill and other agribusiness giants are trying to position GM soy as a “sustainable” choice for aquaculture (farmed fish) feed
  • As soy is not a natural food found in the oceans, it poses serious risks of pollution, lack of nutrient content in seafood, and contamination of the oceans with herbicide-saturated GM soy
  • There is also concern about adding GM soy to yet another area of the food supply; it’s already ubiquitous in processed food and factory-farmed meat
  • By boycotting not only farmed fish but also GM soy, you’re taking a stand in support of natural, organic and independent community farms both on land and at sea

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

to read more and access the video, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/17/genetically-modified-soy-for-farmed-fish.aspx?e_cid=20120717_DNL_artNew_2

Thinking About Celebrex? Check this out.

Posted on by

(Comment:    How about Zyflamend instead)

Pfizer ‘Cherry-Picked’ Celebrex Data, Memos Say

July 09 2012
  • New evidence in a lawsuit against Pfizer alleges that the drug company cherry-picked data on its drug Celebrex in a scheme to make the drug appear safer and more effective than it really is
  • Pfizer withheld critical data needed to assess the drug’s effectiveness, and newly unsealed documents showed this was all what appeared to be part of a carefully calculated plan by Pfizer execs
  • On a regular basis new studies appear that show the real risks of many medications, including popular varieties that are used by millions of people
  • The number of lawsuits that Big Pharma is settling―many of them out of court without going to trial―are rising, with settlement amounts in the billions
  • If you are still under the impression that drugs are the “answer” to your health complaints, you are likely being misled … and may be worsening your health by the day

By Dr. Mercola

Celebrex is a type of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) known as a COX-2 inhibitor.

Basically, it works by blocking COX-2 enzymes, which become overly active in your body when it becomes inflamed, and is widely used as a form of pain relief; in 2011, 2.4 million Americans received prescriptions for this drug.i

They may have thought twice, however, if they knew the truth behind how this drug came to be … a story that involves cherry-picking of data in attempts to make the drug seem superior to others on the market, when in fact it was not.

Also concerning: Celebrex is the only selective COX-2 inhibitor left on the market, as its close “cousins” were all pulled due to either their killing tens of thousands of people or to their unacceptably high heart risks …

Internal Memos Reveal Deception Surrounding Celebrex Data

New evidence in a lawsuit against Pfizer alleges that the drug company cherry-picked data on its drug Celebrex. Its claim to fame when it came on the market in 1998 was that it relieved pain without causing the gastrointestinal side effects common to other pain-relief drugs like ibuprofen.

Studies showed it didn’t necessarily relieve pain any better than the other drugs on the market, so Pfizer was counting on the gastrointestinal “ticket” to propel the drug into blockbuster status, and, in fact, used its easiness on your stomach as its primary selling point.

The problem was, Celebrex only appeared to be easier on the stomach because Pfizer, and its partner Pharmacia, only released the first six months of data from a year-long study. When the entire data set was looked at, the stomach “benefit” disappeared.

Folks this is what is called a blatant lie of omission and these companies do it on a regular basis. The system even encourages it. Contrary to what many people believe the FDA does no testing of drugs that are to be approved. Nor is there an objective third party that does tests. Rather the system the FDA employs has the drug company pay for and do the studies, and they only submit the studies that support the release of their drug. They are not required to submit failed ones.

That Pfizer withheld the critical data has been known for years, but newly unsealed documents showed this was all part of a carefully calculated plan by Pfizer and Pharmacia execs. While medical directors and scientists at the company expressed feeling uncomfortable with the “data massaging” and “cherry picking” of data, the powers that be moved full steam ahead with their deceptive marketing blitz.

Another reason that you might not be surprised about this report is that Pfizer purchased Monsanto and spun it off as subsidiary called Pharmacia in 1997.ii Most readers of this newsletter will instantly recognize that the bastion of evil, Monsanto, would not be out of place with this type of behavior.

The New York Times reported:iii

“The documents suggest that officials made a strategic decision during the early trial to be less than forthcoming about the drug’s safety. They show that executives considered attacking the trial’s design before they even knew the results and disregarded the advice of an employee and an outside consultant who had argued the companies should disclose the fact that they were using incomplete data.

… The documents show that in February 2000, Pharmacia employees came up with a game plan on how they might present the findings once they were available … Another document, a slide, proposed explaining poor results through “statistical glitches.””

Do You Still Trust Celebrex?

Celebrex is still being widely used, often by arthritis patients who are desperate for pain relief. But even if you overlook the fact that it’s made by a company that clearly puts profits ahead of patients, it’s much harder to shrug off the very real risks it poses to your heart.

Remember, Celebrex is in the same class of drugs as Vioxx and Bextra, both of which were pulled from the market because of serious heart risks or killing tens of thousands of people. Celebrex may still be on the market, but it is not immune to these risks!

In 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine released a study that discussed “a significant increase in adjudicated serious cardiovascular events with the use of celecoxib [Celebrex] … an increase in risk by a factor of two or three for … myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, or cardiovascular-related death.” The risk was so severe that it “prompted suspension of the administration of celecoxib …”iv

Pfizer actually has a trial that’s ongoing right now that’s supposed to compare the heart risks of Celebrex to those of ibuprofen (Advil/Motrin) and naproxen (Aleve). But though it was started in 2005, it’s not slated to be completed until 2014 … the same year the Celebrex patent expires (at which point the company’s profits for the drug will dwindle … making negative study results far less impacting).

It’s widely known, however, that this painkiller has been linked to increased risks of stomach bleeding, kidney trouble, and liver damage – along with other adverse reactions that can range from mild to deadly. And it’s not at all unusual for a drug company to play up the “fabulous benefits” of their products while conveniently glossing over the fatalities they’ve caused … what would be unusual is if they didn’t.

Common Diabetes Drugs Associated with Increased Risk of Death

New studies regularly reveal the true risks of many medications, including popular varieties that are used by millions of people. For example, an analysis of nearly 24,000 patients with type 2 diabetes found that three diabetes drugs — glipizide, glyburide, and glimepiride – caused a more than 50 percent greater risk of death compared to another diabetes drug, Metformin.v The three drugs are known as sulfonylureas, which work by spurring your body to produce more insulin.

The drugs not only increased the risk of death among all patients, but among those with heart disease (which is common among those with diabetes), glipizide increased the risk of death by 41 percent, and glyburide by 38 percent compared to Metformin.

But simply switching to metformin, a drug that makes your body’s tissues more sensitive to insulin, is not the answer here, as type 2 diabetes can be effectively treated without medications in the vast majority of cases. In fact, drugs can’t cure diabetes, as they do nothing to address the underlying cause. To learn about the drug-free methods that can prevent, and reverse, diabetes, we published a report on this last month.

to read more, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/09/lawsuit-against-pfizer-celebrex.aspx?e_cid=20120709_DNL_artNew_2

Dr. Mercola on Cancer Causing Foods

Posted on by

New Evidence Against These Cancer-Causing Foods – And the Massive Cover-Up Effort

June 09 2012

Story at-a-glance

  • The World According to Monsanto explains how the biotech giant threatens to destroy the agricultural biodiversity that has served mankind for thousands of years
  • Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, has been deemed a major health hazard to the environment, and to animal- and human health. A French research team that has studied Roundup extensively has concluded it is toxic to human cells, and likely carcinogenic to humans
  • A recent safety review, which determined that “the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects,” was in fact funded by Monsanto itself
Here is the link for the video:  “The World According to Monsanto”:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rml_k005tsU

By Dr. Mercola

The World According to Monsanto is an absolutely brilliant documentary  that should be on the required viewing list of virtually everyone on the planet.  While it’s already a few years old, the information it contains will remain current until we stop allowing genetically engineered crops to be planted altogether.

The film explains how the biotech giant Monsanto threatens to destroy the agricultural biodiversity that has served mankind for thousands of years.  I must warn you though; it may bring tears to your eyes as you learn how they have decimated so many lives and part of the environment through their morally bankrupt behavior.

A Hostile Takeover of Our Food Supply

For millennia, farmers have saved seeds from season to season. Genetically engineered seeds have completely altered the agricultural landscape, as these seeds are patented, which means farmers must purchase new seed for each planting season and are not allowed to share or save any of the seed.

Doing so equates to patent infringement, and Monsanto has become notorious for tracking down and prosecuting farmers who end up with patented crops in their fields without having paid the prerequisite fees—even when their conventional or organic crops are contaminated by unwanted genetically engineered (GE) seed spread by wind or pollinating insects from neighboring farms that grow GE crops.

To do this, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents who secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops. They infiltrate community meetings, and gather information from informants about farming activities. Some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented.

But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for seed patents in a five-to-four decision, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic engineering and modification of seeds; many, if not most of which are “Roundup Ready,” meaning they can withstand otherwise lethal doses of the herbicide Roundup, also created and sold by Monsanto.

Most Commonly Used Herbicide Found to be Carcinogenic

As if the health hazards of genetically altered food crops weren’t bad enough, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has also been deemed a major health hazard both to the environment, and to animal- and human health. It is toxic to human cells, and according to a French research team, it is also carcinogenic. The team has studied the herbicide extensively, and published at least five articles on glysphosate’s potential for wide-ranging environmental and human harmi. Their research shows that glyphosate:

  • Causes cell cycle dysregulation, which is a hallmark of tumor cells and human cancers
  • Inhibits DNA synthesis in certain parts of the cell cycle—the process by which cells reproduce that underlies the growth and development of all living organisms
  • Impedes the hatchings of sea urchins. (Sea urchins were used because they constitute an appropriate model for the identification of undesirable cellular and molecular targets of pollutants.) The delay was found to be dose dependent on the concentration of Roundup. The surfactant polyoxyethylene amine (POEA), another major component of Roundup, was also found to be highly toxic to the embryos when tested alone, and could therefore be a contributing factor

Monsanto-Funded Research Finds “No Evidence” of Harm from Roundup

It doesn’t matter that the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health recently published “research” to the contraryii, the French team says―the world needs to know the truth about who did that “safety-finding” research.  It was funded by none other than Monsanto itself! Is it any wonder they came to the conclusion that:

“[T]he available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.” 

The new Monsanto-funded safety research actually used the French team’s original research to debunk the evidence that Roundup could have human or environmental safety issues. And that didn’t sit well with the French team, which was so angered they wrote a detailed response to Monsanto’s article, accusing the researchers of minimalizing the French group’s work and publishing misleading information.

One of the Monsanto-backed team’s major flaws was their total disregard for the scientific context within which their glysphosate research was performed―namely, the DNA-damaging and carcinogenic potential of the chemical.

Furthermore:

“The second flaw was the claim that their results were “not environmentally relevant” (repeated 5 times in the article), despite the fact that the French researchers were able to demonstrate toxicity in 100% of the individual cells at short exposure time below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide in present agricultural applications. They elaborated on this point further:

“Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate-based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects.

Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored,” GreenMedInfo.com reportsiii:

Monsanto Guilty of Falsely Advertising Roundup as Safe

 for more, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/09/monsanto-roundup-found-to-be-carcinogenic.aspx?e_cid=20120609_DNL_art_1

Vaccines Contribute to Disease

Posted on by

Pneumonia Vaccine Shown to Actually Increase Bacterial Infections It Is Supposed to Prevent

By Dr. Mercola

It’s estimated that nearly one in 7 U.S. adults have been diagnosed with sinusitis in the past 12 months, which occurs when the mucous membranes in your nose and sinuses become irritated.i In most of these cases (90-98%) a virus is the cause, whereas in 2-10% of cases, a bacterial infection is also present.

These bacterial infections are becoming increasingly drug-resistant and therefore harder and harder to treat, which is why the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recently issued new treatment guidelines for sinusitis.

Alarmingly, however, buried on page 16 of their report is the acknowledgement that certain hard-to-treat bacterial infections in children are on the rise because of the widespread use of the conjugated pneumococcal vaccines!

Story at-a-glance

  • Certain hard-to-treat bacterial infections in children are on the rise because of the widespread use of antibiotics and the conjugated pneumococcal vaccines, including Prevnar
  • A report by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) revealed that the presence of certain types of bacteria in cases of upper respiratory tract infections has “markedly increased” since the widespread use of pneumonia vaccines
  • Pneumonia bacterial strains may change one DNA letter about every 15 weeks, a rate of mutation similar to that of the common antibiotic-resistant superbug MRSA
  • The overuse of antibiotics for ear and sinus infections has also caused these pneumonia bacteria serotypes to become resistant to antibiotics
  • Overall, your best defense against any disease is having a robust healthy immune system

to read more, go to:

By Dr. Mercola

It’s estimated that nearly one in 7 U.S. adults have been diagnosed with sinusitis in the past 12 months, which occurs when the mucous membranes in your nose and sinuses become irritated.i In most of these cases (90-98%) a virus is the cause, whereas in 2-10% of cases, a bacterial infection is also present.

These bacterial infections are becoming increasingly drug-resistant and therefore harder and harder to treat, which is why the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recently issued new treatment guidelines for sinusitis.

Alarmingly, however, buried on page 16 of their report is the acknowledgement that certain hard-to-treat bacterial infections in children are on the rise because of the widespread use of the conjugated pneumococcal vaccines!

Amazing Array of Edible Flowers

Posted on by

42 Flowers You Can Eat

By Dr. Mercola

Edible flowers are ordinarily associated with haute cuisine and wedding cakes, but you may have several tasty varieties right in your own backyard.

Adding flowers to your meals will not only make an ordinary dish look gourmet, they can be quite flavorful and nutritious.

Historically speaking, many different cultures valued fresh flowers in their culinary endeavors; rose petals were popular among Asian Indians, daylily buds often appear in oriental dishes, Romans used violets, and stuffed squash blossoms were popular in Italian and Hispanic cultures.i

If you’re used to adding fresh herbs to your food, adding in a sprinkling of fresh flowers is not much different, but there are some unique guidelines to be aware of.

Not Every Flower is Edible

Before eating any flower, you need to make sure it is edible. As a general rule, assume any flower from a florist, nursery or garden center is not edible, as these are nearly always heavily treated with pesticides. The same goes for flowers you find near a roadside or in any garden that has been treated with chemicals. Stick to organically grown flowers, or those you grow yourself (without pesticides/herbicides).

Some flowers, however, even organic ones, can make you very sick if eaten. Daphne, foxglove, daffodils, and hyacinths are just a few examples of poisonous flowers that should not be used for food purposes. The slideshow above contains 42 examples of flowers thatare safe to eat, but there are many others. Consult a reference book on edible flowers, or ask an expert in this area, before branching out further, and if you’re not sure, don’t eat it.

Flower Power: Are Flowers Good for You?

Flowers are natural plant foods, and like many plant foods in nature often contain valuable nutrients for your health. For instance, dandelions contain numerous antioxidant properties and flavonoids, including FOUR times the beta carotene of broccoli, as well as lutein, cryptoxanthin and zeaxanthin. They’re also a rich source of vitamins, including folic acid, riboflavin, pyroxidine, niacin, and vitamins E and C. Other examples include:

  • Violets contain rutin, a phytochemical with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that ay help strengthen capillary walls
  • Rose petals contain bioflavonoids and antioxidants, as well as vitamins A, B3, C and E
  • Nasturtiums contain cancer-fighting lycopene and lutein, a carotenoid found in vegetables and fruits that is important for vision health
  • Lavender contains vitamin A, calcium and iron, and is said to benefit your central nervous system
  • Chive blossoms (the purple flower of the chive herb) contain vitamin C, iron and sulfur, and have traditionally been used to help support healthy blood pressure levels

Flowers are Fragile, Handle with Care

Flowers are extremely perishable and do not do well when stored in the refrigerator. Ideally, pick them fresh and serve them as soon as possible (store them upright in a glass of water while preparing). If you must store them, place them carefully between two moist paper towels, wrap in plastic or place in an airtight container, and put them in the fridge. When ready to use, rinse each flower gently with water, and blot it carefully dry. You can use a knife or tweezers to remove the stem, leaves and pistil, then separate the petals (generally only the petals are eaten).

Flowers can be eaten raw in salads (nasturtiums, dandelion and primrose are popular for this purpose), added to appetizers or infused into sauces and other dishes. Every flower has a unique taste, so you will find the ones that appeal to you most just like any other herb or spice. For instance, bee balm tastes similar to oregano, carnations have a clove-like flavor, and marigolds are sometimes called “poor man’s saffron” because of their peppery, saffron-like flavor.

If they’re not available for free in your own backyard, you can find edible flowers at gourmet food shops, farmers’ markets and other specialty food shops.

Start Slowly When Eating Flowers

Flowers are tiny but they can pack a powerful punch, especially if they’re new to your diet. Introduce them sparingly at first to avoid any potential digestive upset or allergic reactions. This is especially important if you have allergies to pollen, as eating flowers may exacerbate your symptoms. Even high-quality, nutritious edible flowers can cause an unexpected reaction in some people. Try them one at a time and in SMALL amounts to see how your body is going to react.

Check out the link below for the full list of Edible Flowers:

from:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/18/42-edible-flowers.aspx?e_cid=20120418_DNL_art_2


Bill Gates Do-Goodnik or Just Another Agenda?

Posted on by

Bill Gates: One of the World’s Most Destructive Do-Gooders?

Posted By Dr. Mercola | March 04 2012 | 92,532 views

Story at-a-glance

  • Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, aims to end world hunger by growing more genetically engineered food crops—a philanthropic plan that may be gullible at best, and destructive at worst, both to the environment and humanity
  • Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa
  • Gates supports the use of Golden Rice, which has been genetically modified to produce beta-carotene that your body can convert to vitamin A. It’s promoted as a way to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries. However, beta carotene is fat soluble, and many third-world inhabitants eat a very low-fat diet, which would seriously impede or block the conversion.
  • According to one study, a woman would have to consume 16 pounds of Golden Rice per day to get the recommended amount of vitamin A; a child would have to eat 12 pounds, raising serious doubts about the usefulness of this invention

 

By Dr. Mercola

Above, ABC’s “Nightline,” Bill Weir talks with Microsoft founder Bill Gates about his charitable endeavors.

Gates’ latest plan is to try to end world hunger by growing more genetically modified (GM) crops.

He’s already invested $27 million into Monsanto Company—leading some countries to reject his charity due to the high risks, such as:

  • New disease vectors
  • Mutated pesticide-resistant insects
  • Resistant “superweeds”
  • Contamination of surrounding non-GM crops

We already know how deeply entrenched the U.S. government has become with Monsanto.

For a visual illustration of their ‘revolving-door-relationship’ with the governmental regulatory agencies, see the graph toward the bottom of this article.

It is this type of government infiltration that allowed genetically engineered alfalfa to be approvedwithout any restrictions at all, despite the protests of the organic community and public comments from a quarter of a million concerned citizens.

In Bill Gates, Monsanto also has one of the wealthiest and most influential “philanthropists” supporting their agenda and spreading misleading propaganda about their products.

In recent years, it has become disappointingly clear that Gates may be leading the pack as one of the most destructive “do-gooders” on the planet… His views on what is required to make a difference in poverty- and disease-stricken third world nations are short-sighted and misinformed at best. A recent article in the Seattle Times1 joins me in arguing that Bill Gates’ support of genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution for world hunger is based on unsound science. A team of 900 scientists funded by the World Bank and United Nations, investigated the matter over the course of three years, and determined that the use of GM crops is simply NOT a meaningful solution to the complex situation of world hunger.

Instead, the scientists suggested that “agro-ecological” methods would provide the most viable means to ensure global food security, including the use of traditional seed varieties and local farming practices already adapted to the local ecology.

“Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice”

In a recent article with the same headline, “Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice”, Robert Newman criticizes2 the choice of Bill Gates as the designated “voice” of the world’s poor at the World Economic Forum, held in January.

“Am I saying that philanthropy has never done good? No, it has achieved many wonderful things… But beware the havoc that power without oversight and democratic control can wreak,” Newman writes.

“The biotech agriculture that Lord Sainsbury was unable to push through democratically he can now implement unilaterally, through his Gatsby Foundation. We are told that Gatsby’s biotech project aims to provide food security for the global south. But if you listen to southern groups such as the Karnataka State Farmers of India, food security is precisely the reason they campaign against GM, because biotech crops are monocrops which are more vulnerable to disease and so need lashings of petrochemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides – none of them cheap – and whose ruinous costs will rise with the price of oil, bankrupting small family farms first. Crop diseases mutate, meanwhile, and all the chemical inputs in the world can’t stop disease wiping out whole harvests of genetically engineered single strands.

Both the Gatsby and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations are keen to get deeper into agriculture, especially in Africa. But top-down nostrums for the rural poor don’t end well.”

I agree. Donating patented seeds, which takes away the farmers’ sovereignty, is not the way to save the third-world poor. As reported by Netline last year3, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years. In a nutshell, the project may be sold under the banner of altruism and ‘sustainability’, but in reality it’s anything but. It’s just a multi-billion dollar enterprise to transform Africa into a GM-crop-friendly continent.

Conflicts of Interest Abound

Gates’ philanthropic methods came under scrutiny back in August 2010, when it was discovered that The Gates Foundation had purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock; dramatically increasing its previous holdings—and hence its financial conflicts of interest—in the biotech firm. AGRA-Watch commented on the ties stating4:

“The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering.

“First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.”

It would be naive to think that all these philanthropic collaborations are designed to solve any problem besides how to help Monsanto monopolize the world’s food supply with expensive patented GM seeds, and the herbicides to go with them.

to read more and find out more, go to:   http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/04/clueless-fabrication-on-gmo.aspx?e_cid=20120304_SNL_Art_1