Flu Vaccination Rates and Deaths from Flu: Both Increasing

Let me introduce my source before I get to the main point. Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH is director of HomeFirst, a healthcare clinic near Chicago. Eisenstein became widely known in 2005 when insurance companies noticed his clinic, which cares for more than 30,000 children, did not have any patients with autism. Zero patients with autism is an anomaly for pediatric clinics since the overall rate of autism for U.S. children who were eight in 2004 is now pegged at 1 in 100. Statistically, there should have been 300 kids with autism at HomeFirst. Turns out, the patients had not gone elsewhere after diagnosis. There just weren't any autism diagnoses. The main difference in his care of patients? Eisenstein does not recommend vaccines.

Since Eisenstein knows a thing or two about vaccine side effects, it might be worthwhile to hear what he has to say about flu vaccines...

In the video below, Eisenstein draws on his Master of Public Health skills to create a chart showing the rate of flu vaccination and rate of deaths from the flu are both up. Puzzling, or not?

(Email subscribers, click here to see the 1 min, 22 sec video.)


Med Nauseam Editor's Note: Autism is known to occur among unvaccinated children at lower rates than the fully vaccinated, so vaccines do not explain the entire lack of autism at HomeFirst. He does treat patients holistically.

The Path to the Pharmacy is Paved with....Candy!

Sugar

• Causes diabetes
• Causes most pancreatic cancer
  
• Is fermented by cancer cells to make energy
• Causes inflammation, which leads to heart disease
• Lowers immunity to infections
• Feeds yeast
  

Wouldn't you rather pay the grocer than the doctor?

Merry Christmas, everyone! On this special day, I didn't want you to forget what a wet blanket my blog can be.

Med Nauseam Places #1 in General Medicine Blogs and #13 Overall!

Alix #1 in General Medicine

Dear Readers,

Thank you for voting Med Nauseam the #1 blog in WellSphere's General Medicine Community! Med Nauseam placed #13 overall in the competition, behind a lot of fantastic diet and healthy eating blogs.

Even more than winning this competition, I was completely uplifted, flattered, and humbled by the comments you left. It's not always popular to explore what I consider to be our collective blind spots in health and medicine.

After thousands of hours of research, the scientist in me understands that natural medicine should always be our first line of defense in preventing and treating acquired illness. I've also come to believe that we have a cult-like bias in favor of pharmaceuticals, even when the evidence is not there.

I pull at threads that can unravel supposedly immutable medical truths - from decades-old health assumptions to cutting-edge medical ideas - that may be in direct contradiction to what our doctors are telling us. It is not without trepidation that I write about the uncomfortable, impolitic, unconventional, or inconvenient health ideas, but I always back them up with research hoping that I will get you to consider an issue from a new angle, even if you don't end up agreeing with my conclusions. (And that's fine, just keep it civil and don't flag my blog!)

That said, I had no idea this is what you all thought of my blog! I'm having a hard time editing the comments down, so indulge me if you'd like. Here are some of my favorites:

"Alix puts in so much time and effort into her research and shares critical health-related information with her readers. It's simply good stuff!" - Scott Forsgren, The Better Health Guy

"Alix always has the most researched articles on important health topics you won't find in the mainstream media." Kim of SpiroChicks and Gratitude365

"Because Alix is great! The information on her blog is important, everyone should know about these issues." - Ashley of Lymenaide

"The MedNauseum blog is smart and informative.  If you love the EWG then you will love MedNauseum for its tireless committment to spreading knowlege on all things toxic in our products. Alix called the BPA liners in the Sigg bottles first!" - Jetsettica

"Alix is a forerunner, extremely intelligent, open minded and has great insight. She brings a lot of different backgrounds of knowledge to her blogs. Even with her history chronic illness, she has had enough success beating it to be able to be energetic and helpful to others going through the mysteries of illness. Alix has always done full proof research on the latest issues in illness and disease." - Maureen Block of the Ryder Foundation

"I think Alix not only posesses a talent for writing, making the reader want to return post after post - but she examines issues from the perspective of someone not afraid to ruffle feathers." - D.J.

"Alix is one of the most cutting-edge, information forward blogger I have ever read. Her information is well written, has a wit and is on a mission to really help us all." - M.D.

"Alix M. is one of the most educated bloggers out there. We are lucky to be the beneficiaries of all her research, knowledge, and education - passed on for free, with a sense of humor. She is brilliant, cutting edge and hilarious." - Eva

"Not only well written and concise but despite being passionate about her position she makes great effort to be as unbiased as humanly possible." - D.S.

"Alix is an amazing talent and person.  She has overcome huge obstacles in her own health crises and you could might as well call her doctor from all the research she has done. She has made very smart choices and huge sacrifices in order to unravel the complexities of her own illness odyssey.  I whole-heartedly endorse her as favorite health blogger as she has offered expert advice with incredible warmth and sincerity to those who have sought her counsel." - K.S.

"This is one of the most informative, well written and organized blogs I have ever come across!! The topics are addressed intelligently, well-researched and summarized and analyzed  so that the information is easily accessible.  It is also kept current and covers the hot topics.  Bravo to this Blogger-- she sets the bar high for others-- where it needs to be since there is so much misinformation out there!!" - F.K.

"Trust me. Alix knows her stuff. Not only because she speaks from experience but healthcare and nutrition is clearly her passion. She is never biased or negative. Always honest, positive and reassuring." - S.J.

"Always on the cutting edge of issues and would appear 99.9% of the time to see the wood from the trees! Her analysis and commentary is excellent." - JediRuss

"She is a phenomenal researcher... when she posts something she has really learned about her topic, sought out reputable and credible sources for her information, shares personal thoughts and experiences to provide context for readers." - NW

"Documented information to help decipher the mainstream health recommendations. We all know the standard advice -- here is information counter-balancing it." - PTA Lady

"She was one of the first people who wrote about my health concern and what she was doing about it.  It was a real person sharing her knowledge gleaned through exhaustive research.  She keeps her information current and fresh." - Lovely Leo

Thanks for indulging me by reading these comments! You've more than refreshed my enthusiasm to keep writing up my research for you!

 

Tamiflu Exposed: No Better Than Placebo According to Roche's Studies

The dog ate Roche's Tamiflu homework...

Tamiflu, developed to combat influenza, is derived from star anise, a weak natural anti-viral. Roche chemicalized it so it could be patented, and performed trials that didn't go as Roche would have hoped. Tamiflu did not show efficacy. What to do? In an ethical lapse, Roche did not consult their WWJD bracelets.

Roche fudged the data to claim that Tamiflu reduced hospitalizations, deaths, and serious complications from influenza. I even heard some friends claim that Tamiflu stopped their flu-like illness - they heard they'd have one less day of fever - and they believed it. I was highly skeptical, and I was right. They were experiencing a placebo effect.

What kills me is that doctors prescribed a drug to my friends that is not benign. In a Japanese study and in another conducted among children in Britain, half the subjects reported side effects ranging from the severe gastrointestinal to the psychological, such as delerium, and even suicide. Tamiflu has also been found to increase likelihood of secondary bacterial infections, one of the main causes of death in influenza.

After an independent researcher found discrepancies in the Roche data he'd used to draw favorable conclusions in Cochrane Collaboration meta-analyses, he pushed Roche to release raw data from their trials - something they had not had access to in their initial reviews. Roche, ahem, had "lost" the original data. In an Atlantic Monthy Tamiflu expose, the author wrote: "the Cochrane team eventually concluded that the evidence that Tamiflu reduces complications, hospitalizations, or deaths is weak at best, and if the drug does offer any benefit, it is slight indeed."

British Medical Journal investigation concludes:

Neuraminidase inhibitors [Tamiflu] have modest effectiveness against the symptoms of influenza in otherwise healthy adults. The drugs are effective postexposure against laboratory confirmed influenza, but this is a small component of influenza-like illness, so for this outcome neuraminidase inhibitors are not effective. Neuraminidase inhibitors might be regarded as optional for reducing the symptoms of seasonal influenza. Paucity of good data has undermined previous findings for oseltamivir’s prevention of complications from influenza. Independent randomised trials to resolve these uncertainties are needed.

Aren't you glad $1.5 Billion of your tax dollars funded the government stockpiling of Tamiflu? [Note heavy sarcasm.]

Remember there are many great natural antivirals that do work and that are safe. If you have yet to build your blood level of Vitamin D to optimal levels and happen to get a virus, Umcka is a great herbal anti-viral for both kids and adults. There is a plethora of other natural anti-virals, including: elderberry, garlic, echinacea, olive leaf extract, and monolaurin.

About the photo in this post: A couple years ago, I sat in a conference room talking to some Roche clinical trial researchers who looked and acted like Peter Seller's character, Dr. Strangelove (minus the wheelchair and random Nazi salutes.) I told myself, don't judge a book by its cover. I should listen to my gut better, shouldn't I?

Preventing Flus and Colds with Vitamin D

You might have to read the next sentence twice. Natural health practitioners are aligning around a radical-sounding concept that colds and flus are nothing more than a symptom of Vitamin D deficiency.

Yes, it may be true that you don't have to be sick again, at least not flat on your back with a fever and puking your brains out. You can likely prevent this suffering by normalizing the level of Vitamin D in your blood.

Conservatively, half the population is deficient in Vitamin D and by some reports as many as 87% of us are deficient, so if you are not going in the sun, or if you are using sunblock, or not supplementing with D3, you are likely in this group! Since our skin makes D only in the summer months, we are lowest in winter months, making us more susceptible to flus and colds. This is why experts are saying "Seasonal" Flu might be a misnomer. Since viruses circulate throughout the entire year, the seasonality is likely only due to our D status.

Many studies support D's role in preventing influenza. The largest and most recent - the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey - found that among 19,000 subjects, the higher the level of D, the less illness (upper respiratory infection, URI):

Interestingly, the analysis stops at 30ng/ml and above, which includes those in the lower limit of deficiency. The study did not report on a group with optimal Vitamin D levels of 50 - 80ng/ml. At those levels, the rate of viral illness is thought to plummet even further, even approaching zero. Anecdotally, among doctors who have begun to treat their patients with Vitamin D, they have seen dramatically fewer cases of influenza-like illness in their practices.

Vitamin D also protects us from the two main ways influenza can kill us - cytokine storms and secondary bacterial infections.

1. Cytokine Storm: "Vitamin D also suppresses inflammatory cytokines. Cytokines are partly responsible for the pain, fever, and congestion that comes with influenza infection; full-blown cytokine storms are to blame in some fatal cases of influenza," according to this must-read flu article in Life Extension magazine.
2. Secondary Bacterial Infections: D is protective against bacterial illness, including one of the nastiest bacterial lung infections - tuberculosis: "Increased production of [D3] results in synthesis of cathelicidin, a peptide capable of destroying M. tuberculosis as well as other infectious agents," wrote Dr. Holick in his Vitamin D Deficiency review article in The New England Journal of Medicine. Other articles also support the bacterial-protective effects of D.
   

If you do come down with a flu, you can work with your doctor to treat with high-dose Vitamin D, to help prevent the awful fevers, nausea, headaches and other symptoms that typically accompany the infection. Here is what Dr. John Cannell, of the Vitamin D Council says he would do:

Stock your home's pharmacy with several fresh bottles of 50,000 IU capsules of Vitamin D3 (a medicine at this dosage, not a supplement) and if you get this flu, take 2,000 IU per kg of body weight per day for a week. As I weigh 220 pounds, I would take 200,000 IU per day for seven days if I thought I had an infection with a 1918-like influenza virus.

How to prevent flu with D: Your skin makes Vitamin D from direct sun exposure when you are taller than your shadow. Step outside and look! You'll notice that in the winter or outside of mid-day, your shadow is always taller than you are, which means you are not making D. See the Vitamin D Council for information on how to monitor blood levels of Vitamin D and treat. Per the experts, most adults should be taking 2,000 - 5,000IU of D3 per day. Always do this in consultation with your doctor, ideally testing your blood at the beginning and end of daylight savings season. I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV.

OK, now a barb for the CDC. In addition to the $4.8 million PR campaign for the H1N1 flu shot, how much has the CDC - full name being Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - spent educating the public that Vitamin D is a safer and more effective way to prevent H1N1 influenza infection?

$0. That's right. Nothing. I asked CDC officials about this when I met with them in Sacramento in August. I got a shoulder-shrug in answer to my question about Vitamin D being the ultimate protection against viruses.

H1N1 Vaccine: How Well Does It Work in Children?

Not well. Not by a long shot according to government-funded studies. The NIH disguises the bad news in a press release, using this headline: Early Results: In Children, 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Works Like Seasonal Flu.

Great!? Not.

Here's the deal. After receiving one dose of this year's swine (H1N1) flu vaccine, children developed a theoretically protective level of antibodies to the July 2009/California H1N1 strain (the vaccine strain) at these rates:

76% of 10 - 17 year olds   [pretty sucky]
36% of 3 - 9 year olds   [dismal]
25% of babies aged 6M to 35M   [atrociously bad]

Med Nauseam readers are smart, but I'll spell it out anyway. Three-quarters of babies, two-thirds of kids 3 -9, and a quarter of teens who get the swine flu vaccine are not protected.

And, the kicker is the headline. The swine flu vaccine "works" like the seasonal flu vaccine.

No wonder the CDC recommends children receive two doses of the swine flu vaccine. It's a re-vaccination for a quarter to a third of them, then who knows how many more mount the desired immune response.

Looking at a different vaccine for perspective, toddlers receive two doses of MMR. The second MMR shot is not a euphemistically-named "booster," but a re-vaccination of all kids due to the fact that a few do not mount the theoretically protective level of antibodies the first time.

The H1N1 antibody data were obtained 8 - 10 days after the vaccination. "It is anticipated that the immune response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine will ... continue to rise for several weeks following vaccination," states NIAID Director Dr. Fauci in the NIH press release. My bet: the "continued rise" will be negligible.

I want to know how well the antibodies correlate to actual H1N1 protection if a vaccinated person comes into contact with the vaccine strain. Those studies have not been done for H1N1. In an upcoming article, I will explore this issue. This past weekend, I had fun reading package inserts for the three injectable H1N1 vaccines and the nasal spray version - the cited studies are not for the H1N1 vaccine but for seasonal flu vaccine. You won't be shocked to find that only one product insert cites one study testing efficacy in real life. As stated in the insert, the results do not favor efficacy.

Oh, and if a child gets the nasal spray vaccine, know that it is a live attenuated virus. The package insert says the transmission rate is 2.4%. The child sheds and spreads for weeks. In other words, for every 100 people that child comes into contact with, 2 - 3 will be infected with H1N1 from that child's infected secretions.

Flu vaccines seem to be falling far short of their lofty mission of prevention

Please Vote Me into Top 100 Health Bloggers for 2009! Thank You!!!

Alix http://www.mednauseum.blogspot.com

You voted me a Top 100 Health Blogger in 2008. Now the pressure is on for 2009. I ONLY NEED 16 MORE VOTES TO BREAK INTO THE TOP 20!  If you have ever enjoyed a post on Med Nauseam, take a few seconds to click and vote for me.

I spend hours researching and writing the articles here, all free of access fees and free of revenue to me,  unless you count $10 in Google ads.

Med Nauseam is partly a labor of love, partly a tool to not annoy my friends with emails containing cutting edge health info, and partly a public service announcement. A click is all it takes to say thank you.

Thank YOU for being my reader! I do this for YOU.

Symposium in SF: Healthy Babies/Toxic World

For Med Nauseam readers living in the San Francisco Bay Area, an upcoming symposium that will be worth your while:

Making Healthy Babies, Raising Healthy Children:

Living well in a toxic world

Saturday, November 21, 2009

9:00am - 4:00pm

Berkeley, CA

Tickets $60 each, before Nov 20th: http://makinghealthybabies.eventbrite.com/

The 2009 CIA World Factbook ranks the USA forty fifth among nations for infant mortality— the worst among all industrialized countries.  The autism rate in our country is now 1 in 100.   This symposium brings together scientists, doctors, researchers and professionals for a unique conversation about environmental influences around birth and childhood. Our three part program features plenary speakers, Q & A, and short films on these important topics. Revolutionary new software will also be introduced that will help parents assess the risks their children may encounter from our environment before birth, at birth and during childhood.

My good friend Maureen Block, who co-founded The Ryder Foundation after recovering her son from autism, is producing the event. She wrote this in an email to me:

This is going to be such a fabulous event with speakers who all have common interests: the environment and health of the next generation. There is new health tracking software being announced. It is free to parents. Dr. Wakefield, one of the premiere researchers and doctors, will be discussing the results of his latest research which will certainly motivate you for the sake of your children. Robbie Davis Floyd will take you through the history of the business of childbirth and you will be enlightened  ... as I recently was .... as to where women became dis-empowered. To state it as a Valley Girl would say, I was "like wow." Nutrition, as a tool to having a healthy baby, is far more important than we have historically believed, and we will cover this as well. The environment will be discussed by Sharlye Patton of Commonweal.  

See you there?

Is Thabo Mbeke Right? New Film on the Scanty Evidence that HIV Causes AIDS

Though it's tempting to assume that House of Numbers film makers interviewed fringe conspiracy theorists to make the case that HIV does not cause AIDS, the experts in the film are actually high level government officials and virologists.

The film has been playing at international film festivals, collecting award after award. Worth a watch.

Discussion of film at Natural News. 


Email subscribers, click the post title to view the short 2m45s trailer for the film.

Woman Training for Half Marathon Gets Flu Shot, Becomes Disabled

The woman in this video got a seasonal flu shot, came down with the flu ten days later, then was diagnosed with dystonia, a severe neurological disorder. She is very twitchy, can barely talk and has frequent seizures.

Email subscribers, click through to see the worst of the flu shot.



Remember, normalizing your blood level of Vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin, is more protective than getting the flu shot. For more information on testing (new finger prick kits that are mailed to your home) and dosing, see the Vitamin D Council.

Why "Herd Immunity" is Moot in Seasonal Flu or Swine Flu

Recently, I posted an LA Times article to my Facebook page about parents who, due to safety concerns, will likely decline the Swine/H1N1 Flu vaccine for themselves and their children. When my Facebook friends posted their reactions to this article, safety concerns were ignored in favor of a slew of responses about striving for herd immunity. It seemed they had already done a risk-benefit calculation, reasoning if some were hurt by the vaccine, herd immunity was more important. (See bottom of article for a back-of-the-envelope analysis of risk-benefit.) But, what they didn't realize in these arguments is that herd immunity is a moot point when it comes to the flu and flu vaccine.

So to address the cries for herd immunity, I offer you some data points:

1. Herd immunity occurs when 80-90% of a population has a theoretically protective level of antibodies, either from mounting an antibody response to an antigen in a vaccine or from suffering through a virus and recovering.
   
2. Only 30-40% of people get the Seasonal Flu vaccine - far short of herd immunity.
3. Seasonal flu mutates and changes every year, so there are not years and years of vaccinating people against the same disease to ratchet coverage up to the 80-90% level.
4. Due to mutations, a seasonal (or swine flu) shot that is developed in advance of flu season may not match the circulating flu viruses. In at least half of the flu seasons, there is no virus-vaccine match, leaving 0% of the population with theoretically protective levels of antibodies.
   
5. The Cochrane Collaboration reviewed ALL flu shot studies - decades worth of data - and found that if you get the virus for which you were vaccinated, you will be sick only 0.16 of a day less (4 hours) than if you didn't get the shot. I.e. the flu shot does not work. Tom Jefferson MD, the independent reviewer analyzing all flu shot studies found this in 2006, upon completion of his team's review: "Only among people who suffer bronchitis could he find good evidence that flu vaccination was worthwhile. In infants up to two, vaccination was no better than placebo and in older children there was little evidence of benefit. Nor could he find enough evidence of benefit among people with chronic chest problems, asthma and cystic fibrosis. In healthy adults the best evidence was that, on average, flu vaccination of a population would prevent 0.1 per cent of a working day lost. Combined studies of the elderly showed a variation from no effect to a 60 per cent difference when "all cause mortality" was measured."
7.  Optimism Bias: because other vaccines seem to work, people, MDs included, assume the flu shots must work, too. (See point 5)
8. Recency Bias: A single recent study seems to prove flu vaccines do work. Average that single study into the other 48. (See point 5)
   
9. People who worry about protecting others in "the herd" from the flu do not have the correct information about flu shot efficacy. (See point 5)
10. Even at-risk groups - children, asthmatics, elderly - are not protected by the vaccine. All the studies in these sub-groups show there is no reduction in hospitalizations or deaths among those who were vaccinated for Seasonal Flu.
    
11. Nasal spray vaccine is an alternative to the injection. However it spreads the virus.The Seasonal Flu Nasal Spray vaccine is based on a live virus. People will shed virus and be contagious for the flu. This works against herd immunity.
    
12. Finally, if you are so worried about a flu virus and still believe the Seasonal Flu Vaccine offers protection, then get vaccinated and you can believe you are protected from those who don't get the vaccine. That's called the placebo effect. Enjoy it.
13. Vitamin D: Normalizing your blood levels of Vitamin D strongly protects against ALL VIRUSES. There are no known safety issues for the D3 form and it's less expensive ($20 per bottle per year) than the flu shot.

A few thoughts on the Swine Flu (H1N1) vaccine:

1. The CDC says the Swine Flu (H1N1) vaccine is based on the Seasonal Flu vaccine manufacturing processes. (I attended the Swine Flu public engagement meeting with the CDC in Sacramento.)
   
2. The FDA is setting the efficacy bar very low for the new Swine Flu vaccine. Only 3 of 10 test subjects need to show a theoretically protective level of antibodies for the vaccine to be approved. In other words, 7 of 10 people vaccinated may not mount protective antibodies.
3. The Swine Flu virus can mutate. If it does, the vaccine developed on a July strain isolated in California will be rendered useless. There won't be a virus-vaccine match.
   
4. In addition to the injection, a live attenuated nasal spray will be available. Again, this makes people  shed virus. They are contagious with an estimated transmission rate of 1 - 2.4%. This works against herd immunity. If the entire herd were vaccinated this way, then roughly five million Americans would spread the virus the vaccine is intended to prevent. Each of those people would then spread it, too. Think about that.
   
5. Though this post is about efficacy, the estimates for Swine Flu vaccine safety are based on the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine. According to the 60 Minutes episode on the 1976 Swine Flu Fiasco, of the 40 million who were vaccinated for Swine Flu that year, 4,000 shot recipients filed claims for injury or death - a 1 in 10,000 chance of a severe adverse reaction*. Again, if the entire herd is vaccinated, are we willing to accept that 30,000+ Americans will get Guillain-Barre Syndrome or die? This is a mild flu. The cost-benefit is not working out for me.
   

Once again, check your levels of Vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin. It's cheaper, easier, and safer to avoid all viral illness by maintaining a normal blood level of Vitamin D. At least half of us are deficient, which is the main cause of "Flu Seasons" in the winter.

If you do get a virus, you can treat it with high doses of Vitamin D for seven days after onset of symptoms. My friend K.A. tried this last week when she came down with a bad flu and she wrote, "It really worked...I took just 4 [16,000IU of D3] and it worked... it was miraculous....I was on the mend and so surprised!" See the Vitamin D Council for instructions. Always consult your doctor.

Happy flu season!

*NB: I have corrected some data from the first version of this article. The CDC has revised the 1976 injury rate down to 1 in 100,000 based on claims eventually paid out. You can guess the myriad political reasons why that number was revised sharply downward. In reality, it is known that vaccine adverse reactions are strongly under-reported, by a factor of two to ten, due to the nature of the passive surveillance system. If half the severe adverse events were not reported, then the initial 1976 Swine Flu injury claims could have been 8,000, making the risk odds 1 in 5,000.

It's Seasonal Flu Shot Season...but the Shot has Never Worked

Flu shot marketing season is approaching, so here is a now-annual post about why you should re-consider acting on the CDC's advice.

By the way, if a doctor quotes a recent study showing flu shot efficacy (i.e that it works), then that result, assuming it is from a sound study, needs to be averaged in with the four dozen other studies that have been conducted on the flu shot. Together, those studies show that it doesn't actually work.

When will policy catch up with the efficacy data? Dr. Tom Jefferson asks that question in the British Medical Journal. Below is the weight of the evidence.

Normalize your blood level of Vitamin D for the cheapest, safest, and best protection from all viruses and bacterial illnesses. Hello, CDC, are you listening?

From Dr. Tenpenny: The Flu Shot Has Never Worked.

Do flu shots work? Not in babies: In a review of more than 51 studies involving more than 294,000 children it was found there was "no evidence that injecting children 6-24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than placebo. In children over 2 yrs, it was only effective 33% of the time in preventing the flu. Reference: "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2 (2008). Not in children with asthma: A study 800 children with asthma, where one half were vaccinated and the other half did not receive the influenza vaccine. The two groups were compared with respect to clinic visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations for asthma. CONCLUSION: This study failed to provide evidence that the influenza vaccine prevents pediatric asthma exacerbations. Reference: "Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma exacerbations." Christly, C. et al. Arch Dis Child. 2004 Aug;89(8):734-5. Not in children with asthma (2): "The inactivated flu vaccine, Flumist, does not prevent influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma…In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than children who do not get the vaccine." Reference: The American Thoracic Society’s 105th International Conference, May 15-20, 2009, San Diego. Not in adults: In a review of 48 reports including more than 66,000 adults, "Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza by 6% and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day (0.16) days. It did not change the number of people needing to go to hospital or take time off work." Reference: "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1 (2006). Not in the Elderly: In a review of 64 studies in 98 flu seasons, For elderly living in nursing homes, flu shots were non-significant for preventing the flu. For elderly living in the community, vaccines were not (significantly) effective against influenza, ILI or pneumonia. Reference: "Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.3 (2006). What about the new Swine Flu shot? Some of the new H1N1 (swine flu) vaccines are going to be made by Novartis. These shots will probably be made in PER.C6 cells (human retina cells) and contain MF59, a potentially debilitating adjuvant. MF-59 is an oil-based adjuvant primarily composed of squalene. All rats injected with squalene (oil) adjuvants developed a disease that left them crippled, dragging their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages. Injected squalene can cause severe arthritis (3 on scale of 4) and severe immune responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus. Ref: (1): Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. "Survey of human-use adjuvants." Expert Review of Vaccines. 2 (2003) p171. Ref: (2): Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI’s Are Only the First Victims of this Vaccine. New York: Basic Books. p54. Federal health officials are starting to recommend that most Americans get three flu shots this fall: one regular flu shot and two doses of the vaccine made against the new swine flu strain. School children who have never had a flu shot are targeted for four shots in the fall - twice for seasonal flu, twice for pandemic swine flu. (July 15, 2009 news) HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been talking to school superintendents around the country, urging them to make plans to use buildings for mass vaccinations and for vaccinating kids first. (CBS News, June 12, 2009.) For more information go to http://www.PandemicFluOnline.com or http://www.drtenpenny.com 440-239-1878 Full Version in PDF (5 pages) here Tri-Fold Brochure of this information here Handout Version in PDF (2 pages) here Version in Spanish here

Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies

I've been wanting to write a post about breast cancer prevention, et voila, I happened upon this great write up about dietary and environmental contributors to breast cancer from 007 Breasts. They are unabashed about recommending "nipple twiddling" to produce oxytocin, so I already love their writers. So, go on. Read about everything from bras, to Vitamin D, to soy, to curcumin.

At some point I'll write a companion piece about supplements that address results of a thermogram to reduce your risk of ever hearing the four dreaded words, "you have breast cancer." An easy diet and supplement plan can significantly reduce your risk of breast cancer. After all, the best way not to die of breast cancer is not to get it at all.

Alix also writes for SpiroChicks and Silicon Valley Moms Blog. See my recent post about prevention and my mom's cancer here.

SIGG Has BPA: I Told You Not to Trust the Secret Plastic Liner!

Remember my October 2008 article about the breast cancer-causing chemicals in bottled water? As an alternative to pre-packaged bottled water, I recommended drinking filtered water from a stainless steel Klean Kanteen. I specifically said that the more popular SIGG bottle was an iffy choice at best:

* I favor the Klean Kanteen over the more popular SIGG water bottle since SIGG's aluminum bottles are lined with an undisclosed "polymer" that is tested for currently known plastic contaminants. Since chemicals are put on the market before they are tested for human safety, and an increasing number of plastic chemicals are implicated in health problems, I prefer to stick with old-fashioned stainless steel.

SIGG's web page describing its polymer strongly suggests it does not contain BPA, yet declines to say what the internal plastic liner is. (Bisphenol A is the plastic hardener that is linked with feminizing birth defects in boys, breast cancer in women, among other ill health effects.) SIGG quotes studies that reveal "no detectable BPA" in their bottle liners yet never actually states the liner is free of BPA. Tricky language, indeed! In language that would make you distrust even your pastor, SIGG says:

Like Coca-Cola’s soft drink recipe, the SIGG liner formula remains secret and unavailable to third parties in order to protect our competitive advantage.

Well, SIGG has now been outed. CEO Steve Wasik is admitting that their "product did contain BPA, although it was never found to leach it." If you prefer to avoid BPA and its estrogenic effects, SIGG was the wrong water bottle for you all along. Too bad, 'cause the bottle designs are so cute.

According to an article on Inhabitots, "The shocking facts came to light when, one whole year after changing their liner to a new 'EcoCare' BPA-free formula, SIGG fessed up." SIGG switched to a BPA-free liner in August 2008.

BPA or not, I don't want to drink my water out of a plastic-lined bottle. The list of unsafe plastics is only going to get longer. Will SIGG get caught with their pants down again if the current liner is found to be unsafe, too?

Alix also writes for SpiroChicks and Silicon Valley Moms Blog.

Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccine: 1976 Redux?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1

Hi everyone. Publishing is a bit sporadic these days, but swine flu (H1N1) vaccine has me all riled up.

Below is a video of the 60 Minutes segment on the 1976 swine flu vaccination failure. It's Mike Wallace Gotcha Journalism at its best! Wallace investigates why the vaccine killed hundreds and caused neurological damage in 4,000. The 1976 swine flu virus itself? It fizzled out like a dud firework.

Here is an excerpt where Wallace interrupts the former director of the CDC regarding whether or not there were confirmed cases of swine flu. The interview also probes on the lack of vaccine testing - a fact that was covered up.

WALLACE: Dr David Sencer, then head of the CDC - the Center of Disease Control in Atlanta - is now in private industry. He devised the swine flu program and he pushed it.

You began to give flu shots to the American people in October of '76?

DR SENCER: October 1st.

WALLACE: By that time, how many cases of swine flu around the world had been reported?

DR SENCER: There had been several reported, but none confirmed. There had been cases in Australia that were reported by the press, by the news media. There were cases in -

WALLACE: None confirmed? Did you ever uncover any other outbreaks of swine flu anywhere in the world?

DR SENCER: No

WALLACE: Now, nearly everyone was to receive a shot in a public health facility where a doctor might not be present, therefore it was up to the CDC to come up with some kind of official consent form giving the public all the information it needed about the swine flu shot. This form stated that the swine flu vaccine had been tested. What it didn't say was that after those tests were completed, the scientists developed another vaccine and that it was the one given to most of the 46 million who took the shot. That vaccine was called "X-53a". Was X-53a ever field tested?

DR SENCER: I-I can't say. I would have to -

WALLACE: It wasn't

DR SENCER: I don't know

WALLACE: Well, I would think that you're in charge of the program

DR SENCER: 1 would have to check the records. I haven't looked at this in some time.

WALLACE: The information form the consent form was also supposed to warn people about any risk of serious complications following the shot. But did it?

ROBERTS: No, I had never heard of any reactions other than a sore arm, fever, this sort of thing.

Later in the segment, Wallace interviews Mary Tyler Moore, who the CDC claimed got the flu shot. They said so in ads to persuade the public that the shot was perfectly safe. She says she didn't get it.

Here is the transcript of the 60 Minutes piece, courtesy of Age of Autism.

Here is the video -- email subscribers please click through to Med Nauseum Blog to watch a younger Mike Wallace do his gotcha thing.

Aside from safety concerns based on the 1976 swine flu debacle, consider a couple more pieces of information that might make you question the 2009 swine flu vaccine. The question is: Does it work? Let's look at two components: efficacy and the possibility of mutations.

Efficacy: According to the British Medical Journal and the conservative Cochrane group that performed meta-analyses of all seasonal flu shot studies, the flu shot has NEVER WORKED, even in children, asthmatics, and the elderly, sub-groups they specifically studied. The results have been reported widely, including in the New York Times.

The Cochrane group found that if you are vaccinated for a flu that is circulating and you get infected with that strain, you will be sick 4 HOURS less than if you didn't get the seasonal flu shot. The swine flu virus, with its four genetic components from three different species is much more complicated than the "regular flu." Do we really think in this case - where the swine flu vaccine is being developed this summer in a fire drill situation - that the CDC has a higher chance of making a working flu vaccine?

Virus-Vaccine Match and Mutations: If this year's swine flu virus is mutating as fast as authorities say it is, how will the vaccine match the circulating swine flu virus? The WHO guesses in January which seasonal flu might be circulating in October. They get it wrong at least half the time, issuing a vaccine for a non-circulating virus. (Sorry, can't find my citation for this right now, but the data are less than reassuring.) Again, could the match possibly be better for swine flu?

Don't forget the following natural and easy flu prevention strategies:

• Having an adequate level of Vitamin D in your blood (See Vitamin D Council)
  
• Taking probiotics
• Avoiding the great white carbs (sugar, white flour, white rice, and potatoes). Just keep your glycemic index low with each snack and meal. Pretzels = sugar.
  
• Avoiding antacids, which reduce stomach acid, and in turn reduce your stomach's ability to neutralize bacteria and viruses. A recent study showed that patients taking antacids had a much higher rate of bacterial pneumonia compared to those not taking those drugs. Note: most people who die from the flu die from a secondary bacterial infection in the lungs.... bacterial pneumonia. This is why the death rate from the 1918 flu was so high - we did not yet have antibiotics.
  

Watch your back. Er, watch your arm.

Video: Why Worry about Fluoride Toothpaste?

Toothpaste labels warn us not to swallow even a pea-sized amount of toothpaste. Did you know that the amount of flouride in this pea-sized glob is the same as the amount found in 8 ounces of fluoridated drinking water? Why does the toothpaste label say to call the Poison Control Center if it's ingested, but water does not have such a warning?

The CDC says dental fluorosis, which is caused by too much fluoride, now affects 33% of children aged 6 - 19. Fluorosis affects bones and organs, too, with a highly plausible connection to diseases like bone cancer (osteosarcoma).

Despite what the American Dental Association instructs its dentists to tell you about how fluoride prevents cavities, many different data sets show that cavities are not actually correlated with water flouridation.

This information, though it's not new, is just so Med Nauseum. This five minute video was good and clear enough to get me out of non-posting mode. So, hi again! (Email subscribers, please click through to Med Nauseum Blog to see the video.)

Michael Pollan to the President-Elect

Michael Pollan has penned another hard-hitting missive about how food is destroying our health.

The one-man food policy think-tank and author of such gems as The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food published a letter in the New York Times. It begins:

Dear Mr. President-Elect,

It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign: food.

Pollan emphasizes that the old approach to agriculture, which has increasingly relied on cheap petroleum, is no longer sustainable, which he says

brings me to the deeper reason you will need not simply to address food prices but to make the reform of the entire food system one of the highest priorities of your administration: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change. Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on — but as you try to address them you will quickly discover that the way we currently grow, process and eat food in America goes to the heart of all three problems and will have to change if we hope to solve them.

Pollan also highlights the zero-sum game whereby we have spent increasingly less on food and increasingly more on healthcare since the 1960s. In 1960, he says we spent 5% of our income on healthcare and 18% on food; today it's 16% on healthcare and less than 10% on food. Along with the availability of cheap, nutrient-free calories, the 1980s USDA Food Pyramid (aka the Pasta Pyramid) marketed them beautifully, launching an epidemic of the diseases it was designed to prevent: heart disease, stroke, type II diabetes, and obesity. Quadruple ooops! In Pollan's words:

While the surfeit of cheap calories that the U.S. food system has produced since the late 1970s may have taken food prices off the political agenda, this has come at a steep cost to public health. You cannot expect to reform the health care system, much less expand coverage, without confronting the public-health catastrophe that is the modern American diet.

My prose is inadequate to paraphrase more of Pollan's excellent letter. Just read it. Now. I've been called the "Al Gore of Nutrition" but Pollan deserves that title much more than I.

Pictured above, your editor and Michal Pollan at Stanford after his In Defense of Food talk. Your editor wonders if it's possible to have a crush on someone's brain.

Warm thanks to my friend RawDaddy who alerted me to Pollan's letter.

New Studies Confirm The Flu Shot Still Doesn't Work

The flu shot has never worked. A Cochrane Group review of all flu shot studies showed that the shot won't prevent you from getting the flu, but if you do get it, you'll be sick four hours less than if you didn't get the flu shot. It appears that the annual marketing push is just a shot in the arm for Big Pharma and your doctor, who might be innocently peddling what amounts to nothing more than snake oil.

This year, the CDC even has some scary, heart-wrenching videos of parents crying about their children dying from the flu. Estimates are that 1,000 people do die of the flu per year, excluding pneumonia complications. Dr. Robert Sears wrote in The Vaccine Book that of those 1,000 people, only 100 children (including infants and young adults) die from the flu each year (p.123). However, a scary video does not mean that the flu shot actually works or that it could have prevented these awful deaths.

More evidence that the flu shot doesn't work continues to pour in, even in sub-groups thought to be most susceptible to complications from the flu: elderly, asthmatics, and even children. Here is what Dr. Mercola has to say about the new evidence that flu shot policy does not match its efficacy:

Another influenza season is beginning, and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will strongly urge Americans to get a flu shot. In fact, the CDC mounts a well-orchestrated campaign each season to generate interest and demand for flu shots.

But a recent study published in the October issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu appeared to have no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.

At first glance, the data did suggest that children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years derived some protection from vaccination in these years. But after adjusting for potentially relevant variables, the researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.

Additionally, a Group Health study found that flu shots do not protect elderly people against developing pneumonia -- the primary cause of death resulting as a complication of the flu. Others have questioned whether there is any mortality benefit with influenza vaccination. Vaccination coverage among the elderly increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now, but there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza or pneumonia.

The New York Times even ran a story about the ineffectiveness of flu vaccine in the elderly. The story cites that flu shot study conclusions were based on correlation, not causation -- the type of statistical mistake the CDC usually accuses laymen of making. Elderly who get the flu shot were simply more likely to be doing healthy things recommended by their doctors.

A growing number of immunologists and epidemiologists say the vaccine probably does not work very well for people over 70, the group that accounts for three-fourths of all flu deaths.

The latest blow was a study in The Lancet last month that called into question much of the statistical evidence for the vaccine’s effectiveness.

The authors said previous studies had measured the wrong thing: not any actual protection against the flu virus but a fundamental difference between the kinds of people who get vaccines and those who do not.

Preventing flu by ensuring adequate Vitamin D blood levels is much better than the flu shot. If you or your child didn't get enough sun this summer, supplementing with Vitamin D3 is wise. The recommendation is 1,000IU for children under two years old and at least 2,000IU for adults. Checking blood levels in spring and fall is a good idea. The Vitamin D Council website is an excellent source for information on what The New York Times called, "The Nutrient of the Decade."

Another tip is to cut back on the sugar. It suppresses the immune system for five hours after eating it - this is the reason Dr. Robert Sears says the week after Halloween is the busiest time in his pediatric practice.

If you still see the flu shot as an insurance policy, consider that it is also toxic. 90% of flu shots contain one of the most potent neurotoxins - mercury. You need to be 550 pounds to handle the bolus dose of 25mcg of mercury delivered with each flu shot. And, finally, consider saving the formaldehyde for the embalmers, instead of having it injected into your or your child's bloodstream. Finally, the natural health community understands that the immune system is actually weakened each time you get a vaccine, so your susceptibility to a host of other illnesses - viral to autoimmune to cancer -- is increased slightly with each vaccine.

If you are overcome by flu shot marketing, ask about FluMist - at least that vaccine is delivered nasally which is most similar to how you'd catch the flu.

Click here for all med nauseum posts on flu vaccine.
Here is the SafeMinds flu brochure.

EWG's Bottled Water Study: Alarming Results and Breast Cancer Implications

The Environmental Working Group published its study of bottled water. Among ten major brands plucked from retailers nationwide, EWG found thirty-eight different contaminants. EWG recommends drinking filtered tap water, ideally from a glass or a Kleen Kanteen stainless steel water bottle.*

Here are some of the contaminants found:

Disinfection byproducts...common urban wastewater pollutants like caffeine and pharmaceuticals (Tylenol); heavy metals and minerals including arsenic and radioactive isotopes; fertilizer residue (nitrate and ammonia); and a broad range of other, tentatively identified industrial chemicals used as solvents, plasticizers, viscosity decreasing agents, and propellants.

Bottled waters from Sam's, Walmart, and Giant stores were called out in particular. EWG cites a double standard where bottled water suppliers are not required to report on water quality, while muni water districts have to report tap water test results regularly to consumers. (The depressing part is that munis don't have to test for pharmaceuticals and most water filters do not remove many man-made substances. Welcome to Prozac Nation, whether or not you wanted it.)

Here is one of the more alarming findings, regarding estrogen mimics and breast cancer:

The study also included assays for breast cancer cell proliferation, conducted at the University of Missouri. One bottled water brand spurred a 78% increase in the growth of the breast cancer cells compared to the control sample, with 1,200 initial breast cancer cells multiplying to 32,000 in 4 days, versus only 18,000 for the control sample, indicating that chemical contaminants in the bottled water sample stimulated accelerated division of cancer cells. When estrogen-blocking chemicals were added, the effect was inhibited, showing that the cancer-spurring chemicals mimic estrogen, a hormone linked to breast cancer. Though this result is considered a modest effect relative to the potency of some other industrial chemicals in spurring breast cancer cell growth, the sheer volume of bottled water people consume elevates the health significance of the finding. While the specific chemical(s) responsible for this cancer cell proliferation were not identified in this pilot study, ingestion of endocrine-disrupting and cancer-promoting chemicals from plastics is considered to be a potentially important health concern (Le 2008).

It's increasingly clear that estrogens are a big driver of breast cancer. Estrogen can take the form of xenoestrogens like those found in these bottled water samples or pesticides, phytoestrogens like those in soy (with increasing evidence that flax might be a contender as well), and in chemical estrogens that we take in the form of birth control pills.

In fact, doctors who perform thermograms - an early breast cancer risk screening tool - have noticed that 80% of women today display estrogen dominance patterns in their breast images, compared to only 40% ten years ago. One of the ways to reverse estrogen dominance is to apply bioidentical progesterone cream to the breasts in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Doctors also say that strict soy avoidance has worked for many patients.

I try to limit my use of plastic bottled water, so if you see me with one every once in a while, know that I'm trying to suppress all this information since thirst has overwhelmed me!

* I favor the Kleen Kanteen over the more popular SIGG water bottle since SIGG's aluminum bottles are lined with an undisclosed "polymer" that is tested for currently known plastic contaminants. Since chemicals are put on the market before they are tested for human safety, and an increasing number of plastic chemicals are implicated in health problems, I prefer to stick with old-fashioned stainless steel.

High Tech Bummer: Wireless Dangers

Dr. Mercola posted a great article today about cell phone dangers, especially in children. To me, this is one of the biggest wet blankets over my enthusiasm for all our high tech gadgets. Like most people living in Silicon Valley, we use cell phones and wireless networks as if they are essential as the air we breathe. They are, right? Even if our home wireless network is off, we can easily connect to the Internet through neighbors' networks -- we usually have a choice of three.

Is this wireless pollution? Well, it may turn out that wireless -- including cell phones and wireless networks -- is more dangerous to our health than cigarettes. At present, not all the data are in and there are huge incentives to prove wireless is safe. However, the tides are beginning to turn: brain surgeons and high-profile doctors, like CNN's Sanjay Gupta, are beginning to step forward with recommendations to keep the cell phone away from your head.

In the future, expect a huge battle over this one, as cigarettes went down only because there is no demonstrable public good. Not so with wireless. It rocks, well, unless it does contribute to cancer.

Brain cancer has now surpassed leukemia as the number one cancer in children. Experts who feel there is enough evidence supporting a wireless-brain cancer connection say children are disproportionately affected due to thinner skulls and more brain fluid which allows the signal to pass more easily through a child's brain. Interestingly, cell phones were approved for human use based on microwave safety studies, but the main flaw in that comparison is that we don't hold a microwave oven to our head. I'm hearing Homer Simpson say "Doh," right now by the way.

In the Australian news clip posted at Mercola.com, a prominent brain surgeon asks all his brain cancer patients the same question. Dr. Teo asks,

You know your cancer is in the right side of your brain, it's in the area just above your ear, can you tell me if you feel that you've had more exposure than most people to mobile phones?' and I'm always surprised most people say, 'yes, I've used my phone continuously for the last seven years and it's always stuck to my ear on this side.' And I say, 'Well, that's where the cancer is.'"

Yes, this is anecdotal evidence as opposed to statistical or direct biological cause and effect, but consider that most of the studies regarding cell phone dangers were funded by the telecom industry, and they have tried mightily to bury the findings. Not enamored with ominous results from their own studies, the telecom industry elected to "let go" their chief health scientist, Dr. George Carlo. According to an article on Life Extension, "George Carlo, PhD, JD, is an epidemiologist and medical scientist who, from 1993 to 1999, headed the first telecommunications industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use." The majority of the studies ended up showing clear health risks from cell phone usage, not the least of which is brain cancer.

Dr. Carlo now runs The Safe Wireless Initiative to spread news of studies about wireless dangers. Mysteriously, Dr. Carlo was hired due to his stellar reputation, but since leaving the telecom industry his credentials have been under attack from the cell phone industry and his home mysteriously burned down. You can read about his battle with the industry in this Life Extension article.

The good news for cell phone users is that the signal drops off precipitously within 6 or so inches of the phone, so keeping it away from your body goes a long way toward protection. I also use a blue tube wired head set that "is quite a contraption," according to my neighbor, but it stops the radiation at a mouthpiece that hangs at my chin. A newer version of this headset provides louder incoming sound than the original version, and also sports a convenient retracting cord. (FYI, regular wired headsets without the stethoscope-like blue tube are thought to actually concentrate the signal at your head by receiving ambient radio waves, much like an antenna.)

As for wireless, I keep our network off at all times. My husband insists on turning it on, but as soon as he is gone, I flip the switch.

My motto: better safe than sorry. I've already had the bad luck of being so ill that I felt like I was 90 years old at age 30. I'm finally recovering, hopefully for good, and am not willing to risk any other illness. Above all, I want to protect my kids.

Now, how do I write a note to my neighbors about their wireless network pollution, asking them to at least turn it off when they are asleep or not at home? Does anyone have a template I can use?

Below is the Australian news clip: (Email subscribers, go to Med Nauseum to view video.)

Gardasil Dangers

I've been working on a post about the dangers of Merck's Gardasil vaccine, but Dr. Mercola just released a beautiful analysis of the vaccine's efficacy and risks so I'll post that instead. Here is an excerpt, but it's well worth reading the entire article:

Cervical cancer usually develops in your late 20s to mid 30s. The protection period of Gardasil is estimated to be 5 years. That means, if you receive your first set of shots when you’re 10 years old, you’d need at least 2 to 4 additional booster shots to make it through your 30s. And THAT means you’ll have to expose yourself to the potential side effects of Gardasil over and over and over again.

But now to the real clincher, and I want you to read the following section as many times as you need to let this truly sink in…

U.S. statistics show there are 30 to 40 cervical cancer cases per year per one million women between the ages of 9 and 26, which is the age bracket that Gardasil targets (and was tested on).

According to Merck, Gardasil was shown to reduce pre-cancers by 12.2% to 16.5% in the general population. So, instead of ending up with 30 to 40 cases of cancer per million, per year, in that age bracket, the HPV vaccine can potentially bring it down to 26 to 35 cases of cervical cancer.

What that means is that you would have to vaccinate one million girls to prevent cervical cancer in 4 to 5 girls.

Further, about 37 percent of women who develop cervical cancer actually die from the disease, so vaccinating ONE MILLION girls would prevent 1 to 2 DEATHS per year...

Considering that:

• Condoms reduce the incidence of human papiloma virus by 70% (compared to 12.2 to 16.5% for the vaccine)
  
• The side effects of Gardasil include death, paralysis, and other less sensational chronic health problems
  
• 90% of HPV cases clear up on their own and therefore do not lead to cervical cancer

I wonder why anyone thinks the Gardasil vaccine is worth it.

Flagorama!

It appears that people who don't agree with opinions on Med Nauseum have flagged my blog as potential spam. I received a note from Blogger saying that their algorithms had flagged my blog as spam and that a Blogger employee would review my site. So far, no word back from Blogger. Funny thing is that I've been blogging for three years here, and have never been flagged before. I think it was not a spam-bot, but a human being clicking on the "Flag" icon that appears at the top of all Blogger blogs.

I suspect the flagging occurred after I was invited to guest post on MOMocrats. My post Why Do Half of Americans Have Chronic Illness? was featured and it drew a couple angry comments from people not up to date on recent vaccine-autism news. The post was about all the reasons government policies have contributed to this public health crisis where half of us have chronic illness. But, of course some homed in on the small part of the post that mentioned vaccines and blew that up to grander proportions than I intended. The commenters were not familiar with the recent award to the family of Hannah Poling, a case where the government conceded that vaccines did cause her autism. This is the first case of proven "mitochondrial autism." It turns out that if there are others with autism and mitochondrial disorders -- and current studies estimate such disorders affect between 7 and 30% of kids with autism -- there could be as many as 70,000 to 300,000 Hannah Polings. Ouch. That's a big hit to vaccine-autism theories and to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund. As David Kirby says, Hannah Poling really does change everything.

Back to flagging. I found out this is not an isolated incident and some bloggers have left Blogger and moved to other blogging platforms due to this problem. Google, who owns Blogger, is actually shutting down both righty and lefty bloggers. Opinions are the essence of blogging. I find this outrageous in a country founded on the right to free speech.

It is exceedingly unfair that anonymous people can flag blogs as "offensive" just because they don't agree with the content. Blogs are all about editorial and opinion. Even so, I do exhaustive research before posting my views and link to published studies. Flaggers, get over yourselves and leave some comments if you disagree. And, Google, please fix this feature so that flaggers must identify themselves - it would save both of us a lot of work.

Do You Like Med Nauseum's New Look?

Let's hear from you in the comments.

Get Your Eight-year Old a Statin, Stat!

I am outraged that pediatricians will now prescribe statin drugs to children as young as eight. When I first read this news, I thought it was a parody of American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, but I was wrong.

There is no research showing statins will prevent heart disease when our children reach middle age. No research. If there were research, it would take fifty years to conduct it on our kids. And, what would be studied? Heart disease risk, of course, but also the risk of developing severe liver disease, muscle problems, and other side effects from taking decades of statins. If the research doesn't sound ethical, how could it be ethical to start treating our kids without any studies?

Cholesterol is critical for brain function. Does the AAP really think that kids' brains will develop normally by reducing cholesterol in their body? Remember, they haven't even studied it! Our nerves are surrounded by fatty insulation which serves the same function as plastic insulation around electric wire.

Dr. Ronald Hoffman puts it this way:

Cholesterol is actually essential for the developing brain. The brain
is largely composed of cholesterol. Even in adults, a connection has
been demonstrated between higher cholesterol--especially HDL--and
better brain function. What's bad for the ticker is good for the brain.
Children's brains are rapidly growing and forming new nerve
connections, and limiting cholesterol, either via an ultra-restrictive
low-fat diet or through artificial cholesterol blockade might have
unforeseeable effects on brain development.

Significantly, statin drugs also deplete co-enzyme Q10 -- a critical
substance our cells need to make energy for our bodies. Do we want our children to
become more sloth-like with mitochondrial dysfunction? That's the effect
of depleting co-Q10. In fact, mitochondrial dysfunction is the very
condition that the CDC said pre-disposed Hannah Poling to regress into
autism after receiving a bunch of vaccines. Hannah's family just won
that case, which was settled out of Vaccine Court. This ground-breaking case has launched many mitochondria research studies.

Particularly unnerving is that the usefulness of statins in adults has been under increased scrutiny. BusinessWeek boldly ran a story in January with the following headline: Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good? Research suggests that, except among high-risk heart patients, the benefits of statins such as Lipitor are overstated

For that story, BusinessWeek interviewed Dr. James M. Wright who "is no ordinary family physician. A professor at the University of British Columbia, he is also director of the government-funded Therapeutics Initiative, whose purpose is to pore over the data on particular drugs and figure out how well they work." Here is how Dr. Wright characterized his statin and heart disease findings:

[He] had a surprise when he looked at the data for the majority of
patients...who don't have heart disease. He found no benefit
in people over the age of 65, no matter how much their cholesterol
declines, and no benefit in women of any age. He did see a small
reduction in the number of heart attacks for middle-aged men taking
statins in clinical trials. But even for these men, there was no
overall reduction in total deaths or illnesses requiring
hospitalization—despite big reductions in "bad" cholesterol. "Most
people are taking something with no chance of benefit and a risk of
harm."

Prescribing statins to kids makes no sense to me, but it must make 'cents' to Pfizer. Pfizer makes $30 million a year from Lipitor with the current prescribing guidelines. Do they really need to target our kids to make more money?

I say no, not my kids. I'll give them as healthy a diet and lifestyle as possible and (gasp!) take our chances on heart disease. I love my kids more than anything in this world - their health and future is too precious to risk on unproven prescription drugs. Then, again, maybe Pfizer has an anti-anxiety drug for parents nervous about their kids taking statins. Nervustatiximab, maybe?

Alix originally authored a version of this post for the Silicon Valley Moms Blog, where she also writes.

Insomniac Book May Keep You Up, But You'll Sleep Better Afterwards

Insomniac, a new book by Gayle Greene, who is both an insomnia sufferer and a professor, could become the "it" book for sufferers of insomnia. It is at once validating, infuriating, and instructive.

Gayle interviews sleep doctors and attends sleep conferences only to find out that insomnia is not really being studied. It is a surprisingly common condition that patients don't want to admit, for fear of being dismissed as a hypochondriac.

Personally, I never had insomnia until after I gave birth to my twins. Then, when they finally began sleeping through the night, I continued to awaken, or worse, remain awake all night in a stupor. Insomnia isn't really the issue. It's the next day when I contend with being a "mombie" -- zombie mom. At my worst, I went for a period of 3.5 months not being able to fall sleep night or day. I wanted to kill myself, which is a theme Gayle Greene mentions in the first few pages of her book. She calls it "not succumbing" to insomnia - which she explains is used as a polite euphemism for killing yourself to escape the hell. One of her interviewees estimates that 90% of suicides are due to chronic insomnia. Thanks to my twins, I did not "succumb," but I can assure you that periods of insomnia are living hell. You remain alive, but feel dead in body, mind, and spirit.

Six years later, I am harnessing the problem and have much more control over it with supplements and due to lifestyle changes - like exposing myself to the early morning light and not using my computer after 8pm (that's a tall order that I can't always abide by). I've also discovered that my chronic mono virus causes insomnia, and to the extent I can control the virus, my sleep is much improved.

I wish Insomniac had been published years ago. It's a breath of fresh air for sufferers and will be an eye-opening read for the many sleep doctors who don't really understand their patients, the condition, and its devastating consequences.

Why Do Half of Americans Have Chronic Illness?

A new poll among 100,000 Americans has me thinking we are all a bunch of human guinea pigs. The new Gallup survey found that 51% of Americans struggle with chronic illness. The CDC is at least giving lip service to these findings:

Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the findings can help launch a new approach to health care in the United States.

"We are investing the most of any country in the world -- $2 trillion -- and we rank 37th in terms of health," Gerberding told the news conference.

Healthways President Ben Leedle said 51 percent of Americans are stuck in a cycle of chronic disease such as heart disease and diabetes, in part because of their poor choices.

But why are we so ill? Is it really "our choices" that have made us so sick? What would CDC's "new approach" be? (Warning: this post gets kind of radical...) We spend the most on healthcare of any nation. We have the most vaccinated population. We think these things should make all of us healthy, but something's wrong.

From my research, it's clear that federal programs and policies have forced us to trade mortality for morbidity. We can extend quantity of life, but at the cost of quality of life. Most of our "choices" are dictated by federal agencies. We have robbed Peter to pay Paul. Here are some examples:

• USDA: The 1980s Food Pyramid launched an epidemic of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. These are the exact conditions it was supposed to prevent. Farm subsidies for the least nutritious foods - wheat, corn, soy, and rice - create a disincentive to choose more nutrient-dense foods. More than 70% of the average diet is based on nutrient-free white flour. Flour is cheap, so no one is starving in our country, however, this leads to an odd phenomenon where we are simultaneously stuffed and starved - our food-supply is "watered down" due to these nutrient-poor food choices. Even when we choose vegetables or fruit, they have fewer nutrients per bite because we have whipped the soil in which they grow to produce the maximum yield. Paradoxically, we have more food, but fewer nutrients. As the USDA incents farmers to produce more, they need to sell more, so we consume more. Are human beings the same as foie gras geese? With more than half of us overweight or obese, I'm seeing little difference.
• CDC: Our health care system is actually a "sick care" system. Vaccines may save lives (and some say that is debatable or patently false), but they likely contribute to allergies, autism, asthma, arthritis, and even autoimmune conditions. How many injured kids equal one child's life saved, assuming vaccines do actually work? I'd hate to be the Public Health official in charge of that equation. Can you imagine having a spreadsheet that showed 20 children with autism is equal to one saved from polio? Really. That's the equation. Morbidity versus mortality. And who pays the price? Not the government -- they are trying their best to prove they are not responsible since it might bankrupt our country if they were.
  
• NIH and FDA: Medical errors kill the equivalent of six jumbo jets of people -- per day -- and "side effects" from prescription drugs kill 106,000 people per year. We've ingested and excreted so many prescription drugs that they are are showing up in our municipal drinking water. The average water filter does nothing to protect us. If you drink tap or even filtered water, you are part of Prozac Nation, whether you asked for it or not. Remember SOMA from Aldous Huxley's book, Brave New World? That's not science fiction anymore.
• FDA: Chemicals are introduced into our environment and our food supply and they are innocent until proven guilty. Excuse me, but chemicals shouldn't have the same rights as citizens. With the exception of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund (which we actually pay for via a surcharge on each shot), chemicals don't even have to post bail. They are free to circulate in our bloodstreams and accumulate until they start making enough people sick that we begin to investigate. Agent Orange, DDT, mercury, thalidomide -- the list is endless. Again, we are guinea pigs. (Photo to right shows a victim of Agent Orange.)
  
• DOE and EPA: We continue to use dirty energy when clean alternatives are available. Every time we turn on a light, a coal-fired power plant makes our electricity and pollutes our land and oceans with mercury. In fact, using electricity from coal is the number one reason we are advised to avoid shark, mackerel, swordfish and tuna. They have dangerous levels of mercury, mainly due to our electricity consumption. How much longer will it be until every type of fish has so much mercury in it that we can no longer eat any fish safely?
  

We are one big human experiment gone awry. We are guinea pigs inhaling smoke from a lab that's on fire.

This 5 minute 9 second video, Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the 20th Century, is particularly hard for me to watch, as I 'blink 'em back' each time I view it, but it's worth it if you want to understand what is going on with our health. (Email subscribers, please click through to the med nauseum site to see the video.)

Sure, life is more convenient these days. Happily, fewer people die, but we have more people living with chronic illness. Is it worth it? Isn't there a safer way to manage a population's health? Should we emulate Canadian and European national healthcare models where the government knows they'll have to pay for medical conditions they create when they approve chemicals or bad medical treatments, or market nutrient-free food? Those countries invoke the Precautionary Principle far more often than the U.S. - erring on the side of caution rather than risking ill health in the population.

My own mother was a medical experiment in the 1940s when her doctors arbitrarily radiated her thymus since they deemed it too big. She was a little girl. As a young adult, this radiation led to Hodgkin's Disease. Massive amounts of radiation gave her thirty-five more years of life. Five years ago she died due to the long-term consequences of radiation poisoning -- all dating back to the thymus radiation. This is not a unique story. We all know someone who has chronic illness and we all know someone who is a medical experiment. Most of us are.

I'm another example. I initially became disabled after a trip to Bali. I received a bunch of travel vaccinations before the trip and collapsed during a Balinese performance. I spent the next 3.5 years in bed and am still not as healthy as before that trip. I have spent an average of $20,000 per year since 1996 seeking diagnoses, paying for supplements, buying special food. It allows me a normal life, not a bedridden one, but I'm still yoked to a special diet and supplement program to keep me healthy. It's expensive and time consuming but I really have no choice. Looking back at my life, I have one regret: I wish I'd been more informed about vaccines. I wish I hadn't had blind faith in medicine.

Like most MBAs, I'm not a huge advocate of anything socialized, but I'm increasingly interested in national health care. Why? Because then the government would be 'holding the bag' when they make us sick. The government would finally have a financial incentive to protect the health of its citizens. Today, we are left with the expense of our illnesses, though we are doing what our government - whom we think is acting in our best health interest - is telling us or incenting us to do.

Shouldn't the head of any health-related government agency be off-limits for lobbying and special interest money? They are in charge of our health. Shouldn't they be as uninfluenceable as a Supreme Court judge? That's a law I would get behind. And, I realize that this would affect corporate profits at Big Food, Big Farm, and Big Pharma and that this would lead to higher taxes since we need to get the money to run our country from somewhere, but I'm ready to pay with my dollar rather than my body.

We are coming to a tipping point where most of our bodies are showing signs of our own negligence. Earth is showing these same signs. We are collectively waking up to the fact that we have begun to destroy Earth as we know it, but why are most of us - Julie Gerberding, I'm asking you - so oblivious to the destruction of the precious ecosystem in each of our bodies?

Excuse me for sounding so radical and for sounding a little like Michael Moore, but the big picture is coming together for me and I don't like it. I'm all for making a profit, but I'm also into ethics -- profits cannot be at the expense of my health or yours.

Intrigued or enraged? Please forward and comment.

Video: Cancer is a Fungus

I kept deleting this link when it came up on my Yahoo Groups. Now that I finally watched it, I think you need to find forty-five minutes to view it, too.

The author of The Germ That Causes Cancer interviews Dr. Tullio Simoncini, an Italian oncologist, who explains his theory that cancer can be caused by fungi in things like grains, alcohol, and antibiotics. Cancer, itself, he says is a fungus.

The most surprising part of the video is how simple and easy the treatment is: baking soda. The fungi cannot adapt to it -- part of the reason is the high alkalinity of baking soda. For most cancers, catheters are used to deliver the sodium bicarbonate directly to the tumor. Dr. Simoncini says that when sodium bicarbonate is in direct contact with a tumor, it can literally vanish in one week. He says with blood, breast, and brain cancers, 99% will heal within 6 days if the tumor is catheterized.

I can't vouch for the theory or the treatment, but it is certainly intriguing and the treatment does no harm and costs pennies. Certainly meets all my personal criteria for giving it a try.

Click here to view the video from KnowTheCause.com.

You can read more about Dr. Simoncini's work at cancerfungus.com.

Green Our Vaccines Rally in DC

I guess you can call it "Activist Month" over here at Med Nauseum. If you live near Washington, DC or know someone who does, consider attending this June 4th "Green Our Vaccines" rally led by Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. The three main issues they have with vaccines, which Jenny McCarthy blames for the onset of her son's autism, are:

• Too many
• Too soon
• Too toxic

That's it. You don't have to be 100% anti-vaccine to share these same concerns about the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule for ages 0 - 6 which in 2008 includes fifteen diseases and twenty-seven different injections. In 1983, children were vaccinated against 7 diseases with 10 injections. When the vaccine schedule expanded in the early 1990s, autism diagnoses exploded and science is still trying to unravel this complicated, multi-factorial autism epidemic. There are much safer ways to protect your children. For example, Talk about Curing Autism Now publishes guidelines for parents who want to vaccinate more safely (here).

But what makes vaccines toxic? Well, mercury in flu vaccines, aluminum, antifreeze, formadehyde are just a few of the things you just might not want to inject into yourself or your child. The list is long. Here is the full list.

Med Nauseum wrote about Jenny McCarthy's ground-breaking appearance on Oprah, where she talked about reversing her son's autism with biomedical treatments like a gluten free and casein free diet. The summary is here.

The Green Our Vaccines rally is sponsored by Jenny and Jim, Talk About Curing Autism (TACA), Generation Rescue, HEAL Foundation - Healing Every Autistic Life and Moms Against Mercury. It is well-worth attending if you can.

To learn more about vaccines, I recommend:
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
Dr. Robert Sears
Dr. Stephanie Cave

A Note from your Publisher

Hi Med Nauseum Fans,

I'm on a short break from posting. You noticed, right? I'm at work on a book proposal and have a deadline or two to meet in the next couple weeks.

Today I posted a piece that might interest you about the light brown apple moth spraying controversy and an incredible set of activist moms at Silicon Valley Moms Blog (here), a nationally syndicated blog I also write for. After doing research for the post, I feel more strongly than ever that the Bay Area spray must not occur.

Here are some resources:
Stop the Spray
Vegan Reader
LBAM Spray

Here I am handing LBAM Stop the Spray literature to Maria Shriver.

Tonight, I attended her private book signing for Just Who Will You Be?, her new book about her adjustment to being the First Lady of California. Maria was asked to leave her news anchor job after Arnie became Governor of California. I hope she has some good "pillow talk" time with Arnie about stopping the spray.

And, thanks to Plain Jane Mom, I can post a video of my question to Maria and her response. Per Wikipedia, in February 3, 2004, Shriver was told by NBC she was to be "relieved of [her] duties at NBC News," citing the conflict of interest between her role as a journalist and her status as the First Lady of California and her increasing role as an advocate of her husband's administration. This is the basis of her new book - how to redefine who she is, not what she is. (With advice for how we can do that, too.) So, I tried to step into her shoes for a minute and decided I just had to ask if she had any vindictive fantasies of running for President to imagine her husband Arnold Schwarzenegger getting a call to resign from his job as Governor of California. I was quoted in a San Jose Mercury News article about the Silicon Valley Mom Bloggers visit with Maria, and here is a video of the question and her great response:


Maria Shriver Book Signing from Erika Jurney on Vimeo

I'll be back soon with more coverage of research supporting dietary and environmental causes of chronic illness!

Gluten-Free Vegan Diet Found Effective in Rheumatoid Arthritis

On March 18th, the Arthritis Research & Therapy journal reported that rheumatoid arthritis patients who followed a gluten-free vegan diet experienced significant athero-protective and anti-inflammatory changes compared to a control group.

Here is how Clan Thompson, the organization that publishes fabulous gluten-free food and drug databases, summarizes the results:

A GLUTEN FREE VEGAN DIET MAY HELP THOSE WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who eat a gluten-free vegan diet could be better protected against heart attacks and stroke. RA is a major risk factor for these cardiovascular diseases, but a gluten-free vegan diet was shown to lower cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and oxidizedLDL (OxLDL), as well as raising the levels of natural antibodies against the damaging compounds in the body that cause symptoms of the chronic inflammatory disease rheumatoid arthritis, such as phosphorylcholine. These findings are reported today in the open access journal Arthritis Research & Therapy.

The idea that we can influence our health by changing our eating habits has become a fashionable idea among lifestyle and consumer magazines. There is evidence that dietary changes can bring about health benefits but specific results are not widespread.

Now, Johan Frostegard of the Rheumatology Unit at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm and colleagues divided sixty-six RA patients randomly into two groups. They randomly assigned 38 of the volunteers to eat a gluten-free vegan diet, and the other 28 a well-balanced but non-vegan diet for one year. They analysed the levels of fatty, lipid molecules in blood samples using routine analytical methods at regular periods. They also measured oxLDL and anti-phosphorylcholine (antiPC) factor at the beginning of the experiment, at 3 months and again at 12 months.

The researchers found that the gluten-free vegan diet not only reduced LDL and oxLDL levels and raised antiPC antibodies but lowered the body-mass index (BMI) of the volunteers in that group. Levels of other fatty molecules, including triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) stayed the same. In contrast, none of the indicators differed significantly for the control groups on the conventional healthy diet.

AntiPC antibodies are studied within CVDIMMUNE, an European consortium led by Dr Frostegard with the hypothesis that such antibodies can protect against cardiovascular disease and can be used as diagnostic and therapeutic factors.

Frostegard and colleagues have now shown that diet could be used to improve the long-term health of people with rheumatoid arthritis. They concede that a bigger study group will be needed to discern which particular aspects of the diet help the most.

See my interview with Raw Daddy for more info and resources on following a vegan diet.

NYT: The MS Recovery Diet

I was excited to see the New York Times review a book about recovering from MS through diet. Ann Sawyer and Judith Bachrach penned The MS Recovery Diet to show that it's possible to regain lost function in MS through diet. The cover even claims it's possible to live symptom-free. For some people who are very strict on the diet, it is entirely possible.

Here is part of the NYT interview with Ms. Sawyer:

“This approach is simple, it doesn’t cost anything and nobody is making money from it. We’re not saying the diet is a cure; it’s a way to control the symptoms of MS. Walking around watching what you eat is a lot better than sitting in a wheelchair.” [MED NAUSEUM COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!]

Before she started the diet, Ms. Bachrach, a former dancer and movement instructor, could not even use a wheelchair because her upper body had become too weak to manipulate it. She was 35 when she learned she had MS; by 49, she was mostly bedridden. Then, in 2006, she met Ms. Sawyer and decided to try the diet she suggested.

“After one week on this diet, I regained feeling in my toes,” she wrote. “After about six weeks, I also gained incrementally in terms of endurance and muscular rebound. I was even able to walk back down to the waterfall on my land, to carry firewood, to empty the ash bucket, to make a spaghetti sauce and to stay up to greet my husband on his late return from a trip, all in one day, and still felt just fine.

“There is no doubt that on this diet, my good days are definitely better. I continue to gain new sensations, mobility, strength and endurance every month.”

The first tenet is to replace saturated fats with monounsaturated fats. This is the only part of the diet with which I'd quibble since there are only two studies showing saturated fats actually cause ill health. Michael Pollan posits that fats have been unfairly demonized since most studies mix all fats -- including trans fats -- into the same category.

At any rate, I was encouraged by the reasoning behind the other dietary restrictions, which are based on common food intolerances, like wheat and dairy, and the theory of molecular mimicry. Molecular mimicry is when your body makes antibodies to a partially digested food protein, and since the antibodies are not all that specific, they can mistake your own tissues for that food protein and attack them. In MS, of course, your antibodies target the myelin sheaths that act like the plastic insulation on electric wire. Here's how the NYT describes it:

The theory behind the “recovery diet” is that in susceptible people, partly digested proteins stimulate an allergy-like immune response, resulting in antibodies that mistake myelin for the offending protein. These antibodies can then enter the brain and attack the myelin sheath, disrupting nerve conduction and eventually causing death of the axons. The goal the authors suggest is to identify and eliminate culprit foods from the diet to quiet the immune response.

I've lived through the same health changes as Ms. Sawyer and can definitively say this will work in many people with MS. I was bedridden for 3.5 years until I changed my diet to eliminate foods to which testing showed I'm intolerant - i.e. the foods to which my body was making antibodies. The diet becomes your new wheelchair - without it you are immobilized by your symptoms. But, I'd rather have a pain-in-the-butt diet than be in actual pain.

I've helped many people reduce symptoms of chronic illness (autism, PDD, dyslexia, MS, lupus, psoriasis, arthritis, chronic fatigue, etc.) and the benefits are amazing. The diet gets to the root of the problem-- preventing symptoms, unlike most pharmaceutical drugs which just mask symptoms.

To get tested for food intolerances, follow these four steps:

1. Begin with a blood screening for celiac disease at your internist's or gastroenterologist's office. That test is a yes/no for celiac in your MD's mind, however, if any of the scores are higher than zero, count yourself among the gluten intolerant and try a gluten-free diet.
2. If the blood test is totally negative, follow up with a stool test for wheat and dairy from www.enterolab.com.
3. If the enterolab test is positive and removing wheat and dairy don't do it for you after trying to strictly eliminate these foods for 3 - 4 months, then get a 96-food IgG Food Intolerance Panel (finger stick) to see if other foods are causing your problems. Here is one source for the panel: Vitamin Research Products. (Note: VRP calls it an "allergy" panel, but technically it is a food intolerance panel measuring IgG antibodies, not the IgE classic allergies you would already be aware of having.)
4. Finally, see a nutritionist or naturopath to balance your diet and heal your gut so you can add more foods back. This will allow you to get by with eliminating as few foods as possible over the long term, and gut health gives a big boost to your overall health.

Let food be thy medicine; and thy medicine thy food. - Hippocrates

Does the Flu Shot Work? Not according to Customer Service

Take a listen to this 2 minute recording of a call to a vaccine manufacturer's customer service rep. I was laughing out loud. As the phone rep says, the flu vaccine has never been proven effective, and at the end of the call, the rep even admits she doesn't get an annual flu shot. I have no idea who placed the call, who recorded it or who the vaccine manufacturer is, but I'm posting this for entertainment value. (Email subscribers, please click on the title link to listen to the audio.)



The NIH and Cochrane Group have independently come to the conclusion that flu vaccine is not effective in the elderly. CBS news reported on the findings here. The Cochrane Group analyzed all flu vaccine studies and found that on average, the flu vaccine will not prevent you from getting the flu, but if you do get one of the strains you were vaccinated for, you'll have the flu for 4 hours less than you would have without the flu shot. Yes, I said 4 hours. The Cochrane group even looks at sub-groups such as children under two and asthmatics and found the flu vaccine to be as effective as placebo. E.g. not effective.

And, please if you still want to get a flu vaccine, insist on the mercury-free version. You have to be 550 pounds to excrete the 25 micrograms of mercury in a mercury-containing flu shot. Where does the rest of it go? Your brain, liver, and kidneys. Here is Safe Mind's flu vaccine brochure in case you missed it.

Find all med nauseum posts on flu vaccine here.

And, read about how to naturally protect yourself and your kids from the flu here.

Raw, Hip, and Healthy Food: Raw Daddy Interview

Last week I had the privilege of interviewing James Hall, aka Raw Daddy, about eating a raw vegan diet. We talked about what raw foods do for your health, if it's all about salads (it's not!), and how to prep raw foods in the kitchen.

James recently sold his high tech business. Now he's putting his considerable culinary skills to work with his partner Clarina Bradshaw. Together they host Table of Life raw food potlucks and are planning to open a restaurant soon.

While you're waiting for the restaurant to open, James can cater many of his enticing creations for your next event (his menu), including his portable meals served up inside a cone. They rival the best plated meal you've had at Tamarine or any other hot restaurant. As probably the most stylish man south of San Francisco, he wants people to know raw food is hip, not hippie food - it's life-giving food for everyone.

Since the interview, I've increased my raw food intake from 50% to about 90% and I am feeling more energetic, sleeping more soundly, and my pesky osteoarthritic toe is much, much better. I'm a believer, but don't take it from me, read what RawDaddy has to say.

Here is the full scoop from our interview:

Alix: How did you get into raw foods?

James: Actually Raw Food was brought to my attention about 7-8 years ago by my personal assistant at the time. She used to work with someone who only ate raw foods. I thought "what a wacko, why would somebody want to eat that way." Fast forward to a couple of years ago. My partner, Clarina was opening a new division for The Gap, and was working your standard Silicon Valley grind of 18 hour days. She was complaining about how the food she was eating was making her tired. She literally said, "I'm tired of digesting my food."

So that's when I sprang into action, started doing mass amounts of research and found Raw Food. She thanks me every day for doing so. It got her through those long days, and for that matter it's changed all of our lives.

Alix: You teach raw foods classes, your raw food potlucks are all the rage, and now I heard you plan to open a raw foods restaurant. Can you tell me about it?

James: Clarina and I started feeling better the more raw food we ate, so we opened up our home to have these Raw Food Potlucks to see who would actually come to these events. The very first one we did, 6 people showed up. Now we have close to 250 members and we have to limit it them to 45-50 people. They sell out in a matter of minutes.

We found out through these potlucks, and hanging in the raw food community, that there are specific groups that come.

Alix: Who are these groups?

James: The sick. People who have conditions. They have or perhaps have not gone down the traditional AMA way of looking at things, and realize things aren't getting better, so they say, "let me see if this way of living can help."

The "Hollywoods." They're young at heart, they are very conscious in every thing that they do. They know Hollywood is into Raw Food for its energy, and for its fountain of youth properties. They also know it counter-balances the partying aspect of their lives.

The eco/animal friendly. Folks who eat raw for ethical reasons.

The curious. People who want to check it out. I like the fact that they are curious. It means that they are open to something new. If given the right food and situation, these people can easily incorporate raw food into their diet.

And then there is the rest of the world who probably thinks raw is weird. The 99.5 percent of the population in the world. The people who are afraid of trying new things, who are pretty unconscious about what they eat. These are the people who I am after. This is where the business opportunity lies. If you can come up with, which I think I have, a product and/or service where people don't have to be conscious when experiencing it, they just think it's freaking great. Then you've won the the battle. Oh and by the way, what you just put in your mouth is really something that is great for you. Great for your body, and great for your soul. I mean think about it. Are there any fast food places out there that can say that?

Alix: You are known for combining ingredients into amazing new tastes that people think are "freaking great." Can you give me an example?

James: My chocolate cake is really popular. It's made with cashew flour, raw cacao, and other ingredients. The mousse I top it with has cacao powder, ginger, and shoyu in addition to things you'd actually expect, like maple syrup to sweeten it.

Alix: That sounds both weird and great. I hope I get to try it. What does it mean to eat raw foods when you're not having dessert?

James: It's about being conscious about what you put into your body.

The technical part of being into raw food is No Processed Starches, No Processed Sugars, No Meat and No Dairy. Some people might argue with the meat and the dairy piece of it. And, nothing is cooked above 118 degrees.

Alix: Tell me more about the enzymes and nutrient content of raw foods.

James: It's proven that when you cook food over a 120 degrees you start to lose enzymes and the nutritional content of food starts to decline. Some people will make the argument that some foods are better for you cooked. But the majority of foods seem to do the body better the more unaltered they are. Where the fountain of youth thing comes into play, is our bodies produce enzymes, not only to help us digest food, but for other body functions as well. Some say we have a limited amount of enzymes that we produce in a lifetime. When eating raw foods, the body doesn't need to use its enzyme reserves to digest our food. The food itself uses its enzymes to digest itself. That's why you feel more energy and not a food coma when you eat raw food.

Alix: What do people get out of it?

James: Lots of different things I suspect. I can only speak for me. It's my energy level. When I'm on my raw food game, and my diet is up 85-95% raw, my energy level goes through the roof. I sleep less, and I don't feel weighted down. I feel more virile.

Alix: Is raw beneficial for certain health conditions? I've heard amazing stories from cancer and arthritis patients.

James: I'm not a doctor, and all I can tell you is from my experience meeting people in the raw food community and at our potlucks. The very first potluck we threw, the one where 6 people showed up. There was a gal there who was living the typical Silicon Valley executive life. She was a CEO of a small company, traveling to Paris every month. She told me she'd had cancer, I'm sorry I can't remember which type she had. And that she believes it was her sticking to a 100% raw food diet for about a year that put here cancer in remission.

There have been numerous folks who have come to the potlucks with not so dramatic stories as that, but stories none the less.

Alix: What percent raw foods do you need to eat to get the benefits?

James: Some experts say 60%, some say a minimum of 70%. I say bullshit. I say any amount in your diet being raw will help. Look around at the state of America's waist line. I'm not sure why someone would say those numbers. It would really discourage people from incorporating raw into their diet. I know people who think eating a vegetable is eating a corn dog. You don't think eating any raw food would help them? The least it would do, is stop them for at least one meal.

Alix: Is raw all about salads and smoothies?

For some people yes. That's pretty much all they eat. But it doesn't have to be that way. I don't eat that way. I'm into texture, I'm into the senses. And also the emotional aspect that food brings to us. The senses get dull if they aren't used regularly.

I will say this. Peoples lives would change for the better, if they did just one thing. They should try to have a green smoothie every day or even every other day.

Alix: Is raw always vegan?

James: That's a good question. Some say yes, and other say no. I've met numerous people who eat raw dairy and meat, milk, cream, cheese and eggs. They'll also eat raw fish with out the rice. It's a personal choice. Carol Alt, the model is a raw foodist. She I believe eats raw dairy, maybe even meat and fish.

The thing about including these items in a raw food diet, is you become extremely conscious of where your food comes from. Was it grass fed, is it local? Was it treated humanely? Was it raised organically? Is it wild or farm raised?

Eating raw food should be fun. I'm not militant about it at all.

Alix: Wheat and soy are vegan, why do most raw food people avoid them?

James: There are a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason is that a growing number of holistic health professionals feel that soy is not good for us, unless its fermented, like miso or soy.

Processed wheat? What's the point? Throw in the gluten being hard to digest for a lot folks and you just start looking for alternatives to wheat.

Alix: Nuts are a big part of eating raw - for nut milks, nut cheeses, pates, etc. Why do you soak nuts?

James: Soaking nuts and seeds removes the growth inhibitors that impair germination.

Alix: Is there a difference between soaked and sprouted?

James: Once they germinate, they contain more life force and are easier to digest. During the germination process, each begins the transition from nut or seed to vegetable.

Alix: Oh, so this is similar to what Michael Pollan said in his book, In Defense of Food - our population's transition from eating seeds (like wheat) instead of leaves left us with a diet heavy in omega-6s that promote fat storage and inflammation but deficient in Omega-3s which aid our nervous system and act as anti-inflammatories.

James: That's right - sprouting makes nuts and seeds much more healthy.

Alix: Some of this sounds complicated. What kitchen tools do you need to get started making raw foods?

James: It's actually pretty easy once you learn how to prepare food this way. If you want to make it so it's easier to stay with a raw food diet, then I would have a Dehydrator (Excalibur), a good quality blender (Blendtec or Vita-Mix), and a food processor.

Alix: What are some of your favorite raw dishes?

James: I hate to say this because it sounds so vain, but I love my raw preparation the best. Then there is Pure Food and Wine in NYC. They do a great job, as does "Alive" in San Francisco. Cafe Gratitude does wonderful grain bowls with quinoa that are just outstanding.

Alix: Any raw food recipe books you recommend?

James: I would recommend 3 books. However, once you get into preparing raw food, you can look at a regular cook book and say, "I can do that recipe raw." Most of my repertoire comes from non raw books.

Angel Food by Cherie Soria. Very basic book. Gives recipes for sprouting and fermenting foods.

Pure Food and Wine by Matthew Kenny and Sarma Melngailis. Starting to move up the gourmet food chain, but still fairly easy.

"Raw" by Charlie Trotter and Roxanne Klein. High end gourmet raw cook book. Not for the easily intimidated.

Alix: Any special ingredients you normally would not have around the kitchen?

James: Not really. When you really get into putting a raw kitchen together, you'll find things that you are replacing things with. For example. Most people use cornstarch as a thickener for sauces. Well in a raw kitchen I would use "agar agar." It works just like cornstarch, but it doesn't have to be heated very much, just a bit of warm water to dissolve it. It's made out of sea kelp.

Alix: Is there anything else you want people to know about raw foods?

James: The exciting thing about doing things raw, is rethinking what we've done in the past. Can we make it taste just as good, and have it be great for us? Yes you can!

Super Size Me Follow Up Study Shows Alarming Results

Here is a tip from Liz Lipski, a holistic nutritionist based in North Carolina. She summarized this Swedish study so well, I'm just going to paste it in entirety below.

The key point is that the healthy, slender subjects ate a month of Big Macs with the following results. They: (1) gained a lot of weight; (2) had dangerous increases in a liver enzyme, ALT; and (3) actually had higher HDL "good" cholesterol (!). Two subjects developed fatty liver which can lead to Type II diabetes. Liz Lipski (and I) suspect the culprit was the carbs rather than the fat in the foods. See this Med Nauseum article on a study showing carbs cause fatty liver, not fats.

And, hey, if you eat like this, you don't need to spend money on a costume to look like a Big Mac (see photo), you become one!

Here is what Liz says:

"Supersize Me" Follow-up Study has some Unexpected Results

The docu-movie "Supersize Me" has spawned a follow-up study in Sweden that has some surprising results. Dr. Frederik Nystrom selected 12 men and 6 women, all slender and in good health, to eat 2 meals per day at McDonalds, Burger King, or other fast food restaurants over four weeks. The volunteers were also asked to stop exercising during that same time, with a goal of increasing body weight by 10-15 % to measure the effects of a sudden surge in calories.

Here's what they found. On average the volunteers gained 14.3 pounds, while one ballooned by 26.4 pounds.

Based on blood tests done at the beginning, middle, and end of the experiment, levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), a liver enzyme, increased dramatically after only one week, and quadrupled over the four-week study. ALT levels rose to dangerously high levels in 11 out of the 18 subjects. One person had to be withdrawn because his levels increased to 10 times the normal level. This study proved that high ALT levels can be caused by food alone without any alcohol consumption. And the researchers reported that the rise in ALT was due to carbohydrates, specifically the sugar in the soda, and not to the fat in the hamburgers.

Two volunteers developed fatty liver, also known as liver steatosis, in which fat cells build up to dangerous levels and increase the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Last year I reported a University of San Diego study that estimated 10% of "healthy" children have fatty livers. (You can download the 2007 Health Tips book at www.innovativehealing.com It's free.) Could it be all of the high fructose corn syrup and sugar? And we know that diabetes is on the rise in children as well as adults.

On the bright side, they found that the "healthy" HDL cholesterol levels actually increased over the four-week period while consuming a high fat diet. This contradicts most of the research in the US.

So, if you are still eating a lot of fast foods, hopefully this will motivate some change. If you've already made the change, but have loved ones who haven't, send this tip along to them! It's viral in a good way!

Resource: Kechagias S, Ernersson A, Dahlqvist O, Lundberg P, Lindström T, Nystrom FH. Fast food based hyper-alimentation can induce rapid and profound elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase in healthy subjects. Gut. 2008 Feb 14

---

Tip Provided By:

Dr. Liz Lipski has a PhD and is board certified in clinical nutrition. A 30-year practitioner, author, and the Director of Doctoral Studies at Hawthorn University. She is founder of Innovative Healing Inc., author of Digestive Wellness, Digestive Wellness for Children, and many other publications.

Stop Bay Area Apple Moth Spraying: Petition

The California Department of Agriculture is set to spray the Bay Area for the Light Brown Apple Moth which feeds on leaves and fruit. I don't do too many action posts, but I find it concerning that after the spraying this year in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties there were 600 reports of "health illnesses." Californians DO have the right to refuse aerial spraying. Please join the more than 8,000 people who have signed this petition to help stop the spraying.

Per Wikipedia,

The products used for the aerial spray, Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F, may contain polypropylene polybenzyl isocyanate, or PPI. PPI is an isocyanate which is listed as a "hazardous agent" by the National Institutes of Health because it irritates skin and breathing passages at high concentrations.[8] The EPA claims that this chemical is not used in the proposed spray, but the manufacturer's refusal to publish the ingredients based upon the claim that such ingredients are trade secret has led many critics to believe that the EPA is covering up the presence of this chemical.

There are alternatives to spraying, including twist-ties impregnated with the same pheromone in the spray, though this is a more expensive, labor-intensive approach. As the old adage goes, necessity is the mother of invention so I can only hope that by blocking the spraying, a safer alternative will be developed.

Here is what The Petition Site says:

The aerial spraying has been ordered by the Secretary of Agriculture, and due to a declared "state of emergency," representatives and residents are currently legally powerless to stop this. The legitimacy of this so-called "emergency" is uncertain; the moth poses no risk to human health but rather a contested threat to certain crops and plants.

Yet, government agencies approving the plan admit that the pesticide could pose a threat to some people, stating " not all health effects can be predicted and because the general population includes susceptible (people), such as children, the elderly and those with chronic diseases, we cannot provide a definitive cause for their symptoms [experienced after the spraying in Santa Cruz and Monterey]."

For more info, Carla Borelli of Local Forage Blog has links to a KQED segment with Michael Krasny and the California Secretary of Food and Agriculture.

If we don't take action, we will all be sprayed. At night. Spread the word.