Honeybees Face Towering Threat From Cell Phones

Posted by: Dr. Mercola
November 07 2009

Studies  have brought out evidence to support the theory of colony collapse disorder (CCD) among honeybees due to bioactive microwave radiation from cell phones and their relay towers.

Recent experiments have found that worker bees fail to return to their hives when their navigation skills are interfered by the mobile microwaves. Cell phones were placed near beehives. These hives collapsed totally in 5 to 10 days, with the worker bees failing to return to their homes.

The radiation also causes damage to the nervous system of the bee and it becomes unable to fly.

The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.  The phenomenon of CCD and resultant crop loss were first noticed in the U.S. several years ago, but it had spread to most European countries by 2007.

Sources:

The Pioneer September 18, 2009

Dr. Mercola’’s Comments

The threat of losing entire honeybee colonies is far more serious than just a farmer losing his livelihood or you having to go without honey for a while.  Honeybees are critical components of agriculture, used to pollinate many of the nuts, fruits and vegetables that feed the world.

A full one-third of the U.S. food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. The California almond crop alone requires 1.3 million colonies of bees, and bees actually add an estimated $15 billion in value to crops like these.

So if bee colonies continue to be wiped out in unprecedented numbers, major food shortages could result, adding to the current food crisis.

In an average year, beekeepers expect to incur losses of between 5 and 10 percent. But in 2007, U.S. beekeepers surveyed by the USDA Agricultural Research Service reported a total loss of about 36 percent of their bee colonies, up from 13.5 percent the year before.

When nature’s pollinators start to mysteriously die off, it is a major clue that something is out of balance. This mysterious malady has been dubbed “colony collapse disorder” (CCD), and while a definitive cause has yet to be determined it seems cell phones may be playing a role.

How Cell Phone Towers Could be Killing Bees

Early findings pointed to a virus, a fungus or a pesticide as the most likely suspects in CCD, however it’s hard to ignore the research from at least two studies that point to cell phones as a major threat.

When cellular phones were placed near hives, the radiation generated by them (900-1,800 MHz) was enough to prevent bees from returning to them, according to a study conducted at Landau University.

Scientists believe the radiation produced by cellular phones may be enough to interfere with the way bees “communicate” with their hives. Cellular phones may create a resonance effect that interferes with the movement patterns bees use as a kind of language.

Most recently, experiments by Sainuddeen Pattazhy, a researcher and dean in the department of zoology at SN College, Punalur, Kerala, also found that microwaves from mobile phones appear to interfere with worker bees’ navigation skills.

When Pattazhy placed mobile phones near beehives, the hives collapsed completely in five to 10 days. The worker bees failed to return home and vanished, never to be found. Adding to the mystery, parasites, wildlife and other bees, which would normally raid the abandoned hives, would not go near the collapsed colonies. Pattazhy said:

“The navigation skill of the worker bees is dependent on the earth’s magnetic properties. The electro-magnetic waves emitted by the mobile phones and relay towers interfere with the earth’s magnetism, resulting in the loss of the navigation capacity of the bee. Then it fails to come back. Also, the radiation causes damage to the nervous system of the bee and it becomes unable to fly.”

A Combination of Deadly Factors?

Cell phones appear to be a likely threat to bees around the globe, but there may be a cumulative effect going on that is making it more and more difficult for bees to survive, let alone thrive.

For instance, tens of billions of bees are transported across the United States to pollinate oranges, almonds and other food crops. Though the pollination is a normal part of nature, transporting bees thousands of miles in the backs of trucks to a new location is not. Some experts believe this process is stressing bees, quite literally, to death.

Other possible causes of colony collapse disorder have also been pinpointed:

• Pesticides

• Genetically modified crops

• Micro-organisms that compromise the immune system

• High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), frequently used for feeding by certain bee farmers

Most researchers are pointing to a combination of the above factors. For instance, Penn State scientists analyzed pollen, beeswax, adult bees and larvae and found dozens of chemicals, including pesticides, present. These chemicals, especially when combined with these other stresses, are more than capable of overwhelming the delicate system of the honeybee.

What Does This Mean for YOU?

Just as you are bombarded with toxic chemicals from the air you breathe, to the soil your food is grown in, to the toiletries you use and the water you drink, bees are the true canaries in the coal mine, showing us what’s in store for you and me if we don’t clean up our act on several fronts.

And this includes the use of cell phones.

Wireless technology is already being linked to the death of migratory birds and numerous well-researched studies show that brain damage from cell phone radiation may be a fast-approaching new epidemic.

If the disappearance of honeybees, and its corresponding threat to the world’s food supply is not enough to make you think twice about holding a mobile phone to your head, perhaps this will:

• Last year, a well-circulated Swedish study found that people using cell phones doubled their risk of developing brain cancer and acoustic neuroma (a tumor that damages your hearing nerve).

• The study also showed that people who started using cell phones before the age of 20 were more than five times as likely to develop brain cancer.

So maybe it’s time to realize that the honeybees losing their way is not an isolated event. It’s a sign that the very fragile ecosystem we all depend on to survive is not quite balanced. Something is off kilter and it’s time to determine what it is … and then restore that balance as quickly as possible.

And in the meantime, I suggest you take the problems facing the honeybees as a major warning sign, and learn what you can do to protect yourself now.

This Breaking News from the Columbus Dispatch Forum should be worth thinking about. . . was for me.    Jan

U.S. has best health care in the world? Hardly

NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF       Nikolas D  Kristof  writes for the New York Times

The moment of truth for health care is at hand, and the distortion that perhaps gets the most traction is this:
We have the greatest health care system in the world. Sure, it has flaws, but it saves lives in ways that other countries can only dream of. Abroad, people sit on waiting lists for months, so why should we squander billions of dollars to mess with a system that is the envy of the world? As Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama puts it, President Barack Obama’s plans amount to “the first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known.”

.
That self-aggrandizing delusion may be the single greatest myth in the health-care debate. In fact, America’s health-care system is worse than Slov — er, oops, more on that later.

.
The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is 2 1/2 times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland.

.
Canadians live longer than Americans do after kidney transplants and after dialysis, and that may be typical of cross-border differences. One review examined 10 studies of how the American and Canadian systems dealt with various medical issues. The United States did better in two, Canada did better in five and in three they were similar or it was difficult to determine.

.
Another study, cited in a recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, looked at how well 19 developed countries succeeded in avoiding “preventable deaths,” those where a disease could be cured or forestalled. What Shelby called “the best health-care system” ranked last. The figures are worse for minorities. An African-American in New Orleans has a shorter life expectancy than the average person in Vietnam or Honduras.

.
I regularly receive heartbreaking e-mail messages from readers simultaneously combating the predations of disease and insurers. One correspondent, Linda, told me how she had been diagnosed earlier this year with abdominal and bladder cancer — leading to battles with her insurance company.  “I will never forget standing outside the chemo treatment room knowing that the medication needed to save my life was only a few feet away, but that because I had private insurance it wasn’t available to me,” Linda wrote. “I read a comment from someone saying that they didn’t want a faceless government bureaucrat deciding if they would or would not get treatment. Well, a faceless bureaucrat from my private insurance made the decision that I wouldn’t get treatment and that I wasn’t worth saving.”

.
It’s true that Americans have shorter waits to see medical specialists than in most countries, although waits in Germany are shorter than in the United States. But citizens of other countries get longer hospital stays and more medication than Americans do because our insurance companies evict people from hospitals as soon as they can stagger out of bed.

.
In the United States, 90 percent of hernia surgery is performed on an outpatient basis. In Britain, only 40 percent is, according to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute.   Likewise, Americans take 10 percent fewer drugs than citizens in other countries — but pay 118 percent more per pill for the ones that they do take, McKinsey said.

.
Opponents of reform assert that the wretched statistics in the United States are a consequence of unhealthy lifestyles and a diverse population with pockets of poverty. It’s true that America suffers more from obesity than other countries. But McKinsey found that overall, the disease burden in Europe is higher than in the United States, probably because Americans smoke less and the U.S. population is younger.

.
There is one American statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health-care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback.

.
That brings me to an apology.
In several columns, I’ve noted indignantly that we have worse health statistics than Slovenia. For example, I noted that an American child is twice as likely to die in its first year as a Slovenian child. The tone — worse than Slovenia! — offended Slovenians. They resent having their fine universal health coverage compared with the notoriously dysfunctional U.S. system. As far as I can tell, every Slovenian has written to me. Twice. So, to all you Slovenians, I apologize profusely for the invidious comparison of our health systems. Yet I still don’t see anything wrong with us Americans aspiring for health care every bit as good as yours.
Nicholas D. Kristof writes for The New York Times.

This post originated with Dr. Mercola and included a wonderful interview he had with Barbara Loe Fisher, the founder of the National Vaccine Information Center.   I really tried to get it over here for you to hear, but could not get the job done.  Have had that trouble the last few months since WordPress has “upgraded” our platform.  Ah well, such is progress.   Perhaps its me, just missed something in the translation.  Finally decided to bring it anyway and just advise you to try to hear the interview on Dr. Mercola’s site (he is in my blogroll).  There is much to evaluate about this FLU  thing, isn’t there?        Jan

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states on their main flu Web site http://www.cdc.gov/flu/ that flu activity is increasing in the United States, with most states reporting “widespread influenza activity.”

The CDC goes on to say, and I quote:“So far, most flu is 2009 H1N1 flu (sometimes called “swine flu”).”

But wait stop the presses.

A three-month-long investigation by CBS News, released earlier this week that  included state-by-state test results, revealed some very different facts. The CBS study found that H1N1 flu cases are NOT as prevalent as feared. A CBS article even states:

“If you’ve been diagnosed “probable” or “presumed” 2009 H1N1 or “swine flu” in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 flu. In fact, you probably didn’t have flu at all.“

Obviously CBS News and the CDC are completely contradicting each other. So who is right?

Well, CBS reports that in late July 2009 the CDC advised states to STOP testing for H1N1 flu, and they also stopped counting individual cases.

• Their rationale for this, according to CBS News, was that it was a waste of resources to test for H1N1 flu because it was already confirmed as an epidemic.
• So just like that virtually every person who visited their physician with flu-like symptoms since late July was assumed to have H1N1, with no testing necessary because, after all, there’s an epidemic.

It’s interesting to note that at the same time as the CDC decided the H1N1 epidemic warranted no further testing for cases due to its epidemic status, Finnish health authorities actually downgraded the threat of swine flu.

In late July the health ministry and the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) in Finland actually removed swine flu from a list of diseases considered dangerous to the public because the majority of cases recovered without medication or hospital care!

And, as the CDC continues to use fear to motivate and control Americans with their worst-case swine flu scenarios, they say nothing of the experience of those in the southern hemisphere, which just finished their flu season and found it was not as bad as expected.

CBS News Finds H1N1 Tests “Overwhelmingly Negative”

Before beginning their investigation, CBS News asked the CDC for state-by-state test results prior to their halting of testing and tracking. The CDC did not initially respond so CBS went to all 50 states directly, asking for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July.

What did they find? CBS reported:

“The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.”

As you can see from this CBS News graphic, not only are most cases of suspected flu-like illnesses not H1N1, they’re not even the flu but more likely some type of cold or upper respiratory infection!

(Image from CBS News)

Where is the CDC Getting Their Data?

Given CBS News’ findings that most cases of flu-like illnesses are neither H1N1 nor the flu, it begs the question: Why is the CDC reporting that most flu in the United States is in fact H1N1?

Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center who I spoke with in the interview above, was a consumer representative on the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in 2003, and she asked the head of the influenza branch of the CDC how much of the flu-like illness that occurs in America every year is actually due to the flu.

The answer was about 20 percent, which corresponds more closely with the CBS News data from 2009.

According to the CBS News study, when you come down with chills, fever, cough, runny nose, malaise and all those other “flu-like” symptoms, the illness is likely caused by influenza at most 17 percent of the time and as little as 3 percent! The other 83 to 97 percent of the time it’s caused by other viruses or bacteria.

So remember that not every illness that appears to be the flu actually is the flu. In fact, most of the time it’s not.

Curiously, the CDC still advises those who were told they had 2009 H1N1 (and therefore should be immune to getting it again) to get vaccinated unless they had lab confirmation.

Is the CDC Purposely Misinforming the Public to Sell More Flu and H1N1 Vaccines?

Conflicts of interest are rampant in the vaccination infrastructure. The same people who are regulating and promoting vaccines are also evaluating vaccine safety.

For instance, Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia earned at least $29 million as part of a $182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine. He also formerly sat on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine

This type of conflict of interest has been going on for some time.

In August 1999, the Committee on Government Reform initiated an investigation into Federal vaccine policy. During the investigation the Committee extensively reviewed financial disclosure forms and related documents and interviewed key officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the CDC.

It was revealed that many individuals on two key advisory committees had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines. These individuals were even granted waivers allowing them to fully participate in discussions about vaccine licensing and recommendations for children, despite the fact that federal law states members of advisory committees are required to disclose such ties and recuse themselves from such discussions and decisions.

Further, the investigation revealed that the FDA’s and CDC’s conflict of interest rules were not strongly enforced while the rules themselves were weak. Specific problems noted by the Committee included:

• The CDC routinely granted waivers from conflict of interest rules to many members of its advisory committee.
• Those CDC advisory committee members who were not allowed to vote on certain recommendations due to financial conflicts of interest were still allowed to actively participate in committee deliberations and advocate specific positions.
• The Chairman of the CDC’s advisory committee owned 600 shares of stock in Merck, a pharmaceutical company with an active vaccine division.
• Members of the CDC’s advisory committee often left key details out of their financial disclosure statements, and were not required to provide the missing information by CDC ethics officials.

And, when the FDA and CDC approved the controversial rotavirus vaccine in 1998 and 1999, the Committee’s report said:

• 3 out of the 5 FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
• 4 out of the 8 CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.

The rotavirus vaccine was pulled from the market one year after approval, after it was found to cause severe bowel obstructions.

Given their sordid history, can the CDC really be trusted, even today? Do you think that much has changed in just one decade?

Is the H1N1 Vaccine Really Safe as the CDC Says it Is?

CDC officials are screaming that H1N1 is so different from the seasonal influenza strains that have circulated in the past few decades that a national alarm must be sounded and everyone needs to be so afraid that we all should get vaccinated to prevent a deadly pandemic.

Yet, they say the new H1N1 vaccine is safe based on vaccines for that very same flu strain from which it is so different. They write on their Web site “the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines are expected to have similar safety profiles as seasonal flu vaccines …”

Another contradiction.

While symptoms of H1N1 flu and seasonal flu are virtually identical, the H1N1 vaccine is showing signs of being quite different from the seasonal flu shot.

Although both are produced using antiquated 50-year-old technology that involves injecting the virus into eggs and allowing it to grow, the virus being used to produce the swine flu vaccine has been found to reproduce much more slowly in eggs than the ordinary flu virus.

And according to a separate CBS News report, the U.S. government is now funding newer unprecedented technologies to speed up vaccine production, including one that involves growing the virus inside animal cells and another that involves flu proteins grown inside insect cells.

The risks of these, and the current fast-tracked swine flu vaccine, are truly unknown at this time.

There is NO Incentive for the CDC or Vaccine Manufacturers to Care About Safety

You may think that the CDC and the vaccine manufacturers must be concerned about safety, as if they released a dangerous vaccine and promoted it to the American public, imagine the lawsuits they would face.

This is actually no longer reality as the U.S. government has granted vaccine makers total legal immunity from any lawsuits that result from the new swine flu vaccine.

In fact, drug manufacturers got a major boost in protection and were granted unprecedented powers to experiment on the population with the passing of the 2006 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (the PREP Act).

This law allows the DHHS Secretary to invoke almost complete immunity from liability for manufacturers of vaccines and drugs used to combat a declared public health emergency, which the “swine flu pandemic” qualifies as.

The PREP Act removes your right to a trial jury unless you can provide clear evidence of willful misconduct that resulted in death or serious physical injury. But that’s not all. First you must apply for and be granted permission to sue by the DHHS Secretary.

The most problematic aspect of the PREP Act is that it removes all financial incentive to make a safe product.

In fact, vaccine makers now have a negative incentive to test it for safety, because if they are aware of problems, then they could potentially be held liable for willful misconduct!

As long as they can prove they “didn’t know” of any problem, they will not be liable for damages. Hence it’s in their best interest to know as little as possible about the adverse reactions it might cause.

It seems unimaginable, but you and your children are now being enlisted as an unpaid human trial subjects for experimental, fast-tracked vaccines like the swine flu vaccine.

Even if They Were Effective or Safe, Most Vaccines Will Come Too Late

Recent national polls have revealed that 30 percent to 50 percent in many communities are not planning to get a swine flu shot … but there are many who are still ready to stand in line.

If you have not yet made up your mind and have questions, we have created some fact-filled posters that you can print and post ALL over your community, your local stores, office and schools.

You can also visit the special section of my site that is devoted to giving you all the latest H1N1 Swine Flu Alerts. This is an excellent go-to source to stay updated on all the new swine flu developments.

But I wanted to share one final detail, and that is a new study just released by Purdue University researchers and published in the journal Eurosurveillance.

The researchers found that at this point in time any vaccinations that are given in the United States will likely have little effect on the number of infections. The researchers state:

“The model predicts that there will be a significant wave in autumn, with 63% of the population being infected, and that this wave will peak so early that the planned CDC vaccination campaign will likely not have a large effect on the total number of people ultimately infected by the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus.”

In other words, infections are predicted to peak in late October (now) and by the end of the year it’s estimated that 63 percent of the U.S. population will have been infected with H1N1 swine flu.

What does this mean? By the end of the year the majority of the U.S. population will have likely acquired natural immunity.

Natural immunity is what you gain when you recover from influenza and natural immunity is what is protecting older Americans, who have recovered from exposure to H1N1 strains of influenza in the past and are therefore less susceptible today.

This new revelation, coupled with CBS News’ finding that swine flu cases are already being greatly overestimated … and the fact that vaccines do not offer long-term immunity anyway … and the questionable motives behind CDC’s massive vaccination campaign … puts an entirely different slant on the swine flu “epidemic,” don’t you think?

If you are still concerned about the swine flu, you should know that it is relatively easy to improve your immune response to fight this infection. If 99.9% of the people are not having any serious complications from H1N1, it would seem perfectly rational to believe that minor lifestyle changes could have dramatic effects on fighting this infection, and none of these involve taking potentially dangerous and unproven vaccine interventions.

Simple Measures That Can Help You Fight Illness

• Vitamin D has been well documented to increase the production of over 200 anti microbial peptides that fight infection.
• Eliminate sugar from your diet as that will impair your immune response
• Get plenty of rest
• Exercise appropriately

You can also help make a BIG difference in protecting your right to make informed, voluntary vaccination choices by supporting the National Vaccine Information Center.

I have made this non-profit organization — America’s Vaccine Safety Watchdog — one of my favorite charities and I urge you to become a donor member and help NVIC protect your informed consent rights and your children’s health.

Related Links:
Important Swine Flu Alert Oct 2009

Swineflu / H1N1 Homepage

Serious Vaccine Reactions to Now Be Called ‘Coincidence’?

CDC-Says-Kids-That-Die-From-Swine-Flu-Have-Coexisting-Bacterial-Infections

–> // Dr. Mercola October 31 2009 | 46,701 views A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that of the 36 children who died from H1N1 from April to August, six had no chronic health conditions. But all of them had a co-occurring bacterial infection. The most common co-occurring infection that causes flu-related deaths is staphylococcus aureus. A third of the population carries it, most in their nose or on their skin. The flu causes upper respiratory damage, which allows the staph to make its way into the lungs. Sources: Star Tribune October 5, 2009   Dr. Mercola’s Comments: This is exactly what I was referring to in Wednesday’s special swine flu alert. If you missed it, I urge you to take a moment to review it now. It received over 80,000 views within hours of being published. In it, I discussed the prevailing propaganda being streamed through popularTV programslike 60-Minutes. 60-Minutes’ Story Also Highlighted Bacterial Infection as Flu Tragedy Their segment, which aired last Sunday, did ask some hard questions to the Assistant Surgeon General. But they didn’t ask why CDC officials persist in telling the public that this H1N1 strain of influenza is quite dangerous when the experience of those in the southern hemisphere (which just finished their flu season) is in direct conflict with what the CDC is telling the American people. And, just like most of the mainstream media, 60-Minutes did not ask some of the most essential questions that need to be answered if you are to understand what is really going on with this “pandemic.” The issue of coexisting bacterial infections is one of those questions that need to be looked at more closely. Their segment followed the story of a young high school football player who was infected with the H1N1 virus, received some form of medication for his flu symptoms, and then quickly developed a life-threatening staph infection in his lungs. However, no questions were asked about what type of medication he received, even though it was clear that, after recovering slightly, he then quickly deteriorated after receiving the medication. There was also no mention of whether the teen had already been vaccinated for seasonal or H1N1 influenza, either recently or in the past years. A Canadian preliminary study is provocative in that it suggests that those who have gotten seasonal influenza vaccine in the past may be at greater risk for getting H1N1 and having complications. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is calling for a comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals for all health outcomes, and I believe it would be prudent to do so. After all, in order for anyone to make an informed decision about vaccines, you need to have certain facts at hand, not conjecture stating that something is “believed to be safe” even though it has never been studied! Why Aren’t These Important Questions Being Asked? So far 81 children have died from H1N1 in the US. The death of any child is tragic. However, using these deaths to potentially harm countless others who are not naturally at risk may be even worse. Here are some of the questions that need honest answers, as they may paint an entirely different picture than what we are currently told by health officials and the media. How many pediatric deaths occurred in children who: Were positively lab confirmed as H1N1? Had underlying chronic immune and brain dysfunction? Were fully vaccinated according to CDC recommendations? Had received influenza vaccine this year? Had received seasonal influenza vaccine in previous years? Received Tamiflu or another anti-viral prior to death? Had a coinciding bacterial infection with H1N1? Were never vaccinated – totally unvaccinated? With only 81 sets of medical records to review, someone ought to be able to compile these statistics. So far we know that, of the 36 children who died from H1N1 between April and August of this year, 30 had some form of chronic health condition, and all of them had a co-occurring bacterial infection. Clearly, having a robust, well-functioning immune system is the best way to ensure your body’s innate ability to fight off this mild flu virus, and not succumb to secondary infections such as staphylococcus aureus. I’d also like to know how many flu deaths might be attributed to antibiotic-resistant staph infections. According to the Star Tribune, the most common co-occurring infection that causes flu-related deaths is staphylococcus aureus, which is commonly found on your skin and in your nose. About a third of the population carries it. Unfortunately, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, also known as MRSA, has become a serious public health problem, one that is getting progressively worse and actually exacts a greater death toll than “modern plagues” like AIDS. Needless to say, we already know the reason for the ever increasing threat of MRSA – over use of antibiotics, both in medicine and conventional farming practices. It’s an entirely man-made problem, the answer to which is exercising RESTRAINT in the use of antibiotics, so that they can actually work when someone’s life is really on the line… It could be of great value to have more facts about each of these H1N1 flu deaths. But the fact still remains that flu vaccines will nearly always decrease your overall immune function, not enhance it! Obese at Six Times Higher Risk from H1N1 Complications Most authorities agree that the H1N1 variant virus is quite mild. The vast majority of people (99.99%) are having very brief and mild illnesses from this virus. And yet, some people do die from it – some die each and every flu season. But who, and why? Unfortunately, the media is not giving you the answers to these questions. I will publish an excellent review, and a two-hour audio interview with Dr. Russell Blaylock on this issue on Tuesday, so please stay tuned! Because as he will explain in greater detail, 100 percent of those who have died had underlying health problems before they were infected. In addition, one of the more powerful risk factors for being admitted to the ICU and of dying is obesity. Turns out obese people are admitted 6x more often than those of normal weight. And obesity plays a significant role in the risk to children and pregnant women as well, something that has never been discussed by the media, the CDC or the public health officials. According to Dr. Blaylock, one study found that 32.7% of those admitted to the ICU had asthma or other chronic pulmonary disease, far higher than the general population. Obesity is also associated with a high incidence of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, both of which would increase your risk of having a serious infection, even to mild viruses. BEWARE: Taking Tylenol with the Flu Shot May Actually Make You Worse According to two studies, published in the journal Lancet on October 17, giving your child an analgesic to prevent fever when getting a vaccine could make things worse. Their studies showed that after vaccination, the immune response was lower among babies who were given acetaminophen (such as Tylenol), right after they received the shot. The vaccines used in the study were for pneumococcal disease, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B, polio and rotavirus. No flu vaccines were included. However, it’s likely the effect would still be the same. MSN.com quotes infectious disease expert Dr. Marc Siegel as saying that: “…the conclusion that Tylenol not only suppresses fever, but also decreases immune response is plausible. After all, what is an immune response? It’s an inflammatory response.” The researchers also found that although fewer infants developed a fever after getting acetaminophen, they also developed significantly fewer antibodies against the disease they were vaccinated against. They believe the acetaminophen’s anti-inflammatory activity might interfere with your body’s immune system antibody response, which could explain why the vaccine was rendered less effective. However, what is not mentioned by either MSN, or foodconsumer.org, who also ran an article on these findings, is that a lowered immune response also means you’re more susceptible to develop other infections. And, as we now know, it is secondary infections such as bacterial staph infections that turn out to be deadly — not the flu virus in and of itself. You Take Your Chances Either Way… I also want to stress that you must remember that you are taking your chances either way, whether you get the flu shot or take your chances with the flu. This year, flu deaths are trumpeted across the world, and yet people are also dying and suffering life-altering disabilities shortly after receiving the flu vaccine, whether it be the seasonal- or the H1N1 vaccine. (They’re claimed to be nearly identical anyway, so why would it matter which it is?) For example, here are just a few recent stories that receive nowhere near the same amount of attention. In fact, most if not all, are being portrayed as unfortunate coincidences that have nothing to do with the fact they just received a flu shot, and no further investigations are made: Five people recently died after getting flu shots in Korea The New York Times mentions an 8-year-old boy from Long Island who died roughly a week after receiving a seasonal flu vaccine Twenty-five year old woman suffers irreversible disability after receiving the flu shot Last year, a 6-year-old girl from Colorado died after getting the FluMist vaccine Remember, the medical industry ACCEPTS these occasional deaths as collateral damage during mass vaccinations and other drug interventions. The question is, do you? Flu Mortality, Unrelated to Vaccines, Has Been Down for Years Also remember that the mortality rate of the swine flu is extremely low. Dr. Ronald Whitmont, M.D. reports in a recent article of The Epoch Times: “So far, H1N1 is much less severe than the regular flu. The calculated mortality rate for H1N1 in 2009 is only 0.5 percent. In 2006, the death rate for influenza was 0.77 percent, and in 2005 it was 0.79 percent. Of course, the CDC and the pharmaceutical industries claim credit for this reduction in death rate, but statistical analysis shows that this trend predated the introduction of the vaccine and is not correlated with either vaccine or antiviral medication use.” [Emphasis mine.] Unfortunately, no one knows what the mortality rate is within, say, two weeks of receiving a flu vaccine, because there’s no tracking method in place tracing each and every person who is vaccinated. These are the kind of statistics that are sorely needed. How to Prevent Flu the Natural Way Please understand that there are effective ways to reduce your chances of ever getting the flu in the first place, without ever going near a vaccine. H1N1 is a milder than normal flu bug, and it is the state of your immune system – not the virus itself – that determines whether or not you will get sick, even if you come in contact with the virus. Following these simple guidelines can go a long way to help keep your immune system in optimal working order: Optimize your vitamin D levels. This may be one of your most important strategies for maintaining optimal immune function against all disease, not just the flu. Vitamin D has been well documented to increase the production of over 200 antimicrobial peptides that fight infection. Avoid Sugar. Sugar decreases the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a strong immune system is key to fighting off viruses and other illness. Be aware that sugar is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice. Get Enough Rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you’re tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night’s Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest. Don’t Let Stress Become Overwhelming. We all face some stress everyday, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness.If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an energy psychology tool such as the Meridian Tapping Technique (MTT), which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma. You can check out my free, 25-page MTT manual for some guidelines on how to perform it on yourself. Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads. Take a good source of animal based omega-3 fats like Krill Oil. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don’t use antibacterial soap for this — antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to. You Can Make a Difference Most polls show that we ARE making a difference because more people are becoming educated about influenza and flu vaccines, especially H1N1 swine flu. Recent national polls have revealed that 30 to 50% in many communities are not planning to get a swine flu shot. Those who haven’t made up their minds yet have lots of questions. So we have created some posters that you can print and post ALL over your community, your local stores, office and schools. Related Links: ALERT: Special Swine Flu Update Flu Was Not the Real Killer in the 1918 Pandemic Canada Looks at Vitamin D for Swine Flu Protection

The MC DOUGALL NEWSLETTER

October 2009

The American Cancer Society Reverses Its StrongPosition on Mammograms and PSA Testing

Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society told the New York Times on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 , “We don’t want people to panic, but I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.” 1

How does your personal physician communicate confidence and comfort to you now? “I am sorry I recommended a mammogram that resulted in an unnecessary amputation of your breast?” How consoling do these words feel, “It is a shame you haven’t had an erection in the past 10 years due to the PSA test I insisted you get, that led to debilitating prostate treatments—I hope you and your wife understand I was just following orders from the American Cancer Society?” Tens of millions of women and men have been irreparably damaged by the universal and enthusiastic recommendations for “early detection programs,” also known as “screening,” from their personal physicians, neighborhood breast and prostate clinics, community hospitals, national medical associations and medical societies over the past four decades. Now, all that the faithful patients get is a timid apology from the American Cancer Society, evoked by an article in the October 21, 2009 issue of Journal of the American Medical Association, titled “Rethinking Screening for Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer.” 2 Since, in my opinion, this admission of guilt is insufficient, what would be fair retribution for the harms done?

Adequate scientific evidence to stop mass screening programs has been readily available to your personal doctor for more than three decades. A flick of the “on” button of his or her computer, and a ten-minute search at the National Library of Medicine (www.pubmed.gov) would have revealed the truth. In 1976 Pietro M. Gullino presented his findings on the natural history of cancer, showing early detection is really late detection, at the Conference on Breast Cancer: A Report to the Profession, sponsored by the White House, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. 3 He explained: “ If the time required for a tumor to double its diameter during a known period of time is taken as a measure of growth rate, one can calculate by extrapolation that two-thirds of the duration of a breast cancer remains undetectable by the patient or physician. Long before a breast carcinoma can be detected by present technology, metastatic spread may occur and does in most cases.” This report was subsequently published in the journal representing the American Cancer Society (Cancer). 3

In more familiar words, Dr. Gullino and many other researchers have clearly told everyone listening: mammography, breast self examination, PSA and digital rectal exam are really late detection methods and cannot be expected to save lives by “catching cancer before it spreads.” Unfortunately, there is no profit in telling this truth. So, 386,560 people in the US are diagnosed annually with breast cancer (194,280) and prostate cancer (192,280); many of them through screening. 2

Cancer Mongering—the Most Successful of All Medical Enterprises

Cancer-screening businesses using two modern technologies—the mammogram and the blood test, prostate specific antigen (PSA)—have captured more customers than all other efforts combined. Campaigns have been so effective that about 75 percent of men have had a routine PSA test and about 70 percent of women older than 40 report they have had a recent mammogram. 2 More than $20 billion is spent annually on screening for these two diseases. 2

There are two customary ways a doctor-patient relationship is established. The traditional means is that you become ill and you seek out the advice of a doctor. In this case you initiate the relationship. The worth of the evidence supporting the doctor’s treatment does not need to be very solid. Your doctor is acting in his or her professional capacity to offer you the best available remedies without any real guarantee of the outcome. Remember, you asked for the help.

The second means of establishing a doctor-patient relationship became common with the introduction of programs looking for “early” cancer (screening). In this scenario the doctor comes looking for you. Life is good—you are enjoying your family, hobbies, and work. Then a knock sounds at your front door by way of a radio, TV, or magazine advertisement. Just as likely, during an office visit for an unrelated issue, such as a virus cold, your doctor admonishes you for failing to have your annual mammogram or PSA test. Through screening programs millions of people have become patients. When the doctor turns unsuspecting men and women into customers then the evidence that the outcome of this campaign will be far “more good than harm” must be unquestionable.

On October 21, 2009 the public was told by the American Cancer Society that this has not been the case for breast and prostate screening. Why now? The evidence has not changed—the only change is that now a few more people are willing to tell the truth. Why the delay? Annually, there is $20 billion at stake for screening alone and hundreds of billions more for the tests and treatments that follow. The ivory towers of your town’s cancer centers have been built from the blood of men and women subjected to harmful screening programs.

Otis Brawley, MD, Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society

Dr. Brawley is a practicing oncologist, Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society, professor of hematology, oncology, and medicine at the Emory University School of Medicine and Professor of Epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health. 4

About himself he says, “I have never had a PSA and do not desire one.” 5 He compares prostate screening to the Tuskegee Experiment—research on the natural progression of untreated syphilis performed on black male patients between 1932 and 1972. 5 This study caused, as it should have, serious mistrust by the black community toward public health efforts in the United States . Currently black males are heavily targeted for prostate cancer screening and treatments.

Dr Brawley has known about the questionable benefits of screening for more than a decade. Regarding mammography, his words in the Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America were, “There has been considerable debate about the benefit:harm ratio of mammography screening for women below the age of 50 years, and about what proportion of the observed benefit arises from screening that occurs after these women have entered their 50s.” 6 He wrote in the journal Cancer (published on behalf of the American Cancer Society), “The benefits of screening and early detection, although theoretically possible, are yet unknown, whereas the risks and harms of screening and resultant treatment are definite.” 7 He continued, “Although it (screening) may truly cure a few men who need to be cured, this benefit may be achieved at the cost of causing a large number of men with prostate carcinoma to undergo unnecessary treatment and resultant morbidity (illness).” 7

In 1985, 24 Years Ago, I Explained Why Early Detection Cannot Possibly Work

In my national best-selling book, McDougall’s Medicine—A Challenging Second Opinion, I presented this simple illustration and explained that breast cancer has, on average, been growing for ten years before discovery by any technique. The same picture is true for prostate cancer.

The argument for early detection of breast and prostate cancer rests on the belief that the test can discover cancer in its early stages—before it has spread to other parts of the body. Unfortunately, this argument is groundless. Many laypeople, and a very few physicians, believe that breast and prostate cancer goes through a series of steps in which it remains within the respective organs for some time period until it spreads to the lymph nodes and then to the rest of the body. In their minds the process looks something like this:

Step 1: A cancer manifests and starts to grow slowly in the tissue (in this case, the breast or prostate).

Step 2: With time, the cancer grows into a larger tumor.

Step 3: Eventually, the cancer spreads to the lymph nodes.

Step 4: Finally, the cancer spreads from the lymph nodes to the rest of the body.

This step-by-step progression from a harmless mass to a body full of disease almost never occurs. Rather, cancer spreads to other parts of the body via the venous bloodstream in the very early stages of its development. The spread of cancer to the lymph nodes actually occurs simultaneously with the spread of the cancer to other parts of the body.

Normal, healthy cells multiply only when necessary, such as during childhood growth and development, or to repair damaged tissues after an injury. Cancer cells, however, divide at their own free will at the site of origin, and spread to other parts of the body where they continue this uncontrolled growth without respect for the surrounding healthy tissues. Like most other cancers, breast and prostate cancers begin with the mutation of a single healthy cell into a malignant one. Once this transformation occurs, the single cell begins to replicate, or divide. The time it takes one cell to divide and become two cells is called the doubling time. The average doubling time is approximately 100 days. 3,8 This means that in 100 days, a single cancer cell will have become two cancer cells. In 200 days, that one cell will have become four cells in a breast or prostate gland. By one year there are eight to twelve cancer cells lurking undetectable. Consider that one breast or the entire prostate gland consists of about 100 billion cells, and then you know why the cancer is impossible to find.

At this doubling rate, it takes about six years for the single cancer cell to become one million malignant cells, which together form a tiny tumor that is about the size of the tip of a lead pencil. A mass of this size is less than one millimeter in diameter, and is undetectable by breast self-examination or mammography (or any other presently-known technology) in the female breast, and by digital rectal examination (DRE) or by PSA (or any other presently-known technology) in the male prostate.

Even though the cancer is so tiny that it cannot be detected, it nevertheless has already spread, or metastasized (in medical terminology), to other parts of the body in virtually every case of true cancer (as opposed to the latent forms of cancer). It is the cancer cells that have spread to, say, the liver, lungs, bones, and brain, that kill the patient, and not the cancer cells confined to the breast or prostate.

After about ten years of growth, the average cancerous mass inside the breast or prostate is about one centimeter in diameter, or about the size of an eraser on the end of a pencil, and consists of about one billion cells. This is the earliest stage at which a tumor can be found. As Dr. Gullino explains, “two-thirds of the duration of a breast cancer remains undetectable by the patient or physician.” 3 As you can see, early detection is a misnomer.

Just as tragic is the devastation to the lives of the tens of millions of men and women with indolent cancers that would have never appeared in their lifetime if no one had been busy looking for them with screening programs. Once found, these nonthreatening lesions are aggressively treated with radiation and surgeries, leaving women deformed and men incontinent (wetting their pants, wearing a diaper or a catheter) and impotent. The poisoning effects of chemotherapy and the undesirable consequences of hormone deprivation treatments then follow these locally applied therapies (radiation and surgery). Thus screening leads to overdetection, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment of non-life-threatening cancers in huge numbers of people.

How Do They Say, “I’m Sorry?”

No doctor can restore the natural breast of a woman or give back a man’s sexual function. These people will remain the casualties of the war on cancer fought with unjust and ineffective weapons delivered by untruthful medical professionals. Certainly, some of your personal physicians didn’t know, but ignorance is no excuse when the truth is so easily available. In 1997 an article titled, “ On the growth rates of human malignant tumors: implications for medical decision-making.” the authors, Friberg and Mattson concluded, “Most tumors are several years old when detectable by present-day diagnostic methods. This makes the term ‘early detection’ questionable.” No doctor can restore the natural breast of a woman or give back a man’s sexual function. These people will remain the casualties of the war on cancer fought with unjust and ineffective weapons delivered by untruthful medical professionals. Certainly, some of your personal physicians didn’t know, but ignorance is no excuse when the truth is so easily available. In 1997 an article titled, “ On the growth rates of human malignant tumors: implications for medical decision-making.” the authors, Friberg and Mattson concluded, “Most tumors are several years old when detectable by present-day diagnostic methods. This makes the term ‘early detection’ questionable.” 8

Human traits of greed and dishonesty have prevailed. Righteousness and giving are also human traits and now is the time for these two to triumph. $20 billion (the same amount that is currently spent on annual screening for breast and prostate cancer) should now be spent annually doing the right things for saving people from cancer, the unreliable tests, and the harmful treatments. Physicians, screening clinics, hospitals, medical associations, and medical societies must be forced, under the penalty of law if necessary, to tell the truth: Their testing does more harm than good.

Furthermore, they should be made to spread the good news about diet and cancer. Presently the American Cancer Society’s dietary messages for cancer prevention are, for women to “…stay at a healthy weight throughout your life and avoid gaining too much weight,” and “men who eat a lot of red meat or high-fat dairy products appear to have a slightly higher chance of getting prostate cancer. These men also tend to eat fewer fruits and vegetables. Doctors are not sure which of these factors is responsible for raising the risk.”9 These are downright timid messages about the importance of a healthy diet.

The truth is breast and prostate cancer are caused by the rich Western diet full of beef, chicken, cheese, milk, and oils, and contaminated with powerful environmental cancer-causing chemicals. A sizable share of that $20 billion must be spent on advertising, education, and subsidy programs to bring about monumental changes in our eating. The American Cancer Society needs to put meaning behind their apology by enthusiastically spreading the message that a starch-based diet with fruits and vegetables is fundamental for cancer prevention and good health.

References:

1) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/21/MNNT1A8FDR.DTL&tsp=1

2) Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA. 2009 Oct 21;302(15):1685-92.

3) Gullino P. Natural history of breast cancer. Progression from hyperplasia to neoplasia as
predicted by angiogenesis. Cancer. 1977 Jun;39(6 Suppl):2697-703.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112679768/PDFSTART

4) http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_American_Cancer_Society_Names

5) http://www.psa-rising.com/upfront/otisbrawleyfeb00.htm

6) Kramer BS, Brawley OW. Cancer Screening. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2000 Aug;14(4):831-48. Review.

7) Brawley OW. Prostate carcinoma incidence and patient mortality: the effects of screening and early detection. Cancer. 1997 Nov 1;80(9):1857-63. http://www.psa-rising.com/upfront/otisbrawleyfeb00.htm

8) Friberg S, Mattson S. On the growth rates of human malignant tumors: implications for medical decision making. J Surg Oncol. 1997 Aug;65(4):284-97.

9) ACS dietary statements: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/home/index.asp

You may subscribe to this free McDougall Newsletter at http://www.drmcdougall.com

2009 John McDougall All Rights Reserved

The following is 9 years old, but just as relevant today – maybe more-so!  Was sent to me as part of someone else’s newsletter.

Why I Never Get Flu Shots

(Posted by: Dr. Mercola )
November 26 2000 | 36,068 views

by Chet Day
Reprinted with permission from Chet Day’s Health & Beyond

Every year about this time, quite a few people write me and ask, “My Doctor tells me to get my annual flu shot. Should I do it?”  Well, I don’t diagnose or prescribe, and what you do with your body remains entirely up to you and your doctor (if you still go to a doctor), but I’ll gladly tell you what I do regarding flu shots…

I avoid them like the plague.

In fact, at age 52, I’ve never had a flu shot, and it would take a Marine nurse and at least four burly wrestlers the size of Jessie Ventura to hold me down and give me one.

Perhaps you already sense I have strong feelings about flu shots?

These feelings stem from personal opinion, reading, and dramatic personal experience.

First off, I don’t think toxic chemicals and virus strains grown on living tissue belong in the human body, even when they’re packaged in sterile glass vials.

Since my family and I don’t rely on doctors anymore, I don’t have access to an insert that reveals the composition of this year’s flu vaccine, but I did find some general information at the Concerned Parents for Vaccine Safety web site, where I learned about some of the ingredients used to make vaccines.

Phenol, also known as carbolic acid (this is used as a disinfectant, dye)

• Thimerosal (a mercury disinfectant/preservative) can result in brain injury and autoimmune disease

• Neomycin and Streptomycin (used as antibiotics) have caused allergic reaction in some people.

Vaccines are also grown and strained through animal or human tissue like monkey kidney tissue, chicken embryo, embryonic guinea pig cells, calf serum, and human diploid cells (the dissected organs of aborted human fetuses as in the case of rubella, hepatitis A, and chickenpox vaccines).

Well, I refuse to put all of the above in my body, and I hope when your doctor starts telling you it’s time for your annual flu shot that you’ll require him to defend the annual injection. You or your insurance company’s probably paying eighty bucks for a visit, so get your money’s worth.

Have your doctor read you the insert that comes with the vaccine.

Then have him/her explain why it makes sense to inject toxic chemicals into the human body and how such substances can aid the delicate immune system.

Chances are he/she will fall back on questionable statistical and demographic explanations that the medical establishment has used for decades to justify immunization.

Try to engage your doctor in a non-confrontational discussion because this is an opportunity for him/her to actually give some serious thought to what he/she is injecting into bodies of patients day after day after day.

Many traditional doctors who haven’t studied diet and lifestyle aren’t going to change unless we help to educate them to what drugs and vaccines may really be doing long-term to people.

Okay, to speak from personal experience for a moment, let’s look over our shoulders to 1990, a time period before the Day family turned to natural methods of building health.

In February of 1990, right after my wife’s major cancer surgery in January, her doctor recommended a flu shot.

Almost immediately after the injection, my wife started feeling ill.

Overnight she came down with the worst case of flu she’d ever had.

She went to bed and literally didn’t get up again for more than a few hours at a time for years afterwards. Only now, almost a decade later, is she finally regaining full health and energy.

I don’t have space or enough heart yet to tell my wife’s entire story, though I’ll do it one of these days, but if you’ll click here, you can read an article written by another CFIDS sufferer, an article that shows the cause and effect connection between flu vaccines and terrible immune disorders.

Okay, I’m a realist so if was still thinking traditionally, part of me would almost buy into the typical rationale for flu vaccines, that so many people are spared the annual flu and only a few die or have their lives ruined after being injected.

I’d buy into that if I were convinced that injecting a filthy substance into the body actually made sense.

Unfortunately, once I stopped buying into the big medical lies about their drug, cut, and burn system, I started questioning all of it.

And when one digs into the vaccine history (check out the Swine Flu vaccine if you want a real horror story) and scientific research (especially in Europe), it quickly becomes apparent that nobody really knows what these toxic stews of chemicals and microorganisms do in the human body.

Well, readers and a few medical professionals have called me a simple-minded dolt on more than one occasion, but since 1993 I’ve approached the yearly flu shot hype with the understanding that if I eat and live properly, I won’t have to worry about catching the flu.

The flu vaccine I use — eating and living as close to nature as I can — actually works.

Not only that, but it doesn’t cost a dime, and nobody’s going to have his/her life ruined because of a “bad batch” of vaccine that triggers some mysterious autoimmune disease that lays a person out of commission for years.

But let’s say you don’t want to eat and live close to nature.

Okay, I can understand that, but my next question would be “Which is better? Some rest time with the flu or having toxic chemicals injected into your bloodstream?”

I mean, seriously, before I got healthy I almost looked forward to a yearly bout with influenza because it meant I could go to bed and get some rest instead of working practically every waking moment of my life.

I might add that I haven’t missed more than two consecutive days of work from an illness for almost five years, so a non-vaccine approach does work for me. This non-drug approach has resulted in a level of health that continually amazes me, especially when I see other men and women my age who are miserable and without energy. Men and women who spend all too much of their time drifting from doctor to doctor in endless pursuit of solutions that don’t get to the cause of their problems — diet and life style.

.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Chet Day is right on target here. He is one of the few newsletter writers that I am in virtual 100% agreement with.I have heard some authors state that there is a direct correlation of the number of flu shots one has and the incidence of Alzheimer’s. This would be due to the aluminum and mercury that is put in every flu shot.

I could not agree more with his recommendations. I am fond of providing the following answer to people who ask me if they should get a flu shot.

I tell them “Only if they want to get the flu”.

I am glad to see Chet has gone for five years without missing two consecutive days of work. In the last 20 years though, I have not missed one day of work due to an illness. Now my diet and lifestyle program has NOT always been perfect, far from it. But for the most part I am following an optimized program.

The only miracle here though is that God has given us such wonderful bodies that if even come close to following an optimal diet, exercise and rest, we will have a high likelihood of immunity from illness.
Apr 27, 2008

American Association of Health Freedoms

47 Members of Congress Support Consumers’ Right to Choose Their Health Practitioners

The legislators have sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a letter proposing a ban on discrimination against integrative MDs, DOs, chiropractors and other well-trained and credentialed healthcare providers who have not previously been discriminated against under federal law. If discrimination is not forbidden, conventional licensed practitioners will try to use federal law, as they have used state law, to restrict competition from alternative and integrative sources.

The letter, dated September 14, 2009, urged that any healthcare reform legislation passed include “a provider non-discrimination provision at the federal level, and make it applicable to all plans.” Although the letter does not mention any particular healthcare disciplines, it was supported by the American Chiropractic Association. The association notes that “while ACA remains focused on many chiropractic-specific legislative initiatives, there are certainly some areas where the profession shares concerns with a larger body of health care providers.” Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, and Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., led the drafting of the letter, which focuses on the importance of patients’ being able to choose the type of healthcare provider who will treat them. It also stresses the need to prevent insurance plans from discriminating against entire classes of healthcare providers. A third focus is on maintaining any hard-won rights providers have gained at the state level.

October 27, 2009

This is from our Letters to the Editor in our Columbus Dispatch  10-27-09   And he is responding to a past article.            Jan

Better think before getting H1N1 vaccine

I am just one of thousands of doctors, scientists and parents who do not think that mass vaccination with H1N1 swine-flu vaccine is a good idea. Patients should make an individual decision with their doctor (“H1N1 vaccine available for at-risk groups,” Dispatch article, last Tuesday).

The risk of autism, brain damage and immune dysfunction is high, especially for children, pregnant women and elders.

There are five antiviral drugs for use in persons who contract influenza (e.g. Rimantadine and Tamiflu) to have on hand instead of administering this risky vaccine to 300 million people.   We will see more autism, dementia and immune dysfunction (Guillain-Barré syndrome) from mass administration of the H1N1 vaccine, especially with the recommendation to give it with straight flu vaccine.

The major networks are doing the bidding of pharmaceutical companies daily on every morning TV show while saying over and over that vaccines do not (in their view) cause autism or any problems; our government agrees by purchasing 250 million H1N1 vaccines with our tax dollars. My hope is each doctor and family member is aware of the risks, and that it’s not a no-brainer.

DR. PHILLIP DeMIO
President
American Medical Autism Board
Seven Hills

Obama is making a difference in education

A few weeks ago, Saturday Night Live teased President Barack Obama for delivering great speeches but not actually bringing change. There’s at least one area where that jibe is unfair: Education.   When Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan came to office, they created a $4.3 billion Race to the Top fund. The idea was to use money to leverage change. The administration would put a pile of federal money on the table and award it to a few states that most aggressively embraced reform.   Their ideas were good, and their speeches were beautiful. But that was never the problem. The real challenge was going to be standing up to the teachers unions and the other groups that have undermined nearly every reform effort.

.
The real questions were these: Would the administration water down their reform criteria in the face of political pressure? Would the Race to the Top money end up getting doled out like any other federal spending program, and thus end up subsidizing the status quo? Would the administration hold the line and demand real reform in exchange for the money?
There were many reasons to be skeptical. At the behest of the teachers unions, the Democrats had just shut down a successful District of Columbia voucher program. Moreover, state legislatures around the country were moving backward. They were passing laws prohibiting schools from using student performance as a criterion in setting teacher pay.  But, so far, those fears are unjustified. The news is good. In fact, it’s very good. Over the past few days I’ve spoken to people ranging from Bill Gates to Jeb Bush and various education reformers. They are all impressed by how gritty and effective the Obama administration has been in holding the line and inciting real education reform.

.
Over the summer, the Department of Education indicated that most states would not qualify for Race to the Top money. Now states across the country are changing their laws: California, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and Tennessee, among others.
It’s not only the promise of money that is motivating change. There seems to be some sort of status contest as states compete to prove they, too, can meet the criteria. Governors who have been bragging about how great their schools are don’t want to be left off the list.

.
These changes mean that states are raising their caps on the number of charter schools. When charters got going, there was a “let a thousand flowers bloom” mentality that sometimes led to bad schools. Now reformers know more about how to build charters and the research is showing solid results. Caroline Hoxby of Stanford University recently concluded a rigorous study of New York’s charter schools and found that they substantially narrowed the achievement gap between suburban and inner-city students.

.
The changes also will mean student performance will increasingly be a factor in how much teachers get paid and whether they keep their jobs. There is no consensus on exactly how to do this, but there is clear evidence that good teachers produce consistently better student test scores, and that teachers who do not need to be identified and counseled. Cracking the barrier that has been erected between student outcomes and teacher pay would be a huge gain.

….
Duncan even seems to have made some progress in persuading the unions that they can’t just stonewall, they have to get involved in the reform process. The American Federation of Teachers recently announced innovation grants for performance-pay ideas. The New Haven school district has just completed a new teacher contract, with union support, that includes many of the best reform ideas.    There are still many places, like Washington, where the unions are dogmatically trying to keep bad teachers in the classrooms. But if implemented well, the New Haven contract could be a sign of perestroika even within the education establishment.
“I’ve been deeply disturbed by a lot that’s going on in Washington,” Jeb Bush said on Thursday, “but this is not one of them. President Obama has been supporting a reform secretary, and this is deserving of Republican support.” Bush’s sentiment is echoed across the spectrum, from Newt Gingrich to Al Sharpton.

.
Over the next months, there will be more efforts to water down reform. Some groups are offering to get behind health-care reform in exchange for gutting education reform. Politicians from both parties are going to lobby fiercely to ensure that their state gets money, regardless of the merits. So will governors who figure they’re going to lose out in the award process.
But Obama understood from the start that this would work only if the awards remain fiercely competitive. He has not wavered. We’re not close to reaching the educational Promised Land, but we may be at the start of what Rahm Emanuel calls The Quiet Revolution.