Decreased Cancer Risk for Vegetarians Who Eat Fish

By Dr. Mercola

Colorectal cancer (colon and rectum cancers) is the third most-diagnosed cancer, the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths, in the US.1 It's widely known that your diet plays a major role in your risk of this disease, with processed meats being among the worst offenders and vegetables among the most protective.

So it's not surprising that a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found vegetarians had a 22 percent lower risk for all colorectal cancers, 19 percent lower risk for colon cancer, and 29 percent lower risk for rectal cancer compared to non-vegetarians.2

Vegetarians would, presumably, be eating more vegetables than the average American, although there are vast differences in quality of diet among vegetarians, too.

For instance, a person could eat primarily refined carbohydrates and still be considered vegetarian… and this type of diet would typically not lower your cancer risk but raise it.

Getting back to the featured study, however, it included Seventh-Day Adventist men and women, who typically avoid alcohol and tobacco and eat very little meat compared to the average American (an average of about two ounces a day).

Still, even cutting out that small amount of meat was protective… but not as protective as eating this…

Fish Eaters Cut Risk of Colorectal Cancer by 42 Percent

So-called "pescovegetarians," who ate fish at least once a month and other meats less than once a month, enjoyed the greatest cancer protection (a 42 percent reduction) compared to non-vegetarians.

Even when compared to vegetarians, the pescovegetarians had a 27 percent lower risk of colorectal cancer. Eating fish is likely protective because it contains beneficial omega-3 fats.

As nutritionist Lisa Drayer told CNN:3

"In addition to other dietary factors, fish may provide added protection from its high content omega-3 fatty acids. This is consistent with previous research that has found omega-3s have anti-cancer activity and that they may be helpful in the prevention and treatment of colorectal cancer."

Previous research has shown omega-3s to be protective against numerous types of cancer. For instance, in one study, the spread of cancer cells was blocked by omega-3 fats, suggesting that a diet rich in omega-3 fats could potentially inhibit cancer in men with early stage prostate cancer.4

A separate meta-analysis found that fish consumption was associated with a 63 percent reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality.5

Meanwhile, omega-3 deficiency can cause or contribute to many serious health problems, both mental and physical, and may be a significant underlying factor of up to 96,000 premature deaths each year.6

Most People Benefit from Some Amount of Animal Protein

There is no debate that most people do not eat enough vegetables, let alone high-quality organic ones. So it makes perfect sense that individuals who consume more vegetables are likely to be healthier in many ways.

Most of us eat far too much protein and not enough vegetables, which likely accounts for most of the difference seen when comparing vegetarian to non-vegetarian diets.

But that does not justify excluding all animal products. I typically recommend avoiding strict vegetarian or vegan diets, because I believe most people benefit from at least some animal foods.

In addition to missing out on important animal-based omega-3 fats (plant-based omega-3s are not the same), those who abstain from animal protein are placing themselves at far greater risk of sulfur deficiency and its related health problems.

Research published in the journal Nutrition showed that people who eat a strictly plant-based diet may suffer from subclinical protein malnutrition,7 which means you're also likely not getting enough dietary sulfur.

Sulfur is derived almost exclusively from dietary protein, such as fish and high-quality (organic and/or grass-fed/pastured) beef and poultry. Meat and fish are considered "complete" as they contain all the sulfur-containing amino acids you need to produce new protein.

Sulfur also plays a vital role in the structure and biological activity of both proteins and enzymes. If you don't have sufficient amounts of sulfur in your body, this deficiency can cascade into a number of health problems, as it will affect bones, joints, connective tissues, metabolic processes, and more.

According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a senior scientist at MIT, areas where sulfur plays an important role include:

Your body's electron transport system, as part of iron/sulfur proteins in mitochondria, the energy factories of your cells Vitamin-B thiamine (B1) and biotin conversion, which in turn are essential for converting carbohydrates into energy Synthesizing important metabolic intermediates, such as glutathione Proper insulin function. The insulin molecule consists of two amino acid chains connected to each other by sulfur bridges, without which the insulin cannot perform its biological activity Detoxification

The Nutrition study also concluded that the low intake of sulfur amino acids by vegetarians and vegans explains the origin of hyperhomocysteinemia (high blood levels of homocysteine, which may lead to blood clots in your arteries -- i.e. heart attack and stroke) and the increased vulnerability of vegetarians to cardiovascular diseases.

The Type of Meat You Eat Matters

Many studies have linked red meat and, especially, processed meats, to cancer, but most of these studies involved meat from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). I've often said that the difference between organic, pastured beef and that from animals raised in CAFOs is so great that you're really talking about two completely different animals.

In the grand scheme of all that is wrong with modern agriculture, the unnatural transition that turned cattle, which naturally eat only grass, into grain-eating ruminants is definitely toward the top of the list.

CAFO cows are fattened for slaughter in massive feedlots as quickly as possible (on average between 14 and 18 months) with the help of grains and growth-promoting drugs, including antibiotics.

The antibiotics and grains radically alter the bacterial balance and composition in the animal's gut. The natural diet for ruminant animals, such as cattle, is plain grass. When left to their own devices, cattle will not graze on corn or soybeans. Just as in humans, poor gut health in animals promotes disease. This radically altered diet also affects the nutritional composition of the meat.

For example, when raised on a grass-only diet, levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) are three to five times higher in the meat compared to CAFO beef. CLA has been found to have a wide array of important health benefits, from fighting cancer to decreasing insulin resistance and improving body composition.

Grass-fed beef also tends to be leaner, and have higher levels of vitamins and minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium. It also has a healthier ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats.

Unless labeled as grass-fed, virtually all the meat you buy in the grocery store is CAFO beef, and tests have revealed that nearly half of the meat sold in US stores is contaminated with pathogenic bacteria—including antibiotic-resistant strains. Grass-fed beef is not associated with this high frequency of contamination, and their living conditions have everything to do with this improved safety.

This doesn't only apply to beef, of course. It also applies to other animal foods as well, including dairy, eggs, and poultry, which should be organic and pasture-raised (or free-range certified), as well as fish, which should be wild-caught not farm-raised.

A Healthy Cancer-Preventive Diet…

Eating a healthy, balanced vegetarian diet is far better than eating a high-CAFO meat diet. But I believe most people would be wise to consider a more moderate plan, which, as I mentioned, includes at least some animal protein. To find out more about what I believe is a more ideal diet for most people, which will also help lower your risk of cancer, check out my nutrition plan. Here are the key points:

Low amounts of high-quality (pastured or grass-fed) animal protein: A general recommendation is to limit animal protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body weight. Extremely low amounts of refined grain carbohydrates: You need very little grains, if any. Even organic grains are best avoided to preserve optimal insulin and leptin signaling. Extremely low amounts of processed sugar and fructose: A general guideline is to restrict your sugar/fructose consumption to 25 grams from all sources per day. If you are insulin or leptin resistant (if you are overweight, or have high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart disease, then you likely have insulin or leptin resistance), you'd be wise to keep your sugar/fructose to 15 grams per day, from all sources, until your condition has normalized. High amounts of high-quality fats: As you cut out carbohydrates, you need to replace them with healthy fats. Most people probably need anywhere from 50 percent to 85 percent of their daily calories in the form of healthy fats, which include olives and olive oil, coconuts and coconut oil, butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk, organic raw nuts (especially macadamia nuts, which are low in protein and omega-6 fat), organic pastured eggs, and avocados. Omega-3 fats are also important, which can be found in wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, anchovies, or a high-quality krill oil supplement. Virtually unlimited amounts of vegetable carbohydrates: Making vegetable juice is a great way to boost the amount and variety of vegetables in your diet, but you'll also want to consume whole vegetables for added fiber.

One of the easiest ways to conform to these guidelines is to ditch processed foods and cook from scratch using whole, organic ingredients. I generally advise limiting processed foods to 10 percent of less of your total diet. As for whether or not to eat meat, I firmly believe that it plays a valuable role in optimal health, but quality and quantity are important considerations. Focusing on smaller portions of higher quality (pastured grass-fed and finished) meats will lead you in the right direction.

Other Important Considerations for Colorectal Cancer

In addition to choosing high-quality meats and eating them in limited amounts, you'll want to be careful with how you cook them. Heating proteins leads to the formation of unnatural peptides and amino acids, making them less digestible. Cooking food at temperatures over 180º Celsius (or 350º Fahrenheit) promotes the formation of several carcinogenic compounds, including aromatic hydrocarbon, benzopyrene, and heterocyclic amine (HCA).

In fact, research suggests that proteins, carbs, and fat cooked at very high temperatures can promote colon cancer. So you don't want to come home with a healthy grass-fed steak and then ruin it by charring it on the grill. Instead, eat your meat rare or consider cooking it using a gentle, low-heat method such as poaching or stewing. In addition, if you're interested in lowering your risk of colon cancer, consider:

Vitamin D: Vitamin D can significantly lower your risk of a variety of cancers, including bladder, colorectal, and breast cancer. Specifically, research has shown that a vitamin D level of more than 33 ng/mL was associated with a 50 percent lower risk of colorectal cancer.8 However, I recommend optimizing your vitamin D level to between 50 and 70 ng/ml year-round. Vitamin D from sun exposure or a high-quality tanning bed is the BEST way to optimize your vitamin D levels. Magnesium: Higher intakes of dietary magnesium are associated with a lower risk of colorectal tumors. For every 100-mg increase in magnesium intake, the risk of colorectal tumor decreased by 13 percent, while the risk of colorectal cancer was lowered by 12 percent.9 Green leafy vegetables like spinach and Swiss chard are excellent sources of magnesium, as are some beans, nuts, and seeds, like almonds, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, and sesame seeds. Avocados are also a good source. Surveys suggest, however, that many Americans are not getting enough magnesium from their diet alone, which is why in some cases a supplement may be necessary. Oral Health: Pathogens in your mouth can enter your bloodstream to colonize other parts of your body. Two independent studies found a causal link between a common oral bacterium (F. nucleatum) and colorectal cancer.10 Maintaining good oral hygiene and eating a healthy diet to support oral health are very important. Are You Looking for Healthy, Humanely Raised Meat, Dairy, and Eggs?

If you're a vegetarian or vegan who is considering adding some animal foods into your diet for health purposes, you're probably interested in supporting farmers who produce healthy pastured grass-fed meat, eggs, and dairy products using humane, environmentally friendly methods. You can do this not only by visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also by taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs, many of which offer grass-fed meats. The following organizations can also help you locate grass-fed beef and other farm-fresh foods in your local area, raised in a humane, sustainable manner.

]]>

View the Original article

7 Super Healthy Food Staples, and 7 Superfoods You May Not Know

By Dr. Mercola

Pre-packaged processed foods may be convenient, but if you seek to improve your health, cooking from scratch using fresh unprocessed ingredients is more or less non-negotiable.

Once you're eating non-adulterated foods—foods that are as close to their natural state as possible—then basically everything you eat is a "superfood." You need nutrients—all of them—and nutrients are found in abundance in fresh, raw foods.

Still, suggestions of specific items can be helpful to steer you in the right direction, so to help you get started, I've compiled two lists: one consisting of seven every-day nutritional powerhouses, plus another one with seven superfoods you may never have heard of—because eating healthy doesn't have to be monotonously boring!

1. Homemade Bone Broth

Homemade bone broth is as "staple" as it gets if you want to eat healthier. It's also a really cost effective way to improve your diet, as you can make use of leftover carcass bones that would otherwise be thrown away.

Bone broth helps "heal and seal" your gut, which is so important for optimal health and disease prevention, and it's also excellent for speeding up your recovery time when you're feeling under the weather. 

It contains plenty of healthy fat, along with important nutrients like calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, silicon, sulfur, and trace minerals, as well as the broken down material from cartilage and tendons, including chondroitin sulphates and glucosamine.

One important caveat when making broth, whether you're using chicken or beef, is to make sure they're from organically-raised, pastured or grass-fed animals. For detailed instructions on how to make your own broth, please refer to my previous article: "Bone Broth—One of Your Most Healing Diet Staples."

2. Sprouted Seeds

Another easy and inexpensive way to optimize your nutrition is to add sprouted seeds to your vegetable juice and/or salad. They can easily be grown in your own kitchen, year-round, and are a great way to dip your toes in the water if you're considering growing your own food.

Sunflower seeds are one of my personal favorites, both in terms of flavor and nutritional punch. Once sunflower seeds are sprouted, their protein, vitamin, and mineral content will typically provide you with 30 times the nutrient content of organic vegetables!

Sprouts in general also contain valuable enzymes—up to 100 times more enzymes than raw fruits and vegetables—that allow your body to absorb and use the nutrients of other foods you eat.

For directions on growing seeds into sprouts, please see my previous article, "How to Grow Your Own Food in Small Spaces."  

We have kits to grow spouts in our store. Sprouts-as-medicine.com1 is another good source for things relating to sprouts: their health benefits, recipes, and how to grow your own.

3. Fermented Vegetables

Cultured or fermented foods have a very long history in virtually all native diets, and have always been highly prized for their health benefits. The culturing process produces beneficial microbes that are extremely important for your health as they help balance your intestinal flora, thereby boosting overall immune function.

Fermented foods are also excellent chelators and detox agents that can help rid your body of a wide variety of toxins, including heavy metals. Just one quarter to one half cup of fermented food, eaten with one to three meals per day, can have a dramatically beneficial impact on your health.

Fermenting your own vegetables is a lot simpler than you might think, and is the most inexpensive route. Wild fermentation is when you allow whatever is on the vegetable to naturally take hold and culture the food. Inoculating the food using a starter culture speeds up the fermentation process, however.

If you use a starter culture formulated to produce higher levels of vitamin K2 (which many are deficient in), you will also save money on supplements. (Vitamin K2 is particularly important if you're taking a vitamin D supplement.)

For instructions, and a more in-depth discussion of the health benefits of fermented veggies, please see my previous interview with Caroline Barringer.

4. Avocados

Avocados are an excellent source of healthy raw fat, which most Americans are seriously deficient in. They also provide close to 20 essential health-boosting nutrients, including: fiber, potassium, vitamin E, B-vitamins, and folic acid.

In addition, avocados enable your body to more efficiently absorb fat-soluble nutrients, such as alpha- and beta-carotene and lutein, in other foods eaten in conjunction with it.

Besides eating them raw, you can use avocado as fat substitute in recipes calling for butter or other oils. Another boon of avocados—they're one of the safest fruits you can buy conventionally-grown, so you don't need to spend more for organic ones. Their thick skin protects the inner fruit from pesticides.

5. Kale

Kale contains fiber and antioxidants, and is one of the best sources of vitamin A, which promotes eye and skin health and may help strengthen your immune system. A one-cup serving has almost as much vitamin C as an orange and as much calcium as a cup of milk. It's simply an excellent source of multiple vitamins and other nutrients, including:

Vitamin A Vitamin B Vitamin C Calcium Lutein (helps protect against macular degeneration) Zeaxanthin (helps protect against macular degeneration) Indole-3-carbinol (may protect against colon cancer) Iron Chlorophyll

6. Organic Coconut Oil

Besides being excellent for your thyroid and your metabolism, coconut oil is rich in lauric acid, which is capable of destroying a number of different viruses, including influenza and measles. Its medium chain fatty acids (MCTs) also impart a number of health benefits, including raising your body's metabolism.

Coconut oil is easy on your digestive system and does not produce an insulin spike in your bloodstream, so for a quick energy boost, you could simply eat a spoonful of coconut oil, or add it to your food.

It's also the ideal choice for all types of cooking—in fact, it's the only oil stable enough to resist mild heat-induced damage. So, whenever you need an oil to cook or bake with, use coconut oil instead of butter, olive oil, vegetable oil, margarine, or any other type of oil called for in recipes.

Just make sure you choose an organic coconut oil that is unrefined, unbleached, made without heat processing or chemicals, and does not contain genetically engineered ingredients.  As an added boon, coconut oil has countless other uses besides cooking and eating; from topical beauty applications to first aid treatments, to general household cleaning.

7. Fresh Herbs

Herbs do more than add flavor; they're also densely packed with valuable nutrients, and many are well-known for having medicinal qualities as well. Turmeric is one example of a spice with potent and scientifically proven medicinal benefits—against cancer no less. Another less dramatic example is plain black pepper, which has been shown to increase the bioavailability of just about all other foods. As a general rule, you really can't go wrong when using herbs and spices and I recommend allowing your taste buds to dictate your choices when cooking.

Seven Superfoods You May Never Have Heard of

If your pantry is already stocked with these basics and/or you're looking to expand your culinary repertoire with some more adventurous fare, the following seven superfoods are ones you may never have heard of before. For a few more, see the featured article in Time magazine.2

Limequat Limequats are a hybrid cross between lime and kumquat, the latter of which is a sweet but tangy citrus with an edible peel. Limequats are in season between July and November, and contain plenty of fiber and vitamin C. Like the kumquat, they have an edible rind, so it's a good choice for spicing up dishes with a citrusy flavor. PomeloThe pomelo is yet another member of the citrus family that is typically overlooked. They look a bit like over-sized grapefruits, and the taste is similar too, although pomelos tend to be sweeter. To eat, remove the thick rind and membrane from each "slice." Just like other citrus fruits, you can eat it as is, or add to salad, salsa, marinades, or fresh juice, just to give you a few ideas. Hubbard squash Hubbard squash3 is in season during the winter, when it can be a welcome source of densely packed nutrients, including vitamins A, C, E and K, potassium, folic acid, iron, lutein, manganese, magnesium, phosphorus,  zeaxanthin, and plant-based omega-3. The featured article suggests pairing roasted Hubbard squash with kale, or adding it to stew. CeleriacCeleriac, aka turnip-rooted celery or celery root, is a root vegetable with a taste that resembles conventional celery. You can eat it either raw or cooked, and it's high in vitamins B6, C, and K, along with potassium and magnesium. Time magazine suggests grating some onto salad, along with beets, apples, and walnuts for a flavorful kick. TeffTeff, a tiny North African cereal grass grain, has been a staple of traditional Ethiopian cooking for thousands of years. Naturally gluten-free, teff is rich in calcium, manganese, iron, fiber, protein, B vitamins, zinc, and all eight essential amino acids. It has a mild, nutty flavor that lends itself well to a variety of dishes, including stews, pilaf, and baked goods. You could also add it on top of your salad. FenugreekFenugreek is a curry-scented plant, the seeds of which have traditionally been valued for their medicinal uses,4 which include the treatment of digestive problems, upset stomach, constipation, and gastritis, and much more.

Fresh fenugreek leaves can be eaten raw like a vegetable. You can also use them—either fresh or dried—to spice up various dishes. Fresh fenugreek leaves are often used in Indian curries. Fenugreek seeds are rich in minerals like iron, potassium, calcium, fiber, and choline, and can be sprouted for an added health kick. PurslanePurslane is a lemon-flavored edible weed that is popular in both Greek and Mexican cooking. Some compare the taste to watercress or spinach. It's rich in plant-based omega-3 fats, vitamins C and E, and pectin.  Young leaves and tender stem tips are generally preferred in terms of flavor and crunch, and make a tasty addition to salads and sandwiches. Take Control of Your Health with Real Food

The need for speed and convenience has resulted in a plethora of processed pre-packaged foods, but while generally less expensive, a processed food diet will typically lead to a downturn in health. Then when years of bad food choices take their toll on health, people want to feel better by tomorrow. They want to be at their ideal weight by next week. And as luck would have it, there is an endless supply of drugs and fake foods available promising to do just that.

Unfortunately, nearly all of these "magic pills" and diets can worsen your health even more in the long run. Ultimately, the simplest and most effective way to achieve good health and a long life is to focus on the nutrition you are putting in your body on a daily basis. Healthy foods not only provide you with life-giving nutrients and fuel for all your organs, they also help you keep an ideal weight.

If you're new to the idea of eating a diet based on whole foods, incorporating as many of the staples listed above as you can will get you off to a great start. For even more advice on how to eat right by focusing your diet on whole, unprocessed superfoods, see my nutrition plan. Once you've got the basics covered, start exploring and expanding your repertoire. There are so many flavors and textures out there—the likes of which you'll never come across in a microwave dinner!

Ideally, opt for organic and/or locally grown foods whenever possible. The following organizations can help you locate organic and locally produced foods, including many of those discussed above.

Local Harvest -- This Website will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce and grass-fed meats. Eat Wild: With more than 1,400 pasture-based farms, Eatwild's Directory of Farms is one of the most comprehensive sources for pastured foods in the United States and Canada. Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada. FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs, and markets near you. ]]>

View the Original article

Dissolving Illusions About the Measles Vaccine

This article was abstracted from Dr. Humphries' excellent book Dissolving Illusions, with contributions from Dr. Mercola, Barbara Loe Fisher and Sayer Ji. If you have a sincere interest in this topic I would strongly encourage you to purchase a copy of this excellent book.

This week's issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)1 claims that the consensus scientific view is that childhood vaccines are safe and effective, among CDC's 10 great 20th-century achievements and a World Health Organization "best buy."

With the elevation of vaccination to a sacred cow status, it is no wonder that ever since about 50 visitors to Disneyland in California were diagnosed with measles earlier this year, the whole country has been subjected to a relentless barrage of mainstream media articles blaming unvaccinated children for a minor measles outbreak that, by March 16, 2015, consisted of a grand total of 176 cases.2 in a population of 320 million people.

The way public health officials and the media have been promoting irrational fear about measles and using it to lobby for laws eliminating all non-medical vaccine exemptions or even criminally prosecuting and jailing unvaccinated people, it sometimes feels like we are living in a dystopian science fiction novel.

I have never seen such a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to vilify virtually anyone who would question the effectiveness and safety of complying with the CDC's ever-expanding vaccination schedule.3

While some argue that the media is simply acting to protect the "public health," there has been a near complete abandonment of fair and balanced journalism. Almost every media outlet has swallowed the propaganda produced by Big Pharma and forced vaccination proponents hook, line, and sinker and failed to carefully research or independently analyze the facts.

Let me assure you that this story is far bigger than measles. It is about getting the entire population to accept the concept that vaccination is a more effective way to stay healthy than supporting your inborn immunity and optimizing immune function, which is so essential to preventing illness and serious complications from infectious diseases.

The media completely overlooks the conflicts of interests inherent in the public-private financial partnership between industry and government and the fact that Big Pharma will generate $35 billion from vaccine sales this year4 and is projected to take in over $57.8 billion by 2019.5

CDC Says NO ONE Has Died from Acute Measles in the US Since 2003 – But How Many Measles Vaccine Related Deaths Have Been Reported Since Then?

If you believe the media's story on measles in America today, it would seem that children who get measles in the U.S. are being admitted to the hospital in great numbers and regularly dying from measles complications.

But if we look at the latest report (March 13, 2015) published by the California Department of Health, we see that out of 133 cases of measles reported in that state this year, 20 people were hospitalized and 81 percent recovered without a need for special care and there were no deaths.6

(Also, while 43 percent of the California measles cases were not vaccinated, 15 percent WERE vaccinated and 56 percent of the cases were in adults over age 20. Only 18 percent of the cases were in school-aged children between 5 and 19 years old, while 15 percent were in children ages one to four and 11 percent in infants under one year old).

If we examine the US government's measles mortality report data between 2005 and 2015, we find six adults and one child listed in National Vital Statistics data7 as reportedly dying from complications related to measles. Only the child, a male between one and four years old, had a confirmed autopsy performed.

However, in private email correspondence, Meryl Nass, M.D. asked the CDC about confirmed measles deaths in the U.S. and the CDC replied in writing that, "The last documented deaths in the U.S. directly attributable to acute measles occurred in 2003."8

Vicky Debold, PhD, RN, who serves as volunteer Director of Patient Safety and Research for the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), analyzed U.S. measles mortality data and found a discrepancy between what the CDC told Dr. Nass and information published in the National Vital Statistics.

Dr. Debold said, "There was an autopsy-confirmed death of measles with encephalitis reported in the U.S. in a male child between one and four years old. The remainder of the measles reported deaths after 2003 were for six adults without confirmed autopsies (2 in 2009; 2 in 2010; 2 in 2012).

Three of the adult deaths were recorded for measles with encephalitis; one death recorded for measles with pneumonia and two deaths recorded for measles without other complications."

Deaths from Measles Vaccines: Is it 98 or 980?

Dr. Debold was curious about the one measles-related child death recorded in 2005 and the fact that the CDC did not acknowledge it when replying to Dr. Nass. Dr. Debold wondered if, perhaps, the 2005 child death was MMR vaccine related.

She searched VAERS reports using the MedAlerts9 database, where she found five deaths associated with measles containing vaccines that occurred in 2005 in the U.S. in males aged one to four years.

One of those 2005 MMR vaccine related death reports in VAERS listed "mild fever" and "non-infectious encephalitis and encephalopathy" as symptoms after a one year old boy received MMR, varicella and flu vaccines and died five days later (VAERS ID# 250504).

The autopsy report listed "sudden unexpected death in childhood" as the cause of death; however, there was no mention of a rash or other measles-related symptoms, which also can occur after MMR vaccination.

Dr. Debold commented, "Six out of seven measles-associated deaths reported after 2003 in the National Vital Statistics reports occurred in adults between the ages of 25 and over 85 years old, who should either have had natural measles immunity or have gotten at least one MMR shot. It would be helpful for CDC to explain the discrepancy between National Vital Statistics data and the statement made to Dr. Nass."

So, between zero and seven measles-related deaths have occurred in the U.S. since 2003, but how many measles vaccine reaction death reports have been recorded by the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the past 12 years?

Searching the MedAlerts database, we see that there were 98 deaths following MMR or MMRV vaccinations reported to VAERS that occurred between 2003 and 2015. Plus, there have been 694 reports of MMR or MMRV vaccinations causing disability in that time frame.

It has been estimated that less than 10 percent of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS.10,11

Considering the fact that there were 98 measles vaccine-related deaths and 694 measles vaccine-related disabilities reported to VAERS in the past 12 years, if only 10 percent of vaccine-related deaths and disabilities are being reported to the government, then the actual number of measles vaccine-related deaths and disabilities that have occurred since 2003 could have been as many as 980 deaths and 6,940 disabilities.

Unfortunately, many pediatricians dismiss vaccine-related health problems as a "coincidence" without any proof that is true for the individual suffering a bad health outcome after vaccination, which is one reason why there is such low vaccine reaction reporting rate in the U.S. Naturally, many doctors and health care workers are in denial.

Parents of well nourished healthy children living in the U.S., who are weighing the measles vaccine's benefits and risks, may well be asking themselves: If I vaccinate my child, he or she may have a vaccine reaction and die. If I do not vaccinate, my child may still get sick with measles but may have a lower risk of dying."

The History of Measles

Let's not minimize the risks of measles because it has the potential to be a very deadly infection - just not normally in well-nourished populations in the 21st century. Throughout the 1800s, measles epidemics occurred about every two years in the United States and England. During these epidemics, when suboptimal sanitation and nutrition were the norm, some hospital wards overflowed with children with measles and up to 20 percent died from pneumonia and other complications.

However, by the 1960s, deaths from measles had dropped to extremely low numbers in both England and the United States. In England, the percent decline from its peak level reached an astonishing 99.96 percent by the time the live attenuated measles virus vaccine was introduced in 1968. When the first inactivated (killed) measles vaccine was licensed in 1963, the measles death rate in some states like Massachusetts had reached zero. During this year, the whole of New England had only five deaths attributed to measles.

We need to keep this in perspective. These were deaths BEFORE the launch of measles vaccines in the 1960s, when deaths from asthma were 56 times greater, accidents 935 times greater, motor vehicle accidents 323 times greater, other accidents 612 times greater, and heart disease 9,560 times greater. Why such a disproportionate emphasis on measles deaths?

Even a casual review of the relevant literature will reveal that preventing measles mortality is not primarily related to vaccination but to nutritional status. Child mortality due to measles is 200 to 400 times greater in malnourished children in less developed countries than those in developed ones. It is crystal clear that as nutrition improves and vitamin A and D levels are optimized, the complications and deaths from measles radically diminish.

Furthermore, experiencing measles infection in childhood itself may confer health benefits and even survival advantage in protecting against autoimmune conditions and chronic inflammation, including cancer, which means it may be a means through which our immune system is primed and gains self-tolerance.12 Experiencing and recovering from naturally –acquired measles may actually be, as our not so distant ancestors once commonly acknowledged, a good thing, because it confers much longer lasting superior immunity and is protective against infection that leads to complications later in life, when measles can be much more serious.

There are reports in the literature documenting the fact that not only can live attenuated measles vaccine cause measles vaccine strain infection that may not be cleared from the body, but vaccine strain live virus is also shed in the urine and other bodily secretions.13

Herd Immunity Did NOT Work for Measles

Dr Alexander Langmuir is known as "the father of infectious disease epidemiology." In 1949, he created the epidemiology section of what became the CDC. He also headed the Polio Surveillance Unit that was started in 1955 after polio vaccine safety issues became public. According to Dr Langmuir and many other experts, the measles vaccine was supposed to eradicate the common childhood disease in 1967. But of course that did not happen.

A 1994 study indicated that as vaccination rates increased, measles became a disease in populations where the majority of children had been vaccinated, including in the U.S. This "startling" surprise challenged the theory that vaccine-induced "herd immunity" would provide complete protection against outbreaks of measles. As the CDC has admitted and published reports in the medical literature have documented, measles outbreaks have occurred in school populations in which 71 percent to 99.8 percent of the student body have been vaccinated.14

It may have been "startling" at the time but it became a regular occurrence that measles outbreaks developed in highly vaccinated school populations even though more than 98 percent of the students had previously been vaccinated.15 In the particular case of measles, vaccine-induced "herd immunity" was not well established with widespread use of one dose of measles vaccine and thus did not prevent outbreaks.

Even more recently, a study conducted in the Zhejiang province in China shows that populations, which have achieved a measles vaccination rate of 99 percent through mandatory vaccination programs, are still experiencing consistent outbreaks far beyond what the World Health Organization (WHO) expects. This calls into question whether MMR vaccine really does provide long lasting protection against measles infection.16

Measles Vaccine Does NOT Create Life Long Immunity

One key factor to consider is that measles vaccine does not create lifelong immunity. Vaccines only confer temporary artificial immunity, although sometimes vaccines fail to confer any immunity in susceptible persons, and this is why health officials recommend multiple doses of measles and other vaccines to "boost" vaccine acquired immunity. Although previously, the CDC advised that adults born before 1958 did not have to get vaccinated, the CDC now states that "people who are born during or after 1957 who do not have evidence of immunity against measles should get at least one dose of MMR vaccine." 17

In fact, since the Disneyland-related measles outbreak in early 2015, some public health doctors are suggesting that all adults should get an MMR booster shot because as many as 1 in 10 previously vaccinated adults may be susceptible to measles due to waning vaccine acquired immunity.18

There is plenty of evidence that an increasing number of measles vaccinated children and adults in the U.S. and around the world are getting measles, even after two doses of MMR.19,20,21 Infants under age one, who used to be protected in the first year of life by getting natural maternal antibodies from mothers, who had experienced and recovered from measles in childhood, are now susceptible to measles from birth. That is because most young mothers today have been vaccinated and measles vaccine acquired maternal antibodies are far less protective than naturally acquired antibodies.22,23

We have not yet seen how the universal measles vaccination policy will play out over the next several generations as senior citizens with naturally acquired measles immunity die and children and younger adults with artificial vaccine acquired immunity are relied upon to provide "community immunity". Some experts have predicted that measles epidemics are likely to become more common in the future.

One study suggested that, even with good response to vaccination, measles vaccine acquired immunity only lasts from 15 to 20 years.24,25 In fact, there is evidence of waning measles vaccine acquired immunity after 10 years.26 If this is true, then there could be a resurgence of measles after a period of relatively low measles incidence, which we are in now. In addition somewhere between 2 and 10 percent of vaccinations result in primary vaccine failures, meaning those who get the vaccine don't gain any antibody protection after vaccination at all.27

The California Disney measles outbreak is primarily associated with one of the 22 measles genotypes known to be circulating globally -- the B3 strain of measles that has caused recent outbreaks in the Philippines.28 Measles vaccines used in the U.S. and other countries were created using the A measles genotype, although scientists have said, "there are no known biological differences between viruses of different genotypes."29

Your Body Has Two Different Immune Systems

There are two systems that fight disease in the body. One is the innate system that is always ready to work and the other is the adaptive arm of immunity. The adaptive arm consists of Th1 and Th2. Both are necessary but Th1 is commonly known as the cell mediated arm, and Th2 known as the humoral or antibody arm. Most vaccines preferentially stimulate the Th2 or humoral part of the immune system. When it comes to measles vaccines, it is known that breast fed babies will develop more of a Th1 immunity while formula fed babies will develop Th2 slanted immunity30 which is actually less desirable.

Measured antibodies may be reflective of some form of immunity, but it is not a perfect correlate as indicated by those who recover and remain immune to measles without making any antibodies.

The benefit of only measuring humoral immunity as a means of measuring vaccine effectiveness is that it can be easily determined by drawing blood samples. If specific vaccine-induced antibodies are present, the person is presumed to be immune to that infection and protected. If vaccine induced "community immunity" was guaranteed protection, it would simply require proof that nearly everyone in the community had high vaccine-acquired antibody levels.

Evidence of the profound importance and effectiveness of the innate and Th1 immune system can be demonstrated in individuals who are unable to genetically generate antibody production. This is called agamma-globulinemia. When individuals with this condition were exposed to measles, they recovered just as well as those who were able to make normal antibodies.31 They also had protection in the future upon re-exposure.

This "disconcerting" discovery was made in the 1960s when measles vaccination programs were just getting underway and demonstrates that production of antibodies is not necessary for the natural recovery from measles. Even more recent research published last year indicates that antibody-mediated immunity is not necessary to neutralize viruses like vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV),32 again calling into question the primary justification used today to "prove immunity" and promote the idea that elevations in vaccine-induced antibody titers are necessary to produce immunity against all infectious diseases.

Therefore, humoral immunity may only play a secondary role in natural resistance against measles disease and other targeted "vaccine-preventable" diseases. The reason most people completely recover from and are protected after acute infections may be due more to the fact that they have innate immunity, which requires no memory or previous exposure and does not involve preformed specific antibodies. The other reason they don't get re-infected is because they acquired cell-mediated immunity from the infection.

Innate immunity involves the activation of white blood cells, including macrophages, natural killer cells, and antigen-specific T lymphocytes, as well as the release of various cytokines (immune system proteins) in response to challenge from pathogenic microbes. This type of innate immune response is mounted by most people with functioning immune systems, regardless of vaccination, and is highly dependent on whether or not the person is getting enough essential nutrients. When cellular immunity is impaired— for instance, in leukemia— measles infection can be lethal.

Are Measles Vaccines a Rational Option?

Why does it make sense to subject all healthy people living in developed countries with access to good nutrition, sanitation and health care, who are not usually susceptible to suffering complications from measles, to the known and unknown risks of MMR vaccines, when the result could be leading the world to a situation worse than the pre-vaccine days? What will be the response to revaccinating everyone in the world with more and more measles vaccine booster doses? And what happens if the vaccine-induced re-programming of our immune system actually reduces our ability to effectively respond to real-world challenges from other pathogenic infectious microbes?

Vaccinologists have long relied on high antibody titers as a measure of a vaccine's effectiveness, but have they stopped to consider whether constantly artificially manipulating the immune system to produce vaccine-induced antibodies is rendering millions of people more vulnerable to infectious diseases, as well as more prone to developing autoimmunity? The best analogy I can think of is kicking a beehive.

Although this may result in a bunch of angry bees (i.e. antibodies) attacking anything within reach, claiming we have "improved the health of the hive" by increasing the number of angry bees (measured by high antibody titers) without proving they are attacking a real threat, is absurd. In fact, the "bees" may end up attacking the Queen bee (the host), reducing self-tolerance and inducing chronic autoimmunity.

What Really Caused Measles to Drop from 1963 Onwards?

There was an apparently steep drop in measles incidence from 1963 onward. But was that dramatic downtrend in the curve all because of widespread use of measles vaccines? By 1968, the US immunization survey showed that only 50– 60 percent of children between one and nine years old had been vaccinated33 for measles. And a lot of vaccinated children still got the common childhood disease. During epidemic days, even when three measles vaccinations were given to children, more than 50 percent of measles cases had been fully vaccinated.34 Here are some probable contributions to the decline in the reported cases of measles:

First:

As always happens after a vaccine campaign, the criteria for diagnosing the disease was narrowed. The vaccinated who developed measles symptoms were not counted in the tally of wild measles cases, even though they might have been infected with wild-type measles virus.35,36 The accelerated decline seen on the curve could have been due to the fact that if someone received a vaccine and developed a rash and high fever, it was not diagnosed as measles. So because of the new classification, measles appeared to drop in the vaccinated.

Up to 54 percent of vaccinated cases in some reports developed rash after vaccination, which was in part why immune globulin was administered with it. Still today, by the CDC's admission, 5– 10 percent37 of vaccinees develop a rash and fever,38 which is indicative of vaccine strain measles virus infection.39,40,41 Since MMR vaccine associated rashes are often missed by clinicians and parents and attributed to something else,42 that 5– 10 percent could well be a gross underestimate.

If 5– 10 percent of measles vaccines result in fever and rash, then there actually could be approximately 650,000–1,300,000 cases of vaccine strain measles infection associated symptoms in the United States per year given the 13– 14 million yearly doses of vaccine injected into one-year-olds (live births per year US census = 14 million).

Second:

Gamma globulin use during measles infection began in the 1940s. The reason it was given at the same time as the live and killed vaccines was to limit the negative (vaccine strain measles virus infection) effects of the injection. Gamma globulin was and still is also prescribed as prophylaxis to those exposed to measles cases, including the contacts of live-vaccine virus cases in the freshly vaccinated.

Measles can be prevented or modified after exposure by passive immunization with the use of immune serum globulin. (But it comes with a price: potential development of tumors and connective tissue disease later in life. Not to mention all the problems that can occur in giving a pooled human blood product.)

Gamma globulin use in the early years of measles vaccination programs could, therefore, have contributed to the decreasing severity of acute measles disease manifestation when used alone or with the vaccine. Yet the attribution would have been given to the vaccine. Rashless measles infections would have led to fewer measles reports, but not because measles was not circulating and causing occult or hidden infections.

So, on one hand, the early vaccines were leading to cases of vaccine strain measles and causing a different disease (which were not counted as wild measles), and on the other hand, the gamma globulin given to prevent the side effects of the vaccines was also interfering with normal cell-mediated processing of the virus.

Third:

Before the introduction of the 1963 vaccine, the incidence of measles was already on a slow decline. Was measles slowly becoming less prevalent anyway? We know that measles can be subclinical 30 percent of the time. The measles death rate had already plummeted. Like smallpox, was the disease slowly burning out? Was the rise in breastfeeding and improved nutrition contributing to fewer diagnosed cases?

Measles Vaccination: A Failed Experiment?

Breast milk is not just food, and its immunoprotective properties involve more than just antibodies. Colostrum contains viable T lymphocytes that impart immunity to the newborn. The fact that vaccinated people have inferior more temporary immunity in comparison to the naturally acquired longer lasting immunity has led to the recommendation of revaccinating women before pregnancy. But this type of artificial vaccine acquired immunity is not transferred to the newborn as well as naturally acquired immunity.

Nobody has figured out how to tell for certain who is truly immune to pathogenic microbes. People without antibodies can be completely protected from clinical illness by cellular immunity. Therefore antibody is a mere surrogate that has questionable significance.

When Silfverdale evaluated thousands of vaccinated and unvaccinated breastfed and non-breastfed children looking at the risk of measles, breastfeeding had a far larger impact on measles risk than vaccinating. Now that women who were vaccinated in the 1970s and later are of childbearing age, accumulating evidence shows that their infants are not as well protected as they were when measles circulated widely and infected nearly every child by the age of 15.43

Today the only solution to the issue of waning vaccine-acquired immunity is to keep vaccinating and to vaccinate childbearing-age mothers again. But this may always carry more risk than allowing measles to circulate and be dealt with normally by T cells in well-nourished populations. Because the deaths and disease complications associated with measles can be severe among infants, the early loss of passive immunity demonstrated in recent studies of vaccinated mothers should be of major concern.

Today, because of vaccination, young infants are more susceptible than ever. Scientists are searching for ways to vaccinate them earlier and earlier in order to bypass all placental and breast milk immunity and replace it with artificial vaccine-induced immunity. Why? Placental and breast milk immunity protects the infant from measles and other pathogenic infections.

This is just another example of how vaccines have created a situation that requires even more vaccines and more manipulation of the immune system. This is financially profitable for vaccine manufacturers but scientifically and immunologically unsound.

So How Can You Protect Yourself and Your Child from Measles?

For over 100 years, there has been a strong association with vitamin A deficiency and adverse health outcomes from measles infections, especially in young children.44 Has the time come for the medical community to recognize that any child presenting with measles symptoms, especially complications, should be given vitamin A and evaluated for overall nutritional status? If not, what has history taught us?

Vitamin A stops the measles virus from rapidly multiplying inside cells by up-regulating the innate immune system in uninfected cells, which helps to prevent the virus from infecting new cells. It is well known today that a low vitamin A level correlates with low measles-specific antibodies and increased morbidity and mortality. Vitamin A is a well-proven intervention for reduction of mortality, concomitant infections, and hospital stay.

It made no more sense to vaccinate against measles in 1963 than it does to put a measles infected child in a dark room instead of just giving vitamin A, which protects the retinas and the uninfected cells. The efficiency of the cellular immune system is tied to the intake of dietary nutrients, including vitamins A, D and C, zinc, selenium, and protein rich in vitamin B.45 Poor nutrition leads to impaired cellular immune responses, which results in worse outcomes after measles infection or exposure. This also explains why during the 1800s and into the 1900s, when the general nutritional status of the Western world was improving, there was a dramatic decrease in deaths from measles.

In 1987, scientists in Tanzania used vitamin A during measles outbreaks and watched the impressive protective effects. During the 1990s, when mortality reductions of 60-90 percent were measured in poor countries using vitamin A in hospitalized measles cases, there was even more publicity of the vitamin A depletion theory in measles mortality and morbidity. By 2010, it was well accepted that supplementing with vitamin A during acute measles illness led to significant drops in both adverse outcomes and death.

Finally, vitamin A (which is found in high concentrations in breast milk) was given credit in the battle against measles, but only after a vaccine was well accepted throughout the world. In the United States, studies have found that vitamin A deficiency is not just a thing of the past. Even children with normal diets were vitamin deficient upon measles infection. A 1992 California study showed that 50 percent of children hospitalized with measles had a vitamin A deficiency.46 But there was also vitamin A deficiency in 30 percent of the sick controls who did not have measles. None of the uninfected controls showed significant deficiency.

Vitamin C can also be used and during a measles epidemic was given prophylactically and all those who received as much as 1000 mg. every six hours, by vein or muscle, were protected from the virus.47 Given by mouth, 1,000 mg. in fruit juice every two hours was not protective unless it was given around the clock. It was further found that 1,000 mg. by mouth, four to six times each day, would modify the attack; with the appearance of Koplik's spots and fever, if the administration was increased to 12 doses each 24 hours, all signs and symptoms would disappear in 48 hours.

Vitamin D also plays a major role in combating infections, but this wasn't known until decades after the implementation of the measles vaccines so it has not been tested clinically. However, many studies that strongly suggest vitamin D levels below 50 ng/ml will contribute to an impaired ability to mount a sound immune response against measles.48

Measles Complications Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE)

Although some may say that all the problems with measles vaccines were worth the risk because the morbidity of measles was cut down, they miss the bigger picture. That picture involves numerous neurologic diseases, including SSPE (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is a rare, chronic progressive encephalitis that nearly universally ends in death), even in those who are fully vaccinated. Contrary to popular belief, SSPE is now a disease occurring in vaccinated persons. In a study49 of nine SSPE cases, three had been fully vaccinated against measles. There was no history of rash in any who were vaccinated and developed SSPE.

In 1989, Dyken reported an increase in the proportion of cases of SSPE following measles vaccination. There is also a shorter incubation period for SSPE following vaccination compared with that which develops after measles infection. SSPE is far from a closed-book issue in the era of vaccination.

What disasters can befall those who accept injections of any vaccine virus that can persist indefinitely within the body? Generally benign person-to-person measles transmission, especially in developed countries like the U.S., seems to have been interrupted after years of experimental vaccinations and with some surprising and unintended consequences.

Much of the interruption was done by intentionally subjecting children to measles vaccine strain viruses through needle injection to which the immune system can react in abnormal ways, creating other illness in the process. What we have now is a population of increasingly unhealthy children —with rates of many chronic diseases and disorders increasing dramatically. For many, vaccination becomes a matter of swapping one set of possible risks for another set of probable risks, the outcome of which are alleged to be "coincident."

More Vaccine Shenanigans

Recently Merck has been accused, by two former virologist employees, of falsifying documents in order to keep its mumps vaccine patent, all the while knowing that the mumps vaccine in the MMR shot is not effective. A lawsuit was filed in 2010 and an amended complaint in 2012, detailing Merck's efforts to allegedly "defraud the United States through an ongoing scheme to sell the government a mumps vaccine that is mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated, and falsely certified as having an efficacy rate that is significantly higher than it actually is."

Merck allegedly did this from the year 2000 onward to maintain its exclusive license to sell the MMR vaccine and keep its monopoly of the US market. This ongoing event has been effectively shielded from and ignored by mainstream media. During the alleged fraudulent activity that occurred in Merck's labs, two courageous scientists working for Merck voiced their objections.

They claim to have been told by the company's upper management that if they called the FDA, they would be jailed. They were also reminded of the very large bonuses that were to be rewarded with after the MMR vaccines were government certified as effective. If what these scientists claim is true, the net result of Merck's questionable activity were vaccine-resistant mumps epidemics and outbreaks that instead of being identified as being caused by a failing vaccine, have led to the demand for more vaccine boosters that will net increased revenue for Merck.

It is known that the mumps component of all MMR vaccines from the mid-1990s has had a very low efficacy, estimated at 69 percent. The mumps portion has lost efficacy (the ability to stimulate production of a high number of vaccine-induced antibodies), but what is not being measured is the potential negative effects of injecting a live vaccine strain mumps virus into the body.

What do you think happens to a live attenuated vaccine strain virus that is injected into a person and elicits only a sluggish immune response and may never be cleared? What chronic health disasters can befall those who are injected with live vaccine strain viruses that cause vaccine strain virus infection with the potential to persist indefinitely in the body?

We need to rationally and objectively analyze the risks and benefits of any vaccination program rather than relying on fear campaigns designed by profit-seeking vaccine manufacturers and promoted through regulatory and policymaking governmental agencies, along with the media, which have long been captured by corporate interests.

So What Does a Caring Parent and Responsible Adult Do?

Those who are beginning to see the light, and are questioning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, may have to also question their own long-held beliefs about vaccination and infectious diseases. This is not easy to do because the public has been bombarded with so much fear-based propaganda and incorrect information about vaccination for so many years. Doctors may have to do the same and examine their own work and many years, if not decades, of administering measles and other vaccines to children and adults.

If they come to the conclusion that vaccines often fail to work or are harmful, they will have to be prepared to deal with strong resistance from government officials and very real threats to their medical licenses from those expecting doctors to promote mandatory use of all federally recommended vaccines. The golden handcuffs often are too attractive for doctors to rise to that kind of challenge because they are afraid they could lose everything.

But the alternative – protection of the status quo – has profoundly serious consequences for the health of future generations. It is time for all of us to acknowledge what is and is not known about vaccination and health and, at a minimum, support the legal right for everyone to be able to exercise voluntary, informed consent to use of vaccines, including measles vaccine.

]]>

View the Original article

Recently Vaccinated Individuals Found to Spread Disease

By Dr. Mercola

Even as the US measles "outbreak" has slowed, the vaccination debate rages on. It has become increasingly heated, at times inappropriate and oftentimes personal, as parents attack one another about their beliefs.

One of the "facts" commonly cited by vaccine supporters is that the non-vaccinated pose a risk to their communities. By choosing not to get their children vaccinated, parents are putting other children at risk of those diseases, particularly children who are not old enough or not able to get vaccinated.

Most likely you've seen this propaganda being circulated widely in the media. Some parents of children who are immunocompromised and therefore unable to receive the vaccines themselves, for instance, have targeted non-vaxing parents, calling them irresponsible and even killers.

It is sad to see so many lies and misinformation being spread, including those about herd immunity. Another important factor that isn't widely appreciated is that recently vaccinated individuals may actually spread disease.

This is why, in the Johns Hopkins Patient Guide for immunocompromised patients, it makes no mention about avoiding non-vaccinated individuals… but it does mention avoiding "contact with children who are recently vaccinated."

It also stated to "Tell friends and family who are sick, or have recently had a live vaccine (such as chicken pox, measles, rubella, intranasal influenza, polio, or smallpox) not to visit.1

At least, it used to state this. As of March 2015, the guide has been revised and this language has been removed, likely because of all the press it's been receiving. Still, the fact remains that recently vaccinated individuals can and do spread disease.

Recently Vaccinated Individuals Can Spread Disease

Barbara Loe Fisher is the co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a non-profit charity dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and defending the legal right for everyone to make vaccine choices.

She explains how you can shed live virus in body fluids whether you have a viral infection or have gotten a live attenuated viral vaccine:

"Live attenuated viral vaccines (LAV) that use live viruses try to, in essence, fool your immune system into believing that you've come into contact with a real virus, thereby stimulating the antibody response that, theoretically, will protect you," she says.

"When you get these live viral vaccines, you shed live virus in your body fluids. Just like when you get a viral infection, you shed live virus. That's how viral infections are transmitted.

Because viruses, unlike bacteria, need a living host... in order to multiply. What these viruses do is they try to disable the immune system and evade immune responses."

Barbara has compiled a special report, "The Emerging Risks of Live Virus and Viral Vectored Vaccines" containing over 200 references, which delves into virus shedding and vaccine virus shedding.

In it, she raises valid questions about whether or not scientists, public health officials, and vaccine manufacturers truly understand the impact live attenuated viral vaccines and vaccines using viruses as vaccine vectors, have on our immune function, genetic integrity, and the environment.

Are Non-Vaccinated Children Being Unfairly Blamed?

Live-virus vaccine shedding and transmission may also affect the evolution of viruses that infect humans and animals because vaccine strain viruses are released into the environment, where recombinations and further mutations can occur.

Smallpox, for example, is transmitted by contact with body fluids. And, when you get a live attenuated smallpox vaccine, which contains live attenuated vaccinia virus, you can develop vaccinia virus (VACV or VV) strain infection, which you can then transmit to others. The same is true for polio and the live oral polio vaccine (OPV).

Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine of 10 of 12 children, and all young adults tested, following measles vaccination.2 As Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, said:

"The public health community is blaming unvaccinated children for the outbreak of measles at Disneyland, but the illnesses could just as easily have occurred due to contact with a recently vaccinated individual… Evidence indicates that recently vaccinated individuals should be quarantined in order to protect the public."

Have You Heard of Vaccine-Related Measles?

It is possible to come down with measles after receiving an MMR vaccine. In 2013, for instance, a 2-year-old fell ill with vaccine-related measles 37 days after receiving the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

This was well beyond the typical incubation period for measles transmission, and it occurred in the context of an outbreak investigation of measles cluster. So at first it was assumed to be a wild-type measles infection, when in fact it was vaccine-related. We have no statistics about how often this assumption is made when it may actually be inaccurate.

As reported in Eurosurveillance:3

"The incubation period of measles is typically eight to 12 days from exposure to rash onset, with a range from seven to 21 days. Public health interventions are based on this established incubation period for determining the epidemiological links between cases and for estimating periods of exclusion for contacts in high risk settings.

Based on our review of the literature, this report documents the first case of MMR vaccine-associated measles, 37 days post-immunization, well beyond 21 days and the routine 30 days post-MMR immunization period used by the Canadian adverse event following immunization (AEFI) surveillance system.

…Although this is the first such reported case, it likely represents the existence of additional, but unidentified, exceptions to the typical timeframe for measles vaccine virus shedding and illness."

Measles Outbreaks Can Occur Even in 'Highly Immunized Societies'

Another factor not being addressed by most media or public health agencies is that the vaccine provides absolutely no assurance of long-lasting immunity and even two doses of MMR vaccine will fail to provide long-term protection.

Like B. pertussis whooping cough and other infectious diseases, measles has natural cyclical increases and decreases every few years in populations. These may occur even in highly vaccinated populations.

Public health agencies have been reporting measles outbreaks in the US for the past few years, which they often blame on unvaccinated individuals, despite the fact that in 2012, 95 percent of children entering kindergarten had gotten two MMR shots and so had more than 90 percent of high school students.

With this high degree of compliance with a supposedly effective measles vaccine, many people have been wondering why the US is seeing a resurgence of measles cases.4 The answer may lie in an ineffective vaccine.

In the medical journal Vaccine, Dr. Gregory Poland, the journal's editor-in-chief, professor of medicine and founder and leader of Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group, made public statements about the poor effectiveness of measles vaccine in the MMR shot.5 According to Dr. Poland, who is conducting research at Mayo Clinic to develop new measles, mumps and rubella vaccines:6

"…the immune response to measles vaccine varies substantially in actual field use. Multiple studies demonstrate that 2–10% of those immunized with two doses of measles vaccine fail to develop protective antibody levels, and that immunity can wane over time and result in infection (so-called secondary vaccine failure) when the individual is exposed to measles.

For example, during the 1989–1991 U.S. measles outbreaks 20–40% of the individuals affected had been previously immunized with one to two doses of vaccine. In an October 2011 outbreak in Canada, over 50% of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine… this phenomenon continues to play a role in measles outbreaks.

Thus, measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized."

Vaccinated Individuals Can Be Asymptomatic Carriers of Disease

One of the dangers of any viral disease outbreak is that people often fail to realize is that you can be an asymptomatic carrier of a viral infection; so while you show no symptoms or only mild symptoms, you may still be able to transmit the virus to others. Even fewer people understand that this is also true for live-virus vaccines! Yet, government health officials do not conduct routine active surveillance of vaccinated people to find out if they are experiencing asymptomatic or atypical measles and transmitting it to others.

For instance, in an animal study, while whole cell DPT and acellular-pertussis-vaccinated baboons did not develop serious clinical disease symptoms—such as loss of appetite and cough—when they were exposed to the B. pertussis bacteria, they still colonized B. pertussis in their throats and were capable of transmitting the infection to other baboons.7 The study's lead author Tod Merkel also explained that when exposed to B. pertussis after recently getting vaccinated, you could be an asymptomatic carrier and infect others, saying:8 "When you're newly vaccinated, you are an asymptomatic carrier, which is good for you, but not for the population."

The Truth About Herd Immunity

The issue of "herd immunity" as it pertains to vaccinations is a widely misunderstood subject. As reported by Barbara Loe Fisher:

"According to Dr. [James] Cherry, [a prominent UCLA pediatrician and infectious disease expert], measles-vaccine-acquired herd immunity is in effect with a measles vaccination rate of more than 90 percent. Well, that has been true in America since 1981 with one dose of MMR vaccine and since 2000 for two doses of MMR vaccine, which is one reason why the CDC declared measles eradicated from the U.S. in 2000.

But, clearly, measles virus has not been eradicated from the U.S., just like measles has not been eradicated from any other country and emerging scientific evidence suggests it never will be—no matter how many doses of MMR vaccine are mandated for every man, woman and child in the world."

The science clearly shows that there's a big difference between naturally acquired herd immunity and vaccine-acquired herd immunity, even as scientific knowledge about the biological mechanisms involved in naturally acquired and vaccine acquired immunity is incomplete. For instance, most Americans born before 1957 experienced measles and have naturally acquired life-long permanent immunity to measles, which allowed women to pass antibodies on to their babies to protect them from measles during the first year of life.

Things have definitely changed in the past 60 years. Because vaccine antibodies are different from naturally acquired measles antibodies, young vaccinated moms today cannot give longer lasting naturally acquired measles antibodies to their newborns.9

Vaccines simply do not confer the same kind of long-lasting immunity that is obtained from experiencing and recovering from the natural disease. This is why booster shots are necessary, and why some are recommending that a third MMR vaccine to the US vaccine schedule. The vaccine simply cannot provide life-long immunity the way getting a naturally acquired infection can. So, what many people don't realize is that there is such a thing as natural herd immunity. However, vaccines do not confer the same kind of immunity as experiencing and recovering from the natural disease.

Your Human Right to Make Voluntary Health Care Decisions Is Under Attack

Earlier this month, a Chicago mother signed a consent form for her 16-year-old daughter to get a sports physical at school. During the physical, a nurse also administered four vaccines -- chicken pox, hepatitis A, meningitis, and the HPV vaccine. The mother states she did not give consent for three of the vaccines, which were given without her consent and without her daughter's knowledge.10 She has taken the issue to the school and school board, but they are fighting back.

Do you want to live in a world where your child can be given a vaccination, a medical procedure that carries risks of side effects, without your knowledge or consent? Do you believe in the right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines you receive and which you choose to give to your children? This is one of the biggest public health issues of our time, and in light of the gaps in vaccine science, having the legal right to know and freedom to make an individual, voluntary choice about vaccination is essential.

You can't simply assume that they are safe. There's gross underreporting of vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), even though it's been a matter of federal law since 1986. Any doctor or other vaccine provider who gives a vaccine is supposed to monitor the person they vaccinated and report any subsequent injuries, hospitalization, or death to VAERS. But there's no enforcement or penalties for failure to comply with the vaccine safety informing, reporting, and recording provisions in the 1986 law.

"What's happening is a lot of the providers of vaccines, the doctors, are determining that when something bad happens after vaccination, it's not the fault of the vaccine; it's just a coincidence. You have less than 10 percent, or perhaps less than one percent of all vaccine providers actually reporting to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System," Barbara says.

Adding insult to injury, there's also an attempt to censor public conversation about all these vaccines that we're using, and the hundreds of vaccines in the research pipeline – including live-virus vaccines and genetically engineered viral vectored experimental vaccines for Ebola and HIV. Already, we've traded longer lasting naturally acquired immunity for a temporary, artificial vaccine acquired immunity against an entire array of infectious diseases—most of which never led to mass casualties in the first place.

In the last 30 years, the US has tripled the number of vaccines given to infants and children during their most critical period of development—the first three years of life. Could the ramifications of this be reflected in the current abysmal chronic disease and disability statistics in the US?

"We do not understand the impact we've had on the immune function of several generations of children, whose immune systems have been atypically manipulated over and over again with inactivated bacterial vaccines and live virus vaccines," Barbara says. "We don't know the impact on their epigenetics, on their DNA, and on their immune function."

]]>

View the Original article

BPA Is Fine if You Ignore Most Studies for It

By Dr. Mercola

Bisphenol-A (BPA) was first created in 1891 by a Russian chemist. By the 1930s, it was found to mimic the effects of estrogen in the human body. Still, in the 1950s, BPA found its way into industry, as a chemical that could produce strong, resilient and often transparent plastics.

BPA is also used to make BPA resins, which keep metal from corroding and breaking. As such, it now coats about 75 percent of cans in North America.

The chemical is surrounded in controversy as research continues to build that it’s detrimental to human health. Yet, the BPA market was valued at over $13 billion in 2013, and sales are set to expand 5 percent annually.

As of 2012, 10 billion pounds of BPA were produced worldwide, sales of which amount to tens of millions each day, but, as Newsweek reported:1

“…scientists suggest that might be offset by a large, hidden cost: its impact on human health.

To date, there have been around 1,000 animal studies on BPA, and the vast majority show that it causes or is linked to many health problems, from alterations in fertility to increased risk for cancers and cardiovascular problems to impaired brain development, says Frederick vom Saal, a longtime researcher of the product at the University of Missouri-Columbia.”

Is BPA Safe? Depends on Who You Ask…

The industry trade group, the American Chemistry Council, has continually insisted that BPA is safe and has opposed both state and federal legislative proposals to ban the chemical.2

Since they stand to lose the most if BPA is taken off the market, this isn’t surprising, but the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also issued an official announcement last year to reaffirm BPA's safety.3

After a four-year long review of 300 studies, the FDA concluded that "BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in food." The agency also stated, "the available information continues to support the safety of BPA for the currently approved uses in food containers and packaging."4

It is beyond irrational to conclude anything other than this verdict is more than likely a result of lobbying and the revolving door between the FDA and the chemical industry. There is damning evidence against the use of BPA—particularly in food-related products that is being ignored.

According to Newsweek:5

“…the agency… dismissed as irrelevant the vast majority of the BPA safety studies its own scientists reviewed in preparation for that official position statement… In some cases, the reviewers’ notes don’t seem to match up with the FDA’s sweeping assertion that there’s nothing to see here.

For example, the reviewers wrote of one 2013 study, “These data support a plausible relationship between urinary BPA levels and obesity.”6

They say that another paper, regarding hyperactivity, ‘should be considered as part of the growing body of work assessing relationships between BPA exposure and behavior.’7 But none of these seemingly concerning links are mentioned in the conclusion that BPA is safe.”

Perhaps the FDA’s finding has something to do with the more than $11 million in lobbying the American Chemistry Council spent in 2013.8 It could also be that they chose to review industry-funded studies, which are notoriously biased.

In 2006, for instance, an analysis revealed that every industry-funded study found no significant effects from BPA. In contrast, 92 percent of studies without industry funding found it did have effects…9

Dangerous Even at Low-Level Exposure

Most Americans have BPA in their blood, usually in the range of 1 part per billion (ppb).10 This might seem like too miniscule an amount to cause problems – and that’s just what regulators and chemical companies have long stated – but “endocrine disruptors like BPA, which act like hormones, don’t “play by the rules,” says Patricia Hunt, a geneticist at Washington State University.”11

According to Hunt, “exposure to low levels of BPA -- levels that we think are in the realm of current human exposure -- can profoundly affect both developing eggs and sperm.”12 

For instance, in one of Hunt’s studies, researchers found disruptions to egg development after rhesus monkeys, which have human-like reproductive systems, were exposed to either single, daily doses of BPA or low-level continuous doses. The BPA appeared to damage chromosomes, which could lead to spontaneous miscarriage or birth defects.

In the group exposed continuously to BPA, there were not only problems with initial egg development, but also in the fetal eggs that were developing.13 The fetal eggs were not "packaged" properly in the follicles, which means they would have difficulty developing and maturing normally.

Serious Health Risks Linked to BPA

BPA is an endocrine disrupter, which means it mimics or interferes with your body's hormones and "disrupts" your endocrine system. The glands of your endocrine system and the hormones they release influence almost every cell, organ, and function of your body.

It is instrumental in regulating mood, growth and development, tissue function, metabolism, as well as sexual function and reproductive processes. BPA has been linked to a number of health concerns, particularly in pregnant women, fetuses and young children, but also in adults, including:

Structural damage to your brain Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexual behavior Hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, and impaired learning Early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles, ovarian dysfunction, and infertility Increased fat formation and risk of obesity Stimulation of prostate cancer cells Altered immune function Increased prostate size and decreased sperm production

Much of the research on BPA has involved animals, leading skeptics (usually those in the chemical industry) to say the effects may not necessarily be the same in humans.

But research involving humans has shown similar risks. For instance, BPA from cans or plastic bottles can raise your blood pressure within just a few hours of ingestion.14

And in the NHANES study, published in 2010, adults with the highest levels of BPA in their urine were more than twice as likely to develop coronary heart disease as those with the lowest levels.15

Why BPA-Free Plastics Are Not the Solution…

In response to consumer demand for BPA-free products, many manufacturers have switched to using a different chemical called bisphenol-S (BPS). But BPS appears to be just as toxic, if not more so, than BPA.

In 2013, researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch discovered that even minute concentrations—less than one part per trillion—of BPS can disrupt cellular functioning. Metabolic disorders like obesity, diabetes, and even cancer, are potential ramifications of such disruptions.

Basically, while manufacturers are not lying by stating their products are “BPA-free,” they’re not necessarily telling the whole truth either. Many have simply traded one endocrine-disrupting chemical for another, and health-conscious consumers may be lulled into a false sense of security by the BPA-free label. Not to mention, plastics aren’t your only source of exposure to BPA. This toxic chemical is also found in:

Canned foods and soda cans   All BPA-containing plastics Certain tooth sealants Certain BPA-free plastics (which can contain similar endocrine-disrupting chemicals) Thermal printer receipts and paper currency (because paper bills are often stored next to receipts in wallets)

Past research has shown that holding receipt paper for only five seconds was enough to transfer BPA onto your skin, and the amount of BPA transferred increased by about 10 times if fingers were wet or greasy.16 Eating canned goods is another lesser-known, yet significant, route of exposure. According to one study, eating canned soup for five days increased study participants' urinary concentrations of BPA by more than 1,000% compared to eating freshly made soup.17 Separate research showed that after drinking soy milk from a can, the levels of BPA in the participants' urine rose by about 1,600 percent, compared to when they drank soy milk stored in glass.18

Phthalates May Disrupt Sex Development of Male Fetus

BPA is only one endocrine-disrupting chemical to be aware of. Phthalates are another. According to estimates by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 470 million pounds of phthalates are produced each year.19 They're primarily used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient, but they can also be found in air fresheners, dryer sheets, and personal care products like shampoo, shower gels, and makeup.

At the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, research was presented showing phthalate exposure during pregnancy may be linked to an abnormality in the distance between the anus and the scrotum in males (known as anogenital distance). Higher levels of the hormone hCG in pregnant women were linked to a shorter anogenital distance – phthalates are known to target hCG. Researchers told the Washington Post:20

"Our study is the first to show that hCG is a target of phthalate exposure in early pregnancy and to confirm previous findings that it is a critical hormone in male development.”

Previous research has linked phthalate exposure to birth defects, low sperm count, polycystic ovary disease, and early or delayed puberty, just to name a few. Prenatal phthalate exposure may also lead to reduced IQ in children, and there’s also an association between phthalate concentrations in the mother's system during pregnancy and the child's ability to concentrate, working memory, their perceptual reasoning skills, and the time it took for the child to process and retrieve information at the age of 7.21 In addition, previous animal research has found:22

Phthalates may affect the activity of aromatase, an enzyme that converts testosterone into estrogen. Estrogen plays an important role in brain development The chemical may interfere with the production of thyroid hormone, which plays a role in the timing of brain development Phthalates may also disrupt brain activity related to the neurotransmitter dopamine, which can produce symptoms like inattention and hyperactivity Endocrine-Dirsupting Chemicals Add Billions in Health Care Costs

The European Union is considering enacting regulations to target endocrine-disrupting chemicals. A new study may have given them some hefty support to restricting their use, as it showed that exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals, like phthalates and BPA, causes health problems that cost at least $175 billion a year in health-care costs (and one of the study’s authors called this estimate “very conservative”).23 Linda Birnbaum, the leading environmental health official in the US government, told National Geographic:24

"If you applied these [health care] numbers to the U.S., they would be applicable, and in some cases higher.”

The study examined several chemicals – BPA, two phthalates, DDE (a breakdown product of the insecticide DDT), organophosphate pesticides, and brominated flame retardants (PBDEs). It then detailed the costs associated with related neurological effects, obesity, diabetes and male reproductive disorders (including infertility).

National Geographic reported:25

"’The point is that there is a wide variety of effects being seen in the general population related to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. We have increasing amount of data raising concerns about their use,’ Birnbaum says. ‘We are seeing effects from [chemical] levels that are present in the general population.’ To put $175 billion in perspective, it is more than the combined proposed 2016 budgets for the U.S. Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, National Park Service, and Environmental Protection Agency combined.”

15 Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

Although it's virtually impossible to steer clear of ALL potentially hazardous chemicals, you can certainly minimize your exposure by keeping some key principles in mind.

Eat mostly fresh whole foods. Processed and packaged foods are a common source of BPA and phthalates—particularly cans, but also foods packaged in plastic wrap. Buy products that come in glass bottles rather than plastic or cans. Store your food and beverages in glass, rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap. Use glass containers if heating food in your microwave, as heat tends to increase the release of chemicals from plastic. Be aware that even "BPA-free" plastics typically leach other endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are just as bad as BPA. Use glass baby bottles for your infants. Be careful with cash register receipts. If you use a store regularly, encourage the management to switch to BPA-free receipts. I shop at Publix for my food and when I called them about the receipts it turns out they had already switched. Nevertheless it is wise to limit your contact with all these receipts. Look for products that are made by companies that are earth-friendly, animal-friendly, sustainable, certified organic, and GMO-free. This applies to everything from food and personal care products to building materials, carpeting, paint, baby items, furniture, mattresses, and more. When redoing your home, look for "green," toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings, the latter of which is another source of phthalates. Choose toys made from natural materials to avoid plastic chemicals like phthalates and BPA/BPS, particularly for items your child may be prone to suck or chew on. Breastfeed your baby exclusively if possible, for at least the first year (as you will avoid phthalates exposure from infant formula packaging and plastic bottles/nipples). Use natural cleaning products, or make your own. Switch over to organic toiletries, including shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants, and cosmetics. EWG's Skin Deep database can help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals.26 Replace your vinyl shower curtain with a fabric one. Replace feminine hygiene products (tampons and sanitary pads) with safer alternatives. While most ingredients in feminine hygiene products are undisclosed, tests suggest they may contain dioxins and petrochemical additives. Look for fragrance-free products; phthalates are often used to help the product hold its fragrance longer. Artificial fragrance can also contain hundreds—even thousands—of potentially toxic chemicals. Avoid fabric softeners, dryer sheets, air fresheners, and scented candles for the same reason. Check your home's tap water for contaminants and filter the water if necessary. You may also want to use an alternative to PVC pipes for your water supply. Teach your children not to drink water from the garden hose, as many are made with phthalate-containing plastics. ]]>

View the Original article

CAFOs, Your Gut, and Mental Health

By Dr. Mercola

The majority of farmed animals (by some estimates more than 99 percent) raised for food in the US are raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).1 In fact, 80 percent of the antibiotics used in the US are used in agriculture.

The food – eggs, dairy, beef, pork, and poultry, for instance – shows up in your supermarket neatly packaged and for reasonable, often low, prices. But the cardboard egg cartons, cellophane wrapped steaks, and chicken breasts do not bear testimony to the true cost of the food.

There are serious moral implications to raising animals as though they are inanimate objects, not worthy of even basic requirements like access to fresh air and sunlight, space to move around and a clean place to sleep.

There are environmental implications, too, as CAFOs continue to pollute our waterways and air with massive quantities of waste. And then there are the health issues. CAFOs are putting public health at risk, all while claiming to offer an efficient way to feed the world.

But while CAFOs have mastered the art of growing profits, they’ve overlooked the basic natural laws that govern growing animals… the end result is a disaster already well into the making.

Reckless Use of Agricultural Antibiotics Has Led to a Crisis of Antibiotic-Resistant Disease

Nearly 25 million pounds of antibiotics are administered to livestock in the US every year for purposes other than treating disease, such as making the animals grow bigger faster.

Those antibiotics, and even worse, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, are transferred to you via meat and even through the animal manure that is used as crop fertilizer.

This is a much bigger issue than antibiotics simply being left behind in your meat; it’s a practice that is promoting the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease. According to Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, associate director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):2

"The more you use an antibiotic, the more you expose a bacteria to an antibiotic, the greater the likelihood that resistance to that antibiotic is going to develop. So the more antibiotics we put into people, we put into the environment, we put into livestock, the more opportunities we create for these bacteria to become resistant."

Bacteria often share genes that make them resistant. In other words, the drug-resistant bacteria that contaminate your meat may pass on their resistant genes to other bacteria in your body, making you more likely to become sick.

Drug-resistant bacteria also accumulate in manure that is spread on fields and enters waterways, allowing the drug-resistant bacteria to spread far and wide and ultimately back up the food chain to us. Now, we’re facing a crisis.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria infect 2 million Americans every year, causing at least 23,000 deaths.3 Worse still, a report commissioned by UK Prime Minister David Cameron estimates that by 2050 antibiotic resistance will have killed 300 million people, with the annual global death toll reaching 10 million.4

And according to the CDC, 22 percent of antibiotic-resistant illness in humans is in fact linked to food,5 but a more accurate statement might be linked to food from CAFOs.

Low-Dose Antibiotics May Decimate Your Gut Health

Antibiotics are well known to disturb the microflora in your gut, and many studies make it clear that your gut health is pivotal in your ability to be healthy and avoid disease. When it comes to your mental health, your behavior and even your mood, we tend to think that the brain is in charge. In reality, your gut may be calling the shots.

In addition to the brain in your head, embedded in the wall of your gut is your enteric nervous system (ENS), which works both independently of and in conjunction with the brain in your head.

Your ENS contains 500 million neurons and is thought to be largely responsible for your “gut instincts,” responding to environmental threats and sending information to your brain that affects your well-being.

This communication between your “two brains” runs both ways and is the pathway for how foods affect your mood. For example, fatty foods make you feel good because fatty acids are detected by cell receptors in the lining of your gut, which then send warm and fuzzy nerve signals to your brain.

However, this gut-brain connection is far more than just comfort food or butterflies in your stomach. According to Scientific American:6

“The gut-brain axis seems to be bidirectional—the brain acts on gastrointestinal and immune functions that help to shape the gut's microbial makeup, and gut microbes make neuroactive compounds, including neurotransmitters and metabolites that also act on the brain.

These interactions could occur in various ways: microbial compounds communicate via the vagus nerve, which connects the brain and the digestive tract, and microbially derived metabolites interact with the immune system, which maintains its own communication with the brain.”

Are Antibiotics in Your Meat Messing with Your Mental Health?

The composition of your microbiome is somewhat like a fingerprint. It’s unique to you but, unlike your fingerprints, highly impressionable and constantly changing. As reported by Scientific American:7

“The ecology of the gut microbiome may trigger or contribute to a variety of diseases, including autoimmune disorders and obesity, research suggests. Factors such as early environment, diet, and antibiotic exposure have a lot to do with why people differ from one another in the composition of their microbiomes.”

Unhealthy gut flora can have a detrimental impact your brain health, leading to issues like anxiety and depression. For instance, women who regularly ate yogurt containing beneficial bacteria had improved brain function compared to those who did not consume probiotics.8 Specifically, they had decreased activity in two brain regions that control central processing of emotion and sensation:

The insular cortex (insula), which plays a role in functions typically linked to emotion (including perception, motor control, self-awareness, cognitive functioning, and interpersonal experience) and the regulation of your body's homeostasis The somatosensory cortex, which plays a role in your body's ability to interpret a wide variety of sensations CAFO Animals Eat Genetically Engineered Feed That May Also Harm Your Gut Health

It’s worth noting that most CAFO animals are fed genetically engineered (GE) feed, like corn and soy. These crops are heavily treated with herbicides like Roundup, the active ingredient of which is glyphosate. Glyphosate is also patented as an antibiotic—and a very effective one at that— against a large number of beneficial organisms.

Unfortunately, like all antibiotics, it also kills vitally important beneficial soil bacteria and human gut bacteria. This is yet one more way that eating CAFO foods may harm your gut, your mental health, and your physical health. Dr. Don Huber explained:

“Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus faecalis—these are organisms that keep you healthy either by providing accessibility to the minerals in your food or producing many of the vitamins that you need for life. They’re also the natural biological defenses to keep Clostridium, Salmonella, and E. coli from developing in your system.”

When you take the good bacteria out, then the bad bacteria fill that void, because there aren’t any voids in nature. We have all of these gut-related problems, whether it’s autism, leaky gut, C. difficile diarrhea, gluten intolerance, or any of the other problems. All of these diseases are an expression of disruption of that intestinal microflora that keeps you healthy.”

The Antibiotics May No Longer Be Working to Make Animals Bigger

In other parts of the world, such as the European Union, adding antibiotics to animal feed to accelerate growth has been banned for years. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been aware of the problem for more than a decade. However, in 2013 they merely asked drug companies to voluntarily restrict the use of antibiotics that are important in human medicine by excluding growth promotion in animals as a listed use on the drug label. This would prevent farmers from legally using antibiotics such as tetracyclines, penicillins, and azithromycin for growth promotion purposes.  But it’s only a voluntary request. This is akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse, not a very astute or wise strategy to say the least.

Many meat producers have continued to use antibiotics for growth-promotion purposes, which is all the more reckless because some research suggests they’re not even doing this anymore. Past research suggested that antibiotics in animal feed improved the daily weight gain in young pigs by an average of 16 percent and the feed efficiency by 7 percent. However, studies conducted in 2000 and later suggest antibiotics increased average daily weight by just 0.5 percent and feed efficiency by 1 percent.9 As noted in Choices Magazine:10

“The growth response to antibiotics may have decreased over the past 30 years for several possible reasons. First, the growth response to antibiotics is less important when animal nutrition, hygiene, genetics, and health are optimal. The relative improvement in the growth rate resulting from supplementing the diet of pigs with antibiotics has been shown to be inversely related to the growth rate of animals not being fed antibiotics. With changes in the livestock industry over the past 30 years, all of these factors have improved. Second, increasing levels of resistance in animals could be diminishing the overall effectiveness of AGPs, although data are lacking to evaluate this hypothesis.”

Illegal Drugs in Your CAFO Milk

Antibiotics and other drugs are commonly given to dairy cows raised on CAFOs as well. Milk is tested for up to six commonly used drugs, such as penicillin, and if excess levels are found the milk cannot be sold. However, not all drugs given to animals are tested for, and there has been concern that illegal drugs might be showing up in milk too. In a new report released by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), samples of milk from 2,000 dairy farms were tested for 31 different drugs.11

About half of the farms were targeted because they had sent cows to slaughter that had drug residues in their meat (with the implication being that they probably had drug residues in milk as well). It turned out that 1 percent of the targeted samples, and 0.4 percent of the randomly collected samples, contained drug residues.12 Six different drugs were found in the milk samples, none of which are approved for use in lactating dairy cows. According to NPR:13

“Because the survey was carried out for research purposes, the samples were collected anonymously, and the FDA cannot send investigators to the farms to find out what happened. Mike Apley, a researcher at Kansas State University's College of Veterinary Medicine, says that it is ‘totally illegal’ for dairy farmers to use two of the drugs that the FDA detected: Ciproflaxacin and Sulfamethazine.

In the case of other drugs, he says, the situation is more complicated. It's illegal for farmers to use those drugs on their own, but veterinarians are allowed to authorize their use in dairy cows under certain strict conditions. Veterinarians also are supposed to ensure that no residues enter the food supply. For whatever reason, that veterinary safeguard didn't work in these cases.”

Bird Flu Found in Arkansas Turkeys

Earlier this month, the USDA confirmed a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus was found in a flock of more than 40,000 turkeys in Arkansas.14 The animals will be culled to prevent the spread of infection. Although avian flu doesn't spread easily among humans, its capability to mutate has scientists worrying whether it could mutate enough to cause a human pandemic. CAFOs serve as the ideal place for this to happen, as there are millions, if not billions, of host birds among which the virus can flourish.

In the Netherlands, animal health authorities also recently discovered bird flu in samples taken from wild ducks.15 Chicken farms are suspected as the source of the disease and, so far, 300,000 birds at four CAFO locations were culled to ensure the infection doesn’t spread. There is already evidence of antibiotic-resistant superbugs “jumping” from farm animals to people. For instance, two human cases of infection with the antibiotic-resistant superbug MRSA were linked to livestock in Denmark.16

As reported by Mother Jones:17

“The Danish study comes on the heels a 2012 paper by a consortium of US and European researchers, which used gene sequencing to show that another common strain of MRSA originated in humans as a common staph infection, jumped to livestock, where it evolved resistance to the common antibiotics tetracycline and methicillin, and then jumped back to humans. Of course, you can also contract antibiotic-resistant pathogens through contact with raw meat—as, for example, more than 100 people did when the agribusiness giant Cargill sent out tens of millions of pounds of ground turkey tainted with antibiotic-resistant salmonella in 2011.”

Costco Joins the Fight for Antibiotic-Free Chicken

Wholesale club Costco sells 80 million rotisserie chickens a year, so when they ask for change, suppliers and even regulators listen. The company has been involved in an ongoing push to end the use of human antibiotics in chicken and other livestock. The company has been working with the FDA and the CDC to help eliminate the use of so-called shared-use antibiotics (those used for both humans and livestock). Craig Wilson, vice president of food safety at the Issaquah, Washington-based Costco, told Reuters:18

“We are working towards, and working with our suppliers and the regulatory agencies... to see how we can get rid of shared-use antibiotics in animals… I think all of us want to move to a point where we can get the human-use antibiotics out of the system. It's going to take time."

No target date has been set to reach this goal, but the company is the latest in a number of big-name corporations taking aim at agricultural antibiotics. For instance, McDonald’s recently announced they will only buy chicken raised without antibiotics important to human medicine, a change they plan to phase in over the next two years. Others in the industry who already offer antibiotic-free meat and poultry (or have committed to it) include Chipotle, Panera Bread, and Shake Shack. Chik-fil-A, which is actually the largest chicken buyer in the US, also announced last year that they would stop buying chicken raised with any antibiotics.

Additionally, late last year, six of the largest school districts in the US decided to switch to antibiotic-free chicken in their cafeterias, which is a major victory for schoolchildren and will put pressure on meat companies like Tyson, Perdue, and Pilgrim's Pride to adjust their production practices. Fast-food chain Carl's Jr. even recently rolled out a burger made with grass-fed, free-range beef, promising to be free of antibiotics, steroids, and hormones.19

It’s Time to Demand More from Your Meat (and Dairy and Eggs)…

Consumer demand is driving change to get antibiotics and other drugs out of the food supply. Toward that end, MeatWithoutDrugs.org has organized a campaign, calling for Trader Joe's to exclusively source its meat from animals raised without antibiotics. You can sign the petition here. You can also download and print out a flyer and take it with you the next time you visit your local Trader Joe's store.

Finally, when shopping for truly healthy meat, that from CAFOs is not the best choice. Organic, grass-fed and finished meat, raised without antibiotics and other growth-promoting drugs is really the only type of meat that is healthy to eat, in my view.  This you will find at farmers' markets, family farms, food coops, and certain forward-thinking grocery chains and health food stores. When shopping, keep the following labels in mind to help you find truly high-quality meat:20

100% USDA Organic label offers excellent assurance that antibiotics have not been used at any stage of production. "No antibiotics administered" and similar labels also offer high assurance that antibiotics have not been used, especially if accompanied by a "USDA process Verified" shield. "Grass-fed" label coupled with USDA Organic label means no antibiotics have been used, but if the "grass-fed" label appears alone, antibiotics may have been given. "American Grass-fed" and "Food Alliance Grass-fed" labels indicate that in addition to having been raised on grass, the animal in question received no antibiotics. The following three labels: "Antibiotic-free," "No antibiotic residues," and "No antibiotic growth promotants," have not been approved by the USDA and may be misleading if not outright fraudulent. "Natural" or "All-Natural" is completely meaningless and has no bearing on whether or not the animal was raised according to organic principles. "Natural" meat and poultry products can by law receive antibiotics, hormones, and genetically engineered grains, and can be raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). ]]>

View the Original article