Month: June 2009

Even young animals has significantly better proliferation of new and healthy mitochondria.  In old rats the research showed that these nutrients ameliorated the age-associated decay in mitochondrial function that is typical of aging.

Common doses of Acetyl-L-Carnitine are 1000 mg – 2000 mg per day.  There is 500 mg in each capsule of plain Acetyl-L-Carnitine and 350 mg in each capsule of Stress Helper.  The common dose of R-Alpha Lipoic Acid ranges from 150 mg to 600 mg per day.  There is 100 mg in each capsule of plain R-Alpha Lipoic Acid and 50 mg in each capsule of Daily Balancer.

A new theory of aging is soon to take center stage, one based on genome instability.  Research into the mechanisms relating to how hair turns gray is turning up some interesting findings.

In the current research it was found that ultraviolet stress could eventually overload the DNA repair capacity of the melanocyte stem cells that provide hair color.  Interestingly, the process ends up causing too many stem cells to mature, depleting the pool of “energized” melanocyte stem cells that make color.  The researchers also identified protective mechanism to prevent the depletion of stem cells.

The research illustrates a fundamental new view of aging, one involving the accelerated depletion of stem cell pools due to DNA damage.  The researchers believe that such genomic instability is a common theme of aging, as other new research demonstrates similar findings relating to your blood, heart, and muscles.

The ability to activate vitagenes, maintain antioxidant reserves, and enhance repair capacity – along with reducing the effects of stress in general are now key themes that will represent the cutting edge nutritional solutions related to this new understanding of aging.

Colloidal Copper

(NaturalNews) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has signed an agreement with the DuPont corporation, imposing a new maximum level of a toxic Teflon chemical in drinking water near a factory in Parkersburg, West Virginia. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), however, the agreement does not go nearly far enough.

At issue is the toxic chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), an ingredient of nonstick cookware that has been shown to build up in the body and disrupt the human hormonal and reproductive systems at blood levels as low as four parts per billion (ppb). With the consent of DuPont, the EPA has required that water near the Parkersburg plant contain no more than 0.4 ppb of the chemical, instead of the prior threshold of 0.5 ppb. This level was based on a health advisory issued in January, setting 0.5 ppb as a maximum safe level for short-term exposure.

"The fact is that there is no such thing as short-term drinking water exposure," Wiles wrote. "People drink tap water every day. PFOA persists in the environment, and thus in water supplies, for hundreds of years. … Applying this short-term health advisory to long-term exposure to contaminated water directly contradicts both sound science and EPA's own principles of risk assessment and risk management."

A study conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that drinking tap water containing 0 versus 0.4 ppb of PFOA could produce human blood levels of 40 ppb, or ten times the EPA's maximum safe threshold.

This figure presumes that people's only source of PFOA exposure is tap water, but most people are also exposed to the chemical from a variety of consumer sources as well.

Recently, I was amazed to hear a commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown on the controversial vaccine issue. After a ruling by the ’special vaccine court’ saying the Measles, Mumps, Rubella shot wasn’t found to be responsible for the plaintiffs’ autism, she and others in the media began making assertions that the judgment was in, and vaccines had been proven safe. No one would be more relieved than Jenny and I if that were true.

The truth is that no one without a vested interest in the profitability of vaccines has studied all 36 of them in depth. There are more than 100 vaccines in development, and no tests for cumulative effect or vaccine interaction of all 36 vaccines in the current schedule have ever been done. If I’m mistaken, I challenge those who are making such grand pronouncements about vaccine safety to produce those studies.

If we are to believe that the ruling of the ‘vaccine court’ in these cases mean that all vaccines are safe, then we must also consider the rulings of that same court in the Hannah Polling and Bailey Banks cases, which ruled vaccines were the cause of autism and therefore assume that all vaccines are unsafe. Clearly both are irresponsible assumptions, and neither option is prudent.

In this growing crisis, we cannot afford to blindly trumpet the agenda of the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) or vaccine makers. Now more than ever, we must resist the urge to close this book before it’s been written. The anecdotal evidence of millions of parents who’ve seen their totally normal kids regress into sickness and mental isolation after a trip to the pediatrician’s office must be seriously considered. The legitimate concern they and many in the scientific community have that environmental toxins, including those found in vaccines, may be causing autism and other disorders (Aspergers, ADD, ADHD), cannot be dissuaded by a show of sympathy and a friendly invitation to look for the ‘real’ cause of autism anywhere but within the lucrative vaccine program.

With vaccines being the fastest growing division of the pharmaceutical industry, isn’t it possible that profits may play a part in the decision-making? That the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit engine than a means of prevention? In a world left reeling from the catastrophic effects of greed, mismanagement and corporate insensitivity, is it so absurd for us to wonder why American children are being given twice as many vaccines on average, compared to the top 30 first world countries?

Paul Offit, the vaccine advocate and profiteer, who helped invent a Rotavirus vaccine is said to have paved the way for his own multi-million dollar windfall while serving on the very council that eventually voted his Rotavirus vaccine onto our children’s schedule. On August 21, 2000 a congressional investigation’s report titled, “Conflicts in Vaccine Policy,” stated:

    It has become clear over the course of this investigation that the VRBPAC and the ACIP [the two main advisory boards that determine the vaccine schedule] are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the vaccine producers. This was never the intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that a diversity of views be represented on advisory committees.

 Isn’t that enough to raise questions about the process of choosing the vaccine schedule?

With many states like Minnesota now reporting the number at 1 in 80 children affected with autism, can we afford to trust those who serve two masters or their logic that tells us “one size fits all” when it comes to vaccines? Can we afford to ignore vaccines as a possible cause of these rising numbers when they are one of the fastest growing elements in our children’s environment? With all the doubt that’s left hanging on this topic, how can anyone in the media or medical profession, boldly demand that all parents march out and give their kids 36 of these shots, six at a time in dosage levels equal to that given a 200 pound man? This is a bias of the most dangerous kind.

I’ve also heard it said that no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism has ever been found. That statement is only true for the CDC, the AAP and the vaccine makers who’ve been ignoring mountains of scientific information and testimony. There’s no evidence of the Lincoln Memorial if you look the other way and refuse to turn around. But if you care to look, it’s really quite impressive. For a sample of vaccine injury evidence go to www.generationrescue.org/lincolnmemorial.html.

We have never argued that people shouldn’t be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio, but surely there’s a limit as to how many viruses and toxins can be introduced into the body of a small child. Veterinarians found out years ago that in many cases they were over-immunizing our pets, a syndrome they call Vaccinosis. It overwhelmed the immune system of the animals, causing myriad physical and neurological disorders. Sound familiar? If you can over-immunize a dog, is it so far out to assume that you can over-immunize a child? These forward thinking vets also decided to remove thimerosal from animal vaccines in 1992, and yet this substance, which is 49% mercury, is still in human vaccines. Don’t our children deserve as much consideration as our pets?

I think I’d rather listen to the more sensible voice of Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institute of Health, who says:

Listen to the patients and the patients will teach…I think there is an inexcusable issue, and that’s the lack of research that’s been done here…A parent can legitimately question giving a one-day old baby, or a two-day old baby [the] Hepatitis B vaccine that has no risk for it [and] the mother has no risk for it. That’s a heavy-duty vaccine given on day two [of life]. I think those are legitimate questions.

Dr. Healy is also calling for a long overdue study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Dr. Frank Engly, a researcher and microbiologist who served on the boards of the CDC, FDA and EPA during the 70s and 80s, warned:

    The CDC cannot afford to admit thimerosal is toxic because they have been promoting it for several years…If they would have followed through with our 1982 report, vaccines would have been freed of thimerosal and all this autism as they tell me would not have occurred. But as it is, it all occurred.

In all likelihood the truth about vaccines is that they are both good and bad. While ingredients like aluminum, mercury, ether, formaldehyde and anti-freeze may help preserve and enhance vaccines, they can be toxic as well. The assortment of viruses delivered by multiple immunizations may also be a hazard. I agree with the growing number of voices within the medical and scientific community who believe that vaccines, like every other drug, have risks as well as benefits and that for the sake of profit, American children are being given too many, too soon. One thing is certain. We don’t know enough to announce that all vaccines are safe!

If the CDC, the AAP and Ms. Brown insist that our children take twice as many shots as the rest of the western world, we need more independent vaccine research not done by the drug companies selling the vaccines or by organizations under their influence. Studies that cannot be internally suppressed. Answers parents can trust. Perhaps this is what Campbell Brown should be demanding and how the power of the press could better serve the public in the future.

– Jim Carrey

(NaturalNews) The following article is, in essence, my testimony delivered to the Hawaii Senate Health Committee in 2008. It contains facts that anyone can use to oppose water flouridation wherever you live. The good news is that once again we have been successful in keeping fluoride out of our water supply.

I would like to pose some hypothetical questions:

What would you do if you suddenly found out that fluoride was not "safe and effective" at all, but was actually a carcinogenic industrial waste?

What would you do if you learned that the sugar lobby's answer to cavity reduction is more fluoride rather than less sugar in the diet?

What would you think if you suddenly found out that fluoride doesn't stop tooth decay at all, but actually causes teeth to rot and crumble, and by the same mechanism also causes osteoporosis?

What would you do if you found out that a myriad of research and reports from China, showing that fluoride ingestion causes interference with brain development, had been purposely withheld from the people in the U.S.?

What would you do if you suddenly found out that fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood, depresses thyroid activity, promotes the development of bone cancer, causes premature aging of the human body, and is used in rat poison, and that the contents of a family size tube of overpriced, huge profit margined fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 25 pound child?

And after you found out all this, would it surprise you that federal health agencies have known these facts for years, but have been controlled by the political interests of the nuclear arms, aluminum, and phosphate manufacturers to keep it a secret?

Why would they do that? So that a toxic industrial waste could be passed off on the public as a nutrient with necessary health benefits, to the tune of $10 billion a year or more going in the pockets of these industries rather then they having to spend that amount to dispose of it properly as a toxic waste.

Next, we have to look at the people that are for and against this assault upon our health.

Those against this horror movie are everyday people. Accountants, retired engineers, chemistry professors, teachers, acupuncturists, dentists, believe it or not, the Union of Scientists at the EPA, and a host of others from all walks of life. And, all of them come armed with peer-reviewed scientific literature to back up what they have to say.

Those in favor of this horror movie, with lots of credentials, are the majority of dentists, the public health officials and many people in various government positions. And what do they come armed with? Speculation and years of repeating, like good little lemmings, that fluoride is "safe and effective". If it were so safe and effective to ingest, why would the CDC say that fluoride's effectiveness is on the surface of the tooth and only after it comes into the mouth?

Anyway, let's take a look at some of these individuals with, "credentials".

Dr. Mark Greer, Dental Chief, Hawaii Dept. of Health
Back in the year 2000, Dr. Greer, on Hawaii Public Radio, made the statement that fluoride is safe because there were toxicology tests done on it that verified this. Sounds great doesn't it? There's one problem though – only in 2006, by the National Research Council, were toxicology tests done on the fluoride substances that are added to the water supply with the conclusion that fluoride was indeed toxic and dangerous to health. Their finding? Anything more than 1.2 ppm is toxic! Also, after trying unsuccessfully twice to obtain a copy of Dr. Greer's alleged report substantiating his toxicology assertion, I had to go through the Attorney General's office to obtain the report under the Freedom of Information Act. It's funny though that the several hundred page report that I received from Dr. Greer contained nothing about toxicology testing. I guess he thought I would never read such a long, boring report. But, when you know that a person is a liar, you leave nothing to chance.
So, the question that arises is, why would a man in Dr. Greer's position deliberately lie? Does his brainwashed desire to fluoridate the water supply take precedence over his integrity? Apparently and unbelievably, so!

Dr. Chester Douglass, Dental School Head, Harvard University
In late 2005 or early 2006, one of Dr. Douglass' dental doctorate students, Elise Bassin, prepared a thesis on fluoride. Dr. Douglass then released her thesis with one minor modification. He eliminated the part in the thesis where Bassin proved that fluoride causes bone cancer in adolescent boys. Boy oh boy, why would Dr. Douglass deliberately eliminate that part? I wonder if the fact that Dr. Douglass's being on the payroll of the Colgate-Palmolive Company had anything to do with it? Then, Harvard did their own in-house investigation of Dr. Douglass' actions and exonerated him. I wonder if the fact that Dr. Douglass's donation of $1 million to Harvard had any influence in that decision?

Dr. Bruce Anderson, former Director of Health, State of Hawaii
Back in 2004 or 2005 there was a hearing to determine whether or not the MCL (maximum contaminant level) of fluoride should be raised from 2ppm to 4ppm in Hawaii. Despite testimony by the public and many employees of the water department against such a raise, Dr. Anderson, public servant that he was, upped the level anyway.
Consider this: mother's milk contains .005 – .01 ppm of fluoride. The question you have to ask yourself is, who is right, God or the politicians?

Dentists
Consider this: that same National Research Council report came to the conclusion that fluoridated water should not be used in infant formula because of the danger of neurological damage and that kidney patients, diabetics, seniors and outdoor workers were susceptible populations especially vulnerable to harm from fluoride ingestion. Yet, many dentists, many of the States' Dental Associations and our Public Health officials have failed to pass on that message. Do you think that it might be hard for some people to admit they were wrong about something?

Before organized dentistry became fluoride fixated, a 1950 Connecticut study, before fluoridation, clearly linked more fruit and vegetable consumption and less sugar consumption to fewer cavities. Did you know that a 20-ounce bottle of soda contains 14 teaspoons of sugar and a 7-11 "Big Gulp" contains 56 teaspoons of sugar? If there were any more than that the sugar would too heavy and settle to the bottom. But, I guess the dentists' answer to that situation would be if the soda were made with fluoridated water, cavities could be prevented. Riiiiiiight!

After 60 years of water fluoridation reaching 2/3 of Americans via public water supplies, virtually 100% via the food supply and fluoridated dental products (a multi-billion dollar international business), up to a half of U.S. schoolchildren sport fluoride overdose symptoms as dental fluorosis – white, yellow or brown, and sometimes pitted teeth (1). But, tooth decay is still a national epidemic, especially among the low-income people who can't find dentists willing or able to fix their rotting teeth. And why are the dentists not willing or able to treat these low-income people? Because the amount that Medicaid pays is too low.

Dental Health Aide Therapists (DHATs) could be a solution to the oral health crisis. DHATs are to dentists what Physician's Assistants and Nurse Practitioners are to physicians. DHATs
work successfully throughout the world and can drill, fill and pull teeth in the mouths and geographic areas where dentists will not or cannot go, more cheaply and as effectively (2).

Sounds really good doesn't it? The problem is that the American Dental Society and the Alaska Dental Society are suing to stop DHATs from supplying much needed dental care in Alaska where dentists cannot be enticed to live or work for love or money (3). Defying organized dentistry, the first U.S. DHAT School just opened in Alaska to train more DHATs (3).

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was an established neurotoxicologist whose research proved fluoride to be a neurotoxin affecting the central nervous system. Her work was not only dismissed when she published it in 1995, but it also ended her career. What's ironic is that one of her mentors, Dr. Harold Hodge, who served as the chief toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, aka the Atomic Energy Commission, was instrumental in selling fluoride to the public. As her work progressed and she reported her findings to Hodge, he shrugged them off. It wasn't until much later that
Mullenix learned that Hodge had conducted his own research 50 years earlier and had discovered then the connection between fluoride and its ill effects on the central nervous system.

Many of the early opponents to water fluoridation recognized that fluoride was a critical component in uranium and aluminum production and a necessity in the making of the "bomb". Common sense told them that adding the waste product of a chemical that can cut through steel
is bound to have some adverse health effects. Despite their best efforts, a massive PR campaign was waged and won and fluoride was shoved into public drinking water supplies and into dental curriculums -a neat and tidy solution to the expensive problem of what to do with toxic waste. And, much of the research supporting fluoridation came from industry-funded studies. How objective!

Conclusion

The National Research Council advises that more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, immune deficiencies, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions, arthritis-like conditions, and more.

Peer reviewed studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficiencies, thyroid dysfunction, gum disease, kidney, tooth and bone damage and symptoms characteristic of Alzheimer's disease. In fact, medical reports from India have indicated that arthritic type symptoms have disappeared when test subjects stopped using fluoridated toothpaste.

So, why do the dental associations and public health officials still cling to the idea that fluoridation is good?
Denial?
Dental school indoctrination?
Embarrassment that they have been wrong all along?
Possible liability associated with all the deleterious health effects people have suffered from fluoride being thrust upon them against their will?
I guess it's more convenient to carry on with the idea that fluoridation is beneficial than to lose face!

So, here we are again having yet another debate about fluoridation. And again the "uncredentialed" come in with references to peer-reviewed studies and the "credentialed" come in with, "it's been proven safe and effective", unsubstantiated speculation.

In 1961, when Dwight D. Eisenhower left the Presidency, he warned the American people to be aware of the rapidly growing power of the military-industrial complex. He surely knew then how deeply entrenched the connections between industry and military affairs had become. Have we learned from this some 40 odd years later? Not by my standards we haven't.

Please, for heaven's sake, keep our drinking water pure and don't use it as a vehicle to deliver a highly toxic medication recommended by credentialed individuals with no integrity.

Consider this: under the Pure Water Drinking Act it is illegal to dump fluoride in the lakes, streams and oceans. But, for some weird reason, it's ok for fluoride to do this if it passes through a water faucet and a person's body first.

How's that for theater of the absurd?

(NaturalNews) Regular prostate cancer screening has no effect on the risk of death from the disease, according to a large-scale, long-term study conducted by researchers from the National Cancer Institute and published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The prostate specific antigen (PSA) test, which measures blood levels of a protein produced by the prostate gland, has been controversial as a cancer screening test since it first became popular in the 1990s. At the time, Brawley was one of many scientists who raised concern over the usefulness of the test.

"I can say firsthand that some American screening advocates were vicious in their attacks on those who dared question prostate cancer screening," Brawley said. Some lay and physician advocates had a religious-like fervor for screening."

In the current study, part of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, researchers looked at rates of prostate cancer and prostate cancer death among 76,693 men, half of whom were assigned to undergo PSA screening once per year. The other participants were assigned to continue with regular health care practices and not advised regarding prostate screening. The participants were then followed for seven to 10 years each.

The current results are considered preliminary and the study is still ongoing. By its conclusion, all participants will have been followed for 13 years each.

In the preliminary analysis, the overall rate of prostate cancer death among participants "was very low and did not differ significantly between the two study groups," the researchers wrote. An independent review committee has endorsed the findings and recommended their publication.

Because most prostate cancers are slow growing, many men may die of other causes without ever experiencing symptoms from an active cancer. Neither the PSA test nor a biopsy, however, is able to determine whether a cancer is slow-growing or aggressive.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against prostate cancer screening in men above the age of 74.

 Saw Palmetto