Diabetes places a significant burden on an already dysfunctional health care system, costing in excess of $200 billion annually, and ranks as the seventh leading cause of death. The disease more than doubles the incidence of heart disease and greatly increases the risk of stroke, blindness, kidney disease and neuropathy.

Type II diabetes can be prevented and controlled with a sensible approach to diet. Since the proliferation of processed and refined foods in the American diet over the past half century and the introduction of high fructose corn syrup in the early 1970`s, diabetes cases have skyrocketed in a parallel fashion during this time.

The results of a study published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) reviewed six studies covering more than 220,000 people, concluding that one and one half servings of green leafy vegetables per day lowered the risk of Type II diabetes by 14%. This is significant because the finding provides validity to the understanding that diabetes is a disease caused by poor diet and can be improved through dietary modification.

The USDA recommends five servings of fruits and vegetables each day, and still many nutritionists would argue that this is insufficient to reap the full antioxidant and nutrient benefits from leafy greens. Less than 1 in 5 people eat the recommended number of daily servings, yet optimal protection from diabetes and other afflictions requires more than 10 servings each day. The BMJ study found a small degree of risk prevention from just one and one half servings of fruits and vegetables, but didn`t explore other equally important dietary interventions.

As diabetes is a disease precipitated by metabolic imbalance, controlling blood sugar and insulin are critical components to prevention and treatment. Following the traditional low-fat, high carbohydrate diet prescribed regularly to diabetics leads to rapid surges of glucose in the blood, perpetuating and worsening the disease. Control is achieved by eliminating all sugar and refined carbohydrates including wheat, snacks, and junk food. Read nutritional labels and pay close attention to carbohydrates, sugars, trans fats and any disguised sugar-based ingredients.

Make a slow transition to a fresh vegetable and leafy green diet by eliminating one unhealthy refined carbohydrate food choice at each meal. For breakfast, replace pancakes or waffles with a large bowl of mixed berries, and eliminate bread or pasta from your lunch and dinner meals in favor of a large green salad topped with olive oil, vinegar, lemon and spices. Not only will you find a natural low carbohydrate diet packed with fresh greens helpful in dropping excess weight, but your risk of developing diabetes will be lowered significantly.

Multiple sclerosis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, Chron's disease, leukemia — these and many more diseases are often caused by a lack of vitamin D. Your genes literally have receptors that need vitamin D in order to properly express themselves. If there is not enough of the vitamin, serious illness is prone to develop.

The Oxford team made specific observations about the importance of vitamin D in the genome regions associated with autoimmune diseases and cancer, noting that the nutrient is absolutely vital in helping to prevent these diseases from forming.

"Considerations of vitamin D supplementation as a preventative measure for these diseases are strongly warranted," expressed Sreeram Ramagopalan, author of the study.

However, current recommendations for vitamin D intake are unacceptably low, and many nations are considering updating their guidelines. The U.S. Institute of Medicine, for example, recommends getting a mere 200 to 600 international units (IU) of vitamin D a day, an amount far too low to have much therapeutic effect.

Since summer sun exposure creates about 20,000 IU of vitamin D in the skin in just 15 minutes, supplementation with at least 5,000 to 10,000 IU of vitamin D daily, particularly during the winter, is preferable. Healthy blood levels of vitamin D are somewhere between 50 and 80 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml), so many natural health professionals recommend having a "25 OH Vitamin D" blood test performed to check these levels.

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Shortly after Australia banned flu vaccines in children due to an alarming increase in vomiting, fevers and seizures caused by the vaccines, Finland has now suspended H1N1 vaccines due to increased reports of narcolepsy in children and teens. Narcolepsy is a nervous system disorder characterized by extreme fatigue and daytime sleepiness. It indicates a serious malfunction of the brain and nervous system.

Advanced Colloidal Silver
Immune System Protocol

Finland is now reporting that narcolepsy is appearing in children immediately following vaccination with H1N1 vaccines. So far, six children are confirmed of suffering the neurological side effect and nine more are in the process of being confirmed, reports The Epoch Times (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/con…).

The Finland National Institute for Health (THL) said in a press release that the cause of the narcolepsy may be the vaccine, and they are investigating further.

Sweden's Medical Products Agency, meanwhile, launched a similar investigation on August 19 to try to determine the cause of post-vaccination narcolepsy also found in children there. The vaccines appear to be causing a pattern of neurological disorders affecting children and teens across the planet.

The harm caused by flu vaccines
H1N1 swine flu vaccines and seasonal flu vaccines have been linked to seizures and other neurological disorders, and they have resulted in some children and teens being paralyzed or even killed. At the same time, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that seasonal flu vaccines are even safe or effective — they've never been subjected to double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, which are considered the "gold standard" of scientific investigation.

There's no real evidence that seasonal flu vaccines work at all, in fact. Most of the people who get sick every winter, it turns out, are the very people who got vaccinated. That's because vaccines actually weaken the immune system and cause increased risk of future infections. A study published in the journal PLoS revealed that seasonal flu vaccination actually increases the risk of H1N1 swine flu infections ("Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus?" Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259).

Also see: http://www.naturalnews.com/028538_s…

Rather than protecting the public, seasonal flu vaccines and H1N1 swine flu vaccines actually leave them more vulnerable to future infections. That simple fact, combined with the increasing reports of neurological side effects being linked to vaccines, should raise serious questions about the reasoning behind any mass-vaccination program.

When it comes to vaccines, children seem to suffer more than adults. It is the children who are winding up in hospitals, convulsing with seizures or suffering narcolepsy. The saddest part of this is that these children could be very effectively protected from seasonal flu with vitamin D, but the medical industry isn't recommending vitamin D for children.

Vaccines remain the prescription for everyone; even as children around the world are suffering the consequences.

Researchers have known for several years that after a person ingests a drug, their body may excrete residues of the chemical that remain biologically active. Thus, internal drug use, combined with improper disposal of unused drug stores, has been blamed for residues of everything from antibiotics to painkillers to hormones found in municipal and natural water supplies across the country. Because drugs are specifically designed to produce biological effects at very low concentrations, this pollution is considered a major threat to human and environmental health.

Now a study conducted by researchers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Touro University in Henderson, Nev., and presented at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in San Francisco has shown that the shower and washing machine may be even more potent sources of pharmaceutical pollution than the toilet.

"We've long assumed that the active ingredients from medications enter the environment as a result of their excretion via urine and feces," study co-author Ilene Ruhoy said. "However, for the first time, we have identified potential alternative routes for the entry into the environment by way of bathing, showering and laundering."

"These routes may be important for certain APIs found in medications that are applied … to the skin," she said. "They include creams, lotions, ointments, gels and skin patches."

The researchers reviewed hundreds of studies analyzing the body's use and metabolism of drugs, and concluded that drugs including acne medicine, antimicrobials, narcotics and steroids are entering the water system by being washed directly from people's skin in baths and showers. In addition, many medications dissolve in sweat and wash off the body into people's clothing, only to enter the water system when those clothes are laundered.

It is the first study to show a link between bathing or laundering and pharmaceutical pollution.

In contrast to ingested drugs, which are broken down by the liver and kidneys and then released in less-potent form, drugs that wash off the human body enter the water completely unmodified.

"Topical [active pharmaceuticals] from bathing and showering … are released unmetabolized and intact, in their full-strength form," Ruhoy said. "Therefore, their potential as a source of pharmaceutical residues in the environment is increased."

Ruhoy advised consumers to do their part to reduce pharmaceutical pollution by always following directions exactly, not applying more of a topical drug thinking that if a little is good, more must be better." She suggested that doctors always prescribe the minimum effective dose for the shortest possible time. Researchers should work on developing drugs that can be absorbed more quickly and thoroughly, leaving little or no residue behind on the skin.

"We need to be more aware of how our use of pharmaceuticals can have unwanted environmental effects," Ruhoy said. "Identifying the major pathways in which APIs enter the environment is an important step toward the goal of minimizing their environmental impact."

The EPA further encourages consumers to always properly dispose of all medications, carefully reading the information on drug labels and accompanying documentation, and taking advantage of drug take-back or hazardous waste disposal programs where they live. In areas without take-back or household collection programs, state or local waste management authorities should be able to provide guidelines for disposal of pharmaceutical products.

Protecting water from household pollution need not end with pharmaceuticals. The EPA advises that consumers use non-toxic household cleaners and other chemicals wherever possible, and limit pesticide and other toxin use. Leftover chemicals should never be disposed of by flushing.

"I was first ignored, then pressured to change my scientific opinion, and when I refused to do that, I was intimidated and ultimately terminated," said gastroenterologist and former FDA consultant Julian Nicholas.

The controversy stems from a still-pending application by General Electric (GE) for the approval of CT (computed tomography) scans as tests for colon cancer. GE made the request because although the practice of screening healthy patients with CT scans has become increasingly common, many insurers remains reluctant to pay for it.

When the FDA moved to approve the request with minimum fuss, agency scientists objected that the increased cancer risk from the radiation involved in CT scans would outweigh any potential benefit.

Approval would "expose a number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer," Nicholas wrote in an email to the agency.

"The increased radiation exposure to the population could be substantial and would raise a serious public health/public policy issue," agreed FDA medical officer Robert Smith of Yale and Cornell Universities.

Yet these and other scientists say their concerns were dismissed by their supervisors. For example, minutes of one meeting record agency manager Joshua Nipper responding, "We don't need to be reinventing a big bugaboo about radiation."

The average U.S. resident is exposed to seven times more non-therapeutic radiation than in 1980. This has been driven in large part by the exploding popularity of CT scans, which expose patients to as much radiation as 400 chest X-rays.

The number of CT scans performed in the United States has increased from three million per year in 1980 to 70 million today. Scientists estimate that this extra radiation exposure kills 14,000 people a year.

When we clean our laundry, we have certain expectations. Most of us expect all spots, stains, grime and odor to be removed from our laundry. We also want our laundry to smell fresh and feel soft to the touch. Detergent manufacturers use chemicals–no matter how potentially harsh or damaging– to fulfill these expectations and give you the impression of clean laundry. So here is the question we should be asking: is your laundry really clean if it`s saturated with chemicals after it`s been washed?

Here are just some of the chemicals commonly found in commercial laundry detergents:

Phenols: Deemed toxic by the National Health Institute, phenols can cause damage to the lungs, heart, kidneys and liver. They are very easily absorbed into the skin, making them especially dangerous. Phenols have been linked to serious health conditions and even death.

Optical brighteners: These are a popular new ingredient in commercial detergents. They trick the eye by altering ultraviolet wavelengths to make clothes look whiter. The result may be a facade, but the chemical dangers from these products are very real. Studies have shown these agents are extremely toxic to fish and can cause mutations in bacteria. They can also trigger strong allergic reactions in humans when exposed to sunlight.

Bleach: A traditional household cleaner, bleach has harmful side effects that have been known for decades. Bleach, or sodium hypochlorite, is a leading cause of poisoning in the home. It is a strong irritant to the eyes, nose and throat. Bleach can also cause severe reactions if it comes in contact with the skin.

Surfactants: A surfactant is a substance which basically binds to oily particles and carries them away with water during washing. These are what make our clothes clean when we wash them. Surfactants can be natural or synthetic. Natural surfactants are generally safe for people and the water supply, but chemical surfactants are not. Commercial laundry detergents are loaded with synthetic surfactants.

Fragrance: Artificial fragrances in laundry products are a strong irritant. The chemicals in fragrance additives can cause itchy, watery eyes and stinging nostrils. But the effects go much deeper than that. Chemical fragrances can trigger asthma attacks and aggravate allergies. They can even affect your thinking, making concentration and coordination difficult. All of these irritations show their worst in sensitive individuals, although no one is immune to the effects of these chemicals.

Any one of these chemical additives causes plenty of harm on its own, but all of these substances are combined and can react with each other in laundry detergents, becoming even more dangerous together than they were by themselves.

Think about it: clothing is in constant contact with your skin. The skin is exceptionally permeable; it quickly absorbs outside substances directly into the blood stream. Many experts recommend: if you wouldn`t eat it or drink it, you shouldn`t be letting it come into contact with your skin. Ditch the commercial laundry detergents and seek out more natural ways to clean your clothes.

[Editor`s Note: NaturalNews is strongly against the use of all forms of animal testing. We fully support implementation of humane medical experimentation that promotes the health and wellbeing of all living creatures.]

It didn't take long to realize the truth after their children start going into convulsions following the flu vaccine injections. Other children began vomiting or exhibiting dangerously high levels of fever. One child has gone into a coma and may never recover.

As reported in WA Today (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/f…)

"Perth mother of two Bea Flint said her 11-month-old boy Avery had a seizure after receiving the first dose of the two-dose flu vaccination on Saturday. Mrs Flint said that after the 9am vaccination she noticed Avery had a minor temperature about 2pm. At 7.45pm, Avery started whimpering and moaning. When Mrs Flint got to his cot the baby had vomited and was lying on his side having a seizure. 'He couldn't cry – his head was hanging down in the car seat and he couldn't move. I was petrified – it was one of the worst experiences of my life."

The story goes on to say, "The doctor who treated Avery told Mrs Flint her baby was the fifth child with similar symptoms admitted to the hospital that day."

In other words, this was no rare event. Vaccinated children suffering severe convulsions were piling up in hospital emergency rooms across the country.

The real kicker, though, is that children started having convulsions two weeks ago but Australian health authorities ignored them, insisting that the vaccine was safe and causing it to be injected in yet more babies. Two weeks later, with dozens more children experiencing convulsions (and who knows how many thousands actually being harmed in less obvious ways), Commonwealth chief health officer Professor Jim Bishop finally announced the vaccination ban.

Remember: Health authorities in Australia, UK, the United States and everywhere else have relentlessly insisted that flu vaccines are perfectly safe and can't possibly harm anyone. In the U.S., the FDA has given its approval to the very same flu vaccine that's harming children in Australia, and the CDC has insisted that all children in the USA — regardless of age — should now be injected with this very same flu vaccine.

So now we've got a vaccine that Australia has banned by the USA somehow says is safe enough to inject into a six-month-old infant. How many convulsing babies will it take in the U.S. before American parents realize the truth about flu vaccines?

As you're reading this, you may find yourself wonder, "Well, what could cause such convulsions in children?"

The answer is more terrifying than you might think, because it's not "weakened flu viruses" that vaccine manufacturer claim they put into the vaccines. A weakened flu virus doesn't send children into convulsions. Only a chemical can do that.

The chemical in question is one that's routinely added to most vaccines as a way to aggravate the immune system to respond to the presence of the weakened virus. It's called an "adjuvant" and consists of a highly inflammatory chemical that we now know may damage brain tissues and the nervous system. It is this adjuvant that most likely caused the convulsions in children.

Even in children who don't experience convulsions, there is speculation that this adjuvant may lead to future Alzheimer's disease or other neurological disorders. Vaccine manufacturers always attempt to downplay their use of adjuvant chemicals, and few media outlets focus on this important point, but it is the adjuvant that is most likely responsible for sending these Australian children into hospitals with convulsions.

One thing I've noticed about vaccine pushers is that they behave like irrational zealots. No matter how much evidence surfaces about the dangers of vaccines, they continue to mindlessly push them while ignoring the evidence.

A pediatric professor in Australia, Dr Peter Richmond, admitted that researchers were trying to figure out if the entire vaccine was dangerous, or if there was just a bad batch. But even before getting the answer to this question, he goes on to say that everybody over the age of five should go ahead and get injected with this same vaccine! (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/f…)

In other words, he's so convinced the vaccine is safe — even after dozens of children were obviously harmed by it — that he's still pushing the same dangerous vaccine onto everybody else!

This is precisely the kind of attitude reflected across the vaccine industry. Reports of children being harmed, or paralyzed, or hospitalized by vaccines are always written off as "coincidence." The mounting evidence is simply thrown out the window because it conflicts with the pro-vaccine agenda.

Can you imagine the outrage if an herbal product sent fifty kids to the hospital suffering from convulsions? Health authorities across the world would be quick to condemn the product, and they'd confiscate it right off the shelves while shutting down the operations of its manufacturer. But somehow when a vaccine does the same thing, these same health authorities urge people to keep on injecting their children with it!

It makes no sense. But then again, the vaccine industry was never based on rational thinking in the first place. If health authorities were truly rational, they'd be handing out vitamin D supplements to children instead of injecting them with vaccines, because vitamin D has been scientifically proven to provide better protection against the flu than vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029333_v…)

Of course, to ask health authorities to make rational decisions is sort of like asking politicians to start telling the truth. In the complicated world of profits and politics, rational, honest thinking just doesn't get any traction. It's far more profitable to keep lying to the world and raking in billions of dollars each year off dangerous vaccines, even as they continue to harm innocent children.

I often wonder… How many dead children will it take before parents wake up and realize that flu vaccines are dangerous? The answer may surprise you: Even a million dead children won't change the minds of most parents because they just do whatever they're told by health authorities, even if it makes no rational sense.

Most parents are so brainwashed by the medical system that they would gladly line up to have their babies injected with chemotherapy if they were told it was somehow necessary.

At some point, the parents whose babies are being harmed or potentially even killed by these vaccines can only blame themselves. They were the ones who brought their babies to be injected with a chemical adjuvant and viral fragments, and they should know better than to trust the government when it comes to health advice. The government, after all, still says that pharmaceutical chemicals are good for you while vitamins, herbs and natural remedies are dangerous. And it's the government that approved the very vaccines that are right now sending these children to the hospital.

Any parent that trusts the government with the health of their child is setting themselves up for catastrophe. And that catastrophe could very well cost them the life of their child.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved Gardasil in the U.S. market back in 2006, and as of February 2009, more than 40 million doses of the vaccine have been administered worldwide. Though Merck touts Gardasil as being safe and effective in preventing cervical cancer, the vaccine is loaded with toxic chemicals that have injured and killed thousands of girls.

According to The Truth About Gardasil, young girls who receive one or all of the three-shot Gardasil vaccine schedule often suffer from extreme side effects, including seizures, strokes, autoimmune disorders, chronic fatigue, hair loss, headaches, heart pain, weak muscles, disrupted menstrual cycles, vision and hearing loss and even paralysis, just to name a few. Some girls have even died after receiving the shots.

Marian Greene, social activist and mother of a child injured by vaccines, created truthaboutgardasil.org to raise awareness about the dangers of Gardasil, and vaccines in general. By sharing stories and other news about the damage caused by the shot, Greene hopes that eventually the vaccine will be pulled from the market.

The group's board of directors includes a mother whose daughter was also seriously injured by Gardasil, as well as another whose daughter died after getting the vaccine.

With Merck now recommending the vaccine for young boys — and conducting new campaigns to push the vaccine in developing nations around the world — it is imperative that the truth about Gardasil be spread far and wide.