This is a very good research paper done by Science and a fantastic editorial/comment section by Dr. Mercola. The question here is: should we still be fluoridating our water supplies since the chemical fluorine is a poison (neurotoxin) and there is minimal or no benefit, what's the point? There have been over a 100 studies showing lower IQ levels with humans/animals that have been exposed to fluoride.
It may be a good reason to get a good water purification system. (FYI: Brita and Pur DO NOT remove fluoride or chloride from the water.) According to Science Daily:
"The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay". |
Another new study shows that exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence. In addition to toothpaste, fluoride is added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies. PR Newswire reports:
"About 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scored as bright, normal or higher intelligence compared to only 8 percent in the 'high' fluoride area ... in the high-fluoride city, 15 percent had scores indicating mental retardation and only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city." |
When evaluating the issue of water fluoridation it is also important to understand that fluoride is a drug. You can't get fluoride without a prescription. Yet it's being added to your water supply on a mandatory basis at various levels that may or may not be safe for various individuals, especially children, the sick, and the elderly. Water fluoridation is a major assault on your freedom of choice – to be drugged or not. Read more at articles.mercola.com |
Statistics for Britain have them about 70% vaccinated for flu/swine flu. Guess what? People who gotten vaccinated are still getting the flu.
What are the experts saying? The reason this flu is bad is that not enough people have gotten vaccinated and people are getting together for the holidays. So their solution, force more people to get vaccinated and keep people isolated? To me, this is the equivalent of that old doctor joke. The patient comes into the office saying "it hurts when I move my arm like this" and the doctor says "stop moving your arm like that."
Our world is a germ-y place. lots of viruses, lots of bacteria. Instead of trying to create a defense against a SINGLE organisms, why not just generally bolster our defense against ALL organisms.
Take a GOOD multivitamin that's geared at improving your immune system. Make sure your vitamin D is at proper levels. Make sure your globulin levels on blood tests is greater than 2.9. Eat well. Stop eating all that sugar and processed flour products. If dairy causes mucous production or other issues in your system, eliminate it. Replace it with rice milk or almond milk. Britain on course for flu epidemic |
He said it was a "great shame" that the Government had taken the
decision to axe its annual publicity campaign urging vulnerable people to
have their flu jab.
|
"We don't know what will happen next – everything is now hanging in the
lap of the Gods – and it wouldn't have been that way if people had been
vaccinated," said the professor of virology.
|
Prof Oxford, from Queen Mary University of London said the "massive
movements of populations" across the country as families came together
for Christmas were likely to be speeding the spread of disease.
|
This is the problem when we speed a vaccine to the market without adequate testing. A 7x jump in miscarriages NEEDS to be explained. That's not a statistically insignificant rise. If not this new thing that didn't go any clinical trials like normal drugs/vaccines are required to do, then what caused this rise.
This is like I always say, when a new thing comes out, let the other people be the guinea pigs. The number of new drugs that have proven to be better (and worse) than the older generation of drugs in the same class is staggering. Let the positive and negative reports come in from the people that insist on being the first in line. Then you should be able to make a decision based on a few years of data. Based
on analysis of data from two different
sources...
H1N1 vaccination program contributed to
estimated 1,588 miscarriages |
I cannot believe that there are only 27 states that license midwifery. Pregnancy and childbirth for the majority of women is not a disease and should not be treated as a disease. I think if more licensed/qualified lay midwives were available in all 50 states and they were covered by health care plans, I think you'd see more than the 1% getting home births. I also think you'd see our insurance rates go down. 15 yrs ago, we paid a total of $1,000 for all of our prenatal and postnatal and delivery visits. The total costs of pregnancy in a hospital w/ an OBGYN cost at least 10 times that amount.
Did you see the stat in the Time article? 32% of all hospital deliveries end in caesarian section. YIKES!
It is not for everyone, but being able to deliver a baby in the peace of your own home with all your own comforts around you (and whoever you want to be there) can be an amazing experience. | Each year, some 25,000 American women like McLaughlin opt to deliver their babies at home. Although that accounts for fewer than 1% of all births in the U.S., the figure is probably on the rise. From 2004 to 2006, the most recent year for which estimates are available, home birthing in the U.S. increased 5% after having gradually declined since 1990, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While the recent uptick is not conclusive proof of a trend, home-birth advocates say anecdotal evidence and informal surveys from the field also point to growing demand. |
| Largely because women wish to avoid what they deem overmedicalized childbirth. Compared with hospital deliveries, 32% of which end in cesarean section, those taking place at home involve far fewer medical interventions and complications. Some women, like McLaughlin, who have had cesareans in the past, elect to have a home birth because they want to attempt vaginal delivery — what is known as vaginal birth after cesarean, or VBAC, a procedure that most obstetricians and hospitals have banned to avoid liability lawsuits. |
| just 27 states license or regulate so-called direct-entry midwives — or certified professional midwives (CPMs)Read more at www.time.com |
If I looked at last year's records and found that predominantly more people driving red cars hit trees, what would you think if I proposed the following: "Based on this study, red cars apparently have a magnetic (or other) attraction to trees!" You'd think I was ridiculous. Why? Just because numbers correlate in studies, doesn't mean they are true. (Good researchers use the adage: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation.) Are there a significantly high number of people that have heart attacks when they are sick with the flu? I doubt it.
It is this unbelievable (and unethical) reach that is a pathetic attempt by the medical system to convince a currently very unconvinced public that flu shots are needed. If they did a bit more analysis of data, they'd probably find out that the people that doctors convince to get the flu shot are also people that have a tendency to also obey other (more healthy) pieces doctorly advice like exercising and keeping weight down.
This bit of research manipulation is similar to the one that says "found out" that flossing prevents heart attacks. YIKES. The dentists are touting that some bacteria in the gums are producing enough inflammation to cause clotting in the coronary arteries. REALLY? How about this? The gums are almost entirely made of blood vessels/capillaries which get inflamed and swell (called gingivitis) and blockages of the heart are caused by inflammation of the coronary arteries (vessels) which gradually get obstructed when irritated and healed and irritated and healed over and over again. The problem is that linking heart attacks and gingivitis as conditions of inflammation destroys 2 core theories of the dental field (gingivitis is caused by bacteria and prevented by flossing) and medical field (blockages are due to excess cholesterol).
I know. I know. I'm such a rebel. But you tell me, what does common sense tell you? | Flu Shots May Reduce Heart Attack Risk |
Heart attacks increase during the winter time, and we think that the fact that there are more infections during the winter may be one of the reasons," says Stephen Nicholls, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
"The findings of the current study are interesting and important," he tells WebMD. "If you get the flu vaccine, and get it early, you are less likely to get the flu and less likely to have a heart attack." Read more at www.webmd.com |
I made a previous post a while ago saying that mammograms cause cancer. Some people didn't like me saying that because, for them, mammograms saved their life. I'm not disputing that. CT scans can be the same. However, in this article and other research, they've found MD's doing excessive (unnecessary) scans.
The first thing we should consider is that CT is not bad. X-rays, mammograms, CT scans, bone scans, thyroid scans, barium studies... all these things that use radiation have a negative side effect but are used because they can see things in the body that otherwise can't be seen. But we need to understand that they still come with a cost. They damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer.
As we look at the medical system for problems, we need to address this CYA medicine (cover your #**!) designed to avoid malpractice and hospital mandates to physicians that say "we have this machine to pay for, you need to refer patients for testing".
Truly, MRI's are a better diagnostic testing procedure without all the radiation risks. The bad part about MRI's: cost (3x as expensive). David Brenner of Columbia University, lead author of the study, told USA Today:
"About one-third of all CT scans that are done right now are medically unnecessary … Virtually anyone who presents in the emergency room with pain in the belly or a chronic headache will automatically get a CT scan. Is that justified?" |
There are several reasons:
- Physicians fear being sued for malpractice if they miss something.
- Some patients pressure their physicians for scans “just to be safe,” especially after hearing advertisements touting the benefits of new hi-tech tests (without disclosure of the risks).
- Physicians are more often using scans to screen “the worried well” (such as scanning former smokers for lung cancer).
- Many doctors have purchased their own imaging equipment for their practices. This adds a financial incentive into the mix and sets the stage for overuse of the technology.
- There’s a trend toward commercially advertised full-body CT scans to “find everything wrong with you.” Consumers with extra cash lying around (in excess of $1,000 in most cases) are being encouraged to undergo a full-body scan as a preventive measure.
|
There are four primary reasons that x-rays (and other diagnostic tests that rely on ionizing radiation, such as mammograms and CTs) should be minimized:
- They cause chromosomal mutations that are often irreparable, and the effects are cumulative.
- They cause DNA changes that are proven to lead to cancer.
- They cause DNA damage in your arteries, which can lead to cardiovascular disease.
- They often result in misdiagnosis and false positives, increasing the likelihood of follow up tests—further increasing your radiation exposure.
Read more at emf.mercola.com |
In the state of Wisconsin, it has been illegal to buy/sell raw milk and raw milk products (butter, cheese, etc) for quite some time. The state has been "protecting" us from this evil However, in the mean time, a study just came out that estimates that drinking soda has caused 143,000 cases of diabetes every year, cigarettes are strongly linked with emphysema, lung cancer, and asthma, and excessive alcohol consumption (Wisconsin leads the whole country with 31% of residents having binge drank in the past 30 days) has terrible repercussions. All of the above are legal. In fact, you can do as much as you want (as long as you don't drive after drinking).
We have these freedoms. However, something like raw milk that has been around since the goat and cow were domesticated, that is of grave concern to all of us and needs to remain illegal.
I think it's about time that they legalized it. I think it's fine that they put the disclaimer on the side saying it's not as beneficial as pasteurized.
If you live in Wisconsin, I received this email:
The raw milk bill is still alive. There are some groups who have taken a
stand against it. But we are a large group of consumers and farmers – an
unofficial group of voters in a loose organization – who have become a great
influence in the legislative arena. If your representative is not favorable
to this bill, you must continue to talk to him or her.
Hearings are tentatively scheduled on March 10th for the senate and March
16th for the Assembly. Exact time and location yet to be announced. Thank you for all your calls, which provided the nudge needed to get these tentative dates set.
We continue the press to loosen the noose which has been placed upon the
availability of raw milk. The bill can progress slowly at times and many people need raw milk right now for health reasons.
Your calls to Steve Ingham (Professor, Food Safety Extension Specialist Room 211 Babcock Hall scingham@wisc.edu (608) 265-4801
FAX (608) 262-6872) have gotten the agricultural board’s attention but they
remain determined to fight your wishes. We simply desire some flexibility
from their end to allow the availability of raw milk during this legislature
process. There is word of a lawsuit on behalf of consumers through the farm
to consumer legal defense fund. If you know any of the individuals involved,
please ask them to drop the idea. Our battle is legislative, not judicial.
This is the kind of action which draws increased resistance to the raw milk
bill.
We need names of doctors, nurses, chiropractors, N.D.s, etc, who are
favorable toward raw milk. Please have them contact us or send us their
contact information as soon as possible. We need some written testimony from them related to milk. There are many things in the works. I thank you for
your time spent making the calls which help everything along. This does not
go unnoticed. | DATCP has indicated its policy will be to take action against anyone it suspects of selling raw milk. |
| introduced a bill that would legalize the on-farm sale of raw milk and raw milk products in Wisconsin. |
Specifically, a milk producer may sell raw milk, buttermilk, butter and cream directly to a consumer on the producer’s farm if all of the following requirements are met:
- The producer has a permit to sell raw milk and raw milk products;
- Either milk producer or the consumer provides a sanitary container for the product that has been prepared in a sanitary manner and the container is filled in a sanitary manner; and
- At the place where products are sold, the milk producer displays a sign that is easy for a consumer to read and that states, “Raw milk products sold here. Raw milk products do not provide the protection of pasteurization.”
Read more at www.realmilk.com |
sorry... bad header... the previous link/comment was about gall bladder problems. 
If your doctor finds out you have a problematic gall bladder, what is the first thing they suggest? Take it out. You don't really need it.
Drives me crazy! Our first goal should always be restoration. I have spent more than a decade helping patients get over their GB problems. see my webpage at http://berglundcenter.com/gallbladder.htm
There are natural treatments to help the gall bladder. The worst case scenario (which I have yet to experience with my patients) is that a stone lodges in the common bile duct and you have to go to surgery, which they were going to schedule you for anyway.
Here's the most important thing you need to realize: the CAUSE of the gall bladder getting dysfunctional in the first place is WHITE (table) SUGAR and WHITE FLOUR (bleached and unbleached wheat flour). Once you fix the GB you need to stop consuming those products and your GB should stay perfectly fine and not need surgery. Not everybody must get stones: how to avoid gallbladder disease. |
| Women are twice as likely to develop gallstones as men |
| being overweight or obese increases the risk of forming gallstones |
| Rapid weight loss is associated with an incredibly rapid development of gallstones |
| Animal protein didn't affect the risk of gallbladder disease |
| Those who ate the most nuts (five or more ounces a week), including peanuts, had a 25 percent lower risk |
| There's some evidence that added sugars in food can increase the risk of gallstones |
| people who drank two to three cups of regular coffee a day had about a 20 percent lower risk than those who drank no coffee at all. |
Our president is right. We do need to gut/overhaul the system. But his plan is not going to do it. Unfortunately, the system is currently fueled by power and money, not by what is going to help America get healthy.
|
