CDC admits flu vaccines don't work (which is why you need a new one every year)

NaturalNews) I'm always amused by the purchasing process of electronics or appliances at big box stores. On one hand, as their sales associate calmly explains to you, whatever product you're buying is such high quality that you'll be extremely satisfied with your purchase. But on the other hand, it's also such a complete piece of junk that you'd be smart to add on a two-year extended warranty so that when the gizmo breaks five seconds after you open the box, you can get a replacement for free.

The CDC and the vaccine industry are fronting a similar bit of contradictory logic. "Our vaccines work so well that they offer almost total immunity from the flu," they claim. And yet somehow they also work so poorly that they "wear off" after a year and require you to be re-vaccinated annually.

This is The Great Big Lie of the vaccine industry: The lie that says you have be re-vaccinated each and every year, often with the exact same strains you were vaccinated with the previous year. The coming winter flu vaccines for 2011, for example, are being manufactured with the same strains as the 2010 flu vaccines.

But if vaccines work so amazingly well as the CDC and the vaccine industry (fraudulently) suggests, then why do you need the same shot year after year?

Well, according to the CDC, "Vaccines wear off."

Vaccines wear off, they say

Yep, that's their cover story. The vaccines "wear off."

But hold on a minute. There's something fishy about this. Because human antibodies normally last a lifetime, remember? That's why you don't get the chicken pox over and over again; because the first time you got the chicken pox as a kid, your body created chicken pox antibodies and those antibodies last a lifetime.

Thus, your immune system offers you lifetime immunity from the chicken pox.

The vaccine industry false tries to claim its vaccines work exactly the same way: They cause the body to produce antibodies against a certain viral strain. But there's something you're not being told about vaccines: They don't really produce the same quality and strength of antibodies that your own body would produce from a natural infection and recovery. That's why the vaccines "wear off" and leave you with zero protection from the very strains they inoculate you against.

In other words, vaccines don't work as advertised. And that's why the vaccine industry has to keep pushing the same vaccine strains year after year. Because, think about it: If vaccines actually worked as intended, they would give you lifetime immunity against whatever strains you were injected with, right? And yet the CDC now openly admits vaccines don't offer that at all:

"This year's flu shot will be a duplicate of last year's because the same flu strains are still circulating," reports the Associated Press in an article about the CDC. "Government health officials are urging nearly everyone to get this fall's flu shot. They say a vaccine's protection can fade significantly after several months." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110527...)

Vaccine protection fades after a few months? Well then, vaccines must not actually cause the body to react with producing its own antibodies, because those antibodies, we're told, offer lifetime immunity.

Another way you can confirm this yourself is by remembering your history. Remember when the Europeans came to America centuries ago and killed off masses of American Indians by accidentally giving them smallpox? Well, if the Indians died of smallpox, why didn't the Europeans die of smallpox? (There were no vaccines in the 1600's and 1700's.) The answer is because the Europeans had already been exposed and built up lifetime immunity to the disease.

Thus, the reason the European invaders of North America did not die from smallpox wasn't because they were vaccinated; it was because they had already been exposed to the disease and had built up active immunity against it (by producing their own antibodies which last a lifetime). Thus, the Europeans could be exposed to smallpox over and over again with no symptoms of infection. They were effectively "immune" to smallpox, in exactly the same way a human being living today becomes immune to a winter flu strain by first being exposed to the full strength strain (in the wild) and then building up their own antibodies in an automatic adaptive response.

But don't expect the vaccine industry to educate anyone on how infectious disease and antibodies really work. They're too busy selling annual flu shots to bother with scientific facts.

The flu vaccine manufacturing machine is on high output

"Five vaccine manufacturers announced plans to make between 166 million and 173 million doses for the coming season," says the same article mentioned above. That's the highest vaccine manufacturing output for the USA in the history of vaccines.

With all these 170 million (or so) vaccines sitting around by the time the winter rolls around, the CDC is obviously going to have to kick its propaganda and fear mongering into high gear to convince people to buy all these vaccines. This is going to be doubly difficult considering the inconvenient fact that all the people who got vaccinated last year already received vaccines against these same viral strains!

So, in other words, the CDC must now convince 170 million people that last year's vaccine was such a complete failure that they need the exact same vaccines this year -- and somehow this year's vaccine will work better even though it's exactly the same as last year's vaccine. How will they accomplish this?

It's simple: They won't talk much about the fact that this year's flu vaccine is identical to last year's flu vaccine. They'll just repeat their blatant lies about vaccines offering near-100 percent protection against the flu -- an insinuation so blatantly false that the FTC should actually charge the vaccine manufacturers with false advertising.

And the great unknowing masses will, of course, line up to be injected yet again with the same cocktail of viral strains and vaccine preservatives that didn't work for them last year! Because the hilarious truth about flu vaccines is that most of the people who get sick from the flu each year are the same people who were vaccinated against the flu!

Yep, it's the devastating secret of the vaccine industry: Most of the flu victims each year are precisely the same people who took the flu shots. And now you know why that is so -- because the flu vaccine shots simply don't work. Even if you do believe they work at first, even the CDC openly admits -- on the record -- that "flu vaccines stop working after several months."

They fade out like a set of old batteries, in other words. And that right there is proof that flu vaccines don't produce a true antibody response.

The great vaccine marketing con: Annual vaccine shots

The CDC is now engaged in the marketing of annual vaccination of the entire population. That's the game, you see: Convince people they need an annual flu shot just to stay healthy. It's a complete marketing con, of course, but it's necessary to keep the flu vaccine profit machine humming along each winter.

In doing this, the CDC is now running a criminal marketing racket to falsely push vaccines as the solution even though flu vaccines simply don't work. For every 100 people vaccinated against the winter flu, by the way, 99 of them will experience no difference whatsoever in their flu outcomes. Even using the industry's own best evidence, flu vaccines are no more than one percent effective at actually preventing the flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...) -- and that's only during the first few months before they "fade out."

One of the CDC's own vaccine scientists -- a man who received millions of dollars in grant money from the CDC -- was recently indicted by a federal grand jury for money laundering and fraud (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_T...). Check out the NaturalNews diagram called Poul Thorsen's Alleged Web of Fraud to see the complete web of deceit under which the key players of the vaccine fraud industry operate: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/We...

The truth is that the CDC abandoned real science long ago and is now engaged almost entirely in infectious disease fear mongering and the wholesale prostitution of itself to the vaccine industry. The CDC has become to the vaccine industry what infomercial guru Tony Little is to exercise equipment. This is an agency that now functions as little more than the marketing branch of the vaccine giants.

As part of that total prostitution of itself to the vaccine makers, last year the CDC even announced that virtually everyone should get annual flu vaccine shots, including pregnant women!

You can immunize yourself against the winter flu

But here's the other dirty little secret the CDC absolutely does not want you to know: If you skip the vaccine, boost your vitamin D intake, and encounter the flu naturally, you will build your own lifetime antibodies against the infection.

Got that? So the best way to immunize yourself against a particular strain of the winter flu is to dose up on vitamin D, boost your nutritional intake, get healthy and then just go out into the world and stop worrying about exposing yourself to the flu. You'll pick it up somewhere, and if your immune system is functioning well with high levels of vitamin D (that's the vitamin that "activates" your immune response to flu infections), your body will build its own antibodies, and you won't even know it! You will have what's called a "symptomless infection" and won't even know your body successfully fought off the viral invader.

Better yet, because you were exposed to the real viral strain in the wild (and not some weakened strain in a flu vaccine shot), your body will maintain lifetime immunity to that viral strain. And isn't that the goal of immunization in the first place?

Immunizing yourself, you see, works far better than relying on the vaccine industry to immunize you through some artificial means (an injection). Their immunization, it turns out, simply doesn't work reliably. And that's why the sad sellouts and prostitutes of the vaccine industry have to keep pushing their same lame flu shots year after year, with no improvements and virtually zero effectiveness.

And the same ignorant consumers line up year after year to get the same failed flu shots year after year... then they wonder why they still get sick year after year.

Do the math, folks. This is not rocket science. If flu shots worked as well as your own immune response to a natural infection, then you would only need one shot in your entire life for any given viral flu strain. But that, of course, would be bad for vaccine profits. They need suckers to believe in annual flu shots so they can keep raking in the big bucks year after year.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032558_flu_shots_wear_off.html#ixzz1NwYJnY92

Another Example of Pfizer Killing People for Profit

Also SEE: http://thenaturaladvocate.blogspot.com/2011/05/chantix-users-have-higher-suicide-rates.html

As it happened, this first appointment with a physician did absolutely nothing to ease my growing suspicion of modern cardiac medicine. He reiterated the message from Dr. Ghoul: my medical needs could not be met in Naples and I was being referred to a surgeon in Tampa for a heart transplant.

I asked Dr. Babbitt about the Lipitor dose he had prescribed me. By then, I had already found for myself the safety and efficacy FDA studies that originally approved Lipitor. These studies had used doses of 2.5 mg and 5 mg daily. Yet interestingly, the lowest available dose of Lipitor manufactured by the pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, was 10mg – double the highest dose used in the FDA studies for safety and effectiveness! 

If that wasn’t enough to raise my eyebrows, Dr. Babbitt prescribed 80 mg daily doses of Lipitor – 16 to 32 times the doses used in the FDA studies. I told my doctor about my research on the FDA studies.

“You shouldn’t worry about those FDA reports – I have studies showing that 80 milligrams per day are safe, and more effective than those lower doses.”

 I asked him who had done his studies. 

“Pfizer.” 

I didn’t tell him that I was already aware of the Pfizer sponsored studies.

I suspect that Dr. Babbitt never saw the actual Pfizer studies, but had simply taken the word of a “detail man,” a representative of a drug manufacturer who calls on doctors to promote the products from that company. I wondered if he would be so enthusiastic about high-dose Lipitor had he actually read the study.

In 2005, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report funded by Pfizer that described the efficacy of high-dose Lipitor in cardiovascular disease. The authors concluded that high-dose Lipitor (80 mg) was superior to a ‘standard dose’ (10 mg) in reducing negative cardiovascular events in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients. Ten thousand CHD patients participated in the five-year study. Half of them received a daily dose of 80 mg of Lipitor, while the other half received a control, ‘standard’ dose of 10 mg/day.

The Pfizer study observed a reduction in major cardiovascular events in the high-dose Lipitor group (heart attack and/or stroke) over the course of the experiment. In the 80 mg group, 8.7% (or 434 patients) suffered a major cardiovascular event, compared to 10.9% (or 548 patients) of patients in the standard 10 mg group. When you do the math, that’s a difference of 2.2% – or 104 fewer cardiovascular incidences in the high-dose Lipitor group – a statistically significant improvement over standard treatment. Furthermore, only 126 patients in the 80 mg/day Lipitor group died from cardiovascular problems during the study, as compared to 155 in the 10 mg/day group.

I was surprised to discover that treatments were tested and put into practice with such small efficacy ratings. But, 2.2% is better than nothing, right?

Not when you take into account that in this same study, 158 deaths due to non-cardiovascular events occurred in the 80 mg/day group (3.2%), versus only 127 (2.5%) in the lower dose condition. Cancer, particularly lung and gastrointestinal, was responsible for more than half of these deaths. Hemorrhagic stroke and other, non-traumatic causes contributed to the remainder of non-cardiovascular deaths in both treatment conditions. However, this difference of 31 more deaths from non-cardiac related causes in the high-dose group brings the total deaths to 282 in the 10 mg Lipitor group, and 284 in the 80 mg group – statistically, that means there was no difference at all. Your chances of survival were actually 1 in 5000 lower if you took a high dose rather than a standard dose of Lipitor.

Between the actual statistics revealing the serious side effects associated with Lipitor and other statin drugs, and the failure to improve overall survival rate by using higher doses of Lipitor, I suspected that my doctor, had he actually been up on the facts, could have made a wiser choice. However, the professional to whom I was entrusting my life didn’t seem to be as well informed on the subject as I was. Later I was to discover that this isn’t unusual; it doesn’t take much research to be better informed than some doctors.

However, it was easy to understand why the drug salesmen from Pfizer only talked about the (tiny) advantage in reducing cardiac events and failed to mention the fact that there was no overall advantage in reducing death.

So why were the patients in the high-dose Lipitor study dying more frequently from non-cardiovascular causes? At this point, the mechanisms underlying this effect are unclear – we just can’t tell. But as one expert in the field wrote, “we need further reassurance as to the safety of this approach before making this higher dose a standard practice in CHD pharmacological therapy.” Despite their prevalence, the statins are not the only available method that can be used to lower LDL-C levels. Hybrid therapies with other drugs, natural therapies, and nutrition can all be effectively used for this purpose. But my highly paid doctor didn’t know that, either.

Excerpt from: “I FIRED MY DOCTORS AND SAVED MY LIFE”

Read Sam & Bunny’s story of triumph over adversity!

*Doctors, drugs & surgery are not always the best answer!

*Includes scientifically validated Total Life Saving Regimen!

*NOW ~ You can buy our new book:

         “I FIRED MY DOCTORS AND SAVED MY LIFE”

     Healthy, Natural Alternatives to Drugs and Surgery

        and have it sent directly to family & friends at:

            http://www.lulu.com/content/1575438

         $19.95 PRINT ~ only $12.50 as PDF download

      For autographed copies, call 239/591-4565

View videos at: www.ifiredmydoctors.blogspot.com

Read our famous Chapter 16 on Stress Management at

 http://stressmood.blogspot.com/

Chantix Users Have Higher Suicide Rates Than Pfizer Reported

 Hundreds of reports of suicides, psychotic reactions and other serious problems tied to the popular stop-smoking drug Chantix were left out of a crucial government safety review because Pfizer Inc., the drug's manufacturer, submitted years of data through "improper channels."

Some 150 suicides - more than doubling those previously known - were among 589 delayed reports of severe issues turned up in a new analysis by the non-profit Institute for Safe Medication Practices.

"We've had a major breakdown in safety surveillance," said Thomas J. Moore, the ISMP senior scientist who analyzed the data. The serious problems - including reports of completed suicides, suicide attempts, aggression and hostility and depression - had been mixed among some 26,000 records of non-serious side effects such as nausea and rashes, with some dating back to 2006, the year Chantix, or varenicline, was approved.

They echo previous claims that the drug can induce extreme reactions in people trying to quit cigarettes, including vivid nightmares, crippling depression and sudden, violent outbursts.

"It's really chilling," said Moore, who analyzed 26 Chantix reactions in a paper published in the September 2010 issue of the Journal of Pharmacotherapy. "This seems to unleash something in people. It can be violence to anything around."

Moore's case studies describe "inexplicable and unprovoked" reactions in Chantix patients with no previous history of violence or mental illness, including:

• A 24-year-old woman who started beating her boyfriend in bed because "he looked so peaceful" and later attempted suicide;
• A 42-year-old man who punched a stranger at a bowling alley;
• A 47-year-old woman who died after she came out of a room, yelled at her daughters and then shot herself.

Federal Food and Drug Administration officials acknowledged that they asked Pfizer to resubmit thousands of records after realizing that the company was sending required reports in an inappropriate format that could not be added to the agency's Adverse Events Reporting System, or AERS.

"Last year, FDA became aware that a few manufacturers were submitting adverse events reports to FDA through improper channels," the agency said in a statement.

Pfizer officials said they were submitting reports as required and that when the FDA asked them to change, they did so immediately. They said there's no proof that Chantix causes suicide or other serious side effects.
Moore, who has served as an expert witness in court regarding Chantix, said it's the riskiest drug among those analyzed from the FDA's adverse event reports. In the third quarter of 2010, it ranked first in reported deaths, with twice as many fatalities logged as any other drug, he said.

New reports don't change FDA's positionFDA officials said the new reports did not change the agency's position on the risks and benefits of the controversial drug, which received a black box warning that included suicide - the strongest caution possible - in 2009, according to agency officials who would not speak on the record.

"At this point, based on the data, FDA does not have any new safety concerns with Chantix, though those that have been established remain under active review," the agency said in a statement posted in response to the ISMP report.

Agency officials said they're continuing to review Chantix in clinical trials and two large observational studies with the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense.

But Moore said the new data should raise immediate alarms about the drug that was prescribed 3.2 million times last year to people trying to stop smoking - and 1.1 million times already this year, according to data from the firm Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions.

"To us, it raises questions about whether this drug is safe for widespread clinical use," Moore said. "Does this tip the balance?"

That's a view echoed by families of people who allegedly became suddenly and inexplicably violent after taking Chantix. Sean M. Wain, 34, of Beaver County, Pa., shot himself and his wife, Natalie, 33, in May 2009 in what a lawyer for their families claims was a Chantix-fueled rage.

If the FDA had more information about suicides and other side effects tied to Chantix, the agency might have taken stronger action sooner, said Victor H. Prebanic, who represents Robert Erdelen and George Wain, fathers of the slain couple.

"If Pfizer had been more forthcoming, the black box warning might have emerged earlier," Prebanic said. "For all we know, the drug would not have been available."

The lawsuit, filed this month, is the latest among hundreds of claims filed against Pfizer regarding Chantix. At least 1,545 injury claims that cite Chantix are pending in federal court.

Pfizer officials, however, said that the firm was following the FDA's rules and changed their reporting process once the agency asked for clarification.

"All post-marketing reports of adverse events are reviewed by Pfizer and reported to regulators, including FDA, in accordance with regulatory guidelines," the company said in a statement. "Pfizer takes patient safety and regulatory reporting obligations very seriously."

Suicide is an 'expected' event?The problem appears to have been caused in part by federal Food and Drug Administration rules that don't require firms to submit new reports of death or serious harm in the agency's system for urgent review when such risks are already known.
FDA requires drugmakers to submit adverse events in two ways: There's an "expedited" system that requires companies to report serious and unexpected adverse events into the AERS system within 15 days.

Companies are also required to submit less-serious and expected adverse events quarterly in so-called "periodic reports." In those cases, problems previously included on drug labels - including suicide and suicide attempts - are considered to be expected events.

In Pfizer's case, the firm was submitting the periodic reports as required, but combining summaries and individual case reports in a single text file, the FDA said.

That meant that the individual reports of injury were not logged in the FDA's AERS system, drastically reducing known reports of suicides and other psychiatric problems tied to Chantix, Moore said.
"It's very clear the suicide risk of this drug was higher than we knew," he said.

Overall, there were 1,055 reports of serious problems with Chantix reported in the third quarter of 2010, more than any other prescription medication regularly monitored by the drug safety agency, Moore said.
Before last July, the FDA had logged 122 reports of suicides linked to Chantix, including 37 reported by Pfizer and 85 reported by health professionals or consumers, Moore reported. After the 150 new Pfizer reports were added, the total jumped to 272.

In addition, the 589 new reports of severe problems included 102 cases of possible hostility and aggression, 156 cases of depression and 56 cases of possible psychosis. Those were mixed among the 26,000 reports of less-serious problems.

Moore has asked the FDA to investigate the 150 new suicide reports, particularly if the events occurred before the 2009 black box warning listed suicide as a possible side effect.

For their part, FDA officials said they are considering changing regulations to allow expedited reports of suicides and other serious problems, even if they've previously been identified as expected. First proposed in 2003, that change is still pending.
# # # # # # # # # #
Drug companies that deliberately mislead the public on the safety and/or efficacy of their products should be fined five times the amount of the product they have sold, IMO.

Mother Forced to Hand Over Child After Refusing to Medicate Her With Psychiatric Drugs

Health freedom champion and civil rights defender Maryanne Godboldo was victimized by an armed attack led by Child Protective Services. CPS officials conspired with local law enforcement to threaten Maryanne with deadly force and kidnap her daughter. And what did Maryanne do to deserve this treatment? She refused to medicate her daughter with psychiatric drugs and, instead, chose to treat her daughter holistically.

Welcome to the new health care police state in America, where if you refuse to inject your child with dangerous vaccines or refuse to medicate your child with mind-altering psychotropic drugs, you are considered An enemy of the state.

Maryanne Godboldo recently spoke with Mike Adams, editor ofNaturalNews, to describe what really happened and how she is working to stand up for parents' rights, civil rights and human rights. Watch the full interview below:

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/032501_Maryanne_Godboldo_Child_Protective_Services.html#ixzz1NQdanyA2

Related DVDs

The Marketing of Madness If you, a loved one, or anyone you know is taking drugs recommended by an MD or Psychiatrist for Anxiety, Depression, Bi-Polar, ADHD, Obsessive Compulsive, Schizophrenia etc... then this film is an absolute must watch. Format: DVD - Region Free Running Time: 95 minutes Price: $19.95

Dead Wrong A searing new documentary, exposing how devastating—and deadly—psychiatric drugs can be for children and families. Eight brave mothers share their stories that are sure to leave you thinking twice about 'harmless' side-effects Format: DVD - Region Free Running Time: 87 minutes Price: $19.95

REALLY SIGNIFICANT - What Can We Learn From The Diets of Traditional People From Around the World? (VIDEO)

We have been teaching for decades that to enhance wellness we need to eat like our healthy ancestors.

See Disclaimer below



DISCLAIMER

A “Heads up” alert about PPNF was sent to us by a fellow Shaklee Distributor. 

Thanks Rhonda!

(editor note) The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation (PPNF) was originally known as the Weston A. Price Memorial Foundation.  I can see from this article why they changed their name, in order to disassociate from the reputation of the Weston A Price Memorial Foundation.

# # # # # # #

Rhonda says:

Sam & Bunny,

Did you know that the Weston Price Foundation is against soy consumption ? You may be interested in what I said below and then the article about the Weston Price Foundation

There is so much misinformation it is difficult to sort through it all – So I read across the board and it can make your head burst, but I do it. :) 

So I have read all that they say and decided to take Cinch Soy daily … 

The Shaklee group that participated in the University of California Berkeley study, proved to be so above the national norm in the Landmark Study. All took Shaklee Soy most of their lives as did their children.

 It was a part of the overall protocol –Protein (soy)  and VitaLea … The need for a high quality non GMO soy is key and Shaklee has that … I feel safe with them …

Dr. Shaklee started Shaklee, as he said "to help suffering humanity"  and Roger Barnett embraced this philosophy  when he bought the company  …. Gotta love that mission! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=lPcq5LW9B3M

Rhonda

# # # # # # # # # #

Dear Rhonda,

Thanks so much for this information.  The video didn’t mention soy, so it is important for us to know that PPNF was anti-soy.  They are also listed on Quack Watch. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

It is so easy to accept information with which one already agrees.

I think I will post a disclaimer along with the video to alert people that PPNF’s anti-soy propaganda and other claims they make that are pseudo science, even if this video doesn’t mention soy.  We try to keep our “The Natural Advocate” blog scientifically accurate.

Thanks for the “heads up” and the important information to refute “anti-soy” propaganda.

Bunny<>Sam Sewell

# # # # # # # # # #

The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation (PPNF) was originally known as the Weston A. Price Memorial Foundation.  I can see from this article why they changed their name, in order to disassociate from the reputation of the Weston A Price Memorial Foundation.

# # # # # # # #

Finally, the Truth About Soy

Post written by Leo Babauta.

It’s one of those things that has spread on the Internet and unbelievably, has become accepted truth to many people: that soy is unhealthy, even dangerous.

I mention (to otherwise smart and informed people) that I drink soymilk sometimes, and a look of pity comes over their faces. ‘This guy doesn’t know the dangers of soy, and might get cancer, or worse … man boobs,’ they’re thinking.

Just about every fitness expert I read — people I respect and trust — says that soy is bad for you, from Tim Ferriss to the primal/paleo folk. I absolutely respect most of these guys and otherwise think their work on fitness-related matters is great. And yet, when I look for their sources on soy, often they don’t exist, and when they do, I can always trace them back to one place.

The Weston A. Price Foundation. (Now known As The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation”).

Seriously. I’ve never seen anyone cite a single peer-reviewed study that shows that soy is unhealthy. The only sources are the Weston A. Price Foundation, or other articles that use the Weston A. Price Foundation as a source (read more).

Here’s the thing: the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) have been on a vendetta against soy (and on a campaign for meat and raw milk) for a couple decades now, and they have no solid evidence to back up their vendetta. They have lots of quasi-scientific evidence, lots of reasonable-sounding arguments, but if you look for solid proof, you won’t find any. They are not scientists, and have conducted no actual peer-reviewed studies of their own (that I know about).

It’s amazing how many people have been influenced by WAPF’s wacky writings — whenever you read articles not only against soy, but about the myths of cholesterol or saturated fat (WAPF dangerously advocates a diet high in saturated fat), or about raw milk or meat, or about coconut oil and butter … it is based on the work of WAPF. WAPF has even influenced the writings of major writers as Gary Taubes and Michael Pollan.

I’m not going to tell you to fill your diet with soy. I eat it moderately, like anything else, but am not afraid of it. What I am going to do is clear up some myths, and challenge those who disagree with me to show actual peer-reviewed studies (not articles by WAPF or that cite WAPF as their source).

Who are the Weston A. Price Foundation?

I won’t do an entire treatise on WAPF, as others have done it better:

§ Weston A. Price Foundation, Stupid Traditions

§ Weston A. Price Foundation: Shills & Quacks

§ The Truth About Weston A. Price Foundation

§ Reflections on the Weston A. Price Foundation

§ Questioning Weston A. Price Foundation

I’d encourage you to read these and consider the arguments and evidence, not the sources. While some of these articles are from vegetarians, that doesn’t negate the arguments — they just seem more motivated to do the research on WAPF than most people are.

But basically the WAPF is a fringe group that advocates some weird health claims about meat, raw milk, butter … but who came along just at the time when the meat and dairy industry was worried about soy being promoted as a healthy alternative. WAPF claims they don’t take money from agribusiness or the food processing industry, which is both true and admirable … but they do receive funding from sponsors and members — a large percentage of whom are dairy and meat farmers.

Anyway, the problem is not where their funding comes from — it’s their science. Sally Fallon (WAPF founder) and her co-author Mary Enig, WAPF board member Dr. Joe Mercola, Stephen Byrnes, and other WAPF authors use quack science to promote their agenda, and yet most people can’t distinguish between good and bad science.

When they make claims about Eskimo diets being entirely meat and fat based, that sounds reasonable to most people, who don’t realize that you can’t just observe a people and make conclusions that are then generalized to other populations, or that the Inuit Greenlanders had the shortest life expectancy of any indigenous North Americans and high cancer rates (read more). Most people don’t understand how empirical science is done, and so don’t understand why criticism by the WAPF’s Chris Masterjohn of The China Study is a misinterpretation of the evidence.

Don’t take my word for it. Read the links above, become informed, weigh the evidence. Ask for the results of actual peer-reviewed studies, instead of relying on scientific-sounding arguments.

Does soy contain dangerous estrogens?

One of the most-repeated of WAPF’s myths about soy is that it contains dangerous estrogens that will cause cancer, man boobs, and a host of other health problems. So I thought it would be good to clear this up.

There is no evidence that eating soy causes any of the problems caused by raised levels of estrogen (a hormone that’s already naturally in our bodies).

The confusion that WAPF plays on is that soy contains a natural, non-steroidal compound called phytoestrogens — but actually many other plants and plant foods contain phytoestrogens too, including flaxseeds, sesame seeds, hummus, garlic, peanuts, and more.

Phytoestrogens are not estrogens, and though they might be similar, they have completely different effects on the human body. They do not affect the sperm count or concentration in men, nor do they affect the size of your testicles or volume of ejaculate (more). Note: A small-scale, preliminary study by Harvard researcher Jorge Chavarro found that processed soy might have some effect on sperm counts of obese men, but even Chavarro cautioned that nothing conclusive has been found (more).

Phytoestrogens don’t cause breast cancer in women (more).

Soy infant formula, while not nearly as good as human breast milk, is safe (more and more).

As you can see, I’ve linked to a few peer-reviewed studies that look at actual evidence, not pseudo-scientific arguments. There are many more that are easily found via Google. If you read or hear people making claims about soy and estrogen, ask for the sources, and ask that they be peer-reviewed studies.

Has soy been shown to be unhealthy?

In a word: no.

While I won’t claim that soy is a magic bullet for getting healthy, it also doesn’t have the dangers that WAPF and others claim it does. In fact, there is no evidence for any of those claims. I won’t get into all the claims, but just touch on a couple of the prevalent:

1. FALSE: Soy inhibits the digestion of nutrients (anti-nutrients). It’s true that soy, like many plants, have anti-nutrients — but when you cook, ferment, soak, roast, or sprout these plants, you do away with the anti-nutrients. From Dr. Andrew Weil: “There is no scientific data suggesting that soy consumption leads to mineral deficiency in humans.” (more) Fallon, Enig, and the other WAPF writers have failed to provide any evidence at all for this claim (more).

2. FALSE: Soy increases the risk of cancer. In fact, the evidence shows just the opposite. The Health Professionals Follow-up Study found a 70% reduction in prostate cancer for men who consume soy milk daily. The American Institute for Cancer Research, in collaboration with the World Cancer Research Fund, issued a major report in 1997 that analyzed more than 4,500 research studies, with more than 120 contributors and peer reviewers, including those from the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Agency on Research in Cancer, and the U.S. National Cancer Institute. The report said that “Phytoestrogens are found in high concentrations in soya beans, and have been shown in vitro to exhibit a plethora of different anti-cancer effects, including inhibiting proliferation.” The report found some evidence that soy protects against stomach and prostate cancers. In 2000, Riva Bitrum, the President of Research for the American Institute for Cancer Research, said that “Studies showing consistently that just one serving a day of soyfoods contributes to a reduction in cancer risk are encouraging. Consuming one serving of soyfoods is a step most individuals would not find too difficult to take.” For healthy women, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research, “even two or three servings a day of soyfoods should be fine as one part of a mostly plant-based diet.” (more)

3. FALSE: Soy causes (insert scare claim here: Alzheimer’s, birth defects, etc.). There isn’t any evidence for any of the scare claims that originate from WAPF. I’m not going to argue them all, but I urge you to read these articles from John Robbins, Dr. Neil Barnard, Syd Baumel, and Dr. Joel Fuhrman — they contain many more sources than I could list here, and they’re based on actual evidence.

4. Legitimate concerns. Like most foods (meat, milk, peanuts, nuts, berries, chocolate, etc.), there are people with certain conditions that should be more careful. None of the legitimate concerns about soy are causes for alarm. Some people are allergic to soy. There is conflicting evidence about soy’s effect on women who already have breast cancer — some evidence suggests that it might be beneficial, but it’s not conclusive. If you already have a thyroid disorder, excess soy consumption (more than a couple times a day) could affect thyroid function (more). Genetically modified soybeans (common in the U.S. because of Monsanto) are not as healthy as organic soybeans — try to eat organic more than not. Soy formula for infants is less healthy than human breastmilk (as is milk-based formula) — though decades of people brought up on soy formula as babies have shown no ill effects. Still, human breastmilk is much better. Again, none of these legitimate concerns is anything to be scared about — most people can eat soy a few times a day with no effects, according to the overwhelming mass of evidence, and even those who might have a concern can eat some amounts of soy with no problems.

So should I eat soy?

I honestly don’t care if you do or not. My general recommendation is to eat mostly real, whole foods — veggies, fruits, nuts, beans, seeds, a moderate amount of whole grains. I don’t eat meat or dairy for ethical reasons, but if you do eat meat, you should limit your intake of red meat (many studies have shown the health risks of red meat).

But soy has been eaten in moderation for centuries, and as I said above, has not been shown to be unhealthy. It can be included in a healthy diet — tofu, some soy milk, whole soy beans, tempeh can all be good for you if you mix them in with the other real foods I mentioned above. Soymilk is basically whole soy beans soaked in water and squeezed to produce a milky liquid, and tempeh is actual soybeans fermented.

I would be cautious about overly processed soy foods — processed soy protein — just as I would be of any other processed foods. Meaning, don’t be afraid of them, but don’t make them a major part of your diet. Eat real foods instead. And organic is healthier.

As a last note to doubters:  I welcome your doubt — it’s important not to take my word as final. But instead of rebutting me with scientific-sounding arguments, show me the peer-reviewed studies. And not just one study, as no one study will be proof of anything — show me the mass of research that’s been done. When you look at the entirety of the research that has been done on soy, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear. I’d love to see someone show otherwise.

# # # # # # # # #

And don’t forget that non-genetically modified soy in Shaklee products significantly promotes health as evidenced by the Landmark study.

GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies

GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies

• GM firms claimed toxins were destroyed in the gut

Study: Mothers to be were tested

Toxins implanted into GM food crops to kill pests are reaching the bloodstreams of women and unborn babies, alarming research has revealed.

A landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of the chemicals.

Millions of acres in North and South America are planted with GM corn containing the toxins, which is fed in vast quantities to farm livestock around the world – including Britain.

However, it is now clear the  toxins designed to kill crop pests are reaching humans and babies in the womb – apparently through food.

It is not known what, if any, harm this causes but there is speculation it could lead to allergies, miscarriage, abnormalities or even cancer.

To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of the body, thus causing no harm.

Food safety authorities in Britain and Europe have accepted these assurances on the basis that GM crops are effectively no different to those produced using conventional methods.

The most controversial detail about vaccines has been kept in the dark

The single sickest secret behind vaccines
With all the controversy swirling around vaccines and autism, it seems that the most controversial point of all has essentially been locked in a dark room and deliberately kept from us.
It may not be the vaccines themselves that cause autism but there is one constituent that is causing great alarm (for those who know about it). No, it’s not thimerosal.
And I guarantee even the most ardent supporters of vaccination will be outraged to discover what they have unknowingly been infusing into their bodies and their children’s bodies.
Taking tissue
Helen Ratajczak is a former senior scientist for a drug company. She recently published a review of autism research that spans the full history of the disorder, from 1943 (when autism was first identified) to present.
Ratajczak’s review has important insights about the contents of vaccines and how they could trigger autism. But one detail jumps out. And it’s easy to miss, because it’s hidden in a simple, three-word phrase that appears only once, toward the very end of Ratajczak’s 79-page review.
Here’s the sentence: “An additional increased spike in incidence of autism occurred in 1995 when the chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.”
Human. Fetal. Tissue.
How was this hidden from us? Why isn’t this information included on every vaccine consent form? Can you imagine how horrified most people would be to find out their children were injected with a vaccine grown in tissue from human fetuses?!
And this is not an isolated case.
The National Network for Immunization Information reports that two different strains of human cell cultures made from fetuses have been used extensively in vaccine production for DECADES.
One strain came from lung cells taken from a female fetus of 3-months gestation, and the other was taken from a male fetus at 14-weeks. In addition, the virus used to make the rubella vaccine was isolated from a third fetus.
The Network further reports that the fetuses were intentionally aborted, but were not aborted for the purpose of harvesting the cells. The resulting cell cultures “have been used to prepare hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines, preventing millions of cases of rubella, hepatitis A, varicella and rabies.”
The defense is that human cells are the best source for vaccines because cells taken from animals can carry animal viruses that would obviously be very harmful in any vaccine.
That’s all great press release writing, but I’m still livid!
Scientists simply should not get to decide whether to share this information or how to rationalize it.
This is an intensely personal issue and everyone should be able to make a decision on vaccination with all the facts in front of them.
How this got kept from us for decades is beyond me.
Right now, there aren’t options to choose a vaccine that wasn’t grown in human fetal tissue. So parents armed with this information can simply choose to vaccinate or not.
But before you make that decision, in tomorrow’s e-Alert, I am going to explain how this horrific secret could also be what is causing the dramatic rise in autism in our children.
Sources:
“Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes-A review” Helen V. Ratajczak, Journal of Immunotoxicology, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2/9/11, informahealthcare.com
“Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review” Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, 3/31/11, cbsnews.com
“Human Fetal Links with Some Vaccines” National Network for Immunization Information, 6/3/08, immunizationinfo.org

Is human DNA in vaccines putting our children at risk of autism and other disorders?

How could the fact have been kept from us that, for decades, many vaccines have contained cells from a human cell line originally grown from aborted fetuses?

Are the media so busy camping outside Charlie Sheen's house they just don't have time for something this "minor"?

But let's put aside the glaring ethical issue for just a minute (if you can). Because there's a follow up issue that's just as important...

Is human DNA in vaccines putting our children at risk of autism and other disorders?

-----------------------------------------------------------
A shocking revelation...
-----------------------------------------------------------

Yesterday, I introduced you to researcher Helen Ratajczak who recently published a review of autism research that covers the full history of the disorder.

In a CBS News interview, Ratajczak described one part of her findings this way: Some kids are genetically hypersensitive. Damage occurs when their immune systems are thrown out of balance by the intense onslaught of numerous childhood vaccines. She believes this may be one of the causes of autism.

The CBS report balances coverage of the topic with an accompanying interview with Dr. Brian Strom, a vaccine safety expert who has served on panels for the Institute of Medicine.

Dr. Strom is pro-vaccine and explains that vaccines are not scientifically linked to autism. Okay, but then he has a huge blockbuster detail of his own to share.

According to Dr. Strom, the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines ARE scientifically linked to brain damage.

Brain damage!?

OK...it may not be autism, but doesn't it seem like brain damage risk would be kind of a GLARING red flag that something is potentially very dangerous here?

But then CBS appears to blindside Dr. Strom with a double bombshell revealed in Ratajczak's review: 1) More than 20 vaccines contain human DNA, and 2) Shortly after DNA was included in vaccines in the U.S. and the UK, autism rates spiked in both countries.

Shockingly, Dr. Strom admits to CBS that he's not aware that vaccines contain human DNA. His reaction: "It does not matter...Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism."

In his DREAMS it doesn't matter! Mixing DNA from one body with DNA in another body creates the potential for PROFOUND changes! It couldn't matter MORE!

I can't imagine how anyone could read Helen Ratajczak's review (along with Dr. Strom's feeble vaccine defense) and try to convince themselves that vaccine safety or the autism link is a dead issue.

And whether it matters to Dr. Strom or not, it matters a LOT to me that Big Pharma has used cells grown from aborted fetal tissue to farm vaccines and that we're just finding out about it now!

Think this debate is over? Oh no...I am just getting warmed up!

 

Sources:
"Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes-A review" Helen V. Ratajczak, Journal of Immunotoxicology, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2/9/11, informahealthcare.com
"Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review" Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, 3/31/11, cbsnews.com

breaking news: The U.S. government admits that vaccines cause autism

More breaking news: The U.S. government admits that vaccines cause autism in its payouts of hundreds of millions of dollars to parents whose children collapsed into autism after receiving vaccine shots. This is yet more evidence that even the government cannot deny the link between vaccines and autism:http://www.naturalnews.com/032423_vaccine_compensation_program_brain_injury.html

83 percent of brain injury vaccine compensation payouts were for autism caused by vaccines
(NaturalNews) The federal government has been publicly denying any link between autism and vaccines for over two decades, while it has quietly been paying out damages for vaccine injury to children with autism, a study released May 10th shows. The study...

Be Your Own Boss - Full or Part Time

Contact Sam and Bunny at bunnysam@bestselfusa.com

Or visit our Online Service Center at:  http://bestself.myshaklee.com/us/en/welcome.html

The Brain-Gut Connection

The Brain-Gut Connection
It turns out that both our gut and our brain originate early in embryogenesis from the same clump of tissue which divides during fetal development. While one section turns into the central nervous system, another piece migrates to become the enteric nervous system. Later the two nervous systems connect via a cable called the vagus nerve -- the longest of all the cranial nerves whose name is derived from Latin, meaning "wandering."  The vagus nerve meanders from the brain stem through the neck and finally ends up in the abdomen. There's the brain-gut connection.
Have you ever wondered why an impending job interview can cause an attack of intestinal cramps? And why do anti-depressants targeted for the brain cause nausea or abdominal upset in millions of people who take such drugs? The reason for these common experiences is because each of us literally has two brains --the familiar one encased in our skulls and a lesser-known but vitally important one found in the human gut. Like Siamese twins, the two brains are interconnected; when one gets upset, the other does, too. No wonder people trust their gut. One half of all our nerve cells are located within the gut?
The state of the gut has a profound influence upon our health. It is from the healthy gut that we enjoy neurological and psychological as well as immunological health. This is not to discount the human brain. This is simply to say that the body has two brains -- the second brain being our gut. There is an excellent article on this brain-gut connection called Complex and Hidden Brain in Gut Makes Bellyaches and Butterflies written by Sandra Blakeslee, originally published in the January 23, 1996 issue of The New York Times. I have added a link to her article in the Diet section of the Links page.

How it all Works

The gut's brain, known as the enteric nervous system (ENS), is located in sheaths of tissue lining the esophagus, stomach, small intestine and colon. Considered a single entity, it is packed with neurons, neurotransmitters and proteins that zap messages between neurons or support cells like those found in the brain. It contains a complex circuitry that enables it to act independently, learn, remember and, as the saying goes, produce gut feelings.

In his book The Second Brain, HarperCollins 1998, Dr. Michael Gershon, a professor of anatomy and cell biology at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City, dubs the entire gastrointestinal system the body's second nervous system. "The brain is not the only place in the body that's full of neurotransmitters," says Dr. Gershon. "A hundred million neurotransmitters line the length of the gut, approximately the same number that is found in the brain..." If we add the nerve cells of the esophagus, stomach and large intestine, there are more nerve cells in the gut than there are in the entire remainder of the peripheral nervous system. Nearly every chemical that controls the brain in the head has been identified in the gut, including hormones and neurotransmitters.
This complex circuitry provides the brain in the gut with the means to act independently. Proof of this can be seen in stroke victims whose brain stem cells, which control swallowing, have been destroyed. If this occurs, a surgeon has to create an opening in the abdominal wall, so that feeding can be accomplished by manually inserting foods directly into the stomach. Once the food is in the stomach, digestion and absorption can take place, even in individuals who are brain dead. The central nervous system is needed for swallowing and for defecation, but from the time the food is swallowed to the moment its remains are expelled from the anus, the gut is in charge.

The Sleep-Gut Connection

As light is shed on the circuitry between the two brains, researchers are beginning to understand why people act and feel the way they do. The brain and gut are so much alike that during our sleeping hours, both have natural 90-minute cycles. For the brain, this slow wave sleep is interrupted by periods of rapid eye movement sleep in which dreams occur. For the gut, the 90-minute cycles also involve slow waves of muscle contractions but, as with REM intervals, these are punctuated by short bursts of rapid muscle movement. Could it be that both brains influence each other? The answer is probably yes. REM sleep is a sleep phase characterized by arousal, altered activity of the autonomic nervous system and altered colon (large intestine) function.

We also know that patients with bowel problems tend to have abnormal REM sleep. Poor sleep has been reported by many perhaps a majority of, patients with irritable bowel syndrome (lBS) and non-ulcerative dyspepsia (also known as "sour stomach") who complain of awakening tired and unrefreshed in the morning. Even after patients awake from what they describe as a "sound sleep," they report a general feeling of tiredness and fatigue.
Abnormal REM sleep is reduced by low-dose treatment with the anti-depressant amitryptiline, which has also been shown to be effective in treating lBS and non-ulcerative dyspepsia. Many drugs designed to affect the brain also affect the gut. For example, the gut is loaded with the neurotransmitter serotonin. In fact, more serotonin is produced there than anywhere else in the body. Serotonin is linked with initiation of peristalsis.

The Anxiety-Gut Connection

About 25% of people taking fluoxetine (Prozac) and other types of similar-acting antidepressants experience gastrointestinal problems such as nausea, diarrhea and constipation. The problem with these drugs is that they prevent uptake of serotonin by cells that should be using it. While this enables the depressed person to have more serotonin in the brain, less is available for use by the cells of the gastrointestinal tract. "Serotonin is calming to the digestive tract, initiates peristaltic and secretory reflexes," notes nutritionist June Butlin, M.Sc., Ph.D. "Long-term use or the wrong dosage may cause fluctuations between nausea, vomiting, constipation and diarrhea, and can cause depression, anxiety, insomnia, and fluctuations in appetite."

In a study reported in The New York Times article, Dr. Gershon and his colleagues explain Prozac's side effects on the gut. They mounted a section of guinea pig colon on a stand and put a small pellet in the 'mouth' end. The isolated colon whips the pellet down to the 'anal' end of the column, just as it would inside an animal. When the researchers put a small amount of Prozac into the colon, the pellet "went into high gear," Dr. Gerhson explained to the paper. "The drug doubled the speed at which the pellet passed through the colon, which would explain why some people get diarrhea," the paper says. No wonder, in small doses, Prozac is used to treat chronic constipation.
Although a little is beneficial for constipation, a lot is not. When the Gershon team greatly increased the amount of Prozac in the guinea pig colon, the pellet stopped moving at all. Hence, a little cures constipation; a lot causes it. Prozac stimulates sensory nerves, thus can also cause nausea.
The gut has opiate receptors much like the brain. "Not surprisingly, drugs like morphine and heroin that are thought to act on the central nervous system also attach to the gut's opiate receptors, producing constipation," notes pain management specialist Michael Loes, M.D., M.D.(H.), author of The Healing Response (Freedom Press 2002) "Both brains," he says, "can be addicted to opiates."
Many Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease patients are constipated. A sickness we think of as primarily affecting the brain or central nervous system also impacts the gut.
Our gut also helps us in some amazing ways. The gut also produces chemicals called benzodiazepines. These are the same chemicals found in anti-anxiety drugs like Valium, and these are the same chemicals that alleviate pain. Perhaps our gut is truly our body's anxiety and pain reliever. While we are not sure whether the gut synthesizes benzodiazepine from chemicals in our foods, bacterial actions, or both, we know that in times of extreme pain, the gut goes into overdrive, delivering benzodiazepine to the brain. The result is to render the patient unconscious or at least reduce the pain, says Dr. Anthony Basile, a neurochemist in the Neuroscience Laboratory at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

A Bit of Background

Throughout the world's healing and mystical traditions, the belly is seen as an important center of energy and consciousness. You've probably noticed that many of India's great spiritual adepts sport prodigious bellies. These tremendous tummies are thought to be full of prana. Hence, Indian artists often depict their deities with a paunch.

In China, the gentle art of tai chi emphasizes the lower abdomen as a reservoir for energy. Tai chi teacher Kenneth Cohen, author of The Way of Qigong (Ballantine Books 1997), explains that it's possible to strengthen the abdominals by learning how to compact qi (prana) into the belly.  "From the Chinese viewpoint," he says, "the belly is considered the dan tian or 'field of the elixir,' where you plant the seeds of long life and wisdom."
Lastly, in Biblical times, the seat of emotion, which we call the heart, is actually referring to the bowels. That thought in itself conjures up an image of a young Romeo sending a love note to his Juliet saying, "You move me."
In all seriousness, most people today completely ignore gut health. As a result, they are experiencing health problems that could be overcome if they knew that they centered in their gut. So I guess the thing to remember is, as Dr. Gershon puts it, "Take care of your gut and your gut will take care of you."