In the U.S., 5.8 million Americans aged 65 years and older have Alzheimer’s disease, and this number is expected to jump to about 14 million by 2050.1 Every 65 seconds, someone in the U.S. is diagnosed with the disease, which has no known cure and limited treatments to help manage symptoms. While conventional medicine has focused on drugs to treat symptoms, most have only limited effectiveness. Alzheimer’s has steadily ranked as the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., but some estimates suggest Alzheimer’s deaths may be underreported, possibly making it the third leading cause of death for older people.2 Effective treatments are urgently needed, and one such therapy known as photobiomodulation is offering hope in helping patients to regain their memory by shining light into the brain. Light Therapy May Reverse Alzheimer’s SymptomsA trial is underway using a headset with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to shine light into the brain via the nose and skull in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Early results showed patients regained memory and reading and writing skills after three months of treatment, leading to the launch of a 12-week trial. The headset, known as Neuro RX Gamma, uses gamma waves pulsed into the brain region known as the hippocampus, which controls memory. It’s believed to work by boosting mitochondria, the powerhouse of your cells, which produce about 90% of the energy being generated in your body. This, in turn, stimulates microglia, or immune cells, in the brain, helping to ward off the disease. Microglia sometimes become inactive in people with Alzheimer’s disease, allowing amyloid plaques to accumulate and interfering with brain function. The light treatment may help to combat this.3 The trial, which is being conducted by researchers from the University of Toronto, involves 228 people, half of whom will receive light therapy via the Neuro RX Gamma headset six days a week for 20 minutes a day over a period of 24 weeks. The headset sends light through the skull as well as through the nostril via a nasal clip. Neuro RX Gamma “delivers low-energy near-infrared light, through five diodes, to the brain transcranially and intranasally,”4 and was invented by Lew Lim, Ph.D., whom I interviewed in the video above. He told The Telegraph:5
In the early trial, which involved five people with mild to moderate dementia to test safety of the device, symptoms improved significantly.6 Along with improvements in memory, participants had improved cognitive function and sleep as well as reduced anxiety, wandering and angry outbursts, with no negative side effects. Brain scans further revealed improved blood flow and connectivity in the brain.7 How Photobiomodulation Improves Brain ActivityA photostimulation device invented by Lim, which emits near-infrared light (810 nanometers), helps to explain how photostimulation affects the brain. The near-infrared device consists of four modules of LEDs, held together with light metal frames that are placed on top of your head, with the LEDs pointed at specific regions on your scalp. It also has an intranasal LED that targets the hippocampal area. In alpha mode, these LEDs emit pulsed light at 10 hertz or 10 pulses per second. Ten hertz was the frequency selected based on animal studies showing it helps accelerate neuron recovery in brain injured animals. The mechanism of the effect created by this photostimulation device appears to be related to the interaction between the light and mitochondria to produce cellular energy, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and other activating factors. However, with Neuro RX Gamma, Lim introduced gamma frequency, which is 40 hertz (40 cycles per second) into the brain. Gamma is present while your brain is consolidating memory, helping it to minimize or prevent overactivity. Animal research has shown the gamma frequency even significantly reduces amyloid plaques (associated with Alzheimer's) in the brain.8 Benefits of Brain PhotobiomodulationThe Canadian biotech firm Vielight, which developed the Neuro RX Gamma, explains that brain photobiomodulation works by delivering photons to a light-sensitive enzyme known as cytochrome c oxidase (COO) within mitochondria.9 Ultimately, Alzheimer's is a disease caused by dysfunctional mitochondria. That's the reason why near-infrared works. It recharges your mitochondria, and the COO specifically. According to Vielight, brain photobiomodulation may enhance cognition, provide neuroprotective effects and enhance self-repair mechanisms.10 Brain photobiomodulation has been found to increase cerebral blood flow11 as well as modulate brain oscillations. As noted in the journal Scientific Reports:12
An At-Home Alzheimer’s Treatment?Brain photobiomodulation represents a potential at-home treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, while similar devices that may support brain health are already available over-the-counter. The early study into Lim’s device found that when the therapy was stopped, the patients began to decline, which is why, as Lim explained, the idea is to make the treatment as simple and accessible as possible. If the device proves to work for Alzheimer’s, it represents a simple tool that can be used daily for a lifetime if necessary, with no visits to a health care clinic required. Lim said in our interview:
The Sunlight ConnectionSunlight is a beneficial electromagnetic frequency that is essential and vital for your health in its own right. One of the reasons why is because about 40% of the rays in sunlight is infrared, and the red and near-infrared frequencies increase CCO.13 When you eat, the nutrients nourish your cells and provide fuel for biological functions. You may know that the food you eat is converted to generate ATP. But the mechanism of ATP production can also be stimulated in response to near-infrared exposure, which triggers the mitochondria to produce additional ATP. So, it could be said that your body is fueled by both food and sunlight. Unfortunately, few clinicians have any idea that light is a powerful fuel for your body. In my view, this ignorance is one of the reasons why Alzheimer's disease is skyrocketing in prevalence, as so many are routinely avoiding sensible sun exposure. In fact, people living in northern latitudes have higher rates of death from dementia and Alzheimer's than those living in sunnier areas suggest that vitamin D and/or sun exposure are important factors.14 When asked for feedback on using sunlight or a near-infrared lamp as a preventive strategy for Alzheimer’s, Lim says:
Eye Test May Detect Alzheimer’s DiseaseAnother study is in the works that’s looking at using an inexpensive eye test called a retinal screening test to detect Alzheimer’s years before symptoms develop. The $5-million study will help reveal whether a simple eye exam that could be administered by optometrists and ophthalmologists could screen for retinal biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease. Currently, Alzheimer’s may be detected via expensive PET scans to reveal buildup of amyloid plaque in the brain, but this test is often not covered by insurance. Researchers have found that beta-amyloid plaques also accumulate in the retina, and this buildup closely matches the buildup found in the brain. As noted in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience:15
A retinal screening test for Alzheimer’s could help identify people at the earliest stages of the disease to help slow disease progression and improve treatment.16 Alzheimer’s Risk Factors You Can ControlBrain photobiomodulation is an exciting field that may soon prove to be a useful tool for Alzheimer’s prevention and treatment. A novel treatment developed at MIT using flickering lights and low frequency sound to stimulate gamma frequencies in the brain also appears to reduce plaque formation.17 In the meantime, there are many other strategies that get to the root of the disease as well, like exercise to increase brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF), stress reduction, optimizing your sleep, which is critical for cognitive function, and nutritional support. Getting your body to burn fat as its primary fuel will very effectively fuel and nourish your mitochondria in addition to radically improving insulin resistance. I recommend a cyclical or targeted ketogenic diet for this purpose, and the details are spelled out in my book, "Fat for Fuel." There is hope that one day there will be a cure for Alzheimer’s, but until that day comes there’s a lot you can do to minimize your risk using diet and other lifestyle factors. In addition to light therapy, cleaning up your diet is among the best strategies to preserve your brain function as you age. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/23/reversing-alzheimers-with-light-therapy.aspx
0 Comments
While water fluoridation was never adopted or has been eliminated in many areas around the world, including most of western Europe,1 many U.S. water systems2 still add fluoride chemicals such as fluorosilicic acid3 (also known as hydrofluorosilicic acid) to their municipal water supplies. As detailed in Christopher Bryson’s book, “The Fluoride Deception,”4 water fluoridation as a public health measure (ostensibly to improve dental health) was invented by brilliant schemers who needed a way to get rid of toxic industrial waste. They duped politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements, and sold them on a “public health” idea in which humans are essentially used to filter this poison through their bodies, while the vast majority simply goes down the drain. Since the inception of water fluoridation in 1945, fluorosilicic acid suppliers have been making hundreds of millions of dollars each year5 selling a hazardous industrial waste for use as a water additive rather than having to pay for toxic waste disposal. “Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle” in the March 2018 issue of Origins,6 a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University, notes:
Fluoride Is a Neurotoxic Endocrine DisruptorWe now know fluoride — which serves no essential biological function7 — actually acts as an endocrine disruptor.8 Exposure has been linked to thyroid disease,9 which in turn can contribute to obesity, heart disease, depression and other health problems. More disturbingly, fluoride has been identified as a developmental neurotoxin that impacts short-term and working memory, and contributes to rising rates of attention-deficit hyperactive disorder10 and lowered IQ in children.11 In all, there are more than 400 animal and human studies showing fluoride is a neurotoxic substance.12 Many of these studies have found harm at, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American pregnant women and children receive. Government-Funded Research Confirms Fluoride Lowers IQOne of the most recent studies highlighting these dangers was a U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study published in the August 19, 2019, issue of JAMA Pediatrics,13 which found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ. The research, led by a Canadian team of researchers at York University in Ontario, looked at 512 mother-child pairs living in six Canadian cities. Fluoride levels were measured through urine samples collected during pregnancy. They also estimated the women’s fluoride consumption based on the level of fluoride in the local water supply and how much water and tea each woman drank. The children’s IQ scores were then assessed between the ages of 3 and 4. As reported by Fluoride Action Network (FAN):14
The findings were deemed so controversial, the study had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before publication, making it one of the more important fluoride studies to date. Its import is also demonstrated by the fact that it’s accompanied by an editor’s note15 explaining the journal’s decision to publish the study, and a podcast16 featuring the chief editors of JAMA Pediatrics and JAMA Network Open, in which they discuss the study. An additional editorial17 by David Bellinger, Ph.D., a world-renowned neurotoxicity expert, also points out that “The hypothesis that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxicant must now be given serious consideration.” Few studies ever receive all of this added treatment. Fluoride Exposure From Infant Formula Lowers IQIn October 2019, a Canadian study18 concluded that infants fed baby formula made with fluoridated water have lower IQs than those fed formula made with unfluoridated water. As explained by the authors:
Results revealed an increase of 0.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter (mg/L), which was the difference between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions, corresponded with a 4.4 point lower IQ score at age 3 to 4. Not surprisingly, the researchers urge parents to avoid fluoridated water when reconstituting infant formula. Fluoride Exposure Affects Sleep PatternsOther recent fluoride research has discovered it can have an adverse impact on sleep. The study,19,20 published in the Environmental Health journal in 2019, found that chronic low-level fluoride exposure altered the sleep patterns of adolescents aged 16 to 19. The hypothesis used to explain this effect is that fluoride is known to preferentially accumulate in the pineal gland, which might inhibit or alter the production of melatonin, the hormone that regulates sleep and wakefulness. The study used data from the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) that included plasma fluoride and water fluoride measurements. None of the included individuals were prescribed medication for sleep disorders. Each 0.52 mg/L increase in water fluoride was associated with a 197% higher odds21 of symptoms suggestive of sleep apnea, as well as a 24-minute later bedtime and 26-minute later waking time. According to the authors:22
Purify Your Water and Avoid FluorideWater is the only beverage you cannot live without. Unfortunately, pure water is hard to come by these days, as water pollution, inadequate water treatment and the addition of fluoride render most municipal water supplies untrustworthy. To ensure purity, you really need to filter your own tap water. For guidance on selecting a suitable water filtration system for your home or apartment, see “How to Properly Filter Your Water.” Water filtration is particularly important if your water is fluoridated and you are combating chronic disease (especially thyroid disease), have young children or are using your tap water to reconstitute infant formula. Keep in mind that fluoride is very difficult to get out of the water once added. When shopping for a filtration system, make sure it’s specifically rated to filter out fluoride. According to the Water Quality Association23 and others,24 filters capable of removing fluoride include reverse osmosis, deionizers and activated alumina adsorption media such as Berkey filters. Distillation, while not a form of filtration, will also remove fluoride. Carbon filters such as PUR and Brita will not filter out fluoride, and neither will water softeners. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/23/fluoride-health-risks.aspx When you think about environmental pollution, your clothing is likely not the first thing to come to mind. However, the clothing industry nears the top of the list of toxic industries that pollute water and expose you to dangerous chemicals used to dye and treat the textiles. According to Rita Kant of the University Institute of Fashion Technology, color is one of the main reasons people choose specific pieces of clothing.1 While there are safe ways to dye clothing, the toxic nature of what is currently used has caused concern. Other chemicals used for a variety of reasons pollute the environment, too, with heavy metals like arsenic, lead and mercury as well as sulfur, nitrates and naphthol. In 2018, Delta Airlines released new uniforms to their employees. Not long afterward the company began receiving reports of allergic and toxic reactions that the employees believed were due to chemicals in the uniforms. The uniforms are “ultra-stretchy, brightly colored, designed for flying, and dizzyingly high-tech,” according to Quartz, which reported on the attendants’ complaints.2 In addition, the material used for the uniforms was designed to resist water stains, wrinkles and static. In what sounds like a science fiction movie, it is also self-deodorizing. But these features apparently come at a high cost, if it turns out that the attendants’ illnesses can be definitively linked to them. Lawsuits Allege Toxic Uniforms Making Attendants SickThe uniforms were first unveiled in May 2018, having been designed by Zac Posen and manufactured by Lands’ End. They were issued to 64,000 Delta Airline employees3 who began reporting a number of health concerns, including skin rashes, headaches and fatigue soon after they started using them. The problems were first made public in a report by The Guardian4 in which several flight attendants spoke with the promise of anonymity, as they feared retaliation by the company. The Guardian published some pictures of the complainants’ skin conditions. One attendant reported:
Another found it impossible to sleep, commenting:
One of the first class-action lawsuits was filed in May 2019 against Lands’ End by two Delta flight attendants seeking $5 million in damages. As 2019 progressed, the number of employees filing complaints rose to 943.5 Delta Airlines engaged an independent laboratory to test the garments, which found they are not linked “to any attributable health risk.” Company Response Has Been Inconsistent; Union Steps InThe newest suit was filed in the Western District of Wisconsin court against Lands’ End, whose operations are based in Dodgeville, Wisconsin. Of the 525 Delta employees listed in the current lawsuit, 90% are flight attendants.6 The lawsuit alleges employees working in a variety of positions within the company suffered symptoms including severe respiratory illnesses, hair loss, nosebleeds, hives and anxiety. The lead attorney for the suit was allowed access to a closed Facebook page devoted to discussions of the uniform issue at Delta Airlines. He remarked there were 6,000 registered users. Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA), commented on the clothing concerns:
It wasn’t until November 2019 that the airlines began allowing some employees to wear non-uniform clothing they purchased independently.7 Many of the complaints have centered on inconsistent and unfair treatment. After 18 months of mystery illnesses and symptoms, Delta employees are no closer to an answer or resolution. Many have fears for their health and job security, resulting in a heavy financial burden. One attendant was seen by a dermatologist in Atlanta, who told her she had been exposed to a toxin causing her reactions. Most of the employees agree the company’s response has been disjointed. Several spoke anonymously to Business Insider, who reported attendants were not logically granted permission to wear an alternative uniform. Some were threatened with job loss if they refused and others were given permission only after telling the company they wouldn't return to work unless they were allowed to wear a different uniform. Judith Anderson, a 20-year industrial hygienist for AFA, explained that the dye is a suspicious target as it has rubbed off on airplane seats and flight attendants' skin. Anderson believes a lack of oversight in the supply chain, combined with poor testing before distribution, resulted in inconsistent chemical application. She believes this may partially explain why a higher percentage of employees have not had health complaints since the uniforms may not have had equal chemical treatments applied. Flight Attendants May Be Unwitting Test SubjectsDelta Airlines is not the first airline that flight attendants have had trouble with, due to health issues resulting from their uniforms. Historically, only legal actions have triggered policy changes by affected airlines.8 In 2010 new uniforms were issued to Alaska Airlines attendants. Not long afterward the company received reports of rashes and eye irritation, as well as scaly skin patches, hives and blisters. The uniforms were manufactured by Twin Hill, which subsequently won a lawsuit filed by the attendants, with the court ruling “there was no reliable evidence that the injuries were caused by the uniforms.” Shortly afterward, the airline received more new uniforms manufactured by Twin Hill and flight attendants again began to report symptoms. In 2018, a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health report noted that there were no complaints in 2015 before the new uniforms were issued. However, by 2016, the airline’s OSHA logs showed 87 skin disorders, 83 of which employees claimed were related to the new uniforms. Skin symptoms were most common, but employees also reported migraines, shortness of breath, vomiting and hair loss. Employees filed a lawsuit against Twin Hill in 2017 following more than 3,500 complaints. The case against Alaska Airlines interested researchers from Harvard University9 who were studying the health effects of working in an airplane cabin environment. Using survey data from 684 flight attendants working for Alaska Airlines before and after the uniforms were issued, they found that respiratory, allergic and dermatological symptoms began to rise after flight attendants started wearing the new uniforms. Eileen McNeely is a lead researcher in the study from Harvard University, and she believes flight attendants may be inadvertently testing the toxic chemicals that are in their clothing. She describes an ideal laboratory environment for researchers in which the attendants are wearing the same articles of clothing in the same environmental conditions on a consistent basis. Fast Fashion Major Source of PollutionThe textile industry is also a major source of environmental pollution. During the dying process, 80% of the dye remains on the fabric while the rest is flushed down the drain. In the case of the uniforms from Delta Airlines, flight attendants said the dye was rubbing off on their skin and airline jump seats. The dyes cause problems, but so do the chemicals used to fix the color into the fabric. According to Kant,10 the industry uses more than 1,000 chemicals that are directly or indirectly poisonous and damaging to human health. In addition to using a massive amount of water, producing clothing also pollutes it. A textile mill that produces 8,000 kg (17,637 pounds) of fabric each day can use 1.6 million liters (422,675 gallons) of water to do so. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the fast fashion industry encourages consumers to continually buy the latest fashions, which are sold cheaply.11 Americans buy more and more clothing every year, with the average consumer purchasing more than 65 articles in 2016. At the same time, 70 pounds of clothing and other textiles are thrown out each year. As Green America wrote in their 2019 Toxic Textiles report, even when recycled, “less than 1% of the resources required to make clothing is recaptured and reused to create new clothing.” Much of donated clothing ends up being sold to textile recyclers and exported to other countries, all contributing to a growing global waste problem. While speaking to The Guardian, one flight attendant voiced a concern regarding the airline industry, which may potentially identify a challenge in the general population:12
Change May Happen Only When Consumers SpeakIrina Mordukhovich, an epidemiologist from Harvard University, said Delta Airlines did not allow the research team access to study the concern. In discussing the issue with The Guardian, she said she saw parallels in how other airline companies historically responded to uniform health concerns:
On attendant wrote in an email:
Realistically, the only way most industries change is when you vote with your pocketbook. Moving forward, consider giving serious thought to cleaning up and “greening” your wardrobe. Remember, being a conscious consumer does not stop at food and household products. Your clothing can be a source of hazardous chemicals, and cheaply made fast fashion items take a tremendous toll on the environment and the people working in the industry. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/22/delta-flight-attendants-uniforms-trigger-toxic-reactions.aspx Over the past decade, I've written many articles discussing the evidence of biological harm from nonionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation. While the wireless industry is built on the premise that the only type of radiation capable of causing harm is ionizing — X-rays being one example — researchers have for a long time warned that even nonionizing and non-heating radiation can jeopardize your health. This includes not only human health, but also that of plants and animals. Over time, I became so convinced of the deleterious effects of EMF, I took three years to write "EMF*D," which is slated to be released in February 2020. In it, I review the now overwhelming evidence showing EMFs are a hidden health hazard that simply cannot be ignored any longer, especially seeing how the rollout of 5G will exponentially increase exposures. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< Scientists Now Understand How EMFs Impact Your HealthOver the years, I've interviewed several experts who have shared their in-depth knowledge about the poorly understood mechanisms behind EMF harm. Among them: • Martin Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, has published research1,2,3,4 showing that the primary danger of EMFs — and what drives the processes of chronic disease — is the mitochondrial damage triggered by peroxynitrites, one of the most damaging types of reactive nitrogen species. Low-frequency microwave radiation activates the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) in the outer membrane of your cells, causing them to open, thus allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions. This activates nitric oxide, which is a precursor for peroxynitrite.5 These potent reactive nitrogen species are associated with an increased level of systemic inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, and are thought to be a root cause for many of today's chronic diseases. For an in-depth understanding of peroxynitrites and the harm they inflict, see "Nitric Oxide and Peroxynitrite in Health and Disease"6 by Dr. Pal Pacher, Joseph Beckman and Dr. Lucas Liaudet. It's one of the best reviews I've ever read and free to download. One of its most significant downsides of peroxynitrite is that it damages DNA. While your body has the capacity to repair that damage through a family of enzymes collectively known as poly ADP ribose polymerases (PARP), PARP require NAD+ for fuel, and when they run out of NAD+ they stop repairing your DNA, which can lead to premature cell death. • Dr. Sam Milham, a physician and epidemiologist, wrote the book, "Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization." In his interview, he explains the biological mechanisms of high-frequency electric transients (electromagnetic interference patterns), and details some of the lesser-known household sources of this "dirty electricity." • Magda Havas, Ph.D., associate professor at Trent University in Canada, has written research including the effects dirty electricity can have on children's behavior, and helpful remediation techniques. EMF Pollution Is Likely Taking a Hidden Toll on Your HealthThe problem with EMF radiation is that you cannot see it, hear it or smell it, and most do not feel it. Still, researchers assure us that biological effects are taking place whether you're able to sense it or not. For most, it's simply a matter of time and overall exposure load. Here, it's important to realize that we're not just talking about radiation from your cellphone. The electromagnetic frequencies emitted from your Wi-Fi router, computer, home appliances, all manner of wireless "smart" technology, and even the wiring inside your walls are all capable of inflicting serious biological harm to your body and mind. And with 5G, it's bound to get far worse. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome Is on the RiseFor some, the effects of EMFs are unmistakable and undeniable, and the number of people reporting pathological hypersensitivity to EMFs is rising. In 2008, an Austrian study7 noted that actual prevalence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome in Austria had risen by 1.5% since 1994, from 2% to 3.5%. In 2006, Germany had an electrosensitivity incidence rate of 9%, and Taiwan reported an incidence rate of 13.3% in 2011.8 The RT documentary "Wi-Fi Refugees," featured in "Documentary Explore Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome," investigates the struggles reported by these "canaries in the coal mine." While symptoms may vary from one individual to another, commonly reported symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome include:
Other reported symptoms include:
One 2015 study9 pointed out that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is becoming an increasing challenge to the medical profession, which has yet to fully understand its implications, let alone its remedies. Still, the complaints of modern-day hypersensitivities match those reported in the 1970s and '80s by those working with radio and radar equipment and cathode ray tube monitors, which tells us that this is not a brand-new phenomenon. According to the authors:10
As early as 2005, the World Health Organization warned that people have "for some time" reported health problems attributed to EMF exposure, and that some are "so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle."11 The possibility of large portions of the population being unable to work or live as free individuals due to incessant, elevated exposure to EMF is a very real threat to society as we know it. The reality is that there are very few EMF-free zones left on the planet, and such zones will further shrink with the global implementation of 5G. 'EMF*D'I believe EMF exposure is one of the greatest challenges to public health facing us today. If we go back in time to the end of World War I, around 1918 or so, and use that timeframe as a baseline of EMF exposure among the general public, you come to the astonishing conclusion that EMF exposure has increased about 1 quintillion times over the past 100 years. Knowing the impact EMFs can have, it's completely irrational to assume that this radical increase won't have adverse effects. My new book, "EMF*D," is an attempt to inform you about the hidden harms of EMF and what you need to do to protect yourself and those you love. In it, you'll learn:
In my book, I also reveal the reasons why you've been left in the dark about this serious health threat. "EMF*D" comes out February 18, 2020, but you don't need to wait. Preorder your copy today and receive these five bonus gifts immediately:
>>>>> Click Here <<<<< Brain Cancer Is Not the Only, Nor the Major, ConcernWhile a number of studies have shown that cellphone radiation can trigger brain cancer this is not the greatest cause for concern. Your brain does have a far greater density of VGCCs than other organs, but so does your nervous system and heart, as well as male testes. As a result of the elevated density of VGCCs in these areas, EMFs are likely to contribute to neurological and neuropsychiatric problems,12 as well as heart and reproductive problems, including but not limited to cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer's and infertility13,14 and miscarriage15,16,17,18 — and these conditions are far more prevalent than brain cancer. That said, studies have also linked radiofrequency radiation equivalent to that emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones to other forms of cancer, including heart tumors. This includes U.S. government-funded animal studies19 published in 2018 that were further corroborated by the Ramazzini Institute that same year.20 As early as 2011, the evidence was strong enough for the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer research arm of the WHO, to declare cellphones a Group 2B "possible carcinogen."21 I've already mentioned one of the primary mechanisms by which EMFs harm your biology — i.e., the creation of peroxynitrites, which are potent oxidant stressors — but EMFs also damage your health in other ways. For example, the enzyme ATP synthase — which passes currents of protons into the mitochondrial intermembrane space, similar to current passing through a wire — powers the generation energy of the creation of ATP from ADP, using this flow of protons. Magnetic fields can change the transparency of the flow of protons to the mitochondrial intermembrane space, thereby reducing the current. As a result, you get less ATP, which can have system wide consequences, from promoting chronic disease and infertility to lowering intelligence. EMFs may also alter your microbiome, turning what might otherwise be beneficial microbes pathogenic or toxic. This too can have far-ranging health effects, since we now know your microbiome plays an important role in health. 5G Rollout Will Significantly Magnify Health RisksAny and all health ramifications attributed to previous generations of wireless technologies will be exponentially magnified with the rollout of 5G, which is simply being added on top of the already existing wireless infrastructure. This 5th generation technology may also present additional health risks. A main concern with 5G is that it relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave (MMW), which is known to penetrate 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin tissue.22 There's also evidence suggesting sweat ducts in human skin act as antennae when they come in contact with MMWs.23 Many can feel the impact of MMWs as a burning sensation and/or pain, which is precisely why it's used in nonlethal crowd control weapons.24 MMW has also been linked to eye problems, suppressed immune function and altered heart rate variability (an indicator of stress) and arrhythmias.25 In 2015, more than 230 scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of nonionizing EMFs in 41 nations signed an international appeal to the United Nations, calling for protection from nonionizing EMF exposure due to evidence of health effects even at low levels.26 Two years later, more than 180 doctors and scientists from 35 countries signed a petition27 to enact a moratorium on the rollout of 5G due to the potential risks to wildlife and human health. Dr. Mercola Answers Your EMF QuestionsI believe that the risk of EMFs is so important that I’ve decided to answer your questions on this topic in an upcoming video. Please submit any EMF questions you may have by clicking on the button below. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< The earlier I get the questions, the greater the likelihood I will have a chance to include them in my response. Looking forward to answering your questions! Protect Yourself From Excessive EMFThere's no doubt in my mind that EMF exposure is an important lifestyle component that needs to be addressed if you're concerned about your health, which is why I spent three years writing "EMF*D." My aim was to create a comprehensive and informative guide, detailing not only the risks, but also what you can do to mitigate unavoidable exposures. To get you started, see the tips listed in my previous article, "Top 19 Tips to Reduce Your EMF Exposure." If you know or suspect you might already be developing a sensitivity to EMFs (full-blown hypersensitivity can often strike seemingly overnight), mitigating your exposures will be particularly paramount. Many sufferers become obsessed with finding solutions, as the effects can be severely crippling. My book can be a valuable resource in your quest for relief. The EMF Experts website28 also lists EMF groups worldwide, to which you can turn with questions, concerns and support, and EMFsafehome.com29 lists a number of publications where you can learn more about the dangers of EMFs. Should you need help remediating your home, consider hiring a trained building biologist to get it done right. A listing can be found on the International Institute for Building-Biology & Ecology's website.30 from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/22/emf-pollution.aspx BPA was created in 1891; by the 1930s scientists had discovered that the chemical mimics the hormone estrogen in the body. In the 1950s BPA was being used by industry as a chemical to produce strong and often transparent plastic; it’s now known as an endocrine disruptor.1 It took until 2011, however, for the European Union to ban BPA in baby bottles and 2012 before the FDA followed suit.2 According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the chemical is widely used in polycarbonate plastics that are integrated into nearly every industry, including the food industry. Citizen watchdog groups have petitioned the FDA to remove BPA from packaging that comes in contact with food, but their efforts have been thwarted.3 On its website the FDA states that it believes4 “the available information continues to support the safety of BPA for the currently approved uses in food containers and packaging.” Contrary to the FDA’s approach, the EPA5 believes BPA is a “reproductive, developmental and systemic toxicant in animal studies and is weakly estrogenic, there are questions about its potential impact particularly on children's health and the environment.” Researchers noted in a study published in Environmental Health Sciences that, previously, it was believed that exposure to BPA not only occurs mostly through food, but is quickly cleared from the body. But, when they studied BPA in urine from fasting subjects, they discovered the half-life of BPA, or the time it takes for half the amount ingested to be metabolized, is much longer than they’ve thought.6 Since the levels of BPA did not drop as quickly as expected, they theorized that either BPA builds up in body tissue or there is significant nonfood exposure — or both. Independent Tests Show Higher BPA Levels Than PublishedNew information also shows that traditional testing used by governmental agencies may have underestimated your exposure to BPA. One group of researchers7 developed a new test to measure BPA metabolites present after the body begins breaking down the chemical. Following analysis of the data, the authors argued traditional tests used to measure BPA in the body are inaccurate.8 The tests in current use by the FDA indirectly measure the presence of BPA by converting metabolites back to BPA through an enzyme pathway. In their background research, the scientists found:
An expert at Washington State University told Gizmodo the assumption had always been that the original method would be accurate. However, the research team consistently found higher levels of BPA using their testing method. Some levels were measured 44 times higher than estimated by government tests of the same samples. One of the researchers spoke with Gizmodo and said the implications are especially troubling in those with potentially high exposure, as it’s possible current screening programs are completely missing those at high risk. This could make it even more difficult to uncover the extensive health impacts of BPA. While the impact of higher levels is still under investigation, the FDA’s assurances that there is little to worry about is questionable since the scale of exposure may be drastically underestimated. Implications of New Test Method Go Far Beyond BPABPA may be the poster child for toxic chemicals in mainstream media, but the new testing method reveals there could be further implications for other chemicals. After a one-year investigation, Environmental Health News (EHN) found a “willful blindness”9 on the part of the FDA in handling the science behind BPA. They concluded10 regulators could be “operating at the fringes of scientific integrity, possibly with the intent to keep the current testing and regulatory regime intact and to avoid scrutiny.” EHN read hundreds of emails under the Freedom of Information Act. After analyzing the data, they wrote:
The investigative journalists at EHN believe the analysis in the feature study uphold their arguments the FDA testing is woefully inadequate. Laura Vandenberg is a health researcher at the School of Public Health at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. She was not involved in the study, but discussed the results with EHN. As she describes, chemical evaluation may include an assessment of how much of the chemical could be found in consumer products or food that drives exposure. A laboratory assessment is then done based on measurements of human exposure. Vandenberg points out that when exposure assessments are not accurate, it can throw off the entire result. This study highlights the need to standardize the direct measurement of metabolites and may have a significant impact on measurement of other toxic chemicals in the environment. BPA Once Considered for Pharmaceutical HormoneIn the 1930s after it was discovered that BPA mimics the activity of estrogen, it was in the running to be developed into a pharmacological hormone by Big Pharma.11 Instead they chose another synthetic estrogen, diethylstilbestrol (DES), that was prescribed to millions of pregnant women over the next 30 years before its health risks were discovered. BPA was then used in the chemical industry. In 1963 it was approved for food and beverage containers and classified is “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS). The argument was the chemical had been used in consumer products for years without obviously causing damage. Thirty years later in 1993 — the length of time it took the damaging effects of DES to be documented — scientists at Stanford discovered BPA was seeping from lab flasks. It took until 1997, though, for the first studies documenting health damage to be published, after scientists conducted an animal study that demonstrated exposure to tiny amounts of BPA changed the reproductive system and prostate in mice. By 2008 Canada decided enough evidence had been presented to demonstrate that BPA is toxic; it wasn’t long before manufacturers removed it from baby bottles and sippy cups. However, many of the BPA substitutes currently used in products have a similar chemistry to BPA and present similar risks.12 In one comprehensive review of the literature,13 a Colorado researcher found that 75 of 91 studies pointed to a link between BPA and human health. These had to do with negative effects on perinatal and childhood health as well as that of adults. CLARITY May Be Clouding the IssueThe FDA co-led a multimillion-dollar project called Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity, or CLARITY. Launched in 2012, the project ostensibly was to link data from independent researchers with toxicological information held by the government. It took aim at settling the dispute between independent scientists and the government over how BPA affects human health. EHN describes the argument between the two camps as:14
Despite all the evidence and a long list of manufacturing chemicals that are known endocrine disruptors, the FDA still appears reluctant to change its testing methodology, clinging to the idea that BPA poses no health risk, and ignoring the mounting peer-reviewed studies showing the opposite. The truth is FDA’s stance on BPA ignores the results of their own scientific committee established in 1982, which warned of the potential that low concentrations of endocrine-disrupting chemicals were binding to hormone receptors, and that future technology could reveal interference in the endocrine system would have a significant effect on human health. The CLARITY project was a collaborative effort among the FDA and 14 participating academic scientists. It’s a document that was to be used to decide on any changes that might occur to U.S. regulations on BPA. But when a draft report from the results was issued in February 2018, the FDA jumped the gun with a public statement saying BPA is still safe to use — a claim that didn’t go down well with the other collaborators, who were busy putting together an independent review of the data. Cheryl Rosenfeld, University of Missouri biologist and a CLARITY investigator told EHN, “Many of us are not happy with the FDA.” Reduce Your Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting ChemicalsBPA is just one toxic endocrine-disrupting chemical found in food packaging and leaching from plastics into your food. As I’ve mentioned in earlier articles, you may reduce your BPA exposure and potentially the health risks by considering these suggestions:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/22/bpa-exposure.aspx If you've never heard of sewage sludge — a term often used interchangeably with biosolids — you're in for a surprise, as this waste product, which is every bit as unappealing as it sounds, is applied to farmland, gardens, schoolyards, lawns and more across the U.S. The food you eat may very well have come from land treated with sewage sludge, which could have implications for human health and the environment. What exactly is sewage sludge? When wastewater and stormwater enter wastewater treatment facilities, the solid and liquid waste are separated. The solids are "digested" using bacteria, treated, dried and then sent to landfills or used for agricultural purposes as "fertilizer." It may sound shocking, but this practice is allowed and endorsed by the U.S. EPA. It's not only legal but routine to grow food on sewage sludge-treated land, even though the sludge, by definition, can contain any number of toxic chemicals that may not be removed via treatment. The Center for Food Safety explained:1
Applying Sewage Waste to Soil 'Defies Common Sense'In the U.S., 54% of sewage sludge biosolids are used for so-called "beneficial" purposes. Most often this means they're applied to agricultural sites, although small amounts are also applied to forestry sites and reclamation sites, including Superfund and Brownfield lands and urban areas, including park land. Broken down, it's estimated that 36% of biosolids are used for agricultural purposes while 28% end up in landfills and 15% are incinerated.2 The fact is, humans produce a healthy amount of waste — an estimated 300 million pounds of feces are produced daily by Americans alone, for instance. How to dispose of this biosolid sludge is a vexing problem worldwide, so theoretically, turning the waste product into a beneficial product like fertilizer makes sense, assuming it could be thoroughly purified. Therein lies the problem, however. The Guardian quoted former EPA scientist David Lewis, who opposed the use of sewage sludge on cropland. Lewis noted, "Spending billions of dollars to remove hazardous chemicals and biological wastes from water, only to spread them on soil everywhere we live, work and play defies common sense."3 While it's true that sewage sludge contains similar ingredients to synthetic fertilizer, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, it also contains countless other pollutants that are byproducts of modern-day life. As noted by The Guardian:4
It's worth noting that while sewage sludge used to be disposed of primarily by burning it or releasing it into the ocean, this practice was banned over concerns that it would pollute the air and water. But spreading it onto soil has somehow received a safety approval from regulatory agencies,5 including the EPA, which describes them as purely beneficial:6
EPA Identified 352 Pollutants in Sewage SludgeAs part of the Clean Water Act, the EPA must review biosolids standards every two years. Technically speaking, the EPA refers to sewage sludge that has gone through treatment and meets EPA standards for land application as "biosolids." Part of the review includes identifying pollutants that are present. Based on these biennial reviews and three national sewage sludge surveys, the EPA identified 352 pollutants in biosolids,7 including the following:8
In a report from the U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) released November 2018, it's concluded that the EPA is unable to assess the impact of the hundreds of unregulated pollutants applied to land via biosolids on human health and the environment.9 The report was the result of an audit conducted by OIG to determine whether the EPA has controls over the application of biosolids to land in order to protect human and environmental health. OIG concluded that the EPA "lacked the data or risk assessment tools needed to make a determination on the safety of 352 pollutants found in biosolids" and noted that 61 of the identified pollutants are "acutely hazardous, hazardous or priority pollutants in other programs."10 EPA Biosolids Program Not Protecting Public HealthFurther, while the EPA could conduct full risk assessments to gauge biosolids risks, it is not required to do so. Overall, OIG found that the EPA biosolids program was likely not protecting public health and the environment:11
Research from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has also shown household chemicals and drugs are found in biosolids originating from wastewater treatment plants.12 The researchers purchased or obtained nine different biosolids and analyzed them for 87 organic chemicals, finding 55 were detected in measurable amounts and as many as 45 were found in a single sample. Plastics in Sewage SludgeResearchers have also looked into how polyester microfibers may be affecting microorganisms in the soil, especially since sewage sludge is loaded with microfibers.13 They found that the microplastics did, indeed, lead to changes in the soil, including altering the bulk density, water-holding capacity and microbial activity. Writing in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, researchers noted that wastewater treatment plants act as receptors for the "cumulative loading of microplastics." The solids and liquids are separated using a settlement process, which results in the majority of microplastics (MP ending up in sewage sludge. Different methods of treatment affected the end number of particles found in the sludge, but the study found microplastic amounts ranging from 4,196 to 15,385 particles kg–1 (dry weight) in sludge samples.14 The researchers noted, "This study highlights the potential for sewage sludge treatment processes to affect the risk of MP pollution prior to land spreading and may have implications for legislation governing the application of biosolids to agricultural land." Microplastics may act like sponges for contaminants including heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or pathogens, for instance, and may cause harm on a cellular or subcellular level,15 raising serious questions about the risks of exposing soil to them. Indeed, wastewater treatment plants are efficient at removing microplastics from sewage, but they become trapped in the sludge. This helps keep them out of waterways, unless they're applied to agricultural soils (which may run off into waterways). When researchers evaluated 31 fields that had applications of sewage sludge, microplastics were found in the samples at levels ranging from 18 to 41 particles g−1, with a median of 34 particles g−1.16 What's more, the microplastic levels increased on fields with higher rates of sludge applications. "Our results indicate that microplastic counts increase over time where successive sludge applications are performed," the researchers noted, adding, "Sludge is proposed as a primal driver of soil microplastic pollution."17 Sewage Sludge Contaminating FarmsSewage sludge is passed off as a cost-effective fertilizer for farmers, but some have lost their livelihoods after the toxic waste contaminated their farms. One such farmer is Fred Stone in Maine, who applied biosolids to his hayfields intended to feed his dairy cattle for decades, not knowing it could be contaminated with PFAS, chemicals associated with cancer, liver damage, low birth weight and hypothyroidism. Milk from Stone's cows later tested positive for PFAS, forcing him to dump hundreds of gallons of milk a day.18 In March 2019, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection added a requirement to test sewage sludge for PFAS before it's applied to land.19 This is just the tip of the iceberg, as long-term application of sewage sludge also increases the abundance and diversity of antibiotic resistance genes in soil.20 In a study from the University of York in the United Kingdom, data even revealed plants suffer when biosolids are applied to the soil.21 Even with low-level exposure, the drugs studied interfered with plant hormones that support defense against predators and diseases. The drugs also damaged the plants' ability to make energy from sunlight, and at higher concentrations the research team saw a drop in the leaves' levels of chlorophyll. At high concentrations, the plants experienced stunted roots and burnt edges on the leaves. How to Avoid BiosolidsFoods grown on biosolid-treated soil are not labeled as such, so your best bet for avoiding them is to support sustainable agriculture movements in your area. Make it a point to only buy food from a source you know and trust — one using safe, nontoxic organic or biodynamic farming methods. If you grow your own food, also be aware that companies do not have to disclose when biosolids are used, so there's really no way of knowing what's in your bag of potting soil or compost. Composted products can have the USDA organic label on them and still be loaded with toxic biosolids. If you see "milogranite" on the label, it contains biosolids from the City of Milwaukee — a national distributor. Your best bet is to buy organic potting soil and/or compost from a local nursery you know and trust, that can guarantee no biosolids have been added. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/21/sewage-sludge.aspx As discussed in my November 5, 2019, article, “Trojan Horse of Measles — More Vaccines With the Mandate,” while most state legislation targeting vaccination mandates have focused on measles, what tends to get lost in the debate is that these mandatory vaccination laws are likely to be extended to all vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and any number of vaccines licensed and recommended by the federal government in the future. In other words, measles outbreaks and the fear-mongering by exaggerating disease risks and minimizing vaccine risks are being cleverly used to create propaganda to eliminate the legal right to make vaccine choices across the board. As just one example, in “Trojan Horse of Measles,” I discuss how a bill has been introduced in New York that requires children to be vaccinated against HPV in order to attend day care and public school. This, despite the incredible health risks associated with the HPV vaccine and its low benefit-to-risk ratio,1 not to mention the fact that it has never been proven to lower cancer rates. On the contrary, emerging data suggest the incidence of cervical cancer increased in Sweden after HPV vaccine was recommended for all girls and women aged 9 to 26 years. Scientific evidence of an increase in the incidence of HPV-related cervical cancer in Sweden between 2006 and 20152 was published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in 2018. The study raised questions about whether women are at increased risk for cervical cancer if they are vaccinated after they have been infected with HPV, which is an asymptomatic viral infection that is cleared from the body within two years by more than 90 percent of women and men.3 The study was retracted a few weeks after it was published. The retraction was not due to falsification of data, but because the scientist who wrote the study used a pseudonym and false affiliation due to fear he would be harmed for publishing his findings. As explained in the retraction statement by the publisher:4
Chairman and chief legal counsel for Children's Health Defense Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in “The Plaintiff’s Science Day Presentation on Gardasil,” that Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil “has distinguished itself as the most dangerous vaccine ever invented." In his presentation, Kennedy reveals Merck data showing Gardasil increases the overall risk of death by 370%, risk of autoimmune disease by 2.3% and risk of a serious medical condition by 50%. A 2018 study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health5 found that women who received HPV vaccinations suffered higher rates of infertility. According to this study, “if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million." After “skeptic” critics of scientific evidence that vaccines have significant health risks publicly attacked the study, the paper was withdrawn by the publisher.6 A 2014 case report paper7 described cases of three adolescent girls who suffered premature ovarian insufficiency after their HPV vaccinations — a condition that can render them incapable of bearing children in the future. Conveniently, Merck, maker of Gardasil, is also “the world market leader in fertility treatments,” according to the European Pharmaceutical Review.8 Media and Public Health Agencies Are Letting Us DownUnfortunately, our media no longer fulfill their public duty. Rather than presenting both sides of an argument, most mainstream media now act as mouthpieces for pharmaceutical industry propaganda, and this is particularly true where vaccines are concerned. Public health agencies are also falling short of their duty, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included, which for years has lied about accepting funds from corporations making and selling drugs and vaccines. Several watchdog groups are now petitioning the CDC to cease making false disclaimers about not accepting commercial support, and to retroactively acknowledge conflicts of interest. Another lawsuit, filed by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) in 2018 against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, revealed the HHS — in violation of federal law — has not provided a single required biannual vaccine safety report to Congress since 1988.9 As noted by ICAN founder Del Bigtree:10
Vaccine Science Is Not Being Reported HonestlyA 2018 article11 in The BMJ highlights the media’s influence over vaccine policy and how journalists are misleading the public about vaccine safety and effectiveness. The article, “Reporting Flu Vaccine Science,” written by freelance journalist Rob Wipond, notes:
Among the “muted” press coverage cited by Wipond is The Washington Post’s report13 on the study, written by Lena Sun, which significantly downplayed the findings and urged pregnant women to continue getting their annual flu shot. This isn’t surprising considering Sun was one of three journalists hand-selected by the CDC to get exclusive early access to the findings, knowing she could be trusted to report on the study in a way that would minimize influenza vaccine risks so pregnant women would be persuaded to get a flu shot during every pregnancy.14,15 Hypocrisy and Double StandardsIn a reply to Wipond’s article, retired pediatrician Allan S. Cunningham seconds many of Wipond’s concerns, stating:16
Why You Cannot Trust The Washington PostWashington Post reporter Lena Sun has published a number of patently false claims about vaccines,18 and has attacked me personally for making fully referenced and scientifically provable statements about vaccine risks and the fact that maintaining adequate vitamin D levels has been shown to be effective in preventing respiratory infections, even more effective than the flu vaccine. In a November 21, 2019, article,19 journalist Jeremy Hammond details four instances that exemplify how Sun has lied about vaccine safety. To repeat but one, Sun has stated that:20
As noted by Hammond, this is “a brazen lie,” as published papers21 and even committees at the Institute of Medicine22 (which the CDC considers an authoritative source) have warned about the complete lack of such testing, and the fact that there not only is inadequate scientific evidence to prove safety of the CDC’s birth to age 6 childhood vaccination schedule, but that the synergistic effects of giving multiple vaccines to infants and children has not been adequately studied. Flu Vaccination Increases Risk of Pandemic FluNew York, New Jersey and other states have introduced bills to mandate Influenza vaccines for children and adults,23 while the mainstream media continues to ignore evidence that routine flu vaccination increases risks for influenza infections during pandemic outbreaks. A study24 published in the Journal of Virology in 2011 pointed out that:
The study’s authors note that long-term annual vaccination, in turn, “may render young children who have not previously been infected with an influenza virus more susceptible to infection with a pandemic influenza virus of a novel subtype.” In simpler terms, while naturally experiencing and recovering from type A influenza can provide immunity against other subtypes of the influenza virus, it appears that vaccination does not do that, making previously vaccinated children more susceptible to pandemic flu strains. (Pandemic influenza is when a new influenza A virus appears that spreads easily among individuals and spreads globally.25) Other studies linking annual flu vaccination with increased risk of illness are listed in my March 2019 article “Is the Flu Vaccine Really ‘Working Well’ This Year?” Influenza Vaccine Is Vastly OversoldMainstream media outlets also will not admit that Pharma bias compromises the results of most vaccine studies. Yet the presence of such bias was clearly highlighted in a 2010 study26 by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, in which they assessed the effectiveness of flu vaccines in preventing influenza and complications in healthy adults and included a clear warning:
Does Vitamin D Outperform Flu Vaccine?According to reporter Sun of The Washington Post, I lie when I say that maintaining adequate vitamin D levels outperforms the flu vaccine, yet published studies have come to this exact conclusion and the results have been published by other mainstream reporters. For example, in 2017, BBC News reported27 the findings of a systematic review28 published in The BMJ, which concluded that vitamin D supplementation protected against acute respiratory tract infection. The number needed to treat (NNT) was 33, meaning 33 people had to take the supplement in order to prevent a single case of infection. Among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, the NNT was 4. As reported by BBC News,29 “That is more effective than flu vaccination, which needs to treat 40 to prevent one case,30 although flu is far more serious than the common cold.” The BBC actually downplays the findings when it says “flu is far more serious than the common cold,” because the NNT of 40 that BBC News cites refers to the overall effectiveness of inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI), which the World Health Organization defines31 as “an acute respiratory infection.” (About 80 percent of all lab tested ILI cases do not test positive for A or B influenza but are caused by other types of viral and bacterial infections.)32 In other words, comparing the NNT of 33 for vitamin D with 40 for the flu vaccine is entirely accurate and appropriate as far as ILI or acute respiratory infection is concerned. According to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews cited by the BBC, to prevent one case of confirmed influenza, the NNT for inactivated vaccines was 71.33 The Harvard Gazette also published the findings of that BMJ study under the headline, “Study Confirms Vitamin D Protects Against Colds and Flu.”34 The Link Between Influenza and Vitamin DThe association between low vitamin D levels and influenza has been recognized for some time (although low vitamin D levels may not be the sole factor responsible for the seasonality increases of influenza and ILI35). As noted in “Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin D,” published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection in 2006:36
Similarly, a 2010 study37 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that “vitamin D3 supplementation during the winter may reduce the incidence of influenza A” in schoolchildren, especially those “who had not been taking other vitamin D supplements and who started nursery school after age 3.” A 2009 systematic review38 of randomized controlled trials in which supplemental vitamin D was assessed for its ability to prevent or treat various infectious diseases found that the strongest evidence supporting the use of vitamin D existed for tuberculosis, influenza and viral upper respiratory tract illnesses. In 2018, a randomized, controlled clinical trial39 published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal found that infants receiving high doses of vitamin D who went on to develop influenza had significantly shorter duration of illness compared to those who received a lower dosage. According to the authors, “High-dose vitamin D (1200 IU) is suitable for the prevention of seasonal influenza as evidenced by rapid relief from symptoms, rapid decrease in viral loads and disease recovery.” A shortcoming of many (if not most) studies looking at vitamin D’s effects on preventing ILI and/or influenza is that they focus on dosage rather than blood levels, and we now know that it’s achieving a certain blood level that matters, not how much vitamin D it takes to get there. Most studies also use dosages around 1,000 or 2,000 IU’s a day, which are unlikely to raise blood levels of vitamin D to any significant degree. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/21/mandatory-flu-vaccine.aspx Just as important for your health as what you eat is what you drink. Hopefully, everyone who reads my newsletters is drinking plenty of pure water a day and completely abstaining from soda. Around the world, coffee and tea are, after water, the most common beverages people consume and that is a good thing. Unlike soda, which has many negative health effects, both organic coffee and tea are leading sources of antioxidant polyphenols, which are beneficial substances. Scientific research has linked coffee to a lower risk of heart failure and stroke,1 as well as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, cirrhosis, diabetes and some types of cancer.2 Another study showed that it may be associated with a lower risk of cognitive disorders.3 Tea is also a healthy beverage linked to impressive benefits. Writing in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology,4 researchers found that drinking tea at least three times a week is linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death. "The favorable health effects are the most robust for green tea and for long-term habitual tea drinkers," added Xinyan Wang of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China, the study's first author, about the research.5 More Reasons to Drink a Much-Loved BeverageCardiovascular disease is the world's leading cause of premature death, write the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology researchers, and tea is one of the world's most widely consumed beverages, especially in Asia. The aim of the study was to examine the association between atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and all-cause mortality and tea drinking.6 Results from observing 100,902 participants in the study over a period of years found that habitual tea drinkers lived 1.26 years longer than their counterparts. They were also free from ASCVD for 1.41 years longer than their non-tea drinking counterparts.7 To ensure scientific validity, 1,896 study participants were excluded because they had a history of ASCVD or cancer and 2,465 were excluded because information about their tea drinking habits was lacking. While there have been medical studies about tea drinking and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD), this study added new information to what is known, say the scientists:8
Green Tea Led Benefits in the StudyIn the study, not all participants drank the same kind of tea. Forty-nine percent of habitual tea drinkers who participated consumed green tea, while only 8% drank black tea and the remainder, 43%, drank scented or other types of tea.9 Green tea, it turns out, was the most healthful of the tested teas.
There are other reasons black tea may not be as beneficial, speculates SciTech Today:11
Black tea also has almost five times the caffeine content of green tea, which is important for those seeking to reduce their caffeine consumption to realize (although in some cases, caffeine may be beneficial). It is also known to stain the teeth.12 Previous Tea Studies Have Shown Other BenefitsTea, particularly green tea, has been linked with other health benefits. In one study of prostate cancer (PCa), the second most frequently diagnosed cancer, the journal Medicine, Baltimore, wrote that "there was a trend of reduced incidence of PCa with each 1 cup/day increase of green tea."13
A 2017 study in the journal Nutrition and Cancer14 found a significant inverse dose-response association between green tea drinking and liver cancer risk. That inverse association increased with years of green tea drinking and when four cups a day of green tea were consumed. Studies have also associated green tea with reduced risk of depression,15 obesity,16 stroke17 and bone thinning,18 and improvements to vision.19 A central reason for green tea's benefits is its catechin epigallocatechin-3-gallate, which helps your arteries relax and improves blood fIow.20 To receive more benefits from the catechins found in teas, which are natural phenol and antioxidant compounds, you can add a squeeze of fresh lemon juice, which will help absorption.21 However, beware of nonorganic teas that are grown in polluted environments — they can contain heavy metals or fluoride, which could lead to skeletal fluorosis. Instant tea may also contain excessive fluoride.22 Teas May Also Increase LongevityAn epidemiological project called Blue Zones seeks to document and analyze the lifestyle particulars found in communities that have the highest number of people who live past 100. Here is what National Public Radio reported:23
More Teas With Health BenefitsBlack and green tea are probably the teas that are studied the most frequently, but oolong, dark and white teas also have benefits. Like black and green tea, they come from the plant known as Camellia sinensis, although hibiscus tea, described below, does not. • Oolong tea -- This tea is great for weight management and heart health: The polyphenols in oolong tea help control fat metabolism in your body by activating certain enzymes. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Nutrition found that participants who ingested either full-strength or diluted oolong tea burned 2.9% to 3.4% more total calories daily.24 • Hibiscus tea -- High in vitamin C, minerals and antioxidants, tea made from hibiscus sabdariffa (also called Sudan tea, sour tea and roselle) has benefits for overall health. Studies suggest it may improve blood pressure, help prevent metabolic syndrome, protect your liver and even provide anticancer effects.25 In a study in the journal ARYA Atherosclerosis, consumption of tea made from hibiscus sabdariffa led to a decrease in systolic blood pressure in healthy men compared with the placebo.26 • Matcha -- Matcha is a type of green tea, but unlike regular green tea, in which you steep and discard the leaves, when you drink matcha you consume the entire leaves, which are ground micron fine. Studies indicate that 1 cup of matcha may provide the antioxidant equivalent of 3 cups of regular green tea and as much as 137 times more antioxidants than low-grade green tea.27 • Darjeeling -- Made from the Chinese variety of Camellia sinensis, darjeeling tea contains two complex antioxidants called theaflavins and thearubigins that help neutralize harmful free radicals, and potentially reduce free radical damage that can target cell membranes and DNA, and raise your risk for chronic illness. There are more coffee drinkers than tea drinkers in the U.S., yet the varieties and benefits of tea are worth exploring and making part of your diet. People who drink tea are enjoying many health benefits as they also partake of an enjoyable and comforting beverage. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/20/drinking-tea-health-benefits.aspx 1 Which of the following spices is a gum resin with an offensive rotten smell that gives a lovely umami taste to many Indian and other savory dishes?
2 Which of the following U.S. agencies is responsible for regulating cannabidiol (CBD) and dictates its legal status on the federal level?
3 Just as nutritional deficiencies can cause severe problems, so can certain excesses. Which of the following has been shown to encourage cancer, heart disease, diabetes, neurodegeneration and more, when your levels are too high?
4 Which of the following has been identified as contributing to the opioid crisis in the U.S.?
5 Which of the following exercise strategies has been shown to effectively lower stress and anxiety, improve cognition and reduce body image dissatisfaction?
6 Which of the following health benefits have been linked to regular sauna use?
7 Lactic acid tolerance refers to your body's ability to:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/20/week-113-health-quiz.aspx When it comes to heart health, one of the most influential nutrients is magnesium. While required for the healthy function of most cells in your body, magnesium is particularly important for your heart, kidneys and muscles. As far back as 1937, researchers warned that low magnesium levels pose serious risks to the heart, and that it may actually be the most significant predictor of heart disease.1 More recent research suggests even subclinical magnesium deficiency can compromise your cardiovascular health.2 Importantly, your mitochondria require magnesium to produce ATP. It's also required for the metabolic function of your cells and the activation of vitamin D.3,4 All of these are important for healthy heart function. It also supports heart health by relaxing your blood vessels, normalizing blood pressure, lowering inflammation and supporting endothelial function (the cells' lining the interior of your blood vessels).5 Hard Water Linked to Better Heart HealthTo celebrate its 175th anniversary, Scientific American recently took a look back into its archives, publishing a short summary of research presented in its June 1969 issue:6
By reviewing the death certificates of 55,000 individuals who died from heart-related issues in Ontario during 1967, and then correlating the deaths according to the hardness of the local water supply, the Canadian researchers were able to conclude that people drinking soft water on a regular basis were more susceptible to lethal arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat). What might explain this curious correlation? One theory has focused on the magnesium level found in the water.8 Soft water is lower in magnesium than hard water, thus making you more prone to magnesium deficiency. (The very definition of hard water is that it contains a high concentration of dissolved metals — calcium and magnesium in particular.9,10) According to a 2002 study,11 magnesium-rich mineral water can contribute between 6% and 17% of your total daily magnesium intake. That said, a 2013 paper12 in the International Journal of Preventive Medicine points out that the exact mechanisms responsible for the relationship often found between harder water and lower cardiovascular risk has yet to be ascertained. The higher magnesium level in hard water appears to be a promising hypothesis, though, and several studies point to magnesium-rich water being an important factor. As noted in the International Journal of Preventive Medicine, which cites a number of such studies (as well as some in which this relationship was not found):13
Even Subclinical Magnesium Deficiency Can Be ProblematicAs mentioned, magnesium supports heart health through a number of different mechanisms.14 For starters, it combats inflammation, which helps prevent high blood pressure and hardening of your arteries. It also improves blood flow by relaxing your arteries and preventing your blood from thickening. Magnesium also plays a role in the creation of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the energy currency of your body.15,16 Needless to say, without sufficient energy, cellular functions throughout your body will suffer, creating a cascade of dysfunction. Your heart in particular, being a very heavy energy user, needs sufficient amounts of ATP to function properly. Magnesium also affects your mitochondrial function and health, as it's required both for increasing the number of mitochondria in your cells and for increasing mitochondrial efficiency. Basic effects such as these can account for why magnesium insufficiency has been linked to a higher risk for high blood pressure,17 cardiovascular disease, arrhythmias, stroke18 and sudden cardiac death.19 A 2018 paper20 in the Open Heart journal also warns that even subclinical deficiency can result in heart problems, and that most people need at least 300 milligrams more magnesium per day than the current recommended dietary allowance prescribes. According to the authors:
The theory that we may need more magnesium than is currently recognized is also supported by a 2016 meta-analysis,21 in which all-cause mortality was lowered by 10% simply by increasing magnesium intake by 100 mg per day. Magnesium Is Important for Brain Health TooMagnesium is also important for brain health and the prevention of dementia. Memory impairment occurs when the connections (synapses) between brain cells diminish. While many factors can come into play, magnesium is an important one. As noted by Dr. David Perlmutter, a neurologist and fellow of the American College of Nutrition:22
The specific brain benefits of magnesium threonate were demonstrated in a 2010 study23 published in the journal Neuron, which found this form of magnesium enhanced "learning abilities, working memory, and short- and long-term memory in rats." According to the authors:24
Magnesium is also a well-recognized stress reliever,25 and by catalyzing mood-regulating neurotransmitters like serotonin, it helps prevent anxiety and depression.26 Research27 published in 2015 found a significant association between very low magnesium intake and depression, especially in younger adults. A study28 published in PLOS ONE demonstrated magnesium supplementation improved mild-to-moderate depression in adults, with beneficial effects occurring within two weeks of treatment. How to Assess Your Magnesium StatusWhen it comes to measuring your magnesium level, your best bet is an RBC magnesium test, which measures the amount of magnesium in your red blood cells. Tracking any symptoms of magnesium deficiency is also recommended, as your need may be higher or lower depending on your lifestyle and health status. Common signs and symptoms of magnesium insufficiency include but are not limited to the following.29,30 A more exhaustive symptom's list can be found in Dr. Carolyn Dean's blog post, "Gauging Magnesium Deficiency Symptoms."31
The "Trousseau sign"32 can also be used to assess your magnesium status. To check for this sign, a blood pressure cuff is inflated around your arm. The pressure should be greater than your systolic blood pressure and maintained for three minutes. By occluding the brachial artery in your arm, spasms in your hand and forearm muscles are induced. If you are magnesium deficient, the lack of blood flow will cause your wrist and metacarpophalangeal joint to flex and your fingers to adduct. For a picture of this hand/wrist position, see Figure 1 in the paper "Trousseau Sign in Hypocalcemia."33 Would You Benefit From Magnesium Supplementation?A number of studies suggest magnesium insufficiency or deficiency are extremely common, both among adults34 and teens,35 in part due to the fact that most people eat a plant-deficient diet. Magnesium is actually part of the chlorophyll molecule responsible for the plant's green color. However, even if you eat plenty of greens, you may still not get enough, thanks to most soils being so depleted of minerals. Your body's ability to absorb magnesium is also dependent on having sufficient amounts of selenium, parathyroid hormone and vitamins B6 and D. Absorption is further hindered by excess ethanol, salt, coffee and phosphoric acid in soda, and things like sweating, stress, lack of sleep, excessive menstruation, certain drugs (especially diuretics and proton-pump inhibitors), insulin resistance and intense exercise can deplete your body of magnesium.36,37 Research shows just six to 12 weeks of strenuous physical activity can result in magnesium deficiency,38 likely due to increased magnesium demand in your skeletal muscle. For all of these reasons, most people probably need to take supplemental magnesium. The RDA for magnesium is around 310 to 420 mg per day depending on your age and sex,39 but many experts believe you may need a minimum of 600 mg per day.40 I suspect many may benefit from amounts as high as 1 to 2 grams (1,000 to 2,000 mg) of elemental magnesium per day, as the extra magnesium may also help mitigate unavoidable exposures to electromagnetic fields (thanks to its calcium channel blocking effect). To learn more about this, see my previous article on how to reduce EMF exposure. You can easily improve your magnesium status with an oral magnesium supplement. My personal preference is magnesium threonate, as it appears to be the most efficient at penetrating cell membranes, including your mitochondria and blood-brain barrier. You can learn more about this in "Cognitive Benefits of Magnesium L-Threonate." Magnesium Testing Is a Valuable Health ScreenConsidering the importance of magnesium for good health — including cognition and heart health — it's a good idea to measure your level. GrassrootsHealth Nutrient Research Institute, which has spearheaded research into vitamin D and omega-3, now also offers low-cost testing for magnesium. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< Like its vitamin D and omega-3 projects, the Magnesium*PLUS Focus Project41 aims to identify the ideal dosage and level, the specific health outcomes associated with magnesium deficiency and sufficiency, the dose-response relationships and much more. As noted by GrassrootsHealth:42
Adding the "Plus Elements" test to this magnesium test will also measure your selenium, zinc and copper levels, important trace elements that interact with magnesium, as well as three toxic heavy metals (lead, cadmium and mercury) that can interfere with and block availability of these essential elements. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/20/magnesium-linked-to-better-heart-health.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |