Giveaway- DVD of Cooking Gluten-Free RT for extra entries

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Cooking Gluten-Free DVD Giveaway!

Since I mentioned that Karen Robertson's book Cooking Gluten-Free is now out in a new revised 3rd edition I have had many questions asked about the DVD.

Like- does it include Amaranth? YES!

Does it include Buckwheat? YUP!

Teff? YES! and Quinoa too.

Best of all, the disc allows you to print a PDF of any page you like, so you can enjoy the printed page to splatter just like your favorite cookbook.

Karen has generously sent me a disc to giveaway to one lucky reader.

How to enter?

There are 3 ways to enter:

1. let me know below one reason why you want this DVD in your home by leaving a comment.

2. You can get another entry by Tweeting on Twitter, use the hashtag #gfdoctor giveaway

Then another comment with your Twitter name- feel free to put a space in after the @ symbol since I hate spam as much as you do.

3. You can get a third entry by posting on Facebook-just come back and post the link here.

I will close the giveaway on Tuesday November 3^rd at 9pm PST and use

http://www.random.org/ to choose the lucky winner.

Please be sure to leave an email so I can reach you if you win.

I will notify the lucky person on Wednesday November 4^th.

Rules can be found here, for the lawyerly types.

via glutenfreeorganics.blogspot.com

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Th1 vs Th2 - yet another geeky chart

Th1 vs. Th2 cells

---

Upon activation, naïve Th cells become Th0, since they have both Th1 and Th2 characteristics. With further stimulation Th0 cells deviate either towards Th1 or Th2. Th1 and Th2 cells are classified based
on the pattern of cytokines that they secrete (see table below). If the Th cell secretes mainly IL2 and INF-g, it is termed a Th1 cell. If the T cell secretes mainly IL4, IL10, and IL13 it is termed a Th2 cell.

 

 

 

Different patterns of Cytokine secretion by Th0, Th1 and Th2 cells

ThP	Th0	Th1	Th2
IL-2	IL-2	IL-2	.
.	IL-3	IL-3	.
.	IL-4	.	IL-4
.	IL-5	.	IL-5
.	IL-6	.	IL-6
.	IL-10	.	IL-10
.	.	.	.
.	IL-13	.	IL-13
.	INF-gamma	INF-gamma	.
.	TNF-alpha	TNF-alpha	.
.	TNF-beta	TNF-beta	TNF-beta
.	GM-CSF	GM-CSF	GM-CSF

 

   NOTE:     -    ThP is a primary activated naive Th cell. It secretes IL-2 only.
                         IL-2 is required for T cell mitosis.
                    -     IL-2 is unique to Th0 and Th1.
                    -     IL-4 is unique to Th0 and Th2.  

                -    For a list of Cytokines function  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

• The initial critical stimulators that favor Th1 vs. Th2 responses are largely unknown. Some proposed determining factors are: 
  A.    Nature of the antigen: Intracellular viral antigens favor Th1 and extracellular bacterial antigens favor Th2.
  B.    Concentration of antigen: Low conc. favors Th1 and high conc. favors Th2.
  C.    Presence of NK and Macrophages derived cytokines.
          Macrophages can produce IL-12 (NK activator) or TGF-beta (Th inhibitor).
          NK cells can produce INF-gamma (Th2 inhibitor).

• Different cytokines activate different arms of the immune system. Th1 cytokines activate macrophages, NK cells, and cell mediate immunity (CMI), plus the secretion of certain Ig isotypes. Th2 cytokines tend to favor isotype switching in the humoral immune response. In addition, Th2 cytokines depress macrophage activation and CMI.

via sprojects.mmi.mcgill.ca

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Cytokine chart- for fellow geeks who really like to study their immunology

Cytokine	Sources	Principal Activities
IL-1	Activated Macrophages	Pyrogen (cause fever). Activates Endothelial cells. Stimulatory to T-Cells. Enhances activity of NK cells. Provides a competence signal         to allow B-Cell growth.
IL-2	Th1 & Tc cells	T cell proliferation and differentiation. Macrophages, NK, & Tc cell activation. Th1 autocrine growth factor.
IL-4	Th2 cells	B cell proliferation and differentiation, Ig isotype switching (IgE). Increases MHC-II on B-Cells. Th2 autocrine growth factor.
IL-5	Th2 cells	B cell proliferation/differentiation, Ig isotype switching (IgA) Eosinophils proliferation & differentiation
IL-6	Activated Mactophages, T &  B cells	Pyrogen. Promotes terminal differentiation   of B cells into plasma cells. Hepatocytes: promotes Acute   Phase Response
IL-8	Activated Macrophages	Chemotactic factor for many immune system cells.
IL-10	Th2 cells	Inhibition of Th1 cytokine synthesis. APC: down regulates MHC-II expression
IL-12	Macrophages	Promotes CTL activities. Activate NK cells
IL-13	T-Helper cells	Inhibit inflammatory response.
TNF-a	T cells, NK cells  & Macrophages	Pyrogen. Activates Endothelial cells. PMN & Macrophages activation. Increases MHC-I expression. Acute Phase Response. Cachexia & Shock.
INF-g	Th1 cells, NK cells.	Macrophage activation, Induction of MHC-I & -II expression. NK cell activation. Inhibits Th2 activity.

via sprojects.mmi.mcgill.ca

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Does the Vaccine Matter? - The Atlantic (November 2009) And for yet another perspective on vaccines

Does the Vaccine Matter?

Article Tools

sponsored by:

	E-mail Article
	Printer Format

Image credit: Jason Reed/Reuters/Corbis

Drive too fast along Red Lion Road, beside Philadelphia’s Northeast Airport, and you will miss the low-rise cement building where the biotech company MedImmune has been quietly pumping out swine flu vaccine at about a million doses a week. Through the summer and fall, workers wearing protective gear that covered them from head to toe brewed up batches of live, genetically modified flu virus. Robots then injected tiny doses of virus-laden fluid into glass vials, which were mounted into nasal spritzers, labeled, and readied for shipment at the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, which is helping to coordinate the nation’s pandemic-preparedness plan. In the most ambitious vaccination program the nation has mounted since the anti-polio campaign in the 1950s, the federal government has commissioned MedImmune and four other companies to produce enough vaccine to cover the entire U.S. population.

Vaccination is central to the government’s plan for preventing deaths from swine flu. The CDC has recommended that some 159 million adults and children receive either a swine flu shot or a dose of MedImmune’s nasal vaccine this year. Shots are offered in doctors’ offices, hospitals, airports, pharmacies, schools, polling places, shopping malls, and big-box stores like Wal-Mart. In August, New York state required all health-care workers to get both seasonal and swine flu shots. To further protect the populace, the federal government has spent upwards of $3billion stockpiling millions of doses of antiviral drugs like Tamiflu—which are being used both to prevent swine flu and to treat those who fall ill.

Also see:

Q&A: “Facts About Swine Flu”

The authors answer practical questions about H1N1 diagnosis and immunity.

But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government—with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities—has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

The term influenza, which dates back to the Middle Ages, is taken from the Italian word for occult or astral influence. Then as now, flu seemed to appear out of nowhere each winter, debilitating or killing large numbers of people, only to vanish in the spring. Today, seasonal flu is estimated to kill about 36,000 people in the United States each year, and half a million worldwide.

Yet the flu, in many important respects, remains mysterious. Determining how many deaths it really causes, or even who has it, is no simple matter. We think we have the flu anytime we fall ill with an ailment that brings on headache, malaise, fever, coughing, sneezing, and that achy feeling as if we’ve been sleeping on a bed of rocks, but researchers have found that at most half, and perhaps as few as 7 or 8 percent, of such cases are actually caused by an influenza virus in any given year. More than 200 known viruses and other pathogens can cause the suite of symptoms known as “influenza-like illness”; respiratory syncytial virus, bocavirus, coronavirus, and rhinovirus are just a few of the bugs that can make a person feel rotten. And depending on the season, in up to two-thirds of the cases of flu-like illness, no cause at all can be found.

Nobody knows precisely why we are much more likely to catch the flu in the winter months than at other times of the year. Perhaps it’s because flu viruses flourish in cool temperatures and are killed by exposure to sunlight. Or maybe it’s because in winter, people spend more time indoors, where a sneeze or a cough can more easily spread a virus to others. What is certain is that influenza viruses mutate with amazing speed, so each flu season sees slightly different genetic versions of the viruses that infected people the year before. Every year, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collect data from 94 nations on the flu viruses that circulated the previous year, and then make an educated guess about which viruses are likely to circulate in the coming fall. Based on that information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues orders to manufacturers in February for a vaccine that includes the three most likely strains.

Every once in a while, however, a very different bug pops up and infects far more people than the normal seasonal flu variants do. It is these novel viruses that are responsible for pandemics, defined by the World Health Organization as events that occur when “a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity” and which can sweep around the world in a very short time. The worst flu pandemic in recorded history was the “Spanish flu” of 1918–19, at the end of World WarI. A third of the world’s population was infected, with at least 40million and perhaps as many as 100million people dying—more than were killed in World Wars I and II combined. (Some scholars suggest that one reason World WarI ended was that so many soldiers were sick or dying from flu.) Since then, two other flu pandemics have occurred, in 1957 and 1968, neither of which was particularly lethal.

In August, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology projected that this fall and winter, the swine flu, H1N1, could infect anywhere between one-third and one-half of the U.S. population and could kill as many as 90,000 Americans, two and a half times the number killed in a typical flu season. But precisely how deadly, or even how infectious, this year’s H1N1 pandemic will turn out to be won’t be known until it’s over. Most reports coming from the Southern Hemisphere in late August (the end of winter there) suggested that the swine flu is highly infectious, but not particularly lethal. For example, Australian officials estimated they would finish winter with under 1,000 swine flu deaths—fewer than the usual 1,500 to 3,000 from seasonal flu. Among those who have died in the U.S., about 70 percent were already suffering from congenital conditions like cerebral palsy or underlying illnesses such as cancer, asthma, or AIDS, which make people more vulnerable.

Public-health officials consider vaccine their most formidable defense against the pandemic—indeed, against any flu—and on the surface, their faith seems justified. Vaccines developed over the course of the 20th century slashed the death rates of nearly a dozen infectious diseases, such as smallpox and polio, and vaccination became one of medicine’s most potent weapons. Influenza virus was first identified in the 1930s, and by the mid-1940s, researchers had produced a vaccine that was given to soldiers in World WarII. The U.S. government got serious about promoting flu vaccine after the 1957 flu pandemic brought home influenza’s continuing potential to cause widespread illness and death. Today, flu vaccine is a staple of public-health policy; in a normal year, some 100 million Americans get vaccinated.

But while vaccines for, say, whooping cough and polio clearly and dramatically reduced death rates from those diseases, the impact of flu vaccine has been harder to determine. Flu comes and goes with the seasons, and often it does not kill people directly, but rather contributes to death by making the body more susceptible to secondary infections like pneumonia or bronchitis. For this reason, researchers studying the impact of flu vaccination typically look at deaths from all causes during flu season, and compare the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Such comparisons have shown a dramatic difference in mortality between these two groups: study after study has found that people who get a flu shot in the fall are about half as likely to die that winter—from any cause—as people who do not. Get your flu shot each year, the literature suggests, and you will dramatically reduce your chance of dying during flu season.

Yet in the view of several vaccine skeptics, this claim is suspicious on its face. Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S., even among senior citizens, and even after adding in the deaths to which flu might have contributed indirectly. When researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases included all deaths from illnesses that flu aggravates, like lung disease or chronic heart failure, they found that flu accounts for, at most, 10 percent of winter deaths among the elderly. So how could flu vaccine possibly reduce total deaths by half? Tom Jefferson, a physician based in Rome and the head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence, says: “For a vaccine to reduce mortality by 50 percent and up to 90 percent in some studies means it has to prevent deaths not just from influenza, but also from falls, fires, heart disease, strokes, and car accidents. That’s not a vaccine, that’s a miracle.”

The estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction is based on “cohort studies,” which compare death rates in large groups, or cohorts, of people who choose to be vaccinated, against death rates in groups who don’t. But people who choose to be vaccinated may differ in many important respects from people who go unvaccinated—and those differences can influence the chance of death during flu season. Education, lifestyle, income, and many other “confounding” factors can come into play, and as a result, cohort studies are notoriously prone to bias. When researchers crunch the numbers, they typically try to factor out variables that could bias the results, but, as Jefferson remarks, “you can adjust for the confounders you know about, not for the ones you don’t,” and researchers can’t always anticipate what factors are likely to be important to whether a patient dies from flu. There is always the chance that they might miss some critical confounder that renders their results entirely wrong.

When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. “People told me, ‘No good can come of [asking] this,’” she says. “‘Potentially a lot of bad could happen’ for me professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from getting vaccinated, because of course, ‘We know that vaccine works.’ This was the prevailing wisdom.”

Nonetheless, in 2004, Jackson and three colleagues set out to determine whether the mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated might be caused by a phenomenon known as the “healthy user effect.” They hypothesized that on average, people who get vaccinated are simply healthier than those who don’t, and thus less liable to die over the short term. People who don’t get vaccinated may be bedridden or otherwise too sick to go get a shot. They may also be more likely to succumb to flu or any other illness, because they are generally older and sicker. To test their thesis, Jackson and her colleagues combed through eight years of medical data on more than 72,000 people 65 and older. They looked at who got flu shots and who didn’t. Then they examined which group’s members were more likely to die of any cause when it was not flu season.

Jackson’s findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the “frail elderly” didn’t or couldn’t. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all. Jackson’s papers “are beautiful,” says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. “They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done.”

The results were also so unexpected that many experts simply refused to believe them. Jackson’s papers were turned down for publication in the top-ranked medical journals. One flu expert who reviewed her studies for the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote, “To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!” When the papers were finally published in 2006, in the less prominent International Journal of Epidemiology, they were largely ignored by doctors and public-health officials. “The answer I got,” says Jackson, “was not the right answer.”

via theatlantic.com

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Vaccination Controversy: Drugs You Don’t Need – And the Best Natural Alternatives Canada alternative health natural medicine green living

Vaccination Controversy: Drugs You Don’t Need – And the Best Natural Alternatives

October 2009 Features

0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false by Dr. Zoltan P. Rona, MD, M.Sc.

 

Media hype surrounding the impending swine influenza pandemic of 2009 has frightened many Canadians into desperately seeking flu vaccines and other potentially harmful prescriptions for protection from this perceived threat.

 

However, I do not recommend any flu shot and have never done so. I most certainly do not recommend the swine flu (the new H1N1 flu) vaccine. This vaccine will very soon be broadly available and the mainstream media will be pushing hard to encourage one and all to line up and roll up their sleeves. With the World Health Organization declaring a swine flu pandemic (Phase 6 Pandemic) this year, the swine flu vaccine (Baxter Pharmaceuticals) has been fast-tracked and should be available to reap the profits ($50 billion a year) as early as September 2009.

 

It should be noted that the word pandemic refers to the fact that a new virus is spreading around the world, but says nothing about its level of danger to one’s health. Although the H1N1 vaccine is untested, no safety evaluations will be performed on it due to the “urgency” of this pandemic situation. (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/07/04/Warning-Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Coming-Soon.aspx).

 

Influenza, commonly known as “the flu,” is a respiratory infection caused by a variety of viruses. Unlike the common cold (a respiratory infection also caused by viruses), the flu can cause fevers, headaches or extreme exhaustion. Body aches, especially in the muscles, joints and ligaments, can be severe enough to force complete bed rest. Other flu symptoms are chills, a dry cough, body aches, stuffy nose and sore throat. Secondary bacterial infections in young children, immune suppressed adults, and the elderly can lead to pneumonias, septicemias and death. The flu, however, does not manifest itself equally in all people. In the majority of cases, symptoms are mild and a generally healthy individual recovers quickly.

 

First, let’s put things into perspective. The swine flu pandemic to date has been said to have claimed 322 lives worldwide (116 in Mexico) since early April. The regular (unswine or non-swine) flu has purportedly claimed the lives of 13,000 people in the U.S. since January 2009. How is it, then, that there is such hysterical panic about this killer swine flu? Where are all the dead bodies?

 

It is estimated that at least 50 million people in North America contract the flu each season (November through March). Children are two to three times more likely than adults to get sick with the flu. More than 100,000 people are hospitalized, and at least 20,000 people die from the flu and its complications every year.

 

Many consider the flu as an inevitable fact of winter, but this is not necessarily the case. Although our lifestyles may not always allow it, the best way to prevent this viral illness is to keep our health at its optimum. This can be done by getting enough rest, limiting stress and by eating a nutritious diet.

 

NUTRITIONAL MEDICINE FOR INFLUENZA PREVENTION

 

One way of maintaining good health is to ensure the body has an adequate supply of vitamins and minerals. Nutrient requirements vary from one individual to the next, but any formula for the immune system should contain vitamin A, beta carotene (provitamin A), vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin B6 and zinc.

 

Rethink that annual flu shot – there have been a number of very good scientific studies proving the flu shot is no better than a placebo. On the other hand, vitamin D appears to be far more important. Vitamin D has strong antibiotic properties and some studies indicate that optimal blood levels will prevent the flu far better than those toxic flu shots.

 

Ever wonder why some people are more prone to colds and flus? One study indicates that the incidence of upper respiratory tract infections is inversely correlated with vitamin D blood levels. The lower the vitamin D blood level, the higher the likelihood of infection. This confirms an observation that I have made on numerous occasions with my private practice patients. Each year I see the infection rates rise during the winter as vitamin D levels plummet, and each summer the exact opposite occurs.

 

I have definitely found that those of my patients who have 25 (OH) vitamin D levels of 175 nmol/L or higher get few, if any, colds or flus during the winter. I have also found that I need to bump up the supplement recommendations to 10,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day in both the winter and summer to achieve such levels in the majority of the people that supplement with vitamin D.

 

In the past decade, I have recommended that people ease off the oral supplements during the summer months, but not any more. This is because I have found that an overwhelmingly high percentage of these individuals end up with 25 (OH) vitamin D blood levels lower than 100 nmol/L and a significant number below 75 nmol/L. I therefore now recommend that people supplement with 10,000 IU daily all year-round. To verify safety, I test both the 25 (OH) vitamin D and the ionized calcium blood levels every three to six months. To date, I have not found anyone to have a toxicity issue, even after a whole year of supplementing with 10,000 IU per day. That’s basically the dose I recommend people take to prevent the H1N1 (swine) flu.

 

HIGH DOSE VITAMIN D THERAPY

 

You might be shocked to know that there are many physicians in both Canada and the United States who prescribe as much as 50,000 IU of vitamin D daily as a treatment for a long list of chronic diseases.

 

I first learned about high dose vitamin D therapy from one of Dr. Norm Shealy’s newsletters (www.normshealy.com). Dr. Shealy is the author of several books and the founder of the American Holistic Medical Association.

 

As Dr. Shealy relates, “Recently I had the good fortune to spend a couple of hours with Dr. Joe Prendergast, an endocrinologist / diabetologist (www.uncommondoctor.com; www.endocrinemetabolic.com). He has managed over 1500 diabetic patients, and in the last decade not one of his patients has had a stroke or heart attack. Only one has even been hospitalized!  His secret – 50,000 units of Vitamin D3 daily. Dr. Joe further reports:

 

• Reversal of advanced coronary disease

• Reversal of advanced lung disease, avoiding a lung transplant

• Cure of multiple sclerosis

• Cure of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

• Regression of rheumatoid arthritis

• Improvement in allergies

• Control of many cancers including prostate, breast, colon, brain tumours, leukemia, myeloma, etc

• Reversal of osteoporosis

• Prevention of influenza

• Cure of depression and many other mental disorders

• Cure of Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis

 

Dr. John Cannell, head of the Vitamin D Council, recommends such high doses for quickly getting rid of a cold or flu, but has not advocated such high doses for regular daily use. One of the problems with taking such high doses of vitamin D is the effect it may have on calcium, namely the deposition of calcium in the arteries and organs. Apparently, this is not such a problem if you aren’t also taking high calcium doses as a supplement. In any event, if any reader decides to do this, make sure that blood tests are done every three months to check calcium levels. One thing you don’t want is kidney stones or hardening of the arteries.

 

Dr. Norm Shealy says: “Most of you know that I personally take 50,000 units of D3 daily and have for 18 months, I recommend it to most people who weigh at least 140 pounds or more and take NO calcium supplements. One member of my audience informed me that he developed a very high blood calcium level which affected his kidneys. I have not been able to learn whether he took calcium supplements. But, if you do the daily D3, I would advise a blood calcium level test at three months and at six-month intervals. I have not seen this in hundreds of others but be advised.”

 

Dr. John Cannell, MD, suggests high-dose vitamin D (50,000 IU) be consumed for three days at the first sign of a cold or the flu. If you have an infection, the truth is you need more vitamin D. That’s a given. In other words, vitamin D acts as a natural antibiotic. It works against every type of microbe (viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites).

 

Vitamin D deficiency is common during the winter months, especially in countries far north of the equator.  Vitamin D acts as an immune system modulator, preventing excessive production of inflammatory cytokines and increasing macrophage (a type of white cell) activity. Vitamin D also stimulates the production of potent anti-microbial peptides in other white blood cells and in epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract, protecting the lungs from infection.

 

According to Dr. Cannell, what we all really need to do is increase our blood levels of vitamin D. He says: “Influenza kills around 35,000 Americans every year and similar viruses cause additional mortality and untold morbidity…most influenza deaths and many other respiratory infections, like the common cold, could be prevented if Americans, and their doctors, understood some simple facts:

 

·      Vitamin D is not a vitamin, but a steroid hormone precursor, which has profound effects on innate immunity.

·      The amount of vitamin D in most food and nearly all multivitamins is literally inconsequential.

·      The correct daily dose of vitamin D for adults is approximately 5,000 IU/day, not the 200 to 600 IU recommended by the Institute of Medicine, the National Institutes of Medicine and the FDA.

·      The only blood test to determine vitamin D adequacy is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, not the 1,25-di-hydroxy-vitamin D test many physicians now order.

·      Healthy vitamin D blood levels are between 70 and 90 ng/ml, levels obtained by fewer than 5% of Americans.

·      The mechanism of action of vitamin D in infection, dramatically increasing the body’s production of broad-spectrum natural antibiotics (anti-microbial peptides or AMP), suggests pharmaceutical doses of vitamin D (1,000 IU per pound of body weight per day for several days) will effectively treat not only influenza and the common cold, but help treat a host of other seasonal infections, including meningitis, septicemia, and pneumonia, in both children and adults.

·      In 1997, when the U.S. Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) set the current guidelines for vitamin D intake, they forgot to correct for the widespread sun avoidance that began in the late 1980s when the AMA’s Council of Scientific Affairs warned against sun-exposure (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2661872?dopt=AbstractPlus), recommending that all Americans make every effort to never let a photon of sunlight strike their skin. The failure of the 1997 FNB to compensate for sun-avoidance has led to millions of deaths around the world.”

(http://www.vitamindcouncil.org. The Vitamin D Council, 9100 San Gregorio Road, Atascadero, CA 93422)

 

TOXIC CONSTITUENTS OF INFLUENZA VACCINE

 

According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, MD: “GlaxoSmithKline has actually stated, ‘Clinical trials will be limited, due to the need to provide the vaccine to governments as quickly as possible. Additional studies will therefore be required and conducted after the vaccine is made available.’ [Emphasis mine]. Folks, how could this be anything but a prescription for potentially massive disaster? Unfortunately, many people will not realize that when they line up for this vaccine, they are in fact accepting their role as TEST SUBJECTS. They are likely NOT receiving a drug that has any proof of being safe.”

 

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/13/Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Makers-to-Profit-50-Billion-a-Year.aspx)

 

Do not get the flu shot. Proponents of the flu vaccine boast a 70% effectiveness rate, but clinical experience proves otherwise. For example, in British Columbia in 2000, it was reported that of 32 individuals in a nursing home who received a flu shot, 30 had contracted the flu. Nursing homes throughout B.C. were reporting a much higher death rate from the flu in 2000 than what would be expected despite an almost 100% vaccination rate.

 

A 1993 Dutch article about a home for the elderly reported that 50% of the vaccinated population caught the flu compared to 48% of the unvaccinated group. The excuses used for such failures were that the wrong virus was predicted for use in the flu vaccine. The truth is that if the flu shot prevents the flu, it’s purely on a placebo basis.

 

In both the 1992-93 and the 1994-95 flu season, the isolated influenza samples for the predominant virus were not similar to that found in the flu vaccine. The actual composition of the flu vaccine is based on an educated guess made by a consensus of about 30 public-health experts. These experts meet annually with the FDA in the U.S. to predict which specific strains of influenza will invade the country in the coming year. If this sounds unscientific to you, it’s because it is. At best, keeping in mind factors such as mistakes in production, transport and storage, the flu vaccine effectiveness rate is only about 20%. Placebo shots are at least 30% effective.

 

The flu vaccine, consumed faithfully by the public without question each year, has a disturbing history of potential toxicity. The vaccine contains formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent. It also contains the preservative thimerosal, a derivative of mercury (known neurotoxin linked to brain damage and autoimmune diseases).

 

Aluminum is another flu vaccine ingredient. When mercury is not in the vaccine, it is replaced by equivalent amounts of aluminum, which can eventually be deposited in the brain. Mercury and aluminum are two toxic heavy metals that have been associated with an increased incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and possibly other neuro-degenerative illnesses. 

 

In 1976, 565 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) paralysis, as well as other neurological problems and many unexplained deaths among recently vaccinated elderly were reported. This paralytic disease occurred as a direct result of the first swine flu scare vaccine. With only a 10% or less reporting of adverse vaccine reactions by doctors in both the U.S. and Canada, the true flu vaccine damage figures are grossly underestimated. Claims totalling $1.3 billion were filed by victims of the flu vaccine. The vaccine was also found responsible for 25 deaths.

 

Vaccine manufacturers counter this concern by saying today’s vaccines do not carry the same risk of GBS. This may be true, but many cases of GBS as well as other neurological problems are still occurring after administration of flu vaccines. Additionally, product inserts still state that individuals who have a history of GBS have a much greater likelihood of subsequently developing GBS after the flu shot.

 

Other side effects reported with the flu vaccine are fever, general malaise, myalgia (muscle pain), hives, allergic asthma, systemic anaphylaxis, encephalitis, optic neuritis, brachial plexus neuropathy, polyneuritis, ataxia, respiratory tract infections, gastrointestinal problems, eye problems, allergic thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), abnormal blood pressure and other circulatory abnormalities. Those with a severe allergy to eggs are advised against the flu shot because of its chicken egg content.

 

THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL

 

I have always been an advocate of freedom of choice in health care. In other words, no one should be able to force any treatment on you without your informed consent. For example, if you are an adult with Type 2 diabetes, you can refuse insulin and other drugs and treat yourself with diet and nutritional supplements. It’s really your choice and no one is legally allowed to force you to do otherwise. The story is the same for vaccines.

 

You have the legal right in Canada to refuse. Provincial governments have a one-page form that, when signed and notarized, exempts anyone from receiving vaccines. In Ontario, one can download this form from http://vran.org/legacy/docs/form-2.pdf. If anyone dares to force you to have any vaccine, just show them this affidavit and watch them disappear for good.

 

For more credible information on the flu and other vaccines, the best web site to consult is www.nvic.org.

 

Also see “Vaccination is not Immunization” at http://www.healthwisdom.org/vaccineimmunization.htm.

 

Dr. Zoltan P. Rona practices Complementary Medicine in Toronto and is the medical editor of The Encyclopedia of Natural Healing. He has also published several Canadian best selling books including Return to The Joy of Health. For more of his articles, see www.mydoctor.ca/drzoltanrona

 

REFERENCES

 

• Aloia JF, Li-Ng M. Re: epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiol Infect. 2007 Oct;135(7):1095-6; http://list.netatlantic.com/t/45249172/77825509/111066/0/

• Deluca HF, Cantorna MT. Vitamin D: its role and uses in immunology. FASEB J 2001;15:2579–85

• World Health Organization. Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response: Influenza A (H1N1), Situation Update and Maps. June 15, 2009 (Update 49). http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_06_15/en/index.html

• Centers for Disease Control. Novel H1N1 Flu Situation Update (June 12, 2009). http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/update.htm

• Fisher, BL. The Vaccine Reaction. Flu Vaccine: Missing the Mark. Spring 2005. http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/3770Reaction.aspx

• CDC. Novel H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) and You. June 16, 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/qa.htm

• Swine Flu Vaccine Makers to Profit 50 Billion dollars per Year. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/13/Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Makers-to-Profit-50-Billion-a-Year.aspx

• J J Cannell, R Vieth, J C Umhau, M F Holick, W B Grant, S. Madronich, C F Garland, E Giorvannucci  “Epidemic influenza and vitamin D”

• Epidemiology and infection (2006, 134: 1129-1140 Cambridge University Press 2006 doi:10.1017/s0950268806007175

• A J Crowle, E J Ross, M H May “Inhibition by 1,25(OH)2-vitamin D3 of the multiplication of virulent tubercles bacilli in cultured human macrophages”

• Infect Immun. 1987 December, 55(12): 2945-2950

via vitalitymagazine.com

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

What to do for Swine Flu (H1N1) (GFDoctor)

  Terms   Report Abuse   Print page   Remove Access  |  Powered by Google Sites

via sites.google.com

Most of these suggestions are from an amazing colleague Jacob Schor.
The colostrum is an addition by me.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Gluten-free flour volume to weight ratio chart from Real Food Made Easy

Check out this website I found at ow.ly

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Penn State Live - Modified crops reveal hidden cost of resistance

Modified crops reveal hidden cost of resistance

Monday, October 26, 2009

Miruna Sasu, Penn State Cucumber beetles on squash flowers.

University Park, Pa. -- Genetically modified squash plants that are resistant to a debilitating viral disease become more vulnerable to a fatal bacterial infection, according to biologists.

"Cultivated squash is susceptible to a variety of viral diseases and that is a major problem for farmers," said Andrew Stephenson, Penn State professor of biology. "Infected plants grow more slowly and their fruit becomes misshapen."

In the mid-1990s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved genetically modified squash, which are resistant to three of the most important viral diseases in cultivated squash. However, while disease-resistant crops have been a boon to commercial farmers, ecologists worry there might be certain hidden costs associated with the modified crops.

"There is concern in the ecological community that, when the transgenes that confer resistance to these viral diseases escape into wild populations, they will (change) those plants," said Stephenson, whose team's findings appeared Oct. 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "That could impact the biodiversity of plant communities where wild squash are native."

Stephenson and his colleagues James A. Winsor, professor of biology; Matthew J. Ferrari, research associate; and Miruna A. Sasu, doctoral student, all at Penn State; and Daolin Du, visiting professor, Jiangsu University, China, crossed the genetically modified squash into wild squash native to the southwestern United States and examined the resulting flower and fruit production.

Unlike a lab experiment, the researchers tried to mimic a real world setting during their three-year study.

The researchers then looked at the effects of the virus-resistant transgenes on prevalence of the three viral diseases, herbivory by cucumber beetles, as well as the occurrence of bacterial wilt disease that is spread by the cucumber beetles.

"When the cucumber beetles start to feed on infected plants they pick up the bacteria through their digestive system," explained Sasu. "This feeding creates open wounds on the leaves and when the bugs' feces falls on these open wounds, the bacteria find their way into the plumbing of the plant."

The researchers discovered that as the viral infection swept the fields containing both genetically modified and wild crops, the damage from cucumber beetles is greater on the genetically modified plants. The modified plants are therefore more susceptible to the fatal bacterial wilt disease.

"Plants that do not have the virus-resistant transgene get the viral disease," explained Stephenson, whose team's work is funded by the National Science Foundation. "However, since cucumber beetles prefer to feed on healthy plants rather than viral infected plants, the beetles become increasingly concentrated on the healthy -- mostly transgenic -- plants."

During a viral epidemic, the transgene provides modified plants with a fitness advantage over the wild plants. But when both the bacterial and viral pathogens are present, the beetles tend to avoid the smaller viral infected plants and concentrate on the healthy transgenic plants. This exposes those plants to the bacterial wilt disease against which they have no defense.

"Wild and transgenic plants had the same amount of damage from beetles before viral diseases were prevalent in our fields," said Stephenson. "Once the virus infected the wild plants, the transgenic plants had significantly greater damage from the beetles."

Results from the study show that over the course of three years, the prevalence of bacterial wilt disease was significantly greater on transgenic plants than on non-transgenic plants.

According to the researchers, their findings suggest that the fitness advantage enjoyed by virus-resistant plants comes at a price. Once the virus infects susceptible plants, cucumber beetles find the genetically modified plants a better source for food and mating.

"Our study has sought to uncover the ecological cost that might be associated with modified plants growing in the full community of organisms, including other insects and other diseases," said Ferrari. "We have shown that while genetic engineering has provided a solution to the problem of viral diseases, there are also these unintended consequences in terms of additional susceptibility to other diseases."

• • 

    Blogger

  • 

    del.icio.us

  • 

    digg

  • 

    Facebook

  • 

    newsvine

  • 

    Twitter

• • 

    Email this to a friend

  • 

    Printer-friendly version

  • 

    Download PDF

Contact

• • Amitabh Avasthi
  • 814-865-9481
• • Andrea Messer
  • 814-865-9481
  • http://live.psu.edu

Tags

• biology
• College of Science
• research
• usatoday

Related Stories

• Penn State and USA Today launch new online initiative
• Heard on Campus: Gabeba Baderoon on the Legacy of Slavery in S. Africa
• Blast from the past gives clues about early universe
• Study: Coverage of Williams outburst reinforced stereotypes
• Grant to fund exploration of fossil plants in Patagonia

Newswires you might enjoy

• Ag Sciences
• Daily
• Faculty/Staff (UP)
• Research
• Sci-Tech

via live.psu.edu

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Monsanto guilty in 'false ad' row- Funny how the truth comes out

Monsanto's weed-killer, Roundup, is the world's best-selling herbicide

France's highest court has ruled that US agrochemical giant Monsanto had not told the truth about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup.

The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as "biodegradable" and claimed it "left the soil clean".

The company was fined 15,000 euros (£13,800; $22,400). It has yet to comment on the judgment.

Roundup is the world's best-selling herbicide.

Monsanto also sells crops genetically-engineered to be tolerant to Roundup.

French environmental groups had brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" by the European Union.

In the latest ruling, France's Supreme Court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto by the Lyon criminal court in 2007, and the Lyon court of appeal in 2008, the AFP news agency reports.

Earlier this month, Monsanto reported a fourth quarter loss of $233m (£147m), driven mostly by a drop in sales of its Roundup brand.

Bookmark with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• reddit
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon

What are these?

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version

Print Sponsor

Advertisement

Ads by Google

Secret War On The Dollar
Read the Shocking Bulletin That Washington Does Not Want You To See
www.UncommonWisdomDaily.com

Executive MBA: 15 Months
Earn an Executive MBA Online at RIT. No GMAT or GRE, Free Brochure.
EmbaOnline.RIT.Edu

Coffee Fool Exposed
A shocking secret coffee co's don't want you to know
www.CoffeeFool.com

via news.bbc.co.uk

(tag:monsanto, roundup, health, soil, France)

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Why you Always Double Check Gluten-Free Status at Restaurants | The Savvy Celiac

It can be easy for us to get lazy.  We get comfortable ordering out at restaurants and then suddenly we’re glutenized and sick.  I am an optimistic person when it comes to restaurants adding gluten-free items.  I like to think that they’re going above and beyond to ensure they’re making perfectly gluten-free food.  But last night I had an experience that proved me wrong.

First off, don’t worry, no one got sick. — Thankfully!

Just the other day I mentioned on this blog that my brother had a great experience when he stopped at Red’s Savoy Pizza in Hugo, Minnesota.  The company website not only touts gluten-free pizza, but mentions a sister pizzeria in Coon Rapids, which is closer to my home.  So I called and tried to order a pizza. Boy, was that a bumbling conversation.

When I called, I explained that I understood they had gluten-free pizza and the woman who answered the phone said yes. Then I asked her which toppings are gluten-free.  She replied saying she didn’t know what I was talking about.  I was very surprised.  So I probed further.  I asked how they made their pizzas, she said with the crust, then sauce and cheese and toppings.  Then I said, “Exactly, toppings…which toppings are gluten-free?”

The lady continued to be confused asking me how it was possible any of their toppings could contain gluten? I explained fillers that could be in the toppings…I didn’t even get to the the topic of cross contamination.  Finally our conversation ended — of course with me not ordering anything.

What a disappointing experience.

In my “Land of the Gluten-Free”– everyone who considers adding a gluten-free menu, also considers the education and changes that need to happen with employees and in the kitchen.  I know there are places who have done this.  And I applaud you!  This absolutely is the way it should be!

But in this case, the person on the other end of the line had no idea what I was talking about and when I asked for someone who might have more information, she said she was the person who could answer the questions.  Bad idea.

Please — restaurants I implore you — don’t just do gluten-free to do it.  Do gluten-free, because you want to, there’s a market for it, and that you’re passionate to do it right.  Need any help?  Any gluten-free blogger in your city can point you in the direction of experts who can make sure you’re on the right path to a safe gluten-free menu.

In the meantime, we celiacs and people with gluten-sensitivities need to be vigilant in checking in with restaurants to make sure ingredients and kitchen preparations are safe for a gluten-free meal.

via thesavvyceliac.com

This is so well written and timely, since this is the beginning of the fall entertaining time.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Gluten-Free Organics and More- Giveaway

Cooking Gluten-Free DVD Giveaway!

Since I mentioned that Karen Robertson's book Cooking Gluten-Free is now out in a new revised 3rd edition I have had many questions asked about the DVD.

Like- does it include Amaranth? YES!

Does it include Buckwheat? YUP!

Teff? YES! and Quinoa too.

Best of all, the disc allows you to print a PDF of any page you like, so you can enjoy the printed page to splatter just like your favorite cookbook.

Karen has generously sent me a disc to giveaway to one lucky reader.

How to enter?

There are 3 ways to enter:

1. let me know below one reason why you want this DVD in your home by leaving a comment.

2. You can get another entry by Tweeting on Twitter, use the hashtag #gfdoctor giveaway

Then another comment with your Twitter name- feel free to put a space in after the @ symbol since I hate spam as much as you do.

3. You can get a third entry by posting on Facebook-just come back and post the link here.

I will close the giveaway on Tuesday November 3^rd at 9pm PST and use

http://www.random.org/ to choose the lucky winner.

Please be sure to leave an email so I can reach you if you win.

I will notify the lucky person on Wednesday November 4^th.

Rules can be found here, for the lawyerly types.

via glutenfreeorganics.blogspot.com

This is on my other blog, you know the creative cooking one.
Feel free to mosy on over to enter and come back for lots more medical information.

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

10 Things the FDA Can Do to Improve Nutrition Labeling | Fooducate

Check out this website I found at ow.ly

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Flu Attack! How A Virus Invades Your Body : NPR- With a dose of humor!

via npr.org

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Update on Cooking Gluten-Free! Yipee!

After a long summer of revisions, the 3^rd edition of Cooking Gluten-Free! is now available on a CD-ROM.  Each page of the book is a PDF, just put the disk into your computer and print any recipe.  The CD is an exact replica of the hardcover book --updated to include healthier flours such as amaranth, teff, buckwheat, and quinoa. I am very pleased with how the CD turned out, it was beautifully produced and makes a great gift at $14.99.       www.cookingglutenfree.com

I have also started a blog that will include new recipes as well as some from the book. www.glutenfreefoodandwine.blogspot.com

Thank you,

Karen Robertson

Celiac Publishing

PO Box 99605

Seattle, WA  98139

Posted via email from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

The Daily 7 for a Highly Successful Household : Totally Together Journal

the secret to parenting is to remember that your goal is to raise capable adults. Chores are not only okay, they are necessary.-- by Allison a homeschooling mom of 9

via totallytogetherjournal.com

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

Elderberry flavonoids bind to and prevent H1N1 inf...[Phytochemistry. 2009] - PubMed Result

Check out this website I found at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Posted via web from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.

DNC News: Eli Lilly and Bovine Growth Hormone

I received this from a colleague who I truly respect.  It certainly makes you think.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "denvernaturopathic" <denvernaturopathic@denvernaturopathic.com>

Date: October 7, 2009 7:02:10 PM PDT

To: drjeannd@gmail.com

Subject: DNC News: Eli Lilly and Bovine Growth Hormone

Reply-To: "denvernaturopathic" <denvernaturopathic@denvernaturopathic.com>

October 7, 2009

I’ve known the author of this article, Jeffrey Smith since 1972.  

I tell you this because at first glance it’s hard to believe this is serious; I want to discount it as the ravings of an eccentric conspiracy theorist.  My long formed impression is that Jeffrey is not a nut case and so I have to believe that what I’m reading is the truth.

Jacob Schor ND FABNO

Is Eli Lilly Milking Cancer by Promoting AND Treating It?

by Jeffrey M. Smith

Breast Cancer Action and a coalition of consumer and health organizations have launched a campaign called, Milking Cancer, where you candemand from Eli Lilly that they withdraw their dangerous bovine growth hormone from the market. For more on bovine growth hormone, see the 18-minute film, Your Milk on Drugs.

Years ago, an owner of a glass company was arrested for throwing bricks through store windows in his town. What a way to increase business! Has Eli Lilly figured out the drug equivalent of breaking, then fixing our windows?

In August 2008, the huge drug company agreed to buy Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (rbST or rbGH), which is injected into cows in the US to increase milk supply. It was an odd choice at the time. A reporter asked Lilly’s representative why on earth his veterinary division Elanco just paid $300 million for a drug that other companies wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. The drug’s days were obviously numbered. The former head of the American Medical Association has urged hospitals to stop using dairy products from rbGH-injected cows, the American Nurses Association came out against it, even Wal-Mart has joined the ranks of numerous retailers and dairies loudly proclaiming their cows are rbGH-free. In fact, Monsanto’s stock rose by almost 5% when the sale was announced, and Eli Lilly’s dropped by nearly 1%.

The main reason for the unpopularity of this hormone, which is banned in most other industrialized countries, is the danger of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Dozens of studies confirm that IGF-1, which accelerates cell division, substantially increases the risk of breast, prostate, colon, lung, and other cancers. Normal milk contains IGF-1, milk drinkers have higher levels of IGF-1, and the milk from cows injected with Eli Lilly’s drug has much greater amounts of IGF-1. You can connect the dots.

Would it be too crass to point out the obvious conflict-of-the-public’s-interest that Eli Lilly also markets cancer drugs? In fact their drug Evista, which might help reduce the risk of breast cancer, may lower IGF-1 (according to one small study). So on the one hand, Eli Lilly pushes a milk drug that might increase cancer, and on the other, it comes to the rescue with drugs to treat or "prevent" cancer. Call it the perfect cancer profit cycle.

It gets better.

Cows treated with rbGH have much higher incidence of mastitis, a painful infection of the udder. This results in more pus in the milk (yuck). But don’t worry. It’s Eli Lilly to the rescue again. They are one of the companies happy to sell antibiotics to dairy farmers to treat the infection—which can’t help but increase antibiotic resistance in humans (double yuck).

History of Lawsuits and Criminal Charges

But would Eli Lilly consciously risk our health just to increase their profit? What kind of company are they and can we trust them with our food? If recent events are any indication, you better look for rbGH-free labels.

A December 17, 2006 New York Times article revealed that according to hundreds of internal documents and emails, "Eli Lilly has engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the health risks of Zyprexa.…Lilly executives kept important information from doctors about Zyprexa’s links to obesity and its tendency to raise blood sugar — both known risk factors for diabetes. … Lilly was concerned that Zyprexa’s sales would be hurt if the company was more forthright about the fact that the drug might cause unmanageable weight gain or diabetes."

Their own surveys revealed that 70% of psychiatrists had at least one patient "develop high blood sugar or diabetes while taking Zyprexa." And 30% of patients taking the drug for a year gained at least 22 pounds—some over 100 pounds. But Lilly told their sales team,

"Don’t introduce the issue!!!"

One doctor even warned: "unless we come clean on this, it could get much more serious than we might anticipate." It did indeed get serious. They paid out hundreds of millions in settlements to people who claimed they developed diabetes or other disorders.

But Lilly’s Zyprexa troubles were not over. In early 2009, they were forced to pay a record-setting $1.42 billion settlement with the justice department, and another record-setting state consumer protection claim of $62 million, for illegally marketing the drug to children and the elderly. It emerged in June of this year that Lilly "officials wrote medical journal studies about the antipsychotic Zyprexa and then asked doctors to put their names on the articles, a practice called ‘ghostwriting.’"

Eli Lilly was also the maker of the infamous Diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen. Starting in 1938, it was prescribed to pregnant women to prevent miscarriages and other problems. Although in 1953, research showed that it didn’t actually prevent miscarriages, it continued to be used until 1971, when the FDA alerted the public that the daughters exposed to DES in the womb were at risk of a rare vaginal cancer. An estimated 5-10 million pregnant women received DES. The civil courts held Lilly liable because they should have foreseen (based on prior information) that DES might cause cancer and that Lilly should have done the proper testing before marketing it.

Rigging Research

In the late 1980s Eli Lilly was one of four companies (including American Cyanamid, Upjohn, and Monsanto) that tried to get their version of bovine growth hormone approved by the FDA. I sat down with Dr. Richard Burroughs, who was a lead reviewer for the agency on these applications. He didn’t have kind words to say about the companies. "They didn’t follow good science and they didn’t follow regulations for adequate well controlled studies," he said. "They just went out and skewed the data."

He said, for example, that Eli Lilly had mysteriously lost organ samples that may have shown problems in injected cows. And their researchers came up with creative ways to hide reproductive changes in the animals. Specifically, injections appeared to suppress cows’ regular menstrual cycle or reduce the visual symptoms. The company was required to report the number of cows "in heat," but was told by the FDA that they could not use bulls to identify them. If bulls were needed, then the label on their drug would have to inform farmers that they would need a bull to help identify which cows were in heat. And most farms didn’t have bulls.

According to Burroughs, FDA investigators figured out that Lilly researchers secretly pumped up a heifer—a young female cow—with male hormones, so that the transgendered animal would act like a male and be attracted to the cows in heat. Lilly followed the letter of the law by not using a bull, but well, you can decide if you want to trust these guys.

Eventually, Lilly and two other companies withdrew their products, leaving Monsanto’s brand of rbGH as the only one that got approved and marketed. But Lilly worked a deal where they represented Monsanto’s drug outside the US. They sell it in 20 countries, including South Africa, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Kenya and Mexico. And now, they offer it in the US as well.

Human Reproductive Problems from Drugged Milk

In May 2006, an article in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine concluded that rbGH use, and the subsequent increase in IGF-1 in the US diet, is probably the reason why we have much higher levels of fraternal twins compared to the UK, where rbGH is banned.

Mothers with twin births are more likely to suffer from hypertension, gestational diabetes, hemorrhage, and miscarriage. Twin babies are more likely to be born prematurely and suffer from birth defects, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, vision and hearing disorders, and serious organ problems. How many drugs do you suppose Eli Lilly sells to treat these disorders?

Tell Eli Lilly to take rbGH off the market and out of your milk. To find non-rbGH dairy products, check out the non-GMO shopping section atwww.responsibletechnology.org.

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday.

................................................................
We hope you find the information in these newsletters useful, informative and hopefully entertaining. If you want your name removed simply leave a message at the office (303-337-4884) or go to the website: denvernaturopathic.com and unsubscribe, or reply with the message "REMOVE" in the subject line. If on the other hand you want to be added to the mailing list follow the prior instructions but subscribe. We are posting most of these newsletters in our 'NEWS' section of the website. The website versions contain more complete references and often abstracts of the references quoted and links to the full text of many of the journal articles mentioned. You don't have to be a patient to sign up and we encourage you to get your friends on our mailing list so you don't have to keep forwarding the newsletters that you find interesting.

Dr. Jean M. Layton

1329 Lincoln St. Suite 3

Bellingham WA 98229

360-734-1659

www.naturalhealthbellingham.com

www.GFDoctor.com

www.glutenfreeorganics.blogspot.com

twitter with me at GFDoctor

Posted via email from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.