This is a very good research paper done by Science and a fantastic editorial/comment section by Dr. Mercola. The question here is: should we still be fluoridating our water supplies since the chemical fluorine is a poison (neurotoxin) and there is minimal or no benefit, what's the point? There have been over a 100 studies showing lower IQ levels with humans/animals that have been exposed to fluoride.

It may be a good reason to get a good water purification system. (FYI: Brita and Pur DO NOT remove fluoride or chloride from the water.)

Amplify’d from articles.mercola.com

According to Science Daily: "The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay".

Another new study shows that exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence.  In addition to toothpaste, fluoride is added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies. PR Newswire reports: "About 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scored as bright, normal or higher intelligence compared to only 8 percent in the 'high' fluoride area ... in the high-fluoride city, 15 percent had scores indicating mental retardation and only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city."

When evaluating the issue of water fluoridation it is also important to understand that fluoride is a drug. You can't get fluoride without a prescription. Yet it's being added to your water supply on a mandatory basis at various levels that may or may not be safe for various individuals, especially children, the sick, and the elderly. Water fluoridation is a major assault on your freedom of choice – to be drugged or not. Read more at articles.mercola.com

Statistics for Britain have them about 70% vaccinated for flu/swine flu. Guess what? People who gotten vaccinated are still getting the flu.

What are the experts saying? The reason this flu is bad is that not enough people have gotten vaccinated and people are getting together for the holidays. So their solution, force more people to get vaccinated and keep people isolated? To me, this is the equivalent of that old doctor joke. The patient comes into the office saying "it hurts when I move my arm like this" and the doctor says "stop moving your arm like that."

Our world is a germ-y place. lots of viruses, lots of bacteria. Instead of trying to create a defense against a SINGLE organisms, why not just generally bolster our defense against ALL organisms.

Take a GOOD multivitamin that's geared at improving your immune system. Make sure your vitamin D is at proper levels. Make sure your globulin levels on blood tests is greater than 2.9. Eat well. Stop eating all that sugar and processed flour products. If dairy causes mucous production or other issues in your system, eliminate it. Replace it with rice milk or almond milk.

Amplify’d from www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain on course for flu epidemic

He said it was a "great shame" that the Government had taken the decision to axe its annual publicity campaign urging vulnerable people to have their flu jab.

"We don't know what will happen next – everything is now hanging in the lap of the Gods – and it wouldn't have been that way if people had been vaccinated," said the professor of virology.

Prof Oxford, from Queen Mary University of London said the "massive movements of populations" across the country as families came together for Christmas were likely to be speeding the spread of disease. Read more at www.telegraph.co.uk

This is the problem when we speed a vaccine to the market without adequate testing. A 7x jump in miscarriages NEEDS to be explained. That's not a statistically insignificant rise. If not this new thing that didn't go any clinical trials like normal drugs/vaccines are required to do, then what caused this rise.

This is like I always say, when a new thing comes out, let the other people be the guinea pigs. The number of new drugs that have proven to be better (and worse) than the older generation of drugs in the same class is staggering. Let the positive and negative reports come in from the people that insist on being the first in line. Then you should be able to make a decision based on a few years of data.

Amplify’d from www.progressiveconvergence.com

Based on analysis of data from two different sources... H1N1 vaccination program contributed to estimated 1,588 miscarriages

Press Release (Sep. 17, 2010):  CDC allegedly falsifies reports -- (PDF 123K) ignoring up to 3,587 Miscarriages from H1N1 Vaccine Read more at www.progressiveconvergence.com

Senate bill 510 labeled the "food safety and modernization act" tried to add some new taxes in the bill to "raise revenue". However, only the House of Reps is able to initiate legislation that includes new taxes. This constitutional bungle by the Senate will result in what's called a "blue slip" by the House and the bill will need to be redone and then revoted on. It's unlikely the Senate will have time to do this and all the other things in it's lame duck agenda.

YEAH! OK, it's not dead ... just taking a nap. But when it wakes up, hopefully the new cast of characters in the house/senate will decide that there are better things to spend their time on.

Amplify’d from www.rollcall.com

House May Block Food Safety Bill Over Senate Error

A food safety bill that has burned up precious days of the Senate’s lame-duck session appears headed back to the chamber because Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House.

The blue slip could lead to one of two likely outcomes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could simply drop the issue and let the next session of Congress start from scratch, a strategy that would allow him time in the lame-duck session to tackle other last-minute priorities, such as the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a long-term continuing resolution, an immigration bill and a repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay service members. Read more at www.rollcall.com

We've been linking the massive increase in diabetes with increased obesity in the US. Now it's likely that we should focus more on our choices. As you can tell by this article, the researchers are trying to come up with an explanation as to why sugary drinks seem to increase diabetes with or without the presence of obesity since they've "known" that obesity is what causes type II diabetes.

I believe the truth is that sweets/sugars are chemicals to our bodies. We were never designed to be exposed to these purified sugar compounds (and refined flours for that matter) and this exposure repeatedly day after day, year after year has created diabetes AND obesity.

In 1895, the average American consumed about 3-4 lbs of refined carbs in a year and diabetes was number 100 on the disease list. Today, we consume approximately 170 lbs of sugar (and high fructose corn syrup) per year and diabetes has crept into the top 10 killers in the US. Diabetes steals people's quality of life as much as it kills. Diabetes causes blindness, permanent nerve damage, the need for amputations, and kidney damage causing people to go on dialysis.

What this study is saying is that you can no longer use your weight as a determination as to whether or not you are handling sugars/carbs well. If you are interested in living a long time, sweets and refined carbohydrates should be the first thing you get rid of.

Amplify’d from www.medpagetoday.com

Soda Ups Diabetes Risk With or Without Weight Gain

People who drank one or two sugar-sweetened beverages a day, like soda or vitamin water, had a 26% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with those who barely drank any

Part of sugar-sweetened beverages' contribution to diabetes is via obesity, but there are other pathways as well

sweetened beverages have been linked to increases in serum glucose as well as rapid and dramatic fluctuations in insulin, a cascade linked to glucose intolerance, insulin resistance, beta-cell dysfunction, and inflammation.

A recent study has also suggested that fructose, the main sweetener in these drinks, may be linked to high blood pressure as well as increases in LDL and triglycerides. Read more at www.medpagetoday.com

I realize this is the time of year that everyone is faced with the decision... to vaccinate against the flu or not. I really can't answer that question for you specifically. However, I do have to say, the powers that be certainly are a deceptive bunch. If you read this article in the LA Times, you will see that "scientists long have known that as the body ages, the immune system doesn't respond as vigorously to the typical vaccination." Have you shared this with the general population? And why do you suppose that is? Could it be that this group of people are having a hard time absorbing nutrients, their organs are not as strong as they used to be, their bodies are in a state of decline? Then why on earth would you go and ask the body to do more work.

The reason the elderly are more prone to infections is that their systems are depleted and tired. The answer is to support their immune systems (and any other systems linked to the immune system) and THEN when their system sees the virus or bacteria, their system will be strong and they will have a better chance of getting over it.

How many people have you talked to where they got the vaccine and felt terrible after it or even GOT THE FLU!! Really? You can go online and find out that there are people out there that are saying they were fine before being vaccinated but then became "damaged" or injured by the vaccination and have not been the same since.

Now I am not saying that you too will be injured by the vaccination. I'm saying that it's not 100% safe (like they say it is). Because of that, you need to look at the risks and the rewards and determine if this is for you. Do your research. Pray about it. Figure out the best course of action for you.

Amplify’d from www.latimes.com

New high-dose flu shot aims to protect seniors

Scientists long have known that, as the body ages, the immune system doesn't respond as vigorously to the typical vaccination.

doctors hopeRead more at www.latimes.com

I cannot believe that there are only 27 states that license midwifery. Pregnancy and childbirth for the majority of women is not a disease and should not be treated as a disease. I think if more licensed/qualified lay midwives were available in all 50 states and they were covered by health care plans, I think you'd see more than the 1% getting home births. I also think you'd see our insurance rates go down. 15 yrs ago, we paid a total of $1,000 for all of our prenatal and postnatal and delivery visits. The total costs of pregnancy in a hospital w/ an OBGYN cost at least 10 times that amount.

Did you see the stat in the Time article? 32% of all hospital deliveries end in caesarian section. YIKES!

It is not for everyone, but being able to deliver a baby in the peace of your own home with all your own comforts around you (and whoever you want to be there) can be an amazing experience.

Amplify’d from www.time.com

Each year, some 25,000 American women like McLaughlin opt to deliver their babies at home. Although that accounts for fewer than 1% of all births in the U.S., the figure is probably on the rise. From 2004 to 2006, the most recent year for which estimates are available, home birthing in the U.S. increased 5% after having gradually declined since 1990, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While the recent uptick is not conclusive proof of a trend, home-birth advocates say anecdotal evidence and informal surveys from the field also point to growing demand.

Largely because women wish to avoid what they deem overmedicalized childbirth. Compared with hospital deliveries, 32% of which end in cesarean section, those taking place at home involve far fewer medical interventions and complications. Some women, like McLaughlin, who have had cesareans in the past, elect to have a home birth because they want to attempt vaginal delivery — what is known as vaginal birth after cesarean, or VBAC, a procedure that most obstetricians and hospitals have banned to avoid liability lawsuits.

just 27 states license or regulate so-called direct-entry midwives — or certified professional midwives (CPMs)Read more at www.time.com

If I looked at last year's records and found that predominantly more people driving red cars hit trees, what would you think if I proposed the following: "Based on this study, red cars apparently have a magnetic (or other) attraction to trees!" You'd think I was ridiculous. Why? Just because numbers correlate in studies, doesn't mean they are true. (Good researchers use the adage: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation.) Are there a significantly high number of people that have heart attacks when they are sick with the flu? I doubt it.

It is this unbelievable (and unethical) reach that is a pathetic attempt by the medical system to convince a currently very unconvinced public that flu shots are needed. If they did a bit more analysis of data, they'd probably find out that the people that doctors convince to get the flu shot are also people that have a tendency to also obey other (more healthy) pieces doctorly advice like exercising and keeping weight down.

This bit of research manipulation is similar to the one that says "found out" that flossing prevents heart attacks. YIKES. The dentists are touting that some bacteria in the gums are producing enough inflammation to cause clotting in the coronary arteries. REALLY? How about this? The gums are almost entirely made of blood vessels/capillaries which get inflamed and swell (called gingivitis) and blockages of the heart are caused by inflammation of the coronary arteries (vessels) which gradually get obstructed when irritated and healed and irritated and healed over and over again. The problem is that linking heart attacks and gingivitis as conditions of inflammation destroys 2 core theories of the dental field (gingivitis is caused by bacteria and prevented by flossing) and medical field (blockages are due to excess cholesterol).

I know. I know. I'm such a rebel. But you tell me, what does common sense tell you?

Amplify’d from www.webmd.com

Flu Shots May Reduce Heart Attack Risk

Heart attacks increase during the winter time, and we think that the fact that there are more infections during the winter may be one of the reasons," says Stephen Nicholls, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. "The findings of the current study are interesting and important," he tells WebMD. "If you get the flu vaccine, and get it early, you are less likely to get the flu and less likely to have a heart attack." Read more at www.webmd.com

I made a previous post a while ago saying that mammograms cause cancer. Some people didn't like me saying that because, for them, mammograms saved their life. I'm not disputing that. CT scans can be the same. However, in this article and other research, they've found MD's doing excessive (unnecessary) scans.

The first thing we should consider is that CT is not bad. X-rays, mammograms, CT scans, bone scans, thyroid scans, barium studies... all these things that use radiation have a negative side effect but are used because they can see things in the body that otherwise can't be seen. But we need to understand that they still come with a cost. They damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer.

As we look at the medical system for problems, we need to address this CYA medicine (cover your #**!) designed to avoid malpractice and hospital mandates to physicians that say "we have this machine to pay for, you need to refer patients for testing".

Truly, MRI's are a better diagnostic testing procedure without all the radiation risks. The bad part about MRI's: cost (3x as expensive).

Amplify’d from emf.mercola.com

According to a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine last year, CT scans alone will cause nearly 30,,000 unnecessary cancer cases (about 2 percent of cancer cases), which will lead to about 14,500 deaths.

While 30,000 cancer cases is a large number, a New England Journal of Medicine study from 2007 estimated that overuse of diagnostic CT scans may cause up to 3 million excess cancers over the next 20 to 30 years.

David Brenner of Columbia University, lead author of the study, told USA Today: "About one-third of all CT scans that are done right now are medically unnecessary … Virtually anyone who presents in the emergency room with pain in the belly or a chronic headache will automatically get a CT scan. Is that justified?"

There are several reasons: Physicians fear being sued for malpractice if they miss something. Some patients pressure their physicians for scans “just to be safe,” especially after hearing advertisements touting the benefits of new hi-tech tests (without disclosure of the risks). Physicians are more often using scans to screen “the worried well” (such as scanning former smokers for lung cancer). Many doctors have purchased their own imaging equipment for their practices. This adds a financial incentive into the mix and sets the stage for overuse of the technology. There’s a trend toward commercially advertised full-body CT scans to “find everything wrong with you.” Consumers with extra cash lying around (in excess of $1,000 in most cases) are being encouraged to undergo a full-body scan as a preventive measure.

There are four primary reasons that x-rays (and other diagnostic tests that rely on ionizing radiation, such as mammograms and CTs) should be minimized: They cause chromosomal mutations that are often irreparable, and the effects are cumulative. They cause DNA changes that are proven to lead to cancer. They cause DNA damage in your arteries, which can lead to cardiovascular disease. They often result in misdiagnosis and false positives, increasing the likelihood of follow up tests—further increasing your radiation exposure. Read more at emf.mercola.com

HFCS (high fructose corn syrup), which has gotten a lot of bad press lately, is not going to go bye-bye. It's just changing its name. The new name is CORN SUGAR. Personally, I think it's the first "petition" by corn growers. The next step is going to be: change the name to "sugar" so people can't be biased against HFCS.

If you read the article, they keep saying how HFCS is chemically identical to sugar, honey, etc. Of course it's not. Dieticians have been feeding us this line for years saying sugar is sugar. Doesn't matter if you get it from an apple or table sugar.

Ridiculous. If you want an interesting documentary on corn, take a look at King Corn (www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/). Corn has been genetically changed to make fat cows and to make addictive foods. I'm a big fan of controlling all processed carbs which includes table sugar, but HFCS is still a bad guy. As for honey and maple syrup and the like, they are natural products that (for the most part) don't produce a lot of the problems that HFCS and sugar do.

My clinical opinion.

Amplify’d from www.foodbusinessnews.net

The Corn Refiners Association on Sept. 14 petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to allow manufacturers the option of using “corn sugar” as an alternative name for high-fructose corn syrup.

High-fructose corn syrup has been under fire for some time because of studies claiming it was a major contributor to obesity, although other studies also have shown it was no greater a contributor than beet and cane (table) sugar or other sugars. A number of companies have removed HFCS from their products, and noted the absence of it on their labels, over the past couple of years, and more continue to do so. Use of HFCS in the United States has been declining for several years. Read more at www.foodbusinessnews.net