5 Remedies for Leaky Gut


Digestion is a complex process with many moving parts and there are many steps along the way for something to go wrong. One of the more increasingly common disorders is a condition known as “leaky gut.” Leaky gut, otherwise known as intestinal hyperpermeability, is when perforations develop and allow undigested food and toxins to pass back into the body. Sound like a problem? It is. Leaky gut can be the starting point for anything from food intolerances to inflammatory bowel disease. If leaky gut is a problem for you, you have options, and here are five to get you started. 1. Water One of easiest things you can do to defend against leaky gut is to stay well hydrated. Chronic dehydration causes constipation. This, in turn, allows bacteria to linger and inflame the intestinal lining, leading to—you guessed it—leaky gut.

5leakygut

2. Probiotics

Your gut is home to lots of bacteria—good and bad. Sometimes an imbalance can occur and the bad bacteria can take hold. When that happens, regaining balance is of vital importance. A probiotic supplement can help replenish the good guys and soothe and calm an unsteady gut environment.[1]

3. Digestive Enzymes

Taking digestive enzymes before eating a meal is an excellent way to help ensure your food is properly digested, lessening the chance that partially digested food will cause more harm to your body. In addition, studies also suggest digestive enzymes can help encourage a healthy bowel environment.[2]

4. L-Glutamine

L-glutamine is an essential amino acid with anti-inflammatory properties that works by coating cell walls and protecting against irritants. Studies suggest it could aid in the repair and growth of the intestinal lining and reduce some of the problems associated with leaky gut.[3]

5. Omega-3 Fatty Acids

Increasing the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in your diet is another way to combat inflammation. Some research even suggests omega-3s could work to alleviate symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease.[4] There are a couple ways to get more of this nutrient; you could consider a supplement, or simply eat more fatty fish, like salmon. If you’re a vegan or concerned about some of the aspects of eating fish, that, of course, limits your options.

Is leaky gut currently a problem for you? Have you tried any of these five remedies, or do you have another to share? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.

Coconut Water: A New Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment?


Unlike conventional drug treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, coconut oil and water may help resolve some of the root causes of neurodegenerative conditions. 

green-coconut-with-water

Have you ever noticed that sometimes a food that nourish a particular organ often look uncannily similar to it? For instance, the walnut shell and bi-hemispheric flesh look awfully like the skull and brain it is now known to be exceptionally good for. Pomegranate fruit, the actual fruiting ovary of the plant, looks a lot like the mammalian ovary that it has been proven to support, containing relatively high levels of theactual bioidentical estrogen estrone. So too is the case with the head-like coconut, which is increasingly being looked at for preventing and/or improving brain dysfunctions such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) due to its wide range of potentially therapeutic properties, such as:

1) Increasingly energy production in the brain by providing neurons an alternative to glucose, namely, the brain-nourishing metabolites of medium chain fatty acids known as ketone bodies.

2) By contributing potent antioxidant polyphenols that may reduce oxidative stress, improve brain blood circulation and reducing neuroinflammation

3) By inhibiting amyloid beta plaque-associated neuronal toxicity.

Indeed, a growing number of cell, animal, human and population-based studies reveal that coconut consumption may provide a natural solution to a growing global epidemic that pharmaceutical drugs have been shown to do nothing to mitigate. In fact, we have discussed in previous articles how modern drug-based treatment for AD actually is more like chemical warfare than a therapeutic intervention.

One reason why conventional interventions are so ineffective is that the brain is highly protected against the entry of chemicals due to the brain-blood-barrier (BBB), with most small molecule drugs and virtually all large molecule drugs incapable of gaining entry to the brain because of it. Even naturally occurring biomolecules such as fats have a hard time penetrating directly through the BBB. Coconut may be an exception to this rule, as it has copious amounts of the medium chain triglyceride known as caprylic acid, which preliminary research indicates is able to pass through the BBB and which has been demonstrated to possess anti-convulsive and neuroprotective properties in the animal model.[1]

Coconut Water’s Anti-Alzheimer’s Properties

We have reported previously on coconut oil and Alzheimer’s research, but it appears another coconut product: coconut water, which contains no fatty acids of physiological relevance, may also have great value for those suffering with Alzheimer’s disease.

Coconut water is one of nature’s best forms of hydration due to its isotonic properties (it is able to pass through cell membranes easily). And while the focus on brain health has been primarily on brain structures, e.g. neurons, brain plaque, etc., little focus has been on the role of water in brain health, and particularly dehydration as a factor in chronic neurodegeneration illness. Coconut water may help to restore hydration to the brain, and considering the discovery of a 4th phase of water known as EZ by Gerald Pollack which acts like a battery by absorbing the energy of sunlight, this increased hydration of the brain may also translate to increased energy production in those tissues and associated improvements in cognition.

First, coconut water contains a range of essential biomolecules needed for health, including vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, amino acids, enzymes, growth factors and other nutrients which have yet to be fully characterized.

Second, one of the more promising classes of phytocompounds in coconut water (and related plants) is known as cytokinins. These plant hormones modulate plant cell division and are believed to have anti-aging properties. One cytokinin known as trans-zeatin has been investigated as a possible new treatment for neuronal diseases including Alzheimer’s disease. According to a recent review on coconut’s value in Alzheimer’s disease, trans-zeatin is capable of preventing the brain cell damaging properties of amyloid beta brain plaque and related impairments in memory:

“Zeatin has demonstrated antioxidant and cell protective effects against Ab-induced neurotoxicity in cultures of neuronal PC12 cells, and in experiments of mice treated with scopolamine to induce amnesia, pretreatment of the mice with zeatin caused a reduction in the level of induced amnesia, according to the passive avoidance test and Y maze test(165)[2]. Interestingly, another study has found that trans-zeatin could inhibit acetylcholinesterase (166,167)[3][4]. This indicates that cytokinin could have therapeutic value, as levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine are reduced in AD, and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are currently used to ameliorate the symptoms of AD.”

The enzyme acetylcholinersterase is the target of most AD drugs, because when this enzyme is inhibited it increases the duration of activity for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which in Alzheimer’s patients is believed to impaired or deficient.

Furthermore, the study pointed out another potentially beneficial property of coconut water for neurodegenerative disease via improving cardiovascular disease parameters (e.g. blood lipids and blood pressure):

“Coconut water has also been shown to have beneficial effects on serum and tissue lipid parameters, when given to rats concurrently fed a high-cholesterol containing diet(168).[5] Another study has investigated the positive effect of regular consumption of two tropical food drinks, coconut (C. nucifera) water and mauby (Colubrina arborescens), on the control of hypertension(169).[6] The combined products were found to be almost twice as effective as the products in isolation.”

If you have followed my previous writing on coconut water it is no secret to you that I am quite smitten with coconut water. In a previous article, “Coconut Water: More Than Just A Refreshing Beverage,” I broke down the multitude of health benefits it has been studied to possess. Despite these scientifically validated health properties, a common concern is coconut water’s sugar content. And yet, despite coconut water’s sweet taste and not insignificant simple sugar content it has actually been studied to have significant anti-diabetic properties.[7][8] Also, take a look at this study showing thatcoconut water may outperform a blockbuster statin drug[9] for improving blood lipid profiles. Because statin drugs are well known diabetogenic agents, coconut’s potential role in substituting for statin drugs may actually make it a powerful contributor to reducing iatrogenic, drug-caused diabetes.

Ultimately, I believe a compelling pattern of evidence points to the use of coconut oil and water as a therapeutic agent in the prevention and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. To learn more about how alternative fuel sources such as fatty acids may benefit brain health read “Sugar and Your Brain: Is Alzheimer’s Disease Actually Type 3 Diabetes?” To explore a rich database of research on natural interventions for Alzheimer’s disease view our section dedicated to the topic here: Alzheimer’s disease research.

“Killer Germs” Obliterated by Medicinal Smoke Smudging, Study Reveals


The ritualistic use of plant smoke stretches back to the prehistorical era and is still used, the world over, as a way of ‘cleansing’ the spirit. Now modern scientific research reveals that the practice may actually have life-saving implications by purifying the air of harmful bacteria.

smudging

The burning of herbs and plant resins for medicinal and spiritual purposes – so-called ‘smudging’ – is an ancient practice among indigenous people around the world; one increasingly adopted by Westerners. Smudging is a technology believed to unlock the ‘spirits’ of various plant allies to restore balance and ease to the individual or group. Some liken it to taking a ‘spiritual shower,’ enabling you to wash away emotional and spiritual negativity that accumulates in your body and the spaces you live.

That said, skeptics believe attributing health benefits to the burning of sage and incense reflects ‘magical thinking.’ The practice has even been accused of being a New Age form of cultural imperialism where ‘plastic’ or ‘white’ shamans mimic and co-opt the traditions of indigenous people their predecessors essentially conquered.

Given the polarized view on this increasingly common practice, as well as the well known role that the burning of incense plays in even Western religious traditions, such as Catholicism, we decided to explore the published literature on the topic of smudging’s scientifically validated medical benefits, to see what we could find.

First, we uncovered a 2006 review published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology titled “Medicinal smokes,” that looked at single and multi-ingredient herbal and non-herbal remedies administered as smoke from 50 countries across 5 continents. The researchers found, with surprising overlap worldwide, medicinal smoke is mostly used to address the following specific organ systems: “pulmonary (23.5%), neurological (21.8%) and dermatological (8.1%).” They also found that “ambient smoke,” which is the type of passively inhaled smoke generated by smudging/incense, is traditionally believed to be an effective “air purifier.” The review argued that modern medicine should investigate medicinal smoke as a drug delivery system, owing to the following advantages: “The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production.”

Screen Shot 2015-05-31 at 2_08_17 PM

Smudging, of course, as a ‘spiritual’ ritual, is not aimed at ‘killing germs,’ or becoming a ‘new drug delivery system.’ But because modern biomedicine only acknowledges what is empirically verifiable – which does not include ‘the soul’ or ‘negative vibes’ – the practice will only attain a modicum of credibility from the perspective of the dominant, scientism-contaminated worldview, if it can be demonstrated that it actually performs a useful function, such as destroying disease-causing germs.

Thanks to a remarkable 2007 study titled, “Medicinal smoke reduces airborne bacteria,” published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, we now know that smudging may be one of the most powerful antiseptic technologies ever discovered.

Screen Shot 2015-05-31 at 2_04_53 PM

The researchers reported their amazing findings:

We have observed that 1 hour treatment of medicinal smoke emanated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri=material used in oblation to fire all over India), on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24 hour in the closed room. Absence of pathogenic bacteria Corynebacterium urealyticum, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter aerogenes (Klebsiella mobilis), Kocuria rosea, Pseudomonas syringae pv. persicae, Staphylococcus lentus, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. tardicrescens in the open room even after 30 days is indicative of the bactericidal potential of the medicinal smoke treatment. We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to completely eliminate diverse plant and human pathogenic bacteria of the air within confined space.”

Did you catch that?

Not only did the burning of medicinal herbs clear aerial bacterial populations by 94% within one hour, but a full day later, the closed room was still effectively decontaminated. Even more amazing, a full month later, seven other pathogenic bacteria in the open room were still non-detectable.

When one considers that modern urban air has been found to contain at least 1800 diverse bacterial types[1] – including families with pathogenic members – this finding could have profound implications for combating a increasingly deadly array of antibiotic-resistant bacteria against which even the CDC itself has acknowledged its impotence. Consider also that a recent microbiome of NYC’s subway system found close to 1700 different microbes, including those responsible for Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis) and Bubonic Plague (yersinia pestis).[2]

Also, considering that conventional methods of air and surface sterilization and odor neutralization use chemical cocktails (e.g. Lysol) that are much less effective than advertised (one study found them up to 10 times less effective than believed), smudging or the use of natural incense products might constitute a far safer and more effective approach.

Given this discovery of medicinal smoke’s potent cleansing properties on aerosol microbes, we might look at Smudging’s traditional use as a cleanser of ‘evil spirits’ or ‘negative energy’ as less like a primitive projection and more like a metaphor for its very real antiseptic properties. This does not, of course, take away from its ‘cleansing’ effects upon the body’s subtler energy systems; nor does it take away from the the effects the medicinal smokes and its various small-molecule aromatic compounds have upon the olfactory system, which are largely responsible for the clinically proven health benefits of aromatherapy-based interventions.

Cinnamon May Be Superior to Ibuprofen for Menstrual Pain, Study Reveals


Why risk using a pain killer with deadly side effects? Natural alternatives are often not only safer but at least as effective.

New research reveals that cinnamon powder is effective at reducing symptoms of painful periods (primary dysmenorrhea) in college age students.

Cinnamon VS Ibuprofen For Menstrual Pain

Published in the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research and titled, “Comparative effect of cinnamon and Ibuprofen for treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized double-blind clinical trial,” Iranian researchers evaluated the effect of either 420 mg of cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum), 400 mg of ibuprofen, or a starch placebo, in three groups of 38 females. Both pain intensity and duration were monitored in all groups, with the results reported as follows:

The mean pain severity score and mean duration of pain in Ibuprofen and Cinnamon were less than placebo group respectively (p< 0.001). Of 4 hours after the intervention there were no statistically significant differences between the Cinnamon and placebo group (p> 0.05). Of eight hours after the intervention, the mean pain severity in the cinnamon group was significantly lower than placebo group (p< 0.001). At various time intervals the mean pain severity in the Ibuprofen group were significantly less than Cinnamon and placebo groups (p< 0.001).”

The researchers concluded:

“Cinnamon can be regarded as a safe and effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhea. More researches are recommended to study the efficacy of Cinnamon on reducing menstrual bleeding.”

Discussion

Why do we consider cinnamon superior to ibuprofen? Considering the well known dangers of ibuprofen, which is estimated to kill several thousand a year from its cardiovascular side effects alone, cinnamon’s potential role as a natural alternative to this drug is highly promising. Unlike ibuprofen, cinnamon is not known to have cardiotoxic properties. To the contrary, it is known to have both blood pressure lowering and blood sugar lowering properties, both which may confer protection against cardiovascular disease.

As far as the question of its role in menstrual bleeding addressed in the conclusion above, a recent randomized, double-blinded clinical trial found that it actually reduced the severity of menstrual bleeding in women, making it a win-win as far as difficult or inconvenient menstruation symptoms go.

Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras


Bra-freedom is busting out all over! Women everywhere are discovering that wearing bras can make their breasts droopy and stretched out, but also cause cysts, pain, and cancer.

For some women, enough said. The bra goes. It was always so uncomfortable, it was the first thing they took off after work anyway. More women are becoming bra-free in the name of comfort and health.

Dressed to kill

For other women, no way! The bra stays no matter what. And the cancer detection and treatment industry loves these women. They want women to wear bras. With one million bras sold each day in the US alone, that’s a lot of women binding and constricting the health out of their breasts in the name of fashion.

Nothing new there.

Corsets bound women for centuries, to the point of disease and death. Constriction is not a good thing for circulation. Nevertheless, this fashion of body shaping went on for centuries, despite its toll on women’s health.

Bras are really breast corsets. They shape the breasts, and this requires harmful pressure and compression of the delicate breast tissue.

Harmful fashions are not new. In fact, foot binding in China deformed feet to the point that toes would rot away. It was considered erotic to unwrap a bound foot, clean it, and re-wrap it. This lasted for a thousand years, despite its toll on women. It seems that harmful fashions are not ended simply because they are harmful. It’s not necessarily that the fashion designers of the time have it against women, it’s just that the health impacts of such fashions are never.

The Campaign of Misinformation

Almost twenty years ago, my partner Soma Grismaijer and I announced the results of our 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer study in our book, Dressed To Kill.

Bras, we discovered, are the leading cause of breast cancer. Like corsets, they constrict and interfere with circulation. Lymph fluid cannot easily drain from a bra-constricted breast. This stagnant lymph fluid cannot be adequately flushed away, concentrating waste products and toxins in the slowly toxifying breasts. Backed-up fluid results in cysts and pain. Ultimately, this can lead to cancer.

Essentially, a bra-free woman has about the same incidence of breast cancer as a man. The tighter and longer a bra is worn, the higher the incidence of breast cancer. 24/7 bra wearers have over 100 times the incidence as a bra-free woman. These findings have been recently confirmed by studies in China and Venezuela. A 1991 Harvard study also found a significant bra/cancer link.

However, to the cancer detection and treatment industry, this is called “nonsense”. To the industry that makes billions of dollars each year giving mammograms, mastectomies, radiation and chemotherapies, and then protheses and bras so these women can look “normal”, the concept of bras contributing to breast cancer is “absurd”.

In fact, the American Cancer Society’s spokesman, Dan Gansler, stated for the New York Times, “Because the idea of bras’ causing breast cancer is so scientifically implausible, it seems unlikely that researchers will ever spend their time and resources to test it in a real epidemiological study,” he told the Times for a Q&A piece.

The article explains that:

“He (Gansler) and colleagues compared National Cancer Institute data on breast cancer risk for women treated for melanoma who had several underarm lymph nodes removed and those who did not. The surgery, which is known to block lymph drainage from breast tissue, did not detectably increase breast cancer rates, the study found, meaning that it is extremely unlikely that wearing a bra, which affects lymph flow minimally if at all, would do so.”

When I saw this, I did some research.

The “study” is really a letter in the Breast Journal, run by the American Cancer Society: Axillary Lymphatic Disruption does not Increase Risk of Breast Carcinoma, in The Breast Journal, Volume 15, Issue 4, pages 438–439, July/August 2009. As a letter, the information was not peer reviewed. Not all the data was shown. It was an editorial, not a scientific report.

Interestingly, their report did show a significant increase in skin cancers resulting from lymph node removal! This supports the hypothesis, which they wanted to disprove, that lymphatic blockage could cause cancer. (BTW, this has been known to be the case since the 1930”²s)

Instead of admitting an increase in cancers, they focused only on the breast cancer results. It found that there was not a significant increase in breast cancers. However, it mentions that there was not enough data for this conclusion to be statistically valid. In other words, there was not enough data to tell the impact on breast cancer.

Of course, their “study” was designed to disprove the bra/cancer connection. Gansler did what no scientist should do. He had a bias and went out to prove a point, results be damned. The increased skin cancer results did not support his plan, so he ignored the data. The breast cancer data was too small a sample to make a conclusion, but they made one anyway.

Not surprisingly, it was the same conclusion that they started out with!

Unfortunately, this “information” is supported from the American Cancer Society, the pre-eminent cancer information source. They should not be able to lie and get away with it. However, the media is paid to report what they are told by the ACS, not to question it. The media spreads this misinformation because it is paid to. The payers are the cancer detection and treatment industry, as well as the lingerie industry, which also funds breast cancer research.

The last thing the lingerie industry wants is a class action lawsuit. Their goal is to make sure there is no further research into the bra/cancer link. Without a long list of studies, the issue can be called a “myth” and no lawsuits can succeed – they hope.

Aiding their suppression of the issue is the cancer industry, which is not interested in rocking a boat that now nets thembillions each year detecting and treating this disease.

Pink champagne anyone? Let’s celebrate raising more money for research into cancer cell lines, genetics, new treatment drugs, new radiation procedures, new diagnostic tests… anything but the link between breast cancer and bras.

A Health.com article is at the forefront of keeping the bra/cancer link ignored and suppressed. Quoted by national news networks and used as an October 2013 breast cancer informercial, this article not only calls the bra/cancer link a myth but also says breast cancer is not preventable.

Called 25 Breast Cancer Myths Busted, this malignant article claims:

Myth: Breast cancer is preventable.

Reality: Alas, no. Although it is possible to identify risk factors (such as family history and inherited gene mutations) and make lifestyle changes that can lower your risk (reducing or eliminating alcohol consumption, losing weight, getting regular exercise and screenings, and quitting smoking), roughly 70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors, meaning that the disease occurs largely by chance and according to as-yet-unexplained factors.

Okay, even if you don’t get the bra/cancer link, it’s easy to see the bias in this statement. If these factors are as-yet-unexplained, then how do you know it will not make prevention possible once these factors are discovered?

As for the 70% of cases that are “unexplained”, the reason for this is because they are ignoring the bra. They have looked at every lifestyle factor they could think of, but have deliberately ignored the bra, which already has a scientifically proven history of causing breast problems.

But this reasoning has no impact on the cancer industry and its pink campaign. They don’t want to know the factors that cause this disease if it cannot be sold in patented pill or bottle form.

Consensus? Widely debunked as unscientific? No reason or evidence is provided. So I put together a few things for the interested reader. The rest is up to you.

How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer


While a growing body of research now suggests that x-ray mammography is causing more harm than good in the millions of women who subject themselves to breast screenings, annually, without knowledge of their true health risks, the primary focus of discussion has been on the harms associated with over-diagnosis and over-treatment, and not the radiobiological dangers of the procedure itself.

How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer

In 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme” revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – butpossibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.

In other words, the radiation risk model used to determine whether the benefit of breast screenings in asymptomatic women outweighs their harm, underestimates the risk of mammography-induced breast and related cancers by between 4-600%.

The authors continued

Risk estimates for radiation-induced cancer – principally derived from the atomic bomb survivor study (ABSS) – are based on the effects of high energy gamma-rays and thus the implication is that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancer arising from mammography may be higher than that assumed based on standard risks estimates.

This is not the only study to demonstrate mammography X-rays are more carcinogenic than atomic bomb spectrum radiation. There is also an extensive amount of data on the downside of x-ray mammography.

Sadly, even if one uses the outdated radiation risk model (which underestimates the harm done),* the weight of the scientific evidence (as determined by the work of The Cochrane Collaboration) actually shows that breast screenings are in all likelihood not doing any net good in those who undergo them.

In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review,** also known as the Gà¸tzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane Review, titled “Screening for breast cancer with mammography“, the authors revealed the tenuous statistical justifications for mass breast screenings:

Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.[2]

In this review, the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was the 35% increased risk of surgery among women who underwent screenings. Many of the surgeries, in fact, were the result of women being diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a “cancer” that would not exists as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the fact that it is detectable through x-ray mammography. DCIS, in the vast majority of cases, has no palpable lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe it should be completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition.

A more recent study published in the British Medical Journal in 2011 titled, “Possible net harms of breast cancerscreening: updated modeling of Forrest report,” not only confirmed the Gà¸tzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane Review findings, but found the situation likely worse:

This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.[3]

So, let’s assume that these reviews are correct, and at the very least, the screenings are not doing any good, and at worst, causing more harm than good. The salient question, however, is how much more harm than good? If we consider that, according to data from Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2011), a mammogram uses 4 mSv of radiation vs. the .02 mSv of your average chest x-ray (which is 200 times more radiation), and then, we factor in the 4-600% higher genotoxicity/carcinogenicity associated with the specific “low-energy” wavelengths used in mammography, it is highly possible that beyond the epidemic of over-diagnosis and over-treatment, mammograms are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women.***

With the advent of non-ionizing radiation based diagnostic technologies, such as thermography, it has become vitally important that patients educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist. Until then, we must use our good sense – and research like this – to inform our decisions, and as far as the unintended adverse effects of radiation go, erring on the side of caution whenever possible.

Article notes:

[*] This discrepancy in radiation risk models/estimates follows from two fundamental problems: 1) the older risk model was based on higher-energy radiation emissions, such as are given off from atomic bomb blasts 2) it was a crude model, developed before the discovery of DNA and a full understanding of radiotoxicity/genotoxicity.

[**] Keep in mind that the Cochrane Database Review is at the top of the “food chain” of truth, in the highly touted “evidence-based model” of conventional medicine. Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration, which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality, evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of common health care interventions. The organization, comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries, prides itself on being an “independent” source of information, and historically has not been afraid to point out the corrupting influence of industry, which increasingly co-opts the biomedical research and publishing fields.

[***] The low-energy wavelengths cause double strand breaks within the DNA of susceptible cells, which the cell can not repair. Through time these mutations result in “neoplastic transformation”; radiation has the ability to induce a cancerous phenotype within formerly healthy cells that has cancer stem cell-like (CSC) properties.

Group Drumming Better Than Prozac, Study Suggests


new study published in PLoS scientifically validates what so many drum circle participants have already experienced first hand: group drumming produces significant changes in well-being, including improvements in depression, anxiety and social resilience.

With the World Health Organization identifying depression as the #1 leading cause of disability, globally, and psychiatric medications causing severe side effects, including permanently disabling the body’s self-healing mechanism, drug-free alternatives are needed now more than ever.

Could group drumming provide just such a solution?

Titled, “Effects of Group Drumming Interventions on Anxiety, Depression, Social Resilience and Inflammatory Immune Response among Mental Health Service Users,” UK researchers enrolled thirty adults who were already recipients of mental health services but were not receiving antidepressant medications in a 10 week program of drumming versus a control group of 15. The two groups were matched for age, sex, ethnicity and employment status. The control participants were informed that they were participating in a study about music and mental health but were not given access to the group drumming sessions. The treatment group received weekly 90-minute group drumming sessions over a period of 10 weeks. The drum group sizes were between 15-20. Each participant was provided with a traditional African djembe drum and sat in a circle. Twenty percent of the session time involved instruction and talking, whereas 80% was direct participation in music-making. The control subjects were enrolled in community group social activities (e.g. quiz nights, women’s institute meetings and book clubs). Both groups were monitored for biomarkers related to immune status and inflammation, e.g. cortisol and various cytokines, to track the biological as well as psychological changes associated with the intervention.

Group Drumming Better Than Prozac, Study Suggests - PLOS One - Effects Group Drumming Intervention Anxiety Depression Inflammation Immune Mental Health

The results of the study were remarkable and reported as follows:

“Significant improvements were found in the drumming group but not the control group: by week 6 there were decreases in depression (-2.14 SE 0.50 CI -3.16 to -1.11) and increases in social resilience (7.69 SE 2.00 CI 3.60 to 11.78), and by week 10 these had further improved (depression: -3.41 SE 0.62 CI -4.68 to -2.15; social resilience: 10.59 SE 1.78 CI 6.94 to 14.24) alongside significant improvements in anxiety (-2.21 SE 0.50 CI -3.24 to -1.19) and mental wellbeing (6.14 SE 0.92 CI 4.25 to 8.04). All significant changes were maintained at 3 months follow-up. Furthermore, it is now recognised that many mental health conditions are characterised by underlying inflammatory immune responses. Consequently, participants in the drumming group also provided saliva samples to test for cortisol and the cytokines interleukin (IL) 4, IL6, IL17, tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF?), and monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP) 1. Across the 10 weeks there was a shift away from a pro-inflammatory towards an anti-inflammatory immune profile. Consequently, this study demonstrates the psychological benefits of group drumming and also suggests underlying biological effects, supporting its therapeutic potential for mental health.”

In summary, by 6 weeks the drumming intervention group experienced decreases in depression, increased social resilience; by 10 weeks they saw further improvements in depression, alongside significant improvements in anxiety and mental wellbeing. These changes continued to be maintained 3 months follow-up. The drumming intervention group also saw their immune profile shift from a pro-inflammatory towards an anti-inflammatory response.

This remarkable research opens up the possibility that group drumming may produce positive psychospiritual changes that, in comparison to conventional treatment with psychiatric medications like Prozac, support side-effect free improvement in parameters beyond symptom suppression.

Group Drumming Better Than Prozac, Study Suggests

Additionally, when one considers that the benefits associated with conventional pharmaceutical treatment of depression may actually result from the placebo effect and not the chemicals themselves, as well as the fact that antidepressants can cause severe adverse effects including suicidal ideation, the findings of this exploratory study becomes all the more promising.

Another important discovery here is that group drumming down-regulated inflammation within the immune profiles of study participants. Could the dysregulation of inflammation be a root cause of a wide range of psychiatric disorders and anti-inflammatory interventions a solution? This is exactly a thesis explored in-depth by Dr. Kelly Brogan in her new book, “A Mind of Your Own: The Truth About Depression And How Women Can Heal Their Bodies To Reclaim Their Lives,” wherein the crucial physiological role of inflammation in conditions as varied as depression, bipolar disorder, and anxiety are discussed. The inflammation-depression link, in particular, explains how interventions such as turmeric have been clinically proven to be superior to common antidepressant medications like Prozac, presumably because of turmeric’s broad spectrum and systemic anti-inflammatory properties.

Drumming As an Ancient Mind, Body, Soul Healing Technology

In a previous article titled, “6 Ways Drumming Heals The Body, Mind, And Soul”, I reviewed the published scientific literature on drumming’s therapeutic potential, and explored some of the possible evolutionary origins of this ancient cultural technology. It is fascinating to consider that even insects drum, and that human language itself may have originated from these primordial gesticulations, which appear almost universally within the animal kingdom. Moreover,sound waves (percussion) may carry biologically meaningful energy and information with epigenetic significance. Drumming could therefore be considered a form of “informational medicine.”

Group Drumming Better Than Prozac, Study Suggests

While the science on drumming’s therapeutic value continues to accumulate and is increasingly compelling, it may not at all be necessary. The most important thing to remember is that drumming is something one must directly experience in order to fully appreciate and understand it. There are hundreds of community drum circles throughout the country. They attract all ages, walks of life, experience levels, and are always free to join. Those who know them intimately understand that the only thing required to be part of a drum circle is a human heart beat, as the beat of the drum and this ancient rhythm within your chest are fundamentally one.

Inspiring Drumming Quotes

“Rhythm and harmony enter most powerfully into the inner most part of the soul and lay forcible hands upon it, bearing grace with them, so making graceful him who is rightly trained.” — Plato

“Music creates order out of chaos: for rhythm imposes unanimity upon the divergent, melody imposes continuity upon the disjointed, and harmony imposes compatibility upon the incongruous” — Yehudi Menuhin

“Where I come from we say that rhythm is the soul of life, because the whole universe revolves around rhythm, and when we get out of rhythm, that’s when we get into trouble.” — Babatunde Olatunji

“Rhythm is a heartbeat. It’s the first drum, a story in sound that reveals our imagination and celebrates our power. Rhythm is the multi-culti common ground of the human family.” — Tony Vacca

Mammography Is Harmful and Should Be Abandoned, Scientific Review Concludes


“I believe that if screening had been a drug, it would have been withdrawn from the market long ago.” ~ Peter C Gøtzsche (physician, medical researcher and author of Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy.)

With Breast Cancer Awareness Month upon us again, a new study promises to undermine the multi-billion dollar cause-marketing campaign that shepherds millions of women in to have their breasts scanned for cancer with x-rays that themselves are known to contribute to breast cancer.

If you have followed my work for any length of time, you know that I have often reported on the adverse effects of mammography, of which there are many. From the radiobiological and psychological risks of the procedure itself, to the tremendous harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, it is becoming clearer every day that those who subject themselves to screening as a “preventive measure” are actually putting themselves directly into harms way, unnecessarily.

Now, a new study conducted by Peter C Gøtzsche, of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and titled “Mammography screening is harmful and should be abandoned,” strikes to the heart of the matter by showing the actual effect of decades of screening has not been to reduce breast cancer specific mortality, despite the generation of millions of new so-called “early stage” or “stage zero” breast cancer diagnoses.

Previous investigation on the subject by Gotzsche resulted in the discovery that over-diagnosis occurs in a staggering 52% of patients offered organized mammography screening, which equates to “one in three breast cancers being over-diagnosed.” The problem with over-diagnosis is that it almost always goes unrecognized. This then results in over-treatment with aggressive interventions such as lumpectomy, mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation; over-treatment is a euphemistic term that describes being severely harmed and/or having one’s life shortened by unnecessary medical treatment. Some of these treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation,can actually enrich cancer stem cells within tumors, essentially altering cells from benign to malignant, or transforming already cancerous cells into far deadlier phenotypes.

Other recent research has determined that the past 30 years of breast cancer screening has lead to the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of about 1.3 million U.S. women, i.e. tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms, and should never have been termed “cancers” in the first place. Truth be told, the physical and psycho-physical suffering wrought by the harms of breast cancer screening can not even begin to be quantified.

Gøtzsche is very clear about the implications of his review on the decision to undergo mammography. He opines that the effect of screening on mortality, which is the only true measure of whether a medical intervention is worth undertaking, is to increase total mortality.

Mammography Is Harmful and Should Be Abandoned, Review Concludes

Gøtzsche summarizes his findings powerfully:

“Mammography screening has been promoted to the public with three simple promises that all appear to be wrong: It saves lives and breasts by catching the cancers early. Screening does not seem to make the women live longer; it increases mastectomies; and cancers are not caught early, they are caught very late. They are also caught in too great numbers. There is so much overdiagnosis that the best thing a women can do to lower her risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid going to screening, which will lower her risk by one-third. We have written an information leaflet that exists in 16 languages on cochrane.dk, which we hope will make it easier for a woman to make an informed decision about whether or not to go to screening.

“I believe that if screening had been a drug, it would have been withdrawn from the market long ago. Many drugs are withdrawn although they benefit many patients, when serious harms are reported in rather few patients. The situation with mammography screening is the opposite: Very few, if any, will benefit, whereas many will be harmed. I therefore believe it is appropriate that a nationally appointed body in Switzerland has now recommended that mammography screening should be stopped because it is harmful.”

In the midst of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a cause marketing orgy bedecked with pink ribbons, and infused with apinkwashed mentality that has entirely removed the word “carcinogen” (i.e. the cause of cancer) from the discussion. All the better to raise billions more to find the “cure” everyone is told does not yet exist.

Women need to break free from the medical industrial complex’s ironclad hold on their bodies and minds, and take back control of their health through self-education and self-empowerment.

Big Pharma’s Dirty Little Secret: Vaccine-Induced Autoimmune Injury


Big Pharma’s Dirty Little Secret: Do Bleeding Calves, Narcolepsy and Infertility Have the Same Mechanism for Vaccine Injury?

Nasal flu vaccine left  energetic and happy 10-year-old Bobby Hunter with disease that makes him afraid to smile .

Scientists reveal how a hyperactivated immune system can unleash disease

Bobby Hunter was 10 years old when his mother noticed her usually energetic boy was struggling to stay awake and he looked exhausted all the time. Then he began collapsing. Eventually Bobby was diagnosed with narcolepsy, a lifelong incurable condition where victims suddenly drop into deep dream sleep, sometimes a dozen times a day or more. It can be accompanied by bizarre and terrifying symptoms: waking hallucinations of demons, insomnia, sleep paralysis and a sudden loss of muscle control or cataplexy often triggered by strong emotions. Bobby now has to be accompanied everywhere he goes in case he falls unconscious; he’ll never bathe or drive or cross a street alone. But his case is particularly cruel. Now, he is a child who is afraid to smile or laugh because it might trigger an attack.

Bobby’s mother Amanda is adamant he first became ill after he received the nasal flu vaccine at his school. But could such a small thing cause such a devastating disorder?

Narcolepsy Nightmare Explained

This month at the 10th Autoimmunity Congress in Leipzig, Germany a leading pharmaceutical researcher presented his international team’s findings suggesting that vaccination could indeed have the “unexpected” effect of inducing crippling narcolepsy, an autoimmune disease.

Sohail Ahmed, lead author of a ground breaking paper published last summer in Science Translational Medicine explained how the now-retracted Pandemrix vaccine was implicated in a narcolepsy epidemic of more than 1,300 children in several European countries and spates of cases linked to other vaccines for the 2009 swine flu pandemic that never materialized.

It turns out,  part of the influenza nucleoprotein in the swine flu vaccine looked (molecularly) just like a receptor for a neurotransmitter in the brain called orexin that regulates the sleep/wake cycle, explained, Ahmed former global head of clinical sciences at Novartis and later GlaxoSmithKline who is currently with Roche Pharmaceuticals.

When the vaccine was injected with an adjuvant to ramp up the immune response, the immune system went into overdrive. Something  — maybe chemical ingredients in the vaccine, maybe inflammation  –  breached the blood brain barrier and the immune system targeting the vaccine virus also locked in on the receptors in the brain sleep centre. Narcoleptic patients’ own immune system then destroyed a hub of 70,000 or so orexin-producing cells in their brains before their hosts started knocking out. The autoimmune reaction can’t be turned off because the immune system is programmed to relentlessly attack anything it perceives as a foreign invader. It’s a case of mistaken identity and in immunology it’s called a “cross-reaction.”

But could other vaccines still in circulation that contain the H1N1 virus trigger narcolepsy too? Could the same mechanism cause kids like Bobby Hunter to get narcolepsy from the nasal flu vaccine?

Both Ahmed and immunologist Maria Teresa Arango at Leipzig confirmed that it could indeed. Bobby probably carries the HLA-DQB1*0602 genetic marker that leaves him at a higher risk of getting narcolepsy. But so does 20% of the US population. For pharmaceutical industry dependents like Ahmed, so long as cases like Bobby’s are not epidemic as they were with Pandemrix, they are collateral damage the pharmaceutical industry is willing continue to keep flu vaccines rolling.

But what if other vaccine proteins are acting in more unexpected ways, contributing to other autoimmune diseases?

Arango said such cross-reactivity could be the underlying mechanism for widely varied and unexpected documented vaccine adverse autoimmune events affecting other parts of the brain or body. She pointed to the work of Dr. Darja Kanduc.

Massive Peptide Sharing, Massive Autoimmunity?

Kanduc is a biochemist at the University of Bari in Italy who presented her findings in Leipzig at a one-day symposium on vaccine safety sponsored by the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute. Bari has been looking for molecular similarities between microbial and human proteins and found that a massive, unexpected “peptide sharing” exists between human proteins and microbe proteins.

Where overlap (“peptide sharing”) occurs between a foreign protein and human protein, they have a same identical amino acid sequence (for example, SLVDTYR).  An immune response launched against SLVDTYR might hit A (the microbial protein) and also B (the human protein). In immunology terms, this is a cross-reaction between A and B — in the same way Ahmed’s team illustrated vaccine-induced narcolepsy.

Normally such cross-reactions do not occur, explains Kanduc. “In fact, the human immune system has been ‘educated’ to ignore foreign proteins and avoid cross-reactions in order not to harm the similar human ‘self’ proteins.” In immunology, this is called immunotolerance. Our immune system does not press the panic button and launch an attack on every foreign viral protein it encounters.

Tolerance Lost

Our natural immunotolerance has proved a big problem for vaccine manufacturers over the years. Simply injecting a viral or bacterial particle into our bodies does not trigger the immune storm they want. Our bodies aren’t designed to encounter pathogens via intramuscular injection, after all. Our immune system refuses to attack the injected pathogen since that would mean also attacking the look-alike human proteins. It would rather not go to war than risk the home casualties.

Imagine the immune system as a border guard. If a guard at the Canada-US border pulled every vehicle that drove up to his checkpoint aside, emptied the suitcases, called in the sniffer dogs, strip-searched the occupants and called for the SWAT team, things would get ugly pretty fast. Most of the time, border guards are alert but passive. Our immune system is the same way with foreign proteins.

So vaccine manufacturers pepper vaccines with adjuvants — crude extracts of mycobacteria, toxins such as mercury, aluminum salts, or mineral oils to force the reluctant immune system to go into attack mode – from passive border guard to hypervigilant nutter pulling a gun on a granny.  Celebrated Yale immunologist Charles Janeway called this “immunologist’s dirty little secret” underlying vaccination.

 “Adjuvants expand, potentiate, and increase immune responses,” explains Kanduc. “Such hyperactivation has a price: the loss of specificity. The hyper-stimulated immune system does not discriminate any more between foreign proteins and self-proteins…Adjuvants render the immune system blind. Human proteins that share peptide sequences will be attacked.”

Kanduc likens immunotolerance to a protective wall. “The dam is demolished by the adjuvants and the cross-reactivity flood can crush and alter human proteins.” This might also cause numerous cross-reactions, manifested as a wide variety of autoimmune attacks.

Can vaccines induce genetic disease?

Kanduc looked for peptide sharing between a single influenza A H5N1 protein and human proteins. She found that the viral protein shares 70 peptides with the human host — proteins involved in basic cell functions including proliferation, neurodevelopment, and differentiation.

Among the human proteins that could be on the firing range: reelin, a protein involved in neuron layering, neurexins, proteins that connect neurons,  syndrome 10 protein for Bardet-Biedl syndrome, a transcription factor for Williams Syndrome (a rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorder), a protein associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and so on.

When these human proteins are altered, as for example by genetic mutations, neurological disorders such as epilepsy, obesity, dystonia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and demyelinating diseases like multiple sclerosis occur, says Kanduc.

 “The same spectrum of diseases might occur if these human proteins are attacked and altered by cross-reactions following an expanded and indiscriminate immune response induced by an adjuvant vaccine,” she adds.

With such “massive overlap” of proteins, the potential for vaccines to induce all sorts of autoimmune diseases is possible; it explains why such diverse autoimmune phenomena have been documented in the medical literature with respect to vaccination, from neurological disorders to skin afflictions to impaired fertility.

“The type of autoimmune phenomenon and disease that is eventually established will depend on the molecules and organs attacked,” explains Kanduc. “For example, attacks against myelin may evoke demyelinating diseases [such as multiple sclerosis] whereas immune reactions against proteins involved in behaviour  and /or cognition may cause autism and behaviour disorders.”

Autoimmune Infertility?

Such autoimmunity may be the mechanism underlying cases of premature menopause and infertility in adolescent girls following injection with the vaccine against HPV, described in Leipzig by an Australian GP. Deirdre Little, a general practitioner in South Bellingen, first published a case study of her 16-year-old patient who developed premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) following HPV vaccination. Since then Little has encountered six more post-HPV cases of sterility in adolescents in her practice – though primary ovarian insufficiency is almost unheard of  — normally affecting one in 100,000 girls under age 20.

 

Toxic Phenol Ingredient in Vaccines


Toxic Phenol Ingredient in Vaccines

Phenol is hazardous when comes into contact with the skin or eyes or is ingested or inhaled. The safety record of injected phenol is neither convincing nor comforting.

Phenol, chemically known as carbolic acid, is a white, volatile crystal solid. It is a mildly acidic, water-soluble chemical that requires safe handling due its ability to cause chemical burns. Phenol is produced both “naturally” as well as synthetically. In its natural form, phenol was initially found in coal tar. It is also present naturally in human and animal wastes as well as in some foods.1

Chemical companies manufacture phenol on a large scale from petroleum and sell it commercially as a thick liquid.12 Over 3 billion pounds of phenol is produced annually in the United States, making it one of the “high volume” chemicals sold internationally.1 2 Manufactured phenol is used as a chemical intermediate to produce industrial commodities such as plastics (BPA), nylon 6, synthetic fibers, detergents, herbicides, pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.1

Phenol is also added as a disinfectant in over-the-counter products such as lotions, ointments, mouthwashes, oral anesthetic sprays, tanning dyes, etc.1

Two Childhood Vaccines Contain Phenol

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Excipient and Media Summary lists five U.S. licensed vaccines that contain phenol, including two vaccines routinely given to infants and children:

  • Hib (PedvaxHIB)
  • Hib/Hep B (Comvax)
  • Pneumococcal (PPSV-23—Pneumovax)
  • Smallpox (Vaccinia—ACAM2000)
  • Typhoid (inactivated—Typhim Vi)3

According to the Institute of Vaccine Safety at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, phenol is used as an antibacterial preservative in these vaccines, which are approved as safe for human use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).4Although the FDA has acknowledged that vaccine preservatives like phenol and formaldehyde do not necessarily entirely eliminate the risk of contamination, they are still used in vaccine development to prevent contamination from gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, mycobacteria, viruses and some fungi.5 6

Phenol: A Questionable Safety Record

The Materials and Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on ScienceLab.com, which lists manufactured phenol as very hazardous if it makes contact with the skin or eyes, or is ingested or inhaled, states:7

The amount of tissue damage depends on length of contact. Eye contact can result in corneal damage or blindness. Skin contact can produce inflammation and blistering. Inhalation of dust will produce irritation to gastro-intestinal or respiratory tract, characterized by burning, sneezing and coughing. Severe over-exposure can produce lung damage, choking, unconsciousness or death… The substance may be toxic to kidneys, liver, central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. … Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.”7

The MSDS does not address the effects of phenol via injection.7 However, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes reproductive and developmental adverse health effects when phenol is orally ingested by animals, and states:

Animal studies have reported reduced fetal body weights, growth retardation, and abnormal development in the offspring of animals exposed to phenol by the oral route. Decreased maternal weight gain and increased maternal mortality were also observed.8

Although the EPA adds that no published studies indicate concerning developmental or reproductive effects of manufactured phenol exposures in humans, if ingested, phenol has severe effects on animal health, so it is reasonable to be concerned about its potential adverse effects on human health.

Phenol Used in Lethal Injections During World War II

Due to phenol’s toxic chemical effect on the central nervous system leading to sudden collapse and loss of consciousness, phenol injections were used as a method of execution in the Third Reich during World War II.9 Phenol injections were used in 1939 as part of Action T4, which was a program of forced euthanasia of those the state considered to be undesireable.10 Although Zyklon B, a cyanide based pesticide was used in gas chambers to kill large numbers of people in concentration camps, Nazi officials discovered that killing people on an individual basis was more economical using phenol injections.10

How safe can injected phenol be, even in small amounts, if it was used as a lethal weapon?

Phenol: Unresolved Scientific Evidence

Given that phenol is (1) considered hazardous if it comes into contact with the skin or eyes or is ingested or inhaled and (2) has been found to have detrimental reproductive and developmental effects when given orally to lab animals and (3) has been used as a poison to kill people, how can it be considered a safe ingredient in vaccines, even in small amounts?

There are weak arguments used to justify the use of toxic substances like phenol in vaccines, including:

  • The substances are only present in small concentrations not large enough to cause injury, i.e.: the dose makes the poison.
  • Some of the substances can be considered “natural” because they are produced by or found in trace amounts in the human body.

However, the fact remains that there is no hard science evaluating  the cumulative and synergistic effects of all the ingredients in the dozens of doses of vaccines given to infants and children. Vaccine manufacturers and public health officials ignore or gloss over what is known as synergistic toxicity, which the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety refers to as:

the effect caused when exposure to two or more chemicals at the same time results in health effects that are greater than the sum of the effects of the individual chemicals. When chemicals are synergistic, the potential hazards of the chemicals should be re-evaluated, taking their synergistic properties into consideration.11

The safety record of injected phenol is neither convincing nor comforting. The FDA is the only government agency legally required to provide scientific evidence that vaccines are safe for human use and the public awaits credible evidence that the toxic chemical, phenol, has been proven safe for use in vaccines.