Connect with us

Awareness

Measles: Exploring The Past Before The Marketing Of Vaccines

Published

on

Did you grow up watching The Flintstones or The Brady Bunch? I know I did. These television programs were pretty popular in their day.

advertisement - learn more

You might want to take a step back in time and reminisce by watching these hilarious measles episodes joking about how trivial getting the measles was, way back before the vaccine was invented. And maybe it will get you thinking, ”why all the fuss today?” Is measles something to be terrified of?

I’m sure we all can agree, most grandparents would say that they caught measles and that they “got through it just fine.” And our mothers can probably also remember measles and chicken pox parties, where people would invite their kids to be around other children who had either of these two viruses. It was nothing to be scared of. Sure, if you didn’t treat it correctly, it could make some children’s symptoms worsen, and it’s definitely not good for adults to get measles (hence the parties!) but all in all, measles was seen as something that was very common and nothing to be frightened of. Please try and view the video first, then read on.

Why are things are so different now?  We’ve all become very scared of contracting any illness. Even the flu makes people rush out and get vaccines that have actually been proven to harm (and can even kill). What’s worse, not only are they harmful, they really do not work very well.

Where Does The Fear Come From?

What has caused such a huge change in our attitudes towards the measles?

Cathy Jameson from Age Of Autism wrote the following in her article A Very Brady Measles:

advertisement - learn more

Things are so different today. Illness is a bad word. What used to be called a common childhood disease is now viewed as impending doom. Fevers, rashes and sicknesses that last longer than a few hours are treated like the plague. Anything that can be passed from one person to another is a death sentence. These types of exaggerations fill many news stories.  With those exaggerations, as well as how other fear tactics are used, including the mantra that the almighty vaccine is the answer no matter the question, no wonder people feel anxious about disease today!

Cathy also wrote about the Disney ‘outbreak’ that has many people up in arms:

I don’t know why a growing number of news sources that are reporting on diseases are resorting to such exaggeration. Take the latest disease story in the news, the Disney measles story. Pre-vaccine hysteria, we recognized that after a childhood illness ran its course that natural immunity would be gained.  Nowadays, rather than promote natural immunity, we’re being ushered and demanded to get vaccines. I have to ask why, especially why the measles vaccine (MMR), when this particular vaccine clearly isn’t working.

We know that it isn’t working because several of the people who came down with the measles in the recent Disney outbreak were vaccinated. That fact – that vaccinated individuals got the disease that their vaccine was supposed to prevent – negates the current media feeding frenzy. You’d think focusing on those vaccinated individuals who fell ill is a more of a breaking news story. You’d think that because we’re told so many times that vaccines are always life-saving, safe and effective, effective in preventing disease. Evidently, they are not.

6a00d8357f3f2969e201b7c73e2638970b

The Chart Used in Brady Bunch TV program to highlight what the Brady kids had caught.

“Over $3 billion has been paid out to victims of vaccine reactions. Not $3 million. Not $30 million. Not even $300 million, but $3 billion. Are we paying that much money to victims of pretend reactions? I think not.”  – Dr Bob Sears

Worried About Measles & Other Viruses?

It personally boggles my mind that most people today are so frightened of common viruses that “everyone got” years ago, yet many don’t know that real health comes from what we eat, how much exercise we get, how we control our stress and how much Vitamin D we get.

But what can we expect when we have a medical system with doctors who don’t tend to learn more than about 12 hours (maybe I’m even stretching this amount!) of training to do with nutrition. And whilst they do mention the other things in their advice to patients, it’s not really emphasised in detail – eg. they will still prescribe a drug that might not be necessary when a lifestyle change may actually fix that concern.

Because doctors don’t receive much nutrition training, this of course, then effects what the media writes about nutrition and allows them to advertise these awful foods to begin with.

So because of this lack of education – generally speaking – many people often regularly eat junk food, always resort to medications (that can harm  the body with regular use), and don’t breastfeed their children for too long – or at all.  They also aren’t concerned about or don’t understand that chemicals are harming society, and just generally lead a very unhealthy lifestyle.

Yet they perhaps want to believe that a vaccine will take care of everything, instantly making them healthier individuals and immune to disease.

Ensure Adequate Levels of Vitamin A

There’s a lot we can do for ourselves and our children in relation to the measles. One is very simple and that is ensuring that we have adequate vitamin a levels.

Leon Chaitow wrote in his book  (published back in 1987 when measles deaths did occur) Vaccination and Immunisation: Dangers, Delusions and Alternatives about the evidence supporting vitamin a deficiences showing that:

  • those children that have the worst symptoms during and following measles have lowest levels of vitamin a
  • such children are the most likely develop eye symptoms during measles
  • they are also likely to have a fever above 40 degrees (104 F) and require hospitalisation
  • they are the children most likely to die from measles
  • supplementing with vitamin a dramatically reduces the risks of severe illness or death associated with measles
  • this has been demonstrated in Africa where a 700% reduction in children dying from measles followed with vitamin a supplementation

Therefore, it must be considered, we may be seeing these outbreaks happen today, partly due to simple vitamin a deficiencies. We know that many children aren’t eating good diets. That’s a fact. You only have to take a walk outside most cities and you will see overweight children who are clearly not having a good wholesome diet.  I often see children with dark circles under their eyes, sallow skin and just lack of ‘spark’ behind their eyes. If they don’t look healthy, chances are they are missing some pretty important nutrients.

eggs0321

excellent source of Vitamin A

Where Do You Get Vitamin A From In Diet?

As parents or as an individual, we can try and ensure we have good levels of vitamin a in our diets. High levels of  vitamin a – in the form of retinol (the most important source) –  is found in many animal products such as:

  • grass fed organic egg yolks
  • grass fed organic butter
  • grass fed organic liver
  • fermented cod liver oil
  • grass fed organic full fat cream

It is found in plant sources too, but according to research its not the correct source.

Author Lauren, of the Empowered Sustanance wrote:

When you hear think about vitamin A foods, what sources come to mind? Most nutrition books and internet sources list the following as excellent sources of vitamin A:

  1. Carrots
  2. Sweet potatoes
  3. Dark leafy greens
  4. Cantaloupe
  5. Bell peppers

Although taken for granted as ideal vitamin A foods, these plants provide only the precursor to vitamin A, carotenoids. Interestingly, we need to be consuming true vitamin A foods, foods containing retinol, to meet our vitamin A requirements.

The most important fact about vitamin A is the difference between retinoids and cartenoids. The vitamin A from animal sources is retinoids, also called retinol, while plant source vitamin A is carotenoids, such as beta carotene.

Carrot-Nutri-Red-Sugarsnax-Purplesnax

Think Carrots Are A Good Source Of Vitamin A? Not So

Animal sources of retinol is bio-available, which means the body can utilize it. The vitamin A from plant sources, in contrast, must first be converted to retinol to be useful in the body. This poses two big problems.

First, when we are in pristine health, it requires at least six units of carotenes to convert into 1 unit of retinol (source). To put this in perspective, that means one must eat 4 1/2 pounds of carrots to potentially get the amount of useable A as in 3 oz. of beef liver (source). What happens if we have digestive issues, hormone imbalances, or other health problems? It requires even more units of carotene in the ratio.

Second,  the carotene-to-retinol conversion is HIGHLY compromised. As a matter of fact, this conversion is negligible for many individuals. This conversion is virtually insignificant:

  • In infants
  • In those with poor thyroid function (hypothyroidism)
  • In those with diabetes
  • In those who are on a low fat diet or have a history of low fat dieting
  • In those who have compromised bile production (think: gallbladder and digestive issues) (source and source)

This information is most certainly not going to appeal to vegans. However, I would suggest you get tested yourself for vitamin a levels and your children as well if they too are following a vegan diet.

iStock_000011390587XSmall

Adequate Vitamin D Is A Must For Healthy Kids And Adults

Vitamin D

We also now know that many people are incredibly deficient in vitamin d, which is vital for good health and a strong immune system. I’d personally go as far as saying that vitamin d is essential for the health of every single part of the body. Concerningly deficiencies are now a huge problem found in children.

Sunlight is the best source, but due to the vilification of the sun years ago, many people always slather themselves with toxic sunscreens before they have any sun exposure at all.  These creams do a fantastic job of blocking out the bad and good rays.

So where are people getting their vitamin d from if they are always covering up? Diet is another area that we can tray and get some more from:

 

Portobello-Mushrooms

mushrooms – a source of vitamin d

Common Foods That Contain Vitamin D

  • eggs
  • mushrooms
  • oily fish
  • cod liver oil
  • orange juice
  • beef liver

another way to get Vitamin D is from:

Supplementing with Vitamin D

In regards to supplementation, I would like to share what Dr. Mercola wrote on his website:

If You Opt for a Vitamin D Supplement…

If your circumstances don’t allow you to access the sun or a high-quality tanning bed, then you really only have one option if you want to raise your vitamin D, and that is to take a vitamin D supplement (make sure it is vitamin D3, not D2). I recommend regularly testing your levels to make sure you’re staying within the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml year-round. The Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee recommends the following dosages. Keep in mind that these guidelines are thought to allow most people to reach a vitamin D level of 30 ng/ml, which many still consider suboptimal for disease prevention.

  • Neonates: 400 to 1,000 IUs per day
  • Children one year of age and above: 600 to 1,000 IUs per day
  • Adults: 1,500 to 2,000 IUs per day

GrassrootsHealth offers a helpful chart showing the average adult dose required to reach healthy vitamin D levels based upon your measured starting point. Many experts agree that 35 IUs of vitamin D per pound of body weight could be used as an estimate for your ideal dose, but you’ll need to test your levels to find out the dosage that’s right for you.

Get Your Levels Checked

Another way to know whats going on with your body is to get some testing done in relation to your levels of vitamin d. You can ask your doctor to do a screening for you (you may have to be quite firm about your request) or you could purchase a kit like this one.

When suffering from the measles another great way to treat it is with Vitamin C.  Dr Suzanne Humphries writes:

Vitamin C is one of the safest medical wonders on the planet. The following link will show you Vitamin C’s success as published in medical literature since the 1940′s.  It has been put down by the FDA and much disbelief exists within the medical community.  Link to article HERE.  However, I and many others have first-handedly enjoyed the nontoxic benefits of sodium ascorbate.  It is important to use high enough doses and the right formulation to achieve best results.

AscorbateWeb

The reason conventional medical doctors are not taught about the mechanisms of action and benefits of vitamin C in medical school, is that if they knew about it, then not only would a raft of other drugs have been unnecessary, but there would not be serious whooping cough or even deaths.  Vitamin A and C would render measles really easy to treat. You’d never see meningococcal complications, because all people suspected of having it, would immediately be put on IV vitamin C and there would be no coagulopathy at all.  Vitamin C antidotes DIC, the coagulopathy.  The ACIP and it’s cronies wouldn’t be able to use meningococcal complications and deaths as emotional blackmail to get people to vaccinate, because people wouldn’t be scared of infections any more.

Why The Huge Rise In Autoimmune Disorders?

If vaccines were truly making us ‘healthier’ and have stronger immune systems, why is their such a huge increase in auto-immune disorders that we have?

It is estimated that in the US alone, 50 million citizens have an autoimmune disorder. And guess how many different ones there are these days?

Between 80-100.

This is beyond shocking.

I know, to achieve good health, it can cost more, you do have to spend more money on wholesome food, on supplements and other preventative measures, but the long term goal is to not need to suffer later in life – and cost the health system (which uses our taxes to pay for it) so much money.

There’s so much an individual can do to help their immune system become very efficient, it just takes a little interest and serious effort. It’s actually got to become a way of life.  We just need more education on how to do this.

Measle Vaccines Spreads Measles

Another thing people don’t seem to understand about the measles vaccine is that it can spread the disease to others. Because it contains a “live virus,” most people who are recently vaccinated can be contagious for approximately 2 weeks. This is called “shedding.” This is not hearsay, this is a fact and is often clearly stated on vaccine inserts.

In New York City, a 22 year old fully vaccinated adult developed measles and then unknowingly gave the virus to four other people, two of which had also been vaccinated.

Despite kids today being given up to 3 doses of the MMR vaccine, it’s also not guaranteed that they will still be immune later in life  – which is pretty frightening to know considering catching measles as an adult is certainly a lot riskier.

vaccines1

Vaccines that can shed

 

Measles Vaccine Reactions Not So Rare

If you check out the MMR’s adverse reactions that have been listed after they conducted their study, the list is enormous – too much to list here – but it contains some very frightening noted effects.

However, I also found some concerning information, again, found in Merck’s own product information PDF:

  • As for any vaccine, vaccination with M-M-R II may not result in protection in 100% of vaccines.
  • M-M-R II has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility.

So basically they’re saying that they can’t guarantee that the MMR vaccine will provide us with immunity and that it – or any other vaccines on the market – have not been studied to disprove if this vaccine can cause us long term problems such as cancer, or if it could cause other health problems or even effect your ability to conceive a child.

Not So Safe & Not So Effective

Really, they haven’t proven anything in regards to its safety. Sure, some will say, “My kids had it but they are fine, they haven’t had a reaction,” but how do we know that in the long term they might not develop cancer because of this vaccine?

There’s simply no proof from them to say this won’t happen.

Is this a good way to study something that is being commonly dolled out to all of our kids? And yes, the vaccines have been around long enough now for a study to be performed, but pharmaceutical companies simply don’t do these long-term studies.

I don’t know about you, but this is not good enough at all. If something is staunchly recommended for my child to take, I want real proof that it’s safe and that it’s going to work. What I don’t want is a long list of possible adverse reactions that have been recorded during trials and since reported to VAERS.

The possible effects from catching measles naturally (when treated the correct way)  is often so minimal.

The vaccine has far more possible side effects.

Merck-vaccine-fraud-false-claims-1

Court Documents Filed Against Merck

What About Deaths From Measles?

In fact, there have been some pretty serious adverse reactions due to the vaccine recorded with VAERS, namely deaths. Yet it’s questionable anyone has died from the measles in the last TEN years.  In the last year, Dr. Anne Schuchat, the director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, made this statement in an Associated Press story published by Fox News on April 25, 2014:

“There have been no measles deaths reported in the U.S. since 2003.

6a00d834515c5469e201bb07ede2bb970d-500wi

Does it really look like the measles vaccine caused measles to decrease?

Just this past week a news story came out of Berlin, that a toddler has recently died from the measles. When you look at the story though, there is actually no proof this is true. There is no interview with the parents, no photo, nothing. Also if it true, they have said in the reports that he is an asylum seeker from Bosnia.  Now, if you have a think about what that could tell about his health – it could mean that he a) hasn’t been eating very well or very much b) has been living in poverty c) suffering a lot of stress.

The reports also say that he was suffering from some other disease as well. With what some of us know about the close ties between the media and pharmaceutical industry – this story could be more of a fear tactic. Regardless even if true, it is one death. Not ten, not twenty, not thirty but one. In ten years.

However, the amount of deaths recorded after receiving measles vaccines is up to approximately 108.  And it’s always best to understand the fact that not all vaccine injuries are ever recorded. If a doctor denies to a patient that the vaccine could have caused their child’s death (and most do), sometimes parents just believe that and don’t press the issue any further. So the real amount of deaths from the measles vaccine, could in fact be much higher.”

The odds are more on the side of receiving an injury from the vaccine, than from dying from measles.

This chart below is from Medalerts.org, a public database anyone can access to see what reactions have been recorded.

There have been 4 different measles vaccines in use over the last 10 years.  Not all were combined vaccines (such as the one used solely today – the MMRII)

VAERS-Measles-Vaccine-Deaths-600

Deaths From Measles Vaccines – MedAlert data base

  “It has killed no one. It can kill about 1 person in every 1000 cases. Will someone die of measles in the United States in the years to come? Maybe. But it hasn’t killed anyone in the past 15 years or more.” – Dr Bob Sears

Merck Lawsuit For Fraud

Oh, and lets not forget that Merck is being sued by two former scientists who filed a law suit back in 2010 claiming that Merck was trying to:

defraud the United States through Merck’s ongoing scheme to sell the government a mumps vaccine that is mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated and falsely certified as having an efficacy rate that is significantly higher than it actually is.

So not only do we have a vaccine whose own manufacturer admits that:

a) they can’t prove its vaccine is efficient for everyone

b) it can spread the disease to other people through ‘shedding’ process

c) they can’t say it won’t give you cancer, cause infertility or other health problems

We can also now say that it’s pretty likely they:

d) have committed medical fraud.

This is all so very comforting to know.

Are YOU Fully Vaccinated?

If you are a staunch believer in vaccines, can I get you to ask yourself this question:

Are you “fully vaccinated” for every disease that you are so worried about?

Have a good think about this, because most adults are not. This is because back in our early years, we didn’t have such a huge jam-packed schedule of vaccines. So chances are, technically you are “at risk” for catching disease.

Have a look at the vaccine comparison chart below and see what you would have received and what you are missing. There are about 25 vaccines I haven’t personally been given, but have I caught any of those things? Nope.

I do hope this gets you thinking though, that no, you are NOT vaccinated for all of these things, but you haven’t caught all of the diseases. You’re here and alive and well.

To continue being so adamant that ”everyone” should be vaccinated (with no personal choice on this matter) is an attitude which may in fact make you quite hypocritical.

1983-2013

 

Suggested Further Reading:

http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/zero-u-s-measles-deaths-in-10-years-but-over-100-measles-vaccine-deaths-reported/

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2014/06/24/measles-and-measles-vaccines-fourteen-things-to-consider-by-roman-bystrianyk-co-author-dissolving-illusions-disease-vaccines-and-the-forgotten-history/

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccinated-spreading-measles-who-merck-cdc-documents-confirms

http://www.naturalmedicine.net.nz/vaccination/whats-worse-measles-or-the-vaccine/

http://www.dinnerforthought.com/blog/ending-the-vaccine-debate-one-voice-at-a-time

 

If you’d like to learn more about Vaccines you can watch Vaccines Revealed, a 9 part Documentary series

 

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Studies Show What A Whole Foods Vegan Diet Does For People With Diabetes

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple studies have shown that a whole foods, plant-based diet can help manage, prevent, and, in some cases, even reverse diabetes.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is dietary intervention not a priority of conventional doctors? Especially when it can be much more beneficial to the patient than medication?

Food truly is medicine, and nutrition is a great way to combat multiple diseases. What’s extremely confusing is why so many doctors still choose to prescribe medication first, without considering the power of nutrition. Many doctors are not even aware of the power of nutrition and its ability to heal diseases, and this is probably because they know next to nothing about it given that they learn nothing about it in medical school.

However, things are changing. There are an abundance of doctors who are not prescribing medication when it’s not needed, and instead prescribing a proper diet. Many of them are starting to educate themselves using the literature and science surrounding nutrition. It’s not only doctors, but patients are choosing to self educate themselves now as well.

When it comes to the medical industry, self education is important, given the fact that “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry.”   Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (source)

Not long ago, Dr. Asseem Malhotra, a well-known Doctor in Britain, had some choice words to say in front of the European Parliament about modern-day medical education and the overall knowledge doctors possess. He’s one of many who continues to emerge and speak out. You can read more about that here.

When it comes to type 2 diabetes, it’s one of the diseases that can easily be managed with a proper diet. The undue influence the pharmaceutical industry has on the medical industry and doctors’ lack of understanding of nutrition is why, I believe, more than 370 million people around the world suffer from diabetes, and approximately 100 million Americans have it or are likely to get it.

It’s firmly established in scientific literature and quite clear now that moving to a whole-food, plant-based diet can drastically reduce the symptoms of type 1 diabetes and can even help manage, or in many cases completely reverse, type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes. Giving up animal products and processed foods helps as well, and there is an abundance of research that shows this.

advertisement - learn more

Perhaps one of the most important pieces of evidence is the fact that there are real life success stories. Forks over Knives has a plethora of examples and real-life case studies that support the notion that eliminating animal products and following a healthy, whole-foods diet can make it easier to live with diabetes.

In 2016, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health published a study that showed plant-based diets can lower the risk of type 2 diabetes by a third. This involves simply switching out animal products for plant-based alternatives. A whole-foods, plant-based diet is rich in beneficial dietary fiber, antioxidants, and micronutrients, and low in saturated fats. This is excellent for overall health outcomes, whether they’re related to diabetes or not.

Multiple studies have shown that red and processed meats (also recently linked to cancer by the WHO), as well as animal protein in general, increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. In omnivore populations, the risk of diabetes is doubled compared with vegans. Another study found that eating meat once a week or more over a 17-year period increased the risk of diabetes by a startling 74%. A follow up study was conducted and found that increasing red meat intake by more than just half a serving per day was closely associated with an almost 50% increased risk of contracting diabetes over four years.

Removing animal products and shifting to a diet consisting of whole and minimally processed plant foods can reduce the problems created by type 1 and type 1.5 autoimmune diabetes big time. Although there’s no cure for this type of diabetes, the right diet has plenty of benefits. Cyrus Khambatta, PhDwrites that following a low-fat, whole-foods plant-based lifestyle can:

  • Boost insulin sensitivity and reduce insulin use by more than 40 percent after six months.
  • Lead to more predictable blood glucose, making it easier to manage diabetes.
  • Increase blood flow to tissues in the body and reduce the likelihood of diabetes-related nerve damage.
  • Reduce the burden on the kidneys, decreasing the chances of getting kidney disease.

People have also reversed type 2 diabetes with a plant-based diet and fasting.

For more on that you can refer to the article linked below:

The Complete Guide To Fasting & Reversing Type 2 Diabetes: A Special Interview With Dr. Jason Fung.

Here are some other related articles you might be interested in as well:

9 Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Meat

Internal Medicine Physician Shares What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Eating Meat 

Plant-Based Protein VS. Protein From Meat: Which One Is Better For Your Body

Scientist: Milk From Cows Has “The Most Relevant Carcinogen Ever Identified” & “Turns on Cancer”

Scientist Explains How Cow’s Milk Leeches Calcium From Your Bones & Makes Them Weaker

Studies Show What Happens To Your Heart When You Go Vegan or Vegetarian

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to recognize that a whole foods, plant-based diet can be life changing. There are a number of studies that have emerged and continue to emerge showing this, while many more show a strong connection between various diseases and eating meat. It makes one ponder, are humans even designed/supposed to eat meat, or has this simply been the tactic of clever marketing by the big food industry? Something to think about.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Awareness

Research Reveals How Sugar CAUSES Cancer

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com where it first originally appeared. Posted here with permission.

  • Reflect On:

    The average American consumes their body weight annually in this cancer-causing substance, and yet hospitals freely feed it to their cancer patients, seemingly oblivious to the harm it does.

Hospitals feed cancer patients sugar and high carbohydrate diets for a simple reason: they are abysmally ignorant of the role of nutrition in health and disease — hence their burgeoning growth, packed rooms, and ‘return customers.’

Even though the science itself shows – at least since the mid-20’s with Otto Warburg’s cancer hypothesis — that tumors prefer to utilize sugar fermentation to produce energy rather than the much more efficient oxygen-based phosphorylation* – hospitals have actually invited corporations like McDonald’s to move into their facilities  to ‘enhance’ their patient’s gustatory experience, presumably to provide comfort and take the edge off of the painful surgery, radiation and chemo treatments erroneously proffered to them as the only reasonable ‘standard of care.’

But the times are changing, with new research requiring these medical institutions to reform their dietary strategies, at least if they wish to claim that their interventions are in fact ‘evidence-based,’ as they so often claim.

Study Reveals Sugar Doesn’t Just Feed But Causes Cancer

A groundbreaking study, uncovered by one of our volunteer researchers at Greenmedinfo, is the first of its kind to identify sugar, not only as fuel source for an already existing cancer, but as a primary driver in oncogenesis – i.e. the initiation of cancerous characteristics (phenotype) within previously healthy cells.

Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and titled, Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways, researchers addressed a common perception (or misperception) in the cancer research community regarding sugar’s relationship to cancer: namely, “increased glycolysis [sugar based metabolism] is frequently viewed as a consequence of oncogenic events that drive malignant cell growth and survival.”

advertisement - learn more

Contrary to this conventional view, the new study “provide[s] evidence that increased glycolytic activation itself can be an oncogenic event.”  That is to say, the activation of sugar-based metabolism in a cell – driven by both the presence of increased quantities of glucose and the increase glucose receptors on the cell membrane surface (i.e. “overexpression of a glucose transporter”) – drives cancer initiation.

Moreover, the study found that “Conversely, forced reduction of glucose uptake by breast cancer cells led to phenotypic reversion.” In other words, interfering with sugar availability and uptake to the cell causes the cancer cell to REGRESS towards its pre-cancer structure-function (phenotype).

What Are The Implications of This Research to the Diet?

What this new research indicates is that sugar – of which Americans consume an astounding 160 lbs annually (imagine: 31 five-pound bags for each of us!) – is one of the primary causes of metabolic cell changes in the body consistent with the initiation and promotion of cancer. And, the research indicates that removing it from the diet, and depriving the cells of it, could REVERSE cancer. Why is this so surprising? It’s because Americans have been lead like lambs to the slaughter to think of “prevention” as “early detection,” focusing not on identifying and removing the well known nutritional and environmental causes of cancer, rather, to spend their time, energy, and money on cause-marketing campaigns focused on “finding a cure” — as if one didn’t already exist right in front of our noses, or more aptly, on the end of our forks.

Hidden Sugar, Crouching Cancer

It has been estimated by the USDA that the average American consumes 200 lbs of grain products annually. Why is this relevant to the question of sugar in the diet? Because refined carbohydrate products – e.g. crackers, bread, pasta, cereal – are actually ‘hidden’ forms of sugar. In fact, puffed rice causes your blood to become sweeter (and presumably feeds more cancer cells sugar) than white sugar, as it is higher on the glycemic index. Adding the two figures together – annual per capita consumption of sugar and grain-based products – we get a jaw dropping 360 lbs of sugar (both overt (table sugar/high fructose corn syrup) and covert (grain carbs) annually – all of which may contribute to promoting the ideal metabolic situation of cancer cells: aerobic glycolysis.

This is one reason why the ketogenic diet – that is, a fat- and protein-focused diet devoid of carbohydrate, both in simple (sugar) and complex (grain product) form – has been found so useful in the most aggressive of cancers: including brain cancer. Once you ‘pull the rug out’ from under the sugar/carb-craving cancer cells, they are forced to either undergo programmed cell death (apoptosis) or re-differentiate back into non-cancerous phenotypes.

If It’s So Bad For Us, Why Do We Eat So Much?

One of the primary reasons why we eat sugar and carbohydrate rich diets is because they are addictive. Within minutes of consuming sugar/carbs our body goes through a neuroendocrine roller coaster. Your brain can not survive very long without glucose, the fundamental energy unit of the cell, and will ‘freak out’ if deprived of a steady stream of this ‘nutrient’ within only 2-3 minutes. The endocrine system, on the other hand, perceives the danger of high sugar – namely, glycation associated damage to protein and lipid structures within the cells of our body; think: blood caramelizing, getting sticky, and gumming up the finely tuned works – and will release hormones such as insulin, adrenaline and cortisol, in order to try to get the elevated sugar in the blood and tissues under control. Insulin forces the sugar into storage within the cell, both as glycogen and as fat, but often does its job too well, causing available glucose levels in the brain to be depleted – setting off a vicious cycle of ’emergency signals’ telling the body to release more cortisol and adrenaline to increase the levels of glucose in the blood. This, of course, will result in additional insulin production and release, causing the same cycle to be repeated over and over again.

This seemingly endless vicious cycle is responsible for the insatiable cravings a high carb/sugar diet generates – not to mention the fructose-based hedonic effects generated in the brain that modulate both opioid and dopamine receptors in the nervous system (not unlike alcohol), and the pharmacologically active peptides in many gluten-containing grains, which also drive addictive behaviors and an almost psychotic fixation on getting carbs at each meal.

No wonder we have an epidemic of cancer in a world where the Westernized diet prevails. Certainly, we do not mean to indicate that a sugar/carb-rich diet is the only cause of cancer. There are many other factors that contribute to cancer initiation and promotion, such as:

  • Chemical exposure
  • Radiation exposure
  • Chronic stress that suppresses the immune system
  • Vaccines containing hidden retroviruses and cancer causing viruses
  • Natural infection with bacteria and viruses that are cancer causing
  • Lack of sleep
  • Insufficient nutrients (lack of methyl donors such as B12, folate, and B6 will prevent the body from ‘turning off’ (methylating) cancer-promoting genes

Even though cancer is a complex, multi-factorial phenomena, with variables we can not always control, one thing we can do is control what goes into our mouth. Sugar, for instance, does not belong there if we truly want to prevent and/or treat cancer.  And don’t forget, carbohydrates that don’t taste sweet on the front end – bread, crackers, cereal – certainly convert to sugar in the body within minutes post-consumption.

In a nutshell, if you are concerned about cancer, have cancer, or would like to prevent recurrence, removing sugar and excess carbohydrates is a must. Not only is it common sense, but it is now validated by experimental research.

Additional Research

Note: another recent study found that Candida albicans (yeast) also contributes to cancer initiation and promotion. C. albicans thrives on sugar, lending additional support to the notion that sugar (consumed excessively) may be a primary driver of the cancer epidemic in those consuming the modern Western diet. For information on sugar alternatives that are not synthetic toxicants like Splenda (sucralose), read my latest article on the topic:  4 Sugar Alternatives That Won’t Poison You.


 *Note: Cancer cells prefer to ferment sugar as a form of energy even when there is sufficient oxygen available to the cells to do so; hence Warburg’s description of cancer metabolism as ‘aerobic glycolysis’ or the so-called ‘Warburg effect’

Originally published: 2017-12-04

Article udpated: 2019-07-19


Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.


Link to the original article

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play

Published

on

[Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

The vaccine industry and its government and scientific partners routinely block meaningful science and fabricate misleading studies about vaccines. They could not do so, however, without having enticed medical journals into a mutually beneficial bargain. Pharmaceutical companies supply journals with needed income, and in return, journals play a key role in suppressing studies that raise critical questions about vaccine risks—which would endanger profits.

Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.

An exclusive and dependent relationship

Advertising is one of the most obviously beneficial ways that medical journals’ “exclusive and dependent relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry plays out. According to a 2006 analysis in PLOS Medicinedrugs and medical devices are the only products for which medical journals accept advertisements. Studies show that journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical industry puts a particularly “high value on advertising its products in print journals” because journals reach doctors—the “gatekeeper between drug companies and patients.” Almost nine in ten drug advertising dollars are directed at physicians.

In the U.S. in 2012, drug companies spent $24 billion marketing to physicians, with only $3 billion spent on direct-to-consumer advertising. By 2015, however, consumer-targeted advertising had jumped to $5.2 billion, a 60% increase that has reaped bountiful rewards. In 2015, Pfizer’s Prevnar-13 vaccine was the nation’s eighth most heavily advertised drug; after the launch of the intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar “awareness” increased by over 1,500% in eight months, and “44% of targeted consumers were talking to their physicians about getting vaccinated specifically with Prevnar.” Slick ad campaigns have also helped boost uptake of “unpopular” vaccines like Gardasil.

Advertising is such an established part of journals’ modus operandi that high-end journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) boldly invite medical marketers to “make NEJM the cornerstone of their advertising programs,” promising “no greater assurance that your ad will be seen, read, and acted upon.” In addition, medical journals benefit from pharmaceutical companies’ bulk purchases of thousands of journal reprints and industry’s sponsorship of journal subscriptions and journal supplements.

advertisement - learn more

In 2003, an editor at The BMJ wrote about the numerous ways in which drug company advertising can bias medical journals (and the practice of medicine)—all of which still hold true today. For example:

  • Advertising monies enable prestigious journals to get thousands of copies into doctors’ hands for free, which “almost certainly” goes on to affect prescribing.
  • Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.
  • Journals will guarantee favorable editorial mentions of a product in order to earn a company’s advertising dollars.
  • Journals can earn substantial fees for publishing supplements even when they are written by “paid industry hacks”—and the more favorable the supplement content is to the company that is funding it, the bigger the profit for the journal.

Discussing clinical trials, the BMJ editor added: “Major trials are very good for journals in that doctors around the world want to see them and so are more likely to subscribe to journals that publish them. Such trials also create lots of publicity, and journals like publicity. Finally, companies purchase large numbers of reprints of these trials…and the profit margin to the publisher is huge. These reprints are then used to market the drugs to doctors, and the journal’s name on the reprint is a vital part of that sell.”

… however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry.

Industry-funded bias

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly three-fourths of all funding for clinical trials in the U.S.—presumably including vaccine trials—came from corporate sponsors as of the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical industry’s funding of studies (and investigators) is a factor that helps determine which studies get published, and where. As a Johns Hopkins University researcher has acknowledged, funding can lead to bias—and while the potential exists for governmental or departmental funding to produce bias, “the worst source of bias is industry-funded.”

In 2009, researchers published a systematic review of several hundred influenza vaccine trials. Noting “growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning [influenza vaccine] policy recommendations,” the authors showed that the vaccine-favorable studies were “of significantly lower methodological quality”; however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry. The authors commented:

[Studies] sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.

In their discussion, the authors also described how the industry’s vast resources enable lavish and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often distribute “expensively bound” abstracts and reprints (translated into various languages) to “decision makers, their advisors, and local researchers,” while also systematically plugging their studies at symposia and conferences.

The World Health Organization’s standards describe reporting of clinical trial results as a “scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility.” However, it appears that as many as half of all clinical trial results go unreported—particularly when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as “widespread,” citing as an example GSK’s suppression of results from four clinical trials for an anti-anxiety drug when those results showed a possible increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Experts warn that “unreported studies leave an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the risks and benefits of treatments.”

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science.

Debased and biased results

The “significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions” can play out in many different ways, notably through methodological bias and debasement of study designs and analytic strategies. Bias may be present in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, use of improper surrogate endpoints, unsuitable statistical analyses or “misleading presentation of data.”

Occasionally, high-level journal insiders blow the whistle on the corruption of published science. In a widely circulated quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of NEJM, acknowledged that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” Dr. Angell added that she “[took] no pleasure in this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly” over two decades at the prestigious journal.

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science. In formulaic articles that medical journals are only too happy to publish, the conclusion is almost always the same, no matter the vaccine: “We did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.” As an example of the use of inappropriate statistical techniques to exaggerate vaccine benefits, an influenza vaccine study reported a “69% efficacy rate” even though the vaccine failed “nearly all who [took] it.” As explained by Dr. David Brownstein, the study’s authors used a technique called relative risk analysis to derive their 69% statistic because it can make “a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is.” However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, meaning that the vaccine “was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu.”

… the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had ignored important evidence of bias.

Trusted evidence?

In 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration—which bills its systematic reviews as the international gold standard for high-quality, “trusted” evidence—furnished conclusions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly signaled industry bias. In May of that year, Cochrane’s highly favorable review improbably declared the vaccine to have no increased risk of serious adverse effects and judged deaths observed in HPV studies “not to be related to the vaccine.” Cochrane claims to be free of conflicts of interest, but its roster of funders includes national governmental bodies and international organizations pushing for HPV vaccine mandates as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—both of which are staunch funders and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s president is a former top CDC official who served as acting CDC director during the H1N1 “false pandemic” in 2009 that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Two months after publication of Cochrane’s HPV review, researchers affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre (one of Cochrane’s member centers) published an exhaustive critique, declaring that the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had “ignored important evidence of bias.” The critics itemized numerous methodological and ethical missteps on the part of the Cochrane reviewers, including failure to count nearly half of the eligible HPV vaccine trials, incomplete assessment of serious and systemic adverse events and failure to note that many of the reviewed studies were industry-funded. They also upbraided the Cochrane reviewers for not paying attention to key design flaws in the original clinical trials, including the failure to use true placebos and the use of surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.

In response to the criticisms, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library initially stated that a team of editors would investigate the claims “as a matter of urgency.” Instead, however, Cochrane’s Governing Board quickly expelled one of the critique’s authors, Danish physician-researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped found Cochrane and was the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche has been a vocal critic of Cochrane’s “increasingly commercial business model,” which he suggests is resulting in “stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.” Adding insult to injury, Gøtzsche’s direct employer, the Rigshospitalet hospital in Denmark, then fired Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche stated, “Firing me sends the unfortunate signal that if your research results are inconvenient and cause public turmoil, or threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings, …you will be sacked.” In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent Institute for Scientific Freedom.

In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine—the journal that published the critique of Cochrane’s biased review—jointly defended the critique as having “provoke[d] healthy debate and pose[d] important questions,” affirming the value of publishing articles that “hold organisations to account.” They added that “Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded” and urged publishers not to “shrink from offering criticisms that may be considered inconvenient.”

In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists.

The censorship tsunami

Another favored tactic is to keep vaccine-critical studies out of medical journals altogether, either by refusing to publish them (even if peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by concocting excuses to pull articles after publication. In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists. To cite just three examples:

  • The journal Vaccine withdrew a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvantused in Gardasil.
  • The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted an article that made a case for greater transparency regarding the link between mercury and autism.
  • Pharmacological Research withdrew a published veterinary article that implicated aluminum-containing vaccines in a mystery illness decimating sheep, citing “concerns” from an anonymous reader.

Elsevier, which publishes two of these journals, has a track record of setting up fake journals to market Merck’s drugs, and Springer, which publishes the third journal as well as influential publications like Nature and Scientific American, has been only too willing to accommodate censorship requests. However, even these forms of censorship may soon seem quaint in comparison to the censorship of vaccine-critical information now being implemented across social media and other platforms. This concerted campaign to prevent dissemination of vaccine content that does not toe the party line will make it harder than ever for American families to do their due diligence with regard to vaccine risks and benefits.


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod