Connect with us

Health

How To Sleep Your Way To Better Health

Published

on

We spend all our lives worrying about what is going on while we are awake, yet most people do not realize the importance of what happens when we are not. Sleep is the time when our body repairs from the mental and physical stress of the day. Hormones are secreted, lipids are formed, and proteins are synthesized during the bedtime hours, yet an estimated 60 million Americans suffer from sleep disorders or sleep deprivation. For millions of years, humans went to sleep at sundown and woke at sunrise. There was no switch to turn on artificial lights. All animals need to sleep, and we would be wise to follow in the footsteps of our ancestors.

advertisement - learn more

A 2013 study reported that there are over 2,000 genes that work differently whether we are awake or asleep.[1] Areas of DNA code for muscle repair and memory are active at night while other segments of DNA, such as adrenal hormones, are at work in the daytime. Our body functions in a totally different manner during sleep and awake time. Cells divide, tissues repair, and growth hormones are released during sleep. Sadly, the average time most Americans go to sleep is near midnight.

According to recent studies, a good night’s sleep improves learning. Whether it’s a new language, how to play the guitar, or how to perfect your golf swing, sleep helps enhance your learning and problem-solving skills. Sleep also helps you pay attention, make decisions, and be creative. Get adequate sleep to become a better spouse, parent, grandparent, child, boss, or employee.

 Poor Sleep is a Nightmare For Your Heart

An interesting study looked at sleep and cardiovascular events such as heart attack and stroke. During 10-15 years of follow-up, short sleepers (less than 6 hours) had a 23% higher risk of coronary artery disease compared to normal sleepers (more than 7 hours), even after adjustment for all other possible factors. Short sleepers with poor sleep quality had a 79% higher risk of heart disease when compared to normal sleepers with good sleep quality. On a side note, sleeping longer than 9 hours provided no benefit.[2] Data from 1964 found those people who slept 7-8 hours had the lowest chance of dying over a 3-year follow-up.

Scientists have known for years that heart attacks are more frequent in the morning hours. The blaring alarm clock and stress of the day ahead tip some people over the edge into an unstable heart situation. But this next problem is very easy to change. The practice known as Daylight Savings Time is totally useless in this modern age and interferes with our circadian rhythm. It is not normal to change our sleep cycle by following this antiquated practice. A 2013 study identified men are at a 70% increased risk of having a heart attack on the day after the time change and 20% more likely in the first week. This is extraordinary. Considering the fact that recent presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, LBJ, and Eisenhower all had cardiovascular disease, maybe the current president should look into abandoning Daylight Savings Time? It may just save his life.[3]

 Get Your Blood Pressure Under Control

Add hypertension to the list of bad outcomes from a lack of sleep. Yes, not getting your Zs can lead to high blood pressure. Practicing for years as a typical cardiologist, I was frustrated by seeing patients on five anti-hypertensive drugs, yet their blood pressure was not controlled. Not once did it ever cross my mind that poor sleep could be a factor. I certainly never counseled a patient regarding the need for sleep. I was only getting 5-6 hours per night and envied other doctors who could get away with less. Now I pity those doctors leading the sleep-deprived lifestyle. Anyway, back to hypertension.

advertisement - learn more

A study in 2006 demonstrated that poor sleep doubles the risk of hypertension. This study even corrected for other factors such as the fact that poor sleepers may be more stressed, or are likely to be smokers. A similar article from 2013 found middle-age nurses had a higher risk of hypertension when they had poor sleep patterns.[4] In early 2014, a story about how poor sleep increases the risk of stroke in women made front-page news. In fact, for young women, the risk of a stroke was 8x higher in those admitting to five hours of sleep or less. The study found 10% of women age 65 and older had a stroke within four years if they had poor sleep. Another study found women who frequently feel drowsy during the daytime are at 58 percent higher risk for heart disease compared to those who rarely or never experience this symptom.[5]

Poor sleep is also associated with elevated markers of inflammation, such as CRP, TNF-alpha, fibrinogen, and interleukins. As we discussed, inflammation is caused by all the unhealthy things in our lives, from nutrition and chemicals to poor sleep. The more inflammation, the higher the risk of heart disease.[6] This is major news, and is a call to action for women to get more sleep.

 Sleep Your Way to Weight Loss

 Struggling to lose a few pounds? Poor sleep could be your problem. Recent studies suggest an association between sleep duration and weight gain. Sleeping less than five hours, or more than nine hours per night, appears to increase the likelihood of weight gain. In one study, recurrent sleep deprivation in men increased their preferences for high-calorie foods and their overall calorie intake. In another study, women who slept less than six hours a night were more likely to gain 11 pounds (5 kg) compared with women who slept seven hours a night. One explanation may be sleep duration affects the hormones regulating hunger—ghrelin and leptin—and stimulates the appetite. Another contributing factor may be lack of sleep leads to fatigue and results in less physical activity. Obviously, the longer you are awake, the more time there is to eat.[7]

Poor Sleep Is Also Associated With:

  1. Memory loss and Alzheimer’s.8
  2. Decreased immune system function.9
  3. Anxiety and irritability.
  4. Dying younger. One study found that women with short sleep duration and poor sleep quality had over 3x the risk of dying as those who slept over 7 hours.10

The cause(s) of sleep problems needs to be addressed. They might be physical, mental, or both. Even counting grass-fed sheep is not going to work if you are in a bad relationship or having issues at work. Foods not on the Paleo plan negatively affect sleep quality. It doesn’t matter what time you drank your coffee; the caffeine effect can last over 24 hours. If you wake up in the middle of the night, it may be because your blood sugar is dropping and your body is craving more food – usually junk food.

 Action Plan: Twenty Ways To A Better Night Sleep

Go to sleep just after sundown and wake at sunrise. Edison invented electricity 125 years ago. Our bodies will never adapt to it.

  1. Get the electronics out of your bedroom. Cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, and computers produce electromagnetic fields. Pay attention to electronics on the other side of the headboard wall. Remove smart meters.
  2. Do not watch TV in bed at night. Read a book or magazine.
  3. Find your cave. Turn off all lights and invest in good window coverings.
  4. Keep it cool. Most people find it difficult to sleep at either temperature extreme.
  5. Go Paleo and lose weight. Obese people are more prone to sleep apnea, a condition associated with cardiovascular and mental problems.
  6. Get rid of the alarm clock. If you need to wake early, go to bed early.
  7. Get an organic mattress. A synthetic foam mattress is loaded with off-gassing petrochemicals, flame-retardants, and other POPs (persistent organic pollutants). These conventional mattresses harbor dust mites, a source of allergies and inflammation.
  8. Use a natural laundry detergent and give up the fabric softener and dryer sheets. Your body wants to breathe air, not chemicals. The nasal, sinus, and airway congestion caused by allergies of these items can inhibit your sleep. Instead buy Seventh Generation, Dr. Bronner’s Sal Suds, or other ecofriendly brands.
  9. Do not take pharmaceutical sleep aids. Studies show an increased risk of heart attacks, aortic dissection, and cancer.11
  10. Shower at night. This helps to relax your body and your mind. Showering or bathing also washes the chemicals you accumulated all day off the skin.
  11. Avoid caffeine. Caffeine can last in your system for up to 48 hours.
  12. Avoid sugar. This is a major stimulant, so get rid of the ice cream before bed.
  13. Breathing techniques. Check out the free app from Saagara. My patients love it.
  14. Many studies confirm exercise improves sleep. Just don’t do it too close to bedtime.12 Practice yoga and Pilates. The benefits of yoga just keep piling up, including better sleep.13
  15. Get the stress out. There is nothing you can do about life’s problems while in bed. You cannot cope with stress if you are sleep deprived.
  16. Get sunshine. This helps to set your internal sleep clock.
  17. Just say no to alcohol. It is a major inhibitor of quality sleep. Passing out drunk does not count.
  18. Sleep alone. If your partner snores or tosses and turns all night, something has to give, likely your health.
  19. Take natural supplements.

Natural Sleep Supplements:

  1. Magnesium

 Several studies show magnesium can improve sleep quality and reduce nocturnal awakenings. Along with contributing to a good night’s sleep, this nutrient helps to maintain normal muscle and nerve function, keeps heart rhythm steady, supports a healthy immune system, and keeps bones strong.

  1. Melatonin

A hormone that regulates the normal sleep/wake cycle, melatonin is useful as an occasional sleep aid, and is especially effective against jet lag. According to research, the body naturally produces melatonin after the sun goes down, letting us know it’s time to fall asleep. Supplemental melatonin assists with this process. Cherries also appear to boost melatonin. Take 60-90 minutes before sleep.

  1. L-theanine

An amino-acid derivative found in green tea, theanine is known to trigger release in the brain of GABA, a calming neurotransmitter, which promotes relaxation and reduces anxiety. Unfortunately, the body has difficulty absorbing GABA, which is the reason experts recommend theanine. This is easily absorbed and boosts levels of GABA. Avoid green tea after 3 pm.

  1. Valerian

Many experts recommended this herb to reduce the amount of time it takes to nod off. According to the NIH, valerian has sedative properties, and it may increase the amount of GABA.

  1. 5-HTP

A compound derived from the amino acid L-tryptophan, 5-HTP acts as a precursor to serotonin, which is a neurotransmitter essential for a good night’s sleep. A small 2009 study of eighteen people found those who took a product containing 5-HTP needed less time to fall asleep, slept longer, and reported improved sleep quality.

  1. Lavender

Aromatherapy with a couple sprays of lavender oil has many proponents. Several patients of mine are fans of this herb.

  1. Chamomile Tea

Most people find any herbal tea to be soothing at bedtime, but chamomile is known to work very well.

  1. Lemon Balm

In one study of people with minor sleep problems, 81% of those who took an herbal combination of valerian and lemon balm reported sleeping much better than those who took a placebo.

  1. Phenibut (β-Phenyl-γ-aminobutyric acid)

Phenibut is similar to GABA, but easily crosses the blood-brain barrier, allowing for better efficacy. This is a prescription drug in Russia. Phenibut should be used under the guidance of a physician, as it can be addictive.

  1. B vitamins

B12 as methylcobalamin and folate (B9) as methylfolate are critical for neurotransmitter formation (and many other functions). The vast majority of vitamins contain the cheap forms of B12 as cyanocobalamin and folate as folic acid. These synthetic variants do not work well in our bodies, given 50% of the population contain a genetic defect in methylation. Make sure you know your methylation genetics. Check with your natural doctor for dosing on B vitamins.

Your best bet is to speak with a natural doctor and see what supplements are right for you. If you are reading this article in the middle of the night, turn off your device and go to sleep.

YOU CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT THE AUTHOR, Dr. Jack Wolfson Here.

Sources:

 [1] BMC Genomics. 2013 May 30;14:362.

2 SLEEP 2011;34(11):1487-1492.

3 Am J Cardiol. 2013 Mar 1;111(5):631-5.

4Am J Hypertens. 2013 Jul;26(7):903-11. Hypertension. 2006 May;47(5):833-9.

5 Yigiang Zhan. Sleep Medicine Volume 15, Issue 7, Pages 833–839, July 2014

6 Physiol Behav. 2010 Dec 2;101(5):693-8

7 Journal of Sleep Research. 2011;20:298.

8 Neurobiology of Aging, 2014.

9 World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Dec 28;19(48):9231-9.

10 PLoS One. 2014 Apr 3;9(4):e91965.

11 China Medical University in Taiwan.

12 J Adolesc Health. 2012 Dec;51(6):615-22.

13 J Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep 10;31(26):3233-41; J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2013 Jan;17(1):5-10.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Vaccine Mandates Results Don’t Safeguard Children’s Rights or Health: How Did We Get Here?

Published

on

For decades, the U.S. government has made compulsory childhood vaccination one of the cornerstones of its public health policy. Outside the U.S., countries’ vaccination policies range from completely voluntary to “aggressive,” with some nations promoting vaccination but leaving the decision up to the individual, and others pushing a little harder by financially incentivizing vaccination. Some of the countries with mandatory vaccination have “modest” policies that focus on a single vaccine such as polio, and some—with broader mandates on the books—choose not to enforce them.

Regardless of the policy, no other country requires as many childhood vaccines as the U.S., but the legal edifice shoring up the compulsory childhood vaccine program is surprisingly flimsy. As New York University legal scholar Mary Holland explains in a 2010 working paper, this edifice relies primarily on two century-old Supreme Court decisions—from 1905 and 1922—and on the game-changing National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, which fundamentally altered the legal landscape for vaccination by exempting vaccine manufacturers and medical practitioners from liability for childhood vaccine injuries.

…current childhood mandates are not only radically different from what the earlier courts and legislators envisioned but are unreasonable and oppressive and have led to…perverse results that do not safeguard children’s rights and health.

The 1986 Act, in particular, resulted in an absence of legal protections for vaccinated children that is “striking compared to almost all other medical interventions.” Examining the legal trajectory of vaccine mandates since 1905, Holland argues that current childhood mandates are not only radically different from what the earlier courts and legislators envisioned but are “unreasonable and oppressive and have led to…perverse results” that do not safeguard children’s rights and health.

From mandates for emergencies to mandates for “prevention”

The Supreme Court’s 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision, as summarized by Holland, justified the imposition of one vaccine—smallpox—on adults “on an emergency basis” and under circumstances of “imminent danger.” At the same time, the Jacobson decision established medical exemptions, reasoning that it “would be cruel and inhuman in the last degree” to vaccinate someone who was medically unfit. Jacobson also contained “robust cautionary language,” calling attention to the potential for “arbitrary and oppressive” abuse of police power and warning against going “far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.” Jacobson urged courts to be “vigilant to examine and thwart unreasonable assertions of state power.”

Despite these words of warning, state-level courts did not wait long before broadening the judicial interpretation of Jacobson beyond the notion of imminent danger or necessity—although still within the context of just the smallpox vaccine:

advertisement - learn more
  • In 1916, Alabama and Kentucky courts affirmed states’ right to mandate vaccination for prevention of smallpox epidemics, stating that state Boards of Health “are not required to wait until an epidemic actually exists before taking action.” The Alabama court also broadened the rationale for mandates beyond adults to children.
  • In 1922, the three-paragraph Zucht v. King Supreme Court decision sanctioned vaccine mandates as a condition for public school attendance. According to Holland, this decision further shifted Jacobson’s “paradigm…by upholding a mandate exclusively for children and not for the entire population.”
  • Decisions in Mississippi and Texas in the early 1930s granted public health authorities the leeway to define public health emergencies in whatever manner they saw fit.
  • A New Jersey court in the late 1940s interpreted Jacobson as justifying all vaccine mandates, “disregarding its language to reject unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive state actions.”
  • An Arkansas court in the early 1950s suggested that anyone questioning vaccine safety or efficacy should “lodge [their] objections with the Board of Health rather than the court.”

Occasionally, legal officials expressed their disapproval of vaccine mandates outside of emergencies, as with the North Dakota judge who, in 1919, pronounced childhood vaccination in the absence of a smallpox epidemic an act of “barbarism.” The same judge also wrote presciently about the self-interest of the medical profession and vaccine manufacturers—“the class that reap a golden harvest from vaccination and the diseases caused by it.” In comments that bear repeating today, the judge stated,

“Every person of common sense and observation must know that it is not the welfare of the children that causes the vaccinators to preach their doctrines and to incur the expense of lobbying for vaccination statutes. …And if anyone says to the contrary, he either does not know the facts, or he has no regard for the truth.”

The legal sea change in 1986

Although vaccination mandates had become legally “well-entrenched” by the mid-1950s—regardless of emergency and “all but erasing” Jacobson’s cautionary language—Holland emphasizes that this legal framework arose in the context of a single vaccine for a contagious disease considered to be life-threatening. Even when the polio vaccine subsequently came on the scene, the nonprofit organization that helped develop and distribute the vaccine “opposed compulsion on principle.”

According to Holland, the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—“a federal advisory body with little public participation and no direct accountability to voters”—laid the groundwork for far more coercive vaccine policies. In fact, ACIP has become, over time, the “driving force” behind vaccine mandates. Whereas Jacobson justified mandates under specific and rare circumstances, ACIP has created an “infrastructure” that pushes mandates for any vaccine-preventable illness.

…revenue-generating vaccine development and promotion have enjoyed priority over vaccine safety science and injury compensation since the Law’s (NCVIA) inception

By 1981, after ACIP helped ensure that multiple vaccines were obligatory for school attendance in all 50 states, the number of vaccine injuries began increasing. Against this backdrop, Congress enacted the NCVIA in 1986. Although some legislators may have been well-intentioned when they passed the Act, Holland makes it clear that it has been nothing short of a disaster. In essence, the Act located “vaccine promotion, safety and compensation under one [government] umbrella,” thereby creating “the risk of trade-offs among competing goals.” The rather predictable result is that “revenue-generating vaccine development and promotion have enjoyed priority over vaccine safety science and injury compensation since the Law’s inception.”

Holland identifies the paradox at the core of the 1986 Law. On the one hand, the legislation “for the first time publicly acknowledged that universal compulsory vaccination is likely to cause permanent injury and death to some infants and children”; on the other hand, it forces healthy children to give up ordinary legal protections, including informed consent, and takes away from injured children the right to sue manufacturers directly.

Meanwhile, ACIP has continued to promote a shift away from “necessity” as the rationale for vaccine mandates. A number of the vaccines that ACIP now calls for American children to get to attend school—70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18—are for rarely fatal illnesses and for conditions “not contagious through ordinary social contact.” Holland’s conclusion is that:

“Necessity no longer determines the validity of state childhood vaccination mandates…. New vaccine mandates are guided by financial returns on low prevalence diseases, not protection of the entire population against imminent harm.”

“Ravenous corporate greed and mindless bureaucracy”

Some of the most troubling facts come at the end of Holland’s impressive legal review and concern the power of the pharmaceutical industry. She notes:

  • The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in the U.S. since the 1980s.
  • In a single year in the early 2000s, “the combined profits of the ten largest drug companies in the Fortune 500 had higher net profits…than all the other 490 companies [in the Fortune 500] combined.”
  • There are more full-time pharmaceutical industry lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are legislators in both Houses of Congress.
  • The leading manufacturers of childhood vaccines in the U.S. (Merck, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur) have records of documented fraud and criminal/ethical misconduct.

Holland also tackles the extensive collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government regulators, including a quote about “ravenous corporate greed and mindless bureaucracy” in a related article. Whereas “demonstrably predatory corporations selling compulsory products to a vulnerable population should lead to a high level of government scrutiny and skepticism,” Holland observes that “government appears to ally its interests with industry in the arena of vaccines.”

Coercion is backfiring

Fortunately, the public and even some health professionals are growing increasingly wise to this industry-government shell game. In one community, opposition to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine mandates recently put public health authorities on the defensive about the epidemic of autoimmunity in today’s youth, the “exorbitant” amount of neurotoxic aluminum in vaccines and the requirement to “get a vaccine for something that can’t be caught in a classroom.” A parent responding to the news article stated, “Why should I as a mother trust the Public Information Officer for the state Department of Health when he cannot even name the amount of aluminum in the vaccine?” Thus, it is up to the public—and ethical professionals—to engage in the “scrutiny and skepticism” that the U.S. government has unconscionably failed to exercise.


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.


Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer

Published

on

Article written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo LLC, posted here with permission.

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 has been on the harms associated with over-diagnosis and over-treatment, and not the radiobiological dangers of the procedure itself.

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.[1]

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.

advertisement - learn more

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 Gøtzsche 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 cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report,” not only confirmed the Gøtzsche 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.

Additional Reading

Is X-ray Mammography Findings Cancer or Benign Lesions?

The Dark Side of Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Does Chemo & Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant?


*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.


[1] Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Br J Radiol. 2006 Mar ;79(939):195-200. PMID: 16498030

[2] Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(4):CD001877. Epub 2009 Oct 7. PMID: 19821284

[3] Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report. BMJ. 2011 ;343:d7627. Epub 2011 Dec 8. PMID: 22155336


Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

If you want to learn more from Greenmedinfo, sign up for their newsletter here

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Why Water Fluoridation Is A Forced Experiment That Needs To Stop

Published

on

The United States stands almost entirely alone among developed nations in adding industrial silicofluorides to its drinking water—imposing the community-wide measure without informed consent. Globally, roughly 5% of the population consumes chemically fluoridated water, but more people in the U.S. drink fluoride-adulterated water than in all other countries combined. Within the U.S., just under a third (30%) of local water supplies are not fluoridated; these municipalities have either held the practice at bay since fluoridation’s inception or have won hard-fought battles to halt water fluoridation.

Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet—have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ.

The fluoride chemicals added to drinking water are unprocessed toxic wasteproducts—captured pollutants from Florida’s phosphate fertilizer industry or unregulated chemical imports from China. The chemicals undergo no purification before being dumped into drinking water and often harbor significant levels of arsenic and other heavy metal contamination; one researcher describes this unavoidable contamination as a “regulatory blind spotthat jeopardizes any safe use of fluoride additives.”

Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet—have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ. Fluoride is also associated with a variety of other health risks in both children and adults. However, U.S. officialdom persists in making hollow claims that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial, choosing to ignore even its own research! A multimillion-dollar longitudinal study published in Environmental Health Perspectives in September, 2017, for example, was largely funded by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences—and the seminal study revealed a strong relationship between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and lowered cognitive function in offspring. Considered in the context of other research, the study’s implications are, according to the nonprofit Fluoride Action Network, “enormous”—“a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.”

According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.

A little history

During World War II, fluoride (a compound formed from the chemical element fluorine) came into large-scale production and use as part of the Manhattan Project. According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a “leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.” In order to stave off lawsuits, government scientists “embarked on a campaign to calm the social panic about fluoride…by promoting its usefulness in preventing tooth decay.”

To prop up its “exaggerated claims of reduction in tooth decay,” government researchers began carrying out a series of poorly designed and fatally flawed community trials of water fluoridation in a handful of U.S. cities in the mid-1940s. In a critique decades later, a University of California-Davis statistician characterized these early agenda-driven fluoridation trials as “especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” As one example, a 15-year trial launched in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 used a nearby city as a non-fluoridated control, but after the control city began fluoridating its own water supply five years into the study, the design switched from a comparison with the non-fluoridated community to a before-and-after assessment of Grand Rapids. Fluoridation’s proponents admitted that this change substantially “compromised” the quality of the study.

In 1950, well before any of the community trials could reach any conclusions about the systemic health effects of long-term fluoride ingestion, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) endorsed water fluoridation as official public health policy, strongly encouraging communities across the country to adopt the unproven measure for dental caries prevention. Describing this astonishingly non-evidence-based step as “the Great Fluoridation Gamble,” the authors of the 2010 book, The Case Against Fluorideargue that:

advertisement - learn more

“Not only was safety not demonstrated in anything approaching a comprehensive and scientific study, but also a large number of studies implicating fluoride’s impact on both the bones and the thyroid gland were ignored or downplayed” (p. 86).

In 2015, Newsweek magazine not only agreed that the scientific rationale for putting fluoride in drinking water was not as “clear-cut” as once thought but also shared the “shocking” finding of a more recent Cochrane Collaboration review, namely, that there is no evidence to support the use of fluoride in drinking water.

Bad science and powerful politics

The authors of The Case Against Fluoride persuasively argue that “bad science” and “powerful politics” are primary factors explaining why government agencies continue to defend the indefensible practice of water fluoridation, despite abundant evidence that it is unsafe both developmentally and after “a lifetime of exposure to uncontrolled doses.” Comparable to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s bookThimerosal: Let the Science Speak, which summarizes studies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and “credulous journalists swear don’t exist,” The Case Against Fluoride is an extensively referenced tour de force, pulling together hundreds of studies showing evidence of fluoride-related harm.

… death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease.

The research assembled by the book’s authors includes studies on fluoride biochemistry; cancer; fluoride’s effects on the brain, endocrine system and bones; and dental fluorosis. With regard to the latter, public health agencies like to define dental fluorosis as a purely cosmetic issue involving “changes in the appearance of tooth enamel,” but the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT)—a global network of dentists, health professionals and scientists dedicated to science-based biological dentistry—describes the damaged enamel and mottled and brittle teeth that characterize dental fluorosis as “the first visible sign of fluoride toxicity.”

The important 2017 study that showed decrements in IQ following fluoride exposure during pregnancy is far from the only research sounding the alarm about fluoride’s adverse developmental effects. In his 2017 volumePregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix, John D. MacArthur pulls together hundreds of studies linking fluoride to premature birth and impaired neurological development (93 studies), preelampsia (77 studies) and autism (110 studies). The book points out that rates of premature birth are “unusually high” in the United States. At the other end of the lifespan, MacArthur observes that death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease. A 2006 report by the National Research Council warned that exposure to fluoride might increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s.

The word is out

Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix shows that the Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, Harvard’s National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Toxicology Program all are well aware of the substantial evidence of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity, yet no action has been taken to warn pregnant women. Instead, scientists with integrity, legal professionals and the public increasingly are taking matters into their own hands. A Citizens Petitionsubmitted in 2016 to the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act requested that the EPA “exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies.” This request—the focus of a lawsuit to be argued in court later in 2019—poses a landmark challenge to the dangerous practice of water fluoridation and has the potential to end one of the most significant chemical assaults on our children’s developing bodies and brains.

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.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

CETV

Watch this 4-part Exclusive Interview Series with Anneke Lucas.

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.