Thursday, November 19, 2015

Chickenpox Vaccine Now Causing Shingles Epidemic in Adults and Children

(NaturalNews) The rate of shingles has been increasing since the 1990s, and it is now estimated that about one in three adults will develop the disease in their lifetime. A certain number of these people will experience recurring outbreaks. About one in five of them will suffer severe and often debilitating pain known as postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).

Officially, the cause of this increase is unknown. Yet studies suggest that at least part of the explanation could be the chickenpox vaccine.

Chickenpox and shingles are caused by the same virus, which is known as varicella zoster. Shingles cannot occur in someone who has not been previously been infected with the virus, presumably resulting in a chickenpox infection. Why, then, would the vaccine against this virus be causing more severe outbreaks later in life?

Unintended immune consequences

Once infected with the varicella zoster virus, the body can never get rid of it. Instead, the virus hides from the immune system along a nerve root in the central nervous system. Shingles (also known as herpes zoster) occurs when some trigger (typically stress or reduced immune function) causes the virus to erupt out of the nerve root and travel to the skin. This leads to a painful rash that tends to last about a month. Although most people suffer only a single case of shingles in their lifetime, the disease can recur.

In addition to PHN, possible complications of shingles include bacterial skin infection, motor neuropathy, bladder impairment, meningitis, hearing loss, Hutchinson's sign and Ramsay Hunt Syndrome.

Alarmingly, shingles is now also starting to appear in children, which was virtually unheard of 20 years ago.

Researchers have suggested a simple explanation for why shingles rates might be on the increase, and at least some studies have supported this hypothesis: prior to the adoption of the chickenpox vaccine, nearly all children came down with chickenpox and thereby re-exposed the adults in their lives to the virus. This functioned as a "booster" to the immune system, thereby helping prevent reactivation of the virus in the form of shingles. Once vaccination became widespread, however, chickenpox rates fell and parents stopped getting the booster. When those parents started to hit the age of risk for shingles (50 and up), the rates of that disease started to climb accordingly.

Vaccine maker profits twice!

Is this merely a question of trading a childhood illness for an illness of old age? Not quite, because like any drug, both the chickenpox and shingles vaccines carry their own risks. Between March 1995 and July 1998, adverse events were reported for more than one in every 1,500 cases of chickenpox vaccination. About 4 percent of these were severe, including shock, brain inflammation (encephalitis), thrombocytopenia (a blood disorder) and death.

While some vaccine supporters claim that chickenpox vaccination will eventually solve the shingles problem because people who are vaccinated do not get the initial infection required to later develop shingles, it actually remains unclear if the live virus vaccine is sufficient to cause varicella zoster to colonize the nerve root. The vaccine is simply too new to answer that question.

To make matters worse, it is unclear how much benefit the chickenpox vaccine even provides. Chickenpox was simply never a dangerous disease, having a fatality rate of only 0.00135 percent. That is, the disease infected about 3.7 million children per year and killed about 50, most of them immunocompromised.

Finally, the effectiveness of the shot at preventing varicella zoster infection is only about 70 percent. Thus, chickenpox is essentially guaranteed to remain endemic in the population and so will shingles.

In the meantime, of course, Merck — the company that makes the chickenpox vaccine and created the problem to begin with — has its own convenient solution: The company also offers a vaccine for shingles.

Sources for this article include:[PDF]


Frying your food in lard is healthier than using sunflower oil, say scientists

(NaturalNews) For many decades now, we've been fed a lot of misinformation about the foods we eat and which ones are healthy or not.

For example, since the early 20th century, we've been told that lard – rendered and clarified pig fat – is an unhealthy substance that should be replaced with vegetable oils.

Well, guess what? The truth is nearly the opposite. It's true that lard intake should be limited, but frying foods in lard is far more healthy than doing so in most vegetable oils, according to more recent studies.

In fact, when heated to frying temperatures, many vegetable oils actually release toxic substances which can cause a range of serious health problems, including cancer, dementia and heart disease.

Professor Martin Grootveld of De Montfort University at Leicester, whose field of expertise is bio-analytical chemistry and chemical pathology, was recently asked to conduct a study to determine which cooking oils are the healthiest.

His findings challenged the common wisdom regarding the use of saturated fats versus polyunsaturated fats. We have long been told that polyunsaturated fats, such as the ones found in sunflower oil, for example, are healthier than the saturated fats found in butter and lard.

From an article posted on the De Montfort University website:

When fats and oils are heated the molecular structure changes, producing chemicals called aldehydes that may cause heart disease and cancer.

Professor Grootveld's team found sunflower oil and corn oil produced aldehydes at levels 20 times higher than recommended by the World Health Organisation.

Grootveld and his team found that foods cooked in rapeseed oil, butter, goose fat or olive oil produced far less of the toxic aldehydes found in sunflower oil, corn oil and other commonly used vegetable oils.

So how did lard get a bad reputation?

Lard is only one of the foods we've been warned away from, and as with many supposedly "unhealthy" foods, the real reason is that someone wanted to sell us a replacement.

In the case of lard, we were lied to by Procter & Gamble, who wanted to sell its new product – Crisco – which was invented in a lab way back in 1907.

The short version of the story is this:

In 1906, Upton Sinclair's novel, The Jungle was published. The book was a somewhat sensationalist expose of the meat industry and conditions in the slaughterhouses of Chicago. It was technically a work of fiction, but his description of workers falling into boiling vats of lard was enough to seriously turn stomachs.

However disgusted by the thought of eating lard the public may have been after reading the book, there was no viable replacement on the market until Procter & Gamble began marketing vegetable shortening.

The company was interested in finding a way to sell the cottonseed oil it owned in vast quantities since the market for the candles it sold was shrinking due to the invention of the electric light bulb.


In 1907, a German chemist, E.C. Kayser, showed up at Procter & Gamble headquarters in Cincinnati with a marvelous invention. It was a ball of fat. It looked like lard. It cooked like lard. But there was no pig involved. It was hydrogenated cottonseed oil."

The company was able, through clever marketing, to convince an already "queasy" public (due to Sinclair's book), that its lab-created product was cleaner and healthier.

Procter & Gamble... launched an ad campaign that made people think about the horrible stories of adulterated lard. The ads touted how pure and wholesome Crisco was. The company packaged the product in white and claimed "the stomach welcomes Crisco."

The rest is history. In the 1950s, scientists further diminished lard's reputation by claiming that saturated fats caused heart disease. By that point, lard was becoming widely shunned.

The moral of this entire story is that whenever you are told that a product made in a lab is better for you than a natural substance that has been used for thousands of years, a bit of healthy skepticism may be in order...



What Almond Milk, Calcium Pills and Zeolites Have In Common...

(NaturalNews) Did you know that calcium pills are linked to heart attacks? Were you aware that commercial almond milk is made with ground up inorganic oyster shells or limestone? Has anyone told you that zeolite powders are mined out of the ground from crushed rocks containing high levels of lead and aluminum?

The most important nutritional warning I can offer you today is to stop eating and drinking rocks.

In almond milk, cheap, low-grade calcium is mixed with water and carageenan (a thickener) to make a thick, whitish substance that visually resembles the color and texture of almond milk. Cheap calcium carbonate is added to almond milk to make it compete with the calcium content of regular cow's milk. But the result is a nutritional catastrophe: You're drinking inorganic, crushed oyster shells or limestone!

Cheap calcium pills are almost always contaminated with LEAD. They're derived from low-grade, inorganic sources of raw materials made almost entirely with calcium carbonate. This isn't the kind of calcium your body needs. In fact, calcium carbonate probably contributes to artery and kidney calcification. Ditch the cheap calcium pills and get calcium from high-grade sources or your food (plants).

Zeolites are mined out of the ground like rocks. They're made from aluminosilicates (high in aluminum) and typically contain very high concentrations of the heavy metal LEAD (typically 20 - 60 ppm). When swallowed in large, granular form, they pass right through your digestive tract undigested. That's because your weak stomach acid can't dissolve rocks. But when zeolites are crushed into fine powders, they release both aluminum and lead during digestion in your stomach. This greatly concerns me because people who eat zeolite powders have been shown to urinate increased levels of aluminum and lead, indicating these metals are likely getting absorbed into their blood.

Stop eating ROCKS and start eating REAL FOOD

I'm frequently astonished at how so many people in the health industry can be led astray from the basic fundamentals of mindful nutrition. It's not rocket science to realize that you should get your minerals from food sources, not rocks.

It's also not rocket science to realize that you probably shouldn't be swallowed rocks suspended in water through the use of carageenan or other thickeners. Suspended molecules of calcium carbonate does not equate to "milk."

And if you're hoping to eliminate toxic heavy metals from your body, it makes little sense to keep eating them every day in the form of fine powder zeolites.

Sadly, some of what's being offered in the food and dietary supplement industries is marketed to consumers in a misleading way, either denying consumers the knowledge of what the substance is really made of or wildly exaggerating claims of what the substance can really accomplish in the body. While there really are true "miracle" nutrients like vitamin D and resveratrol, cheap, low-grade, inorganic rocks probably aren't good for you to eat or drink on a regular basis.

To read further and learn more:

Natural Ginger is Up to 10,000 Times More Effective Than Chemo...

(NaturalNews) Ginger naturally contains a compound that is up to 10,000 times more effective than chemotherapy drugs at killing the cancer stem cells that make malignant tumors so dangerous, according to a study published in the journal PLoS.

The chemical, known as 6-shogaol, is produced when ginger roots are dried or cooked. The researchers found that 6-shogaol is active against cancer stem cells at concentrations that are harmless to healthy cells. This is dramatically different from conventional chemotherapy, which has serious side effects largely because it kills healthy as well as cancerous cells.

Cells responsible for 90 percent of cancer death?

Like other stem cells, cancer stem cells possess the ability to differentiate into various different cell types. In the case of cancer, stem cells differentiate into the various malignant cells that make up a tumor colony. Although they make up less than 1 percent of the cells in any given tumor, stem cells are impervious to nearly all known or experimental chemotherapy agents. These cells are also able to replicate indefinitely, and they are capable of splitting off from their originating colony to start new tumors elsewhere. They are key players in the process of metastasis, which is responsible for 90 percent of cancer-related deaths.

The persistence of cancer stem cells also explains why cancers can recur even after seemingly successful tumor eradication via chemotherapy, radiation or surgery.

"Cancer stem cells pose serious obstacle to cancer therapy as they can be responsible for poor prognosis and tumour relapse," the researchers wrote. "To add into the misery, very few chemotherapeutic compounds show promise to kill these cells."

Kills cancer cells on many fronts

The researchers found that 6-shogaol targets breast cancer stem cells along several different pathways, including reducing the expression of surface markers, altering the cell cycle to increase the rate of cell death, inhibiting tumor formation, directly inducing programmed cell death, and flat-out poisoning cancer stem cells (cytotoxicity).

The researchers then compared the cytotoxicity of 6-shogaol against human breast cancer stem cells with that of the widely used chemotherapy drug taxol. They found that while taxol did show cytotoxicity in a one-dimensional laboratory model of cancer ("monolayer"), it showed almost no effect in the three-dimensional ("spheroid") model that is now believed to be a more accurate model of real-world cancer tumors. 6-shogaol, however, was effective in both the monolayer and spheroid models.

The researchers then increased the taxol concentration by 10,000 times, but it still showed no effectiveness in spheroid model.

"[T]axol, even though was highly active in monolayer cells, did not show activity against the spheroids even at 10,000 fold higher concentration compared to 6-shogaol," the researchers wrote.

To read further and learn more:

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Update of Blog

I've neglected my blog and have made the decision to resume posting information and articles again.

There were many factors due to my neglect:

1. I have had to move three times for various reasons which I do not wish to disclose at this time.

2. The pace of information, which I prefer to post, has made my head spin and at the rate of in which it is coming out so fast for me to keep up with and for sometime I felt overwhelmed.

3. Now is the time to pull up my bootstraps and get back into the fray, and post to this blog.

4. My heart (and mind) is back and ready to post the information the media is blacking out to protect our minds, health, families, and homes.

5. I have several issues going on within my life, on top of the above four reasons, and those will be covered in future forthcoming missives for reading and maybe learning material here.

As to those who have followed me in the past, or who have shared my posts on Pinterest, I wish to thank you for your support. In the past, I primarily posted health and environmental concerns, but now I feel the need to go further down the rabbit hole and post discoveries which - well frankly - concern me greatly, and will most likely concern you.

I only ask that you read what I offer and take it for what it is worth, if it helps you then great I have done what this blog is about, however if it does something else such as prepare you for what is, or may be, coming then great....just be forewarned that what I will be posting won't always be recipes, tonics and health tips. If you live within the USA then this is particularly aimed at those readers.

Thank you.