How could antibiotics be responsible for such a thing?

As we all know, antibiotics kill bacteria. But not all bacteria are created equal – there are harmful bacteria and beneficial bacteria. The harmful bacteria make us ill: the beneficial bacteria do exactly the opposite – in fact, they are a vital component of our immune system.

As one would expect, antibiotics kill harmful bacteria, but they also kill beneficial bacteria. This weakens our immune system and makes us less able to fight disease and illness on our own. We are therefore more susceptible to everything going around, and then some.

The situation is even worse for children whose immune system is in the developmental stages. More than 100 trillion beneficial bacteria – and over 1,000 bacterial species – colonize the gut to develop the immune system. These beneficial bacteria fight off harmful bacteria to keep us disease-free.

If young kids are given antibiotics, there’s a good chance that their immune system will never fully develop. This makes them susceptible to asthma, allergies, and every illness going around during their childhood and for the rest of their life.

In the recent study, researchers administered the antibiotic vancomycin to mice of different ages. They then induced allergic asthma. According to Dr. Brett Finlay, Professor at the Michael Smith Laboratories at the University of British Columbia, Canada, the “Treatment of young mice with the antibiotic vancomycin reduced the diversity of microbes in the gut, significantly altered the composition of the bacterial population, and increased the susceptibility of young animals to experimentally induced asthma.”

“Our results confirm that the early months of life are a crucial time in which the gut microbial community may influence key immunological events that alter the sensitivity of the body’s immune system to the response to allergens,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 13 million school days and 10 million work days are missed each year because of asthma. Asthma also accounts for 217,000 emergency room visits and 10.5 million physician office visits annually. The World Health Organization also reports that about 70 percent of people with asthma also have allergies.

To strengthen the immune system and reduce susceptibility to asthma, allergies and other diseases, consult with your natural health care provider to find out how antibiotics can be avoided.

Sources: Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120319094520.htm; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr007.pdf; American Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, http://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/asthma-statistics.aspx; World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/gard/publications/GARD%20Book%202007.pdf;

For example, the tests of one of the most popular laundry products, Tide™, showed that it contained 55 parts per million (ppm) dioxane. The environmental health groups that sponsored the test program, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and the Green Patriot Working Group (GPWG), say levels as low as 5 to 10 ppm are dangerous. In fact, exposure at any levels is not advisable.

1,4-dioxane, the full scientific name of the chemical, is a man-made petrochemical that is widely used in personal care and household cleaning products. But dioxane is not only present in the majority of laundry detergents, it is also found in many popular shampoos, body washes, lotions and even in baby shampoos. 1,4-dioxane is a proven carcinogen that is contaminating waterways across the country through wastewater. It cannot be removed through filtration, and is not biodegradable.

The GPWG’s David Steinman, a former representative at the National Academy of Sciences, has been on a crusade for several years to find and eliminate common sources of dioxane. His group is also promoting legislation to force manufacturers who use dioxane in their products to list it on their labels.

Dioxane has even been found in so-called “natural” and “organic” products. According to reports, some products were found to be so highly contaminated with dioxane that legal proceedings have been instituted against the manufacturers. In 2008, for example, the Attorney General of California filed lawsuits against Avalon Natural Products (Alba), Whole Foods Market California (365), Beaumont Products (Citrus Magic) and Nutribiotic.

Many consumer laundry products actually contain a long list of dangerously toxic chemicals. Some are reported as ingredients on the labels, others are not. In addition to dioxane, among the most toxic ingredients are sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) or sodium laureth sulfate (SLES), short for sodium lauryl ether sulfate, NPE (nonylphenol ethoxylate), and numerous so-called “phosphates”. Anyone who has read a shampoo label has certainly seen sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate or some variation of it. These are found in nearly all shampoo and scalp treatments, hair coloring and bleaching products, body washes, make-ups, liquid hand soaps and even toothpaste, as well as common laundry detergents. Over 16,000 studies show that SLS in any form causes eye and skin irritation, organ toxicity, neurotoxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, endocrine disruption, mutations and cancer.

NPE has been shown to cause kidney and liver damage, disrupted growth and metabolic development, decreased testicular growth and sperm count, and increased mortality.

Fortunately, several brands of laundry products are free of these ingredients. The Organic Consumers Association recommends we avoid products with ingredients that include words with myreth, oleth, laureth, ceteareth or any other “eth”; PEG; polyethylene, polyethylene glycol or polyoxyethylene; and anything with “oxynol” in the name.

Phosphates, the main cleaning ingredients in detergents and household cleaners, can cause nausea, diarrhea and skin irritations. But their worst effects are in wastewater, destroying all life in lakes, streams and rivers.

 SOURCES: WorldWatch.org, http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/GS0008.pdf; Journal of Oleo Science, 2007, http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jos/56/7/327/_pdf; Environmental Working Group, http://www.ewg.org/.

This startling information comes from the past 27 annual reports of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS).

According to the NPDS, each of the nation’s 60 poison centers uploads case data to an information database more or less as they receive each call or report. The data from the reports is then evaluated by a team of 29 medical and clinical toxicologist reviewers to determine what substance each caller was exposed to and the consequent effects. This includes information about anyone who died as a result of the exposure.

The annual report for 2009, for example, states that the poison centers received more than 4.2 million calls about humans and animals being exposed to potential poisons – which includes reactions to pharmaceuticals. Nearly 2.5 million of the 2009 calls were related to human exposure.

During that year, according to the annual report, pharmaceuticals were responsible for the death of 37,485 people in the U.S.

Anthony Gucciardi, health activist, wellness researcher and creator of Natural Society, reviewed and culled the data from each of the last 27 annual reports from the NPDS and found that a whopping total of 3 million deaths have been attributed to pharmaceutical drugs in the last 27 years.

According to the reports, the number of deaths attributed to vitamins was 0.

If you’re told by your doctor that vitamins aren’t safe, and that drugs are, you may want to refer him or her to this information.

Sources: Natural Society, http://naturalsociety.com/27-years-no-deaths-from-vitamins-3-million-prescription-drug-deaths/; 27th Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Center’s National Poison Data System, http://www.ncpoisoncenter.org/workfiles/2009%20AAPCC%20Annual%20Report.pdf

Heart failure is often a chronic condition in which the heart cannot pump blood in sufficient volume to meet the needs of the body.

The long list of symptoms includes:

• Shortness of breath
• Fatigue and weakness
• Swollen legs, ankles and feet
• Rapid or irregular heartbeat
• Reduced ability to exercise
• Persistent cough or wheezing with white or pink blood-tinged phlegm
• Swelling of the abdomen
• Sudden weight gain from fluid retention
• Lack of appetite and nausea
• Difficulty concentrating or decreased alertness

If the situation is acute, these symptoms are basically the same but more severe.

For the new study, researchers worked with 212 people living with heart failure. Their average age was 61. Each patient tracked what they ate, and the amount of Vitamin C in their diet was calculated.

They were also given a blood test to check their levels of high sensitivity C-Reactive protein (hsCRP), a marker for inflammation. According to Eun Kyeung Song, R.N., PhD., lead author of the study and assistant professor at the Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, inflammation plays an important role in heart disease.

At the end of one year follow up, the findings showed that participants with a low intake of Vitamin C were 2.4 times more likely to have higher levels of hsCRP than those whose Vitamin C intake was adequate. Those with high levels of hsCRP were also twice as likely to die from heart disease within that year.

Vitamin C not only helps those with heart failure, it may also play a vital role in prevention. According to a study conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, taking 500 milligrams of vitamin C supplements per day reduced the CRP levels by 24 percent after just two months.

Sources: WebMD, http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/heart-failure/news/20111114/foods-with-vitamin-c-may-help-heart-failure-patients; Natural News, http://www.naturalnews.com/034146_vitamin_C_heart_failure.html; Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-failure/DS00061/DSECTION=symptoms; UC Berkeley News, http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/12_vitc.shtml>http ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135660/?tool=pubmed

Plunking babies down in front of the television as a temporary baby sitter is a common practice, but it’s not a good idea, says a new study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

Researchers found that babies who watched TV for an hour or so a day suffered impaired cognitive and language development, scoring as much as a third lower than babies who don’t watch that much TV.

Although this new study followed 259 lower-income, mostly Spanish-speaking families in New York City, earlier studies that examined higher-income families have come to the same conclusion — that TV watching not only isn’t educational, it seems to stunt babies’ development.

The research showed that even educational TV intended for kids, such as Sesame Street, had the same harmful effects. Rather than being educational, watching TV slowed the mental growth of all infants.

The study was motivated by the fact that media exposure (primarily television) is increasingly seen as a real public health concern. Study after study shows developmental and behavioral problems are associated with parking infants in front of a TV, forcing them into passive rather than active roles.

“There is emerging evidence of harm related to children younger than 3 years, especially for those with low socioeconomic status who are at greatest risk for developmental delay,” the study authors said. “One factor related to harm may be the reduced parent-child interaction associated with media.”

Earlier research by some of the same scientists, most of whom practice at New York University School of Medicine-Bellevue Hospital Center, found that the parents of children who are allowed to watch non-educational TV programs, like Spongebob SquarePants, spend less time reading to their children or teaching them.

The study strongly supports the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, that watching TV should not be allowed under 2 years of age. The Academy encourages parents to read to, play with and interact more with their children.

The study was performed in a pediatrics primary-care setting where the medical personnel were able to influence parents to reduce the amount of time their kids watch TV and increase the time they spend interacting with them.

The authors suggest that such primary care pediatric offices are a good place to address the problem.

“Pediatric primary care may represent an important venue for addressing the public health problem of media exposure in young children at a population level,” the authors said. “Additional research is needed to determine whether integration of more specific strategies to reduce media exposure in primary care parenting interventions results in greater effect.”

SOURCE: Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Dec. 2010, http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/165/1/42

The problem is that antidepressants bring a hideous list of potentially devastating side effects. Antidepressants are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of “major clinical depression”. Prescribing antidepressants to patients who don’t meet these clinical criteria is considered “off label” – not approved – and it needlessly exposes them to the considerable number of adverse side effects.

The category of drugs targeted by the study were mainly from the group called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs. Drugs of this type include Effexor, Lexapro, Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, and others. The researchers analyzed data from a representative sample of more than 20,000 U.S. adults interviewed between 2001 and 2003.

Usual side effects of SSRIs include, but aren’t limited to, nausea, dry mouth, headache, diarrhea, nervousness, agitation or restlessness, reduced sexual desire, difficulty reaching orgasm, erectile dysfunction, rashes, increased sweating, weight gain, drowsiness, insomnia, and an increased risk of suicide.

The last one, suicide, has resulted in hundreds of wrongful death and injury lawsuits, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements from the various Big Pharma drug makers involved.

Another recent study has shown that infants exposed to SSRIs during the first trimester of pregnancy suffered a 60 percent higher probability of developing congenital heart defects, compared to newborns whose mothers did not take SSRIs. Heart defects are treated with complicated and dangerous surgery, which usually requires additional surgeries as the child grows to maturity. But too many of these babies don’t make it through infancy.

Other serious abnormalities in newborns are also being linked to SSRIs, including persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), lung problems which make it difficult for the infant to breathe and sustain life. PPHN can sometimes improve with treatment. But too often it does not, and the child may face lifelong difficulty breathing.

SSRIs are also linked to a range of serious cranio-facial, limb (hand, arm, foot, leg) and abdominal wall malformations. Again, even with surgeries, and lifelong troubles are often going to be the case.

Prescribing dangerous SSRIs for anyone brings destructive possibilities. But prescribing them to those who have not even been diagnosed with major depression borders is criminal. Especially when incontrovertible studies showing that SSRIs aren’t any more beneficial than placebos.

The message here is to steer clear of SSRIs and all psychiatric drugs. Alternative health practitioners today offer a wide choice of treatments for depression, anxiety and related conditions, that are safe and effective.

Source: Pub Med, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21294990

The study approach is unique because it examined earlier studies, and then applied current biological science to explain the findings.

First, the study surveyed an enormous body of earlier research that has already shown how Acupuncture is helpful in many different aspects of cancer treatment.

Research has demonstrated that Acupuncture reduces the incidence of chemotherapy-induced acute vomiting, for example. Other findings show acupuncture can manage some cancer-related pain. Promising evidence suggests that acupuncture relieves fatigue in cancer patients and survivors. Evidence is also accumulating that acupuncture alleviates cancer-related neurological issues, breathlessness, hot flashes and “dry mouth”.

“In sum,” say the researchers, “there are substantial empirical grounds to assume that clinicians could use acupuncture to help patients better tolerate conventional cancer therapies by reducing associated side-effects. Further, the evidence is very strong that acupuncture is an extremely safe therapy. In short, the research implies that acupuncture is a helpful, versatile and safe treatment modality for patients with cancer.”

Despite all these apparent benefits, the authors state, the conventional oncology community “has shown itself reluctant to integrate acupuncture and other complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities into their treatment plans for patients with cancer.”

One reason has been a concern that symptomatic relief is due to “spontaneous remission” rather than the CAM intervention. Another is that the scientific community “lacks both the scientific evidence and biomedical understanding” to consider that CAM procedures would work.

However, this new study applied accepted cellular immunology and molecular biological theory to interpret and synthesize the evidence from earlier animal and human studies and the findings clearly suggest that Acupuncture can help.

Results indicate that clinicians should use acupuncture to promote NK cell activity to enhance anticancer immune function.

SOURCE: National Center for Biotechnical Information, from Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Volume 2011.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135660/?tool=pubmed

The study, conducted in New York – although there’s no reason to suspect that the same is not true for most cities – found the following drugs and chemicals in the city’s drinking water, listed in order of the quantity found:

• Acetaminophen – a nonprescription pain reliever and fever reducer
• Butalbital - a sedative and hypnotic drug, prescribed as a pain reliever
• Caffeine - a stimulant most commonly found in coffee and some types of soda
• Carbamazepine - a prescription anti-convulsant
• Cotinine - a byproduct of nicotine, found in tobacco
• DEET – extremely toxic, the most common active ingredient in insect repellents
• Diltiazem - a drug used to treat high blood pressure and chest pain (angina)
• Gemfibrozil - a prescription drug used to treat high cholesterol.
• Ibuprofen – a non-prescription anti-inflammatory, pain reliever and fever reducer
• Iopromide - a substance used to enhance contrast in X-rays and medical imaging
• Meprobamate - a sedative used to relax the muscles and reduce anxiety
• Paraxanthine - a stimulant that’s chemically related to caffeine
• Primidone - an anti-epileptic drug used to treat seizure disorders
• Sulfamethoxazole - an antibiotic, generally used in combination with other drugs

Even though the city’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ensures us that the amounts of these chemicals found in drinking water are too small to harm us, there are several factors that cast doubt on that statement:

• In terms of just these 14 drugs and chemicals, no one knows how they interact.
• In addition to the 14 substances listed in the current report, literally hundreds of other chemicals have been found in drinking water. For most, no safety standards have been set, and no one knows how these hundreds of additional chemicals interact either.
• Chemicals have a cumulative effect, and many are hard to get rid of once they’re in the body. What does it take to get rid of them? What does the cumulative effect amount to? Again, no one really knows.

What we do know is that Americans are unhealthier than they’ve ever been: Nearly 50 percent of American women are predicted to get breast cancer; 287 chemicals were found in the umbilical cord blood of newborns – of these 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests – the evidence of chemical poisoning goes on and on.

Is it realistic to suspect that at least some of these chemicals come from our drinking water? Absolutely. To protect your health, get the best tap water filter and bottled water you can afford.

Sources: CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20095389-10391704.html, Environmental Working Group, http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/reportfindings, http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php

When you go to the doctor for stomach problems, the solution offered you is usually a class of drugs known as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). These drugs reduce stomach acid and include Prilosec and Zegerid, available by prescription or over-the-counter (OTC), as well as Nexium and Prevacid, and their generic counterparts, omeprazole and pantoprazole.

Annual sales of OTC Prilosec as of a few years ago were $400 million; Zegerid is over $200 million. There were also 92 million prescriptions written for PPIs in 2010, which made their manufacturers more than $14 billion, the fourth largest sales for a class of drugs.  Numbers 1, 2 and 3 on the money-maker scale, in case you’re curious, are antipsychotics, cholesterol-lowering statins, and antidepressants.

How are these drugs killing you? When stomach acid is reduced, it stops your digestive system in its tracks. Since the proper function of every organ and system is dependant upon the nutrients extracted from the food and liquids we ingest – which process begins with stomach acid - you can count on a deterioration of general health.

Some of the consequences of taking PPIs include:

•low magnesium levels – which can cause seizures, irregular heartbeats, and muscle spasms

•an increased risk of hip, wrist, and spine fractures, especially for patients over 50

•pneumonia

•serious infections caused by the a bacteria that causes inflammation in the intestines

 All of these risks have been the subject of FDA advisories – although it’s doubtful that someone going to a drug store to get Prilosec is aware of them.

To top it all off, the drugs may also be habit forming. If you try to quit taking them after only a month, the body reacts by producing excess stomach acid. This excess acid can trigger such severe heartburn it forces people back on the drugs.

Digestive upsets are a sign of something wrong with the digestive system – it needs to be fixed. Fortunately, digestive problems are often easily corrected with alternative healthcare. Unlike the medical model, alternative healthcare looks for the cause of the problem and fixes it. That’s a real solution, and one that could improve your health immensely.

Sources: The Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/Boston/dailydose/2011/08/are-heartburn-drugs-habit-forming/7AIrPFCm087ZX31prv9z9M/index.html; http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-04/lifestyle/29380757_1_acid-reflux-inhibitors-prescriptions