Is sugar Toxic?

(CBS News) If you are what you eat, then what does it mean that the average American consumes 130 pounds of sugar a year? Sanjay Gupta reports on new research showing that beyond weight gain, sugar can take a serious toll on your health, worsening conditions ranging from heart disease to cancer. Some physicians go so far as to call sugar a toxin.


The following script is from “Sugar” which aired on April 1, 2012. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is the correspondent. Denise Schrier Cetta and Sumi Aggarwal, producers.

The chances are good that sugar is a bigger part of your daily diet than you may realize which is why our story tonight is so important. New research coming out of some of America’s most respected institutions is starting to find that sugar, the way many people are eating it today, is a toxin and could be a driving force behind some of this country’s leading killers, including heart disease.

As a result of these findings, an anti-sugar campaign has sprung up, led by Dr. Robert Lustig, a California endocrinologist, who believes the consumption of added sugars has plunged America into a public health crisis.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Is sugar toxic?

Dr. Robert Lustig: I believe it is.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Do you ever worry that that’s– it just sounds a little bit over the top?

Dr. Robert Lustig: Sure. All the time. But it’s the truth.

Dr. Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco and a pioneer in what is becoming a war against sugar.

Motivated by his own patients — too many sick and obese children – Dr. Lustig has concluded that sugar, more than any other substance, is to blame.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: What are all these various diseases that you say are linked to sugar?

Dr. Robert Lustig: Obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease itself.

Lustig says the American lifestyle is killing us.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And most of it you say is preventable?

Dr. Robert Lustig: Seventy-five percent of it is preventable.

While Dr. Lustig has published a dozen scientific articles on the evils of sugar, it was his lecture on YouTube, called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” that brought his message to the masses.

[YouTube Video: I'm standing here today to recruit you in the war against bad food.]

By “bad food” Dr. Lustig means the obvious things such as table sugar, honey, syrup, sugary drinks and desserts, but also just about every processed food you can imagine, where sugar is often hidden: yogurts and sauces, bread, and even peanut butter. And what about the man-made, often vilified sweetener, high fructose corn syrup?

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Is it worse than just table sugar?

Dr. Robert Lustig: No. ‘Cause it’s the exact same. They are basically equivalent. The problem is they’re both bad. They’re both equally toxic.

Since the 1970s, sugar consumption has gone down nearly 40 percent, but high fructose corn syrup has more than made up the difference. Dr. Lustig says they are both toxic because they both contain fructose — that’s what makes them sweet and irresistible.

Dr. Robert Lustig: We love it. We go out of our way to find it. I think one of the reasons evolutionarily is because there is no food stuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous to you. It is all good. So when you taste something that’s sweet, it’s an evolutionary Darwinian signal that this is a safe food.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: We were born this way?

Dr. Robert Lustig: We were born this way.

Central to Dr. Lustig’s theory is that we used to get our fructose mostly in small amounts of fruit — which came loaded with fiber that slows absorption and consumption — after all, who can eat 10 oranges at a time? But as sugar and high fructose corn syrup became cheaper to refine and produce, we started gorging on them. Americans now consume 130 pounds per person a year — that’s a third of a pound every day.

Dr. Lustig believes those sweeteners are helping fuel an increase in the most deadly disease in America: heart disease. For years, he’s been a controversial voice.

[Kimber Stanhope: Here is our oral isotope...]

But now, studies done by Kimber Stanhope, a nutritional biologist at the University of California, Davis are starting to back him up. She’s in the middle of a groundbreaking, five-year study which has already shown strong evidence linking excess high fructose corn syrup consumption to an increase in risk factors for heart disease and stroke. That suggests calories from added sugars are different than calories from other foods.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: The mantra that you hear from most nutritionists is that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

Kimber Stanhope: And I think the results of the study showed clearly that is not true.

Stanhope’s conclusions weren’t easy to come by. Nutrition studies are expensive and difficult. Stanhope has paid groups of research subjects to live in this hospital wing for weeks at a time, under a sort of 24-hour lockdown. They undergo scans and blood tests – every calorie they ingest, meticulously weighed and prepared.

Kimber Stanhope: They’re never out of our sight. So we do know that they are consuming exactly what we need them to consume.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And they’re not sneaking any candy bars on the side.

Kimber Stanhope: Yeah, right, exactly.

For the first few days, participants eat a diet low in added sugars, so baseline blood levels can be measured.

[Research assistant: So remember you guys have to finish all of your Kool-Aid. ]

Then, 25 percent of their calories are replaced with sweetened drinks and Stanhope’s team starts drawing blood every 30 minutes around the clock. And those blood samples? They revealed something disturbing.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And what are you starting to see?

Kimber Stanhope: We found that the subjects who consumed high fructose corn syrup had increased blood levels of LDL cholesterol and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: How quickly did these changes occur?

Kimber Stanhope: Within two weeks.

Kimber Stanhope’s study suggests that when a person consumes too much sweet stuff, the liver gets overloaded with fructose and converts some of it into fat. Some of that fat ends up in the bloodstream and helps generate a dangerous kind of cholesterol called small dense LDL. These particles are known to lodge in blood vessels, form plaque and are associated with heart attacks.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Did it surprise you when you first got these results back?

Kimber Stanhope: I would have to say I was surprised because when I saw our data, I started drinking and eating a whole lot less sugar. I would say our data surprised me.

So imagine, for these healthy young people, drinking a sweetened drink might be just as bad for their hearts as the fatty cheeseburgers we’ve all been warned about since the 1970s. That’s when a government commission mandated that we lower fat consumption to try and reduce heart disease.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So with the best of intentions, they say, “Time to reduce fat in the American diet?”

Dr. Robert Lustig: Exactly. And we did. And guess what? Heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes and death are skyrocketing.

Dr. Lustig believes that’s primarily because we replaced a lot of that fat with added sugars.

Dr. Robert Lustig: Take the fat out of food, it tastes like cardboard. And the food industry knew that. So they replaced it with sugar.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: This idea that sugar increases this particularly bad LDL, the small dense particles that are associated with heart disease. Do most doctors– do they know this?

Dr. Robert Lustig: No, they do not know this. This is new.

And it turns out, sugar has become a major focus in cancer research too. Lewis Cantley, is looking at the connection.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: If you limit your sugar you decrease your chances of developing cancer?

Lewis Cantley: Absolutely.

Cantley, a Harvard professor and the head of the Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer Center, says when we eat or drink sugar, it causes a sudden spike in the hormone insulin, which can serve as a catalyst to fuel certain types of cancers.

Lewis Cantley: What we’re beginning to learn is that insulin can cause adverse effects in the various tissues. And of particular concern is cancer.

Why? Nearly a third of some common cancers — including breast and colon cancers — have something called insulin receptors on their surface. Insulin binds to these receptors and signals the tumor to start consuming glucose.

Lewis Cantley: This is your body…

Every cell in our body needs glucose to survive. But the trouble is, these cancer cells also use it to grow.

Lewis Cantley: So if you happen to have the tumor that has insulin receptors on it then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that’s in the bloodstream rather than go into fat or muscle, the glucose goes into the tumor. And the tumor uses it to grow.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So you’ve just seen that tumor turn blue which is essentially reflective of glucose going into it.

Lewis Cantley: That’s right.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So these cancers, much in the same way that muscle will say, “Hey, I’d like some of that glucose, the fat says, “I would like some of that glucose,” the cancers have learned how to do this themselves as well?

Lewis Cantley: Yes. So they have evolved the ability to hijack that flow of glucose that’s going by in the bloodstream into the tumor itself.

Lewis Cantley’s research team is working on developing drugs that will cut off the glucose supply to cancer cells and keep them from growing. But until there’s a breakthrough, Cantley’s advice? Don’t eat sugar. And if you must, keep it to a minimum.

Lewis Cantley: In fact– I– you know, I live my life that way. I rarely eat sugar.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: When you see a sugary drink or if I were to offer you one, what– with all that you know, what’s going through your mind?

Lewis Cantley: I probably would turn it down and get a glass of water.

But for most of us, that’s easier said than done…

Eric Stice: It turns out sugar is much more addictive than I think we had sort of realized early on.

Eric Stice, a neuroscientist at the Oregon Research Institute, is using functional MRI scanners to learn how our brains respond to sweetness.

Eric Stice: Sugar activates our brain in a special way. That’s very reminiscent of, you know, drugs like cocaine.

That’s right. Cocaine.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Let’s give it a shot…

I climbed into the MRI scanner to see how my brain would respond. That’s a straw that’s been rigged to deliver a tiny sip of soda into my mouth.

Eric Stice: Stay as still as you can, ok?

Just as it hit my tongue, the scanner detected increased blood rushing to certain regions of my brain. In these images, the yellow areas show that my reward region is responding to the sweet taste. Dopamine – a chemical that controls the brain’s pleasure center – is being released, just as it would in response to drugs or alcohol.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So dopamine is released. That sort of makes me feel good. I’m experiencing some pleasure from having this Coke.

Eric Stice: Right, that euphoric effect.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So far be it for people to realize this ’cause sugar is everywhere, but you’re saying this is one of the most addictive substances possibly that we have?

Eric Stice: It certainly is very good at firing the reward regions in our brain.

Eric Stice says by scanning hundreds of volunteers, he’s learned that people who frequently drink sodas or eat ice cream or other sweet foods may be building up a tolerance, much like drug users do. As strange as it sounds, that means the more you eat, the less you feel the reward. The result: you eat more than ever.

Eric Stice: If you overeat these on a regular basis it causes changes in the brain that basically it blunts your reward region response to the food, so then you eat more and more to achieve the same satisfaction you felt originally.

With all this new science emerging, we wanted to hear from the sugar industry, so we visited Jim Simon, who’s on the board of the Sugar Association, at a sugar cane farm in Louisiana.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Would it surprise you that almost every scientist that we talked to in researching this story told us they are eliminating all added sugars. They’re getting rid of it because they’re concerned about the health impacts.

Jim Simon: To say that the American consuming public is going to completely omit, eliminate, sweeteners out of their diet I don’t think gets us there.

Simon cautions that eliminating sugar wrongly vilifies one food, rather than working towards the long-term solution of reducing calories and exercising.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: You know, a lot of people, Jim, are saying that sugar is different. That it is bad for your heart and is causing a lot of the problems we’re talking about. It is addictive and in some cases might even fuel cancers. What would you – I mean you’ve looked at this. You must have looked at some of these studies. What do you say about that?

Jim Simon: The science is not completely clear here.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: But some of that’s, but some of these studies exist. I mean, what is a consumer, what are they to make of all that?

Jim Simon: Well, I would say to them, that they’ve got to approach, their diet in balance.

Dr. Robert Lustig agrees — we need a balanced diet — but his idea of balance is a drastic reduction in sugar consumption. To that end he co-authored an American Heart Association report recommending men should consume no more than 150 calories of added sugars a day. And women, just 100 calories. That’s less than the amount in just one can of soda.

Dr. Robert Lustig: Ultimately this is a public health crisis. And when it’s a public health crisis, you have to do big things and you have to do them across the board. Tobacco and alcohol are perfect examples. We have made a conscious choice that we’re not going to get rid of them, but we are going to limit their consumption. I think sugar belongs in this exact same wastebasket.

Warning: Flu Shots Contain a Dangerous Neurotoxin

Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS) is not contagious.

It is an autoimmune disorder that develops when a person’s own immune system attacks and damages the myelin sheath of the body’s nerves, causing muscle weakeness and paralysis.

GBS symptoms can last for a few weeks or months or can become permanent.

In rare cases, people die from GBS, usually because they cannot breathe.

In the U.S., an estimated 3,000 to 6,000 people develop GBS annually.

Some healthy people, who develop GBS, have recently recovered from a viral or bacterial infection within the previous 4-8 weeks but others have recently been vaccinated.

The inactivated influenza vaccine has been associated with development of GBS since 1976, when an inactivated “swine flu” shot given to millions of healthy Americans caused GBS in several hundred previously healthy Americans and there were 30 deaths.

The CDC says: “In 1976 there was a small increased risk of GBS following vaccination with an influenza vaccine made to protect against a swine flu virus. The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS.

Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown.”

Early symptoms of GBS include sudden muscle weakness, fatigue and tingling sensations in the legs that can take days or weeks to spread to the arms and upper body and can become painful, eventually ending with either partial or total paralysis.

When there is total paralysis, GBS becomes life-threatening because it can impair breathing and interfere with the heart rate and cause high or low blood pressure that can lead to serious complications, such as heart attack and stroke.

It is important to recognize the early symptoms of GBS, whether you have been vaccinated or not, and seek immediate medical care.

Powerful Profile of a Vaccine Victim

While infants and young children are at greatest risk, NO ONE is exempt from the potential serious complications of vaccination, one of which is GBS.

In the video profile of vaccine injury above, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), interviews a Connecticut artist and her mother, a former professor of nursing, who developed Guillaine-Barre syndrome after getting a seasonal flu shot in 2008 and today is permanently disabled with total body paralysis. This family has chosen to share their heartbreaking story to help those, who have had the same experience, feel less alone, and to educate others about what it means to be vaccine injured. What happened to this family is a potent reminder of just how important it is to make well-informed decisions about vaccinations.

Getting Flu Shot at Pharmacy is a Risky Proposition

While many have become used to vaccines being considered “routine,” there’s really nothing routine about them. Each and every vaccine carries an inherent risk of causing a reaction, injury or death that can be greater for some individuals than others. The seasonal flu vaccine is no exception when it comes to serious health risks, both short- and long-term, for some people.   This is why the trend of getting your flu shot at the local drugstore, grocery store or other non-medical setting is so troubling.

According to a recent article in NPR:

“In 2010, 18.4 percent of adults who were immunized received the flu vaccine at a supermarket or drugstore, just edging out workplace vaccinations for the second most popular venue, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

… [W]hile more people are going to the pharmacy, the number of Americans who get the flu vaccine each year has remained fairly constant at about 40 percent of all adults. Drugstores and supermarket pharmacies are eager to stake out a bigger piece of that market. Nationwide, the number of pharmacists trained to deliver vaccines has nearly quadrupled since 2007, from 40,000 to 150,000.”

While pharmacists are trained to administer the vaccine, they’re not necessarily trained to address a sudden and life threatening health emergency that may arise after the shot is given. It’s important to understand that ALL vaccines carry a risk for provoking an acute adverse reaction, such as fainting or having a seizure, which could be truly life threatening if you’re driving a car or crossing a street after you have left the store, for example.

All Vaccines Suppress Your Immune System

Vaccines can also be immune suppressive—that is, they can suppress your immune system, which may not return to normal for weeks to months. Here are just some of the ways vaccines can impair and alter your immune response:

  • Some components in vaccines are neurotoxic and may depress your immune response or cause brain and immune dysfunction, particularly heavy metals such as mercury preservatives and aluminum adjuvants
  • The lab altered vaccine viruses themselves may also affect your immune response in a negative way
  • Vaccines may alter your t-cell function and lead you to become chronically ill
  • Vaccines can trigger allergies or autoimmune disorders. Vaccines introduce large foreign protein molecules into your body. Your body can respond to these foreign particles in a way that causes an allergic reaction or triggers autoimmunty, especially in persons genetically or biologically vulnerable to allergy and autoimmunity

The flu vaccine may also pose an immediate risk to your cardiovascular system due to the fact that they elicit an inflammatory response. One 2007 study published in the Annals of Medicine concluded that:

Abnormalities in arterial function and LDL oxidation may persist for at least two weeks after a slight inflammatory reaction induced by influenza vaccination. These could explain in part the earlier reported increase in cardiovascular risk during the first weeks after an acute inflammatory disorder.”

Mercury is a Well-Known Neurotoxin

Thimerosal, which is 49 percent mercury by volume, is a widely used vaccine preservative.

It is present in many different vaccines used in the U.S., including the majority of seasonal flu vaccines, although there are a few million doses of thimerosal-free single dose vials of influenza vaccine manufactured by drug companies that are supposed to be reserved for infants and pregnant women.

However if you are pregnant or have an infant and want to get a flu shot, be aware that you may have to specifically insist on getting the thimerosal-free single vial version as many health practitioners and pharmacists are still clueless about the health risks associated with thimerosal.

Some don’t even know that thimerosal is a mercury derivative!

A typical dose of thimerosal-containing flu vaccine contains 25 micrograms thimerosal. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the safe limit for human exposure to mercury is 0.1 mcg per kilo of weight per day.

Since almost half of the thimerosal is mercury, this means that each flu shot contains just over 12 mcg’s of mercury, which would be considered unsafe for anyone weighing less than 120 kilos, or just under 265 pounds.

There’s really no debate about whether or not mercury is a neurotoxin. It’s a well-established fact that it is. It’s also well understood that mercury is particularly damaging to young, developing brains, and this is one of the core concerns about vaccines. If it’s unsafe to breathe or ingest mercury, why would it suddenly become harmless when injected directly into your body, bypassing all of your body’s natural detoxification pathways?

If anything, the damage is likely to be far more profound!  The following video offers a powerful illustration of how mercury literally destroys brain neurons.

Why Did Vaccine Maker Fail to Reveal Massive Increase in Reactions?

On October 18, The Australian published an article questioning the omission of research showing a dramatic uptick in side effects from the flu vaccine in 2006. As you may recall, last year, Australia temporarily suspended all seasonal flu vaccinations for children under the age of five after noticing a 200 percent increase in unusual fevers and convulsions. At that time, CSL submitted updated research from 2006 showing a sharp rise in fevers linked to its vaccine, which they had omitted from the legally required product information sheets given to doctors.

The product sheets instead listed figures from 2005.

The 2005 information showed 22.5 per cent of children under three, and nearly 16 percent of children aged three to nine experienced fever as a side effect. Meanwhile the updated figures for 2006 showed the rate of unusual fevers had nearly DOUBLED, to 39.5 percent in children up to three, and 27 percent for three to nine-year olds.

According to The Australian:

“Both sets of results were published in 2009, but CSL has still not included the more alarming set of figures in the product information. The Medical Journal of Australia reported… that CSL did not give this information to Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, until last year when the spate of serious febrile convulsions in young children given the annual flu jab triggered a suspension on the use of such vaccines for children under five.”

The CSL’s explanation for the omission is that they didn’t think the 2006 figures were “clinically substantially different” to the 2005 figures.  Really? If a doubling of side effects is not substantially and clinically different, then what is?

Was Blend of Flu Viruses to Blame for Increase in Adverse Effects?

CSL now claims to have pinpointed the potential problem causing their H1N1 vaccine (Fluvax) to be so much more reactive than seasonal flu vaccines of the past. According to a September 3 article in The Australian:

“CSL followed World Health Organisation recommendations when it concocted its controversial Fluvax vaccine, which combined swine flu with two seasonal strains of influenza for the first time… CSL yesterday revealed a breakthrough in its 18-month scientific investigation…  It said the interim findings pointed to a problem with how the three virus strains interacted.

“Our scientific studies indicate that the interaction between the particular virus strains used in the 2010 . . . vaccine contributed to the reactions, but we are still working to understand the how and why,” a CSL spokeswoman told The Weekend Australian. “We have completed comprehensive investigations into our manufacturing operations (which) have not identified any change or deviation in our standard registered manufacturing process that could have contributed to the increased reactions.”"

However, the World Health Organization (WHO) has rebutted CSL’s conclusions stating that:

“None of the other manufacturers have seen the same sort of effects with these strains,” Dr [Ian] Barr [deputy director of the WHO's influenza research laboratory in Melbourne] said. He ruled out testing the WHO’s flu-shot recipe — which tends to change each year — before new vaccines were used on people. “It’s just not possible because this is more or less a just-in-time vaccine,” he said.”

Both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Australian counterpart, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), have blamed the problem on manufacturing deficiencies, poor management, and inadequate cleaning and testing at the CSL facility. According to The Australian:

“The TGA said yesterday different manufacturing processes could explain why only CSL’s vaccine caused such widespread side-effects in children last year.”While the different brands of seasonal influenza vaccines use the same strains of virus, there are differences in manufacturing processes that may result in differences in the biology of the vaccines,” an administration spokeswoman said.

Finland Vows to Pay for Lifetime Medical Care for Kids Harmed by H1N1 Vaccine

The 2009-2010 H1N1 swine flu vaccine wreaked uncommon havoc in many countries. For example, several European countries noticed a staggering uptick in narcolepsy —a rare and devastating sleeping disorder.  Unfortunately, vaccine makers are completely shielded from liability for any harm caused by a pandemic vaccine, which is what the H1N1 flu vaccine was, so the fact that this vaccine turned out to be so harmful is a red flag for everyone to carefully weigh potential benefits and risks, and not trust blindly when health officials and doctors give standard assurances of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

In a rare and welcome demonstration of compassion and respect for the vaccine injured, the Finnish government and major health insurance companies recently announced they will pay for lifetime medical care for all the children diagnosed with narcolepsy after receiving the swine flu vaccine.

As reported by Yahoo News:

“Finnish and international researchers recently found a conclusive link between the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine and new cases of narcolepsy… The Finnish Pharmaceutical Insurance Pool (LVP), which represents insurance companies, said… it would honor all insurance claims in this category… The Finnish government meanwhile agreed to cover any medical costs exceeding the insurance claims.

In Finland, 79 children between the ages of four and 19 developed narcolepsy after receiving the Pandemrix vaccine in 2009 and 2010. Of these cases, an unusually high number, 76, also suffered from bouts of cataplexy, suffering hallucinations or paralysing physical collapses, according to Finnish research.”

Flu Vaccine for Pregnant Women Now Called into Question

In the U.S., trivalent influenza vaccination is universally recommended for all pregnant women, but a new study now calls this practice into question. The study examined “the magnitude, time course, and variance in inflammatory responses following seasonal influenza virus vaccination among pregnant women.”  The women were assessed prior to, and at one day, two days, and one week following vaccination..

The analysis showed significant increases in C-reactive protein (CRP) and other markers of inflammation following the vaccinations. According to the authors:

“Trivalent influenza virus vaccination elicits a measurable inflammatory response among pregnant women … There was considerable variability in magnitude of response; coefficients of variation for change at two days post-vaccination ranged from 122 percent to 728 percent, with the greatest variability in IL-6 responses at this timepoint.

As adverse perinatal health outcomes including preeclampsia and preterm birth have an inflammatory component, a tendency toward greater inflammatory responding to immune triggers may predict risk of adverse outcomes, providing insight into biological mechanisms underlying risk… further research is needed to confirm that the mild inflammatory response elicited by vaccination is benign in pregnancy.”

Are Flu Vaccines Increasing Inflammation in Pregnant Women to Dangerous Levels?

The issue of inflammation is very important, and may be a crucial concern for pregnant women and infants. Pregnant women experiencing acute inflammation, whether from natural infection or from a vaccination, may well suffer an increased risk of their unborn child suffering health damage as a result.

It has always been a principle in medicine that one should not expose pregnant women to unnecessary risks from smoking or ingesting drugs or alcohol or other toxins because the risk to the unborn child is too great. Until a decade ago, most women were not routinely advised by doctors to get vaccinated during pregnancy but, today, there is a big push by the CDC and medical trade organizations to vaccinate all pregnant women in any trimester. The really big push began in earnest during the much-hyped pandemic “swine flu” influenza scare of 2009, a flu that turned out to be less severe than most annual “flu seasons.”

Researchers are now questioning the assumed safety of giving flu shots to pregnant women because stimulating a woman’s immune system during midterm and later term pregnancy may significantly increase the risk that her baby will develop autism during childhood and schizophrenia sometime during the teenage years and afterward. This risk is not minor. According to Dr. Blaylock, it’s a well-accepted fact within neuroscience that eliciting an immune response during pregnancy increases the risk of autism and schizophrenia in her offspring seven- to 14-fold!

In fact, a number of neurodevelopmental and behavioral problems can occur in babies born to women immunologically stimulated during pregnancy. For example, in one study done by Dr. Laura Hewitson, a professor of obstetrics at the University of Pittsburg Medical Center, found that a single vaccine used in human babies, when used in newborn monkeys, caused significant abnormalities in brainstem development.

It’s true that serious flu infections or E. coli infections during pregnancy are a major risk for all these complications, but a woman’s risk of actually becoming infected is quite small.

Two years ago, I interviewed Dr. Blaylock, a board certified neurosurgeon and author of Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills, on this topic. At the time, we were discussing the swine flu and H1N1 vaccine, but one particular segment relates to the issue of vaccinations during pregnancy in general. As stated above, vaccines elicit an inflammatory response, and according to Dr. Blaylock, this is of considerable concern for pregnant women.

Based on the data Dr. Blaylock shared in that interview, pregnant women had about a 99.97 percent chance of NOT becoming so ill from the swine flu that they would require any type of hospital care. Put another way, a pregnant woman only had a 0.03 percent chance of contracting a life-threatening case of influenza. These statistics would likely be applicable for most “regular” flu seasons as well. With the risk of suffering complications from naturally-acquired influenza being so low, why is the US government insisting on vaccinating ALL pregnant women; thereby significantly increasing the risk to ALL unborn infants?

What Your Obstetrician Doesn’t Know about Vaccines Can Jeopardize Your Baby

Each year, the CDC and medical trade associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urge pregnant women and young children to get a flu shot because, they say, pregnant women and young children are “particularly at risk” for flu complications and death. However, the statistics simply do not support this recommendation.

Neither does the science…

Unfortunately, many obstetricians and pediatricians strongly recommend the flu vaccine to their pregnant patients because they simply don’t know any better.

Doctors typically do not read neuroscience journals, perhaps because they don’t have the time or because it is a lot easier to just blindly trust and follow the CDC or AAP “recommendations” without every checking them out.  But the link between inflammatory cytokine production during pregnancy and subsequent health problems in infants and young children is well explained in the medical literature; it’s been published in well-respected journals and is already accepted within the field of neuroscience.

How to Protect Yourself Against the Flu Without Vaccination

Fortunately, avoiding a serious case of the flu doesn’t require a flu vaccine. By following these simple guidelines, you can keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you’re far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with or, if you do get sick with the flu, you are better prepared to move through it without complications and soon return to good health.

  • Optimize your vitamin D levels. As I’ve previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency is likely the TRUE culprit behind the seasonality of the flu — not the flu virus itself. This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take. Regularly monitor your vitamin D levels to confirm your levels are within the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml.

Ideally, you’ll want to get all your vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed, but as a last resort you can take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. According to the latest review by Carole Baggerly (Grassrootshealth.org), adults need about 8,000 IU’s a day.

  • Avoid Sugar and Processed Foods. Sugar impairs the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a healthy immune system is one of the most important keys to fighting off viruses and other illness. Be aware that sugar is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice.
  • Get Enough Rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you’re tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu.
  • Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads.
  • Take a Good Source of Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils that are trans fats and in processed foods as it will seriously damage your immune response.
  • Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don’t use antibacterial soap for this — antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
  • Use Natural Antibiotics. Examples include colloidal silver, oil of oregano, and garlic. These work like broad-spectrum antibiotics against bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in your body. And unlike pharmaceutical antibiotics, they do not appear to lead to resistance.
  • Avoid Hospitals.  I’d recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you’re having an emergency and need expert medical care, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds. The best place to get plenty of rest and recover from illness that is not life-threatening is usually in the comfort of your own home.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems “old-fashioned,” the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand vaccine exemptions, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org not only gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community, but when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Contact Your Elected Officials

Write or email your elected state representatives and share your concerns. Call them, or better yet, make an appointment to visit them in person in their office. Don’t let them forget you!

It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what’s really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the “real life” experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down.  Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:

  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or  government officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want,  I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

 

Article by Dr Mercola

Health News: Eating Greens & Fruits Turns Off Heart Disease Gene

Eating a healthy amount of greens could have an effect on genes linked to heart disease, according to a new study.

Researchers from Canada’s McMaster and McGill universities found that eating fruits and vegetables may actually change a gene variant, called 9p21, that is one of the strongest predictors for heart disease.

“We found that in people with this high-risk gene who consumed a diet rich in vegetables and fruits, their risk came down to that of people who don’t have that gene,” said Dr. Sonia Anand, a lead author and professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University.

The researchers analyzed the diets of more than 27,000 people from different parts of the world who were already enrolled in two separate studies looking at heart disease.

“Despite having a high genetic risk for heart disease, a healthy lifestyle can actually turn off the gene,” said Anand. She also said it’s not yet clear exactly how diet affects the gene.

The study participants who lowered their risk through their diet ate at least two servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Raw fruits and vegetables played the biggest role in lowering risk, Anand said.

New research suggests eating a healthy amount of fruits and vegetables could change a gene strongly linked to heart disease.

Experts not involved in the Canadian research say the research provides more evidence that there is a strong gene-environment interaction involved in heart disease and other conditions.

“This may be true for other issues. There may be genetic factors that make a patient more sensitive to salt and develop hypertension, whereas another person can eat large amounts of salt and maintain normal pressure,” said Dr. Carl “Chip” Lavie, medical director of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Prevention at the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute at Ochsner Health System in New Orleans.

“Other studies have also shown that those who eat healthier diets tend to offset the risk that same chromosome places on them,” said Dr. Phil Ragno, director of cardiovascular health and wellness at Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y.

Motivation for Lifestyle Change?

“We know that despite public health recommendations to eat five or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day, only a minority of people take the advice seriously,” said Anand. “Genetic information may be a motivation to help people take the public health recommendation seriously.”

But she added that this research doesn’t mean that people should go out and get genetically screened for the presence of 9p21 variants. Screening is costly and not routinely done.

The role of genetics is an expanding area of medical research, and experts believe the next few years will bring new health recommendations based on people’s genetic makeup.

“This points the way toward the future and where we’re going in terms of understanding the genetics of heart disease,” said Dr. William O’Neill, cardiology professor and executive dean of clinical affairs at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine. “Maybe in the next few years, we may be able to do specific gene scans on individual patients and if we find the patients who have genetic high risk, we really want to concentrate on modifying risk by targeting smoking, cholesterol adn diet.”

And that could be reassuring for many people with genetic susceptibility to certain conditions.

“We often think of genetic factors as being un-modifiable factors,” said Anand. “But lifestyle factors can actually change the genes.”

Source ABC News

Article written by KIM CAROLLO

World Health Organization (WHO) is now admitting that mobile phones do cause cancer after all

After years of denials, the World Health Organization (WHO) is now admitting that mobile phones do cause cancer after all. It’s now official: Holding an active cell phone next to your head can give you brain tumors.

All of us who have been warning about this for years were, of course, blasted as “conspiracy theorists.” Yet again, it turns out we were absolutely right. Just as we’re right about the toxicity of fluoride in the water, aspartame in the diet soda and the dangerous side effects of GMOs in the food supply. The WHO remains at least ten years behind what holistic health advocates already know on a variety of subjects.  For more info on this finding read the article below.

Breaking news from The World Health Organization this week has the public in a frenzy because an expert panel from the organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified cell phone radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer.

These new findings put phones in the same category as the pesticide DDT and car exhaust. Though Carl Johnson of Forbes.com puts things in context by pointing out that “cell phone risk was placed in category 2B. That category includes 266 other carcinogenic agents including coffee and pickled vegetables.

Reassured? Read on…

This news comes on the heels of the newest independent studies revealed last week by Dr. Devra Davis (founder of The Environmental Health Trust, author, Healthy Child scientific advisory board member, and member of a Nobel Peace Prize team) that offer stunning proof confirming findings from the Council of Europe that pulsed digital signals from cell phones disrupt DNA, impair brain function and lower sperm count.

What should you do?

Dr. David Katz, Director of Yale’s Prevention Research Center, interviewed Dr. Joel Moskowitz who directs the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley on The Huffington Post regarding the issue and here are here are the takeaways:

  • Keep your cell phone away from your body whenever it is on. Use a corded headset, speakerphone or text.
  • Minimize cell phone use among children, teens, and pregnant women.
  • Demand that the federal government revise regulations, fund research, and issue precautionary health recommendations.

In addition to these tips, check out Time.com’s article about the 10 highest and 10 lowest emitters of radiation in the smart phone category and CNN’s posted a similar list regarding cell phones in general.

But, as another piece in Time asks, ‘If Cell Phones Cause Cancer, What About Laptops?’

Indeed, electric and magnetic field (EMF) radiation is all around us because our modern lives include electricity. Computers, appliances, alarm clocks and cordless phones (and other wireless technologies) all emit EMF radiation.

The issue of biological effects from this pervasive radiation is very controversial. Possible health hazards (including carcinogenic, reproductive, neurological, cardiovascular, hormonal and immune system impacts) are identified by results of some scientific studies, but the evidence they provide is still incomplete and inconclusive and even, in some cases, contradictory.

Until we have more information, some communities and individuals are adopting the “no and low cost” avoidance strategy. According to the California Department of Health Services and the Public Health Institute, “t’s easy to move an electric clock a few feet away from a bedside table, and it’s simple to sit further away from the computer monitor. EMF decreases quickly as you move away from a source. It almost disappears at distances of 3 to 5 feet. You can also take measurements in your home to identify sources of EMF, including faulty electrical wiring that can produce elevated magnetic fields and electrical shock.”

Resources:

Source: Healthy Child Healthy World

Health News: CDC admits flu vaccines don’t work (which is why you need a new one every year)


(NaturalNews) I’m always amused by the purchasing process of electronics or appliances at big box stores. On one hand, as their sales associate calmly explains to you, whatever product you’re buying is such high quality that you’ll be extremely satisfied with your purchase. But on the other hand, it’s also such a complete piece of junk that you’d be smart to add on a two-year extended warranty so that when the gizmo breaks five seconds after you open the box, you can get a replacement for free.

The CDC and the vaccine industry are fronting a similar bit of contradictory logic. “Our vaccines work so well that they offer almost total immunity from the flu,” they claim. And yet somehow they also work so poorly that they “wear off” after a year and require you to be re-vaccinated annually.

This is The Great Big Lie of the vaccine industry: The lie that says you have be re-vaccinated each and every year, often with the exact same strains you were vaccinated with the previous year. The coming winter flu vaccines for 2011, for example, are being manufactured with the same strains as the 2010 flu vaccines.

But if vaccines work so amazingly well as the CDC and the vaccine industry (fraudulently) suggests, then why do you need the same shot year after year?

Well, according to the CDC, “Vaccines wear off.”

Vaccines wear off, they say

Yep, that’s their cover story. The vaccines “wear off.”

But hold on a minute. There’s something fishy about this. Because human antibodies normally last a lifetime, remember? That’s why you don’t get the chicken pox over and over again; because the first time you got the chicken pox as a kid, your body created chicken pox antibodies and those antibodies last a lifetime.

Thus, your immune system offers you lifetime immunity from the chicken pox.

The vaccine industry falsely tries to claim its vaccines work exactly the same way: They cause the body to produce antibodies against a certain viral strain. But there’s something you’re not being told about vaccines: They don’t really produce the same quality and strength of antibodies that your own body would produce from a natural infection and recovery. That’s why the vaccines “wear off” and leave you with zero protection from the very strains they inoculate you against.

In other words, vaccines don’t work as advertised. And that’s why the vaccine industry has to keep pushing the same vaccine strains year after year. Because, think about it: If vaccines actually worked as intended, they would give you lifetime immunity against whatever strains you were injected with, right? And yet the CDC now openly admits vaccines don’t offer that at all:

“This year’s flu shot will be a duplicate of last year’s because the same flu strains are still circulating,” reports the Associated Press in an article about the CDC. “Government health officials are urging nearly everyone to get this fall’s flu shot. They say a vaccine’s protection can fade significantly after several months.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110527…)

Vaccine protection fades after a few months? Well then, vaccines must not actually cause the body to react with producing its own antibodies, because those antibodies, we’re told, offer lifetime immunity.

Another way you can confirm this yourself is by remembering your history. Remember when the Europeans came to America centuries ago and killed off masses of American Indians by accidentally giving them smallpox? Well, if the Indians died of smallpox, why didn’t the Europeans die of smallpox? (There were no vaccines in the 1600′s and 1700′s.) The answer is because the Europeans had already been exposed and built up lifetime immunity to the disease.

Thus, the reason the European invaders of North America did not die from smallpox wasn’t because they were vaccinated; it was because they had already been exposed to the disease and had built up active immunity against it (by producing their own antibodies which last a lifetime). Thus, the Europeans could be exposed to smallpox over and over again with no symptoms of infection. They were effectively “immune” to smallpox, in exactly the same way a human being living today becomes immune to a winter flu strain by first being exposed to the full strength strain (in the wild) and then building up their own antibodies in an automatic adaptive response.

But don’t expect the vaccine industry to educate anyone on how infectious disease and antibodies really work. They’re too busy selling annual flu shots to bother with scientific facts.

The flu vaccine manufacturing machine is on high output

“Five vaccine manufacturers announced plans to make between 166 million and 173 million doses for the coming season,” says the same article mentioned above. That’s the highest vaccine manufacturing output for the USA in the history of vaccines.

With all these 170 million (or so) vaccines sitting around by the time the winter rolls around, the CDC is obviously going to have to kick its propaganda and fear mongering into high gear to convince people to buy all these vaccines. This is going to be doubly difficult considering the inconvenient fact that all the people who got vaccinated last year already received vaccines against these same viral strains!

So, in other words, the CDC must now convince 170 million people that last year’s vaccine was such a complete failure that they need the exact same vaccines this year — and somehow this year’s vaccine will work better even though it’s exactly the same as last year’s vaccine. How will they accomplish this?

It’s simple: They won’t talk much about the fact that this year’s flu vaccine is identical to last year’s flu vaccine. They’ll just repeat their blatant lies about vaccines offering near-100 percent protection against the flu — an insinuation so blatantly false that the FTC should actually charge the vaccine manufacturers with false advertising.

And the great unknowing masses will, of course, line up to be injected yet again with the same cocktail of viral strains and vaccine preservatives that didn’t work for them last year! Because the hilarious truth about flu vaccines is that most of the people who get sick from the flu each year are the same people who were vaccinated against the flu!

Yep, it’s the devastating secret of the vaccine industry: Most of the flu victims each year are precisely the same people who took the flu shots. And now you know why that is so — because the flu vaccine shots simply don’t work. Even if you do believe they work at first, even the CDC openly admits — on the record — that “flu vaccines stop working after several months.”

They fade out like a set of old batteries, in other words. And that right there is proof that flu vaccines don’t produce a true antibody response.
The great vaccine marketing con: Annual vaccine shots

The CDC is now engaged in the marketing of annual vaccination of the entire population. That’s the game, you see: Convince people they need an annual flu shot just to stay healthy. It’s a complete marketing con, of course, but it’s necessary to keep the flu vaccine profit machine humming along each winter.

In doing this, the CDC is now running a criminal marketing racket to falsely push vaccines as the solution even though flu vaccines simply don’t work. For every 100 people vaccinated against the winter flu, by the way, 99 of them will experience no difference whatsoever in their flu outcomes. Even using the industry’s own best evidence, flu vaccines are no more than one percent effective at actually preventing the flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…) — and that’s only during the first few months before they “fade out.”

One of the CDC’s own vaccine scientists — a man who received millions of dollars in grant money from the CDC — was recently indicted by a federal grand jury for money laundering and fraud (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_T…). Check out the NaturalNews diagram called Poul Thorsen’s Alleged Web of Fraud to see the complete web of deceit under which the key players of the vaccine fraud industry operate: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/We…

The truth is that the CDC abandoned real science long ago and is now engaged almost entirely in infectious disease fear mongering and the wholesale prostitution of itself to the vaccine industry. The CDC has become to the vaccine industry what infomercial guru Tony Little is to exercise equipment. This is an agency that now functions as little more than the marketing branch of the vaccine giants.

As part of that total prostitution of itself to the vaccine makers, last year the CDC even announced that virtually everyone should get annual flu vaccine shots, including pregnant women!
You can immunize yourself against the winter flu

But here’s the other dirty little secret the CDC absolutely does not want you to know: If you skip the vaccine, boost your vitamin D intake, and encounter the flu naturally, you will build your own lifetime antibodies against the infection.

Got that? So the best way to immunize yourself against a particular strain of the winter flu is to dose up on vitamin D, boost your nutritional intake, get healthy and then just go out into the world and stop worrying about exposing yourself to the flu. You’ll pick it up somewhere, and if your immune system is functioning well with high levels of vitamin D (that’s the vitamin that “activates” your immune response to flu infections), your body will build its own antibodies, and you won’t even know it! You will have what’s called a “symptomless infection” and won’t even know your body successfully fought off the viral invader.

Better yet, because you were exposed to the real viral strain in the wild (and not some weakened strain in a flu vaccine shot), your body will maintain lifetime immunity to that viral strain. And isn’t that the goal of immunization in the first place?

Immunizing yourself, you see, works far better than relying on the vaccine industry to immunize you through some artificial means (an injection). Their immunization, it turns out, simply doesn’t work reliably. And that’s why the sad sellouts and prostitutes of the vaccine industry have to keep pushing their same lame flu shots year after year, with no improvements and virtually zero effectiveness.

And the same ignorant consumers line up year after year to get the same failed flu shots year after year… then they wonder why they still get sick year after year.

Do the math, folks. This is not rocket science. If flu shots worked as well as your own immune response to a natural infection, then you would only need one shot in your entire life for any given viral flu strain. But that, of course, would be bad for vaccine profits. They need suckers to believe in annual flu shots so they can keep raking in the big bucks year after year.

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

Previous Older Entries

About LCO

La Chica Organica is a fun loving mom of 3 beautiful children that enjoys sharing life building truth as a Health and Wellness Educator. Her passion is also seen in the creation of her own line of organic herbal products for her family. Quite often, she is asked to share with moms about the value of using herbs for healing everyday ailments. Part of her mission is to teach people all around the world about optimal health through proper nutrition and help parents make wiser food choices for their children. Her own life testimony of her families’ transition from bad health to better health has helped many families on their way to renewed wellness. To schedule a personal health and wellness at home visit or to invite her to speak at your church or office please email LaChicaOrganica@gmail.com

Disclaimer & Site Info

All content written by la Chica Organica™ is protected by copywrite law.©

The information provided here at La Chica Organica’s™ blog site is for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for advice from your physician or other health care professional. You should not use the information here for self-diagnosis or to replace any prescriptive medication. You should consult with a healthcare professional before starting any diet, exercise or supplementation program, before taking any medication, or if you have or suspect you might have a health problem, suffer from allergies, are pregnant or nursing.

These Statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. The content in this site is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Any views or opinions written in this blog should not be taken as fact or professional advice. If you choose to use my advice, tips, techniques, and recommendations, and are injured, I will not be held responsible. Absolutely no content is to be taken as legal, medical, nutritional, psychological, or psychiatric advice. If you need professional advice, you should consult a licensed professional as mentioned above.

All content written here is based on years of my own research, experience, and personal opinions and I will not be held responsible for any decision that you make concerning your own health, food choices, exercise choices, or life choices; so please act wisely.