Is sugar Toxic?
05 Apr 2012 1 Comment
in Diabetes, Diet & Weight loss, Health News, Heart Health, Organic Living Video's, Toxic Food Ingredients/Additives, Uncategorized Tags: CBS News, heart disease, high fructose corn syrup, Is sugar toxic, Robert Lustig, Sanjay Gupta, sugar and health
(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.
Health News: Eating Greens & Fruits Turns Off Heart Disease Gene
13 Oct 2011 Leave a Comment
in Green Living, Health News, Heart Health, how to stop a heart attack, organic food Tags: greens for heart, healthy foods for heart, heart disease, reverse heart disease

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
10 Jun 2011 1 Comment
in Baby & Child Health, cancer, Health News Tags: cell phone, cell phones cause cancer kids, Electromagnetic field, Mobile phone, World Health Organization
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:
- US Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- The Collaborative on Health and the Environment
- The Environmental Health Trust
Health News: CDC admits flu vaccines don’t work (which is why you need a new one every year)
31 May 2011 Leave a Comment
in Health conspiracy theories, Health News, Vaccinations, vitamin d Tags: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, flu vaccine does not work, Influenza vaccine, Vaccination, Vaccine

(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














Who's saying what