Toxic proteins that cause Alzheimer’s can develop in your liver and kidneys, then migrate to the brain like cancer, shocking new study finds

No one really knows what causes Alzheimer’s, but recent studies on the disease are promising. Researchers at the University of British Columbia in Canada have discovered that Alzheimer’s-causing proteins can be formed in the liver and the kidneys, and then transported to the brain through the blood.

These toxic proteins, known as beta-amyloids, form clumps or plaques that destroy brain cells, causing memory loss and confusion. It is known to be produced by blood platelets, blood vessels, and muscles. Scientists recently discovered that these protein cells have the ability to be transported by the blood to the grey matter found in the brain, causing Alzheimer’s disease, a form of dementia.

This discovery provides a favorable direction to new methods of dealing with the neurodegenerative illness long before its symptoms take hold of the individual. Researchers are looking to develop drugs that stop or slow the disease before it gets to the brain. Unfortunately, majority of the drugs created to combat mental and other internal diseases prove to be ineffective and dangerous, given its many side effects.

The group of researchers, led by author and psychiatrist Professor Weihong Song, suggested that kidney dialysis may help remove the rogue proteins before it reaches the brain. However, due to the lack of studies, there is no concrete evidence that it will work. Laboratory experiments have provided proof that these beta-amyloids can be transferred through the blood. This experiment, called parabiosis, involved surgically joining two laboratory animals so they shared the same blood supply. Of these two subjects, one was healthy, and the other had Alzheimer’s. Results showed that the healthy subject “contracted” Alzheimer’s: the brain showed formations of tangled protein strands that disrupted normal bodily functions. The laboratory subjects died just a few months after diagnosis of the disease. Unnatural as it may be, it helped pave the way to understanding the abilities of beta-amyloids without testing human beings.

According to neurologist Professor Yan-Jiang Wang, the blood-brain barrier (BBB), a semi-permeable membrane that separates blood from the brain, weakens as we age, thus allowing these beta-amyloids entry to our brain. Beta-amyloids that enter the brain induces deficits in the functionality of neurons, resulting in dementia-related illnesses like Alzheimer’s. Around 850,000 people in the U.K. and 5.5 million people in the U.S. have dementia. Researchers predict it to double around the year 2050 because of the aging population.

There are supplements and medications currently available in the market that claim to help reduce the likeliness of developing Alzheimer’s. However, these supplements are not effective. Souvenaid, made by the company Nutricia, is no better than placebo, according to some clinical trials on people with Alzheimer’s. Dr David Reynolds, Chief Scientific Officer at the Alzheimer’s Research UK, reminds people that health can be achieved through a proper diet. He also warns people to avoid rushing to buy supplements with claims that have no scientific basis.

Like any other disease in the body, it is possible to avoid developing brain issues like Alzheimer’s through proper nutrition. Food is better than the medicines developed by companies that only want to make money out of human maladies. Aside from food, your lifestyle decisions are also important. Choosing to follow your circadian cycle helps your body regenerate after a long day. Keeping fit and engaging in regular physical activities reduces the time you spend sitting or lying down, and having a sedentary lifestyle. Taking great steps to overall well-being will reduce the chances of developing Alzheimer’s, as well as other diseases.

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk 1

DailyMail.co.uk 2

DailyMail.co.uk 3

 

via www.naturalnews.com

713 0

Company maps cannabis genome to protect marijuana from Monsanto

There is an urban legend that has been floating around on the Internet for several years now, that Monsanto either has obtained or is working towards obtaining a patent for a genetically modified strain of cannabis. Monsanto’s own website vehemently denies this, stating categorically, “Monsanto has not and is not working on GMO marijuana. This allegation is an Internet rumor.” While the naïve among us might choose to take them at their word, those who are more familiar with Monsanto’s tactics know not to believe a thing they say. Just think about how vehemently they deny any link between cancer and glyphosate, the main ingredient in their Roundup weed killer. Even a damning report by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, declaring glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic to humans,” has not made them change their tune.

With 26 states and the District of Columbia having legalized medical marijuana, and seven states legally allowing even recreational use, it is not surprising that many companies and individuals have been eager to jump on the marijuana bandwagon. And for those who dig a little deeper, there are definite links between Monsanto and the burgeoning cannabis market. Mint Press News reports that Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., the exclusive marketer of Roundup in North America, has expressed serious interest in the distribution of the green stuff.

“I want to target the pot market,” said Jim Hagedorn, Scotts Miracle-Grow’s CEO. “There’s no good reason we haven’t.”

Monsanto has spent billions on the development of new agricultural technologies, including $1 billion on the purchase of an agri-tech startup called Climate Corp. It stands to reason, then, that they would be keen to get in on the marijuana market, where even small time operators have been making an absolute fortune.

It’s such an obvious money-spinner, that even Snoop Dogg is getting in on the action by launching a fund for the development of marijuana startup companies.

Fortunately for those who are aware of the myriad health benefits of marijuana, and are desperate to see it remain out of the clutches of Big Agri companies like Monsanto and Syngenta, an Oregon-based research and diagnostic company called Phylos Bioscience has made it their business to sequence the DNA of cannabis. [RELATED: Could marijuana be the cure for cancer?]

The company, which operates out of the federally-funded Oregon Health and Science University, and therefore only handles DNA samples rather than the plant itself, has spent the last two years collecting samples from around the world. This has allowed them to sequence the plant’s DNA and to develop 3-D software and an interactive guide called Galaxy to make the data come alive.

“Sample collection was a huge part of this process,” said Carolyn White, sales and marketing manager at Phylos. “One side was a collaboration with growers, dispensaries and labs to collect modern samples, and the other a process of hunting down ancient landrace strains from all over the world.”

The company offers far more than just simple identification or cataloging of marijuana strains, and is the only entity to offer actual DNA sequencing. Dr. Mowgli Holmes, Chief Scientific Officer at Phylos, compares this sequencing to a “bar code in terms of identification and evolutionary relationship relative to other samples.”

Using this information, Galaxy allows users to follow the lines that connect each strain of marijuana back to its genetic parent.

This is all good news for those who have invested heavily in the distribution of marijuana, as it should help protect their intellectual property rights from agri-giants like Monsanto – if the company ever caves in and admits it’s actually interested in developing a genetically modified version of marijuana, that is.

Sources include:

ACCMag.com

NewCannabisVentures.com

MintPressNews.com

via www.naturalnews.com

489 0

Cleaner water with nanoparticles: Toxic metals such as cadmium can be removed from freshwater safely with this innovative application

Nanotechnology has a multitude of environmental uses, and researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara have discovered another one. They found that sulfurized nano-zero-valent iron (FeSSi) could be used to remove cadmium toxicity from freshwater.

According to ScienceDaily.com, the researchers came to this conclusion after simulating a rain event that washed toxic soil materials into a waterway. Specifically, they dosed Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a type of single-celled freshwater alga, with cadmium-infused FeSSi. They then took measurements after waiting for an hour.

The researchers noted that the FeSSi particles removed well over 80 percent of the water-based cadmium within the hour. Although effective, the FeSSi particles turned out to be several times more toxic after exposure to cadmium. Fortunately, the freshwater alga provided the assistance that the FeSSi articles required.

The researchers found that organic material produced by the alga following photosynthesis greatly diminished the toxicity of the FeSSi particles. Moreover, the organic material supported the nanoparticles’ remediating action on cadmium by up to four times more than when alga-derived organic material is absent.

“The organic material makes the FeSSi particle less toxic, which allows a greater zone of remediation and increases the cadmium concentrations that can be used,” said lead author and postdoctoral scholar Louise Stevenson. “That’s interesting because every natural system contains some organic material.

“Along with the toxic effect of the nanoparticles just on cell viability, we identified an important feedback between organic materials produced by the algae itself decreasing toxicity, which decreases toxicity to the algae.” (Related: Antibacterial book made from nanoparticles of silver and copper cleans water in Third World.)

Their findings, which have been published in ACS Nano, come as a welcome advancement. Cadmium, a naturally occurring heavy metal primarily used for metal plating and coating, is a highly dangerous toxic chemical with various negative health and environmental effects.

Short-term exposure to cadmium can result in such digestive issues as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The liver and kidneys can be affected as well, as cadmium in drinking water has been linked to liver injury and renal failure. Meanwhile, lifetime exposure to cadmium has the potential to cause severe damage to the kidneys, liver, bones, and blood.

These effects have been noted in organisms from both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Cadmium has a tendency to bioaccumulate, as constant exposure to this heavy metal has led to it building up in the kidneys and livers of birds and mammals. Algae and plant life aren’t safe from the effects of cadmium either, as they can store cadmium as well and poison the animals that rely on them for food.

And though cadmium may not be the only heavy metal that could seep into water, the work done by Stevenson and her colleagues is nothing short of encouraging. The impact of nanotechnology on the environment is context specific, making it all the more vital to test the potential of nanotechnology under a wide spectrum of conditions.

As Stevenson explained it: “We’re developing new technology faster than we can predict its environmental impact. That makes it very important to design experiments that are ecologically and environmentally relevant but also get at dynamics that can be extrapolated to other systems.”

Visit Environ.news to remain updated on news and breakthroughs relating to the environment.

Sources include:

ScienceDaily.com

Pubs.ACS.org

GreenFacts.org

via www.naturalnews.com

554 0

Immune system intelligence: Your biochemistry “morphs” to defend against new parasites

Researchers discovered how the immune systems of certain species evolve to better adapt to new parasitic threats, all the while maintaining critical immune function that remained virtually unchanged for over millions of years, in a study published in the journal Nature Communications.

Scientists from the University of East Anglia, U.K. and Dalhousie University, Canada looked at the immune genes of the guppy fish (Poecilia reticulata) known as the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC genes), to determine how they adapt to survive.

Lead study author Dr. Jackie Lighten from UEA said: “Guppies are a small, colorful fish native to South America, Trinidad and Tobago. They are a fantastic model for researching the ecology and evolution of vertebrates.”

The researchers studied MHC genetic variation in 59 guppy populations in Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Hawaii. They found hundreds of different immune variants called “alleles,” which appear to be clustered in a smaller number of functional groups or “supertypes”.

Professor Cock van Oosterhout, from UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences, said: “Each supertype protects the host against a specific group of parasites, and these supertypes were common across populations, and species, irrespective of the location. However, the alleles that make up a supertype track the rapid evolution of the parasites, and they too are evolving rapidly.”

The researchers found that the guppies make fine adjustments to these genes depending on their location – the perfect adaptation technique that enables these fish to survive in many different habitats. Despite this adaptation, the genes maintained critical function that remained practically the same for tens of millions of years.

The researchers said that the MHC genes are important immune system defenses found in vertebrates, including humans. The immune genes need to be highly diverse to keep up with the rapid evolution of parasites within the host. (Related: Kamikaze immune cells: Bacteria infected cells die off quickly to sound the back-up alarm against stealthy invaders.)

“MHC genes produce protein structures that are on the external surface of cells. These genes are diverse and so produce an array of proteins, each of which presents a specific part of a parasite or pathogen that has attempted to infect the body. The specific shape of the protein dictates which parasites it can recognize, and signals to the immune system to prevent infection,” said Dr. Lighten.

Guppies are popular tank fish that have been used in many scientific experiments as these tropical fish are widely distributed the world over. One such experiment was done in 2015, when scientists spent a month scaring guppies to determine whether these vertebrates have individual personalities.

The scientists isolated guppies in glass tanks and simulated a predatory environment using a pulley-rigged lawn-ornament heron named “Grim” and found that each fish demonstrated a unique response to stress. The experiments went on every three days for four weeks.

According to the researchers: “Some of them go straight to the shelter. Some just stop moving, maybe hoping they won’t be seen. Some rush to the side and just swim up and down trying to escape.”

The study showed that some guppies were natural cowards while some showed braveness, and they kept proving their inclination to one or the other for the duration of the experiment. The researchers believed that studying individual traits in animals is important to the study of evolution.

Read more news about surprising scientific discoveries at Discoveries.news.

Sources include:

ScienceDaily.com

ScienceAlert.com

190 0

Human cells and microorganisms found to be biochemically similar, according to astonishing study

 Archaea are single-celled microorganisms that exist in areas with extreme conditions, such as volcanic vents in the ocean floor. A recent study has proven that these “hardy microbes” and human cells have similar biochemical compositions.

Tom Santangelo, a Colorado State University (CSU) researcher and associate professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, thinks of archaea as “ancient mariners” because they can survive in the depths of the ocean. Santangelo studies how these “hardy microbes,” which are one of the three surviving domains of life, express genes, produce energy, and flourish even in hot and lightless environments. The researcher has unearthed proof that humans and archaea are biochemically similar. (Related: Human cells are microscopic in size, yet their jobs are larger than life.)

Along with his team, Santangelo discovered significant parallels between how archaeal cells and more complex cells like human and animal cells “package and store their genetic material.” The breakthrough study was published in Science earlier in 2017 and featured proof that both archaea and eukaryotic cells have a common mechanism that compacts, organizes, and structures their genomes.

Karolin Luger led the study, and she is currently a structural biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder. However, most of the reports published in Science were accomplished when Luger was a faculty member from 1999 to 2015.

To refresh your memory, eukaryotes are cells with a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles. These cells include fungal, plant, and animal cells. Human cells are included in eukaryote animal cells.

Eukaryotes are different from prokaryotes, their less complex counterparts, because the latter do not have a nucleus. Even though archaea and bacteria are prokaryotes, they are only distantly related. It is believed that archaea are the progenitors of eukaryotes since they share many of the same proteins responsible for controlling gene expression.

Every eukaryote, such as microscopic protists, plants, and even humans, is capable of “life’s most fundamental processes,” which includes the methods wherein “DNA bends, folds, and crams itself into a cell nucleus.”

Inside the nucleus of each eukaryotic cell is several feet of genetic material compacted in a particular way. Small DNA segments are wrapped at least two times around eight histones (small proteins), “like thread around a spool.” The resulting DNA-histone complex is called a nucleosome, while a string of compacted nucleosomes is called chromatin. In 1997, Luger et al. first reported the exact structure of eukaryotic nucleosomes through X-ray crystallography.

In the 1900s, John Reeve, a science paper collaborator, discovered that aside from eukaryotes, histone proteins can also be found in nucleus-free archaea cells. Reeves and Luger then worked together to crystallize histone-based archaeal chromatin, which was compared to eukaryotic chromatin.

Following years of a “gnarly crystallographic problem” where the researchers had difficulty growing reliable archaeal histone crystals, they were finally able to discern the structure of archaeal chromatin, which was similar in structure to eukaryotes.

Based on this data, it was revealed that archaeal DNA formed long and curvy repeating superhelices. Because the researchers weren’t sure if the structure was real, or simply an artifact of the experiment, Santangelo’s CSU team stepped in. He commented that his group took it upon themselves to figure out if “the structure resolved in the crystals represented a biologically meaningful structure” or not.

Santangelo’s team created variants of the archaeal histones, which were then tested to see how the cells fared when they disrupted the DNA superhelix. The team then discovered that when the structure was destabilized, the cells got sicker. Thanks to their efforts, the merits of the structure Luger’s group isolated were made clear.

Santangelo added that his work with his team was one of the highlights of his career and that their work helped provide fundamental insight into the origins of human cells. He said, “The major impact of the paper, I think, is that the idea of compacting DNA into those structures is a very ancient idea — probably more than one billion years old.” The researcher continued, “Histone proteins came on the scene, and once they got into and started packaging genomes, they largely made themselves indispensable to those cells that encoded them.”

The researcher will continue studying the “structure, function, and energy transactions of archaea,” microorganisms that are a precursor to human cellular activity.

Here are additional facts about archaea:

You can read more articles about other scientific breakthroughs at Scientific.news.

Sources include:

ScienceDaily.com
SoftSchools.com

via www.naturalnews.com

205 0

Do you trust your brand of supplements? Researchers found a majority of supplements collected at liver treatment centers were mislabeled

A presentation that was delivered at the 2017 Liver Meeting that was conducted by the American Association for the Research of Liver Diseases in Washington, D.C. showed that the mislabeling of ingredients is a common occurrence in herbal and dietary supplements, especially in bodybuilding and weight loss products.

“In looking at those cases, we find that there are a lot of products that are difficult to identify exactly what they are and what they’re used for,” said Dr. Victor J. Navarro, from the department of transplantation at the Einstein Healthcare Network in Philadelphia and the director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases’ Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN).

DILIN collected data from 2,268 patients enrolled in the program between 2003 and March 2016. Of the 341 supplements that the agency collected, researchers have performed chemical analysis of 229 products and found that 26 of them did not have properly labeled ingredients.

The researchers also found out that 90 of 203 supplements had accurately labeled contents. The rate of mislabeling was 80 percent for 10 analyzed steroidal ingredients, 54 percent for 26 vitamin ingredients, and 48 percent for 122 botanical ingredients.

The rate of mislabeling by product was 79 percent for 34 bodybuilding products, 72 percent for 36 weight loss products, 60 percent for five energy drinks, and 51 percent for general health and well-being supplements. (Related: Supplements that will help speed up weight loss.)

“We found that the majority of products that patients give us are mislabeled. That is, what’s in the product, once analyzed chemically, does not match what’s on the label,” Dr. Navarro said.

The National Center for Natural Products Research at the University of Mississippi then double-checked Navarro and his team’s findings and came up with the same conclusion.

However, some parties expressed their doubts as to the study’s findings. Speaking on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, Dr. Rick Kingston of the University of Minnesota School of Pharmacy said the risk of being poisoned from mislabeled supplements is actually very low.

“Considering the class of dietary supplements products more commonly associated with reports of liver injury, it will also be more important to determine if other patient behaviors or lifestyles may also be contributing to adverse liver effects. In the end, we need to determine for those few patients that have been put at risk, which products and under what circumstances of use would they predictably produce liver injury,” Kingston said.

For his part, Council for Responsible Nutrition senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs Duffy MacKay, said: “Dietary supplement manufacturers are required to declare all ingredients on their product labels. Products that contain undeclared ingredients are illegal. Before drawing any conclusions, this new research should be peer-reviewed and confirmed, and the companies should be a contacted for a response.”

If you are interested in knowing more about the unpredictable world and all the possible dangers it can give to us, visit Risk.news.

Sources include:

NutraIngredients-USA.com

Healio.com

 

via www.naturalnews.com

206 0

Dr. Paul Offit’s aluminum deceptions and academic misconduct

“Parents can be reassured that the trace quantities of aluminum in vaccines can’t possibly do harm.”
-Dr Paul Offit: Vaccine promoter, vaccine patent licensor, and autism pundit, 2015

NOTE: Since this article as written (in 2015), CHOP and Offit removed some of their statements quoted here. I suppose they realized their statements were indefensible. This article is not maintained to track the latest nonsense from CHOP/Offit about aluminum adjuvant. 

(Article republished from VaccinePapers.org)

Dr Paul Offit is a well-known vaccine advocate and doctor at the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), where he is director of the Vaccine Information Center. The rotavirus vaccine he developed made Offit very rich. He vigorously defends vaccines in the media, often with half-truths and outright lies.

In order to defend vaccines and vaccine safety claims, Dr. Offit must also defend the practice of injecting children with aluminum adjuvant, despite the absence of evidence for safety, and substantial evidence of harm. On the CHOP website here (CHOP – Vaccines and Aluminum), Dr Offit states the following:

Aluminum and pregnancy
Aluminum quantities fluctuate naturally during normal cellular activity. It is found in all tissues and is also believed to play an important role in the development of a healthy fetus. This is supported by several findings:
*During healthy pregnancies the amount of aluminum in a woman’s blood increases.
*The amount of aluminum in the blood of the fetus increases between four and a half and six months gestation and again at eight months gestation.
*At delivery, the blood of full-term infants contains more aluminum than the mother’s, but it decreases shortly after delivery.
*The blood of premature infants has more aluminum than that of full-term infants.
*The concentrations of aluminum in brain tissue are high during gestation and highest immediately after birth.
*The breast milk of moms with premature infants contains more aluminum than that of moms who carried their babies to term.”

The CHOP page on aluminum is here: CHOP/Offit Statement on Aluminum

In these statements Dr Offit is asserting that aluminum is a nutrient, i.e. a mineral with healthful functions in the human body. This is absolutely false. Aluminum has no healthful function in the body or any living thing. It is a toxin and a toxin only, to all life forms.

The fact that aluminum concentrations increase in the blood and change in some tissues does not in any way mean or suggest that aluminum is doing good or necessary functions. Its just moving around the body as all substances are known to do. Blood lead levels can also increase during pregnancy. Of course, this doesn’t mean that lead is a nutrient or has “an important role” in the development of a healthy fetus. The only “role” lead plays in a fetus is damaging the fetus. It is the same with aluminum.

These statements by Dr Offit are deceptive and unscientific. Dr Offit is deceiving those that are not well educated in nutrition or medicine. This behavior by Dr Offit is shameful.

What is actually happening with aluminum blood levels during pregnancy is that aluminum is being mobilized from the bone. The bone is a storage site for aluminum, just as it is for lead. Toxic metals in bone tend to cause less damage than other places, like the brain. So putting toxic metals in bone minimizes the harm they cause. During pregnancy, minerals are drawn out of bones to be used by the developing fetus. This is well known. Consequently, toxic metals stored in the bone are released as well. Both aluminum and lead are released by bone de-mineralization during pregnancy.

Consider this case report of a woman that experienced a 3-fold rise in blood lead levels during pregnancy, caused by lead being mobilized from the bone. The same thing happens with aluminum. Its ridiculous to say that this means aluminum or lead “plays an important role” in the fetus.

“We report the case of an adult female who had last been exposed to lead 7 years earlier but now presented with symptoms and findings of acute lead poisoning which we treated with chelation therapy. In the absence of an acute lead exposure, her increased lead levels were likely due to increased mobilization and redistribution from mineralized tissues during and after a recent pregnancy.”

Full paper: Lead Poisoning in an Adult: Lead Mobilization by Pregnancy

Increase in blood levels during pregnancy does not mean that aluminum is “playing an important role in the development of a healthy fetus”.

Offit the Illogical
Dr Offit seems to think that the following observations are evidence that aluminum is a nutrient with beneficial, healthful functions in a fetus. Offit says the following on the CHOP website:

*The blood of premature infants has more aluminum than that of full-term infants.”
*The breast milk of moms with premature infants contains more aluminum than that of moms who carried their babies to term.“

In view of the well known and proven toxic effects of aluminum, its exactly the opposite. Elevated aluminum in preemies is not a sign the aluminum is doing good, but rather that it’s causing harm. Aluminum is likely a cause of preterm births. A preterm infant is not a healthy infant. Preterm birth is a definite sign of poor health.

Lead and other toxic pollutants are also associated with preterm births, and widely believed to cause them. A recent review states:

“Lead exposure in relation to birth outcomes has been well-reviewed. Andrews and colleagues (1994) summarized early findings, including several occupational studies, reporting that Pb exposure was likely associated with increased risk of preterm birth, and that the effects were dose-dependent. “

Full paper (see pages 15-16): Environmental contaminant exposures and preterm birth: A comprehensive review

Offit’s preposterous illogic implies that lead should be considered a nutrient thats beneficial for babies. Offit is either being deceptive and dishonest, or he does not understand basic scientific reasoning.

A Deceptive Citation
To support these wrong and deceptive statements, Dr Offit references a well-known but old (1986) paper on aluminum toxicity, by Ganrot. The Ganrot paper is a lengthly review of the evidence that aluminum is harmful to various tissues and biological processes. Ganrot never suggests that aluminum is benign or beneficial. Ganrot states:

“Aluminum(Al) is present in very small amounts in living organisms but is abundant in the environment. In no case has Al been shown to have a definite biological function. Taken together, this suggests that Aluminum possesses properties incompatible with fundamental life processes. Despite this, Al has generally been regarded as virtually biologically inert and the interest shown for its biochemistry and metabolism has been very limited. However, during recent years, an increasing number of toxic effects have been established.” (emphasis added)

Full Paper (Ganrot): Metabolism and Possible Health Effects of Aluminum

By listing the Ganrot paper as a supporting reference, Dr Offit is mischaracterizing Ganrot. This is academic misconduct. At academic institutions, academic misconduct is considered an offense potentially as egregious as plagiarism, cheating or falsifying data.

As of May 2017, CHOP and Offit are still citing the Ganrot paper.

Offit Lies About Aluminum Exposure
In a video statement (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H3sOzma22U) Offit claims that aluminum intake from food and water is far higher than aluminum exposure from vaccines. This is absolutely wrong because only a small fraction of ingested aluminum is absorbed into the body. Ingested aluminum absorption is about 0.1-1%, typically about 0.3%. Specifically, Offit states:

“…you are much more likely to have aluminum in your circulation if you inject it than if you ingest it. But the point is that there’s so much more aluminum in the environment, either in the food you eat or the water you drink, than you would ever get as a shot in vaccines. That even though there is that difference between injection and ingestion, there is logarithmically so much more aluminum that you ingest that you actually have far more aluminum in your circulation because of what you eat and drink than you would ever get from vaccines.“

For the vaccines given in the first 6 months of life, this statement is exactly wrong. The truth is the opposite of what Offit says. In infants, vaccines produce far higher exposure to aluminum than food.

Vaccines in the first 6 months of the CDC vaccine schedule contain about 3,675 mcg aluminum:
Birth (Hep B):   74 mcg/kg (250 mcg for 3.4 kg infant)
2 month:           245 mcg/kg (1225 mcg for 5 kg infant)
4 month:           150 mcg/kg (975 mcg for 6.5 kg infant)
6 month:           153 mcg/kg (1225 mcg for 8 kg infant)

Total for 0-6 months: 3675 mcg aluminum

Compare this to aluminum absorption (for infants) over the first 6 months from milk and formula. The total amount ingested must be multiplied by 0.3% to obtain the amount actually absorbed into the body. Aluminum content numbers come from CHOP, and I have confirmed them in the scientific literature:
breastmilk:      7mg x 0.3% = 21 mcg (0.021 mg)
formula:         38mg x 0.3% = 114 mcg (0.114 mg)
soy formula: 117mg x 0.3% = 351 mcg (0.351mg)

The most appropriate comparison is with breastmilk, because infants are adapted to consume milk, not formula. Some scientists (e.g. Dr Chris Exley) are concerned that infant formula contains harmful levels of aluminum.

In the first 6 months of life, aluminum exposure from vaccines is 3,675/21 = 175 times higher than human milk. Infants receive far more aluminum from vaccines than from milk. For soy formula (an unhealthy choice), the ratio is: 3,675/351 = 10.5 times higher than human milk.

Giving a baby 175X more aluminum than normal exposure from milk is alarming to anyone with common sense.

Twisting the Science
In 2003, Dr Offit (with another author) published a paper seeking to dispel concerns about toxic vaccine ingredients.
Full paper:  Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Vaccines Contain Harmful Preservatives, Adjuvants, Additives, or Residuals?

Dr Offit’s paper has a section on aluminum, which states:

“For determining the quantity of aluminum below which safety is likely, data were generated in mice that were inoculated orally with various quantities of aluminum lactate.42 No adverse reactions were observed when mice were fed quantities of aluminum as high as 62 mg/kg/day. By applying uncertainty factors of 3 (for extrapolation to humans) and 10 (for human variability), the ATSDR concluded that the minimum risk level for exposure to aluminum was 2 mg/kg/day.43 The half-life of elimination of aluminum from the body is approximately 24 hours.41 Therefore, the burden of aluminum to which infants are exposed in food36–40 and vaccines (Table 3) is clearly less than the guideline established by the ATSDR and far less than that found to be safe in experimental animals.41,42” (emphasis added)
ATSDR= Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a federal government agency

The citation for the underlined statement is: (Golub): Effects of Aluminum Ingestion on Spontaneous Motor Activity in Mice

The Golub study in fact reported two adverse effects from the 62mg/kg/day dosage.

The Golub paper describes a 6-week feeding study in mice. 3 groups of mice received the following dosages of aluminum salts:
Control (CON) : 3mg/kg/day
Low (LO) : 62mg/kg/day
High (HI) : 130mg/kg/day

Offit’s Lie
In the Golub study, 11 signs of toxicity were monitored: irritability, respiratory discharge, eye discharge, fur loss, abnormal paw placement, abnormal gait, hindlimb splaying, hindlimb dragging, opisthotonos, paralysis and seizures.

Golub found that the “LO” aluminum group (receiving 62mg/kg/day) suffered fur loss. Golub states:

“After the first week of Al exposure, mice began to show a localized loss of fur on the tip of the snout that was identified by veterinarians as a low level sign of poor condition in the colony. This condition was reported more frequently in the LO and HI Al groups than in the controls.”

Additionally, Golub found that the LO group mice (consuming 62mg/kg/day) had a “cyclic pattern of food intake”, a known sign of toxicity. Golub states:

“LO mice did not show as clear a cycling pattern but did have somewhat higher intake than controls on days 21-24, 33-36 and 36-39 and lower intake on days 24-27 (p=0.04-0.05 at these times).”
AND
“Food intake…followed a cyclic pattern similar to that seen in rodents eating diets deficient in a specific nutrient (2) or adulterated with a poison (17). “

So Golub clearly identifies the cyclic food intake as an adverse, toxic effect, even though it was not among the 11 signs listed.

Dr Offit’s statement about the Golub study is false.

Offit’s Entire Safety Argument Is False
Offit’s safety argument is also used by the Mitkus 2011 study, which is debunked here: http://vaccinepapers.org/debunking-aluminum-adjuvant-part-2/

Read more at: VaccinePapers.org

via www.naturalnews.com

220 0

Variation on the Mediterranean diet may help you make it to 100: Consider trying the “Pioppi” diet for 7 days

Renowned cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra and former athlete Donal O’Neill have written a book called The Pioppi Diet: A 21-day Lifestyle Plan, which features a seven-day diet plan that adopts the regular meal plans followed by residents of Pioppi Village in Italy. Pioppi has been acknowledged by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as the home of the Mediterranean diet, and has been recognized as the world’s healthiest village. According to a Daily Mail article, residents of Pioppi are known to live past 100 years old.

Village residents are also known to include bacon and chocolates as their meal staples, but also consume a lot of beneficial oils, vegetables, oily fish and nuts. This reduces their risk of developing type-2 diabetes and heart disease. The seven-day meal plan featured in the book suggests that people start the day by taking a tablespoon of apple cider vinegar. According to the experts, this helps relieve acid reflux, prevent high blood pressure, and promote weight loss.

Likewise, the meal plan includes mostly eggs that provide an ample source of protein and helps stave off hunger pangs. The experts have also recommended undergoing intermittent fasting by restricting the eating window to between eight to nine hours only. In addition, red wine intake is not discourage as long as it is a high-quality variety. The plan also lists various food combinations that people can follow each day of the week.

The meal plan suggests that people refrain from eating solid breakfast from Mondays to Wednesdays, and recommends drinking only coffee with coconut cream in the morning. The diet plan also recommends a gradual increase of food items through out the day, which include eggs and various omelette recipes as well as fish and vegetable dishes. Likewise, the meal plan advises that people eat grilled meat, poultry, fruits and various dairy products through out the week. 

A previous study carried out by Dr. Malhotra has demonstrated that adopting a Pioppian diet may well improve the body’s overall health. According to the renowned cardiologist, following a diet low in sugar and high in beneficial fats may have greatly contributed to the residents’ remarkable longevity. In his study, the expert observed that the villagers followed a diet rich in vegetables, fish, and olive oil. Aside from this, the villagers also avoided consuming too much sugar, and rarely ate meat or dairy products. He has also found that the locals had low stress levels, drank a glass of wine daily, and slept seven hours per night. (Related: Italian village where most live to be 100 reveals the secret to a long life.)

“Yes, the locals eat pasta – but only in small quantities, and they rarely touch sugar. They only eat dessert on a Sunday, pizza once or twice a month. They take time over lunch. They don’t have a gym but they are constantly on the go…Diet is the number one issue. More than physical inactivity, smoking, and alcohol, it contributes to more disease and deaths. This should be the message from doctors – food is medicine. There is no such thing as a healthy weight, but a healthy person. That is what we should all be aiming for. Living like a Pioppian would mean a reduction in the 20 million annual deaths worldwide caused by cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Sources include: 

DailyMail.co.uk 1

DailyMail.co.uk 2

Express.co.uk

via www.naturalnews.com

210 0

Don’t get injured at night… Researchers discover cell repair driven by circadian rhythm; wounds heal 60% faster during the day

 Are you scheduled for some kind of surgery in the near future? You might want to request that it take place in the daytime. A recent study by researchers from the U.K.’s Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology, published in the journal Translational Medicine, has found that wounds inflicted during the day heal up to 60 percent faster than those that happen at night.

The researchers found that not only are the skin cells that repair cuts and burns more efficient in the daytime, but more collagen is also deposited at the wound site immediately after and for the following two weeks after a daytime wound takes place – ensuring a more efficient healing process.

The researchers’ findings were based on laboratory tests using skin cells called fibroblasts and keratinocytes, as well as from studies with mice.

The Daily Mail, reporting on the study, noted:

[D]uring the internal body clock’s ‘daytime’, wounds to the skin healed almost twice as efficiently as wounds incurred during the night. …

The researchers said faster healing took place because skin cells carried out faster repairs at the site of the wound to repair it much faster during the body clock’s daytime.

The difference between daytime and nighttime healing is one of the many facets of the human body controlled by the circadian rhythm – also known as the body clock. The body clock controls everything from sleeping to hormone secretion, and even how quickly you metabolize food.

Dr. John O’Neill, the study’s senior author explained, “This is the first time that the circadian clock within individual skin cells has been shown to determine how effectively they respond to injuries. We consistently see about a two-fold difference in wound healing speed between the body clock’s day and night. It may be that our bodies have evolved to heal fastest during the day when injuries are more likely to occur.”

Amazingly, this process was not governed by signals between cells, but by circadian clocks within the cells themselves, since the results were derived from human and mouse skin cells grown in laboratory dishes.

The cell repair was mainly driven by a protein called actin, filaments of which provide movement and structure, acting like muscles within the cell.

This study has huge implications for the future of surgery.

O’Neill noted, “In both cells and mice, we can reset the tissue healing response by tricking the cells into thinking it’s a different time of day – such as by turning the lights on at night and off at different times of day for the mice, or using body clock-altering drugs on cells in the lab.” He added, “It may be that healing time could be improved by resetting the cells’ clocks prior to surgery, perhaps by applying drugs that can reset the biological clock to the time of best healing in the operation site.”

This improved daytime healing is true of burns, too. As part of their study, the researchers examined the healing patterns of 118 burn patients registered in a major burn unit database in England and Wales. They found that burn victims who were burnt at night – between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. – took about 60 percent longer to heal than people who sustained their burns during the day – between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

In fact, those who received their burns in the day were 95 percent healed within just 17 days, while those who were burnt at night took about 28 days to achieve the same level of healing. (Related: New “smart” bandages will dramatically cut healing time for wounds in chronic patients.)

The researchers are eager to engage in further research to determine whether changing surgery times or using drugs to reset patients’ circadian rhythms prior to surgery might result in better and faster healing. (Related: Discover all the latest medical breakthroughs at Medicine.news.)

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

ScienceMag.org

via www.naturalnews.com

191 0

SCIENTIFIC PROOF: Flu vaccine found to be completely ineffective because of how it is made, new study finds

A groundbreaking new study published by researchers from The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) in Florida has determined that the way influenza vaccines have been made practically since their inception is fundamentally flawed, and that the end result renders flu jabs largely ineffective.

It has to do with the way that vaccine developers use chicken eggs as incubators for growing a given season’s influenza virus, a practice that in and of itself is controversial due to the fact that using chicken embryos in vaccines has been linked to causing egg allergies.

For at least the past 70 years, vaccine manufacturers have been injecting influenza viruses into chicken eggs in order to allow them time to replicate. After this replication is complete, the fluid is drained from the eggs and the virus is extracted – the eggs themselves functioning as an artificial growth environment where flu viruses flourish.

But according to the findings of this new study study, which were published in the open-access journal PLOS Pathogens, chicken eggs actually end up disrupting the major antibody target sites on the surfaces of flu viruses, causing them to become less effective later on when they’re injected into human bodies.

“Now we can explain – at an atomic level – why egg-based vaccine production is causing problems,” stated TSRI Research Associate Nicholas Wu, Ph.D., one of the study’s lead authors. [emphasis added]

To keep up with the latest news on vaccines as we approach so-called “flu season,” be sure to visit and bookmark Influenza.news.

For the study, Wu and his colleagues tested the progression of the H3N2 flu virus as it incubated in chicken eggs. H3N2, after all, is one of several influenza subtypes that has become more prevalent and virulent, which is why it typically ends up in flu vaccines year after year.

Using a high-resolution imaging technique known as X-ray crystallography to take a closer look at H3N2, the team found that a key protein in the virus changes so much during chicken egg incubation that it no longer functions as a match in humans. In fact, the end result is that bird cells rather than human cells end up becoming a better fit.

This mutation is described in the study as L194P, which occurs in H3N2’s hemagglutinin glycoprotein, also known as HA. It is said to completely disrupt the region of the protein that the human immune system can recognize, rendering it completely ineffective in all practical terms.

In order for a flu vaccine (or any other vaccine, for that matter) to be considered effective, it has to actively trigger an immune response inside the body that results in the creation of antibodies to fight off the real thing. But the H3N2 mutation that results from conventional incubation procedures during vaccine production leave the virus impotent, so to speak.

“Any influenza viruses produced in eggs have to adapt to growing in that environment and hence generate mutations to grow better,” admitted Ian Wilson, a Hansen Professor of Structural Biology at TSRI, and the study’s lead senior author.

Adding to this, his colleague Wu urged vaccine producers “to look at this mutation” and work on a solution. He and his colleagues stated that other methods of producing vaccines that will make them more effective “are now being used and explored.”

“There’s a huge need for flu vaccine research,” Wu is quoted as saying.

The ineffectiveness of flu vaccines is nothing new, of course. Natural News has been sounding the alarm about flu vaccine fraud for years, noting further that people take a huge risk every time they agree to have their bodies injected with flu shots, which besides ineffective viruses often contain mercury (Thimerosal), aluminum, and various other toxic adjuvant additives.

Sources for this article include:

ScienceDaily.com

TheRefusers.com

via www.naturalnews.com

201 0