(NaturalNews) Age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) is the
primary cause of older age onset partial or sometimes total blindness. Although
most common in adults over 50, macular degeneration can occur at any age,
though rarely among those under 50.
Macular degeneration mostly affects central vision, forcing people to rely more on less distinct peripheral vision to recognize objects and faces. The macula occupies a small portion of the retina in the back of the eye.
Though small, the macula is the most light sensitive area of the retina, and it permits detailed focus of objects located centrally in the field of vision. There are two classifications of macular degeneration: Dry and wet.
Dry macular degeneration is the most common and least severe. Diminished central vision clarity occurs gradually. It's called dry because there is no capillary leakage in that region of the eye. Wet macular degeneration does involve retina capillary leakage. It's symptoms are usually more severe and worsen rapidly.
Thus far, ophthalmology has little to offer as a remedy for macular degeneration. But ophthalmologists do recommend taking leutin and astaxanthin to slow ARMD's progress or possibly reverse it slightly.
However, recent human clinical research in Italy and Australia has discovered a non-pharmaceutical approach that proved efficacious for improving eyesight with macular degeneration sufferers safely. It is a little pricey though. It's the spice known as saffron.
Saffron is pricier than most other spices because the bulbs must be planted by hand, and the three crimson stigmas or saffron threads have to also be plucked out of each flower by hand.
Macular degeneration mostly affects central vision, forcing people to rely more on less distinct peripheral vision to recognize objects and faces. The macula occupies a small portion of the retina in the back of the eye.
Though small, the macula is the most light sensitive area of the retina, and it permits detailed focus of objects located centrally in the field of vision. There are two classifications of macular degeneration: Dry and wet.
Dry macular degeneration is the most common and least severe. Diminished central vision clarity occurs gradually. It's called dry because there is no capillary leakage in that region of the eye. Wet macular degeneration does involve retina capillary leakage. It's symptoms are usually more severe and worsen rapidly.
Thus far, ophthalmology has little to offer as a remedy for macular degeneration. But ophthalmologists do recommend taking leutin and astaxanthin to slow ARMD's progress or possibly reverse it slightly.
However, recent human clinical research in Italy and Australia has discovered a non-pharmaceutical approach that proved efficacious for improving eyesight with macular degeneration sufferers safely. It is a little pricey though. It's the spice known as saffron.
Saffron is pricier than most other spices because the bulbs must be planted by hand, and the three crimson stigmas or saffron threads have to also be plucked out of each flower by hand.
The
Australian clinical trial
The Australian human study was conducted by Sydney University
Professor of Neurology Jonathan Stone. Both this study and the Italian research
were similar in scope and dosage. And both conducted a more humane approach to
double blind placebo studies with a non-toxic remedy than normally.
The study involved 25 macular degeneration sufferers. Instead of depriving a placebo group from a product that could do something for their ailment, the study switched placebo subjects with saffron subjects half-way through the trial unbeknownst to all involved. The daily dosage was 20 mg of saffron.
The whole study was six months long, so each side of the 25 double blind subjects had three months of improved vision with three months of impaired vision. All 25 were tested for neuron electrical conductivity in the macula and retina, and 23 showed significant improvement. Those 23 also reported they could see much better.
Visual improvement began after only two weeks on saffron. When the saffron group was put onto placebos, they complained that their improved eyesight had begun diminishing again. Conversely, those on placebos for the first half of the trial began seeing better after three months of no improvement.
Professor Stone projects that after a year or more ingesting only 20 mg (milligrams) of saffron daily, vision improvements should stabilize without requiring more saffron dosing.
Stone doesn't know exactly how or why, but he became aware that saffron influences the neuron's genetic code to restore its capacity for healing and protecting neuron cells. Neurons are responsible for transmitting electrical signals or impulses throughout the nervous system.
Professor Stone is looking forward to completing animal studies with saffron for other neurological issues like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Then those would go into human clinical trials also.
His results, combined with the Italian study, impressed Professor Stone enough to create his own line of saffron capsules for the market. He qualified it as a safe nutraceutical that shouldn't require any more testing for FDA approval.
Don't mention that it cures macular degeneration and you'll stay out of trouble, mate. Just say it supports eye health (wink).
The study involved 25 macular degeneration sufferers. Instead of depriving a placebo group from a product that could do something for their ailment, the study switched placebo subjects with saffron subjects half-way through the trial unbeknownst to all involved. The daily dosage was 20 mg of saffron.
The whole study was six months long, so each side of the 25 double blind subjects had three months of improved vision with three months of impaired vision. All 25 were tested for neuron electrical conductivity in the macula and retina, and 23 showed significant improvement. Those 23 also reported they could see much better.
Visual improvement began after only two weeks on saffron. When the saffron group was put onto placebos, they complained that their improved eyesight had begun diminishing again. Conversely, those on placebos for the first half of the trial began seeing better after three months of no improvement.
Professor Stone projects that after a year or more ingesting only 20 mg (milligrams) of saffron daily, vision improvements should stabilize without requiring more saffron dosing.
Stone doesn't know exactly how or why, but he became aware that saffron influences the neuron's genetic code to restore its capacity for healing and protecting neuron cells. Neurons are responsible for transmitting electrical signals or impulses throughout the nervous system.
Professor Stone is looking forward to completing animal studies with saffron for other neurological issues like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Then those would go into human clinical trials also.
His results, combined with the Italian study, impressed Professor Stone enough to create his own line of saffron capsules for the market. He qualified it as a safe nutraceutical that shouldn't require any more testing for FDA approval.
Don't mention that it cures macular degeneration and you'll stay out of trouble, mate. Just say it supports eye health (wink).
90 percent of whooping cough
outbreak victims are already vaccinated against whooping cough
(NaturalNews) The utter failure of the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine to provide any real protection against disease is once again on display for the world to see, as yet another major outbreak of the condition has spread primarily throughout the vaccinated community. As it turns out, 90 percent of those affected by an ongoing whooping cough epidemic that was officially declared in the state of Vermont on December 13, 2012, were vaccinated against the condition -- and some of these were vaccinated two or more times in accordance with official government recommendations.
As reported by the Burlington Free Press, at least 522 cases of whooping cough were confirmed by Vermont authorities last month, which was about 10 times the normal amount from previous years. Since that time, nearly 100 more cases have been confirmed, bringing the official total as of January 15, 2013, to 612 cases. The majority of those affected, according to Vermont state epidemiologist Patsy Kelso, are in the 10-14-year-old age group, and 90 percent of those confirmed have already been vaccinated one or more times for pertussis.
Even so, Kelso and others are still urging both adults and children to get a free pertussis shot at one of the free clinics set up throughout the state, insisting that both the vaccine and the Tdap booster for adults "are 80 to 90 percent effective." Clearly this is not the case, as evidenced by the fact that those most affected in the outbreak have already been vaccinated, but officials are apparently hoping that the public is too naive or disengaged to notice this glaring disparity between what is being said and what is actually occurring.
(NaturalNews) The utter failure of the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine to provide any real protection against disease is once again on display for the world to see, as yet another major outbreak of the condition has spread primarily throughout the vaccinated community. As it turns out, 90 percent of those affected by an ongoing whooping cough epidemic that was officially declared in the state of Vermont on December 13, 2012, were vaccinated against the condition -- and some of these were vaccinated two or more times in accordance with official government recommendations.
As reported by the Burlington Free Press, at least 522 cases of whooping cough were confirmed by Vermont authorities last month, which was about 10 times the normal amount from previous years. Since that time, nearly 100 more cases have been confirmed, bringing the official total as of January 15, 2013, to 612 cases. The majority of those affected, according to Vermont state epidemiologist Patsy Kelso, are in the 10-14-year-old age group, and 90 percent of those confirmed have already been vaccinated one or more times for pertussis.
Even so, Kelso and others are still urging both adults and children to get a free pertussis shot at one of the free clinics set up throughout the state, insisting that both the vaccine and the Tdap booster for adults "are 80 to 90 percent effective." Clearly this is not the case, as evidenced by the fact that those most affected in the outbreak have already been vaccinated, but officials are apparently hoping that the public is too naive or disengaged to notice this glaring disparity between what is being said and what is actually occurring.
A study
recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) tells a
similar story, showing that among the various whooping cough outbreaks that
have occurred across the country throughout the past few years, as many as 80
percent of those affected had already received multiple Tdap vaccinations, some
up to six doses. What this implies, of course, is that not only is the Tdap
vaccine medically useless, but it may also be the driving force behind the
outbreaks themselves.
Besides potentially helping to spread the disease itself, the whooping cough vaccine is also implicated in causing serious side effects such as encephalitis, convulsions, and brain inflammation, according to an extensive report compiled by Heidi Stevenson over at Gaia Health. Dating back as far as 1933, the whooping cough vaccine has even been tied to causing sudden infant death syndrome, also known as crib or cot death, a condition in which a child suddenly dies for no apparent reason.
In a similar display of vaccine uselessness, another recent study, also published in NEJM, found that 97 percent of children affected by a 2009 mumps outbreak in New York had already been vaccinated for the condition. Embarrassingly, roughly 90 percent of those who contracted mumps in this particular outbreak had also received a mumps booster shot, further highlighting the fraud of this particular vaccine.
Besides potentially helping to spread the disease itself, the whooping cough vaccine is also implicated in causing serious side effects such as encephalitis, convulsions, and brain inflammation, according to an extensive report compiled by Heidi Stevenson over at Gaia Health. Dating back as far as 1933, the whooping cough vaccine has even been tied to causing sudden infant death syndrome, also known as crib or cot death, a condition in which a child suddenly dies for no apparent reason.
In a similar display of vaccine uselessness, another recent study, also published in NEJM, found that 97 percent of children affected by a 2009 mumps outbreak in New York had already been vaccinated for the condition. Embarrassingly, roughly 90 percent of those who contracted mumps in this particular outbreak had also received a mumps booster shot, further highlighting the fraud of this particular vaccine.
New study: Infants receiving the most vaccines are the most likely
to be hospitalized and die
(NaturalNews) A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, analyzed more than 38,000 reports of infant hospitalizations and deaths following vaccinations.[1] Researchers found statistically significant correlations between the number of vaccine doses administered to infants and infant hospitalization and mortality rates: babies who receive the most vaccines tend to have higher (worse) hospitalization and death rates.
Infants who received 2 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 3 or more vaccines at the same time. Infants who received 3 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 4 or more vaccines at the same time. Babies who received 6, 7, or 8 vaccines during a single pediatric well-baby visit were the most likely to be hospitalized following their injections. In fact, the hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for infants receiving 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for infants receiving 8 vaccine doses.
The authors of the study, Dr. Gary Goldman and Neil Z. Miller, also discovered that younger infants were significantly more likely to be hospitalized after receiving vaccinations than older infants. In addition, infants who received 5-8 vaccines simultaneously were significantly more likely to die following their shots than infants who received 1-4 vaccines simultaneously.
Several factors could contribute to whether an infant will have an adverse reaction to vaccines, including a genetic predisposition, illness (which may be a contraindication to vaccine administration), quality of vaccines (which can vary by manufacturing methods), and sensitivity to one or more vaccine components. Some infants might be more likely to experience an adverse reaction due to biochemical or synergistic toxicity associated with concurrent administration of multiple vaccines.
In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life. By 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio, 3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines.
The CDC's Childhood Immunization Schedule Was Not Tested for Safety, Lacks Scientific Veracity:
While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit -- even though this combination of 8 vaccines was never tested in clinical trials.
Although the CDC's recommended childhood immunization schedule a) requires infants to receive up to 8 vaccines simultaneously, b) affects millions of infants annually, and c) was never scientifically tested for safety, the CDC had prior knowledge that combining chemical substances, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, "can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures."[2]
Administering 6, 7, or 8 vaccine doses to an infant during a single physician visit may certainly be more convenient for parents -- rather than making additional trips to the doctor's office -- but evidence of a positive association between infant adverse reactions and the number of vaccine doses administered confirms that vaccine safety must remain the highest priority.
The findings in this study show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). (The VAERS database is an important postmarketing safety surveillance tool that is periodically analyzed by the CDC, FDA, and other vaccine researchers to discover potentially adverse vaccination trends.) In addition, younger infants were significantly more likely than older infants to be hospitalized or die after receiving vaccines. These trends not only have a biological plausibility but are supported by evidence from case reports, case series, and other studies using entirely different methodologies and unique population cohorts. For example, in 2011, Miller and Goldman collaborated on another study showing that among developed nations infant mortality increased with an increase in the number of vaccine doses.[3]
Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority.
You may download the complete study here: Goldman-Miller Vaccine Study (PDF).
Funding Acknowledgment: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) donated $2500 for open access to the journal article (making it freely available to all researchers). NVIC is dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education.
References:
1. Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010. Hum Exp Toxicol October 2012; 31(10): 1012-1021.
2. Mixed exposures research agenda: a report by the NORA Mixed Exposures Team. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); DHHS (NIOSH) 2004. December 2005. p.106: vi.
3. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Hum Exp Toxicol September 2011; 30(9): 1420-1428. [Read this study here: Miller-Goldman Vaccine Study (PubMed)]
About the author:
Neil Z. Miller is a medical research journalist and the Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. He has devoted the last 25 years to educating parents and health practitioners about vaccines, encouraging informed consent and non-mandatory laws. He is the author of several books on vaccines, including
Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners; Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child (with Dr. Mayer Eisenstein); and Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?
My Comment:(NaturalNews) A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, analyzed more than 38,000 reports of infant hospitalizations and deaths following vaccinations.[1] Researchers found statistically significant correlations between the number of vaccine doses administered to infants and infant hospitalization and mortality rates: babies who receive the most vaccines tend to have higher (worse) hospitalization and death rates.
Infants who received 2 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 3 or more vaccines at the same time. Infants who received 3 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 4 or more vaccines at the same time. Babies who received 6, 7, or 8 vaccines during a single pediatric well-baby visit were the most likely to be hospitalized following their injections. In fact, the hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for infants receiving 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for infants receiving 8 vaccine doses.
The authors of the study, Dr. Gary Goldman and Neil Z. Miller, also discovered that younger infants were significantly more likely to be hospitalized after receiving vaccinations than older infants. In addition, infants who received 5-8 vaccines simultaneously were significantly more likely to die following their shots than infants who received 1-4 vaccines simultaneously.
Several factors could contribute to whether an infant will have an adverse reaction to vaccines, including a genetic predisposition, illness (which may be a contraindication to vaccine administration), quality of vaccines (which can vary by manufacturing methods), and sensitivity to one or more vaccine components. Some infants might be more likely to experience an adverse reaction due to biochemical or synergistic toxicity associated with concurrent administration of multiple vaccines.
In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life. By 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio, 3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines.
The CDC's Childhood Immunization Schedule Was Not Tested for Safety, Lacks Scientific Veracity:
While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit -- even though this combination of 8 vaccines was never tested in clinical trials.
Although the CDC's recommended childhood immunization schedule a) requires infants to receive up to 8 vaccines simultaneously, b) affects millions of infants annually, and c) was never scientifically tested for safety, the CDC had prior knowledge that combining chemical substances, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, "can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures."[2]
Administering 6, 7, or 8 vaccine doses to an infant during a single physician visit may certainly be more convenient for parents -- rather than making additional trips to the doctor's office -- but evidence of a positive association between infant adverse reactions and the number of vaccine doses administered confirms that vaccine safety must remain the highest priority.
The findings in this study show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). (The VAERS database is an important postmarketing safety surveillance tool that is periodically analyzed by the CDC, FDA, and other vaccine researchers to discover potentially adverse vaccination trends.) In addition, younger infants were significantly more likely than older infants to be hospitalized or die after receiving vaccines. These trends not only have a biological plausibility but are supported by evidence from case reports, case series, and other studies using entirely different methodologies and unique population cohorts. For example, in 2011, Miller and Goldman collaborated on another study showing that among developed nations infant mortality increased with an increase in the number of vaccine doses.[3]
Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority.
You may download the complete study here: Goldman-Miller Vaccine Study (PDF).
Funding Acknowledgment: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) donated $2500 for open access to the journal article (making it freely available to all researchers). NVIC is dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education.
References:
1. Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010. Hum Exp Toxicol October 2012; 31(10): 1012-1021.
2. Mixed exposures research agenda: a report by the NORA Mixed Exposures Team. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); DHHS (NIOSH) 2004. December 2005. p.106: vi.
3. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Hum Exp Toxicol September 2011; 30(9): 1420-1428. [Read this study here: Miller-Goldman Vaccine Study (PubMed)]
About the author:
Neil Z. Miller is a medical research journalist and the Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. He has devoted the last 25 years to educating parents and health practitioners about vaccines, encouraging informed consent and non-mandatory laws. He is the author of several books on vaccines, including
Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners; Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child (with Dr. Mayer Eisenstein); and Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?
The
decision to get vaccines or have your child vaccinated is a personal one. My
goal is to give you information and views from a different perspective than
what is broadcast by the media. The suggested approach of limiting and
spreading out vaccines for babies and small children seems like a sensible and far
safer approach than possibly overwhelming your child’s immune system with
multiple vaccines at the same time. Just something to consider if you have
small children.
Until next time, stay
healthy and happy
JD Roma
The information on
this blog is provided for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for
professional medical care, and medical advice and services are not being
offered. If you have, or suspect you have, a health problem you should consult
your physician (preferably a Naturopath).
No comments:
Post a Comment