FDA
Finally Admits Silver Fillings Are Dangerous
They've
been shaped, packed and crammed into millions of molars for decades
But those dental amalgams -- also known as silver fillings -- are carrying a dark and dangerous secret that you probably won't hear about at your local dentist's office.
They're up to 50 percent mercury -- one of the most toxic substances on the planet.
For years the American Dental Association has asked us to ignore the science on dental amalgams. They've argued that if these fillings could really cause everything from developmental delays to Alzheimer's, the FDA never would have allowed them on the market.
But now, thanks to pressure from three consumer groups, the FDA is finally admitting something it should have come clean about 39 years ago. It approved dental amalgams without a shred of proof that they're safe.
It took five long years for the FDA to respond to three consumer groups that petitioned the agency asking for a ban on dental amalgams. And now we know why -- the FDA was in no rush to admit a dangerous and embarrassing mistake.
According to Leslie Kux, associate commissioner for policy, the FDA has "very limited to no clinical information available" on whether dental amalgams are harmful for pregnant women, their unborn children, infants, and kids under the age of six.
Basically, Kux wrote, the FDA didn't have enough information to act on the serious concerns raised by the petitions -- one way or the other.
And if it sounds like the FDA is admitting that it allowed dental amalgams onto the market -- and into millions of our mouths -- without any safety data, well, that's exactly what happened.
In 1976, under pressure from dental groups like the ADA, the FDA gave dental amalgams a "grandfathered" approval. They'd been used in America for so long, the FDA reasoned, that they must be safe.
How's that for logic?
Of course, even the dental industry used to agree that amalgams were dangerous. Even as far back as 1840, the American Society of Dental Surgeons banned its members from using the fillings.
And for good reason. Studies have shown that constant chewing and grinding causes toxic mercury vapors to be released and absorbed by the lungs and oral mucous membranes.
Especially for unborn babies and kids, that mercury can increase the chances of brain damage, hearing loss, and vision problems.
Mercury exposure has also been linked to Alzheimer's and MS, as well as kidney disease. And according to the European Commission, "the largest source of mercury exposure for most people in developed countries is inhalation of mercury vapor from dental amalgams."
That's why amalgams are even banned in Scandinavia.
Even our government -- when it doesn't have a lobbyist from the ADA whispering in its ear -- admits that mercury is incredibly toxic.
This is the same government that banned mercury thermometers, and when a compact fluorescent light bulb breaks the EPA recommends leaving the room to protect yourself from the mercury vapors.
So when it was considering the petitions to ban amalgams, the FDA made a few small concessions. They agreed to finally explain on the FDA website that mercury is the primary component of so-called "silver fillings" and that fetuses and young kids may be more sensitive to the vapors.
Of course, how many of us consult the FDA's website before heading off for a dental appointment?
At the end of the day, the FDA is allowing these poisonous fillings to stay on the market, even though it admits it can't vouch for their safety.
Fortunately, lots of dentists have now abandoned amalgams in favor of safer fillings. So you're free to "just say no" to the idea of either you or your kids being stuck with toxic teeth.
But those dental amalgams -- also known as silver fillings -- are carrying a dark and dangerous secret that you probably won't hear about at your local dentist's office.
They're up to 50 percent mercury -- one of the most toxic substances on the planet.
For years the American Dental Association has asked us to ignore the science on dental amalgams. They've argued that if these fillings could really cause everything from developmental delays to Alzheimer's, the FDA never would have allowed them on the market.
But now, thanks to pressure from three consumer groups, the FDA is finally admitting something it should have come clean about 39 years ago. It approved dental amalgams without a shred of proof that they're safe.
It took five long years for the FDA to respond to three consumer groups that petitioned the agency asking for a ban on dental amalgams. And now we know why -- the FDA was in no rush to admit a dangerous and embarrassing mistake.
According to Leslie Kux, associate commissioner for policy, the FDA has "very limited to no clinical information available" on whether dental amalgams are harmful for pregnant women, their unborn children, infants, and kids under the age of six.
Basically, Kux wrote, the FDA didn't have enough information to act on the serious concerns raised by the petitions -- one way or the other.
And if it sounds like the FDA is admitting that it allowed dental amalgams onto the market -- and into millions of our mouths -- without any safety data, well, that's exactly what happened.
In 1976, under pressure from dental groups like the ADA, the FDA gave dental amalgams a "grandfathered" approval. They'd been used in America for so long, the FDA reasoned, that they must be safe.
How's that for logic?
Of course, even the dental industry used to agree that amalgams were dangerous. Even as far back as 1840, the American Society of Dental Surgeons banned its members from using the fillings.
And for good reason. Studies have shown that constant chewing and grinding causes toxic mercury vapors to be released and absorbed by the lungs and oral mucous membranes.
Especially for unborn babies and kids, that mercury can increase the chances of brain damage, hearing loss, and vision problems.
Mercury exposure has also been linked to Alzheimer's and MS, as well as kidney disease. And according to the European Commission, "the largest source of mercury exposure for most people in developed countries is inhalation of mercury vapor from dental amalgams."
That's why amalgams are even banned in Scandinavia.
Even our government -- when it doesn't have a lobbyist from the ADA whispering in its ear -- admits that mercury is incredibly toxic.
This is the same government that banned mercury thermometers, and when a compact fluorescent light bulb breaks the EPA recommends leaving the room to protect yourself from the mercury vapors.
So when it was considering the petitions to ban amalgams, the FDA made a few small concessions. They agreed to finally explain on the FDA website that mercury is the primary component of so-called "silver fillings" and that fetuses and young kids may be more sensitive to the vapors.
Of course, how many of us consult the FDA's website before heading off for a dental appointment?
At the end of the day, the FDA is allowing these poisonous fillings to stay on the market, even though it admits it can't vouch for their safety.
Fortunately, lots of dentists have now abandoned amalgams in favor of safer fillings. So you're free to "just say no" to the idea of either you or your kids being stuck with toxic teeth.
Gardasil
Update
By
Jenny Thompson at HSI
Since the day it hit the market, I've been speaking out against the so-called
cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil.
I've shared my personal experience with cervical cancer -- and how there are safer ways to beat it than by subjecting our young girls to a shot that's been linked to everything from paralysis to deaths.
But even after years of exposing the truth about Gardasil, I didn't see this coming.
Researchers at the University of Texas have proven that Gardasil isn't protecting us from the human papillomavirus (HPV) that can cause cervical cancer. In fact, the vaccine may be helping to cause cancer instead -- including some of the deadliest and most aggressive kinds.
Our government isn't sounding the alarm. The CDC and FDA aren't rushing to warn you or to pull Gardasil from your doctor's office.
Instead, they're doubling down. They're asking our young girls -- and even our boys -- to line up for another, even stronger dose of the most dangerous vaccine in the history of mankind.
Fangjian Guo, a researcher at the University of Texas Medical Branch, dropped a bombshell at a recent meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
He found that women who got the original Gardasil shot were infected with high levels of dangerous strains of HPV.
The same HPV that can cause cervical cancer. The same HPV that Gardasil is supposed to protect us from.
Guo and his research team analyzed medical records for nearly 600 women in their 20s. And those who were vaccinated with Gardasil were a whopping 40 percent more likely to be infected with strains of HPV classified as "high risk."
That means these HPV strains may be more likely to develop into cancer.
Guo can't say for sure why Gardasil makes women more susceptible to other dangerous HPV infections. But the theory that Gardasil may cause cancer isn't new.
Charlotte Haug, the head editor of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, has been warning for years that the Gardasil shot was nothing more than a dangerous game of whack-a-mole.
When you suppress a few strains of a virus, as Gardasil does, other strains become dominant and take their place. "Nature never leaves a void," Haug says, and the new strains can be just as dangerous -- or worse.
Merck has never tested Gardasil to see whether it causes cancer. It says so right on Gardasil's label. But that didn't stop a review article in the Annals of Medicine from listing cervical cancer as one of Gardasil's potential side effects.
And, as I've been telling you for years, the complete list of Gardasil side effects is long and terrifying. There have been 35,000 adverse reaction reports sent to the FDA for Gardasil, including 200 deaths -- and those cases are likely just the tip of the iceberg.
Some of the reported adverse reactions include convulsions, shock, blood clots, Guillain-Barre syndrome, autoimmune diseases, and paralysis. These same reactions are being seen all around the world in what one doctor calls "a pattern that screams to heaven."
But the screams still aren't loud enough for our government to hear.
Believe it or not, the feds are now proposing that kids -- and even young adults in their 20s -- get even more Gardasil shots.
The CDC is launching a nationwide press, Facebook and Twitter campaign to promote Gardasil 9, a stronger and probably riskier form of the vaccine. They're claiming it's effective against more types of HPV -- maybe even some of the cancer-causing strains that the original shot left behind.
All you have to do is trust your kids' and grandkids' lives to the same folks who got us into this mess in the first place.
I've shared my personal experience with cervical cancer -- and how there are safer ways to beat it than by subjecting our young girls to a shot that's been linked to everything from paralysis to deaths.
But even after years of exposing the truth about Gardasil, I didn't see this coming.
Researchers at the University of Texas have proven that Gardasil isn't protecting us from the human papillomavirus (HPV) that can cause cervical cancer. In fact, the vaccine may be helping to cause cancer instead -- including some of the deadliest and most aggressive kinds.
Our government isn't sounding the alarm. The CDC and FDA aren't rushing to warn you or to pull Gardasil from your doctor's office.
Instead, they're doubling down. They're asking our young girls -- and even our boys -- to line up for another, even stronger dose of the most dangerous vaccine in the history of mankind.
Fangjian Guo, a researcher at the University of Texas Medical Branch, dropped a bombshell at a recent meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
He found that women who got the original Gardasil shot were infected with high levels of dangerous strains of HPV.
The same HPV that can cause cervical cancer. The same HPV that Gardasil is supposed to protect us from.
Guo and his research team analyzed medical records for nearly 600 women in their 20s. And those who were vaccinated with Gardasil were a whopping 40 percent more likely to be infected with strains of HPV classified as "high risk."
That means these HPV strains may be more likely to develop into cancer.
Guo can't say for sure why Gardasil makes women more susceptible to other dangerous HPV infections. But the theory that Gardasil may cause cancer isn't new.
Charlotte Haug, the head editor of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, has been warning for years that the Gardasil shot was nothing more than a dangerous game of whack-a-mole.
When you suppress a few strains of a virus, as Gardasil does, other strains become dominant and take their place. "Nature never leaves a void," Haug says, and the new strains can be just as dangerous -- or worse.
Merck has never tested Gardasil to see whether it causes cancer. It says so right on Gardasil's label. But that didn't stop a review article in the Annals of Medicine from listing cervical cancer as one of Gardasil's potential side effects.
And, as I've been telling you for years, the complete list of Gardasil side effects is long and terrifying. There have been 35,000 adverse reaction reports sent to the FDA for Gardasil, including 200 deaths -- and those cases are likely just the tip of the iceberg.
Some of the reported adverse reactions include convulsions, shock, blood clots, Guillain-Barre syndrome, autoimmune diseases, and paralysis. These same reactions are being seen all around the world in what one doctor calls "a pattern that screams to heaven."
But the screams still aren't loud enough for our government to hear.
Believe it or not, the feds are now proposing that kids -- and even young adults in their 20s -- get even more Gardasil shots.
The CDC is launching a nationwide press, Facebook and Twitter campaign to promote Gardasil 9, a stronger and probably riskier form of the vaccine. They're claiming it's effective against more types of HPV -- maybe even some of the cancer-causing strains that the original shot left behind.
All you have to do is trust your kids' and grandkids' lives to the same folks who got us into this mess in the first place.
Studies reveal 4 foods to avoid to
reduce mucus
(TRFW News) Mucus can be our friend or our foe. Mucus, also known as phlegm, is produced by your body from areas
like your nose and intestines. While it is a defense mechanism, too much can
make colds and allergies far worse, causing miserable and painful coughs – your
body’s attempt to rid itself of the excess mucus.
Thankfully, there are ways to ease the irritation, by avoiding
certain foods that can increase mucus buildup. When mucus goes from helpful to
annoying, like when fighting off a cold or allergies, these are the four top
foods you will want to avoid:
1. Dairy products
These foods top the list of offenders in the unwanted excess
mucus category. While there are a lot of myths about this, what is known is
that consumption of dairy products can make mucus thicker, which makes it more
difficult to get rid of.
According to the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and
Allergy, dairy products, such as ice cream and yogurt, can thicken mucus for a
person suffering from a head cold.
A 2007 study published in the European Respiratory Journal
demonstrated that participants who were regularly exposed to milk powder were
significantly more likely to experience “nasal congestion, breathlessness,
wheezing and reduced lung function, than participants who worked in an office
environment.”
2. Certain varieties of fruits and vegetables
We all know how healthy fruits and veggies are. They are a
critical part of a healthy lifestyle and diet plan. However, according to the University of Maryland Medical Center,
certain varieties may increase mucus production. The main triggers are bananas,
potatoes, corn, and cabbage. So if you are battling with seasonal allergies, a
sinus infection or a cold, you’ll want to avoid these for a while.
3. Wheat
Wheat is a very common cause of respiratory symptoms, according
to many nutritional experts. According to cardiologist William Davis, M.D., “mucus
flows where wheat goes.”
There are so many components in wheat it is difficult to
determine exactly what part causes the increased mucus production, but it
should be avoided when you wish to decrease the flow of mucous and congestion.
According to Dr. Davis, “The reduction in mucous production in sinuses and
airways is among the more common observations among the wheat-free.”
4. Beverages that lead to dehydration
Certain beverages including coffee, tea, and soda, when consumed
in large quantities, can increase the risk of dehydration. According to The University of Texas Health Science Center at
San Antonio, becoming dehydrated can lead to thicker mucus. They recommend
drinking water instead, to help your body keep mucus secretions thin and
lubricated.
If you can avoid the above foods and beverages, you can give
yourself an excellent head start in avoiding the excess buildup of mucus.
Statin
Drug Update
I've
told you before about research proving that cholesterol-lowering statins can
cause diabetes.
New research out of Texas is the final smoking gun -- and it's pointing
directly at that bottle of Lipitor and every other statin drug out there.
It's the first to prove that statins may be turning thousands of healthy people into diabetics. And the risk may be twice as serious as we were ever led to believe.
When researchers from the University of Texas Southwestern wanted to understand how statins affected otherwise healthy people, they went to the very best source of information they could find. And that was the Tricare health system that serves active-duty and retired military members and their families.
Researchers poured through records until they found 26,000 patients who were all free from heart disease, diabetes, and any other chronic health condition. These patients were what the study's lead author, Dr. Ishak Mansi called "a very healthy population."
But they didn't stay that way for long.
Researchers found that once patients started taking statins, their chances of developing new-onset diabetes skyrocketed by 87 percent! That's nearly twice the 46 percent risk reported in a previous study out of Finland.
And the cases of diabetes Mansi and his colleagues discovered were some of the most serious and hard to manage that you'll find anywhere. In fact, taking a statin increased the risk of diabetes complications -- which can include nerve damage, vision loss, kidney failure, and heart disease -- by 250 percent.
People on statins were even more likely to gain weight. The higher your dose, the more pounds you packed on.
We've been told for years that statins can lower our cholesterol and help prevent heart problems. So how can they be linked to obesity and diabetes -- two of the largest risk factors for cardiovascular disease?
The truth is, statin makers have been lying to us about the heart benefits of their drugs. And the numbers they push in their commercials and brochures rely on little more than carnival tricks.
When researchers from the University of South Florida analyzed the data from statin trials to see if the drugs were truly good for your heart, they found evidence that Big Pharma has been cooking the books.
For example, we've been told that the Jupiter trial for Crestor proved that the drug could reduce your chance of having a heart attack by 54 percent. But the Jupiter researchers used something called "relative risk reduction" -- a statistical model designed to make the drug look good, even when the benefits are barely measurable.
When the USF researchers crunched those same Jupiter numbers using a more rigorous model, they could hardly find any evidence that Crestor helps your heart.
"Statin advocates have used statistical deception to create the illusion that statins are ‘wonder drugs,'" researchers wrote. And to make sure that happened, the data were manipulated not only to inflate the benefits, but also to downplay the adverse effects.
As the risks of these cholesterol-lowering drugs keep piling up, Dr. Mansi says he's come to one conclusion. It could cost the drug companies billions, but may save plenty of lives.
"Avoid taking statins if possible."
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
It's the first to prove that statins may be turning thousands of healthy people into diabetics. And the risk may be twice as serious as we were ever led to believe.
When researchers from the University of Texas Southwestern wanted to understand how statins affected otherwise healthy people, they went to the very best source of information they could find. And that was the Tricare health system that serves active-duty and retired military members and their families.
Researchers poured through records until they found 26,000 patients who were all free from heart disease, diabetes, and any other chronic health condition. These patients were what the study's lead author, Dr. Ishak Mansi called "a very healthy population."
But they didn't stay that way for long.
Researchers found that once patients started taking statins, their chances of developing new-onset diabetes skyrocketed by 87 percent! That's nearly twice the 46 percent risk reported in a previous study out of Finland.
And the cases of diabetes Mansi and his colleagues discovered were some of the most serious and hard to manage that you'll find anywhere. In fact, taking a statin increased the risk of diabetes complications -- which can include nerve damage, vision loss, kidney failure, and heart disease -- by 250 percent.
People on statins were even more likely to gain weight. The higher your dose, the more pounds you packed on.
We've been told for years that statins can lower our cholesterol and help prevent heart problems. So how can they be linked to obesity and diabetes -- two of the largest risk factors for cardiovascular disease?
The truth is, statin makers have been lying to us about the heart benefits of their drugs. And the numbers they push in their commercials and brochures rely on little more than carnival tricks.
When researchers from the University of South Florida analyzed the data from statin trials to see if the drugs were truly good for your heart, they found evidence that Big Pharma has been cooking the books.
For example, we've been told that the Jupiter trial for Crestor proved that the drug could reduce your chance of having a heart attack by 54 percent. But the Jupiter researchers used something called "relative risk reduction" -- a statistical model designed to make the drug look good, even when the benefits are barely measurable.
When the USF researchers crunched those same Jupiter numbers using a more rigorous model, they could hardly find any evidence that Crestor helps your heart.
"Statin advocates have used statistical deception to create the illusion that statins are ‘wonder drugs,'" researchers wrote. And to make sure that happened, the data were manipulated not only to inflate the benefits, but also to downplay the adverse effects.
As the risks of these cholesterol-lowering drugs keep piling up, Dr. Mansi says he's come to one conclusion. It could cost the drug companies billions, but may save plenty of lives.
"Avoid taking statins if possible."
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