Category: Natural Health

The Nutrition Wars and the Downfall of Big Food

(Dr. Mercola) As consumer food preferences are rapidly changing, with more people looking for and buying healthier foods, the food industry is struggling to come up with a coordinated response to win back consumer confidence and recoup sagging sales. As noted by Politico,1“As legacy brands lag, food companies have two options: Change to compete or buy up the new brands that are already growing rapidly.”

Nestlé’s recent departure from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the largest and most powerful lobbying group for the processed food industry, is just one piece of evidence signaling the development of a deep rift within the industry. According to the featured article, “Long the attack group for large companies like Kraft and General Mills on legislative and regulatory issues, GMA now has members like Nestlé opposing some of its positions.”2 Mars Inc. has also confirmed it will not renew its membership with GMA.3

Leaving the GMA is not the only way Nestlé is changing. The processed food giant recently purchased Atrium Innovations — the Canadian parent company of the organic supplement brand, Garden of Life — for $2.3 billion.4 Garden of Life is said to make up the largest chunk of Atrium’s annual sales. The irony of the buyout is pretty obvious. As noted by Reuters,5 “Nestlé [is] expanding its presence in consumer healthcare as it seeks to offset weakness in packaged foods.” Atrium will become part of the Nestlé Health Science division, which already sells nutritional products. The purchase reflects Nestlé’s new “strategic priority,” namely consumer health.

Recommended Reading:

GMA Losing Key Members

Other major players have also chosen to part ways with GMA, suggesting Big Food is in fact starting to pay attention to consumers’ demand for honesty and transparency. Three years ago, I wrote about how the GMA was suing states for the right to deceive you, and how it got caught laundering money during the Washington campaign to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The association was ultimately fined a record $18 million for its illegal side-stepping of the state’s campaign finance laws, but by then the damage was already done and Washington did not get the votes required to enact GMO labeling. (The GMA has contested the guilty verdict, so the legal wranglings are not yet over.)

Around that same time, I also dubbed GMA “the most evil corporation on the planet,” since it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers who have gone to great lengths to violate some of your most basic rights, just to ensure that subsidized, genetically engineered (GE) and chemical-dependent, highly processed junk food remains the status quo.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) also called for a boycott on every single product owned by GMA members, including organic and natural brands, to send a clear message to the industry that we will no longer tolerate being bamboozled by their deceptive and illegal strategies. Since then, some of the heavy-hitters have indeed left — or are considering leaving — the GMA. This suggests your participation in the GMA boycott has indeed been wildly successful. According to Politico:6

“… Campbell decided to stop fighting and instead embrace GMO labeling early last year, believing that consumers want more information about what’s in their food and where it comes from — not less. Other major food companies are also eyeing the door: Dean Foods, the largest dairy company in the country, has quietly decided to leave the association. Several others … are considering it …

‘Companies that get it have said, ‘Why are we paying GMA more than $1 million a year to lobby for things that our brands don’t support?” said Jeff Nedelman, founder of the public relations firm Strategic Communications that works with health and wellness brands, and a former VP of communications at GMA during the 1980s and ’90s.

‘To me, it looks like GMA is the dinosaur just waiting to die,’ Nedelman added … As more millennials become parents, food companies will have to adapt and change even more … as the majority of shoppers will be looking for brands and companies and products with aligned their values.”

Changing Consumer Tastes Have Thrown Food Industry Into Disarray

People are becoming increasingly cognizant of the connection between food and health, and are seeking out healthier fare. American consumers are also paying greater attention to labeling, favoring companies that provide clear disclosures. Organics, grass fed meats and products that do not contain artificial colors are all becoming increasingly popular.

Just a few years ago, the industry saw “real food” and organics as a niche market, and there were even attempts to squash it by labeling people who sought out such foods as wealthy food snobs. It’s now becoming clear that such derogatory labels don’t work (and don’t fit the majority of organic consumers). According to a recent market analysis, the top 20 food and beverage companies in the U.S. lost $18 billion of their market share between 2011 and 2017.7

In an effort to stop the bleeding and recapture sales, many started buying up popular organic brands. PepsiCo bought Naked Juice and Coca-Cola snapped up Honest Tea, while General Mills acquired Larabar and Kellogg’s bought Kashi. The question is whether these processed food giants really have the “heart,” not to mention financial incentive, to maintain the quality and purity consumers came to expect from organic brands.

The food industry is also at odds over the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) updated Nutrition Facts label,8 which will require manufacturers to list added sugars, both in grams and percentage of total daily calories. While Nestlé and Mars supported the change, others vehemently opposed it.

One of the main arguments against listing added sugars on the label is that it will confuse consumers, but in all reality, the only thing that will happen is that it will allow consumers to actually see and compare how much sugar is in their beloved staples, which just might trigger a switch to less health-harming foods.

Food companies have until January 2020 to comply with the label changes, but some have stated they will voluntarily update their labels well before that deadline, all in an effort to appease consumer demand for transparency.

Plant Based Foods Association — The New Kid on the Block

After leaving GMA, Campbell joined the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), which presently claims to have 92 corporate members.9 The association’s stated mission is “To ensure a fair and competitive marketplace for businesses selling plant-based foods intended to replace animal products such as meats, dairy and eggs, by promoting policies and practices that improve conditions in the plant-based foods industry, and educating consumers about the benefits of plant-based foods.”10

While most people would certainly benefit from eating more plant foods, I can foresee the potential for trouble with such a narrow industry mission. Organic, grass fed animal foods have a unique and valuable place not only in the human diet but environmentally as well, as livestock is an important part of regenerative agriculture.

PBFA also represents manufacturers of meat substitutes, and while the industry claims getting rid of animal meat altogether is the answer to many of our health and environmental problems, the evidence suggests this simply isn’t true.

A healthy ecosystem needs grazing animals, and there’s very little if any evidence to support the idea that meat substitutes are in fact healthy. For example, the FDA has raised concerns about Impossible Burger’s meat substitute made from soy, wheat, coconut oil, potatoes and plant-based “heme” derived from genetically engineered (GE) yeast.

Safety concerns also surround Quorn, another meat substitute made from a fungus-based ferment. I find it difficult to understand how a manufactured food product that has been accused of causing death could ever be sold as a healthier option than grass fed beef raised on a regenerative farm.

Why Junk Food Is Still Advertised to Children

Over the years, it’s become increasingly clear that the processed food industry has little concern for public health. It’s really all about maintaining sales, even when this means twisting the facts to make a product appear healthy — logic and science be damned. As noted by Scientific American in 2013,11 Congress commissioned the Inter-agency Working Group (IWG) to develop standards for the advertising of food to children in 2009.

Its report, released in 2011, turned out to be a devastating blow to food companies, as foods marketed to children had to contain “at least 50 percent by weight one or more of the following: fruit; vegetable; whole grain; fat-free or low-fat milk or yogurt; fish; extra lean meat or poultry; eggs; nuts and seeds; or beans.” According to General Mills, the guidelines would bar 88 of the 100 most commonly consumed products in the U.S. from being advertised to children.12

Moreover, General Mills estimated that if all Americans ate a healthy diet, the food industry would lose $503 billion in annual sales.13 If you’ve been paying attention to what your children are told to eat while watching their favorite program, I’m sure you’ll agree none of the items conform to the guidelines suggested by the IWG. That’s because the industry fought the guidelines, and won.

Dietitians Lectured on Social Media Conduct

Food industry rifts have also become evident in the field of nutrition. The Washington Post recently ran a story about Rebecca Subbiah, a registered dietitian and organic farmer who recounts being harassed and shamed by other dietitians online.14 According to the article, Subbiah “unwittingly stepped into an online debate about industrial farming practices. She tweeted that she personally prefers organic foods because she believes they’re better for the environment.”

She describes the responses she received as “terrible” and “very toxic,” saying the name-calling and questioning of her intellect made her cry. According to The Washington Post, the conversation about organics has “grown so heated that the country’s certifying body for dietitians issued guidance to its members asking them to avoid ‘belittling’ or ‘humiliating’ colleagues in online discussions,” and to sign a public pledge of professional civility.

Six other dietitians interviewed for the article agree that harassment “has become common in the field,” and believe the “hostility reflects deepening ideological divides in both the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the professional group — and in nutrition, in general.” It’s quite sad when an organization has to actually instruct its members to remember to interact professionally when engaging in online discussions about nutrition.

It’s also a potent reminder to patients and clients — your dietitian may well be mired in outdated and unhealthy opinions cultivated by the processed food and chemical technology industries. This isn’t so surprising when you consider the fact that junk food companies have a hand in educating dietitians on what’s healthy and what’s not.

Dietitians Have Become an Increasingly Divided Lot

The American Dietetic Association’s (ADA) annual conference has long been monopolized by the likes of Coca-Cola, Mars, Kellogg’s and General Mills. Rarely if ever will you find organic food experts included in the speaker lineup at these events.

One cannot help but wonder if the harassment of dietitians who support and promote organics and a nonprocessed food diet doesn’t originate from junk food purveyors and pesticide companies in the GE seed business. After all, the industry has become expert at secretly employing professionals and academics who then spread the corporate gospel under the cloak of independent opinion and expertise.

Melinda Hemmelgarn, who was attacked on social media for months after giving a public talk about the “unintended consequences of GMOs,” told The Washington Post she believes online “incivility is just a symptom of the actual problem: deep divides between dietitians regarding the state of the modern food system.”

As noted in the article, dietitians historically did not get involved with issues such as the environmental impacts of food production, but in recent years, such topics have become increasingly important to consumers, and hence the industry of nutrition. The issue was further brought to the fore when, in 2015, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee specifically noted that eating more plant foods would be beneficial for the environment.

Don’t Let Your Diet be Dictated by Corporate Agendas

It’s really unfortunate that so many dietitians are still under the delusion that you can eat a processed food diet and regain or maintain good health, but such is the power of corporate brainwashing. For instance, many dieticians still believe artificial sweeteners are a sensible alternative to sugar, and that low-fat, low-calorie microwavable meals are a “healthy” dinner, when this could not be further from the truth.

Fortunately, at the forefront of any revolution is knowledge, and that is the stage many are at right now with regard to the food system. Finally, many are beginning to realize that the bulk of the packaged, processed foods found in supermarkets are not real “food” at all, but cheap concoctions of subsidized farm crops and chemicals manipulated to taste and look edible.

The easiest way to break free of this trap through your diet is by focusing on whole — ideally organic, or better yet, biodynamic — unadulterated foods, meaning foods that have not been processed or altered from their original state. I’ve compiled many tips on how to do this without breaking the bank in these past articles:

Coming Attraction: Fruit and Veggie Marketing Machine

Also remember that if a food is heavily advertised, there’s a good chance it is unhealthy. Real foods like grass fed beef, raw butter, organic cage-free eggs, organic vegetables and the like are not the subject of commercial jingles or billboards, but they are the types of foods that will support optimal health. You can find more examples of real, healthy, non-corporate food in my nutrition plan.

Fortunately, signs of change are evident here as well. In an effort to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA) has started a fruits and vegetable campaign15 (branded as FNV16) to improve public perception and acceptance of plant produce. The video above is a preview of FNV’s “fruit and veggie marketing machine” — ads that are as enticing as those produced by junk food manufacturers.

According to the PHA, the new campaign is already starting to change behavior. Toni Carey, senior manager, communications and marketing for PHA, told Forbes that “80 percent of people bought or consumed more fruits and veggies after seeing FNV advertising” and that “over 90 percent have a favorable impression of FNV and would engage with the brand in some way.”17

Where to Find Healthy Foods

While many grocery stores now carry organic foods, it’s preferable to source yours from local growers whenever possible, as much of the organic food sold in grocery stores is imported. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:

Demeter USA

Demeter-USA.org provides a directory of certified Biodynamic farms and brands. This directory can also be found on BiodynamicFood.org.

American Grassfed Association

The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.

Their website also allows you to search for AGA-approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; born and raised on American family farms.

EatWild.com

EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.

Weston A. Price Foundation

Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

Grassfed Exchange

The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.

Local Harvest

This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets

A national listing of farmers markets.

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals

The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA)

CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

FoodRoutes

The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.

The Cornucopia Institute

The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.

RealMilk.com

If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund18 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.19 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government

There is no doubt in my mind that GMOs and the toxic chemicals used along with them pose a serious threat to the environment and our health, yet government agencies turn a blind eye and refuse to act — and the reason is very clear: They are furthering the interests of the biotech giants.

It is well known that there is a revolving door between government agencies and biotech companies such as Monsanto. Consider the hypocrisy of the FDA. On paper, the U.S. may have the strictest food safety laws in the world governing new food additives, but this agency has repeatedly allowed GMOs and their accompanying pesticides such as Roundup to evade these laws.

In fact, the only legal basis for allowing GE foods to be marketed in the U.S. is the FDA’s claim that these foods are inherently safe, a claim which is patently ridiculous. Documents released as a result of a lawsuit against the FDA reveal that the agency’s own scientists warned their superiors about the detrimental risks of GE foods. But their warnings fell on deaf ears.

The influence of the biotech giants is not limited to the U.S. In a June 2017 article, GMWatch revealed that 26 of the 34 members of the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina (CONABIA) are either employed by chemical technology companies or have major conflicts of interest.

You may be aware that Argentina is one of the countries where single-crop fields of GE cotton, corn and soy dominate the countryside. Argentina is also a country facing severe environmental destruction. Argentinians are plagued with health issues, including degenerative diseases and physical deformities. It would appear that the rapid expansion of GE crops and the subsequent decline in national health indicators are intrinsically linked.

Don’t Be Duped by Industry Shills!

Biotech companies’ outrageous attempts to push for their corporate interests extend far beyond the halls of government. In a further effort to hoodwink the public, Monsanto and its cohorts are now zealously spoon-feeding scientists, academics and journalists with questionable studies that depict them in a positive light.

By hiring “third-party experts,” biotech companies are able to take information of dubious validity and present it as independent and authoritative. It’s a shameful practice that is far more common than anyone would like to think. One notorious example of this is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California.

Miller, falsely posing as a Stanford professor, promoted GE foods during this campaign. In 2015, he published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. After it was revealed that Miller’s work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto, Forbes not only fired him, but also removed all of his work from its site.

Industry front groups also abound. The Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council for Science and Health are both Monsanto-funded. Even WebMD, a website that is often presented as a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information, is acting as a lackey for Monsanto by using its influence to promote corporate-backed health strategies and products, displaying advertisements and advertorials on Biotech’s behalf, furthering the biotech industry’s agenda — all for the sake of profit.

Monsanto has adopted underhanded tactics to peddle its toxic products, but the company is unable to hide the truth: Genetic engineering will, in no way, shape or form, make the world a better place. It will not solve world hunger. It will not increase farmers’ livelihoods. And it will most certainly not do any good for your health — and may in fact prove to be detrimental.

There’s No Better Time to Act Than NOW — Here’s What You Can Do

So now the question is: Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Monsanto and its industry shills and profit-hungry lackeys have painstakingly crafted? It is largely up to all of us, as consumers, to loosen and break Monsanto’s tight hold on our food supply. The good news is that the tide has been turned.

As consumers worldwide become increasingly aware of the problems linked to GE crops and the toxic chemicals and pesticides used on them, more and more people are proactively refusing to eat these foods. There’s also strong growth in the global organic and grass fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.

One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture. You can also join a community supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so that you get a regular supply of fresh food. I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well.

In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country:

Organic Food Directory (Australia) Eat Wild (Canada)
Organic Explorer (New Zealand) Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)
Farm Match (United States) Local Harvest (United States)
Weston A. Price Foundation (United States)

Monsanto and its allies want you to think that they control everything, but they do not. It’s you, the masses, who hold the power in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards. Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.

Increase in Vaccine-Related Shoulder Injuries

(Dr. Mercola) Many people experience temporary soreness in their shoulder after receiving a vaccination in the area, but for some the soreness turns into chronic pain and limited range of motion. Some people are so badly affected that they become unable to move their shoulder altogether, known as frozen shoulder, or suffer from nerve damage and rotator cuff tear. The condition, known as shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, or SIRVA, is on the rise, according to data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).1

In fact, the condition is occurring often enough that it was recently added to the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program’s (VICP) Vaccine Injury Table, which lists some, but not all, serious side effects that are known to be caused by vaccines.

In order to win federal compensation for a vaccine injury, a person must prove he or she developed certain clinical symptoms and health conditions listed on the Table within a certain timeframe of receiving a certain vaccine, and demonstrate that there is no more biologically plausible explanation for the vaccine-related injury or death.

In the case of SIRVA, 202 people were awarded compensation for SIRVA in 2016.2 According to Dr. H. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics at Floating Hospital for Children, Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, “Many instances of SIRVA may be avoided by proper vaccination technique and positioning.”

Related: Reasons Not To Vaccinate

A Vaccine Administered Too High Up on Your Shoulder May Lead to SIRVA

Many vaccine side effects are related to the ingredients in a vaccine. SIRVA is unique in that it’s primarily caused by how the contents of the vaccine are injected into the arm. A vaccine given in your shoulder is intended to go into your muscle. If it is not administered correctly and goes into the bursa, a fluid-filled sac that protects your shoulder tendons, trouble can result. Specifically, the vaccine may provoke your immune system to attack the bursa, sometimes leading to debilitating symptoms. As The Washington Post reported:3

“These injection-caused injuries often make simple tasks — such as lifting your arm to change a light bulb or reaching behind you to put your arm through the sleeve of a jacket — painful, even impossible. Some victims cannot use their shoulder at all and must find ways to compensate using the other one.”

The Washington Post interviewed Dr. G. Russell Huffman, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, who said when he first heard a patient complain of shoulder pain following an injury in 2009 or 2010, he “blew it off.” But then the complaints started to become more common.

Related: Vaccines, Retroviruses, DNA, and the Discovery That Destroyed Judy Mikovits’ Career

“Since then, I’ve seen more than a dozen patients who have suffered shoulder injuries after vaccinations. Almost universally, when I ask where the shot went, they point really high up on the arm,” Huffman said.4 A patient, Barbara Steele, who spoke to Wired in 2015, similarly reported that doctors and nurses initially “kept brushing me off” after SIRVA from two vaccines left her unable to work.5

Yet, two case studies were published in 2007, highlighting vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction, including pain and weakness, that occurred following “influenza and pneumococcal vaccine injections provided high into the deltoid muscle.” The researchers concluded, quite clearly, that improperly administered vaccines appeared responsible for the symptoms:6

“Based on ultrasound measurements, we hypothesize that vaccine injected into the subdeltoid bursa caused a periarticular inflammatory response, subacromial bursitis, bicipital tendonitis and adhesive capsulitis … We conclude that the upper third of the deltoid muscle should not be used for vaccine injections, and the diagnosis of vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction should be considered in patients presenting with shoulder pain following a vaccination.”

Rapid Onset of Pain Is Common With SIRVA

In 2010, a series of 13 case studies were described in the journal Vaccine, which shed some light on the characteristics of the condition.7 In half of the cases, shoulder pain occurred immediately after vaccination, while 90 percent had pain within 24 hours. Close to half of the patients also said the vaccine was given “too high” in their arm.8 The symptoms, which included both pain and limited range of motion, continued for six months to several years.

Related: How to Detoxify from Vaccinations & Heavy Metals

“The proposed mechanism of injury is the unintentional injection of antigenic material into synovial tissues resulting in an immune-mediated inflammatory reaction,” the researchers noted.9 Again in 2012, a case report of a 22-year-old woman who developed left shoulder pain and severe restrictions in range of motion following a seasonal influenza vaccine was published.10

MRI and ultrasound imaging, conducted eight and 9.5 weeks after the vaccination, respectively, showed “contusions on the humerus, injury of the supraspinatus, and effusion in the subacromial bursa,” with researchers saying the case served as a catalyst for discussion regarding “the potential to prevent complications arising from vaccine overpenetration.”

Related: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

SIRVA Occurs More Often in Adults Than Children and Most Often After Certain Vaccines

Children receive more vaccinations than adults, yet SIRVA occurs more often in adults than children. This may be because children receive vaccinations in their thigh more often than adults do and, according to Meissner, “the bunching of the subcutaneous and deltoid tissue prior to vaccination may increase the distance to the shoulder.” In addition, he noted that the subacromial bursa in children is still developing, and therefore smaller, which may be why it’s less likely to be “hit” during a vaccination.11

Also noteworthy, in adults SIRVA occurs most often after flu shots and other vaccines that a person has already received, which may pave the way for a heightened inflammatory response. Meissner said:12

“Most cases in adults occur after administration of a vaccine to which some immunity already exists because of previous immunization such as influenza or tetanus-containing vaccines. This may result in a greater inflammatory response following inadvertent injection into the skeletal structures of the shoulder.”

A 2017 systematic review of bursitis and other injuries of the shoulder following vaccination found 45 cases, all involving adults (and more than 70 percent female). In these cases, the dysfunction most often occurred following influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, respectively; followed by diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, diphtheria-tetanus toxoid (Tdap), human papillomavirus and hepatitis A vaccines.13

There’s even a case report, published in 2015, of a 26-year-old patient who was hospitalized with shoulder pain and impairment following a vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus and polio (dT-IPV). Bursitis was reported along with bone erosion, and MRI showed the vaccine was injected in contact with the bone, causing the erosion.14

Are Drug-Store Vaccines Responsible for Rising SIRVA Cases?

Improper technique appears to be the primary cause of SIRVA (inappropriate needle size could also be a contributor), which means that proper training among nurses, pharmacists and other health care practitioners should largely prevent it. However, many people now choose to get vaccines at workplace clinics or their local drugstore, grocery store or pharmacy, where standardized training may be non-existent.

Related: Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

Not only that, but if you’re sitting in the middle of a store, it’s unlikely that you’ll remove your entire arm from your sleeve to receive a shot. “You just pull your shirt down a little,” physician Marko Bodor, who published the first SIRVA case report in 2007, told Wired.15“That’s only going to expose the top part of your shoulder.” At this point, it’s unknown just how often SIRVA cases appear after pharmacy versus physician’s office vaccinations, but it’s a valid theory.

That being said, SIRVA cases have occurred following vaccination at doctors’ offices as well, and it’s been suggested that, in addition to poor injection technique, practitioners’ failing to take into account a person’s individual characteristics, such as sex, body weight and physical constitution, could also increase the risk of injury.16

As for treatment, options for SIRVA include physical therapy, pain medication and cortisone injections. Up to 30 percent of patients in the 2010 case studies also required surgery,17which may be done to remove inflamed tissue. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy is another emerging option.

As the “first responders” to any site of an injury, they form a clot to stop bleeding. The process involves the platelets opening up and spilling out the growth factors held inside, which act as signaling molecules, issuing the instructions needed to call forth resources, including stem cells, to repair the damaged tissue. Dr. John Ferrell, director of sports medicine at Regenerative Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Washington, D.C., says PRP has worked in 80 percent of his patients.18

Side Effects Following Vaccination Are Real

Although SIRVA is still described as rare, it’s conditions like this that serve as an important reminder that every vaccine carries with it a risk of side effects, some of which you may not even be aware of.

For instance, in 2011, the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed more than 1,000 vaccine studies and found convincing evidence of 14 health outcomes — including seizures, inflammation of the brain and fainting — that can be caused by certain vaccines.19 IOM reported that “injection of any vaccine in general can lead to … symptoms of deltoid bursitis, or shoulder inflammation,” for instance.

They also noted that many people who experience an adverse reaction to vaccines have individual susceptibility that can make them at higher risk for experiencing acute and chronic health problems after vaccination due to biodiversity (genetic variations) within populations, age at the time of vaccination, immune deficiencies, coinciding infections/illnesses and other environmental exposures (such as toxins or traumas).

Related: How Plumbing (Not Vaccines) Eradicated Disease

Further, for the majority of side effects and health conditions that have occurred in conjunction with vaccinations, IOM stated that there was inadequate evidence to determine whether the vaccine caused the problem. In other words, there is still so much medical science does not know about the risks of vaccination and who is at greater risk for suffering harm.

At the very basic level, if you choose to have a vaccine and it’s going in your shoulder, be sure to expose your entire arm to discourage the vaccine provider from giving you a “too high” injection that could lead to debilitating shoulder injury. However, before making a choice to get vaccinated, make sure you fully understand what the vaccine contains and how to identify and report a vaccine reaction.

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smart phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.

Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know

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

Related: The MMR Vaccine – A Comprehensive Overview of the Potential Dangers and Effectiveness

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

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.

The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:

  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
  • Vaccine Failure Wall: View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.

Connect With Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care

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

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.

Related: More Doctors Against Vaccines

It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

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

5 Neat New Things You Need To Know About Gut Health

(Natural Blaze by Lisa Egan)

Over two thousand years ago, Hippocrates said “All disease begins in the gut.”

The father of modern medicine was way ahead of his time. While gut health is not linked to every disease (as far as we currently know), continuing research into the gut microbiota is revealing just how important the communities of bacteria that reside there are to our overall health.

Bacteria coexist with us – and some do things that help us (like make vitamins, break down waste, aid in digestion, and help plants absorb nitrogen from soil). Yes, there are bacteria that are dangerous (like the ones that cause tuberculosis, cholera, and Lyme disease), but most of the bacteria in your body is rendered harmless by your immune system.

You have trillions of cells in your body – and it is estimated that you have about the same amount of (some estimates say 10x more) microorganisms in your gut!

Related: Fungal Infections – How to Eliminate Yeast, Candida, and Mold Infections For Good

Research suggests that the relationship between gut flora and humans is a mutualistic, symbiotic relationship. This means that it is a mutually beneficial relationship – the microbes need us, and we need them.

Microbiome 101: Understanding Gut Microbiota explains just how important these microbes are:

The communities in our microbiome carry out a variety of functions which are vital to not only our health and well-being but our very survival.

Starting with our immune system, our microbiome establishes the parameters in which our bodies judge whether or not something is friend or foe. It maintains harmony, balance, and order amongst its own communities, ensuring that opportunistic pathogens are kept to a minimum, while also keeping the host system from attacking itself.

It is our first, second and third line of defense – starting with our skin, then our mucus membranes, and finally our gut, providing a living barrier that is able to be modified and transformed to suit individual needs and unique environments.

Our gut microbiota is fundamental to the breakdown and absorption of nutrients. Without it, the majority of our food intake would not only be indigestible, but we would not be capable of extracting the critical nutritional compounds needed to function. Our symbiotic cohorts not only provide this service, but also secrete beneficial chemicals as a natural part of their metabolic cycle.

As you can see, research into what the microbiota does for us, and how we can keep it healthy, is of utmost importance. There are so many studies being published on a regular basis that it’s hard to keep up.

Related: How to Detoxify and Heal the Lymphatic System

Here are summaries of some recent research findings.

1. Common Antimicrobial Agent Rapidly Disrupts Gut Bacteria

This study’s findings suggest that triclosan, an antimicrobial and antifungal agent found in many consumer products ranging from hand soaps to toys and even toothpaste, can rapidly disrupt bacterial communities found in the gut.

The researchers found that triclosan exposure caused rapid changes in both the diversity and composition of the microbiome in the laboratory animals. It’s not yet clear what the implications may be for human health, but scientists believe that compromising of the bacteria in the intestinal tract may contribute to the development or severity of disease.

Christopher Gaulke, lead author on the study and a postdoctoral microbiology researcher in the OSU College of Science, explains:

Clearly there may be situations where antibacterial agents are needed.

However, scientists now have evidence that intestinal bacteria may have metabolic, cardiovascular, autoimmune and neurological impacts, and concerns about overuse of these agents are valid. Cumulative impacts are also possible. We need to do significantly more evaluation of their effects, some of which might be dramatic and long lasting.

2. Immune System Uses Gut Bacteria to Control Glucose Metabolism

Researchers at Oregon State University and other institutions have discovered an important link between the immune system, gut bacteria and glucose metabolism – a “cross-talk” and interaction that can lead to type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome when not functioning correctly.

The researchers say a better understanding of these systems may lead to new probiotic approaches to diabetes and other diseases. The findings also show the  general importance of proper bacterial functions in the gut and the role of one bacteria in particular – Akkermansia muciniphila – in helping to regulate glucose metabolism.

This bacteria’s function is so important, scientists say, that it has been conserved through millions of years of evolution to perform a similar function in both mice and humans.

There’s probably more than one bacteria involved in this process of communication and metabolic control, researchers said. The gut harbors literally thousands of microbes that appear to function almost as a metabolically active organ, emphasizing the critical importance of gut bacterial health.

Dr. Natalia Shulzhenko, an assistant professor in the OSU College of Veterinary Medicine and one of the corresponding authors on this study, said of the findings:

It’s being made clear by a number of studies that our immune system, in particular, is closely linked to other metabolic functions in ways we never realized. This is still unconventional thinking, and it’s being described as a new field called immunometabolism. Through the process of evolution, mammals, including humans, have developed functional systems that communicate with each other, and microbes are an essential part of that process.

Related: Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases

3. High-Fiber Diet Keeps Gut Microbes From Eating the Colon’s Lining, Protects Against Infection, Animal Study Shows

When microbes inside the digestive system don’t get the natural fiber that they rely on for food, they will rely on the natural layer of mucus that lines the gut instead – eroding it to the point where dangerous invading bacteria can infect the colon wall. Yikes!

“The lesson we’re learning from studying the interaction of fiber, gut microbes and the intestinal barrier system is that if you don’t feed them, they can eat you,” Eric Martens, Ph.D, one of the study’s lead researchers, explained.

“To make it simple, the ‘holes’ created by our microbiota while eroding the mucus serve as wide open doors for pathogenic micro-organisms to invade,” said Mahesh Desai, Ph.D, who led the research with Martens.

Martens provided a bit of advice based on the findings:

While this work was in mice, the take-home message from this work for humans amplifies everything that doctors and nutritionists have been telling us for decades: Eat a lot of fiber from diverse natural sources. Your diet directly influences your microbiota, and from there it may influence the status of your gut’s mucus layer and tendency toward disease. But it’s an open question of whether we can cure our cultural lack of fiber with something more purified and easy to ingest than a lot of broccoli.

4. Gut Bacteria Affect Our Metabolism

Our gut microbiota has been linked to obesity in many studies. Mice that receive gut bacteria transplants from overweight humans are known to gain more weight than mice transplanted with gut bacteria from normal weight subjects, even when the mice are fed the same diet.

A new, larger study conducted by the National Food Institute confirmed those findings, and the researchers also investigated how the spread of bacteria between individual mice affects their digestion/metabolism.

Professor Tine Rask Licht explains:

The bacterial community in the intestine of mice with the smallest weight gain has been less capable of converting dietary fibre in the feed, which partly explains the difference in weight between the animals.

In addition, the study shows that the gut bacterial composition affects a number of other measurements, which have to do with the ability of the mice to convert carbohydrates and fats, and which affect the development of diseases such as type 2 diabetes (e.g. levels of insulin and tryglycerides). The researchers caution that it cannot be concluded that bacterial communities from the overweight children affects the mice in a specific direction in relation to the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Related: Candida, Gut Flora, Allergies, and Disease

5. Gut Microbes Contribute to Recurrent ‘Yo-Yo’ Obesity

Following a successful diet, many people regain the weight lost – an all-too-common phenomenon known as “recurrent” or “yo-yo” obesity. The vast majority of recurrently obese individuals not only rebound to their pre-dieting weight but also gain more weight with each dieting cycle. During each round of dieting-and-weight-regain, their proportion of body fat increases, and so does the risk of developing the manifestations of metabolic syndrome, including adult-onset diabetes, fatty liver, and other obesity-related diseases.

Researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science found that the gut microbiome plays an important role in post-dieting weight gain, and that by altering the composition or function of the microbiome this common phenomenon may prevented or treated.

The study was performed by research teams headed by Dr. Eran Elinav of the Immunology Department and Prof. Eran Segal of the Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Department. The researchers found that after a cycle of gaining and losing weight, all the mice’s body systems fully reverted to normal – except the microbiome. For about six months after losing weight, post-obese mice retained an abnormal “obese” microbiome.

“We’ve shown in obese mice that following successful dieting and weight loss, the microbiome retains a ‘memory’ of previous obesity,” says Elinav. “This persistent microbiome accelerated the regaining of weight when the mice were put back on a high-calorie diet or ate regular food in excessive amounts.” Segal elaborates: “By conducting a detailed functional analysis of the microbiome, we’ve developed potential therapeutic approaches to alleviating its impact on weight regain.”

The findings of this study are fascinating and promising. I highly recommend reading the entire press release here.

Are Your Unscented Products Truly Fragrance-Free?

(Dr. Mercola) Nearly 13,000 chemicals are used in cosmetics and personal care products, but only 10 percent have been tested for human safety. The average American woman uses 12 personal care products or cosmetics every day that contain approximately 168 different chemicals. While men use fewer products and are exposed to nearly half the number of chemicals than women, teens use more products and are exposed to even more chemicals.1

Your personal care products are applied on an active, living and complex organ system. Your skin is not just a covering for your body, but rather provides temperature regulation, protection, and can produce vitamin D when exposed to the sun. The nerve cells that are packed over the expanse of your body act as messengers to your brain and are a crucial part of your ability to interact with the world.

Your skin may also be used to deliver medications as whatever you put on your skin can be absorbed. For instance, nicotine patches or pain medication patches deliver drugs directly into your bloodstream as they pass through your skin. The same may happen with the personal care products you use. If the molecules are small enough to be absorbed, they migrate through the skin and directly into your blood.

Related: 35 Things You Could Do With Coconut Oil – From Body Care to Health to Household

Analysis of Popular Moisturizers Finds an 83 Percent Failure Rate

Many cosmetics and personal care products on the market advertise they are fragrance-free and hypoallergenic to increase their consumer base and include customers who are concerned about chemicals. Like many dermatologists, Dr. Steven Xu, a dermatologist at Northwestern University Hospital, was asked almost daily about the moisturizers or sunscreen that would work best for sensitive skin.2

One year ago, Xu led an analysis of popular sunscreen products and discovered nearly half failed to meet basic sun safety guidelines set by the American Academy of Dermatology.3 The guideline failure fell under the category of being water or sweat resistant.4 During the study, the researchers found consumers made their decision about sunscreen predominantly based on the bottle’s “cosmetic elegance,” which was defined as any feature linked to skin sensation on application, color or scent.5

Once completed, Xu and his colleagues began questioning if other products commonly applied daily, such as moisturizers, were accurate in their advertising. Specifically, Xu was interested if claims for fragrance-free or hypoallergenic were true since many of his patients needed products that wouldn’t exacerbate skin conditions. He said,6 “I found myself really struggling to provide evidence-based recommendations for my patients.”

Xu and his colleagues gathered 174 different moisturizers that were popular brands sold on Amazon and at Target and Walmart to analyze these claims. They found a surprising 45 percent of products advertised as fragrance-free actually contained a fragrance and over 80 percent of those advertised as hypoallergenic contained a potentially allergenic chemical.7 The researchers found the majority of best-selling moisturizers that were labeled fragrance-free or hypoallergenic had some form of potential skin allergen.

Related: 10 Items You Can Stop Buying and Start Making for Better Health

Are Mislabeled Products Frustrating or Damaging?

A similar study, performed by a team led by dermatologist Dr. Matthew Zirwas, analyzed 276 moisturizers and found 68 percent contained fragrances, 62 percent contained parabens, 24 percent had benzyl alcohol, and 20 percent contained propylene glycol and formaldehyde releasers.8 The researchers concluded:9

“Many ingredients of moisturizers have the potential to cause irritant and allergic contact dermatitis; therefore, it is necessary for clinicians to be aware of such potential allergens in order to manage and advise their patients accordingly.”

For some, a little irritation where moisturizer was applied is frustrating. However, for those who suffer from psoriasis, eczema or sensitive skin, the result can be damaging. One study found at least 33 percent of people who used cosmetics had at least one skin reaction.10 Those reactions may range from a simple, short-lived rash, to a full-blown systemic contact dermatitis affecting your face, neck and upper torso.

Irritant contact dermatitis affects the area where the product was applied and may result in a burning sensation, stinging or itching. The area may also turn red, and if you scratch the area, blisters may appear. The second type of reaction is an allergic contact dermatitis that involves a systemic immune reaction. Symptoms may include itching, swelling, redness or hives on any part of your body, but more frequently on your face, eyes, ears, lips and neck. In other words, in many of the areas you may have applied the moisturizer.

Those with skin conditions are faced with finding a moisturizer using trial and error. Unfortunately, the errors are costly since products that trigger reactions must be thrown out, and sometimes the reactions require medical treatment. Kathryn Walter, an eczema sufferer from Ann Arbor, Michigan, discussed her frustrations trying to find a moisturizer that would sooth her skin condition, without triggering a reaction. She says:

“I will start to itch and I have to get it off my body right away. My ankles and calves are all scratched up as we speak — and my hands. Because you can’t just go to a drugstore and open up all their tubes of cream to make sure they don’t aggravate your skin. Basically, it’s a big expense.”

Absorbing Chemicals Contributes to Poor Health

Since your skin absorbs chemicals from your personal care products directly into your bloodstream, it’s particularly important to reduce exposure. Women with higher levels of chemicals detected in their blood or urine are at higher risk for experiencing menopause two to four years earlier than women who have lower levels of chemicals in their body.11

The long-term health problems associated with early menopause, regardless of the cause, include an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, neurologic disease, psychiatric disease, osteoporosis and death.12 A meta-analysis of 32 studies, including over 300,000 women, reached a similar conclusion.13 Overall the group of women who entered menopause at 45 or earlier suffered a 50 percent greater risk of heart disease.

Related: How To Make Natural Body Butters That Actually Moisturize Your Skin

The age-related findings in the study showed a clear association between the time of menopause and the risk of heart disease. Women who entered menopause early had an increased risk of heart disease and premature death, while women who entered menopause between the ages of 50 and 54 had a lower risk of fatal heart disease — even lower than women younger than 50.

The study identified 15 chemicals associated with early menopause and declining ovarian function.14 Many of those have already been linked to other health risks, such as cancer, early puberty and metabolic syndrome.

For instance, phthalates, a plastic chemical commonly found in personal care products including lotions, perfumes and hairspray, has been linked in studies to asthma, attention deficit disorder, breast cancer, obesity15 and a reduction in your child’s cognitive ability,16,17 to name just a few damaging health conditions.

And phthalates are just one class of chemicals found in moisturizers and lotions that have allergic potential. Other chemicals frequently found include parabens, toluene, sodium lauryl sulfate and formaldehyde releasers, all of which have their own unique list of adverse health effects.

Who Regulates Product Ingredients?

Deceptive labeling on personal care products is likely the result of a lack of federal regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Unless the product contains a currently banned chemical, all cosmetics and personal care products are allowed on the market without prior approval from any governmental agency.18 The FDA makes the differentiation that they regulate the industry but do not approve products before they show up on your grocery store shelves.19

The FDA places the responsibility of ensuring the safety of personal care products squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturer,20which is a clear conflict of interest. The FDA defines cosmetics:21

“… by their intended use, as ‘articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body … for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance’ (FD&C Act, sec. 201(i)).

Among the products included in this definition are skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup, cleansing shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, and deodorants, as well as any substance intended for use as a component of a cosmetic product.”

Product ingredients are protected from disclosure by the FDA as it falls under proprietary information. The argument is the industry is highly competitive, and if an adversarial company were to be able to recreate a popular product, it could significantly impact the profitability of the first company.

The intent of the law was to protect the viability of a manufacturer while depending on the company to protect the health of the nation. Dr. Robert Califf, vice chancellor for Health Data Science at Duke University School of Medicine and former FDA commissioner, puts it succinctly:22

“The cosmetics industry is highly competitive, and if someone can easily copy someone else’s successful cosmetic, that would be a competitive disadvantage.”

What Can You Do To Help

However, with advancing technology and testing ability, Xu tested for chemicals included in products that were not on the labels. Most large companies have access to chemists with the same abilities, negating much of the argument for protecting propriety blends of chemicals. In April 2015, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), introduced bill S.1014, the Personal Care Products Safety Act, with the intent to:23

“… require cosmetics companies to register their facilities with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and to submit to the FDA cosmetic ingredient statements that include the amounts of a cosmetic’s ingredients. Companies must pay a facility registration fee based on their annual gross sales of cosmetics. The collected fees can only be used for cosmetic safety activities.”

As you may have anticipated, this bill has a long road before it may pass. After being read by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, hearings were held in September 2016, after which no further action has been taken. You can write to your representative24 and your senator25 to let them know how important this issue is to your health and the health of your skin.

Related: Three Homemade Toothpaste Recipes – Better Oral Health for Less Cost

Skin Care From the Inside Out

Your healthiest choice is to protect your skin from the inside out. Your skin reacts to variables inside and outside your body. For instance, if you work outside during the winter months, or are in health care and wash your hands frequently throughout the day, your skin may become dry and cracked. Exposure to these factors reduces the natural oils on your skin that protect against drying and cracking. Internal factors that affect the ability to stay supple and soft is whether your diet supplies the necessary nutrients.

One nutrient is essential omega-3 fats, as your body cannot manufacture them independently. A deficiency may present as cracked heels, thick patches of skin or eczema. These fats also have an anti-inflammatory effect and help soothe your complexion. In the past, I’ve shared some of the best types of fish to consume high in omega-3 fats, but the general guideline is the smaller and closer to the bottom of the food chain, the less contaminated with pollution they will be. These fish include sardines, anchovies and herring.

Another healthy option is wild-caught Alaskan salmon. If you’ve incorporated these fish in your diet but are still suffering from dry skin, an omega-3 supplement, such as krill oil, may be highly beneficial. Pure, virgin coconut oil is another all-natural moisturizer you can use topically on your skin and added to your cooking. When absorbed, it helps to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles by keeping your connective tissue strong and supple.

Related: How to Detoxify and Heal the Lymphatic System

When your outer skin layer lacks hydration, your skin can become cracked. While it’s not entirely clear whether drinking more water can counteract dry skin, it stands to reason that a hydrated body is conducive to hydrated skin. You should drink enough water so that your urine is a very pale yellow.

Perhaps the most important step you can take to improve the health of your skin is to avoid sugars, fructose, processed foods and grains. If you eliminate sugars, grains and fructose for just a few weeks you’ll likely notice a rapid improvement in your complexion and condition of your skin.

Your overall health and the quality of your skin is strongly associated with the health of your gut. Including fermented vegetables is an ideal way of promoting the growth of beneficial gut bacteria. Normalizing your gut microbiome may help fight against skin irritations and chronic skin conditions, such as psoriasis and eczema. If you don’t regularly eat fermented foods, then a high-quality probiotic supplement is definitely recommended.

Big Sugar Buried Evidence to Hide Sugar Harms

(Dr. Mercola) A number of recent investigations have revealed a significant truth: The sugar industry has long known that sugar consumption triggers poor health, but hid the incriminating data, much like the tobacco industry hid the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer. The most recent of these investigations, based on unearthed historical documents, found the sugar industry buried evidence from the 1960s that linked sugar consumption to heart disease and cancer.

The research didn’t see the light of day again until Cristin E. Kearns, assistant professor at UCSF School of Dentistry, discovered caches of internal industry documents stashed in the archives at several universities. The unearthing of these documents has resulted in three separate papers showing how the industry has systematically misled the public and public health officials about the dangers of sugar.

Emails obtained by Freedom of Information Act requests have also revealed Coca-Cola’s corporate plan to counter dietary warnings against soda consumption — tactics that include reshaping existing data and creating new studies, working with scientific organizations and influencing policymakers.1 All in all, the evidence clearly reveals that the food industry has but one chief aim, and that is to make money, no matter what the cost to human health.

Related: Fungal Infections – How to Eliminate Yeast, Candida, and Mold Infections For Good

Sugar Industry Influenced Dietary Recommendations

In 2016, Kearns and colleagues published a paper2 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine, detailing the sugar industry’s influence on dietary recommendations. In it, they revealed how the industry has spent decades manipulating, molding and guiding nutritional research to exonerate sugar and shift the blame to saturated fat instead. As reported by The New York Times:3

“The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease.

The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article,4 which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat. Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.”

Kearns also partnered with science journalist and author Gary Taubes to write the exposé “Big Sugar’s Sweet Little Lies.”5 In it, the pair notes that one of the primary strategies used by the industry has been to simply shed doubt on studies suggesting sugar is harmful. This stalling tactic, where more research is called for before a conclusion is made, has worked like a charm for five decades. Industry-funded scientists who served on federal panels also made sure the panels relied on industry-funded studies that exonerated sugar.

Industry Buried Research Linking Sugar to Heart Disease and Cancer

Related: Healthy Sugar Alternatives & More

The latest paper6,7,8 based on the historical documents Kearns unearthed was published in PLOS Biology on November 21. Here, Kearns and colleagues focus on industry research linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer, and how and why this research was ultimately buried. In 1968, the Sugar Research Foundation, which later became the Sugar Association, funded an animal project to determine sugar’s impact on heart health.

Considering what we know today, it’s no surprise to learn the study showed that sugar promotes heart disease. However, the mechanism of action suggested sugar might also cause bladder cancer. At that point, the study was shut down. The results were never published. Co-author Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at UCSF, told The New York Times9 this latest report continues “to build the case that the sugar industry has a long history of manipulating science.”

In a public statement,10 the Sugar Association rejected the report, calling it “a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organizations that are known critics of the sugar industry.” According to the association, which confirmed the existence of the study, the research was shut down not because of adverse results, but because of delays that made it go over budget.

Industry Maintains Sugar Is Part of ‘Balanced’ Lifestyle

The Sugar Association also boldly proclaims that, “We know that sugar consumed in moderation is part of a balanced lifestyle …” But is it really though? And what is a “balanced” lifestyle anyway? Half poison, half healthy nutrition? I don’t know about you, but to me that’s not a prescription for a healthy lifestyle. That’s like saying that smoking in moderation is part of a healthy, balanced lifestyle — a claim few would fall for these days.

Here’s just one recent example of what that kind of “balanced” lifestyle achieves. UCSF researchers concluded children who drink sugary beverages have shorter than average telomeres, which is associated with higher risk of chronic disease and reduced life span.11According to the author:

“Even at relatively low levels of sugared-beverage consumption, we found that how often these young children drank sugar-sweetened beverages was associated with telomere length, mirroring the relationship that has been found in some studies of adults.”

Big Sugar, Big Tobacco

The 1960s sugar industry campaign aimed at countering “negative attitudes toward sugar” by funding studies showing favorable results was led by John Hickson, a Sugar Association executive who went on to work for the Cigar Research Council. As noted in The New York Times:12

“As part of the sugar industry campaign, Mr. Hickson secretly paid two influential Harvard scientists to publish a major review paper in 1967 that minimized the link between sugar and heart health and shifted blame to saturated fat … Hickson left the sugar industry in the early 1970s to work for the Cigar Research Council, a tobacco industry organization.

In 1972, an internal tobacco industry memo on Mr. Hickson noted that he had a reputation for manipulating science to achieve his goals. The confidential tobacco memo described Mr. Hickson as ‘a supreme scientific politician who had been successful in condemning cyclamates, on behalf of the Sugar Research Council, on somewhat shaky evidence.’”

While the Sugar Association claims13 it “has embraced scientific research … to learn as much as possible about sugar, diet and health,” and “will always advocate for and respect any comprehensive, peer-reviewed scientific research that provides insights,” in the real world, the industry has consistently condemned or downplayed evidence of harm, despite the overwhelming amount of such evidence.

Related: How to Kill Fungal infections

Once you know how the game is played, you start seeing pages from the game book in action everywhere you look. Case in point: While concerns about obesity grow, Coca-Cola is now shifting its corporate health initiative from the failed promotion of exercise, back to the solidly refuted idea that “all calories count” and that you can manage your weight by counting of calories.14 Both of these strategies conveniently circumvent the truth that drinking less soda, or none at all, will improve your health, even if you do nothing else.

The fact is, you cannot compare calories from an avocado and calories from soda, and reducing intake of nutritious food to squeeze in sugary beverages while maintaining a certain calorie count is not going to do your health any favors. Soda companies are also eyeing new markets where soda consumption is low,15 now that Western consumers are starting to catch on to the fact that sugar is a major driver of obesity and ill health. This includes China, India and Mexico.16

Failure to Publish Project 259 Hid Carcinogenic Potential

While Hickson was still working for the Sugar Association, studies emerged suggesting sugar calories were more detrimental to health than calories from starchy carbs like grains and potatoes. He suspected this effect might be related to the way gut microbes metabolize sugar and other carbs. To investigate this link, the association launched Project 259, to assess how animals lacking gut bacteria would respond to sugar and starches, compared to animals with normal microbiomes.

The research was led by WFR Pover, a researcher at the University of Birmingham in the U.K, who was paid the equivalent of $187,000 in today’s currency to perform the study. The initial results, detailed in a 1969 internal report, showed that rats fed sucrose produced high levels of beta-glucuronidase, an enzyme associated with both arterial hardening and bladder cancer. According to the internal report, “This is one of the first demonstrations of a biological difference between sucrose and starch fed rats.”

Pover also found that sucrose had an adverse effect on cholesterol and triglycerides, and that, indeed, this was the work of gut bacteria. While animal research carries less weight today than it did back then, federal law at the time banned food additives shown to cause cancer in animals. This means that, had this research been published rather than buried, it could have had very serious ramifications for the sugar industry. As noted in Kearns’ paper:17

“The sugar industry did not disclose evidence of harm from animal studies that would have (1) strengthened the case that the CHD [cardiovascular heart disease] risk of sucrose is greater than starch and (2) caused sucrose to be scrutinized as a potential carcinogen.”

Sugar Industry Influenced Dental Policy as Well

A third report based on Kearns cache of historical records reveal the sugar industry also played a significant role in the creation of dental policy.18,19 As a result of this collusion, dental policy not only downplays the impact that sugar and processed junk food has on dental health, it also ignores the toxic nature of fluoride.

Just like it defended sugar in food by shifting the blame onto dietary fats, the sugar industry made sure sugar did not become a concern within dentistry by shifting the focus onto the need for fluoride. According to this paper,20 published in PLOS Medicine in 2015, the sugar industry’s interactions with the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) significantly altered and shaped the priorities of the National Caries Program (NCP), launched in 1971 to identify interventions that would eradicate tooth decay.

Related: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

As noted in the paper, “The sugar industry could not deny the role of sucrose in dental caries given the scientific evidence. They therefore adopted a strategy to deflect attention to public health interventions that would reduce the harms of sugar consumption rather than restricting intake.” This industry-led deflection strategy included:

  • Funding research on enzymes to break up dental plaque, in collaboration with allies in the food industry
  • Funding research into a highly questionable vaccine against tooth decay. Another failed research goal included developing a powder or agent that could be mixed or taken with sugary foods to lessen the destruction to teeth caused by the Streptococcus mutans bacterium21
  • Forming a task force with the aim to influence leaders in the NIDR (nine of the 11 members of the NIDR’s Caries Task Force Steering Committee, charged with identifying the NIDR’s research priorities, also served on the International Sugar Research Foundation’s Panel of Dental Caries Task Force)
  • Submitting a report to the NIDR, which served as the foundation for the initial proposal request issued for the NCP

Industry Derailed Research That Might Have Led to Sugar Regulations

Omitted from the NCP’s priorities was any research that might be detrimental to the sugar industry, meaning research investigating the role and impact of sugar on dental health. Here, as with Project 259, “The sugar industry was able to derail some promising research that probably would’ve been the foundation for regulation of sugar in food,” co-author Glantz said.22

Even today, Big Sugar is being evasive about fessing up the truth, despite overwhelming evidence showing that excessive sugar consumption — which is part and parcel of a processed food diet — is a key driver of dental cavities. According to the World Health Organization (WHO),23 people across the U.S. and Europe need to cut their sugar consumption in half in order to reduce their risk of tooth decay and obesity.

WHO’s guidelines call for reducing sugar consumption to 10 percent of daily calories or less, which equates to about 50 grams or 12 teaspoons of sugar for adults. Ideally, the WHO says, your intake should be below 5 percent, which is more in line with my own recommendations.

Sugar Labeling Is Long Overdue

We probably will not see sugar being removed from the GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list anytime soon, even though a reassessment would probably be warranted, considering the evidence. Still, there is some good news. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized its new Nutrition Facts rules in May 2016,24 and once the changes take effect, food manufacturers will be required to list added sugars in grams and as percent daily value (based on a 2,000 calorie-a-day diet) on their nutrition facts labels.

By listing the percentage of daily value for sugar on nutritional labels, it will be easier to identify high-sugar foods, and could help rein in overconsumption caused by “hidden” sugars. Unfortunately, we won’t see these changes until January 1, 2020. Manufacturers with annual sales below $10 million will have one additional year to comply.

Sugar Industry Has Lost All Scientific Credibility

Large sums of money have been spent, and scientific integrity has been tossed by the wayside, to convince you that added sugars are a “staple” nutrient that belongs in your diet, and that health problems like obesity, chronic disease and dental caries are due to some other issue — be it lack of exercise, too much saturated fat, or lack of fluoride.

Clearly, the sugar industry’s ability to influence policy for public health and research put us decades behind the eight-ball, as it were. It’s really time to set the record straight, and to stop looking to the industry as a credible source of information about sugar.

To learn more about how sugar affects your health, check out SugarScience.org, created by scientists at three American universities to counter the propaganda provided by profit-driven industry interests. This educational website25 provides access to independent research that is unsoiled by industry interference. This kind of research really is key, and anyone who believes industry-funded research is as trustworthy is deluding themselves.

Case in point: A report26 published in PLOS Medicine in December 2013 looked at how financial interests influence outcomes in trials aimed to determine the relationship between sugar consumption and obesity. The report concluded that studies with financial ties to industry were FIVE TIMES more likely to present a conclusion of “no positive association” between sugar and obesity, compared to those without such ties.