Category: News

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.

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.

Finally, Recognition for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

(Independent) Having recently endured more than a month of post-concussion fatigue, I can’t imagine how people with so-called chronic fatigue syndrome navigate through life with disabling fatigue that seemingly knows no end. Especially those who are erroneously told things like “It’s all in your head,” “Maybe you should see a psychiatrist,” or “You’d have a lot more energy if only you’d get more exercise.”

After years of treating the syndrome as a psychological disorder, leading health organisations now recognise that it is a serious, long-term illness possibly caused by a disruption in how the immune system responds to infection or stress. It shares many characteristics with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis but without apparent signs of tissue damage.

Accordingly, doctors now typically refer to it as myalgic encephalomyelitis, meaning brain and spinal cord inflammation with muscle pain, and in scientific papers it is often written as ME/CFS. At the same time, a major shift is underway as far as how the medical profession is being advised to approach treatment.

The long-standing advice to “exercise your way out of it” is now recognised as not only ineffective but counterproductive. It usually only makes matters worse, as even the mildest activity, like brushing your teeth, can lead to a debilitating fatigue, the core symptom of the disease. Both the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK are formulating revised guidelines for managing an ailment characterised by six or more months – and sometimes years – of incapacitating fatigue, joint pain, and cognitive problems.

Recommended Reading: Adrenal Compromise: The Hidden Cause of Chronic Health Conditions

‘Robust’ evidence chronic fatigue syndrome has biological cause

This new thinking is long overdue. It is understandably difficult for doctors to appreciate that a disorder lacking obvious physical abnormalities could have a physical basis, especially when patients debilitated by a chronic disease that no one understands are likely to be depressed and anxious.

For patients struggling to get recognition that they are suffering from a serious physiological illness with real symptoms, the goal remains to have doctors take the problem seriously and prescribe an evidence-based approach to treatment that offers hope for relief.

Medical practitioners who remain disease deniers may think differently after learning about factors that can precede an attack of ME/CFS and the abnormalities now known to often accompany it. For example, one person in 10 who meets the diagnostic criteria for this syndrome reports that it followed an infection with Epstein-Barr virus, Ross River virus or Coxiella burnetii, a bacterium that causes Q fever.

The syndrome is also often accompanied by immune system disruptions, including chronically high levels of cytokines that change how the body responds to stress; poor function of natural killer cells that diminish the ability to fight infections, and abnormal activity of T-cells needed for an appropriate response to infection.

Recommended Reading: Make Your Immune System Bulletproof with These Natural Remedies

The core symptoms of the syndrome make it clear that this is not a matter of malingering. No one with an appreciation for life would pretend to be so debilitated. As the CDC put it, “People with ME/CFS have fatigue that is very different from just being tired. The fatigue of ME/CFS can be severe; is not a result of unusually difficult activity; is not relieved by sleep or rest, (and) was not a problem before becoming ill.”

Furthermore, the agency explains, symptoms of the syndrome typically get worse “after physical or mental activity that would not have caused a problem before” the illness developed. Following even minimal exertion, patients tend to “crash” or “collapse” and may require days, weeks or longer to rebound. As mundane an activity as grocery shopping, attending a school event, preparing a meal or even taking a shower may force a retreat to bed.

Patients do not feel rested even after a good night’s sleep, and sleep is often abnormal – falling asleep or staying asleep may be difficult. Brain function is often described as “foggy,” causing problems with memory, quick thinking, and attention to detail. Some patients feel lightheaded, dizzy, weak or faint when they sit or stand.

Recommended Reading: Insomnia – A Comprehensive Look with Natural Remedies

Muscle and joint pain unrelated to an injury is a common accompaniment, as well as headaches that are new or worse than before. Some people also have tender lymph nodes in the neck or armpits, a frequent sore throat, chills and night sweats, allergic sensitivities or digestive problems.

Estimates of the number of people in the United States afflicted with the syndrome range from less than 1 million to 2.5 million. The range of estimates is wide because of varying definitions of the disease and, as the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) stated in a 2015 report, the condition has not been diagnosed in 90 per cent of those affected by ME/CFS.

To arrive at an accurate diagnosis, the doctor should review the patient’s personal and family medical history, conduct a thorough physical and mental status exam, and order blood, urine or other tests. Patients should be asked about how they functioned before and after they became ill and what now makes them feel worse or better.

Correctly diagnosing ME/CFS, hard enough in adults, is even more of a challenge in children and adolescents, whose problems both within and outside of school can be misattributed to a neurological, learning or psychosocial disorder or simply laziness.

Youngsters may also get the syndrome and require a team approach with flexible educational resources and demands suited to each child’s ability to meet them.

There is currently no known cure for ME/CFS and patients should be wary of any therapy that claims otherwise. When embarking on treatment, the CDC recommends first tackling the symptom or symptoms that are causing the most problems. If it is disrupted sleep, for example, start by setting a regular bedtime routine, going to bed and waking at the same time each day, limiting naps to 30 minutes a day and removing all distractions, including television, computers, phones and electronics, from the bedroom.

If muscle or joint pain is especially debilitating, consult a pain specialist if over-the-counter remedies are not sufficiently helpful. Those with memory or concentration difficulties might benefit from drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, as well as relying on organisers and calendars to keep track of important matters.

To minimise fatigue, find easier ways to perform essential chores, like sitting while preparing food or showering and breaking up tasks into small increments. Whenever possible, shop online and order groceries and have them delivered. To reduce the risk of a crash, avoid trying to do too much when you feel better.

Vaccine Deficient Employees Fired to Gain Healthcare Funding

(Dr. Mercola) Mandatory influenza vaccinations for healthcare workers — who really benefits from this draconian measure? While public health officials tell you that mandatory flu shots for all healthcare workers will protect patients from influenza, there’s virtually no good scientific evidence to support such claims.

If health and safety were really the chief aim of this forced vaccination policy, why not mandate vitamin D testing and optimization, since vitamin D supplementation has been shown to be 10 times more effective than getting a flu shot if you are vitamin D deficient?1,2

Even if you’re not deficient in vitamin D, studies evaluating the “number needed to treat” (NNT) reveal it is estimated that one person would be spared from getting sick with influenza for every 33 people taking a vitamin D supplement (NNT = 33), whereas 40 people would have to receive the flu vaccine in order to prevent a single case of the flu (NNT = 40).3

But, what would the financial incentive be for that? Unfortunately, it appears mandating annual flu shots for healthcare workers is little more than a for-profit scheme transformed into oppressive health policy and law by drug industry insiders and powerful lobbyists.

Health Care Personnel Fired for Vaccine Refusal

Over the past few years, a number of healthcare workers have been threatened and gotten the boot for refusing to get an annual flu shot; most recently, just before Thanksgiving, Duluth-based Essentia Health — a company founded in 2003 that owns and operates 15 hospitals and 75 medical clinics located in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Idaho — added their name to the list.

In addition to owning hospitals and clinics, the company also owns and operates fitness and therapy centers, rehabilitation centers, long-term care facilities, assisted/independent living facilities, medical equipment and supply centers and pharmacies.4 They made headlines when it was first reported that they had fired some 50 employees who refused to get an annual flu shot.5,6,7 A few days later The BMJ reported that a total of Essentia Health 69 employees had been let go.8

Hundreds more workers were warned their jobs were in jeopardy unless they get the flu shot. Minnesota employees were particularly disturbed by the requirement, as state law does not mandate influenza vaccinations for healthcare workers. Still, Essentia decided to extend the mandate to its Minnesota workers, as well.

According to Dr. Rajesh Prabhu, Essentia’s chief patient safety officer, the 69 workers were fired because they refused vaccination and did not meet Essentia’s strict criteria qualifications for either a medical or religious vaccine exemption.9

The problem is the medical exemption defined by federal public health officials is so narrow that more than 99 percent of people do not qualify for it. A personal history of many autoimmune and neurological disorders — or even serious reactions to previous vaccinations — are not considered contraindications to vaccination according to federal health officials, and often those government guidelines are the ones used by companies like Essentia to deny medical exemptions to vaccination.

Scot Harvey, a night and weekend administrator at an Essentia hospital in Duluth said he refused the flu vaccine because he had suffered severe fatigue and other symptoms after receiving government-mandated vaccines during his military service. His vaccine exemption request was denied by company officials, and he became one of the 69 employees fired for vaccine refusal. Harvey spoke out in an article in the Star Tribune:10

“Harvey said … the form limited exemptions to medically documented vaccine allergies or histories of Guillain-Barre Syndrome following vaccinations … A registered nurse, Harvey said his stance might make it harder to find work. But he felt it was an issue of free choice. ‘If nobody stands up and says, ‘Hey, this isn’t right,’‘ he said, ‘then next year everybody in health care is going to have to have a flu shot, and then everybody in every job is going to have to have a flu shot.'”

Workers’ Unions Object to Mandatory Vaccination Requirement

In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio, Harvey added, “I don’t see how an employer can have the right to decide what I have to do to my body in order to keep a job.”11 Surgical technologist Paula Bullyan, who has worked for more than 15 years for a Duluth hospital now owned by Essentia, expressed a similar sentiment. She said that whether or not to receive the flu vaccine is “my choice, and they’re taking away my choice, to either receive or to take an injection into my body that I do not want.”12

Jen Hutzell, a cleaner and care aide at the Oak Crossing long-term care facility in Detroit Lakes owned by Essentia, told the Star Tribune she sought a vaccine exemption based on previous experience with the flu vaccine. The Star Tribune reported: 13 “Hutzell said the only year she suffered flu-like illnesses was 1995 — the one year she received a flu shot in order to be around her newborn son, who was born prematurely and needed intensive care. ‘That was the sickest year of my life,’ she said.”

Several workers’ unions have objected to the policy. The Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) and the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees have filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Board, and MNA has announced its intent to file grievances on behalf of fired nurses. According to the article featured in the Star Tribune:14

“As many as 400 doctors, nurses or other workers hadn’t been vaccinated as of Nov[ember] 15, when Essentia reported 97 percent compliance among its 15,000 employees. But many of those holdouts got shots or filed exemptions before the company’s Nov[ember] 20 deadline. Prabhu said 99 percent of Essentia’s workers have now complied …”

Vaccine Mandate Based on Flawed and Weak Evidence

Earlier this year, published research called into question the scientific evidence used to push for mandatory flu vaccination of all hospital personnel. As reported by STAT News,15 “The study … concludes that the research used to justify mandatory flu shots for health sector workers is flawed, and that the policies cannot plausibly produce the benefits that had widely been assumed,” adding that:

“[T]he methodology of the studies produced results that don’t stand up to scrutiny … None of the studies were conducted in hospitals; all took place in long-term care facilities. One the studies, from Britain, calculated that one influenza death would be averted for every eight staff members vaccinated.

But if that were correct, vaccinating the estimated 1.7 million health care workers employed in long-term care in the United States should prevent 212,500 flu deaths a year among residents. There’s an obvious problem though, the paper noted. Nowhere near that many people die from flu in the U.S. …

‘The study … does not refute that vaccination could have some impact on reducing transmission from infected health care workers to patients. But it clearly shows there’s no well-conducted study that demonstrates that at this time. Our public policy should be guided as such,’ said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy. …”

Other studies have concluded that vaccinating all healthcare workers does not decrease incidence of or mortality from influenza among patients, which essentially renders the practice useless.

After the largest flu-vaccination campaign in Canadian history, a Canadian-led study published in 2010 by the Cochrane Collaboration,16a well respected international network of researchers who analyze the scientific evidence and methodology used in clinical trials, concluded that vaccinating nursing home workers had no effect on lab-confirmed influenza cases among the elderly residents of nursing homes.

Lead researcher Dr. Roger Thomas explained, “What troubled us is that [flu vaccinations] had no effect on laboratory-confirmed influenza. What we were looking for is proof that influenza … is decreased. Didn’t find it. We looked for proof that pneumonia is reduced. Didn’t find it. We looked for proof deaths from pneumonia are reduced. Didn’t find it.”

Flu Vaccine Can Cause Serious Problems and May Do Seniors More Harm Than Good

An influenza vaccine study published in 200517 warned that, rather than saving lives, the influenza vaccine may actually be useless in preventing influenza in a significant number of senior citizens,18 an age group that for decades has been strongly advised to get a flu shot every year. According to the authors of this study:

“We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group. Because fewer than 10 percent of all winter deaths were attributable to influenza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”

Pregnant women are a “high risk” group told by public health officials and doctors to get a flu shot during any trimester because influenza-related complications during pregnancy have been associated with increased risk of death for the mother and developing fetus.

However, a study published this year19 found pregnant women who had received a pandemic H1N1-containing influenza vaccination (pH1N1) and were given another flu shot during pregnancy, were more likely to suffer miscarriage within 28 days after receiving the second influenza vaccination. Most miscarriages occurred during the first trimester, but some took place in the second trimester.

The median fetal age at the time of miscarriage was seven weeks. Pregnant women who received concurrent pH1N1-containing flu vaccines had a nearly eightfold higher risk of miscarriage than those who did not receive the vaccine. Despite such risks, pregnant health care workers have been, and will likely continue to be, fired for refusing influenza vaccine.20

Fear of Financial Penalties Drive Mandatory Vaccination Policy

Public health officials and owners of hospitals, clinics and other medical facilities insist that mandatory vaccination policies for healthcare workers protect patients — a claim that remains unsupported by credible science.

A far greater incentive for companies to force flu shots on health care workers appears to be the financial penalties hospitals and other medical care facilities face from the federal government if their vaccination rates are too low. Since 2013, hospitals have been required to report influenza vaccination rates among hospital personnel under the federal Medicare quality care reporting program.

The average flu vaccination coverage rate for health care workers has historically hovered around the 70 percent mark, although some healthcare facilities have reported rates as low as 20 percent.21

The goal of officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is to achieve a 90 percent health care worker vaccination rate by 2020,22 and a key strategy for meeting this goal is to tie a health care facility’s employee flu vaccination rate to the facility’s Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements from the federal government.23

In other words, health care facilities participating in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Prospective Payment System Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program that fail to meet a 90 percent employee flu vaccination rate now get reimbursed 2 percent LESS from Medicare and Medicaid.

This is a drop in funding that can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.24 This loss of federal funding, far more so than any concern for patient welfare, is a more likely explanation for why hospitals are now choosing to fire essential medical personnel refusing a flu shot rather than allow them to simply wear a mask during flu season, as was done in the past.

Elizabeth Fowler, the Health Insurance Executive Who Drafted Obamacare

So, who came up with this strategy? A key “mastermind” behind the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, abbreviated as ACA, but colloquially known as Obamacare, was Elizabeth Fowler, chief health policy counsel to the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus. Evidence suggests Fowler drafted the entire legislation.25,26

As reported by The Guardian in 2012, before joining Baucus’ office, Fowler was vice president for public policy and external affairs at WellPoint, the largest health insurance provider in the U.S. “Watch the five-minute Bill Moyers report from 2009 …  on the key role played in all of this by Liz Fowler and the ‘revolving door’ between the health insurance/lobbying industry and government officials at the time this bill was written and passed,” The Guardian wrote.27

I’ve included the video in question above. As offensive as it is to allow a former health insurance industry executive to write the nation’s health care bill, the Obama Administration chose Fowler as the overseer of the implementation of the bill as well. According to her bio,28she also “played a key role in the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act.”

Fowler, a poster child for the revolving doors between industry and government, then went on to become special assistant to the president for health care and economic policy at the National Economic Council before taking a senior executive position with pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, as vice president of its global health policy, government affairs and policy group. As noted by The Guardian:

“The pharmaceutical giant that … hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters — and most lavish beneficiaries — of the health care bill drafted by Fowler.

Mother Jones’ James Ridgeway proclaimed “Big Pharma” the “big winner” in the health care bill. And now, Fowler will receive ample rewards from that same industry as she peddles her influence in government and exploits her experience with its inner workings to work on that industry’s behalf …”

US Federal Government — Bought and Paid for by Industry

https://youtu.be/azfHBPqi2Zo

The documentary “Bought,”29 embedded above for your convenience, reveals how the U.S. government has been overtaken by the food and healthcare industries. While these may seem like two distinctly separate industries that have little in common, they are actually inextricably linked, and you cannot effectively address one without addressing the other.

Filmmaker Jeff Hays described his film, “[T]he film covers how our entire health care system, from education to practice has been Bought … three story lines converge on Wall Street, in a tale of corruption, greed and shocking lack of conscience.”

Forced vaccinations are part and parcel of this larger scheme where industries write the rules and profit from public health policies, such as recommendations for universal use of all federally recommended vaccines and state mandatory vaccination laws that restrict or eliminate vaccine exemptions.

If you think mandatory vaccination requirements are as bad as they can possibly get, think again. It’s just the beginning. Once we give up our right to exercise informed consent to vaccination and choose which vaccines we or our children do or do not use, you can be sure other basic human rights will be swiftly removed as well.

It’s just a matter of time. In some states, children now cannot get an education in a public or private school — from kindergarten through college — unless they’ve received all federally recommended childhood vaccines and boosters.

Before you know it, you won’t be able to get an education or work anywhere unless you’re fully up-to-date on all government recommended and mandated vaccinations. It is also probable that, in the future, you won’t be able to travel without proving you have gotten a certain number of vaccines. It may sound unlikely, but plans are already in motion to make these nightmare scenarios a reality. After that, say hello to forced medical care and forced prescription drug use.

In drafting the Affordable Care Act, Fowler — a former health insurance executive — helped make sure you have no choice when it comes to buying health insurance; you either buy it or you pay a fine. That’s what happens when Congress allows industry insiders to write the nation’s laws, and why the revolving doors between government and industry need to be closed.

The fact that these revolving doors exist is also why we must fight to retain the legal right to take control of our health and make our own health choices, especially when it comes to medical and vaccine risk-taking.

Flu Vaccine Is Not Worth the Risk to Your Health

As shown in my “2017 to 2018 Flu Vaccine Update,” numerous studies have shown the flu vaccine simply does not work, so why force healthcare workers to risk their own health? After all, the risks of harm and failure are quite real. Influenza vaccinations are actually among the leading cases in the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP). There are more adults receiving compensation for influenza vaccine injuries, such as Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), than any other injury covered by the VICP.

“You can be, literally, completely paralyzed from the neck down and not be able to do anything if you get a very severe case of GBS following vaccination,” Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, warns. “People need to wake up and understand that you need to get information about not only influenza but the risks and failures associated with these flu vaccines.

There are many manufacturers now who are manufacturing flu vaccines, because it’s such a lucrative market now that the government has said that every year, every single American from the age of 6 months through the year of death, has to get a flu shot.”

As time goes on scientists are also discovering there’s a lot we don’t understand about infectious diseases and how viruses mutate and vaccines work. For example, the influenza vaccine used during the 2012- 2013 flu season was found to be ineffective, but not due to mutations in the circulating virus.

Instead, researchers concluded the vaccine did not work due to mutations in the egg-adapted H3N2 vaccine strain, the lab-altered influenza virus strain used in the vaccine. This mutation of the vaccine strain virus ultimately caused the vaccine to be a mismatch to the most prevalent influenza strain circulating that year.30

A study31 published in 2013 also showed that getting vaccinated against one strain of influenza raises your risk of severe infection from a related but different influenza strain. So, are annual flu shots making the health of Americans better or worse? And is mandating annual flu shots for healthcare workers really in the best interest of patients and the public health?

Based on the evidence, one could easily argue that this employment requirement places essential healthcare personnel at an ever-increasing risk for severe health complications, while doing very little, if anything, to protect the health of patients in their care. Ultimately, the only real winners, and the ones whose risk is zero, are the pharmaceutical companies marketing vaccines and other companies and special interest groups that profit from vaccine mandates for children and adults.

Fewer crops are feeding more people worldwide – and that’s not good!

(The Conversation – Karl Zimmerer) One day last March I talked with Juliana and Elisa, a mother and daughter who farmed just outside the city of Huánuco, Peru. Although they had only one acre of land in this mountainous landscape, they grew dozens of local varieties of potatoes and corn, along with other crops. And they knew each of their varieties by a common name – mostly in their Quechua language.

Potatoes are native to the Andes, and over 4,000 varieties are grown there now. They come in numerous shapes, sizes and colors – red, yellow, purple, striped and spotted. A colorful mound of them resembles the bold, burnished colors of locally woven shawls.

Recommended: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones
Farmers near the city of Huánuco continue to grow many species and varieties of food plants in their fields and gardens in this mountainous landscape.
Karl Zimmerer, CC BY-ND

This wide array of types is an example of agrobiodiversity – a genetic legacy created by natural selection interacting with cultural practices over thousands of years. Today, however, agrobiodiversity is declining in many countries. In Mexico farmers are cultivating only 20 percent of the corn types that were grown there in 1930. Chinese farmers are producing only 10 percent of 10,000 varieties of wheat that were recorded there in 1949. More than 95 percent of known apple varieties that existed in the United States in 1900 are no longer cultivated.

Recommended: Start Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

According to Bioversity International, an international research and policy organization, just three crops – rice, wheat and maize – provide more than half of plant-derived calories consumed worldwide. This is a problem because our diets are heavy in calories, sugar and saturated fat and low in fruits and vegetables.

But there also are bright spots, such as Andean potatoes. In a recent article, Stef de Haan of the International Center for Tropical Agriculture and I call for a major effort to strengthen agrobiodiversity for the future. Consuming many different species and varieties provides a diet that offers many unique tastes and a wide selection of nutrients that humans need to thrive. It also can help ensure more stable food systems and the needed variety of desirable genetic traits, such as hardiness.

Wealthy nations have less-diverse diets

Generally, agrobiodiversity is significantly lower in wealthy nations, where the industrial food system pushes toward genetic uniformity. For example, federal agriculture policy in the United States tends to favor raising large crops of corn and soybeans, which are big business. Crop subsidies, federal renewable fuel targets and many other factors reinforce this focus on a few commodity crops.

In turn, this system drives production and consumption of inexpensive, low-quality food based on a simplified diet. The lack of diversity of fruit and vegetables in the American diet has contributed to a national public health crisis that is concentrated among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Low agrobiodiversity also makes U.S. agriculture more vulnerable to pests, diseases and climate change.

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included
Agrobiodiversity is a set of genetic resources in food and agriculture.
FAO

To connect these conditions to agrobiodiversity, consider potatoes. Although the United States has 10 times more people than Peru, only about 150 varieties of potato are sold here. Six varieties account for three-quarters of our national potato harvest. They dominate because they produce high yields under optimal conditions and are easy to store, transport and process – especially into french fries and potato chips. Federal policies have helped these varieties become established by reducing the cost of irrigation.

Ironically, rich agrobiodiversity in many low- and medium-income nations supports more standardized and genetically uniform breeding industries in wealthy nations. U.S. and European scientists and seed companies have used the diversity of Andean potatoes and their relatives to create commercial varieties that are the roots of modern industrial agriculture.

How change can promote agrobiodiversity

To protect and increase agrobiodiversity, we have to know how to value it in a rapidly changing world. In the GeoSynthESES Lab that I lead at Penn State, we are developing an ambitious new framework to analyze whether and how agrobiodiversity can continue to be produced and consumed in the future.

Recommended: Permaculture Agriculture – The Transition to a Sustainable Future

Thanks to our fieldwork in Peru and other countries, we’re finding that certain global dynamics, such as urbanization and migration, can be compatible with agrobiodiversity production and consumption. For example, Elisa and Juliana live within a few miles of the Huánuco urban area, and they both work jobs in the city. Their “traditional” farming and eating patterns blend with their part-time farming.

Such changes can even support the innovative use of local food varieties, but only under the right conditions. Farmers must have sufficient land and water. They have to continue preferring these food flavors and tastes. Vibrant local markets for these foods make producing them economically viable.

Heirloom apples, Stroud Farmers Market, Gloucestershire, England.
Barry W******, CC BY

Together with collaborators working in Huánuco, our lab is assessing ways in which global trends could undercut agrobiodiversity in Peru. One concern is local adoption of “improved varieties” of both potatoes and corn that are being created by national and international breeding programs and private seed companies.

Under favorable conditions, these types provide high yields and potentially good sales income. But the seeds can be expensive by local standards, and growing them requires more inputs, such as fungicides and irrigation. Farmers who use them are less resilient if it’s a bad growing year or if cash is low. For these reasons more than one-half of the potato and maize seed being grown by the Huánuco farmers still comes from local sources such as nearby markets, neighbors, and family members.

So far, farmers in Huánuco and elsewhere in Peru prefer to growth both their traditional crops and new ones if possible. But discussions of new initiatives to extend the reach of such “improved varieties” reflect how these challenges will continue to evolve.

Shifting diets

We also are analyzing local impacts of the global spread of inexpensive, low-quality industrial foods. Juliana, Elisa and their Huánuco neighbors increasingly depend on staples such as rice and sugar and on heavy use of cooking oil. Many of them still grow high-agrobiodiversity crops, but on a smaller scale, and these crops play a shrinking role in their diets. It is important to counter this trend by revaluing these nutritious foods, both for human health and for the environmental benefits that agrobiodiversity brings.

On the positive side, middle-class Peruvians are embracing agrobiodiverse foods sold through markets and food fairs, such as the huge annual Mistura food festival in Lima. Internationally renowned elite restaurants and celebrity chefs are potentially important, nontraditional allies. It is crucial to find ways in which Elisa, Juliana and other producers of agrobiodiverse foods can earn rewards from these new markets.

There also is growing interest in agrobiodiversity in the United States. Potato farmers here in central Pennsylvania and across the Northeast are reviving more than 100 local varieties that until recently had been considered lost. In the Southwest, research groups recently uncovered evidence of the ancient “Four Corners Potato,” the first known wild potato in North America, which was used some 10,000 years ago. DNA from this species could provide genes to make modern potato strains more resistant to drought and disease.

Recommended: My Journey into Organic Farming

Conflicting trends

The ConversationGlobal shifts of urbanization, migration, markets and climate can potentially be compatible with agrobiodiversity, but other powerful forces are undermining it. The imperatives of producing food at lower cost and higher yield clash with efforts to raise high-quality food and protect the environment. The future of agrobiodiversity hangs in the balance.

Karl Zimmerer, Professor of Geography, Pennsylvania State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.